Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2001MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 8, 2001 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, P. Casey, M. Franz, H. Hill, S. Janusz, W. Moran, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, M. Calamaro Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19. 2000 MEETING Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of December 18, 2000. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to address item (P3) first. (P3) Ordinance 1 32.0-00 — Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: Restaurants in the U1 District A handout was passed out to the Committee members and staff consisting of a copy of the 1987 covenant regarding Kendall College and its operation of certain facilities to provide training and instructional support for the culinary school. Also attached was a copy of a staff' memorandum dated April 1, 1997 regarding Kendall College and their request to modify conditions. Aid. Newman stated that he has several concerns and legal questions that he would like addressed before continuation of discussion on this item. He suggested that be held until the next meeting to give adequate time for staff to respond His list of questions were: 1) Is the covenant still in effect and has Council made any modification to it? 2) What if any effect does the 1993 comprehensive amendments to the zoning ordinance have on the 1987 covenant? P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01 10VO i Page 2 3) Does the ordinance that is currently before the Council affect the covenant. 4) In staffs opinion, under the 1987 covenant. is Kendall prohibited form expanding any of their restaurant activity without a waiver from the City Council" Staff confirmed that they would address these questions with the legal department and respond back to the Committee at the next meeting on January 22"d. (PI) Ordinance 127-0-00 — Establishine Fine Schedules for Certain BuiIdin¢ & BOCA Code Violations (P2) Ordinance 128-0-00 — Amendine Title 4. Chanter 15 of the Citv Code Reeardinq Dangerous Buildings The Committee decided to address these two items together since they coincide with each other. Chairman Wynne recognized significant changes that were made to these two ordinances at the Committee's request from the December 18`h meeting. She requested staff to summarize these changes. Mr. Wolinski said from the Committee's last discussion, there was concern expressed regarding the notification and time periods and discretion in the issuing of fines. He noted that staff took these concerns in to consideration and made revisions. He addressed ordinance 127-0-00 first. He noted that they had 3 different categories of fine situations: 1) dangerous/unsafe buildings, 2) maintenance violations and 3) previously called nuisance violations, which after review, was reconsidered as building and grounds violations. Mr. Wolinski said that there was an issue about initially having one compliance letter — this has been changed to two compliance letters. He said that there will be a 14-day notice followed by a 7-day notice. He noted that this will be an automatic $50 fine and if there is no compliance after these two notices, the offender can either appear before the administrative hearing officer or he can mail the fine in. He specified that this is the only issue or situation where someone can pay the fine and not appear before the administrative hearing officer. Mr. Wolinski also noted that one of the things they tried to take out on building and grounds violations, is any discretion, therefore, they basically made first offenses $50, second offenses SI50 and the third being $300 with a time period being a 3-year span of the first offense. Aid. Engelman asked for clarification if after sending out the first letter there is no compliance and then send out a second letter and still no compliance, is this when a ticket will be issued. He also questioned when does the offender comply or can they pay the fine before compliance is met. Mr. Wolinski responded that the issuing of the ticket and the payment of the fine would be automatic. if there is no compliance, however, the inspector will still follow-up as usual for compliance. If the property owner is in compliance, there will be no ticket issued. He also noted that when the property owner's appearance date is up and they are not at the administrative haring and still not in compliance, the next day the inspector will go out and issue another ticket without the need of sending out another compliance letter. Ald. Bernstein questioned if staff wanted to send an inspector out every day for enforcement. He noted that if they do, then we are going to need the $50 per day fine because of the time put in for enforcement. Mr. Wolinski also pointed out that technically the property owner can still appear before the administrative hearing P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01108'01 Page 3 officer after he misses his first time around. Mr. 'Moran explained that the person can appear for the second notice, the first time around there is no appearance requirement, just the S50 fine. Aid. Bernstein questioned if after this first S50 ticket is issued and there is no compliance, then the inspector would then have to send another ticket to the administrative adjudicator for the next 14 days. and so on. Mr. Moran responded that they could summarize those tickets and put them all on one call. He said, actually, anything ticketed during the two -week period goes on the one court call resulting with the individual coming in however many tickets he receives within a time frame given. Aid. Bernstein expressed his concern for the extra paper work that seems to be involved in this process. He suggested that maybe we should put the responsibility on the defendant to call the inspector when compliance is reached, with the understanding that a ticket will be issued until compliance is met. Aid. Newman noted that realistically there is currently no case where an inspector would go out every day to check for compliance, unless it was a life threatening case that should be adhered to within a 2448 hour period. Aid. Kent asked if this ticket process will apply to single family houses as well, if so, he has certain concerns with the different effect is will have on a single family home owners versus and multi -family building owner/manager. He reiterated his concern for senior citizen home owners who are on fixed incomes and their inability to reach compliance in a timely manner in some cases. Although, he did note his agreement with the approach of this ticket process and the authority level it gives the City to enforce the code with apparent bad landlords and property managers. However, he would like to see some type of assistance given to those individuals that quali6,, i.e, senior citizens and low-income households, either offered by the City or City recommended organizations that could offer some assistance. Aid. Kent even offered his assistance, especially for senior citizens in his ward and asked staff if there were any way to notify those individuals in the notices that they receive. He noted that this would give him a sense of satisfaction that assistance is being offered by the City and even for his area, the alderman of the ward. Aid. Newman stated that he has a problem with this approach because he does not feel there should be any aldermanic intervention in this ticket process. He noted that this type of intervention could result in all types of miscommunication and possible grievances. He said what needs to happen is that people should deal with the administrative adjudication process. He said his concern is getting administrative law people that will claim to handle things in a certain way, and over the course of time, things could change. He feels the only way to do this ordinance correctly is for the Council to have significant reporting and fund out what types of fines for what types of violation, are being administered. He suggested that maybe after a 6-month review, the Council could then see exactly who is receiving the fines, and what are the majority of violations that are being fined, and the resulting amount of those fines. He noted that this way, after significant review, Council could go back and make some modifications in the ordinance where necessary. In conclusion, Aid. Newman feels that Council, as a whole, needs to know what is going on and how the adjudication process has worked rather than having specific alderman's names attached to notification letters or tickets. He noted that the outcome becomes too personal. Ald. Kent agreed with and understands Aid. Newman's point. He stressed that his biggest concern is for proper assistance to be offered to those in need rather than to constantly go after someone and continue fining P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01 /09'01 Page 4 them, when they are financially or physically unable to comply within the time limits given. Chairman Wynne recalled the handyman program at Evanston Neighbors at Work. She suggested adding a note on the notification letters for referral to this organization or others that could assist senior citizens. Mr. Wolinski clarified staffs position that it is not their intent to keep ticketing and going after those individuals that are honestly putting forth effort to comply. He stressed that it has always been the intent of his staff to work with the homeowner if necessary. Ms. Anderson suggested that maybe a blind carbon copy could go to the alderman so that he is aware of who is receiving tickets and possibly intervening to offer assistance by referring them to one of the programs that could help. Mr. Janusz reminded that most of the time when notices are written up for exterior violations, they have no way of knowing if the individuals are senior citizens, etc. Mr. Wolinski suggested that a blanket statement could go out on all notices for referral services for senior citizens or homeowners that qualify for assistance. The Committee agreed. Chairman Wynne requested Mr. Wolinski to continue with his overview of the changes made to the ordinances since the last meeting. Mr. Wolinski recapped that these are building and grounds violations and the first offense does not require a presence in front of the administrative hearing officer, however a second or third offense of the same nature would require one in a three year span from the time of the first offense. He explained that other two types of %ioiations; staff has standardized the fines. He noted that for maintenance violations which again go the building itself and this is where you start to get into numerous types of violations of the City Code, Property Maintenance Code, Building Code, health issues. He stated that for these violations it is $50 for the first offense, $150 on the second and S300 on the third. He said that dangerous/unsafe violation issue is the third type of violation where immediate attention is needed/required. He noted that a 72-hour notice will be given with some requiring even less time depending on the nature of the violation. He stated that violations of this sort will have a $750 fine. Mr. Wolinski noted that the uniqueness with this fine is that they are considering an illegal dwelling unit a dangerous and unsafe situation. Ald. Kent questioned where they would begin with this ticketing process, will they start off with the known illegal dwelling units. Mr. Wolinski said that legal staff explained to him that any cases that they currently have in court will continue to be processed in the Second Circuit Court. He said that any new cases would come under the administrative adjudication process. Ald. Newman questioned the logistics of doing this and why the current cases in court can not be moved under their adjudication process. He asked what advantage this has for the City if staff still has to continue to take the time to go out to Circuit Court. He wonders what the rationale was for this decision. Mr. Moran said that it is his understanding that if the City were to request that the case be dismissed in Circuit Court and then pulled back by writing up another violation notice, then it could be done. However, the process would be very tedious whereas it could continue on and finalized in Court; the other way could result in lengthening the time. In response to Ald. Newman's questions, staff responded that there are currently approximately 25-30 cases in court at P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01,09'01 Page 5 this time. Ald. Ne %m= suggested that staff take a case -by -case approach and see Which ones are close to resolution and then decide the or. the one's that would be worth pulling over to the City's adjudication system. He does no-, feel a blanket rule should be given to let all the cases continue in the court system. The Committee discussed this further and decided that legal staff should respond to this issue. Aid. Kent asked if this vacant lots can be ticketed and enforced to go through the administrative hearing process because many building and grounds violations are susceptible and the Cite has had a difficult time in enforcing those property owners to comply. Mr. Woliaski stated that the building and grounds violations are ones that they would like to see cleared up quickly which also pertain to such violations as exterior building violations as well as ground issues that go along with vacant lots. Aid. Newman requested that he would like to receive an annual review or joint report with the Community Development department in combination with the Administrative Hearing department with categories of cases and At= fines are being given out for what violations. He made an amendment to include that this report be given every 12 months noting such categories listing the types of violations, size of the fines and how much money was collected through this process. Aid. Engelman agreed with Ald. Newman's suggestion with the reporting issue back to the Council. He also agrees that it should be the policy of the City that when they issue violations, they should inform the violator of the availability of assistance if needed and that they should contact City staff. He said that both of these are excellent policies and should be followed up. However, he said if you look at the ordinance, it does not talk about the regulatory process but instead the ordinance being established is merely a series of fines. He noted that although the policies pertain to this ordinance, they can not amend the ordinance to add a provision that says as a matter of code the City staff shall report to the P&D Committee. He further noted that this is an administrative matter, not a statutory matter. Aid. Newman agreed but still feels strongly that there needs to be something in writing so as the suggested follow-up reporting to the Committee can be administered. The Committee discussed this matter further. AU Newman suggested that his amendment be done by resolution and withdrew his amendment to this ordinance. Mr. Hill suggested that the proposed amendment, not this evening but at a later date, to the enabling legislation for administrative adjudication that would have a general reporting requirement for the administrative adjudication process to report back to the P&D Committee, and in some cases to A&PW Committee. He requested that the law department handle this and they will get back to the Committee in a few weeks. The Committee agreed. Aid. Bernstein noted, with respect to the penalty provision which states each day found to have been violated constitutes a separate violation subject to fine schedule set forth. He asked if this means on the date of the initial hearing before the administrator, is this interpreted as day one? Mr. Hill clarified that the way he interpreted in the code enforcement at court, it is every day after the violation is cited and is an on -going violation including continuing impact on day one and day 10. He said that would be in the City Code a maximum of $500 per day fine and they could argue for a S5000 fine at that point. Ald. Bernstein said that he does not find this clarified within this ordinance. P&D Committee !Ntg. Minutes of 01,%'01 Page 6 Aid. Neuman noted that to be true because it is an enforcement position within the City sort is not listed in the ordinance. Aid. Bernstein said that they are talking in terms of the subsequent violations and there is a right to know when that begins so as to make a determination whether to continue the violation. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Casey, with respect to collection, what are the costs of collections and should they include this as part of the penalties. Mr. Casey responded that for S50 fines. they would not sue but would file whatever possible such as a lien against the property or refer cases to a collection or credit reporting agency. He said that he aI%%ays encourages to try and recoup their administrative costs. Aid. Bernstein asked if they need to add language to this effect. Mr. Hill responded that again, they go back to the enabling legislation and their requirements. if not. this too can be amended to include plus costs. Mr. Moran confirmed that both administrative costs and enforcement will be considered in the fine process. Chairman Wynne reiterated the previous question that the Committee was concerned about to legal staff about whether cases that are currently pending in court should not be non -suited and brought under our administrative adjudication process at this point. Aid. Newman added that they have been told there are approximately 25-30 pending cases and the position of Mr. Wolinski's staff is that these cases would be brought to their conclusion through the current court process. He questioned the reasoning for this because the court system would also collect on any fines. He noted his suggestion to look at each case and determine where the case stands and whether it could be determined v%,orthwhile to pull out of the court system and put before the administrative hearing process. Mr. Hill responded that he is more inclined to agree with the position of Mr. Wolinski's staff, however he does agree that each case should be looked at. He noted that depending upon the stage the case is in litigation, it could result in more confusion to non -suit a case and then m-establish the process and then getting jurisdiction over the parties. He said that some of the cases could be substantially on their way to reaching final conclusion. to his opinion, he feels it would probably be better to proceed with the majority, if not all of those cases, at Old Orchard. Aid. Neuman stated that in the cases where there have been numerous continuances given, why should they give consideration to the property owner/defendant being confused with the process. He said no consideration has been given to the amount of time staff has spent in court on their particular case. Aid. Rainey agreed with Aid. Newman, especially for the obvious long drawn out cases that have been in court for an unreasonable amount of time. She would like to see these cases discontinued from the Circuit Court system and brought before their administrative hearing process for a better handle on enforcement issues. Mr. Hill reiterated that a case -by -case analysis could be done; however the majority of cases that are pending, are not in the position mentioned by Aid. Rainey. The Committee agreed, as long as proper review and consideration has been given for each case. With no further comments, Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 127-0-00 - Establishing Fine Schedules for Certain Building & BOCA Code Violations and Ordinance 128-0-00 - Amending Title 4, Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding Dangerous Building. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in —_ favor. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01/08/01 Page 7 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) 2728 Reese .avenue Chairman Wynne acknowledged the homeowner, Mr. Michael Vasilko, in attendance and asked if he would like to comment at this time. Mr. Vasilko handed out a letter he prepared for Council this evening. He first addressed staffs memorandum of November 30th, which gives a list of dates in which his permit process occurred. He stated that he takes a lot of issues with many of the dates listed and the occurrences claimed by staff and he addresses those in his letter. He noted that his main concerns are with the last two bullet points in staffs memorandum pertaining the to structural deficiencies in the plan and the last bullet which states work on the addition began without a building permit. Mr. Vasilko then continued on to read his letter dated January 8, 2001. (Copies available upon request) Ald. Newman asked for staff clarification of the chronology listed between 7/21/00 - 9/11/00. He recognized this to be a very long length of time for staffs review of a residential project and asked staff if they would agree with this. Mr. Wolinski agreed that under normal circumstances, this would be long length of time to review a residential permit application. However, the building department as reviewed in the year 2000 over 52,000,000 worth of building permits and at that time, was their busiest time of year. He noted that normally, a residential permit application and plans review would take no longer than 3 weeks. Ald. Newman then asked, even with consideration of the busy season and the amount of construction going on, if staff was in agreement that Mr. Vasilko has a legitimate complaint from the beginning. He then questioned staffs sympathy level with this case and the inconvenience on this homeowner. Mr. Wolinski responded that he does agree with the homeowner having a legitimate complaint but he does feel that staff did make an effort to worth with this owner, as noted in their memorandum. Mr. Vasilko continued on to read his last paragraph concluding with his opinion on the entire building permit and plan review process and the lack of confidence he has in the City's govenunent and their system. Chairman Wynne asked what the current status is with this case. Mr. Wolinski informed that Committee that still there has been no permit issued for this project and the homeowner has constructed and finished his addition without an official building permit and even after the project was shut down and work stop orders posted by his structural inspector. Mr. Vasilko claimed that he never saw any stop order postings from City staff: He clarified to the Committee that Ms. Carolyn Smith gave him permission after the November 7th date to secure the building since it was a third floor addition with the roof removed and to do whatever interior work necessary to protect the building from the elements. He said that this was done, however after so much time had passed he had to complete the roof and closing of the addition. He noted his credentials as an architect and the confidence he has not only in his architectural experience and knowledge but also that of his architect/engineer. He does not understand the reasoning behind the City's P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 01 /09/01 Page 8 plan reviewer requesting the same plan revision over again when he had hired a structural engineer who approved and was in concurrence with the revisions suggested by the City's engineering consultant. He felt this to be an unnecessary step, especially after the time period that had elapsed. He also informed the Committee of the length of time his family had to live in a hotel while all this was happening. Mr. WoIinski expWned to the Committee and stands firm, than until their structural plan examiner has approved the plans after suggested revisions, he could not issue a building permit. He noted that the building permit is proof of the City's approval of any plans for construction and takes that responsibility. Until final approval, the City can not be responsible for any construction done without the proper plan approval. Mr. Moshe Calamaro testified his difference in opinion and stated that he had many questions with the plans that remain outstanding. His request is to review the final revisions made by the homeowner's architect for his review so that final approval can be obtained. After all discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that the owner's architect/engineer meet with the City's engineer with the revised plans for final review by both. It is the Committee and staffs position to bring this situation to closure by receiving final approval by the City's engineer so that subsequent approval of the building permit is obtained COMMUNICATIONS Transcrint of the Snecial Planning & DevelODment on November 20. 2000 concerning the promsed amendments to the Residential/Landlord Tenant Ordinance This communication was accepted without comment. Communication of ZBA Decision & Transcrint of ZBA 00-32-A, concernine 1507 Lee Street This communication was accepted without comment. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted Jacqueline E. Brownlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 22, 2001 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, D. Jennings, E. Szymanski, J. Browalec Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. She apologized for the lateness in starting due to the Executive Session meeting held just before this one. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY B. 2001 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of January 8, 2001 with the acceptance of the requested amendments made by Mr. Michael Vasilko regarding his property at 2728 Reese Avenue that was discussed tinder Items for Discussion. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. A copy of the letter from Mr. Vasilko is attached to these minutes and will be attached to the permanent minutes of January 8, 2001. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne noted the heavy agenda for this evening and announced that she will change the order of agenda to dispense the items quicker. She began with item (P2). f P2) Ordinance 3-0-01 - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: Parking - 1000-Foot Maximum Distance between Parkina and Princinal Use Aid. Newman originally made the reference on this matter. He noted that he had the occasion to talk with Mr. Naylor at Northwestern University regarding this matter, who is also in attendance. He announced that they have agreed, if the Committee concurs, that the University will come bark 6 weeks with a description of their parking plan for the area and east of Sheridan Road. Aid. Newman said that although this study may not be finished within the 6 weeks, the University will come back with the progress. Aid. 4 , P&D Committee Mtg. . L.. Minutes of t:"'w'01 Page 2 Newman also noted that the University has agreed that they are going to cooperate, with the inclusion of the City Manager and Dave Jennings on this matter, with looking at ways that the City and the University can work together to ease the parking crunch caused by �;.-- the use of Orrington and Sherman Avenues and streets to the west for parking -for •°�;�r,':. ;�:.,. commuters and the University. He said that city staff has agreed that they will gather _ information such as tickets written, who is receiving these tickets and how often the enforcers are in the area He said city staff and the university will get together at some ' ' ; point after this information has been gathered. Staff informed the Committee that the 6 weeks will put this item on the agenda for the - first meeting in March. The Committee agreed to this date, as well as Mr. Naylor. Aid. Newman moved to table this item until the March 12'6 P&D Committee meeting. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. fP3) Ordinance 4-0-01 — Planned Develonment — 1511 Monroe Street (Schwind's Greenhouse Ald. Feldman was called over for this item because of the location in his ward. Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicants for this item. Mr. Scott Krone, a Principal of Coda LLC, introduced himself and his partner, Steve Beck. He revealed that they represent the future owners of said property. He noted that they are proposing the PUD for basic reason of trying to maintain the overall expense of the zoning while offering the City a better alternative. He said that as of right, they are allowed to build 12 townhomes. He noted that they are proposing the same density, however, under the current zoning, they would only be allowed to have 2 principal units on each parcel resulting in having to divide the lot into 6 parcels with townhouses on each of the parcels. Mr. Krone stated that what they are proposing is to view the entire parcel as one lot and having the same density on the site. As a result, they are able to offer a greater range of setbacks; more open space and an overall greater street appeal to the neighbors. He illustrated from a diagram what the zoning would allow versus their proposal that offers a greater range of variation along the street -front and also allowing a greater amount of parking that is all accessed from the alley and takes away from having to park on Monroe Street. Mr. Krone showed a rendering of the proposed frontage along Monroe Street. He noted that the Site Plan & Appearance Review Board recommended that they make the development more contemporary. He pointed out the special features of the project, noting the obvious contemporary design of the townhouses. He also pointed out the noticeable features within the block of having 1 % story bungalows to the south and 2- story homes to the north. He noted that they are proposing the size of the townhouses to come in between the two different uses. He further pointed out the proposed brick veneer along the long side of the townhouses and cedar siding panels along the short elevation. He noted that they are using materials that are consistent with the overall intended flair of the neighborhood. Mr. Krone further noted another recommendation from site plan was P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of im of Page 3 to set back one of the units to allow more variation along the front, which they have done and they also added a trellis in order to accent the entrance -way. Aid. Feldman gave information on the history of this project and how it came about.- He-;: • • . •�•-- informed the Committee that Mr. Krone called him and described the possibility of development of the Schwind Nursery. He noted that a lot of this size for planned development has a significant and dramatic impact on the area and the ward itself.- He said that he then wanted to make sure that any development that went on this site would be a great benefit to the neighborhood and due credit to the surrounding area. He said that he viewed the applicants work on other projects and his opinion was that this firm does high quality work and he was struck very positive by the design of this proposal, which he feels is refreshing and creative. He compared this project to the new development of homes on Washington Street where duplexes were built straight along the street line, which are nice, however not as creative in design as the project before them. He also mentioned the neighborhood meeting that was held where this presentation was made and overwhelming support was given by the neighbors that attended. Aid. Feldman urged the Committee to approve !his planned development. Aid. Kent noticed that mention w•.S previously made regarding the idea of condos for this site, he questioned if this was a possibility. Mr. Krone responded that they did a full study of the tide range of housing stock in the area and decided the best use of this property in conjunction with the neighborhood, is for the proposed townhouses. He noted that a townhouse association will manage the property. Aid. Kent asked the price range for the units. Mr. Krone said that they are offering 3 different unit types beginning with a 2-bedroorr/den unit with full basement and 2-car garage at approximately 1500 square feet, starting at $319,000. He said they are also offering a 3-bedroom + family room at approximately 1600 square feet and a 3-bedroom _ den at 1690 square feet, starting at $355,000. Aid. Engelman moved appro: A of the planned development for 1511E Monroe Street, seconded by Ad. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 5-0-01 — Special Use for 2650 Ridee Avenue (Evanston Hospital) Mr. Raymond Grady, President of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, acknowledged the shortness in time for the remaining of the meeting, therefore, he has dispensed of the original presentation planned to replace with a brief overview centering around the highlights of proposed project before the Committee. He said that they are interested in developing a new administrative and research building on the Evanston Hospital Campus. Mr. Grady stressed the fact that much of the decision to build this building was done with the neighbor's input and was taken into consideration. He noted that hospital staff has been meeting with the neighbors regularly over the last 2 years to keep them updated on their growth plans. He said that one of the concerns noted by the neighbors was for better management of the Evanston canipus and in order for them to do that, they came up with the overall rationalization plan. This plan included moving many of the services out of the Evanston community to their Glenbrook Hospital and also their Highland Park facility. He noted that they have a 560,000,000 investment plan with the Highland Park P&D Committee Mtg. .. Minutes of 1122/01 Page 4 hospital that will take traffic out of Evanston, as well as a $48,000,000 investment plan with the Glenbrook hospital which removes a lot of critical services to those areas. He said these plans will prevent patients from having to leave those communities to come . . into Evanston, thereby cutting dov%m on the traffic into the City and around the Evanston-. - - hospital campus. Mr. Grady noted that they received unanimous approval from the Zoning Bo4ai of Appeals for this proposed project and there was no neighborhood opposition to this expansion also. He conceded that the lack of opposition from the neighbors is highly due to the hospital working with the neighbors and the community in putting this project together. Aid. Newman extended his appreciation on the efforts made by Mr. Grady and his staff in forming a consensus with the neighbors and is very helpful to everybody involved He stated his enthusiasm and congratulates the hospital administration in learning from the process and reaching out to the community, which aids in the support of this expansion. Mr. Grady acknowledged those compliments.. Ald. Engelman stated that what Mr. Grady and Aid. Newman have mentioned, he feels is %100 percent accurate. He noted that it is unfortunate that the Committee does not have the time to hear the entire presentation that was planned for this evening and to hear the long term plans both for Evanston Hospital as well the Evanston Northwestern Healthcare regional complex with the 3 different locations. He acknowledged that what was made clear was that they are building this building but are voting without tt, need for an addition to the number of beds that will be in the hospital. Instead what they have done is rearranged the way their services will be administered and added space but not necessary the number of beds. He noted that this is a clear outcome of what happens when people working together makes things work. Chairman Wynne asked when the new garage will be opening. Mr. Grady informed the Committee that the first day opening was today with 900 parking spaces available. He noted that the garage will be completed in November with a total number of 1650 parking spaces. Aid. Bernstein asked that with this building being administrative and research, will it also be non-taxable. Mr. Grady responded that every building on their campus is non-taxable. He mentioned that the hospital pays taxes on the Searle building across the street and also noted in fact that they pay 2.5 million dollars in taxes and permit fees per year. Aid. Engelman noted that with this construction, it will max out the square footage of land that the hospital will be capable of building upon. Mr. Grady confirmed that fact and noted that this new building will replace a building that has been in that same location for over 70 years and needed to be replaced. Aid. Bernstein mirrored the comments made by his colleagues and extended has support for this project and the noted efforts made by the hospital to make their peace with the neighbors. Chairman Wynne stressed her desire to see the continued involvement with the neighborhood liaison committee with the hospital administration. Mr. Grady confirmed that this too will also continue throughout the planning process. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1/22101 Page 5 Ms. Anderson commented on the Kellogg parking lot with the restriction of parking in that lot to make available for the radiation patients, which she commends. However, she mentioned that many of the radiation patients parked in the lot on the west side when they could not find parking elsewhere to put them closer to the Kellogg building.- -She - expressed her concern for not having this parking available to those patients who are weak after treatment and need to park as close to the center as possible. Mr. Grady , sympathized with Ms. Anderson's concerns, however, noted that is why the hospital has restricted the Kellogg parking lot for only those patients needing it. He said the parking lot on the west was meant to be used by expecting woman in labor and the physicians. He said this parking lot is entered from Ridge Avenue and puts the patients close to the facility, so there should be no need for them to ever use any other parking lot. With no further discussion, Aid. Engelman moved to approve the special use request for Evanston Hospital, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (PI) Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant in this case. Mr. Murray noted that this matter relates to the expansion of the Evanston Athletic Club. He explained that this case was presented to the ZBA, which various members of the Zoning Board found it to be a worthy project to undertake. He said that the difficulty that the ZBA members were most concerned about was the question of the parking problem. He noted that he was retained within the last week in order to review this matter and to assist in the presentation to the City Council. He believes that the only method by which this is going to have final approval and appeal to this Committee and to City Council as a whole, is to solve the parking problem. He said that in the past few days, they have contacted members of the community who have parking available within the parameters that are set forth in the ordinance. He said they have been able to at least initially deal with approximately '0 parking spaces on a late evening basis which is very close to, if not incidental, with the clubs peak hours of operation. He also noted that they _ have dealt with staff parking requirements by means of leasing on a long-term basis, 20 spaces within the new parking garage on Maple. However, this still takes them to a point where they remain a few spaces short. Mr. Murray said at this point, he is requesting that the Committee grant him approximately 2 weeks to come up with a more solid parking plan for their consideration. Chairman Wynne noted no reason why the Committee could not grant this request; she asked the Committee for their comments. With no rendering of the proposed expansion, Aid. Newman asked if the section requested for 90 feet in height is set back. Mr. Murray confirmed. Aid. Newman then questioned the number of required parking spaces for this addition, noting the requirement to be 216 and that the current provision is 127. Mr. Murray responded that the requirement for the addition is 89 spaces. He noted that the calculations before the Comi nittee is the number of spaces by which the facility is legally nonconforming requiring the addition of a deficit of 89 parking spaces required for the proposed addition. He further explained that as of this moment, they are under the belief that within their control, they can provide 70 spaces, leaving a deficit of 19 spaces to fulfill the P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of IWOt Page 6 requirement. A representative from EAC confirmed that they currently have 12 spaces in the Benson Avenue parking lot but they want to transfer these spaces to the new parking garage on Maple. He confirmed that they have submitted the appropriate applications to do so. Mr. Murray added that one of the difficulties is dealing with off -site spaces slid attempting to create an incentive to the members of the club to utilize those spaces. He said that facility staff is currently working on a plan or incentive program to persuade their members to use the proposed off -site parking that will be available. Ms. Anderson mentioned that during the past fall, there was some conversation regarding ` the redevelopment of 1800 Sherman Building and their parking lot. She noted that at some time in the future if this is done and there is a build out of that lot, then these parking spaces proposed could disappear. She urged the Committee to take this into consideration, plus the fact that the Maple Street garage will be rented many spaces to the Research Park. Chairman Wynne acknowledged Ms. Anderson's comments and agreed that they are legitimate concerns to take into consideration. Aid. Engelman moved to bold this item in Committee, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Bernstein questioned why Ms. Putta recused herself from voting on this case. Mr. Murray explained that Ms. Putta thought that this case should go as a PUD or felt they should apply to rezone Benson Avenue. He said that they did look at both those possibilities but did not want to go that route if possible. The Committee agreed that the reasons cited were not a basis to recluse a zoning member from voting. Ms. Szymanski said that she too found this reasoning surprising and noted that this is the first she is hearing of this. She informed the Committee that she could look into this matter and report back to them if they desire. Ald. Newman suggested that there may be a need to educate the Boards and Commissions on what the grounds are to recluse themselves from vote. Aid. Bernstein felt it necessary to mention at this point that although he did previously represent the applicant at the opening of the club, he will not be recessing - himself from voting on this matter because he no longer has any relationship with this client. (P5) Ordinance 132-0-00 - Amendment to Zonine Ordinance: Restaurants in the Ul District Chairman Wynne asked staff to give an update on the status of this matter since their last meeting. Mr. Wolinski referred to the memorandum that staff has forwarded to the Committee addressing the 4 specific questions that Aid. Newman asked at the last meeting concerning the covenant and its pertinence to the zoning amendment under consideration at this time. Aid. Newman informed the Committee and staff that one of his neighbors called him regarding this matter and noted that this neighbor is convinced that Kendall is restricted to the site plan that was part of the covenant in 1987. He said that this concern is not addressed in the staff memorandum. He stressed the importance of this statement F regarding the restriction of Kendall to the site plan because one of the main concerns that P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10? 01 Page 7 the neighborhood has is to whether or not a Kendall can expand its restaurant use to one of the houses on the corner of Colfax and Orrington if it is permitted at these locations. His question still remains if whether or not Kendall remains restricted by the 1987 covenant and its site plan. Mr. Alterson responded that in his opinion, he would say that if those properties were part of the property in 1987, then it would fall under the r strictions stated within that covenant. He noted that he does not believe the covenant has any legal descriptions on it. Ald. Newman said that his understanding is that there was a site plan attached with this covenant. Mr. Alterson said that if these properties were not part of the site plan, then moving the restaurant operations to those buildings certainly would require a new special use, however if they had been pan of the campus in 1987, then perhaps they would not require a new special use. Copies of the covenant were distributed to the Committee members. Upon review, it was noted that there is reference of a site plan. Ald. Newman noted that one of the questions was answered stating that it is the legal opinion along with the zoning staff opinion, that even if the Committee passed this special use that the covenants and agreements made in 1987 stays intact. He said that question that was raised by the neighbors that spoke at the Plan Commission meeting, but was not aware of this covenant, it was his position that because they had a certain site plan approved at that time, it was incorporated into the covenant. Therefore, as the law stands right now, they were not permitted, by the covenant and restricted by the site plan and the college has to keep the restaurant facilities where they had agreed in 1987. He said this question and concern is not addressed in the staff memorandum, as a matter of fact. he feels staff has giverx them the exact opposite answer. Aid. Engelman stated that if in fact the site plan does restrict on the legislation being proposed. Aid. Newman concurred with Ald. Engelman's view and reiterated the concern of the neighborhood with having a restaurant being extended to one of the houses directly located right across from residential houses and not %ithin the interior building where the restaurants are currently located. Mr. Alterson stated to the best of his knowledge, mentioned that he %%as not around in 1987, the Kendall College voluntarily entered into that covenant to show the City that what they were putting into the property as a culinary school, was not what the 1960 Zoning Ordinance called a trade school. He said that what happened since then, is that the City has a new zoning ordinance that does not have a classification of trade school one way or the other. Therefore, while the covenant, in his opinion, still controls Kendall's use of the property and one of the conditions in the covenant, is that the College is not going to alter that without obtaining the permission of the City. He does not know that their zoning any longer is predicated on the covenant because the culinary school as part of a college and the restaurant as being pan of the culinary school, is currently a permitted use within the district. He noted that right now as far as the zoning is concerned, they could move the culinary school anywhere on their campus even though they may have to come to the City to ask for release from the covenant, however that would not be a zoning issue. Ald. Newman responded to this that staff states that the covenant does not restrict Kendall or any successive land owner from moving their existing restaurant to any part of the currently existing building or from moving the restaurant to a new building. He noted that this is the conclusion that is stated in staffs memorandum. Mr. Alterson stated that he was unaware that there was a site plan attached to the covenant. P&D Committce .Mtg.. Minutes of 1122'0 t Page 8 Ms. Szymanski stated that once they locate the site plan, legal staff would be able to interpret this theory more clearly. She stressed that staff must review the •site plan. Ald. Newman agreed and added that is the question that needs to be clarified. Ald. Engelman - stated that there are a wide variety of problems for the neighbors in that area, however he feels that currently there are no problems, at least for the neighbors on 3 sides of the property. He understands that there is a concern, however he represents in his ward, those 3 sides that he mentions and does not want it misinterpreted that the concerns stated are from constituents in his ward. Ald. Newman clarified that the concerns come from the Ist ward side of the campus and also mentioned that there are parking problems that exist and effect his ward very heavily and feels that although his ward is adjacent on only one side, Kendall College still has a dramatic effect. Aid. Engelman agreed that the parking problems do effect both wards but he wanted to clarify that the Kendall College administration and the neighbors to the north of the school, spent numerous time working through issues of garbage pickup and stacking, landscaping issues, venting of odors from the school and many other issues concerning the College. He noted that the College spent a lot of money building brick walls and putting in landscaping to address the neighbors concerns. Chairman Wynne noted at this point, there is a need to find the site plan that goes with the covenant of 1987, in order to understand whether there is an issue here that needs to be addressed. Aid. Bernstein recognized and mentioned that the action here before the Committee is with respect to an amendment to the zoning ordinance and his question whether this is with respect to the existing restaurant facility. He noted that this is only a special use or to change the use of a restaurant in a zone from permitted to special but not with respect to this property or adjacent land in other Ul zones. He stated that his question is if the Committee passed this, it will not supercede the covenant any way and the covenant will remain intact. Mr. Alterson responded that right now, the covenant does not address any zoning concern. Aid. Engelman added that there are ways to regulate over different uses separate and apart from zoning. He noted that the covenant may have regulated this use such that they don't need the zoning ordinance to regulate this use on this site, however, whether you want to regulate this use at other sites in the Ul district, is a different story. Aid. Bemstein agreed that was his issue because theoretically the concerns stated would be an addition to what is intact_ Aid. Newman mentioned that the concern stemmed from a rumor that there was going to be a restaurant placed in one of the houses that are on the corner of Orrington and Colfax and the neighbors were alerted and became concerned He said the question and concern still remains whether a restaurant can just end up there as a matter of right. He acknowledged that this rumor is not fact but this concern and question still needs to be addressed and if this is a possibility, the neighbors should want to be involved and have the opportunity to participate in any such consideration. He noted that under the present ordinance, that if Us covenant and site plant does not govern this, then it needs to be clarified and addressed before any consideration is given to go forward with the proposed amendment before the Committee. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1r22/0I Page 9 Ald. Newman stressed that the last sentence in the staff memorandum needs clarification because it states that "the covenant does not restrict Kendall or any successive landowner from moving the location of their existing restaurant to any part of any currently existing building or from moving the restaurant to a new building." He noted that it is apparent that staff has not re% iewed the site plan attached with the covenant of 1987 and he suggested that staff needs to review this site plan in order to give a clear answer to support the statement made in the last sentence of staffs memorandum is accurate. Mr. Wolinski agreed with Ald. Newman and requested that staff be given the oppommity to report back to the Committee with a response. Ald. Bernstein also suggested that staff ask Kendall College staff to get in touch with W. Naylor of Northwestern because of the issue before the Plan Commission with respect to the change of the zoning from parking being allowed a maximum distance of 1000 feet of the principal use, which was tabled on the Committee's agenda this evening, due to the problems with Kendall College impacting the street parking in their area as well. He noted that he suggests this connection in the University and College working together because of the possibility or resolving some of the parking issues in unison since it is a major concern and impact on the surrounding neighborhoods in the entire area around both schools. Mr. Wolinski mentioned that perhaps the concerns addressed with this case are more a legal issue than a zoning issue. The Committee concurred. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this Item for further information from staff. COMMUNICATIONS 2000 Site Plan and Annearance Review Committee Annual Remrt This communication was accepted without comment. Staff Memorandum Concernine Housin¢ Court Cases that will be referred to Administrative Adiudication Mr. Wolinski stated that Ald. Newman had asked staff at the last meeting to provide the Committee with a ledger of court cases and how staff was going to distribute these for the administrative hearing process. He said this memo states that their purpose is to move all 45 cases pending to administrative adjudication as they come up for their next compliance hearing. Ms. Szymanski explained that this will be done by motion of "strike to reinstate." OTHER BUSINESS Ald. Bernstein referred to two items that were on P&D's agenda and were introduced on January 8 h and remain on Council for action this evening regarding the establishment of P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1/2V01 .._ Page 10 j a fine schedule for violations to the building regulations and the City Code for dangerous buildings. He informed the Committee that he has recently spoken with Ms. Linda Bush, President of the Evanston Property Owners Association, who expressed her disappointment in not being invited to participate and be involved in the discussions regarding these items. He asked for the Committees thoughts and opinion on holding this item over on the Council agenda for their input. Chairman W) nne felt that if they did not .. _ . have to opportunity to speak initially and have requested to give comments and input, then they should be allowed to do so. She asked if these items are time sensitive. Mr. : Wolinski responded that staff is anxious to rove ahead with these goals and pending cases to go before administrative adjudication, however it is Cou ncil's call if they feel the need to hold these items for further comments. He informed the Committee that staff did send out a large notice mailing regarding these ordinances. Aid. Bernstein said that Ms. Bush stated that she just received a copy of the proposed ordinances and wanted to give input on this since it does and will impact on the Association. With the Committee's approval, Aid. Bernstein said that he will request to hold the items on Council floor to be referred back for additional comments. The Committee members concurred. Aid. Kent asked Aid. Bernstein if he was aware of what Ms. Bush's comments or concerns refer to with the fine schedules or the categories of penalties. Aid. Bernstein responded that Ms. Bush indicated that she had some input that the Committee has not heard. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION Aid. Engelman referred to his reference he made regarding the federal and municipal historic districts and approval requirements. He noted that staff has indicated to him that there was some question as to whether this reference would be reviewed by Planning & Development Committee or referred to the Preservation Commission. He clarified that he made the reference for P&D so that the Committee can refer this matter to the Preservation Commission. He also read the Preservation Commission minutes and it appeared that they were under the impression that his reference was as to any variation request in the National Historic District that's not in the local district. He further clarified that was not his intent. He explained that clearly major variations have an impact upon the National District, regardless of whether it is locally designated. It was never his intent to interfere with the function of the National District, however his reference was merely for minor variations and fence variations, especially those that are administratively handled usually in a quick manner and are burdensome to go through the Preservation process. Aid. Engelman feels that this reference does not belong in P&D, however the Committee should be the body that refers this to the Preservation Commission. He questioned w-hy this needs to also be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Alterson explained that the portion of the City Code that is in question is in the Zoning Ordinance, thin requiring the Plan Commission's review. Aid. Engelman recognized that the Plan Commission will certaisily want the Preservation Commission's comments before their review. P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 1/22fflt Page I Aid. Engelman moved that this reference Commission, seconded by Chairman Wynna approval. With no further business, the meeting was adjourn Respectfully submitted, rN Jacqueli a E.brownlee vl�--Y�,zx— ... be referred to the Preservation The motion received unanimom ,L ed at 8:30 p.m. MINUTES • Planning & Development Committee February 12.2001 Room 2403 - 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, A. Alterson, R. Crum, M. Franz, W. Moran, E. Sz}Tnanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson. M. Larson. Sign Board Chair Presiding Official: Alderman W�me DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22.2001 MEETING • Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of January 22. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue Mr. James Murray addressed the Committee. He said that they were charged with the responsibility of resolving the parking issue that surrounded the request for variations for the addition to be placed on the club. He reminded the Committee that at their last meeting, he represented that they had the capacity to put 50 spaces under lease for an unlimited period of time during the evening hours of operation. He also indicated that there were 20 spaces that are under lease at the new parking garage, basically for employees. He informed the Committee that since the last meeting, they have attempted to find the means by which to bridge the gap between those 70 spaces and the 87 required under the ordinance for the addition. Mr. Murray noted that they presented to Mr. Jennings. Mr. Wolinski and other members of City staff, a proposal by which they would encourage and utilize a system of validation parking in the City's new parking garage with a limitation on the number of hours. He explained that the club member would present identification to receive a validation that would be utilized as a means by which to pay for the parking space that would be occupied during a timed period that the average member would remain in the club. He said this parking time would be subsidized by the club by which to encourage membership to use the City parking garage, P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 2jl l o i Page 3 particularly during the hours of hea%iest impact such as 9-I1 a.m. and 5-8 p.m. Mr. Murray offered a suggestion that perhaps a periodic review of the parking circumstances should be considered and whether this Committee would like to retain jurisdiction with reference to the issue or maybe the Parking Committee. He said this periodic review process could be a means by which to identify and solidify the arrangements that might be made with the City in the subsidy program with the parking lot. Mr. Murray concluded that the proposals just mentioned are presented for the Committee's consideration and he hopes that these could be put into a better and more concrete format and hopefully receive approval to go forward with the variation request. Aid. Bernstein said that he was under the impression that this matter was going to be referred to the Parking Committee for an initial analysis of the parking dilemma and then returned to the Committee's agenda He asked if the 50 spaces are in the 1800 block of Benson and are not in perpetuity. Mr. Murray confirmed however, the spaces are renewable and the agreement is continued on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. Aid. Engelman noted that if for some reason the 50 spaces at 1800 Benson were not available, what options for leasing those spaces have been considered to meet the zoning requirement. Mr. Murray responded that they would look into alternative spaces within the appropriate perimeter of length from the site of the club or enable a greater degree of parking in the validation program. Aid. Engelman asked staff if they would be required under zoning to supply the number of parking spaces in order to continue the use, if they were to loose the spaces at 1800 Sherman. Mr. Alterson explained that the point in fact is that the zoning application and the hearing was for a variance to reduce the parking requirement to zero (0). Therefore, in actuality what they are talking about is not technically the number of required parking spaces, but a potential condition that would be placed on a variance reducing the parking. Aid. Engelman said that instead of reducing the parking numbers, he assumed it was requiring the applicant to have parking within a certain distance of the use. Mr. Murray felt that part of that is the fact that they don't have a solid means by which to assure that all the required spaces will be available for definite period of time or in other words, in perpetuity. He explained that his charge was to find a way to badge the gap between 87 and 0, noting his suggested methods as a start or hopefully a substantial step in that direction. Mr. Alterson said that the Zoning Ordinance allows for them to supply required spaces if they can lease spaces on a City lot within 1000 feet or if the off -site spaces are on property that they own within the same distance. Therefore, if they were to lease spaces at I800 Sherman, it would not count towards their requirement; however, it would be within Council's jurisdiction to put on a condition requiring there to lease spaces from any party. - Aid. Newman recalled that there was a provision of 19 spaces on the table from their last meeting and since that time, Mr. Murray has proposed a plan to provide for these spaces with the validation process. He suggested that the Committee grant the variations, counting the 70 parking spaces that have been accounted for and accepting the proposed validation program that would appear to ameliorate the remaining 19 spaces required. He agreed with Mr. Murray's suggestion of having the applicant come back on an annual basis for review of their parking conditions. He added that encouragement of the applicant to aggressively promote the use of the garage within membership is also P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Z' 12 01 Page 3 suggested. . He pointed out that it is important to review the parking because it is necessary that sufficient parking be provided for every use and he feels the City needs to stay on top of this situation. He would like to see this applicant come back before the Council as a condition of the variation on a yearly basis until they are able to meet the parking requirement which he feels is obtainable if they able to rent the spaces in the garage. A representative of EAC presented the Committee with evidence of the methods by which promotion of parking in the City garage is already being undertaken. He showed them a wrapped T-shirt where the packaging displays direction to the parking garage and where the spaces are available. He noted that they are giving these packaged T-shirts out to new members. Aid. Newman informed the applicants that if they were to loose their parking lease at 1800 Sherman then they may have no other alternative but to rent or purchase those 50 spaces in the parking garage if they are available. realizing the cost involved to do so. Mr. Murray responded that they understand that this is a potential and will deal with that situation if it arises. Aid. Bernstein reminded that there are plans to develop that space at 1800 Sherman, so this is a real possibility in the near future that the current 50 spaces will be lost. Therefore, this situation is very important in the outcome of available parking for this use. Aid. Newman reiterated his notation that if this situation occurs, then the applicant must find an alternative for the 50 spaces, which more than likely, will have to be purchased in the new parking garage. if the spaces are available. He further noted that by that time, there might be more parking available in a new Sherman Avenue garage. He stressed that in any situation, the applicant would have to satisfy the parking requirement. Mr. Murray responded that there are certain aspects of this that they can undertake immediately, not withstanding the fact that they may have an agreement that has yet to be implemented at 1800 Sherman. and that would be to utilize a validation system to cover those 50 spaces plus the 19 spaces there are proposing to begin with now. He said that this alternative could be considered now should their parking lease terminate at 1800 Sherman in the near future. He noted that this is the realization of the nature of the difficulty that they encountering with the parking requirement because the club has a major turnover in that people don't stay at the facility any more than 1-2 hours. Therefore, whatever spaces are made available have a turnover capacity of 6-8 patrons daily and he feels the validation system would be the means by which they could accommodate the greatest number of people through that process. Aid. Newman pointed out this is why they would need to review the situation yearly to see if this system will work and to determine if it is a successful alternative. Aid. Engelman asked for more clarification of how this parking validation system is supposed to work. Mr. Murray explained in more detail; he used as an example, that they propose to operate the validation system in virtually the same fashion as how the theatre utilize the system today. Ald. Engelman noted that the theatres do not pay for this parking validation service, he questions how EAC will do this. Mr. Murray responded that EAC would pay for the parking service based upon the validation of the parking tickets that members present to them. Aid. Engelman asked how much the Club would subsidize their patrons parking. Mr. Murray responded that they would pay the market price for a certain period of time and then subsidize the parking after such period of time P&D Committee httg. Minutes of! 121101 Page d %%7th possibly a split between the Club and the member. Aid. Engelman noted that he is not so concerned about 19 parking spaces but does have concern for an additional 50 spaces with this validation system. He stressed that once 1800 Sherman parking is terminated, then EAC is forced into the position of providing for those 50 spaces and it appears that at this point, there is no other alternative but to provide for those spaces in the City garage. Mr. Murray reiterated their understanding of this situation and is dependent on the possibility of using the validation system for those 50 spaces if need be. He reminded the Committee of the high turnover at the Club and also the partnership between the Club and the City with reference to this type of an issue. He said that it appears to him that in essence, this is what has occurred at the eastern side of the downtown development area, as well as the southside and part northside. Ald. Engelman's question for the Committee is who is going to make that determination; P&D or the Parking Committee. The Committee discussed this situation. Aid. Bermuin reiterated that is why he was under the impression that this matter would be referred to the Parking Committee because he said there was also discussion of modifying the times of the meters on Benson in front of the Club. He further recalled and questions, the discussion they had with Mr. Koenig with respect to captive parking and reuse of the parking spaces and it is apparent that the Club is not going, to be using 89 spaces at any given time. He asked how many members are in the club during peak hours. A representative of EAC responded that at any given time there are could be up to 100 people in the club and during peak hours there could be up to approximately 150-200 people. He noted that many of their members do not drive to the facility and the turnover for parking is greatest during those peak hours. Aid. Engelman added that his observation during the hours of 7:30-8:30 p.m. is that approximately IS cars come by in a 5-)0 minute period and seem to wait at one end of the street for available parking. He noted that he has never witnessed any problem with this and it seems to work its way out without any real problems involved. Mr. Murray said that this is a frequent issue for parking at any downtown use and it always seems to work its way out or the patron then utilizes other means of parking such as the City garage, and in the case of the Club, the patron will utilize the available parking at 1800 Sherman. _ At this point, Chairman Wynne asked the Committee if they wished to forward this matter on to the Parking Committee or if they feel enough information has been provided here to move forward on decision here. Aid. Newman questioned what the Committee would be forwarding to or asking the Parking Committee to do at this point. He noted that three members of the Parking Committee are on P&D and that all the alternatives have been proposed and discussed with this Committee. Aid. Engelman said that he is certainly willing to express his acceptance of the idea that they would accommodate them by the validation system with the understanding that when and if the 50 parking spaces are terminated at 1900 Sherman, the applicant must as a condition of their continued use, come to an accommodation with the City. Mr. Murray agreed and replied that he is sure that it is a much easier thing to say yes to this evening that it might be S years from now and this is one of the things that he and his clients will have to discuss and make sure that they have the capacity to provide to or have a plan for by which that element or number can be supplemented. More discussion ensued over the time limit of parking validation P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of2112'O1 Page 5 . that is allowed by EAC because the first hour is free in the City garages. It was noted that the first hour of parking is free in City parking garages to promote using these parking facilities as a way of encouraging people. especially with short-term usage instead of using on -street parking as a means. Aid. Newman commented that it is not a means of making money but instead encouraging the patrons of EAC to use the City parking garage and seeing this as an advantage for a parking alternative. He stressed that he would like to see this encouragement promoted and supports the Clubs efforts in trying to sway their members to utilize the City garage. He stressed that this is why he would like to see this Committee or the Parking Committee review the proposed validation system on a yearly basis and recommends that the Club keep records of the parking validation program for presentation. Aid. Engelman said that he does not disagree with the concept of promoting the use of the parking garage for the money, however, he does happen to agree that they still need to examine their parking rates and who are subsidizing in the garage. He says this because the comment was made that they want to encourage the short-term parkers to get off the street and into the garage, however, he feels that they want to encourage the short-term parkers to park on the street at the meters so that there is high turnover there and encourage the long-term parkers to utilize the parking garage. However. he noted that he has not objection to the applicant coming back on a yearly basis for review by the Parking Committee as to the impact of the validation program. He noted that his concern is what if the Parking Committee does not like the outcome of the validation process; what alternative is left for consideration? Mr. Murray responded that he believes that they have a means by which to provide the Committee with that insight to that particular aspect. He said that his understanding is that there is a program that they might be able to acquire and implement that might give them that opportunity because they had to look for such a program in order to make sure that whatever it is that they are going to be paying. is a reasonable and legitimate outlet. Aid. Newman reiterated his suggestion of the need to review the parking situation on a yearly basis because of all the concerns stated. Aid. Kent asked if this validation program has already been implemented or if EAC has began to gather information on this system. Mr. Murray responded that they have already contacted Mr. Jennings and Ms. Aiello as a means by which to determine the economics of such a position and what might be necessary from a very practical point of view as to the nature of what will entail this alternative and any machinery that might be necessary or to deal with the program and what types of promotions that they will have to obtain and what types of subsidizes that might be appropriate for this system. He said that these discussions have been initiated and some information has been obtained and there has been communications between Ms. Aiello and other City staff as a means by which to attempt to realize or put in reality to the program that they conceptualize. Chairman Wynne pointed out to the Committee that they do not have an ordinance in which to vote on and asked the Committee's position. Ald. Bernstein noted that this is for a variation and questioned if 6 votes would be needed because there is no recommendation out of P&D. Mr. Alterson responded that he believes a full majority vote is needed, however, staff needs direction to draft an ordinance from the Committee. Aid. Bernstein asked staff if Mr. Jennings as addressed the validity of the 89 number for P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 2' 1 Jo 1 Page 6 required parking spaces because it occurs to him that this 89 full time spaces is not what the applicant needs to accommodate the pieces and he recalls this comes back to the captive parking issue. He noted the fact that all 89 parking spaces required would not be used at any concurrent time. Mr. Nlurra-- agreed and replied that this is part of the advantage of taking a very close look at validation system as opposed to the required parking spaces because at no given time will all 89 parking spaces be needed or used. Regardless, the requirement is there and the implementation of an incentive program to utilize the City parking garage will be ensued. In fact, this incentive process and encouragement to park in the City garage has already been implemented with new members and will be encouraged in a long-term effort also. After all discussion, Aid. Newman moved to introduce this item tonight and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would have three (3) essential elements working on the deficit of 89 parking spaces that will be dealt with by the lease of 50 spaces at 1800 Sherman Avenue, the rental of 20 spxces at the Maple Avenue garage and the implementation of a validation system and promotional program for the athletic club to promote all its members to use of -street parking and that an elements of this program be subject to review with encouragement that EAC and the City to work to maintain records in order so that they have an idea at the review as to the success of the validation system. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The item will be tabled in Committee until the February 26th meeting. (P2) Ordinance 132-0-00 - Amendment to Zonine Ordinance: Restaurants in the U1 istrict Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. James Trauer, President of Kendall College. She also acknowledged a memorandum from Asst. Corporation Counsel regarding this issue. Mr. Trauer addressed the Committee and asked their intent as to whether they wish to vote on this matter this evening or are they requesting more time for discussion or review of this matter. Chairman Wynne stated that more discussion on this matter would be appropriate at this time do to the current memorandum and information from staff' presented to the Committee this evening. Ald. Newman noted that he has read staffs memorandum and the memo seems to indicate that despite that covenant that some type of commercial restaurant can be opened up in the surrounded owned houses by Kendall College. He asked staff to comment on this observation. Mr. Alterson responded that there is nothing in the covenant that prevents Kendall College from moving a restaurant in one of those houses. Ald. Newman said that in his opinion it seems that from the = feeling he received from the neighborhood that nobody is looking to hurt the culinary school and appreciate their efforts, however, it seems to him that no Zoning Ordinance can allow a the existence of a restaurant across from residential properties due to the impact that it has. For example, the smell, the traffic, the overall use of the property and the potential of having a restaurant go in as a matter of right; it is not acceptable in a residential neighborhood. He explained that the way this came to be was that there was actually a lot of worry that some restaurant was going to be located in one of those residential houses and the neighborhood's realization of this. In his opinion, it seems that most special uses are worked out favorably for the proponent of the land user and it P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 2112,01 Page 7 appears to him that this amendment makes a lot of sense in terms of the mistake in the 1993 Ordinance considering that they have 1. l in the 1800 block of Hinman and at the comer of Colfax and Orrington and it is not reasonable in his mind for any type of use, as stated, is appropriate. He stressed that no matter how or what the operation is, even with Kendall College's reputation, it is not appropriate to have or operate such a restaurant operation in a residential district or extend their use if it impacts further on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Ald. Ne%timan concluded that he supports this amendment and feels it is reasonable to make such uses a special use in order for the surrounding neighbors of such use to have input and comments into any such considerations before the City. He reiterated the impacts on the neighborhood such as smell, lack of parking, etc. that effect the residential atmosphere of the area. Ald. Engelman commented that the concept of requiring the food service establishment to be accessory to a College or University, he feels is well thought out. He said that the idea that someone can come in and put a commercial restaurant in a Ul District directly across from anyone as a profit making venture, he feels creates some problems. He noted that the concept of the U1 district is the educational functions and making it accessory, he feels is appropriate. He recalled that in the early 1990's, there were problems with Kendall College culinary restaurant in terns of smell, garbage collection, external housekeeping around garbage bins, etc. However, he points out that Kendall College was there as of right and there was no requirement that they meet with th neighbors nor requirement that they build the fencing that they built or requirement that they have their scavenger service change its schedule. He noted that all these complaints or problems were worked out with the neighbors and resolved in some matter. Ald. Engelman said that he appreciates what is said about the impact that a restaurant will have upon a neighborhood, however there is no intent to move that restaurant from its current location. He stressed that nothing is broken right now and there is no need to fix it, as the saying goes. Ald. Newman responded that what. if anything, seems to be broken, is their Zoning Ordinance and where they have U1 district Iocations. He said there is no problem if there is a restaurant in the middle of a U3 district because people don't have investments in properties surrounding that district, however, Ul is different since it surrounds residential districts. The Committee discussed this in further detail. Ms. Judy Fiske, 2319 Sherman Avenue, stated that she was in living in the neighborhood when the covenant was passed and said that was an extraordinary exchange between the neighborhood that was very supportive of Kendall College and who was faced with a situation that Kendall was really struggling with to make ends meet. She said that they came up with the idea of a culinary school and the neighborhood was rightly concerned with wanting to know more about it and everyone meet together at that time to address all the concerns. She said that once the covenant was put in place was actually an assurance to the neighborhood that Kendall was going to know what the culinary school meant She recalls that it was a fine line between a trade school, which they were very concerned about, and a liberal arts tradition that Kendall had been in the past. Ms. Fiske noted that there have been some problems in that past, the last big one being with the smell problem which the Health Department intervened with and solved. She noted to the Committee that what she wished to address to them is the fact that the neighborhood has come to you P&D Comrtrinee Mtg. Minutes of?./ 12/01 Page 8 with the suggestion, after the recent awareness of the covenant and the fact that it may be • superceded by the Zoning Ordinance, that they feel that they would like to have to assurance that whenever there is a change in the restaurant use at Kendall, that they (the neighbors) have some input. She stressed the importance of the neighbors having this opportunity for input into any consideration of any zoning changes in their neighborhood. Mr. Trauer stressed that although the College does own the 2 houses at Colfax and Orrington, there is no intent or near future plans to move their extent their restaurant operations to either one of these houses. He further noted that there is no intent to extend their use beyond what is present for their restaurant laboratory use from what is currently being utilized. Aid. Newman moved approval or Ordinance 132-"0, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman commented for the record, that parking around Kendall College has been regulated for a long time and the select change in regulations are nothing new at this time. Ald. Engelman noted parking regulations have been changed south from 2 hours to new regulations and stated that they have been working with Kendall to get sticker in this area. Aid. Newman stated that he would like to make reference to the Parking Committee, as part of this report, to review the use of Roycemore and Kendall's parking in that area. The Committee accepted this reference. (P3) Ordinance 19-P-01 - Variances for 1113 Clark Street, Mt. Zion MB Church Ald. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Kent expressed his support for this proposal and feels that this is a perfect choice and area for development that surrounds the Church. (P4) Ordinance 9-0-01 — Amendment to Yard Definitions for Fences Aid. Kent questioned if this amendment is due to the fence applications coming in for comer houses and their hardship in proving their cases. Mr. Alterson replied that staff discovered that they could come in a put up a fence that staff had not anticipated without getting a variance. Chairman Wynne said that it is her understanding that nothing has come in yet and no one has put up a fence that was inappropriate. Aid. Bernstein recalled that they talked about the fact that they did not pass the ordinance with respect to type 1 streets; he questioned the status of the ordinance. Mr. Alterson responded that staff is ready to bring it back before the Committee for their consideration. Ms. Mimi Peterson, 1008 Ashland, stated that the reason she is here tonight is because of the fact that the Committee has not yet acted on the type 1 street designation ordinance. Therefore, there are no type 1 streets designated and this makes it complicated for someone who want to get a front yard fence. She also pointed out that what is currently in the Ordinance is confusing because it is not consistent. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 21 Z 01 Page 9 . It w-as the consensus of the Committee that the tNpe 1 street designation ordinance should be put back on the agenda for their re%-ie«. Staff agreed to have this ready for the February 26`h meeting. As for the ordinance before them, Chairman Wynne directed the Committee to review the diagram that staff provided, demonstrating what Council actually enacted and what was evidently intended to enact. Mr. Alterson explained that the idea was that for a corner lot, the street side yard would precedence over the rear yard in the regulations. He said that this matter was previously discussed before the Plan Commission and P&D. He noted that what staff later found was a contradiction in their wording which created a situation where the rear yard could take precedence over the side yard, which means that you could have a six foot fence at the street because of the location in the rear yard. With no further discussion, Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 9-041, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Letter from Jovice Elias, 1210 Sherman Avenue Ms. Elias explained her situation and dilemma with the Tom Roszak development at 1208 Chicago Avenue. She noted that this situation started in October 2000 when demolition began and construction of the new building started. She said the entire time their house shook which resulted in a major beam in their house to crack and break. She said that they have tried dealing with Mr. Roszak personally in several meetings and have also met with Aid. Bernstein and Mr. Wolirtski and also the engineers and inspectors from the City. She stressed that they are getting no where in dealing with him on a personal level and feels that Mr. Roszak does not want to take responsibility for this situation with their house. Ms. Elias noted that Mr. Roszak was informed of this meeting 2 weeks ago and feels his actions by sending a letter just today announcing that he can not be present shows his nonchalant attitude towards the neighborhood. She feels that developers need to be receptive and responsible for their actions and any damage they may do to surrounding properties. Ald. Bernstein mentioned that this exact situation is an example of one of his submissions to the Council with respect to the fact that they have no ordinance protecting the homeowner from circumstances such as this. He found out after Ms. Elias had contacted him and he contacted Legal and Mr. Wolinski. that the only recourse they had was to stop the job. He stressed the importance of having some type of alternative or assistance for taxpayers with regards to the issue of damage done by a contractor and he feels this is important enough to consider by staff and Council. He confirmed that City staff has been to the Elias house from the beginning and have noted the physical damage done to the house. Rev. Dingle, neighbor of Ms. Elias, supports Ms. Elias's accusations and has witnessed the damage done to her home. He also informed the Committee of his own house P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 2r 12/01 Page 10 shaking from the demolition and construction at 1208 Chicago Avenue. His wife runs a daycare out of their home and has felt unsafe at times for herself and the children because their chandelier and light fixtures shake so badly that they are afraid of them falling from the ceiling. Ald. Kent asked if INis. Elias has had any contact with Mr. Roszak. She stated that the last time they met with 3-1r. Roszak was in the beginning of December. They were told at that time, that they would be hearing from him within a week on this matter. She said that they have not yet heard from him since that meeting. She noted that Mr. Roszak did contact Mr. Wolinsid and made an offer that was forwarded to her, which she considered unrealistic compared to the damage done to her home. Discussion ensued. The Committee agreed that they need to meet vaith Mr. Roszak and hear his position on this matter. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item over until the next meeting on February 26`h and requested that staff extend an invitation to Mr. Roszak to attend this meeting. fPD21 Memorandum from the Sien Review & Anneals Board Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Mark Larson, Chair of the Sign Review & Appeals Board. Mr. Larsen explained staffs memorandum and their recommendation to City Council to extend the amortization length of time for all commercial signs from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2005. He reported that '/4 of all signs in Evanston needing amortization are in compliance at this time. Ald. Newman feels more time is needed for significant discussion of this matter. He also feels the Sign Board members need to be present also. Mr. Larsen agreed and admitted that is another reason he was present this evening to request such a meeting with P&D. The Committee, Mr. Larsen and staff agreed to bring this back for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C,cJacqueli"k��E. =Iee • Ll 9 MINUTES 40 Planning & Development Committee February 26,2001 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, A. Alterson, M. Franz, R. Schur, C. Smith, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Deinner Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12.2001 MEETING . Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of February 12'", seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda in hopes to expedite the items. {P21 Ordinance 25-0-01 — TN -De 1 Streets/Fences Chairman Wynne called to mind that this was an item for consideration on their agenda for a substantial amount of time and no action was taken. The Committee asked for specifics of what this ordinance entails. Aid. Engelman asked if any type I streets have been designated. Mr. Mylott responded that there were four segments out of the 1993 Zoning Ordinance amendment that permitted front yard fences and this has been carried over. Aid. Engelman asked if Council has enacted on any legislation prior to today that designates some type 1 streets in the City. Mr. Mylott said there are but those streets are not called type 1 streets. Ald. Engelman clarified that this ordinance will designate those streets and Mr. Mylott added that this ordinance will also create the process for future designations. Chairman Wynne asked if those 4 streets, as listed in the ordinance, will be grandfathered in. Mr. Mylott affirmed this and explained that those streets were include din the 1993 re -write and staff did not see any reason to exclude these streets since they were/have already been determined that they were worthy of front yard fences. Chairman Wynne noted that on page 3, Section 1, Subsection b, it says the applicant may, but is not P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of February 26.2001 Page required to request that the permitted fence is to he limited to a height less than 4'. She asked if this means that an applicant can ask for something different than the typical type ID L ferxe. Mr. Mylott replied yes and noted that this is in response to Aid. Drummer's original hopes of having some degree of uniformity. %kith flexibility. Aid. Kent said his opinion, from what he has heard is that this seems like a reversal of everything that the Committee had discussed in the past. He recalled past discussion from the point of view that certain citizens wanted to ban front yard fences and if fences are prohibited in parts of Evanston, then those in the 5e' ward appreciate the approval of front yard fences. He also recalled his issue was being able to live on a side street, not a type 1 street and being allowed to have a chain -link fence in the front yard. He said that through this process he remembers talking about the possibility of interaction of the Alderman being needed. However, he clearly does not remember any great discussion about height; he does recall that the Committee came to a consensus on a certain height which started at an unreasonable height of 30' and agreed to a maximum height of 4'. Ald. Kent felt this ordinance is opening whole different "can of worms" whereas the Committee never reached a conclusion from what they started. Mr. Mylott explained that this ordinance says that there are certain limitations that Citywide apply to front yard fences: 4' height limitation, certain materials and a limited amount of opacity. For this type of fence, the street must be designated as a type 1 street, however there may be instances where the neighbors all get together and make a uniform decision to allow only picket fences within their block or where the Alderman prefers not to allow chain -link fences. He stressed that this does not mandate that those limitations be put in place, however does create a vehicle whereby further restrictions could be placed. Aid. Kent said that it seems apparent that this ordinance does not effect the height issue that was discussed previously by the Committee, as stated above. Chairman Wynne noted that it takes 7l3's of the property owners in a block to pass or make a decision, and the Alderman of the Ward should have no control over the property owners' vote. Mr. Mylott responded that any passage has to be adopted by an ordinance, so the support of the Alderman is important in so far as the vote of the Council. Ald. Engelman expressed his opposition of this ordinance and noted that one of his concerns is that this belongs before the Plan Commission because they look at the City in the way the streets are laid out and the impact the streets have upon each other. He said that is the responsibility of the Plan Commission because it involves urban planning. His opinion is that all matters of this type was envisioned to be reviewed by the Plan Commission and not an Aldermanic issue. Ald. Bernstein said that he also recalls efforts in trying to take the whim of the alderman out of the concept and not having citizens going directly to their alderman with these concerns. However, he does recall there were people in the 5th Ward who felt they required these fences for security purposes and in other areas of the City they were not desired because of aesthetic problems. Ald. Bernstein raised the question of the lapse of time in bringing this matter back to the Committee. Mr. Mylott said that since that time. there have been no applicants for designation of type 1 streets, so this matter was not considered as critical as the issues that have been dealt with since that time. Mr. Wolinski added that while this is an P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of Febmary 26. 2001 Page 3 important issue, staff has been working with the tremendous building boom %kith 5 • planned developments and a number of major issues since that time. He stated that staff has not had an opportunity to get back to this issue until now. Ald. Kent said. that unlike Ald. Eneelman, he does not mind being involved with this decision in his Ward or being brought into the applicants vision of involvement by the alderman with the decision making process on fences. He questioned the process with the application for designation of type 1 street. Mr. Mylon explained that the process that staff outlined is that the applicant would create an application that included a petition with all the property owners addresses and signatures and bring that to the Zoning Division. The Zoning Division would then review and send out notices and schedule the case for the next available P&D meeting. He stated that staffs intent is to make the application process as expeditious as possible. With no further discussion, Aid. Kent moved approval of Ordinance 25-0-01, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The vote was 3 in favor of the motion and 1 vote in opposition (Engelman). Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue. Evanston Athletic Club Chairman Wynne noted that there is an understanding from staff that they are still unresolved in a number of factual issues on this. She asked for brief explanation from staff. Mr. Wolinski explained, as stated in staffs memorandum, they have had a series of meetings with Mr. Murray on the parking issue. Mr. Murray faxed information back to • staff that was requested on Wednesday, which Traffic Engineering is analyzing. He noted that this takes a great amount of analysis considering the importance of this question. He realized that the Committee did request staff to draft an ordinance, however because there are several issues that deal with the legality of the Zoning Ordinance and as far as what staff would propose, they feel that further discussion with Mr. Murray is needed at this time on the stair' level. After these discussions have taken place, staff will bring this back before the Committee. Ald. Engelman asked what time frame does staff and Mr. Murray feel is necessary. Mr. Murray responded that on his client's behalf, they would prefer to deal with this as soon as possible. Both he and Mr. Wolinski agreed that they would hope to be ready to bring this back before the Committee on the March 12th meeting. In response to a question from Ald. Bernstein. Mr. Murray noted that they have spoken with a traffic consultant that has agreed to review the materials and provide them with an opinion with reference to the both peak and average views of EAC's parking needs. Ald. Engelman moved that this item be tabled in Committee until the March 12th meeting. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P3) Ordinance 24-0-01 - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Public Educational Institution) Chairman Wynne acknowledged those in attendance representing District #65 and from the School Board. She decided to begin discussion with a brief presentation from District #65 and then hear from those who signed up to speak in opposition to this proposal. P&D Comm Mee Meeting Minutes of Februarn 26. 200) Page 4 Mr. Robert Best, Attorney with Bell. Boyd & Lloyd, representing School District 465, • introduced himself. He stated that as a life-long resident of the district and a parent of two children who have graduated from the Evanston schools, he is proud to be representing the school district. He explained that the case they represented before the Plan Commission had two basic point. 1) there is a need for the building that is proposed to be built, namely a combined early childhood administration center and 2) that the amendment they propose to the definition of public educational institution in the Zoning Ordinance is an appropriate amendment to the Ordinance. He pointed out from visual diagrams and aerial photos exactly where the proposed building will be located and gave specific details of what is currently on the lot. Mr. Best said that the district purchased this property back in 1956 from the Metropolitan Sanitary District. He noted that one of the issues that was raised by the community and by the Board of Education also was the issue of open space. He said that they recognize that this is an important piece of property and the importance of preserning as much of the remaining open space in Evanston as possible. He pointed out that on this property, the northerly of the 4 blocks of this property remain open and the southerly of the 4 blocks between Greenwood and Dempster will remain open also except for the existing smell King Lab parking lot. He said, essentially the one block that contains the soccer field will be converted to a location for the administration and early childhood center. Mr. Best stated that the Ordinance currently permits in this zoning district many types of public institutions, public nature and cultural facilities, public educational institutions, public recreational institutions and community centers. Noting all large buildings designed to serve large segments of the public. He said the definitions of three of these four terms make it very clear that this district is designed for buildings of this type to serve a large segment of the populous. However, the definition of public educational institutions is a fairly narrow one that just states "preschool, elementary, middle or high school" use. He noted that they demonstrated to the Plan Commission, the contemporary meaning of a public educational institution is something more than just classrooms for those stated uses because there is a wide range of educational serves that are provided by a school district such as District #65 to its residents as well as the administrative staff facilities. Mr. Best noted that currently District 465 has an early childhood center that is located in two different facilities; Haven Middle School and Oakton School. There is a District #65 Family Focus that is located in a shopping center on Dempster Street, as well as a special education program that is located at several different schools. He said the point of this proposal is to combine those facilities and those programs under one roof for the many reasons that were stated at the Plan Commission hearing. The staff not only interacts a great deal from those different programs but there are many parents whose children are using more than one of those programs at different locations and it is appropriate to put those in a facility that not only combines the programs but also a facility that is designed for all those programs. He noted that none of the facilities are located in buildings that are originally designed for those programs and in some cases you have preschool children in a middle school and other children in a shopping center. 0 P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of FebnmLD- 26. 2001 Page S Mr. Best stated that they feel this proposal is very appropriate and he feels the evidence • in the case was overwhelming on this point at the Plan Commission hearing. In addition, it is appropriate to have the administrative offices in the same building. Currently the District has those offices primarily at the 1315 Ridge Avenue building. He acknowledged that there has been heavy suggestion that the property at 1315 Ridge could accommodate the proposed center by a renovation of the existing building on that site and additional construction. fir. Best noted that the District would have preferred to do this if it were feasible to do, however it was not practical. The reasons being is that this property is only 2 acres in size and has an historical landmark residence with approximately 15,000 square feet within and 5,000 square feet in the basement and two out buildings. He informed the fact that the school district over several decades has dedicated its resources to upgrading its school buildings and there is a lot of deferred maintenance in the current building and would cost a small fortune to upgrade, in addition to which it is not designed for the proposed type of use. In addition, with the landmark status of the property, it would be practically impossible to build a facility as proposed on that property. He also pointed out the lack of required and necessary parking that would be needed, noting the current unavailability of parking on that property which is currently leased from the Unitarian Church. Finally, Mr. Best noted that there has also been suggestion that there are other locations in the City of Evanston which they could have considered to locate the early childhood center or the administrative offices. He stated that they looked long and hard at both properties off the tax roll and taxable properties and there were neither locations that are available to provide the type of space required for the facility they are proposing for the children and the families of the district. He said that they did look at some large sites, primarily in industrial parks which members of staff, for very good reasons, stated are not appropriate for early childhood center facilities. He said that they also looked at downtown Evanston which was also not appropriate due to lack of neither land area nor economic structure to build such a facility. Mr. Best concluded that the property north of King Lab was chosen as the most appropriate location for the proposed early childhood development center and administrative offices for the reasons stated above. He noted that it is a large piece of property at 14 acres and has been owned by the school district since 1956 and for many years the school district has nurtured this property and will continue to nurture this property with a large portion of the property still dedicated to the open space status designated to this property in the past. He said that this zoning district has a very modest floor area ratio of .15 which they are remaining under. He stated that they are within the intent of this district to have public related buildings on the property, noting that 70% of this building is dedicated to the early childhood center for the educational programs that can be built today on that property. 30% of the building will house the administrative offices, noting that currently because of the technical narrow definition of public educational institutions in the Ordinance, can be included in this building. Finally, Mr. Best stated that if there were a more practical and economical way of providing this facility at any other location, the District would do so. However, he concludes that this location is the most practical and most economical location and he also indicated that there is a mandate from this community; a referendum held less than a year ago with a 3- P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2001 Page 6 1 majority voting in favor of combining all these facilities under one roof. He further • noted that it was clear at that time that this location was where the proposed building was planning to be located. He informed the Committee that this referendum passed in every precinct of every ward in this community. Mr. Best introduced Mr. Brian Jack, who can briefly describe the facility in detail. Mr. Jack explained the site plan from diagrams illustrating the proposed new facility. He pointed out the current unsafe layout of where the buses drop off and pick up children off of Lake Street in front of King Lab. In turn, he showed how the proposed new layout of the additional driveway would help to eliminate the bus congestion in that area. He pointed out where the new parking facilities will be located, noting that the current parking lot to the south will still remain. He then explained the actual floor plan of the proposed building and the usage of the building for the childhood development facilities and where the administrative offices will be located. Mr. Jack pointed out firom the diagrams how they will keep the mass of the building low to fit in with the residential surroundings and also illustrated drawings and diagrams of the facade of the proposed building. He noted that this building did benefit from a preliminary review of the SPAARC Committee, which they received some valuable input and it has been reflected in their plans to date. He also noted that they held numerous public meetings and several meetings with the members of the King Lab PTA. More discussion and questions by the Committee ensued regarding the proposed building, location of the service drive and bus pickup/drop-off, as explained by Mr. Jack. Aid. Engelman questioned why was it decided to site this building on the north side of • King Lab where access is through the neighborhood, rather than on the south side of King Lab where access could be off of Dempster Street, which is heavily traveled already. Mr. Jack responded this decision was due to the area of the site, noting to the south of King Lab there is a much smaller footprint to work with. He said in order to organize this building, which because of the site is particularly Iong and narrow, accommodations would not fit in that location. Aid. Engelman recalled the statement that the 1315 Ridge property was only 2 acres; he asked how many acres does this proposed structure and parking lot require at the proposed location. Mr. lack responded that from Church to Lake Street is approximately 7 acres and the proposed structure and layout requires approximately 4.5 acres. Aid. Engelman asked the acreage area south of King Lab. Mr. Jack stated that area is less than 3 acres. Chairman Wynne asked for clarification of where the new parking for King Lab will be located. Mr. Jack showed where they will be displacing some of the existing parking for 38 spaces and where they will be accommodating those spaces in the additional parking provided in the proposed layout to provide the exact same park count as currently provided. Ald. Kent raised questions on the new service drive and how it will be used by the buses and the flow direction. Mr. Jack explained and illustrated from the diagram how the traffic flow for the buses will go and where the bus drop-off and pickup will be. He noted that there will be a reverse flow for the early childhood center in order to drop those children off directly in front of the center. He explained how those buses will circulate around behind the building and exit from Davis Street. Chairman Wynne asked if this same traffic pattern will be available or directed to for parent drop-offs. Mr. Jack explained where parent drop-offs will remain P&D Committee Merting Minutes of Febnmy 26. 2001 Page 7 off of Lake Stint and their expectations of how that traffic pattern will flow. He stressed the added safety and less traffic congestion of bus pile up with the addition of the service drive. He showed the addition of an added curb cut on Lake Street, that currently does not exist, that will widen the street in that area and provide more room for pick-up and drop-offs. Further discussion and questions continued between the Committee and Mr. Jack on this concern. Aid. Newman arrived at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Wynne closed presentation from the District at this point and acknowledged those in attendance that signed up to speak on this matter. She opened comment with Mr. Sidney Zwick, who prepared a written commentary and requested to display a video prepared for his presentation. Mr. Sidney Zwick stated that he represents a point of view, primarily on behalf of the many senior citizens of Evanston who are very concerned about their taxes, how-ever,'he also reflect the view of neighborhood associations; in this case the neighbors and residents of the Martin Luther King Lab School, in which he was instrumental in brelping to get started. He noted that he has had the opportunity to visit Ms. Israel's current early childhood center and he has seen the deplorable conditions in which that operation exists. Therefore, he is not opposed to our community investing in the early childhood center and he wouid be glad to see a more deserving and equipped building for this purpose designed by these architects, however he stresses the fact that this location proposed is • the wrong location for this facility. He pointed out and stressed the lack of sensitivity and concern for the residents surrounding the King Lab school and the proposed site for this development, which is summarized in his written statement (Attachment "A"). After reading from his written statement, with additional commentary, he presented a video tape presentation to the Committee and audience which demonstrated and projected the already existing problems with the bus service for drop-off and pick-up of children for King Lab, along with parent and personal vehicle drop-offs and pick-ups in the vicinity of Lake Street and McDaniels. Mr. Zwick's verbal and audio presentation clearly showed the current traffic congestion and problems that exist. He stressed the concern for additional traffic congestion with more buses and personal vehicle transportation with the addition of this center and administrative office building. He pointed out that even with the addition of the added service drive, there will still be the addition of added bus service for the center and the undoubted and unavoidable addition of traffic congestion for the already current existing tight and limited residential street situation. Mr. Zwick concluded that it is apparent that more thinking and consideration for alternatives needs to be considered for this proposed project is given any final approval by the City Council. He reminded the Committee of the importance of preserving the open space districts that were and are designated for many reasons that should be protected. Mr. Zwick suggested, and illustrated in his video, an alternative site that should be considered at McCormick and Bridge Street and another location in close proximity to Lincolnwood School. Both locations are large sites that are possible of putting a buffer between the proposed facility and residential properties, unlike the close P&D Commitme Meeting Minutes of Fctyuar}- 26. 2001 Page a proximity to the residential properties located on NtcDaniels street as proposed. He reiterated and stressed why the District does not appear to take into consideration the insensitivity and lack of concern of the citizens surrounding King Lab, they find difficult to understand except for the racial makeup of that community. He reiterated that he is here tonight to suggest that the City needs to do a lot more thinking before they rush into building on this site. Mr. Hen Jackson, 2417 Lake Street. stated that he has lived in this neighborhood for 45 years. He noted that he was responsible for sending all the Alderman a map of the area showing the current situation of Grove Street, McDaniels and Davis Streets. He pointed out that these are the main arteries of King Lab, which appear to be eliminated or clarified in the District's maps. He informed the Committee that recently he was at Nichols School and witnessed or was informed that they want to take the students from this school neighborhood and bus them out with Northwestern paying the bus fare. He noted that in his neighborhood, they do not have sidewalks on Davis Street or Grove Street and he has witnessed many children being struck by vehicles in the vicinity from walking in the street since he has lived there. He informed the Committee of his difficulties of living on Lake Street, directly across from King Lab, with pulling in and out of his drive -way because of the congestion of buses and personal vehicles that don't seem to be considerate of the surrounding residences and the safety of ingress and egress for the residential properties. Mr. Jackson stressed that the streets in their neighborhood, specifically surrounding King lab, are not wide enough to deal with the current situation, let alone the addition of taking on any additional development in their immediate vicinity. He noted that there is constant activity at King Lab even during the weekends, which impacts on the surrounding residents parking situation. He supports Mr. Zwick's points as presented and strongly requests that the Committee take into consideration the impact and added stets this proposed development will add on the already existing problern for the residents of King Lab. Ald. Kent acknowledged Mr. Zwick's and Mr. Jackson's comments and concerns and realizes the exuberant amount of busing that is coming into that neighborhood. He realizes that this is a magnet school that draws attendance from all over the community, which naturally requires a high level of bus service. He questions how many more buses the new building will draw into this neighborhood and in addition, how many more children the center will bring to this building. He also questions what ethnic background ratio this early childhood development draws and what percentage is coming directly _ from the surrounding neighborhood versus the entire Evanston community. - Chairman Wynne asked for comments from the traffic engineer that conducted a study of this project. Mr. Tim Doram, Principal of KLOA Traffic Engineers, stated that there are 6 buses that currently load and unload on the north side and south side of King Lab for 12 buses total. He stated that the 6 buses that load and unload on the south side of King lab do not intrude on the north side of the school. He said that the 6 buses that do load and unload on the north side off of McDaniels, some come up Lake Street and some up Davis that exit off of Lake Street. He stated that one of the things that traffic engineers from the City asked up to do is to clean up this situation for two reasons; 1) being the safety issue 0 P&D Committee Meedng Minutes of Febmmn 26. 2t)01 Page 9 and moving the buses away from the automobile pickup area and 2) developing an alternative route as proposed with the addition of the driveway to bring the buses away from the front of King Lab School and off of lake Street. He noted that much time was spent in viewing this situation and realizing after this timely review, that the alternative proposed is a more safe and practical way to deal with the bus loading and unloading issue. The Committee raised several questions for Mr. Doram concerning the routing of buses through the neighborhood and the use of the proposed service drive for bus loading and unloading. Aid. Drummer asked for clarification on the number of buses that currently come to King Lab and the exact number of additional buses that will service the early childhood development center. His understanding is that presently there are 12 buses that come to King Lab twice a day, totaling 24 buses. It was stated that there would be an addition of 6 buses for the center twice a day plus 4 mid -day buses. The combined total equals 40 buses per day. Mr. Doram reminded that this number of buses is for the entire campus with bases going to both sides of the school and not all at the same time. Regardless of that fact, Ald. Drummer still feels this is an extreme number of buses for one location, especially through a residential area. Aid. Drummer noted that it was mentioned that there is no concern or major problems with the south IoL On the contrary there does exist major problems, in his opinion, that he has witnessed with the south lot, that have not been addressed by the representatives of District 465. He noted that there is a problem with stacking of buses at Greenwood and • McDaniel. He also noted that there are a considerable amount of parents that run the stop sign regularly. He feels this is a very dangerous intersection and can not understand how they can plan without addressing this area also. Mr. Doram explained that he has met with Mr. Jennings on several occasions who directed him to look at this as a whole or campus setting. He noted that they took into consideration that this is a school with many children and they tried to look at as many safety issues as they could possibly address. He felt that moving the majority of buses off of Lake from in front of the schools was the leading safety measure they needed to address for this campus. Ald. Drummer agrees this is good for the north side of the school but the south side of the school will still remain hazardous. He reiterated that he feels the entire campus should be addressed in the planning stage. He pointed out that all the emphasis on traffic issue concerns from the north; there are just as many people who come from the south to reach King Lab. It is a magnet school with kids coming from all over Evanston. Ald. Drummer also pointed out problems that exist in the alley adjacent to the school that is frequently used as a connection drive between the north and south ends of the school, usually at unacceptable speeds. This problem too should be addressed by the School district. He noted that the school district should also take responsibility for the upkeep of this alley because they are accountable for half. Currently the alley is often in need of maintenance Dr. Marva Israel, Early Childhood Coordinator for Evanston School District #65, addressed Aid. Kent's questions on the number of children, types of programs and racial makeup at this center. She said that the programs made up of Head Start, Pre-K At Risk, Community ChildCare and Special Education Pre -Primary. She said that with just Head P&D Comminee Meeting Minutes of February 26.2001 Page 10 Start and Community Childcare combined, there are approximately 200 children. 65 children, over 113, come from the immediate census tract surrounding King Lab property. She feels this is a very important fact since this is their neighborhood. In addition. looking at the same 200 children, another 54 children come from the two adjacent census tracts to the south and east. When the Illinois Facilities Fund did a study for the Evanston Early Childhood Task Force, the research points to the recommendation that w-ten Evanston builds a new site for early childhood. to make it appropriate. She noted that one of the decisions for this location was to make it close and assessable for the majority of families that use the center; she feels this is a critical point. Dr. Israel pointed out that racially, within Head Start there are 136 children. 2% are white. 72% are black and 20% are what is classified as other (primarily Latino, some Asian). In the Pre -kindergarten program there are 60 children Mth 37% white. 13% black and 50110 other. In Community CIvldCare there are currently 68 children and they will be going up to 100 children at the new facility under recommendation by the Illinois Facilities Fund. In this program they are projecting that 54% will be white, 33% black and 13% other. Within special Ed pre- primary there are currently 45 children and they will be increasing this number for the new facility; approximately 28% will be white, 60% black and 12% other. Dr. Israel concluded that when you look at a total population of approximately 341 children, you have 27% of the children white, 48% black and 25% other. Ald. Bernstein asked how many of these children will be bused to the new facility and is it assumed that most will be biased from the same census tract. Dr. Israel answered that primarily the %2 day Head Start program and Pre -kindergarten children use busing. Community Child Care and fi.tll day Head Start are done through parent drop off. . Ms. Betty Ester said that at the meeting this evening and at a meeting at King Lab this week, she has heard extensive discussion regarding the traffic congestion in the area and the traffic pattern of the buses to King Lab. She asked for clarification of the bus traffic pattern in use with the proposed driveway and how the buses will turn around to exit from this drive. Mr. Jack explained in detail and showed Ms. Ester from the diagram the traffic pattern flow for the buses. She also expressed her concern the pedestrian traffic for the children that walk to school and questioned if their safety and needs have been considered throughout this planning? She also wanted assurance that there will never be any more than the 341 children as a maximum number for this center. She questions if more children will be moved here in the future. She strongly feels that the location for the new center needs more consideration and further planning due to the already obvious problems that exist for the surrounding neighborhood today. Ms. Ester read from a public law 94.42 that President Reagan wanted to throw out but many people fought to keep this law in effect. She said the law states that special Ed children need to be mainstreamed with normal children so that they can learn and benefit from this. She asked if District #65 has ever taken this into consideration to mainstream these special need children in with other all the other children at their schools. She also asked what will happen with the program over at Park School. Ms. Eris Axelrod, Supervisor of the Special Education program, stated that the majority of the new building is not for special education. She said that there will be 4 special P&D Committee Mecting Minutes of Febniar) 26. 2001 Page 1 I education classrooms coming into the building, however, this is a small number of the children who will be attending the center. In fact, she hopes that by having these special education children in the center, they can be mainstreamed with the typically developing children who will be there. As far as the children who attend Park School, the children who will be coming for the special education program at this center are actually in the programs that are over at Dawes School and not a Park School. The Park School programs will remain unchanged. Ms. Mary Erikson. District 465 Board Member and Chair of the Early Childhood Center and Administration Building Committee, noted the efforts that they made for community involvement, which are also stated in the Plan Commission minutes. She informed the Committee that the school district sent out thousands of notices for the community meetings in which they described and explained the districts' plans and asked for community input. She noted that the average attendance for these meeting were 10-12 people, however those few people did give valuable input that was taken into consideration and resulted in improvements to the original plan. Ms. Erikson commented on the suggestion of located the center on the Lincolnwood School property. She explained that this property was not feasible due to size of the lot and Iack of parking. Ald. Newman brought attention to page 30 in the transcript that raises questions on the property being put back an the tax roll; the property is currently tax exempt. Mr. Best responded that they envision the property being put back on the tax roll but have not • reached a confinnation on this fact to date. Aid. Newman said that he would like to see this property put back on the tax roll and noted that if there is no firm commitment in writing to this fact, then that portion of testimony should be disregarded from the transcript. Mr. Brad Kucharski, resident of Evanston, expressed his concern for replacement of this field which was used for baseball, soccer and other recreational activities. He asked where or if these fields will be relocated. Aid. Drummer reminded that the field to the south of King Lab floods and is can not be used for those sports activities. Mr. Best responded that the School District is in the business of educating children and providing the means to do so. He hopes that these recreational activities will be able to relocate to other fields. Aid. Drummer requested response to several questions that he would like addressed. First, he requested information on the exact size of the King Lab property; will the property be doubled in size. Secondly, he requested a firm count on the amount of buses that will come to the site per day and the total amount of trips per day, per bus. He also requested that the alley adjacent to the school be addressed by the school district and their plans for improvements and traffic control by parents that frequent this alley as a thoroughfare. He requested that the school district address the sidewalk situation surrounding the King Lab property and make improvements for pedestrian safety. He also requested that further study be done on improving the traffic pattern down McDaniel 18 Avenue, as it is already a very congested situation. Aid. Drummer acknowledged the fact that the School District can build a portion of this building by right and the nest is where P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of Febnan- 26. 2001 Page 12 the issue lies. At the next meeting he would like to address the open space issue and how this space relates to all of Evanston. He noted that there is a big difference in how Evanston is treating their side of the channel bank in comparison to Skokie, it is like night and day. Aid. Newman moved to hold this item in Committee until the March 12`h meeting, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (PI) Jacob Blake Manor Proiect. 1615 Emerson Street. Ebenezer AME Church Chairman Wynne asked Rev. Wade his time frame for this request if it can be held until the March l2a' meeting. Rev. Wade responded that they are on a time sensitive schedule for this request and can not wait until that date. Aid. Kent moved to approve the Housing Commission's and HOME Loan Committee's recommendation to use a combination of building permit fee waiver and the Mayor's Special Housing Fund in total of S125,000 with the conditions specified. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion. Aid. Bernstein informed the Committee that he will abstain from vote on the issue due to his legal representation on behalf of Ebenezer Church. Aid. Newman asked about the land acquisition number and if the rest of the Committee was satisfied with this number. Mr. Wolinski stated that staff asked HUD about this number and ht agrees that it is a reasonable number. Aid. Engelman acknowledged the list of questions by staff and asked if these have been addressed and if staff is satisfied with the responses. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff was content with their response, although one of the issues that they are still in the dark about is the demolition cost of $78,000 that appears in two different places which under the developer fee and also under the uses section. The Committee and staff asked for clarification. Mr. Crooks responded that where it is Iisted as a line item, he affirmed that this was an error and should only be listed in the developer's fee. He noted that the demolition cost is an eligible use of the developer's fee. Aid. Engelman asked if these means that the cost will be reduced by that amount of money, which staff questioned also. Mr. Crooks answered that they still need to assistance from the City. He stated that if you look at the contractors price, it does not include the demolition cost; this is an added cost that is considered an off -site type of expense. Aid. Newman questioned why the use of the Mayor's Special Housing Fund versus HOME funds. Mr. Wolinski responded that HUD already heavily funds this project. Stab's concern is that at this point and time and the time pressure that Ebenezer is under to close in approximately 6 weeks or they could forfeit their funding, the fact that this is already so heavily supported by HUD already, staff feels that it is easier not to use HUD funds at this point. HUD has indicated that they could use HOME funds at ibis point, however there are future projects coming up that staff feels would be better suited for the HOME funds. He justified this is why they have suggested a waiver of the building permit fees of approximately S69,000 and the Mayor's Special Housing Fund. Ald. Newman noted that the HOME funds have a deadline for usage of these funds and he P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of Febmary 26. 2001 Page 13 noted that this project qualifies for these funds. fir. Wolinski stated that there has never . been a problem with using the HO.%.iE funds by the deadline and assured that those funds will be used by their cut-off date. It was noted that construction must commence on this project by June 1, 2001. Mr. Wolinski noted that this project originally started in 1994 and it was decided by the Housing Commission and staff that a definitive date was needed since City funds were involved in this project. After aU discussion, the Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion with 1 vote abstained. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1210 Sherman Avenue. Ms. Jovice Elias Mr. Wolinski reminded that at the last meeting the Committee requested that staff invite the developer, Mr. Tom Roszak, to respond to some of the issues that Ms. Elias has charged have damaged her home as a result of his development at 1208 Chicago Avenue. He acknowledged Mr. Roszak's presence. Chairman W)mne noted that this is an item for discussion only and she informed Ms. Elias that she is not sure of what the Committee's jurisdiction is with this case. . Ms. Elias read from a prepared statement giving a chronological list of events since the commencement of the project at 1208 Chicago up until present. Her conclusion stated her expectation of the involvement of the City who has the power to stop the job and not approve any more permits for Mr. Roszak to begin Phase 11 until he acknowledges or takes responsibility for the damage his project has caused on their home. Mr. Roszak responded that he appreciates the comments made by Ms. Elias & Mr. Steinman. He admitted that he has inspected their home on 3 different occasions, on two visits he inspected their 1" and 2"d floor and the Yd time with some other member of City's Building Department where he had an opportunity to go in the basement. He noted that at that inspection he did observe one of the structural beams to have several penetrations. In his opinion, he believes the real issue in this is that there exists a structural problem with their home that the owners need to address, He said it appears that the timing of his project was convenient for the owners, however he feels this structural problem with their home already existed due to the age of the building and the required maintenance that goes along with a home of that age. He also noted that his project is over 250' in distance from their home with the El embankment in between the distance. Mr. Roszak informed the Committee that he has carefully planned out the construction and demolition, noting that this was not something that was just started with no complete study and view of the land in which he is constructing upon. He noted that there were several experts that were involved such as designers, engineers and consultants with a lot P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of February 26. 2001 Page 14 of expertise in their fields. He reminded that these plans were also reviewed by the City and met all the requirements of the code for this municipality and the State of Illinois. He stated that his company has done several demolitions, several in Evanston, and have done preliminary earth retention work with each demolition. He said demolition of this type is done with buildings as close as 5' with no structural damage to the property and they have not experienced any problems in the past. He also noted that the demolition equipment is standard and is not superior in size or strength that what is normally used for demolition sites as this one. Rev. Dingle, 1212 Sherman Avenue, assures that the owners of 1210 Sherman are not exaggerating their claims to the damage done to their property and also noted that the damage was not there before this project began. He admitted that the vibrations in his own houses are extreme causing chandeliers, light and wall fixtures to shake. He is often concerned for the safety of the members in his house. Ms. Penny Miller, owner of the property at 1206 Sherman Avenue, stated that she recently painted the property and there are already fresh cracks in the paint from the vibration of the structure due to the demolition at 1208 Chicago Avenue. She supports Ms. Elias and Mr. Steinman's accusations of the damage done to their home by this development and encourages the City to step in to help the homeowner out against the developer especially in light of the immense construction and development currently happening in Evanston. Mr. Steinman stressed that the point made by Mr. Roszak claiming that the distance is a factor in this case, is not true. In view of the fact that the damage done to their home did not happen until the demolition of his project began and the obvious vibration experienced in the house when the demolition work is in progress. Ald. Bernstein stated that the vibrations claimed, he can testify to be true because he did witness this fact. He also stated that staff can admit to the before and after situation that was witnessed by City inspectors from inspections. He raised the question of what can the City do for the homeowners and taxpayers to protect them against damage done by any demolition or construction done in Evanston. He feels this is an important matter, especially with the abundance of development that has been going on in Evanston and still to come. He requested that staff address and look into what the City's responsibility is once a permit is issued and questioned if there is any awareness of what other communities are doing to address similar situations. Mr. Wolinski stated that under the guidelines of the code in that all requirements have been fulfilled and plans approved. Ms. Smith informed the Committee that there is a section in the code that addresses adjacent property owners to demolition sites. The Committee requested that staff provide them with a copy of the standards that address this issue and what the City's jurisdiction is on stopping a job after commencement. They also requested information on any additional responsibility on the part of the City with claims of homeowners on damage done to their property, even if they are not adjacent. Im P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2001 Page 15 Some members of the Committee and staff, that this can be considered a private party dispute whereas the City does not have the authority or control to get involved or make any decisions, noted it. However, they noted that they are sympathetic to this issue. Staff mentioned that in the case of the sewer project and the claims against damage caused by this project, the City is held responsible because it is a City job. This item is being held for further discussion and response from stiff to the questions raised by the Committee. Chairman Wynne promised the homeowners that they will. address their case first at the next meeting due to their patience in waiting to be heard at this meeting and the last. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a ' Jacque n�e 1..wnlee 0 MINUTES Planning & Detieiopment Committee March 12, 2001 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Aiello, M. Franz, H. Hill, C. Smith, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Deinner Presidiag Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MIIqMS OF FEBRUARY 26. 2001 MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of February 26`s, seconded by Aid. Kent. • The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Wynne changed the order of the to address the matter under "Items for Discussion" first because this is the third meeting in which the homeowners in this case have attended P&D meetings and have waited patiently through each meeting to be heard. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION f PD 1 ] Letter from Jovice Elias. 1210 Sherman Avenue. Evanston Chairman Wynne invited Ms. Elias and Mr. Steinman to present their videotape to the Committee at this time. Mr. Steinman explained that this videotape documents the vibrations that were transmitted to their house and is very illicit in validating their claim that the demolition work done at the Roszak development site, does contribute to the damage done to their home. He narrated through the videotape noting that there were two different kinds of vibrations, the first stage was of a nature where there was a steady vibrating, shaking of the earth by some type of machinery that breaks through concrete and brick. He pointed out how this stage of vibration shock pictures on their walls, opened doors and ultimately cracked plaster from the day-to-day vibration. It was noticed that the date the videotape was taken was on 11/20/00. The second stage came from the pounding of the crane and the pile driver attached. His video showed through his window where the crane was clearly visible with the short distance from the house to ® the construction site. This was a severe, steady banging which he demonstrated its severity from a fish bowl that they placed on the floor in the front room of their home, P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3 A 7 01 Page 2 room to the farthest east in their house. Mr. Steinman explained that this shows the quality of the surface of the water with the reflection of light of how the house is affected from each pounding effect of the pile driver. They also placed a bowl of water at the farthest west point in their house. which also demonstrated by the surface of the water how this pounding equally effects the entire house from front to back. He mentioned that the comments made by Mr. Roszak regarding the safe distance proves not to be we if the same equal effect goes through to the further westerly point in their house. Mr. Stelnmau also demonstrated the difference in the vibration caused by the El train with the fish bowl and how the surface of the water there is barely any movement. He continued by showing the basement area where the beam was cracked in several places and the imminent danger that it places on their family. Mr. Steinman concluded that this video clearly demonstrates how the demolition of the construction site does contribute to the damage done to their home and that their house was subjected to this shaking and banging all day long during the working hours and for several weeks on end. Ald. Newman asked how much damage they are estimating has occurred since the commencement of this situation. Mr. Steinman stated at this point it is unknown exactly how much damage has been done to the house over time, however, Ms. Elias mentioned that estimates have come in no lower than $10,000. Mr. Steinman noted that for the structural beam that was broke, bids were received from two contractors at S 1,250, which, does not include re-routing the electrical and plumbing. The other estimate came in just under $10,000. He said that with these two estimates it created a spread that he did not understand, therefore he forwarded this information to his structural engineer who advised him to go with neither bid because he would want to design and take measurements to come up with a drawing and a plan that would be appropriate with the house. Mr. Steinman informed the Committee a resolution. #108-R-00, that was brought to his attention by Ms. Peggy Tarr. He noted that this resolution was an agreement with Tom Roszak that was accepted by City Council. He reminded that Mr. Wolinsld had mentioned at the last meeting that the City could not stop the project for fear that the City could be liable and sued; however, this resolution seems to state otherwise. Aid. Bernstein clarified that the resolution allowed implantation of the sheet piling onto the City's parkway on the east side and gave Roszak the ability so long as it did not do any damage otherwise he would have to indemnify any harm done. Mr. Steinman continued that the point he was making in relation to the resolution is that it is possible for the City to step in and make clauses to protect other property from damage due to any new development. He noted that this resolution was passed last November. He stressed their reason for being here is to request that no work on this project go any further on phases II and III knowing the damage that it has caused their house and possibly other homes in the same area He informed the Committee that next week their structural engineer will begin preparing the drawings and plans for repair of their home, however, if the project continues — this will cause repeated damage to their home which they would have to repair again. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3/12101 Page 3 Ald. Bernstein mentioned that he has spoken with :sir. Wolinski with respect to phases II & III and the difficult that he and Herb Hill have experienced is that there was no demonstration of imminent danger, which is what the standard allows. He noted that since then, they have written confirmation by the City structural inspector witnessing these cracks and further witness from the City engineers; these observations by City staff were made prior to and after the beam was actually broken. He noted the only intervening causation that was different, was the pounding that was witnessed by all from the videotape that was shown previously. He stated that what he needs to know this evening is how we put into place a prohibition against any permits being issued for phases 11 and III unless and until they can get some assurances from the developer for any damage done to the surrounding homes. Mr. Steinman read from a letter dated November 22, 2000 from the Building Department, where Dean states that "it appears that this house is being subjected to stresses that was never designed for, nor constructed to resist." He stressed the importance of this statement because this directly effects his home and the others in his block versus the development in their neighborhood. Ald. Bernstein mentioned his meeting with Mr. Roszak at which point he talked about the construction of the house and its ability to withstand the effects of the construction of his development. Subsequently, the pounding of the demolition does appear to be the cause of structural damage to 1210 Sherman Avenue. He also mentioned that Mr. Roszak insinuated that he would take care of the matter and they walked away from the meeting with those intentions in mind. He informed the Committee that Mr. Roszak was out of town, therefore he tried to contact his lawyer to see if they could mediate this situation and to discuss any intent to settle with Ms. Elias/Mr. Steinman. Ms. Elias distinguished that this case involves a developer that is doing work in a neighborhood of 100 year old homes who appears to have no concern or care for his surrounding neighbors and appears completely disinterested in attending any meetings regarding this issue or responding back to them. She feels die City should reconsider any future dealings with this developer because as a citizen, she would not like to see anymore development under his supervision. Aid. Newman requested that legal be called over for response. He questioned whether Community Development staff consulted with Legal staff on any portion of the memo before the Committee. Ald. Bernstein mentioned that he has also received a phone call from corporation counsel of a major corporation downtown Evanston adjacent to a location where there is currently demolition and construction going on. He informed him that they are calling in a seismologist in to test the vibrations from the demolition next to their building. He brought this fact to attention because it is very similar to what is happening in this particular case. He also spoke with representatives from the City of Chicago who mentioned that approximately ti months ago, they put in an ordinance to protect their citizens from this type of impact, however none of their neighboring municipalities have any such ordinance. AId. Bernstein stated that in his mind, the City should take some type of action because he feels they are liable or responsible for their citizens due to the fact that the City issues these permits to developers. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 312101 Page 4 Mr. Hill responded that the Legal Department is generally aware of this situation with the complainant, which was brought to their attention approximately 6•8 weeks ago. He has is spoken with Aid. Bernstein several times and he has also spoken with fir. Wolinski about this issue. He has also visited the site since this was brought to Legal's attention and he does know of the inspections that the Department heads made on the complainant's site. Aid. Newman asked about the resolution that gave the developer the right to use the parkway and questioned the City's rights to stop the developer from doing certain things and also mentions damage provisions. He asked if this resolution only relates to the phase 1. Mr. Hill responded that he is unaware of this resolution at the current moment; a copy of the resolution was given to Mr. Hill to review. Aid. Newman stated that it seems clear from the videotape that the work that has been going has had an adverse impact on the house in question. He said that he is concerned about 1) the fact that they have a property owner who is near the project that in his opinion is being harmed by the work and 2) they could have a situation where if the City were to do a stop -order or delay the second and third phase without being on very solid ground, the City would face potential liability from Rosxak for any delays or effect on the sales of his project. He noted that this is an issue that faces full legal evaluation. especially for phases II and III. Mr. Hill responded, after quick review, that the resolution does not distinguish between future and present work being done. Aid. Newman then stated that in this case, he would like a full understanding of the City's potential liabilities in teens of the question of what they are being asked to do which is to stop any further work before the developers deals with the situation of claims of damage made to nearby property owners. It was mentioned that the developer has not yet applied for continuation onto phases 11 and III. Aid. Newman . stressed that there really needs to be a full legal analysis of what the City ought to be doing and what we can do and what our potential liability is. The Committee members unanimously agreed to Aid. Newman's suggestion. Discussion ensued with Aid. Bernstein reminding the Committee that the property owner has demonstrated damage. Chairman Wynne stressed that they need to find out the ramifications of what that agreement/resolution means on behalf of the City of Evanston. Rev. Lee Dingle, 1212 Sherman Avenue, stated that he has been present at the previous meetings in support of his neighbors and can confirm that their accusations are true. He presented photos to the Committee of his own home showing recent cracks in his ceiling in his dining room, living room and a cracked beam in his basement that have occurred since the commencement of the Roszak project. He reiterated that his wife operates a child daycare in their home and they have had to move the kids to another location in the house because of fear that ceiling fixtures may fall from the vibrations caused by the demolition work. He stressed the liability they face if any physical damage is done to the kids they are responsible for if any fixtures were to fall on them, regardless of whether the City takes any action or not. Rev. Dingles feels because of all the facts stated the City does have a responsibility to the surrounding homeowners to any claimed and proven damage done to their homes due to the demolition and construction by this development. He questioned the Committee's feelings and how they would address this situation if it were directly effecting one of their homes. The Committee in unison expressed their sympathy for that exact fact and stated that is why they are so concerned with this situation and how to properly address it. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3/12/0I Page S . Aid. Newman noted, that because this is between two private parties or seemingly multiple private parties, there are actions for injunctive relief and damages where it needs to be put in the hands of a Judge as to whether or not there should be any further work or interpretation of the liability of the developer to all the claims made by homeowners in close proximity. He said in this way, everybody involved has the opportunity to present their evidence and testimony. He stressed. that the Committee is not in any position to act upon this case until they fully understand the potential and the position of the City to be sued and for what amounts, because this is a multi -million dollar project. Mr. Steinman informed the Committee that one of the main reasons they wish to involve the City is because of their position as homeowners versus the position that their homeowner's insurance agency has taken in this situation. He stated that they currently possess top-notch insurance from Allstate which basically covers literally everything they have to offer, however, Allstate does not cover this situation. He noted that they have an exclusion for earth movement that is broad; it does not matter if it is natural such as an earthquake or man-made such as resulting from close proximity development. He confirmed that his insurance has informed him that their home is not covered with this claim, which he further contested through the Illinois Department of Insurance, who verified that the coverage for this situation is not claimable with their insurance policy holder and they are within their rights to deny any claim. Mr. Steinman stressed that their coming before the Council/Committee for assistance is their last stand on behalf of their position because their insurance is not going to back them on this situation. Aid. Bernstein supported Mr. Steinman's comments regarding this issue and stressed the point that being this two private parties, no one in the City can do anything without the expressed consent in writing from the City of Evanston. He feels that the City has certain obligations to be certain that what they allow will not be detrimental to any surrounding properties involved or if in fact it is, then there should be some redress. He noted that it is important to point out that such claims from property owners in close proximity to major developments has not arisen because the City has been stagnant for so long versus the recent boom in development City-wide. His point is that it is now happening and needs to be addressed by City officials. Mr. Steinman added that not only will his current insurance policy holder not accept any claims of such nature, moreover no other insurance company will take on their property due to the situation. Aid. Kent commented that he feels it has been hit right on the head when you look at discussion from previous meetings and the consideration of the Committee in looking at putting something in place as far as some type of preventive measures. He noted that it probably wouldn't help here in this case but in the developments to come to be able to address this. He strongly feels this is very important and does not want to loose site of this fact. In addition, if someone comes into the City or working on a City project, they usually have to inform us different ways that they are going to go about demolition procedures, especially when heavy equipment is involved. Ald. Kent used the sewer project as an example, where the contractor had to present several different ways in order to place the sewer project into the street based on the specific neighborhood, the usage of the street and how to best install this major apparatus without causing extreme impact on P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of3/I2/01 Page 6 the surrounding structures that could possibly be involved. He mentioned this because there are certain areas of Evanston where there are large sandy -based areas where the contractor for the sewer project had to take more precautions and he does not see why in the case of private development the same measures should not be taken into consideration. He asked staff if this same consideration is given for private development. Ms. Smith responded that when the Building Division issues permits they do not specifically dictate the means and methods of construction. She stated that if they start to dictate the means and methods of construction, then this would cause liability on the part of the City. She noted that they do discuss what is customary, in terms of demolition, however they do not dictate what methods are chosen. In the case of the sewer project. She said that the City is the owner and in terms of how they proceed is strictly up to the City's judgement and accountability. Ms. Elias strongly expressed her objection to the statements expressed by members of the Committee and staffs position on this matter. She also strongly expressed her feelings of the City's responsibility in this matter and how she feels they should step in on behalf of a citizens complaint and proven claim against a developer that they have shown proof has undoubtedly resulted in unquestionable damage to their property. She asked staff if any environmental impact report was required of the developer when he applied for demolition permit. Ms. Smith responded that such a report is not required to be submitted to City staff when applying for initial demolition permit. Ms. Elias questioned why such an important report is not required when it could strongly impact on surrounding properties, especially in light of the historical age any properties that might be in question. She stressed that if the City does not require extensive study of the surrounding area before consideration of granting any permits to large developments that could definitely effect the entire area encompassing, then there is definite question that something is wrong in our governments process on how they approve any development within the City versus their basic consideration for common homeowners. M:i. Elias stated that after this being their third meeting they have attended, they were under the impression that a full legal opinion would be given at this meeting and it appears that City staff has not presented any documentation to support this effort. Aid. Newman reiterated his previous comments that the staff memorandum presented to the Committee does not address any firm or established legal position on behalf of the City. He further noted that although he is thoroughly sympathetic to the situation, at the same time, this decision has policy implications for every single development done and what the City's role is going to be and what the liability is going to be, is still in question. He further reiterated his opinion that the Committee can not make any decision or inference until a full legal analysis is done. Mr. Hill responded and informed the Committee that in his brief review of the resolution document he received this evening, it is his interpretation that this is a license agreement which the City gave to the developer, the developer in turn gave indemnified, and held the City harmless with respect to the usage of our public right-of-way. This standard language, with respect to with what the City does, protects the City should there be exposure based upon actions occurring in the right-of-way. He stated, that as a general matter, in these construction projects, the developer is required to have insurance, both by his bonding company, his lender and as well as the City. Therefore, there is a private recourse of action, separate and distinct from any one private - P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3112/01 Page 7 insurance company, whatever else, with respects to this. Mr. Hill recognized that this may not be the best solution. but it is one solid thing out there where there is insurance in place and should the causation factor be established and be proved, it serves as solid grounds for a case. Mr. Hill stated that, with respect to the Building Division and whether the work should continue, he feels that Mr. Wolinski as Director and Chief Building Commander, is final authority with respect to any decision as to whether any work should continue or be stopped in case of extreme emergency or proven imminent danger. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee members. Ms. Elias expressed her extreme disappointment with the apparent lack of interest and concern by City staff and the Committee member for their plight in this matter. She strongly stipulated and requested that the Committee consider their predicament and act upon it in support of their position in order to aid them in any assistance against their claim against this developer, especially due to the economical factors involved. Mr. Hill suggested that legal staff have the opportunity to fully review this matter and analyze the City's position and then respond back to the Committee for further stipulation. The Committee was in full agreement to this suggestion. Ms. Elias aggressively expressed her disappointment to not receiving any firm legal opinion or decision on behalf of the Committee at this point and requested that if any legal opinion is to be obtained at this time, she definitely would like to receive some type of affirmative response from the City by the next meeting. • Aid. Newman commented that from experiencing this situation and his willingness to do any further business with this developer in the future has diminished tremendously. He feels that it is important to have the developer present at the next meeting when the Committee addresses this issue. However, he stated to the complainants to not interpret this and the Committee's undoubted sympathy in their plight, that they are going to get relief from the City and don't interpret this situation that there is a need for private legal representation to file lawsuit to protect their property rights immediately. He further stated that if they choose not to do this, and they get involved in this very slow process, then they consequently do this at their own risk. He stressed that it certainly does not mean that the Committee members do not feel for their situation, however he feels it is important to state the realization that they, as homeowners, must face. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue, Evanston Athletic Club Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. James Murray, attorney and representative for the Evanston Athletic Club. Mr. Murray informed the Committee that he has meet with City staff on this matter and there was a proposal and resolution of the parking issues in a fashion in which the City proposed was not acceptable and caused substantial re -thinking of the position as far as EAC is involved. He confirmed that it would take his client some time to respond to the counter -proposal that the City has presented and he requested that this matter be tabled or moved to an item for future consideration with P&D. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of VIVO1 Page a The Committee was in agreement: Ald. Engelman moved to table this item in Committee, seconded by Ald. Newman. The rote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (Pl) Ordinance 24-0-01 - Amendment to Zoning, Ordinance (Public Educational Institution} Chairman Wynne opened deliberations on this matter with recognition of Mr. Sidney Zwick, and then noted that she would honor the sign-up list to speak on this matter in the order in which it was sighed. Mr. Sidney Zwick opened comment by presenting a videotape to the Committee. He stated that what he wished to accomplish here this evening before the Committee is to represent three points; the first is to show that there is a viable alternative site to put up an early childhood center without the administrative component on the grounds of Lincolnwood School in north Evanston between Grant and Colfax Streets on McDaniels. The second point he wishes to stress is that the statistics that were given previously by Ms. Israel of the racial breakdown of the membership in these programs, do not fit the facts. The third point he wishes to bring to attention is his opinion a very distinct appearance of residual racism, which he brings up in light of his position of being a resident for over 60 years. Mr. Zwick narrated his videotape in concurrence with the three points he mentioned above. He pointed out from his video showing Lincolnwood School and its apparent land ability to provide for the proposed early childhood center without the administrative offices, despite what Ms. Erikson testified at the previous meeting. He stressed the fact that the available land at the Lincolnwood School site is adequate to provide for such a facility minus the administrative offices proposed. Mr. Zwick questioned why this available land on District #65 property was not considered versus the proposed site where it totally inconveniences the surrounding neighbors and adds to the congestion of the King Lab vicinity. He further portrayed in his video of showing the current class occupation where there are few Caucasian children involved in the programs stated for movement to the new location. Mr. Zwick stressed that when he took these pictures it was not his intent to the amount of Caucasians versus minorities, but actually to show the crowded conditions that this program presently operates. He - commended the programs efforts in dealing with their current situation for some time, however in light of what he is trying to demonstrate this evening is the fact that it appears that District #65 wants to locate this new building and services in a predominately black neighborhood because of the majority clientele of the enrollment in the program. He said that it appear that approximately 90%. instead of 65% as claimed by Ms. Israel, is minority. Mr. Zwick continued on to narrate his video showing that the current location in existence at Haven Middle School is inappropriate for the early childhood age children that are locate there. He continued on to narrate and attest that the reasons for District 965 to choose the proposed location adjacent to King Lab is in part discriminatory with no consideration for the negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood due to the racial status versus any real consideration given to locating the early childhood center at Lincolnwood School and their "Lilly -white" surrounding. Ms. Sue Carlson, stated that she represents the Evanston Interreligious Sustainability Circle and is a member of the Transportation Committee of this organization and she also P&D Committee SR& Minutes of 3 / 12.01 Page 9 a resident on Seward Street. She read from a prepared document ("Attachment A-). In addition to her written statement, she made several suggestions to alternative Iocations that could be considered versus the proposed location. Included in one of her suggestions was to locate the administrative offices downtown above the renovated CTA terminal or to have the City work with Northwestern University to donate some of their land to the school district which would go a long way towards easing town versus university hostilities. She requested that the alderman have the welfare in mind of the surrounding residents as they make their decisions and in their discussion making process, she also requested that the Committee/Council consider the impact of destroying a large area of green space and park land to build an administrative building. Ms. Carlson stated that though its price in dollars may be small, which she feels is one of the reasons why this location has been chosen, she pointed out that the canal property open space has value to the quality of life in Evanston that is beyond cost and can not be replaced. Ms. Mary Erickson, District #65 Board Member, responded to Mr. Zwick's earlier comments. She strongly objected to Mr. Zwick's comments on behalf of the Board and stated that she was personally outraged by the motives he suggested on discriminatory reasons on locating the center at the King Lab site. She stressed that his accusations are false and was never any intention by the School district. She presented aerial maps to the Committee superimposing what the building would Iook like on the Lincolnwood property. She requested that Mr. Doron explain the details of the site comparisons. Mr. Doran explained the 3 aerial maps with templates over them of the scale of the proposed new center and administrative building. He noted that the I" map shows the current property site that they are suggesting. The 2rd map shows the Ridge Avenue administrative building site demonstrating with the scale of the building, that the property is clearly too small. The Yd map shows the Lincolnwood School site, not withstanding the fact that there is a number of open space opportunities existing around the site, the scale clearly demonstrates how the proposed building would entirely fill up all the open space surrounding the school with parking lot included. Aid. Newman asked, with regards to the Lincolnwood site, if any consideration was given to reconfiguring the proposed building plan to possibly fit on this location. Nir. Doron responded that they did use the exact template of the proposed building for the McDaniel Avenue site, however any possible reconfiguring would be very expensive for that site and sub -ground parking would also be extremely expensive. Mr. Bob Best, Attorney for School District =65, reminded the Committee that at the conclusion of their last meeting, there were a number of issues that Aid. Drummer raised, as well as other members of Committee and the public. He brought attention to the information for%hmrded to the Committee where they have responded in writing to those issues raised and also accompanying their memorandum is a Site Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Mr. Doron. He mentioned that they met with City staff last Wednesday to address every possible alternative in dealing with the traffic, including through the neighborhood, surrounding the site and routing and staging of the buses. He responded to previous comments made by Mr. Zwick and Ms. Carlson. He noted that the Lincolnwood School site is not zoned for the proposed use and also lacks the appropriate area needed to support such a building; the proposed building even if reconfigured for the P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3 / 12 01 Page 10 lot would result in paving over I00% of the entire lot. In comparison, the location chosen is zoned for a .15 FAR, which they have stayed underneath. He noted that this is an open space and they are observing the open space regulations. He said the only issue is whether the public educational institution will include administrative offices. Mr. Best addressed Ms. Carlson's comments, frrst noting that there is a community mandate to combine these two facilities into one building not only because it is more cost effective for the tax payers of this community but also because the District has determined that it is important to combine educators and staff and the two facilities to work together. He said, finally, in terms of traffic and access, this facility would be totally inappropriate for any downtown location, despite the tremendous cost it would take to build anything close to being accommodating. He said it addition, it's important to add an early childhood center in a setting that is appropriate; an educational setting and that is why they feel this chosen site is so important and so vital for this purpose. Mr. Best reiterated that the property is zoned for the educational purposes, the only question is with regards to the administrative offices. He said it has been made clear that the District intends to put the facility in this location and feel it is an ideal site for the proposed use. He noted that unfortunately Evanston is a mature community and there is not a lot of open space available anymore. Ms. Joyce Lopez, Evanston resident, objects to the vast merging of so many children from early childhood through junior high age. She noted that there are some advantages to integrating administrative with educational, however caution needs to be taken into consideration for the safety and well -bring of where we locate early childhood development and hour many combinations of educational programs are put together under one roof. She informed the Committee that she has worked in the school system for many years and volunteers for District 465 and cares very much for the education and welfare of all children, especially the very young. Ms. Sally Rutherford, stated that much education and sound thinking went into the design of the proposed building, however the purpose they are before the Committee now is to discuss adding the administrative offices together with the educational facility. She feels this is not a difficult transition to consider and it is important to know that they need their administrators to do their jobs and the support staff to do theirs also. She noted that the building will be a wonderful addition for the school district. She said as a taxpayer and citizen she supports this and as a teacher. she supports this also. Mr. Ben Jackson, 2417 Lake Street, noted that since it seems to be a done deal and the total intention of the District to locate this building in their neighborhood. He stressed the importance for pedestrian safety, which has always been an issue in that area that has never been addressed. He requested that the District take care of the matter of adding sidewalks before they even begin to start any construction on the new building. Representatives of the School District assured Mr. Jackson that this matter will be taken care of and is part of the proposed development. Mr. Jackson recalled that discussion of the sidewalks occurred over 10 years ago and no action or further discussion ever ensued. Dr. Myra Israel responded to previous comments made. She said that the ideas that went into putting this building together were about seamless services for their parents and their �J • E P&D Committee %1tg. Minutes of 3/12/01 Page 1 l children. So that in this building. as the children are being educated in early childhood, the parenting programs that went right along with this, were all together at the point of contact. In addition, the other reasons that administration was put in this building was the whole idea of engaging parents in the educational process quickly when their children are young. She said that the research has told them that if you work with the parents at the same time you get the children when they are young, you result in having invested parents as well as children. She reiterated that the combination of services was about seamless services together without hassle. Dr. Israel requested that the Committee look at the housing reports which they filled out by the Federal Government regulations, that she actually completed herself by real head counts of all of the children that will be coming that building. These children are currently located at Dawes, Oakton, as well as at Haven. Ald. Drummer chose to hold his comments over until the next meeting due to the late hour and extended time that this meeting has already gone. Chairman Wynne assured Aid. Drummer that they would give him adequate time to make all of his continents at the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to extend the rules and vote on this matter this evening and refer it back for further discussion. Md. Engelman moved to introduce Ordinance 24-041 and refer back to Committee for further discussion. Md. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Smith reminded the Committee that Ordinance 3-0-01 regarding the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for Parking 1000-foot maximum between parking and principal use, will be forwarded for an item for discussion on their next agenda Chairman Wynne announced the possibility of the next meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquel a E. Plrownlee ! - .MINUTES Planning & Development Committee March 26, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent. %1. Wynne Alderman Absent: A. Newman Staff Present: J. Woliaski, A. Alterson, M. Franz. M. Mylott, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson. A. Deinner Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 12.2001 MEETING Aid. Kent moved approval of the minutes of March 12th, seconded by .kid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Ordinance 34-0-01 — Special Use for 1900 Dempster Street Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Jim Sutphen, representative for Evanston Plaza She asked him for a brief summarization of the proposal. Mr. Sutphen explained that they plan to tear down the existing Kids-R-Us and Pizza Hut buildings at the Southwest corner of Dempster and Dodge. They proposed to replace this area with one building up to 23,000 square feet, which is basically the same size as the combined existing buildings and the also plan the addition of two drive-thru's both not visible from Dodge Avenue. The intent to put in two type 2 restaurants at this location because that appears to be the demand for that area. He said that their plans are to begin this work approximately at the beginning of June and are in the process of completing the drawings. Mr. Sutphen noted that they have met with Zoning and held a neighbodwod meeting and from those meetings they have talked about some things that they would be willing to do such as a litter plan and things of that nature. He also noted that there are no apparent objections at this time. Aid. Kent asked for clarification of ingress and egress for this building. Mr. Sutphen explained that cars would come in off of Dempster where there is currently a opening, he P&D Minutes of March 26.2001 Page 2 noted that there will be no new curb cuts for this project. He demonstrated from the • diagram how the cars would enter the plaza and the path they would take to go through the drive-thru, where cars would stack if necessary. and how they would proceed to exit out. In response to a question. Mr. Sutphen showed where cars ~could stack for both drive-thru's and further noted that one of the merchants that are interested in this site will use the drive-thru for pick-up only and there will be no ordering from the window. Ald. Bernstein asked what restaurants have expressed interest in this site. Mr. Sutphen responded that they have talked to several businesses, but have not signed anyone on yet. He said that they can not begin construction until they have two signed merchants for the facility so that they will have an ideal of the layout for the building. In response to questions, he noted that the building will be set back approximately 120 feet from Dempster and the north end of the building will begin roughly around the middle of the existing Kids-R-Us building. He also noted that the current landscaping and green strip along Dodge will remain, however, there will be added foliage and greenery on the Dempster side. The Committee raised questions on parking spaces. Mr. Sutphen responded that they have picked up 2 additional parking spaces than what is currently there now. Discussion took place on where the parking spaces will be located and the proposed entrances into each facr,ity. Chairman Wynne asked if there will be any improvement to the entrance from Dodge, which currently has a very sharp turn to pull into. Mr. Sutphen responded that they are planning to round off the curb to ease the turn at that location coming from the north. Ald. Bernstein feels that historically, who ever chose the current design to put that wall up on the corner building that houses Kids-R-Us, did the entire center a dis-service because it precludes people from looking in to see what stores the center has to offer. He supports this proposed design for that locution. The Committee agreed with Ald. Bernstein, however they still raised questions on the ingress and egress for the drive-thru facilities and the possibility of a substantial amount of car stacking that could occur. Chairman Wynne also is concerned for the entering from Dempster Street on the north and the flow in and out of the facility as currently proposed and how this could disturb the flow of traffic into the center. Ald. Bernstein also expressed his concem for problems with stacking of cars flowing over onto the drives in the shopping center. Mr. Sutphen explained in detail the flow of traffic in and out of the location and explained the direction of the cars for the drive-in. He said that proper signage would be put up to divert cars from entering the drive-thru from the west entrance opening and to keep cars flowing in the right direction. Ald. Bernstcin asked what types of establishments they are seeking for this location. Mr. Sutphen responded that they are not looking at fast food users because that is not what they typically cater to as a company. He said, however, that one of the restaurants they have spoken with is Denato's Pizza, which is owned by McDonald's but is operated in a more sit down pizza parlor atmosphere. He noted that this is the restaurant that wants to use their drive-thru as a pick-up window only. This type of usage with the drive-thru will eliminate any stacking of cars. Ald. Engelman reminded that if the Committee grants this, it should be granted based upon the use not upon the user. However, he realizes that it is difficult to envision what is going to go on there without knowing what type of use P&D Minutes of March 26.2001 Page 3 • will be there. Ald. Bernstein feels that the Committee can make their decision based on the expected user for the facility based upon the standards because there are certain criteria that they have to evaluate in order to decide whether this is the best use for the particular site. He noted that he really has no problem with %that restaurant goes in there except for that they are successful and it assists in making the center work. He notes his concern for the %%pe of usage for this site as far as the stacking of cars, when looking at what currently happens with the Burger King across the street where they have up to 8 cars stacking at one time. Mr. Sutphen responded that in the retail market as it is today, most retailers require that they are able to enter the market quickly and not have to go through a long process and delay in obtaining a space because they will go look at another location. He said that they find it to their advantage to already have the facilities set up in place so that they can react quickly to a retailer's request. Mr. Mylott stated that he thinks the applicants current island configuration gives them a maximum flexibility to test out different ways to collaborate with the users needs. He demonstrated different configurations for example. Aid. Bernstein said that he is satisfied with staffs judgment. With no further discussion or questions, Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 344341, special use for 1900 Dempster Street. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Mr. Sutphen informed the Committee that they are planning a June I' date to begin demolition. (P2) Ordinance 24-0-01 — Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Public Educational Institution) Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Bob Best, Attorney for District 465. He indicated that he and other representatives for the District are present for questioning. However, he did distribute to the Committee a copy of a letter of approval from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, for the record. Chairmani Wynne moved on to the sign-up list in the order it was signed. The Committee requested Aid. Drummer's presence, however he was not in attendance. Ms. Gladvs Brver, Chairman of the Evanston Environment Board, read from a written presentation which states the Board's position on this issue. (See Attachment "A") Their statement clearly states the Envirorunent Board feels that important environmental issues have not been given adequate consideration and their position is that the District's proposal should not be approved until those matters have been fully resolved. Mr. Svdnev Zwick. read from a written statement he prepared. His statement reiterated his comments and position as stated at the previous meetings regarding this matter. Ms. Sue Carlson, representative for the Evanston Interreligious Sustainability Circle, read from a written statement on behalf of her organization. (See Attachment "B") Their statement reflects their feelings that it is a planning mistake to put together at one location an early childhood center and a district administrative facility. She also clarified comments that were made by her at the last meeting that she felt was misunderstood. P&D Minutes of March 26.2001 Page 4 Ms. Bettv Ester, 2100 Lake Street, begged the Committee to reconsider approval of this • facility location because of the added negative impact on the immediate neighborhood that is already suffering from the current congestion problems that exist. She also asked that Committee not approve this because they are trying to hold on to a neighborhood and keep people stable. She pointed out that if you look at the homeo,.%rers on McDaniel's, most of those homes belong to senior citizens. She said that they are loosing too many of their senior citizen neighbors because of taxes and she should not like to see start loosing them due to the lack of air quality and traffic that they would have to face because of this proposed project. Ms. Jovice Lopez. said that she lives in Southeast Evanston. She mentioned that she did speak at the last meeting and reiterated her objections to this project because she feels it is an over-massification of little children in one place. She also commented on the mandate for a combined structure for these two functions, and therefore , she went to the District to ask for clarification of what she had voted on. She distributed a copy of the referendum to reveal the exact wording that is totally ambiguous and completely unclear to the typical voter. Ms. Soledad Renteria, stated that she is a member of the Latino Parents Community. She noted that the only thing really bothers her in what she has heard so far is that everyone seems to be focusing on the traffic, air quality and open space. However, she feels the real issue and important factor is the "kids", who are our future and we, as adults, should put them first and not ourselves. She said that children and education should be first, not our personal gain or what we have to sacrifice personally as adults. She said that in the area where she lives there are many children, school buses and congestion during school hours and no matter where there is any new construction or development, someone will be effected by it. Her point being, that everyone has kids and we all have to tolerate whatever it takes, especially when it promotes the education of children. She said that if all residents could have their way by not allowing any new development in their area, they would have no progress at all. She stressed that every where you go there will be traffic, noise and other problems and they all have to deal with it, however everyone has to deal with it and live everyday. Ms. Renteria reiterated that the focus here should be on the children. Mr. Lionel Jean -Baptiste, stated that his comments is more a procedural issue. He said that it is his understanding that this discussion has been going on for some time and pointed out that a significant voice in this debate is Ald. Drummer. He informed the Committee that Aid. Drummer is not available tonight due to unforeseen personal matters and he ask the Committee that they table any decision to wait for his attendance. He understands that Ald. Drummer had some amendments to present if this proposal is to go forward, where he has raised many significant issues in terms of impact on the community and how they may be able to avoid major detriments. Therefore, he ask that the Committee take this into consideration. He understands that it is the protocol of the Council to take into consideration the absence of a fellow alderman whose ward is being effected any proposals or development. 0 P&D Minutes of March 26.2001 Page 5 Chairman Wynne agreed and acknowledged that fact. She informed all in attendance that the Committee has just learned that Aid. Drummer will not be attending the Council meeting this evening and noted that it is their policy that when there is an alderman where major activity is taking place. they defer and do not take action when that alderman can not be present. However, she does believe that because there are so many in attendance here on this matter that have taken the time to be here, should be heard for continents because this issue has gone for several meetings. She said that obviously the Committee is going to have to discuss their position on how to go forward at this point without Aid. Drummer's input. She did acknowledge that at the last meeting. Ald. Drummer graciously deferred making his presentation until this meeting due to time constraints, however unfortunately he was unable to attend. Mr. .lean -Baptiste agreed with continuing to hear from those in attendance requesting to comment on this matter and appreciates the Committee's consideration on deferring any final decision until Ald. Dr unmer's input can be included. Mr. Walter Carlson, said that he will not speak to the Council's procedural rules, he would only highlight for the Committee that the referendum which relates to this, passed in March of last year. He noted that the school board has explored diligently over the past year and refined its' plans to address neighborhood concerns to come up with a construction schedule. He said that if there is a way the Committee can see fit in an appropriate circumstance to review their procedural rules, this would be much appreciated. He said that he has a great deal of respect for Aid. Drummer and means no disrespect to his position, however this is project whose time has come for many reasons. Mr. Carlson responded to Mr. Zwick's comments, noting that he had an opportunity to write three separate letters, which were widely publicized before the referendum was voted on. He said that none of Mr. Zwick's points were new and his issues have been clearly heard. He said with respect to environmental issues at the proposed site, he has not had an opportunity to hear Ms. Bryer's speak before, however he would suggest to her point on putting a halt on every business that wants to put in a 75 car parking lot because it creates an environmental concern that they have to pause over, they would never get anything done. He noted that much time and thought expertise was given on this plan, including looking into matters that would effect the surrounding environment. Mr. Carlson presented to the Committee a copy of the flyer that was mailed out before last March to advise the community of what exactly the referendum was about. He read from the flyer a section which stated: "A yes vote will fund a new early childhood center which is planned to be built on existing District #65 property adjacent to King Lab School. The new center, designed specifically for early childhood education, will provide a more appropriate setting, a moderate playground, and meeting rooms for parent conferences and workshops." He continued that further on it talks about a facility in a portion of the building which will be for administrative offices. He pointed out where it states that a "yes" vote will move the administrative staff and the District's teacher resource center to the second floor of the new early childhood center; a move that will be much less costly than renovating the old structure or building a new administrative building by itself. Mr. Carlson concluded that the point, with respect to this referendum 0 was clearly made, both in the literature that they put out, in the Evanston RoundTable P&D Minutes of March 26. 3001 Page 6 article of 311 /00 and the Evanston Review article of'_ 10100. He stated that there was no . doubt with what this referendum was about. He clarified issues with regards to comments on the Board spending money inappropriately for administrators, stating that he has been a member of the Board for over 7 years and the first thing they did as new Board members in 1993, was to look at the condition of the District's buildings and they decided to raise and sell $35,000,000 worth of bonds. He said that they put that they specifically put that money to the 16 educational buildings first. However, the situation with respect to the administration building was clear that it is something that is long overdue for the community to deal with. In addition. since 1993, the District has had growth in their student population and as a result of this, put their early childhood facilities into a number of buildings around the District v►fiich are not suited for them. He stressed that creating this joint facility would be a wonderful solution to give them the ability to proN ide excellent early childhood programs and to solve a long-standing issue with respect to the administration building. Mr. Carlson acknowledged that the concerns of the neighborhood community are legitimate concerns and no one from the District is here to try and trash the community and neighboring area or do something to unjustly cause a negative impact. He stressed that the Building Committee of the Board has spent a great deal of time on this project and one of the reasons the cost of this building has increased is because they have designed additional features to deal with the impact on the community including taking traffic off the street, taking buses off the street and trying to make this facility have a positive impact on the area. He submits that the vote that did occur a year ago, was a mandate for this facility and did pass in every precinct for every ward and it is time for this project to be allowed to go forward. Chairman Wynne asked what the distribution effort was for this pamphlet. Mr. Carlson introduced Mr. Marshall Rosenthal who can better answer this question. Mr. Marshall Rosenthal, Communications Director for District #65, responded to Chairman Wynne's question on distribution of the pamphlet. He noted that the pamphlet was mailed to every household in District #65 in Evanston and appropriate households in Skokie. The Committer requested copies be made of this pamphlet for Council as well as the other articles mentioned by Mr. Carlson. Mr. Don Tarkinaton, stated that he is a former District #65 School Board member and was the Chairman of the Finance Committee at the time that this project was under deliberations, therefore making recognition of his background and history in the input of this project. He addressed the issue of whether or not the referendum was a voice of support for this plan being put forward. He said first of all, that they spent a great deal of time educating the community on this issue, noting that they went to every school, Chamber of Commerce meetings, held meetings at the Evanston Library and went to several neighborhood groups. He said that in those meetings they addressed in length explanatory discussion on what the referendum was about and talked specifically about the fact that this was a District office administrative building and a new facility for early P&D Minutes of March 26. 2001 Page 7 childhood education in combination and specifically where this building was proposed to be located. fir. Tarkington recalled all the continents he has heard about people stating that it was unclear where this building would be located and he feels this matter was clearly defined and that the literature that was forwarded to the community was very specific about everything. He also went back and looked at the results of the voting, which confirms the majority opinion on this referendum passing with a 3-1 margin in the City as a whole and passed as a 3-1 margin in every single Ward, including the 2nd Ward. Mr. Carl Bova, said that he is a representative of the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO). He informed the Committee that they have approximately 2000 children who play from the Evanston and Skokie school district. He read from a prepared letter on behalf of the position of the AYSO. The letter expressed their deep concerns regarding the plans for the new early childhood education and administrative building being located on the proposed site and how it will result in the 2 blocks of open area and space that they currently use for soccer activities. He stressed that this will be a great loss in open space. He recalled Mr. Carlson's comment on this plan taking the problem off the streets with regards to parking and bus and passenger car traffic by replacing there on to the current open space. He said the existing park plan at this location now serves the recreational needs of our community, for example, over 100 children participate in soccer activities on this site every Sunday afternoon. He said the original plans for early childhood and administrative building that was circulated last year prior to the referendum, envisioned about half the site being developed. He noted that responses from District 965 personnel to their own inquiries at that time, lead them to believe that the existing soccer field would be maintained or restored after construction. He said that they now find out that the vast majority of the open space at this site, will not be preserved. Mr. Bova stated that the Ioss of that green space goes against what they were told and contradicts the sense of project that was submitted to the voters last April and is inconsistent with the zoning of that tract of land as open space. He stressed that the members of the AYSO feel strongly that the current plan, especially in light of the open space constraints within Evanston, does not best meet the needs of the Evanston community as a whole. While he does not deny the need for a new early childhood facility or administrative offices in Evanston, he does suspect that other alternatives could have seriously been considered. He said that it should be feasible and more economical to reduce the footprint of this development without effecting its functionality if the building must be built on this site, possibly resulting in preserving some of the valuable open space that this site currently offers. Ms. Saliv Rutherford, stated that she has been to many meetings on this issue and she finds it interesting all the added concerns and perceived problems that have been drawn into this particular discussion on making a decision on the District's proposal. She stressed that they are still trying to focus on the real issue of simply is this appropriate educational use under the definition as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. She feels that open space in this particular ordinance is a mis-guidance because it allows things to be built on the land and some of the things it allows are buildings for educational purposes. She distinguished that all the District is asking to do in this application is to build a P&D Minutes of March 26.2001 Page 8 building that is seriously needed by this school district for the very young children wfio • are in need of proper facilities to accommodate the programs that are offered in a more suitable environment. These facilities are currently scattered all around Evanston and the families will do better if they have one central location to work with. 1n addition, the administrative needs of the District are in a situation of more adequate space and need to be in close proximity of the services provided. She stated that it feels very uncomfortable for people to make such vale accusations to the committee of citizens who have volunteered their time to try and envision this plan for their school district, which is needed. She reiterated the comments made earlier by her fellow Board members on the issue of the widespread informational pamphlet regarding the referendum and the clarification of where the proposed location of the building would be. Ms. Rutherford concluded by requesting that the Committee stick to the real issue of what is being requested here by the District and what is under consideration. Chairman Wynne concluded comments from the citizen comment sheet at this time and directed all discussion amongst the Committee members at this time. Ald. Engelman raised questions to Ms. Bryer regarding the Environment Boards involvement on this particular issue and also asked when the Board last met for discussion on this matter. Ms. Bryer responded that the Board last addressed this issue in February, which is what she represented in her prepared statement. However, she informed the Committee that she was not on the Board at the time of any previous discussions and can not comment on their position before her inclusion. She stated that she does stand strong on what she represented from the Board from their discussion in February and it is the most recent position that the Board takes. Md. Engelman asked if they had expert testimony present at the meeting in February with regards to their opinions on the environmental issues as stated, in other words, what was the basis for their position. Ms. Bryer explained that the basis of their conclusions where derives from the minutes of the application to the Zoning Board and other testimony they reviewed. She said that the Board had access to the application file and they came to a consensus that there was a concern that the issues had not been treated. She noted that it is one thing to talk about traffic and another thing to talk about pollution in a area caused by traffic. She also noted that green space was a concern expressed by all Board members. She informed the Committee that the Board authorized her to write the letter after the last meeting, stating the general position and concerns that the Board as a whole feels needs to be addressed. Ald. Engelman asked has the Environment Board ever looked at any of the other large traffic and congestion generators in the City such as Evanston Hospital, etc. Ms. Bryer was pleased to say that since she has been on the Board and now Chairs, they have done some serious planning and the Board is going to be looking at a number of very serious issues in the City with regards to air pollution, traffic and parking. She noted that in the past there was not often an agenda that took on such sL-eable issues but at this point, they have done some strategic planning and are working towards and intend to report to the Council their new goals as a Board. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Best for a brief review of some of the traffic issues that were raised at the last meeting, specifically with regards to the buses and where they will be P&D Minutes of Marrh 26. 2001 Page 4 stacking. Aid. Bernstein also asked if someone from the District could address some of the environmental concerns raised. Before responding to the questions asked, Mr. Best informed the Committee that he would like to deal with the procedural issue with regards to holding this matter over in order to have Aid. Drummer present, because he will be out of town for the next scheduled meeting on April I0"'. Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Best request and agreed that the traffic issue, as well as the environmental issues should be addressed when Aid. Drummer can be present, therefore the Committee should address the procedural issue. She clarified that Council does not actually have a procedural rule that prohibits them from addressing an issue in which an alderman has a particular interest or issue; it is a matter of aldermanic courtesy. However, it has been the historical policy that when there is an issue in which an alderman has very strong views, that the Council will defer making a final decision until that alderman can comment or be present for the final determination. Aid. Bernstein stated that Aid. Drummer stood up actually before this became an issue and during the Call of the Wards he gave his strong opposition to this location for the early childhood center. He noted that it is unusual for Aid. Drummer to be absent for any meeting, especially when he was aware that this issue was on the agenda; he questioned if anyone was aware of why he was absent. Mr. Jean - Baptiste informed the Committee that he had spoken with Ald. Drummer earlier in the day to inquire with him on his position with this issue. At that time, he indicated that he had some urgent emergency matters to attend to and would not be able to attend Council at all this evening. Ald. Engelman stated that he is prepared to go forward, however he does recognize the strong feelings that AId. Drummer has about this issue. Yet, his • concern is that this has been going on in the community for over a year, the School Board has also been dealing with this for over a year and there are construction issues that need to be addressed quickly. Also, Mr. Best has indicated that he will not be able to attend the next scheduled meeting, as well as himself. Chairman Wynne noted that she would also be absent for that meeting. She also indicated that she too was in a position to go forward with this issue at this time, but strongly feels that to not hear from Aid. Drummer in this issue, would make the debate not complete. Unfortunately, she feels that it would not be fair to Ald. Drummer to move forward, even though the Committee is prepared to do so. The rest of the Committee agreed and discussion ensued regarding a date that a special meeting could be set to address this matter. Aid. Bernstein stated that he is prepared to go forward as well, however the issue that Aid. Drummer indicated was his primary concern was open space and the lack thereof. He recalled that it has been pointed out that he Council "blew it" when they allowed for construction in an 01 zone because the City does not truly have any open space legislation. He strongly supports holding this matter for Aid. Drummer's input. The Committee came to a conclusion to set the special meeting date for Wednesday, April 04, 2001. Aid. Engelman asked what impact will any delay have on this project at this time. Mr. Jack responded that it depends on the risk they are willing to take if they continue the design process in anticipation of a favorable outcome, is one scenario but is presumptuous. He noted that if they are delayed, they would holdup the start of the project per day from their anticipated starting date. He informed the Committee that they were anticipating issuing the documents for construction on June 15`h to begin actual construction in July to get the District in this building by the fall of 2002. He also noted P&D Minutes of March 26, 2001 Page 10 that they need to go hack before the SPAARC Committee. therefore, they are limited in time before the application for permits needs to be submitted. Nis. Erickson added that they also need to keep in mind the impact that it will cause if they miss their targeted beginning date by a few days to several weeks. She noted that this would cause certain construction stages to be delayed an end up going into the school year and will create an incredibly difficult logistical position for the District. After further discussion, Aid. Engelman moved approval to hold this item to Committee to be continued for discussion at a special meeting with a pending date of either April 4 or 5, 2001 to be decided by Council. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion, with Aid. Kent abstaining from vote. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDD Reference nr000sine a 6-month moratorium on new construction on Main Street from Shernnan Avenue east to Hinman Avenue, and the B3 District on Chicaeo Avenue north and south of Main Street Chairman Wynne attributed this reference as Aid. Bernstein's. She acknowledged the citizen sign up sheet in the order it was signed. Ms. Debbie Hillman, said she represents the Nichols Neighbors Group. She read from a written statement on behalf of her group who are in support of the moratorium. She commended the Plan Commission on their recognition and understanding that full build out under 1993 zoning designations along Chicago Avenue and Main Street, would be inappropriate to surrounding residential neighborhoods and would be countered to the Commission's own Comprehensive General Plan. Ms. Beth Steffen, stated that she is representing Southeast Evanston Association. She said that her organization is definitely in support of the moratorium. She pointed out that the main concern and issue here, is the height limitation. She requested that the Committee consider this in the moratorium so that when they move on to other issues with zoning, they can use this as a basis. Ms. Pennv Miller, stated that she is representing the Dempster Street Neighbors East. She said that her group joins the two previous in support of this moratorium. She feels - that after the process that started 2 '/2 years ago that developers were able to get in to the "pipe -line" and since then, they would hate for it to not go through for the rest of the project. Chairman Wynne asked the Committee if they would like at this point to direct staff to prepare an ordinance. Aid. Engelman first asked Mr. Wolinski if he was aware of any planned development in this area in the near future. Mr. Wolinski responded that on Main Street from the tracks west to Sherman Avenue, there is nothing in the Department _ at this time. However, on Chicago Avenue in the B3 district, of course there is the P&D Minutes of March 26, 2001 Page t I Flannigan Project that has been given a Certificate of Zoning, for whatever that's worth. He reminded that'Nir. Siegel has basically told us that unless there is a substantial change in position, there is no guarantee of zoning, even with the certificate. In his opinion, there is nothing in the "pipe -line." Aid. Bernstein explained his intent of this reference was to forestall anybody coming in under the current zoning and to preclude construction beyond a maximum height level. He is not looking to stop new construction. He is aware that there are some people talking about increasing height on Main Street west of Chicago Avenue, not to the extent of 125' however there is no guarantee. Discussion ensued further with serious focus on a height limitation to be considered and specifics on location. The Committee came to a consensus that a height limitation of 60' and 37' west of the tracks, should be incorporated into the ordinance. Ms. Gilkeson, City Attorney, suggested to the Committee that they consider making the moratorium 90 days instead of 180 days because it has less chance for attack and reminded them that an extension in time if needed can always be granted. The Committee discussed this and decided that they would like to stay with the 180 day moratorium with the thought in mind that the moratorium was put into place because the Plan Commission has determined that there is some need to retiiew the height limitation contained in B3 zones. He said with the respect to the distinction between properties west and east of the tracks, He feels that the rationale is that there are taller buildings east than there are west and there is a notable difference. Ms. Elias raised the question of why the moratorium can not be extended any further than Chicago Avenue. She said there are several areas in Evanston that could benefit from a building moratorium. After all discussion, the Committee directed staff to prepare an ordinance for the moratorium with building height limitations of 60' and 37' west of the tracks on Main Street. (PD2) Reference Reauest to provide an ordinance or amendment to existine ordinance which reauires develoaers to nav for oroverty damage which occurs to adjacent property as a result of their developments. Aid. Bernstein explained his reference, as stated here, is not exactly what he had in mind. He said that they anticipated some report from Legal with respect to this issue, etc. He said that his concern with respect to this reference, was that we as the City of Evanston will not issue a permit for anything unless and until we are confident that no damage will be done to the adjacent property owners. Aid. Engelman said that this would be difficult to maintain in the City's position. Ald. Bernstein realized this however, he would like to look into what can be done to protect adjacent and contiguous properties on their behalf in case of any proven damage by imposing some kind of condition on the developer to take some responsibility. Aid. Kent agreed and noted that currently there is a clear lack of preventive measures and protection on behalf of property owners. He suggested that there should be some preventive measure in place similar to the sewer project and what the City is responsible for if there is any proven damage. The Committee discussed this P&D Minutes of March 26, 2001 Page 12 matter in detail and the current conditions set to protect directly adjacent properties. They raised questions of how they would decide on a condition to place on the developer and w-hat radius they could follow to determine for contiguous properties. The Committee directed staff to look further into other communities and what they are doing and to get some clear direction or determination from Legal on this issue. Mr. Wolinski noted that as a municipality, they have certain powers and guidelines to follow in issuing permits and this criteria needs to be taken into consideration. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JacquAline . Brownlee n u ATTACHMENT "A" March 26. ?001 IsTO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Evanston Environment Board Gladys N. Bryer. Chairman RE: Proposed District #65 Administration and Child Care Center After review of School District 65's application for a text amendment to the definition of -Educational Institution -Public" in Section # 6-19-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Environment Board has taken the following position. We believe that important environmental issues have not been given adequate consideration, and, therefore, the application of District 65 should not be approved until these matters have been more frilly considered and resolved. Air Qnility and Pollution We are concerned about the air quality on the streets facing and adjacent to the proposed complex east of the canal in the vicinity of McDaniel Avenue and Lake Street. Our concern stems from citizen complaints that there is an existing air pollution problem in the area due to emissions Stom idling cars and school buses, caused by the current heavy traffic in the area from icing Lab School and E.T.H.S. • In the testimony at the February 14, 2001 hearing before the Planning Commission on this matter, Mr. Jack, architect for the proposed complex, said as to resident concerns, the "most often stated concern was traffic and congestion."(p.7) (page references are to transcript of the hearing). Mr. Doron. traffic engineer for the site, in response to a question about the morning tragic on Lake Street, answered as to the present situation, "...it's congested."(p.22). Ms. Erickson. a Board Member of District 65, stated in regard to community comments, "...traffic was a major concern for people."(p.36). Speaker after speaker from the neighborhood detailed their numerous concerns about the traffic and congestion. Some sample comments were; Lake Street is like the Dan Ryan in rush hour on school mornings, the streets are too narrow, there is too much traffic, there are no sidewalks on McDaniel or on Davis and so children walk unsafely in the streets, and accidents have occurred because of the traffic. But there was a specific factor mentioned by citizens from the community that was never specifically mentioned by the expert testimony. That factor was the effect of all of that traffic congestion, and the resultant idling cars and buses, on air pollution in the neighborhood. At the hearing, a resident on Lake Street described the current situation, "... ten buses running their motor, the carbon monoxide. I can't even open my door from the carbon monoxide."(p.41). Another Lake Street resident wanted the traffic moved aumv from the neighbors. "You don't have to smell the fumes or hear the cars starting up, people idling."ip.55). 0 The planners have provided various good solutions to some of the traffic and safety problems, such as having the school buses of King Lab, and of the proposed early childhood center (ecc), unload students on areas away from the public streets. Under the present situation. this would help eliminate the congestion and idling on Lake Street being caused by the unloading of King Lab school buses. However. in regard to the new complex, prodding a bus unloading area and a parent tmloadingtwaiting area in the west does not confront the issue of pollution that will be caused by the backed up and idling traffic on the few narrow streets in the area under the increased traffic brought by the nru• complex. The problem that remains is that of getting a greatly increased number of school buses, parent cars, delivery trucks and personnel for three large facilities, two schools and an administrative center, thmugh the few and narrow streets in the community, to and from the unloading and parking areas to the west and north of the facilities. For example, although the traffc serving the proposed complex will greatly increase the total traffic coming down Lake Street, there is only a minimal change being proposed to allc%iate that congestion. Mr. Doron stated that two school buses currently coming down Lake Street to King Lab would be redirected. "So that's two buses out of the mix. Not a big deal, but it's two school buses out of the mix approaching the side from the north via McDaniel ..." (pp.22-23I. 0 What ,will be moving west on Lake Street each school day will continue to be the 10 other school buses for King Lab, the parents dropping off students at King Lab, and the King Lab personnel, plus the additional traffic of school buses for three -fourths of the 356 enrolled children in the early childhood center. (Ms. Israel, p.70), ten vans coming daily from Family Focus, parents dropping off children at the early childhood center, teachers and staff of the ecc. and District 65 administrative personnel. (Most of the ecc staff of 80. and the district administration staff of 75 come from the south and the east. Mr. Doron, p 25). Traffic serving the complex will be moving in and out all day. We are unaware of any studies done concerning the present levels of air pollution caused by emissions from stalled and idling cats. Although the plan now removes bus unloading from the streets, information is necessary on the potential for harmful levels of pollution due to backups and idling caused by the greatly increased traffic in the area if this new complex is built. A zoning consultant stated that the neighborhood has already accommodated to the large institutions in the area. (Mr. Lenet, pp.24, 33). We do not believe that Evanston citizens should be exposed to, and have to accommodate themselves to, harmful levels of air pollution. Therefore, we urge you to examine the air pollution issue, camrntly and under the new proposal, before approving this amendment that will allow the proposed development- 2 Lack of Adequate Public Transportation and Unnecessary Use of Parkland • Causing other environmental concerns is the fact that the district administrative offices part of the complex is being located far from adequate public transportation. Environmentally this %ill have the effects of taking away acres of irreplaceable green space parkland in order to build a larger parking area to hold the 75 cars of the administrative staff and the cars of citizens visiting the administrative facility, plus increasing air pollution from these additional staff and citizen cars. There is a large lot with I65 parking spaces pro%ided on the north side of the planned building. This parking area is about the length of the new building. A ball playing field and soccer field used by neighborhood children and a men's league will be destroyed by the proposed development. Clearly about half of these parking spaces are for the use of District 65 administrative staff and their visitors. A large area of green space could be saved from development, and there would be fewer contaminants from the surface of the panting lot requiring treatment and holding, if the district administrative facility was located in a more central location closer to adequate public transportation. Both the staff of the district administrative facility, and the public needing to do business with district headquarters, will be driving to and from the area throughout the day. Locating the district administrative facility in a more central location would make it accessible by public transportation and lessen congestion on all Evanston streets, and would certainly alleviate the congestion and pollution on the narrow residential streets . near the planned development. Making decisions with the environmental future of our children in mind, good planning would lead us to place concentrations of workers close to adequate public transit so that not every single person would be required to drive to work, and irreplaceable parkland would not be used to provide space for each worker's automobile. Placement of the district administrative facility in a more central location, close to adequate public transit, would reduce auto emissions, street congestion, the use of non -replaceable fossil fuels, and the loss of open parkland. The future of our children depends not only on our schools, but also on the quality of the air that we breath, the water that we need, and the land that we live on and enjoy. 3 C ATTACHMENT "B" At the hearing two weeks ago. ►►e testified before you as to why it was a mistake to build District 65's Administrative Offices at the peripher%- of Evanston, away from easy access to public transportation. We also mentioned the loss of parkland green space, the added traffic congestion and gridlock and the increase of air pollution in the area. Several ideas were presented as to ►►here the district office facility might be centrally located without necessarily talons land off the tax roll. We reiterate this evening that it is a planning mistake to put together at one location an early childhood center and a district administrative facility. One can understand that a building housing preschoolers should be in a neighborhood setting, near where many of the children reside, but a school district administrative building should be centrally located, near good public transit, alloying all citizens, including those citizens without automobiles, to transact their business with that school district. 'rhe School Board's work on this issue indicates how difficult, if not impossible, it is in Evanston to find a single location that meets both of these important needs. %%hat we would like to address this evening is the statement made at the earlier hearing that. "The referendum produced a citizen mandate to locate both the early childhood center and the district administrative offices together at one location." We believe that statement is untrue. Public debate before the referendum focused on whether the citizenry should approve issuing bonds for the two stated needs: an early childhood center, and a suitable district office setting. While the Board of Education clearly • intended to combine the two in a structure on the canal land north of King School, many, if not most, of those who voted on the referendum issue were not cognizant of that fact. And this is why: the actual wording of the referendum itself, "...build and equip an early childhood center and office facility, ..." (emphasis added) was ambiguous and potentially misleading. The words certainly indicate that there will be one facility, but they could reasonably Iead one to believe that the office facility would be the one that services the early childhood center. There is no mention in the referendum wording of a "district" office facility. It is noteworthy that in District 65's Application for a Text Amendment, dated Jan. 1, 2001, it is clearly stated that they are requesting that the words "district administrative staff offices" (emphasis added) be added to the definition of Educational Institution - Public. Similarly, in District 65's Application for a Zoning HearingNariances, dated Jan. 11.2001. the District again very clearly states that it "...proposes to construct its Early Childhood and District Administration Center. .."(emphasis added). Yet somehow, the word "district" to describe the office facility was omitted from the referendum language. We hope that this clarification of what the voters actually voted for makes it clear that the referendum was not a public mandate to place both needed facilities in one inappropriate location. Without going to court to clarify what the ambiguously worded bond issue referendum did mean, we believe that the citizens of Evanston would want each of these facilities to be appropriately planned and sited. MINUTES Planning & Development Committee April 12, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Chic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. Newman Alderman Absent: S. Engelman, M. W�,-nne Staff Present: 1. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, S. Guderley, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Deinner Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Ald. Bernstein stepped up as Chairman in Aid. Wynne's absence. He called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 MEETING Ald. Kent moved approval of the minutes of March 26th, seconded by Ald. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Sidewalk Cafd for 1745 Sherman Avenue Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the representative from Einstein Bagels who that he had no formal presentation or comments and is present for any questions by the Committee. There were no comments or concerns from Aid. Newman whose ward this restaurant is located in. With no further comments, Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent, The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Wolinski mentioned that the applicant asked for a waiver of the requirements for reusable containers. Site Plan Committee reviewed this and recommended approval because of the lack of problems at this site. Ald. Newman moved to amend his motion to include the waiver. (P31 Sidewalk Cafd for 500 Main Street Chdrman Bernstein acknowledged the owner of Caf6 Express South, Mr. Nate Paik, who had no formal presentation or comments. Chairman Berstein noted that he has spoken �I P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 2 with Aid. Wynne, who is out of town and has expressed no opposition to him with . regards to this request. With no further comments, Aid. Kent moved approval with inclusion of waiver to use non -reusable containers, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 42-0-01 -- Moratorium on New Construction — B-3 ZoninR District Main & Chicago Chairman Bernstein acknowledged lkir. David Herbst, Attorney representing Mr. dim Flannigan, owner of The Main. He pointed out that Mr. Flannigan is deeply effected by this proposed moratorium and also the proposed downzoning of the property. He stated that he is here this evening to explain their opposition to the moratorium and why it should not apply to their property. He informed the Committee of Mr. Flannigan's position in the community noting first his ownership of the comer of Main & Chicago, ROC. Mr. Flannigan is also the President of Heil & Heil Real Estate, which is one of the oldest companies in Evanston, founded in 1885. Mr. Herbst stressed that Mr. Flannigan has a real interest in preserving the integrity of the area and in the future of Evanston. He noted that for this particular site, his intention for this site is to preserve the quality of the neighborhood around Main & Chicago. He informed the Committee that Mr. Flannigan experienced difficulties when he held a second mortgage on the property at a time when the retail units were not doing well as well as the rental apartment building in the back. . He said that both the first and second mortgage were in default. In order to preserve Mr. Flannigan's interest and the property, they foreclosed on the second mortgage and purchased the first mortgage and in reliance on the zoning classification, had begun the process of developing that corner. Mr. Herbst said that he understands that there has been some opposition to both the fact that the property is being developed and to the proposed plans for the property. However, he believes by consideration and certainly in conjunction with the Planning Department, what they have came up with is fair and good development and a good use for this property. Mr. Herbst explained that problem is that in reliance of the zoning, they have demolished the building in the rear where the 12-unit rental apartments were located. Also, they have spent a lot of money on architects, planners, consultants, etc. with an itemized approximate loss of $988,000 out of pocket cost. to date. He noted that a portion of this amount are lost rentals from the building they demolished and lost rentals from the commercial space as well. However, a large amount was actually from the money that has been spent in reliance on the fact that there was an existing zoning classification and they obtained last year a Certificate of Conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, when they received the notification that this proposed moratorium was under consideration by Council and before the P&D Committee this evening, he consulted with Mr. Flannigan and decided that the best thing they could do was to come before the Committee with the aforementioned existing problems. He stated that their position is that they have come pretty far down the pipeline and have spent a great deal of money at this point, reiterating that this is all due to the fact of their reliance on the existing zoning. Mr. Herbst said that as far as they are concerned, the effect of the moratorium would be P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 3 exactly the same as the down -zoning of the property because if after spending the money they have spent and having dealt with the tenants of the property and also being so far in the hole as a result of their reliance on the zoning classification, for a moratorium to be put in place will be a financial disaster for his client. He exclaimed that they are here tonight to stress this point and it is their position that even if this Committee were to recommend passage of this moratorium and Council voted to adopt this, that this moratorium can not under the law apply to them. Mr. Kevin Pearson & Mr. Steve Mullins. Mr. Mullins noted the he and Mr. Pearson are the developers of the current Evanston Bank building. He explained that the bank intends to move to the north east comer of Main & Chicago and they will ultimately redevelop the property. He stated that they have no opinion or objection on Mr. Flannigan's project as stated previously. He explained the plans for their project is to keep the building that is existing and to build on the side and on top to build 13 condominiums and to keep within the current zoning laws. With respect to the proposed moratorium, his understanding is that it will pertain to keep new building within a certain level or height limitation. Chairman Bernstein confirmed. Mr. Mullins noted that the moratorium is for a height limitation of 60' and their request is consideration for a height limitation of 67'. They request this height extension for several reasons, first being that it will be equivalent to the C I a zoning which is just to the south of their property and secondly it would allow them to keep within their proposed building redevelopment plans. He added that although it is possible for a higher height limitation, they would only request that additional 7' in order to be comparable with the CI a zoning directly adjacent. Mr. Mullins informed the Committee that their intentions are to bring the bank building back to its historic symbolism by taking the siding off the structure to resemble its original appearance. He distributed to the Committee and audience, a photo displaying the building as it originally looked back in the 1950's, however the structure was built in the 1920's and had already been renovated at the time of this photo and subsequently renovated several times since then. He explained in further detail the planned development for the building. He noted that they intend to bring the building back, as much as possible, to its original historic look and spirit. They plan to build on to the top and side of the building to accommodate a parking garage that would be adequate for all the parking needs for the building and provide a minimal amount of retail space on the first floor. He mentioned that Mr. Pearson currently has a shop at 917 Chicago along with his museum, which they plan to move these operations into the basement of the building. For further details on how the building will look, he turned this over to Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson said that he and Mr. Mullin's approached this project from a slightly different approach to a normal commercial development. He stated he is not a commercial developer or an expert at property development, however he is an expert at "toby jugs" and Mr. Mullins has a strong real estate background, which they have subsequently joined together in a partnership. He said that their museum and store are their driving force and they approached the back from the point of view in finding a location to put their operations in and are interested in putting their business in the A P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 4 basement of this building. He said that they purchased the building and after examining the inherent problems that the building suffers from in terms of what they need to do in order to make this plan work, they began looking into the possible alternatives and the area surrounding this building. He noted that they agreed on an approach that is slightly unusual and is an approach that is not necessarily firmly grounded in some of the economics that a developer would normally use. However, it is an approach that they are very comfortable with. '-ir. Pearson explained that essentially, they intend to go over the top slightly with what they want to do with this building, meaning that they want to take the spirit of its original state and enhance on that and do it in a way that will fit in and blend in with the neighborhood. He noted that they have been working on these plans for approximately 9 months and never took into consideration facing any problems as they are faced with today with regards to the 60' height limitation. He stressed the fact that in their minds, the difference between 60' and their request consideration of 67' could result in a notable negative effect on their planned development for the building. Mr. Pearson further explained the design of the building as it pertains to the condominium units to be built on top of the existing building with 2 additional floors that will be in Parisian in style, but yet fitting in with the original 1920's look of the structure. He feels their planned design will be an enhancement for this site and for the surrounding area. In conclusion, he stressed their position in requesting that the Committee reconsider the 60' height limitation to amend to 67'. which they feel is compromisable and not excessive to what is originally being proposed for the moratorium. Ald. Newman noted that when he looks at the corner of Main & Chicago from the train station, the concern that comes to mind when considering the final result and effect of the planned developments that he has heard mentioned, he is apprehensive about the narrowness of Chicago Avenue in that area and the "canyon effect" all this development will produce. He pointed out the planned heights for the buildings on the north east, south east and north west corners of Main & Chicago and the apparent danger of this excessive building to the lot Iines and the negative effect it will have on such a confined area where there is already constrictions existing. He said that he is glad the City owns the property where the newsstand is because they can be sure that at least this corner will remain open for some time to come. He reiterated his concerns for this area and the added development of the bank building in conjunction with the two major developments to the east. He asked the owners of the bank building what their concerns are for this effect and if they took this into consideration when they were preparing designs for their planned redevelopment. Mr. Mullins responded that their plans are to add an additional _ 27' to the existing height of the building, which is minimal to the developments to the east of their site. He also noted that they propose to build the condominiums set back at a ziggurat design. Mr. Pearson added that with respect to Ald. Newman's question on if they had any concern for the canyon effect, he stated that this is something that they did address when looking into a design for the building that would fit in with the area and enhance this corner. He noted that is why they choose to only build an additional two floors onto the existing four story building and propose to set these floors back from the main building. He said in doing this, they feel they are reducing that canyon effect. He assured that they are very concerned with all the new development in the surrounding area and do not wish to add to the possible negative effect by adding excessive height. P&D Committee .mtg. Minutes of April 10.2001 Page S He noted that the building opposite them to the east +gill be approximately 40-45' higher than what they propose and Kill extend further down Main Street and take up much more square footage than the smaller footprint of their building. He pointed out that their building will be much less offensive than the developments to the east of their location. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Flannigan the proposed height of his planned development for his site. Mr. Flannigan responded that they are proposing a height of 1251, however the proposed design has a gradual setback that will result in a less offensive and immense effect from the street level versus if the building were built straight up from the lot line. Aid. Newman asked how far is the height from the street. Mr. Flannigan responded that they are proposing 4 floors of parking with a deck on top of that and then 5th & bth floor will be duplexes with a continuation of the building being set back with additional units and the top floors having duplexes also. Mr. Mullins also informed the Committee that they plan to have duplexes on their top floors with the building being set back with balconies. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Herb Hill last week and the proverbial question was brought up with regards to being in the "pipeline". He said that Legal asked him if Mr. Flannigan's proposal was in the pipeline and he referred to Corporation Counsel's position, which has been the question of what's the change of position. He stated that this is the position confirmed by Mr. Jack Siegel on how he has determined several of the projects that have been before them when zoning changes have been considered, although this is a moratorium. However, in consideration of this particular situation., he would request the Committee to direct staff to get an opinion from City legal staff as to what the status of Mr. Flannigan's building is at this point, with any financial information that he can submit, as far as any change of position, so that they can know where they stand. Chairman Bernstein agreed with Mr. Wolinski's recommendation and asked present legal staff if they were in a position at this time to make an opinion without seeing the required facts. Ms. Szymanski responded that legal would require a review of the financial information to make a standing legal opinion to the Committee. Chairman Bernstein stated, with respect to a comment made by Mr. Herbst, that he believes that what they are not doing here is effecting the underlying zoning and stressed that it is not the intent of this moratorium. He said that this task is being left to Chairman Lyman's committee and subsequent action by the Plan Commission and then by City Council. Mr. Herbst apologized for giving that impression and explained that what he was trying to convey was that the effect on his client, because of extent on their reliance to date of the zoning classification that they have already received, would effectively result in the same situation. Chairman Bernstein noted that when he first proposed this moratorium, he did so following the review of what happened with the Committee's efforts on the Chicago Avenue Corridor and with the attempt to preclude the change from happening before they had time to analyze the existing zoning with respect primarily to height. He stressed that this was his initial concern with respect to this issue. He also was initially concerned P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 6 with the west side of the tracks to Sherman Avenue where presently the tallest building is approximately 37'. He noted that Aid. Wynne and the Committee voted to expand their review of B3 to the east side of the tracks resulting in the proposed moratorium. He again noted his conversation with Aid. Wynne today, who informed him that she has spoken with Mr. Mullins and she stated that she has no problem with the modification of amending the height limitation from 60' to 67'. Therefore, Chairman Bernstein proposed amending the ordinance with respect to paragraph "b" in Section 2 to limiting the height on the east side of the tracks from 60' to 67'. He stated that this is largely with the intent that Aid. Wynne has discussed this with Mr. Mullins and is agreeable to this amendment and also to the fact that Aid. Wynne has been very instrumental and an advent participant in the initial Chicago Avenue Corridor study. He requested to move this amendment on her behalf as well as his own. However, he wished to stay at 37' for the west side of the tracks until such time as the Committee has its opportunity to review this and after neighborhood input. Aid. Newman raised questions on the Iegal aspect of this moratorium. For one, is it permissible to have a moratorium with different height limitations for different areas? He said it seems like they are rezoning the property in the interim. He pointed out that it is one thing to have a moratorium on projects going in during this time period of the zoning being reconsidered. However, in this case, it appears that this moratorium is saying that in the interim, certain projects will be acceptable and some not. He feels this approach is questionable. He also mentioned that there currently exists a building west of the tracks that is taller than 37. Secondly, Aid. Newman said that he is very concerned about the 125' building that Mr. Flannigan is planning to build and would like to know before the Committee votes, not after, what the impact is on this project. He pointed out that Mr. Flannigan has already indicated the loss of a large amount of money and he feels it is very important for them to be sure of the implications that this moratorium will have. The Committee was in agreement on this issue and feel that a meeting between City legal staff and Mr. Flannigan's attorney should take place before the next P&D meeting in order to receive some type of legal opinion for the record. Aid. Newman even suggested that Mr. Siegel's presence might be needed for the next meeting. The question was raised with regards to what the Plan Commission is currently considering for this area. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee. Mr. John Lyman, Chairman of the Neighborhood Committee and the Plan Commission, informed the Committee that what they originally started off with and are currently looking at west of the tracks in the 133 area, is the recognition that they might end up having a different zoning there than east of the tracks. He said that they are currently at the stage of seeking public commentary and have had a series of 3 meetings regarding this issue. He said it appears to be a consensus of the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission that they will end up with different regulations west and east of the tracks. However, with regards to different heights, they have not yet come to any conclusion. Aid. Newman asked when he assumes the Committee wilt come to a conclusion. Mr. Lyman responded that this will depend on the character of their discussion; the next meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. At that time, they will review the written comments and this will also be a joint meeting with the Zoning Subcommittee of the Plant Commission. He said that no one on the Committee is eager on stopping any good developments that are in the process P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 7 iof being considered, but they are concerned about the long-term future of the area He assumed that it would take the Committee another 2 months to wrap up. Ms. Anderson added the discussion of this moratorium just came about from the last P&D meeting and informed that Committee that their meeting on Thursday is the first since this issue has surfaced. Aid. Newman pointed out this to be the reason why the Plan Commission has no conclusion on height at this time. Chairman Bernstein said, at this point, he proposed that the Committee introduce this and bring it back with an analysis of the legal issues that have been raised at this meeting and for further discussion. Mr. Wolinski clarified the legal issues that the Committee would like staff to address. He confirmed the first legal issue is with regards to the Flannigan project, requesting Mr. Siegel's opinion, on whether a moratorium would effect this project or not. Secondly, the Committee would like a legal opinion of whether they can have dual standards on the same zoning district for a moratorium. The Committee agreed - Aid. Kent expressed his concern with the Plan Commission just now addressing this moratorium and meeting for the first on Thursday. He pointed out that the Plan Commission has not even discussed the height issue and he has a problem with changing the original heights in the proposed ordinance before they've had a chance to look into this. The Committee discussed this and agreed with Aid. Kent's opinion. Chairman Bernstein explained to Aid. Kent that the idea for the limited duration, 180 days, will give • the Plan Commission sufficient time in which to study this. His intent is to try and preserve the status quo until such time for the Plan Commission to finish their analysis. He feels, at the risk of prejudging, that the 125' on the west side is too tall and is one of his reasons for pushing for the moratorium. He does believe that justice has been down on the east side with the down zoning that has already occurred, however he realizes there is a different set of circumstances in the B3 zone on both sides. He further pointed out the consequences for the neighborhood with the risks of changing the character of the area and the effect it will have on the life styles of his constituents. Nevertheless, Chairman Bemstein agrees with the validity of Aid. Kent's point. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Lyman if he feels this issue can be reviewed with a final analysis within 90 days. Mr. Lyman responded that his Commission is striving for completion within that time, especially with their scheduled plans to begin review in the near future regarding issued in the 5th Ward. Mr. Alterson added, for the Committee's information, that they do not presently have a zoning hearing notice in the newspaper to amend the Zoning Ordinance. He further stated that the meeting taking place on Thursday is for discussion purposes only. Ms. Szymanski requested to the Committee, that she have an opportunity to inquire first as to whether amending the original request for 60' to 67', will effectively result in weakening the moratorium due to the fact that this additional 7' requested on the basis of one applicant without the Law Department having a chance to study this, causes her concern. After discussion and hearing Ms. Szymanski's concerns, Chairman Bernstein 0 moved to introduce Ordinance 424MI in its original form as proposed, without the P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2C0I Page 8 amendment to item bl for 67' versus the 60'. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION f PD11 Letter from Tom Roszak concerning 12 10 Sherman Avenue Chairman Bernstein recognized the fact that the Committee has had several previous discussions on this matter and have had the opportunity to hear from the noted property owner, as well as other adjacent property owners on the alleged damage caused to their properties due to Mr. Roszak's project on Chicago Avenue. He acknowledged the presence of Mr. Roszak along with his attorney and several other representatives on his behalf. He called on :►fir. Roszak's attorney, lair. Bruce Huvard, to open comments and discussion. Mir. Huvard began by clariftiing his client, Mr. Tom Roszak, position in the community and as a reputable businessman. He claimed that Roszak/ADC, has worked very hard to be an Evanston resident with his offices being located here and his efforts in trying to be an active member in the community. He stated that they have for a long time, tried to meet the concerns of their neighbors and do realize the general problems involved in trying to appease any an all involved, can be a perennial situation. Especially with regards to this case, he claims that they have tried to meet all of their obligations at the onset of the beginning. Mr. Huvard acknowledged the experts and consultants that they have brought with them to this meeting for funher explanation and questions, if so required for continent. He informed the Committee that these experts consist of soil engineers that have reviewed the construction site, the excavation contractor, and their reputable structural engineers for the site. He reassured the Committee that with the involvement of these many experts, everything they did was done with the utmost desire to abide by all the regulatory requirements for their project. He stated that what they have proceeded to do with this particular project, is similar and within code to what is done throughout the City. Mir. Huvard explained that they put in sheeting to form an earth retention system, which keeps the ground from collapsing in and protects the immediate adjacent landowners and keeps water from infiltrating the job site. He noted that none of the immediately adjacent property owners have complained. He said that the methods used to put the sheeting in was uniform and consistent for similar projects of the same nature and assured that they used no unusual or excessive procedures to accomplish _ the present stage of their project. He added that all the work performed to date was done under the supervision of people who are experts in their fields and know how to design the system and accomplish this goal within the required regulatory codes. Mr. Huvard reiterated that his client has put forth and has extended an effort to address the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that when he first heard of this situation and the alleged complaints of damage to their homes, he was sympathetic to their plight because he also lives in a home of similar historic age and is aware of the delicate nature of their design and build. However, he does not wish to challenge the story involved, though he does wish to explain that their initial reaction was guided by some of the particular facts P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10. 200 1 Page 9 implicated with the subject house. Such as the beam in this house has holes drilled through it, which their structural engineer has done some calculations and concludes that this beam is possibly stressed beyond failure and has lost approximately 60% of its strength. He states, in consideration of this observation that the situation of this beam is most probably not caused by their doing. Mr. Huvard realizes that this issue has gone a little further than this and in order to make some sense of it, their consultants have reviewed this and continue concur that with their belief that the construction activity did not cause this. However, he stresses that the only w•ay to confirm this is to have further testing done. He informed the Committee that they have called in these claims to their insurance company to review this matter and they have advised them that they have construction experts who specifically come out to look at these particular alleged damages frequently. Mr. Huvard requested to the Committee at this time, that they would like to invite the subject property owners, as well as any others %to claim being effected to damage done to their property by this project, to cooperate with them and come forward so that they can have their insurance company experts conduct an inspection and appraisal for damaged claimed. The Committee unanimously felt that Mr. Huvard's offer was fair and comparable in consideration of the situations presented to them by the homeowners involved and that this could possibly be a objective compromise to rectify the complaints. Chairman Bernstein moved on to allow comments at this time from other citizens who signed up to speak Ms. Peggy Tarr asked that acknowledgement be given to the many other neighbors around the subject property, who have also claimed damage done to their properties as a result of Mr. Roszak's project. She stressed that this fact should have some strong recognition to the initial allegations made by Mr. Steinman and Ms. Elias because it is proof that more than one house has been effected by this project. She also questioned why the name of the insurance company of the developer was not given to the residents so that they can file a claim with them. She informed the Committee that this information is not being forwarded to the residents involved and feels some anxiety to the fact as to why this information is being kept from them. Chairman Bernstein responded that he can not justify why the insurance information was not initially given out by the developer, however, Mr. Huvard has stated at this meeting that any homeowners effected should notify him and he will forward their information and claim to their insurance company. He stated that the homeowners should go forward at this point with the information extended at this meeting. Chairman Bernstein explained that what the Committee is addressing tonight, is follow up from previous discussion on this issue that began several months ago and the legislation proposed is not on the agenda tonight which is whether or not the City should do something with respect to situations similar to this in the future. However, this issue is not on the agenda for consideration tonight, but nevertheless, any discussion ensued here is important to the outcome of when that particular issue will be addressed. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Scott Steinman questioned why the developer has inclined to bring forward all of his • experts at this time when he could have and should have brought them out at the beginning onset of their accusations of structural damage to their home. He strongly expressed his disappointment in the developer's neglect to bring forward these experts in the beginning when it was at a preventative stage and could have possible avoided the situation to this extent. He also expressed his frustration with the first sentence stated in Mr. Roszak's response letter which claims that his company takes very seriously its responsibility to be responsive to the concerns of any neighbors who may be affected by his construction activities. He stressed that it is clearly evident by the time involved in this case from the onset of their initial complaint, that Mr. Roszak has not been responsive to their concerns or allegations. He especially noted that this is evident with Mr. Roszak just now bringing forward all his experts and consultants that should have been involved from the beginning. He reiterated his inquest of why all this did not take place from the beginning and concluded that this situation could have been alleviated from the start. Ms. Elias endorsed Mr. Steinman's comments. She stressed that the Committee acknowledge the many other homeowners in their vicinity that are present here tonight with similar complaints of damage to their properties and tape this into consideration of their initial complaint. She also feels that the many experts brought in by Mr. Roszak arc not aware of all the facts involved, such as the original inspections done by City inspectors and others, and the subsequent inspections done there after. She made note that the insurance company the developer is offering to come out and do an appraisal, is that of the developer and the one being accused of all the damage. She is not comfortable with this resulting in a true and accurate inspection of their property on their behalf. Rev. & Mrs, Lee Dingle, 1212 Sherman, reiterated their support and confirmation of Mr. Steinman and Ms. Elias allegations because they too have experienced structural damage to their property since the commencement of the Roszak project. He stressed the fact that it is not an accusation, but a proven and witnessed reality and should be apparent to the Committee with all the neighboring property owners that have come forward with similar complaints. Mr. Greg Miller, excavator for the Roszak project, testified that all of the excavation and demolition work done on this site was done within the specified codes and regulations that they must abide by for the City. He confidently assured the Committee of his long standing work and expertise in his field and noted that he has done many jobs in the City of Evanston and has never experienced any problems or complaints from adjacent properties outside of the normal nuisance situations that are involved with any demolition project. He also assured that his company uses top -grade equipment that is needed for such projects and did not use any equipment out of the norm necessary to fulfill this job requirement. Chairman Bernstein concluded at this time, that all those in attendance with claims and allegations of damage to their property to meet with or contact Mr. Huvard as offered, • • • P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2001 Page 1 I and let him know so that their insurance company can make arrangements for further investigation. Mr. Steinman informed the Committee that he will be forwarding a response to Mr. Roszak's letter presented to them this evening. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, axr�y'�6� ]acq ine 1. Brownlee W MINUTES Planning & Development Committee April 23, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. A. Newman, N1. Wy=e Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, M. Rana. K. Gilkeson. R. Schur. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding Official; Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 10. 2001 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of March 26th, seconded by Ald. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1) Sidewalk Cafe for 1700 Central Street Mr. Wolinski revealed that Trattoria Trullo is a type I restaurant and is only before P&D for consideration because it falls within the 200' distance rule of a residential zoning district. He noted that this was given unanimous approval by the Site Plan Committee. Aid. Bernstein asked to withhold further discussion until Aid. Engelman's arrival, since this is located in his ward. Aid. Newman asked if notices were sent out. Mr. Wolinski assured that notices w•eie sent out within the required area and no responses were received back from any residences. Upon Aid. Engelman's arrival, he reminded the Committee of the liquor discussion that took place last year for outdoor cafes. He stated that he has already talked with the applicant and has no problem with the sidewalk cafe itself, however he hoped the applicant would have been present to discuss the liquor issue. He noted that he was told by Jacky's Bistro that this applicant was also inquiring about serving liquor at their sidewalk cafe. He asked staff if they were aware of this fact. Mr. Wolinski verified that he is aware of this and it is a fact that the applicant is interested in doing so. With this information, Aid. Engelman requested that his reference made last year regarding this P&D Committee Nitg. Minutrs of -t 23 01 Page 2 matter, be brought back to the Cumr,..:.e: for r.-examination and that notice be sent to the neighbors prior to the meeting. It u as noted ::.at the notices sent out for this sidewalk cafe did not include any communication with reg-irds to ser%ing liquor, and would have to be dealt with separately upon application b% the owner. Aid. Engelman moved approval of the request for a sidewalk cafe at 1700 Central Street (Trattoria Trullo), seconded by Aid. Bernstein. He further requested that the Chair give direction to put the reference regarding liquor service at sidewalk cafe's within the 200' residential distance rule. back on P&D's agenda. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Resolution 22-11-01 -- Reservation of the Cinv of Evanston's S4.479.937.50 Bond Volume Cat) With no discussion. Aid. Newman moved approval. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 47-0-01 - Cede S 1.600.000 of the 2001 Bond Volume Car) to the Illinois Housing Develooment Authority for the nurmses of the First Time Homebuver Proeram Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Newman. Aid. Bernstein asked what effect this will have on the City's fund. how much will be in the First Time Homebuyer's fund with this relinquish. Mr. Wolinski explained that they have several different funds, including the Mortgage Corporation and the Mayors Special Housing Fund. He continued that the Corporation has over $2 million presently and they just sold the portfolio 8 months ago to Liberty Federal. The Mayors Special Housing Fund has approximately $200.000+ at the present time. Chairman Wynne asked if staff has compiled a recent report that the Committee can re%iew. his. Schur replied that staff does have a report in process and she stated that last year they ceded about the same amount of money to IHDA and went through all of the money svithin 12 months. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the City is dealing with a May 1st deadline to be into the State by, therefore staff requests for a rule suspension to introduce and approve this issue tonight. (Aid. Engelman entered the meeting at this time.) The Committee agreed to suspend the rules for this item. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 42-0-01 - Moratorium on ties Construction - B-3 Zoning District at = Main & Chicaeo Chairman Wynne thanked all in attendance that are here for this matter and being so prompt. However, she announced to the audience that because of the Council agenda in combination with the inauguration program this evening, the standing Committee's must adhere to their tight schedule of meeting from 6-7 p.m. She realizes that this issue is of great significance and interest which requires the Committee's complete attention. therefore she requested that anyone signed up to speak on this matter keep their _ comments brief and to the point so as the Committee µill have time for discussion to reach a decision and vote at this meeting. Aid. Bernstein informed Chairman Wynne. _ P&D Committee Ag. Minutes of 23 01 Page 3 since she was not in attendance at their last meeting. that they did have some discussion and questions were raised with respect to whether they could impose a moratorium that contemplated two distinct heights. He acknowledged that Legal, Ms. Gilkeson, has given the Committee a memo to that effezt. which has been marked as confidential. Chairman Wynne then referred to the sign-up sheet in the order signed. Mr. Alex Sproul, first asked the Committee about the legal opinion that was forwarded to them with regards to "The Main" building being in the pipeline. The Committee confirmed this fact, but reiterated that the memorandum was marked confidential by legal stag: Mr. Sproul then questioned the legal opinion regarding the other issue of the legality of the moratorium having two different height limits within B-3 and if this information is also confidential because these were specific questions that were raised at the last meeting and all those in attendance are interested in those opinions and many are effected by these decisions. In any effect, Mr. Sproul stated that if this project is in the pipeline then he has only one objection to a moratorium, which is he feels the Plan Commission should be allowed to perceive with this process. He noted that much work has been done so far on this issue and further noted that the applicant/developer are serious about the development of that site. Therefore he believes that the proposal for the moratorium is in effect, a preemption of the Evanston Plan Commission. In addition, he feels the Plan Commission should proceed and make its recommendation before any moratorium is issued. He was going to stress the clear effect that a moratorium would have on the Main building project if indeed it were not considered in the pipeline, however this fact has not been verified by staff because of the confidential status claimed by City legal staff. However, if this project is considered in the pipeline, his argument is moot and he would have not real problem with the moratorium. Mr. Sproul validated that he is in favor of the proposed development of the Main building and feels from a standpoint in consideration of the neighborhood and from a metropolitan area, this development would be a desirable thing to have high density housing near commuter rail lines and it is also a desirable thing to build up the City's tax base to the extent possible. He stated that he feels very strongly about the points he just raised and pointed out that if the moratorium were limited to 67' east of the tracks, this would only affect the one project for the Main building. He said that he would hate to see a delay on this project and feels it would not be in the City's interest to effect this development with a moratorium. He added that the Committee should take into consideration the possibility of a protracted lawsuit, acknowledging the fact that he is expressing this fact before a board of lawyers versus his occupation as a travel agent. Mr. Sproul noted that he was asked previously if he personally had a financial interest in The Main building development and clarified that he does not and never has. However, he is in favor of this development even with the realization of the disruption in his business during the construction period. He stated that he supports the owner/landlord of the building, which he has dealt with over 25 years and has been his travel agent for this entire time. He is confident that he will be treated fairly as will the other tenants in the building. P&D Committee %itg. :Minutes of 4,13i() I Page a Aid. Newman acknowledged Mr. Sproul's invoh•ement and interest in this area for marry years and with this in mind, he asked if ttr. Sproul has taken into consideration the potential canyon effect that the combination of developments on three corners of the Main & Chicago intersection could result in and hou• he feels about this possibility and concern that he has. He noted that he does agree with Mr. Sproul's comments on expanding the tax base and the advan=cs that this development can bring to the area, however the lasting effect that it could cause on the surrounding residential neighborhood, could be devastating, including the aesthetic visual effect of the towering developments on such a narrow throughway. Sir. Sproul responded that as part of the neighborhood plan committee process, a survey was done of the property owners and merchants on Main Street and the results were came in 50% return with many dispersions in the opinions. He claims that he has not heard from a merchant or property owner any concern for this effect. In fact, if anything. it seemed that there was excitement as to the renaissance of that entire intersection. He added that he is also very excited about the resulting outcome of all the development and what it has to offer for the area. Chairman Wynne asked staff, for the record. clarification of the confidentiality of the legal opinions forwarded to the Committee, tits. Szymanski responded that the previous opinions of the Corporation Counsel, Mr. Jack Seigel. on this particular subject, have: all been sent to the City Council under attomeyiclient privilege and this pattern was followed for this legal opinion also. H.J. Jimerson, said that he lives in the 918 Hinman Condo Building directly behind the Chicago/Main building. He stated that they used to be able to look out and see blue sky, however their views have been blocked by the recent development. He said that he agrees with Aid. Newman's points, that aesthetically the proposed developments will have a hulking canyon effect on the intersection. Mr. Jim Schermerhorn said that the area being discussed on Main Street both east and west of the tracks, that he does not see a problem with going to 67' to the east and feels this height will not result in casting shadows on Ntain Street. He disagrees with the canyon effect but possibly a cliff effect could result with building taller east of the tracks and lower west of the tracks. He noted that if someone wanted to build something taller than what the moratorium states, west of the tracks, for example at Sherman and Main, this development would also benefit the area and tenants of that building would also use the Metra, el, stores and shops in the neighborhood. He feels more consideration should be given to the limited height set for west of the tracks. — Mr. Steve Mullins/Kevin Pearson. reiterated their concern for the height limitation of 60' with the moratorium and again requested that the 67' be considered. Mr. Mullins handed out to the Committee a copy of an informational pamphlet that was handed out to the neighborhood. This pamphlet describes their proposed development of the Evanston bank building, including a photograph of the bank as it looked in the 50's. Mr. Pearson added comments in response to Aid. Newm,art's concerns about the canyon effect. He noted that they have discussed this with their architect and clarified that their plans for - P&D Co=inee Mtg. Minutes of 4-23,'01 Page 5 this building involve adding an additional _: ' to what is existing and will build back in a step process. This course of building «•ill lesson the canyon effect. Maureen Glascow, said that she lives at Main & Hinman and stated that she wanted to give a residents perspective on the possible canyon effect. She has discussed this with many of her neighbors who are in agreement and are very concerned with the danger of a canyon effect. She feels that the moratorium is important just because the whole B-3 process is under consideration for creating a vision of what the entire Main & Chicago Avenue corridor will result in for the future and it is significant that the proper time and attention be given to this matter. Kathv Look -is, said that she Iives at 708 Washington. She also noted that the residents of Washington are very concerned for the canyon effect and have absolutely no problem with the moratorium to further discuss the issue regarding zoning of the area. She feels the time set for the moratorium is reasonable and is not much to ask for in lieu of the outcome of the zoning decisions for the area. Mary Beth Nanier, 715 Washington. She stated that she is very concerned with the zoning where it is now and fully supports the moratorium. She said as a new resident to the neighborhood, she was unaware of all the proposed development plans for the area and is very concerned with the added traffic and people to the community. She said that it is beneficial for the businesses in the area, however, after the businesses close it is the residents of the community that are impacted by the negative effects of possible litter and parking constraints. She said in response to :sir. Sproul's comments of neighborhood support for the aver -abundance of development in the are, that she disagrees with this being the majority feeling of the residents who live in the area and will be effected in a different way than the local merchants. Lori Williams, said that she just recently moved back into Evanston in the neighborhood and was shocked by all the changes that have been made and are being proposed. She said that she moved from a sprawling suburb and therefore is appreciative of what the suburban atmosphere has to offer and assumed that she was moving back into the same environment. She feels that Evanston is expanding so to the point where there will be no center of town anymore. She said the intensity of the proposed development at Main & Chicago will have any effect on that area that is overwhelming and will take away from the neighborhood feeling that it was meant to be. She stated that residents depend on their City representatives to control any negative impacts that effect the community and hopes that the proper consideration and decisions wili be thought out thoroughly by the committees involved. Nikki Heltw-ein, commented on the survey that Mr. Sproul mentioned claiming support of all the development by the neighborhood. She stated that it does not come as a surprise that the merchants don't care about the tall buildings because obviously they derive their livelihood prom the additional residents these buildings will bring. She also stated that Mr. Sproul's support as a tenant for his landlord. is beneficial to his association and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutesof423 01 Page 6 consequence in the end. She felt this point important to bring out in consideration of Mr. Sproul's previous comments made. Nts. Doraine Anderson made it aware that on behalf of the Plan Commission and in response to Mr. Sproul's prior comments. that the Commission will discuss what it chooses to discuss as they feel appropriate. She said there is no reason why, with or without a moratorium, that the Plan Commission will not continue discussion on this matter. ,tits. Marearet ? of 631 Hinman Avenue, stated that she supports the moratorium and stressed the importance on why the Committee has chosen to do so. She noted that any changes made and zoning considered will have a Iong lasting effect on the area and strongly feels that the short time proposed for the moratorium is a reasonable proposition to ask for in tight of what is being considered here. Chairman Wynne closed citizen comments at this time and opened discussion amongst the Committee. Aid. Bernstein stated that he originally proposed the moratorium for all the reasons that have been mentioned by residents and including Mr. Sproul's feelings and other merchants. He commended the committee that is now meeting with plans to continue meeting to determine whether or not in fact the existing code is presently in the best interest of the City. He commented on Ms. William's statement that the City has changed, and agrees that it has changed and there comes a time when they have to address each potential change. He said the proposal on the moratorium, with respect to the west side of the tracks, to his knowledge there are no plans for anyone to build beyond a 45' height, and this would be in consideration of Mr. Saltzman who owns the Vogue Fabric store building if in fact he were to go forward with his plans. Aid. Bernstein noted that what is needed is time to review the zoning issues in light of all the activity that is going on in the City at this time. and that is why this matter is so _ important. He said that it is not certain that they are taking the rights of the property owners because the terms and conditions of the moratorium are small in nature. He reminded that they were originally asking for 180 days for the moratorium after hearing Mr. John Lyman, Chair of the Neighborhood Committee and Plan Commission, indicating that he can review this matter within 90 days and in light of this, perhaps they can shorten the moratorium time. However, his concern is that while the Plan Commission is discussing and analyzing the determination of what the future of this particular area is going to look like, that something will happen on Chicago Avenue to s preclude any and all benefit of the commission's mission on this matter. Aid. Bernstein stated that in light of the lengthy time put forth by the Plan Commission, he reminded that the moratorium will only freeze things in time and does not stop construction or effect any project determined to be in the pipeline. He stressed the importance of the Committee taking action on this moratorium and suggested that they could lessen the time to 150 days, which he realizes legal staff would prefer. Aid. Bernstein acknowledged Mr. Schermerhorn's interesting point and one that has to be discussed with - regards to the west side of the tracks and the possibility of the north side being P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4.23 Ol Page 7 appropriate for a greater height due to the current zoning and the configuration in consideration of it not being immediately adjacent to single-family residential dwellings. He noted the lengthy time that the Commission has already put into this discussion and are well into their process and have a good model from the Chicago Avenue Corridor study. He commended the Commission's potential and the great work that they have done in the past. Therefore. he feels the time should be given to the Plan Commission in order for them to finish the analysis. which is why there is the need for this moratorium. Aid. Newman asked Ms. Szymanski, that in light of the memorandum from legal, if she feels the ordinance before the Committee makes all the necessary findings that they have separately justified in the memo and if there is some objection by a landowner that results in litigation, that in the present form it is sustainable. Ms. Szymanski assured that she does feel confident that the necessary findings would be sustainable. She stated that on the last meeting date, she did have some concerns as to whether or not there was sufficient data in the record from the Neighborhood Planning Committee to justify the 60' height. She said that since that meeting, she understands from Mr. Woiinski that there was a meeting at which the 67' height was discussed in sufficient detail that would justify this. Mr. Wolinski verified that there was discussion at the April 12th Neighborhood Committee meeting and they discussed perimeters on Chicago Avenue in the B-3 district going anywhere from 67' to 125' in height. Aid. Newman asked how that meeting is incorporated into this ordinance. Ms. Szymanski responded that it is recorded in the "whereas" clauses of the revised ordinance. Ald. Newman asked for clarification that anything that happened within those meetings will fall into whatever factual findings or discussions they had gone through to separately justify the different heights. Ms. Szymanski concurred. Aid. Newman stated that he strongly believes that they way they have been approaching this zoning, including the new Chicago Avenue initiative, that they are not getting to what part of the real problem is here. He said that in looking at the new project for the Evanston Bank building and what is colliding here, is the requirement that they have retail and being built to the lot line and the amount of height that they are allowing. He noted that some of these buildings would not seem as intrusive or cause the concern for the canyon effect by allowing building to the lot line with retail and further noted that they are doing this on both sides of the street. For example, in looking at the Buck building on Chicago Avenue in his ward, it seems that they have a 20' setback there and the building does not appear to create a negative impact from the street level in comparison to what is being proposed in the Main & Chicago area. He realizes that Chicago Avenue widens at that point, which is another point to look at in allowing building to the lot line in such a congested and narrower area. Aid. Newman feels that what needs to be revisited in this matter, is not only the heights but also the setbacks and where they require retail to the lot line. He stressed that there needs to be some balance here. Chairman Wynne responded to this, stating that Aid. Newman's concerns have certainly been shared during the Chicago Avenue Corridor 3-year process that they went through. She said that there was a lot of discussion about maintaining an attractive pedestrian -way in ways that you can soften a tall building. She said that during a Plan Commission debate, there was a discussion about setbacks. She stated that she does P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of413 01 Pave 8 agree with Aid. Newman. especially on the B-_ :ssue, that building to the lot line issue in this zone, is something of the sing-to-the-pend::Ium back from the open plaza effect that they have in the dowTitoun NBD Bank building and the Nvind-tunnel effect that resulted. As a result of this, people ha%e come back with ::-ie idea that you build to the lot line and result in creating a retail corridor along the sidewalk. However, a problem that has been recognized by the Zoning staff and has been raised by various developers, is that they are too rigid in requiring a build to the lot line and make it almost impossible to soften an entrance to make it a more attractive building. She noted that this is something that the Neighborhood Committee is aware of and are revie%ing how to make it flexible so that you don't lose the pedestrian attractiveness in consideration of looking at what makes retail artractive. However, she realizes the problem with this is not having a way to balance off the tall height. Chairman Wynne said that as a result of this and what we are seeing at the northeast comer of :Main &c Chicago Avenue, is a good example of why B-3 needs to be looked at, keeping in mind that this building came in before the B-3 discussion. Ms. Anderson added that this is an issue that repeatedly comes up. She noted that although height is not an issue in this instance. she verified that the Commission is extremely sensitive to what happened on the northeast comer of Central Street & Central Park Avenue, which she feels was an abominable result due to the current zoning allowed. She concluded that is why this subject is constantly under issue in what is being discussed with the B-3 zoning district and in other areas as well. Aid. Newman reiterated his expressed concern with the splitting of the height allowance for the moratorium and it bothers him in terms of possible litigation for the City. He pointed out that legal has confirmed that there is no concern for this situation, however he still questions the standing of this unless there are very specific findings to substantiate. He said that he would have been much more comfortable in picking one specific height that would be acceptable for the moratorium and he wants to make the record clear. He asked legal staff for verification that the 37' and 6" height limits is not a problem. Ms. Szymanski responded that legal does stand behind their opinion as presented because of the extensive discussion had by the Neighborhood Plan Commission. Also, as Ms. Gilkeson has pointed out in her memorandum, bored upon those extensive discussions, the actions of the Council in adopting this ordinance which provides for the height differential, would not be arbitrary. Aid. `e%%man asked if a developer could come in a 90-day period and ask for an exception to the moratorium. Avis. Szymanski responded that there is not exception. Ald. Newman asked what requirements would be involved to ask for an extension beyond the 90 days. N,is. Szymanski answered that they would have _ to enact in another ordinance and this can not be done by motion of resolution and has to be done by action by the full City Council and there would have to be reasons recited in the ordinance to justify the extension of the moratorium. Chairman Wynne reminded that this moratorium is asking for 180 days. Aid. Newman asked if there is any anticipation in any event that they are going to limit - B-3 to 37' in any area because this is a tremendous reduction in what is currently allowed. Aid. Bernstein explained that the 37' was in part arbitrary but it was based on the highest existing property west of the tracks and that is why he took this height. He said that they have had discussion with respect to 45' being the minimum, noting that P&D Committee .%ttg. Minutes of 423 01 Page 9 they issues are to be determined and the% is %yhy the% need this moratorium to make these determinations as to what will be most beneficial for both sides of the tracks and perhaps both sides of %lain Street. Chairman Wynne said that she understands Aid. Bernstein's point in having a single level for simplicity sake. however she can understand the unreasonability of the 37' height limit. She reminded that a moratorium is just a pause in time and at this point, nothing will be taller that what is currently there west of the tracks. During which time B-3 is actually being discussed, it is not clear whether this area will called B-3 noting that there is nothing between B-2 at 45* and B-3 at 125', therefore the need for some workable height limit is crucial. Ms. Anderson commented and informed the Committee that it is very unlikely that the PIan Commission will recommend a 37' height limit and are more likely to recommend a higher maximum. Chairman Wynne noted that Mr. Wolinski has asked that she point out to the rest of the Committee, that on page 3 of the proposed ordinance in Section 2, subsection B, it states that in access of 67' on Main Street is the height of the moratorium, this fact was not agreed to at the April 10th meeting. Therefore, in order for this to stand at 67', the Committee needs to modify this to accurately reflect our intentions. Mr. Wolinski verified this and also brought attention to Ms. Sz-manski's earlier comment with respect to the Plan Commission Neighborhood Subcommittee, that they have discussed 67' to 125' height limit. He stated that in standing at a defensible position, they are probably looking at the 67' height. Aid. Engelman said that it was his understanding during the course of this discussion, that there was some contemplation of something west of Main Street that might be higher than 37'. AId. Bernstein verified that contemplated height to be at 45', which he based on from a discussion he had with the owner of the Vogue building and his vision on redeveloping the property, however the owners readiness at this point was not substantiated. The Committee discussed the issue of the 3T height limit versus a 45' limit being more appropriate for the moratorium. Aid. Engelman asked staff if any proposals or if they have had any discussion with any property owners west of the tracks in any planned development in the near future. Mr, �X'olinski verified that staff has heard of or received any plans for west of the CTA tracks on 'Main Street. He noted the plans they have in east of the tracks include Mr. Flannigan's project and Mr. Mullin's project, which he has proposed to be at 67'. After all discussion ensued, Aid. Engelman moved that the ordinance declare 67' east of Chicago Avenue and 45' west of Chicago Avenue for 120 day moratorium bring the time period to approximately August 1st. Chairman Wynne requested that 150 days be considered due to the problems with the shortsge of August meeting dates for the Plan Commission, as well as Council meeting date, therefore bringing the moratorium period to approximately September 1st. The Committee agreed on this and Aid. Engelman amended his motion to 150 days for the moratorium. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was " in favor, P&D Committee Mtg. Miruttes of 423/01 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, the meeting was adjoumed at 7.07 p.m. RespectfWly submitted, Jacque e E Hrownlec 4 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee May 7, 2001 Room 2403 — 7.00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Berstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, M. Barry, C. Smith, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, L. Berkun, J. Weiss Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He announced that this is the W Evanston City Council and although this is the first Planning & Development meeting of the new Council, there is no change in members. He informed the other members that they will proceed this evening by having a dialogue with representatives of the Sign Review and Appeals Board regarding what their desires are with regards to the sign amortization. With the time remaining, he would like to talk about the various references that have been on the agenda for some time and try to prioritize them and schedule them for upcoming meeting. He also informed the Committee that he will be trying to include the Boards and Commissions that report to P&D for future meeting to participate in discussion and include their dialogue. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23.2001 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of April 23rd, seconded by Ald. Kent. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION fPDD Joint Discussion with Sien Review and Anneals Board Chairman Engelman acknowledged Mr. Jack Weiss and Ms. Lindsey Berkun from the Sign Review & Appearance Board. Mr. Weiss informed the Committee that their Chairman, Mr. Marie Larsen, is unable to be present this evening for personal reasons. He brought attention to the letter dated February 27, 2001 that was forwarded to the Committee where Mr. Larsen stated in general terms, what the Sign Board has been doing since approximately October, 2000. He noted that at that time they began reviewing the Sign Ordinance to try and address a number of issues by clarifying, deleting and expanding in certain areas. He said that because of the extent of the issues that they have been looking at, the Sign Board is .J P&D Committee Mtg. May 7, 2001 Page 2 simply asking for an extension of the &-nortization date which was due to expire January 1, 2003. They are asking to extend this date to January 1, 2005. an additional two years. !fir. Weiss explained that what they intend to do once they have completed their review, revisions and rewrite of the Ordinance. is to then invite the business community to meet with them, including the Chamber of Commerce, EVMARK and a number of other City organizations. In this meeting, they plan to present the changes they are proposing to the Ordinance and receive feedback and input from the business community before they do a final draft. He anticipates an additional 2 or 3 months in order to accomplish this task plus extra time to rewrite the Ordinance for the process in coming before P&D and Council for final review. Ald. Kent agreed with Mr. Weiss in the amount of time requested for the Sign Board to accomplish what he has stated. However, upon mentioning the inclusion of the Chamber of Commerce, EVMARK and other Cit-% organizations, he questioned if businesses that do not belong to the Chamber, etc will also be included. He mentions this because he knows of several businesses in the 5d' ward that do not belong to the Chamber and are also not are unaware of the purpose of EVMARK. Mr. Weiss related that it is their intention to publish a notice for a public meeting. Ald. Kent further suggested that he personally receive copies of this notice or flyer so that he can forward this by hand to some of the businesses in his ward to insure that they are made aware of the meeting for their participation in the discussion. He stressed the importance of this notice getting out and being received by all Evanston businesses. Mr. Weiss assured Aid. Kent that he would forward notice to him. Ald. Wynne asked when the original date was when the amortization date was set, recalling that the Ordinance was put into effect in 1987. Mr. Weiss responded that in 1993 the Ordinance was revised, which he took part in and the amortization date was set at that time, giving approximately 10 years to come into compliance. Aid. Wynne noted that now there is the recognition that the Ordinance is not current. Mr. Weiss responded that the Sign Board feels there are a number of issues that need to be addressed because of the technological changes that have taken place, also the inclusion of a special sign district that was not part of the original Ordinance. This special sign district needs to be built into the new Ordinance and the concept of it. He noted that there are also many administrative problems that have come up during the implementation of this new ordinance, which the Sign Board needs to address and make revisions. Chairman Engelman asked if Mr. Weiss could give more detail of what the Sign Board has in mind, in terms of changes and additions to the Ordinance. He stated that he appreciates the fact that the Sign Board is going out to the business community, as well as the public, for inclusion of their input He feels that it is helpful if the Committee hears early on what's going on because there may be political things that come up for suggestion. Mr. Weiss briefed the Committee on the Sign Boards intent, which is to try and tighten certain areas in the Ordinance, related to things such as total signs square footage and similar areas where they feel it is too generous in the current ordinance. He mentioned that the Board has looked at several ordinances in the neighboring communities and in comparison, Evanston's is much too generous such as the current _ V. P&D Committee Mtg. %lir 7, 2001 Pap 3 height requirement. He said that they are considering reducing free-standing sign height. He pointed out that when this current ordinance was put into place. there were issues about lighted awnings that they tried to address. However, technology in this area has already changed, therefore they are trying to address how current awnings with signs, can be controlled. He anticipates that the Sign Board will discuss non-luminated, non - translucent awnings for signs. Chairman Engelman asked if the Board will address neon signs. Ms. Smith responded that the current ordinance treats those signs like window signs. She noted that there have been many violations with neon signs. however they are actually window signs. She noted that it is prohibited to outlining the window with neon and they have gone out and cited those businesses. She added that the previous items that Mr. Weiss mentioned are the primary concerns that the Sign Board wishes to address and amend of the current ordinance. She further pointed out that the tuning in mind that they are trying to do is with regards to the allowable area., very few businesses have used all the area allowed but they use it as a lobbying tool to use the design they want in comparison to using minimum area from what is allowed. Aid. Newman feels that the City has always approached this matter in a way that has not totally served us well. He explained that the sign ordinance is a very sensitive proposition with businesses. In his opinion, the way he feels they should approach this, rather than the Sign Board just re -writing a new ordinance, he suggests that the Board present to the Committee what has happened with certain signs as a result of the current ordinance and why they shouldn't be allowing these types of signs. He noted that some people have already spent the money to come into compliance and others appear as if they have no plans to comply, even with the 10 year time exemption, now requesting 12 years. Aid. Newman feels that rather than rely on what the other communities do, for example Lake Forest who has a lot of control and appear to be satisfied with the amount of commercial businesses that exist, therefore are more able to set limitations. He further referred to Harlem Avenue as an extreme example of non -control and the wide variety of sizes and heights of those signs, noting that Evanston is no where near that level of generosity. Therefore, it appears that there is a need to get an ideal as to what the ordinance has allowed that we feel as a community, doesn't want. Aid. Newman suggested that the only way to do this is by taking pictures and relating them to the certain sections of the ordinance for comparison. Ms. Smith informed the Committee that during this process, the Board has also expressed interested in collecting an update of pictures of current signs in Evanston. She noted that especially with the free-standing signs because there has been a lot of discussion regarding these particular signs. She further noted that the City's Sign Inspector, Karlton Mims, has gone out and photographed every free-standing sign and the Board used these photos in their discussion. She stated that the Board has expressed concern with what is currently out there and where do the problems lie. She said that although they have looked at other communities in the North shore, they have also looked at other similar communities and do recognize that Evanston is unique and versatile with the inclusion of Howard Street and the many different neighborhoods and their businesses. Aid. Newman pointed out the "Lupita" sign and questioned if that sign was in conformity. Ms. Smith responded that that sign went before the Board and was approved due to the hardship of P&D Comminee Mtg. May 7, 20D I Page 4 the location of the business. Mr. Weiss gave another example of a case where a sign was approved that he feels was allowed too much generosity because of the current Sign Ordinance and the Board feels very strongly about. He pointed out the St. Paul Federal Bank location on Howard Street, which is now become Charter One Bank and informed the Committee that they applied for a renewal of their variation. He further noted that the general consensus of the Board is not to approve their sign. He reported that the bank currently has a free-standing sign that is presumably twice as high as it should be according to the Ordinance, as well as twice as large as it should be. He further pointed out that this facility also has a time/temperature sign on the east elevation of the building that it approximately 2-3 stories high. He added that this bank has several variations that were granted at the last time they applied that the Board intends to clamp down on. He stated that the bank was informed of the Board's intent and noted that the bank has not come back to apply for their variation since they became aware of this. Mr. Weiss pointed out that it appears that there are several existing signs that were previously approved, that are now coming back for a second variation request, which the Board is going to be much tougher on. Aid. Bernstein replied that he is beginning to hear what he wanted to hear and approved of the Sign Boards intentions with their revisions of the current ordinance. He said that other than addressing current technology, he asked if Mr. Weiss could articulate a policy statement or omission that they propose with this revised Sign Ordinance. Mr. Weiss responded that he thinks one of the main issues of the Sign Board is with regards to administrative problems that cause a lot of staff work and paper work that could be relived if the ordinance was changed. However, he can not give specifies at this time. He noted that one of the things they are trying to accomplish with the new ordinance, it to provide an illustrated manual to demonstrate what the ordinance is enforcing. For example, demonstrating and visualizing the requirements for certain sizes, shapes, heights and square footage in relation to the property. The Board feels this will be a very helpful tool for the applicant when applying for their sign. Aid. Bernstein further illuminated as to if there is an underlying dissatisfaction with the existing with the existing signs or the manner of the Sign Ordinance which brought the Sign Board to the point where they felt they needed to re -write the it. Mr. Weiss responded that to be an interesting observation because the Board has looked at such situations, for example, the special sign district for the Hill Development. He pointed out that their signs all fall well within the current ordinance, in terms of square footage allowed for commercial entities. He continued that if you look at their buildings and their signs, you see something that is _ more modest than you see in other part of town, acknowledging the fact that this was their own design. Mr. Weiss resolved that if this development can come up with their own sign district regulations, the Board figured why can't the rest of the City scale back some and become more subtle in their approach as well. AId. Newman noted with the exception of the Century Theatre sign. Chairman Engelman asked if the Board is also addressing the new electric signs that give information on a continuous basis. Mr. Weiss responded that the current ordinance prohibits moving message signs and the Board proposes no changes to this. Chairman Engelman asked about the Board's opinion on paper signs or the seemingly permanent = P&D Committee Mtg. May 7. 200 Page S temporary signs that exist especially with grocery stores. Nis. Smith responded that they have discussed this and noted that the ordinance actualIy is not as problematic as the enforcement issue with these signs. She noted the difficulties in enforcement with these temporary paper window signs. She informed the Committee that she is constantly sending out Inspector Mims on complaints of such signs and he does cite the business. However, the business immediately compares their signs to other similar businesses that do the same thing and the business rill take them down but within weeks will repeat the same violation. Mr. Wolinski commented that even though he has not worked closely with the Sign Board on this issue, he did work with Mr. Weiss on the first revisions many years ago. He pointed out that some of the issues, which Mr. Weiss previously stated as being too liberal, if you look at the financial plaza at the corner of Dodge and Dempster, those three signs there have been approved by the Ordinance and is clearly an example of too much signage. He also pointed out that another sign that was approved with the currcat ordinance, is the Spex Car Wash sign, which is directly south of that location. He noted that this business took advantage of the fact that they had an entire wall which their sign could be 15-2W@ of the wall's square footage, however most of that wall is exposed in an alley. He said that the result is a very large sign but in comparison to the entire wall, it is not that huge. Mr. Wolinski concluded that his concerns with the allowances in the current ordinance are inconceivable and hard to accept as being approvable. He added that businesses have found ways to manipulate the Sign Ordinance to obstruct such undesirable signs and this is why the Sign Board is trying to tie these loose ends up to eliminate and control some of the generosity that currently exists. Ms. Berkun brought to attention the changing face of Evanston in just the last two years has been astronomical. She pointed out that Chicago Avenue has gone from primarily business to very much residential and all of these facts come into play with the Sign Board's review of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wolinski mentioned another issue of importance that the Sign Board is reviewing which relates to blade signs. He recalled that back in 1993, Mr. Weiss and the other members of the Sign Board wanted to get rid of anything that was over -hanging the sidewalk. However, he believes that there has been a change in philosophy about blade signs, to some extent. Mr. Weiss responded that to be correct to some extent, partly because of the new concept that has emerged for some of the new planned commercial developments, for example the Hill Development. He noted that Deerfield has a new downtown center that includes blade signs, which is a fairly new concept, and pointed out that it works very well in a positive approach. He said that they are pedestrian oriented signs and are well above head -level, which conform to any ADA restrictions. They also address a pedestrian scale that other signs don't and the Sign Board feels positive that these signs are a concept that can be worked into the street scape. Mr. John Max, Sign Board member, stated that each member of the Sign Board has expressed a variety of their individual dissatisfactions with the current Sign Ordinance. He noted that one of his particular dissatisfactions is the awning issue. He explained that the awning, as it is supposed to be worth presently, should be a protection for the pedestrian in combination with allowing some advertisement for the business. However, many awnings protrude much further than they should over the sidewalk and provide too much advertisement. He noted that the Sign Board is now requesting to amend this requirement for awnings to P&D Committee Mtg. May 7, 2001 Page 6 be a minimum of 3' and he feels this is an important issue. He pointed out z classic example of where awnings can be a protection, as well as aesthetically pleasing, is with the building at the southwest corner of Main and Hinman, which he feels is a beautiful example of what he would Iike to see enforced in the new ordinance. Ms. Smith requested to respond to Aid. Newman's previous suggestion of whether it would be possible to review the changes prior to opening and presenting the proposed amendments to the public. She assured that certainly a draft could be routed ahead of time to the Committee for pre -review and input before any public meeting is set. Aid. Newman responded that the Sign Ordinance is one of the most difficult documents to read and understand. He stressed the need for picture examples of what is undesirable, what is currently allowed and what is currently existing with signs throughout Evanston. He pointed out that it is a major source of complaint by businesses, that they feel the City is infringing on their rights to exist when they tell them what sign the business can or can not have. He feels that the City needs to be very clear and firm in terms of what we want and don't allow for signs in Evanston and added that it appears to be a more visual matter than anything else. Ms. Smith noted that she feels this also some of the same frustrations that the Sign Board has expressed and why they recommend including graphics and an illustration manual. She also noted the importance of presentation to the community of why the Sign Board is allocating so much time and careful review to this issue. She further informed the Committee of the stairs position in reviewing sign applications that do not go to the Sign Board which she has recognized that there has been a significant change in what comes in for permit. She senses that what is happening is that other communities have drafted and are enforcing sign ordinances since their initial grotmd breaking of the Evanston sign ordinance in 1987, She pointed out that what used to be problematic issues and constant complaints received in the Building Department, with regards to the sign ordinance, are not as strenuous as in the beginning or in previous years. Ms. Smith determined this fact to be because it is not unusual anymore to have sign regulations enforced and the business owners are beginning to recognize this. Ald. Newman agreed. Aid. Bernstein raised the question if whether the Sign Board has jurisdiction over content of billboard signs. Mr. Weiss responded that the Board does not currently have this jurisdiction. He requested Mr. Wolinski to address this issue and is awareness of the legality of this because he personally is very sensitive to this situation and has always had a concern and interest in why they do not have any control over billboards and the hopeful possibility of the Sign Board having some jurisdiction of this problem in the near future. Mr. Weiss informed the Committee that billboards have been restricted from the day this ordinance was put into place and for a number of legal reasons, they still exist. Mr. Wolinski responded that the billboards are primarily on the railroad right-of-ways such as along Green Bay Road. He informed that he has talked with the Legal Department about trying to get some kind of a feel as to whether they can go after these billboard signs and the response that he has so far received from legal is that the sign ordinance does not cover billboards. He acknowledged that the faces on the billboards are constantly changing, which he realizes are a major revenue producer to the users of those signs, however are considered a major blight to City staff, the Sign Board, City P&D Committee Mtg, May 7, 2001 Page 7 Council and all Evanston residents. He noted that city staff and the Sign Board have requested a legal opinion to this matter and are awaiting a response but he assured that he %kill forward to legal staff the interest of the Committee to receive this response as soon as possible. Ms. Smith informed all that she has recently had a meeting with Ms. Brenniman on this issue. She noted that Nis. Brenniman has stated that she is currently revisiting the issue at the request of the Sign Board, specifically if they need to change any wording in the proposed ordinance to make this possible to go after attempting jurisdiction over the billboards in Evanston. She assured that legal staff is looking into the possibility of beginning to go after and taking over enforcement of billboard signs, and if so, they will be including this into the new ordinance. Mr. Weiss added that theoretically, everytime the face of a billboard changes, it should come before the Sign Board and because billboards are not allowed in the current ordinance, these means that they should come before them for request of a variation. He reiterated that he, and other member of the Sign Board, are very sensitive to this issue. Aid. Kent acknowledged, from all the discussion that has ensued, that this will result in an awesome presentation with the inclusion of the visual illustrations included with the proposed amendments to the new ordinance. He noted that just as important as it is to show pictures of signs that they do not want, it is equally important to show the signs that they do want. He stated that he is hopeful that in this presentation, there will be the inclusion of the small neighborhood businesses and being able to look at some of the alternatives that do exist for these businesses. He recalled that when they first starting discussion and consideration of these amendments, one of the big problems that existed were the sidewalk sandwich signs that many restaurants used and the expressed concerns from pedestrians, especially senior citizens, %ith the safety issues of the usage of these signs. However, the restaurants felt this to be a good ideal, especially for pedestrian advertisement. Aid. Kent explained that he points these undesired sandwich signs out, as well as the undesired blade signs because he would like to see a visualization and comparison of when and why they were once undesirable and how they became to be desirable at this time. After all discussion ensued, Ms. Smith asked the Committee what their consensus is on extending the amortization date for another two years to a date of January 1, 2005. Chairman Engelman agreed that an extension of this date is needed, especially in light of the new amendments that are being considered for the Sign Ordinance. However, Ald. Newman pointed out consideration has to also be given to those businesses, even if it is a small number, who have complied and have spent numerous dollars in order to do so. He requested that staff provide the Committee with statistics of those businesses who have complied in comparison to those who haven't. Ms. Smith informed that the amount of signs that do not comply with the current ordinance, has not been accessed. She noted that when staff did the sign survey and obtained the data base that they are still currently using from 1994, to send out their annual invoices for existing signs, staff did not identify all of the criteria necessary to evaluate signs that are in or out of compliance. She said that they did this on the basis of what was required to send the bills out at that point. She reiterated that the data that staff currently has does not identify if a business is in compliance and added that if they did do a survey for that reason, it would have cost P&D Committee Mtg. May 7, 2001 Page 8 more and required more time which is why they made the decision not to extend their survey to obtain this information at that time. However, she pointed out that they do plan to obtain this information in the near future by notif}ing businesses with signs that are not in compliance, which would require another survey of the entire City against our current ordinance. She further pointed out that if they make changes, they would have to review all the data again to see which businesses are now out of compliance. Ms. Smith pointed out that this is actually one of the reasons that provoked extending this amortization time out because of the current proposed changes. Ald. Newman responded to Ms. Smith's comments. He commented that his answer to the problems stated by Ms. Smith, is that if we don't know how many signs are in not in compliance, then we have no idea of what we are doing. He stated that the whole idea of an amortization period was to give businesses a reasonable amount of time to comply. He pointed out the importance of knowing where they stand as far as the percentage of businesses that have already complied. He questions what percentage the City is at presently and the point he is making is the importance of going forward with any amendments to the current ordinance and being able to clarify to the businesses exactly what regulations they need to meet. He stressed the expense involved in changing signage and that this must be taken under consideration, especially if the regulations are changed and how this will effect the businesses that have incurred the expense of complying. Chairman Engelman stated that from his understanding, as businesses came in to apply for new signs, they were told that what they are applying for will be out of compliance and will have to be brought into compliance by the amortization date. Ald. Newman stated that he was under the impression that the point of the amortization was that when they passed the ordinance in 1993, the City had many signs that did not meet the ordinance and the business owners were told that by the amortization date, their signage would have to comply with the ordinance. He said otherwise, what was put into effect in 1993, really has no meaning. Mr. Wolinski elaborated on this and explained that every new sign that has come in for permit since the changes in 1993, has been required to meet the ordinance or had to go for a variation. He assured in confidence, that if a business has not changed, very few signs have changed that are nonconforming. He feels there are many signs existing that were nonconforming with the 1993 ordinance which people have not changed and are still nonconforming. Ald. Newman replied that this is the information that he wants to confirm in surveying what businesses are still in nonconformity in comparison to those few who have complied since 1993. Ms. Smith added, that she would go out on a limb to state the almost none of those additional businesses have come into compliance with existing nonconforming signs. Mr. Weiss challenged this, stating this his perception since the 1993 ordinance amendments, is that there is been a lot of change and he feels the existing nonconforming signs that exist today that were here 8 years ago, probably have not changed. However, where ever there has been a new business owner, pointing out that there have been numerous ones, those signs have changed because they were required to do so in order to meet the current ordinance or comply with the upcoming amortization period. Ald. Newman said, in his opinion, it appears that the majority of businesses are not taking this amortization period seriously. E P&D Committee .%4q . May 7, 2001 Page 9 Chairman Engelman. at this point, asked the Committee their consensus of how to direct staff and the Sign Board to go forward with this ordinance. Aid. Newman moved to extend the requested amortization date to January 1, 2005, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Engelman forwarded to static' direction to draft an ordinance stating this extension date. He further extended the Committee's gratitude to the Sign Board members in attendance for their shared dialogue and valuable information. (PD2) Prioritizine and Scheduline References and items for Future Consideration Chairman Engelman acknowledged the amended handout provided by staff of the list of P&D references due to the unintentional ommittance of one of Aid. Bernstein's references. He informed the Committee that he would like to go through as many of these references with the intent to schedule and implement into upcoming P&D meeting agenda's as their business will allow. Aid. Berstein asked if staff could initially go through and point out which references are imminent at this point because of their awareness of the applicant's position at this time or in those cases where staff is awaiting specific responses. Chairman Engelman assured to the Committee that they will definitely address the sidewalk cafe liquor issue at their next meeting on May 21st. Mr. Wolinski added that that item was actually held in Committee last year and an ordinance has already been prepared regarding this issue. He informed the Committee that he has taken the liberty of reviewing this list with his staff and requested that he would like to address these references in the order listed and their determinations of high priority versus medium priority or status of waiting for some type of response. The Committee agreed to proceed in this manner. Consideration to urovide an ordinance or amendment to existing ordinance which reauires develoDm to nav for nronem► damage which occurs to adiacent nron_ erty as a result of their develomnent (Aid. Bernstein) Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that this reference was brought about due to the Joyce Elias issue and the claimed damage done to her property from the condo development in the 1200 block of Chicago Avenue. AU Newman pointed out that there is a difference that should be considered with whether the project is City related such as the sewer project versus a commercial or residential developer. Mr. Wolinski stated that staff considers this item as a high priority matter and suggests that the Committee decide on a date in the near future to address this issue. The Committee agreed but did not set a definite date to review this matter. Review and discuss licensine of rental units in Evanston (Aid. Rainey) Mr. Wolinski stated that staff also views this matter as a high priority issue. He reminded the Committee that they have had previous discussion of this issue. He recalls that discussion of this matter came to some conclusion and decision that certain situations with regards to this will come before administrative adjudication and that some resolvement would be taken care of in this procedure. Evidently, according to Ald. Rainey, some of these issue are being addressed but not in a timely enough manner with regards to some of the serious issues that she assumed would be addressed within the P&D Committee Mtg. May 7. 200 Page 10 System. Therefore. he feels and assumes that Aid. Rainey would like this issue to be looked at in more detail again by the Committee in the near future also. Consideration to rezone existine areas within the 5th Ward to less intense & dense uses (Ald. Kent) Mr. Wolinski noted that staff has listed this item as a high priority matter and are currently reviewing the issue in order to bring before the Committee. Aid. Newman addressed Aid. Kent and suggested that it would be helpful for the Committee if they could get the zoning map showing the 5th ward. He said that in this way they could have a view and pictures of what some of the streets look like, because it is his feeling that most of the Sth ward is zoned in the high "R" level and have the least amount of R1. Although the 5th ward has some R1 streets, the majority is R3 and above and in his opinion, this current zoning is what causes the intense and resulting density of allowable building in this area Aid. Kent agreed with Aid. Newman and also agrees with Mr. Wolinski that this is a high priority. He noted that also when he made this reference, it was his intent to go to the Plan Commission who will be working with the neighborhood group in that area and doing some studies and developing a collection of pictures for their review. He stated that when all this information and surveying is finally collected for the Plan Commission's review, he would then like to have the Committee take a look at the entire issue. Chairman Engelman stated that this is why staff has prioritized this item as a high priority matter and should be brought forward on P&D's agenda as soon as it is ready for such review. Ald. Wynne reported that this matter is currently on the agenda of the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission. Ms. Anderson clarified that what the Neighborhood Committee and the Plan Commission will be looking at that portion of the 5th ward which lies north of Emerson, west of Green Bay and encompassed by the curb of the canal, noting that this does not include the entire 5th ward. However, she noted that this will be the first opportunity to replicate the process that was used in the Chicago Avenue plan development and is the intent of the Plan Commission. The Comauttee agreed to keep this item as a high priority and await response from the Plan Commission in the near future to put on the agenda for review. Ms. Anderson further requested that more direction will be needed from the Committee, since this matter will ultimately be reviewed by the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission as well, with regards to such issues as dead end streets and other related matter and concerns that lie within the 5th ward. Ordinance 87-0-01 - Amendment to Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Mr. Wolinski confirmed with the Committee that this item will be stricken from the reference list since it has been scheduled for consideration on the May 21 st agenda. Aid. Wynne informed the Committee members that a restaurant in her ward, Oceanique, has also expressed their interest in this ordinance as well. She requested that staff make sure that they are notified of in advance of the meeting when this item will be addressed. Chairman Engelman noted that the impression that he is getting from the fine dining restaurants with sidewalk cafes in the neighborhoods outside of the core area, is that they can not get their patrons to support and sit at their outside tables unless they are allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. The Committee concurred with staff to have this on their next agenda on May 21 st. mF P&D Cammittee Mfg. May 7, 2001 Page t 1 Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue. Evanston Athletic Club Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he has received a call from Mr. James Murray, attorney for the applicant, stating that he want to meet with staff to discuss this issue. He noted that they have made several proposals to this applicant, originally the applicant did not %ant to comply with these proposals. He noted that at this point, he is unsure of the applicant's position and suggests to the Committee that they either consider this as a low priority item or remove as a reference from the agenda. The Committee discussed this and agreed that this item can not be removed from the agenda because this matter has gone through the Zoning Board and a recommendation was made and this item was ultimately tabled in Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to leave this item on the agenda as a reference awaiting further conclusive response from the applicant. Mr. Wolinski confurned that this item will remain listed as tabled in Committee. Ordinance 3-0-01 - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: Parking 1000-Foot Maximum Distance Between narkine and orincinal use Mr. Wolinski reported that at this point, it is his understanding that Ron Naylor and Dave Jennings are working on this continually. He asked Aid. Newman for further information. Ald. Newman explained and noted that this particular regulation is what the City requires and is not a new rule. He noted that the question is whether or not this requirement has applied in the t st ward and can not respond to the position of the 7th ward that is also effected by this amendment. He stated that this item is active and it is Is expected to receive a report back from those involved, as mentioned, as to what their plans are for parking and adding parking. He noted that as of this date, he has not received any response either. Aid. Wynne recalled that the last heard was that Dave Jennings was doing a count during spring break and then after spring break on Orrington. Aid. Newman confirmed that he has been notified of this count being done. The Committee agreed to keep this item on the agenda as a reference to be dealt and put on their agenda in the near future. Aid. Newman reported that this item is an active item and should no longer be referred to as a reference and should be scheduled for an upcoming agenda Chairman Engelman suggested that this item be put back on the agenda for a July meeting. Ald. Newman agreed, as well as the other Committee members. Consideration of whether business license issuance may be oredicated on the structure housing the business having no outstanding building code Niolations Mr. Wolinski stated that this reference originally came from Aid. Rainey. He said that he listed this item as medium priority noting that he has not spoken any further with Aid. Rainey regarding this issue. Aid. Newman suggested that a legal opinion is needed for this item before the Committee can proceed any further in discussion or consideration. The Committee agreed and directed staff to forward this matter to legal for an opinion to present to them before further consideration is given. Binding Annearance Review Mr. Wolinski reported that this item was before the Committee in November 2000 and the direction from the Committee to staff was to go forward and draft design guidelines P&D Committee Mtg. May 7, 2001 Page 12 for this purpose. He further reported that these guidelines are currently still being worked on and staff could be ready to present this to the Committee some time this summer. Ald. Newman clarified that his understanding are for these guidelines to give the SPAARC binding review because they currently have some type of ad%isory review in place. Chairman Engelman responded that his understanding was to set a whole other Committee with the inclusion of architects for review of the subject stated. Mr. Wolinski explained that the Plan Commission recommendation looked at exactly what Ald. Engelman talked about, however he believes their recommendation was that this entire review should be handled within Site Plan review and give the SPAARC mandatory control of appearance review as well. Ms. Anderson added that there was a question as to whether or not Site Plan, as they currently meet now, would meet under slightly different arrangements when it came to appearance review, with the inclusion of additional architects for such a review in addition to their site plan review. Discussion ensued regarding this matter. It was the consensus of the Committee to leave this item as a reference on the agenda until staff is ready to present the guidelines that they have come up with. Ordinance 108-0-00 - Amendments to the Residential/Landlord Tenant Ordinance Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this item was referred back to the Human Relations Commission and he reported that they are still working on their revisions as he has been notified. Ald. Newman feels that this item should be removed from the reference list until they are ready to come back before the Committee. Ald. Kent requested if there is any way the Committee can receive some type of written update as to where the Human Relations Commission stands on their review of these amendments and how much further they have to go. Mr. Wolinski responded that he can request the presence of Ms. Haynes at an upcoming P&D meeting in the near future to present an update of the Commissions position and their proceedings. The Committee agreed to receiving an update or some type of status report and further agreed to delete this item from the agenda until further notice from staff that the Human Relations Commission is ready to proceed with their amendments. Special Use for 519 Main Street Ald. Wynne reported to the Committee that she has received a response from the applicant and assured that this item will become active in the near future. The Committee perceived these issues to come forward in the near future due to the pending expansion of that location. The consensus of the Committee was to keep this item on the agenda as a reference waiting for further expected response from the applicant. Discussion of Residential Tear Downs Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that staff sent them some information on this issue previously and he questioned if there was still any interest to proceed any further. Aid. Bernstein responded that he is definitely interested and not only with residential but also all tear downs including commercial. The Committee agreed to keep this item on the agenda as a reference to be considered in the near future. P&D Committee Mig. May 7, 2001 Page 13 Consideration of a oolicv for communicatine potential chances effectine zoning gpalicants (Aid. Wynne) Mr. Wolinski asked for clarification from Aid. Wynne regarding her initial reference. Md. Wynne responded that at the time she made this reference it was in regards to applications and proposals and %tether they were considered to be in the pipeline or not. She also noted that her concern was for the short notice time requirement of 10 days and her opinion of this time frame being insufficient. Discussion ensued as to whether this item should go back to the Plan Commission since this notice requirement is specifically stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Anderson stated that she recalls discussion of whether this time frame is working days or actual calendar days, and she believes the conclusion was working days and this to be the intent of the Plan Commission. Aid. Wynne stressed that this time frame needs to be looked at and re -considered because she strongly feels that this is not sufficient notice time in comparison to the lasting effect of what the potential change might be with regards to Any zoning issues and issuance of major building permits approved. After discussion, Chairman Engelman suggested that before the Committee makes a reference to refer this matter to the Plan Commission, they should plan on looking at the notice requirements in the various sections of the ordinance. Mr. Wolinski agreed to forward this information to the Committee some time in the near future. Comvrchensive review of the Historical Preservation Ordinance (Aid. Engelman) Aid. Newman stated that he personally is ready for full discussion by the Committee on this matter. Chairman Engelman stated that although he would like to address this issue, he would not be comfortable with any discussion amongst the Committee with the present law suit is going on. Discussion ensued regarding this concern. Aid. Newman feels that if there is a comprehensive review of the ordinance, noting that he can think of one change that he is interested in making, is that City Council should be the final authority on demolitions of historically categorized properties. He does not agree that the Preservation Commission should have the final authority to allow such demolitions without the Council's approval. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that due to the sensitivity of this subject and because of the current law suit going on, they agreed to keep this item on their agenda and decide on a date in the future to further discuss and elaborate on this item at a more appropriate time. Chairman Engelman noted to the Committee his initial comments on the inclusion of their reporting Boards and Commission for dialogue regarding any matters that concern them and this particular item would a good forum to identify and receive input. Consideration of a review of the Sian Ordinance concerning amortization (Aid. Engelman) This item was removed from the list of reference. P&D Committee Mug. May 7, 2001 Page 14 Consideration of a recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance sections ut-hich relate to the control of soccial uses and substitutions of special uses Mr. Wolinski noted that this has been a major concern by staff which is one of the reasons it resulted in a reference and also noted that they need further guidance from legal staff before they could bring this back before the Committee for review. Aid. Newman clarified that he feels this reference is more than just a staff reference and concern because he uses as an example the Taco Bell restaurant in the 1st ward. He stressed the problems that have existed with this establishment, uncontrollable by the business owner, nevertheless, have resulted because of the particular use. He feels that the Council needs to have some control over what happens after a fast food restaurant has gone out and the problems that result with the establishment. Consideration ofcmatinu, a oolicv on the makinu of eavments in lieu of taxes All Newman stated that he is still interested in this issue and would like to see some type of policy created, especially with the large number of not -for -profit organizations that exist in Evanston. Mr. Wolinski noted that such a policy could result in tying the Council's hands and setting precedence. Ald. Newman still feels there should be some type of policy in place to promote properties to be on the tax roll. The Committee decided to leave this on the agenda due to Aid. Newman's interest. Sidewalk Cafe for 2545 Prairie Avenue The Committee agreed to remove this item from the agenda ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ]arqucI E."rownlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee May 21, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. bent. A. Newman, M. W) ne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. P. Casey, M. Barry. R. Schur. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson. A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 7.2001 MEETING Aid. W}Mute moved approval of the minutes of play 7th. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PI) Sidewalk Cafe for 1700 Orrincton Avenue Chairman Engelman noted that no one %%as present on behalf of McDonald's. He requested that staff elaborate on any issues with regards to this request. W. Wolinski informed the Committee that Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee recommended approval of this sidewalk cafd and there was a lot of discussion about the paper -wrapped food issue and how it was going to be contained. He said that the owner of McDonald's was present at the SPAARC meeting and stated that he would have a number of privately owned wastebaskets that would be directly taken to McDonald's dtunpster. An equal amount of concern was raised about the fact that the garage would be dumped into the City dumpsters as opposed to being taken care of by McDonald employees. Mr. Wolinski continued that there was additional concern about the tables being too close to the alley. However. overall, he feels this is the first time that McDonald's has come in for a sidewalk cafd and the SPAARC did recommend approval with the ideal that it would be given a waiver for the disposable beverage containers and to keep a tight rain on the paper wrap issue. P&D Committee ,Mig. Minutes of tta� 21. 2001 Page Aid. Wynne asked if Mc Donald's plans to ha%e continuous staff stationed outside while the Sidewalk cafe is open. Mr. Wolinski confirmed that McDonald's did state this and assured that they «ould have someone bussing the tables at all times. Chairman Engelman recognized this to be one of the conditions under the Ordinance. Aid. Newman stated that he is concerned that the Cit% sta% on top of this and follow-up to make sure that these conditions are being adhered because of the possibility of potential litter problem and that McDonald's actually have a staff member on duty at all times at the sidewalk cafe. He requested that staff address how they plan to enforce these conditions. He also requested to know what the hours of operation are planned for the sidewalk cafe. Mr. Wolinski responded that he is surprised at the fact that the representative from McDonald's is not present at this meeting and he undoubtedly is not in the position to speak on their behalf. Chairman Engelman asked Aid. Newman if he would like to hold this item over until staff has a chance to present these questions to the applicant. Aid. Newman. first hand. asked staff ho« the%, usually address the hours of operation for a sidewalk cafe: does it go along with the hours of operation of the establishment? He presumes that there needs to be a report back on the litter issue and also on the potential loitering issue and he would like to hear from staff as to how they will be addressing these issues. Mr. Wolinski responded that ordinarily, staff operates on a complaint basis, which Ald. Newman recognized does not work well in that area, as staff has experienced as well. Aid. Newman noted that there are adjoining restaurants that will be operating sidewalk cafes and he is hopeful that there will be a joint effort in keeping the area under control. Aid. Newman moved approval, requesting that there be some periodic impromptu inspections for this block of restaurants possessing sidewalk cafes to be certain that the conditions are being adhered to as promised by these restaurants. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Chairman Engelman clarified through staff that they do have the right to revoke a sidewalk cafe permit if they are in violation of what they have agreed to within the ordinance. Aid. Bernstein reiterated his feelings of being in favor of outdoor cafes because of the ambience they add to their community, especially to the downtown area. He reminded the Committee that Council is being asked to approve funding for EVMAR.K for cleaning up the dowrno«n area, and he would not want to add to their stipend on behalf of private property owners. Therefore, he feels that these conditions need to be fully enforced on the City's part and not just on a complaint basis. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Sidewalk Cafe for 720 IV., Clark Street Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for JK Sweets with a waiver for disposable beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Engelman acknowledged Ms. Yi Cha, representing JK Sweets, who had no comments to add. Aid. Bernstein suggested the same consideration for this application with the concern for enforcement with a request that staff that the,. be vigilant in this case also. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. {P3) Sidewalk Cafe for 711 Church Street P&D Committee Sttz. M inutes of Ma% ' 1.:W I Page 3 Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for Chipolte Mexican Grill, seconded by Aid. %Vynne. Chairman Engelman acknowledged Ms. Jennifer Gallery. Attorney for the applicant. She stated for the record that the applicant is here to renew their application from last year and informed the Committee that she confirmed with the City that there %ere no complaints or problems reported with regards to trash or litter problems. She noted that they do ha%e receptacles outside and full time bus service of the dining area outside. Chairman Engelman asked Iris. Gallery if at any time the staff at Chipolte becomes aware of any of the other establishments with sidewalk cafes in their area not abiding by the conditions set. if she would pass this information on to this Committee. its. Gallery assured that she would. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Request for HOME Funds Chairman Engelman noted that the Interfaith Housing Development Corporation is requesting 5100.000 in HOME Funds for use at 319 Dempster Street. He acknowledged Mr. Richard Koenig. Executive Director of Interfaith Housing Development Corporation. Aid. Newman moved approval of this request, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Newman informed that there have been neighborhood meetings on this matter with no major complaints or issues. The Committee unanimously agreed and commended Interfaith on their work in the past and had no concerns they wished to address. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. - (P5) Ordinance 53-0-01 - Amendment to the Sian Ordinance Chairman Engelman stated that this ordinance is to amend the Sign Ordinance to extend the amortization period an additional three year to a date of January 1, 2005 and has been previously discussed by the Committee. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 53-OA1, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Wynne recalled that at the last meeting. members of the Sign Board said that they would be coming back before the Committee to describe all the various issues involved with the additional amendments to the Sign Ordinance. she asked when this is to be expected. Mr. Wolinski responded that he presumes the Sign Board will be ready to come back by the second P&D meeting in June. He also noted the Sign Board's appreciation with the Committee's expressed interest in this matter and are anxious to put on a good presentation. (PC) Ordinance 57-0-01 - Amendment to Sidewalk Cafe Reeulations Chairman Engelman stated that this ordinance is a proposal to allow proprietors of type l full -service restaurants. outside of the core area who already have liquor licenses, to serve liquor in their permitted outdoor cafes. He acknowledged that there are several people in attendance that have signed up to speak on this matter and with the Committee's approval. he would take citizen comments in the order listed. Ms. Willa Frink. stated that she is very much in opposition of allowing the serving of liquor at outdoor cafes for full service restaurants. She noted that Jacky's Bistro is located on Prairie Street. directly behind the Christian Science Reading Room, which she represents. She noted that Jacly's does have valet parking service during their evening P& D Comm ittee M ta. Minutes of eta% 21. 200l Page 3 hours and she feels that if the addition of ser% ing liquor at their outdoor cafe is approved, it will add to their need for more %alet sery ice. including in the afternoon. She further noted that they will not need an% further valet :er,-ice if there were 75 public parking spaces within a block of this restaurant. howe%er this is type of parking is not available within that proximity. Nis. Frink said that it has taken over a year to convince Jacky's that they should not park in the CS Reading Rooms' I private parking spaces behind them and she still does not feel assured that the% µill abide by their disapproval of using those spaces. She feels that the parking issues will be intensified by the addition of liquor service for the outdoor cafe. Ms. Frink also is concerned with the noise issue becoming excessive and the possibility of singing, etc.. with the outdoor cafe if liquor is served there. She noted the close proximity of apartment buildings to this restaurant and how it will negatively effect the residents of those buildings. She is concerned with the fact that Evanston is promoting the service of more liquor rather than making an effort to keep such activities under control and she feels is unfortunate. She concluded that between the parking and noise issues that she feels will be intensified by the approval of this ordinance, should be strongly taken into consideration by the Committee. his. Frink also informed the Committee of the witnessed tvthlessness of the valet staff and her concern for this type of behavior. She noted that all the other type I restaurants that are able to serve liquor at their outdoor cafes are located within the core area for an important reason, which she feels should be adhered to because of what is allowed in those districts and their lack of close proximity to residential neighborhood districts. Chairman Engelman noted that they are not looking at any particular restaurant although they are aware of the two restaurants in the Central Street area that are interested in doing this if allowed. However, this ordinance would effect the entire City. He also clarified to Ms. Frink that her statement regarding valet parking is not currently in the ordinance and was something that he noted in his notice to the neighbors and is an issue that he was going to acquire in order to address the parking problems. This issue has not been decided as of yet. Ms. Frink recalled the objections by neighbors in the area of the beer parties conducted by Northwestern during the football season. She mentioned this to further stress the concern for additional liquor allowance in the area Mr. Bob Hall. wished to re -enforce tits. Frink's comments and the obvious concern from neighboring residents about additional service of liquor to the outdoor cafes in their area. He also stressed his concern for serving liquor outdoors on the streets where there are numerous children around eyeryda% at the park located on Central Street in close proximity to these restaurants making this request. Nis. Randi Lein. stated that she lies in the neighborhood of Jacky's Bistro and she feels that this restaurant has done nothing but improve the area. She expressed her support for this ordinance and added that she feels that the idea having liquor outside at their sidewalk cafe, will only add to the great flavor that this Jacky's Bistro has added to the neighborhood. She strongly feels that this restaurant is of high character and is not the type of place that promotes beer drinking or undesirable behavior such as singing or loud conduct on behalf of their patrons or elevated clientele that are subject to this establishment. P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of MaN 21. 2001 Pace S Mr. Steve Levin. stated that he lives at Lincoln and Prairie with his wife who just previously spoke. and he seconded her comments and added that Jacky's Bistro has be,:n an excellent neighbor to them and he is pleased that they are in their neighborhood. He feels Jacky's has given some good energy to their block and a sense of Paris ambience to the Central Street area and is grateful to their contribution to the Evanston community. He said that a glass of wine with dinner is the concept of what Jacky's is about versus a bar atmosphere that has been commented as a concern by others. He feels that the conduct of business of Jack%'s is in high class and is no where is comparison to beer parties or less desirable demeanor as the concern that has been mentioned. Mr. Levin stated that parking has not been a major problem in his opinion for the neighborhood and he does not feel that the parking issue should be considered as far as this ordinance is concerned. Mr. Jacky Pluton, owner of Jacky's Bistro. responded to previous comments made regarding his valet parking service and insisted that this parking service makes every effort to comply with all parking regulations and does realize all limitations that are posted within their vicinity. He assured that their valet parking staff has been informed and warned of where they are allowed to park patron vehicles and what the regulations are and he supports any such policies. Mr. Pluton responded to comments made in opposition to their request to sense liquor at his sidewalk cafe. He noted that last year they presented a petition in support of their sidewalk cafe and the service of liquor and again they presented this same petition. He stated that they were again over-whelmed with support by their clients to have the right to serve liquor at their sidewalk cafe. He assured that his clientele are not the type to abuse this service and would only appreciate the extended offering. Mr. Pluton responded to the concerns stated regarding the impact on the neighboring apartment buildings to his restaurant and assured that the service of liquor to his outdoor cafe would not add to or cause any additional annoyance to this effect. He noted that he has experienced no real complaints on noise in the past. Mr. Pluton said that he would serve liquor at the outdoor cafe during the same hours as dining room. which he stops seating at around 9 p.m. He stated that he would be the first one to enforce any regulations or conditions with the sen-ice of liquor and assures that he would not continue to serve liquor to someone who appears to have had too much. He assures that the same rules for the dining room would apple to the outdoor cafe as well, as far as enforcement and keeping the noise level down. He feels that sidewalk cafes add life to sidewalks and he guaranteed that the sidewalk area surrounding his cafe is well kept and clean, as well as high quality outdoor dining furniture. NIr. Pluton claimed that he had people walk away from his restaurant because they «anted to sit outside, but could not order a glass of wine. The patrons went elsewhere and he lost their business and revenues because of this. He pointed out the importance this should be in the City's interest in keeping up his revenues. \ir. Pluton concluded with his assurance to the Committee that he would enforce and abide by any rulings set by the City to add the service of liquor to his sidewalk cafe. , Mr. George Sarfattv. stated that he attended the meetings on this matter last year that were held on July 24th and August 14th. 2000. He read a section from a letter that he P&D Committer Nttg. Minutes of Nta% 21. 2001 Page 6 received from Aid. Engelman's with regards to being sensitive to the concerns with regards to significant parking problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Sarfatly stated that there are no parking problems in the neighborhood this evening because Jacky's Bistro is closed on Monday. however the other 6 days of the week there are fanatical parking problems, especial]% within the block between Prairie and Hartrey. He said that it was understanding at that time that this matter was to forwarded to the Parking Committee to consider the establishment of a "residents only" parking district between 6-8 p.m. He said as of this date. he is still waiting for something to happen and has heard nothing and it appears no action has been taken by the City regarding this issue. He noted that the same parking problems exist on Harrison Street between Prairie and Hartrey as they did last year. .fir. Sarfatty said that he is concerned with the comment made by Mr. Pluton regarding his generating revenue for the Cite because as a resident of the City for the past 28 years, he would hope that generating revenue for the City at any cost is hopefully not the City's goal. He hopes that any revenue generated for the City would be in a responsible way that is considerate to both the businesses and the residents who pay real estate taxes for Evanston. Mr. Sarfatty addressed the notice that he received from Aid. Engelman dated May 7, 2001, which he received 10 days after the date. He said that he still has some concerns besides the parking issue regarding the proposal that liquor can be served until 11 p.m. on weekends. He feels this is time is still too late even for the weekends. He stressed that he hopes before any action is taken on this, that the parking issues be resolved and institute a residents only parking requirement. He also suggested the possibility of having a maximum parking limit of 90 minutes during the day so that people who work in the businesses do not use up the parking availability for the entire day. Chairman Engelman explained that in the anticipation that this matter would be on their agenda for this meeting. staff sent out a notice that PRD was going to be discussing this issue. He stated that the notice was sent out to 123 households in and around Jacky's Bistro and 85 households in and around TruIlo's. In addition. he sent a letter to each of those households as well telling them of this meeting and also suggesting that if Council were to pass this ordinance, certain conditions that he listed in his notice. He went through the 4 conditions that he suggested to be in addition to the ordinance. He informed the Committee that since his notice was sent out. he has received 3 e-mails - 1 complaint regarding Jacky's. 1 complaint regarding parking congestion around Trullo's and 1 in favor of Jacky's. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that in addition to the notification that was sent in Central Street area. staff also notified the area around Main and Hinman where the Oceanique restaurant is located who are also interested in serving liquor at their outdoor cafe. He said that approximately 150 notices were sent out in that area. Mr. Sarfatty noted that he only received the notice from Aid. Engelman and not the _ one sent out by City staff. Mr. Lennv Raeo, owner of Trullo's and Panino's on Central Street. He commented on the parking situation. He noted that his restaurant has been there for 4 years and with the 2 Evanston theatres (theatre on one side holds 500 and the theatre on the other side holds 2500) he has never had a parking problem to this day. He feels the City is handling the -_ P&D Committee Mtg. Minutesof..Nas Y1.2001 Page 7 parking issue through the visibility stud% and also feels this matter should be addressed separately from the liquor issue which is before the Committee this evening. He told the Committee that becaww the weather is nice. man% people would like to be able to eat outside and enjo% a glass of wine with their dinner. However, he experienced a situation where at one time there %vere 40 people waiting in his lobby for seating. when he could have been able to sit them outside with full senice. He said. that he has french doors that open up to the outside and he does not see any difference if people were to sit directly in front of those windows and drink a glass of wine versus sitting directly outside of those same doors. Nfr. Rago pointed out that the restaurant owners in attendance, Jacky, Mark from Oceanique and himself. are all respectable business owners with fine dining establishments that draw up -scale patrons who pay high prices for eating at their restaurants. He also reiterated the comments made by Jacky regarding the revenue that the businesses do generate for Evanston and hopes that Council will consider approval of this request. He mentioned that his last seating is also at 9 p.m. and his restau mnt is usually cleared out of customers and employees by I I p.m. Owner of Oceaniaue Restaurant. Mark, said that he has owned this restaurant for over 12 years and seconded the comments made by Rago regarding the up -scale atmosphere that his restaurant, Trullo's and Jacky's provide. He commented on the valet parking issue because his establishment uses this service every evening and there are strict codes that the City put into effect and they adhere to as much as they can. They use designated area to park in and do not use or take away from parking on the street. He said that many people in his neighborhood walk to restaurants and businesses in the area. His feelings on serving wine with dinner. is that wine goes with cuisine just like bread goes with butter. He said, especially with the type of cuisine served at his restaurant, that wine is a compliment with your meal. He proposes to have 4 or 5 tables outdoors at his sidewalk cafe. He said that they are not trying to create an area that is noisy or disruptive to the neighborhoods. their customers are very sophisticated and pay a lot of money for their dinner; approximately 565 per person on average. Chairman Engelman closed citizen comments at this time and directed discussion amongst the Committee members for consideration of this request. Aid. Newman said that if they were to approve this ordinance. it appears that they would need to address each application according to the individual business's method of operation and the complexities surrounding their location. With the three restaurants that are currently interested in this. it appears that Jacky's is more close in proximity to residential buildings that Trullo's or Oceanique. The Committee agreed that each application would have to be looked at on a case -by -case basis. Chairman Engelman asked of Ms. Frink to elaborate on the complaints of Jacky's using their 3 private parking spaces in the past. ,Is. Frink explained that the Christian Science Reading Room owns those parking spaces and thev are ven- grateful that no one has used the parking spaces for overnight parking. She said in the 10 vears she has been there. they have only had to ticket 2 cars and tow one, therefore they have not experienced a lot of parking problems in the past. However, over the last year with Jacky's and their valet parking, they have been experiencing several occasions where the private parking spaces have been used and they have been offered payment by the restaurant to use their parking spaces. She stated that since they P&D Committee Wv. Minutes of Ma% 2 1, _-00 Page 8 1� are a non-profit, non -taxed piece of property, they are not allowed to make money in this way. Mr. Pluton explained that the% did otTer to pay the Reading Room for use of their parking spaces. however once they explained that they could not take money for those spaces, his valet service has not used those spots. from his understanding. Aid. Wynne stated her concerns, as she has expressed in the past, regarding the need to extend the notice time because currently the time frame is not adequate for people to have enough time to respond or make plans to attend any hearings. She expressed her support for this ordinance because she has always supported the sidewalk cafes and appreciates the ambience they do add to the pedestrian feel for the community. The Committee discussed in more detail an acceptable time frame to extend the notice provision. Aid. Wynne suggested at least no less than 10 business days should be considered in order to give citizens proper time and notice. The Committee members agreed. Aid. Newman expressed his opinion that each application should also be addressed on a case -by -case basis regarding their parking situations and any problems that exist µith that establishments location. Aid. Wynne moved to amend the ordinance under the notice provision to extend the required notice time to no less than 10 business days, including signage at the business. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote 5-0 in favor. Aid. Engelman amended the motion to include his recommended conditions as follows: a. Alcohol will only be served in conjunction with a full meal. The sidewalk cafe' cannot be used in lieu of a bar. b. Alcohol will not be served at sidewalk cafes after 4:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on weekends. C. Unless located within 1 block of a parking lot containing at least 75 parking spaces open to the public, each restaurant must provide valet service utilizing a dedicated off-street parking facitity. In addition, each restaurant must actively encourage their customers not to park in the residential neighborhood. d. Any violation of the City's liquor ordinance may result in immediate revocation of the liquor license. Abuse of the sidewalk cafe ordinance_ will result in refusal to renew the sidewalk cafe license the following year. Aid. Engelman noted that what the present liquor ordinance states, if this is violated, them the hearing process should be initiated. %Is. Szymanski agreed to prepare a draft provision to present to the Committee at the next meeting. Aid. Kent brought attention to a concern he has with amendment c. suggested by Aid. Engelman, which states "In addition, each restaurant must actively encourage their customers not to park in the residential neighborhood." He agrees with this, P&D Committee k1tg. Minutes of %1ay 21. 2001 Nee 9 however, he questions how to evaluate or enforce such a directive. Aid. Engelman's opinion is the best way to address this would be to put up signage with wording that strongly persuades customers to adhere to any parking regulations for a restaurant. Aid. Kent feels this is an important issue because this is a constant battle for enforcement, whether it be a restaurant or any type of institution with a high - intense use such as churches. Aid. Engelman stated that he would have stated that "a sign must be posted," however he left this open giving the restaurant an opportunity to be creative with their own incentives to persuade their patrons not to park in the residential neighborhood. Aid. Newman feels that the suggested amendments listed in Aid. Engelman's letter, should be considered on a case -by -case basis with conditions set for each because each restaurant has its own set of situations in looking at these amendments. For instance, with regards to amendment "B" stating the cut-off times for serving liquor, could be considered on a case -by -case basis depending on the restaurants' location and proximity to nesidential. Aid. Wynne. on the contrary, feels that there should be a uniform cut-off time for serving alcohol outdoors. The Committee agreed. Aid. Newman noted that he has doubts that they will be able to enforce the first condition because it is not being enforced in the downtown area. The vote was 5-0 in favor of Aid. Engelman's motion for inclusion of his conditions listed above. Aid. Engelman re -stated the main motion to recommend that the City Council amend the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to allow Type i restaurants to apply for the right to serve alcohol in their outdoor cafes under the conditions the Committee has imposed. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Consideration of a Moratorium to limit am• new residential construction to single family in the 5'h Ward Aid. Kent explained his reasoning for requesting this reference. He said that he wanted to let the Committee know of what's coming down the pipeline in his ward. He assured that this is nothing that is going to be new, on the contrary sell actually become a part of strengthening the request he made to the Plan Commission regarding their coming into the 5 Ward and looking at the MUE as well as the Mayfair triangle. He said that they heard from Ms. Anderson at the last meeting that the Plan Commission will begin meeting with the 5'h Ward neighborhood groups. He noted that his intentions are to include the majority of the west side in the 5`h Ward, basically from the canal all the way around to Green Bay Road. Aid. Kent said that when the moratorium comes to this Committee, he is not going to be asking for anything unreasonable with regards to building in the 5'h Ward such as not allowing any building or construction of any type. More so, he explained that this moratorium is going to be to limit any type of development in the residential area other than single-family housing. He further P&D Committee Ltte. Minutes of %tay =1. 2001 Page 10 explained his reasoning for this is to allow the Plan Commission time to meet with the neighborhood groups, review all the information and surveying gathered. and come to some type of ccinsensus as to %%hat direction they want to look at as far as some type of comprehensive strategy for the 5' Ward. He noted that as this process is underway, one of the things that could completely upset or disrupt the progression would be for some of these developers coming in under the gun and causing a project to be considered in the "pipeline" that could be a negative impact on the comprehensive strategy plan. Aid. Kent informed the Committee that he has talked with Mr. Wolinski and they have determined that there is currently nothing in the "pipeline" at this time dealing with any type of residential development in the ;' Ward. He assured his commitment in working with City staff in creating boundaries and defining exactly what this moratorium is going to prevent. He proposed the moratorium to be 180 days and will be focusing on no residential development other than single-family houses. He would also like to look at the residential tear -down issue. which he feels is crucial in his community. Ms. Anderson asked for more specifics and clarification. She asked Aid. Kent if he intends for the moratorium to cover the entire 5`h Ward including the transition area at Ridge and Emerson. Aid. Kent clarified that his intentions are to cover the 5 h Ward from Green Bay Road west to the canal. excluding those areas as referred by Ms. Anderson. Mr. Wolinski added that at the time he and Aid. Kent talked about this, he neglected to note that that only project he would consider in the pipeline at this time would be the Jacob Blake project, which has been in the pipeline for several years. Ms. Anderson recognized Ald. Kent's anticipated length of time for the moratorium to be 180 days. She appreciates that fact that they have the Chicago Avenue process replicabie elsewhere, which will most likely form a basis of the approach that the Neighborhood Committee will take when looking at the 5" Ward. She said, although she is sympathetic and realizes the importance of constructing and comprehensive plan for this area she is skeptical that within a 180 days. this will give enough time to conclude their review. Aid. Kent fully agreed with this observation. Ms. Anderson noted that it may be possible to zero in on I or 2 specific issues v-ithin that time frame and bring to a hearing. Discussion ensued regarding specifics. economics and demographics of the 50 Ward. Mr. Wolinski asked the Committee if they are directing staff to draft an ordinance at this time. It was Ald. Kent's desire to do so. however. Chairman Engelman stated that he is somewhat uncomfortable with both the broad area that is being proposed as well as the - unclarity at this point and time of what the Plan Commission and neighborhood groups are going to be looking at. It is his understanding that there is a desire to consider rezoning the area to Rl. It was clarified that this was not the entire intent, however Aid. Kent explained that it would be preferable that when a single-family house is torn down, that it be replaced by another single-family dwelling, rather than constructing 2-3 flats or structures that change the character of the neighborhood through the density. He stressed that this fact is evident and has been the pattern over the past 10 years. Chairman Engelman said that he understands the concern in that capacity, however he pointed out several good multi -family developments that have occurred in the 5'h Ward. P&D Committee 4ttg. Minutes of %tad. , I.2001 Pare I t After listening to further discussion. its. Anderson clarified her understanding of the moratorium, is that there be no new residential construction in any R zone in that portion of the 5"' Ward except for single-family. which is RI through the duration of the moratorium. excluding MUE or Industrial. etc. This moratorium is restricted to only the R districts. Aid. Kent confirmed. \ls. Szymanski dreg the Committee's attention back to the recent moratorium that was done for the 4iairvChicago Avenue area. She noted that for that moratorium. they had support that the matter was under active consideration by City Commissions and Committees: she was adamant that that same support is not clear in this case. Although she does understand Aid. Kent's direction, but in order to do this, she emphasized the importance of having active consideration to form the basis for any ordinance that is created. tits. Anderson stated that from understanding that while the Plan Commission took up the zoning changes at %lain & Chicago, which involves the moratorium currently in place, that the staff on behalf of the Neighborhood Committee would be sending out information and schedules so that when they are done with their hearing for that area, that the Plan Commission will immediately go into the S°i Ward. Mr. Wolinski added that he spoke today with Sue Guderley, City's Neighborhood Planner, about the list of potential meetings that they were going to have primarily beginning with the MUE and extending from there; she notified him that the first meeting would be on June Oh. He informed the Committee that he forwarded this information to Ms. Szymanski who responded that she did not feel that due to a couple of proposed meetings coming, for this to be sufficient. Ms. Szymanski explained that Legal needs something that has actually happened with minutes that she can recite that could form a basis. She noted that they have to make sure that they distinguish the 5`s Ward from other areas in the City that they have on record, and prove active steps towards considering. Alderman Kent stated that he has made this reference to the Plan Commission and they have already indicated that they will be looking at the MUE areas as well. Ms. Anderson noted that the next P&D meeting will be on June 11' and the Neighborhood Committee will meet on June Oh. She said that it is conceivable that prior to the 110' something that can be quoted from minutes will have occurred. Chairman Engelman suggested that this matter be put on the agenda for June I 1 `h. Aid. Newman feels that this will not solve the problem and suggested that the Committee should direct the Plan Commission to look at the rezoning of the "R" districts of the 5fi Ward. He noted that once this is done. then it will become an active matter. He forwarded this question to Legal for a response. %fs. Szymanski responded that this would be a start, and again reminded the Committee that the materials that were presented to the P&D Committee from the Neighborhood Committee, regarding the Main/Chicago zoning, provided a good outline for what they needed. She elaborated the need for actual meetings to take place with «Mitten minutes of the discussion in these meetings to form the basis. its. Anderson guaranteed to bring this item before the Commission as a whole, the possibility of a moratorium being, imminent. The Commission will not have a full meeting of the Commission in august, therefore it will be necessary for the subcommittee to hold meetings in that month. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 21.2001 Page 12 It was clarified that the P&D Committee will receive a time table from the Plan Commission on June 11 Lh and Legal Staff will prepare to tell the Committee from that point. the process they can expect to go forward with. COMMUNICATIONS List of Boards & Commissions that report to the Planning & Develot3ment Committee Chairman Engelman stated that he plans to try and schedule for P&D to meet with these Boards and Commissions in the future. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacq line L. Brownlee 0 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee dune l 1, 2001 Room 2403 -- 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 21.2001 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of May 21 st, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PiI Reauest firm Ebenezer AME Church for a Time Extension of Citv Fundin&-LbLibe Jacob Blake Senior Housing Development Chairman Engelman acknowledged Rev. James Wade. Rev. Wade informed the Committee that he just came from signing papers to cut checks today and they are expected to sign their final papers this Friday. The Committee congratulated Rev. Wade on this closing stage and asked how long of an extension the Church would need. Rev. Wade responded that they would need at least 2 more weeks. Aid. Newman moved to approve a time extension of 45 days -- from June 1— July 15, 2001, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion with Ald. Bernstein abstaining Isis vote. Mr. Wolinski brought to the Committee's attention, a letter that staff forwarded to them this evening. The letter was addressed to Mr. Crooks; acting as the developer/attorney, dated April 16`h and the letter listed items that the City needs to complete documentation for the City commitment. Chairman Engelman asked Rev. Wade to be adamant that this P&D Committee Mtg, 41 Minutes of 6' I 1 01 Page 2 information gets to City staff as soon as possible so as not to delay their closing. Rev. Wade confirmed that he would comply. (P2) Plat of Resubdivision/Church Street Plaza Chairman Engelman acknowledged Mr. Torn White, representing the Arthur Hill Development. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Ms. Anderson requested that the Committee elaborate on this issue to educate the audience regarding the air rights. Ald. Newman answered that it is his understanding that the air rights are required to build the residential tower adjacent to the commercial development. Mr. White explained that they basically are resubdi%riding the two parcels, one of, which is for residential, and the other being the anchor parcel. This resubdivision is to accommodate their retail tenant of that parcel because the City was unable to deliver title to full size of the lot that they needed for that retail piece on the corner which is part of lot #2. He said that they had to take a portion of lot #3, which is residential and is intended to be retail anyway on the ground floor and basically extend that retail which requires them to resubdivide those two parcels and attaching the title to a parcel adjacent the point parcel. He further explained that above this they are granting air rights to build the residential tower on top of the retail, in other words, lot #1 is underneath and lot #3 is above. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion:. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Chairman Engelman changed the order of the agenda to accommodate that large group in attendance to support the Evanston Athletic Club item. (PD3) Variances for 1723 Benson Avenue. Evanston Athletic Club Chairman Engelman recognized that numerous citizens have signed up to speak on this matter, however he first acknowledged Mr. James Murray, attorney for the applicant, and asked him to begin with comments. Mr. Murray informed the Committee that he last week he provided to Mr. Wolinski a letter of proposal of a means by which to accommodate the granting of variations and the provision of off-street parking requirements for the proposed addition to the Evanston Athletic Club building. He also prepared and forwarded to the City Clerk to distribute to Council, a copy of an ordinance that he drafted to inclement the proposal and variations, if the Council so chooses to grant this request. He said that essence of the proposal that they have would be a 3-year validation program at the entire cost of EAC to begin with in order to modify the behavioral characteristics of persons attending the club and their parking methods to get them into the Maple Street garage. Also, to provide a supplement in terms of a subsidy to those club members who would utilize the garage premises and provide a second hour of free parking over the City's present policy of providing a first hour of free parking. The intention is that the three year program will provide an initial data base of persons utilizing the garage and then after one year of the issuance of an P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6111 /01 Page 3 occupancy permit for the expanded space for the center, it is anticipated that a comparison will be available to draw a conclusion with reference to a requirement relative to a permanent number of parking spaces. hir. Murray handed out copies to the Committee of his proposed ordinance. Mr. Murray noted the reason there are so many in attendance for this matter, is to encourage the Committee in taking action on this subject and move forward to a conclusion. Chairman Engelman asked if his proposal is that at the end of 2 or 3 years, once a determination is made on how many parking spaces are actually needed to accommodate the demand, that the owner of club will undertake to acquire those spaces. Mr. Murray responded that he has indicated from the beginning of this process, is that they felt that the allocation of parking spaces to the expanded property was falsely leased and not reflective of an actual need. He continued that the method by which one could determine what the real need is should be resolute to the fact that a major portion of the expansion is to accommodate existing membership as opposed to attempting to increase the current membership load. Chairman Engelman elaborated further with questions on how to properly establish the required parking spaces needed and when determined, for example if the need is presumed 50 spaces, the club will then go out a lease or acquire these needed spaces. He also reminded of the requirement for such spaces to be within a certain distance from the business. Mr. Murray recognized these facts and assured that all of those elements, they would propose to meet. He also stated that the most obvious location would be the Maple Street garage unless and until something occurs in the block south of their location. Chairman Engelman suggested another alternative would be to acquire a piece of land and building a garage for the facility. Mr. Murray agreed to that alternative, however the preference of his client and assuming the City as well, would seem to be the preservation of the retail space on Benson and Clark Street. This is worth maintaining versus being replaced by a parking structure both from a point of view in maintaining a retail presence on those streets as well as keeping the tax generating capacity. Chairman Engelman restated that from what Mr. Murray has proposed, he is under the impression that he is committing the club to creating parking if none exists. Mr. Murray assured this is wfiat Mr. Kadish and his partner Mr. Cunningham, have authorized him to present. Mr. Ben Kadish informed the Committee that currently, the only feasible source of parking would be the Maple Avenue garage. He pointed out that if the club stays the same size and they have the same amount of people parking for the first year during the test period and then during the second year there is only a increase of 20 cars, then he would assume that the increase square footage of the club is only generating or resulting in an increase of those 20 cars. He compares this determination versus the increase based on the square footage as if it were a new building. Chairman Engelman asked Aid. Newman, being Chair of the Parking Committee, that when they configured the Maple Avenue garage and the new Sherman Avenue garage, did they build an access capacity to address additional uses within the existing infrastructure. Aid. Newman replied that they did in the original plan with 300 extra spaces for growth. in the second plan with Seats, they did not have much growth because it was becoming too expensive to be able to accommodate. He noted that there is supposed to be an updated study substituting other uses for Sears. He stated that the P&D Committee Mt . Minutes of 6t11,101 Page .t :Maple Avenue garage is not an unlimited reservoir to accommodate the entire downtown business area; it was designed to accommodate to the Hill Project uses, such as the theatres, hotel, and retail uses and during the day provide parking for the office buildings in the Research Paris and the !McDougal Littel Building. Mr. Murray added that one of the factors that they are asking the Committee to consider are the big demands for space within the use of the club are askew from the typical demand that might go for a 9-5 business. He noted that the club's peak use for demand is from 5.8:30 p.m. and approximately 7:30-9:00 a.m.. This is why they assumed the accommodation could be contained within the existing structure without the need for taping the reservoir of parking, even though the municipal garages have been utilized as a means to supply off street parking. Ald. Newman reminded that the current Benson Street garage will be down for approximately 2 years during constriction of that site. Ms. Anderson also mentioned that when the Klutznik project and garage when built, will now rise to 12 stories and presumably will offer extra parking. Chairman Engelman opened the floor for citizen comments and called on those signed up to speak in the order done. Ms. Rhea Keenan stated she is here to support Mr. Pat Cunningham and the variation requests for the club. She commended Mr. Cunningham on his being a long-standing supportive member of the community, both financially and for use of the club for marry organizations and programs and mentioned his involvement in many of the community cekbrations such as First Night. She noted that Mr. Cunningham has taken a risk over the years by his entrepreneur spirit to the community by moving his club from Chicago Avenue when it was a much smaller establishment and bringing it over to Benson Avenue. He has supported and helped the other surrounding businesses on Benson open and thrive by the number of people who come and go within the club. She feels the club reflects the personality and character of the community and Mr. Cunningham has worked hard to put together an organization both in terms of his staff' and membership and the facilities that seems to capture the essence of what should be in the downtown area and for Evanston in general. She feels in light of this, it is important to support such organizations in terms of how the community continues to develop. Ms. Keenan said that it should be recognized the efforts made on behalf of the owners of EAC to contribute financially to the community, not to mention the tax revenues from all of the people who come into the club during the day and then spend money in downtown Evanston. She Aso recognizes the problems with the parking situation, however as mentioned by Mr. - Murray, most of the members utilize the club during time of the day that are not peak times w1m other businesses require use of the majority of the off-street parking. With regards to use of the parking garages and off-street parking, most members are in and out of the club within a 2-hour period. With this in mind, she finds it hard to believe that the - parking requirements that Mr. Cunningham is asking for relief from will have any different effect that the current situation for parking needs. - Ms. Keenan brought attention to the hearsay that there is consideration of another health club being located within the Klutznik project. She questions if consideration has been given as to whether this is the kind of facility that Evanston needs given the fact that most P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6 11 01 Page 5 of the high-rise condominiums that are coming in are claiming to provide major fitness centers for their own residents. She wonders where the base of constituents that would plan to use the proposed health center will come from. She said that with the losing of Sears, she suggested that it might be advantageous to do a better assessment of what the community really needs and will utilize in place of Sears. She questioned if City Planning staff has done any research to do a need stated analysis to fill the retail spaces in the proposed new project and the amount of parking spaces that will be needed for such uses. Mr. Ron Strong, stated that he is a resident of Evanston and member of EAC and is speaking on behalf and in support of the club and its proposal to expand. He noted that in his professional and personal involvement with EAC, he has grown to develop an immense respect for the management of the club and their many contributions and generosity throughout Evanston, specifically for youth. He mentioned the numerous occasions when he sought out Mr. Cunningham's partnership and support for a host of initiatives designed to help the community's young population, which he always received. These occasions include many years of sponsorship and fundraising that EAC provided for the organization he is involved with and the offering of club membership to high -risk Evanston youth, including physically challenged youth from Park School, free of charge by EAC. Mr. Strong commended EAC for sincerely stepping up to the plate as a raring organization committed as a team player in the overall health and well being for Evanston youth's in need. He personally feels it is imperative as a community to extend their support to those organizations who through their actions has consistently shown that they support the community. He strongly encourages City government and openly supports EAC and their efforts to expand. Mr. Jim Cosantino strongly supports EAC and highly commended Mr. Cunningham on his management of the club. He said that it is rare and hard to find in today's society, an independent business that is responsive to not just economics, but also to the community at large. He commended management on their generosity and how they treat members overall. Also, the support and interest EAC has extended to the community on team activities, children activities and many other Evanston festivities. He stated that he can't compliment and praise Mr. Cunningham and the institution enough and feels that it is imperative that City Council extend support for this business and what they have offered to the community. He feels the independent business is a dying breed in today's society with the economics of corporate America being out of control and strongly feels it is at the hands of the local government to support such organizations that have a personal interest in their community. Mr. Nick Patinkin said that he joined the club when he lived in Lakeview previously and continued his membership when he recently moved to Evanston. He noted that he has been a member of several fitness clubs before EAC and strongly feels that EAC is the best that he has experienced. He is very impressed by all the activities that EAC supports and is equally impressed by what they provide as a member. He is especially impressed by the services they extend to the students of Park School where some are severely physically disabled and how the staff makes a tremendous effort to help these students P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6/1V01 Page 6 out. Mr. Patinkin recalled a commendable recent article in the Tribune about the redevelopment of downtown Evanston and he feels that helping to support Mr. Cunningham and his request to expand, would be nothing less than keeping in spirit of what the article displayed in all that Evanston has to offer. Mr. Jeremv Bloomfield stated that he is taking a slightly different perspective from the previous comments and commendations mentioned because he works for Mr. Cunningham and is speaking from an inside point of view on behalf of his staff and true awareness of his investments in the community. He said that everytime he has presented to Mr. Cunningham a charitable event, whether it be with public allies or local student events, he has always supported any such events and gave him and other employees full approval to go ahead with anything that needed to be done. He said that this support has always been consistent on behalf of the owners of EAC and stressed that the Committee consider this support at a time when the owners need their support to go forward with their request to expand a facility that has shown such graciousness to the community. Mr. John Gest stated that he is a new member of the community within the past year and a new member of EAC. He seconded all that has been said previously in support of the club and their recognized charitable donations and contributions to the Evanston community spirit. He strongly supports EAC's request for variations to expand their facilities and he feels this can bring nothing but benefit to Evanston and the downtown area He noted that he uses the facility in the early morning hours before peak hour parking needs for the 9-5 businesses and has experienced no real parking problems at this time. Ald. Newman stated that he personally is aware of Mr. Cunningham's great character and feels the Committee is equally aware of this and acknowledges this also. However, what is before the Committee is to consider testimony and comments on the variations and the parking issue that is subject in view of the requested variations to expand the facility. He welcomes all comments made, however, he stressed that comments should be confined to association with involvement to the variations and parking requirements pertaining to the expansion of the facility. Mr. Ben Kadish acknowledged Aid. Newman's comments, nonetheless he also supports Mr. Cunningham's obvious and apparent efforts and appreciates the support expressed by members of the club and those who know him and have worked with him personally. He stressed that such commendations in any attempt should be acknowledged. Nonetheless, as a financially involved member in this matter, he stated that they are lucky enough to hopefully move ahead and get their project going and want to show their desire to demonstrate their willingness to accommodate any requirements that need to be met on their behalf. He said that now that they have come up with a plan to try and monitor the parking issues, their intent is to try to utilize those parking spaces continually. Chairman Engelman noted that he appreciates EAC's desire to move forward and the efforts made to accommodate the parking requirements in question, however this matter is on the P&D Committee's agenda for discussion and is not on the City Council's P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 611101 Page 7 agenda. Therefore, even if the Committee was inclined they could not take this matter before Council this evening. Ald. Bernstein recalled past discussion on the parking situation and questioned if proceedings were made between the applicant and staff' in working together to come to some conclusion in order to accommodate parking needs until a determination could be made to conclude in the actual number of spaces that would be required for the expansion of the facility. fir. Murray commented that several proposals were made. One proposal being that the club was going to acquire and use by lease basis, 50 spaces at the 1800 Sherman Avenue building. However the Zoning Department did not approve this proposal. He said the obvious alternative at that point was to find a means by which to pro%7de the alternative spaces and they came up with the validation program, which had been initially discussed as part of the process for utilizing the 50 spaces plus the 20 spaces they have and some other alternatives. He said the primary emphasis now is the 60+ spaces and the trade for the validation program at the end of the 3-year test program is to basically come up with the appropriate data to determine what the actual parking requirements are. He also in terms of what creates the level of exemption, as well as the years worth of experience with the expanded facility, to determine whether they are accurate in their understanding that the benefit here is not going to be substantial additional memberships but rather greater accommodation for existing membership. He said that this then will give them a basis of data upon which to make a determination with the number of spaces that would be required. He stated that Mr. Kadish has indicated that he is willing to step forward and say at that time that they will get those spaces one way or another. AWL Newman moved that the Committee consider their proposal due to aU the circumstances going on. However, his stressed that his concern is for the truth in the matter which is Benson Avenue, as it exists right now. is the worse parking street in the City. He stated that the City has spent a large amount of money on Benson Avenue on both sides of the viaduct by putting in sidewalks and angle parking and all this has resulted in during the prime part of the day, there is no available parking. He said that the City has also done parking studies on the Benson Avenue area and as a result, are considering extending meters in the downtown in looking at proposals in making this area a test case for extending the meters past 5 p.m. In his opinion, he does not believe that it would be in anyone's interest to remove any retail on Benson Avenue to deal with any parking problems due to EAC and further believes that most of the members of EAC have not utilized the Maple Avenue parking structure. He feels there is no excuse for EAC members to not utilize the parking garage and the truth of the matter is that the other businesses on Benson Avenue should not be subject to any parking strains caused by EAC, especially during the hours of 4-7 p.m. However, in spite of these facts, he feels that EAC has made a good faith effort to try and deal with the parking problem and he is confident that they will extend those efforts to their members during any construction periods. In light of this fact, he has no problem in granting what Mr. Murray has proposed in his proposition, under all the circumstances that are going on in the downtown area Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee that legal staff has just received this proposal as of today and has not had a chance to review the proposal ordinance presented by Mr. Murray. The Committee acknowledged this and realized that City staff has not had an opportunity to fully review what has been proposed. The P&D Committee Sltg. Minutes of bf 11/01 Page 8 Committee also suggested to staff that they are aware of the momentary time frame in which knowledge of this proposal has been presented and noted that this is only an item for discussion at this time. Appropriate time can be provided for staff to have this ready within the next 2 weeks before the coming Council meeting. Chairman Engelman allowed additional citizen comment for those who did not sign up to speak, at this time. Mr. Ron Whitmore stated that he supports EAC and their request for variances to expend the facility. He raised questions on if a recent parking study has been done and if there could be some statistics or information base that points out what traffic on Beason Avenue is actually caused by other businesses other than EAC at peak hours. It was mentioned that the studies done were with regards to the parking needs of EAC, however it is possible that some of the needs for parking and the congestion at those peak hours were for patrons of other businesses on Benson Avenue. Mr. Whitmore suggested that more consideration and a study be done for the parking needs of the other businesses on Benson Avenue to get an accurate account of the traffic problems and where they are actually stemming from. He questioned where he could retrieve any traffic studies done and where to forward his request for further study. He was directed to contact the Public Works Director's staff for this information. Member of the Audience, raised questions on the ratios with regards to the new proposed development and their demand for needed parking spaces versus the current needs for parking requirements for EAC. He especially mentions this due to the previous comments made with regards to how to determine the actual amount of parking spaces needed for EAC's expansion versus the actual addition of membership caused by the expansion. If there is no further membership addition or minimal addition proven within the time bestowed to monitor this substantiality, then the parking requirement that needs to be adhered to should be no different that what is required or allowed currently. Member of the Audience commended Aid. Newman for his method of dealing with this issue on parking in a positive approach by finding and recommending ways in which to deal with it. He extended his support for EAC and the Committee's efforts to work with the applicant to adhere to any requirements rather than instituting a negative approach in corning to a conclusion to the matter. He suggested to the Committee that they consider making some of the parking meters on Benson Avenue that are currently I0-hour meters, changing to 2-hour meters. Aid. Newman responded that those meters are controlled by the CTA and not by the City of Evanston and do not have the discretion to change those meters. Mr. Wolinski requested to clarify some of the issues with regards to a zoning standpoint. He stated that when Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Kalish moved to Benson Avenue site from their original Chicago Avenue site and converted it, there was not a requirement to provide any additional parking. He continued that under the City Zoning Ordinance, if you have a change of use, you do not have to provide additional parking. He said that this building basically went from a storage use to an athletic use, which realistically P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6111101 Page 9 would require parking however the City's Zoning Ordinance does not require it as an incentive to develop. However. with the issue here is that they are building an addition to the athletic club, which would require 80� parking spaces based on square footage and number of employees. Mr. Wolinski explained that what the ZBA's reason for denying this, was basically that fact that parking variations in Evanston are difficult if almost impossible to get simply because parking is so difficult to obtain primarily in the downtown area. He stated that the ZBA was not saying that the applicant could not build their addition, however they wxre insinuating that if they want this addition, the applicant would have to provide the parking in some way. He noted that Mr. Murray has met with City staff, specifically Ms. Aiello, Mr. Jennings and himself to work out some compromise. He noted that the argument from EAC's point is that those 80+ spaces are not required and only a certain number of spaces are required versus how many spaces are actually needed in comparison to the real number of additional memberships they acquire due to the expansion. Mr. Wolinski stated that this is what City staff has been dealing with the applicant and that there is an issue about the fact that 80+ spaces is going to cost approximately close to S 100,000 in annual fees. Mr. Murray added that the validation program will cost the club a substantial amount of money close to the origination amount+ He pointed out one difficult in what has been indicated being that the ZBA didn't have the number of votes necessary to recommend denial or approval. The simply did not have a clear cut majority of 4 votes to go either way, therefore this request is before the Committee without a recommended verdict Mr. Aiello commented to the Committee that staff will go back and analyze what Mr. Murray has proposed and presented, However, the Committee has to keep in mind that staff will certainly present this in their report but the precedence of the Committee if they chose to allow this, there will be nothing to stop any other property owner who wants to expand their property in the same fashion. She reminded that such a precedence can result in difficulty for the Council in the future for any such case that resembles this one. Chairman Engelman declared that City staff will review this matter and consequently they will report back to Council. He presented the assumption that in 3 years after the study, it is determined that they need 50 parking spaces. He asked if the applicant is prepared to not only lease these spaces but also to reimburse the City for the cost of constructing them. Mr. Murray responded that he is not sure is this was not on the table at the time that this particular aspect of things was discussed. He said that the question of paying the City for developing was not a part of the elements that they were faced to consider. He noted that what Mr. Kadish has indicated is that he will go to the point of providing the spaces and is fully aware of where those spaces will have to be provided and the cost of providing them. Chairman Engelman noted that this item will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. WoUnski asked the Committee if they are requesting staff to prepare a draft ordinance with respect to this matter. Aid. Newman restated his motion to request that staff prepare a draft ordinance consistent with Mr. Murray's proposal. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. P&D Cottunittee Mt& Minutes of 6/11101 Page 10 (PD4) Determination on ZBA Findings under Court Order for Howard Kornacki. 239 Greenwood Street Chairman Engelman noted that no one was present for representation of this case. Staff confirmed that proper notification was forwarded. Aid. Newman moved that the Committee place approval of the variances requested in this case for Council approval. The Committee discussed this motion because Chairman Engelman noted that there is a recommendation from the ZBA for denial of this application. Members of the Committee recalled that there was factors discussed on the factors involved in the standards for variations and there were subsequent changes in the standards on variations. Mr. Wolinski questioned the Committee for elaboration on this matter. Aid. Newman recalled the Committee making suggested changes in the Zoning Ordinance on economic interest, so noted by staff. Aid. Bernstein recalled certain theoretical situations. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee. Mr. Wolinski clarified that the whole base of this sterns from the fact that when Zoning did their analysis, they viewed it as a setback issue versus a parking variation issue. He continued that the applicant was going to supply to 2 parking spaces that were going to be required for the subdivision. He said that the existing coach house was supplying the parking, however this did not meet the setback regulations and this resulted in why the case became before the ZBA. Mr. Wolinski said that the court order is basically stating that the both the Zoning Board and the staff was incorrect in the fact that City Council is final authority on such a decision because the ZBA is final authority on the setback issue but certainly not on the parking variation. Aid. Newman agreed that this is exactly what Council should be adhering to in being final authority and this case should consequently be placed on the Council agenda and P&D agenda for action. The other Committee members agreed. After discussion, Aid. Newman motioned to move this item to the P&D agenda for an action item to be forwarded to the Council agenda with the recommendation of the ZBA to deny the request. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion with a vote of 4-0 in favor. (PDl) Consideration of a Moratorium to limit anv new residential multi -family construction in the "R" Districts of the Sth Ward Chairman Engelman asked Aid. Kent if he would like to proceed with any discussion on this matter. Aid. Kent responded that he would prefer to continue this item for discussion at the next scheduled P&D meeting. He brought attention to the agenda summary sheet and the statement that this matter will be discussed by the Neighborhood Subcommittee of the Plan Commission at their next meeting on June 14th. With this in mind, Aid. Kent requested to bold this item over for discussion at that June 25th P&D meeting, accepted by the other P&D Committee members. fPD2) A reference on whether licensees are oredicated on the structure that houses the business having no outstanding violations. Due to the lack of time, the consensus of the Committee was to forward the legal opinion to Ald. Rainey, being this was her reference, to consider whether this item should remain on P&D's agenda for discussion. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6111 /01 Page 1 I OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Engelman informed the Committee members that he has discussed with Ms. Szymanski a matter with regards to (P4) on the Council agenda regarding the off-street parking in lots to the number of tables to outdoor cafes. He stated that there was no rational relationship between the number 75 for parking spaces and that this number was arbitrary. He said that they need a rationale relationship between the number of off-street parking spaces and what it is that they are trying to accomplish. He noted that what legal staff' suggested that this is a rationale relationship because what they are trying to do is to ensure that there are parking for the additional outdoor parking cafe that is being generated. Chairman Engelman asked with the perminion of the Committer, to make this an amendment off the consent agenda, seconded by Aid. Newman. 'Ile vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �i✓Na4 A i AA _� Jacq line A Brownlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee June 25, 200I Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Aiello, P. Haynes, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding OffiicW: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 11. 2001 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of June I 1 th, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5.0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION f P 11 Sidewalk Cafd/Liauor -- Jackv's Bistro. 2545 Prairie Avenue Aid. Newman notices that very little correspondence came in the Council packets regarding the two sidewalk cafd's requesting liquor. He questioned if notices have gone out to the surrounding neighborhood regarding this issue. Mr. Wolinski noted that both applicants are present and responded that staff did not have much information to send the Committee because the liquor issue has already been discussed at the previous meeting. Aid. Newman said that he was interested in additional information such as hours of operation, notice requirements, etc. Mr. Alterson assured the Committee that all of these items were covered in Site Plan. He informed the Committee that staff did not send out the notices and they would have to address this with the applicants who were responsible for sending out their own notices. Ald. Newman questioned this process and why staff %%us not responsible for making sure that the notice requirement was met. Chairman Engelman asked if staff prepared that notice for the applicants to deliver. Mr. Alterson responded that staff' did prepare the notice and assured that this process has always been followed for sidewalk cafes. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of b 25,1D1 Page 2 Aid. Newman expressed his concern with the process and that he is not satisfied with the responsibility of the appli:ant assuring that the required radius around the property to receive notices is carried through. He noted that at the previous meetings regarding the liquor issue for sidewalk cafes, there was testimony from one of the neighboring residents, !air. Sarfatty, as well as others. that mentioned that they did not receive any notice and if notice was received, it was not received in a timely manner before the hearing was to take place. He asked if it is certain that Mr. Sarfatty was notified of this meeting, since he attended all other previous meetings on this matter. Mr. Pluton responded that he could not specifically verify that fir. Sarfatty received notice but assured that if he is located within the designated area directed by staff, then he shouid have received the notice. A1d. Newman stated that he does plan on voting in favor of this issue, however he feels there is a certain lack of fairness that this process has taken about. He stressed that he is very uneasy with the present notice requirement process and he feels very skeptical about what is going on as far as who has been properly notified of this request that is required to be notified as it is stated in the ordinance. He noted that in all the other sidewalk cafe applications that have been brought before the Committee, they were presented with site plans and other additional information to review. Chairman Engelman reminded that in this case for Jacky's Bistro and Trattoria Trullo, their sidewalk cafes have already been approved. The request before the Committee tonight is specifically for the request to serve liquor at those cafes. Mr. Alterson reassured that to be true to the Committee, noting that Jacky's received approval for their sidewalk cafe after appearing here last year. He noted that the ordinance governing sidewalk cafes within 200' of residential has in it that other than the liquor issue, if the establishment under the previous year was under good standing. they would then be treated as if they were a type 1 restaurant not within 200' of residential and their permit would be carried on. Ald. Newman stated that the basis of his vote was going to be on the fact this these cases that involved the service of liquor at sidewalk cafes would be on a trial basis and monitored for any complaints and that the applicant would have to come back every year for renewal. He questions if these specific restaurants that request serving liquor at their - sidewalk cafes would be considered like any other type I restaurant, as mentioned by Mr. Alterson. Mr. Alterson assured that in any case that involves the service of liquor, even with the sidewalk cafes, under every circumstance the applicant has to go through the entire process for approval of the service of liquor every year. He continued that the applicant not only has to go before the Site Plan Committee, but also this Committee and onto total Council approval annually. _ Aid. Newman still stressed that he is doubtful of the notice procedure because of the lack of attendance or regard from the previous neighbors that expressed concern for this issue such as Mr. Sarfatty and the Franks. Chairman Engelman asked Mr. Pluton if he indeed did send notices to everyone that the City instructed to do so. Mr. Pluton responded that City staff instructed hum to put a sign on the window and also to deliver notice/flyers regarding this petition; noting his compliance. He stated that staXs instructions were to deliver these notices to all residents within the radius specified of his restaurant. When asked, he stated that he did not have a copy of the notice in his possession at this time, however he could supply ties to the Committee if they so desired. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Pluton if the Zoning Division notify him of what date was required for the notices to be P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6 25'01 Page 3 received by all neighboring residents. Mr. Pluton responded that he was informed that notice was to be received no later than 4 days before the meeting days, which would require notice to be received no later than the previous Friday before this meeting. The Committee agreed in unison that the information forµ-arded by staff to Mr. Pluton was incorrect and recalled the amendment to the ordinance to allow for 10 working days in order to allow proper notice time for residents to respond and be notified. Mr. Pluton disputed that even if this amendment was agreed upon and stated in the ordinance, he specifically went forward on the cognizance instructions specified by City stall. The Committee was in consensus that the notice requirement procedure is defective in this case, as well as with Trattoria Trullo. Aid. Newman stated that he would be willing to hold this item over for proper notice to be given to the required neighboring residents and stress that staff be responsible for sending out these notices. He acknowledged the work and effort done by both the owners of Jacky's Bistro and Trattoria Trullo on behalf of the instructions they received by City staff. He reiterated his concerns expressed previously with this type of responsibility being laid upon the applicant instead of staff', who administers this regulation within the ordinance. Mr. Pluton reiterated that everything done on his behalf was done in confidence of what staff instructed them to do. He stated that he does not want to be penalized in the process or restricted in further by circumstances beyond his control. The Committee discussed this in further detail. Aid. Kent asked %fiat is the evaluation process in determining annually if Council should extend the continuance of a license (liquor); does the Committee rely on complaints received by the police reports, etc.? Staff assured that any complaints received, especially when a liquor license is involved, is always retrieved yearly and taken into consideration upon annual renewal request by the applicant for their license. The Committee members discussed in further detail what should be done on behalf of the applicants due to the fact of misinformation they received from staff in complying with the notification process. The Committee recognized that both applicants, Jacky's and Trattoria Trullo's did comply with staffs direction, however it is uncertain of who actually received the notices sent out. In addition, the fact remai:ts iat the applicants were mis-informed of the notice requirement date of receiving notice 10 working says prior to the meeting/hearing date. Upon discussion amongst the Committee and staff, it is virtually impossible to make the next scheduled P&D Committee meeting date after the Site Plan review date which meets on Wednesdays. Mr. Alterson stressed that is wny the notice requirement of no less than 4 days before the hearing date was set in the ordinance for sidewalk cafes. However, staff does recognize the Committee's concerns for the extended notice time when it involves the service of liquor. Aid. Newman requested that staff go back and look at the sign-up sheet from previous meetings when this issue was addressed and assure that the interested parties receive a letter and notice regarding these proceedings for request to serve liquor at sidewalk cafes. It was the consensus of the Committee that in light of the mis-information received by the applicants and the good -faith effort demonstrated, that staff find a way to either suspend the rules for these applicants. The owner of Trattoria Trullo's seconded all that was said by Mr. Pluton and informed the Committee that he also received the same infonmation P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 623ro1 Page 4 from staff and proceeded forward with those instructions. He stressed that if they are forced in a position to hold over their request, City staff should take on the responsibility of sending out any additional notices that are required. Mr. Alterson apologized on behalf of the Zoning staff in this mis-information given to the applicants. He noted that he was not present at the meeting when the amendments were made to the ordinance and was not aware of the amendment to the extended time for notice requirements. He stated that the procedure for the sidewalk cafes was that within 250' of residential was specifically designed so that the proprietor could appear at Site Plan on a Wednesday and appear before the P&D Committee on the following Monday. He further stressed that this procedure has always been done for sidewalk cafes, however he understands the concern by the Committee for wanting to require the additional notice requirement when they involve the service of liquor. Upon discussion amongst the Committee on suspending the rules for these two cases in light of the mis-information received, they asked legal staff for immediate opinion on this case. Ms. Szymanski responded that the ordinance is quite clear in the stated requirement of a 10-day notice and she does not perceive how this could be overlooked. The Committee questioned if legal could find a way to suspend the rules in this case because of obvious circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Aid. Newman asked staff if they could send the notices out as soon as tomorrow to accommodate the applicants. Mr. Wolinski responded that in this case, staff could accommodate this situation by whatever means legally possible. After all discussion, Aid. Bernstein moved that this Committee recommend to City Council to suspend the rules with respect to the circumstantial situation and demand a mailing time of 8 business days rather than the 10 business days required by the ordinance. This amendment is made in light of the fact that the City contributed to the mis-communication forwarded to the applicants involved. Aid. Newman questioned if this Committee can suspend the rules to an ordinance. The Committee discussed this and it was suggested by Aid. Bernstein that with respect to the Committee's obligation, that all persons that were present at the previous meetings especially, as well as everyone within the required notification radius, be notified of this matter. The other Conunittee members agreed. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Sidewalk Cafe/Liauor - Trattoria Trullo. 1700 Central Street Chairman Engelman noted that the previous discussion and decision reflects this case also. The same motion and vote for (P 1) is considered in unison for this case. (P3) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Petition of Robinson Bus Comvanv Chairman Engelman acknowledged Mr. James Murray, Attorney and representative for the applicant. Mr. Murray informed the Committee that he was made aware at 6:00 p.m. that Mr. Robinson is still delayed out of town on business. He stated that his client requested him to seek having this matter rescheduled. He also noted that he was also made aware this evening in acquiring about the location of the landscape plan, that these plans have been misplaced. However, they are attempting to locate or replace those plans I ow P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6125/01 Page 5 as soon as possible. He said in view of the Plan Commission's goal to recommend denial of the amendment petition and recommend the change of zoning to the Mayfair railroad right-of-way that is still zoned 12 to R5 designation. he must ask that this matter be rescheduled for the first meeting in July. Chairman Engelman said that before he take up the matter of rescheduling, he extended the courtesy of offering to those citizens that signed up to speak on this matter, if they would like to make their comments this evening or hold until this matter is rescheduled. Once citizen wished to speak at this time. Mr. Harris Hudson. 1941 Dewev Avenue, stated that he represents the Foster Park Neighbors group as well as the other neighborhood groups surrounding the Foster Park area He stated that they feel the Planning & Development Committee should strongly back the recommendation of the Plan Commission. He said that they conducted a survey in the community pertaining to this issue and there was a consensus opposing changing the zoning law to R5 to allow parking of the buses. He stated several reasons for the groups opposition, one being the environmental hazard issue involving the diesel engines and fumes from the buses and the proximity to the residential area. There are also tra8ic concerns. Mr. Hudson stated that the neighbors feel that this entire matter is not within the best interest of the surrounding community to allow this change to take place. He reiterated that there stands a consensus in the community that agree that strongly do not want this change and they wold be highly displeased if Council were to go against the will of the people who Iive in the affected community. Ald. Kent pointed out to Mr. Hudson, the minutes from the Plan Commission hearing that include the petition signed by the numerous neighbors and supporting citizens, as well as the many notes and presentations that were effred at the hearing. He assured Mr. Hudson that all Council members received this in their packets. Ms. Anderson also stated on behalf of the Plan Commission, that it was only this specific parcel and not any other 32's anywhere along the Mayfair line that were brought before the Commission the tight of the hearing. She said, in passing she would like to remark that this was a highly unusual vote and it is tare that the Plan Commission issues such vote. The Committee agreed to hold this item over until the July 9d' meeting. Mr. Murray assured he and his client's attendance. Ald. Newman asked if staff' could provide pictures of the site for the next meeting. fP51 Ordinance 78-"1 -- Variations at 2553 Greelev Avenue Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. TIhe vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. fP4l Ordinance 76-0-01 -- Variances for 239 Greenwood Street Chairman Engelman stated that this case comes back to the P&D Committee by order of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The court determined that the City is final authority on this issue and that the ZBA was only a recommending body. At the ZBA hearing on this case, they recommended denial of the variation for off-street parking. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 625.0! Page 6 Aid. Wynne moved to over -rule the ZBA's recommendation for denial, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Ald. Newman clarified that the Zoning Ordinance is different now on variations than what it was at the time the ZBA heard this; difference being with the economics. Chairman Engelman asked Mr. Malarkey, attorney representing Mr. Komacki, if he wished to make any presentation. Mr. Malarkey stated that he and his client arc present to answer any questions or concerns of the Committee. Aid. Newman noted that the ZBA hearing was on January 18, 2000. Chairman Engelman pointed out the fact that they did change the ordinance that where there is an economic benefit to the applicant, that this no longer prohibits the applicant from being granted the variation. He would like to have a discussion as to wboether or not the economic benefit to the applicant, in this case, is so overwhelming to justify the applicants actions. Aid. Newman pointed out that there is a big economic benefit to the City in this case. He noted that Mr. Kornacki has the comer lot at Greenwood and Forest and is one of the longest sideyards in the City of Evanston. He pointed out a sideyard of this length and size is an economic benefit to the City. He noted that there is no 50150 program for sideyards and Mr. Komacki has been replacing this strip of sidewalk in access of 300' out of pocket. He said that in many of these cases where there are large sideyards, the sidewalks become unkempt and a problem in maintenance. He commended Mr. Komacki on his magnificent job of maintaining his propem-, large yard and landscaping, and the entire sidewalk surrounding his comer lot. Aid. Newman noted that the taxes on this comer lot have been overwhelming increases in the 1990's by threefold; he would estimate from approximately $10,000 to $30,000. Aid. Newman pointed out that Mr. Komacki's variances, one being for the parking to make the site plan more appealing to the neighborhood. Further pointed out that the owner did not have to ask for this variance. The owner also went around the neighborhood to approximately 60 residents to inform them of his proposed plan, and not one objector showed up at the hearing. He said that the proposed variations are not to allow a subdivision so that new construction can be built on Forest Avenue. He po'iaw out that there is currently a house that faces Forest Avenue on the subdivided lot that has been there in access of 40 years. He reiterated that Mr. Kornacki has maintained the sidewalks surrounding his lot out of his own expense. He pointed out that in the I' ward there is a problem with these lots that have large sideyards and the maintenance of those sidewalks never gets done. Aid. Newman concluded that in his opinion, these variations - are reasonable and the City should have an interest in making sure that the cost of maintaining these big properties do not force people to sell. He noted that when there is an owner that maintains their property to the fullest at their own cost, then the City has an obligation of gratitude to the owner. He feels the owner has come up with a good plan with no objections from the neighbors. He also feels the Zoning Board of Appeals was not as sensitive to the burdens of maintaining that size of a property as they could have been. He feels the Committee should approve this case which is apparently harmless to P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of 6R5/01 Page 7 the surrounding neighborhood and is not something that is going to change the appearance of the area Ald. Bernstein said that it is his understanding that there is a method for situations where there is extensive street frontage of the side lot that the owner could get the appropriate square footage in two lots if they reconfigure the parking. Mr. Alterson responded that both of the lots meet the minimum lot size. In that case, Ald. Bernstein recognized the only problem here was that Mr. Kornacki was trying to accommodate the needs of his neighbor adjacent on the cast by putting the parking in a more appropriate location. Chairman Engelman questioned if in fact this would be more acceptable to the adjacent property because these are open air parking spaces in this case. However, Ald. Bernstein pointed out that as far as putting up a garage in this case, it would require approval of the Preservation Commission because the property has historical landmark status. Mr. Malarkey stated that the parking would remain exactly as it is. He noted that all the parking that is in place now is permitted because the coachhouse is in the rear of the lot, therefore nothing would change from the current parking situation on the property. He noted that change in configuration so that what used to be the rear 30', now becomes a new lot with a frontage on Forest and the width of the property now becomes the length of the property. Ald. Wynne said that she takes into consideration all that has been said, especially because she is not an advocate of subdivisions, however in this instance it does meet the standards. Also, there is a building on the site currently and this is not to accommodate new construction. She supports the applicant and feels he has made a worthwhile effort. Chairman Engelman noted that in order to do this, the Committee needs to make their findings of facts versus the findings of facts by the ZBA in order to be consistent with the motion to over -rule. He again asked the question on what is the hardship to the applicant other than economics. Ms. Szymanski responded that with respect to the draft ordinance b.-fore the Committee, she pointed out that on page 4, item "e" states "if based upon the discussion that the Committee has had just now, if it can find from that discussion that the purpose of the variations is not based exclusively upon a desire to abstract additional income from the property." These is fifth element will be satisfied. Ald. Newman agreed to this point. Discussion ensued regarding the economic hardship to the applicant. It was the consensus of the Committee in the realization that this variation in part is to element the economic burden that the applicant has carried and that this case is not due to economic gain for the applicant_ Ald. Newman vouched for the observable time and care the Mr. Komacki has given to this property and the ob--•ious expense that he has endured over the years. Ms. Dienner asked if the coach house has been declared an historical landmark. She asks this because she recalls renovations made to this building even before Mr. Komacki owned the property over 44 years ago. Aid. Newman responded that at that time, the preservation regulations were not as strict as they have become up to today. Chairman Engelman also noted that there are many properties in Evanston with coachhouses and he retails that the City prohibited these structures from being principal uses on a Ior» A coach house has to be appurtenant to the main structure unless they had their own street P&D Commune Mtg. Minutes of 6,25 V1 Page 8 , frontage. In either case, this property has well enough street frontage for the coach house to be the principal structure on its own lot. Chairman Engelman asked legal if there is something that could be put in words to enter a finding of facts. Ms. Szymanski responded that from what she has heard in this discussion that the Alderman appear to support the ordinance as she has drafted. She stated that as long as the Committee accepts this draft ordinance, particularly the language in item "e" on page 4, this would be adequate in considering as a finding of fact.. She said from her understanding in reading the record, she interpreted that Mr. Kornacki had done most of the maintenance himself and that he was no longer able to do that. Mr. Komacki assured the Committee of his sweat equity that he put into this property. He informed the Committee that in the 44 years he owned the property, he kept a log of the man-hours he put into the property. He estimated that in 2 more years he would have put in 100,000 man-hours into the care and maintenance of his property. Chairman Engelman re -stated the motion to over -rule the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and to recommend that Council pass this ordinance. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1 } 1723 Benson Avenue. Evanston Athletic Club It was the consensus of the Committee and agreed upon by the applicant, to hold this item over on the agenda to allow the Parking Committee to review this case at their meetin� on June 27a'. Chairman Engelman said that he would like this item to be on the July 9 agenda for consideration. Chairman Engelman changed the order of the agenda. (PD4) Ordinance 108-0-00 — Amendments to the Residential/Landlord Tenanj Ordinance Chairman Engelman acknowledged the memorandum provided by staff regarding the progress the Human Relations Commission has made since the initial discussion of this ordinance back in September of 2000. He asked Ms. Haynes if she would like to add any comments. Ms. Haynes informed the Committee that the Human Relations Commission has taken a lot of time on this matter due to the seriousness of this issue and the importance of having everyone involved come to some type of consensus. She noted the - next Human Relations Commission will be on this Wednesday in which they will further discuss this matter and hopefuily come nearer to closure of their discussion and review. She assumed the Commission would be ready by September to extend invitations to participation in discussion groups. Aid. Kent asked Ms. Haynes to elaborate on the discussion groups. Ms. Haynes explained that the Human Relations objective was to hear both sides, landlords and tenants, and come up with something that everyone can live with. She stated that these discussion groups consist of either just landlords or just tenants to problem solve. She noted that from past experience with these discussion = groups, the meetings were well attended by landlords and very few tenants participated. - P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 675,'01 Page 9 They assumed that the tenants felt uncomfortable in sharing their issues and concerns with their landlord being present. However, the Commission finds these discussion groups helpful and plan to continue giving them. (PD2) Consideration of a Moratorium to limit anv new residential multi -family construction in the R Districts of the 5`� Ward Aid. Kent requested to hold this item over until the Plan Commission has had more opportunity to discuss this matter. He informed the other Committee members that he has discussed this item with Ms. Szymanski, Mr. Wolinski and has begun to collect information to move forward with this moratorium. Mr. Wolinski noted the on July 12t' the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission will be meeting and will discuss this matter. (PD3), A reference considerine a Volicv for communicatine potential chances affecting zonine aaalicants Chairman Engelman acknowledged the memorandum and informative chart that the Committee received in their Friday packets. Aid. Wynne recalled making this reference some time ago, however she expressed her interest to still address this matter. The other Committee members also expressed a desire to address this issue in the near future. COMMUNICATIONS (PD5) Sherman Avenue Plaza The staff memorandum on the Plan Commission's approval of adjustments to the Planned Development was accepted without comment. ADJOUILNMENT With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu 'ne I& Brownlee A MINUTES Planning & Development Committee July 9, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent. A. Newman. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, J. Aiello, D. Jennings. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25.20011 MEETING Ald. Kent moved approval of the minutes of June 25th, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1 ) Sidewalk Cafd/Liouor — Jackv's Bistro. 2545 Prairie Avenue Chairman Engelman asked Mr. Pluton if he had any additional comments to add to the previous discussions from the past meetings. Mr. Pluton responded that he had no additional comments. Chairman Engelman also acknowledged the note that was in the packet including the a -mail to staffs office recognizing the receipt of the notice and the memorandum from Mr. Sarfatty that was also forwarded to staff. Mr. George Sarfatty addressed the Committee referring to his memorandum, which clearly states his feelings on this matter. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Pluton about the statement alleging your continued use of the parking area behind the Christian Science Reading Room to park vehicles even though he has indicated that this practice would stop. Mr. Pluton responded that parking has not actually continued in those particular parking spots but instead cars are being parked along the alley next to the Reading Room spaces. He presented a photocopy to the Committee showing the parking as explained. P&-D Committee %Itg. Minutes of July 9. 200 Page 2 Mr. Sarfatty insisted that the %alet attendants are continuing to park cars in the Reading Room's private parking spaces. :sir. Pluton disagreed and declared that not to be true as it reveals in the photos presented showing the parking of cars in the alley directly adjacent to the Reading Room parking spaces. :fir. Sarfatty stated firm that even if these cars are parked in the alley, this is also not an accepted practice and a violation of current Evanston parking regulations. A1d. tiewman concurred that the parking of cars in the alley is also not within regulations. MT. Pluton responded that he does possess a document from his valet service verifying that they will comply with not parking cars in the Reading Room's private parking spaces and he assured that his valet service will comply. He stated that it appears that this one citizen seem to have a problem with the parking situation and repeatedly expressed his opposition versus the evident majority support of the surrounding neighbors of over 500 citizens. He expressed his disbelieve in how this imbalance could persude the Committee's opinion on the issue before them of serving liquor at a sidewalk cafe. Chairman Engelman responded explaining that the Committee.'Council does not necessarily work by number majority versus based upon the policy and issues involved in a particular case. In other words, the reality of this one citizen presenting conceivable objections, it worth the Committee's retrospect in reviewing the entire matter. Mr. Pluton reiterated having position of the valet service written consenCagreement that they will not park in those specified parking spaces that are prohibited and he has no objection to supporting their statement. He stated that he, as the owner, has no way of constantly monitoring this regulation, however, he is willing to do so if required. Ala. Newman pointed out that the valet parking is a license that has to be applied for by the owner of the restaurant. which makes the owner responsible that any parking regulations are complied by. Although he understands \Sr. Platoon's position, he stressed the owner's responsibility for the parking situation for his restaurant and the continued accusations against any wrong doings done by his valet service. He continued that Mr. Sarfany's issues raised are fair and legitimate and regardless of his standing alone on his complaints against the seemingly majority of support from the neighborhood, the Committee has a responsibility to address the parking issue as it is presented before them in this case. Mr. Pluton agreed to Aid. New-man's comments and again reiterated possessing the document from his valet service verifying that that will not park cars in the prohibited parking areas and that he has no option but to support such statement made. Aid. Newman responded that the condition of the license applied for by the owner of the establishment. is that the parking of the cars be parked legally off-street; pointing out that parking of the cars in the alley is not a legal practice. Mr. Sarfatty stated that he is not disputing the high reputation of Jacky's restaurant, admitting that he has dined there and confirms the quality of service presented, however he stressed the principal of the owner taking responsibility of the added potential problems involved with serving liquor at the outdoor cafe with parking problems that already exist in the area and addressing these problems now. He further stated that he is not unwilling to support the liquor license, as so stated in his memo, however he would like to see the neighborhood met half -way by addressing his request he stated from last year. He read from his statement of his request made last year regarding the parking issue and noted that he is still awaiting a response from the City on this issue. Mr. — Sarfatty stated that from last year he suggested that parking restrictions be placed on P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of July 9. 2001 Page 3 Harrison Street one block east and west of Prairie. specifically proposing residential only parking from 6-8 p.m. everyda%. He noted that when he brought this issue up last year, Aid. Engelman responded in writing that this matte: would be addressed at the Parking Committee. He reiterated that it is now a year later and he has not yet received a response. He confirmed, that if this matter were to be addressed, he would be must more willing to support this because he does not feel that we can rely on the restaurant owner to actively encourage his patrons to not park on the streets in their neighborhood. Mr. Sarfatty pointed this out to be one of his most crucial points in his letter to be addressed by the City considering one of his other points being hard to enforce regarding the requirement to serve liquor in conjunction with food. He also pointed out his concern with the hours of operation for service of liquor because he would like to see the hours of service shortened for this are because it is adjacent to residential uses on 3 sides. In conclusion, Mr. Sarfatty stated that he would like to see this request made for resident only parking between the hours of 6-8 p.m. during the week. Chairman Engelman responded that with regards to Air. Sarfatty's last statement regarding the parking issue, a reference was made to the Parking Committee and this Committee very briefly deferred that reference until after the parking study on the Central/Green Bay area. Mr. Sarfatty questioned how long this study is going to take because it has been over a year since his inquiry into this matter. Aid. Newman responded that the Parking Committee is not making any response until the study is completed. He continued his explanation that the consultants were at the Parking Committee's last meeting and verified that are still working on this study and closing on their conclusion to report back to the Committee. He verified that the Parking Committee will make no conclusion until the study has been completed for that area on Central Street. Aid. Bernstein stated that he has just had an opportunity to review the letter before them and with due respect, he does not believe that the allowance of liquor at the outdoor cafe is going to inadvertently effect outcome of the decision with regards to this ordinance. He stated that these problems are ongoing and are not going to change any problems that already exist. He noted that he agrees with Aid. Newman in the fact that the responsibility lies on the owner for any parking problems or situations that exist or are potential problems that can only be addressed by the owner. After all discussion. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of this request the service of liquor at the sidewalk cafe for Jacky's Bistro, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Bernstein commented on the need for yearly review and the applicant to seek approval of the City Council on a yearly basis with the service of liquor. He does not feel the approval of this allowance will alter the character of that neighborhood. With respect to the hours of service, it is a valid point, however it has been stated and confirmed by the owner that no extended hours will be added or needed for the sidewalk cafe. Aid. Ne,ATnan specified that the hours of service is eery important is this case since it effects the surrounding residential area. He reminded that for the owner, it is a privilege that for any approval of this service, however. the regulations need to be adhered to with regards to the parking issues in conjunction with the liquor issues also. Questions were raised on the specific hours of operation with regards to the service of liquor at the sidewalk cafe. Mr. Pluton confirmed that his main hour of operation for the inside restaurant are from 5- 9 p.m. and he assured that the last call for alcohol for the outside service would be at 9.m. P&D Committee Sit& Minutes ofJuly 9. 2001 Page 4 No service of alcohol Mould be after 9 p.m.. in recognition that all normal business is concluded by 9:30 p-rn. Aid. Bernstein also pointed out that this application is renewable on a year basis and t1he best evidence is what happens from now forward and he would encourage Jacky to continue to and persuade his valet agents to stay in compliance. Aid. Kent added for Jack% to keep in mind that if he does not step in a keep the parking issue under control. it is passible that when renewal time comes around next year, the problem will not be with the liquor issue however the parking issue %ill be the downfall. After all discussion. the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Sidewalk Cafe -'Liquor - Trattoria Trullo, 1700 Central Street Chairman Engelman acknowledged that one citizen has signed up to speak on this matter. Mr. George Bond stated that he lives on Harrison around the corner from this restaurant. He said that he is in favor of the restaurant serving alcohol but he is curious where the valet parking %ill be. Chairman Engelman noted that for the particular location that this restaurant is in, valet parking is not an issue because the owner has the ability to have cars parked at Dyche Stadium. The ordinance does not require the owner to provide valet panting. He asked Nfr. Bond if he has notices any particular problems in the neighborhood with parking since the restaurant has been opened. Mr. Bond responded that there has been no real negative impact caused by this specific restaurant except on weekends the parking cart get difficult with no individual fault lying on this particular establishment. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Engelman changed the order of the agenda to hold discussion last for the Robinson Bus matter. (P4) Temporary Sivn Request for American Crafi Exposition With no comments. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Resolution 52-R-01 - Amending 39-R-96, Establishing an Honorary Street Name Program Chairman Engelman noted that this amendment is to extend the Honorary Street program to 4 years versus the existing 2-year time limit. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Ald_Newman pointed out that currently the limit is 2 years with the opportunity for an extension up to 2 more years, for a total of 4 years. Mr. Gaynor verified that this amendment is to change the time frame to 4 years. Aid. Newman noted that there is one sign in particular that has been singled out to be taken down early, which he feels should not happen even though the time limit is up. He also feels that if the individual is still living. they or their family should be notified before the street sign is taken down. in any case. Ald. Newman feels that 4 years is still not long enough, therefore he motioned to amend the time to 6 years with the possibility of extending an additional 2 years. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. P&D Committee Sttg Minutes or jut., 9.'_ooi Page 5 Aid. W) ne questioned why not just make the time limit a flat 6 years rather than adding the option of extending the additional 2 years. She feels this optional time extension creates one of the problems that they have run into with this program. Aid. Newman said the only reason he included this into his amended motion is because the extension period was already existed in the proposed amended resolution. He agrees with the option period because it allows the chance to extend more years and he would like to see as many years' possible. He feels that even at 6 years, the current honorary streets dedicated to Rev. Norwood, Bo Price, Bishop Moody's should not come down and should continue to remain. Aid. Newman said in his opinion. the street dedications are harmless and has proven to be a worthwhile program considering that in the beginning it was believed that there would be an epidemic. which has not occurred. He would like to see the signs up for at least 8 years. Aid. Kent recalled that this program was brought about with the honorary street dedication to Bishop Moody, which was the first to go up. He remembers that at that time they started off with the 2-year limit including the option to extend an additional 2 years because of the concern for this program becoming an epidemic. In speaking for the 5'' Ward. this program has been rewarding in the fact of giving honor back to people who are alive and have given so much of themselves to the community. Aid. Kent pointed out that the individual being honored does have to qualify and go before a Committee with extensive backup of solid history presented on this person. He also noted that the honorary street signs do not change the original street name signs, therefore it does not create any havoc or street problems for the City's Fire & Police Departments. Aid. Kent said that he would like to entertain the ideal of qualifying, once qualified the organization would pay the required fees and the sign would be able to stay up, in his opinion, for as long as 10 years or indefinitely. Aid. Bernstein agreed with Aid. Kent that he sees no need to take the signs down and he could go with at least allowing the signs to remain for a period of 10 years. He feels that since the origination of this program, he can not see any rationale basis for the time limitation of 2 years. He recalls that in his ward with regards to the Jack Korschak sign, there was only one complaint received from a single resident. However, in perpetuity, it may loose its effect if people no longer remember whom the person for which the street was named or its significance. After consideration of the prior comments made, Aid. Newman withdrew his original amended motion and substituted a 10-year time limit with no extension period. Mr. Gaynor pointed out for the Committee's information, that the first street dedication that they have a record of was done in 1995, which was the dedication for Bishop Moody. He noted that currently, there are 4 signs up, I` one in 1995. 1 in 1997, and 2 in 1998. He reminded the Committee that with tonight's request for a sign dedication, the total number of signs up will be 5. Aid. Kent stated that if the time limit is up for Bishop Moody's sign, then he suggest that staff contact the organization sponsoring this sign and let them know if they would like to extend the time and pay the fee required. Staff agreed with this suggestion. However, Mr. Gaynor raised the question for clarification if the Committee is suggesting the 10-year time to begin with the year the sign was first erected or begin from this time forward. Aid. Nev%7nan feels that with this amendment, P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jul) 9. 2001 Page 6 they should start each sign from this time forward for the 10-year time limit. The majority of the Committee members agreed with this proposition. Chairman Engelman restated the motion on the floor which is to amend the proposed ordinance to increase the number of years from 4 to 10 to grandfather in as though the existing signs were just going up today. The Committee agreed. Chairman Engelman , stated that he is not in favor of this amendment and has never been particularly in favor of the program. He said that whatever number in years is arbitrary and he feels the honor that is done for any individual. is done the day they put up the sign. Although he agrees with honoring deserving individuals, we already have street signs and don't necessarily need secondary street signs. He would be content in keeping with the current ordinance. Aid. Kent recalled that when this program first came about, Aid. Engelman was not thrilled from the beginning. However, he pointed out that since that time, he feels the program has worked out well, especially in his community. He feels this program particularly benefits the youth in his community because it teaches them and makes them appreciate the respect of being honored. Chairman Engelman agreed with Aid. Kent in that respect, especially in consideration of Bishop Moody, however in his mind, not all the honorary street signs in the past have gone up in representation of the community but instead merely to honor just the individual. He pointed out that no matter how many years is set for the time limitation; there is nothing to prevent the sponsoring organization to apply for an extension. After all discussion, the Committee voted d in favor of the amended motion and 1 in opposition. (P6) Resolution 53-R-01 — Desienatine a Section of Church St. between Ridee Ave. and Oak Ave. with the Honorary Name. "Ann Jennett. With no additional comments, Aid. Bernstein moved approval. Ald. Wynne seconded the motion and the votewas 5-0 in favor. (P7) Ordinance 85-0-01 — Special Use for 1700 Sherman Avenue (Panera Bread), Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Engelman acknowledged John Malarkey and Jeff Nave, representing Panera's. Ald. Newman questioned why the sidewalk cafe was eliminated. Mr. Malarkey responded that the store could not maintain their conditions and chose to discontinue the outdoor cafe. Aid. Bernstein noticed in the transcript where the applicant requested to increase the frequency _ of litter collection; he requested further explanation. Mr. Malarkey explained that the store has a travel path where the manager has to walk through the dining room and police the outside, currently happens every half-hour. The ordinance states that this is required every 3 hours, subsequently they are already in compliance. With no further discussion, the Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P8) Ordinance 86-0-01 —1723 Benson Avenue, Evanston Athletic Club Chairman Engelman requested a report from the Parking Committee meeting. Aid. Newman responded that the ordinance speaks for itself and represents what was - P&D Committee .%Itg. M in utes of J u 1y 9.2001 Page 7 discussed in the Parking Committee meeting. He noted that the applicant has agreed to do the 89 spaces as required. referring more information from Air. Murray on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Murray clarified that he has discussed other matters of concern raised with Ms. Szymanski and are in the process of taking care of those items. He said that the offer on behalf of the club to except the responsibility of leasing 89 spaces was premised upon the capacity of the club to validate or turn over those 69 non -employee full-time spaces four times a day. He further explained the concept was that they would be able to generate the sufficient amount of interest in the off-street parking use of the parking garage to turn a parking space every 2-hours, 4 times per day from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. He said the limits, regarding the number of dollars associated with the validation program to the maximum that would be permined on a dollar -for -dollar basis if all of the spaces were to be rented at $73 per space. Mr. Murray noted that the proposal that they made was based upon a capacity. in essence to have as opposed to the way the ordinance was formulated on the basis that there are approximately 5000 exits validated per month. He continued that their proposal was to have 7100 validated exits because they figured this amount by working from a 6-day week and 269 mmovers per day. He noted that the ordinance reflects the dollar -for -dollar value of paying S73 per parking space for 69 spaces. He stated that this limitation is a significant one to the club. He reiterated that there is a specific agreement in their proposal that they be able to turnover the space 4 times a day, in essence resulting in the capacity to put a cap on the validation at 7000 rather than 5000. He explained that in the event that one of the downtown parking garages is granted the capacity to dispense with a parking fee on a given time, that this also be applicable to the validation program that is undertaken by the club. Chairman Engelman asked for verification. from the comments made by Mr. Murray, that the ordinance before the currently before the Committee is not what is envisioned. Mr. Murray concurred and stated that the effort was made and the intention was indicated during the course of the Parking Committee meeting that an effort was be put together to hammer out whatever differences and come to an agreement. Ald. Newman verified that Mr. Murray has described how this discussion left the Parking Committee and from the representatives from EAC were to meet with City staff to come to an agreement for the 89 spaces. Chairman Engelman then asked staff to elaborate more on their meeting with the applicant. Ms. Aiello and fir. Jennings explained that when staff met with EAC representatives, staff was under the impression that this formula was reflecting the issue of providing the parking that would be equivalent to the 69 spaces with the dollar -to - dollar approach being the most equitable. Staff felt that anything over this amount should be compensated for. Chairman Engelman asked for clarification in that the applicant is paying the City 570+ per month per space and for every dollar that one of their customers pays, the applicant will validate one also. Staff explained that the validation system would work similar to a debit card; Mr. Jennings elaborated that for every dollar a customer pays they will get the second hour free one time. Mr. Kadish explained his logic in developing their concept. He stated that they have 4 validations for each one of those 69 spaces equaling 276 2-hour parking spaces for the S73 per month per space. He concluded that for the year, this would allow them 86,000 spaces versus the City's concept that allows fix 60,000 spaces per year. P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of Jul) 9. 2001 Page 8 Discussion ensued further between the Committee. City Staff and representatives ofEAC regarding the dollar -to -dollar concept versus EAC's 5.73 concept. Aid. Newman pointed out that the club has a membership that is going to be turning every couple of hours and it would benefit them to be able to repeatedly use the 69 spaces throughout the day whereas Chairman Engelman states that is why he is in favor of the debit card concept. Ms. Aiello and Mr..Jennings were in the opinion that EAC's concept will result in the City losing money whereas the difference should be compensated for. Mr. Kadish argued this point because he is in the opinion that he will end up paying more if the City's calculations are used versus their proposal of basing this on the S73 per space per month agreement for 69 spaces at 4 validations per day. He continued that this number wfli give them more spaces than are listed in the ordinance because the ordinance puts a dollar amount in and not a validated amount in. In consideration of Mr. Kadish's argument, the consensus of the Committee tended to be in agreement with his point of view. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that it appears that the applicant is satisfying the City's requirement and they are complying with the City's ordinance. He said that the applicant is actually giving the City a benefit instead of the City losing out on money. Aid. Bernstein moved to introduce Ordinance 86-0-01 with the Amended changes as discussed on the numbers for the validation system. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. This item will be introduced tonight and referred back to the Committee with the amended ordinance. (N) Zonine Ordinance Amendment Petition of Robinson Bus Comnanv Chairman Engelman apologized to those in attendance regarding this matter and the fact that they had to wait. However, the issues beforehand that required discussion, the associated applicants have had their cases continued more than once over the past several meetings. He informed the audience that the Committee will call on everyone who has signed up to speak, however due to the lateness in time, he is doubtful that this item will be concluded this evening and it is probable to be held over until the next meeting. He acknowledged Mr. Murray as attorney representing the applicant/o%%mer of the property, Mr. Leon Robinson. Mr. Murray acknowledged that some of the neighbors in attendance have already indicated their position on this matter at preceding meetings. He gave an overview of the applicant's original proposal where the Robinson Bus Company has sought to have the old Mayfair line converted to parking purposes. The original intent was to utilize the West Side or side closest to the L district, for bus parking or a bus holding area mostly during the course of the day. Also to be used during the evening for overnight btu parking that would be gated and locked or for other purposes due to its large, narrow tot size and modest accessibility and usefulness. In addition, they were proposing to utilize the East Side, park side and the residential side of the property for automobile parking for persons working for or visiting the Robinson Bus Company directly across Emerson. Mr. Murray noted that this matter has gone through Site Plan & Appearance Review. He said the methodology by which they sought to have this approved was by means to seek '� P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1uh 9. 200 E Page 9 - modification of the Zoning Ordinance from "Public Transportation Center." which is a permitted use in the 12 by striking the work **Public'* and having the entire parcel zoned 12. He noted &.at basically the neighbors were antagonistic to the approach. as indicated in their testimormy before the Plan Commission. and expressed their concerns about the amount of traffic, the type of traffic with the buses and dangers of the duel ingress and egress from Foster and Emerson. Concerns were also expressed by the neighbors regarding pollutants from the exhaust from the buses and the proximity to the open space across the street at Foster Center and the large amount of children that frequent this area. Mr. Murray stated that the applicant saw this as an opportunity to utilize property that has been under conversion from the elevated %lavfair line to current status as a surface lot for the last approximately 6 years. Permits were issued by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (M«RD). the City of Evanston for driveway permits and it progressed to this point of construction by virtue of the fact that an error was made in the assessment of what was and the zoning aspect of what was being constructed. He continued that at such time the error was determined to be in existence, construction and use ceased further and the property was used by the City to store excess snow and some vehicles currently park in the lot. He said that the SPAARC reduced the number of spaces by virtue of suggestions that they install landscape islands every 10 spaces. Mr. Murray concluded that they are here now before the Committee with a negative recommendation from the Plan Commission. In an effort in an attempt in which to find some means of salvage for the use of this property. they came up with off-street parking which appears to be an item of priority in Evanston. He explained that the methodology by which they reached this particular end, if deemed acceptable, has a constituency against it from the point of view for the use of buses and the procedural aspects which narrows down to some additional hearing process whereby they may be able to achieve usage of the lot for non -bus, automobile parking only. Mr. Murray informed the Committee that Mr. Robinson has authorized him to extend to the Council and P&D Committee. the conciliatory effort by eliminating the bus use however preserving the property for use as automobile off-street parking. He noted the need for additional parking in the arm especially to accommodate off-street parking for the nearby churches. it %%as mentioned that the numbers for the lot would convert,, providing far approximately 100 cars. Chairman Engelman moved on to those signed up to speak. Mr. Doua Whitmore, 1521 Emerson Street. said that he lives directly east of the parking lot. He expressed his opposition for this proposal. His initial concerns are with the pollution factor and the fumes generated from buses or even an ovr-abundance of cars in a large parking lot. He related that he has two small children that would be affected by those fumes, not to mention the physical dangers they would constantly be under. Mr. Whitmore stated that his second concern is for the property values adjacent to this lot and the effect it will have on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the community needs something proposed that will help their property values and the status of the area. He requested that the Committee give them some consideration on this account and help PAD Committee N11g. Minutes of July 9.2001 Page 10 the neighbors to prosper from the value of their properties equivalent to the other communities in Evanston. Ms. Roberta Hudson. 1941 Dewey. stressed her opposition to this proposal and pointed out that her family and neighbors w7i1 be directly effected by this. She noted that there has been no comprehensive impact study done on the fumes generated from a parking lot for buses and an excess amount of cars. She informed the Committee that from discussion with her neighbors and other residents directly adjacent to this site, that there are several individuals who are already suffering from various health problems such as asthma. emphysema, and bronchitis. Furthermore, the proposed use for this site will only add to those residents` health problems. She further pointed out the risks and dangers to the many children that are in the neighborhood and frequent the Fleetwood Center and Family Focus, She also pointed out the health dangers to the new proposed senior citizen home from fumes. She noted that the Pastor assured the neighbors that sufficient parking would be provided for the needs of the new senior center, however the new proposal mentions that this lot would also be used for parking for the new building if needed. Ms. Hudson pleaded that the Committee take notice that the entire surrounding neighborhood is in opposition to this proposal. She also requested that some type of impact study should be done for their neighborhood before any other proposals are submitted. Chairman Engelman observed the time being 8:30 p.m. and asked Aid. Kent if he felt it to be worthwhile for him to meet with the neighbors for further discussion between no and the next meeting and hold this item in Committee. The audience expressed their opposition with this suggestion, recalling the numerous meetings that have already been held. Aid. Kent expressed his opinion that what is before the Committee is a discussion that resulted from the neighborhood doing their homework and listening to the proposed changes. He strongly feels and supports his constituents position, in that to utilize the site for car parking or bus parking. it not going to happen if they can help it. They all strongly feel and have verbally expressed that this proposed use does not benefit their community in an}• way. From all that has been said, Aid. Kent moved to uphold the recommendation of the Plan Commission to deny the proposed zoning text and map amendments. He pointed out that there has been no talk of expansion of the tot lot as he had suggested. He also noted the statements made in the under -utilization of that site because that strip has never benefited the community and to use the site for a parking lot with a gate around it to be locked up at night. this will still not benefit the community. He stated that what he and the community are looking for is creative development for this section of town and they feel Mr. Robinson can plan a large part in contributing to this cause. If any neighborhood meetings are held, it should be to discuss further the option and suggestions for creative development for this site and for the neighborhood. No second was received on Aid. Kent's motion. Aid. Newman raised questions on the I2 district versus the R5 district and what is allowed in both districts. Mr. Wolinski explained that a transportation center is permissible in the 12 district, however the property was determined by the Zoning Official to be majority zoned R5 where a transportation center is not permitted even as a special use. Mr. Murray reiterated that permits have been received from the MWRD and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jul) 9.2001 Page 11 the proper grading has been done to the site. Someone from the audience recalled that the proper permits were not issued from the City to make the site into a parking lot to begin with. Mr. Alterson read from Section 672.b.3. of the Zoning Ordinance, explaining his determination of this lot being considered R5. He noted that even with the new proposal of using the entire lot for automobile parking only. the property would still have to be rezoned to 12. Aid. Wynne asked if the applicant can procedurally come in with a new proposal over the one before the Committee. Is this a normal amendment to their proposal or does the applicant need to file again. Mr. Alterson explained that if the Committee were to took favorably upon the change of having the lot used for Vs buses and %= cars to exclusive car parking, then the Committee would still have to approve the rezoning of the property to I2 and the parking would become a permitted use as of right. Ms. Betty Palmer, pointed out that the Committee. the applicant, and the interested neighbors and residents, are not and should not be here tonight to discuss any alternatives. The Committee should be strictly concentrating on the proposal before them and should vote on this issue before even considering any other alternatives or amendments. The neighborhood has spoken and the Committee is well aware of their position as being totally in opposition of the current proposal. She noted that it also apparent that there is no community support for the alternative proposal stated this evening to use the property for car parking. Ms. Palmer wged the Committee to move forward with this proposal and to support the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Agreeing with Ms. Palmer's comments, Aid. Kent restated his motion for the Committee to uphold the Plan Commission's recommendation to deny this application. He stated that it is clear that a zoning determination has been made by the City Zoning Official and backed by the Plan Commission. He feels no further discussion or consideration needs to be given to this case; he has s-ated his feelings on the matter and the community has come out and made their fe_lings clear also. The other Committee members appeared to feel that more time should be given to them to have the opportunity to discuss amongst themseh•es, just as the Plan Commission was given. Mr. Alterson corrected his previous comments, noting that even as a parking lot for cars only, in the I2 district this type of lot would be considered a commercial parking lot and also considered as an accessory use. Aid. Kent expressed his disappointment in not being able to obtain a second to his motion from not one of his fellow Committee members. He reiterated that he does not understand why there is a need for any further discussion or cons ider::.;an on the proposal that is before them. In his opinion, the new proposal to change from bus parking to exclusively car parking is nothing more to him but a bait -and -switch procedure. He feels there is not difference in having 100 cars versus 80+ busses, the only difference being in the idling of the buses, which is a normal procedure that is currently done. Aid. Kent also feels that the Committee would not be contemplating such a proposal in any other area of the City, therefore why should this be contemplated at this site. He further stated all the existing problems that carry on in this lot and all the obvious objections that have been P&D Committee NItg. Minutes of July 9, 2001 Page 12 stated prcviousl}• in that this proposal does not benefit their community in any way. In consideration of Aid. Kent's statement. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion, and acknowledged all the points made by Aid. bent and understands why the community is in opposition to this proposal. However. she would like an opportunity for the Committee to discuss this amongst themselves and to discuss further possibilities for this site. Aid. Newman explained why he did not second Aid. Kent's motion. He stated that he was not clear on what the Committee was going to do with this motion. He said that it was apparent that using the lot for a transportation center for the buses is not favorable, however he was trying to explore what else the Committee could do in this case. He acknowledged the stage of events with this case, beginning with the Zoning Administrator's determination, the Plan Commission's recommendation and what is currently before the Committee tonight. Even though he agrees with all that has been said and the neighbor's opposition is clear, he also would like to have more time to discuss this further. Chairman Engelman asked the Committee what they want to do at this point. He made it known that his position is to hold this item in Committee for sufficient time needed to give the Committee a chance to discuss this in full detail amongst themselves, as the Plan Commission was able to do. He sympathizes Aith the neighbor's position, however the Committee needs to discuss the zoning aspects further and what the owner of the property can do by right with this land. Aid. Kent urged his fellow members again to proceed forward the vote on this issue to deny tonight and then move on for discussion on any other compromises. However, after more consideration, the majority of the Committee members voted to hold this item in Committee. A resident from the neighborhood expressed his disappointment with the Committee's decision in light of all that has been said by the Alderman of the ward and the entire surrounding community of this site. He strongly feels that if this same proposal were being sought in a neighborhood such as around Central Street, there would be no further discussion, deliberations or consideration. He also strongly feels that if the neighbors of such a community came out and expressed their opposition in the same manner as they have, the Committee would have listened and took their position into consideration and properly voted on the issue. ADJOUJUNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu4ne . �Bromlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee Jnlh 23, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Berstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent. A. Newman, M. Wynne Suit Present: J. Wolinski, bt. Mylott, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Diener Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. He apologized for the delay in starting due to the Executive Session meeting held before this one. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 9.2001 MEETING Ald. Newman moved approval of the minutes of July 9th, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. As promised at the last meeting, the Robinson Bus issue will be addressed first on the agenda. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION CP31 Zorne Ordinance Amendment Petition of Robinson Bus Comnanv Chairman Engelman called on Mr. James Murray, attorney for the applicant. Mr. Murray informed the Committee and audience, that last week he submitted a request on behalf of Mr. Robinson, to withdraw the application for zoning tent and map amendments. He asked that the Committee grant this request. Ald. Kent expressed his approval of this request and feels that this is the right decision in this case. He commended Mr. Murray and Mr. Robinson for their decision to withdraw this proposal, however, on behalf of the community and himself, he extended the invitation that the door does remain open for them to work on a development together. He anticipates the opportunity in the near future to meet with the applicant and work with him to come up with something agreeable to both parties that will enhance to community. A citizen from the audience asked if Mr. Robinson applies for any future zoning changes, will the community be notified as soon as possible thereafter. Chairman Engelman responded that the applicant would be required to start over from the beginning and would have to serve all the notices required for request of zoning relief. M) Reauest Waiver of Building Permit Fees -- Beth Emet SvnaQoeue Chairman Engelman announced that staff received a letter today from Mr. Mark Gershon of Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, asking to withdraw the request by Beth Emet P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 7n3/01 Page Synagogue's for building permit fee waiver. Aid. Newman stated that if this case had gone forward, he would have recessed himself from this case. Chairman Engelman stated that he too would have recessed himself. *Aid. Kent left the meeting at this time. Ordinance 85-0-01 - 1723 Benson Avenue. Evanston Athletic CIub Chairman Engelman acknowledged that this case was held in Committee from the last meeting. Mr. Murray explained that they modifed the amended ordinance which reflects the proposal that has been accepted by the owners of the property, as well as the owners of the Evanston Athletic Club. This proposal was accepted by staff; Ald. Newman moved approval of the substituted amended ordinance 8640-01, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Engelman noted that he will pull this item off the consent agenda during his report to move the substituted ordinance at that time. (PI) Sidewalk Cafe for Starbucks. 1724 Sherman Avenue Aid. Newman moved approval of this request, seconded by Ald, Wynne. Mr. Wolinski noted that the applicant has requested for the waiver on disposable food and beverage containers. Ald. Newman stated that this applicant was granted the waiver last year also. He amended his motion to include the waiver. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 89-0-01 - Zoning Ordinance Man Amendment: B3 at Main & Chicago Chairman Engelman called on a report from the Plan Commission. Ms. Anderson stated that she received the Economic Development Committee meeting minutes in the mail over the weekend, noting that included with those minutes were copies of correspondence relating to this item, as well as the matter addressed in item P4. She noticed with respect to this item as it was written, the building the lies between the alley and the Colonnades building on the north side of Main Street which from her understanding was to be B2 district, was left out. She questioned if the materials received by the Committee in their packet were corrected of this mistake. Chairman Engelman acknowledged Ms. Anderson's findings and that the Committee will make a note of this. He asked staff for a brief statement of this recommended map amendment. Mr. Wolinski explained that the Plan Commission has recommended that the area on Main Street from the tracks west to Sherman Avenue be rezoned to B2 which has a 45' height limit without the panting exemption. Ald. Newman asked if there is any difference in uses. Mr. Wolinski responded that the uses are primarily the same. He continued that the area that includes the Flannigan property where the new bank is being constructed and the area where the existing bank currently is, will remain B3. He said that the remaining area on Chicago Avenue will be C1 a, including the area north to the Hetnmingway Church. Aid. Newman questioned the zoning of the property where Oceanique is located and the area that Ms. Anderson's has pointed out. This property is zoned B2. Ald. Wynne drew a diagram for the Committee to view, of the Main/Chicago area and the recommended zoning for the • P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 7R3101 Page 3 • area. She demonstrated where all the B3 properties are located and the area of B2 that Ms. Anderson pointed out was omitted in the EDC packet. Aid. Wynne pointed out that the Neighborhood and Zoning Committee's of the Plan Commission said that the old bank building parcel at 603 Main Street should change to Cla for a variety of reasons. She noted that at the last Plan Commission meeting, they changed this property to remain zoned at B3. She informed the Committee that she has a problem with this property remaining B3 and would like to discuss and address this further. She said that through the entire review process of the zoning of this area, this particular property was recommended to be Cla. Chairman Engelman asked for an overview of the differences between C 1 a and B3 zoning. It was clarified that there is an absolute limit of 75' height in C 1 a whereas B3 zoning has a maximum of 85' height plus a 40' parking exemption allowance. Aid. Newman asked Aid. Wynne if it is her position for preference to see the bank building be C 1 a, she affirmed. He expressed that he has some concerns with this and questions what they are accomplishing by making the Oceanique property B2 because it is the only property in that area that has this zoning. He feels that this particular area being zoning B2 is different from the area west of the tracks on Main Street because there are no buildings currently over 40'. The building where Oceanique is located will be surrounded now by 8-10 story buildings. He does not see the logic in this area being zoned B2 and asked Aid. Wynne her position on this matter. Aid. Wynne said that she understands Aid. Newman's concerns, she explained however, that the Colonnade building has landmark status, realizing that this status does not protect it entirely. Also, she feels Aid. Newman's argument is momentum because currently the building were Oceanique and Piron Chocolates are located and the Colonnade are approximately 45' in height. She said that these buildings are immediately adjacent to single family/residential homes and the preference is to keep low-rise buildings next to single-family residences. Aid. Wynne pointed out that even though the Evanshire building is 79', the likelihood that these building will be knocked down and replaced is fairly remote. However, she requested to defer briefly to Ms. Anderson who made an excellent argument to her fellow Plan Commission members on the issue of giving incentive to a landowner to allow a building to be nun down in order to convert it to a higher use. Ms. Anderson stated that in her opinion of the Colonnade building, she would not want to do anything that would put any type of increase pressure on a landmark building. Aid. Newman said that this is a downzoning of the property. Aid. Wynne said that the argument for the B2 zoning is in keeping with the height that the building currently is and by allowing this property to not be raised any higher if the situation were to occur in the future for any redevelopment. She said that the owners of the building were made aware of this process. Ms. Anderson noted that beyond the B3 on the northeast comer of Main & Chicago, the C 1 a extends from the building including CrossRoads through to the Hemmingway Church. She said as to the current bank building on the northwest corner, this was not a unanimous vote because there was some question as to whether or not it should be Cla or B3 and there were supporters on both sides. She said that Mr. Alterson was asked, since variations were spoken of for that building, whether the owners would have to go to the ZBA if it were B3 as opposed to Cla. She noted that Mr. Alterson informed them that in either case, the owner would have to go before the ZBA. Ms. Anderson said that she pointed out to her fellow P&D Committer Mtg. Minutes of 7n_3/01 Page a commissioners that night that they had talked previously about that corner being Cla which would result in the zoning continuing north on the west side of Chicago Avenue because the moratorium has specifically been adjusted to accommodate a 67' height which is what that structure was supposed to top at according to its developers. Ms. Debbie Hillman stated that she is part of the Nichols Neighbors group and that she is the representative for four different neighborhood groups including the Washington Neighbors, Dempster Area Neighbors East (DANE), Nichols Neighbors, and South Hinman Area Neighborhood Association (SHANA). She read from a prepared statement which is a collective view of the four neighborhood groups regarding the proposed zoning changes to B3 at Main & Chicago as recommended by the Neighborhood Plan Committee. In the statement, the groups thank the Neighborhood Planning Committee for their time and efforts in dealing with the Chicago Avenue Corridor project and their continued work onto the zoning of the Main and Chicago area. They support the Committee's final recommendations and recognize the compromise among various interests that needed to be taken into consideration. The statement specifically lists 5 major issues that were addressed by the four neighborhood groups and were clearly addressed by the Neighborhood Planning Committee. In conclusion, they feel that central and southeast Evanston neighborhoods continue to be very desirable communities to live in. They acknowledge that preservation of this stable residential community is vital and the needed zoning amendments will aid in doing so. (A copy of this statement is available in the Community Development Dept. office) Ms. Beth Steffen. President of The Southeast Evanston Association, read from a prepared statement. The letter was addressed to Mr. John Lyman, Chair of the Neighborhood Committee and noted the Association's unanimous endorsement of the recommendations by the Neighborhood Committee. The letter also commended the work done by the Committee and the opportunity to participate in the deliberations. (A copy of this letter is available in the Community Development Dept. office) Mr. Georee Cyrus, wished to express his opinion, as an individual and not on behalf of �- his company, on the upzoning and especially the downzoning issues involved here. He noted that his company is no longer a brokerage firm nor do they do high-rise development. He feels they should mare in mind the significant social cost of downzoning in terms of affording those varied incomes to live in Evanston for the future. He feels that Evanston has always held a strong social conscience in supporting the ability to have all income levels able to live here. He said that one of the ways this can be accomplished best is by capitalizing on our strengths and use the additional resources and the tax base to do things to help individuals that might not otherwise be able to live in Evanston. Mr. Cyrus gave an example of noting that there was a development proposal for approximately 130 unit for The Main property and eventually this was denied and a development of 75 units was proposed. He pointed out that this results in a 55-unit loss and approximately 50 condominium units also. He said those condo units would have yielded about $250,000 and S50,000 of this could have gone to the City. In his opinion, this money could have gone to good social uses for assistance to families in need to stay in Evanston or could be used for other social uses such as more police assistance or P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7123101 Page 5 • educational assistance programs or aid in helping to pay off capital improvements. Mr. Cyrus noted the loss to the City by downzoning as well as the loss to our school districts. It is essential for Evanston to have as many units as possible new commuter rail stations. Mr. Cyrus acknowledged that he %vas on the Zoning Board in 1993 when the Zoning ordinance was under review and the whole reason for the zoning in some areas was to stimulate development. He stated that just because you have zoning in a certain area does not mean there will be no development there. He expressed his opinion with the zoning west of the tracks, mentioning that he used to live in the 900 block of Elmwood. He feels that snaking that strip of stores confined to a 45' height limitation, consigns it to stay the way it is forever and there is no incentive there to ever redevelop. He especially does not see the logic in keeping the north side of Main street at the 45' limit because directly behind this are industrial buildings and the wall of an apartment building. Finally, he commented on the remarks he heard earlier regarding giving people incentives to not take care of their buildings. He pointed out that Mr. Wolinski's staff of inspectors gives great incentive to take care their buildings by enforcing the property standards code. He feels that under that theory, they should have no significant zoning because many would let their property go on that accord. Aid. Newman responded to Mr. Cyrus's comment on the Cit), receiving S50,000 to every unit of S250,000 or more. He noted that the City does not receive $1 more because the tax base and the levy of approximately S24,000,000, is divided among a greater base of taxpayers. Therefore, technically everybody pays incrementally less because there is an additional $250,000. Mr. Cyrus said that they are free to raise the levy, and therefore - raises more money without raising other people's taxes. Aid. Newman said this is in theory only. Aid. Newman questioned in theory, another statement made by Mr. Cyrus regarding the 75 units at the main. He was under the impression that a much bigger proposal was in the making for this property. Mr. Wolinski clarified that Mr. Cyrus spoke with regards that there was no zoning change and the property remaining at 133. He noted that Mr. Flannigan was going to build in the constraints of the B3 and he can not recall the exact number of units under the original proposal, however the original number has been reduced. Aid. Wynne responded to Mr. Cyrus informing him that they spent 3 '/2 years studying the Chicago Avenue Corridor, analyzing all the strengths and weaknesses of this area with community input, property owner input. merchant input along with the Neighborhood Committee. She noted that early on a powerful argument was made that Chicago Avenue was the silver economic bullet that could solve many financial problems. However, what they managed to discuss and wrestle with the Neighborhood Committee, was the question of what are the negative impacts that we create to the immediate surrounding neighborhood by having 125' tall buildings where previously there might have been a 40' building. She said they also asked what do they do to the already existing tax base that pays quite a lot in taxes that comes there deliberately because they like that environment. She noted that you can't just look at any single building but instead need to look at the ripple effect will be. She mentioned that they analyzed the parking in that area and discovered that the zoning, decided by the ZBA P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7a3l01 Page 6 commissioners at the time Mr. Cyrus was on that board, only allowed 1 parking space per unit. As a result, Main & Chicago are completely saturated %%ith parking. Aid. Wynne concluded that you have to look at the entire community of the surrounding area around Main & Chicago Avenue and decide what is it that attracts people to continue to come and live there. Visa -versa, what are the negative impacts that result when you build walls of 125' buildings in a small area with inadequate parking. She noted that you end up with significantly damaging the surrounding area She said that if they were to use Mr. Cyrus's philosophy of higher density and maximizing our land value, then they should rezone Sheridan Road as well because the land there is high in value and could offer lake views, etc. She recommended that Mr. Cyrus retrieve a copy of the Chicago Avenue Corridor report for his review. Ms. Penny Miller noted that the 3`d Ward is already the most dense area of the City, residentially. While she agrees with everything Mr. Cyrus says about the economic benefits for the social services, she feels the density should go to other areas that are just as desirable and not already at their maximum density level. Ms. Steffen stated that if they really wanted to do something economic rich for Evanston, then they would make sure that all of the car dealerships along Chicago Avenue remain, because these businesses do generate a lot of revenue. She said that City's make money off of businesses, not off of residential property. She feels that under Mr. Cyrus's theory, Evanston would end up like Lincoln Park. Even though Lincoln Park is trendy, people come to Evanston from Lincoln park for a more suburban setting and a place to raise their family, better schools, etc. Mr. Cyrus responded that he does understand that it is a matter of judgement as to whether one wants a village atmosphere or a Lincoln Park atmosphere. He noted that both areas are expensive to live in, especially Lincoln Park, and it is a matter of preference and affordability. He said that many people do not mind a more urban atmosphere over the total suburban environment, but before we eliminate a possibility of a larger condominium development, we need to keep in mind that we take away options that might result in bringing in more money to Evanston. He agrees that that car dealerships on Chicago Avenue to produce a large amount of revenue, but we are not guaranteed that they will remain there. Ald. Newman addressed Mr. Cyrus saying that if we took his argument versus Ms. Steffen's, by passing the Plan Commission's recommendation, we have not eliminated one development opportunity west on Main Street. He said there is not one condominium project that has asked for a variation that the Committee has not approved. He said the question is at what point do they get involved in the planning and in his opinion, the Committee has been very open. Chairman Engelman noted that they may have scared away a developer that chose not to go through the process. Ald. Newman mentioned several recent large developments where they did not scare away the developer. The point he is making, is at what point does a neighborhood become so dense that there doesn't need to be some additional planning than simply saying that they are going to be permitted. He recalled a project in the past that Mr. Cyrus and his partners were involved with, where the neighbors were involved, the project came before the Committee and variations were granted. 'Therefore, he does not accept the just because they choose to make the west side of the tracks on P&D Cottzmittee Mtg. Minutes of 723/01 Pap 7 Main Street B2, that there will be no possible development. He noted that this will make it harder and more planning will have to be involved. however this does not eliminate the possibility. Mr. Cyrus pointed out that a zoning variation is very different from asking for a zoning change in the text. Ms. Anderson commented that it appears obvious that Mr. Cynic is aware of what occurred in a number of the Neighborhood Planning Committee meetings early on in the game. She referred to the first proposal submitted by Mr. Flannigan that was a very open process and widely kno%%m. In her opinion, it appears the Mr. Cyrus did not attend any of the meetings thereafter to put in his input at that point and time. She said that he also doesn't seem to have picked on the fact that a number of property owners west of the tracks on Main liked the character of their neighborhood and some indicated that they had no plans to make any changes in their building. She said that the general consensus was that the neighbors and Main Street building owners appreciate the neighborhood character and the old time ambience that currently exists. Ms. Anderson referred to the old bank building site which the Plan Commission recommended be zoned B3. She explained that there was some argument at the last Plan Commission meeting about whether they had left previous meetings marking this site as B3 or Cla. She said the ultimate vote came out to 5-3 in favor of the B3 zoning; which her vote was not amongst. She noted that all of the other changes in this area, she felt could not be held up because of that one B3 and she also felt that there would be another opporttmity for the P&D Committee to rethink whether that site should be Cla or B3. Ms. Anderson said that is why she asked Mr. Alterson, who Has present at the meeting, that Chairman Lyman had indicated the preference to leave this property for staff to decide whether it was better to be C I a or B3 when it came back to the Commission to hold a hearing. She noted this is why she asked because of the variations that were discussed under the proposed plans for the property, whether it be B3 or Cla, the applicant would still have to go to ZBA. Mr. Alterson, at that time, indicated that it would be necessary for the applicant to go before the ZBA whether the property be zoned Cla or B3. Ms. Hillman requested to expand on the actual current B3 zone west of the tracks. She pointed out that the B3 zoning area is larger than what is being shown here, which actually includes the apartment building that Mr. Cyrus refers to on the north side of Main Street. She noted that this building does abut directly to and is across the street from single family homes. In addition, the current B3 district now goes the full length of Custer Avenue down to Washington. She clarified that it should be recognized that the B3 district in the area is much broader than what is being revealed in this case. Ald. Kent returned to the meeting. Chairman Engelman informed that Evanston is a community of 8 square miles and a fully built community. He noted that because the City is fully built, there is always going to be zoning districts next to another that will allow different uses and structtrres to abut against . each other. He said that our tax base can not grow is only within the 8 square miles and P&D Comminee N(tg. Minutes of 773,01 Page 8 what they should do is to try and balance the need for recognizing that you want to maximize the revenue from this 8 square miles. He said that since they can't go beyond the square miles seta they can go up or we change the uses to make there more productive. He said that they have to balance this issue against the quality of life issues that they always discuss; i.e., light, air, density, traffic and congestion. He feels that it is important that they, as a community, recognize that when they take these actions, they may not be saying that you can never do something, however they do encourage or discourage things to happen in the future. Ald. Wynne stated that she does recognize the points made by Chairman Engelman, however the C 1 a changes that they made on April 12, 2000, were a compromise. Chairman Engelman felt that the compromise was one sided and not an agreeable compromise for both parties. Ald. Wynne argued the point that this is not an urban area that is open to the allowance of total buildup, for example, the areas in Chicago such as Armitage Street, etc. She recalled that Council decided that density was appropriate on Chicago Avenue to a height of 67', but above that point, will result in negative impacts throughout the surrounding community. She feels that 67' is an appropriate height allowance, noting the 811 Chicago Avenue is 78' tall. She said the corner at Main & Chicago is going to be overwhelming and she wished that they had of held back to the zoning for no more than 6 stories in height. She informed the Committee that she has received numerous phone calls asking how much higher the building will be allowed to go on the northeast comer of Main & Chicago. She realizes that although the C I a zoning does not solve all the potential problems in dealing with future proposals for development, she is confident that it is a good decision to have that site zoned Cla and still allow good development for that site. Chairman Engelman agreed with Ald. Wynne, noting that although he opposed the changes to zoning a year ago, he recognized the arguments and understands why they had to go forward to look at the B3. He appreciates this and supports some of the points made; however, he feels there is something to be said with the incentive to put additional parking by given additional height. This incentive is very appropriate at the old 603 4iain Street smxiure because it is not next to a residential 3 or 4-story building. In his opinion, this site can tolerate a tall structure and is immediate adjacent to public transportation. He stated that this is the type of development that is desired in such a location. Ald. Wynne responded that they did a parking analysis of the immediate area and the best supportive data collected is from 811 Chicago Avenue. She mentioned that this building was built under the old Cla regulations at 1 parking space per unit and last year the current car ownership per unit was 1.3 can. Chairman Engelman said that this does not change the fact that by leaving the site at B3, you have given an incentive to a developer to have additional parking; you can give them 4 stories of height by adding parking. Ald. Wynne argued that height has negative aspects to it and there already is one corner that with Mr. Flannigan's property, that will be at a height of 125' and the northeast corner at a height of 105'. She said that Chicago Avenue can not be expanded any wider and can only take so many tall buildings on either side that would cause a negative impact for that intersection. After all the discussion the comments and remarks made up to this point, Ald. Newman suggested that they make an amendment to put the 603 Main Street property at CIa. He acknowledged Chairman Engelman's argument and gives a lot of thought about affecting the tax base, especially in that area because the public transportation stations are driving P&D Caamifte Mtg. MiMACS of7R3ro1 Par 9 the growth in their entire tov%zr. He stated his support for zoning the property to Cla because the current owner, Mr. Mullens, said that he would accept this zoning. Therefore, he feels there is no reason not to do Cla for this property. especially if the owner agrees with the limitations set. Aid. Newman said that one of the mistakes they have made with the zoning on Chicago Avenue and to some extent on west Main Street is being able to build to the lot line retail requirement that exists. When you combine this with height, it is sure to cause some negative impact on the streetscape. He pointed out that the 20' setback of the Buck building on north Chicago Avenue does make a big difference. After looking at the in progress building at the northeast comer of Main & Chicago, he is concerned with having a canyon effect at that intersection because of the requirement to build to the lot line in combination with the height of those buildings. He believes that there is going to be continued demand for housing near that Metra station and once they see the completion of this building fully occupied, along with the Flannigan building, he would like to see at that point what impact this will have on the area. At that point, they can visualize the effect of the combination of tall buildings and the change of character of the neighborhood that is likely to occur. He stressed his concern for this effect happening and added that the entire Council should be concerned with managing the growth properly at that comer. He noted that it was not known in 1993 when the zoning ordinance was under review, that Evanston was going to receive the extent of development that it has. He said there are more appropriate locations for height growth, which would be in the downtown area. With all said, Aid. Newman moved to amend the map amendment from R3 to Cla zoning on the northwest corner of Main & Chicago, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Ms. Anderson replied that she does not understand why Chairman Engelman is pushing for B3 in parking exemptions on the current bank site because Mr. Mullen has made it clear and the moratorium was tailors specifically to support the Cla zoning for that property. Chairman Engelman asked why the Plan Commission voted in favor of the B3 zoning. Ms. Anderson responded that those that voted in favor of the B3 are in approval of extended height limitations. Chairman Engelman pointed out that timing is everything and when they did the Zoning Ordinance in 1993, they were at the bottom of an economic recession that effected growth in building that had been going on for 10 years. He said that two years later, Evanston began to experience the greatest economic boom Us country has seen in over half a century. At that point, there was a desire to create more incentives to attract development, now they are saying that they %%ant to decrease zoning because there are too many people that want to build to the maximum. Ald. Kent agreed with Chairman Engelman, however he also feels that the City has to get out there and attract developers. He added that more so in attracting new developers, they want them to bring the right development. He said that it is obvious that people are concerned with loosing the neighborhood character. He realizes the opportunity for a developer, but more importantly is the developer bringing the right development to that area If the development is right for the developer and wrong for the community, then it is the City government's responsibility to hold off on such a development and wait until 4 one that fits the specific area is presented before them. He stressed that he can support P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7123/01 Page 9 the growth in their entire town. He stated his support for zoning the property to Cla because the current owner. Mr. vdullens, said that he would accept this zoning. Therefore, he feels there is no reason not to do Cla for this property. especially if the owner agrees with the limitations set. Ald. Newman said that one of the mistakes they have made with the zoning on Chicago Avenue and to some extent on west Main Street is being able to build to the lot line retail requirement that exists. When you combine this with height, it is sure to cause some negative impact on the strectscape. He pointed out that the 20' setback of the Buck building on north Chicago Avenue does make a big difference. After looking at the in progress building at the northeast corner of Main & Chicago, he is concerned with having a canyon effect at that intersection because of the requitement to build to the lot line in combination with the height of those buildings. He believes that there is going to be continued demand for housing near that Metra station and once they see the completion of this building fully occupied, along with the Flannigan building, he would like to see at that point what impact this will have on the area. At that point, they can visualize the effect of the combination of tall buildings and the change of character of the neighborhood that is likely to occur. He stressed his concern for this effect happening and added that the entire Council should be concerned with managing the growth properly at that comer. He noted that it was not known in 1993 when the zoning ordinance was under review, that Evanston was going to receive the extent of development that it has. He said there are more appropriate locations for height growth, which wound be in the downtown area. With all said, Aid. Newman moved to amend the map amendment from B3 to Cla zoning on the northwest corner of Main & Chicago, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Ms. Anderson replied that she does not understand why Chairman Engelman is pushing for B3 in parking exemptions on the current bank site because Mr. Mullen has made it clear and the moratorium %%as tailors specifically to support the Cla zoning for that property. Chairman Engelman asked why the Flan Commission voted in favor of the 133 zoning. Ms. Anderson responded that those that voted in favor of the 133 are in approval of extended height limitations. Chairman Engelman pointed out that timing is everything and when they did the Zoning Ordinance in 1993, they were at the bottom of an economic recession that effected growth in building that had been going on for 10 years. He said that two years later, Evanston began to experience the greatest economic boom this country has seen in over half a century. At that point, there was a desire to create more incentives to attract development, now they are saying that they want to decrease zoning because there are too many people that want to build to the maximum. Aid. Kent agreed with Chairman Engelman, however he also feels that the City has to get out there and attract developers. He added that more so in attracting new developers, they want them to bring the right development. He said that it is obvious that people are concerned with loosing the neighborhood character. He realizes the opportunity for a developer, but more importantly is the developer bringing the right development to that area. If the development is right for the developer and wrong for the community, then it is the City government's responsibility to hold off on such a development and wait until 0 one that fits the specific area is presented before them. He stressed that he can support P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7 _3 '01 Page 10 height is area that can support such developments, however he is against maximizing the height limitations just because the area can be zoned to do so. When height becomes a harm that will result in canonizing an area and the harm of destro%ing all of the beauty that a neighborhood currently possesses, then some down -zoning of the area needs to occur in order to preserve what that community has to offer and not cause any further negative impact on it. Ald. Bernstein recalled all the discussions in the past regarding the B3 zoning and the general outlook by which the Council went forward with this zoning with the feeling that they would never have to use it. Concurrently, the quality of life issues are directly in opposition to the rights of landowners to maximize the use of their property. He concurred with Ald. Kent in that the City of Evanston is a city that includes neighborhoods and some urban area that are apparent. He also agrees with. Mr. Cyrus in his views to bring in more revenue from up -zoning, but not at the expense of totally ruining the character of a specific neighborhood He said that it is already occurring where people are moving out of Evanston because of the absence of the quality of life that they moved here for in the first place. He also noted that added vehicular traffic from more high-rise residential development can not be accommodated in that area Currently there already exists extensive rush hour traffic and this is bound to increase. Ald. Bernstein does agree with Mr. Cyrus that B2 on the west side of Chicago Avenue and Main Street, it a compromise because the north side could probably handle height greater than 45', however the 45' might be too tall for the south side of Main which abuts single-family residential. He stated that he does support the amendment to C I a for the old bank building property. Chairman Engelman stated that he fully understands the argument for quality of life issues, however it is a balancing act. He hopes that the people who are supporting the quality of life issue also recognize the high cost of maintaining that quality of life. He said that you have to be willing to pay for maintaining that quality of life. He said when as a Council they begin to wrestle with the budget problems that invariably are coning down because they do not have enough money under current budget guidelines that allow us to say no new taxes. He said that the taxpayers in Evanston are currently struggling to support this quality of life style in this City and are going to have to dig deeper to keep maintaining it without the services of bringing in additional revenue. Ald. Newman pointed out that there are still adequate areas and a large potential along other areas of Chicago Avenue for permitted growth. He suggested that they give this two years to see what occurs with the Flannigan and Mullens projects and then refer the zoning rnaum back to the Plan Commission for further review, if needed. Chairman Engelman agreed. Ald. Wynne recalled that early on in the Neighborhood Committee meetings, there were discussions and people in this room that were advocates in this room for creating a whole new "B" district that was totally different from the B2 or B3 districts. She said that she would prefer to not have anymore of the B3 in that area, however they are working together to achieve some kind of common fold. She feels that there are all aspects that contribute to the quality of life issue and when you put an exuberant number of new households on Chicago Avenue, you are going to put that many P&D Qx=iael' Mt& Minutes of 7/23r01 Page I I more cars on all of the surrounding streets and that much more impact on the entire neighborhood. She notes that Evanston will always be an attractive community in its close proximity to downtown Chicago being along the rail lines and along the lake. She concluded that Evanston will keep this attraction as long as we continue to maintain our quality of life that is currently offered in our community. After Committee comments. the vote was 4 in favor and 1 voting nay for the amendment from R3 to CIs for the northwest corner of Main & Chicago Avenue. Ald. Newman motioned to approve the amended Ordinance 89-"1, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4 voting in favor and 1 voting nay. (P4) Ordinance 88-0-01 — ZoninQ Ordinance Text Amendment: Required Parkin¢ for Multi -Family Residential Ald. Newman brought attention to the e-mail from Ms. Aiello regarding the parking at Park Evanston. He requested that staff retrieve the same information from Evanston Place. He feels very strongly that before they act on this as a committee, that they receive feedback from not only the Economic Development Committee but also the Housing Commission because the scope of this issue does effect the issue of affordable housing in Evanston. He is not in opposition to moving forward on this matter, however this needs to be looked at in its totality of all the interests that they have Citywide. Chairman Engelman agreed with Ald. Newman. He also requested additional information from staff on what projects that are not yet under permit that this will impact upon, that staff is awe of. Mr. Wolinski replied that staff will retrieve this information for the next meeting. Ald. Wynne said that she agrees with the receiving the data requested, however she would like more concrete information than what was received on the e-mail forwarded to the Committee at this meeting. This item was held in Committee COMMUNICATIONS (PD3) Memorandum re: Adiusted Development Plan for Sherman Plaza This item was accepted without comment. (PD4) Memorandum re: Partial Buildina Collapse at 1570 Maple Avenue This item was accepted without comment. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted. 4--'L.�'�r Jacqu a L. Brownlee 0 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee August 13, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. rent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, C. Smith, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner, SRAB members: M. Larson, J. Macsai, J. Feiss, L. Berken Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He apologized for the delay in starting due to the Executive Session meeting held before this one. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 23. 2001 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of July 23rd, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Engelman changed the order of the agenda to begin with an item for discussion. which involves a presentation by the Sign Review & Appeals Board. fPD3) Presentation by the Sign Review and Anneals Board Chairman Engelman introduced the Chair of the Sign Board, Mr. Mark Larsen, who will narrate the presentation. Mr. Larsen explained that the purpose of this presentation is to address some of the key changes in the ordinance and the reasons why. He directed attention to the slide presentation, which illustrates the narration of the overview of changes. The slide presentation proceeded as follows: Reasons for Sian Regulations Review. Mr. Larsen said that the Sign Board began this process in September because the amortization period was approaching. Also, area of the ordinance needed updating to address changing retail and to adapt to new conditions and technologies. He noted that the SRAB wanted to develop a more consistent, city-wide signage environment while developing a dialog with the commercial community. Kev Effects of Revisions. Mr. Larson explained the effects, which is to have the sign ordinance remain substantially intact, scale down the wall and freestanding signage and P&D Committee Mtg. August 13.2001 Page 2 to clarify section of the ordinance that were ambiguous. Aid. Newman asked if there are signs out there that are being built that are undesirable and the Sign Board's desire to have them revised. Mr. Weiss noted that examples are repeatedly shown throughout the slide presentation. fir. Larsen added that they don't have actual field measurements, however, the slides display signs to the extreme in terms of scale and height. He said that they will also demonstrate between what is existing versus the Sign Board's suggested preference. He stated the revisions will add increased flexibility in the ordinance. Also, to incorporate a new sign type that has been added and the changes in the unified business center. Potential Benefits of Revisions. The Sign Board's feeling is that more appropriately scaled signage will enhance Evanston" reputation to benefit both residential and commercial. This type of signage will also enhance the identification opportunities of competing interests. They also feel the ordinance will become more simplified and easier to understand and will help to reduce the impact of cluttering with signs. Kev Revisions to Freestandina Signs. The Sign Board's recommendation is to lower maximum height to 10 feet from 15 %: feet. Mr. Larsen listed the advantages of this recommendation. They also recommended the sign area go from 120 sq. ft. to 32 sq. ft. He showed a diagram of an example of the proposed signage and several slides of actual signs around town. He showed an example of a "pile -on" sign, which is a preferred type of street signage recommended by the Sign Board. Kev Revisions to Vehicular Dealershin Sians. The Sign Boards recommendation here is to eliminate special sign provisions for this merchant group and require that they adhere to the sign regulations in general. Mr. Larsen listed the Boards reasoning for this recommendation, mainly that Chicago Avenue is a pedestrian scaled thoroughfare and also signs are viewed from passenger vehicles where there is no real need for signs above 10 feet. Aid. Newman asked if the Sign Board has had any discussion with the dealerships before this recommendation. fir. Larsen responded that the Board has not yet spoken with the dealerships, however they plan to meet with them before any final revisions are to be made before the ordinance goes before Council. He pointed out that this presentation is for the Committee's review only. Kev Revision to Wall Sians. The Sign Board recommends decreasing permitted sign surface area from 15% to 10% of the eligible fagade. Mr. Larsen explained that the reduction in area size creates wall signs that are more proportional to a building's facade and is more pedestrian oriented. He showed diagrams of what is currently permitted and what is proposed and slides of actual pictures around town. Chairman Engelman noticed the numerous temporary window signs on a strip of businesses shown on a slide and noted that these signs are not permitted and this appears to be happening all over Evanston. He asked if enforcement continued for these signs. Ms. Smith responded that staff does enforce this regulations as much as possible, however the business owners continue to keep putting them up. Chairman Engelman said that in his opinion, these temporary window signs create more clutter than any other sign. 0 PRD Committee Mtg. August 13.1-001 Page 3 Key Revisions to Awnines. T-he Sign Board's recommendation is to require a minimum awning projection of 3 feet from the building, with a maximum projection allowed up to 2 feet from the curb line. %fr. Larsen noted listed the reasons for this recommendation. He continued on to show diagrams of examples and existing awnings around town. He showed a diagram of the new r,. of signage introduced by the Sign Board. which are called blade signs. He said that the blade signs are an alternative and is all calculated as part of the overall sign surface area and gives opportunity to put a graphic element projecting perpendicular to pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The maximum projection for these signs is 2 feet. Aid. Berrmein's said that he would describe this as a vertical sign as opposed to the blade sign. Additional slides were shown of slides illustrating eligible faVade area and window area. Aid. Newman commented that if they were to go with all the Sign Board's recommendations, there are many businesses that will be put in violation and will need to replace their signs. Mr. Larsen noted that the Sign Board recognizes that and this is why they would like to extend the amortization date and move forward with any revisions to the Ordinance as soon as possible. He said what the Sign Board is attempting to do is make recommends that will lower the trigger point of which merchants need to come in to talk to staff or come before the Sign Board. He noted that there are both architects and designers on the Board and thew tendency is to not just flat out reject things, however they do work with applicants quite well. Aid. Newman suggested that those owners who have had their signs put up or have been in place for some time, all should be written a letter notifying them of these revisions that are being contemplated. Secondly, he suggested that every business association in town, including the Chamber, Evmark, etc., should be sent a copy of these revisions and asked to comment on them, if they have any. Chairman Engelman suggested invitation be extended to all above to attend a special meeting by the Sign Board of Appeals. Aid. Bernstein questioned the direction of the Sign Board's mission; in other words, who will these revisions generally serve. He noted that most of the revisions seem to be lowering and decreasing size of the signs. therefore, in his opinion it would seem that this would be a visual impediment in some ways as opposed to the signs being up higher and clearer in view. He asked if these recisions are more consumer apparent oriented. Mr. Larsen responded that the Board's mission is to appeal to consumers and also to try and scale down the heights on Chicago Avenue to become more aware of the residential components going in there. He said that the revisions to lower the sign heights are also to serve the vehicular vision also. He said that need to go above the trees at 25 ft. or more, is not necessary to maintain any further. Aid. Bernstein inquired about the consumers riding on the elevated train. Nlr. Larsen said, in his opinion, a car lot is evident by virtue of the extreme amount of frontage they usually possess and the types and styles of vehicles is also evident from view at the level of the elevated. Ms. Berken noted that the recommended sign heights are still clearly visible from the elevated train. Chairman Engelman thanked Mr. Larsen and the other Sign Board of Appeals members in attendance for their visual slide presentation and narration. He noted that the Sign Board has been given direction from the Committee as stated above. P&:D Committee tittg. August 13.2001 Page 4 COMMUNICATION (PD4) Letter from Esskav Development LLC Chairman Engelman noted that this matter was passed to the Council at the last meeting and is on Council-s agenda this evening. However, we, staff and the Committee, have received a letter from the developer of 603 Main Street, dated August 8, 2001 in opposition of the Committee's vote to zone this property as Cla instead of B-3 zoning. He asked the Committee members if they wished to address this matter in lieu of the correspondence received or if they wish to deal with this on the Council floor. Before the Committee's response, Mr. Wolinski informed them that there was actually 2 letters received which is the one forwarded to the Committee in their packets and also a follow- up letter that staff received last Friday which was handed out and is before the Committee this evening. Aid. Wynne responded that she feels that the Committee should acknowledge the newly received memorandum and have some discussion on the matter. The Committee members agreed with Aid. Wynne. At this point, Aid. Newman requested to the Chair that they extend the P&D meeting to 9:00 p.m. in order to address this matter and the remaining items on the agenda. Chairman Engelman acknowledged Aid. Newman's request, however he stated his desire to conclude all discussion and this meeting before that time, if possible. He recognized Mr. James Murray as attorney for the property owner and requested that he briefly explain where they are in the process and how the Cla zoning will effect their proposal. Mr. Murray stated that he represents the applicants who are the contract purchasers of 603 Main Street. He explained that this process has been the subject of a redevelopment utilizing existing zoning of the site. In addition it would conclude to construct on the site a development of combining commercial and residential building. The proposal would contain 14 condominium units with on -site parking for the units at I deeded space per unit. He said the process has gone on during the period of the moratorium and was developed specifically with the height limitations in consideration of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood organizations throughout this process. Mr. Murray stated that on last Tuesday evening, a zoning variation was granted by the ZBA to this project to permit the applicant to construct in the rear 10' of the property line. He noted the Mr. Mullins, the author of the letter that the Committee has received, is here to either request that the Committee move forward with reference to the anticipated zoning that was assumably developed or to respond to inquiries that may be presented to him that were note anticipated. He recalled that one of the elements that was of singular importance to the Committee deliberations was the representation that Mr. Mullin's had indicated that he did not care of have a preference as to the zoning classification to be attributed to this particular property. Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Mullin's believed that this depiction was communicated in error or there was a misunderstanding with reference to that issue. He noted that what they have done besidep the letters forwarded to the Committee is also to respond to inquiries in the City's Law Department relative to the position assumed that a change in the zoning classification now would potentially push this situation into a adversary relationship between the City and the developer. He noted that they have P&D Committee tiitg. August 13.200t Page 5 provided contract evidence, as well as expenditure evidence, relative to the expenditures that have been incurred to date by the applicant in excess of approximately $200.000. He said that they are now in the position where the applicant's zoning matter as the contract purchasers, would like to see this project under the B3 zoning. Mr. 'Murray stated that he has been authorized by Mr. Katz. President of the Bank. to indicate that both the contracts, as obligated parties, are interested in maintaining the B3 zoning designation for this comer property. Aid. Bernstein addressed Mr. Mullins: stating that one of the elements that helped sell him on the project is that he was under the impression that they wanted the Cla zoning. He noted that in large part when he proposed the moratorium, he absolved this property from a 45' height to a 67' height for accommodation. He explained that part of the reasoning for this, as he also expressed to his constituents in his ward, was under the impression that the redevelopment would be a restoration of the bank to what is was historically. Aid. Bernstein stated that in relation to the drawing before the Committee, he feels that this is a different project than what was originally presented before the Committee, the neighborhood and what he envisioned. He asked Mr. Mullin's why this illustration before them appears different from what was originally presented. Mr. Mullins explained that first of all they proposed that they would restore the building in the spirit of the original building. He noted that most of the facade is gone in terms of the trim of the building. He acknowledged the bank president, Mr. Katz, who can verify this fact. He further explained the difference in how the illustration appears in comparison to the expectations of the similarity in restoring the original building. He noted that he previously showed a drawing representing the original structure in 1924 and recalled his explanation of how they would redevelop the building in mind of the spirit of this design and try to restore the building as best as possible to its originality. Aid. Bernstein stated that it was his understanding that the proposal was to restore the building back to its original design as much as possible within the redevelopment of the property. He does not see this in the drawing presented here before the Committee and in his opinion, the drawing does not represent what was originally presented before this Committee. Aid. Wynne agreed with Aid. Bernstein and stated that she shares his concerns as well because she too feels that the drawing before the Committee presently is significantly different from what was originally proposed. She went on to specify the apparent differences from the original design presented in comparison to the current illustration before them, pointing out differences in the roof design as well as the facade and also the color of the building. She noted that there was great community enthusiasm for the restoration of the building, however this was not the design that was presented before the Neighborhood Committee. She too pointed out the difference in the color of the building shown in the illustration before them and that this was not the original color presented initially. She also pointed out the difference in the window design as presented and how it has no similarity to the original design. Mr. Mullins responded that the color of the bricks in the diagram before the Committee appears different because of the computer printout, however the facade will remain the, same in color as presented originally and the windows will keep with the original openings but will appear different in the restoration. Mr. Mullins informed that this illustration Ams presented before at a neighborhood meeting held a week ago and there were approximately 20 people present. Aid. Wynne P&D Committee Mtg. August 13, 2001 Page 6 stressed that at the neighborhood eomminee meeting in which she was present, this current drawing was not the one presented. She noted that the meeting she is referring to was held by the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission versus the meeting Mr. Mullin's is referring to, which is in reference to a meeting held in the neighborhood. There is a difference. Aid. Wynne recalled her direct request to the legal department to Ms. Szymanski, with regards to what is the proper legal status of this case at this point by the applicant obtaining the ZBA variance. Site Plan approval, etc. She stated that even though this case is up for action on the Council floor, she would like to have a clear understanding on if they alter this case to C 1 a. which is her desire, what status Mr. Mullin's project has, Ms. Szymanski responded that she just received this request and information this evening and is still reviewing the matter. She informed the Committee that she need to meet with the applicant`s legal representation before she can give any legal opinion to the Committee. Chairman Engelman and the members of the Committee agreed to this. Mr. Mullins justified his hardships experienced to date in reference to this case and how the difference in zoning has nothing to do with the height limitations between the zoning classifications. He specified that the height of the proposed project will not be effected, however the zoning classification under the B3 will allow him to provide the proper area needed for parking calculations required. He went on to explain further the needs for the B3 zoning versus the Cla. Mr. Mullin's partner mentioned that the drawing before the Committee is just a computer image developed by their architect and that they should not be persuaded by the color portrayal subsequent to this draft printout. He stressed that this is only a computer printout and the color is flawed because of that image. Despite all that has been said Aid. Wynne stressed her support for the C 1 a zoning and explained her reasoning why. Mr. Mullin's expressed his disagreement with the Cla zoning for this property in light of their overall expectations and planning on reliance of the 133 zoning. He reiterated the quote made by Mr. Murray previously that they have already expended over S200,000 on this project on the expectation and previous compromise of this property being zoned B3. Mr. Hart' Katz, CEO of Great Bank, Evanston Bank, spoke on behalf of the contract purchaser, Mr. Steve Mullins. He stated that they put the building up for sale on the developers cognizance. He said that the purchasers presented a redevelopment of the property with the spirit of restoring the original design as much as possible to the original state of the building. He noted that the bank received several other proposals for the building for high-rises and other proposals. He agreed that when he first saw the computer diagram and the color, he too felt the color odd. However, he feels that the color is not the issue here but instead the credence on behalf of the applicant and what they propose to do with the building. He noted that the proposal presented by the applicant was done under the expectation of the B3 zoning and this is what the bank determined to be best for the property also. He stressed that the B3 zoning is what the bank took under consideration and agreed upon with the applicant, as far as their proposal for the redevelopment of the building. Mr. Katz expressed his support for the applicant's proposal versus all the other proposals received for the property and upholds in keeping the property under the B3 zoning in order for the applicant to move forward on their project. PBD Committee SUg. August 13. 2001 Page 7 After discussion with the applicant's legal representation. his. Szymanski concluded that based upon a preliminary review- of the documents received previous to this meeting, that this project is in the pipeline. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee members. Alderman's Newman and Wynne both stated that they would like to hold this item over on Council floor for further review by the Committee. Ald. Wynne recalled that the moratorium is still in effect through the first meeting in September. The Committee agreed that this matter warrants further discussion and review on their behalf before it is considered on Council floor. Aid. Newman moved to instruct the Committee Chair to ask the Council to hold this item on the floor and refer back to the P&D Committee for further discussion and review. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Chairman Engelman agreed to take this item off the Council agenda in his report and refer back to the Committee. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Sidewalk Cafe for Oceaniaue. 505 Main Street Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman noted that this sidewalk cafd must come back yearly for approval. It was also noted that this sidewalk cafe also has a license to serve liquor. (P3) Plat of Resubdivision — 1327-1403 South Boulevard Chairman Engelman mentioned that this type of resubdi%ision is generally considered to be administerial. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Maior Variations at 622 and 624 Davis Street Aid. Newman moved to override the ZBA's decision to deny the requests for major variations. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Aid. Newman suggested that based on this decision, they need to re -write the variation ordinance again because it has wording in it that it being construed in a way that makes it almost impossible to get a variation. He noted that this was mentioned in the transcript. He feels that they need to look at the variation standards. Chairman Engelman said that he does not disagree with Aid. Newman, however. he hoped that the ZBA would hear what that Committee's has to say in response to the things that they say and begin to take a understanding of their interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Wolinski suggested that in years past, the P&D Committee held a yearly meeting with the Zoning Board to discuss such issues. He noted that a joint meeting for this matter has not been held in a number of years. He said that it might be appropriate for the Committee to invite the ZBA to come in and discuss the standards issue. Aid. Newman added that they should not single out only the ZBA, but should also hold joint meetings with the Plan Commission for the same reason. Aid. Bernstein noted that he is voting in favor of this motion in large part because he feels the lawyers on the Board were compelled to do it as they did and that the MD Comminee Nttg. ,august 13. 2001 Page S Committee has a different responsibiiit% to took at. He feels that this is a wonderful prospective project and he would like to see go forward and also feels that the ZBA desired the saute. Aid. Newman added that he feels the Davis Street LLC has already made a substantial contribution to the downtown and to the subject comer. He said that the open space is used regularly and is enjoyed by many. There is also quality retail in the Chandler's Building that has enhanced the downtown area. He said that he had confidence in this company and their projects and will only improve the downtown Evanston district and their project will also create more tax revenue. He would like to have these comments forwarded to the ZB A and he thinks the variations should be granted for the reasons stated. He feels they have met the standards and they have also made sound rationale argued on the parking %ariations that this project should be treated in a similar way to the larger projects in the downtown area. Chairman Engelman said that from his understanding, they would rent 16 spaces from the City in the City's garage for the normal monthly fee per parking space. He noted that this gets back to the same issue that has been brought up a number of times regarding whether this is going to be the policy of the City of Evanston that we wilt build parking for the buildingstmerchants downtown. He said that the price they are paying equals out to the City's maintenance costs for those parking spaces per month. Aid. Newman agrees that the fee does equal the City's maintenance cost, however they have agreed to provide parking for the Klutznik project. Discussion ensued regarding this matter. Aid. Newman brought up the fact that TIF money is being used to pay for the parking structure. The argument made my Mr. Purlmutter was that beyond paying for the monthly permits tha the new taxes generated being part of the TIF district, will go to the construction of the garage. Chairman Engelman noted that they have never officially had this parking policy discussion and although this is the first small project asking for use City garage space to provide parking for their project, it is the 3rd or 4th project that this issue has come up. Aid. Bernstein recalled that it has always been the City's policy and also recalls that with past projects in providing parking to meet standards is perfectly legitimate and approved under the ordinance and always has been if it is within 1000' square feet and if available. Chairman Engelman said that he is in agreement with the City assisting with parking for developments that are providing retail and adding to the tax revenue. He stated that he is not opposed to this parking assistance by the City nor is he opposed to supporting this project. However, he is pointing out this issue out and trying get the members of the Council to begin to look at the big picture instead of backing into this situation because it is occurring with almost every development presented in the City. He is opposed to providing parking for office space and residential space and he hopes to see this as a policy for the City. Aid. Newman pointed out that for this project, they are requesting a small number of parking spares and if they had a certain parking requirement on a lot such as the subject lot, they would never attract or obtain any development for such a site. The Committee discussed future development that can occur west of the tracks and if the City would be able to assist these projects with their parking requirements also. Aid. Newman said that in this case it will depend on the availability of parking at that time which will result in whether the City will be able to make any deals for parking assistance. With regards to this project, Aid. Newman pointed out that in raising the taxes to $72,000 per year will P&D Committee Nttg. August 13.2001 Page 9 definitely contribute back to the T1F fund that is going to pay for the garage. He also pointed out that this project is located in the same TIF area as the Klutznik project and should be given the same consideration. Mr. Wolinski asked the Committee that if they decide to overrule the ZBA, he would request that the Committee also direct staff to draft an ordinance for the variation approvals. Aid. Newman amended his motion to include the direction to staff to draft a new ordinance with the variation approvals. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was S4 in favor. Chairman Engelman noted that he will announce to the Council that the Committee voted to overrule the ZBA decision and it was noted that this will require 5 votes or more this evening to grant the over -ruling. (P4) Case ZPC 0 1 -04-M&PD(R): Planned Develonment for 1930 Ridge Avenue Chairman Engelman recognized that there are many in attendance that wish to speak on this matter and informed that he will allow the applicant's comments first and then allow citizen comments. Mr. Bruce Huvard acknowledged that he represents the applicant, Evanston Realty Partners and Mr. Richard Aaronson, President. He brought attention to the rendering of the proposed project presented before the Committee and noted that this was also the one presented before the Plan Commission. He stated that the applicant respectfully disagree with the Plan Commission's assessment in some respects. He described the subject property and noted its high value and described the layout of the current site. He said that the property is currently zoned C2 which will still permit a variety of commercial uses. He explained that the original proposal that his client brought before the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee with was for a development of approximately 200 units and with some of the design suggestions that were made, the design of the project was reconfigured to an 11-story structure. Mr. Huvard continued that when they came before the Plan Commission, they dealt with concerns for height density and scaled the structure back to 8 stories and 195 units. Also. the request before the Plan Commission was for a rezoning to R6 from the C2 district and a planned development that would require a special use as a planned development. Mr. Huvard brought to attention the unique lay out of this property with its location abutting this major intersection to the City and the type of development that surrounds it is reaching out to the Research Park across the street and a number of other multi -family residential properties. He noted that they initial viewed this site as a gateway to the Research Park as providing a vital residential component to support the new retail and development in the downtown area, close proximity to the University and assess to the commuter transportation nearby. Mr. Huvard recalled that what the SPAARC was most concerned about having a first-class high quality project that would really project and make a dramatic statement at that intersection. He further recalled that as a result from those earlier meetings with the SPAARC to the Plan Commission, the concern shifted to excess height and too much density. He stated that in trying to keep with their standards to develop a quality project for the City, it is their analysis that based upon a more up-to- date look at the tax rates that are in effect, they believe that this project will generate P&D Corrimice-I k1m August 13.201:: Page 10 upwards in the approximate vicinity of 5350.000 in incremental real estate property taxes that will berefa the City and school districts. He noted that the breakdown to the City alone would be around 5100.000 and also mentioned the additional taxes for revenue to the City with regards to utilities. telecommunications, etc. He pointed out that TESCA & Associates did a physical impact and population study and concluded that the likely population hire would not support even the standard number of students at high school and elementary levels that the charts and various demographic tables suggest. Mr. Huvard concluded that what they are presenting here is a top quality residential building with many amenities in an area that they feel will vitally support the City's current economic retail and development growtlt. He pointed out that you can't really look at anywhere in the residential zoning code of the City and find a district that supports this kind of development on this site. In comparison, you can find this in the doxatown district and all around this site within 2 or 3 blocks away with development of 17 and 24 stories being proposed. Nonetheless, when trying to build a project at this point with 8- stories and 194; units, you can not look to the Zoning Ordinance without looking for a planned development. He further noted that in discussion with the Plan Commission, they were seeking a number of modifications that are permitted under the placated development regulations to be granted by the City Council that would permit this development_ He said that in his experience with the City is that when the planned development ordinance is passed, it is recorded with the property and binds the property. He stressed the applicant's intentions to provide a high quality type of project. Mr. Huvard stated that there was discussion that was brought up by some of the Plan Commission members that the benefits to the City could be enhanced if they could fend a way to provide more moderate income housing because there is a need within the City for more affordable housing units to be provided with the up and coming new residential developments. He noted that this is one of the gaps that rental housing in general provides. He said that Mr. Aaronson could better address this matter, however he noted that they have considered to think that they could work to provide an additional 10% beyond the number of units that they have requested as affordable units for moderate income housing. He said that this would increase the number of requested beyond the 195 units to an additional 19-20 units. Mr. Richard Aaronson informed the Committee of background information received from the Department of Housing in which they come out with certain standards to define the determination of moderate income and those standards are what they propose to adopt. He stated that this effectively means that someone who makes 60% of the metropolitan areas median income would be the qualifying number in which they would work to provide as affordable rental units. He stated that what they would propose to do is set aside the additional units in the same approximate proportion in terms of the mix of 1-3 bedroom units such that those units would have rental rates that would conform to that income level. He said that these units would be roughly 50% less than what their market rates would go for. Chairman Engelman asked for clarification according to the statements made by him and Mr. Huvard, that they are saying that they would do this if they are able to provide an addition of 10% more units of the 195 proposed, bringing the actual total to 2I5 units. Mr. Aaronson confirmed that to be their proposal for providing P&D Committee Mg. August 13.2001 Page t i affordable units to this project. Chairman Engelman then asked if they were allowed this additional units, how would this proposed rendering change. Mr. Aaronson responded that what they had envisioned was to increase the height by 1 floor. Nis. Anderson asked the Committee if they have been presented with all three transcripts from the previous Plan Commission meetings for their review. The Committee had only received the last transcript and have not been forwarded the previous 2 transcripts. She stressed that staff needs to provide the Committee with all the transcripts in order for them to accurately review all previous discussion ensued in the Plan Commission meeting deliberations. Chairman Engelman moved on to acknowledge all others signed up to speak on this matter going in the order listed on the sign-up sheet. Mr. Daniel Garrison stated that he represents people in the neighborhood immediately around the Civic Center. He informed the Committee that he and his neighbors have been present throughout the considerations of this project and voiced that their objections include the erradical change to the neighborhood in which it stands as essentially a residential community. He said that they are concerned with even lower figures regarding housing density and are still in opposition to the proposed 195 units and were initially opposed to the original 210 units and are even more opposed to the current proposal of 215 units to provide the affordable housing units. Mr. Garrison recalled that one of the things that the Plan Commission was impressed by in rejecting this proposal was the nature of the lot which has access only on Ridge Avenue resulting in all of the traffic generated by the proposed building impacting onto that street. He noted this creates an unacceptable ingestion in this already congested traffic area because it will feed out onto an already existing complicated intersection, which includes Emerson, Ridge, and Green Bay Road. Therefore, in light of all of the neighborhood objections expressed and the objections which seem to primarily- move the Plan Commission, remain and in fact are even more urgent with the proposed increase in the density of the project. Mr. Harris Hudson, 1941 Dewey Avenue, stated that he is a member of the Foster Park Neighborhood Association. He seconded Mr. Garrison's comments and added that their community organization is also in opposition to this project as proposed. He/they feel that a building as proposed should not be located on that unique site due to its demographics and the properties vicinity and position within a majority single-family and 2-flat neighborhood. He feels that this particular location can be better served or utilized with something other than a residential structure of that size even in conjunction with the close proximity to the Research Paris and the adjourning areas around the Park. He said that they also understand and realize that this property is in the 5th ward and they feel a development that would meet more the needs of the ward and residents who reside there would better serve their ward. Mr. Hudson acknowledged that Evanston is a college town and that education is a primary element here and that the City is running out of available land to redevelop, however he feels more consideration should be given to better utilization to the remaining land they have and not allow over -development of what P&D Committee tittg. August 13. 2001 Page 12 Iand the City still has available. He stated that if the Cir` officials allow developers with improper motives to come in a put up structure that will only self -serve their purposes and not have a visionary outlook on the overall needs of the community, the result will be negatively impacted on the existing residents and homeowners who have been here all along. He stressed that the Committee look at and take into consideration the potential consequences that over -development will have on the existing community. Mr. David Kump, stated that he is the General Nfanager representing a major residential rental building in Evanston's downtown area, the Park Evanston building that has 283 units. He originally came to Evanston I 1 years ago and stated that he is very familiar with the City's residential apartment rental development. He noted that he was also involved with the development and management of Evanston Place which opened in June of 1990 with 190 rental units. In his opinion, these major rental developments seemed to impact on the downtown Evanston rental availability and also on the impact on the City's reputation in providing rental living in lieu of owning of bome or condo in the City. He claimed that it has never been a problem in renting ail of the entire units at both Park Evanston and Evanston Place and both buildings continue to remain fully occupied to dale. He said in light of this fact and the current rental market demand, this proposed development at 1930 Ridge will only add to the availability and result in a positive impact on Evanston's upcoming rental needs. In his professional opinion, he would welcome such a development in that area, especially in light of the unique layout of the property and the possibilities of what could be built on that site. Mr. Kump stated that such developments that will supply addition to the rental market needs of City, is what is driving the whole re -birth of downtown Evanston. He noted that he too is a resident of Evanston and stated that with regards to whatever concerns the neighbors have expressed in close proximity to this property, he feels in the resulting outcome, their properties will not be negatively impacted upon and that this project will ultimately benefit the surrounding community and residents in the immediate vicinity of it. Mr. Alex Sprout stated that he speaks on behalf of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce as a member and President of the organization. He informed the Committee that the leadership members of the Chamber have discussed this project at great length and are at a consensus in their enthusiasm in support of this development. He said that they would like to see it perceived as designed, perhaps with the modification that was suggested this evening in providing the additional affordable units. He noted that with regards to the issue of providing affordable housing, which he has raised several times amongst the Chamber, is that the usual response from developers is their concern in ruining the economics of these projects in trying to impose such contributions and set -asides and still try and develop a building within their construction budget in lieu of making any type of profit, especially in consideration of Evanston's current housing and rental market rates. Mr. Sprout said that he is very impressed and excited with the fact that this developer has volunteered to include this type of housing within their project. He recalled a past redevelopment case where Ald. Kent asked the developer if there was any way he could provide some affordable housing within their project and the response was that the economics are not conceivable in lieu of the cost of the project. P&D Committee Mlg. August 13.2001 Page 13 Mr. Sprout stated that on behalf of the Chambers position and in his personal opinion, it is beneficial for the enhancement of Evanston's overall growth and revenue base, to develop maximum housing expansion and building density along the computer rail lines. He noted the scarcity of land for redevelopment in Evanston and pointed out that consideration must be given through achieving maximum buildout that is possible along the commuter lines in order to provide necessary available housing in locations that will help prosper and support the City's retail and tax revenue businesses the provide assistance in the overall tax base for the City, which passes on to benefit Evanston residents and communities. Ms. Anderson again raised the question of where the 1 st two transcripts are from the Plan Commission meetings held in May and June. She reiterated her request to the Committee that they direct staff to provide these transcripts for their review. Mr. Alterson responded that the first two transcripts should have been included in the Council's packet because the third and final transcript was sent out in the Friday packet. The Committee confirmed that they have only received the last transcript. Staff replied that they would look into this matter and follow-through in providing the first two transcripts at the Committee's request_ Ald. Kent agreed with many of the previous comments and statements made thus far by all parties involved. He acknowledged the fact that this is a fantastic site and area for some type of development, especially with the particulars in mind of its close proximity to the Foster el stop and several other bus lines, close to the downtown district, Northwestern, the Civic Center, etc. He speaks on behalf of the many 5th Ward residents who have followed -through on this entire project process and their same realization for the possibilities of redeveloping this property. He noted that there have been very few 5th ward residents, if any, that have stated that they do not want any development on this een site. Actually, it has ba consensus of the 5th Ward residents that they do want redevelopment there, however the residents have stressed that they want appropriate development for that site. He pointed out that it always appears that reasons can be found to build up however there is never any rationale or effort to find a reason to go down. Ald. Kent recalled that when he first heard about this project it came in at 8 stories and his exact words to the developers at that time was pitch it to the community for their review and input and see what compromises can be negotiated reasonably with in agreement with the neighbors and the possibility of coming down to 6-stories, which in his opinion is would be a fair compromise. He noted, however, that before the community ever heard about or were able to discuss this particular compromise or any other, the applicant came back with a proposed I l stories. He then noted that the applicant came back down to 8-stories, from 205 units to 195 units, which is not much of a change in his opinion. In addition, the applicant has not made a new proposition to provide affordable housing if they are able to add an additional 10% over the 195 units proposed. Ald. Kent stressed the fact that throughout this entire process, the neighbors have been very consistent in their strongly expressed oppositions and concerns for added density in the area that already exists, and their concerns for the traffic problems that already exist. P&D Committee Mig. August IF.2001 Page 14 He pointed out that in actuality the .4th Ward. including the immediate area adjacent to the subject property, is not a pan of the downtown redevelopment area however the area just happens to be situated in an area that is in close proximity to the downtown and Research Park areas and is in a position to land a great support to those areas. However, Aid. Kent stressed that this area is essentially a residential neighborhood consisting primarily of single-family homes and 2-flats. He noted that there %vas even some discussion amongst the neighbors of redeveloping this property with no more than 3040 units and instead rezoning the property to R4 because their most important thing to them is in keeping with the character of their community. He realizes the importance of economics in redeveloping properties, however the main concern and bottom line to the surrounding and potentially effected homeowners is the fact that we/they live there and will have to deal everyday with the excessive building and impact on their neighborhood. Aid. Kent concluded that he has great confidence in the Plan Commission and strongly feels that the current members are in tune and have a good feel for what the neighbors in the 5th Ward want to do; and that is to develop their own re -birth of their community. He acknowledged the blight and vacant lots that currently exist in the 5th Ward and their lack of revenues to support their community, however the residents of the ward still have faith that with the property redevelopment, funds and suitable developers and support from the City and other business organizations, it is possible to aid in the encouragement of the redevelopment of the 5th Ward with subsequent benefits for those resident. Aid. Kent reiterated his desire for the developer to compromise at an even lower height of less than 8-stories and less units and work with the community to build something that will benefit the residents of that area instead of the over -density of that lot that will result in a negative impact on the surrounding homeowners. - Ald. Newman responded to Ald. Kent in that he respectfully disagrees with some of his outlooks and perceptions for this site. He pointed out that the realistic practicalities must be looked at in this case in consideration of the unique characteristics of the property and its unarguable close proximity to the downtown area. Research Park, Northwestern University, the commuter lines, etc. He stated that another one of the reasons he disagrees is because this Council in 1989 on the residential side of Chicago Avenue on Hinman Avenue, they agreed to build Evanston Place with 9 stories directly adjacent to residential properties. He recalled that approximately 45-50 neighbors in that vicinity came out and the arguments they made was that Evanston Place was inappropriate, incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, added traffic congestion and parking problems to an already congested area However, Ald. Newman admitted that in his experience with Evanston Place has been that it has fitted in very well, even in conjunction with the addition of the condominium building directly across the street with the exception of some lighting problems caused by the condominium building. He pointed out that there have been several 8-story residential buildings constructed in residential neighborhoods that have been opposed to by the immediate neighbors but has also resulted in fitting in with the neighborhood and not negatively impacting on the surrounding homeowners. P&D Commitut Mte. August 13.2DOI Page 15 Aid. Newman also pointed out that in terms of the impact on traffic caused by a residential building versus a commercial, retail business such as the Fresh Fields grocery store that was previously located on the subject site. it «ill ultimately result in a lighter traffic flow in light of the nature of the different users. He pointed out the differences in traffic flow that comes from a residential development in comparison to a grocery store business or other similar business where there would be constant in and out traffic throughout the entire day or hours of the business. A residential development will clearly have less impact on the traffic flow on a daily basis than a commercial business that will conduct short-term transactions all day. Aid. Newman continued to point out the realistics on behalf of the developer being able to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the high cost of construction development versus the ratio of making a profit on their development versus the rate of the market rental rate. He pointed out that it is almost impossible to do, especially with a unique piece of property such as the subject lot. He commends the developer for even coming up with a proposal to include such affordable housing units in consideration of their possible loss due to Evanston's high economic demands on building in the City. Aid. Kent responded to Aid. Newman that he understands and recognizes the arguments he stated, however he still strongly supports a compromise of the developer coming down to 6-stories in a fair compromise and is workable and economically do -able on this property. The Committee discussed this in further detail and the possibility of rezoning to a lesser zoning classification. Aid. Kent stated that if providing affordable housing will result in the counter-offer of adding more units and more height density, then the condition of providing such housing is not agreeable in the neighbors behalf. He feels that a lesser development proposal without providing the affordable housing and decreasing the density impacts for that site, would be more acceptable by the neighbors. He does not want this interpreted that he does desire the availability of offering affordable housing, however in this case for that particular property and its unique location. he and the neighbors have expressed their desire in providing a low density project for that site so as to keep it within the character of their residential standing as it currently is and lessen the impact on an already existing congested area. Ms. Anderson pointed out to the Comminee that there were objections made to the Chairman of the Plan Commission when he insisted on taking out the issue of rezoning the property before the building was ever looked at from the beginning. She further stated that the current Chair of the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission moved that they return the property to C2 because of the vote that had been taken prior to when the building was looked at. She said that this motion %%w seconded by the past Chair of the Plan Commission and the third vote came from a member of the Zoning Committee. She stated that the Plan Commission is fully aware of the positions and concerns expressed to them by many effected parties, however she suggested to the Committee that they need to take this into consideration when they are considering all the issues in this case. P&D Committee %Itg. August 13.2001 Page 16 Ms. Roberta Hudson, 1941 Dewev Avenue, noted that she is the coordinator of the Foster Park Neighborhood organization. She expressed that she is appalled that developers can come in with projects that will clearly result in over -development of certain areas, especially ones that effect the 5th Ward and the Council's position in allowing the progression of such developments even after being aware of the effected neighborhood residents strong opposition that they have made fully aware. She stressed the neighborhoods disappointment in the Council's actions and conduct in their apparent lack of hearing out and recognizing the expressed comments put forward by effected neighbors. She requested that the Committee take their feelings and concerns into consideration while making deliberations on this case. After all discussion and comments made, Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee for further discussion, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. espectfully submitted, Jacqu 'ne Ir'' Brownlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee September 10, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman. M. Wynne Staff Present: A. Alterson. M. Barr•, A. Berkow•sky. R. Schur. C. Smith, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson. flavor Morton Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Engelman called the meeting to order at 6:43 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2,001 MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of August 13th. seconded by Ald. Kent. Aid. Newman made a correction to page 14, 3rd paragraph where it states that "he recalled that approximately 30-40 people in the vicinity came out and made arguments that Evanston Place was inappropriate and incompatible with the neighborhood..." He noted that he made in error in how he made this statement clarifying that the neighbors came out and had a major concern about the setbacks of that project and other aspects. However, he has not had a chance to review the minutes pertaining to that particular meeting when this discussion occurred but he to his memory, he believes that the concerns for traffic congestion. parking problems were not a main thrust with the concerns of the neighbors. Therefore. those statements of the Evanston Place project being inappropriate and incompatible should not be stated in the minutes as a quote from him. Aid. Newman requested to amend the minutes to state "there are still to this day additional concerns and disanoointments with the heieht of that oroiect." With this amendment made, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion as amended. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION (P4) Ordinance 93-0-01 - 622 and 624 Davis Street Chairman Engelman noted that the Committee requested staff from the previous meeting to develop a new ordinance to approve the request for major variations for this proposed project. Aid. Bernstein moved to approve the ordinance, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Pg0 Comminre Must. Minutes of t0'ot Page 2 (P1) Case ZPC 01-04-M&PDIRt: Planned Development for 1930 Ridge Avenue Chairman Engelman recognized that there are many people who have signed up to speak - on this matter. He informed that he will call on the applicant for their presentation and comments first and then for citizen comments. Mr. Bruce Huvard, :attorney for the applicant. stated that they have a concrete proposal to present at this time. The proposal is to add �2 affordable housing units. for a total of 220 units in the project with 9 stories. He said that they would reserve or satisfy these units for individuals or households with the certain income qualifications. He said the ideal would be that they would not exceed more than 30% of the qualifying income to various governmental agencies that set income levels for affordable housing purposes. He said that they would establish qualifying levels with the City that could easily be monitored and insure that the rent rates that they are charging to these satisfying units don't exceed a certain percentage of those published rates. fir. Huvard stated that this is a fairly automatic procedure for assuring that they are able to provide rental housing to moderate - income population that can be verified by having a regular audit process with the City. He noted that his client is used to administering projects that have requirements such as this and has worked with other projects that have faced this same type of situation. He added that the typical procedure is to look at the credit worthiness of the applicants, similar to any other rental prospect even though they are qualified on an income basis. He said that the usual requirement is that the applicant demonstrate that they have full- time employment and meet the general requirements needed to become a qualifying candidate for the unit. Mr. Huvard said that the proposal will require the need for an additional floor from the original 8 floors proposed and the mix of units would be essentially the same as the other floors in the building. Chairman Engelman clarified. in order for him to obtain a full understanding of this new proposal, is that the last iteration of the plan that was before the Plan Commission and presented to the Committee, was for an 8-story building. In addition, the applicant is now proposing to add 22 affordable housing units if they are allowed to go up one more story to provide these units. With .% r. Huyard's confirmation, Chairman Engelman asked what if the Committee does not approve the additional of adding one more story. Mr. Huvard responded that this would effect their ability to offer affordable housing units and is obviously something that economics of the project would not allow and have been carefully worked out. Mr. Huvard mentioned that this proposal is one that his client and developer have worked out in response and to address what they considered to be of major concern by the tone set from the previous meeting. He noted to the Committee that what was presented before them that came from the Plan Commission, was a recommendation to zone the property to R5. What they are now requesting is to zone the property to R6 with the set of site development allowances with a project that provides affordable housing units with a total of 220 units. Aid. Bernstein questioned that in the event of a condo conversion. what would happen to those 22 affordable housing units? !41r. Richard Aaronson. Developer, responded that P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of 9 10 01 Page 3 what they have proposed would be set for a period of 10 years in the event that there is a future request for conversion. He stated that those units set aside for affordable housing would remain as such for the 10 years. however in the event that there is a conversion, the units would either follow asimilar set aside standard for sale or remain as an investment of rental units at rent rates set for affordable housing qualifications. Ald. Bernstein asked where they came up with the 10 year cap consideration. <<fr. Aaronson responded that this was something that was presented to them as a suggested proposition, however he can not recall where or from whom this proposition originated. Chairman Engelman informed that the he has received communication from the property owner to the immediate north, being Northwestern, who have expressed some concern that if they were to rezone this property to R5 or Rb, it would change their side yard requirements for development of their parcel. He noted that this parcel currently has a 5' side yard setback from the subject property and if they were to rezone it would require an additional 10' side yard setback. He asked the applicant if they foresee any problem, since they have proposed parking on the north, with them having only a 5' set back? Mr. Huvard responded that he sees no problem and noted that particular parcel would have that predicament witli any rezoning to a residential category of the subject property. He added that part of purpose in preserving the structure is to preserve the continuity of the streetscape and keep the lower elevation in close keeping with the residential provisions required. Chairman Engelman moved on to call on citizens signed up to speak in the order listed. Mr. Mark Dillon, asked the applicant how much of a setback is there from the Ridge side to the building? Mr. Aaronson responded that the setback varies from the parking garage, which is at the property line for 0' setback and approximately 12' from the curb. The setback of the building facade will vary anywhere effectively from 12' to as much as 35' from the curb. Mr. Shawn Rvan, informed the Committee that he owns Hyde Park Computers, a business store located on the comer in the mini shopping mall directly across Ridge Avenue from the subject property. He said that he speaks on behalf of himself. Hecky's, Domino's Pizza, Perfecto Cleaners, Planet Earth and Ridge Cleaners. He stated that they are all in favor of this property being developed. He noted that since the previous business moved out of that location. his business as experienced a dramatic decrease in foot traffic which is a major source of the small business revenue which exists for the small business owners in that shopping mall. He said that his business has been here in Evanston for many years and he has steadily experienced a decline in profits and it is becoming more and more difficult in the City for the small businesses to continue to grow. He pointed out that the sales taxes are going up and there is no benefit revenue coming in on their behalf. This is why the small business man operations that he represents, would welcome a residential development of this type to bring business into their area. Mr. Ryan mentioned, on behalf of Hecky's request, that 90% of his employees are from the 5th Ward and he proceeds that if this building goes up, his business will grow and he in return will employ even more residents from the Ward and provide be P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 9 10 01 Page 4 able to provide benefits to those employees. He also noted that the owner of Buffalo Joe's stated this same contribution. He reiterated to the Committee that his sales have gone down over the years and the cost of operation has gone up and it is becoming more and more difficult for the local small businesses to continue operation. He stressed that residential developments of this type can add great contribution to the surrounding neighborhood and local neighborhood businesses who are struggling to stay in operation. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Ryan his opinion on parking problems and if he foresees any future parking problems if this development were to go forward. Mr. Ryan responded that parking problems experienced in his shopping mall occurred when Evanston Hospital %&as using the subject parking lot at the time of their parking garage renovation when that lot would fill up and then overflow into their parking lot. He mentioned other parking problems when the Farmer's Market is in operation. Other than these problems mentioned, he does not recall anv mentionable parking issues and does not foresee any real parking problems wtith a residential development on that site. Mr. Cameron Ellis, 1239 Leon Place. stated his opposition to the proposed project. He read from a prepared statement listing his points of opposition. He claimed that the fixture given by the developer is lacking details that serve to explain why this proposal should not be approved. He stated that some of the details raised already is prior meetings is that the design of this project incorporates individual gas, electric and water appliances which are separately metered. This means that the infrastructure is complete and ready for conversion of condominiums at any time. He said that if this happens, this will decrease the current assessment rate from 38% to 16% for the property. Other points of concern raised is that he feels there is no zoning district anywhere in Evanston that would allow this development; the subject property is not downtown or in the Research Park and does not fit in either R5 or R6 districts. He feels the development meets only one of the criteria required which is increased value. Mr. Ellis said that the incorporation of low-income housing is not a concession or sacrifice on the part of the developer and he listed several statements made by the developer in the past regarding the problems with units being located on the ground floor. The addition of the Th floor and larger units will solve the bottom floor rental problem for the developer and they could receive a government or City tax credit for low-income units. He mentioned problems with parking for the site. problems with the zoning analysis made, and the proposed turning radius for any delivery or moving trucks. Mr. Ellis concluded that the Plan Commission denied this plan and there is no new proposal before the Committee except for what the developer has proposed this evening to add the low-income units. He also noted that the neighbors have not received any notice for a zoning hearing to change the property zoning status. Mr. Henry Funkenbusch, informed that he owns a business in the shopping mall directly across the street, along with Mr. Dillon who spoke earlier. In his opinion, he sees a lot of positives in the proposed development. One of the positives is that the previous business on that site accumulates more traffic than a residential development will. He feels that a view of this building looking west would be more visually pleasing than what they currently view now with the Metra track embankment and the top of the City municipal building. He envisions many new residents moving to Evanston and spending money in P&D Committee Mtc Minutes of 9: t0 01 Page 5 the local restaurants and businesses and venerating sales tax revenue for the stores and City. Ms. Gladvs Brver. representative from the Evanston Environmental Board. She resides at 550 Sheridan Square. She read from a prepared statement attached to these minutes. (Attachment "A). Ms. Susan Carlson. Member and representative of the Evanston Interreligious Sustainability Circle. She also mentioned her involvement with affordable housing issues. She read from a prepared statement attached to these minutes. (Attachment "B'). Mr. Ham Hudson. 1941 Dewey Avenue. He is a member of the Foster Park Neighbors Group. He has spoken several times before the Committee in the past representing his neighbors and their views. He reiterated his immense opposition to this project and is appalled at how developers and others not immediately affected can come into a community and over -ride and disregard the expressed views and wishes of the surrounding residents who have to live with this drastic alteration to their neighborhood. He said there are resources that are divided into two major categories: natural and human. He said the natural resources shall be developed by and for the humans that dwell therein. Fact, development of the natural resources should benefit the inhabitants. Fact, developers of the natural resources benefit the most from the development, therefore the inhabitants and developers should be one in the same. These facts are the opinion of Mr. Hudson. He went on to state another fact being the Alderman of the 5t' Ward ran on the platform that the ward shall be developed by and for or with the consent of the people of the Ward. He said the vote from the people of the Ward. gave the Alderman this mandate. Fact, a petition was signed by the people of the ward expressing their opposition to this proposed residential high-rise development. He said it is a consensus of the Ward to develop something on this site that "ill fulfill the needs of the people of the Ward. Mr. Hudson stated this since this land is located in Aid. Kent's Ward, he should cant' the most weight in determining it's destiny. He concluded that given the credibility of his reasons stated, this issue should require no further debate, in his opinion. He stressed that an outside developer should not have the right to come into a community, uninvited and develop the land in a community that has expressed their clear opposition and also take the proceeds made out of their region. Mr. Hudson's received applause from others in the audience. Mr. Richard Tholin. 824 Ridge Terrace. said that this project presents both problems and opportunities at the same time. He informed the Committee that the organizations that he represents are committed to trying and find some way to preserve the basis character of Evanston as a diverse community. He said that Evanston's character is being lost with every high cost high-rise development that comes here. He stressed the importance of coming up with a method in which to try and maintain and add more housing for low and moderate -income households. He said, in developing such a method, this would aid in keeping the character and diversity of Evanston as it currently exists. He suggested that there be no more major residential developments in Evanston unless they provide some type of affordable housing as well. He showed the Committee a report he received that P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 9110101 Page 6 was done in Cambridge. NIA. which is a similar community. The report conveys a successful program where new de% elopment provides a percentage of affordable housing and it has helped to maintain income diverse households within the community. Ms. Roberta Hudson, 1941 Dewey Avenue, expressed her intense opposition as she has at the past meeting. She is involved with several of the community neighborhood groups and they have followed these proceedings from the beginning and insist that no interest in the neighbors concerns have been taken into consideration. She pointed out that the developer was not originally interested in providing any affordable housing. She feels they are using the affordable housing issue as a deterrent to receive support and approval for their project. She affirmed that the groups she is associated with are working on their own affordable housing for the neighborhood and insists that they do not need the developers assistance in that area She said with regards to the lack of housing for senior citizens, is because of the recent rise in the high -cost high-rises and the result of raised taxes that seniors can no longer afford on their fixed incomes. She said that there needs to be a determination where the boundary line ends with the downtown and the development of the high-rises. Ms. Hudson reiterated her, and the groups she is associated with, opposition to this proposed project. Mr. Richard Martin. 1116 Bn morel Street, informed the he is also a member of the Evanston lnterreligious Sustainability Circle speaks in favor of this project. He feels this proposal is consistent with transit oriented development and defines this as being land use that's within 2000' of a transit station. He also feels that the site is appropriate for high - density development and the surrounding area can sustain this project as presented. Chairman Engelman addressed the Committee noting that there are a number of ways in which they can proceed. His noted that there is the recommendation of the Plan Commission to deny the application and there is also on their agenda a request for do%Nuzoning the property from C2 to R5. In addition, there is also the request for the planned development of the property itself with zoning to R6. He noted that before there is any further discussion about the affordable housing issue, which is not an issue if this project does not receive approval; the Committee needs to discuss their outlook on the project itself. Aid. Bernstein addressed Fire Marshall Alan Berkowsky informing him that several concerns were raised at the previous meetings regarding accessibility for fire and safety and asked if he foresees this as a problem for this project. Fire iIarshall Berkowsky responded that as far as fire and safety, buildings like this are required to be equipped with sprinklers, fire alarms and fire rated. He said that even with high-rises that raise above the level that their engines can reach, the Fire Department makes sure they can get their equipment in and around the site. Ald. Bernstein asked if there was any concern raised about this issue with the Site Plan Committee. Ms. Smith answered that no concerns were raised in Site Plan review with respect to that issue. Aid. Kent noted that there was concern brought forth by the neighbors regarding the fact that directly west of this building is City of Evanston's Fleet Services and the Northwestern buildings directly to the north. The neighbors questioned how the Fire Department would access the P&D Committee 1.ttg, minutesof4 wow Page 7 building from the rear if they needed to get between the tracks and the building. He referred to a letter received from Mr. &firs. Orange of 1117 Leonard Place, who stated concerns about the fact that Ridge is basically a 2-lane street and the problems for safety vehicles with the added congestion on that corner. Fire Marshall Berkowsky responded that this has been a constant concern with all the projects in Evanston for accessibility. He said there is no simple solution for the subject site with any development that would be proposed. He said it would be desirable to widen Ridge Avenue and other streets to aid in the solution. however this option is not an available luxury. Aid. Kent brought up that these fire and safety concerns were brought up by residents that live directly across the street at the Plan Commission meeting. Fire Marshall Berkowsky noted to keep in mind that there are many buildings that the Fire Department does not have access to all four sides and this is normal. He said that typically they have access to atleast 2 sides of a building and it is not always necessary to be able to have accessibility to all the sides of a building. Chairman Engelman asked for a motion. Aid. Bernstein moved to reject the recommendation of the Plan Commission for denial of this application. Chairman Engelman seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Aid. Kent reminded the Committee of comments he made at the first meeting. that if they are not going to uphold the denial of the application; he feels this would do a large injustice to residents who have been following this matter from the beginning vrith the Plan Commission. In his opinion, he feels the 5th ward is at the beginning of some astonishing changes that are going to come. In a quick synopsis of the previous meetings, he thinks the 5 h Ward residents handles themselves very well and have expressed their opposition to the proposed 8-story building. not just because of the height, but also because the building does not fit into the character of the surrounding community. Aid. Kent is confident that the Plan Commission has some knowledge and vision along with the residents, as far as making their community more stable as well as consideration for allowance of proper development. He again reiterated that if this Committee votes to overrule, it is his opinion that this is a great injustice to the Plan Commission and the residents of the 5 h ward because they have both brought forth some good ideas. He noted that the developers, for the most part. have been unwilling to work with the wishes of the affected residents. Aid. Bernstein said that he does have some concerns and questions of the developer regarding setbacks and set asides for the possibility of condo conversion because he feels 10 years is not sufficient. However, in due respect, he does not view this site as a "neighborhood" problem or as being directly detrimental to the 50, ard. He said that he has spent hours walking and driving around that parking lot to get a general feel of what the proposed project would do for the site. In his opinion, there are several issues with this project, the primary concern being initially with height. His concerns with height are with being adjacent to residential, which this project is not. He said that people in that area have come to expect commercial uses for this site, which he feels would be far more extensive in traffic problems. He said that another of his concerns are with sufficient parking for the proposed 220 units; he questioned what the final number is for the P&D Committee Mt9 Minutes of 9 10 Ot Page 8 parking spaces. Aid. Bernstein said that initially he felt overwhelmed bv the size of the building being proposed for the site. however he does not believe that this big building is going to be detrimental to the 5'11 Ward in any shape or form. He referred to Ms. Hudson's comments regarding the community providing their own affordable housing and stated that he feels Evanston is not doing enough to provide affordable housing for their residents. He agrees with Mr. Tholin that this should be the beginning with any new residential developments from here forward, that there be a requirement for any developer that rants to come into this community to create and provide set asides for affordable housing. He also pointed out that the community is growing taller and future presentations to the City are going to reflect this. He is convinced that in order to preserve the City's diversity to be able to provide the kinds of services that will allow people of low and moderate income to star in Evanston, they have to increase their tax base. He also does not feel this project will cause a negative impact on the air and light effecting people to the east; largely in part because of the property in contiguous areas. He said that if the property were to be developed in pursuant to the C2 district, he feels there would be far more problems than with what is being proposed. Aid. Bernstein recalled the remarks made by Aid. Kent and the residents on wanting something more appropriate for this site to meet the needs of people in the 5e' Ward. He pointed out that one thing they have a problem with historically is who determines what is appropriate for a given area and having made that determination even by a consensus, how do they get somebody to build it? He said that he is also moved by the fact that he did not see any residents from Garnett Place or Foster that signed the petition, which he feels are the people who would be most effected by this project. He mentioned that it is not his intention to go against the wishes of the Aid. Kent and the resident in opposition, however, he feels this is a project that will bring more benefit to the community than harm to the 5"' Ward. Aid. Kent responded to Aid. Bernstein stating that he appreciates his views, however on behalf of those who live in the 50' Ward thew- view this project as a very big part of the neighborhood. They view this as a wagedy when a 195-unit building is put up and up front. it has been disclosed that 30-40% of the units will be for Northwestern students. He and his constituents realized that fact from the beginning. He pointed out that the reason there were no residents up in arms that signed the petition from Garnett, is because the majority of that block is Northwestern students since most of the homes have been purchased by Iandlords who make their money from those affordable students. Furthermore, these landlords put up to 5-6 students in one unit, proof being to look at the amount of names listed on the mailboxes. Aid. Kent said that he has supported the development of the downtown and the movie theatres in hopes of the benefits it will bring the surrounding neighborhoods who can invest in the downtown development and be serviced by it as well. He feels this is a very important factor for the P Ward and is glad that it was mentioned that they, are not a part of the downtown and do not want to be a part of the downtown. In his opinion, it appears as if there is an invisible boundary line that goes down Green Bay Road that separates the standards of living, such as on the west side of Green Bay it is considered the ''poorer' neighborhood and on the east it is considered a more affluent neighborhood. He and others have been working hard over the past years to try and destroy this image and invisible line and with the proposal of this P&D Committee Mtg. Sfinutes or 10 01 Page 9 project, he questions who this speaks to With the rents that are being proposed. He pointed out that those rent rates do not speak for anyone in the 5 h ward and regardless of their proposal to put in affordable housing. in comparison to the entire development. the 20 units proposed do not make much difference. He said there are many families in need of housing that are in the 5`h Ward.. however the developer states that he will provide those affordable units to households and qualify them by a credit check: this will leave a majority of those families out who .ill not pass the average credit check approval. He noted that the CDBG Committee has been working on this matter for the 10 years he has been in office and in his opinion. credit checks are a way of getting the poorest of the poorest out. He said this "credit check" system is where the problem is and why he is not impressed by developers up front appearance as if they are offering affordable housing with good intentions. Aid. Kent said that he appreciates the comments made by the business people who support this development. however he feels everything has a tendency to change which he has experienced in the 5 h Ward many times. Regardless. the businesses would still benefit from a smaller scaled development as well such as a building with no more than 6 stories. He also pointed out that the community would be accepting of a townhouse development for that site similar to the one built at Crain & Dodge Avenue. These types of projects would be more in the keeping of the character of the neighborhood. He said as a business owner located on the comer. they are going to be much happier when they finally receive some of the money to straighten out the dangerous intersection of Green Bay and Emerson. He said that this improvement was supposed to be considered with the downtown development and Research Park and would improve the safety for pedestrian traffic that could support the businesses on that comer as well. He noted that there have even been rumors that the owner of the shopping mall property should sell for the consideration of putting up some type of condominium structure as well. This goes back to his comment regarding everything has a tendency to change. Aid. Kent stated that it is important for the 5`s Ward to keep their identity as a neighborhood community. He pointed out that the neighbors and residents have not expressed their opposition to no building on that site. however they are in opposition to an 8-story building and that this development does not fit into the character of their community. He said that the developer can say that he %till add 20 units of affordable housing but will he integrate those units within the entire building or %ill they all be located on the lower floor? He does not feel any sincerity in this offering of providing those affordable housing units. Aid. Kent concluded either they find a compromise or do the simple thing which is to support the recommendation to deny this project and send this back to the Plan Commission. He has no doubt that this land .ill be developed, hopefully with something that will not destroy the community with an over dense project. Aid. Kent received applause from members of the audience. Aid. Newman made a request that the Committee receive a map of where all the 8-story buildings are located in Evanston. He said that there are approximately 22 residential buildings of 8-stories or more in the I' Ward. He pointed out that there are 2 8-story buildings on Ridge six blocks from this site. He said that there is a row of 6 8-story P&D Committee M. q. Minutes of 9110'01 Page 10 buildings on Hinman Avenue that are right near residences and this is not part of the downtown area. He would not send this back to the Plan Commission and believes that if the Committee supports the Commission. they %%ilI have a few options before them. One option would be to ultimately sustain the Plan Commission because if they do not receive 6 votes for an R6 building, then this will not pass any ways. Another option, which he agrees with, is to keep moving on this and bring the entire Council in and set a special meeting to hear all the views of the other members to see where there is a consensus forming. Ald. Newman said there is a point of view that exists, on the appearance of the building and concerns about the setback on the Emerson side and the amount of density on the site. Another point of view is what this project will bring economically to the City in terms of its effect on the immediate area and other areas that this could effect positively such as the entire business district on Foster and Maple which has been struggling for a long time. He reiterated. that he feels it is important at this time to continue on with this application and obtain the other Council members views by setting up a special meeting to conclude this matter on their agenda. Aid. Wynne said that she supports Ald. Newman's suggestion to hold a special meeting with the entire Council in attendance. Her concerns with the project lie most with the density issue. She agrees with Ald. Kent's views and the neighbors that the proposed development is entirely too dense for the site and it is not just a matter of height, although she feels the height is too great for this site also. She used some of the recent projects in her ward on Chicago Avenue where this has occurred and it does effect the surrounding neighborhood and has the capability of changing the character of the immediate area She pointed out that R6 is the most dense residential zoning designation that they have in the City. She said that this issue has not vet been brought up with this case that the request for this proposal also increases the density under R6 by 50%. Ms. Anderson said that it appears at this point that the Committee is not ready to vote because they have qualified their vote with so many different options that are not going to be part of a motion that is sustainable. She suggested that the Committee hold back the motion that was made and wait for the special meeting. She noted that there was a density problem with the Plan Commission as well as with the height, just as Ald. Wynne has mentioned. She suggested that if a special meeting is held with all the Alderman, then this Council needs to sit down and clearly define the actual outlines of what _ constitutes the downtown and this needs to be relayed to the citizens. Chairman Engelman also agrees with Ald. Newman to move forward with this proposal on the floor and hold a special meeting with all of the Council members. He noted that he was prepared to vote on this to overturn the recommendation of the Plan Commission. However, he was very disappointed to hear the proposition of adding a 9 h story on this building in order to put affordable housing in the project which he thought was being offered at the last meeting without having to add another story. Chairman Engelman made a substitute motion to bold this in Committee and have: a special meeting and invite the remaining Alderman. Aid. Wynne seconded the = motion. The Committee discussed a date for the special meeting to be held before the P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 910 0 01 Page 11 regular meeting on the 24 h. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold the special meeting on Thursday. September 20, 2001 beginning at 6:00 p.m. The vote was S* in favor of the motion. This motion also reflects the status of Agenda Item (P5). Ordinance 99-0-01 — Zoning Map Amendment for 1930 Ridge Avenue. (P8) Ordinance 89-0-01 — Zoning Ordinance Man Amendment: 83 at Main & Chicago Md. Wynne motioned to amend the ordinance to support the Plan Commission's recommendation for the property at 603 Main Street to remain at B3 zoning. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. She informed the Committee that she has had discussions with the applicant who have worked hard to accommodate her concerns and have adjusted the fagade of the building from what was previously presented. She said that it has also been determined that the applicant had vested rights in the application for B3 zoning of its proposed development. Therefore, she supports the project and to keep the property zoned B3. Mr. Steve Mullins read from a prepared statement and expressed his appreciation for this consideration. Mr. James Murray brought attention to the letter he received from staff dated today with regards to the zoning classification and asked that it be entered into the minutes as well (Attachment "C"). Chairman Engelman commended Aid. Wynne on her work with this project and all her time and efforts she has given to the Main and Chicago area. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. MD Reauest for $30.800 in HOME Funds to build a sinele-family house at 1816 Darrow Avenue Aid. Newman moved to approve this request, seconded by Ald. Wynne. Aid. Kent made comments in support of this project and noted that this is a positive move and a way of getting rid of some of the blight and empty lots in the 50' Ward. The applicant, Mr. Neil Davidson, stated that he hopes this is the beginning of such projects and that he continues working with the City in the future to obtain more properties to do the same thing. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (M) Ordinance 94-0-01 — Authorizing the Citv Manager to Negotiate the Sale of 1816 Darrow Avenue Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P61 Ordinance 98-0-01 — Amending the Citv Code 904.1. Building Regulations Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The Committee discussed with staff this issue for clarification of which projects this pertains to, such as past projects or for projects from now forward. Fire Chief Berkowsky and Ms. Smith clarified P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 9/10101 Page 12 that this pertains to the Park Evanston Building (Buck project) and for projects thereafter. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P71 Ordinance $$-0-01 — Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Reauired Parkine for Multi -Family Residential Chairman Engelman noted that there has been some discussion regarding this matter with the Parking Committee. He suggested that they hold this item in Committee for future consideration until the Parking Committee and the Economic Development Committee has had a chance to review this matter. The Committee agreed. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee for future consideration, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 In favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting v as adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacque ' e E. l wnlee ATTACHMENT "A" NiEMOR,C'N'DLU! September 10, 2001 To: Planning and Development Committee Evanston City Council cc: Evanston City Council From: Evanston Environment Board RE: SuoDort of Proposed Transportation Oriented Development —1930 Ridge Avenue The Evanston Environment Board supports the construction of a multi -unit residential building on the 1930 Ridge Avenue site as a transportation oriented development. This site, on the edge of downtown, three blocks from the Foster CTA station and about four blocks from the downtown transportation nexus, is transportation oriented. A multi -unit housing development on this site will be environmentally advantageous. People who live within easy access to speedy transit are likely to use it, rather than an automobile, especially to get to work. From my former home on Judson near Lee, I was part of a steady stream of commuters walking 4, 5, and 6 blocks to connect with the two stations at Main and Chicago. The market in Evanston has shown that people are eager to live where non -car uansportaton is available, even to living adjacent to rail tracks. Putting more people closer to good public transportation is good environmental planning, providing environmental benefits both within Evanston, and in terms of broader sustainability issues in the areas of cleaner air, effect on global warming, land use, flooding and the conservation of non-renewable resources. Reducing the number of automobile trips made will create cleaner air in Evanston, air with fewer carbon dioxide and other airborne particulates. The current zoning for this site allows commercial and paridng lot use, which could bring increased automobile traffic, congestion and the emissions of cars going in and out all day long. In the bigger picture, the carbon dioxide emissions of transportation and automobiles are one of the leading contributors to green house gases creating global warming. Reducing automobile usage substantially reduces carbon dioxide emissions. Building multi -unit housing close to public transport is good land use planning as opposed to spreading people out into open green space and covering up ground that is needed to absorb water and prevent flooding. The Environment Board supports the construction of the proposed multi -unit residential development on the 1930 Ridge Avenue site, and further, proposes that this development be "green" in energy conservation and in the plan and design of the building. We urge this Committee and the entire Council to support this project, and to proceed on the zoning and other issues to ensure that such development is built it A Chairman `' ATTACHMENT "B" TESTIMONY TO THE PLANNING & DES ELOPNfENT COMMITTEE 910101 My name is Suzanne Carlson. I am here this evening as a member of the Evanston Intemeligious Sustainability Circle, but I am also here as someone who professionally deals daily with the critical need for affordable housing. This need is evident in stories such as those I heard week before last. Two women, one a mother of 8 month old twins, the other a mother of 2 school age children, each faced the end of a lease without the additional income of the husbands who had just abandoned them Both were working but couldni handle the increased cost of rent. One found a homesharer to share the rent; the other was given shelter information but may be homeless at this time. I don't know whether you have seen recent census figures. I have attached a copy to this statement for you to see. They indicate that compared to the suburban communities surrounding us, Evanston has shown the greatest percentage decline in its ci&mis over the age of 60. When I read those figures from the SAAA, I was stunned. Because of the large percentage of retirement, assisted living and nursing facilities in our city, I knew that the numbers of their residents were staying steady. I also know that the country at Iarge is showing a significant increase in the numbers of people over 60. If you are familiar with the study br• the Metro Chicago Information Center, "Some Like it Hot, Some Like it Cold, Most Like it Here", you know that the largest percentage of older people in our region would like to age in the same community where they have been living for years. It seems that many of our neighboring communities have been successful in allowing their citizens to achieve this goal. So what's happening to Evanston's seniors? The figures indicate that a substantial number of Evanston's older citizens have not been able to age in place. This is probably due in part to the fact that we have a proportionally larger rental stock than our surrounding communities. It's a lucky senior who can continue to pay escalating rent for 4-5 years on a fixed income, while waiting for his/her name to come up for one of our community's subsidized senior apartments. We at the Interfaith Housing Center of the Northern Suburbs have noted increasing numbers of people over 60 who are coming to us to find them a bedroom to rent in someone else's home. Imagine the physical, emotional & psychological implications of a 70 yr. olds having to give up familiar furniture and other family connected possessions, as well as his/her privacy, in order to live in the bedroom of another persons home. The implications are dramatic. In many ways it's equivalent to the trauma of going into an institutional setting. But this is what many seniors are asking us to help them accomplish, in an attempt to stay in the community at an affordable rent We try our best to help them achieve that goal. To close, l applaud the developer for his offer to include affordable rental units in his building. It will meet a critical need in Evanston. (As an aside, I can't help but note that he does this without the need for a TEF concession or a subsidy from the city.) I am also supportive of the transit -oriented nature of this proposed development. I hope that we can take advantage of this opportunity for Evanston to increase our numbers of affordable housing units as well as those close to public transit. Census Data by Township - Sorted Township Naar Tole! Population 60 Plus Dd !hams 80 Plus 75 Plus Difference 75 Pius Living Alone Difference 1990 2000 1990 2000 a % 1990 2000 p % 1990 2000 0 % Orland 69.542 91,418 7,954 14,858 6 VA 86.80 1609 5164 3,555 220.94 1.300 2,974 1,674 128.77 Hanover 62.308 83,471 4.818 7.91r 2.0se 64.30 1043 2337 1.294 124.07 851 1.453 612 71.92 Lemont 11,537 18.002 1,870 3,02� 1.15, 61.50 733 1387 654 89.22 342 546 204 59.65 5c;haumburq 127.625 134,114 11,159 15,75' 4 5y2 41.15 3155 5361 2,206 69.92 2,518 3.917 1.399 55,56 Palatine 103.273 112.740 10.856 14,014 3.158 29.09 2.537 4.086 1.549 61.06 2.018 2.948 930 46.09 Pats 50.916 53.419 9.452 12.115 2 664 26.16 2,389 4,468 2,079 87.02 1.842 3.067 1.225 66.50 Barrington 13.034 14.026 1,648 2.0411 393 23.85 529 627 98 18.53 284 397 113 39.79 Wheeling 148,641 155.83.4 23.340 28.7561 5.4161 23.20 6,037 10.322 4.285 70.98 4,905 7.126 2,221 45.28 Elk Grove 87,857 94.9691 13.885 17.066 3.181 22.91 3,5681 5.670 2.102 58.91 1104 4,467 1,363 43.91 Northfield 78.1861 82.880 16.0031 19,337 3.334 20.83 4.25N 7,351 3,092 72.60 2,898 3.964 1,066 36.78 Rich 61,4581 67.6231 9.305 11.169 1.564 20.03 2.3661 3,8081 1.442 60.95 1.060 2.8391 879 44.85 Bremen 107.8031 109.5751 14,563 15.987 1 424 9.T8 4,098 5,4831 1.3851 3380 3,122 3.7101 588 18.83 Mak* 128.837 135.6231 29.415 31,0821 1.667 5.671 8.927 12.4471 3.520 39.431 6,048 7.5031 1,455 24.06 New Trier 54.7051 56,7161 11.369 11.584I 215 1.891 3.296 4.1461 8501 25,79 2.053 2.3701 317 15.44 Bioo n 95.0291 93.901 14,607 14.7791 1721 1.18 3,985 4.926 9411 23.61 � 2.902 3.403 501 17.26 Lyons 105.004 109.264 18,9221 19.051 129 0.68 5,564 7.115 1.5511 27.881 4,065 4.727 662 16.29 Miles 96,412 102.638 27.5571 27,531 -26 -0.09 8,5441 11.973 3.429 40131 4.986 6.076 i3O90 21,86 Sbdu-.ey 37.297 38.6731 7.5381 7,3071 -2311 -3,061 1.968 2.136 668� 33.941 1.5211 1,656 135 8.88 Wonh 151.1441 152.2391 33.797 32.5071 -1.2901 -3.821 10,933 13,346 2.4131 22.07 6.3141 9,2913 9841 11.84 Riverside 15.2401 15.7041 4.208 4.0011 •207 -4.921 1.611 1.953 3421 21.23 1,1381 1,020 118 -10.37 Norwood Park 25.600I 26,1761 8.139 7.6291 -510 -6.271 2.461 3.205 7441 30.23 1.5291 1,763 2341 15.30 Leyden 89.1421 94,6851 19,346 17,3931 .1.453 -10.101 5.944 6.961 1,017 17.111 4.6341 4.7561 1221 2.63 Proviso 152.443 155,8311 30.370 27.1461 -3.224 -10.621 9.300 10,994 1,6941 18.221 6,9871 6,807 -1801 -2.58 Evanston 73,233 74 239� 11,T92 10,3941 -1,398+ -11.561 4,7651 4,2631 •5021 -10.541 3,298 3.189 -109 .3.31 Thomton 175,696 180.8021 33.999 29.444 A555I -13.40 9.799 11.129 1,330 13,57 7,852 7.785 -67 -0.85 River Foresl 11,669 11.6351 2,4431 2.098 -345 -14.121 894� 842 -48 -5.39 626 5421 -64 -13.42 Oak Park 53,6401 52.5241 7,923 6.655 -1.268 -16.00 3.1621 2.666 .496 -15.691 2,6871 2,3601 327 -12.17 Cakunel 21,000 22.3141 2.961 2.410 -551 -18.61 854 871 17 1.991 862 6621 -200I -23.20 Berwyn 45,426 54,016 12.108 9.039 -3,069 -25.35 4,615� 4,022 -593 -12.851 3,780 2.784 -996I -26.35 Cicero 67.436 85.616 11,838 7,844 -3,994 -33.74 3.087 3.190 •697 -17.93I 3,573 2,152� -1,4211 -39.77 Totals 2.321,341 2,480,7271 413.185 429,9251 16,7401 4.051 122,8281 162.7491 39,9211 32.501 91,9991 106,2711 14.2721 15.51 ATTACHMENT "C" September 10, 2001 James T. Murray, Esquire Suite 370 1033 University Place Evanston, Illinois 60201 Re: Zoning Classification of 603 Main Street Dear Mr. Murray: I have been asked to provide a writing to confirm an oral opinion I gave at the August 13, 2001 meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council that your client, Esskay, Inc. ("Esskay") has vested rights in the application of B3 Business District zoning to its proposed development at 603 Main Street. More specifically, Esskay is the contract purchaser under an agreement entered into on November 10, 2000. The agreement provides for a closing to occur by a date certain. The closing is not contingent upon Esskay obtaining a zoning change. Esskay forfeits its $100,000 earnest money if the dosing does not take place by the stated time. Esskay seeks to renovate the existing building on the subject property and add two (2) additional Boors, for a total height of five (5) stories and sixty-seven (67) feet. When Esskay submitted its application for zoning analysis on June 27, 2001, the subject property was zoned B3. On August 7, 2001, the ZBA granted Esskay's application for a variation to the 83 rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance 89-0-01 is pending before the City Council. If enacted, that Ordinance will change the zoning of the 603 Main Street parcel from B3 to C1a. The change to C1a will have a substantial effect upon the proposed development. The C1a setback requirements differ from those imposed under B3 Zoning such that Esskay would either have to redesign its development or seek variations from the ZBA. A new application for ATTACHMENT "B" TESTIMONY TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMIvQT'I'EE 9110/01 My name is Suzanne Carlson. I am here this evening as a member of the Evanston Interreligious Sustainability Circle, but I am also here as someone who professionally deals daily with the critical need for affordable housing. This need is evident in stories such as those I heard week before last. Two women, one a mother of 9 month old twins, the other a mother of 2 school age children, each faced the end of a lease without the additional income of the husbands who had just abandoned them. Both were working but couldn't handle the increased cost of renL One found a homeshamr to share the rent; the other was given shelter information but may be homeless at this time. I don't know whether you have seen recent census figures. I have attached a copy to this statement for you to see. They indicate that compared to the suburban communities surrounding us, Evanston has shown the greatest percentage decline in its citizens over the age of 60. When I read those figures from the SAAA, I was stunned. Because of the large percentage of retircrneat, assisted living and nursing facilities in our city, I knew that the numbers of their residents were staying steady. I also know that the country at large is showing a significant increase in the numbers of people over 60. If you are familiar with the study by the Metro Chicago Information Center, "Some Lake it Hot, Some Like it Cold, Most Like it Here", you know that ttie largest percentage of older people in our region would like to age in the same community where they have been living for years. It seems that many of our neighboring communities have been successful in allowing their citizens to achieve this goal. So what's happening to Evanston's seniors? The figures indicate that a substantial number of Evanston's older citizens have not been able to age in place. This is probably due in part to the fact that we have a proportionally larger rental stock than our surrounding communities. It's a lucky senior who can continue to pay escalating rent for 4-5 years on a fixed income, while waiting for his/her name to come up for one of our community's subsidized senior apartments. We at the Interfaith Housing Center of the Northern Suburbs have noted increasing numbers of people over 60 who are coming to us to find them a bedroom to rent in someone else's home. Imagine the physical, emotional & psychological implications of a 70 yr. old having to give up familiar furniture and other family connected possessions, as well as his/her privacy, in order to live in the bedroom of artother person's home. The implications are dramatic. In marry ways it's equivalent to the trauma of going into an institutional setting. But this is what many seniors are asking us to Delp them accomplish, in an attempt to stay in the community at an affordable renL We try our best to help them achieve that goal. To close, I applaud the developer for his offer to include affordable rental units in his building - It will meet a critical need in Evanston. (As an aside, I can't help but note that he does this without the need for a TIF concession or a subsidy from the city.) I am also supportive of the transit -oriented nature of this proposed development. I hope that we can take advantage of this opportunity for Evanston to increase our numbers of affordable housing units as well as those close to public transit. Census Data by Township - Sorted Towrish+p Name Total PopUalion 60 Plus OlHerence 60 Plus 75 Plus Difference 75 Plus 19W 2OW 1990 2000 0 % 1990 2000 0 % Ortand 69,542 91,418 7.954 14.856 6,904 86.80 1609 5164 3.555 220.94 Hanover 62,308 53.471 4.818 7.916 3.098 64.30 1043 2337 1.294 124.07 Lemont 11,537 1B.002 1.870 3,020 1.150 61.50 733 1387 654 89.22 5chaumburq 127.625 134.114 11.159 15.751 4.592 41.15 3155 5361 2,206 69.92 Palatine 103.273 112.740 10.856 14.014 3,158 29.09 2,537 4.086 1.549 61.06 Palos 50.916 53,419 9.452 12.116 2,664 28.18 2.389 4.468 2.079 87.02 BarrwVon 13.034 14.026 1.648 2.041 3931 23.85 529 627 98 18.53 Wheeling 148,641 155,8341 23.340 26.756 5,4161 23.20 6,037 10.3221 4,285 70,9E Elk Grove 87.8571 94.9691 13,885 17,0661 3,1811 22.911 3.568 5,6701 2,102 58.91 Northfield 78,186 82.8801 16.003 19.3371 3.3341 20.83 4.259 7.3511 3,092 72.601 Rich 61,458I 67.6231 9.305 11.1691 1,8641 20.031 2.3661 3,8001 1,4421 60.951 Bremen 107.8031 109.5751 14,5631 15.9871 1,4241 9.731 4,0981 5.4831 1,3851 33.60� Maine 128,837 135.6231 29,4151 31.0821 1,6671 5.67 0,927 12,447 3,520 39.A3 New Trier 54.705 56,716 11.369 11.5841 2151 1.99 3,2961 4,t461 850' 25.791 Bloom 95,029 93.901 14.507 14.7791 172 1.18 3.985 4.926 9411 23,61 Lyons ID5,004 109.264 18.922 19.051 129 0,681 5,564� 7.1151 1,551 27.8e' Niles 96,412 102.6381 27,557 27,531 -26 .0.091 8.5441 11.973 3.4291 40.13 SUckney 37297 38.6731 7,5381 7,307 -231 -3.061 1 Worth 151.1"1 152,2391 33,7971 32.50-11 -1,2901 -3.82 10.933 13,346 2,413 22.071 Riverside 15,2401 15.7041 4,2081 4.0011 -2071 -4.92 1.6111 1,9531 342 21.231 Norwood Park 25,6001 26.1761 8.139 7.629 510 -6.271 2.461 3,2051 7441 30.231 Leyden 89,1421 94.6851 19,3461 17.393 .1,953 -10.101 5.944 6.9611 1,0171 17.111 Proviso 152,443 155,831 30,3701 27.1461 -3,2241 -10.621 9,300 10,994 1,6941 18,221 Evanston 73.2331 74.2391 11,792 10.394 -1,398 -11.861 4,765 4,263 .502 -10.541 Thornton 175,8961 180,8021 33.9%1 29.4441 4,5551 .13,40 9,799 11,129 1,330 13,571 River Forest 11.6691 11.635� 2,4431 2,0981 -3451 .14.12 890 B42 -46 •5.391 Oak Park 53.648 52,524 7.923 6.655 .1,268 .16.00 3,162 2,666 -496 -15.69 Calumel 21.0001 22,3741 2.961 2.410 -5511 -18.611 8541 871 17 1.99 Berwyn 45.4261 54,Ot61 12.108 9.0391 .3,069 -25.35 4,6151 4.0221 .5931 -12.85 Cicero 67.4361 95.6161 11.838 7,8441 -3.994 -33.74 3,6871 3.1901 697 .17.93 Totals 2.321,3411 2.480,7271 413,105 429.9251 16.740 4.051 122,8281 162.7491 39,9211 32.50 Living Alone Difference 1990 2000 a % 1,300 2.974 1.674 128.77 851 1.453 612 71.92 342 546 204 59.65 2,518 3.917 1.399 55.56 2,018 2.948 930 46 09 1.8421 3,067 1.2251 66.50 284 397 113 39.79 4.9051 7,126 2.221 45.28 3.104 j 4,467 1.3631 43.91 2.8981 3,964 1,0661 36.78 1.9601 2,839� 8791 44.85 3.1221 3,710 588 18.83 6,0481 7.5031 1,4551 24.06 2.0531 2,370 317 15.44 2.902 3.403 501 17.26 4.065 4.727 662 16.29 4.9861 6,076 1,0901 21.06 1.521 1,6561 1351 8.88 8.3141 9.2981 984� 11.64 1,1381 1.1) -118 -10.37 1.5291 1,7631 2341 15.30 4,6341 4,7561 1221 2.63 6.9871 6,807 -160 -2.58 3.298 3,189 -109 -3.31 7,852 7,785 -671 .0,85 6261 5421 -841 -13.42 2,687 2.3601 -3271 -12.17 862 6621 -200 -23.20 3.780 2,7941 -996 .26.35 3.5731 2,1521 -1.4211 -39.77 91.9991 106.2711 14.2721 15.51 ATTACHMENT "C" 40 CM offvanston 1T.j. i_•i. September 10, 2001 James T. Murray, Esquire Suite 370 1033 University Place Evanston, Illinois 60201 Re: Zoning Classification of 603 Main Street Dear Mr. Murray: I have been asked to provide a writing to confirm an oral opinion I gave at the August 13, 2001 meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council that your client, Esskay, Inc. ('Esskay") has vested rights in the application of B3 Business District zoning to its proposed development at 603 Main Street. More specifically, Esskay is the contract purchaser under an agreement entered into on November 10, 2000. The agreement provides for a closing to occur by a date certain. The closing is not contingent upon Esskay obtaining a zoning change. Esskay forfeits its $100,000 earnest money if the closing does not take place by the stated time. Esskay seeks to renovate the existing building on the subject property and add two (2) additional floors, for a total height of five (5) stories and sixty-seven (67) feet. When Esskay submitted its application for zoning analysis on June 27, 2001, the subject property was zoned 83. On August 7, 2001, the ZBA granted Esskay's application for a variation to the B3 rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance 89-0-01 is pending before the City Council. If enacted, that Ordinance will change the zoning of the 603 Main Street parcel from B3 to C1a. The change to C1a will have a substantial effect upon the proposed development. The C1a setback requirements differ from those imposed under B3 Zoning such that Esskay would either have to redesign its development or seek variations from the ZBA. A new application for James T. Murray, Esquire September 10, 2001 Page 2 variations would be required and Esskay would incur additional time and expense with no way of predicting whether the 7'BA would approve the variations. Esskay has incurred these expenses: Earnest Money Architectural fees Soil Testing Environmental Testing Structural Testing Exterior Testing Legal Fees Permits Interest on loans Brininstool 98,000.00 Conrad Delour 1.060.00 CEI, Inc. 4.865.00 Norcon 4.955.00 Infracon, Inc. 950.00 2,625.00 515.00 1,700.00 In my analysis, I reviewed the real estate sales agreement and your letter to me of August 13, 2001 setting forth expenditures Esskay made in connection with acquisition of the subject property and preparation of its proposed development plan. Based upon the information you provided, Esskay has a vested right in application of B3 zoning to its development plan. It has made a substantial change in position based upon existing zoning and the probability of issuance of a building permit thereunder. Sincerely, lie S anski`" cc: Mayor Lorraine Morton Members of City Council MINUTES Planning & Development Committee Special Meeting September 20, 2001 Council Chambers — 6:00 p.m. Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. \evman. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Engelman Stan Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. M. Barry, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. She welcomed all City Council members to join the Planning & Development Committee at this time, only Aid. Feldman joined them on the podium, the rest remained in the audience. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne asked the applicant to give a brief presentation of their alternative plan presented. Mr. Bruce Huvard, Attorney for the applicant, showed a rendition of the new alternative plan to the original.. For further explanation of the revised plan, he turned commentary over to the developer, Mr. Richard Aaronson of Atlantic Realty Partners. Mr. Aaronson gave a brief overview of the history of the project. He noted that from the beginning, the project came in at I l stories in height, then was revised to 8 stories and then to 9 stories, 125 units to accommodate affordable housing. After much time and effort with this design, they set aside all prior thinking and carve up with a new design that seemed to address many of the main concerns expressed by the Plan Commission and the neighborhood. He gave details of the new alternative proposal which they feel embodies the design, character and feel of the surrounding neighborhood. He went on to explain that this alternative plan proposes 4 buildings at 4 stories in height each with an underground parking deck versus the parking structure in the previous plan. He focused on the drawings which displayed the materials they propose to use on the fagade and the building massing. Mr. Aaronson showed two site plans, the second represents their preferred design for the site and they feel provides better pedestrian flow. He gave a summary of some of the building changes and site layout: 43' parapet height, 193 units, 229 underground parking spaces, courtyard 41', west and rear setback at 0', 12-13' front set back, 12-15' setback from the north property line and approximately 60' from P&D Comm. Special Nttg. September 20, 2001 Page 2 Emerson. They still propose the swimming pool and that there will be similar common area amenities as offered in the original plans. Mr. Aaronson said that they are prepared to be flexible architecturally. He requested the Committee's due consideration to their amended alternative plan as presented this evening. Aid. Bernstein asked questions on the ingress'euess, which Mr. Aaronson explained and showed the access to the underground parking lot. He questioned if the affordable housing can still be provided. Mr. Aaronson explained that this is a significantly different plan, however they could work with the City for the best provisions. He noted that the rents for this design would not be as high because it is not as "high prof le" as the first plan. Aid. Newman said that it is obvious that the height issue and concern has been satisfied with this new design. He questions how this plan fits in the R5 zoning district. Mr. Alterson responded that if the property were under the R5 zoning there would be insufficient lot area for the proposed 192 duelling units, having only enough area for 103 dwelling units. A building lot coverage of 601/a where the maximum was 45%. 'Mere are no setbacks provided on the north and west sides, where the Ordinance requires 10 along the north and 25 feet along the west. Finally, he noted that there are 220 parking spaces provided with the new plan, however if the dwelling units were no less than 700 square feet, the Ordinance requires 240 spaces. He said that if the property were R6, this proposal had all the same zoning deficiencies except for the lot area, which would be sufficient for 200 R6 dwelling units. He said that the proposal would also be deficient under the CI zoning because the Ordinance requires a setback of 5 feet above the height of 25' along the railroad tracks and the building is 2 feet from that lot line. Aid. Newman asked the developer he is willing to meet with the neighbors for their input on final building design and to keep them abreast of the progress. Mr. Aaronson assured that they have every intention on doing so. Ald. Bernstein asked if the tax revenue will be less with this plan considering the revenue stream will be less. Mr. Aaronson responded that it could be less but would not be significant. He also mentioned, in response to Mr. Alterson's analysis of the required parking ratio, that the number of parking spaces in the project would conform regardless of the zoning district because there are a sufficient number of units under the 700 square foot threshold requiring only I space versus the 1 '/4 spaces: Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that there has been no official zoning analysis = done on this alternative plan: Mr. Alterson has only has a chance to do a very preliminary analysis since he only just received these plans. He noted that other City staff that needs to review this proposal have not had a chance to do so and that any amended plan would have to go through the same application review process. Aid. Bernstein said in light of staiTs position, that this matter can not go forward this evening. The Committee asked for Legal input. Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee that she and Mr. Hill had an extensive discussion today regarding this matter. She noted that legal staff' has not seen this plan before this evening, however from what they have been informed of, they are of the opinion that this plan is a complete departure from the original plan presented. Legal M P&D Comm. Special Mtg. September 20. 200! Page 3 considers that an abandonment of the original plan has occurred with this alternative plan. She also noted that no site plan review has been done. Legal staff is of the opinion that this is a new application totally rather than a continuation of the original plan and application. Mr. Huvard counter -responded to Ms. Szymanski"s comments. He said that in light of the time that has already been expended, approximately 9 months into the process, he would request that the Committee consider this to move forward as a continuous process and amendment to the original application. At this stage, the applicants wish to avoid any more delay than necessary. Mr. Wolinski stated that it is not staffs intent to delay the process in any way. However, even if they were to consider this alternative plan as an adjustment to the original, it would still require zoning analysis and site plan review, which would take a couple of weeks to complete. Aid. Bernstein stated that he agrees with Ms. Szymanski, however he also pointed out that the applicants cooperation with the process and working to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Plan Commission, should be duly noted. In light of this, he would like to see this plan move forward and through the process as quickly as possible. Aid. Feldman agreed. He asked staff if they can give an approximate time schedule for the process at this point up to coming back before the Council. Mr. Wolinski gave an estimated time frame of 5-6 weeks in order for the application to go through the zoning analysis, SPAARC and the Plan Commission. Aid. Kent appreciates the developers efforts to take the neighborhood's concerns into consideration. He recommended to the developer that neighborhood meetings take place to keep overall involvement in the progress of the project. Aid. Feldman said that he has a great deal of optimism with this project. He reiterated his request to staff that they give every effort to expedite this application through the process. He feels the developer deserves due consideration. Ald. Newman seconded Aid. Feldman's comments. He feels a schedule and time frame goal can be set at this meeting because the applicant needs to know this for their expectations in going forward with this project. Chairman Wynne said that she is very impressed with developers alternative plan and also agrees with her fellow members that every effort should be given by all involved, to expedite the process for the applicant. The Committee discussed that since it appears that the original plan is moot at this point and will most likely be withdrawn, they questioned if it is necessary to listen to citizen comments if it pertains to the original plan. Since a new plan is in the works, there was a suggestion that all citizen comments could be held until a new hearing is set for the alternative plan. After discussion, the Committee came to a consensus to listen to citizen comments if they address the alternative plan and to keep comments brief given that they will also get a chance to address the plan when it comes back before the Committee. Ms. Bettv Palmer, thanked Mr. Aaronson for the developers consideration of the proposed alternative plan. She recalled that this plan is similar to the one suggested by the neighbors from the beginning by lowering the height and deducting the parking structure. P&D Comm. Special Mtg. September 20. 2001 Page 4 Mr. Cameron Ellis, 1239 Leon Place, expressed his concerns with this plan for available maneuvering of service and safety vehicles because it appears that access for them as been eliminated. He also feels that this plant still does not meet the best interest for the site, their neighborhood or for Evanston as well. He read from a prepared statement. Mr. Kevin McKenna, 2106 Maple Avenue, said that he is still concerned with the density for this plan as well because 192 units is still too much for this site and will still add too much population more than their neighborhood can handle. He mentioned a history of situations where the Council has overruled the Zoning Board and the Plan Commission and has made some detrimental decisions for Evanston. He questioned why the City even has a Zoning Ordinance if the Council has a continued history of not abiding by it. He requested to the Committee that they stop letting developers come in if they do not meet the zoning requirement of the district in which they want to build. Ms. Sue Carlson, expressed her disappointment with the alternative plan not having a commitment to provide affordable housing. She strongly supports the suggestion made that all new residential projects of this nature providing some set -asides for affordable housing. Ms. Nancy Little, 1214 Simpson, said she appreciates the developers efforts and the downscale of the project in the alternative plan. Ms. Shirley Ellis, 1740 Wesley, is still opposed to the project, even with the alternative plan. She feels it will be a great cost to the neighborhood and very little benefit to the entire community as a whole. Mr. Craig Zerbe., 2010 Pratt Ct., said that he feels strongly about this project and his ongoing concern with density and the effect it has on the entire immediate neighborhood. Ms. Bettv Ester, 2100 Lake St, said that she does not live in the immediate neighborhood but is speaking as a concerned citizen. She feels that there is a need for initial planning for affordable housing and not as a counter-offer for a developer to get when they want. She noted that it is essential that Evanston needs to assist in the available housing stock for affordable housing. Ms. Beth Steffen, President of Southeast Evanston Association. Submitted a letter stating her associations position on this matter. See Attachment "A". Mr. Frederico Vidar2as, said that he is part of the Design Evanston Group. He has followed the proposed project plans from the beginning and that he is very impressed with the developers thought process and their alternative plan. He feels this project will _ enhance the streetscape compared to what exist there now and the location has good pedestrian flow. He supports this alternative plan and hopes that it goes forward. P&D Comm. Special Mtg. September 20.2001 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT No motion obtained or vote required at this time. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, lacqute e, Brownlee n ATTACHMENT "A" September 20, 2001 Alderman Steve Engelman, Chair Plan and Development Committee Dear Alderman: The Southeast Evanston Association (SEA) board voted at our annual meeting last Tuesday, September 11, to take the following position regarding the proposed development at 1930 Ridge Avenue: 1. We support the Plan Commission's recommendation to the Plan and Development Committee to deny the development as proposed. 2_ We support the wishes of the surrounding neighborhood groups and the Alderman of the 5th Ward for the 1930 Ridge Avenue site. 3. We believe that the boundaries of downtown Evanston should be retained and defended as they were determined to be in the Comprehensive General Plan. Beth Steffen, President.. Southeast Evanston Association d MINUTES Planning & Development Committee September 24, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. Newman, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Engelman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, R. Schur, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 10. 200I MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes, seconded by Ald. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P l) Case ZPC 01-04-M&PD(R): Planned Develonment for 1930 Ridize Avenue Chairman Wynne made note of the special meeting held Iasi Thursday, September 20, 2001 regarding this matter and recognition of the proceedings that occurred at that meeting. She acknowledged the letter that the Committee received this evening from the applicant's attorney addressed to the City's legal counsel confirming their official withdrawal of this application for the map amendment to R6 and the planned development. She noted that the applicant forwarded their withdrawal of this application after the special meeting held last week when they presented an entirely new plan before the Committee. Chairman Wynne proclaimed this matter be taken off the P&D Committee's agenda and the Council's agenda. The Committee concurred. Ms. Anderson questioned what the applicant plans to do at this point because the property is still under the C2 zoning. Chairman Wynne explained that it is the Committee's understanding that the applicant is revising their plans and drawings for another submission that is to be processed as a new application. it is also the Committee's understanding that this new application will be processed by staff as expeditious as possible due to the time already given in this project. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff is attempting to schedule a special meeting of the Plan Commission for the last week of October to address this matter and expedite the proceedings. P&D Comminee kitg. ' Minutes of 924 01 Page (P41 Ordinance 99-0-01 - Zonine Ordinance Ntar .amendment - 1930 Ridee Avenue In concurrence with the outcome of item (PI). Aid. Newman moved to remove this item from P&D and Council's agenda. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the votewas 4-0 in favor. (P2) Request for $67.155 from the Mavor's Soccial Housine Fund for rehabilitation of 1817 Foster Street Aid. Kent moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The Committee asked staff for background information on this matter. Ms. Roberta Shur, Housing Planner, gave a brief over%iew of situation for this case. She informed the Committee that this application is for a 2-unit building. purchasing owner Mr. Louis Gonzales. She said that the property is currently being used as a single family home by a large Section 8 family, which has since downsized. She noted that Mr. Gonzales' intentions are to convert the structure back to its 2-unit status and rehabilitate the building by executing major work that needs to be done by replacing the leaking roof and bathroom and kitchen upgrades. She also noted that there are a large number of code violations existing on the building that Mr. Gonzales intends to bring back up to code as well. She said that the building will result in 1 2-unit and 1 3-unit apartments that will be rented and the current section 8 family will be able to stay and the other unit will be rented out to a qualifying family as well. Aid. Newman asked how it came about that the applicant was familiarized with the Housing Commission and made aware of the Mayor's Special Housing Fund. Ms. Schur responded that she has been acquainted with the applicant for some time and have discussed various projects that might be eligible for housing funds. She met the applicant when he came in for a condo conversion on Custer Avenue. Chairman Wynne asked for clarification that one unit will be for the current family residing at the property and the second will be rented out as an affordable housing unit. Ms. Schur assured that to be _ correct and noted that the unit kill be rented a family in need of affordable housing, not necessarily singled out for a section 8 family. Aid. Kent followed up on Ms. Schur's comments because he has discussed this matter with her in the past and strongly supports the need for affordable housing made available to families that are not on section 8 but are in desperate need of such housing. He noted that this need pertains to working-class families that do not qualify for section 8 housing benefits, but are in a category that still _ requires their need for affordable housing status. He mentioned his intentions to bring up this matter up in Council at the "Call of the Wards- for this Council taking into consideration such cases and creating such protection for their needs. He noted that in the Sth Wand especially, as well as some others, that there is an over -saturation of Section 8 tenants and there are numerous landlords that appear to be strictly in the market for such tenants and financial gain from this program who are not trying to make their rental units affordable housing for the "working-class families". He pointed out the importance of supplying affordable housing for both Section 8 tenants and the working-class category tenants who are also in dire need of such housing. Aid. Kent commended the applicant for their proposed intentions and recognition to assist all that might qualify for affordable housing assistance. P&D Committee Mtg. At inures of 914,101 Page 3 Aid. Bernstein asked how the applicant will choose his tenants to qualifi- for his units. Mr. Gonzales responded that he would follow a typical screening process that must be considered for all tenants, whether Section 8 or not and he will also rely on an agency that specializes in this process. Aid. Bernstein questioned if there is any resale provisions that have been considered in the event of a subsequent sale of the property. Ms. Schur responded such provisions are not typical with the Mayor's Special Housing Fund, although it is possible to do so. She noted that if the proper%- were sold before the loan is satisfied, the City would get back all monies at that sale. Aid. Newman noted his involvement with the Mayor's Special Housing Fund from its origin and stated that there is a clause that as long as the Cin''s money is in the project, the oxvner is subject to the conditions of the loan. Aid. Bernstein questioned the enforcement capacity and involvement of the City to assure that qualified tenants are being rented to and with the sale of the property if it were to take place before all monies were repaid back to the City. Ms. Schur assured that the City will be involved in all rental activities during the duration of the loan repayment term and will be automatically notified of any We of the property due to City's lien position on the property. With no further discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 100-0-01 - Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Satellite Dish Antennas Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 100-0-01, seconded by Aid, Bernstein. It was noted that this request is for confirmation of the ordinance to comply with the federal mandate. The Committee conquered. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 103-0-01 - Special Use and Variations for 1717 Benson Avenue, Second Baptist Church Chairman Wynne acknowledged that there was no representative present for Second Baptist Church. She also acknowledged the letter forwarded by staff to the Committee from Second Baptist with regards to the City's approval to lease 20 parking spaces to the Church at the 1800 Maple garage for a minimum of 2 years. Since this case is located in the I' ward, she asked Aid. Newman if they should proceed at this point without applicant representation. Aid. Newman requested that staff give a brief overview of the project and what the applicant is requesting for variation relief. Mr. Alterson explained the project and variations requested. He informed the Committee that the applicant is expanding the religious use requiring the special use for a religious institution in the downtown district. There is a variation to increase the overall floor area ratio where 2.75 is allowed and they are currently at approximately 2.0. There is a variation for building height at 65' whereas the height limitation is 42% The property currently has no parking and the property is at a deficit, however they are a legal non -conforming as to the parking. The new construction will require 17 spaces unless they receive the variance. He said the bulk is mostly at the back of the building and does not recall anyone present at the ZBA hearing that was in opposition to this application. Mr. Alterson noted that this property is a landmark building so it will need to go before the Preservation Commission. He mentioned that the concerns that he has heard are actually from staff regarding the placement of the dumpsters in the back. P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of 914,01 Page 4 Aid. Bernstein asked if this case would require more than a 2-ycar parking lease. Mr. Alterson explained that this does not eliminate their need for a variance of the required 17 spaces. Ald. Newman noted that the ZBA found that there was hardship here on their parking space requirement although they did not find hardship for a similar case on Davis Street for 16 spaces. He said that both cases have the same situation where they have no availability for parking, however he would argue that this is a weaker case because the City spent a lot of money creating parking on Benson and has been totally filled up by the users. He stated his overall concern with the Committee's history of overriding the City's own parking study done for the need for additional parking in the downtown. He pointed out that this is the 3`d case that the Committee has done where this situation has occurred. He said at one point they had 300 extra spaces, however the latest projects are using up those parking spaces. Aid. Newman said that it is hard not to approve this on parking when they have given approval to the Evanston Athletic Club next door. Nonetheless, the Committee should put out the word that they are not going to approve any more projects in the downtown unless they provide the required parking needed for their projects until the garages are built and until they know if extra parking spaces will be available. He said that they might be selling parking spaces right now that the City does not have. He said this message and policy statement needs to be forwarded to the ZBA for their knowledge. He noted that based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Committee is in a precarious position even if they wanted to deny this, they would most likely be_sued. He stated that in no way is he saying that he is opposed to this project. He said that Benson Avenue is a terrible street to have access capacity and expansion on because it is being built up more than the street can handle. AId. Bernstein agreed with Aid. Newman that some t}pe of policy needs to be developed with regards to deferring additional building without supplying the required parking for the development. He mentioned that with the expansion of the interior and the sanctuary, they could assume that more parishioners can be accommodated for service, therefore requiring the need for additional parking. Chairman Wynne said that it is apparent that the Committee needs to have a discussion with representatives of the church. The Committee needs to find out what the church intends to do with their garbage disposal especially due to the awkward configuration of the alley behind the church. Aid. Newman informed the Committee that he had a meeting with senior staff on the condition of the downtown alleys and Mr. Jennings presented several photos. Mr. Wolinski suggested that there by a Sunday pickup service for the Church. Aid. Newman also mentioned that this Church has a soup kitchen several days per week that probably requires their need for extra garbage pickups at any rate. Ms. Dienner asked if there's going to be any residential area included in the proposed addition. Chairman Wynne responded that the additional is for offices, classrooms and expansion to the sanctuary, not sure of any residential. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that it is up to the applicant to make their presentation before the Committee and staff does not want to advocate for or against this project. He suggested that further comments and explanations should be given by the applicant. The Committee agreed. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4.24 01 Page 5 Aid. Bernstein moved to introduce Ordinance I03-0-01 and refer back to Committee for further discussion. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Ms. Anderson reminded that with the addition of the proposed 150 seats in the sanctuary, this may require additional handicapped parking on Benson Avenue, to add to the congested parking situation that already exists. She also pointed out that they are looking at a "D" district in the heart of downtown where they have 42' height allowance. She brought attention to the D4 district that is listed as a transition zone between downtown and the neighborhoods. She said that in the D4 district. there is an allowance of 85' height for commercial. In her opinion, these layers of height allowances does not make sense because they produce a "shallop - bowl" effect where around the edges higher height limitations are allowed with a lower height level in the middle. She suggested to the Committee that they may want to revisit the issue of height limitations for downtown and the surrounding edges of downtown where the transition district allows the greatest height. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that historically in the past, joint meetings were held with the P&D Committee and the Zoning Board to discuss policy issues at least every 1-2 years. They have not held a joint meeting in some time perhaps because the need was not there. It appears at this time that there is a need for such a meeting. He asked the Committee if they would be willing to entertain such a meeting. The Committee discussed this and agreed that there is a need for a joint meeting. Aid. Newman suggested that the Plan Commission also be included. Chairman Wynne directed staff to prepare a memorandum to the Zoning Board and the Plan Commission separately for suggested meeting dates. The Committee discussed whether they should hold two separate meetings or one joint meeting combined with both the ZBA and Plan Commission. Aid. Newman's opinion is to hold a joint meeting because both bodies need to become familiar with the others thought process on their position with Council. The Committee and staff discussed items and topics of concern and where there is reservation in the Ordinance. Aid. Newman brought up the word "peculiar" stated under hardship to the property. There was also mention of questionable variation language that the Committee would like to discuss. He pointed out that one of the problems is that we. live in a community which doesn't want to cut any services, don't want taxes to go any higher and doesn't want any growth; the numbers do not add up. He said it would make a big difference if we had a sufficient tax base such as a community like Lake Forest, which has the option to turn down projects of any level and does not have a S15 million dollar police department or a diverse population to provide services for. He feels that people become almost resentful to the Council for taking economics circumstances into effect. These issues also need to be addressed in the joint meeting. Aid. Newman suggested that they need to go to other communities and see what their language is on variations. He suggested such communities as Skokie, Lake Forest, Chicago, and Lincolnwood. Chairman Wynne said she would also be interested in hearing some of the problems that they experience with decision making on difficult variation cases. P&D Committee .Mig. 'Minutes of 9-a4 41 Page 5 After discussion. it was a consensus of the Committee to hold I joint meeting with both the Zoning Board and the Plan Commission. They recommended a date be set in late October. preferably on one of the off Mondays for Council. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) Consideration of a Moratorium to limit anv new residential multi -family construction in the R Districts of the 5'h Ward Aid. Kent gave a brief update. As he mentioned at the last Council meeting, they have moved on to their second Plan Commission community meeting that was held on September 13"'. They continue to move forward with this matter and plan to have some type of written report to present after the November meeting. (PD2) A reference considerine a nolicv for communicatine uotential chanties affecting zonine anolicants Chairman Wynne asked that staff provide a copy of the June 25t' memorandum that the Committee received for their review at the next meeting. Mr. Wolinski informed that the memo detailed what the ordinance currently states as far as the notification requirements. This topic could be a potential item for discussion at the joint meeting with the ZBA. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION The Committee reviewed the list of subjects that remain on their agenda. A question was raised regarding the status of the Binding Appearance Review. Mr. Alterson reported that the Plan Commission has discussed this item at two meetings since it was last before the Committee. He said that they have language and are in the process of finalizing it. Question was raised on the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Mr. Wolinski responded that he is not aware of the progress since Ms. Haynes was last before the Committee, however he will find out the status and report back to the Committee. Aid. Newman requested that staff give feedback on the outcome of the study done regarding the 1000-foot maximum distance for parking and principal use. Aid. Kent brought attention to the residential tear down issue and reiterated Aid. Bernstein's desire to consider all teardowns, whether residential or commercial. Mr. Wolinski reported that staff is still compiling information on this matter. In fact, he discussed this with Aid. Moran several days ago and his concern for the teardowns in his ward. Aid. Newman said this is why it was important to vote in favor of historic districts because this creates a defense mechanism. Mr. Wolinski recalled that awhile back staff' did present the Committee with some information about the status of teardowns in Evanston and it is still increasing so often. He said that there are several developers that are very involved in this issue, Ken Hazlett being one who has been involved in 4 or 5 cases in the past year. The usual case being where the developer tears down smaller P&D Committee ,%ltg. Minutes of924 01 Page 7 single-family homes and building/replacing with the larger "trophy" homes. He noted that this situation is occurring mostly in northwest Evanston. Ald. Kent mentioned that this is not the situation in his ward. however the smaller single-family homes are being torn down and replaced with multi -family buildings. Chairman W%mne noted that the issue is tearing down what's existing and replacing with full envelope structures. Ald. Newman pointed out a structure that is in the plans to be torn down that was built in 1873 by one of the early settlers of Evanston. He said one of his concerns is that they should at least have a policy where buildings of such historical significance should be photographed and written up for the Evanston Historical Societ%. He said there is a need in a community that has structures all over town that originated in the 19`h century, to have some way of dealing with the tear down issue of these significant buildings. Aid. Newman requested from staff to provide the Committee with a list of teardowns over the last two years. Chairman W)mne suggested that they also receive from staff some type of description of what other communities are doing regarding this issue. Mr. Wolinski recalled that when the Zoning Ordinance was under review in 1993, the tear down issue was brought up and they assumed that when they went from FAR to lot coverage on single-family houses that they built in some protections. This seemed to have worked for a while, however it appears that this is not the case any longer. He pointed out that height limitation for single-family houses in the ordinance is a problem and should be reviewed. Ald. Kent mentioned the GIS System that the City has now and asked if it is provide a visual or photographic map of where these teardowns are happening and pointing out where this is occurring most frequently. After discussion, the Committee requested that staff look into the items they asked about and report bask to them. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquel )e E. Brownlee MIN1.:TES Planning & Development Committee October 8, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent, A. Neuman. fit. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Engelman. S. Bernstein Staff Present: J. Wolinski. M. Barry, C. Smith. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SFPTFMBER 20.2001 SPECIAL MEETING & THE SEPTEMBER 24.2001 REGULAR MEETING Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of September 20th, seconded by Ald. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of September 24 h, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Plat of Consolidation at 2735 Sheridan Road Ald. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Ald. Newman. Ald. New•rnan asked for an explanation for this request. Mr. Paul Shadle, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, representing the owner. He explained that this is a three lot subdivision with two lots along Sheridan Road and a third lot accessible via Isabella Street. He said the plan is to expand the existing house to the south on lot # I onto lot 92. Ald. Newman asked if this expansion will be visible from Sheridan Road. Mr. Shadle answered that the property is well screened. The purpose of the consolidation is not so much for the house expansion, however it is to clean up all the easements and make sure they appear in one place and on one single plat. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 95-0-01 — Authorizine the Citv Manaeer to Enter into a Real Estate Contract for the Sale of Property at 1816 Darrow Avenue Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 95-0-01. Ald. Newman questioned some of the scenarios where there are monthly payments listed at 7% mortgage interest rate. He said with an ARM mortgage, the interest rate could be reduced to 5.7 — 6 % or less resulting in a much lower monthly payment amount. He pointed out that the figures listed in the memorandum will again be questioned as to whether or not this is truly Pd:D Committee tttg. Minutes of to, 68.oI Page 2 affordable housing. However, he does agree that this house selling at S175.000 would definite classiN it to be in the affordable housing price range. Mr. Wolinski stated that staff has done a lot of research on this based on the questions Council raised at the last meeting. He noted out that staff tried to present different scenarios according to down payment amounts at different income levels and the monthly expense at 30-35% of the applicant's disposable income. He said that staff also looked at the average value of homes sold in the 5 h ward over the past 3 years. The values varied from 1999 at S 176,000 to 2001 at S 181.000 and these are for homes that range from 50-75 years old. He pointed out that for S175.000 the applicants are offering new construction. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (P3) Ordinance 106-0-01 — Revision to Sian District at Church Street Plaza Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 106-0-0I, seconded by Aid Newman. Aid. Newman asked for clarification regarding the revision because it first reads for Church Street PIaza. then refers to signage for 909 Davis Street (address for McDougal Littel building and the Hilton Garden Hotel. Ms. Smith explained that the Church Street Plaza is the comprehensive sign district that was established last year and both of these buildings are incorporated into that district. Aid. Newman said that it is hard to figure this out the way the agenda sheet reads and without pictures. With regards to the Hilton, Mr. Henry Funkenbusch informed the Committee that they w-ant to add signage to the canopy because of the visibility for people coming down Niaple Avenue. Aid. Newman agreed that visibility is difficult from that point. With regards to the McDougal Little building, Ms. Smith explained that the origin of the signage is based on the previously approved district adopted for the Pavilion building where they allow blade signs and pedestrian level wall signs for retail store fronts. She continued that the sign district was always inclusive of this property, however at the time of approval of the original comprehensive plan. the 909 Davis building was not finished being designed. Additional, there are 2 free standing signs as a part of this sign program, one on Church and the other at the entrance of the gates to the driveway/turnaround. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 103-0-01 — Special Use and Variances for 1717 Benson Avenue. Second Baptist Church Chaimum Kent acknowledged the group of representatives present on behalf of this project, recalling that there was no representative at the Committee's last meeting. At that time, this item was voted on and referred back to Committee for discussion. Mr. Domingo Tiu, Campbell Tiu Campbell Architects, Inc., recalled that at their last meeting with City officials when presenting this project, there were four (4) major items of concern that were discussed. He noted that the main item of concern was with the parking variance and mentioned and informed the Committee that the Church has trade an agreement with the City of Evanston's Parking Systems to lease 20 spaces at the 18W Maple Avenue garage. Aid. Newman asked about where the currently required 45 spaces are located. Mr. Bob Reese, representative from Second Baptist Church, pointed that their patrons currently park in front of the church, in the Cidcorp parking lot, the garage, the Evanston Bank & Trust parking lot and in the lot at CIark & Benson. He said that P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10 08 01 Page 3 they have an agreement «ith all of these locations to use their lots on Sunday. Aid. Wynne pointed out that in the next few }ears the entire block where Evanston Bank & Trust will be under redevelopment except for the corner where the bank is located. She mentioned that this could cause a possible parking problem with the banks lot during that time, especially while the new parking garage is under construction. Mr. Reese responded that the church only uses a few of those spaces every Sunday, therefore he does not see the loss of those parking spaces as detrimental. 1*1r. Wolinski pointed out that an important factor here is that much of the parking for the church is grandfathered in with the lack of parking. He said the proposed addition under the ordinance, requires the applicant to provide 17 spaces. He directed the Committee's attention to the copy they received of the letter from Mr. William Jackson, Trustee of Second Baptist Church, verifying there agreement with the City to least 20 spaces at the 1800 Maple garage for a minimum of 24 months, hopefully renewable if needed. He said that these leased spaces covers their requirement for the new addition. Aid. Newman pointed out that the Church would have to lease these spaces out indefinitely, otherwise they do not meet the parking requirement. Discussion ensued regarding the required parking spaces needed for the addition and the leasing of the 20 spaces. Mr. Wolinski mentioned that traditionally, such parking leases tun from 2-10 years. Nevertheless, the applicant should supply the required parking for the addition. The Committee discussed this and agreed that the applicant should continue to lease spaces to cover the required 17 spaces for the addition. Aid. Newman moved to amend the ordinance to include as a condition that the applicant must maintain the leased 20 spaces to fulfill the required 17 parking spaces for the addition. He said that it appears that the applicant is willing to satisfy this requirement. Mr. Wolinski added that this is also a showing of good faith on the applicant's part. Aid. Newman stressed that the provision of providing the 20 spaces after the 24-month lease agreement concludes, would be a requirement/condition of the ordinance. It will be the applicant's responsibility to provide these spaces by either renewing their lease with the City at the 1800 Maple Avenue garage or another garage or parking lot available at that time. Ms. Szymanski drew the Committee's attention to Section #3, item C in the ordinance where it pertains to the requested variation reducing the required number of parking spaces from 17 to zero (0). She pointed out that the applicant has applied for this variation, as stated on the cover sheet and recommended to the Committee that this section needs to be either amended or deleted. Ald. Newman agreed and modified his amendment to the ordinance to delete item C in Section #3 and add the condition to the Special use that'the applicant will maintain the 17 spaces. Aid. Wynne recalled from discussion at the last meeting that one of the critical issues that was raised was with regards to the garbage disposal in the rear alley and providing the proper amount of dumpsters in a secure location and sufficient disposal pick ups. She pointed out that the Committee has not received much information on this issue except from what was stated on the cover sheet that the Health Department requests further consideration by the Council on the issue of waste disposal because of the curmt problems existing in that alley. She asked for staffs opinion or suggestions regarding this matter and if there has been any follow up discussion. Mr. Wolinski responded that P&D Committee Sltg. Minutes of 10 08 01 Page 4 to his knowledge. he is unaware of any follow up discussion from Cite staff that deals with this problem and that his staff has not vet received any information of any decisions. His understanding is that the issue was there was no evidence of sufficient location for the dumpsters on the church property. He suggested to the Committee that they could add a condition that states the approval of the ordinance is subject to Site Plan & Appearance Rc%iew Committee's review of the dumpster issue. Ms. Barry stated that it is her belief that the issue/problem is not with this applicant in general, but more so with the whole issue of dealing with the waste disposal and dumpsters in that particular alley and would like to see addressed somehow within and beginning with this applicadon. Mr. Tiu informed that as they move forward with this project and finalize the plans, he assured that they will address this issue and provide for a proper location within the confines of the church propem• line. Mr. Wolinski added that the final plans still must go through final site plan review and approval. Ald. Newman reminded the fact that there remains an existing problem with garbage disposal in that alley and that the church does provide a food service several times during the week. He stressed the importance that the applicant address this issue within the finalization of their plans to help eliminate the existing waste management problems in that alley. He recalled that it was pointed out previously that the applicant expressed some difficulty %ith insufficient space to provide for the dumpsters in their plans. Mr. Tiu responded that since that time, they have reexamined their plans and assures that they will be able to make provisions for a proper location for their dumpsters within the building addition. With no further discussion, Aid. Newman restated his motion to amend the ordinance to delete item C in Section #3 of the ordinance and incorporate the condition that the church will maintain the additional 17 spaces with the special use. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. Aid. Newman seconded Aid. Wynne's original motion to approve Ordinance 1_03-0- 01 with the amendment. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. COMMUNICATIONS Staff memorandum reeardine P&D Special Meetine with ZBA & Plan Commission Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff has been trying to schedule a date for the joint meeting of P&D, ZBA and the Plan Commission. Staff felt it essential that both Chairs for the ZBA and Plan Commission should be present for the meeting. He said that _ it has become aware the original date of October 29th that was suggested at the last meeting is not possible because one of the Chairs is not available for that evening. He asked the Committee to entertain the possibility of looking at a date in November with the possible City Council off -dates on the 5th, the 19th or the 26th. The consensus of the Committee was to try and schedule the date of November loth. the Monday before Thanksgiving. Mr. Wolinski asked for a second alternative date. The Committee suggested the following Monday on November 26th. Mr. Wolinski noted that the current Plan Commission Chair is John Lyman, however the rotating Chair by the chosen dates will be Mr. Cook. The ZBA Chair is Mr. Norwell. Staff will corroborate with the noted Chairs of both boards first and will report back to the Committee with a confirmed date 7 P&D Commince Lttg Minutes of 10 08 0I Page 5 for the joint meeting. Aid. Ne% man reminded staff to compile information from both boards on various variance language and ether Zoning Ordinance language concerns to be addressed at the meeting. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) A reference considering a nolicv for communicating potential changes affecting zoning anolicants Mr. Wolinski stated that this reference was made to begin looking at the issue in the ordinance regarding the required communication of potential zoning changes for the neighborhood. He said that staff has provided this information to the Committee in a matrix and he suggested that they review stabs memorandum and look at any issues or concerns with the way the ordinance currently reads. Aid. Newman said that in his opinion the issue is with the amendment area. He said that it seems there needs to be more notice when amendments are made that notably changes how a person will be able to use their property. He used as an example of zoning district changes such as C1 to 116; according to the ordinance there is no mailing requirement. He asked the difference between the mailing requirement and practice. Mr. Wolinski responded that when there is an issue that staff knows of that is going to have a lot of community interest, even though the ordinance requirement is for only a newspaper notification, staff will take the position to go beyond that and do a mailing notice or if a special notification communication is requested by the Board. Aid. Newman feels that they need to further look at the notification process for amendments because there is no real notice requirement for these changes, which can be significant for a property owner and neighborhood. He referred to the listing regarding "Amendments - Map & Text; Initiated by private party & property specific" as the item that needs further review. Ms. Anderson asked how many of these situations are likely to result in a PUD going on the new recommended zoning, which would require 1000' notification_ She agrees that if a property is going from commercial to residential, it is very important that neighbors receive notice and the opportunity to speak on the matter. Aid. Wynne expressed her constant disagreement with the amount of notice time of 10 working days. She stressed that this time frame is not sufficient enough time for a typical concerned neighbor or group of neighbors to gather information and address their issues. Aid. Newman pointed out that they are given the opportunity to go to the Commission and request more time for their presentation. Aid. Wynne recognizes that fact, however the typical homeowner is unaware of this and is usually unaware of the customary process from beginning to end with zoning cases and applications. She pointed out that if you have the advantage of possessing a legal background such as herself and other Committee members, 10 days is ample time for preparation to present a case in opposition and to address any concerns. However, she reiterated that 10 days is not ample time for the typical homeowner or neighborhood group to collect all the information needed for their preparation. She noted that she is referring to the trailing requirement, not the posting of the property or newspaper notice. his. Anderson agreed with Aid. Wynne's concern with insufficient mailing notification time and recalled many Pal] Committer .ttg. Minutes of M08.01 Page 6 instances of where affected neighbors of zoning changes complained of receiving notices within days before hearings were scheduled to take place. She also noted that the notices received are very brief any lack pictures or adequate information to actually comprehend what zoning changes are being proposed. John {a citizen of the 5th ward} also agreed with the mailing notices received and their lack of comprehensible information. He feels that many citizens are unaware that the mailing is an actual notice of a zoning change that will effect their property because it appears as bulk mailing information and is usually tossed aside and unread. He also mentioned that most citizens are not aware of where to look in the Evanston Review for zoning notifications. He suggested that consideration be given to providing a more visible location in the Review for notices. From further discussion, the Committee tried to get a sense of the time expansion from the time an applicant is denied and then proceeds on to the zoning variation application process, review and preparation by the zoning staff, date set for the zoning heating and when the notice requirement process is required. Ald. Newman pointed out the fairness issue for the big developer versus the regular taxpaying citizen and how the time flame and zoning application process effects differently for each party. He suggested looking at the total zoning application time frame before considering making any amendment to the notice policy. In general, he feels that their notice requirements are fair and seem to work in most cases. Ald. Wynne proposed the consideration of looking at changing most of the notice requirements from 10 to 15 working days. She suggested to staff that she would be interested in seeing an analysis of the time frame and the effects that 5 additional working days would do to the process. Mr. Woiinski suggested to the Committee that no changes be considered from the current notice requirement to the newspaper because this particular notice has a required time frame to be published in the paper before the date of the zoning hearing. The Committee members agreed with this. Ald. Newman asked Ald. Wynne which activity types she would like to see changed from the 10 day notice requirement to 15 days. She indicated the majority of the activity types listed. In conclusion of the Committee's discussion, Mr. Wolinski pointed out that any request made by the Committee to review any suggested amendments to the Zoning Ordinance notice requirements, would have to be a reference to the Plan Commission for their examination and analysis and report back to the Committee. The Committee members agreed to forward their aforementioned items requested for review, for staff to reference to the Plan Commission. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to address, the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C\_ f-AL e - " L ; . � ' _.L_ Jacgheline E. Brownlee 1%1I UTES Planning & Development Committee November 19, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: A. Alterson, J. Burdick:, M. Mylott, J. Wolinski Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 6:14 p.m. ITEM FOR COtiSIDERATION Planned Develonmeut: 800 Elgin Road Paul Shadle with Piper, Rudnick, et. al. presented a summary of the proposed development. He explained that the development would consist of a 149,000 square foot building that would include a parking garage with 550 parking spaces. Mr. Shadle informed the Committee that SPARC granted concept approval for the project at one of their meetings in March of 2001. On October 10, 2001, the Plan Commission recommended that the plan not be approved. The Plan Commission stated specific concerns as to u-hy they did not approve the plan. Mr. Shadle addressed these concerns. The Plan Commission wished to see ground floor retail along the Clark Street side of the building. Mr. Shadle explained that the developer, Prentiss Properties, believes this is not a good location for retail. Mr. Shadle asked the Committee to approve the proposed plan with a condition that 2,500 square feet of retail space be permitted, but not required. The Plan Commission also wanted the developer to explore the option of shifting the building tourer to the south on the property. However, the architect for the developer felt that this would not work from both an aesthetic and functional point of view. Finally, Mr. Shadle explained that the Plan Commission wanted the developer to assure the City that the light emitting from the tower would not be obtrusive to the surrounding properties. Alderman Newman stated that he would be willing to take all necessary steps to eliminate this lighting concern, including the installation of louvers on the fa*c of the parking garage. Dan Cushing of Prentiss Properties stated that the developers do not want to be obtrusive, however, the City and the developer need to agree on what the appropriate light level would be. Alderman Newman stated that he would like to see language stating that the developer would take all necessary steps to assure that the P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of 1119'01 Page 2 lighting from the building would not be obtrusive. fir. Cushing asked Mr. Newman how it could be assured that everyone is satisfied with the level of light emitted from the building. Alderman Newman explained that he would be looking for the installation of louvers as an option in the language. Alderman Bernstein stated that the City has an ordinance that regulates Ievels of light. Alderman Newman expressed concern that the level of light would be greater from a five -story building than from a surface parking lot. Steve Wright, the architect for the project, illustrated how the light from this garage would be different than the light from the Maple Avenue Garage. He explained that the lights from the Maple Avenue Garage shine out. This garage will be built with pre -cast double Ts that will block some light emission. Furthermore, the lights in this garage will be opaque on the side, forcing the light to shine down into the garage. Alderman Newman again requested that language be included stating that all necessary steps be taken to mitigate light issues. Mr. Cushing asked what these steps would be based on, a single neighbor complaining? Alderman Newman asked Mr. Cushing why he wouldn't want to install louvers. Mr. Cushing stated that they are not attractive and are expensive. Alderman Bernstein asked the developer to present pictures of what the opening of the garage would look like. Mr. Wright depicted these openings using the drawings of the building. He explained that if louvers were used, the garage would have to be lit for the entire day. Alderman Wynne asked when the lights of the garage would be on. Mr. Cushing said they would be on 24 hours, 7 days a week. Alderman Wynne noted that the lights at People's Market are a good example of lights that shine down as opposed to out. Alderman Newman stated that if the tower were not moved to the south, then the obligation of the developer towards the residential neighbors would increase. Alderman Wynne asked what the standard is for exterior lighting that would cause the developer to take all the necessary steps to mitigate lighting concerns. She explained that the developer is looking for a specific standard. Alderman Newman said that the best solution would be to tell them to louver the garage right now. Alderman Bernstein replied that there are exterior lighting standards that currently exist. Chairman Kent _ asked the developers when they would get to a point that they determined that they have tried everything and would settle with installing the louvers. Mr. Wright said that they would mock the situation to determine what measures would be needed. There may be a need for a larger number of smaller fixtures as opposed to.a fewer number of larger fixtures. Mr. Shadle summarized the zoning relief issues in effect for this project: r 1.) Elimination of the ziggurat setback 2.) Increase the allowable height from 85 feet to 95 feet 3.) Exclusion of first floor street retail Mr. Shadle explained that this project would generate significant economic benefits to the City. He referenced an impact analysis done by Camiros that estimated S886,000 annually. Larry Okrent from Okrent Associates presented this project from a planned development P&D Committee Meeting Minutes of 1 I:19 01 Page 3 perspective. He stated that there are no issues related to the height and setback variations. However, the ground floor retail issue was a big discussion at the Plan Commission meeting. as was the issue of moving the tower to the southern portion of the property. Mr. Okrent stated that this property, especially the part adjacent to Elgin Road, is an important envy%&ay into downtown. Building the tower along Elgin Road will create an edge coming into downtown. Alderman Kent asked where the lights along the pedestrian portions of the site would be. Mr. Wright replied that Ballard lighting would be installed along the walkways and this lighting would be directed toward the ground. Mr. Okrent went on to explain that the upper floors of the tower would have a lake view if the tower remains where it is proposed. This will affect the value of the building. He also stated that taller buildings tend to be located along wider streets, such as Elgin Road. This creates a foreground for the building. Mr. Okrent explained that there would be some ground floor along Elgin Road. He stated that ground floor retail is not always successful in creating life on the street. He passed around pictures of poor examples of ground floor retail in Evanston. He explained that instead of ground floor retail being located along Clark Street and Benson Avenues, the developer is offering to create display cases to showcase local art. He stated that this is a serious proposal and that the developers would maintain this display, if they don't the value of the building would lower. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that the ordinance requires that the PIan be utilized when reviewing planned developments. There is a section dealing with art in the Plan and this proposal meets the objectives outlined in this section. Alderman Wynne asked what the distance of the art display would be along Clark Street. Mr. Wright answered 120 feet. She then asked how these displays would be administered. Mr. Shadle said that as part of the planned development, an agreement could be made that the developers maintain the art displays. Alderman Newman stated that retail development along Clark Street should not be an economic issue for the City. It will be an economic issue for the developer, who is already providing parking for the City. He also stated that existing retail has not been successful in this area and adding more would be a risky venture for the developer. He stated that he is open to a well - maintained art display. Alderman Engelman stated that an art display would activate the street and he believes that the developer has the ability and the resources to maintain the art display. Alderman Bernstein asked how the window displays would be accessed Mr. Wright stated that they would be accessed from within the parking garage. Alderman Newman requested language in the approval that guarantees a high level of maintenance of the art displays. He stated that consultation with the Arts Council would be needed. Alderman Bernstein stated that he would not be comfortable with these displays housing advertisements. Alderman Engelman made a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance overriding the Plan Commission ruling and recommending the City Council approve the planned development, work with the Arts Council to include language regarding the administration of the arts display, and work with Alderman Newman regarding lighting standards. Alderman Wynne seconded the motion. Dorra.ine Anderson, a member of the P&D Committee Meeting ` Minutes of I V 19:01 Page 3 audience, asked Chairman Kent if there could be public input before a vote was taken. Chairman Kent replied yes. but there was no one signed up to speak. The rest of the Committee agreed that it Would be a good idea to hear from the public before they voted. Members of the audience offered their continents regarding the proposal: Dorraine Anderson: Ms. Anderson informed the Committee that it was also suggested at the October 10, 2001 Plan Commission meeting that the developer set back the tower half way on the site to help mitigate light concerns. John Macai: Mr. Macai informed the Committee that he was the architect of Evanston Place. He said that he visited neighbors of the garage in his development and realized that the light situation was unbearable for them. He installed louvers. John Harmon: Mr. Harmon asked the developers how traffic would be affected by this development, Mr. Cushing responded that KLOA performed a traffic study regarding the project and that there would only be a right in/right out onto Elgin Road. Debbie Hillman: Ms. Hillman asked what the sidewalk widths would be along the development. Mr. Wright said that they would be 10 and 15 feet. Ann Diener: Ms. Diener asked if the parking garage would be opened 24 hours/7 days a week. Mr. Cushing said that it would. Alderman Newman reiterated the fact that he believed that this project would provide a significant economic benefit to the City. The vote was 5-0 in favor of Alderman Engelman's motion. JOINT P&D COMMITTEE. ZBA, PLAN COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Kent requested that the meeting start with introductions of each of the board members. After the introductions, the meeting was open to questions or continents. Alderman Newman stated that he %%as concerned about ZBA cases where there is no opposition to the requested variation, yet the applicant is still struggling to meet the standards outlined in the ordinance in order to get ZBA approval. He asked the members of ZBA if the language of the ordinance should change so that an uncontested variance request would not bog down ZBA by making them have to prove the request against standards. He felt that many of these standards are difficult to meet. ZBA member Barbara Puna stated that the recent change that was made to the language has given ZBA more direction. ZBA member Mary Koberswin stated that she believes that the amount J • P&D Committee Stetting Minutes of i trig of Page 5 of support or the lack of opposition to a variance should cam little Height in regards to ZBA's review of a request. There are many reasons why people support their neighbors or why they fail to publicly oppose them. She would not like to see language in the ordinance that states that if there is no opposition, then the variance should be passed. Alderman Bernstein asked staff if an applicant receives any information about how to meet these standards prior to appearing before the ZBA. Arthur Alterson explained that the variance application informs the applicant of the fact the standards would have to be met. Alderman Engelman stated that it is the job of the ZBA to use the ordinance as a means to protect the integrity of Evanston and its neighborhoods and that he would prefer not to give these boards wide latitude. John Lyman, the Chair of the Plan Commission, explained that the Plan Commission voted against the 800 Elgin Road project because of specific issues. However the Plan Commission did want to see this project completed. Associate Plan Commission member Sharon Feigon stated that political expedience is not needed for a project such as this. She felt that the project should have been further scrutinized by the Committee so that the applicant would be forced to design a better project and the community would be better in the long run. Aldc*man Nevrman explained that there is a contrast between the ZBA and the Plan Commission. For variance cases, the ZBA is the final authority. Therefore, the ZBA should not have to struggle with language in the ordinance that the City Council created. Plan Commission member Alice Rebechini used tonight's 800 Elgin Road case as an example of an instance where the Plan Commission gave a very specific recommendation that could have been met if the applicant was forced to return to the Plan Commission for a second time. The economic realties do not dictate a need for this project to go through the process quickly. She believes that there is the time for the developer to do a better job with the design of the overall project and that lately, the Plan Commission's objection to a project has been bypassed by the City Council. Alderman Bernstein countered that the City would derive more tax revenue from a developed parcel than from an undeveloped parcel, regardless of whether the space within the building is leased. Alderman Newrnan stated that the developers believed that specific tenants would look elsewhere if their specific timefiames were not met. Ann Diener, an associate member of the Plan Commission, stated that because of expediency, many attractive developments are being built in Evanston, especially in the downtown. Plan Commission member Steve Knutson stated that the City would get more revenue in the long run from a really good building. ZBA member Greg Norwell asked the aldermen if the ZBA should ask for specific figures when a developer uses the term `not economically feasible' in explaining that a standard cannot be met. Alderman Bernstein explained that for larger projects, analysis is usually done regarding economic feasibility. Alderman Engelman believed that each board should be able tb get the financial figures of a project from the developer. If the developer would not provide this information, then that would tell you something about that developer. P&D Commirtee Meeting Minutes of 1 II9/O1 Page 6 John Lyman expressed the need for higher multifamily residential parking requirements. He believes that the current lax requirements will negatively effect the City in the future. Alderman Newman countered with the possibility of these greater requirements negatively effecting the affordable housing components of these new developments. Steve Knutson stated that the affordable housing units could be exempt from the multi- family parking regulations. Alderman Wynne asked the boards where Binding Appearance review was in the approval process. She also stated that she was appreciative that the Plan Commission has become more critical of projects. She explained that it is difficult for the City Council to determine how hard to push a developer and that the Council relies on the Plan Commission's expertise. Plan Commission member Richard Cook said that the third meeting to approve the final draft of Binding Appearance Review would be tomorrow morning and that it has been a very slow process. John Lyman stated that even if Binding Appearance Review were put in place, many design questions would still not be answered and questioned how hard the review would be enforced. Plan Commission member Larry Widmayer explained that because the Plan Commission meets in the evening, it receives more public input than does the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, which meets in the afternoon. He believes that letting issues such as parking slide will negatively affect developments in the future. If low- income units become an exemption from parking requirements, then those units should remain Iow income for a long period of time. John Leman explained that the Plan Commission is the first step for public input. If Binding Review is approved, then it should occur after there has been significant public input. Associate Plan Commission member Jeanne Lindwall stated that the developer should get to the public input part of the review sooner. Jim Wolinski explained that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee was originally just a site plan review committee. There was no architectural review at all for a period of time. This process worked fine until the City experienced a large number of planned developments. The projects that were not planned developments would not appear before Plan Commission and would therefore not receive public comments. Mr. Wolinski stated that there usually is not much of a difference between SPARC and Plan Commission comments, except for 1930 Ridge Avenue. He explained that many developers are stating that the land costs are driving up their density requirements. However, these private developers should be asked what their rate of return would be. Alderman Newman asked if there was something in the ordinance stating that SPARC review must occur before Plan Commission review. Mr. Wolinski explained that the original intent of SPARC was to provide information to the developer regarding projects from all relevant City departments. Audience member Dorraine Anderson stated that at one time, the City was considering having two distinct groups — one to review site plans and one to review appearance. She believes that the City Council should consider the advantages of this. Alderman Bernstein requested that the members of the boards assist with a potential P&D Committee 4Seeting Minutes of 11/19 01 Page 7 project in his ward. The school district building at 13) 4 Ridge Avenue will be redeveloped. In order for the school district to maximize its profit, the City has to provide some sense of what is developable on that property. Alderman Bernstein believes that the school district would benefit by getting potential developers to bid higher by letting them know that a high profile and profitable project could be constructed on that site. He informed the members that a meeting would be held on December 13 to provide the district with acceptable development ideas. He stated that the property is zoned Rl. Plan Commission member Doug Doetsch stated that the Plan Commission and/or City Council should make some sort of decision as to what they want to see developed on this property. Barbara Putts requested that some of the points listed on the agenda for this meeting be discussed. She expressed concern with the point regarding the monitoring of compliance with landscaping requirements. She stated that many landscape plans are not be followed by the developer or are not being maintained. She stated that other cities inspect a - development's landscaping to make sure that it is being maintained and that it is in compliance with the approved landscape plan. Alderman Newman requested that staff review landscape plans from the past five years and inspect to make sure that they are being adhered to, Mr. Wolinski explained that the City does not have the staff resources or time to do such a large amount of inspections. He explained that property standards issues take precedence. Alderman Newman asked Richard Cook if he passed out the university parking requirement study to the Plan Commission. Richard Cook explained that he did not have that study, but would pass it out at the next Plan Commission meeting. John Lyman stated that this is a sensitive issue and that if it is followed through, then Northwestern should not be made to go through a series of subcommittees. Alderman Berstein stated that they should have to go through the same process that everyone else does, the City should not treat the University differently. Alderman Newman summarized the topics that were discussed and that should be explored fiirther: Extend multi -family parking requirement discussion Get a response regarding landscaping from staff - Require Plan Commission members to serve on SPARC. This item should be placed on the next Planning and Development Committee meeting agenda. The Plan Commission executive committee should talk about this issue. (Marc Mylott informed Alderman Newman that the mayor could appoint people onto SPARC). - The Zoning Board of Appeals should come up with language regarding variances and send this language to the City Council. The City Council will commit to act on this language within 90 days. Mary Koberstein stated that last month someone bought a piece of property and thought it was zoned for a certain number of units, but it turned out it was not. She requested that the City Council consider having people receive a zoning certificate in conjunction with purchasing stamps for deeds of transfer of property so people get certification as to how h•r- P&D Committee Mining Minutes of 11/19/01 Page 8 many legal dwelling units will be permitted on a piece of property. Alderman Newman suggested that this be placed on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �11XdJ.c� Jeffrey Burdick r MINUTES Planning & Development Committee November 12, 2001 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent, A. Newman. A. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Engelman Staff' Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello. A. Alterson. M. Barry, P. Haynes, D. Jennings. E. Sz}manski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. He requested that due to the amount of people signed up to speak, that each person keep their comments brief and non -redundant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 8.2001 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of October 8th, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. The regularly scheduled meeting of October 22nd was cancelled. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Special Use for 519 Main Street — Starbucks Chairman Kent announced that he would allow the applicant to give their presentation first, citizen comments second and Committee deliberations last. Mr. John Malarkv, Attorney representing the developer, Legacy Development (Starbucks) gave a summary of events concerning this application. He explained that Starbucks has applied for a special use permit for a type 2 restaurant and at the Zoning Board hearings they discussed different problems that would occur as a result. He noted that a number of people recently were concerned with a competition between other stores in the neighborhood, however they have now focused more on the traffic and litter problems. He acknowledged the individuals in attendance on behalf of his client, Mr. Michael Werthmann with KLOA Traffic Consultants, Mr. Keith Stewart with Starbucks, Ms. Shelly Gazlay of Sarfatty Architects, Mr. Warren Barr from Legacy Development and Mr. Bill Smith, Director of GreatBank. He said that they have had two traffic reports done, one by Metro and the other by KLOA. He noted that in the second study they assumed facts that were the most harsh for Starbucks which Mr. Werthmann and Mr. Kenig discussed those issues with Mr. Dave Jennings. Mr. Malarky said that they came N- 1 P&D Committee 4ttg_ %linwes of I I 12 01 Page 2 to a conclusion on %%ays in which to resolve the traffic problems. which are listed in the memorandum dated Niareh 22. 2001 from KLOA to .%tr. Warren Barr. He distributed this memorandum to the Committee (Attachment A) and read the worse case scenarios, findings and recommendations and the conclusions listed in the memo. He noted that at the time of this study. both Mr. Jennings and Mr. Kenig agreed on these recommendations. However since that time. Mr. Jennings has discovered certain situations of concern that differ from the time of the study that need to be taken into consideration. He spoke with Mr. Jennings this morning, who informed him that there are 3 situations that have developed since the time of the study. which are listed in his memorandum dated today to fir. James Wolinski (attachment B). At this time, he requested that the representative from KLOA give further detail on the parking issues. 1fr. Michael Werthmann, informed the Committee that his partner, Mr. Neil Kenig, worked with Mr. Jennings on this traffic study which KLOA has been involved in since January 2001. He explained that Mr. Kenig could not be here for personal reasons, however, he did work with him on this project. Aid. Wynne requested a copy of the traffic study. Mr. Werthmann referred to the memorandum dated March 22" j, which outlines the traffic study done and discussed with Mr. Jennings. He noted that Mr. Jennings concerns appear to be with the parking situation more than the traffic. He said that unique characteristics regarding Starbucks, «'trite Hens and other similar in -and -out establishments that the majority of the traffic is pass -by or diverted traffic versus destination traffic. Therefore, they felt that the traffic generated would not be new traffic to the area. He said that the second characteristic of Starbucks is that they generate their most amount of traffic during the morning peak hours and falls off dramatically after this time. He feels that with additional green time for the traffic signal at the intersection, would help accommodate the additional traffic. He noted that all the numbers they used in their study were based on an actual survey that they did at the Dempster Starbucks on a Friday and Saturday in January. He said that they also conducted interview surveys on the customer's means of travel. He said from this study they developed a good understanding of the Starbucks characteristics for Evanston and based on this, they determined the volume of tmfi'ic and the peak parking demand that would be generated by the Main Street store. Mr. Werthmann said that they were very conservative in the fact that they did not assume that this new Starbucks would take any patronage from the existing Starbucks. He further explained the basis of their traffic study as listed under number 5 in the KLOA memorandum. He noted that the additional 12 parking spaces will assist with the parking concerns and also the recommendation for 20 minutes meters on Main Street. He feels that these adjustments will be adequate for the parking space demand during Starbuck's peak hours, even on Saturdays. However, he does agree that parking will be tight at times, especially on Saturday's but they feel there is sufficient parking there and the traffic can be accommodated with some modifications to the location. He stated that KLOA has been working with Mr. Jennings and will continue to work with him on the remaining issues. Ms. Sheltie Gazlav, with Sarfatty Architects. Ltd., said that she is the project manager for this project. She noted that her firm has worked with Starbucks on several projects in the area. They assisted the developer last year in finding this location, therefore they are 4 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1112 01 Pace 3 very conscious with the design of the but;ding itself. She gave details of the store location and proposed layout for Starbuck=. She noted that in view of taking into consideration the immediate vicinity. they ha%e eliminated the plans for provision of their outdoor cafd as originally proposed. She said, that the site provides for approximately 2200 square feet allowing for 40 seats, which they do not anticipate to be in full use during morning peak hours. however these Beatings would mostly be used during the early evening hours when people are more likely to sit and socialize. She explained where the serving area would be located as well as "here the back supporting areas would be and where garbage and refuge would be situated. Ms. Gazlay noted that this location would facilitate the typical Starbucks operation. which is known for its sophistication and upmarket character. She pointed out from the diagram in looking at the front elevation of the building that the% address the fact that the building had a lot of consideration with architectural detailing in that they have not changed the facing and have molded into the what has already been approved by the Site Plan Committee. Ald. Wynne raised her concern for the generator box that is located in the vicinity where Starbucks had proposed to locate their outdoor cafe and the already existing complaints and confinement for pedestrian traffic. She can not see where this could have ever been considered for adequate space to locate an outdoor cafe by the Site Plan Committee. Ms. Gazlay reiterated that they have eliminated the outdoor cafe proposal but did discuss landscaping plans for that area that would keep within the property line and not encroach on the public right-of-way. However, she pointed out where they propose to compliment their space for the existing building and have not done anything to distract from the approved building development area. Aid. Wynne asked about the location proposed to provide for parking in the garage and for employee parking. tits. Gazlay explained that there is an alley adjacent to the site and they are proposing to furnish 4 parking spaces designated for employee parking only. Customer parking will be provided from the alley used for the drive -through banking facility and also Starbucks is arranging with the City to purchase off -site parking. She added that it is her understanding that a majority of Starbucks employees use public transportation and will have no need for parking. Ms. Heather Steingrubal of 510 Kedzie. asked if there is a convenient entrance to the store from the parking spaces provided for the employees. Ms. Gazlay responded that there is a stairway entrance from the rear of the stores off the alley, however she does not believe Us will be used for employee access and that they will presumably have to walk down the alley and enter the store from the front. There is no back entrance into the specific location of this store. Mr. Keith Stewart. Community Relations Manager for Starbucks, informed the Committee that he was bom and raised in Evanston and has lived in the Chicago/Dempster neighborhood area for some time. Therefore, he feels fortunate to declare his knowledge of the area and is also a pedestrian who uses the Mara for transportation to and from work. He recalled comments that have been made regarding Starbucks known recognition for its community involvement and their reputation for being a good neighbor to their surrounding vicinity. He affirmed those assertions to be true for all their locations including Evanston. He stated that if they are granted this special use, they have a long history in Evanston since 1993 that they can stand on their behalf. He noted that they have several relationships with non -far -profit organizations P&D Committee '.fig. Minutes of 11 12 41~ Page 4 here in Evanston that can testify on behalf of their support. lie said that the price for providing a police officer at the Main Street location has been worked into the store operation expenditures and will support that position into perpetuity: at this point for 3-6 months and will analyze this after that time to see if that is something that they need to continue to do. He reiterated the previous comments made regarding Starbucks pledge to apply for parking spaces in the lot that's lc -aced on 'Main Street and Hinman as part of the normal process with their application. Mr. Stewart stated that they anticipate needing no more than 24 spaces in accordance %kith comparison to their other store locations in Evanston because most of their employees are usually students and pan -time individuals. He boasted the fact that even for their part-time employees. Starbucks provides the same full package benefits as full-time employees. Aid. Newman questioned what the proposed police officer's duties will be; is he going to be required to enforce double -parker violations. direct and protect pedestrian traffic, etc.? Mr. Stewart responded that one of the main concerns expressed by the neighbors was the effect of illegal parking in front of and next to the store. He noted that they plan to employ the police officer during the peak times which actually occur between 7-10 a.m. to enforce parking restrictions as well as making sure that the alley is clear and patrolling clear and free access for pedestrian traffic, especially school age children on their way to school during those times. Aid. Bernstein mentioned that his experience with attitude modification is that you can't change attitudes for an extended period of time, i.e., it may work for 3-6 months however it is typical that this mode will change after that time and will probably be needed for regular expanded periods beyond this time frame. He recalled Mr. Stewart's comment in regards to this being in perpetuity and questions if they are committed to this if it is required. fir. Stewart responded that if the City can lay out a plan or agreement with regards to required enforcement, they would be willing to abide by any such arrangement as they see tit for this location. Aid. Bernstein referred to the transcript where it states that the reason for situating this Starbucks location 4 blocks from the Dempster location was to be able to serve their customers more effetiently. He asks what he envisions to happen to the Dempster location in relation to the Main Street store because he assumes that they will not be serving the same clients. He also assumed that if this store was not going to increase their business many folds. Starbucks would not be pursuing this application. He also asked if they have done any demographic studies µith respect to the changes that mill occur with the Dempster Street location versus the addition of the Main Street location. Mr. Stewart first agreed with Aid. Bernstein on his summation with the projected increase in business along with the Dempster Street location because of its desired location in proximity to public transportation and heavy pedestrian business. However. they do hope for a balance in clientele to occur between the two locations and that some of the overflow with the Dempster Street location will actually move down to the Main Street location. Aid. Wynne recalled the comment made from. the KLOA representative in that most _ people do not use the Starbucks locations as a destination store, which is actually very different from what she has witnessed at the Dempster Street location. She firmly questioned the reliability of the traffic studies done, including the pedestrian interview surveys because there seems to be much contradiction in what has reportedly been P&D Committee %itg. Minutes of 11 12 01 Page S surveyed and what she. as %yell as other neighborhood residents. have witnessed who live in the area and frequent the two intersections everyday. Mr. Werthmann responded to Aid. W.vnne's concerns by explaining that their traffic studies included the worst scenario situations. which in their experience do not occur on a normal basis. He explained in further detail the numbers that are listed under item 5 in their traffic study memorandum. Chairman Kent followed up on a previous questions regarding the proposed police patrol being provided for the morning peak hour times and questioned if they are also proposing to provide this service during the afternoon peak hours when children are most likely to frequent the area during after school hours. Mr. Stewart responded that he did refer mostly to the police patrol being provided during the morning peak hours, however he should have said that they have proposed to provide this service during the peak times for children coming to and from school and actually they are willing to look into providing this service for those times especially, if required. He realizes that the times needed to provide for children's safety in that area is of great importance and reiterated their willingness to provide police patrol during those times, however he also reiterated that 70% of Starbucks business occurs before 11:00 a.m. Chairman Kent stressed his support and strong recommendation as a teacher, that if this application were granted, he would firmly require the condition that police patrol be provided during the before and after school hours for the children's safety. Chairman Kent referred to the sign-up list and citizen continents at this time. Mr. Adam Bizark, raised concern on the statistics mentioned and the average of 80°!o pedestrian clientele that they'assume for this Starbucks location. He felt this number to be considerably high. Ivir. Stewart responded that this high number statistic was based on the close proximity to the public transportation and the high volume of pedestrian traffic that exists in the Main/Chicago area. Ms. Beverly Wright, expressed her concerns for existing parking problems that are in that area and reminded that there will definitely result in higher parking problems with all the additional development that has happened and is continuing to happen in this area She noted all the new condominium development and developments under way that have not been taken into consideration. Ms. Anna Joe Melz, owner of Main Link Cards at 522 Main Street, expressed her concern for the traffic study results and the recommendation to change the meters to 20 minutes. She also asked if the City has looked at moving up the parking meter enforcement to an earlier time. She also questioned if a study was done to see how marry open meter spaces there are at 9:00 am. because having a business on Main Street, she has witnessed that after this time during the week days, the parking seems to be more available and the streets are clearer. Ms. Eileen Katman, 936 Hinman Avenue, expressed her concerns with the off street parking in the alley for the Starbucks employees. She explained the current traffic problems in this alley and feels that this will only add to the situation. She feels that no P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11 /12 O1 Page 6 matter what is negotiated in regards to the parking situation, that in reality and the long tun they will not be abided by and the parking problems will worsen. Mr. Andv SteinRruebl. 510 Kedzie. noted that there are already several fast service stores/restaurants in this area and the addition of Starbucks at this location will only accelerate the parking and traffic problem that currently exist on Main Street. He pointed out that there is the occurrence of available parking on Chicago Avenue, however people still chose to double-park on Main Street and continue to block the alley, which obstructs the traffic flow through this alley and affects the ingress/egress for residents whose garages are also located in this alley. Ms. Maureen .Glasoe, 901 Hinman Avenue, informed the Committee that she has always been very involved in issues concerning the Main/Chicago district and noted her participation in the Chicago Corridor Study project that previously transpired. She is an advent pedestrian who regularly walks to any destination within her neighborhood and community if accessible. therefore feeling eery knowledgeable about any influences that effect her area. She ask that the Committee take into consideration the obvious negative effects that this Starbucks operation will in that area by contributing to the parking and traffic problems that already exist in an increasingly dense residential population. However, she stated that if this application is inevitable to be granted by the City Council, she would stress that every consideration be given to take all neighboring concerns into mind. She stressed that her position still stands in opposition of this application and request the Committee take into consideration the ZBA's recommendation as well as the expressed neighborhood residents opposition. Ms. Gladys 13rver, 550 Sheridan Square, informed the Committee that she is here tonight speaking on behalf of the Public Transportation Committee of the Evanston Interreligious Sustainability Circle. She proceeded to read from a prepared statement, which was handed out to the Committee (Attachment Q. Mr. Anthony Pellina. 1249 Judson Avenue, listed several already existing traffic problems and issues in the Main and Chicago district. He strongly feels that this Starbucks operation will only add to those problems. He especially is concerned with the school children's safety during peak hours. Ms. Ann Mary Klanraf. 835 Judson Avenue, stated that she has lived at this address for 23 years. She also is an advent walker/pedestrian and is very familiar with the area and the pedestrian traffic patterns and flow for the Main/Chicago intersection. She strongly feels that a Starbucks at this location will only exasperate this situation. She mentioned several witnessed traffic situations that have occurred in the congested area Ms. Lisa Dierdes, lives at the corner of Dempster and Judson. She has witnessed at the Dempster Starbucks location where several people double park and finds this to be an inclination for many customers even when there is available parking a short distance away. She feels the Same thing will happen at the Main Street location and is concerned with the additional traffic flow problems. P&D Committee %ttg. Minutes of 11 12 01 Page 7 Mr. David Katz. lives in the Hinman Lee area, admits that he is a Starbucks customer and also swears by their good customer service and emplo%ees. However. in consideration of this proposed location and his awareness as a resident of the area. he is opposed to a Starbucks being located at that site due to the already existing traffic and parking problems. Mr. Bill Muenster, said that he is a resident of area and loves his neighborhood. He requested that the Committee take into consideration the ZBA's recommendation to deny this application because of the obvious reasons concluded. Mr. Erick Martinet Ms. Jahann ThalIumeier, 1108 Foster Street Ms. Margaret Nagle, 631 Hinman Avenue Ms. Laura Williams. 515 Lee Street Mr. Peter Michaels, 901 Hinman Avenue All expressed their opposition to this application for a ty pe 2 restaurant for Starbucks with their main concerns being µith the added traffic and parking problems that already exist in this area. Mr. Ted Glasoe, 901 Hinman Avenue. showed from a diagram of the Main/Chicago area the various traffic patterns and the already existing traffic problems in comparison to the added traffic problems that he feels µill result if this Starbucks operation is approved. He also raised several concerns in agreement with Aid. Wynne that questions the reliability of the traffic study done by KLOA and their results. Mr. John Hammershot, 311 Lake Street, mentioned that he is a former member of the Parking Committee. He acknowledged Starbucks as a good retail tenant and backs their affirmation to contributing in community functions. He also acknowledged the neighboring residents concerns for parking and traffic problems but feels that they can all be resolved and worked into the existing expansion of the Main/Chicago district. A citizen/member of the audience forwarded a petition to the Committee of customers who are in favor of this application for Starbucks. Chairman Kent closed citizen comments at 8:40 p.m. He addressed the Committee on how they wish to proceed at this point. Aid. Wynne expressed her concerns with several comments that were made by KLOA and would like to give Mr. Jennings time to respond to these concerns. She said that the Parking Committee has discussed none of the recommendations raised and she also feels the Main Street merchants should have a chance to comment on the parking meter issue. She µould like for the Committee to re- examine the first traffic study done by KLOA during the Chicago Avenue Corridor study which she recalls the outcome stating that the ChicagoAWn district is significantly above the parking saturation point. She is very concerned with the apparent rush with the area becoming classified as an urban community because it is still considered semi -urban area where the majority of neighbors prefer to stay as a residential community. She P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11 '12 01 Page 8 recommends that the Committee needs time to deliberate and discuss all the issues before making any decision on this matter. The other Committee members agreed with Aid. Wvnne. The Committee agreed to bold this item in Committee until the December 3rd meeting. (P2) Planned Develooment: 800 Elein Road Aid. Newman requested if this item could be added to the agenda for the special meeting being held on November I9th. Chairman Kent addressed the representative for this application who agreed and consented to this date. The Committee agreed to begin the meeting at 6:00 p.m. giving full attention to this matter until 7:30 p.m. if needed. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) Exemotion from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Aid. Newman moved to set the date for public hearing for this matter on the December 3rd meeting. The motion was seconded and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (PD2) Correst3ondence from Mr. Daniel Garrison. 1228 Simpson Street Chairman Kent noted his awareness of Mr. Garrison's complaints and problem issues raised and documented before the Committee. He has discussed these matters with Ald. Newman and understands that the other Committee members have been aware of these issues also. He mentioned the large number of absentee landlords in the area and the large amount of housing stock that is being allowed to be run down. He brought attention to the minutes from the neighborhood meeting that was held with a combination of neighboring residents, Northwestern University and City staff. that was forwarded to the Committee. He noted that this meeting was an attempt to begin a Neighborhood/Northwestem Task Force to start addressing and dealing with some of the recognized problems. He complimented Mr. Garrison's correspondence gathered and his thorough investigation of the neighborhood problem locations. Mr. Garrison enlightened the Committee of his past years of involvement in recognizing the existing problems in the 800-900 block of Simpson and how he has kept the City's Property Standards Division informed of these problems and violations and has tried to work with them. He pointed out the 16-page single-space of violations in that block alone which straddles the CTA tracks. He said that he has talked with many people in the neighborhood, people at Northwestern and City staff and he feels you do not get a troubled or endangered neighborhood situation like this without many things going on at the same time. He feels there are three basic categories of culprit here: I st being the Northwestern students not being prepared to live in an adult community and have received no preparation from the university or their parents on proper behavioral manner that is expected of them. The second category is the absentee landlord who is exploiting these kids by not providing a copy of the Land I ord/Tenant Ordinance and not setting standards and rules for the students to live and abide by. The third category of culprit lies P&D Committee N1tg. Minutes of 11 12 01 Page 9 with the City staff who he has repeatedly reported these violations and problem issues to. which they seem to not be able to enforce in a manner that is expedient or acceptable in receiving compliance. He pointed out that by the time he received attention paid to two of the categories in a single address with 3 dozen violations. years had passed before compliance was made. Mr. Garrison said that he has a few constructive suggestions that he would like to bring to attention. He stated that the first thing they need is for Cite staff who are willing to respond to the complaints when they happen and persist with enforcement until the problem has been taken care of. He said the reason he took the 41 photographs is because he was dully aware at the time that this problem was not just in the 800-900 block of Simpson but was all over the study area involved with this issue. He feels this area has been written off with vague promises, lack of City staff to properly enforce the problems as they occur and their ability for persistence to stay on the matter until it is resolved. Mr. Garrison feels the City needs to amend the code to enable staff to properly enforce and demand compliance in an expedient manner. He pointed out several situations that he has knowledge of where it took several weeks to achieve compliance because City staffs hands were tied by the laws and regulations of the Ordinance in which they are required to abide by. He specifically pointed out a situation where a car was illegal parked on a property and the numerous steps and procedures that had to be taken by Mr. Alterson and his support staff. In actuality, it was almost impossible for Mr. Alterson to issue a citation before unreasonable steps had to be taken before he could get to that point. He feels the same procedures it takes for parking enforcement staff to issue a ticket to someone who is parked illegally on the street should be the same for issuing zoning and property standards violations also. He stressed that these timely and excessive procedures that City staff must follow should be eliminated or drastically shortened in order for them to do their job as it relates to the seriousness of the matter at hand. Mr. Garrison recognizes that there is no simple solution for addressing these issues and bringing all the complaint and problem addresses into compliance immediately, however there are a few ways in which to begin addressing the problem where it originates. In conclusion, he feels the solution starts here at City hall with City staff and our City codes. He stress that until they begin by changing our codes, the problems with property code violations will not cease and will continue to remain stagnant as they exist. Aid. Newman commended the efforts made by Aid. Kent and the neighborhood meeting that was conducted to begin addressing these property standards problems and beginning to improve in that area. However, his experience is that this is mainly a problem within the Community Development department and acknowledged their ties with abiding by the City Codes. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Wolinski on staffs response to Mr. Garrison's photos and complaints, however he brought attention to the fact that the amount of building permit and inspection fees has been raised over the years but they do not have sufficient inspectors to properly enforce the Code. He noted that the Council as a whole, or that staff is unwilling, to ask for the requisite number of inspectors needed to maintain the housing stock with proper enforcement. He said that the area bounded by P&D Committee bitg. Minutes of 1113 01 Page 10 Emerson. Ridge. Noyes and Sheridan Road. needs to have regular inspections because of the situations that occur in that area on a habitual basis. He agrees with the statements made on the problems with absentee landlords in that area and it is obvious and has been made aware of the continuous problems at the same addresses. Aid. Ne%+znan stressed his opinion that City staff should be able to very strictly fallo%%-up on all these violations that have been pointed out in Nlr. Garrison's pictures and be%ond that. He said that these types of property violations affect every property owner in close proximity to such properties and it should be an expectation in Evanston that such issues be addressed and complied by in a timely manner. He requested a continuing report be forwarded to the Committee on how these problem properties and violations are being followed up on and addressed by City staff. He would like to see the results and circumstances as they occur as City staff proceeds to bring these addresses into compliance. He also requested that a review of the ticketing process be reviewed as it relates to compliance with zoning violations. He stated that although he appreciates the attention that Mr. Garrison has given to the numerous problems and situations in the neighborhood, he strongly feels that the City has not given up on this area and written it off. He feels that the noted and obvious problems can be resolved and addressed in time. Chairman Kent agreed and acknowledged the positive direction in addressing these issues with the forming of the neighborhood/Northwestem task force in combination working with City staff. Mr. Wolinski requested to respond to some of the issues and photographs presented in Mr. Garrison's correspondence. He brought attention to staffs response memorandum forwarded to the Committee addressing the 42 photos and summarization of each photo and a narrative of the status as it pertains to certain addresses. He noted that out of the 28 properties that staff has looked at. they did cite 24 of them with numerous violations including litter and debris, junk. etc. He assured that his stag' will stay on these issues and persist until compliance is achieved. However, he expressed that his feeling is that this neighborhood has not been given up on and he does not believe that it is anywhere near the blight that Mr. Garrison is pointing out. He realizes that this is a matter of opinion on his behalf. It is obvious that there are issues in that area that relate to student housing and staff will certainly address this. He pointed out that issues come about when you are dealing with students living in a single-family neighborhood. He used as an example where at one of the addresses pictured there are couches in a rear yard that students places there to congregate for whatever reason and noted that this technically is not a violation of their ordinance. He realizes that it does bother many people aesthetically, nevertheless. it is not a violation. He pointed out that the photos of where there is no grass on certain properties or parkways. is not a violation of their ordinance, nevertheless, it is a nuisance and is unsightly for the neighborhood. Mr. Wolinski stated the point of the matter being that it is obvious that these nuisances effect the quality of life in the neighborhood and vows that staff will do what ever they can to help alleviate such issues, however there are certain things that come with student living versus family living environment. He noted that these are the issues that City staff has to deal with as well and are hard to acquire as far as compliance, because they are issues that are not listed in their code as violations they can readily enforce. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11'12 01 Page I I Mr. 'Volinski also pointed out that City staff certainly feels that many of the litter and debris questions are ones that continually- keep coming back. He noted that this is an issue that staff has raised with Administrative Adjudication. He said that the zoning issue is complicated by the zoning Ordinance whereas property standards can cite most of these things and take them before Adm. Adjudication. However, there still remains the fact with property standards citations. that when issued the property owner is given ten days to come into compliance. 1f not in compliance by the l0th day, they can still be given 7 more days extension to come into compliance before they are given the order to go before Adm. Adjudication. Therefore, most citations given by Property Standards is given at least 17 days to come into compliance with a simple violation order to clean up litter and debris. His point being, in agreement with Mr. Garrison's earlier comments, that staffs hands are tied in abidance by the regulations stated in the Ordinance. He recalled to the Committee that the matter of the initial 10 day allowance was discussed and agreed upon by P&D and staff has accordingly abided by this decision and ruling. At this point, it was agreed upon by the Committee and staff that further discussion and updates on progress would presume at future meetings. COMMUNICATIONS fPD31 Update from the Executive Director. Human Relations Commission on the status of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Revisions This item was accepted without Committee comment. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, NJaceli a E. Brownlee L-A 957S W. Hidgfrq Road + 5uae 40o KbtomonL E!hno's 60Ci! .r...I I1 .4'0'y, ,tit (14L7) Sta•9990 • Fax t5471 514.7d9a7 Mail. ktoafaklosinr.— ATTACHMENT "A" MEMDRANDLN. 1 T 0. War; ea BUT Legacy Development Gmup, :.1..C. FROM: Nail S. Kcnig Principal Amcia:e DA'r: Much 22.2QQ1 SUBJECT: Dhai lon with David Jennings, Public Works Director. City of Ev"Wea ,, on 3tarbucks DavePopmcut at Chicago Avenue and Maid street Following our studim of the exisdag Starbncks fwM*.y Ct.' Derupster Strut at Chicago Avenue and patidag apace availability surveys on tiro sire immodktely rurrounding ma pzoopond Starbucks on Main at 'Chicago, we met wish David loaal:tgs to review our Bndlcgs and conclusions. As a result of that meedmg David Jeanittgs Indics d that ho concurred with our findlttgt and fait dint he could support the location of Sta b eks on Main &ad CblMa. We presaued the following infmmatioa to David along with Same ideas on the ability to accommodate f lure parldng c=jmds. Beeed on the uummer inMviews and ccunu of people ems and =dtin the Dempster store on a Fd&y and Sum -day, we wage able to deumnine the peak periods of opcmdon„ peak customer demands, modal split rharaetmrisdes, em for that sta:c. Utilizing those characumistics we upplied the facton to CWcago/Main to determine protected parking demands. Following ue our conclusiorufar Chicago/Main. Chicago/Main Cltaralcbri UM 1. Hoe higher pedestrian flow along Main th;n CWcq;oM=pster location. 2. Has We.= papulatian density in close proximiy to tic proposed store them at Mcaga/Dempmr. 3, Based on the Intervim, a number of eumom= at Chicag+o/Dempster will be directed to Gain and may not drive. a. A Considerable wmbar of cuJtorrtets currently driving are in the area today and Can be classified as bypass trips. (For inswnea, a McDonald's has over Me bypass taiga dudng morning and evening peak hours.) nl C)A. InC. ein J".. N.-k nq Plannin; CCn%u!tznK too' r;tcHUM ,s1 9p;rt 11141to M. ,Asir Rpv-Ci-:t 14.21 stm. +-Jib 3I13] F-�TI S. Worse seta projection.: 100�— peals moue person trips Friday sad Saturday comings. - 70V,, drive or. Friday - 70 vehicles. 553% thive on Su usday - 55 VChie;ea. Peak psrldng demand on Fridsp---A_ zu= peals waitir,&I Limz of ! 0 minut= x 1.7I persanslmiattte x 70% drive - ' 2 parking spaces required. Peak der: - on Sahmday - I0 x I.7l x 55%- 9 spa=. Al:==m - Assc me - Maximum line of 15 people (per ;een:a: obac vaticn) 1.71 - 8.77 minutes 70% drive 10+ spaces; 53% drive - 8+ spaces peak ,demand an SarlydLy Based o--1 these ssst:atptiacs wee outliusd ornr iiadiagdnaommsndatlans to David as Endows: FLudings/Racotumendstions I. On Friday mornings available cazb paddu In the iramediato area. was more that adequate to steel the demands 2. Seven to eight spacex will be added to inventory on stub fakes on MaintOicao when caastz=tloa is completed. 3. Four spaces are being aided in the alley air the exclusive use of St uburlcs customers. 4. If necessmy, pollee coz&ol can be ased the first 3-6 moatbs to establish tratSclpadaag controls. S. New meters on Main. west of the alley should have 20 mutate time limits similar to tlmre on the south side of Main. 6. Saturday morning curb parking is a little tight but stiff! adequate and with &"tional 12± spaces parking would be satisfactory. Again. new meters should have a 20 minute time. limit Cencluaious MuWChlcago site wfll geverste less auWzczbile traffi= 0= DempnerlChlcago for ma primary reasons---prm-dmity to both Mstra and CTA staicas and population density In close proximiiy to site (obsmed higher pcdestrisn movement along Mein). As Dated is previous studies for this area. minor char; es to signal timing and phasing will Improve levels of setvica at Main and Chicago. Stasbucks` primary trip gencration is for a couple of hates (7:00-10:00 A.M.) on, weekaiays and 8:00-11:00 A.M. oa Saturadays. On. Saturdays, 7;00-8;00 A.M. and 11:00-goon is 70 percent of ilia peals hours with dramatic reductions thercaflcr. On Fridays from 10:00 A.M• ti.nO 6:00 P.M. trip S=cr ti= ratei are 30 :o 45 percent of the peak hours is the rooming. Ear user, 77 2u0 r nw Ero 't HOU7108:131. 9 P : rI IIhit to .60- .1101i ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF EVANSTON INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM November 12, 2001 TO: James Wolinski, Director of Community Development FROM: David C. Jennings, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Starbuck's at 519 Main Street Traffic and Parking Information I understand that this matter is up for discussion before the Planning and Development Committee at tonight's meeting. The attorney for Starbuck's contacted me last Friday and asked that I review and comment on the attached traffic and parking report from KLOA. I was faxed the report Friday afternoon and have started my review. The report is a summary of a meeting which I had with Neil Kenig of KLOA in March of this year. It addresses both parking and traffic aspects of this project and was completed about eight months after the testimony in the packet, since the ZBA recommendation was made in August 2000. If the Committee would like to use the information in this report, I will need some more time to review the findings and recommendations It contains. The reasons are: (1) the parking supply on the street is different that what was anticipated at the time of the study (it refers to parking on Chicago, north of Main, which is not likely to be added at this time), (2) it refers to spaces anticipated for use by customers which the developer states will be dedicated to employees, and (3) the study on which the report was based was completed when construction was at its peak (construction worker parking could have impacted the study results and several spaces were out of service due to the temporary sidewalks). The study was probably the best that could have been done at the time, but conditions have changed since then. If the Committee would like for me to review and comment at a later date, I will be glad to do that. Pav r David C. Jennk1g ATTACHMENT "C" To Planning and Development Committee November 12, 2001 City Council, Evanston, Illinois I am here speaking for the Public Transportation Committee of the Evanston Intsrreligious Sustainability Circle, an organization composed of representatives of 14 congregations working for a sustainable future for Evanston. We were leaders in the ad hoc citizens group that worked %ith the CTA and E.T.H.S. in the summer of 2000 to improve bus service to and from the high school. We support development that encourages pedestrian and bicycle access. But we are opposed to development that would disrupt existing public transportation routes, and especially anything that would interfere with or discourage the use of public transportation going to and from the high school by students and staff. As you can see on the attached card, (prepared and distributed by the CTA at E.T.H.S. to show the improved schedules), the CTA 202 bus on Main Street is one of the CTA routes servicing E.T.H.S. In the fall of 2000, and again this October, I spoke to Mr. Dan Joseph, the CTA scheduler who rearranged the bus schedules in the ad hoc committee, about the situation on Main Street. Mr. Joseph has direct experience concerning the traffic on Main Street because, formerly, he was a driver on the 202 Main Street bus. Mr. Joseph gave his permission for me quote him on the situation as follows: "If there was no traffic, it would be just physically possible for a bus to get through if there was a double parked car on the north side of the street. However, in rush hour it would be impossible. Because of the continuous parade of eastbound traffic, especially during rush hour, the bus moving westward would be waiting for a long time before being given a break to go forward. All of the other westbound traffic would back up behind the bus. This is not a worse case scenario. This is the scenario." The ordinance requiring type 2, restaurants -to obtain a -special use permit is designed to make certain that the interests of Evanston will not be harmed, now and in the futatre, from the Drown traffic and parking problems that such businesses produce. As to this specific location, it is a critical fact that "fast food" produces a customer mentality that all that they need is a "fast park." ' The public transportation provided by CTA and Pace are benefits that contribute to the quality of life of our citizens. Students can rely on the 202 bus to get them to school on time, and parents do not have to drive them to school or buy their children cars. The testimony of Mr. Joseph indicates that during the rush hours on this narrow street, even if there were one car double parked on the north side of Main, it would delay the 202 bus, and tie up traffic. People will not ride public transportation that is unreliable, that brings them late to school or to missed connections. We are looking at the potential loss of an important community asset. ON e.r .0 Some type 2 restaurants provide a drive through, or adequate customer parking to eliminate their prospective harm to street traffic. This applicant may be offering to provide an off duty police officer in front of the store to keep the traffic moving. You are being asked to balance a very important long term community interest in effective public transportation with the possibility that the proposed solution will, now and in the future, never allow a car to double park in a way that blocks the CTA bus and traffic. As desirable a business as Starbucks may be, we believe that a type 2 restaurant at ibis location on Main Street, is not worth the possibility that public transportation services will be disrupted. It is simply the wrong place. After two nights of hearings, the Zoning Board voted unanimously against granting the special use permit for Starbucks at this location. Two of the four Hoard members specificaliy'stated that they based their decision on the importance of not disrupting the 202 bus route on this narrow street. We urge you to follow their reasoning, to confirm their decision and to vote against this application. Gladys Bryer ;/ '-O Public Transportation Comnittee Evanston Interreligious Susudnability Circle a•�. M inn 8"4 004 M.nd sum *An r� asr w. s�..w M,r1r.r•1 71W 1 21inSAM r1Lw uoM rlLrt ram. �V~ Dow It" IUM r.cM PUNd IA. 71M. r RM FS� t1M 0"y,,,�, � r MIND. *60 Dom r r— )U. rlrw.f flwrr am us" (MS /tM I ow- - I fSr. Mr/. r 1s.. r AM I YAMr ss+'• I �•'�. r .rWWI x lrsw ruM ra.. lrumRUN {7W. llsw M.t•.+i+ r,,,. rw ssa uu CAM Gard rtr.. pair PUMM ...�..•r rrsr. 126M r)1M ..ra.qod rrs. 14 M t+W. else I Kr. TSiM {V1M w rI rADO yAOA/ J4"M lsum IIINtTES Planning & Development Committee December 3, 2001 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, D. Jennings, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding. Oi'iicial: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. He announced that at 7:00 p.m. the Committee will begin the public hearing for the homeless shelter. Thereafter, they will return to the regular meeting. Mr. Wolinsk i brought to the Committee's attention several documents before them handed out this evening; 1) drafted minutes of the November 11'h meeting, 2) a memorandum from the Director of Public Works concerning the Starbucks application at 519 Main Street, and 3) Parking Study at Main and Chicago Avenue. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 12.2001 MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the November 12t' minutes, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Kent called the public hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. Aid. Newman moved approval to renew the one-year exemption from the special use provision. Ald. Engelman seconded the motion. Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. William Sundblad, Executive Director of Connections for the Homeless. Mr. Sundblad had no additional comments to add. Chairman Kent also acknowledged Ms. Caroline Frowe; the one citizen signed up to speak on the shelter, who expressed her support for the center. With no further comments, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The public hearing adjourned at 7:07 p.m. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 122T01 Page 2 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION W2) Sneciai Use for 519 ;Main Street — Starbucks Chairman Kent asked ','.fr. leanings for an overview of his memorandum. The correspondence was copied and handed out to members of the audience. Mr. Jennings summarized his memo stating that it was a review of a report done by KLOA that includes discussion between Nfr. Neil. Kenig and himself. He stated that this report was available at the last meeting on November I2`h, however he was reluctant to discuss the matter since he had only received it the Friday before the meeting. He gave further details of the content of his memorandum (See attachment A). He also brought attention to the attached document which is an overview of the parking study done in the Main and Chicago area. (See Attachment B). In summary, the memorandum includes a review of the parking supply during the morning peak time between 7-10 a.m., the addition of more 20-minute time limits on meters and options for parking for Starbuck's employees. He mentioned that there is a waiting list of approximately 1 year for the 24- hour permit parking lots and the turnover is based strictly upon when a space becomes available due to termination by an existing customer, there is no tirne limit. He also stated his concern for short-term illegal parking and does anticipate an increase if Starbuck's is approved. Mr. Jennings stated that upon review of the traffic studies done related to when the Chicago Avenue Corridor Study, also done by KLOA, which states that in the short tzar they recommended only timing changes for the Main/Chicago intersection. In the long run, if traffic develops to the point where needed, they recommended a northbound left - turn arrow. Mr. Jennings expressed his concerns with illegal parking, which does exist even with space available. He reiterated that he anticipates this situation continuing and increasing with the addition of Starbuck's and there is a need to monitor the alley parking and double-parking on Main Street. He particularly sees the alley parking as a potential problem and he is uncomfortable with the offer made by the developer to provide police patrolling for 3-6 months. His preference would be to have this provision for as long as needed and thereafter provided on interval schedules. He feels there should be no deadline or time limit set for the police patrol. In conclusion, Mr. Jennings feels the findings of the KLOA report of March 22, 2001, are valid and accommodations can be made to minimize the impact of the proposed development on the area. Ms. Patricia Dalton. 815 Main Street, expressed her concerns with the existing lack of parking availability and does not agree with the study stating that there will be sufficient parking to accommodate Starbuck's demand. She also asked that consideration be given to the fact that Main Street is a main throughway for one of the Evanston bus lines and the sweet is very narrow. She is opposed to the approval of Starbuck's application. • P&D Committee 11te. Minutes of 1? 3 OI Page 3 Mr. Andv Steineruebi. 510 Kedzie, questioned the similarity of numbers in the traffic study done for the Dempster Street Starbuck's location. It is his understanding from the last meeting that several people expressed concern about the parking situation on Dempster and he assumes that the numbers would be similar for vacant spaces in the area. Mr. Jennings responded that he did not have the numbers for the Chicago Avenue/Dempster Street and he only did the study for this application on Main and Chicago. Ms. Lee Kansan. 936 Hinman Avenue, expressed her concern with the parking situation and feels that the approval of this Starbuck's will only stress the already existing problem. She reminded that human behavior is unquestionable and they need to plan for what people really do such as double-parking, illegal parking, etc. Ms. Helen Steineruebl. 510 Kedzie, expressed her concern with the large number of small children in the area as pedestrians during the peak hours. She has witnessed numerous bad behavior situations by motorists during the peak hours when children are very visible and their lack of acknowledgement for the crossing guards instructions. She realizes that this is no fault of Starbucks, however she would not like to see additional traffic added to this situation. Ms. Maureen Glasoe, 901 Hinman Avenue, questions with regards to the traffic study done, if consideration has been given to the future developments that are coming to the area in addition to this proposed Starbuck's. She reminded the Committee of the vastness of all the building and construction that will be going within the Main/Chicago intersection. Ms. Naele, 631 Hinman Avenue, reiterated the concerns of his. Glasoe stated above. Mr. Ted Glasoe, 901 Hinman Avenue, noted that from his understanding of the special use permit process that it's the applicant's responsibility to present their case to prove that they meet the 8 criteria associated with the approval for a special use. He does not feel that the applicant has proven this fact. He recalled the contradiction between numbers stated from earlier traffic studies versus the recent study and questions how those figures can change from negative impact to no significant impact, even with the increase in.development in the area. He feels that it is naive to believe that people will park elsewhere or a block away to pick up a cup of coffee; it is not realistic. He definitely feels this type of business will acid to the traffic congestion by increasing the possibility of illegal parbrtg in the alley and on Main Street. Owner of Cafc Express South, stated that his coffeehouse has been serving that neighborhood for some time now and he does not see the need for an additional coffee business within such close proximity. Chairman Kent closed citizen comments for Committee deliberations at this point. Ald. Engelman left the meeting to participate in the A&PW meeting. P&D Committee tittg. Minutes of 12 3.01 Page a Aid. Bernstein noted that they have been discussing this proposed special use for over a year now. He said the Committee has had a chance to read the transcript and the testimony given by the objectors at the Zoning Board meeting. He feels the primary concern that was expressed to him is the competition effect between Starbuck's and Cafd Express South. He recalled the petition of 300- names that were generated by Cafe Express South patrons requested a denial of Starbuck's special use so that they can preserve an Evanston based organization. From his observation and experience, he recalls the original coffee house in Evanston being Cafd Express North, which still thrives in spite of the fact that there is Starbuck's one block away. The Unicorn Cafe still thrives in spite of the close proximity of all three coffeehouses. Therefore, he is convinced that it has not been proven that the competition of being in close proximity each other has any effect on either business. He also noticed that many of the patrons who signed the petition were not from the immediate locale but came from other neighborhoods perhaps because of their preference for Cafd Express, which will probably continue even if Starbuck's is approved. Aid. Bernstein referred to the standard regarding a change in the character of the locale. He stated that he lives and works within a 4-block radius of the subject location and has for the last 25 years. Therefore, he is very familiar with the neighborhood and notes that the character of the neighborhood has already changed and can not go back to the way it was. He recalls past discussion regarding whether Evanston is a suburban community, urban community, or semi -urban community. He feels Evanston has become semi -urban -with the areas bounded by Chicago/Main/Hinman being the urban section of the City. It has always and continues to be the densest area of the City; an area where many people who came to Evanston started out with the cons iderable.amount of rental units and then moving on to other areas within the City. Therefore, the point of Starbuck's changing the character of the area is not a valid argument. Ald. Bernstein pointed out the increasing vacancies in the Chicago/Main business district. He also pointed out that there appears to be a national attraction towards Starbuck's, which usually attracts other businesses to want to be in close proximity to such a business. Although he realizes the need to support and keep small businesses and continued support for Evanston based businesses such as Cafe Express, there is a definite need to attract and bring in other businesses to fill these vacancies in order for Evanston to continuing thriving as a City. Aid. Bernstein concurs with the traffic concerns for the area acknowledging Main Street's narrowness and the fact that it is almost completely saturated. He admitted that he avoids the Main/Chicago intersection whenever possible as many other people do because of the traffic setbacks. However, during the early morning peak hours, there is not a lot of business going on. He is especially concerned with the alley, as expressed by Mr. Jennings. He addresses this concern in his following motion. Aid. Bernstein moved to overrule the Zoning Board of Appeals derision to deny the special use and moved to approve the special use for a Starbuck's at 519 Main P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12/3 01 Page 5 Street, with conditions. Aid. Newman seconded the motion. Aid. Bernstein's suggested conditions are as follows: 1) Provide more than 3-6 months of police patrol as offered by the applicant. He suggest that the police patrol be provided during the morning peak hours to guide traffic and patrol illegal parking, in perpetuity or until further review by Council. 2) Starbuck's should persuade and direct their customers with vehicles to use off-street parking and enlighten them that there is also a Starbuck's on Dempster Street where parking is more accessible- Therefore attracting more pedestrian patronage. 3) Starbuck's should put in speed bumps in the alley north of Main Street. 4) Starbuck's should provide some type of mirror device at the entrance to the alley to provide vehicles to see what's coming and going before exiting or entering the alley. 5) Starbuck's be required to obtain a towing contract should they need the service and post "no parking" signs in the alley. Aid. Bernstein concluded that he feels the applicant has met the standards. He did point out that the mechanicals on the east side of the subject property are very unsightly and he would like to see this situation done away with if this application is approved. Aid. Wynne said that she is of opposite opinion of Ald. Bernstein's views and does not feel the applicant has met the standards. She feels that if the traffic situation is that serious where you have to place as many conditions as suggested by Ald. Bernstein, then it is a clear demonstration of the fact that there is already an existing problem and the proposed use will only add to the problem. She stated that she does like Starbuck's as a retailer and has no problem with their operation and also feels competition is good, however those are not the issues here. She feels the strongest issue and concern is traffic in this case. She refuses to believe that they have to compitulate to the urbanization and increase congestion in order to induce businesses to the area She pointed out that this is why they reduced the zoning on April 12, 2000 and can't imagine what they would continue to have if they had not reduced the height and increased the parking requirement, although 515 Main was in the pipeline before they were able to do this. Even so, this does not mean that they are done with zoning issues for that area because she feels they can continue to maintain some quality of life so that they don't end up with gridlock and begin to look and feel like Lincoln Park or Lake%icw areas. She feels there are other viable options for this building for that space. AU Wynne stressed the fact that Starbuck's on Dempster has demonstrated the fact that people do not behave or park appropriately when it comes to this type of business. As much as she appreciates Mr. Jennings study, it is premised on the fact that people will P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of IZI01 Page 6 park more than a block and then walk for their cup of coffee. However. the parking lot across the alley is no%v being developed because when it was a parking lot, it was never used and this lot served all the businesses on Stain Street. She added that people still double-parked and used the alley instead of parking in the lot. This same occurrence is happening with the Dempster Street Starbuck's. She feels that even with available parking spaces on Chicago Avenue and Main Street, people will still park illegally, as she has witnessed over and over again. Aid. Wynne feels this building and location is not functional for this type of retail because of the large amount of traffic it attracts by vehicle patrons as well as pedestrian. She does not believe that they can effectively have a police officer there over the long haul. She said that by putting a condition on this provision and making it in perpetuity, will result in after a year or so Starbuck's coming back in and stating that the situation is fine and persuade the Committee to take a►vay the police officer provision. She strongly believes this condition will change with the changing turnover that exists in that neighborhood. Aid. Wynne does not believe that the applicant has met the burden and she strongly feels that they should not over Wile the Zoning Boards decision. She feels that if they vote to over rule the ZBA, they will be absolutely committing this comer, which is going to have a 10-story building across the street and more condos in the old bank building, to perpetual congestion and even more traffic problems than what exists. Aid. Bernstein responded that he was not suggesting that because this is a Starbuck's it is going to bring up all these societal ills. He is suggesting that any retail or business that goes in at this location is going to bring along with it certain of these conditions in which they have now eluded. What he is hopeful for is that this'retailer, who want some special consideration from the City of Evanston, will give us more than what we're going to get from somebody who is going in there as of right. He feels that because of the times of the highest use for Starbuck's, which is during the early morning peak hours, it is unlikely that all of the problems anticipated are going to exist. He noted that the suggested conditions for the alley, should be recommendations for any use that goes into that occupies that space. With regards to the police officer being provided in perpetuity, he suggested this condition because the area is already saturated and congested and the police patrol is needed in that area during peak hours because of this. Aid. Bernstein feels that in reality, many people are now avoiding the Main/Chicago intersection because of its congestion and traffic problems. He feels that with the inclusion of Starbuck's, they will be able to start addressing some of these traffic issues and concerns. Ms. Anderson brought to the Committee's attention that the alley they are referring to is not private property. She questions how Starbuck's would have the right to have any car towed if they are parked there. She also asked why Starbuck's specifically should be charged with the burden of having to contract with a tow company, instead of all the businesses on Main where their patrons could also be parked illegally. She questions the legality of such a condition being put into place as a responsibility of this applicant. Aid. Newman clarified that the police officer can have a car towed from the alley or one that is illegally parked on the street if they are in violation of the parking laws. He noted P&D Comminec Nttg. Minutes of 111,01 Page 7 that if such signage is posted stating that there is no parking or illegal parking on the street, otherwise their car may be towed, then it is within police powers to do so. He also reminded that if a vehicle is towed, it is the responsibility of the owner. not the business. to pay for the tow. tiir. David Katz, 936 Hinman Avenue, requested to make a suggestion to Aid. Bernstein. He informed that he is out on Main Street every morning between 6:30 — 7:00 a.m. and can verify that the rush hour does start sometimes before that time. He suggested to amend his motion to have the police officer start as early as 6:30 a.m. Aid. Bernstein responded that the tithes should be contiguous with the hours of operation of the store. Aid. Wynne said with regards to the police officer being provided and lifted some time in the future, it crossed her mind that how will they determine if there is no longer a problem when the police officer is effectively making sure that there isn't a problem. She is very concerned with this condition for that reason. Unless this is made a permanent requirement, it needs to be done on timed intervals with the removal of the police officer for a probationary period of time and then put back into place. Aid. Bernstein agreed and requested to accept this as an amendment to his original motion. Mr. Jennings said that this also crossed his mind and suggested that if they do this, that staff study the behavior patterns and the level of change. Ms. Anna Joe Meltz, owner of Mainly Cards on Main Street, expressed her opinion that many of these burdens should not be placed upon Starbuck's, if they are approved. She strongly feels that these burdens should be the responsibility of all the merchants in the area. Although she is concerned about safety for pedestrians and vehicles as well, as a business owner in that area, she welcomes the traffic and congestion that should come with a business district. She reminded all that this area and intersection is a business district and has been for some time and with that comes a certain level of traffic. She acknowledges that the area has become more congested with the inclusion of units and will become even more as more units are constructed. ivis. Meltz feels that the City is being offered a beautiful opportunity to force this perceived deep pocket to pay for all of these things that that area needs any way. She pointed out that it is not the building that Starbuck's is applying to go into that creates the blind spot on that alley, in actuality it is the building that houses Kunies. She further pointed out that alley traffic that has always been involved with the White Hen Pantry. She reiterated that the conditions set upon this applicant should be the responsibility of all the merchants in that business area because they are issues that should have been dealt aith any ways. She welcomes Starbuck's in the community because of the traffic that they will create because she is a business owner and needs the pedestrian and vehicle traffic and pointed out that she does not exist by the goodwill of her neighborhood shoppers alone. She stressed that the small business shops need the outside traffic and patronage that their neighborhood can not give them alone. She also reiterated Ald. Bernstein's earlier comments regarding the growing number of vacancies and urged the Committee's consideration to approve this the special use application for this business. 1 P&D Committee Sit¢. Minutes of 1253 Q 1 Page 8 .I Chairman Kent expressed his opposition to the approval of this application and would vote not to over turn the ZBA's ruling. He does not believe the provision of the police officer or mirror reflectors off the alley are going to eliminate or relieve many of the ongoing traffic and illegal parking issues that already exist in that area. However, he does believe tha: there is a need to provide police patrol in the morning and after school hours. He appreciates the traffic study done by Mr. Jennings but equally appreciate some of the problems and concerns that have been brought to the Committee's attention due to the fact that the neighbors have come out and expressed and pointed out those things that need attention and to be dealt with now. Chairman Kent said that he does not give any credence to the argument that they are either a semi -urban or urban community because he feels this is one of the beautiful things about Evanston. However, with the urban and semi -urban classification_ comes a set of problems with traffic and congestion. He does not believe that putting Starbuck's in this situation without solving some of the problems and issues that have been mentioned, would do any justice to that neighborhood. He believes there are many other sections bf the City of Evanston that would welcome Starbuck's with open arms that need the business as well. He commended Starbuck's on their business operation and their notable community -mindedness. However, he feels it would be unfair to put Starbuck's into a bad situation that was already created. He agrees with Ms. Meltz that many of the problems should be dealt with now or should be the responsibility of all the merchants that already exist in that business district. Chairman Kent re -read the motion with conditions: The motion by Ald. Bernstein to overrule the ZBA's decision to deity the special use application foe tape 2 restaurant for Starbuck's with the following conditions: 1) Starbuck's to provide an oft -duty police officer for the morning peak business hours from the time they open until approximately 8:30 am., to guide traffic specially, and to control and monitor alley parking and the flow of traffic. 2) Starbuck's provide alley speed bumps. 3) Starbuck's to provide a mirror device off the alley. (The towing contract condition was withdrawn at the request of Ald. Bernstein.) The vote was 2 voting in favor (Bernstein, Newman), 2 voting nay (Wynne, Kent Aid. Newman moved to forward this to Council without recommendation, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Plat of Subdivision —1511 Monroe Street Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Scott Krone, developer of the planned development for this site. Mr. Krone reminded the Committee of his pmious approval by City Council earlier this year for a planned development to construct I2 townhomes. He said that they are now in the process of completing the first few town homes and need to be P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1113.01 Page 9 able to close them properly which requires a plat of subdivision in order to have proper surveys and legal descriptions. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P41 Ordinance 114-0-01 — Soecial use for 3200 Grant Street — Presbyterian Homes Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 114-0-01, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Without comment, the Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. 1930 Ridge Avenue Proiect Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Richard Aaronson, Bruce Huvard, and Greg Raters in attendance, representing Atlantic Realty Developers. Mr. Huvard addressed the Committee. He noted that they do not have any formal presentation, however are requesting to be on the Committee's agenda for December 17`h. He reported that they have gone before the Plan Commission and is not clear from that meeting of the request and information that was asked of them to present to the Committee. From his understanding, one of the questions asked of the developer was if the density they are proposing needed in order to make the project viable. He asked for clarification and more specificity of what to present before the Committee on December 17`h. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he had previous discussion with both Mr. Aaronson and Mr. Huvard last Friday and he felt that it was clarified then, as Chairman Kent requested, for the developer to present some type of pro -forma or rate -of -return report. He was under the impression that this information was .going to be presented to the Committee this evening before the meeting on December I7`h. Mr. Huvard apologized for the misunderstandings and assured that they will present the requested information on December 17`h. Further discussion entailed between the Committee and the developer regarding issues such as the layout of the proposed development, if affordable housing was still included with the proposed height. etc. Staff plans to have the transcript available by the December 17'h meeting with the ordinance. Ald. Newman requested that notice be sent out to all those involved with the case from past meetings. Mr. Aaronson presented an updated rendering of the project to the Committee. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDD Update on Mr. Daniel Garrison's Property Standards and Zoning Complaints Mr. Garrison distributed a study fact sheet (Attachment C) that he compiled since that last information was dispersed. He also brought to attention the correspondence he handed out earlier entitled "Trouble Spots in Study Area from May 1 — November 6, 2001. (Attachment D). He elaborated further on both of his handouts. He explained that the study facts are a summary follow-up from the fast photos taken on October 270' and how some of those violations have been taken care of so far. The second handout is a breakdown by address of nuisance and parking complaints in the study area over the last 6 months. He concluded that there needs to be some changes in the way the City is _J P&D Committee %lig. Minutes of 1213,01 Page 10 doing business by amending the City Codes that pertain to property standards and the citation process. The City Codes also need to be amended to take away the restraints put upon City officials. The City needs to maintain a public nuisance ordinance for the chronic offenders and the capacity to tow vehicles parked on property illegally in a more expedient mariner. Lastly, he encourages a more mutual bond between Northwestern and the City of Evanston to work together with law enforcement and enforcing City Codes. Mr. Wolinski responded by giving a break down of the citation process followed under the Property Standards Code and the time frame in which stuff has been instructed to follow. He reminded the concern of the Committee at the time they developed these time frames so that enough time be allocated for the homeowner to comply, with special concern for senior homeowners. He agrees that many of the property owners in this study area are taking advantage of the 21-day period, where he believes marry of the violations could be cleaned up within 3-5 days. Mr. Wolinski addressed the "Trouble 'Spot" correspondence by stating that the Police authority governs these nuisance violations and this is an issue that should be discussed in the joint meetings with Northwestern. He suggested that many of these punitive charges could be brought up on the individual student(s) who are committing these violations. He noted that some of these violations are not necessarily the responsibility of the building owner. He also reminded that there is a difference in property standards violations versus violations governed by the Police and are handled in a different manner. Ald. Newman disagrees with the building owner not being responsibility for some violations done within the confines of his building or onhis property. He feels that the landlord/property owner should specify and set rules to be strictly followed and these should be instructed to the tenant before they move in and written in their lease. It should be the responsibility of the owner to enforce the rules in his own building or be able to break the lease if the tenant refuses to abide by them. Mr. Cameron Ellis, 1239 Leon Place, added that he believes that a big part of the _ problems that exist in the study area, especially at the addresses in Mr. Garrison's "Trouble Spot" report are due to over -population of what the zoning ordinance allows in rental units. He would like to see this problem addressed and enforced by City staff. Mr. Wolinski asked the Committee if they wished staff to bring back the Administrative Adjudication Ordinance for amendment to the time frame.. The Committee agreed. Mr. Garrison requested that staff forward any reports for the Committee to him as well. Staff concurred. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. N,�� 'L"� �-- R""� Jacqueline E4. Brownlee ATTACHMENT "A" CiTY OF EVANSTON INTERDEPARTMENTAL. MEMORANDUM December 3. 2001 TO: James Wolinski, Director of Community Development FROM: David C. Jennings, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Starbuck's at 519 Main Street Traffic and Parking Information I have revi-.- a the traffic and parking report prepared by KLOA for this site. The report is a summary of a meeting I had with Neil Kenig of KLOA in March of this year and was held in order for him to share the results of studies they had performed and discuss how the future parking demands could possibly be accommodated. After hearing the discussion at the November 12 P&D meeting, I checked the parking supply during the morning peak time (7 am to 10 am) on three different mornings and found that there is sufficient parking to accommodate Starbuck's, given the need for 12 spaces to satisfy the demand. I never found less than 27 spaces vacant within a block of the site — I included Main Street between Chicago and Hinman and Chicago Avenue between Lee and Kedzie in my observations. 1 did not consider anything west of Chicago Avenue or anything on Hinman or other streets in the neighborhood to the east 'A summary of that study is attached. I considered the possible use of time limits on the meters directly in front of the proposed Starbuck's. The meters on the south side of Main in this block have a 20-minute limit and were designated as such after requests from the business community. These work very well in providing turnover for the businesses which need it. I think it would be appropriate to use some 20-minute meters on the north side as well. i think there should be a balance between the short turnover meters and those that serve the businesses in the area (especially the restaurants). We could start with three of each and see how it works. This is a matter to be considered by the ward alderman and the Parking Committee. Parking for the employees was brought up at the meeting. There are at least three options for them. They could be provided spaces in the building's supply, or could possibly use two approaches using City parking facilities. The first would be to apply for an employee daytime space under a program we currently operate for employees in the area. We try not to sell more spaces than are available and monitor this program to keep it from causing problems for the packers who have 24-hour permits. The other approach is for the employees to apply for a 24-hour permit and park in a nearby City parking lot. There is a waiting list of about a year for this program. I reviewed the traffic studies completed over the last few years and do not believe that the proposed development will significantly impact traffic in the area. There are some actions we can take to better handle traffic as the volumes grow, such as timing and phasing changes. I do have concerns about short-term illegal parking by customers of the proposed Starbuck's, as well as the customers who already use the businesses in the area. I anticipate an increase in illegal parking in the alley, even if there are spaces available on the street. I am aware that it already happens and I even witnessed it while doing my observations. The developer's offer to provide a police officer during the peak times for the first three to six months is a good start. I am not comfortable putting a time limit on it and believe the decision to continue it or should be made based on the observed behavior of the packers. In conclusion, I think the findings of the KLOA report are valid and I think accommodations can be made to minimize the impact of the proposed development on the area. 1 -74 i David C. Jennings / Parking Study at Chicago and Main Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday - November 13, 14, and 15, 2001 Study is a count of vacant spaces by block. WS Chicago WS Chicago ES Chicago SS Main Day Time North of Main South of Main South of Main East of Chicago 11 /13/01 7:15 AM 13 5 8 4 • 7:45 AM 11 8 11 4 8:10 AM 10 8 9 3 8:40 AM 9 6 10 8 9:25 AM 7 4 6 6 11/14/01 7:20 AM 11 8 6 2 7:50 AM 11 5 5 2 8:25 AM 12 5 6 3 8:50 AM 11 2 5 6 9:40 AM 6 1 3 4 11/15/01 9:15 AM 5 3 7 5 V N H NS Main ES Chicago East of Chicago North of Main TOTAL 8 12 50 7 14 55 6 10 46 6 10 49 7 11 41 6 13 46 2 14 39 2 10 38 1 12 37 5 8 27 7 9 36 ATTACHMENT "C" Student Ghetto Study !-acts The attached 37 photographs were taken on Saturday. December 1 in anticipation of a December 3 review by the City Council's Planning and Development Committee of violations and other problems considered at its November 12 meeting. The first set of photos had been taken October 27 to document the decay of the student ghetto surrounded on the north by Simpson Street, on the south by Emerson St., on the west by Ridge Avenue, and on the Past by Sherman Avenue. The December 1 photos show that although corrective measures were taken by the Department of Community Development, this response was essentially passive and, in many instances, ineffectual. • After five weeks, at least 13 of the violations documented on October 27 remain unabated. • The Committee's request for improved enforcement does not appear to have resulted In a general review of other possible violations. The December 1 photos show 18 additional violations of exactly the same type as before, including broken and heaved sidewalks, yard litter, trash accumulation in alleys, and property standards violations in the condition of buildings. • It is unclear whether the Planning and Development Committee's mandate for a cleanup of this area has resulted in any significant reform in the way this endangered neighborhood is checked for violations, or in the efficacy of enforcement. Since the November 12 meeting of the Committee, the Evanston Police Department has released a summary of Calls For Service in the study area between May i and November 6, showing a high correlation between student occupancy and the nuisance complaints noted. ¶ a concentration of complaints at a small number of addresses in the area. ¶ a concentration of complaints on Simpson Street, Of the 76 nuisance and parking violations listed, 51 were on Simpson Street. The conclusion suggested by these facts is that a significant tumaround is unlikely without more effective countermeasures. These might include 1. A less passive, more proactive strategy by the Community Development Department. 2. Amendments to the City Code providing the City with the power to ticket violators without recourse to the lengthy and complicated supplicant role it now plays with property violators, especially where housing units are not occupied by the owner. As with parking violations, a fine should be levied on the spot and doubled when not paid in a timely manner. Vehicles parked on lawns, parkways, and sidewalks should be subject to an immediate tow order. 3. Properties cited for multiple nuisance, zoning, and property standards violations within a six month period should fall under an ordinance against Maintaining a Public Nuisance, enabling condemnation and closure of buildings found in chronic violation. 4. Greater cooperation between Northwestern and Evanston police in buildings inhabited predominantly by Northwestern students. Daniel H. Garrison 1228 Simpson Street ATTACHMENT "D" Dear Mr. Wolinski: I have received a list of Calls For Service compiled by EPD for the period from May 1 to November 6, 2001. This summary of nuisance and parking complaints in the Study Area bounded on the east by Sherman Avenue, on the west by Ridge Avenue, on the south by Emerson Street, and on the north by Simpson Street, is based on Evanston Police Department Calls For Service. It shows 1. a high correlation between student occupancy and the type of complaints noted 2. a concentration of complaints at a small number of addresses in the area. 3. a concentration of complaints on Simpson Street. 51 of the 76 incidents recorded here were on Simpson Street. The evidence makes a strong argument for a City Ordinance against Maintaining a Public Nuisance. Such an ordinance would penalize property owners for multiple nuisance, parking, zoning, and litter violations within a six month period. As such offenses are most common among absentee landlords, a Public Nuisance law would have a particularly salutary effect in discouraging this class of property owner from further damaging this troubled neighborhood. 1901 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud music July 16 1905-07 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party at Willard Apartments July 21 Nuisance complaint: loud party at Willard Apartments August 25 1911 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party October 6 1919 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party October 30 4927 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud subjects in courtyard June 8 1935 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud noise report May 8 Nuisance complaint: loud noise report May 12 1940 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party October 23 Nuisance complaint: loud student party November 3 1943 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party June 2 Nuisance complaint: loud radio July 21 Nuisance complaint: load group November 4 1945 Sherman Nuisance complaint: loud party September 30 1932 Maple Drug related activity August 18 2003 Maple Nuisance complaint: loud group in front September 18 2018 Maple Nuisance complaint loud group June 17 2034 Maple Nuisance complaint: 7 men, loud music October 13, 8:09 pm Nuisance complaint loud subject October 13, 9:14 pm 2039 Maple Nuisance complaint loud group of NU students June 12 Nuisance complaint: loud party September 16 Nuisance complaint: loud party September 22 2045 Maple . Nuisance complaint loud gawp in street September 17 Nuisance complaint loud group outside October 20 2005 Pratt Court Nuisance complaint: loud party June 3 801 Simpson City ordinance violation: loud music October 13 810 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud talking June 10 - - 811 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud party June .17 819 Simpson Three towed vehicles May 10 -826 Simpson Nuisance complaint: subject standing between 826 and 828 October 3 827 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud party in backyard June 16 Nuisance complaint: loud party August 17 Nuisance complaint: loud student party, September 15 Car blocking driveway at 825 Simpson September 22 Car blocking driveway September 23 Car on parkway October 4 Car blocking sidewalk October 10 828 Simpson Vehicle on parkway July 10 Loud party July 14 Parking on sidewalk July 20 Parking on sidewalk August 17 Nuisance complaint: loud party, students all over the place September 16 Car on parkway September 29 Parking complaint: BMW in driveway October 13 Disorderly conduct: loud music, partying, drinking, public urinating October 20 829 Simpson Nuisance complaint: group of about 30 drinking beer and making noise in yard May 19 We Nuisance complaint: loud party May 22 Car blocking driveway September 24 Nuisance complaint: loud group, chanting September 28 City ordinance violation: loud party starting up October 20 832 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud music May 18 Nuisance complaint: loud party/music .tune 16 City ordinance violation: loud party starting up October 20 Beneath viaduct between 800-900 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud voices September 14 910 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud house party June 30 Disorderly conduct: subject firing BB pistol out window July 5 Nuisance complaint: loud music July 11 Nuisance complaint: loud group September 16 Nuisance complaint: loud party September 17 Nuisance complaint: the daily party complaint September 22 Nuisance complaint: loud party spilling outside October 6 918 Simpson Car obstructing sidewalk May 2 Parking on sidewalk July 20 Car obstructing sidewalk August 18 Car obstructing sidewalk August 22 Car blocking sidewalk September 24 Nuisance report: loud party Oct. 13, 1:59 am Nuisance report: loud party Oct. 13, 2:30 am Parking complaint: sidewalk obstruction October 31 1103 Simpson Nuisance complaint: loud guitar, singing May 24 Nuisance complaint: loud party September 14, 12:55 AM Nuisance complaint: very loud music September 14, 11:02 PM Nuisance complaint: loud stereo September 15 Nuisance complaint: loud stereo September 20 Nuisance complaint: loud music September 29 Nuisance complaint: loud music October 25 Though an ordinance against Maintaining a Public Nuisance is not the only solution to the many problems in this area, it would be one part of a solution. I look forward to working with you, Alderman Kent, appropriate City committees, and Corporation Counsel an this matter. Sincerely, Daniel H. Garrison 1228 Simpson St. MINUTES Planning & Development Committee December 17, 200I Room 2403 — 6:30 p.na. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Premat: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, D. Jennings, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: R. Cook, D. Anderson, A. Diener, B. Seidenberg Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 6:44 p.m. He introduced Mr. Richard Cook, Plan Commissioner, as the new liaison person between the P&D Committee and the Plan Commission and welcomed his participation and presence at future meetings to came. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19 AND DECEMBER 3.200I MEETINGS Ald. Wynne moved approval ' of both the November 19th and December 3rd minutes, seconded by AUL Bernstein. Without comments or corrections, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PDlI Ordinance 121-0-01 - Special Use Tvne 2 Restaurant. 519 Main Street - Starbucks , Mr. Wolinski brought to attention two staff memorandums that were distributed this evening to the Committee. The first memorandum from Frank Kaminski, Chief of Police, regarding the condition/requirement for Starbucks to obtain/lire an off -duty police officer on a daily basis. Chief Kaminski listed the minimum union contract and rate for hiring an off -duty police officer and some alternatives to this option. The second memorandum is from Dave Jennings, Director of Public Works, regarding the condition/requirement for Starbucks to provide alley speed bumps. Mr. Jennings explains in his memo about the program to install speed bumps in alleys currently requires two-thirds of the residents along the alley to agree with this request. To be in accordance and avoid conflict with the City's current program in place, he suggested adding the following wording in the ordinance: "if requested by the residents using the guidelines currently approved by City Council". P&D Cottuttittee Mtg. Minutes of 1217 01 Page 2 Chairman Kent offered opening comments to Aid. Bernstein who made the original motion which listed these conditions. Aid. Bernstein stated that he was satisfied with the suggestions made by Mr. Jennings and is willing to amend the original motion and conditions to change the language regarding the speed bumps. He also suggested that an amendment be made to the condition for the off -duty police officer to change the language for this requirement during the weekdays only. Aid. Wynne felt that Saturday's should also be considered because from observation it has been proven that this day can be just as busy, if not more, as the weekdays. She strongly urges that Saturday be included for the requirement of having the off -duty police officer 6-days a week. She noted that her understanding from Chief Kaminski's memo is the issue is that off' -duty police officers may not be available for Starbucks to hire on a full 6-day per week basis; she asked staff to elaborate. Mr. Jennings responded that is correct and that is why Chief Kaminski suggested that private security personnel be an option to fulfill the requiremenL He further explained that there are four different categories of private security, non -City personnel, that are allowed to write parking tickets within certain parameters: security personnel at Evanston Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, Evanston Township High School and private citizens under the City's handicapped program that are allowed to write tickets. He stated that there would be a need for City staff to set up what those parameters are by setting up boundaries and certain rules that would have to be adhered to in order for a private security to be allowed to issue citations for certain parking violations for a particular location. Mr. Jennings reminded the Committee of Chief Kaminski's alternative to have the beat officer monitor such an operation. Aid. Wynne felt that since off -duty police officers may not be available every day and the goal is to insure that there is some type of authority figure at this location, she would be willing to have the special use ordinance amended to require that a private security, as described, be authorized to write citations for certain types of parking violations. She stressed that any such authorized personnel be provided for 6 days per week. Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee that there is a specific provision in the City Code that fonns the basis for what Mr. Jennings just described She said that under section 9- 1-11 of the City Code it states that the City Manager or designee, being the Police Chief, has authority to provide designation to persons to issue citations for parking regulation violations in the area designated by the City. She reiterated, as Mr. Jennings previously stated, they would have to set up an area with in which the designated persons would have that power. Ms. Szymanski also suggested that they have a provision in this clause that the persons so designated be made available to the City in connection with any prosecution of tickets. She recalled the requirement in Administrative Adjudication that the issued ticket is prima fascia evidence of the violation, and from her experience, that only rarely has the parking officer been called in on a ticket. However, she stressed that this is an applicable provision that should be included. Aid. Newman disputed the starting time for the off' -duty police officer. He pointed out, from observation, traffic by pedestrian and vehicle is not as critical between the hours of 6:30-7:30 am., however the maximum traffic congestion begins around 7:30 a.m. until approximately 9:30 a.m. He suggested for the maximum effect of providing an off -duty police officer would be between the rush hours of 7:30 and 9:30 a.m., 6-days per week. P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 12/17/0) Page 3 He pointed out several factors to support this theory, which was agreed upon by the other Committee members. Aid. Newman moved to amend the time frame required for the provision of an off -duty police oWicer by from 7:30-9:30 a.m., Monday — Friday and from 7:30-10:30 a.m. on Saturday's. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Aid. Newman moved to amend that the speed bumps be provided and paid for as a conditiontrequirement for Starbucks to provide only if a petition signed by 2/3's of the adjoining residents to this alley is approved by City Council. Ms. Szymanski pointed out to the Committee that an alternative way of approaching the speed bumps is to regard their installation as a condition to a special use. This would be on a theory that, as noted, the Zoning Ordinance provides that the City Council has authority to impose conditions on special uses if such conditions are to minimize the effects on traffic and congestion. She feels the speed bumps would be an acceptable condition in this situation. However, she stated that this decision would be up to the Council's judgment because the other alternative to have the neighbors go through the petition process is also applicable. Ald. Wynne expressed her opinion and belief that the neighbors should have the opportunity to have a say on the issue and supports the petition process. The other Committee members supported this position; Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Aid. Newman suggested that there is a need for a length of time provision that the off - duty police officer/private security officer should be provided. He recalled discussion and comments made at the previous P&D Committee meetings where representatives of the applicant stated/offered to provide this service for b months, which the Committee agreed was unacceptable. He suggested the appropriate amount of time should be for at least one year and the burden in the ordinance should be placed on Starbucks to demonstrate some evidence to this Committee that there is no longer any need for this service after the required amount of time has been concluded. He stressed that the ordinance should state this accountability very Clearly and for the record, this needs to be more than a casual observation by the police officer in charge. He said that his intent for the indicated year is that the police officer would remain until the P&D Committee made a finding that this provision is no longer necessary. If the applicant chooses to keep this provision in place beyond the year and indefinitely, they should be able to do that, however the applicant should also have the right after one year to come back for reassessment of the situation. Discussion took place between the Committee members regarding this matter. Aid. Newman noted that there is no other business in Evanston that is subject to this condition. This does not mean he disagrees with the conditions set because his concerns are for the particular area effected by any business that will obviously contribute or heighten an already existing negative situation. However, he does feel the applicant should have the opportunity to come back after a period of time for reevaluation of the situation and the need to extend such a condition. Mr. Jennings suggested that after whatever time is required that the applicant come back to them with a proposal on how they plan to evaluate the lack of an officer. He said that if this requires pulling the officer for 2 weeks or a reasonable time to do an after -study, then City staff could work this out with the applicant. Ald. Wynne expressed her concern with putting a procedure in place P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 12/17-IDI Page 4 for the condition requiring the off -duty police officer or security personnel. She is also concerned that even if there is a satisfactory procedure, if it will be adhered to in the future as personnel changes and Council members. She Ald. Newman moved that in one year the applicant would have the right, with the burden on applicant to provide evidence that the police officer is no longer needed. The applicant will also have to set up some type of traffic study in conjunction with the City's Traffic Division. Mr. Alterson questioned if the one year period begins after the adoption of the ordinance granting the special use or one year from the issuance of the occupancy certificate. The Committee agreed with one year after the issuance of the occupancy certificate. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion. Chaiman Kent allowed for brief citizen comment at this time in view of the large amount of time that has been given at previous meetings for citizen testimony. Ms. Gladys Bryer, Interreligious Sustainability Circle, has spoken at previous meeting and reminded the Committee that the 202 bus route tuns down Main Strut. She informed the Committee that the bus going west bound is scheduled to arrive at Main dot Chicago Avenue at 7:34, which means that it is in route up Main Street 15-20 minutes before this time. She suggested that consideration be given to changing the time frame for the off -duty police officer from 7-9 a.m. She expressed her concern with the applicant adhering to this condition in the future and how it will be enforced. Aid. Wynne acknowledged the bus schedule and has no problem with requiring the officer to be on -duty beginning at 7 am. Ms. Debbie Hillman, neighborhood resident, raised the question of Starbucks being able to come back to the same Council and request the removal of a provision or condition of a special use permit they granted. She asked if there is any recourse that the neighborhood has if for example a private security officer does not show up; what can citizens do to get the City to enforce this condition and what will the City do. Mr. Wolinski responded that this would assuredly be a condition of the special use and there is the possibility that the applicant could loose their special use if they art not complying oath all conditions and provisions. He said that in the case of substantial non- compliance, for example if more than 2 days, they would turn this over to the City's legal department for further action. Ms. Hillman expressed her disappointment, being that she was very involved with the Chicago Avenue Corridor project and planning, with the City's officials engagement with all the nitpicking provisions in order to accommodate this special use. She feels this is proof that this is a bad ordinance to allow a high profile business as Starbucks into an already existing high traffic and congested area, which will assuredly add to the problem. She added that it is also proof that the principal where city planning commissions, which individuals who sit on such commissions are voted on by the Council, are put in the position and made responsible to make decisions on the laws effecting the betterment of P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12'17.41 Page 5 the City and our Cit)- Council in turn overrides all the perimeters and guidelines set by such bodies. She concluded that this is very bad government. Chairman Kent thanked those who gave citizen comments. He asked for a vote on the amendment to change the time from 7-9 a.m. during the weekdays and 7:3()-10:30 a.m. on Saturdays for the oft -duty police officer. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the amendment. Aid. Engelman moved to approve the ordinance as amended, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. This will be introduced this evening and brought back before the Committee for review of the amended ordinance at the January 14th meeting. (P4) Ordinance 120-0-01 - Grantine Evanston Landmark Status to the nronerty at 64I Sheridan Square Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by AId. Bernstein. Chairman Kent acknowledged the attendance of the owner of the property, Mr. Paul Lurie, who had no additional comments. The Committee asked Mr. Carlos Ruiz for any additional comments. Mr. Ruiz gave a brief overview of the background on this case and the Evanston Preservation Commission's position in supporting the request for landmark status of this property. He explained the Preservation Commission's analysis in considering this property for landmark status as noted in the correspondence forwarded to the Committee for their review. With no further comments or questions from the Committee, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 12243-01 - Planned Development: 800 Elgin Road Ald. Newman opened discussion on this matter. He said with regards to the lighting portion, that he has had a conversation with the developer on this matter with the developer. He noted that the intent on the lighting was that Ald. Wynne had a concern about being able to have some type of standard in the ordinance in which to see whether or not there was a visional light that went from the building effecting onto the residential properties to the north. He explained that what has been set up is that essentially if there is going to be a measu=cnt of light, which is going to be done by the City and the current light between the City and the developer. If the lighting is below or if there is less lighting in the new project compared to what there is currently, then the City has the right, even if there is less light, at its own expense to put up louvers to shield the light from the residents. He pointed out that if the light is greater than the measured light, then the louvers would have to be paid for by the developer. He clarified that the reasoning for this is because this building, if this ordinance is passed, is within the Research Park TIF District and the amount of new taxes that will be generated by this development exceeds S 1 million dollars a year. Therefore, in his opinion, if the City is getting within a TIF district this arnotmt of money in new taxes, we are going to be receiving an overwhelming financial benefit because those taxes can be used to defray our costs for the parking being built in the downtown area. He supports this language in the ordinance because it preserves the City's option if there is an adverse impact to the neighborhood with the financial benefit potentially being received, especially in the TIF district where the funds can be used with the increments to ameliorate the impact of the new development Therefore, he feels this is appropriate for the City to have the right in all P&D Committee N1tg. Minutes of 11,17 01 Page b cases to be able to have this option with the lighting. Ms. Doraine Anderson requested that the record shoe, for the benefit of those in attendance that unfamiliar with this situation, that these louvers are restricted to the garage - not to the office tower, which will share the same north wall. Aid. Wynne noted that she has a number of comments from people since this issue has been addressed, regarding the concern of having this new building match the architectural style of the 1 800 Sherman building; she shares this concern. She admitted that she has no expertise in building materials but requested Mr. Cook address this since he is knowledgeable in this field. Mr. Cook responded that this concern was discussed at the last Plan Commission meeting on this case before forwarding their recommendation. He informed that the Plan Commissioners agreed with this concern and strongly feel that the building materials should be in harmony with the existing building. In fact, several Commissioners felt that this should be a pre -condition to the proposed building being built. He continued that it is known that there is a granite stone on the base of the 1800 Sherman building and noted that the cost effect is 3 times the amount of what the pre -cast concrete is currently going for. However, in looking at the existing building, the granite ruts around the base course and is actually in 2 colors (rose and beige) and then proceeds up above a pre -cast panel. Mr. Cook said the Plan Commission's thoughts were that if they could at least get the base of the building put in granite and some other appropriate material to match the existing building, then harmony could be reached. However, he stressed the Commission's concern that the material be in great pre -cast concrete panel, which leaves a wide opening in the opinion of the architectural field in terms of finished texture, color, etc. Aid. Newman interrupted the current discussion regarding the building materials to clarify the comprehension of the lighting situation. From his understanding of the reading of the language, it states that the developer is obligated to take all necessary — actions if City officials receive complaints about the intensity of lighting on the north side of the structure instructed on lot # 1 from owners of properties located adjacent to the north boundary of the property in the residential zoning district from which set lighting is visible. The owner should take all action necessary to induce the intensity of set lighting to the measured light level including but not limited to the installation of louvers. He asked Mr. Cook to clarify from his knowledge if this provision is only limited to the garage or affects the entire building. Mr. Paul Shadle, attorney with Piper, Marbury, =_ Rudnick & Wolfe, representing the applicant, responded that there was past discussion on this matter and acknowledged Aid. Newman's understanding to be correct in that this obligation is the responsibility of the developer for the entire building, not just limited to the garage. Mr. Shadle informed the Committee of his knowledge from discussions with the applicant and the architect with regards to the thatching materials of the proposed building to the existing building, is that the color of the pre -cast was in the same family. He also informed that it was stated that the technology of the pre -cast was such that they can provide an extraordinarily high quality finish to the pre -cast base of the proposed building. He assured the position of his client's reputation in producing quality P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 12t17Io1 Page 7 developments and guaranteed their desire and ability to build a structure that is compatible with the existing building at 1800 Sherman. Mr. Cook informed the Committee of the Plan Commission's discussion regarding the north facade and the lighting, which was brought up by Ms. Anderson's concerns and were addressed. However, they did not discuss louvers in that meeting. He responded to Mr. Shadle's comments on the matching pre -cast materials and that he did have a discussion with the architect for this development. He informed that the architect did mention about the duality of the finish of the concrete and acknowledges their intent to match the base of the building with an appropriate pre -cast material. However this still does not alleviate his concern about the base of the material itself for the final decision with what will be used He also noted that another of the Plan Commission's concerns was for the current display windows located on Clark Street and the unanticipated concern for the same occurrence happening with the erection of the new building on that site. He further noted the Plan Commission's concem for retail proposed on the Elgin Road frontage, which they feel there will be no foot traffic to support such business. He informed the Committee that from conversation with the architect, it was implied that those businesses would be serving the building itself and not actually intended to be supported by foot traffic. Mr. Cook said that his concern with that circumstance would be for pedestrian traffic crossing in the middle of the street across the parkway and causing a hazard in that fashion. Mr. Shadle acknowledged Mr. Cook's concerns and noted that he was present with the architect for that discussion between the two parties. However, he noted that the primary issues that were addressed at the Plan Commission, were specifically sought on distinct guidelines on how to address those concerns and their recommendations were requested and specified through their negative recommendation. He pointed out that the three recommendations/issues that were raised regarded 1) the retail issue on the south end of the site, which they have sought to address by making that available for options. He informed that Prentiss Properties has expressed their desire to pursue a very productive use of that site and tried to address this matter in previous conversation with the P&D Committee by provided an opportunity to do so. 2) Lighting - they sought to construct appropriate lighting and also correctively addressed this by way of presenting language as described by Ald. Newman previously. 3) The issue of shifting the tower from the north and noted the lengthy discussion on this matter that has taken place between the developer and the architect, which has been forwarded to City staff officials. He informed that it is the experienced belief of the architect that for both functional and aesthetic reasons that the proposed location of the tower at the north end of the site is the most reasonable, rational and equitable location for this building. Ald. Wynne felt it important to reiterate her initial concern regarding the harmonization with the matching of materials and same quality of materials to synchronize with the existing building at 1800 Sherman. Mr. Dan Cushing, Principal Developer with Prentiss Properties, responded and informed the Committee that he is the chief person in charge of this development and responsible for the multi -million dollar asset for the proposed building adjacent to the existing building. He assured that it is their intent to produce and P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of I117101 Page a develop a building that is successful for that particular site and to build a structure that will be on the same quality level to match what is existing for continued success and prosperity of that location. He assured that matching or similar quality materials will be used and it is their intent that the proposed development will enhance the existing building and overall value of the entire site. He further stressed the importance of being able to provide a building that will entice and attract prominent lessors for the property. Themforz, he noted his support for all the comments that have been expressed so far and reiterated his company's position on supplying a quality development with building materials and providing an aesthetically pleasing outcome in the end. Mr. Cook clarified, after hearing Mr. Cushing and Mr. Shadle's comments, that when the Plan Commission reviewed the plans for the proposed building and in reviewing the presented plan for the base of the building, it was clearly different than the pre -cast of the existing building. He noted that the color difference is not so important at this time and can be taken addressed at a latex date, however the there should definitely be a strong stipulation set that the building materials and same quality be matched to the existing building. Aid. Bernstein addressed his concerns wish the previously mentioned condition with access signage on the park street frontage on Clark Street and its similarity to the window signage violations experienced at the Dempster/Dodge mini -mall. He suggested that he would like to prohibit advertising from appearing in the windows of the proposed buildings ground level retail stores. He also noted that from his observation, the building at 1800 Sberman on the ground level is not sufficiently lighted and he suggests additional or adequate lighting be added for the existing building and this recommendation be extended for the proposed building. This observation is especially with regards to the current window boxes. He personally feels that art should be the exclusive use of such window boxes where appropriate, with the addition of proper lighting versus accessbe advertisement signage. Mr. Cushing agreed with Aid. Bernstein's observation with the existing building's window box illumination should be more lit and furdw agreed that inappropriate window sign is not acceptable and will not be acceptable in the new building. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Cook for clarification on his personal opinion of the tendering of the building presented before the Plan Commission; he is under the impression that there is a definite disagreement with the proposal. Mr. Cook assured Aid. Newman's pemeptioa, however he pointed out that there are specifics in the proposed building where his disagreement lies. Aid. Newman stated that this is a very important issue that they are facing with this case and also a very difficult dilemma as well. He rioted that as City Council is reviewing the budget and the issue of not wanting to raise the property taxes on the residents, it is clear that no citizens want to cut any services in the budget that their taxes pay for. He pointed out that what is here before the Committee tonight is two examples where a vast amount of the community/citizens do not want Council to extent the invitation/proposition and encouragement of making accessible to the City businesses that will help to alleviate the burden put upon our taxpaying citizens. He stressed the seriousness of this situation because if this proposed development is approved, they will be one of the 5-10 top tax payers in the City of Evanston and the expense of the parking, unlike several of the office buildings that are being developed at P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12/17,'01 Page 9 this time, is entirely being paid for by the developer which is a tremendous expense here. Aid. Newman said that what he finds difficult is the fact that in trying to build or have something approved by the City that is pleasing to the majority of citizens, is virtually impossible without some t}pe of latitude provided for the developer and agreed upon by the City government in order to attract and obtain such development that is needed to relieve the burden set upon the tax base placed upon our citizens. He stressed that we can not maintain the present level of service provided in the City and can not maintain the property taxes at a reasonable level if we do not grow the tax base somewhere; this availability is in the downonwn Evanston district. Mr. Cook responded to Ald. Newman's comments in that he too is equally concerned with the tax base and it's impact on the taxpaying citizens of Evanston. His personal desire in this case was to enhance the look and outcome of the proposed building. He stressed that his intent, as well as other members of the Plan Commission, is not to kill or discourage and obstruct development of this site, nevertheless their intent is to enhance and encourage the best possible development of this site with regards to aesthetics, building materials, best and most productive use of the site, etc. Aid. Newman appreciated Mr. Cook's response, however he felt it should be noted that this was not the strongest part of the Plan Commission's recommendation in terms of the aesthetics of the building. He further noted that it should be recognized that in this case of a requested planned redevelopment, the developer at their own cost is proposing to provide 500+ parking spaces without asking for any assistance from the City. He supports the developer and their proposal in this case on their behalf to fully take on this responsibility in comparison to the last several proposals for developments in the downtown district where the City has had to interact and make financial propositions to fulfill the many parking obligations that should have been the burden of the developer. Chairman Kent called on citizen comment at this time. Mr. Julian Shamen, Evanston resident, stated that he is concerned with the history of the 1800 Sherman building, which had been taken over by the City previous to the time this building was built. He questioned what safeguards does the City have in a case such as this, in light of the economic situation for the entire nation with the economy being on the down side. Aid. Newman questioned if Mr. Shamen is referring to the fact the 1800 Sherman building was pan of a development back in the late 1970's early 1980's. Because from his understanding, the development group related to that site at that time was given the development rights with what used to be called the downtown 2 district. He further informed that at that time there was a development agreement between the City and the developer for that site. He pointed out that in this case, it has nothing to do with the development agreement at that time because it was an agreement set with the 1800 Sherman Building and does not effect what is being requested with this application. Aid. Engelman recalled that at that time the City never took over the building and it was exclusively an agreement made with the developer at that time. He asked for City stairs recollection at this point. Ms. Aiello responded that she recalls the very first development for that site was for one residential and one office. The City received approximately S560,000 from a letter of credit that the developer at that time posted for P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12/17,01 Page 10 the development; the City subsequently acquired the land. She said the City then reissued a request for proposal resulting in Carley Capital Group out of Madison, WI proposal to construct the 1800 Sherman Building. She informed that this same group leased the building out up until the real estate downturn in the late 80's. The Carley Capital Group then lost the building along with their other real estate investments. Subsequently, the building was purchased by another company who in turn sold it to Prentiss Properties. Ms. Aiello affirmed that the City has not financial obligations with the 1800 Sherman Building or nor any additional construction on the site. Mr. Dave Galloway, Evanston resident and architect representing Design Evanston, reported that a number of their representatives have followed this project and one of their primary concerns about this project is the %%ay the site will be developed. He said that they predominantly prefer to see that the office building along Clark Street with retail at the base level to activate business in that area which is a highly used pedestrian corridor to the entertainment facilities over on Maple. He said they felt the massing of the building would be for more productive in that location. In addition, Design Evanston originally was very critical of the garage element and how the openings in the garage could be effectively used to screen offensive light from the inside, much like what is occurring at the Maple Street Garage. Mr. Galloway said that Design Evanston is also critical of the extensive use of pre -cast and the lack of extensive development of the facade to assure what kind of pre -cast is going to be used. To that extent, if the present site plan is going to withheld and if the present use of pre -cast on the building is going to be sustained by this Conunittee, Design Evanston would strongly recommend that P&D grant binding review powers to the Site Plan & Appearance Review. He feels this would assure that review of the quality, articulation and the detailing of the pre -cast, which appears to be of great importance according to the comments made thus far, to the success of this building. He expressed his groups disappointment with the Committee not following more of the recommendations of the Plan Commission, which is composed of developers, architects and lawyers with the primary intent of reviewing projects like this and taking into account their aesthetic quality. Ms. Beth Steffen, resident, commented that as Evanston is going to see more development to come, she feels it is the obligation of this Committee to oversee that whatever comes into this City is something that assuredly is constructed with quality and aesthetically pleasing materials. She feels that the citizens of Evanston do have a right and should have a say in what they want to see in this city. It should not be allowed for the developers to come into Evanston and dictate and impose their own budgets, designs and architectural preferences. She stressed that our City government body should set standards and adhere to them. Ald. Engelman stated that he understands the reasons why the developer considers locating the office tower in the northwest comer of the lot versus the south end of the lot. He pointed out that one of the variations requested here is to the ziggurat setback and virtually every building over a certain height has requested this same variation since they have imposed this setback requirement. He recalled that this setback requirement was designed to prevent the effect of the building overpowering the street. He pointed out P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 12117,01 Page I I where the 1800 Sherman building is setback so that the building is not imposing on the northeast or southeast corner. He asked for an overview of the proposed building's setbacks. Mr. Alterson noted that the current building on the Sherman Avenue side built directly on the lot line, which is allowed with the current zoning ordinance without variation, however does require a ziggurat setback for the building. It was noted that the proposed building on the Elgin Road side would be setback from the lot line, therefore not requiring the ziggurat setback. However, the ziggurat setback is required for the Benson Street side. Mr. Shadle wanted to confirm that it was P&D Committee's vote at their last meeting to approve the plans concluding the plat of subdivision conceptually so that the remaining review would be administerial at the department level. His concern is that there is no reference in the ordinance to this statement other than to the recitals to the plat of subdivision. He does not want the plat of subdivision to have to go back through the entire conceptual review process due to a technicality. Ms. Szymanski responded that the plat has to go through review by all City staff members to make sure that all requirements are met. She reported that City staff has not even seen the vellum for this property, therefore she feels it is premature to recite in this ordinance that Council will grant approval. Although Council is correct that previous bodies have considered the plat of subdivision. She suggests that this come back before the Committee as typically done by a motion. Aid. Newman responded to the previous comments made regarding disappointment in the Committee's position when overriding the Plan Commission's recommendation. He pointed out that this situation can be turned, for example where the Plan Commission has recommended approval of a project (1930 Ridge) and the Committee overruled their vote. In the latter case, many of the neighborhood residents were upset with the Plan Commission's decision and it is because of the Committee's involvement that the new proposal for 1930 Ridge is down to 4 stories. Aid. Wynne said this is why it is important to have binding appearance review or guidelines so that they start off with a threshold similar to what many other communities are doing. She looks forward to the Committee's future consideration and discussion of binding appearance review. She asked Mr. Cook where the Plan Commission stands with this issue. Mr. Cook responded that the Plan Commission is debating one minor recommendation still, which they will address at their next meeting. If the issue is resolved, they will be done with their review and will forward to the Committee thereafter. Mr. Shamen asked if the footprint of could be reduced by taking away some of the parking spaces. Aid. Engelman said from his view, noted that if you could take out approximately 40 parking spaces along the south end of the lot, it is possible to move the structure back 5' off the lot line on both sides. However, the removal of 40 parking spaces could be detrimental. Mr. Shadle noted the problem of being restricted by the geometry of the site and the need to provide sufficient parking for both buildings plus other parking obligations. Aid. Newman agreed that it would be detrimental to take away 40 parting spaces because one of the driving issues in downtown redevelopment that they have experienced is that when new buildings come in that they have sufficient P&D Commince Mtg. Minutes of 1211 VO I Page 12 parking. He pointed out that in this particular case, there is a steep parking requirement that the developer has met in their proposed plan. Mr. Shamen understood that fact, however he said there is a need to put a halt to the concrete canyon effect that is happening in Evanston, like Chicago Avenue for example. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that 503 spaces is required total for both buildings and 550 spaces are being proposed. Aid. Newman asked staff to explain what period of time the applicant would have to begin this project and get the building constructed. Mr. Wolinski responded that the period of time when planned development begins and when the building is to be finished, has been discussed in the past. He noted that planned developments, by ordinance arc approved for one year with the expectation of the building permit being issued in this time. He said that within the next two years from issuance of the building permit, issuing of the occupancy permit is expected. This time frame is anticipated, however unless the developer comes in to request an extension due to unforeseen issues with consauc ion. He said in this case, the anticipated time frame for completion of the project would be some time in 2004 without any delays. Mr. Cushing requested to the Committee for some relief to this time frame due to the expense his company will be investing into this project for assurance of locking in some high quality leasee's for the new building. He assured that their expectation is to have the building constructed within an 18 month period, however an extension of the time frame would give them some insurance time to secure those leases for the building in order to insure their investment in the projecL Mr. Shadle clarified that his client is requesting a 4-year sunset period. Aid. Newman said that he would not have a problem with extending the one year period for issuance of the building permit to 18 months, however a 4 year period would be an extensive amount of time to grant. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that a practical standpoint is the recognition that the developer does have the opportunity to come in and ask for an extension in time after the ordinance is granted. He used the Jacob Blake Manor project as an example where the Committee granted several brae extensions to the developer. Although this project was a special use versus a planned development in this case, it is evident of the Committee's willingness to work with the developer in granting time extensions. Mr. Cushing raised arguments on the economy and stability in attracting quality tenants. He also argued that if the 4-year sunset period were given, it would save the City goverment and staff the extra paperwork and their time by granting a realistic time frame from the beginning. Lengthy discussion took place between the Committee, staff and the applicant on the matter. After much discussion, AK Newman moved to amend the initial time for issuance of dw bWW!ng permit to 18 months. Ald. Bernstein said that his decision on this would be based on the property being located in the TIF district and the duration of the TIF period. fie feels that if they start pushing beyond this time period, he would scrutinize the project differently. He agrees with the 18 months at which time if needed, the applicant come back demonstrating their need for an extension at that time. Chairman Kent also agreed and backs Mr. Wolinski's example of the Committee's record in extending time for the Jacob Blake Manor. He feels this =