HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2002MINUTES
Planning & Development Committee
January 14, 2002
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, J. Aiello, A. Alterson, M. Barry, P. Haynes, D.
Jennings, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Others Present:
R. Cook, D. Anderson, A. Dienner
Presiding Official:
Alderman Kent
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17.2001 MEETINGS
The minutes of December 17'h, were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Ordinance 123-0-01 — Mao Amendment & Planned Development: 1930 Ridge
Avenue
Chairman Kent welcomed Mr. Richard Aaronson, Evanston Realty Partners, LLC. He
requested that Mr. Aaronson begin with a brief presentation and an update of the new
proposal, followed by citizen comments and concluding Aith Committee discussion. He
acknowledged several memorandums handed out this evening to the Committee and
asked that staff summarize.
Mr. Aaronson explained that they are here tonight to follow up on their prior proposals.
He noted that they have been before the Plan Commission formerly on three occasions
and are presenting their third design. He said this design proposes 4-story buildings with
underground parking and an all brick and masonry buildings. He forwarded attention to
the diagrams displaying the layout of the design He acknowledged the presence of their
architect, Mr. Steve Yas, also present was their landscape architect for further
explanation if desired by the Committee. Mr. Aaronson noted that they have an
affordable housing component, as discussed previously and are pleased to advise the
Committee that they have augmented the scope of this. He reminded that previously they
had proposed 10 units of the project be designated as affordable units with a 25'Yo
discount off the market rate. He noted that since the last meeting, they have entered into
an agreement/letter of intent with the Interfaith Housing Coalition. He acknowledged the
presence of Mr. Richard Koenig, Director of Interfaith, for availability of comments or
P&D Committee Sitg.
Minutes of 01-14-02
Page 2
questions if required by the Committee. He explained their plans are to have those
affordable units with rents lowered further to meet the 84% median income requirement
as determined by statistically by the U.S. Department of Housing. He stated that this is
an accepted figure for affordability throughout the housing industry as well as HUD. Mr.
Aaronson brought attention to their memo that was provided to the Committee that refers
to the density of the project and the requirement for that density. He acknowledged the
presence of Ms. Leslie , who is an investment banker with expertise in multi-
family housing and can provide supportive statements regarding this subject. He also
recognized Ms. Paula Haynes: Executive Director for the Human Relations Commission
for continents on this issue, noting her input in the drafting of the ordinance as it
currently stands with the affordable housing component. He informed the Committee
that he could provide any information on any questions they may have regarding the
management practices or procedures provided in the package for the development or
stated in the lease agreement. He recalled that there were some questions on the staffing
of the property and it was previously mentioned that they would have a staff of 3 persons,
which is true for the management office. This staff of 3 persons is in addition to
maintenance, grounds and housekeeping staff as well as evening and weekend staff,
bringing the total number of personnel on duty at all time between 8-10 people. This
number of employees on staff is equivalent of to other properties in Evanston of similar
size. Mr. Aaronson concluded with the acknowledgement of Mr. Bruce Huvard, their
attorney, available for any questions regarding the content of the proposed ordinance or
the zoning process.
Mr. Wolinski commented on the housekeeping issue, noting that there have been a
number of revisions to this ordinance that have been proposed by the applicant. He
informed the Committee that the revisions of the ordinance pertaining to the
housekeeping are included in the copy presented to them this evening. He also informed
that on page b there is an additional page that is dated January 14, 2002 that contains
some additional language relating to the set aside units. He reiterated that the developer
proposes these revisions.
Chairman Kent called on citizen comments at this time referring to the sign-up sheet.
Ms. Doraine Anderson, 1860 Sherman Avenue, stated that there still remains the issue
and expressed concern with the density of the project. She noted that despite the
complaints about the delays that the developer has faced, it was this Committee that sent
this development back to the Plan Commission in October, which was their fourth
appearance before the Commission. She asked if the Committee has been forwarded and
reviewed the transcript of that meeting. Staff assured that the transcript has been
forwarded to the Committee. She acknowledged Ms. Mary Singh, who is highly
conversant with the Zoning Ordinance, having served on the commission to drift the
current ordinance. She noted that with Ms. Singh, along with herself and numerous other
very involved individuals who attended and contributed in the meticulous review of the
draft ordinance in preparation for its passage finally in 1993. Ms. Anderson informed
that Ms. Singh pointed out that there is a percentage under a planned unit development
over the underlying zoning allowance, which is not supposedly to be exceeded. She
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 01-14-02
Page 3
stated that this Committee has a legislative position and it is supposedly understood that
the zoning ordinance. both in terms of the map and the text, has been amended several
times since its passage in 1993. However, if the Committee does not choose to make
changes that will affect certain things in the ordinance, then like any other citizen dealing
with the ordinance, presumably the regulations and guidelines of the zoning ordinance
also bind this Committee. With the issue of density, she acknowledged that there people
who have frequently announced the height dilemma, however height was never a single
issue; density was always the issue and main concern as previously clearly stated.
Ms. Judy Fiske, 2319 Sherman Avenue, informed of her participation in numerous
meetings previously held on this proposal. She stressed her original primary concern for
density, which still remains. She also expressed her additional initial concerns with the
appearance of the building and the entryway into the garage from Ridge Avenue. She
admitted that she is acceptable with the proposal of 4-story buildings but is still opposed
to the high density All proposed with the decrease in height. She stated her continuing
concern with the percentage of students that are going to be living in these proposed
buildings, which she expects to be more undergraduate than graduate students. From her
experience in living across the street from a rental building with undergraduate students,
she is certain of the high turnover expectancy and the observation of their living lifestyle
of having no respect for their surrounding single-family homeowners, acknowledging
their age group and inexperience with adult living expectations and being of typical
college -oriented mentality. Ms. Fiske extended this concern with the undergraduate
lifestyle in conjunction with the proposed balconies. She expressed her understanding
and compassion with undergraduate students and the livelihood that comes with their
excitement of college living, however this lifestyle is detrimental to the effected
surrounding single-family homeowner neighborhood. She stressed that their lifestyle is
proven and confirmed to be less responsible and remains a concern of hers for the entire
surrounding neighborhood with the addition of this development. She concluded with
expressing her disappointment with the Committee's lack of support for the Plan
Commission's recommendations and expressed her support for binding appearance
review by a select committee and the Council's support and respect in upholding any
decisions made by such experienced commissions and their members. Ms. Fiske
concluded with her concerns for downtown "sprawl", even with the fact that this is a
residential building, it does contribute to that feeling of downtown sprawl.
Mr. Alex Sproul, informed that he is speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce on
this matter. He declared the Chamber's continued support for this project for several
reasons. He reiterated the Chamber's position in support of high density along the
commuter rail lines is a desirable commodity from the standpoint that the public
transportation customer and constituency is favorable to the environment and relieves
congestion, somewhat and contributes to the profits and gain on the City's behalf. He
noted that the expansion of the tax base, he believes is desirable on the face of it and
should be supported. He stated that the affordable housing component is a new element
for new projects of this size and also noted the Chamber's support on this effort. Even
though the developer is only proposing 10 units, it is a beginning and provides a good
P&D Commitnce Slag.
Minutes of 01.14-02
Page 4
precedence for consideration in future projects. Mr. Sproul concluded with his assured
support of this project on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Roberta Hudson, I941 Dewey Avenue, expressed her strong opposition to this
project for many reasons, as stated clearly at all previous meetings on this matter. She
recognized the comments and realization of the length of time that has been put upon the
developer in trying to forward this project, however this same length of time has been
experienced and accompanied by the concerned citizens and neighbors who have
expressed their concerns all along the way with ever} step of this project proposed
initially by the developer up until the present. She stressed her initial concerns expressed,
as well as all of the other neighbors and property owners who will be effected by this
development, from the beginning with the density dilemma that continues to be forked
upon them by the developer with this project. She strongly urged the Committee to
recognize the neighbors expressed concerns from the beginning, regarding the density
proposed with this project and the traffic concerns that will be added to the congestion on
Ridge with the egress and ingress into this development. Ms. Hudson stood firm that
these were some of the major issues expressed by the neighboring citizens that they feel
have not been dealt with. She seconded Ms. Fiske's earlier comments on the concerns
for undergraduate students being the major tenants and their unstable lifestyles and this
burden being forwarded onto the surrounding residential homeowners. She brought to
the Committee's attention the addition of another project on Emerson which will add 71
units and the already overcrowded streets that will experience the overpopulation and
added traffic congestion problems that come with it. Ms. Hudson stressed that Council
needs to consider the population growth that is currently being forced upon this City with
the growth of the downtown building expansion, the condo conversions, etc. and the need
for re-evaluation of the entire situation. She stated her confusion with the Council's
thoughts and their seemingly main concern for bringing in developments to balance the
budget. However from her experience as an assistance engineer, the City needs to do an
evaluation of the whole City operation and determine and do time studies for the actual
benefit of the entire City as far as population growth in consideration of the burden it is
adding on to the City's provision operations versus the ability to financial provide. She
concluded with asking the Committee to re-evaluate the entire situation, beyond this
project, however use this project as consideration for the obvious stress on excessive
density to prime properties.
Mr. Dave Gallowav, 729 Noyes Street, also the President of Design Evanston. He stated -
that he has affixed feelings for this project. First of all, he commended the developer for
their persistence and patience and their present architect for a vastly improved project
proposal versus the previous renditions. He admits his preference for the earlier masonry
color scheme, which he felt added a unique character to the building and a unique sense
of scale with the appearance of looking new and in context with the color scheme of the
commercial district further north on Ridge. However, even though he is pleased with the
vast improvement of the project with this last proposal versus the earlier inception, he
still has significant concerns with regards to the project's density. He said the deal with
the planned unit development is that they advance certain concessions to the developer in
luau to give something back to the City. He feels the give back in this case is somewhat -
P&D Committee %ttg.
Minutes of 01-1 4-02
Page S
lacking in that the density of the project does not give any green space in any portions of
the property where it might best be appreciated.
Mr. Daniel Garrison, 1228 Simpson Street, requested to comment on several arguments
stated previously in support of this project. He specifically brought attention to Mr.
Sproul's earlier argument on the benefits of providing a high density development along
the commuter rail corridor. He noted that this argument has been presented numerous
times previously and this would be we if this building had been designed for commuters,
however this building and development has been designed for students in conjunction
with the high demand for undergraduate student housing and population. He feels that
this is especially true due to the decreased size of the apartments, which was made
necessary by lowering the height of the building structure, resulting in a very high
percentage of extremely small apartments. Mr. Garrison stressed that the only probable
market for housing of this sort is for students at Northwestern who are not commuters
and the rules of transportation corridor density do not apply to that kind of tenant. He
noted that a good deal of discussion has previously occurred regarding the problems
involved with student tenants and their requirement for high staffing levels. He stated
that he is pleased to hear of the applicants improve of providing an increased number of
available staff. However, he feels the density on the overall site coverage is modeled on
a faulty model referring to the comparison frequently mentioned by the developer to the
Park Evanston building or Evanston Place. He noted that there is a big difference in
those two buildings and the proposed building because of their locations. The other two
buildings are 1-2 blocks from the Northwestern campus and immediately adjacent to
downtown Evanston, therefore they contain a much different location strategy. He
analyzed those differences in further detail, touching on the facts of the size of those
units, their provisions of parking, the immediate locality to downtown Evanston, ability
to attract beyond the NU student need for housing, etc., which all have to be taken into
consideration in comparison to the proposed development at the subject location. He
willingly challenges the unwise comparison to these downtown buildings of high density
versus the 1930 Ridge location and ascertains to the obvious differences and negative
impacts on the surrounding single-family residential character and reality. Mr. Garrison
stressed the importance of the obvious difference in location situations and the unrealistic
comparison of this proposed development to the other two developments provided as a
parallelism. He supports this site as a good development location and welcomes the
proper proposal for development that fits the property and its surrounding stipulations.
He stressed his concern for the probability of future blight and slum situations that come
aith over -dense developments and the presumable tenants that this building will attract
Ms. Sue Carlson, property owner/neighbor, commended the developer for their efforts
throughout the entire process so far and in trying to work with the neighbors concerns.
She requested that the Council take into consideration the developers efforts, however
she stressed that Council also take into consideration on the saute level and try to find a
compromise to equally consider what the concerned citizens have expressed from the
beginning and onset of this proposal. Her concerns are with the affordable housing issue
and a precedence being set for developments and multi -family housing to come and the
required inclusion that such housing be provided. However, she noted from the earlier
P&D Committee .064
Minutes of o l - 14-02
Page 6
proposal presented. that one of the eligibility criteria for affordable housing is that there
must be one (1) member of the family unit that must be employed. She questioned if this
applies to senior citizens and their position for eligibility being that in most cases, they
are not employed. Asir. Bruce Huvard, attorney for the applicant, responded that this
situation was noticed previously and they have addressed this omission in the proposed
presented rendition of the ordinance before the Committee.
Chairman Kent closed citizen comment for Committee discussion. Aid. Newman asked
if there were any metal on the front facade of the building. Mr. Aaronson responded that
the proposed metal in the earlier rendition has been removed. Aid. Bernstein referred to
page 7, item b, in the amended ordinance before the Committee, regarding set aside units.
He asked for clarification of providing the 10 units in another location in Evanston. Mr.
Huvard answered that these units would be relocated in the case of if the Planned
Development is converted into condominiums. Chairman Kent commended Mr. Huvard
and his working along with Ms. Szymanski and Ms. Haynes for the improvements made
to the ordinance regarding the affordable housing component. He asked Ms. Haynes if
the revisions to the ordinance bring them closer in meeting the affordable housing
standards for low-income residents. Ms. Haynes responded that with the inclusion of the
recommended revisions, it does meet the standards for providing affordable housing,
especially by providing for the 80% median income family. Aid. Bernstein asked if
students can receive section 8 eligibility. Ms. Haynes answered that students do not
qualify.
Aid. Newman referred to Mr. Jennings that a neighbor asked whether it would be
permissible for the City not to sell residential parking stickers in the adjacent residential _
only parking districts, similar to what was done for the Buck building. Mr. Jennings
responded that in both cases, the buildings are actually outside the existing residential
districts. It would require an ordinance change in order to allow them to receive these
parking stickers. Aid. Newman therefore noted, that without any amendment to this
ordinance that unless the parking districts that were adjacent to where this building is
located should the building pass were amended to include the boundaries of this building,
the new residents of this building would not be able to purchase "residents only" parking
stickers for their cars. W. Jennings assured that to be correct. Aid. Newman further
stated that he feels this suggestion by the neighborhood was very fair and reasonable.
Chairman Kent read the letter that he received from the neighborhood, in which Aid.
Newman was referring to.
Aid. Engelman asked what the maximum density allowance is for this lot, if it were not a
PUD, under the R6 zoning. Mr. Alterson responded that 200 units would be allowed.
Aid. Engelman pointed out that they are not allowing extra density with the Planned
Development. Mr. Alterson clarified no extra density in terms of bodies, however there
is a density consideration in terms of building lot coverage and structure. Under time R6
zoning, 50% building lot coverage is allowable, equaling approximately 42,600 square
feet. He said that 55,000 square feet is being requested in this proposal. Aid. Engelman
noted this is an allowance of 30%. He said that his preference would have been to have _
slightly taller buildings allowing more green space and setback. Mr. Huvard asked Mr.
P&D Committee Ntg.
Minutes of 01.14-02
Page 7
Alterson if the question gone from 504'o to 70010 on lot coverage for the standard that is
allowed in the planned development section. He noted that they are proposing to go from
50% to 65%. Mr. Alterson stated that in the R6 district you can increase building lot
coverage by 20%, clarifying that the threshold is 50% allowing up to 70%. Further
discussion ensued regarding what the actual maximum lot coverage and super majority
allowed. Mr. Alterson read from the Zoning Ordinance which states that "the maximum
increase in building lot coverage includes accessory structures, over that otherwise
permitted in the residential district shall be R6 — 20%," and 15% for R5. He said that it
can be interpreted that the 20% over the allowed 50% comes to 60°1o
maximum. He
noted that what has been stated all along in the proposal was that it required a super
majority; 6 aldermanic votes. Ald. Wynne asked what other exceptions to the
development allowance require the super majority. Mr. Alterson referred to the staff"
report which states from the zoning analysis of the property if zoned R6 is proposed
building lot coverage 54,000 or 63%, zoning ordinance limits building lot coverage to
42,600 or 500/a. The allowance is for 201/a increase in building lot coverage, minimum
51,111 square feet or 601/9. The proposal exceeds site development allowance from City
Council in accordance with Section 6.3.6.6. The exceeded amount of 3% is requested for
zoning relief. He noted that the yard requirements are within the City Council's authority
as a site development allowance as opposed to exception to. He continued that the
special rule for a planned development in the residential district is that the buildings can
not be within 15 feet of any development boundary line. This requires an excess of the
site development allowance. He said the 10-foot landscape strip can be covered within
the site development allowances in some form of yard variance. fir. Alterson concluded
from his zoning analysis done in November prior to the Plan Commission hearing, was
that the building lot coverage did require authority to exceed in site development
allowances.
Ald. Newman asked if this was approved as an R5 as a planned unit development, could
the same project be approved. Mr. Alterson responded yes with a change in some of the
percentages and would still require 6 votes by City Council. Mr. HLrvard informed that
this was discussed the whole concept of going back and forth from R5 to R6 and how it
applies to the site. He continued that he suggested a revision that was incorporated into
the ordinance which reads "if the approval of the rezoning of the property from C2 to R6
and the site development allowance is granted along mutually dependent and the zoning
analysis of the City is amended to show the zoning designation of the property as R6 and
a planned development, then no development of the property is hereby authorized under
the R6 district except if such construction is for the planned development that is in
conformance with plan. Ald. Newman asked the developer if it would make any
difference if this were approved as an R5 planned development. Mr. Aaronson
responded that it would make not difference as long as zoning relief allowances were
permitted to allow the proposed development. Chairman Kent recalled from the minutes
that the developer was somewhat nervous about the R6 zoning when the Plan
Commission reviewed this. He questioned if it were because of the massing of the
proposed project. Mr. Alterson responded that Mr. Huvard's comment was correct in that
in many communities, a planned development is a form of a map amendment as opposed
to a form of a special use, which is under Evanston's zoning ordinance. He stated that
P&D Committee Mfg.
Minutes of 01.14-02
Page 8
either way is appropriate, however it basically does not matter whether the underlying
zoning is R6 or R5. If the Committee approves the development, then you are approving
what the applicant has presented and the underlying zoning is only going to be changed
should that development go through. If not, then the zoning would be reverted back to
the C2 zoning. Chairman Kent still questions how the Plan Commission determined to
go with the R6 when they had originally voted on the R5, especially from what he is now
understanding that it really makes no difference. Mr. Alterson clarified that with the fun
rendition of this project that was before the Plan Commission, which they recommended
denial of that project and that the underlying zoning of the property be changed to R5.
He assumed that, everything being equal, that the Plan Commission's feeling at that time
was that absent this project, should the property be rezoned residential that the standards
for R5 were more appropriate for the property without looking at a specific project.
Aid. Newman moved approval of the ordinance with the amendment to approve the
project under RS as opposed to R6. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion. He asked
Aid. Newman for explanation. Aid. Newman explained his reasoning is that he believes
if they rezone the property to R6 that it would encourage greater development potential
on the surrounding properties that there be a precedent for R6. He thinks the concept
behind this particular parcel was that it is against the commuter tracks and was up against
Northwestern property, commercial and the restaurant across the street. He feels the
relief granted is specific to this property and since it does not matter whether it is R5 or
R6, he would prefer the R5 zoning in terms of future growth in the neighborhood Aid.
Wynne asked if more zoning relief would be needed under the R5 zoning versus the R6.
Mr. Alterson responded that he does not having the zoning analysis available under the
R5 zoning, however as of right under R5 for this property, you can have 103 units and
this can be increase by 25%, allowing 126 units.
AId. Engelman noted that because of the way the language has been drafted in the
ordinance, if this project does not go ahead then the property would stay zoned C2, even
with Ald. Newtnan's amendment. He questioned what the underlying zoning would be
if work on the project commenced and then were to bum down or be destroyed and
abandoned for further development by the developer. Mr. Huvard answered that from his
understanding you can only build out what is agreed upon in the planned development
and there is a set of procedures in the ordinance for major and minor amendments. He
said that otherwise the property would remain under its current zoning. Discussion —_
ensued regarding this matter. Mr. Alterson suggested that they could revise the language
in the draft ordinance, which includes wording that states "to revert to C2 should this be
destroyed or abandoned."
Aid. Wynne expressed her appreciation to the developer for their efforts in working with
the community and especially with the inclusion of the affordable housing component.
She also commended the developer for the reduction in height from their original
proposal. She further appreciates Ald. Newsman's point about not creating a precedent
with R6 for future surrounding development. However, fundamentally in her mind, she
still thinks that the percentage whether R5 or R6, is too dense for the site. She is
concerned that they will be building a private dormitory given the size of the units and
Pace Committee Mtg.
Minutes of01-14-02
Page 9
with this comes inherent problems. She is also concerned with the downtown sprawl.
She does support development of this site but with less density. She said that density is a
critical issue in the community, not just height issues. She concluded that it is
unfortunate that even with all the other incentives offered vith the project, she can not
support because of the density.
Mr. Jennings recalled that there were memos in the original packet related to concerns
that the Fire Chief and Traffic Engineer had. It appears from the plans presented that
those concerns have been incorporated. He requested that the developer elaborate on this
issue. Mr. Yas responded that all of the issues of concern discussed previously with the
Fire Chief and Traffic Engineer have been addressed in the current plan. He commented
to the remark made by Ald. Wynne that these units appear smaller than other rental units.
He assured that the units are the same sizes as Evanston Place and Park Evanston. He
also noted that the statistics from both those buildings reveal that approximately 30% are
student population and this is what is projected and predicted with this building also.
Ald. Newman commented on the similarity of this project to Evanston Place. He
admitted that Evanston Place does have a significant amount of students, however there
have been very few, if any calls for the Police except for security in the garages due to
auto alarms. This occurs in almost every multi -unit building. He assured that in his 10
years on the Council, he has never personally received a complaint on that building. He
praised how well maintained Evanston Place has always been and remains even with the
student population. He said the credit goes to the management of the building whether it
is well maintained or not. He feels confident in the case of this project that the developer
has proven their ability to provide outstanding management. Therefore the argument that
because of student tenants the building will bring down the quality of the building or the
surrounding neighborhood, is not convincing. He reiterated that it is the quality of the
management, which he stands behind the developer to provide. If this development is
being compared to Evanston Place, he backs the quality of the management and
maintenance for that building and noted how nice the neighborhood is around this
building. Ald. Newman said that he highly respects the opinions of many of those that
have expressed concern for the density. However, he feels this location is idea for
density because of its close proximity to public transportation and will also help support
the business district and Foster and Maple that has been suffering for some time now.
The property is also backed up against railroad tracks. He acknowledged that the
developer has gone through considerable expense to provide underground parking, lower
the height of the buildings, etc. This location is also within walking distance to
downtown. He recalled that he voted against the Buck building which added 450 units
and this building has complimented the downtown area. He reminded how the developer
has compromised from the first proposal resulting in the current proposal before the
Committee, at the developers expense in trying to resolve some of the initial concerns
expressed by the Plan Commission and the neighbors. This use is much less demanding
for the site compared to the grocery store that was there before with more traffic impact
and the addition of daily delivery trucks. He feels that due to the developers willingness
to compromise, it would set bad precedent on behalf of the Council if they were to turn
this down.
P&D Comminee Mtg.
Minutes of 01-14-02
Page 10
Chairman Kent agrees with Aid. Newrnan's consideration for the developer's willingness
to compromise and their noteworthy efforts to work with the community. However,
recognition should be given to the validity of the concerns for density expressed by the
residents who will be effected by this development and many others who have also
expressed concern for the impact of density. He said that if they were looking at a
development with fewer units it would be much more agreeable by him and the
neighbors. He confirmed that those in opposition to this project are not against
development of this site, however they are against 194 units, which they feel is entirely
too dense for the property and the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the residents
of the 5th ward were pleased with this developer and their willingness to work with them,
but their main concern for density was not addressed. He stated that lifestyle that the
residents are dealing with in that area and are experiencing with the student, is not what
the residents of downtown are experiencing with student living. He agrees that there
have been very few problems with Evanston Place but fair comparison can not be made
because what occurs in area is not necessarily what will be happen in another area
Chairman Kent acknowledged the developers compromises made to satisfy many of the
concerns expressed, however he reiterated that 194 units is excessive for the property and
this is what remains as the main concern originally expressed by himself and the
surrounding residents.
Aid. Engelman said that he was most concerned about the density but not in terns of
dwelling units. His concern lies with density in terms of lot coverage because this
proposal is a massive structure with very little setbacks. He reiterated his preference was
for slightly more height allowing more setback and green space. He pointed out in
looking at the ordinance as amended in the abstract; they are giving huge development
allowances. He made clear that he does support this project and does agree with Add.
Newman that the precedent of saying R.5 is better than R6 and his Iogic in determining
this amendment. Add. Wynne felt that on the same accord, this could set precedence for
allowing such huge building allowances. Aid. Engelman agreed with that concept also.
He reiterated that his preference would have been for more height for allowance of more
setback and green space, however he still supports the project.
Aid. Bernstein stated that he was ready to support this project when it was proposed at 8-
stories for the very reasons that Aid. Engelman just mentioned. He felt the appearance
and mass of the building would have been much more tolerable. He shares Aid. Wynne's
concern with height but not necessarily at this location because of its proximity adjacent
to the tracks and adjacent institutional/commercial building. His belief is that the people
in the neighborhood are going to see far less traffic than experienced when Whole Foods
particularly when ingress and egress are going to be at the northern point of the site. He
also appreciates the developers efforts made since the initial proposal and does believe
that they will deliver a quality, well managed building in the end.
Aid. Engelman added comment regarding Chairman Kent's pointing out the current
problems the neighborhood is experiencing with student tenants. He feels there is a
difference in students and how they conduct themselves or what they are allowed to do in
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 01-14-02
Page 11
rental buildings versus students renting in houses %here the landlord is sometimes
absentee or certain rules are not enforced. There come a lot more problems with the
latter.
Aid. Bernstein noted for the record that the issue kith respect to residential parking
permission not be addressed by this Council. In other words, sufficient parking is being
supplied with this development and in combination with the convenience and access to
public transportation, there should be no need for affirmative action to allow the residents
of the new development to park in the surrounding residential only parking district -
With the motion already in stated, the vote was 3 voting aye and 2 voting nay (Kent,
Wynne).
(N) Ordinance 121-0-01 — Snecial Use Tvoe 2 Restaurant. 519 Main Street — Starbucks
Aid. Wynne brought attention to page 5, paragraph d. of the ordinance regarding the
speed bumps. She pointed out the amendatory language where it reads "if, prior to
issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, ...." She has a problem with this because
she has no way of being aware when the final certificate of occupancy is going to be
issued. She addressed staff to explain about this language and how it came about. Mr.
Wolinski responded that this language amendment was not a staff proposal. He said that
if the ordinance were approved with this language, the certificate of occupancy would be
for Starbucks when they moved in and open, after which the requirement would be
voided. This language does not accomplish what the Committee requested. He
suggested striking this language. Ms. Szymanski explained the reasoning for tying the
speed bumps into the issuance of the certificate of occupancy was the concept from the
Law Department. She further explained that legal felt there ought to be some end in sight
to an obligation on the applicant to install the speed bumps that the need for those speed
bumps would become apparent within the first year or so after the use was in operation.
She said that without a limitation, several years from now the applicant would still be
required to put in speed bumps. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the applicant
would receive a temporary certificate to open and then upon completion of the punch list
items, they would receive their final certificate of occupancy, which could be 34 weeks
afterwards. Aid. Engelman said that you actually want the store to be open and operating
for awhile in order to start addressing the issues, therefore it should state "x" number of
years. Ms. Szymanski agreed with the Committee. Mr. Alterson suggested as an
alternative as long as Starbucks is functioning under a special use permit, they would
have the obligation to pay for the speed bumps should the residents want them. AId.
Wynne accepted this alternative.
Aid. Wynne moved to strike the language in Section 3, paragraph d, seconded by
Aid. Engelman. The vote was 54 in favor of the motion.
Chairman Kent allowed citizen comment at this time.
Ms. Debbie Hillman, reiterated her comments from the last meeting regarding the
decision made by this Committee as bad government policy by overturning the decision
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 01-14-02
Page 12
of the ZBA. She added that it is further bad government policy to place the burden by
depending on this one business to solve existing traffic problems because it is expected
that they will add to those problems.
Ms. Gladvs Brver, associated with the Evanston Inter -religious Sustainability Group,
reiterated her previous concerns expressed at prior meetings on this subject regarding the
202 bus route and the traffic congestion problems. This use will only add to the problem.
She again suggested that the police officer be made to be present at an earlier time to
assist with traffic problems to make sure the bus route is not delayed for the ETHS
students who use this bus for transportation to school in the morning. She informed the
Committee that a student from ETHS is going to conduct a survey by timing the bus
before and after the opening of Starbucks to see if there is any connection causing any
delay. She said that this study will be forwarded to the Committee once it is completed.
Ald. Newman mentioned for the record, that the police officer was volunteered condition
suggested by the applicant and not initially made a requirement by this Committee.
Mr. Dave Gallowav, President of Design Evanston, stated that he is a frequent customer
of Starbucks and from his experience, the majority of the people drive to this store. He is
surprised that the Committee would entertain the notion to allow a stone known for it's
high traffic volume to be located in a known already existing area for traffic congestion.
In his opinion, the fact that Starbucks is willing to hire a police officer tells him that they
are also concerned about traffic as well. He is very concerned about the density and
traffic confusion that is anticipated with this proposal.
Aid. Wynne called the question. The motion to approve Ordinance 1214"1 with
the amendment; vote was 4 in favor and 1 voting any (Wynne).
(P3) Ordinance 122-0-01 — Planned Develonment: 800 Elton Road
Mr. Paul Shadle, attorney for Prentiss Properties, recalled that at the last P&D meeting
there was extensive discussion of the sunset provision and that the Committee's direction
was to not exceed 18 months. The Committee concurred and Mr. Shadle noted that his
client also has no problem with this. However, one of the issues discussed with staff' is
that in the interim period, his client have meet with some lenders to discuss financing of
this project. He noted that while there is no difficulty with starting in 18 months, the
difficulty is that if they start building the lenders feel that the City has the capability of
shutting them down beforehand and are questionable about the security of lending out the
money. Therefore, this is why he suggested language that would allow them to complete
the project within a two-year period following adoption of this ordinance, etc., as stated
in Section fourteen. Mr. Shadle further pointed out that the other issue was with respect
to the suspension of the parking requirement and from previous discussion, it was
suggested that they come back to the City's Parking Committee to come up with a
solution for interim parking. He informed the Committee that Prentiss Properties felt that
they will agree to provide parking for all of the required spaces from the City or private
parking provider. With this in mind, he drafted Section thirteen, which seeks to provide
this solution.
P&D Cotrunittee Mig.
Minutes of 01.14-02
Page 13
Ald. Engelman agreed with Mr. Shadle's draft amendments, especially those made to
section fourteen. However, the draft for section thirteen regarding the parking
requirement, seems to imply that the City has an obligation to provide ISO parking spaces
for this requirement. A representative from Prentiss Properties explained that the thought
process behind this suggested language is due to their anticipation to utilize spaces in the
Maple Street garage. He questioned where they would provide these spaces if they are
not able to provide them in the Sherman or Maple garages. Discussion followed between
the Committee, the applicant and staff regarding alternatives and suggested options.
Aid. Engelman suggested taking out the wording "and that the City is so obligated" in the
last sentence of Section thirteen. Aid. Newman pointed out the problem is the situation
regarding the right to do so in City -owned parking lots. Ms. Szymanski agreed. Ala.
Engelman asked that Ms. Szymanski and Mr. Shadle work out and agree upon the
language before coming to Council. Ms. Szymanski clarified the wording changes as
directed by the Committee. Those amendments from Aid. Newman are to delete
everything after the word property. Aid. Engelman suggested putting in parentheses "to
lease parking spaces (182)..." Delete everything after that and insert "or receive
approval of an interim parking plan from the City." Aid. Neuman moved approval of
the amendments stated above, seconded by Aid. Engelman. The vote was 5-0 in
favor of the motion.
Mr. Wolinski brought attention to Section fourteen, second line where it states "if an
application for a building permit for the improvements described in the Development
Plan is not filed with the City within eighteen (18) months ...." He feels this is not
sufficient enough of a restriction because application for a building permit can be as
simple as filling out the permit application. He suggested to the Committee to revise to
state the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Shadle questioned the length of staff''s review
process. Mr. WoIinski responded that on a project of this size, approximately 2 months.
Mr. Shadle pointed out that this would bring their time frame down to lb months. Mr.
Wolinski also suggested the issuance of a foundation permit and noted that the language
usually contains some issuance of a permit. Mr. Shadte informed that he gathered this
language from the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that it will be
obvious in 15-17 months whether or not the project will go forward and if needed, there
is nothing at that time to withhold the applicant from coming back before this Committee
to request an extension in time. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Shadle understood
the Committee and staffs direction and clarified that his client only wanted to add
language for the purpose of assisting them in the financing market. After discussion, the
Committee agreed that a completed application versus a comprehensive application needs
to be applied for. Mr. Alterson questioned the exact interpretation of a fully completed
application. Ms. Szymanski clarified that if they have met all the requirements for the
submission that it is complete. If staff later on determined that the contents are
unacceptable, it is still considered a complete application.
Ms. Szymanski brought attention to Section 14, line 10 of Mr. Shadle's proposal, that it is
open-ended where it states that the 2-year time period shall be extended to permit
completion of said construction. Discussion took place on an expected diligent time
P&D Comminee Mtg.
Minutes of 01.1 4-02
Page 14
period. Ald. Newman's opinion is diligent time should be 18 months. Ms. Szymanski
also questioned the wording of the last sentence in Section fourteen. She said that she
would be more comfortable with adding a catch phrase to the effect that be provided
further, "that the easement shall not relieve lot 1 and lot from compliance with all
applicable parking and loading requirements of the Zoning, Ordinance." Aid. Engehnna
moved to include the amended language as stated by Ms. Szymanski above,
seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ald. Engelw
moved approval of Ordinance 122-0-01 as amended, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The
vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Frederico Vidargas and Mr. Dave Galloway, both with Design Evanston,
acknowledged the discussion they had with the developer regarding massing, retail
location, curb cuts, etc. and he hoped their suggestions helped the architect and made him
realize the importance of this location to the downtown district. They expressed their
disagreement with the final design/layout of the lot, preferring that the building be
located in the southwest corner of the lot which would have been better for retail and also
for its location as an entryway to the downtown entertainment area. They also expressed
their disappointment with Council's decision again to overturn the Plan Commission and
their recommendations.
(P1) Request for Manor's Special Housine Fund
Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Ald. Wynne. Ald. Engelman raised
questions regarding when the property w'as foreclosed on and when the period of
redemption is up. He also questioned if there is any assurance that the property can be
sold within that period. He feels that more information should have been forwarded to
the Committee regarding this matter. Mr. George Gauthier, Executive Director of the
Evanston Housing Coalition, supplied Ald. Engelman with the information he requested.
lit is confident that the property will be sold before the redemption period is up, due to
the fact that they already have interested buyers in the property. He informed that the
unit will be ready by April and a buyer will be secured immediately at that time. Aid.
Newman backed Mr. Gauthier and EHC's reputation for the work they have done in the
past. The Committee agreed. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting %%as adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
! litfe E. Brownlee
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 1-28-02
Page 6
the bottom line is that the landlord is still held responsible because it is how they manage
their property and make sure their tenants adhere to the building rules, which the landlord
sets. Mr. Wolinski also agreed with this because many students are not aware of their
garbage pick-up days and how to order special pick-ups, which should be made aware by
their landlords.
Aid. Newman commended staff for their aggressive approach taken so far. He suggested
to staff that some type of handout be provided for landlords and student tenants.
Chairman Kent and staff noted that such a handout is being worked on at this time. Ald.
Wynne asked staff if the fine per day has been subjected to any property in Evanston thus
far. Mr. Janusz responded that there has been some cases where the City has asked for
this fine and the hearing officer upheld their request. Mr. Wolinski mentioned where
they received a $47,U00 fine on a property on Callan, however the fine has not been
collected. Aid. Wynne tends to agree with Mr. Lambrecht that a S50 fee is insufficient,
especially for repeat offenders. She suggested that staff develop a list of repeat offenders
and subject these property owners to the higher penalties and fines.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1�M..�._ f< 7Ltiwvl
Jacque%e E. rownlee
P&D Committee IMtg.
Minutes of 1.28-02
Page 5
this area. He believes that as they work through these complaints, with the joint efforts of
the Civil Enforcement Team which includes Police, fire, Human Relations and Property
Standards staff, they will get a united effort in working together that they did not have in
the past. He informed the Committee that one of the approaches they take in civil
enforcement is to invite problem property owners. especially those with police related
complaints, down to the Police Station and meet with the team and try to obtain their
cooperation and come up with solutions to rectify problems with their buildings. He
noted that these landlords are now being fined where they were never fined before. The
fines start at $50 and increases with additional fines to S 100, $150, etc. and with the new
legislation under administrative adjudication where it effects other issues that the
property owner has with the City, they can withhold various licenses. Mr. Wolinski feels
confident that within 9 months to a year, they can turn the entire subject area around.
Aid. Newman thanked Mr. Garrison for his hard work that he done in bringing all of
these violations to the Council and Stairs attention. He wished more of Mr. Garrison's
neighbors could be aware of what he has been doing because he feels much credit is
deserved for his efforts. He noted that students have an interest in having good decent
housing in the neighborhoods also. He requested that staff have continuous follow-up on
this matter and that they keep forwarding updates to the Committee and keeping in the
agenda on a quarterly basis. Chairman Kent said that in addition to these updates on the
complaints listed, there will be some other activity going on with the Civil Enforcement
Team who are in the process of putting together a tighter and more cohesive plan for
enforcement.
Aid. Wynne questioned the fee schedule if property is not in compliance, for example
litter and debris; do the fees double. Mr. Janusz responded that the fine goes up to $150
and for a third time, the fee goes up to $300 per violation. The fine does not go beyond
this amount. Mr. Wolinski brought to the Committee's attention past discussion about
reducing the 14 and 7 notification and if they wanted to review the language pertaining to
this policy. The Committee agreed that this language should be reviewed.
Mr. George Lambrecht said that the S50 fee amounts to nothing more than a "band aid"
for some of these landlords and feels that the City should start with a higher fine. He
feels the fee schedule in not sufficient. He suggested starting with a fee amount of
S1,000 for repeat and numerous violation offenders. He further stated that he is confident
that the higher fees will put a stop to many of these repeat offenders and will help
eliminate that lengthy period it takes to bring a property into compliance. Mr. Wolinski
disagreed with this because the fee schedule mentioned previously by Mr. Janusz of a
maximum of $300 can be administered on a per violation, per day basis. These fees can
become very costly. Also, he noted that many of these violations and complaints are
going to take time because there is a need to change some behavioral patterns with many
of these cases that is not going to happen overnight. He said that these behavior changes
need to be made by the people who own the properties and also the students that five
there. He said that is apparent that most of the violations are when students move in or
move out of a building and staff has recommended offering a provision for dumpsters and
special pick-up during those times. Aid. Newman agreed, however he feels strongly that
P&D Committee Nitg.
Minutes of 1-2"2
Page 4
Mi. Garrison informed the Comminee that he just received the packet information today
and has quickly put together some new feedback since then. He distributed to the
Committee a compilation of addresses he put together as a street -by -street analysis by
address. He listed the name of the owner of record on the majority of addresses and also
integrated police complaints, especially party nuisances, parking on sidewalks and
parkways and similar citations. He commended City staff; mentioning the excellent work
done by Mr. Wolinski's staff, especially Mr. Janusz and the property standards
inspectors, and their progress made thus far in bringing some of these properties in
compliance or on their way to compliance. He stated that there has been serious effort
made towards his complaints and because of, he feels they are ready to move into the
remedy phase. He also feels that there is sufficient information on this area to begin
serious consideration on solving some of these serious matters of property and nuisance
complaints. Mr. Garrison pointed out that he has suggested some remedies in the past but
his suggestions come from, to say the least, being a naive spectator rather than a seasoned
administrator of property standards and similar matters. He hopes now that with this
evidence showing that through all the work that has been done, the neighborhood has not
been seriously or substantially improved, demonstrating the need for changes in
procedures and legal remedies, and undoubtedly with the City Code. He further
anticipated that any changes made will not only benefit his neighborhood, but many other
neighborhoods throughout the City of Evanston. He stated that without the realistic
structure of fines and a schedule and procedure for the collection of fines, they are not
going to make substantial progress. He stressed that the City needs to demonstrate to the
guilty property owners, especially absentee landlords that the penalties of fines will be
carried out and bring to a close their ability to only profit from these properties without
proper administering and care extended back.
Aid. Wynne asked staff the status of the cases that were up for hearing on January 17'';
what was the outcome. Mr. Janusz informed the Committee that 3 properties had
administrative adjudication on January 17'h and 2 of the properties were not in
compliance and accessed fines and the 3rd property a correction on the complaint had to
be made. Aid. Newman questioned how the City rates in terms of inspection resources to
keep the pressure on in this area and the surrounding area as well. He said it is apparent
that many residents are being subjected to these properties not being maintained. He
pointed out that on Foster Street there are many well maintained properties on and
surrounding this street, however it is very visible where the unmanaged properties are; _=
many with no lawns, some where you regularly see beer kegs on the front porches. He
said that it is also apparent that most of the landlords of those properties are not in
Evanston and it is imperative that the City keep the pressure on these property owners.
He admitted that some progress has been made, however from the photos Mr. Garrison
continues to present, the improvement are minimal and time-consuming in bringing the
properties into compliance. In his opinion, with all the building permit fees that are being
collected, there should be a way that some of the money from these fees be redistributed
to maintaining properties. Mr. Wolinski responded that the department does have
sufficient staff for constant enforcement in this area and his department will make this a
special area of focus. He said that there are currently 2 property inspectors assigned to
MD Committee Mtg,
Minutes of 1-2M2
Page 3
At this point the applicant, Mr. Adrian Stanciu, arrived. The Committee requested Mr.
Stanciu give more details on his operation and Aid. Engelman asked him to address the
impacts on traffic and his garbage removal plan. Mr. Stanciu responded that as far as
the litter, he has agreed to offer every couple of hours to police and remove within the
area of 250-foot radius of his restaurant for trash, litter and debris. Also, the store has a
large hallway where he can put an extra garbage bin for customer's litter disposal before
exiting the restaurant. He noted that there are currently 2 large garbage bins that belong
to the cluster of 4 small stores in this building. Ald. Bernstein asked about disposal
products being used. Mr. Stanciu responded that they propose to use disposable cups for
customers picking up or requesting to take coffee with them. Otherwise, reusable
dishware will be used. He said that no cooking will be done on the premises. They are
proposing to serve pastries in the morning and offer 4-5 different cold sandwiches as
well. All food will be prepared off -site at a bakery and delivered. He stated that there are
no plans for cooking or preparing food on -site; it is not feasible for them at this time.
However, they will have refrigeration available for storage of food and basement space
also. He noted that his wife had a special interest in owning a coffee shop and it will be
ran by both of them. He said that they would like to open at 6:00 a.m. for early morning
commuters. Chairman Kent agreed with Mr. Stanciu about the feasibility standpoint and
the ability to operate a business beyond a certain point. He recalled past discussion
including Aid. Bernstein, with the CDBG Committee regarding minority business in
Evanston and making available funds to help out small businesses such as this one. He
feels this applicant should be able to apply for such funds and find some type of support
to operate sufficiently. Aid. Bernstein asked if any thought was given to inquiring if
Benison Bakery could supply the baked goods. Mr. Stanciu replied that he did approach
Bennison's, however their prices were unaffordable and they did not want to negotiate
business with them.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
Aid. Newman requested that the Committee schedule the item regarding review of the
need for higher multi -family residential parking, on the agenda. for February. Mr.
Wolinski said that there will be room on the agenda for the second meeting in February.
Chairman Kent and the other Committee members agreed.
COMMUNICATIONS
(PDI) Ut)date on Mr. Daniel Garrison's Property Standards and Zonins ComoWnts
Chairman Kent informed the other Committee members that a meeting is in the process
of being set up between some of the residents living on the specified blocks, people from
NU and City staff and Police to be held this coming Wednesday. He welcomed Mr.
Garrison for any comments at this time.
P&D Committee Nttg.
Minutes of 1-28-02
Page 2
of September I Ph, similar to other businesses and organizations, the hospital's cash flow
was hit as well, which effected the progress of the project.
Aid. Newman commended the structures appearance and the quality of work put in this
project. Aid. Engelman agreed that the garage looks great and considering all the
controversy that surrounded the planning stages, things have gone much smoother than
anticipated. He noted that he has heard no complaints from neighbors regarding the
construction of the Birch II building. He also recognized the upcoming neighborhood
meeting that will be held regarding the Birch III building
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
f P31 Ordinance 03-0.02 - Svecial Use for 803 %2 Chicago Avenue (Tvm 2 Restaurant
for Seattle Sutton)
Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 03-0-02, seconded by Aid. Bernstein.
Chairman Kent recognized the representative from Seattle Sutton in attendance for
questions and comments. Aid. Engelman asked if this location is just for pick-up for
food and if there is sufficient short-term parking for customers. She explained that the
food is prepared in Ottawa, Illinois and is delivered in a refrigerated truck twice a week
for customer pick-up on Monday and Thursdays. Sufficient parking is available for their
customers on Chicago Avenue and Kedzie. She said that there are two coolers available
for storing the food until the customers come to pick-up.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P4) Ordinance 02-0-02 - Svecial Use for 1100 Davis Street (Tvve 2 Restaurant: Coffee
So
At the time this item was called, there was no representative present. Aid. Newman
moved approval, seconded by Aid. Engelman. The Committee asked staff for more
background. Mr. Woiinski informed the Committee that the applicant presented no
official name for the coffee shop and not much presentation was given at the zoning
hearing. It was clarified that this is not a coffee shop similar to a diner, moreover in the
style of a coffeehouse. He mentioned that the applicant stated at the ZBA meeting that he
wanted to serve bagels, donuts and cold sandwiches along with coffee and soft drinks.
He further mentioned that it appeared from the applicant's indication at both the ZBA
hearing and Site Plan, that this is a new venture for him and that he is not an experienced
restaurateur. Aid. Engelman asked if they were to grant the special use for this applicant
at this location and circumstances occurred causing this not to go through, would that
special use allow some other fast food type business to operate at this location. Mr.
Alterson responded that one of the recommended conditions is that this be based on it
being in substantial compliance with what is testified and presented at the Zoning Board.
He recognized that the Committee and Council can always stiffen those conditions to
state that this is speciftcaRy for a coffee shop. He said the avenue that would open up is
if the applicant were to fall short or move one, then the property would be eligible for a
substitution of a special use as opposed to a brand new hearing if someone were to come
in with a similar operation.
MINUTES
Planning & Development Committee
January 28, 2002
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. Barry. S. Janusz, E. Szymanski, J.
Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Kent
DECLARATION OF OUORUbi
Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 14.2002 MEETINGS
Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of January 10, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
The vote w-as 5-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Request for Designation as TvDe 1 Street: Dewey- Between Simpson and Twieps
Park
Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Kent
acknowledged Mr. Bowen and Mr. Washington, 2 members from the neighborhood
group that requested this designation. The vote was 4 in favor of the motion and I vote
any (Aid. Engelman). Mr. Alterson reminded the Committee that this item will come
back to them at the next meeting in the form of an ordinance. Aid. Engelman explained
that his no vote has nothing against the residents requesting this designation and he feels
that making the fences uniform is a good idea. However, he does not support front yard
fences and remains consistent in his vote on this matter.
(P2) Special Use Extension — Evanston Hospital Administration & Research Building
Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Chairman Kent
acknowledged '*fr. Ray Grady, President & CEO of Evanston Hospital. Mr. Grady
briefly explained to the Committee that this has been a long project for the hospital. He
informed them that they are going to nominate this structure for design award in model
health care because of the way it fits into the community. He said that they are asking for
an extension because they would like to finish this project before starting their next
project which is the Birch III building. He further noted that in addition with the events
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 111 /02
Page 10
intensity of this project. He feels the university is being allowed to undermine what they
originally set out to do as it is clearly stated in the original agreement from the 1960's.
Ms. Mimi Peterson questioned the cost to the City for structural engineering review for
projects done by Northwestern and if this cost is passed on to the university for
reimbursement. Mr. Wolinski responded that this is common with structural engineering
review for many large projects in the City. He informed that the City contracts out these
reviews because there is no structural engineer on staff to do such large re%iews. He said
that the permit cost of sea wall is valued at S2 million dollars and will be in the vicinity
of $25-30,000 in permit fees and the structural engineering cost for the consultant will be
approximately $1500 which will come be included with the permit fee cost. He noted
that this is a common service given by the City because staff has to make sure all codes
are meet, whether the review is done in-house or sent out to a consultant.
Ms. Doraine Anderson questioned staff when they received all documentation from
Northwestem, particularly the permit from the EPA and when this information was
forwarded to the Committee. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff received this information
last Friday and it was immediately forwarded to Council for their information. Ms.
Anderson stated that it would appear that staff had to be aware of this some time before
the information was forwarded to Council. The Committee confirmed that they have
received the information from staff and this w-as forwarded to them in the Friday packets,
which goes out a day after they receive their Council packet materials. Ms. Anderson
asked if this case is required to go before the SPAARC for review. Staff responded no,
which the Committee concurred.
With all that has been said and the concerns expressed by the Committee, as well as staff
and others concerns, Chairman Kent assured the position of the City to fully investigate
this matter from this point forward. Mr, Wolinski stated that this is why he and the City
Manager presented this information onto the Committee and City Council as soon as they
were made fully aware of what is being proposed with this landfill. At this time, it was
presented to the Committee in the form of a communication, but he assures further
investigation on the part of City staff will be conducted to receive conclusive feedback
from the government agencies on their approval in this matter. Also legal staff will
review the original agreement/indenture on this case and respond back to the Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,j
Jacq�EBrownlee�
P&D Committer Mtg.
Minutes of 2'1 1102
Page 9
raise. Mr. Wolinski added that this document proceeds the EPA and that there may be
specific issues about barging in landfill material that would presently be a concern of the
EPA. Ald. Bernstein feels that in view of what has just been presented, there needs to be
a negotiation for an alternative to what has been proposed by Northwestern.
Ald. Wynne pointed out from reading the article in the Daily Northwestern, there appears
to remain some concern by the EPA's Water Shed Management Section, that questions as
to whether the lagoon is still considered part of Lake Michigan and needs to meet the
requirements of their agency. She questions if actual full approval as been received by
government agencies govenung this waterway and if the issue of "grey water" has been
reNiewed by the EPA which is under their regulations. She stressed her concern with the
City making sure that all regulations have been meet and how they apply to a 200 car
parking lot being this close in proximity to a drinking water source. She requested to
staff that they seek assurance that all involved agencies have actually signed off on this
because it has been stated that there are still some concerns and questions on their part.
She stressed that the City hold of on any signage of permits until all this concerns have
been met and are approved by all government agencies involved. The other Committee
members agreed. Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the Committee the permit, in which
a copy was forwarded, that staff received from the EPA which was issued on December
12, 2001.
Aid. Newman stated that this is discoverable material in the Northwestern lawsuit that
should be forwarded onto the City's attorney's to be reviewed. If there is something
about what went on during the time of the landfill and the ordinance pertaining to it
should clearly state what was agreed upon and we should give time for City's legal
department to review and respond back to the Committee with their opinion. He pointed
out that one of the things Northwestern continued to present when they put out
information, is how they don't use City services. they always exclude the use of the City
streets and alleys and what it cost to maintain them. He feels that one of the worst streets
in Evanston currently exists on Emerson and Sherman Avenue has also been in a state of
disrepair. In his opinion, the damage to these streets is largely in part of the traffic
patterns of the construction trucks for development in Evanston; a majority of this
development being with Northwestern University. He said that this is one of the hidden
expenses that the City has in terms of the impact the university has on the City. He feels
that if there are any laws, state or federal, that need to be complied with and this is an
agreement that appears to be in effect from the development of that area.. Therefore, if
lieu of this, the City needs to enforce those rights.
Mr. Gerald Gordon, resident, expressed his opposition for this landfill of the lagoon area,
which he feels is a compliment to the City and the Northwestern campus. He feels that in
consideration to the amount of landfill that is being proposed for this site, the City for
such a large project should require a permit. He pointed out that City staff has stated that
the only permit required for this project is for the sheet piling, however the university
should be held responsible for complying with and adhering to the same requirements as
any land owner in Evanston who proposes to do any type of landf lling. He further is in
the opinion that the EPA should have held a hearing on this matter because of the
P&D Committee NItg.
Minutes of_' i 1 -o_
Page 8
some basis isometrics of future development of anywhere from 4-5 buildings going on
this landfill area..
Aid. Bernstein questioned legal staff as to why the Committee was not notified of this
and if it is because this was portion of the original landfill agreement or indenture. He
brought attention to documentation that was provided to the Committee this evening with
respect to the original ordinance that pertains to the indentme/agreement between the
City and Northwestern and asked if this still applies. Ms. Szymanski responded that she
too has just been presented with this documentation and has not had a chance to rrview it.
Aid. Bernstein clarified that he questions this matter because the documentation specifies
that they would be bringing in any landfill by barge and to the extent that have now stated
that they will not be doing so, Northwestern is responsible for all cost incurred by the
City for bringing in their landfill materials by truck. He would venture so say that
hauling in by trucks also limits the ingress and egress routes to which they can haul the
huge amount of landfill sand. His opinion, in view of what is being proposed, that the
City should build the permit fee to accommodate the cost of actual damage to city streets
and throughways that it might involve. Aid. Bernstein clarified that this cost has nothing
to do with the permit fees for the sheet piling, moreover the adherence to the document
that states Northwestern would bring in any landfill materials by barge, which he assumes
is still controlling in this matter. He read the language from page 2 of the original
agreement which states that "Now therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties
hereto that Northwestern covenant and agrees to do and understate the following and to
pay any and all expenses related thereto....." Therefore, Northwestern is responsible for
providing adequate access for City Police and Fire and any and all sewer services
throughout the landfill construction. He continued that it further states to "route any and
all vehicles proceeding to and from the construction area and to pay for maintenance,
replacement or repair of any streets, sidewalks, parkways, etc." Aid. Bernstein suggested
that the City should survey the land continued to mandate that they can only utilize
certain mutes for subsequent improvement if there is any damage to them.
Chairman Kent acknowledged and agreed with Aid. Bernstein's legitimate concerns and
facts stated from the original agreement. He asked staff for any information they have at
this point on the planned course or route for the proposed truck deliveries. Mr. Wolinski
responded that staff' has not reached that level of detail with Northwestem at this point.
He informed the Committee that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Jennings and they
both agreed to hold a meeting with Northwestern to discuss their planned truck route. He
expressed his concern with using Lincoln Street because of the major water mains under
Us throughway and possible damage to those mains.
Aid. Bernstein further pointed out that in the original agreement, it is stated that
"however, no part of the rock or sand fill shall be made by means other than by barge."
He concluded that if the City is still adhering to this original documentation, it has been
contradicted. Ms. Szymanski responded and reiterated that she has just received this
document as the Committee has and stated that it is not appropriate for her to render a F
legal opinion at this time. She requested additional time to review the documentation and
look at the propriety of this and see if there are any other issues that the City needs to
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 21r P02
Page 7
them the option to discuss whether it is feasible or not, especially with Aid. Engelman
being absent at this meeting and being able to be present for discussion of this matter
enlight of his expressed opinions on front yard fences.
COSUMNICATIONS
(PD1) Northwestem Universitv Proposal for land Filline a Portion of the Cooiina Water
LgLoon
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Northwestern University came presented this
to him approximately 2-weeks prior to discuss the issue of filling in 4-acres of their 19-
acre cooling water lagoon for the purposes of future development. He said that this is
part of the original landfill that was done back in the early 1960's when Northwestern
was granted roughly 150 acres of land to be resurrected from Lake Michigan. This
proceeds the EPA, therefore the Army Corps of Engineers gave the approval at that time.
He said that Northwestern, in fact, resurrected 84 acres of that potential 150 acres. He
stated that the cooling lagoon was establisher) for the deep water intake approximately 1-
mile out into Lake Michigan with a 66-inch pipe that brings in lake water into their
ce=aI heating facility and the water goes through their chiller processes and then
discharged back into the cooling lagoon approximately 3-4 degrees higher than what it
came in at. He said that by EPA regulations, they can not just discharge this water back
into Lake Michigan and it is inter -mixed with existing water. Mr. Wolinski continued
that there is 2 weirs in the lagoon: one bringing in the adjustment to delivering in
additional water into the lagoon and secondly there is a discharge weir that is at the very
south of the lagoon. He informed the Committee that landf fling is not an issue that the
City has dealt with in some time, therefore he has instructed his staff to do a thorough
investigation. To this point, he has requested that Northwestern at the minimum, had to
request a building permit in order to do the sheet piling which wfll create the sea wall that
separates the new landfill area from the existing cooling lagoon, He stated that this is
what Northwestern is in for a permit at the present time and this is what staff is currently
revealing to Council. Mr. Wolinski added that he is also asking for approvals from the
various other federal and state agencies and was provided with a copy of an opinion from
the Army Corps which states that they do not have jurisdiction on this because it is not
considered a water way of the United States. The Illinois EPA issued Northwestern a
permit to fill not more than 5-acres of the property, therefore at this point from the City's
standpoint, they have reviewed the plans for the sea wall and are ready to improve them.
However, staff did want to bring this to the Council's attention for their comments on this
most important project. He pointed out that in the specification book that he received
from the university, it states their commencement on this project in February and being
completed by the end of this year. They will be bringing in approximately 130,000 cubic
yards of a particular type of sand. He said there was some discussion on how this sand
was going to be brought in and the final determination is that it is going to be brought in
by trucks. Mr. Wolinski said it in his opinion them is the possibility of issues if they
disturb the existing lake bottom by filling with this sand. He said that the fill must be
approved by the EPA inspectors. Mr. Wolinski informed that once the fill is created by
the end of this year, Northwestern's plan is to pave the west portion of this area for up to
200 cars and the rest of the property would be seeded. However, the applicant does show
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 2111,02
Page 6
Committee involving this case be pro%ided also. Ald. Newman said for the record, that
he wants it understood that the Committee's position is ministerial in this case and the
reason for holding in Committee is on]%- to allow for a clear perception to all concerned
parties. And, if the owner is ultimately entitled to this relief, then the Council is
committed to doing granting that relief. He pointed out that at this point, the Committee
is being placed in the position of a perception of whether it is accurate or not. Mr. Murray
stated that his only concern is that they are singling this particular parcel and this
particular property owner out for a particular service. Ald. Newman responded that the
Committee has the right to hold this matter over under those circumstances, especially if
there is no undo burden on the part of the owner.
Ms. Deinner recalled previous discussion regarding parking of buses and how the owner
wanted to have the entrance to the property on Emerson and the exiting onto Foster. She
pointed out the narrowness of the intersection at Foster and Ashland and reminded the
Committee of the concerns with safety because it is a 2-%ay street and the school buses
frequenting that area, the existing parking in combination with the major concern for the
safety of the children and the close proximity to the Fleetwood Jourdain center. She
requested that the Committee keep this in mind also. Ald. Bernstein agreed with those
concerns and one of the reasons that the Committee w-as not in favor of rezoning the
property to 12. He said that he supports holding this matter over for purposes of
discussion, however he upholds Ald. Newmmn's reasons stated for further discussion to
clarify the perception only in recognition of the Committee's ministerial position on this
matter.
Ald. Newman requested that staff provide information on what the actual rights of the
community or the Council are in this case involving this property because it should be
clear and communicated to all concerned parties what they arc able to do and what the
owner is by right able to do. The Committee also asked that staff request the presence of
Mr. Lyman from the Plan Commission for discussion at the next P&D Committee
meeting.
This item was held in Committee for further discussion until the February 25, 2002
meeting.
(P2) Ordinance 9-0-02 - Request for Desianation as Tvne 1 Street: Dewev Between
Simpson and Twices Park
Ald. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 9-042, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
Chairman Kent acknowledged Albert Bowen, one of the property owners in attendance in
support of this request. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that the original ordinance (25-0-01) that created
the type 1 streets contains a sunset provision in it for one year that is due to expire next
month. He noted that this is the only request within that sunset period. He asked if the
Committee wished to direct staff to bring back an ordinance before the Committee
extending the sunset period or eliminating the sunset. It was the consensus of the
Committee to bring back an ordinance extending the sunset period at this time giving
P&D Comminee Mtg.
Minutes of 2/1 I,02
Page 5
rightfully recommended approval for. Nis. Hudson said that it is not fully understood
what the owner's motive is for dividing this property but it appears that if he want to
make the north end to 12, in her opinion it deems cause for having the entire property
rezoned. She said that currently the property is considered RS and the community wants
it to stay that way. She said that the neighbors resent the entire process of the City
allowing development in their community that does not belong in a residential
neighborhood that they feel would not be allowed in other neighborhoods within
Evanston. She pointed out the Mr. Robinson rarely comes to any of the meetings or
meets with the community at neighborhood meetings.
Aid. Newman told Mr. Murray that he is a little concerned about approving this if there is
not some communication going on with the neighborhood. Mr. Murray informed that the
both the Company and ownership itself has met with various community groups several
times before the matter was previously before the Committee last year. Chairman Kent
confirmed that before the previous proposal to rezone the property to 12, Mr. Robinson
did appear and sent over several people from his Company to the community meeting
that was held at Fleetwood lourdain. However, he pointed out that this took place before
the last vote on this matter and the meeting was held at the request of the neighborhood
and since then, the neighbors have received no other correspondence regarding this
matter. Mr. Murray responded that the community sees this as an involved process of
development, which has not yet occurred. What they are discussing this evening is what
he perceives to be a matter of right as far as the owner of this parcel is concerned.
Aid. Bernstein feels that with the first proposal to rezone the property to I2, there was the
attempt by the owner to involve the community in going through the process. He
questions why the owner did not attempt at that time to divide the property because the
property at that time was ruled by the Zoning Administrator to be dominant in the R5
district. He does not feel the owner is trying to go through the back door because he
could have done what is before the Committee now back then. Chairman Kent pointed
out that originally what has already been done by the owner has been questionable from
the start because of what he has already attempted to do with the property and his original
proposal to develop the property into a bus transportation tenter.
Aid. Newman feels that enlight of all that has been discussed; he would like to have this
matter held in Committee to ask Mr. Robinson for more detailed information on his
future plans for the site. He does not foresee any burden or time sensitive situation to the
owner on holding this matter over for further discussion at the next P&D meeting. Mr.
Murray responded that this is considered a time sensitive matter in consideration of the
length of time this has been on hold, however he concurred that there is no pending issues
on the table at this time. Aid. Newman further noted that because of the perception
involved, it would be to the benefit of the Committee, the owner and the community to
have Mr. Robinson present for questions and further constructive discussion. The other
Committee members concurred.
Aid. Bernstein requested that staff provide for the Committee the minutes of the Plan
Commission pertaining to this case. Aid. Wynne also requested the minutes of the P&D
P&D Commince Mtg.
Minutes of 211102
Page 4
Ald. Newman asked Aid. Kent his opinion on this ministerial. Chairman Kent responded
that it has been made clear to him by the Legal that because this is only ministerial and
the way it was brought before the Comminee. that there is no reason to vote against it.
However, he does not particularly agree with the approach given to resubdivide the
property because he strongly feels, as well as the neighbors, that the owner is only using
this method as a way to go through the back door to eventually use the property for other
means.
Sis. Tina, a neighboring resident, pointed out the obvious outcry from the surrounding
neighborhood in lieu of this small parcel of land, which proves the concern and interest
for their community. She said the neighbors all remember when the trains ran through
that strip of land that was there before all of them. She expressed her concern with this
property being directly between a tot lot and an upcoming senior center and the fumes
from cars and buses that will effect these two operations and also the added traffic hazard
for that location. She stressed that this is why the community has insistently tried to stay
abreast of what is being put on the table here.
Ald. Newman pointed out that the last time this case was before P&D, the Committee
was very sympathetic to not having parked cars in the 12 section and against rezoning the
cadre property to 12. He said that any perception to what the owner is asking for now,
which is simply to divide the property, the City has a subdivision ordinance and they are
mandated to that. He said that this is why he supported the preservation district because
in the R wards it allows for the Council to have discretion on subdivisions, which he
specifically moved to amend this ordinance in 1994 to achieve this. 1n his opinion, the
issue and the remedy in this case for the neighborhood is to ask that this 12 portion be
nmoaed. He said out that if there is an objection to this then it has to go back before the
Plan Commission. He pointed out that if the Committee were to deny this, they would
leave themselves wide open for a lawsuit that they have no basis or grounds to stand on.
He said that he would enthusiastically deny this if the Committee had the discretion,
however they do not have that option with this case. Chairman Kent added that ever
since the Committee went through this the first time, the community reflected they
wanted to see something creative put on this property and not that they didn't want to see
it improved at all. The community expressed that they wanted to be involved in the
process and be able to ensure that this is not another attempt to put something in their
neighborhood that doesn't belong in a residential area that would not be put in any other
neighborhood. He stressed that these feelings are still extended from the community and
thew have heard nothing to ensure that this will not happen.
Ms. Roberta Hudson said that the owner has shown total arrogance towards the
neighborhood in what it appears that he is trying to do with this property. She feels that it
is obvious that the owner is continually attempting to go through the back with what his
plans are for this property. However, she vows that the community will stay on this and
not allow him to do so. She said that the neighbors were not fully informed of this case
being on the P&D agenda and they are under the impression that Mr. Robinson has met
with and presented plans to City staff prior to this meeting. The Committee clarified that
the owner has only gone before the SPAARC regarding the resubdivision, which they
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes oft 1 PD2
Page 3
SPAARC with the approval of the lots meeting the zoning classification. which the
Committee can not argue. if this matter involved some type of zoning relief, then the
Committee could put conditions upon it. Mr. Wolinski explained that he was only
pointing out the issues here because this lot w-as improved without the benefit of City
permits and is a situation that needs to be rectified. He commended the neighborhood for
their persistence in wanting to see that this situation is resolved. He said the fact of the I
district being improved, outside of not having a permit, the uses he has heard being
proposed for it are permitted but could result in usage of the R district in away that
violates the zoning ordinance. Aid. Bernstein said with respect to the improvement of
this lot without a permit, the City has enforcement capacities in line for this and insists
that any fines that should be assessed be forwarded to the owner. With respect to using
the R5 half for parking, this too can be cited. He reiterated that the Committee's position
is only ministerial for this subdivision. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that even
under the 12 zoning, bus parking is not a permitted use. Chairman Kent realizes that the
Committee can only make an ministerial act in this case because it is only for the
resubdivision, however if a parking lot were to go on the 12 section it could hold no more
than approximately 30 spaces and this would require the owner to keep ties with the City
requirements. His concern is with the owner going through the back door and using the
lot for more than what is allowed. His preference for the 12 zoned parcel is for the
parking lot because this is one of the uses that would be allowed and if they wanted moue
than the permissible parking spaces, they would be required to come back. Mr. Alterson
confirmed that the owner would need to request a variation for any added improvement.
Aid. Newman asked for clarification on the first petition for this property. Mr. Murray
stated that the first petition was to rezone the entire parcel to I2 and to modify the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a transportation center without the requirement of it being a public
center. Aid. Newman presumed that if you don't want parking on this lot, then someone
needs to have the entire property rezoned to R5, however the owner does have the right to
resubdivide and the Committee has the tight to make the owner aware of their concerns.
Aid. Bernstein asked for clarification of the Zoning Administrator's original decision that
this parcel was R5. Mr. Alterson responded that as long as the property was considered
one zoning lot, his judgment is with the R5 zoning. Mr. Murray added that Mr. Alterson
also explained to him that the R5 use was the "dominant use", not withstanding the fact
that both zoning districts were equally attributable. He said that this is another reason
they have come forward with this resubdivision of the property. Mr. Wolinski said that
this property has been in a state of evolution for the past couple of years because of the
various proposals presented. It appears that the matter is now coming to some type of
final determination, at least for the zoning of the property. His concern at this time, and
to assure the neighbors, is that now that it is apparent that this property is going to be
subdivided, the R5 part is going to have to comply with the required zoning regulations.
Ms. Dienner referred the Committee to the Zoning Boards minutes of February 7, 2001,
which gives a refresher on the background of this request and also talks about the
standards and property characteristics. She suggested that the Committee request a copy
of this documentation from staf.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 211 V2
Page 2
when Mr. Alterson during the process of his review observed. as they had, that
historically this particular parcel was divided 50.50 down the middle as Hith the entire
Mayfair right-of-way. He said this resubdi►•ision reflects the historical and unchanged
reflection of the actual zoning with a boundary line that now is divided along the property
line resulting in one lot being in the residential zone and one lot in the industrial zone.
Aid. Bernstein said that this still appears to be a distinction without a diff'ereace. Mr.
Murray said that in order to do any development of the parcel, it was Mr. Robinson's
intention to deal with it in accordance with the existing zoning.
Chairman Kent asked staff for additional comments. lair. Alterson stated that Mr. Murray
has explained the situation accurately. He reiterated that there is a dividing line between
the two districts down the middle of the property in which case the Zoning Ordinance
states that the Zoning Administrator determines which district rules to apply to the entire
zoning lot. He noted that Mr. Murray is resubdiyiding the property so that there is two
separate lots with one clearly being I2 and the other R5. However, he pointed out that if
P&D Committee is going to approve the subdivision. that it be conditioned upon getting
everything that in the I2 section into one PIN and everything in the R2 section under
another PIN because presently there are several PIN's for this parcel and it is very
confusing. He said that he is not totally convinced that all of the property is any PIN.
Also, given the vacation of streets and alleys and this property once being under railroad
status, he believes there is a section of this parcel that is outside of everything.
Mr. Wolinski said that the majority of this area was to a certain degree, base filled and
parking paved. He said that from an enforcement aspect, if the I section is going to be
used for parking, which is a permitted use, he has not problem with this. However to
eliminate the possibility of parking on the residential section, he suggested that some
condition must be made that this area must be returned to green space as opposed to the
rough surface lot that is currently there. Chairman Kent noted that the residential half of
the property does abut the present park therefore he agrees with Mr. Wolinski's
suggestion. He said that currently the property is being used at times, by the Robinson
employees for parking and at the other end assumably be some neighboring residents. He
said to his knowledge, there is no easement agreement that has occurred with Foster
Street. He pointed out that if this subdivision goes through tonight, Mr. Wolinski's
suggestion would stop the RS area from being abused. Mr. Murray believes that the
issue of the ultimate use of the property is still an open one. He stated that what they are
currently attempting the P&D Committee address, is the question of dividing the property
into 2 lots along the traditional zoning lines. He acknowledged that Mr. Robinson has a
number of serious issues that he has yet to resolve which is the ultimate development of
both the east and west lot in some fashion which is appropriate for the zoning districts.
Aid. Bernstein said it is his understanding that the Committee's role in this matter is
ministerial and have no authority to add these kinds of conditions as mentioned
previously. The Committee can either approve this or not. Ms. Szymanski concurred _
and understands the concerns about the PIN numbers also. Ald. Bernstein said that when
the property is subdivided the Assessor will assign PIN numbers to each parcel, which
should be no problem. His concern is the act of subdivision that has been approved by
Planning & Development Committee
FX-$RUARy 1 l awry--1 2002
I Room 2403 -- 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. Newman, M. Wynne
Alderman Absent: S. Engelman
Stag Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. M. Barry, E. Szymanski. J.
Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Kent
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARV 29. 2002 MEETINGS
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the January 28'h minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P1) Plat of Subdivision for Former Mavfair Rieht-of-Wav
Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. James Murray, attorney representing the owner of the
property, Mr. Leon Robinson. Mr. Murray said that in accordance with the last P&D
meeting regarding this property that dealt Aith the question of the hostile improvement
and the rezoning of the parcel, it was noted by Alderman Wynne that there was a
potential inequity to be accomplished if the precise directive of the Plan Commission
were to be followed in that it would eliminate the industrial zoning to the west half of the
lot at the benefit of the residential zoning of the east half of the tot. If the proposed
resubdivision recognizes that historical division down the old mayfair line, while it does
not address issues of potential development, construction or permits which will be a later
matter, they are requesting that the resubdivision be approved by recognizing this
traditional division of lot 1 and lot 2 with the differential zoning. Aid. Bernstein assumed
that the lot was already divided into two lots of record and the resubdivision had already
been done. Mr. Murray responded that it has not been done officially. He said the
suggestion has been that it has never been undone and that this resubdivision reflects the
status of these parcels as it existed prior to the amendments of 1993. Aid. Bernstein
asked if the problem was caused by the same owner coming into common ownership to
the adjacent land, which Mr. Murray denied. He explained that what was originally
requested at that time was a rezoning to industrial use for the entire parcel and the Plan
Commission rejected this and the matter was eventually withdrawn. Aid. Bemstein still
questioned why this resubdivision needs to be done. Mr. Murray said the conflict came
• . .
P&D Comminee Mtg.
Minutes of 0223 02
Page 12
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD 1) Change of Chairmanshin
Communication accepted without comment.
(PD2) Prooertv Standards Policv Changes
Communication accepted without comment.
(PD3) Update on Northwestern University Proposal for Land Filling a Portion of the
Cooling Water Lagoon
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff is ready to issue the permit and that
Northwestern has met all the requirements with outside agencies that the Committee was
concerned with. Also, he and Mr. Jennings have met with Northwestern staff as far as
trucking material and routes they are planning to use; no barges will be used. Aid.
Newman asked about compensation from Northwestern for any damage to City streets.
Mr. Jennings said that damage to the streets would be difficult and noted that the City has
seen hauling of this level several times before. It is estimated at 50 trucks per clay for 6
months. Several Committee members thought this to be excessive. Ald. Engelman asked
if this is substantially different than jobs such as the hospital construction going on, etc.
Mr. Jennings agreed that it could be compared on the same level. Mr. Wolinski added
that Northwestern pulled 68,000 cubic yards out of the Nano Building and the Material
Life Science Building which averaged to approximately 130 trucks per day for months.
Mr. Jennings noted that this project is approximately 100-110,000 cubic yards. Ald.
Wynne asked if the City can make sure that streets are kept clean and free from excessive
dirt brought in from the trucks. Mr. Jennings responded that staff is currently addressing
this issue with Northwestem. He noted that they are going to have a tire washing facility,
referred to as a shaker, and staff is requesting that they have their trucks cleaned before
they come onto Evanston streets off NU property. He said that if the City is not satisfied
with the cleanliness of the street then they would make Northwestern do again until
satisfactory. If not, the City will clean the streets themselves and bill the University for
this service. Mr. Wolinski added that a further option would be to shut down the job until
compliance is met. Mr. Jennings assured that staff` will closely monitor this project on a
daily basis. Mr. Wolinski informed that there was discussion regarding using a barge and
it was made clear that it would be impossible come any closer than within 500 feet of the
shore due to the low lake levels. There was discussion regarding if this project is a
continuation or extension of the original landfill job. Staff's opinion is that this is an
entirely different job and separates from the original landfill job for the 84 acres.
Chairman Kent asked about the trucks using the route going up McCormick because
there are no houses on the street and the canal being on one side. Mr. Jennings responded
that staff did not recommend that route because it would require the trucks to make too
many turns and maneuvers to get back on the Emerson truck route from Golf Road and
would allow the trucks to pass the schools.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 0225.02
Page 11
a unique situation that justifies the lack of need to suppl% the required amount of parking
spaces, then the developer should be given the opportunity to request a variance. She
feels that close proximity to public transportation is not a justifiable reason. using the 811
Chicago Avenue building as an example. This particular building was allowed to supply
1 parking space per unit as of right. and %within 3 years. the building had 1.3 cars per unit.
Mr. Lyman added that most developers do not take into consideration future impacts that
may be caused by their development. Therefore it is important that the City insist that
developers put in sufficient parking for multi -family buildings and he feels the proposed
requirements are not accessive or unreasonable. He said that many surrounding
communities have already made these parking requirements.
Mr. Jennings came into the meeting at this time and Chairman Kent repeated Aid.
Engelman's question on the Parking Committee's review of this issue. W. Jennings
responded recalled that Mr. Cook from the Plan Commission did present this to them
approximately 1 year ago. He recalls there was discussion on the matter, however he
would have to review the minutes to see what action was taken at that time.
Mr. Jonathan Perman stated that he feels the motives here are very allowable and he
believes that the idea in planning new development to have these increased numbers of
parking in areas where there has been significant density is a good idea. He feels it will
do something to overcome the historic abnormality that exists because there are so many
developments that took place years ago where virtually no parking was provided. He
pointed out from the survey that was done, that it really left out large lots in many of the
wards. He said that most of the surveying was done east of Asbury Avenue with the
exception of the Oh ward where there was some surveying done west of Green Bay Road.
Mr. Perman feels that for a community that seems so interested in affordable housing and
senior housing in trying to look at areas of this community where there has been under -
investment, he suggested that the City might want to pause before they blanket this policy
over the entire City and address first the areas where there is significant density. He does
not disagree that all the areas surveyed demonstrate the need for this proposed
amendment. He pointed out that most developers today are meeting those standards, if
not exceeding the. He stressed the importance of using Borne caution in looking at other
areas of the City that were not surveyed because they have significantly high land cost in
Evanston and this new parking requirement may drive up that cost of development thus
lessening the opportunity for affordable housing.
Aid. Newman moved to hold this item as a special order of business at the next scheduled
meeting. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in agreement.
Ms. Betty Sue Ester commented on affordable housing.
Aid. Newman requested staff obtain comments from people in the housing industry and
developers on this issue to discuss at the next meeting. Staff agreed.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 02,725 0?
Page 10
educated in knowing locations where the stores do best. Also, the owner is familiar with
the area. Aid. Newman said that this way the ow-ner can address the Committee's
concerns if he is present at the next meeting. Mr. %Weissman informed the Committee
that the owner of the building is also out of town and usually is not in Chicago during the
winters due to health reasons. The Committee agreed that the weather has been very mild
and should not prevent the owner from being present at the next scheduled meeting.
They also feel that holding this over in order for the Committee's concerns to be
addressed by the owner of the property and business, is not an unreasonable request. Mr.
Weissman argued that it has already taken them 4 months to get to this point in going
through the application process and an additional two weeks does affect their moving
forward.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P2) Ordinance 88-0-01 - Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Renuired Markin¢ for
Multi-Familv Residential
Chairman Kent acknowledged Ms. Jane Woolley who signed up to speak on this matter.
Ms. Woolley said that this subject is an extension from the Chicago Avenue Corridor
study on parking. She brought attention to a building being developed on the west side of
Hinman Avenue between Keeney and South Boulevard. She believes this building is
being built as of right and are providing 1 parking space per unit. She feels strongly that
if this ordinance were in place, the developer of that building would have been required
to provide more parking spaces per unit, which is needed in that neighborhood. She
strongly supports this amendment and would like to see this for all of Evanston beyond
the Chicago Avenue area.
Aid. Engelman said that he realizes the exacerbated problem with parking especially in
and around the high density areas such as Hinman Avenue. However, the same
exacerbated problem may not exist in all other areas of the City and the requirement that
is being proposed here will have an impact on development. He questioned if the Parking
Committee has reviewed this. The Committee requested Mr. Jennings presence for a
response. Aid. Wynne recalled that the Committee referred this to the Plan Commission.
Ald. Newman responded that the Parking Committee has discussed this and there and
looked at a chart the Dave Jennings put together from a survey of buildings in Evanston.
Mr. Lyman added that from the survey, the Plan Commission determined that the
proposed requirements would fit virtually every part of the City with very few
exceptions, i.e. a home for seniors. He gave more examples of how these requirements
work in both low and high density areas.
Aid. Wynne spoke in support of this text amendment and feels that from what they found
in the Chicago Avenue survey and the survey of all of Evanston done in 1998, that it
revealed actual car ownership and the realization that it is a problem in many areas
around the City. She said that if the City plans now so that they are not making that acute
problem even more acute, which is what caught up with them on Chicago Avenue, it
could help relieve some of the stress that is currently on the parking situation in
Evanston. She agrees that these requirements should be for all of Evanston and if there is -
P&D Committee Nitg.
Mintnes of 02,15 02
Page 9
the Department of Revenue. He noted that they have had several meetings with Aid.
Rainey and he agrees that her concerns are well founded, however he does not see how
the ownership can be held responsible for parking situations and excessive cabs parked at
the stand. Aid. Rainey corrected that none of the calls she mentioned were for parking or
cabs; all 66 calls were all to the building for uncivilized behavior. Mr. Weissman said
with regards to the litter problems, that the operators of the Subway store have a
significant litter control plan in place by monitoring the area every 2 hours cleaning the
area within 250 feet of the store. He does not doubt that the litter in that area
accumulates quickly and is a hassle to keep clean, however this is the nature of the
location of that block being in close proximity to a public transportation facility and the
constant pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Chairman Kent called on Mr. Kashif Devan and Mr. Phil Mesi, both signed up to speak
on this matter. Mr. Devan stated that he is here representing the operator of the Subway
store and Mr. Mesi stated that he was in attendance representing the Subw-ay Corporation.
Mr. Mesi said that he could speak on behalf of the operator, who is also out of town. He
feels that the Subway store in this proposed location will help the area, not in relation to
the crime calls. He said that they have done site reviews in other close areas where there
is parking provided and most of the clients that go to these sites have to drive in order to
get there. However, this location, as with most Subway's or other eating establishments
in close proximity to public transportation, most of their clients are commuters and
walking traffic. He said, as far as the crime issues, from his experience those issues arise
where there is numerous vacancies in an area. He feels a building with 100% ]eased with
a lot of light and people. the crime level should drop and make the area safer.
Aid. Rainey reiterated and is convinced that the problem is with the current ownership
and management of the building, it is not the nature of the businesses. It was the
consensus of the Committee that they would like to have the owner present for discussion
and to answer for some of the recurring issues with the building. The Committee also
agreed that they would like to have the proprietor present who will be operating the store.
The daughter of the owner was in attendance and stated that their family would be
operating the store, however her father was also out of town and expected to be for some
time. The Committee requested that she contact him to be available at the next meeting
for questions and to address some concerns they have with the operation of Subway at
Us particular location.
Ala. Newman moved to hold this item in Committee until the March 11" meeting
for the attendance of the owner of the franchise and the owner of the property to be
present+ Aid. Engelman seconded the motion.
He informed that Committee that their previous location was on Clark Street in a strip
mall with West Coast Video. He said business was good until vacancies rose in the
center and it became darker and the landlord could not keep up with the maintenance of
the center and they chose not to renew their lease of and closed the store. Mr. Weissman
believes that the subject site is a better location because of the el and the walking traffic
that frequent the area. He said with over 200 Subway's in Illinois, the company is more
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of01?5,02
Page 8
correction. Chairman Kent acknowledged Aid. Rainey who wished to speak out on this
matter which is located in her ward.
Aid. Rainey stated that she did attend the ZBA hearing on this case and expressed her
disappointment with the approval of this case. She pointed out her respect for the ZBA's
interest in community input, however with this particular location; there are no close
proximity neighbors available that are willing or able to come forward to express in
opinion in this case. She feels that this is an incredible oversight on the part of the ZBA.
She added that she will not comment on the character of Subway shops business and
stressed that the applicants' esteem and known quality of operation is not at question in
her mind. However, her concern lies with the proposed location. She presented a
printout to the Committee from the Police Department indicating 169 police calls to the
300 bock of Howard Street from February 2001 — 2002 and this is with the elimination
of all the taxi cab complaint calls. She said that out of the I69 police calls, 66 are just
calls having to do with uncivilized behavior at this particular building. In addition to the
66 calls to this building, the 300 block of Howard in one year had 15 traffic accidents.
She noted that these are only reported accidents on the Evanston side of Howard Street
and assured that this number is twice as much if they included the accidents reported on
the Chicago side of Howard Street in this same block. Aid. Rainey pointed out that there
is zero available public parking for this location with only a 3-car taxicab stand and a bus
stop within that block and the majority of time there are more than 3 taxi's parked at the
stand. She said that some of the calls for service at this building are from CTA
complaining of double-parking of passenger vehicles, not cabs, disrupting the bus
capability to maneuver the turn and blocking the bus stop. She guarantees that with the
Subway shop at this location there is going to be more double-parking and added traffic
congestion within that block. She clarified that she has no problem with the Subway
business in general because she feel that any fast food establishment will intensify the
police calls and traffic problem situations in that area.
Aid. Rainey noted that all the police calls that she mentioned happened in the one year _
with the current owner. She said that this is not someone else's problem, it is a problem
with the ownership and management of the building. She said that City Street
Department staff can vouch about the condition of the sidewalk in front of this building,
which they clean several times a day. One of the workers informed here that they can go
around the corner and come back and the sidewalk is filled with litter and debris within
an hour. She reiterated that the addition of any fast fond operation will only add more
problems for a continually troubled area. She said that the owner has promised time and
time again to clean the building up and get rid of undesirable tenants, however no
improvements have been made. She mentioned that there have been police calls to this
building for situations such as strong arm robbery, battery, physical abuse calls, burglary
and so on.
Ald. Wynne asked if the proposed location for this store is currently vacant in the
building. Mr. Alan Weissman, representative of the owner of the property, responded
that the storefront is currently vacant and has been for approximately 5 months. He said
that the previous tenant was forced out for non-payment of rent and then shut down by
P&D Committee %itg.
Minutes of021-_'5 02
Page 7
expectations for development with the subdivision in place. Aid. Nex nan stated that
because of the questionable position that the Committee still remains with and the
expressed concerns of the community. this allows for the frustration with the Committee
acting on a ministerial stand. Mr. Nfurray assured the Committee, on behalf of his client,
that any fees and fines will be paid for upon receiving a bill from the City stating those
cost. He further assured his client has no problem with complying and rectifying any
penalties placed upon him with regards to this property. however he reiterated the fact
that this subdivision request is a matter of right and is under the jurisdiction by this
legislative body as being a ministerial act for approval of this request if all requirements
have been met. He stressed that the Committee take this matter into consideration in
view of the facts presented under this proposal. Aid. Newman said that he would feet
comfortable with acting on this matter tonight with the assurance that Mr. Robinson is
going to take care of and pay any fees assigned against him on this property. He feels
confident with Mr. Murray's representation on behalf of the owner and his assurance that
payment of any fees applicable will be paid and taken care of. He also acknowledged
that Mr. Robinson has done a lot of business with the City of Evanston and his reputation
as a respected businessman. Mr. Murray stated that he is not cominced that the concrete
curbing in place is a violation of any ordinance of the City. He said the fact of the matter
is that the use of the property is restricted by %irtue of the zoning that is attributable of
either side. He said that if there is any violation by virtue of the placement of the
curbing, he vowed that he will address this issue with the manager of the property and
they will resolve the issue as required.
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that from an administrative standpoint, staff will
discuss with Mr. Murray the building permit for the concrete for the west half of the
portion. His opinion and recommendation to the Committee at this point, is to deny any
permit application for the east half of the portion of the lot and for staff to begin
enforcement of and to attempt to obtain any past violation fines and penalties on this
property. He admitted that he has wimessed parking of passenger vehicles and buses on
the property throughout the zoning application process of this property.
The vote was 4-1 in favor of the motion with inclusion of the stated
recommendations; Chairman Kent voting nay.
(P3) Ordinance 14-0-02 - Amendment to Tvne t Street Reeulations (Section 4-19-21
Aka. Wyone moved approval of Ordinance 14-0-02, seconded by Ald. Bernstein.
Ald. Newman requested the amendment to eliminate the 1-year sunset provision because
there appears to be no need for this in consideration of the necessity due to lack of
applications received within the past 1-year sunset period and he does not foresee any
future necessity to continue this regulation. There was a consensus of the Committee
members in agreement to Aid. Newman's amendment and it was accepted and included
in Aid. Wynne's motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the amended motion
(Pa) Ordinance 13-0-02 - SDecial Use for 339 Howard (Tvae 2 Restaurant: Subwav)
Ms. Szymanski made a correction to the address that should read "327 Howard Street"
and this is the address that is listed on the ordinance. The Committee accepted this
P&O Commime Mtg.
Minutes of 02%5/02
Page 6
%is. Palmer stated that within the parking lot on the residential side with the properties
abutting from the east side. they cut off the alley and eliminated access for the City
garbage trucks to the backyards of those properties. She said that now if this lot is
allowed to be permanently closed off to the alley for the residents on Jackson Avenue, it
will create a difficulty for garbage pickup and other problems. Ald. Bernstein responded
that to the extent the owner did something that he should not have done, the sure part of
the remedy would be for him to remove it. Therefore if the owner closed off a public
area that he should not have, this problem should be rectified and again, this is a question
and matter of enforcement and should be pursued by City staff.
With all matters taken into consideration, Aid. Bernstein moved to approve the
request for plat of resubdhision with the inclusion that City staff under the
Community Development department take all appropriate measures to determine
what was there before, what is there now, and what occurred to get to this present
state with the extent of the owners obligation of any monies due to the City or any
penalties that need to be rectified. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion. Aid.
Newman added his recommendation for a phone number to an inspector in the Property
Standards division be pro%ided and forwarded to the neighborhood community who they
can readily call and expect some type of response to their complaints in a timely fashion
and be able to have some dialogue with. He feels that this is not unfair to Mr. Robinson
because he assumes that he is never going to have a bus on this property again once Mr.
Murray relays this directive to him. Mr. Wolinski forwarded his concurrence to provide
such information to the community and assured that any calls of complaints will be
addressed as a priority by City staff. Ald. Newman further requested that staff bill Mr.
Robinson for the building permit and pursuance of any past fines or penalties that the
City can lawfully obtain. Mr. Wolinski stated that the other issue that he brought up
previously that they are dealing with is the paved section of the lot in the residential
district that needs to come out, Ald. Newman asked why staff has not proceeded to go
forward with enforcing this situation if it was in %iolation from the beginning. Mr.
Wolinski responded that if the Committee approves the subdivision this evening, the part
that's 12 could stay; however the residential half should be reduced to a green area.
Ms. Hudson feels that this matter should be tabled until all fines and other questionable
penalties on this lot have been taken care of. She said that this includes the garbage
situation on the abutting side of the lot with the Jackson Avenue properties has been
rectified. She said that it seems only fair that until all of these issues are cleared up, the
City should stand assured in their position to be able to deny any petitions or proposals
for this property. _
Further discussion ensued amongst the Committee members regarding their position as
ministerial in this request for subdivision and the position obligated by the City to
recognize and adhere to the obN ious violations that have been committed by the owner as
far as non-compliance with the property and the perpetual question of rights on behalf of
both the City and the applicant. It was the consensus of the Committee that many
questions still remain and they would have preferred to have the Mr. Robinson present
for some dialogue regarding his future plans for the property and comments on his
P&D Committee .%ttg.
Minutes of 0125 02
Page S
firm that the Committee's position in this proposal is of a ministerial act and the
enforcement of any violations should be dealt with accordingly.
Ald. Newman feels that if the Committee grants the subdivision they should make it
contingent upon the permit fees being paid and also the inspection to assure that the work
is properly done pursuant to the code. He said that if the Committee can not link this
together, they can state to Mr. Robinson that they will not act on the subdivision until all
permit fees have been paid. He definitely agrees with the fact that the owner of the
property did not follow the law from the beginning with this property and he strongly
supports the penalization of any property owner that does not follow and abide by City
codes. Chairman Kent asked staff` if the City can rightfully go back and retrieve the fines
and penalties that should be enforced for restitution from the owner. He would like
confirmation that this can be done because there is obvious evidence of the owner's
violation of obtaining the required permits from the beginning. Ms. Szymanski
responded that there is no statute of limitation on this, however she would have to look at
the file and verify what evidence they have to firmly support the City's position on
redeeming those past fines. She requested to respond on a previous issue raised by Aid.
Newman regarding making the approval conditional. She stated that if the condition is
not proper, which she believes it is not, certainly if this matter were to be tabled until the
next meeting that perhaps the applicant could have a change of heart of be in the position
to pursue legal action against the City acting outside of their jurisdiction in this case.
Aid. Newman forwarded questioning to Mr. Murray on how long it would take for his
client to pay the permit fees and any penalties placed against him and asked if he would
like to take this time to place a call to his client for comment. Mr. Murray responded that
he would not be able to contact his client at this immediate time, however he relayed
from his understanding that there were no demolition fees required because of the
circumstances involved in moving earth. He admits that there may have been an permit
required with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, which was applied for and
signed off by the City of Evanston and issued for the drainage that was on the lot. He
stated that what may have not have been authorized by permit is for the curbs that were
placed around the perimeter of the property. He said that the aprons were permitted and
bonded and if it is a matter of the valuation of the curbing that surrounds the parking area
that was to be and which not will be, then he is assured that it is a number that can be
assigned and will be taken care of.
Aid. Newman asked staff if they agree with Mr. Murray's assessment that it is just the
curbing and not the fact of further required building permits that should have been issued.
Mr. Wolinski responded that for the most part this could be argued. However, from his
understanding was that the Public Works Department approved the drainage through the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District for the parking area and he is not sure whether
permits were ever taken out for the curb cuts but the City, in his opinion in error
approved those. He stated that no building permits were issued and in his opinion they
are in a grey area with this case because ordinarily the building of a parking lot does not
come under a building permit fee.
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 0225 02
Page 4
it stands now the upper portion is R5 and she feels the 12 section on the west side of the
lot should require a zoning ordinance change.
Aid. Neuman asked Mr. Wolinski if his department has received complaints from the
community regarding the parking of buses on this lot, if so, have inspectors been sent out
to investigate these complaints. Mr. Wolinski responded that he has heard issues about
bus parking in the lot. Aid. Newman requested that Community Development's phone
number be forwarded to those in attendance and to the entire surrounding neighbors so
that they are aware of whom to call and file a complaint. He also requested that Mr.
Wolinski designate an inspector that can immediately address any of the complaints
received on this lot because enforcement needs to be exerted.
Ms. Dienner raised the question that if there is continual abase of the situation, wouldn't
this give the City a good reason to deny the owners petition. Aid. Wynne feels this is a
good point to raise because when this first came before the Committee was when they
learned that there were no permits for the demolition. She asked staff for an explanation
of the follow-up of that situation. Mr. Wolinski responded that this case was not
forwarded to Administrative Adjudication at this point because the property has been
under continuous zoning review with the applications that the owner has filed since that
time. He noted that staff did cite Mr. Robinson back when the work was originally done
and the case has since then been through a total zoning process. He informed that when a
case is before an administrative body for review, in most instances the court will wait
until that that body has settled issue. He continued that after the ZBA and Council denied
the zoning change, they then received the subdivision application, therefore this case has
been under constant state of review by legislative bodies. Aid. Wynne then questioned
that if the Committee votes to conclude the matter this evening, will City staff go back
and take whatever procedural steps to cite and fine Mr. Robinson for demolition and of
the property or whatever improvements that were done without a permit. She pointed out
the importance of the City's reputation and precedence set if this matter is allowed to go
forward without the complacency of enforcing and redeeming any fines or penalties that
due for collection from the owner before being allowed to go forward with any ultimate
plans for the property. Mr. Wolinski informed that there was any issue that Public Works
mistakenly issued the permit for curb cuts in error to Mr. Robinson and he can not speak
to what actions have been taken in that case. Aid. Newman asked what the cost of the
permit would have been for the pouring of the concrete to pave the lot. Mr. Wolinski
responded that it depends on the cost of the job; he estimated that the cost would be
around $1,000. Aid. Wynne recalled that generally in the cases where work is done
without a permit the penalty is 75% of permit fee. Mr. Wolinski concurred.
Aid. Bernstein determined that it appears they need to break this matter into two parts;
one being the enforcement issue and secondly addressing the ministerial position of the
Committee. He pointed out that the enforcement issue is one that should have been dealt
with from the beginning and now being an obvious issue, should be dealt with at this time
and pursued by City staff before any further development and continuous monitoring of
the property. However, this has nothing to do with the landowners right to do a
subdivision if all requirements and approvals have been signed -off and met. He stands
P&D Committee %itg.
Minutes of 02 25 02
Page 3
of case law. Aid. Newman requested that she look at the City Code and present the
section that supports her authority that she bases her opinion on be available for the
community to look at.
Chairman Kent referred to the sign up sheet for citizen comments at this point.
Ms. Bettv Palmer stated that in her opinion this is another case of Nir. Robinson still
trying to sabotage the community because the houses that he owns in the 115 district,
those people are now parking on that back parking lot. She said that there is still the
continuation of parking buses on the property and she feels that even with the
subdivision, one side of the lot will be industrial and he will subsequently keep parking
buses on that side and the lot will eventually turn into a transportation center as proposed
with the first petition. She added that they will still continue to exit those buses out onto
Foster Street. She reiterated that this proposal for resubdivision is a way to sabotage the
issue and this is a maneuver to eventually turn the property into a bus transportation
center as Mr. Robinson originally proposed to do. She pointed out that he is still the
owner of the entire parcel and when he purchased the property he was aware that the
property was designated R5 and the half that is zoned 12. Mr. Lyman and Mr. Alterson
both verified that parking is not a permitted use in the 12 districts and bus parking is not
allowed. Chairman Kent mentioned that on the 12 parcel there could be a 27-30 car
parking lot for passenger vehicles. Aid. Newman asked if anyone could verify that the
parking of buses is presently occurring on either side of the property. his. Palmer, along
with all the neighbors in attendance, all validated this fact. Aid. Newman said that in his
view if Mr. Robinson is parking buses on the property there is a definite need for City
enforcement and this should be checked on a regular basis and cited for non-compliance.
He asked if this violation has been relayed to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Iviurray assured that he
has advised his client of this fact and also observed that there are no buses parked on that
parcel overnight at any time. He claimed that buses have used the Iot for temporarily
usage but are not using the lot for long-term parking. Chairman Kent remarked that he
has witnessed buses sitting in that lot idling for long periods of time. also semi -trucks that
have been parked in the lot and continuous usage of the lot for parking of vehicles. He
strongly agrees and request that staff enforce the code for violations of parking usage of
this lot and urged that this regulation be relayed to Mr. Robinson.
Ms. Roberta Hudson pointed out that with the City claiming to be short of money, why
they are not fining the owner for mis-use of this lot. She brought up the fact that the
owner illegally demolished what was on the property to begin with and leveled the lot
without the proper permits. Nevertheless. there has been no communication regarding
the City citing the owner and redeeming any fines that should have been placed against
the owner. She informed the Committee that she lives in the immediate vicinity of this
property and has witnessed and is certain of the parking of buses and other passenger
vehicles in this lot at all times. She questions why the City is not enforcing the code
violations that are obvious and why they are not receiving any monies in fines from the
owner for those violations as well as being penalized for illegally improving the property
without permits. Ms. Hudson pointed out that if the owner wants to subdivide this lot; as
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 02r_'S 02
Page 2
housing and green space. He said that there still can be some parking in the area and one
of the problems with subdividing is for sure making available a parking facility on the
west side of the lot next to the industrial. The problem with that parking facility is not
just the cars itself but the fact that it will then have the right to exit out onto Fester Street
which is viewed as a potential traffic problem. He added that this is a subject matter that
is also under study at this point which is the entire traffic pattern in that area of the City.
Mr. Lyman concurs that this request that is before the Committee is much more
reasonable and acceptable than the first petition, which was to turn the parcel into a bus
parking lot. However, this does not solve all the issues such as the exit onto Foster Street
and the question of how much parking do they want allowed there and to what extent do
they want the character of that part of the City to start to change. He concluded by
suggesting that the Committee read through the minutes of the June, 2001 meeting and
expressed his opinion that this is a premature subdivision at this point, however he does
feel there should be some parking accommodations provided for Mr. Robinson's needs.
Aid. Newman asked Mr. Lyman if he was working under the assumption that the City has
discretion because they do not have it outside of the historic districts. A property owner
has a right to subdivide his property and the P&D Committee is only a ministerial body in
relation to this matter. He recalled his concern about this issue when the Preservation
Ordinance was drafted that he added language, which was agreed to by the other Council
members, to allow standards for subdivisions in historic districts. He asked legal staff if
they were to deny the subdivision are they creating a cause of action for Mr. Robinson
against the City because they don't have the right to do so. He would like a definite
answer for the City's position in this case. He said that he has always been under the
impression since he has been on the Council for the last 10 years that subdivisions is not
something that they have the right to exercise discretion on because there is nothing in
the ordinance stating that fact. Mr. Lyman then raised the question of having different
standards for certain areas of the City. Aid. Bernstein said that so long as the resulting
properties each are both consistent with all the prevailing zoning. He reiterated Mr.
Lyman's earlier statement that the property is considered R5 and was this an
administrative decision based on the dominant use. However, the west side of the
property is industrial and the east side is residential and this goes back to the contiguous
ownership. He said the fact they're owned in common creates a different scenario. Ms.
Szymanski responded that plats of subdivision are a ministerial act which means that the
legislative body has no discretion in whether or not to approve the petition that is before
it. She said the legislative body must approve whatever is requested; this being a request
for plat of resubdivision. if that fact meets the standards, from her understanding of plats
is if all the sign -offs indicating approval from zoning, legal department, a county stamp,
public works and any other requisite approval the City has determined must be there; if
those are obtained then this means that the plat does meet the standards and the
presentation to the legislative body is a ministerial act. Aid. Newman asked if the plat of
subdivision on the Mayfair Right-of-way has met all the requirements as mentioned. Ms.
Szymanski responded that she has not seen the velum but has been told by Mr. Wolinski
that the required signatures are there. He asked if there is anything in writing in the City
Code that states that a plat of subdivision that meets the requirements is a ministerial act.
Ms. Szymanski said that she would have to look at the City Code and may be a situation
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of February 25, 2002
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. Barn-. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Others Present: A. Dienner, J. Lyman
Presiding Official: Alderman Kent
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11.2002 MEETINGS
Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the February 1 l `s minutes, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
The vote was 5.0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Plat of Subdivision for Former Mavfair Riaht-of-Wav Between Foster & Emerson
Chairman Kent recalled that this item was held over from the last meeting because the
Committee and neighbors had some concerns. It was requested at the last meeting for
Mr. Robinson's attendance at this meeting for further discussion and dialog. He
acknowledged Mr. Lyman's in attendance for comments on the Plan Commission's prior
review of the original petition for this property. He turned comments over to Mr. James
Murray at this time. Mr. Murray communicated that he has been in contact with Mr.
Robinson who is out of state at this time and he has responded to an inquiry that was
placed to him by Aid. Newman at the last meeting. He informed the Committee that Mr.
Robinson has authorized him to act or speak an his behalf and that he is willing to sit
down with members of this Committee and discuss the ultimate development of this
parcel. However, he asks that not withstanding the fact that there may be issues with
reference to its development, this request is a matter of right and requires ministerial
action on the part of the Committee and he would ask that the subdivision be authorized
in accordance with its request.
Mr. John Lyman recalled that on June 20, 2001, the Plan Commission did write minutes
related to the hearing that held on this particular subject. He requested that Mr. Alterson
provide a copy of these minutes to the Committee, even though the original petition was
withdrawn. He stated that the minutes summarize the Plan Commission's position and as
of this date the parcel is designated as R5. He said that in keeping it R5 gives it
flexibility to have the area stay consistent with the neighborhood areas in keeping with
owI
P&D Committee httg.
Minutes of 3111/0"
Page 8
and there are only 5 houses adjacent to this alley. Aid. Rainey noted that if this were left
up to CVS whose interest is to save any money where possible, they would not have
wanted to vacate that alley, however the neighbors that live there are insisting that this
alley be close off.
Mr. Murray made note of several conditions that have been contained in Mr. Alterson's
memorandum dated February 28th and requested to the Committee for consideration to
make slight modifications to the operational aspects. He feels these modifications are
necessary because the conditions as they currently exist are too restrictive. Chairman
Newman suggested that due to the limitation of time to properly address those conditions,
he would request that this matter be introduced tonight and address the conditions at the
March 25th meeting so as not to delay the process. Mr. Murray agreed to this.
Aid. Engelman moved to introduce this item and refer back to Committee for the
March 25th meeting for further discussion of the conditions. Aid. Wynne seconded
the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
%U Z. IA 5 -xN%J- 7d VjX-e—
Jacq fin E. Brownlee
P&D Committee Mt¢.
Minutes of 3 11 Q?
Page 7
Aid. Engelman moved to introduce this item this evening and refer back to
Committee for the 'March 25th meeting for further discussion and clarification of
the actual police calls made within the last year and for staff to provide a report of
all police calls made to this address for the past 4 years. Aid. Wynne seconded the
motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chief Kaminsky agreed to provide the
Committee with a detailed report of all calls made that define the type of complaint made.
(P3) Ordinance 19-0-02 - Soecial Use & Variance for 101 Asbury (CVS Pharmacv)
Chairman Neuman asked Aid. Rainey for any opening comments with regards to this
case. Aid. Rainey- stated her commitment and support for this project. She noted the
representatives for CVS has been talking with her and the neighbors for months and she
praised the developers efforts during the entire planning stage of this project. She said
that there have been approximately 12 neighborhood meetings held regarding this project
and reported that the neighbors have been very much involved. In fact, one of the
neighbors is a landscape architect who recommended that landscaping plan for the
development and another neighbor who is an architect that gave valuable insight to the
project also. She also mentioned that the neighbors to the immediate east of the subject
property gave helpful suggestions that CVS acknowledged. Aid. Rainey again
commended CVS's efforts and willingness to work with the neighbors for consolation to
their concerns. She stated that if CVS's operation is any thing close to their efforts in
working with the neighbors during this period of development, she is confident and
pleased to have their business in the City of Evanston.
Chairman Newman asked for any Committee discussion. Aid. Bernstein asked for
confirmation of the parameters of this project. It was confirmed that the parameters start
where the current Dunkin Doughnuts is located going east with the vacation of the alley
and demolition of the cleaners, going north taking over the Matt Nevada restaurant and
the current vacant adjacent lot. Aid. Engelman questioned the alley vacation and if this is
specifically for ingress and egress because he noticed from the easement agreement there
is an easement for the utilities but not for ingress and egress. He questioned how
sanitation pickup vial be conducted for the houses to the east of this property. Mr.
Murray responded that presently, this alley is one-way going eastbound and part of the
vacation process the Traffic Department is producing an ordinance which would make
this a 2-way alley so that access to the rear of the residences there as well as for all
purposes such as emergency vehicles can be assured. He noted that this matter is pending
simultaneously at the A&PW meeting. He said that it has been shortened up by a
distance of 3-feet to accommodate the concerns of the adjacent residences for access to
their garage. He made note of the document received from Mr. Fujahari indicating that
he has no objection to this alley vacation. Aid. Engelman stated that if they vacate this
alley for this project and this alley in reality is an ingress/egress road to get to and from
their parking lot, it would seem not desirable for heavy use of this portion being vacated
because it is the walkway from the parking lot and the store. Mr. Murray said, on the
other hand, that by vacating the alley and closing it off at that particular location at the
east property line, there will be a fence running the entire eastern property line, they will
eliminate incidental traffic from the store going down the public alley and interfering
with the neighbor usage. The sanitation trucks back up into the alley for refuge collection
P&D Committee Mfg.
Minutes of 31 1 I '02
Page 6
will enable the Comminee, Aid. Rainey. staff and the applicant to see if any
improvements have been made since the current owners have taken over the property or
if it has remained the same. fir. Rosen requested that the report be clear of whether the
complaints were filed with their property or if it is connected with the neighboring
buildings. His opinion is that the issue being made here from the Committee and Aid.
Rainey is that if there is proof of mismanagement of the building then the business should
not be allowed at this location. He informed the Committee of his involvement with the
CAPS program with the Police Department and assured that his intention is for the
improvement of the area and better tenancy for his building. He noted that a Subway
store will better benefit the area versus a Dollar Store and the past businesses that were in
operation at this location. He also noted that it is hard to find good business tenants for
this location and reiterated Subw•ay's reputation and that he feels fortunate that they are
interested trying to operate a store at this site. He also felt it important to realize that the
owner/operator is a small family business that will be willing to keep the area clean and
put attention into that business. Aid. Engelman pointed out that the owner has testified
that when the management of the shopping center at his last location didn't pay attention
to maintaining the building, he opted to not renew his lease and close his business. He
stressed to the building owners that this is why the Committee has requested to review
the past police history and receive verification from staff on the actual calls made to this
property, especially with the newly presented list of police calls received this evening. It
appears to be an important issue even for the business operator to make sure their
investment is protected also.
Ald. Rainey commented that she produced the police report and noted that these were
calls for the tenants living inside this building and were calls ranging from domestic
battery, burglaries, uncivilized behavior, etc. None of the calls from her list have to do
with the cab stand complaints or other activity on the street. She stressed her position is
that there is nothing she wants more for the City of Evanston than to see the
redevelopment of Howard Street and she is has been and remains to be very supportive of
this effort. She said if Subway can contribute to this improvement then she is all for it,
however she feels one of the things that happen when the City gives a special use, no
matter what rules or conditions are put upon them, it seems the majority of these
businesses tend to violate those requirements. She suggested if there was some way of
placing a sunset or restrictive provision such as a 3-month period on approving this, it
would be the only way she could support this. Chairman Newman pointed out that in
the10 years he has been on Council there has never been a case for a special use to be
revoked because there hasn't been the opportunity, therefore he agrees with Aid.
Rainey's suggestion in this case. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Alterson if it is possible to have
a renewal process on an annual basis for proof that the litter plan and any other provisions
or conditions have been complied with. He responded that this is assumable, however he
can not recall a similar instance. Chairman Newman asked the applicant if they were
given a 1-year trial period, would they be willing to agree to such a condition. Mr.
l.adhani and Mr. Masi responded that they would have no problem with this however
there is the issue of abiding by their lease once it is signed.
P&D Committee Nttg.
Minutes of 3, 1 1 02
Page 5
With no further discussion. Aid. Engelman motioned to approve the Plat of
Davis/Church Second Resubdivision. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the
vote was 5-0 in favor.
(P6) Resolution 20-R-02 — Authorizing Citv Manager to Execute a Release for a portion
of the Redevelopment Agreement with Davis Church Office LLC
Ms. Aiello explained that Mesirow Stein is responsible for the term of redevelopment of
the whole parcel and the resolution will release them from responsibility of the retail
space and leases. She elaborated in more detail in response to several questions from the
Committee.
Aid. Engelman moved approval of Resolution 20-R-02, seconded by Aid. Bernstein.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P2) Ordinance 13-0-02 — Special Use for 327 Howard ltvpe 2 Restaurant: Subwav)
Chairman Newman asked for introduction of all those in attendance representing this
case. Introducing were Mr. Phil Masi, Development Agent for the Subway's in Cook
County, Mr. Nizarali Ladhani, Franchisee, Mr. Scott Rosen and Mr. Jack Price,
owners/partners of the property.
Ald. Rainey was called over for participation in discussing this case. She reiterated her
concerns stated at the last meeting which related to her list of 66 police calls to this
property for serious criminal situations. the trash problems in front of the building,
numerous automobile accidents in the location and the problem of having absolutely no
parking available for this site. She feels it is naive to believe that all customers for this
restaurant will be pedestrians and commuters. She stressed her opposition to having any
fast food establishment at this location.
Mr. Masi responded in defense to several of Aid. Rainey's comments. He spoke on
behalf of Subway's good business reputation and the character of the franchisee. The
owners of the building presented another list to the Committee that shows only S actual
police calls within the last year that were accurate.
Chairman Newman requested to staff to produce a printout of all police reports for this
address from November 1998 to the present date to obtain 4-years history prior to the
date of previous ownership. Mr. Rosen commented that retail is always the last to benefit
from the current wave of renovation to problem areas, however the reality is the need for
exceptionally good retail in order to contribute to the transition of any noticeable change
to such an area He added that any improvement to the current conditions of the area will
only benefit from positive retail that will contribute to the prosperity and upbringing.
Chairman Newman pointed out that the issue here is the Aid. Rainey has suggested at this
particular address there has been 66 police calls in a one-year period of time. However,
the applicants have presented a list to the Committee this evening claiming that there
have been only 6 calls at this property. He asked Chief Kaminsky if he could run the
police calls for this address for the past 4 years from November of 1998. Such a report
P&D Comminee S1tg.
Minutes of 3 11 02
Page d
the Committee have very limited discussion on those issues and granted the project. He
feels that affordable housing projects are much easier to pass because such projects are
contributing more than what every additional problems are being absorbed. He said
overall in consideration that sales prices are so high and there is so much potential
economic benefit on the units, Council should feel justified in asking the developer to
come to the table on the parking issue. Ald. Bernstein stated that it remains questionable
the definition of affordable housing. He pointed out that the Jacob Blake Manor is
actually not a good example because HUD subsidizes that project; constructed by
government money for people on low fixed incomes. Aid. Kent agreed that there seems
to be no good sense of what affordable housing is because everyone has a different
definition of this and whom it should apply to. He used for example the single-family
house currently being constructed in the 5 h Ward, which claimed to be affordable
housing selling for 5175,DOO. He questions who this is defined to be affordable for.
Further discussion followed with no definite consensus by the Committee on how to
address the affordable housing issue with the parking issues. Mr. Wolinski pointed out
that the reality of the situation is that there is very little, if any affordable housing that
would be built in Evanston that would apply under the parking requirements. He noted
that it is evident that most affordable housing is currently coming in as conversions of
existing buildings where there is no requirements to increase or decrease the parking
requirement. Any other affordable housing would be single-family construction. He said
that any type of new affordable housing and could not see corning in without being
subsidized heavily. The Committee agreed.
In conclusion of discussion, the Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the original motion.
Aid. Engelman motioned to refer this matter for further discussion of the standards
to the Plan Commission with consultation of the Zoning Board with a response back
to the Committee within " days. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote
was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Newman requested that special attention be given to the
standard dealing with hardship.
Chairman Newman asked the status with discussion of Binding Appearance Review with
the Plan Commission. Mr. Cook responded that this item is back on their agenda and
they will be holding another meeting. Several comments came up at the public hearing
that need to be addressed.
!PSI Plat of Second Davis/Church Resubdivision
Aid. Engelman clarified that the Committee's position is ministerial and that this =
resubdivision is for the retail build -cut. He asked if this is also for the air rights. Mr. —
Tom White, representative for Arthur Hill Company, responded that this is a vertical
subdivision and carves out the space from the first floor slab to the second floor slab for
the first floor retail. He agreed that this is a very uncommon subdivision, however it was
the only way to accomplish what they needed to do in this particular case because the
garage underneath the building all belongs to the 909 Davis Partnership. He added that
there is also an operating agreement with the carved out space for retail.
P&D Committee %fig.
Minutes of 11 02
Page 3
because he feels it holds true for most communities that have a large amount of
commuters that it is assumed that there are less cars being used. He definitely feels this is
not true and if there is something concrete that proves this, it will help alleviate the
Zoning Board and the Committee's position. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that a good
example of this situation is in looking at the 811 Chicago Avenue building located very
close to good public transportation and the reality of the survey which showed the 1.3 +
parking per unit. In his opinion, the only downside to this is the potential of precluding
affordable housing because the cost become more prohibited if a developer has to provide
more parking spaces, especially if they need to go sub -level or add creativity to provide
sufficient parking. He said the reality of this is that Evanston is beyond saturation in
terms of cars and town, therefore he is not opposed to placing a limitation. He noted that
there are variations and they could work on the certain standards or discuss overlay
districts if there are particular areas of town which for whatever reasons shouldn't be
susceptible to the same ordinance. However, he feels that this ordinance is appropriate
and it is time to start dealing with the City's parking issues.
AkL Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 88-0-01, seconded by Aid. Bernstein.
Further discussion followed. Aid. Engelman asked staff how many other buildings
beside 811 Chicago Avenue that has recently been built or surveyed showing an increase
in cars versus parking spaces provided per unit. Aid. Wynne responded that there have
been several buildings, for example the 515 Main Street building. She said that there was
a survey done during the Chicago Avenue Corridor Study that surveyed buildings
whether they had parking available or not. This study included the many vintage
buildings and the survey concluded 1.33 cars per unit. Mr. Lyman pointed out Roszak's
building on Chicago Avenue; this developer saw the value of these numbers and allowed
for the needed parking suitable to this ordinance. He also pointed out that these units are
selling within the "low end" of the price range for condominiums in Evanston.
Aid. Engelman asked if this is an item that the Plan Commission and ZBA are currently
engaged in looking at the standards for variations as it relates to parking. Mr. Cook
responded that this is not on the agenda but can be added for discussion in the near future.
Ald. Engelman stated that he is inclined to believe that there is a greater demand for
parking requirements that we have not been able to meet. He is also inclined to be
somewhat in favor of this motion, however he is very worried about the fact that getting
variations in certain circumstances is not going to be very easy or next to difficult to
obtain. He stated that if he was to lean towards voting for this, he definitely wants an
expression from both the ZBA and the Plan Commission in addressing the variations as it
relates to parking. Mr. Cook assured the Committee that the Plan Commission could put
this matter on their agenda within the next few months. Chairman Newman requested to
consult with the ZBA Chair to have someone present from the Zoning Board during the
Plan Commission's review.
Chairman Newman addressed the affordable housing issue with this ordinance. He
pointed out that they have turned down very few variations, using the Jacob Blake Manor
as an example. He noted that there were approximately 7 variations with that project and
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 3 It 02
Page 2
Chairman Newman confirmed µith staff that currently there is a requirement of I parking
space per dwelling unit and if this recommendation from the Plan Commission is
approved. the parking requirement µill go to 1 '1, parking spaces for a ]-bedroom, 1 '/2
parking spaces for a 2-bedroom and 2-spaces for 3 or more bedrooms per dwelling unit.
,Mr. Wolinski confirmed. Aid. Wynne asked staff what the process µill be for cases such
as a senior citizen home, as mentioned by Mr. Lyman. and how time consuming it will be
and if the process will significantly delay a project. Mr. Alterson responded that for
retirement homes there is a different parking classification, however the process would be
the same as an application for variation if it were for a building marketing to seniors.
Aid. Wynne questioned if the geometry of a site is particularly difficult to deal with
where the developer might ask for a variation in this instance for parking, would this
require the same procedure. Mr. Alterson explained that the applicant would have to
appear before the Zoning Board, P&D and finally to Council as it is currently done. Aid.
Kent questioned for buildings in very dense, constricted areas, what information is given
or helps the ZBA in making their determinations. He ask this because it seems that with
many cases in the past some of the decisions coming from the Zoning Board was the
result of them not being very familiar with a certain area. Mr. Akerson responded that as
far as getting a variance, the Zoning Board does took at what parking situation is in the
general area of the site and what the parking needs that the particular use generates.
However, since a variance is something that relates more to a peculiarity of the property,
then the nature of the use could have a problem µith a conservative Zoning Board. He
said what we are talking about is not a special use but a variance that would relate to the
actual lay of the land rather than the use itself.
Aid. Engelman pointed out that with 6 1-bedroom units. 7.5 parking spaces would be
needed, according to this ordinance. He asked staff' what guidelines would be followed
for fractional parking spaces. Mr. Alterson responded that for requirements for .5 spaces
and above would go up to the next number. Aid. Engelman raised the question of
standards on variations and asked if economic hardship stands provided that the applicant
is not trying to strike any economic intake. Mr. Alterson said that this standard has been
softened. Aid. Engelman then questioned if someone putting up a building near public
transportation, for instance, where there may perceived to be less demand for parking and
the applicant states that the numbers don't work and they feel there is no demand, does
the meet the standards. Mr. Alterson responded that this decision would be up to the
Zoning Board and the Committee upon consideration of the aspects involved, however a
conservative interpretation of the standard would probably say no and for a more liberal
understanding this would certainly not be unusual. Aid. Engelman continued that if there
is nothing unique about a property except for its close proximity to public transportation,
this is certainly the argument for not needing or providing all the required parking, yet
and still this would not necessarily meet the standards. Mr. Alterson answered that would
be correct but would not necessarily meet the standards as a peculiarity of the property
standard. Chairman Newman stated that they have talked about this standard being
ambiguous and the Committee asked for at the joint meeting for the ZBA to recommend
some language regarding this, therefore in the long run he feels this problem will be taken
care of Aid. Kent agreed with Aid. Engelman's comments, that it remains an argument
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of March 11, 2002
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, N1. Barry. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Others Present: A. Dienner, R. Cook, J. Lyman
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Newnan called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25.2002 MEETINGS
Aid, Kent moved approval of the February 25"' minutes, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The
vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Engelman not present at the time).
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Chairman Newman made note that Aid. Rainey has requested to be present for items (P2)
regarding 327 Howard and (P3) regarding 101 Asbury. He will hold these items for last
on the agenda.
(PI) Ordinance 88-0-01 — Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Reauired Parkins for
Multi -family Residential
Chairman Newman asked Mr. Lyman or Mr. Cook for opening statements regarding this
matter to summarize the position of the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Mr.
Lyman informed the Committee that the Plan Commission looked at this for an extensive
period of time. With the City engineers, they concluded that some increase in parking
requirements is essential for the City of Evanston. He said that they are not going to
deteriorate the parking situation in the City across the whole board and this is not just a
problem in the Chicago Avenue area. He said the recommendation was a compromise
after looking at other City's who also have looked at this problem. He continued that it
was the Plan Commission's opinion that if we are going to maintain housing stock where
apartments and condominiums have any hope of parking accommodations, then this is a
very reasonable proposal. It is recognized by the Plan Commission that on occasion there
will be buildings that can make a good case for having an exception to this requirement
such as senior citizen development, however on these occasions, a request for variation
would be appropriate. Mr. Lyman did point out that many new projects are coming in
already meeting these requirements or better by developers who are also concerned about
the resale value of their units by providing sufficient parking.
This vras clearly stated in the Statement of Significance written at the time that
describes the building as, "a tentacular, ilrma&rr, oj'a �pr once .-ommon to Evanston. It fratmrrs original
dadfing, and i.r arrhiteeturaly ogiq�axt, deTtte the jaa that arto,7al trding has born appkrd otrr the
original cfap6oar& "
The Preservation Commission in 1985
Commission members in the 1980s were actively involved in establishing a
preservation plan and surveying the entire city block by block to identify and nominate
landmarks. The Evaluation Committee included Barbara Buchbinder-Green, Mary
McWilliams and Anne O. Earle, arguabl• then, as now, persons with unparalleled expertise
in architectural history.
They researched 610 Cohort and, despite the asphalt siding, recommended landmark
designation to the entire Commission. The Preservation Commission considered and
approved the nomination. Folloa-ing that, the Evanston City Council then approved the
Commission's action.
The Presertation Commission in 1998
In 1998, following a fire on the property, this same homeowner appeared before the
Preservation Commission seeking approval to install vinyl siding and replacement windows,
citing monetary constraints resulting from the insurance settlement. The use of vinyl siding
to cover the asphalt siding did not cause members of the 1998 commission to either
"devalue" the building or question its landmark status.
Conclusion
Historic preservation is not intended to freeze a building in time or to prevent
homeowners from making reasonable improvements to their property.
610 Callan is clearly a building that has architectural and historical significance for
the community; it should be preserved. However, the homeowner's needs should be
considered as well. The challenge is to find a workable compromise.
While the applicant's Scheme 1 does not meet this goal, the applicant's Scheme 2
does. I suggest that you support the decision of the Preservation Commission and urge the
applicant to use Scheme 2 as the basis for their renovation plans.
Judy Fiske
March 25, 2002
ATTACHMENT "D•,
Statement Regarding 610 Callan Avenue
Planning & Development Committee
)`larch 25, 2002
By
Judy Fiske
\ly name is Judy Fiske. I have researched the architectural history of over one
thousand structures within and outside the City of Evanston.
Historical Overview and Significance
The subject of my remarks is the two-family residence located at 610 Callan Avenue
(pmiously known as 610 Linden Court). This early Italianate Cottage was constructed circa
1870 in what would become the Village of South Evanston; it overlooked the railroad tracks
when they were on grade.
Panoramic photographs taken in 1885 show that the house was of a type common in
the area, but over the years, as the neighborhood developed, most of the other modest frame
dwellings were altered or replaced. Today, 610 Callan is significant because its architectural
form and features are unique and are intact. It is one of only a smafl handful of comnarabls
dwellings that still exist in EvanstotL
Proposed Alteration of 610 Callan
The alterations favored by the current homeowner (raising the height of the roof by
six feet) would drastically alter the structure and pSMnently destroy its architesMral
intcgd , with the result that its I&GdM2rk designation would be_revoked. In short, if you
grant this appeal,st will have the same effect as approving a permit for demolition.
Because the homeowner's plans Identified as Scheme 1) do not meet the criteria of
the Preservation Ordinance, the application was denied. However the commission indicated
that it would be, 'Ynrlintd to apprvtr a tun -story addition mmidktel, y to The rrar of the landmark
bxilding, "as shown in the applicant's proposed Scheme ?
In appealing the decision of the Preservation Commission, the homeowner states
that, 'Tbe Committiox expmurd some opinion that the hawse has been dtw&ed ar a landmx* by the
syrntbrtir siding, and if the borue agar being nominated for landm v* staterr today, it is doxbtfrl if the
Commission avold add it to the list. "
I cannot imagine that the Preservation Commission today would not consider this
house for landmark designation. nc 1985 Commission, with much getter expedience on
this subject, designated this structure as an Evanston landmark, while at the same time
acknowledging that it did so despite the fact that the house was covered with asphalt siding.
ATTACHTNTF.NT "C 41
REMARKS TO T t iE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
REGARDING THE EVANSTON LANDMARK AT 610 CALLAN AVENUE
25 MARCH 2O02
In August 1985 the Evanston Preservation Commission voted 7 to 2 to 1 to designate
610 Callan Avenue an Evanston Landmark, despite the asphalt shingles cladding the
building. The chosen criterion was "A7," which states that a building exemplifyon
architectural style, construction technique, or building hype once common in the city. The fact
that the building was covered in asphalt shingles meant that the Preservation
Commissioners saw 610 Callan as an especially strong and rue example.
By 1985 the Commission had been surveying Evanston for eight years. Most of the
survey work had concentrated in ten Intensive Study Areas that that contained
significant numbers of historic buildings, as identified by 300 volunteers in a 1976 city-
wide survey.
Between 1983 and 1985 the Commission surveyed areas eligible for Community
Development Block Grants. The Commission received CDBG funds to cover the
survey costs. Because these areas had never been surveyed for Evanston Landmarks
and most of the structures were modest, vernacular building types, the Commission
was especially diligent.
The Preservation Coordinator and at least two, and often three, members of the EPC
Evaluation Committee conducted a windshield survey to identify potential Evansban
Landmarks. Anne Earle and Barbara Buchbinder-Green researched the building files to
determine, if possible, the date of construction, the name of the original owner and
architect or builder, and what changes had taken place (shown on building permits).
Gwen Sommers Yant; the Preservation Coordinator, photographed all of the buildings
under consideration.
Once the building information gathering and the photography were done, the
Evaluation Committee met several times to consider the eligibility of the buildings one
by one. The Evaluation Committee then submitted its recommendations to the fall
Preservation Commission for consideration, which voted by a strong majority to
designate 610 Callan Avenue an Evanston Landmark. City Council gave its approval
to the Commission's recommendations, which included 610 Callan.
The preservation community as a whole understands the importance of vernacular
architecture and encourages designation of vernacular buildings. I sat on the Illinois
Historic Sites Advisory Council (IHSAC) from 1997 through 1999. IHSAC is the state
body that recommends nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Each
year the National Register Coordinator, who plans the IHSAC meetings holds a training
session covering some aspect of architecture. In 1997 the subject of the training session
was vernacular architecture.
l=cbruar; 26, 2002
City Council
City of Evanston
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60202
To whom it my concern:
We understand that the owner of the residence at 610 Callan Avenue, Evanston, is trying
to get your approval to have a second story added to her home. We want you to be aware
that we have seen the architect's drawings and have no objections to the project being
presented to you, the City Council.
As homeowners ourselves, we feel that this will enhance our neighborhood and increase
the property value of all homes on our street.
We. the property owners listed below are willing to confirm this should you wish to
contact us.
ADDRESS NAME PHONE # SIGNATURE
554 Callan Avenue 4'1'-• S,` i a
t i J,
600 Callan Avenue
602 Callan Avenue VV7 i7 te,7,qr
606 Callan Avenue —,;r,x. ' G,�, ,] 8/?y�5 P175
t
610 Callan Avenue Rn c <uy�t/ (S�I71 ti�v.3r�.L r�r�' G�•r-�
614 Callan Avenue Is QAF. - N 3 S 7 .;1-:5 k
618 Callan Avenue 11,, v%tkw-b) MLjA c 2. f6m 5T A G 4 7f,
Respectfully,
ATTACHMENT "'B"
City Council
Cit% of B anston
RE: 610 CALLAN AVENUE
Dear City Council Members
The purpose of our meeting is to obtain your permission to do an addition on
our home at 610 Callan Avenue. As you are aware we have been before the
preservation committee and they have denied our project based on the
guidelines set by you.
My residence has been in my family for over half a century. We have always
taken pride in our property and we wish to continue to do so. As such, we
are committed to undertaking with love, time and financial investment a
very thoughtful, reasonable and professionally assisted upgrade to our
property.
We would like to maintain the maximum amount of open yard space
possible, while meeting our needs for increased living space.
One major reason for needing more living space is to allow an elderly
relative to reside in our home.
Another reason is Chris and 1 were recently married and we will need
additional living space for our own family.
We thank you for the time in reviewing our proposal. We hope that you
understand our needs/situation and grant our proposed remodeling of our
home and grant us the opportunity to begin the work on our home.
Sincerely,
NV ncy I Hoppa
r
1 r
Christopher P.
.f
Ho a
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF EVANSTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION
TO: ROGER CRUM. CITY MANAGER
FROM: JAMES WOLINSKI. DIRECTOR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ARTHUR ALTERSON. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
KEITH FUJIHARA. DEPUTY DIRECTO OF PUSLiC WORKS
SUBJECT: CVS'S DRAFT MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS
DATE: 3r20GrM
CC: MAYOR & ALDERMEN
James Murray, the attorney for the developer of the CVS Pharmacy at 101 Asbury has sent me a draft of modifications
the developer suggests be made to the conditions in draft ordinance S 10-O-02. 1 have summartzed ttme Proposed
modifications in the conditions below. At the 3111 P3D meeting the Committee voted to recommend introduction and
referral back to P&D to discuss modifications to conditions.
Note that Mr. Murray's final point below refers to the vacation of the west 137.8 feet of the east west alley between
Howard and Dobson and not the ordinance for zoning relief.
'There are four conditions which pose serious restrictions on the activity of the property owner and which are
requested to be modified. References are to the conditions set forth in the ZBA Recommendation m 101 Asbury dated
February 28, 2002 except that which relates to the alley vacation ordinance. Each of the proposed changes in the
zoning relief ordinance conditions has been specifically discussed with Alderman Rainey and she has indicated that
she does not object to any of them.
1. Condition (C) of the ZBA Rec. is to be changed to read 'The subject property will receive no more than four (4) semi-
tralier truck deliveries per week.:........ Currently only one is expected but management may Grange its system of
distribution and the restriction to one delivery could became impossible.
2. Condition (7) of the ZBA Rec. is to be changed to read '...sightly condition. The shelter shall not exceed eight feet in
height.' The limit is requested by Alderman Rainey.
3. Condition (CC) of the ZBA Rec. is to be changed to read at line 4 For the period concluding dak2 after the
completion of the masonry wall on the east property lure, the We kidders of 1216 Dobson maintain the d6ht to
ask —etc ..... . lncidentaoy, 1 would suggest a consistency of reference to the hall fence brick wood masonry objects to
be constructed on the east and north property lines.
A The condition of the vacation ordinance (20.0-02, Section 3) which requires payment of the consideration for the
alley no later than sixty days after passage of the ordinance is asked to be modified to provide: 'Payment In full shall
be made to the City w,7hin seven days alter the dosing of the acquisitions of the several private parcels to be
aggregated for the CVS PharmacyJZaremba Group UC site, but in no event sha11 payment be made later than six
months from the date olpassage and approval of this Ordinance. Payment of the full amount of the consideration is a
condition precedent to the validity of this Ordinance. '
l believe that the kregoing represent the only changes requested by my client ...
JTMurray"
Note also that condition M should read, ` M The applicant will bring the corbelled treatment of the brick present on
the Howard and Asbury frontages around the camels onto the north side from the west side and -east -sides- '
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 325 02
Page 7
landmark status and they had an opportunity to request that their property not be listed for
landmark status.
Ald. Bernstein asked the homeowner if they have every taken advantage of the tax
benefit of being a landmark structure. Ms. Hoppa assured that they were not even aware
of any tax bracket for landmark status.
Ms. Judv Fiske, read from a prepared statement (Attachment D).
Ms. Hoppa responded with defending statements to the previous comments above. Mr.
Hoppa sussed his opposition with the Preservation Commission making such a
recommendation as scheme 2 which clearly would cost more money and is a very
inconvenient layout for their plans within their own home. He made clear that they are
the homeowners that have to live in the house and pay for any addition made to the
property. He pointed out that this is a small property in comparison to many of the other
home listed under landmark status. He requested that the Committee reconsider the
Preservation Commission's decision and hear their appeal.
Ald. Engelman moved that the Committee accept the owners application for appeal,
seconded the Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Chairman Newman clarified to the both parties that because the Committee voted in
favor to hear the appeal in now way represents the final decision upon the hearing. Aid.
Feldman expressed that he is pleased that the Committee will be hearing the appeal and
stressed that this is a very significant and challenging case.
Mr. Michael Girard, Preservation Commissioner informed the Committee that the
Commission is very comfortable with this case going to Council as the next venue.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PDI) Communication from Bernsen Manaeement
The Committee discussed whether this matter should be referred to the Housing
Commission or Human Relations Commission because neither Commission is designated
in the ordinance for reviewing issues of this nature. Chairman Newman stated that he
wants to keep this matter in P&D and would like this to be forwarded to both the Housing
Commission and Human Relations Commission for response back to the Committee from
both boards. The other Committee members agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqueline Brownlee
P&D Contntittee Nltg.
Minutes of 3,25 02
Page 6
them. She concluded that according to the way it is written consideration of accepting or
denying the appeal should be solely on the basis of the record.
Aid. Engelman said that he feels it is appropriate at this time to hear from both the
applicant and the Preservation Commission on those issues that they would like to bring
to the Committee's attention. This could help to decide not whether there were sufficient
facts in the records to support the decision, but in helping to decide whether they want to
hear the appeal.
Aid. Feldman, as alderman of the ward, wanted to find out from legal counsel whether or
not there is anything at all legally preventing this body from hearing from the owner,
Preservation Commission or any other interested person who may have something to say
about this case now before the decision is made to take the appeal. Ms. Szymanski
responded that she sees no problem with the input from the public and the applicant
assisting the Committee with their legislative decision as to whether or not to accept the
appeal. However she cautions the Committee that their decision on the appeal must W
careful and narrowed to the record. After hearing this, it was the consensus of the
Committee to hear testimony at this time. Chairman Newman opened comments first to
the property owner.
Nancy and Chris H000a, property owners of 610 Callan stated their reasons for wanting
to add the addition to their home at this time as stated in their written statement
(Attachment B). They expressed their desire to build their addition proposed under
scheme I and are opposed to scheme 2 as recommended by the Preservation Commission
due to cost constraints and the inconvenient layout of the plan. Ms. Hoppa stated that
scheme I is in conformance with the other houses on the block by raising the structure
and adding the extra floor with a window facing in the front. Also attached to Exhibit B
is a signed petition from the other homeowners in their block supporting their proposed
addition. Ms. Hoppa introduced her architect Ms. DonnaLee Floeter who expressed her
opposition to scheme 2 as well stating that it would be a much more difficult and costly
addition for the homeowners.
Ms. Barbara Gardner, Chair of the Evanston Preservation Commission. She gave a brief
summary of the Commission's position on their decision to deny the applicants request
for proposed scheme 1 and informed the Committee of their rejection to the
Commission's recommendation for the scheme 2 proposal. Further explanation is stated
in the written record of the meeting held on January 15, 2002.
Ms. Mary McWilliams, stated that she was a member of the Preservation Commission in
1985 when the subject property was evaluated and declared a landmark structure. She
read from a prepared statement (Attachment Q.
Ms. Anne Earle, also stated that she was a member of the Preservation Conunission in
1985 who did the actual evaluations on properties considered for landmark status,
including this particular property. She affirmed that certified letters were sent out to all
homeowners at that time notifying them that their property was being considered for
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 3/25"02
Page 5
frame would be appropriate. Aid. Bernstein questioned the legality of putting such a
condition on the property owner along with the applicant and if conditions can only be
issued for the special use requested. his. Szymanski responded that it can be done if the
property owners agree to it. Further discussion followed and the Committee came to a
consensus that quarterly meetings should be held for a period of longer than 1 year as
discussed. Aid. Engelman urged the tenant to have a clause added to their lease to
substantiate this agreement in the event that things do not work out as planned. The other
Committee members agreed and the applicant agreed to have this done. The property
owners expressed their concurrence with holding the quarterly meetings with the opinion
that this will aid them further in bringing the building up to acceptable status.
Aid. Engelman moved to amend the ordinance to add the condition of requiring
meeting quarterly for a period of 2 years or more if needed with the Chief
Kaminski, Mr. Wolinski, the property owners and the business operator, reporting
back to the Committee. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in
favor. Closing time was discussed and agreed to close by 10 p.m. Mr. Wolinski
clarified that this is a condition to the special use and not a sunset provision. Chairman
Newman confirmed.
(PI) Consideration of Accentance of Anneal of Preservation Commission Denial
Chairman Newman clarified that this matter is before the Committee to decide whether
they are going to hear the appeal; this is not the actual appeal itself where testimony will
be considered. He noted that there was a denial at the Preservation Commission and
under the ordinance the landmark owner has a right to ask the City Council to accept an
appeal on their behalf. The options after review are either to accept or deny the owner's
application for appeal and the Council has 45 days to make their decision. Chairman
Newman acknowledged that several member of the Preservation Commission being
present including the Chair. He stated the issue here is how the Committee feels about
accepting this appeal on review of the transcript alone or whether not they want to hear
from the owner and/or Commission members. Aid. Engelman thought the Committee
was limited to the transcript alone in considering accepting the appeal or not. Ald.
Bernstein said he would like to think that people always have a method of appeal and
supports this, especially in light of problems they have had with respect to the alleged
difficulties of adding a level of conditions by a Commission. He said the alternative
would be for the owners to go to the Court of Appeals/Circuit Court if the Committee
denies their appeal. Chairman Newman agreed and added that whenever a property
owner decides to take a matter and exercise their rights to ask the Council for
consideration, he feels they should be heard. This outlook appeared to be the consensus
of the Committee. Aid. Bemstein asked legal staff for clarification of the procedure. Ms.
Szymanski read from Section 2.9.8.g regarding procedures for the applicant seeking relief
from the P&D Committee of City Council which states. Council or its duly authorized
Committee shall review the appeal solely on the basis of the record and the application of
the appropriate statutes including Section 2.9.9 that basically states if whether after
reviewing the record the Committee determines that there is sufficient evidence in the
record to support the application of the standards as the Preservation Commission applied
P&b Comminee Mtg.
Minutes of 3r'5.02
Page a
not approved what type of retail or business would be attracted to this location. It is
evident that this location has also attracted low -end business such as dollar stores, alleged
communication stores, etc. He feels that Subway would be the start or magnet to attract
other businesses on the same level and more to this location. Mr. Rosenzweig agreed
with Aid. Bernstein and informed that he has spoken with a "Haircutters" franchisee in
trying to recruit them as a tenant and having the Subway will definitely make the
proposal look better. Mr. Ladhani added that he has also spoken with the proprietor of a
Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins that is also interested in locating to the area if better
business is being promoted in that location.
At this time Chief Kaminski entered the meeting. Chairman Newman addressed both the
Chief and Mr. Wolinski asking their opinion on the number and types of police calls to
this building and what their recommendations would be to reduce these calls and what
can the landlord start doing to begin turning this situation around. Mr. Wolinski
responded that he feels certain in reviewing the police records, which this building has
been a long-standing problem for a number of years as indicated by Aid. Rainey. He said
that new ownership sometimes bring solutions and his recommendation would be to weed
out evict the bad tenants, which the landlord has already begun to do. However the long
term issue is can they count on the new landlords giving thorough tenant screening to
make sure that the type of renters they are leasing are desirable law-abiding citizens. He
said that it is clear that most of these calls are in the rental apartments of the building. He
informed the Committee that the owners of this building have met with the Civic
Enforcement Group and these suggestions as well as other ideas have been discussed
Chief Kaminski responded that in order for a building or circumstance to reach his office,
there is level of concern. He reiterated Mr. Wolinski's comments that the Civic
Enforcement Group has met with the owners of this building, which means that the
building was targeted for flagged because of numerous complaints and calls of
disturbances. He recalled that they met twice last year with the owners and all the
concerns were addressed, his being that the police are spending too much time down on
Howard Street at their building responding to calls for service. He stated to the owners
that he wanted to see this situation cease because they have other priorities in the City to
deal with and repeated that the police are spending way too much time there. He noted
that the owners have been very responsive and agrees that they have already made some
of the changes and have met with the community outreach officer in the area. The
owners have also looked into adding more lighting to the side of their building, as
requested. Chief Kaminski stressed that whether the situations is going to improve or
not, depends on full and continued commitment by the owners; this is a long-term effort
for this building. He expects that the landlords will stay true to their word as expressed
and make sure the area is maintained and kept clear of loiters. His overall impression is
that the owners seem to be concerned and want to improve the area.
Aid. Rainey stated to the Committee that the only way she could consider in any way
favorably would be to set some type of condition for regularly scheduled monitor visits to
this site to ensure that the applicant is adhering to the conditions set and to also monitor
the landlords efforts in improving the building. Discussion ensued regarding setting a
sunset provision for monitoring the property and operation of the business and what time
P&D Committer Mtg.
Minutes of 3125,02
Page 3
distribution but it can be assumed that there will be several smaller vendor deliveries
throughout the Meek. Mr. Wojitia confirmed that is the normal operational procedure.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee to amend the motion
to limit up to 2 deliver~ trucks per week and if there is a need for 3, then the
applicant should come back before the Committee. Chairman Newman requested
that it be written into the ordinance that the P&D Committee maintain jurisdiction
to prevent the applicant from having to go back before the ZBA beforehand. The
vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
(P3) Ordinance 24-0-02 — Special Use for 1701-03 Simpson (Tvne 2 Restaurant)
This item was held in Committee for the applicant to be present at the next P&D meeting
on April Vh.
(P4) Ordinance 23-0-02 — Stx'cial Use for 835 Main Suet (Tvpe 2 Restaurant)
This item was held in Committee at the proprietor's request to be heard at the next P&D
meeting on April 9*.
(PS) Ordinance 13-0-02 — Special use for 327 Howard (Tvne 2 Restaurant: Subway)
Mr. Wolinski recalled that at the last P&D meeting, the Committee requested that the
police reports for the last 4 years at the subject address be submitted for review. He
noted that the requested report has been forwarded to the Committee in their packets and
that he has discussed this matter with Chief Kaminski. He pointed out that the report lists
a 4-year history, cover sheet totaling the last 4 years at this address and specific incidents
as well. It was also pointed out that the address listed of 327-339 Howard is all one
building.
Chairman Newman called on the applicant and representatives of the building. Present
were Mr. Scott Rosenzweig, Alan Weissman and Harry Price (owners of the building),
Mr. Phil Masi (Development agent for Subway) and Mr. Nizarali L.adhani, franchisee.
Discussion followed bet%reen the owners of the building and the Committee regarding the
police report. Chairman Newman pointed out that it appears that the number of police
calls have risen over the past 4 years and since the recent ownership. The owners argued
that they are doubtful that all the calls are with their building because of all the extra
activities that occur around and in close proximity to their building. They feel that many
of the calls stem from the cabstand in front of the building, the empty lot to the north and
alleged illegal activities in the alley behind the building. Chairman Newman requested
staff to contact the owner of the lot to the north of the subject property and find out his
intentions for the site. Aid. Rainey, on the other hand, pointed out that it is clear from the
report where the police calls are coming from, which are the tenants living in the
building. She further pointed out that these are very serious police calls of a violent
nature and acts by the tenants, not from the cabstand in front of the building.
Aid. Bernstein stated that there is clearly a need for better tenants in this building,
however the area currently attracts mostly low -end renters. In his opinion, Subway is the
best business tenant that this building has had so far and he is concerned that if this were
P&D Committee hitg.
Minutes of 325,02
Page 2
Mr. Wolinski read the language as stated in the ordinance to the Committee. The
Committee accepted the language as written.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P6) Ordinance 19-0-02 — Snecial use & Variance for 101 Asbury (CVS Phannacv)
Mr. Wolinski noted that this item was referred back to Committee for consideration of
some language changes on the conditions. Chairman Newman asked if the applicant has
worked out these changes. Mr. Murray responded that the requested changes are listed in
the memorandum forwarded to the Committee in their packets. He noted that the
alternative language address restrictions imposed on the property owner and all the
modifications to the conditions have been discussed and accepted by Ald. Rainey. He
explained in further detail the changes requested which relate to the height of the bus
shelter and the number of delivery trucks per week being too restrictive, also the period
of time limiting the access that the owners of 1216 Dobson might request additional
landscape materials.
Aid. Rainey was called over at this time and she affirmed her agreement to the amended
language except for the matter of the truck deliveries. She said that the request for up to
4 truck deliveries coincides with what was testified by the applicant at their neighborhood
meetings. She suggested that this number be reconsidered and limited to no more than 3
trucks. Mr. Murray stated that they have not objection to changing it to no more than 3
trucks.
Aid. Engelman moved to amend paragraph C, Section 4 to change from 1 to 3 semi-
trailer truck deliveries per week. Chairman Newman requested to incorporate the
conditions as stated in the letter dated March 20, 2002 (Attachment A). Ms.
Szymanski requested, according to procedure, that Chairman Newman read the changes
into the record on Council floor.
Mr. Martin Uthe, said that he lives directly east of the subject property. He questioned
how the applicant can go from 1 to 3 or 4 delivery trucks. Mr. Murray responded that the
current method of operation would call for 1 delivery truck; semi -trailer on a weekly
basis. He said that their concern was in the course of things that being limited completely
would cause the applicant to come back before this Committee or the ZBA to make an
adjustment that might be required by distribution demands of the company. in the
interest of not offending the nature of the representations that were made to the
community, they limited the delivery trucks to 4, agreed to 3 and feel this is a reasonable
means by which to accommodate the needs of a distribution system. Mr. Uthe stressed
that they were told at the last community meeting that there would be no more than 1
large delivery per week and he feels the community has been misconstrued if the
applicant anticipated more than 1 delivery from the beginning. Mr. Wojitla stated that
they still anticipate only 1 delivery truck per week for merchandise, however there may
be the need for some flexibility in the future. Ald. Kent asked the applicant, for
clarification, that the 1 semi -trailer delivery truck per week is for the major merchandise
Planning & DeveIopment Committee
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent. A. Newman, N1. Wynne
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, P. Haynes, C. Ruiz, E.
Sz ,manski, J. Brownlee
Others Present: A. Dienner, R. Cook
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2002 MEETINGS
Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the March 1 I th minutes, seconded by Ald. Kent. The
vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Chairman Newman reported that item (PI) regarding 610 Callan Avenue will be heard
last after the held over items from the last meeting.
(P2) Ordinance 25-0-02 — Special Use for 930 Church Street (Tvne 2 Restaurant:
Noodles & Commmv
Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Scott Richmond, the applicant, and Mr. Greg
Hakanen, representing the developer.
Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 25-0-02, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
Chairman Newman asked how many employees are expected at this restaurant and where
they are going to park. Mr. Richmond responded that it will range from 25-47 employees
and parking will be directed for employees to use off-street parking the City parking
garages in close proximity. Chairman Newman asked if there is language in the
ordinance relating to the off-street parking or number of spaces that the operator must
provide for their employees. Mr. Alterson responded that the parking requirememts are
the same for type 1 and type 2 restaurants and there is language in the ordinance stating
that the operator shall implement and follow an employee parking plan in compliance
with what was presented at the ZBA hearing. Mr. Richmond informed the Committee
that most of the parking by employees of the restaurant are by the management because
the majority of the employees are kids or students that use public transportation or walk.
• WE DO PAY THE TAXES Or: OUR HOME NOT ANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THE
PRESERVATION CO;L%fISSIOV SO WHY DO THEY FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD
CONTROL WHAT WE DO
• N E FEEL IT IS OUR RIGHT AS HOMEOWNERS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF OUR
HOME, AS THIS IS THE BIGGEST INVEST IN OUR LIFE.
• WE WANT TO KNOW WHO WILL COMPENSATE US FOR THE LOSE OF THE 50.000
PLUS OF RENOVATION. RENTAL INCOME AND ADDITIONAL ARCHITECT COST THE
CITY OF EVANSTON OR THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
• WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT EACH PERSON HAS A POINT OF VIEW AND WE
RESPECT THAT BUT WE ARE THE HOMEOWNERS AND OUR IS THE ONE THAT
SHQIII.D MATTER.
• ULTIMATELY WE ARE BEING PUT IN A FINANCIAL BURDEN
ATTACHMENT "B"
• READ QUOTES FROM THE JA.N ARY 15 MEETING
CARLOS
BARBAR.A
NE IL
• OUR HONE WAS MADE A LANDMARK IN 1936
• WHEN .NfY PARENTS RECEIVED THE LETTER THEY CALLED THE CITY OF
EVANSTON STATING THEY DID NOT REQUEST OR WANT THEIR HOME TO BE A
LANDMARK THEY WERE TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT.
• WHEN THE HOME WAS MADE A LANDMARK IN 1986 MY PARENTS WERE NOT
RESTRICTED BY WHAT THEY COULD OR COULD NOT DO TO THE HOME.
• UNFORTUNATELY THAT WAS CHANGED
• WE SHOULD BE GRAND FATHERED BY THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE SET AT THE
TALE HOltif WAS MADE A LANDMARK
• WE ARE TRYING TO ADD SIX FEET TO OUR HOME
• WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE WINDOWS
• THE WINDOW THAT WILL BE ADDED ON THE SECOND FLOOR WILL MATCH THE
OTHER FRONT WINDOW.
• WE ARE NOT ALTERING THE BRACKETS AT THE ROOF LINE
• WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE GABLE OF THE ROOF
• DUE TO THE FIRE IN 1999 THERE WAS FIFTH THOUSA,N'D PLUS DOLLARS SPENT ON
RENOVATION TO THE BOTTOM FLOOR IF WE ARE FORCED TO MAKE THIS INTO A
SINGLE FAMILY HOME I EMPHASIZE THE WORD FORCE WE WILL LOSE 50.000 PLUS
OF A COMPLETE RENOVATION OF THE BOTTOM FLOOR
• WE WILL LOSE RENTAL INCOME
• WE FEET. AS HOMEOWNERS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR US TO INCUR MORE
DEBT AND LOSE RENTAL INCOME BECAUSE OF LANDMARK STATUS THIS MAKES
NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER.
• WE THINK THE CITY OF EVANSTON SHOULD OVER RULE THE PRESERVATION
COMHflSSION AND TAKE THIS CASE ON ITS OWN MERIT
• WE HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF EXTRA DOLLARS WITH OUR ARCHITECT
• WE HAVE BEEN DELAYED 90 DAYS
• ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS SUPPORT US IN THIS REMOLDING PROJECT.
e WE NOW WILL FACE INCREASED BUILDER PRICES THAT IS IF WE CAN EVEN FIND
A BUILDER.
• WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE THE HOMEOWNER BUT DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME WE
FEEL THAT THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION OWNS OUR HOME
Evanston Preser%ation Commission
Minutes - January IS, 2002
Page 7
Neil Sheehan said he was asking himself how significant is the house as a landmark. Barbara Gardner
said that what is affecting how this house is being perceived is that the house is narrower than the house
at 929 Sherman Avenue. Adding 3-feel in height to 929 Sherman Avenue versus adding 6-Feet in height
to 610 Callan Avenue makes this house appear even taller and skinnier.
Chris Carey asked about the addition layout. Nancy Kohn said they are adding two bedrooms, a
bathroom, a laundry room and a TV area. She said that she did not want to convert the existing two units
together. The bottom has always been family rental unit. Her fiance's mother would live in the bottom
unit if they can do the addition.
Commission members discussed further the pros and cons of each scheme. Neil Sheehan said that
philosophically he would have to denigrate the quality of the building as a landmark to talk about the
proposed design. He mentioned the proposed new window(s), which are out of proportion to the width
of the existing openings. DonnaLee Fkxter said that the windows on the second floor meet egnm code
for double hung windows in a bedroom. Neil Sheehan wondered what would happen if the front
elevation second story window was a bay window instead. He noted that if that were the case, then a
roofed front porch would be needed. Nancy Kohn expressed her interest of having a roofed front porch.
Barbara Gardner suggested that looking under the asphalt siding would help to determine if there was a
front roofed porch originally. Michael Girard said he did not think so, because the location of the
window heads is too low. Barbara Gardner added that the building was more of a Luxembourg Cottage
style.
In response to a question from Commissioners, Nancy Kohn said that the asphalt siding is understeath the
vinyl siding. Chris Carey asked Nancy Kohn what would she do with the siding issue. Nancy Kohn said
that the siding on the addition would match the existing vinyl siding and the new windows would be
►rood as the original windows.
Barbara Gardner said that the landmark statement of significance indicates that the house is important
based on its detailing. She said that she assumed that the detailing would stay. DonnaLee Floeter said if
there was it way to keep the same exact brackets they would do that, if they were destroyed in the process
of relocation, she would replicate them.
Chris Carey asked if the existing small addition at the rear would be incorporated into the proposed
addition. DonnaLee I"loeter answered, yes. She said that it is the kitchen now, which would be
dismantled. The new addition will go out further than the existing foundation.
Neil Sheehan asked Carlos Ruiz what was the process of removing the landmark status ofa landmark
building. Carlos Ruiz said that a landmark building that has lost its integrity would qualify. He
elaborated his response by saying that when considering removing the landmark status of building and
by going down the list of criteria for lartdrrtark status, it has to be found that the criteria for designation is
no longer met. Neil Sheehan said he was reluctant to establish a precedent to allow a landmark to be so
significantly altered. He said that he did not think that the Commission would have allowed the
alteration of the previous landmark [929 Sherman Avenue] when it is a very gray thing. He also said that
he was really reluctant to say to the property owner "you can't do this to your house."
Nancy Kohn asked if, because of the fire, the house would qualify for removing its landmark status and
because of the vinyl siding. Neil Sheehan said probably not, because the vinyl siding is closer to the
original siding than not. Abbie Willard asked if the siding was the only thing that was changed on the
exterior after the fire. DonnaLce Floeter said that there were new windows too.
Evanston Preservation Commission
Minutes — January 15.2002
Page 10
Barbara Gardner said that what perhaps is the hardest for the Commission, in terms of why the house is a •:
landmark, is the fact that the house had synthetic siding on it when it was first designated. A modest l
house that has distinguishing architectural merit needs more protection than the mansions. A landmark
does not have to be a mansion to be a landmark, but Ms. Kohn's house already had some compromising
factors. She expanded on Carlos Ruiz point that if Ms. Kohn came back today and said 1 want my house
to be a landmark, would the Commission vote to be a landmark, she asked. Barbara Gardner said that she
was not sure if the Commission would designate it, because the Commission would have felt that the
house had been already compromised with the synthetic siding.
Carlos Ruiz said what it is important to remember is that Ms. Kohn has options to either consider
removing landmark status or, if denied for the certificate, appeal to the, City Council. He said that he
believed the second option might be a good solution. Neil Sheehan asked if the applicants had a sense as
to where the addition might be in the yard to get a sense of how much oflhe yard is going to go awry.
Ms. Kohn said, no. Neil Sheehan encouraged Ms. Kohn to do that. He said that the Commission would
be helpful in pushing setback variances if needed. Neil Sheehan suggested Ms. Kohn not to make a
decision right now, rather evaluate the situation.
Donnal.ee Floetersaid they would like to know now what the Commission would vote so they could
move on and come back in thirty days with something else. Carlos Ruiareminded Ms. Kohn that she
could appeal within thirty days from the Commission's decision. In case of needing a zoning variance,
the Commission has indicated that they would recommend favorably for such variance.
Mary Bruglicra said that if the applicant requested a vote tonight and if denied, she could file for appeal.
In the meantime Ms. Kohn may come back to the Commission with a design that the Commission could
approve. Carlos Ruiz said that Ms. Kohn could withdraw her appeal at any time and come back to the
Commission with another proposal.
Ms. Kohn reiterated that if she had the Commission vote on her proposal and denied, then she could file
an appeal within thirty days, meanwhile she could comeback next month with a new plan and she would
not have to withdraw her appeal if denied again. Chris Carey suggested Ms. Kohn discuss her situation
with her Alderman so that she could determine what her Alderman thinks and determine if the Council
would be interested in the case.
Carlos Ruiz said that he has worked in the past with Ms. Floeter and has always been able to come with
an appropriate design. Ms. Kohn requested the Commission take a formal vote for scheme I.
Michael Girard read the standards for review of alteration. The Commission found that the proposal
alteration and addition as shown in scheaae I did not meet standards 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10. The Commission
also determine that standards 3, 4, 6, 7 and E did not apply.
Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission reject the alteration of the property at 610 Caftan Avenue on
the basis that it does not meet standards for review of alterations 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 that are applicable in
this casee. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed ananimonsty.
V. UNFINISHED BUSEWM
Barbara Gardoer reported that there was no unfinished business.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Evanston Pteservation Cornmisswn
M inutes - laauary 1 002
Page 4
Commission's decision is submitted. The City Council would review the appeal based on the standards
versus other reasons why the applicant is requesting the appeal and uphold the Commission's decision or
reverse it. lack Weiss (from the audience) said it would take at least six weeks. Carlos Ruiz said first
the appeal would be introduced to City Council and then later it goes to City Council. lack Weiss asked
what penalty is involved if the Council grants the appeal and applicant proceeds with her project. Carlos
Ruiz said there would not be a penalty because the Council would have granted the appeal, lack Weiss
asked what if the Council would agree with the Commission's decision of denial. Barbara Gardner said
then that the applicant would not be able to obtain a building permit. Nancy Kohn asked if she would be
able to come back then with a demolition application. Carlos Ruiz said that the house does not meet the
standards of demolition.
Carlos Ruiz said the advisory discussion so far was only about scheme I and not the second option,
which is the two-story rear addition. This option preserves the integrity of the landmark. He said that the
Commission has continually approved rear additions to landmarks. He also questioned if the height of
the two-story addition needed to be so high. DonnaLce Floeter said that the first floor is 10-feet higb, the
second floor is 8-feet high and not including the pitch of the roof. Carlos Ruiz said that a model would
help to better understand the scale of the project. He said that the two-slory addition at the rear could be
done and that it still maintains the integrity ofthe landmark. Nancy Kohn said she would be loosing all
of her yard space in the back of her house.
Carlos Ruiz asked what would be the rear setback in the second option. DonnaLce Floeter said that it
would be at lent 30-feet to conform to the zoning ordinance. Nancy Kohn said she is a gardener and in
the back she has a whole section of different gardens. Carlos Ruiz asked how many feet is the additi m
from the back of the house. Donna Lee Floeter said it was 8-feet [to the south] and 20-feet [to the wrest].
Carlos Ruiz said that it appears that there would be enough rear setback.
Nancy Kohn asked what her next step is. Neil Sheehan said the Commission is not inclined to approve
the project [scheme 11. The Commission could be inclined to approve the second scheme laddition to the
rear]. He said he would be willing to vote on the project tonight to shorten the length of time. Nancy
Kohn asked if they come back with the second scheme, if the Commission would vote in favor of it. Neil
Sheehan said, yes. Carlos Ruiz said that the elevations as drawn in the second scheme are deceiving
because the addition is recessed back and it will not appear as odd and tall and the integrity of the
landmark would be preserved.
Nancy Kohn asked if they were only increasing the height of the house by six -feet and putting evtryMing
that makes the house a landmark back, then she did not understand why it would not be approved Neil
SbxW said the six -fed for all surfaces does not have the original design of the building. Barbara
Gardner added that the house would go from a Luxembourg farmhouse to something else. Chris Carey
said is not only the brackets and the gable but also the scale of the house that mattes it a landmark
Nancy Kohn said that is what [brackets and the gable] supposedly made it be a landmark. The
'Commissioners disagreed with Ms. Kohn's interpretation of the statement of significance.
Carlos Ruiz said that the original designation had its own standards for landmark status. Today the
Commission is enforcing the current standards. He said Ms. Kohn might want to argue that today's
standards no longer make this house a landmark. Ms. Kohn said that when she looks at other houses that
are landmarks, she does not know why her house is a landmark. She sees the old Victorian homes and
mansions near the Lake and is even harder for her to picture why her house was ever a landmark
P&D Committee Mt&
Minutes of4-22-02
Page 14
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD 1 I Letter from Tracev A. Sculle. nertainintt to the National Resister Nomination of
WCTU Administration Building. I730 Chicano Avenue.
Mr. Carlos Ruiz explained in more detail the meaning of this communication. Mier
hearing Mr. Ruiz's explanation, Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by
Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further discussion or comments, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
kc�us—
JacqhplineX Brownlee
P&-D Committee %ttg.
Minutes of 4-22-0'
Page 13
He continued that staff would like directional recommendation to either present before
the Committee informational documentation first. or prefer staff' to draft an ordinance
pertaining to the recommended requirements and procedures for the specified buildings,
hold a special meeting addressing the proposed requirements? Chairman Newman stated
that the main issue from building owners and management companies is going to be the
concern for the cost of meeting these requirements by what the City is imposing. This is
why he would prefer that this proposal be notified to the effected building owners
because of their immediate concerns and questions that are going to be raised. For
example, there is one category that he would like to approve tonight, which pertains to
the non -owner occupied rooming houses because there is a ton of money and a significant
number of people that this effects and pertains to.
Chairman Newman asked if there is a draft ordinance in the works at this point. Chief
Berkowski responded that staff has begun work on the draft ordinance but questions if the
Committee would like to hold a special meeting to address and respond the draft
ordinance once it is prepared. Chairman Newman stated that it is his preference for staff
to prepare a draft ordinance and for staff to find out the cost structures and prepare a
report with this information including examples of buildings that this would apply. Ald.
Engelman agreed with Ald. Newman that all effected building owners and management
companies be notified of this proposed ordinance so that they are aware up front and are
able to add or contribute any comments at the time of any special meeting that might be
scheduled in the future regarding this matter.
Mr. Wolinski further explained that he and Chief Berkowski discussed this matter in
length of how to present this to the Committee because they don't want anyone in the
community to feel that they are presenting information to the Committee that effects any
building owners which they have not been notified of. He stated that staffs purpose here
tonight was just to introduce the ideal to see if there is was any direction that the
Committee wanted to give to staff tonight. He continued that if the Committee expressed
interest, staff could begin the process. He stressed that staffs intentions are not to leave
any one out of the notification process and realize that there are many building owners
that will want to be involved in this, nevertheless there is the question of when it is
appropriate to bring those individuals into the process and staff request that direction
from the Committee. Chairman Newman responded that he feels at the present time it is
not necessary to bring those building owners into the process, however he reiterated that
after staff has prepared a drag ordinance and completed cost information data to present
in a report before the Committee, it will then the determined when to hold a special
meeting to address this issue. Staff acknowledged the Committee direction as stated
previously.
P&D Committee %ttg.
Minutes of 4-22-02
Page 12
operation could not be allowed without Committee approval first. if that situation were to
arise. The other Committee members agreed. The Committee asked Mr. Blair if he has
any intentions to apply for a liquor license in the future for this restaurant. Mr. Blair
assured that there are no intentions for any liquor license application. Further discussion
ensued amongst the Committee members regarding whether a condition should be made
on the basis of this special use being granted as a type 2 restaurant and if it should run
with the building and any future operation of this site as a restaurant. Aid. Engelman
suggested that the Committee could make a recommendation to grant the special use
conditioned upon its operation being consistent with the testimony presented to the
Zoning Board of Appeals and specifically with the intention that they have table service
and re -usable table ware. Chairman Newman asked zoning staff' if the Committee can
put condition in terns of reviewing the hours of operation at a later date if there is a
problem because of the late hours requested for operation by the applicant. Mr. Alterson
confirmed that this can be done. Chairman Newman then requested that it condition
be trade to review the hours of operation in one year with notice to the neighbors.
The other Committee members agreed. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Blair if he has
discussed this matter with Aid. Kent, since he is not present at this meeting, and if he
approved of this application. Mr. Blair assured that he has previously discussed his plans
with Aid. Kent and received his full approval.
Chairman Newman reiterated the conditions to review the hours of operation and
secondly, to amend the ordinance that this is conditional that this special use is
granted to this owner only to maintain the wait staff and the any testimony to
maintain all re -usable tableware that this is not transferable to another owner
without the release of a granted special use by this Committee. Aid. Wynne
seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(P6) Resolution 35-R-02 - City Council Resolution Authorizing Reservation of 2002
Bond Volume Cap
It was the consensus of the Committee in agreement that this is an on -going annual
request presented before them with no additional comments or review needed. AkL
Wynne moved approval of Resolution 35-11-02, seconded by Aid. Engelman. The
vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD2) Life Safety/Sprinkler Retrofit Ordinance
Chairman Newman asked Chief Berkowski how many property management owners,
business owners, and any other effected property owners have been notified of this
speculated ordinance. Chief Berkowski responded that no property owners have been
notified at this point because it is only a speculated/suggested ordinance at this time by
staff due to the importance realized by staff to add preventative security methods and
requirements for those buildings with overnight residencies. He noted that the intent of
the ordinance has been presented to the Committee at this point in time and staff is
requesting direction from the Committee to proceed on this matter if so deem necessary.
P&D Committee Nttg.
Minutes of 4-22-02
Page I I
With no further comments or discussion, the vote was 1 in favor of the motion to
Approve (Aid. Engelman) and 3 voting nay (Ald.'s Newman, Wynne, and Bernstein).
The motion was denied.
(P4) Ordinance 24-0-02 - Special Use for 1701-03 Simoson Street (T,,w 2 Restaurant)
Chairman Newman acknowledged the owner/applicant being present, Mr. Patrick Blair.
He also noted that this case was also that this item was introduced at the Council meeting
on April 9th due to lack of quorum for the P&D Committee meeting and referred back to
Committee for discussion, therefore this item is up for final vote tonight. He asked for
clarification on hours of operation. Mr. Blair responded that he is proposing to operate
until 1 a.m. on Friday nights and to 12 a.m. on weeknights. In response to a question, he
informed the Committee that at present the property has been unoccupied for
approximately 6 months waiting for final outcome of this zoning case. He purchased the
property 16 months ago and rented the space out to a currency exchange and beauty
supply story where both leases were not renewed when they expired leaving the spaces
vacant for the last 6 months.
Aid. Engelman asked for explanation as to why the applicant applied for a type 2
restaurant status because his understanding is that there will be cooking on the premises
with tables available. Is there going to be table service? Mr. Blair explained that he was
told at the time he applied that he could operate a fast food establishment as it is zoned,
however he admitted that is not what he was contemplating because his preference is to
operate a restaurant with table wait service in combination with take out service. In
response to Committee questions, Mr. Blair responded that he will provide table service
with washable dishware and silverware. Mr. Alterson explained that the application
brought before the Zoning Division was for a special use for a carryout of 60'/a and 40°/i
sit-down. He noted that if these numbers were reversed, the application could have come
in for a type 1 restaurant, which would have been a permitted use. Chairman Newman
asked Mr. Blair how many tables he is proposing to have available. Mr. Blair responded
that there will be approximately 20 tables available. He explained that initially it was
assumed that because this is a new business and in consideration of the location, the
majority of business would be for carryout until he developed clientele that felt
comfortable enough to stay for sit down for full table waiter service. He noted that the
area has known problems and a standing history of being a "risky" location. He
forwarded to the Committee his anticipation and hope that eventually from his style of
operation he proposes to disseminate that it will attract a more type 1 atmosphere for his
restaurant.
Ald. Engelman expressed his excitement for a new business of this type for this area and
is very supportive of the operation being proposed and anticipated. However, he is
concerned with the granting of a special use for a take-out restaurant with this applicant
and in the case where this restaurant may not continue, the risk of the special use passing
on to any subsequent owners. He clarified that he is not particularly concerned with the
operation that this applicant is proposing because he is convinced that this owner will
operate a assured business, however because of the risk involved in this particular
location, the security of having some type of condition to assure than any further
P&D Committer N4tg.
Minutes of 4-22-02
Page 10
members that he has witnessed the current applicants/operators of this store doing what
no other people have done in his 25 year history of li,-ing in this neighborhood. Tate store
operators have cleaned up the location and turned the store around and made it a
successful operation. He said the difficulty he has is with the clientele this store serves,
through no fault of the store owners, do not know or seem to acknowledge litter control,
which he has witnessed their behavior. He noted that this building accomodates some
very small units along the Main Street front, many of which are occupied by people with
disabilities. He stated that he is concerned with the presence of anything that increases
the potential problems in the surrounding area and within the building with regards to
fire, health and safety matters. He admitted that he has never been contacted by anyone
in this building about rodent infestation problems, however he has been contacted about
other considerations. Aid. Bernstein noted that in looking at the proposed deep -fryer, he
does not have any real concerns for added cooking odors dispersed by this appliance,
however his concerned stated outweigh this condition. He also has concerns about
people who use this store on a regular basis who sit in front of a wall that is constantly
attacked with graffiti becoming fixtures on this corner, this is a potential dangerous
situation. He concluded that this is contrary position for him because he commends the
storeowners for the improvements they have made and wants them to do business,
however he is concerned for the conceivable negatives potentials that can become serious
problems. Mr. Alterson noted that in this case, consideration of the owner was one of the
reasons why the Zoning Division staff said this should come in for a special use.
Chairman Newman stated that for the store owners sake, they need to ask the Zoning
Administrator for a determination as to whether or not they have the right to serve
sandwiches and what relief they need to seek if it is determined that they are not allowed
to do so.
Aid. Bernstein said that another concern of his is that the applicant originally received
permission from the Health Department that it would be OK to use the deep fryer
purchased in this store. This equipment has been purchased by the storeowners and is
now sitting in the store ready to go. Mr. Jivani confirmed this allegation and assured that
the equipment has never been used since its installation. Chairman Newman
sympathized with the situation that more communication between City department
operations should be more thorough, however when you own a business you are subject
to a greater level of regulations that should be sought out before the purchase of any
equipment or installation before clearly knowing that all requirements have been met. He
also noted that it has presently been made aware by staff that this building does not have
proper sprinkler installation. Aid. Engelman stated his opinion that the people who will
be most effected by any cooking odors are those who work in the store. He referred back
to Aid. Bernstein's comments on how this storeowner has only improved the operation of
the store since their ownership and he does not believe this owner would do anything to
jeopardize the continued success of his business. He noted that the deep fryer proposed
for use has its own built in ventilation system, which should not be negatively detrimental
to the residents above the store.
P&D Committee Sttg.
Minutes of 4-22-02
Page 9
ventilation system. He presented to the Committee a picture of the deep fryer and
explained the operation of the apparatus, which works %ithout need for a cover because it
has its own ventilation system and automatically fries the food and dispenses on a timer
when the food is done. He assured that there would be no added odors going to the
upstairs tenants from the operation of this equipment.
Ms. Patricia Dolton, resident above the store location, stated that there are 50 apartments
in the building and 16 units directly above this store. She has lived there for many years
and the tenants have always been under the impression that the store below would be
used for no more than a convenience store. She feels the addition of serving fried and
cooked foods would directly effect the tenants above the store because of the odors
associated with those types of foods. She noted that the tenants are very concerned with
the increased litter that will be induced by this added fast food being proposed and the
possibility of added noise. Most importantly, she informed the Committee that there is a
history of mice and roaches in this building and the addition of serving cooked food will
only add to this problem. She also noted the safety concem for fire hazards for the above
tenants and the need for added insurance for the building, which will filter down to an
expense placed upon the tenants by increased rents. Chairman Newman asked if the
complaints on mice and roaches have been forwarded to building management and if City
Property Maintenance staff has record of these complaints. Ms. Dalton replied that the
complaints have been reported to the janitor of the building. Mr. Wolinski said that he
would have to check the records to confirm. Chairman Nev�7nan stressed that these are
very serious property standards violations which should be addressed immediately. Ms.
Dalton agreed. She feels strongly that the tenants would feel different if they store
operators were proposing to serve sandwiches, etc., however the addition of fried foods
and other foods which create odors, is not appropriate for this store location where there
are tenants living directly above who never contemplated anything more than a
convenient store operation.
Ald. Wynne stated that she agrees with Ms. Dalton's comments. She feels that even if
the proposed fryer is self -containing with a ventilation system for odors, there is going to
still be an odor from the cooked food that will affect the above tenants, which no one
wants to smell the odor of french fries and hot dogs all day in their apartments. She also
agrees that this is inappropriate to insert into a community convenient store with 16
apartments above it. She can not support putting in this type of fast food operation in this
particular location due to the negative effect it will directly cause on the residential
tenants connected with this location.
Ald. Bernstein asked if this convenient store could be allowed to sell prepared
sandwiches now. Mr. Alterson responded that from his comprehension, the selling of
prepared sandwiches would be part of the same objective, therefore only being allowed to
sell convenient store merchandise. Chairman Newman questioned the operation of the
White Hen on Emerson, are they selling sandwiches illegally because they do prepare
sandwiches on the premises? Could this be considered the same situation? Mr. Altetson
said that he would have to look further into the details, even so, the operations could be
under different special use conditions. Ald. Bernstein informed the other Committee
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 4-22.02
Page 8
significant violence of the landmark designation than what has already been done. He
reiterated his commendation for the consistence of the members of the P&D Committee.
With no further comments by the Commission. Chairman Newman repeated the
motion to sustain the decision of the Preservation Commission, seconded by Aid.
Wynne. The vote was 3 in favor and I voting nay (Aid. Engelman). The appeal being
denied.
(P2) Ordinance 41-0-02 - Snecial Use for 950 Church Street (Tvne 2 Restaurant: Corner
Bak
Chairman Newman noted that there was still no representative present for the Corner
Bakery at this time, recalling Mr. Alterson's explanation stated earlier for the
representative's hardship on being present. Chairman Newman moved approval of the
Corner Bakery's application, seconded by Ald. Engelman.
Chairman Newman expressed his approval and excitement with this business coming into
downtown Evanston and feels it will work well in this location along with the ice cream
shop. Aid. Engelman agreed that it is exciting that they are getting high -quality fast food
business in downtown Evanston. Chairman Newman disagreed with this establishment
being labeled as a fast food business and it is being considered a type 2 because of its
style of their service. Aid. Engelman stated that it is still considered a type 2
establishment but agrees that it is high quality beyond the "fast food" category.
However, he is concerned with that fact that all three business coming into this building
are food service establishments and this situation needs to be observed as a potential
concern. Chairman Newman replied that he believes this would be a more compelling
argument if in the main building was heavier on restaurants. He said that it was always
assumed that this location would draw more food establishments and he thinks what is
lacking in that area is the fact that Wolfgang Puck's is more "high -end" than the new
restaurant tenants, which will bring more casual dining. This is why he believes that new
restaurants will be a welcomed addition to that business/entertainment area that will all fit
in appropriately.
With no further comments, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion,
(PS) Crdiaance 23-0-02 - Special Use for 835 Main Street (Tyve 2 Restaurant)
Chairman Newman noted that this item was introduced at the Council meeting on April
9th due to lack of quorum for the P&D Committee meeting and referred back to
Committee for discussion, therefore this item is up for final vote tonight. He
acknowledged the applicant, Mr. Ismail Jivani, being present. Aid. Engelman moved
approval for purposes of discussion, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
Chairman Newman stated that he has a concern for the residents above the store with the
proposed addition of serving the fast food items of hot dogs and fries. The hours of
operation were confirmed by the applicant to be from 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. He asked the
applicant how they plan on dealing with the odors of deep-frying. Mr. Jivani responded
that the deep fiver that will be used does not require a hood because it has a built in
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 4-22-02
Page 7
expand there is the alternative to convert the 2-Flat into a single-family building which is
not being pursued here either. Chairman Newmman said that he never contemplated when
he voted for the ordinance in 1994 that they would never be preserving a landmark and
never be saying no to significantly alter a landmark structure. He concluded that in his
tenure on the Council they have now had one case where on the second or third effort to
significantly change the building in this case and being denied: to say that the ordinance
is not working in his mind is different than what they contemplated in the district, is not
feasible because a landmark is different than a district. He strongly believes that there is
a large community interest in preservation and stands by the ordinance. However, he
relayed his empathy for the owners in this case because it is an unfortunate situation for
them.
Aid. Wynne agreed with most of the comments made by Chairman Newman but
disagrees with Ald. Bernstein's continents relation to the questions raised on whether this
property should actually be viewed to still qualify under landmark status. She feels that
the Committee has to follow the ordinance as to what they are expected to do at this
meeting and if they don't then they would be clearly undermining what the ordinance
stands for. She noted from experience as someone being a citizen on the other side and
witnessing a situation where the review process was not applied correctly it made a fire -
for -all. She feels very strongly that what the Committee must do is adhere to what they
are required to do which is to determine whether the Presmation Commission followed
the standards. In this instance, she is convinced that the Commission did follow the
standards fairly. She said that one of the critical elements with living in Evanston is their
architectural history that the community has decided that they want to protect. She said,
unfortunately, this means for some people who might be living in a district or in a
landmark house, that they are unable to do what ever they want or desire and reiterated
that this was decided as a community. Ald. Wynne acknowledged the applicants
unhappiness with the situation and the Preservation Commission's position and it is
unfortunate. However, there are choices that can be made in where we live in historic
districts or landmark houses and this is where it can be a burden or a benefit. She
believes that there are other alternatives that can be made in this case and have been
suggested by the Commission. She concluded that she is in favor to sustain the
Preservation Commission's decision based on the record and the standards then followed
She reiterated that the Committee's position is to follow the law of the ordinance and
they can not open this up to a free-for-all position because there are other alternatives that
can be selected.
Aid. Engelman applauded the statements made by his fellow Committee members,
however he disagrees with the philosophies about preservation that they as a Committee
have discussed in the past. He recalled to the Committee his perspective on non -
voluntary designation of preservation limitations and there is nothing in the record that
indicates to him that the applicant took advantage of the designation. He said that if there
had been anything in the record that suggests the owner took advantage of designation, he
would be more reluctant to take the position he has chosen. However, for the reasons he
previously stated, he thinks that the standard were in fact met in this case by the fact that
the minimal change occasioned by what was being proposed, does not do any more
P&D Comminae ti1tg.
Minutes of 4-22.02
Page G
method in which this property was distinguished for landmark status. Aid. Bernstein
noted that there were times subsequently in 1994 when he was told that the owners of all
landmarks were made aware that the landmark ordinance was changed. Ile said that he
would like to agree with firs. Hoppa that this should relate back and that this should be
grandfathered into the statutes, however this is not what their law states. He noted that
the law says at the time of the 1994 modifications of the landmark commission, the
owner could have come in and made their argument for de-landmarking, however Mrs.
Hoppa's mother owned the property at that time. He reiterated that this case is very
troubling and is one of the more difficult situations that he has dealt with because he
would like not do what the law tells him that he has to do. He said it is the Committee's
mission here is to determine whether or not there was due process given by the
Preservation Commission who under our ordinance has the responsibility of denying or
accepting the certificate of appropriateness. He believes there was fair review here by the
Commission and that the applicant did have a chance to de -landmark the property,
however they chose to go forward with this case. He noted that there are clearly other
alternatives for addition to the property to accommodate the owners. He does not see
how any addition would not substantially change what the house looks like. The owner
has stated this evening economic hardship, however there is no evidence in the record
where this criteria was raised, which might have been taken into consideration by the
Preservation Commission as a reason for granting the certificate of appropriateness. Aid.
Bernstein concluded that at this point in time for the Committee to accept the applicant's
concerns, even though understandable, they would be abating the entire ordinance and the
Committee can not change the ordinance in midstream. He said this is a case where the
applicant becomes a "poster child" for the reason the ordinance does not work in this
circumstance.
Chairman Newman stated that he believes there are a few concepts that Aid. Bernstein is
putting on the table that he would have to disagree with. First of all, this is the first case
he can recall since he has been on Council that has been denied, but this is different that
districts because this is an actual designated landmark. He said that a landmark itself,
whether they agree with the designation or not, has a higher level of scrutiny. In his
mind, the more times somebody goes to the well in terms of requesting changes, the
harder it becomes as a landmark. He said in terms of people being dissatisfied, when it
comes to preservation there stands the importance of its purpose in preserving structures
which have been designated as landmark status. He noted that there has been 15 years
here for somebody owning this property to come in and ask for the designation to be
changed. He pointed out as recently as 1999 the owner has come in and there was a
significant change made and they were granted the relief. Chairman Newman said in his
opinion, is that he has seen the way the Commission has worked and witnessed how they
are constantly trying to work with homeowners and he is convinced that this alteration
would substantially change the character of the building and the Committee would be
totally undermining what the Commission is trying to accomplish by preserving
landmark properties which is their mission. He again noted that alternatives were
suggested and the owner chose not to pursue those suggestions and they have no record
that this alternative cost more or less than the owners original proposal. He also noted
that with 2-flats very often you are confronted with the situation when you want to
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of4-22-02
Page S
Aid. Engelman said in order to overturn the Preservation Commission, this Committee
would have to find that the standards were met in a number of areas that the Commission
found not met. His said that although they are supposed to review this appeal entirely on
record, it is unfortunate that the record does not include the Committee physically
observing this house and other designated structures. His concern is to the extent that the
vinyl siding, the renovation work done and after the lire modified significantly the
structure itself from its original appearance at the time it was designated a landmark, he
asked couldn't this body find that what is being proposed will not so drastically alter or
do Aolence to the standards. In other words, it appears that the violence has already been
done. Chairman Newman responded that he does not believe the issue of what was done
to house beforehand that might have violated the standard, is before the Committee. He
said the question of whether this house should be considered a landmark at this time is
not appropriate because it has been determined and stands that the house is a landmark.
Ald. Engelman pointed out that the standards do address impact upon what makes the
structure a landmark and if in fact what makes it a landmark has been compromised prior
to what is being proposed. Chairman Newman argued that the Commission allowed the
siding, therefore this alteration was approved because the Commission felt it would not
alter the status of the structure being a landmark. Aid. Wynne believes that when this
house was originally designated as a landmark, it has asphalt siding and even despite this,
it was still designated.
Ald. Wynne asked Aid_ Engelman if he is questioning whether his point has already been
de facto. Aid. Engelman clarified that he is looking for a basis to determine in fact the
standards have been met in each case by stating that on a scale of 0-10 if the change has
effected the stylistic feature and characteristics that classify the structure as a
Luxembourg frame farmhouse; this has to be treated with sensitivity. He noted that when
it was first designated a landmark it had a certain style and characteristic which over the
years has changed because of the adding of the siding and other work that has been done
so that on a scale from being purely under its designated historic status it no longer holds.
He asked what is the increment by which it will be removed even more by adding the
second story that the owners are requesting. He does not feel it will be as significant as it
would have been if the structure still remained as it did back in 1986 when it was
designated a landmark. Chairman Newman noted that not one of the Preservation
Commissioner's viewed that argument, otherwise it would have been a good reason to
grant the applicant's request.
Ald Ba=ein stated that this case is very troubling because what the Committee is doing here is not
determining whether or not the homeowners can do their addition as proposed, but rather whether on the
basis of the record the Preservation Commission has fulfilled its mission. He agrees that the question and
the problem was raised by several Preservation Commissioner's, as Mrs. Hoppa indicated, whether or not if
this vnx:ture came before the Commission today would it be granted landmark status given what it looks
ae today. He realizes that the Commission's concerns are with the exterior configuration
and the relationship of the roof line to the windows, however from his observation in
walking around the property, in his opinion he would question the real significance of
this house being of landmark status. However, he also realizes the Committee's position
in this case is to review the findings of Preservation Commission and to make the
decision as to whether the standards were fairly met, whether he agrees or not with the
P&D Committee Nit&
Minutes of 4-2-1-02
Page 4
opportunity to go before Council at that time. Aid. Wynne stated that procedurally, the
Committee has put themselves in the position of having to hear this appeal. She
explained to Mrs. Hoppa that the Committee was also not clear on the exact procedure
because this ordinance is unique in comparison to zoning appeals which the Committee
always hears first and sends on their recommendation to the Council. From her
understanding there were two methods to take this appeal: 1) directly to the council, or 2)
directly to P&D Committee, both of which have a certain path. Either Council or P&D
Committee should have been asked at their first meeting after the Preservation
Commission's decision. Therefore, if the Committee accepted to hear the appeal at their
March 25`h meeting, then it has been established. Ms. Szymanski agreed. The Hoppa's
said that they have no objections to the Committee hearing the appeal as long as the
matter is voted on this evening. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion to
hear the appeal at this time.
Chairman Newman clarified that at the March 25`h meeting the Committee heard
testimony on why they should hear the appeal and at this meeting are now hearing the
appeal and taking testimony on the merits to determine whether or not they should sustain
or reverse the recommendation of the Preservation Commission. He opened the floor to
the applicant first. Ms. Szymanski stated that from reading the ordinance that the appeal
has to be taken entirely on the record without any added presentation. Chairman
Newman agreed but noted that the applicant has the right to argue the record without
presenting new evidence.
Mrs. Hoppa began by referring to the Preservation Commission minutes of January 15,
2002. She read statements by Carlos Ruiz from page 9, last paragraph, statements by
Barbara Gardner from page 10, first paragraph, and statements from Neil Sheenan from
page 7, first and 7'h paragraphs. These statements refer to discussion questioning if
today's standards no longer make this house a landmark (ATTACHMENT "A"). She
then read from a prepared statement in response to the previous comments from the
minutes of January 15a', list of changes they were originally proposing for the existing
house, list of expense hardships if they were to go with the plan recommended by the
Preservation Commission and financial burden that they have already been put through
due to this process and appeal. (ATTACHMENT "B').
Chairman Newman informed that he will not open discussion for additional public
comments, however he asked Ms. Barbara Gardner if she would like to address this issue
and the comments made by Ms. Hof1'a. Ms. Gardner rebutted by reading from the
Preservation Commission report to City Council on their findings and facts for their
decision on this case which had a unanimous vote (copy enclosed with agenda item
packet materials).
After hearing all testimony allowed, Chairman Newman moved to sustain the
Preservation Commission's decision to deny for certificate of appropriateness,
seconded by Aid. Wynne.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 4.22-02
Page 3
Ald. Bernstein asked if they were outside of the jurisdictional limitations to take the
appeal. Ms. Szymanski responded that there are 45 days to accept the appeal and from
her understanding, the appeal was accepted at the last Council meeting on March 250i.
Questions were raised if this is the actual date because the Committee accepted the appeal
that night or if the actual date should be from the date the application was filed. Ms.
Szymanski clarified that it is 45 days from the date of approval of the motion to accept
the appeal. She read from Section 2.9.8.g. Aid. Bernstein stated that this implies that if
the Committee does not do this, then the Preservation Commission decision stands.
Therefore, theoretically it would be in the applicant's best interest if they decide to send it
to Council because they can only have it reversed. if this is outside of the jurisdiction
then it remains with the Commission. Further discussion continued regarding time
jurisdiction if there is a need to appeal to the Circuit Court. Aid. Engelman questioned if
they were to take the position that the City Council were the one to accept or reject the
appeal, then it would have to be heard tonight. Chairman Newman responded that
decision would have had to been made at the March 25'h meeting and he stands by the
decision that this argue is for the Committee tonight. It was the consensus of the
Committee that they have locked themselves into the position of final authority.
Ms. Hoppe stated that it was their understanding that when they were here on March 25 h
that they were before the Committee for their acceptance or rejection of hearing the
appeal. From that point, it was their understanding that the Committee was supposed to
communicate this with City Council and then proceed with their appeal with Council
making the ultimate decision. She questioned if this procedure is not the case anymore.
The Committee members responded that this discussion is to determine what that final
authority should actually be. Aid. Bemstein further explained that the minutes from the
March 250' meeting were forwarded to Council so they are aware what this Committee
has done and the normal structure is for the Committee to first make the determination
and send this on as a recommendation to Council. He said the question is whether or not
this particular scenario is done the way evM-thing is done or should it be considered
special. He said that it appears from discussion that the determination is that this is a
special case and there is a different method AId. Wynne asked legal if the language in
the Preservation Ordinance different than the language to appeal a special use. Ms.
Szymanski responded that the Ianguage in the altemative Council or its duly authorized
committee is unique to this ordinance.
Having made the decision to accept the appeal and in light of the potential difficulties
appeal wise, Aid. Engelman moved that the Committee hear the appeal now,
seconded by Chairman Newman. Aid. Engelman noted that a problem he realizes is if
the Council makes the ultimate decision in this case and there is a question of the 45 day
time limitation and applicant takes this to the circuit court, they could hold that the
Preservation Commission's decision should have been upheld and that the applicant's
lost their appeal rights. Chairman Newman asked Mrs. Hoppa if she understood why the
Committee is discussing this scenario. Mrs. Hoppe replied that in her opinion this feels
this matter was not clearly communicated at the March 25'h meeting at which time she
asked if they should stay and attend the Council meeting and the Committee told them
no. She continued that it appears that they are being penalized by not having the
P&D Committee Hite.
Minutes of 4.22-02 -
Page
observation by designated employees for litter and debris that may be produced from
their business.
With no further discussion. the rote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(P1) 610 Callan Avenue - Aimeal to Preservation Commission's Denial to Build a
Second Story Addition
Chairman Newman addressed the procedure to proceed with this case. His understanding
from Council is that the Committee accepted the appeal. therefore in the ordinance it
refers to the right of the Council or the Committee to determine final authority. He asked
the Committee members if it is clear and if there is a consensus that P&D Committee will
be the final authority on the appeal. Aid. Engelman stated that he assumed that this
Committee would be making a recommendation after considering the evidence.
Chairman Newman responded that if that is the determination, then City Council would
be the final authority. The Committee requested legal opinion. Ms. Szymanski
responded that she and Mr. Hill have reviewed the test of the ordinance and determined
that they way the ordinance reads is stated in Section 2.9.G.5 & 6 regarding "Appeals".
She read from that section "that either the Council or its Committee shall review the
appeal and when it does it is solely on the basis of the record and the application of the
appropriate standards." She informed the Committee that depending on whether it is the
Council or the Committee, which hears the action, the applicant is entitled to forward on
to a funal decision determined by the Circuit Court of Cook County. Therefore, she
concluded that Iegal staff' has determined that it is the Committee which determines the
jurisdiction then the decision stays with the Committee. Ald. Engelman asked if she were
also referring to section GA as requiring consistency between the hearing and the
deciding body. Ms. Szymanski concurred and explained that even though it says
either/or for the deciding body, to have the Committee take jurisdiction and then have the
final decision rest with City Council, she feels is inconsistent with subparagraph 6 which
states that "either the Committee or the Council can be a final decision and if the
Committee acts on it first, the decision is final with the Committee. She acknowledged
Ald. Engelman's point and has spent considerable amount of time discussing this with
Mr. Hill. Their opinion after reviewing is that if the Committee first takes with an act,
then that is the final decision. Ald. Berstein then questioned if the Committee has the
power to dain themselves as the final authority. Ms. Szymanski explained that by
accepting the appeal then the Committee has designated themselves as final authority. In
addition, under City Council rules 9, subparagraph 9.6; this lists the authority of the
Planning & Development Committee and among the duties listed is the jurisdiction
element and matters relating to planning, zoning, building conservation, preservation and
housing issued. Chairman Newman noted that there are many instances in the Zoning
Ordinance and other ordinances where the Planning & Development Committee has been
given certain responsibilities as final authority. Aid. Engelman assumed that the
ordinance allows the Committee to hear the argument, have minutes prepared, however
the Council after reviewing the minutes would be able to make the ultimate decision with
the Committee acting as the recommending body.
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of April 22, 2002
Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, A. Newman, M. Wynne
Alderman Absent: J. Kent
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Alterson informed the
Committee that he received a call from the general manager for the Comer Bakery who
was on an airplane at the time and will try to send a representative in his place.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 25. 2002 MEETINGS
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the March 25th minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein.
Chairman Newman made a correction to page 7, paragraph 4, line 2; a typo changing the
word "now" to "no". Two corrections were also previously noted by Mr. Ruiz With no
further corrections, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PM) Ordinance 24-0-02 — Special Use for 440 Church (Tvrae 2 Restaurant: Marble Slab
Creamerv)
Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Ald. Engelman. Chairman Newman asked
Mr. Randy Shipley, representative, what the plan is for employee parking. Mr. Shipley
responded that there are spaces rented in the building for management. The majority of
their employees are temporary and work short hours, however the employees driving that
work over 4 hour shifts will be instructed to park in the garage. Aid. Wynne questioned
the seating which states in the minutes that there will only be 2 tables for 4 seats. Mr.
Shipley said that they are planning to have some outdoor seating and have applied for a
sidewalk: cafd permit. Aid. Wynne proclaimed her support for this business coming to
Evanston, however due to the lack of seating and the majority of customers being on a
takc-out basis, she feels the store will have to be extra vigilant about litter problems and
control. She used Baskin Robbins on the corner of Dempster and Chicago Avenue as an
example where blocks around the establishment you can witness the pink utensils they
use. Chairman Newman made note of the condition stated in the ordinance regarding
Iitter control which covers Aid. Wynne's concerns. Mr. Shipley acknowledged their
responsibility for the litter control agreed to monitor and patrol a radius of 250 feet of the
restaurant every 2 hours and also informed that their plan is to have a continual
P&D Committee %lig.
Minutes of S 6 02
Page 17
are not doing this by the T-bill expiration date. He noted that this was only a suggestion
. to work with and the preference is to set a fixed rate: explaining that his question to staff
was how they derived at this amount. The member of the audience speaking agreed and
clarified that to be his question also and to come to an agreement on a rate that is similar
to where the funds %rill be held. and that is what Chicago is currently doing with the
realization of using a rate that is consistent with the pass book saving interest rate.
Chairman Newman asked the gentleman speaking if he feels at fixed rate of 2% is
reasonable. He responded that he considers this still high in comparison to Chicago's
current rate of .83%. Chairman Newman stated a rounded figure of l % would be fair in
comparison to the .83% in Chicago. The landlord members in the audience seemed to be
in consensus that the current rate followed in Chicago is a fair number and feel that
Evanston should follow their formulation with a similar annual review of the rate.
Chairman Newman asked the Committee member if they all agree that the purpose of the
rule is to fairly compensate tenants and to fairly treat landlords on the same level. The
other Committee member agreed. The Committee asked staff what is a reasonable time
frame for revisiting this issue to adjust the rate amount. Ms. Haynes suggested that this
should be addressed annually.
Chairman Newman requested for staff to acquire a copy of the Chicago ordinance
pertaining to the security deposit interest matter. He further requested that a draft
ordinance be ready and presented for review to the Committee by the first scheduled
meeting in June. Staff acknowledged. This item is scheduled for future consideration
on the June loth P&D agenda.
•
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD3) Communication from the Evanston Environment Board
Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the Committee of the memorandum forwarded to in
Council packet from the Environment Board. This communication was accepted without
continent.
ADJOURNMENT
Without further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
\ 11�
Jacqu ine. Brownlee
0
P&D Committee %ltg.
Minutes of 5 6 02
Page 16
this item on their agenda for that meting %%ith sufficient time for discussion. Chairman
Newman agreed and suggested starting the meeting at 6:30 p.m. The Committee
members agreed to continue discussion of this item at the next regularly scheduled
meeting on May 20th. its. Szymanski stated for the record. that this is a significant
ordinance and the Law Department is continuing its review and ma% have a revised draft
to present to the Committee. Chairman Newman acknowledged and requested that the
Law Department expedite their review. This item was held in Committee.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD2) Response from the Housine Commission & Human Relations Commission
Chairman Neuman noted that the Committee has reviewed the memorandum forwarded
in the Council packet and asked for staff commentary. Mr. Wolinski elaborated that the
Housing Commission basically said that they were in favor of some type of indexing to
use in determining an appropriate interest rate to charge landlords on security deposit
interests that they are required to pay on tenant security deposits. He agrees with the
Commission that this has been a major issue over the past 1 /2 dozen years and they were
willing to look at some type of rated return on an investment figure. Aid. Engelman
stated that he appreciates this concern and noted that indexing for the average property
owner such as a 2 or 3-flat owner occupied property, they may not be knowledgeable of
how to index that interest rate. He reiterated that although he appreciates the fact that
interest rates have fluctuated over the years, he would be more supportive if it were •
reduced down to 2 percent or even I percent to include the smaller. average property
owner as well. He clarified that his inclination would be to have a fixed rate versus an
index rate to accommodate the small property owners as well as the larger management
rental properties. Chairman Newman asked Aid. Engelman if he agrees that the fixed
rate of 5% is unfair. Aid. Engelman concurred.
Chairman Newman asked how often do they have to revisit the fixed rate; annually or
every 2 years, because this is a problem that currently exists due to the rate that was set
10 to 15 years ago. A member of the audience (landlord) stated that the City of Chicago
sets this rate once a year and publishes this information every January. Chairman
Newman asked what Chicago's rate is currently. It was noted that Chicago's current rate
is at .83%. A member of the audience noted that this is the problem because Evanston's
rate is substantially higher at 5%. He added that even in the situation of a owner of a 2-
flat, for example with a security deposit of 54.000, this 2-flat owner is paying out an
interest rate amount of 5% and is only earning maybe 1% in the best of situations.
Chairman Newman referred to staff about their recommendation to use treasury bills plus
l %, he questioned what this amount comes out to be. Ms. Haynes responded that T-bills
are at approximately 1.62% with the addition of the recommended l%, would be the
interest rate at approximately 2.6%. Chairman Newman questioned if it would be more
reasonable to set this at a fixed rate of 2 or 2.5%. A member of the audience stated that
his question would be, if they (the landlords) are required to put these funds in a federal
insured depository, then they have to be able to release those funds at the time the lease
expired; not when the T-bill comes up expiration. Chairman New -man clarified that they
P&D Committee Ntte.
%tinutcs of 5 6 03
Page I
iChairman Ne%k nan asked at this point ho« the Committee wanted to proceed with this
issue. Aid. Engelman noted that this is a eery large issue and is a citywide issue.
Although he appreciates that there are a lot of people here, many of who have opinions
and would like to address their concerns. he questions who has been notified of this
meeting and if more community input needs to be heard and included. He suggested that
this matter needs to be set for a special meeting separate from a regular P&D meeting to
address this issue only with proper notification to developers and the general community
interested in this. Chairman Newman stated that a lot of people are aware of this
ordinance, including the community, the Chamber. Northwestern, the developers, etc.
who have already participated in the Plan Commission meetings. He noted that this
ordinance has been at the Plan Commission level with a significant number of meetings
and input from every category mentioned. He asked for a sense of the Committee on this
note, sensing a majority of the members who want to go forward with this matter. He
pointed out Aid. Kent'; concerns with whether this should apply to 2-flat's, Aid. Wynne
and Aid. Bernstein have expressed concern on the standards, Aid. Engelman has also
expressed his concerns on the focus issues. and concerns have been expressed on the
administration of the process. Chairman Newman said that he would like to plan for the
Committee to get through their review of this matter by July l st. He said that this matter
will remain on their agenda and he would like to spend at least an half hour of each
meeting while he is Chair, to complete the Committee's review and he is confident that
this can be accomplished. He requested to staff that notification be given to the list of
interested parties that have followed this process and participated in any past discussion
and to those in the community that should notified and have expressed an interest in this
matter. Aid. Engelman clarified that he realizes the input from the many developers and
concerned parties that participated in the Plan Commission hearings, however he would
like to hear from those same alliances and have them present at the P&D Committee
meetings regarding this matter because he feels it would be helpful to this Committee
during their deliberations. He also feels the inclusion of other interested Commissions
would be helpful.
hir. Jonathan Perman made a request that it would be helpful at the future meetings
regarding this matter, if staff would articulate changes that have been made to the
ordinance since the February 6th Plan Commission meeting. He added to the credit of
the Plan Commission and staff, a lot of commentary was taken at heart and changes were
made, however he feels it would be helpful to have this articulated so that the audience
can understand the dialogue and discussion. Secondly, he agrees with Aid. Engelman
that this is very large issue in the community and it might be more prudent to have a
separate meeting set aside to focus on this topic only.
The Committee discussed setting a date for a special meeting aside from their regularly
scheduled meeting date on May 20th and possibly within the next two weeks. The
Committee came to an agreement of scheduling May 22nd, which would be beyond the
2-week period before their next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Wolinski informed the
Committee that staff does not currently have any major pending issues planned for the
next regularly scheduled meeting on May 20th and suggested the possibility of keeping
P&D Committee %tte.
Minuies of 5:6 02
Page 14
Aid. Kent agreed with old. Wynne's concerns addressed about the quality of construction
and how this is effecting the aesthetics of Evanston. However. his concerns go deeper
than with the larger developments that are going up because he sees a major Concern with
the smaller developments and the quality of the construction on that level. He went back
to the concerns addressed b,6 :old. Engelman regarding the point of what this appearance
review is really focusing on. He pointed out that he has heard the majority of concerns
about quality of construction on the larger projects with such features as the design of
balconies and other features normally found in the larger developments. However, he
does not see the protection or benefit for ever} neighborhood with this ordinance with the
elimination of single-family and 2-flat houses. Even though he understands some of the
reasons stated for not being able to review all projects when it comes to the smaller scale,
however his major concern especially in his ward, is with the single and 2-flat building
construction. He said from his observation, he can see communities that have been
ruined and their aesthetic character totally demolished by appalling 2-flats that have been:
put up, that are not owner -occupied, but were constructed strictly for the purpose of rental
income property. He added that the majority of tenant-c rented to are geared towards
people that generally don't complain such as Northwestern students. Section 8 clients,
etc. Aid. Kent feels that this situation in the construction category, should be included in
the binding appearance review process. even more so than the larger buildings because
when you consider the larger developments you are talking about more money and more
to loose for that developer when they get into the process of planning and all that is
involved. Chairman Newman asked Aid. Kent if he would like see 2-flays not exempted
and added back in. Aid. Kent agreed, but questions why the smaller developments were
not considered to be just as important in the first place because he there are certain areas
that won't accommodate larger buildings and therefore you have the worse developers,
being the smaller developers that come in without any experience or background. He
stressed that these are the developers that are getting away with murder. Mr. Cook stated
that he can not fault Aid. Kent on his concerns expressed. especially with Section 8
housing and the smaller scale housing developments that arise in the single-family
neighborhoods. He noted that he has worked on such housing and aesthetically you have
to work with the best construction quality with the funds available for such projects and
this usually effects the smaller developers as well. He agrees that there is the fact of
money involved with the certain levels of development and this usually effects the areas
where larger development is available as opposed to neighborhood communities where
development is limited. He noted that they could broaden the guidelines, however the
City is strapped as it is and their intention at this point was focusing on buildings and the
larger projects coming in that are physically harming the community. Mr. Cook
acknowledged Aid. Kent's arguments are valid and agree with his concerns. Chairman
Newman somewhat disagreed Aith Mr. Cook's usage of the wording that the City is
"strapped". He explained that budget is a concern, however when you look at the amount
of money being brought into the City by building department fees. it is not unreasonable
to have some portion of that large multi -million dollar figure go towards review
processes needed for any development that is questionable and should require appearance
review. He noted that all those fees are not just charged to make profit for the general
fund; there is a purpose for those fees.
P&D Committer Mig.
Minutes of 5 6 01
Pace 13
. that doesn't have any relationship to the rest of Evanston and the project being over -built
for the site seemingly by a developer that doesn't have any read concern for the
community. These are the kinds of issues that people are expressing a lot of concern
about. She said that now the concerns for having binding appearance review is more
significant due to the rise in development all over Evanston with buildings that are going
to be here for 60-70 years in a community where they have other magnificent buildings
that have already been here for that length of time. old. Wynne feels strongly that they
need to have some ability to control the building design and aesthetics of the influx of
development and buildings going up in Evanston. She said it needs to be realized that
they need to be reasonable on what types of projects. developments and construction to
have binding appearance review on, try incorporating this review, and if it works then
move onto a wider scope of building construction to include in this review. She stated
that this does not necessarily mean she endorses this review at this point. however she
does feel it needs to be decided what is reasonable to do and it appears that the
community has expressed the most concern for the increase of erosion in the aesthetics of
Evanston in these buildings that are being built with cheap materials and architectural
design. She added that the units in these new developments are still selling at
astronomical prices and the developer is then out -the -door with the project.
Aid. Wynne said another of her concerns with binding appearance review is the
administrative process, which is critical. She stated that this can not become a means of
exposing people to go before a "taste police" board and can not be a committee that
simply imposes their personal opinions because they dislike a project. She commends the
Plan Commission on their hard work to put in standards that can be understandable for
everybody in different levels of development. Aid. Bernstein stated that is also one of his
concerns and brought up a question he raised at a previous meeting on whether they cart
justify quality. He said quite honestly as he reads these standards, an a level of having no
architectural experience, he can't really understand what is going on. He said a person
with architectural background would have no problem, however for the average person,
this ordinance needs to be quantifiable and un-ambiguous and able to be interpreted
consistently throughout, Mr. Hans Friedman responded that the ordinance standards and
guidelines were written largely by architects. He informed the Committee that he and
Air. Mylott started working an this process 4 years ago and the Plan Commission came in
to this at a later point. Therefore, there has been consideration given to this process since
1998 and they have had numerous meetings and have done research and made revisions
and re -drafted the ordinance many times to make the language more clarified. He stated
that the language should be clear to any design professional. Mr. Macsai added in
agreement that some of the language is ambiguous and they have worked hard to clarify
as much as possible. However, there is no way to completely codify all standards and
guidelines pertaining to design reviews that are meant to be understood by design
professionals who are the majority that prepare the plans for review. He pointed out that
architects and design professionals will be the members of the committee that will do the
reviews and who will use their best judgements and their professional opinions and
should be trusted in this matter. He said that even in this view, there will be errors from
. time to time, however less errors will be made than if a majority of non design
professionals were conducting the appearance reviews.
P&D Committee Mta.
Minutes of 5 6 03 r
Page 12
admitted his concern with the process being delayed here and added that he feels there .
already exists a very lengthy process and an overabundance of rules and guidelines that
need to be followed. He pointed out the recommendation made that if they do add
binding appearance review. to hire an additional staff person. The City already has
significant budget problems and questions if this is where they should be putting their
resources at this time. He said the% should be contemplating what this means to the
community and should it be a priority at this point and time. Chairman Newman feels
that is what the discussion is about at this time.
Chairman Newman noted that one of the greatest concerns he has heard from people in
his ward over the last several years is a very high level of concern about the appearance
of all the recent development in Evanston. with many going on in his ward in the
downtown area. He feels that one of the things they struggle with the most, as a member
of Council, is that sometimes they see merit in the project but it is hard for them to grasp
some of the design issues that are involved. He reiterated his belief that there is a high
level of community concern regarding appearance review and he also feels that there is
such a strong market to invest in Evanston. He has seen so many people and developers
come through to get the approval of the City either at the Plan Commission or at the
Council Ievel and they have successfully come through. Therefore, he is convinced that
the staff of our City is very well suited at this point in time to get these projects through
without further delay in the process. He does not believe adding binding appearance
review will be a disincentive for people wanting to invest in Evanston, however he does
believe this will give the City an opportunity to get a handle on the appearance issue, •
which a good part of the community is in favor of.
Aid. Engelman raised the question of why binding appearance review should exempt
single and two-family homes. He pointed out several well-known single-family homes in
Evanston that could have used binding appearance review. He also pointed out a parking
structure that did go through the process, which the Committee agreed to be let be built,
but their professionals told them not to allow the structure to be built. Chairman
Newman argued that it is realistic that from time to time there are going to be
disagreements between the Committee and the design professionals.
Aid. Engelman clarified that his point is with binding appearance review, what should it
focus on; large developers, neighborhoods, etc. Aid. Wynne agrees that Aid. Engelman
is raising a lot of relevant points, however she does not feel it is reasonable to have
binding appearance review on every single home in Evanston. at least not at this point
She has heard from many people who are very concerned with the quality of the
construction that is going up. She held a town hall meeting on Saturday where them was
a lot of concerned expressed regarding the quality of construction and that they are seeing
in the 3rd Ward on Chicago Avenue. People are concerned about aesthetics and
materials that are being used. She mentioned the Optima building on Chicago Avenue
which actually fundamentally is agreed that it is a good building where there are mixed
feelings on the style of the building. However, concerns were expressed about the •
"blah", mediocre building made of the cheapest possible material they could build with
P&D Committer %ttg.
Minutes of 5 6 0'
Paae 11
• going to continue to invest in Evanston because right now it is a thriving community and
a good place for a sound investment. Mr. Cook seconded Chairman Newman's
comments and added that the Plan Commission has consulted with all the major
developers. small developers. local and national developers who all expressed positive
input for binding appearance revie►►. He said that most developers thought Evanston
already had such a review process in effect. Aid. Engelman stated that no developer
opposes binding appearance review or an► other review so long as the day they walk in
they know whether they can do the project in the end. He continued that if it clarified up
front what a developer needs to do. the% will conform because all they need is certainty.
He pointed out that an example of the inherent problem is the point of some agreeing
with the orange balconies and some disagreeing. He reiterated that most developers don't
mind that they have to go through an appearance review committee, however what they
don't want is to have go before that committee and have the members debate over such
matters as the color of balconies. Mr. Myloft responded that there is nothing in the
ordinance or in the design standards to suggest that the Committee should debate the
color of the balcony; the issue of debate should be whether or not the balconies are well
designed and if they work with the structure. Aid. Engelman agreed, but human nature
needs to be taken into consideration and debates over such issues as color will occur. Mr.
Hans Friedman made mention that it should be noted how many of those who disagreed
with the balconies were design professionals. Ms. Smith said a better question would be
is the building well designed with the balconies. She noted that there is always going to
be discrepancies with color. Aid. Engelman pointed out that some people may consider
• because of the color, that the building is not well designed.
Mr. Cook stated that the discussion of color in binding appearance review is off-track.
Aid. Engelman disagreed because he believes the discussion that has needs to be had
before you discuss the intricacies of the appeal process is whether or not binding
appearance review is something that the larger community wants. He said that it appears
a majority of the alderman think that binding appearance review is worth while and he
was willing to explore it as well. However he still has significant concerns about the
binding nature of this and concerns when you set as its purpose the idea of assuring
appropriate land use and design issues. Yet, the request is to exempt a significantly large
of properties from this review. Chairman Newman asked Aid. Engelman what he feels
will happen in Evanston and what concerns will be to the development and community if
this now is advisory and becomes binding. He pointed out that there have been many
people who have come through this process in the past 4 years who have to receive
permission from the City, and those people continue to come. He pointed out the
Dominicks property where the City will not be able to look at the appearance because it is
a permitted project that comes within the zoning envelope. He thinks there are serious
problems with that development, even though he realizes that some of the community is
in favor of it, with over -development of the site. He said the point is do they think by
making or giving the City some binding teeth on the appearance side, that they are going
to discourage development in Evanston. He asked Aid. Engelman if this was part of his
concern. Aid. Engelman responded that he is fully aware of the statistic that other
S communities on the north shore have binding appearance review and that if properly
administered, binding appearance review shouldn't necessarily hold up the process. He
P&D Committee Mte
Minutes of 5 b 01
4
Page 10
"design professionals". Chairman Nem man confirmed with Nfr. Myloft that the term
should be addressed to "design professionals". noting that this definition has been defined
in the ordinance and urban planners are acceptable under this category. Mr. Mylon
affirmed.
Chairman Newman pointed out the status of being exempt from this review such as
single-family homeowners. which the Committee appeared to agree upon. Aid.
Engelman asked for further clarification of this exemption. Mr. Cook responded that in
the opinion of the Plan Commission, single-family applications would be over -
burdensome to come under binding appearance review because of their single ownership
status and in most cases. their actual contribution to the overall appearance and aesthetic
review that effects the entire community. The Plan Commissions intent is to acquire
some since of control for what is being built overall so that they have a say and input into
the aesthetics of major project that effect the entire community; not specifically focusing
on single-family projects that can be accepted into the confines of residential districts.
Aid. Engelman pointed out that the issue of uniqueness of a particular neighborhood
needs to be taken into consideration also. even when it pertains to single-family
properties. He noted that this issue is very important to people of the community,
however the matter of exempting this concept to single-family homes and small multi-
family buildings is being proposed when in fact such an ordinance should or could
benefit those cases also. Mr. Cook responded that they would like to keep in consistency
with what the neighborhood is and the Commission tried to address more on the level of
major developments that would overall effect any neighborhoods and the community as a
whole. Chairman Newman recalled the survey done on 20 communities, 14 having
binding appearance review. Aid. Engelman further recalled that 10 of those communities
exempted single-family properties.
Aid. Wynne stated that her viewpoint is that the administrative cost of doing everybody is
too high. Therefore there needs to be a balance and she questions whether a single-
family home necessarily has to be reviewed under the entire process. She does feel large
residential buildings should come before binding appearance review and would be much
more significant. She stated that binding appearance review is important and she feels
they have to look at where they get the greatest impact from it, which are the larger
projects and ones that are situated on the main corridors and major intersections. She
said it needs to be decided what's within reasonable limits to meet the criteria for binding
appearance review. She said that major developments arc significant and change the
cityscape tremendously. Chairman Newman assumes there will be support for this
ordinance from the community because one of the things that this ordinance does is assist
in keeping the design of developments in a more uniform status and require design
standards to be met. He used the building at Davis and Sherman with the orange
balconies as an example.
Chairman Newman pointed out that on projects that are permitted that go through the
process right now, appearance review is advisory and he feels these projects are going to
continue going through. He does not think they are going to stop until there is a
committee that is operating that people have to go through. He believes that people are 40
P&:D Committee .%ttg
Minutes of 516 43
Page 9
• thereafter. Mr. Wolinski first brought attention to the memorandum forwarded to the
Committee this evening from Mr. Ron Naylor. Associate Vice President for Facilities
Management of Northwestern University. stating their opposition to the proposed binding
appearance review process to be entered into the record (Attachment
Chairman Newman opened discussion with addressing a question to Mr. Richard Cook.
after reading the ordinance, he questions the portion of the ordinance within the appeal
process regarding when someone goes to Site Plan & Appearance Review (SPAARC)
and the applicant receives a recommendation that they disagree with and want to appeal.
lie asked, as opposed to going directly to the P&D Committee and Council, if the
applicant will have to go before a new board of architects (Binding Appearance Review
Committee) who will either grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Cook validated. Chairman
Newman stated that this is the part of the process that he has major concerns with. He
explained that he does not have any problem, as a member of the Council supporting the
concept of appearance review, however he does have a concern with creating another
intermediate step for a developer. He suggested as an alternative, concurring with the
fact that there is a need for architectural advise for the Council, if such a Committee put
together a report for the Council that is delivered with the applicants petition for review
of the denial, then he views this as a significant and sufficient vice in place of the
applicant having to through an additional procedure in the process. He feels that this is
what the purpose of a binding appearance review should deliver instead of creating an
additional process that will prolong the already lengthy application procedure. He
reiterated, that he does not see a need for an additional step along the application process
where the developer has make presentation again.
Chairman Newman clarified that he would like to find a way to have more local
architectural input for the Council at the time that a decision of site plan is being
reviewed. Mr. Cook concurred with Aid. Newznan's concerns stated and noted that he
has no problem with this. He informed that the Plan Commission was trying to make this
process as expeditious as possible and not turn this into situations where many cases can
result in court litigation; this was a major concern of the Commission. Chairman
Newman said, in light of that, that he would suggest an alternative, because it was staled
that there is a plan to add 3 architects to Site Plan, he questioned as it stands currently,
who would be responsible for the appearance portion. Mr. Cook responded that it is the
intent for the to have addition architects in majority of City staff to vote on the matter.
Chairman Newman also is in the opinion that the additional architects need to live in
Evanston and not just work in Evanston. Mr. Cook informed the Committee that the Plan
Commission requested architects in general that either worked in Evanston or lived in
Evanston to broaden the base. Chairman Newman recognized that fact, however he
reiterated his opinion of the importance of having the architect live in Evanston so that
they have a greater since of the community by living here and also contributing to in the
way of property taxes.
Mr. Marc Mylott, City Zoning Planner, clarified that in reference to adding additional
• architects to address the binding appearance review, he suggested in accordance with the
Plan Commission's recommendation, that they promote individuals with a background of
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 5 6 02
Page 8
enforcement and the problems with the "no left turn" enforcement on Dempster and bring
this information back to the Committee as well. Ald. Bernstein added that also in light of •
one of steps that IDOT should have taken with respect to the historical state commission
which may have asked for input from the City's Preservation Commission. should also be
looked into and information brought back to the Committee on this matter.
Chairman Newman noted that at this point a date needs to be set for a special meeting
with the Council/Committee as a Whole to deal with this issue only within the next two
weeks. He further noted that any additional citizen comments should be addressed at
such special meeting because no further comments will be taken at this meeting due to
time constraints. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Jennings if anything the City does within
the next 14 days going to commit them absolutely to the present contract or plan
underway. Mr. Jennings responded that the light fixtures are being fabricated, however
the key is going to be the design and at they can probably wait 2 weeks. Nevertheless,
the paths of the conduits across the streets have to be fixed in order to lay and install the
updated fixtures that need to be in place to update the lighting. He informed the
Committee that they are not in the position to stop this job because it is an Illinois
Department of Transportation job and under their jurisdiction. He added that the City is
under contract and in cooperation with the State to do things that are not irreversible. In
other words, the State is cooperating with the City at this point. Mr. Gardner testified
that Mr. Jennings made a precious promise to her two weeks ago that there would be
nothing done above ground until this issue was resolved. She feels that allowing the
fabrication to start is above groundwork.
After further discussion. the Committee came to a consensus that a special meeting
should be set. Chairman Newman informed the audience that additional citizen comment
will be accepted at the Council meeting following within the 15 minutes allowed.
However, he reiterated that any additional citizen comments and concerns will be
allowed at the special meeting that will be scheduled for this matter. The Committee
discussed a date to agree on to hold a special meeting, however Mr. Wolinski informed
the Committee that there are no pressing matters on the next regularly scheduled date on
May 20th that will prohibit them from addressing this issue on that date with the
recommendation of starting at an earlier time than normal. The Committee agreed and
decided to take this matter before the entire Council this evening to agree on holding this
special meeting and an appropriate starting time. This item was held in Committee.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Ordinance 46-0-02 - Bindine Annearance Review
Chairman Newman acknowledged the attendance of the Chair of the Plan Commission
along whth other representing members. He noted that the members of the P&D
Committee have had a chance to review the packet materials forwarded to them regarding
this matter. He requested to address this matter by starting with Committee discussion
first and addressing any questions or concerns to the Chair of the Plan Commission and
then proceeding on to further questioning or testimony from any other concerned parties 40
P&D Committee Mte.
Minutes of S 6 01_
Paek! 7
40 Mr. Jennings said that the question is «hat are you proposing for staff to go back to the
State and justin- as a reason to stop order on the work proposed. Ile stated that there is
no real "stop work order" on this job because it is proceeding at the State level since the
project is under their iurisdiction. Chairman Newman asked if the City has any ability or
option to go back to the up and down as opposed to the open streets. Mr. Jennings
responded that the Cite- can say no. however it would be jeopardize the contract between
the State and the City'. Aid. Bernstein noted that to be one of his main concerns; does the
City risk loosing the federal funds for this project. He further noted that in all honesty, he
voted without knowledge several years ago regarding this matter. And with regards to
the community, the points and concerns made are correct when he looks at the fact that
on tonight's agenda the Planning & Development Committee is also looking at the issue
of binding appearance review, which he feels this matter relates to as well. He pointed
out the relationship with this matter and binding appearance review due to the aesthetics
of one of Evanston's most prominent streets in this community. He admitted that if he
had of known it would come to this, he would have never voted in favor. Aid. Bernstein
stated that what he believes the City has to do at this point, due to what has been
mentioned in Mr. Jennings testimony regarding that the State has fashioned the light
fixtures on the City's behalf and this has been confirmed, he requested information on
what the cost would be and the reality with respect to the lost of funding will be if they
do not go forward with this project with the State. He also would like to see further
information on the safety issues brought up and the answers to the questions on maintain
would in fact change the statistics mentioned. He reiterated his feelings that this is a
drastic step and he did not fully realize it until now when all of the justifiable concerns
have been brought to attention.
After all the concerns that have been brought to attention and discussion involved, the
Committee was in consensus that a separate meeting needs to be scheduled, preferably
with the entire Council as a Committee of the Whole, to address this issue alone. They
agreed that more facts need to be collected on the issue of safety and if they have an
alternative on directions concerning this project with the State. A member of the
audience asked if this means the City can make a stop on the project at this point or is the
City locked into this contract with the State. Chairman Newman clarified that at this
point, the City will try to do everything in their power to do the best they can to see what
they can do in the alternative until a more precisive decision can be made after a full
review of what their selective course of action in the best interest should be. Aid. Kent
agreed and pointed out that it states on page 3 that ]DOT changed an intersection in this
district on Asbury and Dempster for post stop signals to mass -arm signals 10 years ago.
He wonders if the State are the ones that are pushing this and questions if the City can
realistically say no without the State making their own decision and going forward
regardless of the City's remorse at this point. Chairman Newman agreed and stressed
that they need to have clarified at this point the City's position and any cost this will
involve and need more information if there are national standards on the safety issue.
• Aid. Kent requested in light of what has been mentioned, that they need to have the
police department look into the no truck enforcement on Ridge and the street speeding
P&D Committee tittg.
Minutes of 5/6,02
Page 6
Ms. Mvra Esler, 1220 Ridge Avenue. agreed %pith Ms. Gardner's comments on removing
the "no left turn" sign at Dempster and Ridge to aid in the reduction of congestion near
that intersection.
Chairman Neuman stated that in his opinion, realistically nothing is going to reduce the
traffic on Ridge because as Mr. Jennings as said, it is a main arterial street in Evanston
and will always be.
Chairman Newman closed citizen comment and asked the Committee what direction they
want to go with this at this point. He believes there is a need to involve the entire
Council on this and a special Committee of the Whole meeting needs to meet within the
next 2 weeks. Aid. Berstein said that he would like to have staff provide more
information on a more factual amount of what the cost would be if they were to keep the
post -top traffic light fixtures. He would also like to see more facts on the safety issues
and accident analyses.
0
11
P&D Committee Ntte.
`finales of { 6 02
Page 5
. arm design and also questions the need for the interconnecti,n ►►ork. She pointed out the
truck traffic increase on Ridge Avenue when they are not supposed to be allowed. She
stressed that the **no truck" rule needs to be enforced fully and this would help with some
of the traffic on Ridge and congestion.
Nir. Tom Stafford. Croft Lane. feels that decreasing congestion on Ridge ►►ilI not solve
any pollution problems and may add to the problem with the increase in cars that will
result from the proposed work being done.
Mr. Vito Brueliera. read from a prepared statement (available in the Community
Development Office). He expressed is concern for no public hearing or involvement with
the Evanston Historic Preservation since staff has been pursuing this project for over a
year. He questioned the real need for this project and why the improvement of traffic
flow is such a concern at this time. He questioned the accident analysis given for
Dempster and Asbury because he lives a block from this intersection and wonders if the
accident rate has not gone up with the addition of the left turn lane, reducing to one lane
for through traffic and causing more delays. He does not understand why staff needs to
address the design of the traffic lights at this time to accommodate timing adjustments.
Chairman Newman said that it has been clarified by staff of the safety issues involved
and supported by IDOT for changing to the mast arm design traffic light fixtures. He
supported staffs position and doing their job by addressing out -dated equipment and
addressing traffic problems that are within the confines of their jab responsibilities.
• Ms. Barbara Gardner, Chair of the Evanston Preservation Commission, said she lives in
the vicinity of Dempster and Ridge. She referred to the comments made regarding this
project being reviewed by the IHPA when in fact the Evanston Preservation Commission
should have been involved as well. She read from the ordinance where it states "the
duties of the Commission is to review and comment to the appropriate department or
division concerning City projects of activities effecting landmarks or districts, etc." She
noted that she sent a letter to Mr. Jennings referring to the Preservation Commission's
involvement and received no response back. She also commented that in her opinion,
Ridge Avenue is a single-family residential neighborhood all by itself. Therefore the
comments made earlier about traffic cutting through into the surrounding "neighborhood"
streets is contradictory and why should the traffic on other streets be attracted to go down
Ridge. She feels there is a quality of life issue raised with this project. Ms. Gardner also
suggested that consideration be given to continuing the "no left turn' directive at Ridge
and Dempster. She pointed out the traffic problems that currently exist with this
limitation of not being able to turn left at the intersection with people still trying to turn
left and all the noise from other people sitting on their horns because of it. She strongly
feels that if they remove the "no left turn" signage at Dempster and Ridge, it will help
reduce congestion problems and keep the flow of traffic moving near that intersection.
Mr. R.J. Coleman, suggested to staff that consideration be given to finding an ornamental
traffic light fixture opposed to the mast arm. He feels a design of this type would be
• more acceptable in a historical district.
P&D Comminet k1te
Nfinutei of S 6 UZ -
Pan A
work. Mr. Jennings responded that if they just wanted to interconnect the existing post -
top lights. this can not be done because 1) there is no interconnection system between the
lights currents% and 2) the interior of the cabinets or the single controller does not have
the needed technology for the electronic mechanical system needed for interconnection.
He noted that the current lights are running by 1950's technology. However, the post -top
lights could be used but is not what is designed that is recommended in lieu of the price
to pay in terms of safety. He said that they would also have to stop the current job to
redesign the comers because the places where the mast arm poles go are in a different
location and there would be the need for more post -top poles. The difference in cost is
questionable.
Aid. Wmne asked if the City Were to change back to using the post -top signals, would
we endanger our grant. Mr. Jennings said it is questionable, but in his opinion he feels
this would jeopardize the grant. Aid. Wynne expressed her concern with losing those
funds and putting at risk the Ciry's future opportunity for funds needed. Chairman
Newman asked the actual cost of the project. Mr. Jennings responded that the
construction cost is 1.86 million dollars, the poles are approximately 5200,000 in that
cost. He noted that this is not an accurate estimate of what the cost if they were to change
back from mast arm to post -arm. Chairman Newman posed that Mr. Jennings position is
to go with what is proposed on the basis of safety. Mr. Jennings concurred. He informed
the Committee that this is referred to as the Ridge Avenue project, however the project
extends to Ridge, Church. and Davis with boundaries from Ridge/Mulford to
Ridge/Church. Church from Asbury to Orrington. and Davis from Asbury to Benson. He
noted that at least half of the project is located on Ridge.
Chairman Newman called on citizen comments at this time. He asked that all
commentary be kept to a minimum due to time constraints in consideration of the
sufficient time for the remaining item for consideration on P&D's agenda.
Ms. Vera Chatz. said she lives at Ridge and Lake. She read from a prepared statement in
opposition to the proposed new mast arm traffic signals and her concern for no public
discussion or input. (No copy available.) She strongly feels there should be a public
hearing on this matter. She presented a 230 signature petition for the record and noted
that signatures are still being added.
Mr. Steve Patton. focused on the safety issue and questioned the reliability of the accident
studies done to date and at the intersections they were conducted. He expressed his
concern with adding technology to speed up the traffic on Ridge and why City staff feels
this to be important because he feels it will be more detrimental in the long run. Mr.
Jennings explained that the interconnection work will be for timing to adjust traffic
volumes and reduce congestion on Ridge Avenue during peak hours. Mr. Patton also c
questioned loosing the federal funds if they were to stop the project or change the plan to
go back to using the post -top signals because the funds could still be used for this also.
Ms. Barbara Smutnik_ 701 Ridge Avenue. said that she has lived on Ridge Avenue for 40
years and expressed her opposition for the need to change the traffic lights to the mast
P& D Comminee %it¢
Minutes of 5 6 0= -
Pau 3
• Mr. Jennings explained that the reason for putting the lights over the street is a significant
safety issue and this is wh% IHPA does not support the post -top signals. He noted that
Dempster and Asbury was done approximately 10 years ago and the overall accident
numbers since that time as dropped 50% from what it was prior to putting the lights over
the street. He said there was also the addition of left -turn signals to that intersection. He
said they did another accident analysis and took out the left -turn signals in the before and
after conditions and still received a 36% reduction in the number of accidents. He
mentioned that they also did an accident analysis at Ridge and Noyes where the post -top
signals were replaced with the mast -arm design and there was a 40°'o reduction over the
10 years the signal has been installed.
Chairman Newman asked `Ir. Jennings for more information on the timetable for this
project. Mr. Jennings responded that he anticipates this project to be done within this
year; the poles are in fabrication and will be placed starting in late September/October.
Aid. Bernstein questioned the interconnectivity of cables currently going and asked if this
is the construction that creates the zone for the navigation of traffic flows. Mr. Jennings
confirmed. Aid. Bernstein asked if this same system can be used with the post -top
signals. Mr. Jennings said it is possible because the interconnection does not have to be
in the arm. However, Ridge Avenue is still a state route and IDOT would still have some
jurisdiction on what designs would be appropriate. He informed that when they hired
with IDOT, an engineering firm; the engineers designed in accordance to the current
standards for an urban arterial. which is what Ridge is classified as. Although Ridge is a
residential street, it is still considered an urban arterial in terms of the amount of high
volume traffic. Aid. Bernstein revealed that many of his constituents have expressed
detest for the traffic on Ridge to go any faster so are against the interconnection work in
fear that it will cause more expeditious travel and drawing even more cars. Mr. Jennings
responded that if those cars are detouring through the neig! borhoods right now, then the
interconnection work is a good thing if it will draw those cars onto Ridge Avenue.
Aid. Bernstein referred to the comment earlier that the [DOT procedure should have
included them going to IHPA since Ridge Avenue is a historical district. He asked Mr.
Jennings if after City staff meeting with 1HPA today, does he think this would have
reflected differently. Mr. Jennings responded that the he can not confirm that, however
City would have made the same argument. Once they found out how much of an
improvement there was at an intersection within the District when the signals were
changed from post -top to mast arm. if was quite a compelling argument. Aid. Bernstein
confessed to something the voted on, which pertains to his understanding of replacing the
post. In this context, he was agreeable and was told by staff that they need to better serve
the interconnectivity and that the existing hardware is obsolete. He said the sense that he
gets to the extent that they can if they received federal funding, with Evanston needing
updated infrastructure improvements, that the City take advantage of having this work
done. However, the difficulty he is experiencing now is that it occurs to him when he
looks down Ridge instead of viewing a canopy of green trees there will be the addition of
. traffic lights hanging over the streets. He questioned what would happen if the City told
the IHPA officials that they wanted to keep the post -top fixtures with the interconnection
P&D Committee SUg.
Minutes of S 6 02
Page 2
(P3) Sidewalk Cafe Permit I µith liauort - Jack%'s Bistro. 254.4 Prairie Avenue
Aid, Wynne moved approval, seconded by Chairman Newman. The vote was 4-0 in
favor of the motion.
(P4) Sidewalk Cafe Permit (with liauorI- Oceaniaue, _40- Main Street
Aid. Wynne moved .approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4.0 in favor
of the motion.
At this point. Chairman Newman changed the order of the agenda to address item (PD1)
under "Items for Discussion."
(PDI ) Traffic Sienal Replacement in Ridpe Avenue Historic District
Chairman Newman noted the order for discussion and comments will be to first hear
from the Dave Jennings. Director of Public Works. questions and concerns addressed by
the Committee and then citizen comments.
Mr. Jennings noted that he has been asked to provide history and background information
for this project. He narrated along with a slide presentation regarding the project. He
presented 8 written slides; the first explained the problems with the current traffic signals
such as age and deterioration, insufficient timing, etc. One of t' z problems is also that
the delay worsens the air quality and results in cut -through traffic onto the local streets.
He went on to explain that the City applied for funding under the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality program administered by IDOT. The funding is 80% federal and 20%
local. He listed the City Council approvals and resolutions allocating funds for design,
MFT funds, a resolution authorizing the agreement µith IDOT in June 2001 and
additional funds allocated in CIP funds. He showed a summary of the construction
schedule starting in April 2002 with the interconnect cables being laid currently and poles
scheduled to be set in September 2002. He continued with a slide explaining the historic
preservation process, noting that the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) was
made aware of this project 2 weeks ago and have jurisdiction over projects with State
and/or Federal funding. He noted that IDOT was the responsible agency for advising
IHPA. He informed the Committee that he and Mr. Crum met with IHPA officials in
Springfield just today and the last 2 slides provided commentary from that meeting.
IHPA stated that they µ-ill likely treat this matter as a "Discovery During Construction",
which will allow IHPA to work with [DOT and the Federal Highway Administration to
keep in compliance with the approved plans. IHPA agrees with the need for the mast arm
signals for this project and recommend removing the truss style mast arms at Dempster
and Asbury and replacing with the same mast arm design. The%- do no support the use of
post -top signals. IHPA agrees that the bronzetone color specified for the project is
acceptable for use in the historic district and they suggest considering using decorative
bases on the signal poles. IHPA ask that the Evanston Preservation Commission review
available designs and give a recommendation at their next meeting. The next 10 slides
showed illustrations of the proposed mast arm design traffic signals, the truss -style mass
arms at Dempster and Asbury and the old post -top style signals. The last slides showed
some examples of recommended decorative bases to choose from.
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes ofMay 6.2002
Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. Kent. A. Newman. M. Wynne
Alderman Tardy: S. Engelman
Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson. P. Havnes. D. Jennings. C. Ruiz, C.
Smith. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. He took a hand count of
members of the audience who were in attendance for traffic signals in the Ridge Avenue
historic district. Binding Appearance Review, and the landlord/tenant issue. The majority
of the audience were in attendance for the traffic signals on down in the order above. He
announced that he would address the items on the agenda in the same order after
considering the sidewalk cafe items first.
0 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 22.2002 MEETINGS
Chairman Newman held the minutes for approval until the May 201h meeting due to
questions he raised regarding some comments that were omitted from the discussion on
the 610 Callan Avenue Appeal. He asked staff' to further review the audiotapes to
validate what was t)-ped in the minutes.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Chairman Newman acknowledged all business owners and representatives in attendance
for the following sidewalk cafd permits. He notified them that their cases are also on the
Council agenda for action tonight.
fPD Sidewalk Cafe Permit — Cafe Express. 500 Main Street
Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor
of the motion.
f P21 Sidewalk Cafe Permit — Einstein Brothers Baecis. 1745 Sherman Avenue
Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0
in favor of the motion.
0
P&D Committee titg,
Minutes of 5,10.0'
Page 12
review has been going on. At that time. she was a board member with the Southeast
Evanston Neighbors Committee and she recalls discussion of the possibility of having
design review similar to many of their surrounding communities. She noted that it was
mentioned earlier critical comments regarding Skokie who has binding appearance
review. However she has seen much improvement in the Skokie community, especially
going down Dempster, which she can assure has been drastically improved over her time.
She noted that there are several surrounding communities that have had binding
appearance re%iew for years with minimal appeals. She pointed out that Park Ridge and
Highland Park have really good binding appearance review ordinances, which are two
very beautiful and prestigious communities, his. Singh also pointed out that in 1993
when the zoning ordinance was being revised, there was the creation of a City of
Evanston Appearance Review and Design Guidelines. She noted some people in
attendance contributed ideas to go into those guidelines at that time, however the
guidelines were never passed by the City Council. She concluded that she hopes this
does not happen again with this proposed ordinance.
Chairman Newman concluded comments at this time and requested to those who were
not able to speak, to hold their comments for the next meeting and he would allow them
to speak first. Ald. Engelman asked the Chair if he want this Committee to have a special
meeting on this issue instead of trying to fit it in for proper discussion on their regular
agenda. Chairman Newman responded that the Committee would have had enough time
for discussion and comments this evening, however the special meeting for the Ridge
Avenue traffic lights went over time. He feels the Committee should be able to manage
this item on their regular agenda. Ald. Wynne said that she would not mind setting a
special meeting for this. Ald. Engelman pointed out that this is a huge ordinance that will
need ample time to go through for consideration. Chairman Newman said the main
problem is with scheduling that would coordinate with all the Committee members.
Ald. Bernstein asked that the 2 photos distributed to the Committee by Mr. Naylor be
forwarded to Frederico and Dave from Design Evanston who are present. He requested
that they give him some sense of whether these designs would be passed by the binding
appearance review. Both gentlemen concurred.
This item was held in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�} y
JactvelinAE. Brownlee
P3D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 5 '2o oR
Page 1 I
schedule a special meeting for this matter or allow more appropriate discussion time for
further deliberations and review.
Ms. Jane Wooley, 425 Keeney Avenue, informed that she lives a half block away from
the Dominicks site that is now undergoing development. She mentioned that she has
been involved as a concerned citizen since the development at 811 Chicago Avenue and
has been involved in the Chicago Avenue Corridor study as well. She said that she has
remained involved in the development of the Chicago/Ntain intersection and has
witnessed the impact and change that the current wave of development has had on that
intersection. She also mentioned the Roszak development on Chicago Avenue just south
of Dempster and its impact on the change on Chicago Avenue. In looking at all of the
recent development on Chicago Avenue, she asks how development night have been
different if binding appearance review had of been in place. She especially is concerned
with the development of the Dominicks site that complied under the current zoning
ordinance and can build as -of -right. She feels major projects of this capacity, should be
required to conform and adhere to binding appearance review. She recalled cases where
the developer has received approval for plans, however by the time of construction, the
building looks different from the plans approved. She feels this situation could be
avoided with binding appearance review. She mentioned the case with the renovation of
the Main Bank building where the plans had been changed by the time it was presented to
P&D Committee from what SPAARC had approved. Ms. Wooley referred to the
comment made earlier by Mr. Naylor when he said that binding appearance review does
not guarantee excellent design but could prevent the worse scenario design from being
done. She assured that is exactly what she wants from binding appearance review. Ald.
Engelman asked Ms. Wooley to elaborate on what she dislikes about the 811 Chicago
Avenue building, Roszak's development and the Evanston Bank building development.
She responded that there is a large number of people that dislike the 811 Chicago Avenue
building, however she does like the building but feels it is misplaced in that location. She
feels the Roszak development is too much for the site and appears as if it is built directly
at the sidewalk. She feels the proposed plan for the Evanston Bank building is not
designed appropriately and does not look like the original pictures that were presented at
the neighborhood meetings.
Ms. Margaret Na¢le, 631 Hinman Avenue, expressed her support for binding appearance
review. She stated that many of her neighbors also feel the same way because their
neighborhood as been effected by the many major developments on Chicago Avenue and
the impact is felt by the residents who are subjected the these developers arbitrary and
subjective decisions. She concurs with Ms. Wooley that binding appearance review will
simply save the residents from the worse kinds of developments.
Ms. Mary Singh, brought to the Committee's attention a 5-page history of SPAARC
which states that the committee actually began in 1984 when staff were the only members
and conducted appearance review. She said at that time Richard Carter was the City
Planner and she assumes he was the original creator. She said in the summer of 1988 it
states that an alderman asked the Planning & Development Committee about having a
design review board. She pointed out how long ago the discussion about appearance
P&D Comminee SUg.
Minutes of 5 ?0 02
Page 10
the reason for an acting binding appearance review is really to prevent tear-do«ns in their
communities; a problem that was and has been presented and is of concern in Evanston.
Mr. Perman noted that the introduction to binding appearance review in the guidelines
proposed, starts by calling it a solid long-term economic development strategy. He
quoted the section inhere it states "while the proposal might possibly develop more
money, the decisions of Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee will increase the
value of the project, the benefits of the development of the property owners and the
tenants." He said by this logic, all streets in Evanston should be paved in gold. He
pointed out that what this refuses to acknowledge is that at some point there is
diminishing return on that investment; you can not separate aesthetics from economic
interest.
Mr. Perman stressed that the real concerns of this community are density, height, and
block coverage and he suggested to the Committee to take this into consideration and
focus on these issues. He added that they should have a healthy vigorous debate on these
kinds of issues in addition to the Zoning Ordinance. He feels that binding appearance
review is not going to touch on those real concerns. In fact, when you look at some the
communities around Evanston they we compare ourselves to, there is really a lot of
inconsistency. He used Oak Park as an example, which is a community with a vast
amount of great architecturally designed homes and buildings that draws millions of
people and tourists on a yearly basis. He pointed out that this community established this
status without having binding appearance review. In comparison. he pointed out
communities such as Morton Grove, Buffalo Grove and Skokie that do have binding
appearance review and asked the Committee if they want to consider the architectural
design in those towns in comparison to Evanston's architectural status.
Mr. Perman suggested to the Committee to consider this ordinance by trying to make it a
more positive document because the current wording and language in many areas is
condescending and should be re -worded or some wording eliminated to make the tone
not so negative in some areas. He pointed out an example on page 32 where he felt the
general tone was very negative by showing a disapproving design for signage instead of
showing and demonstrating signage that is approving and acceptable under the standards.
He referred to page 9 regarding the massing of a building showing the disapproval of
introducing negative space. On page I I he pointed out the vagueness in the language
regarding details and architectural features being appropriate in design and scale to the
desired architectural style of the structures within the proposed project. He referred to
page 22 regarding exterior building materials where it states "shall be appropriate to the
desired architectural style", etc. He questioned if this means that nothing should be
different to an adjacent building; another example of vague language in the ordinance.
He also questioned the language on page 25 regarding landscaping and the need for more
precise wording here.
Mr. Perman concluded that this ordinance and the entire issue of binding appearance
review need a lot more consideration by the Committee. He urged the Committee to
P&D Committee tittg.
Minutes of 5 20 02
Page 9
the developer to add yet another phase to the application process. He again agrees with
the comments made by the previous speakers on the City's part to increase incentives for
new business and development in Evanston to enhance the economic growth versus
adding to the process and possibly discouraging such business.
Mr. Naylor concluded that because of the vagueness of the proposed standard criteria,
NU representatives are at a consensus that it is probably more important to try and use the
existing Site Plan and Appearance Review process and make the existing standards more
workable possibly with the inclusion of this document for use as guidelines. He
rationalized this because he feels that the standards proposed in this ordinance are closer
to guidelines than they are to standards.
Mr. Don Hurt, said that he has a somewhat different opinion than the previous speakers
because from his perspective he can not understand why this issue is of such great
importance in comparison to some of the other issues within the City that he feels are
much more important for the tax payers and citizens such as the budget deficit, etc. He
specified his feelings of this situation being irrelevant in lieu of the fact that the current
site plan and appearance review seems to be working, and could positively be revised to
administer more effectively if needed. He questioned why so much time and effort needs
to be spent on adding an additional process to a process that is already in the works of the
normal procedure for proposed building development and construction. He mentioned
that as a homeowner, he would like to have the privilege of making his own choice on
any renovation or addition to his home as long as he complies with all City regulations.
He would not want to go before a review process before a board that would have the
leverage to stop or delay his project because of their individual opinions on design
acceptance, when in fact he has complied with all City building regulations. He informed
the Committee that even though he expressed his feelings on a homeowner being able to
renovate or add to their home as desired, he stressed his support in complying under all
building requirements and construction that is acceptable and in conformance with its
surrounding neighborhood and area
Mr. Jonathan Perman, President of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that
when the Planning Commission established a committee to study binding appearance
review approximately 2 years ago, a survey was conducted in 1999 of 20 communities
considered somewhat comparable to Evanston. He noted that 14 of those 20
communities had some type of binding appearance review. He felt it important to point
out that there are not actually 14 communities with binding appearance review for
commercial properties. He noted that only 11 of the communities surveyed applied
binding appearance review for commercial properties and of those 3 do not even use an
appearance review board to render a decision for recommendation to their appointed
Council or Trustee members. He further noted that in one of the communities, only when
them is a zoning variation concern it is required to go before appearance review. His
point being that it is not 70% of those communities that were surveyed that are trying to
do the same thing that is being proposed here that was suggested in the results of the
survey. In fact, he declared that from talking to many of the comparable communities,
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of Sn0't}2
Page $
however some may be of the opinion that this design is inappropriate for Evanston and
try and find ways in the ordinance to justify their conception. He pleaded to the
Committee that this needs to be considered about the entire issue of architectural style
and the words stated in the ordinance referring to not being prescribed yet there are no
examples shown other than the standard traditional architecture. He explained the second
photo showing a rendering of the Gordon Wu Hall, Butler College building at Princeton
University. He further explained the building being predominantly brick yet all over the
entrance to the building is a large use of stone in a very whimsical style. He noted that
they still feel this design would meet the compatibility of the criteria, however the
standards that are proposed in this ordinance are so vague that someone could argue that
this design would be inappropriate and not meet the standards. Mr. Naylor pointed that
in this case they would have a design by a world -class architect such as Mr. Robert
Venturi develop some building with a whimsical design as a piece of a basically brick
building and questions would arise if this meets the standards or not because the
standards listed are not clear and are very vague. He feels standards should be clear and
concisive eliminating lengthy arguments amidst board members in order to come to a
consensus on any appearance review issues. He stressed NU's position that they find all
those sections that he mentioned to be very subjective and the standards entirely too
vague. In fact, they don't guarantee excellent design but could prevent the worse
scenario design from being done, but in reality how many examples of those are there
that fall through the City process.
Mr. Naylor referred to the standard on exterior building materials. pointing out that again
it mentions that it should be appropriate with the desired architectural style. He
questioned what this means. He referred to where it states being appropriate to the
streetscape and questioned the interpretation here also. He pointed out another concern
on page 39, first paragraph under "Variation From Design Standards", where it states
there can be a variation to the design standards only upon finding, and by a 2/3rds vote of
SPAARC. He noted that this is something again where the Committee should strongly
look at if considering passage of this ordinance. He pointed out that throughout the
document it states that for appearance review only those citizen members who are
appointed that are architects or other design professionals plus 2 staff members appointed
by the Mayor, can vote on appearance review. Once more, he notes that this standard is
very vague, pointing out the question of whether the 2/3rds vote required should be
amongst the appointed members of the SPAARC or is it 2/3rds of the entire Committee.
Furthermore noting the fact of the entire Committee has been prevented originally from
even voting on appearance review. He reiterated his point of the vague criteria of who
can and can not vote for appearance review. In fact, in the language of the ordinance
itself, it goes through all the voting and it refers to these guidelines but nowhere in the
ordinance does it refer to the variation procedures.
Mr. Naylor noted that the proposed ordinance for binding appearance review requires the
inclusion of a signage plan, however there already exists a Sign Review Board and
existing ordinance for this. He questions why this additional signage information needs
to be included and submitted for yet another review under the appearance review process.
Finally, Mr. Naylor questioned scheduling of the review time and the undue burden on
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 9 20'02
Page 7
excellence. However, they do not believe that this ordinance should be added as another
step in the review process, and if it was. they do not feel it «ill resolve in concluding with
an excellent design for any development. He brought up another concern that the
proposed ordinance cites chapter 13 of the Comprehensive General Plan as far as the
justification for the ordinance. He read where it states that the objective of this stage is to
make quality design a priority for the construction and maintenance of all property, it
does not exempt 1 or 2 family homes. However. the proposed ordinance does exempt
1&2-family dwellings, pointing out that this is where the east majority of development
and construction in Evanston is occurring and can significantly impact on the surrounding
residential homes in the neighborhood. Therefore if the City is trying to obtain quality
design for all areas of Evanston, then all properties should be included in the review
process including 1&2-family homes.
Mr. Naylor stated that they also believe that many of the standards are very subjective
and difficult to measure and also allow room for arbitrary decisions. In particular, he
referred to Section 2a through d and 1, as being very subjective criteria Therefore, as Mr.
Kysiak mentioned earlier with regards to the lack of commercial land left in Evanston for
development and in looking at the small commercial developers that would have as -of -
right development, will likely be detained from the normal procedure of submitting their
plans and being able to proceed through the regular building permit procedure. He said
the additional binding review process would prevent such developments from moving
forward in a timely manner and possibly having to go through a lengthy appeals process.
He noted that this could have a detrimental effect on economic development in Evanston.
Mr. Naylor referred to page 4 of the proposed standards, bottom of the page where it
reads "These standards do not prescribe architectural style. Rather, the Site Plan and
Appearance Review Ordinance requires conformance with design standards that are an
integral component of quality architectural design and apply regardless of the
architectural style." However, he pointed out that throughout the entire document all of
the examples, photographs, and renderings are all traditional architecture. He further
pointed out that aside from the traditional architecture there are multiple styles of
architecture, and the ordinance again states that they are not prescribing styles of
architecture. In fact he again pointed out three very subjective sections, 2c, d, and I,
where it states that all the details that are covered in those sections shall be "compatible
with the desired architectural style." In reference to this, he reiterated that there are many
multiple and various architectural styles, however there are no examples illustrated in the
document to show or demonstrate these different styles that should also be acceptable as
well as the traditional architectural designs in Evanston because they are not prescribing
style. Mr. Naylor submitted to the Committee 2 photographs of examples of styles that
actually meet the criteria in the ordinance, however they believe any plans for
development that would come close in similarity to these designs would come under
scrutiny under the binding review process. Even so, he strongly feels there needs to be
additional examples of different architectural styles other than what is shown in the
ordinance. He stressed that there needs to be illustrations of other architectural styles that
actually meet the appearance review guidelines. He explained the first photo being the
American Center in Paris designed by Frank Gehry, which would meet all the criteria,
PdtD Committee Sitg.
Minutes of S 10 02
Page 6
is not built by the approved plans. He concluded that this ordinance only adds another
piece that is not needed at this time and would require an additional person to do what is
currently being done but needs to be re -shuffled.
Mr. Joe Hauthhnev. said that he is with :Mather Likeways (spelling?), 1603 Orrington. He
informed that he is speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce where he is the
president of the Board of Trustees. He stated that the Chamber members are in
agreement that the current process works very well and they feel the site review process
that is currently used for projects within the City seems to be relatively comprehensive
for their members, informative and they feel very comfortable with this. He agrees with
Mr. Kysiak that there are other ordinances that help to address the scope of the project
such as parking, signage, fences and zoning. He said they feel there already are too many
regulations on the book that help to control the appearance of the project. Therefore, the
Chamber sees this as just adding another step and he recalled discussion during the
budget review, which members of the Chamber participated, on conserving resources in
the City. Chairman Newman Questioned if he were referring to the addition of the
Review Board and the need for an additional staff. Mr. Haughney confirmed. Finally, he
pointed out the question of subjectivity and who would make these decisions and how
they would be made. He feels that these are very difficult decisions to obtain consensus
from any Board.
Mr. John Wertvmer, 806 Ingleside, said that he has lived in Evanston for 25 years. He
pointed out several award -winning buildings that have been developed in Evanston
without binding appearance review. Two of the buildings he mentioned were developed
on Central Street. He even mentioned his own house that he made improvements on,
which was included and named in the ordinance that was introduced for the historical
district. His improvements to his house were done more with the spirit of being in
Evanston and wanting to do the right thing by complying with the current ordinances and
building regulations. In his opinion, he feels it boils down to for the need to be very
subjective because if the City begins to do binding review now, comments are trade and
it creates a more give-and-take situation. He feels it is more an advisory process and
appears to be a ser%ice where you receive opinions from other people and becomes a
carrot approach. He recalls a project presented last year where even though it was
located in an area of majority ftatwood side homes, comments were made suggesting to
add more brick. Also additional comments were made to the parking lot behind the
project implicating that it appeared to be crowded or congested and suggestions were
made to pick up the building and locate parking underneath. Mr. Wertymer pointed out
that those are binding comments and the suggestions made would have totally drowned
the project and the development wouldn't have happened at all. He concluded that in
comparative, that the existing approach is more positive and development friendly.
Mr. Ron Navlor, representing Northwestern University, stated that he agrees with the
comments made by the previous speakers and their concerns and opposition with binding
appearance review. He further stated that Northwestern (NU) certainly believes in design
excellence and continue to hire top-flight architects to design their facilities. As a matter
of fact, this year NU won multiple awards from Design Evanston for their design
P&D Committee %ttg.
Minutes of 5'0 02
Page s
creates an undue process, and 3) he believes it adds to the Evanston challenge for
attracting or appealing to new business and development. Mr. Swanson acknowledged
that Evanston does have a problem with its residential characterization and the rapid
change in the community and people have a problem with this. He pointed that
Evanston's base zoning creates less than satisfactory results, for example in the
Main/Chicago Avenue area, Main/Kedzie and parts of Chicago Avenue, which probably
is what has generated the interest in feeling a need for this ordinance. His suggestion to
the Committee is to really consider looking more into the zoning incentives and into
some of the things that the City of Chicago has been doing in terms of recasting their
zoning. He noted that Evanston need to look into creating incentives for providing items
within developments that are for the public good such as setbacks, initial deposits, public
spaces, etc. Secondly, Mr. Swanson's opinion is that the process of the Appearance
Review Board is inherently flawed and is a very subjective process and seems to be based
upon the individuals that serve on the Committee with no objectivity. He read from a
sample of the minutes from one of the meetings to give the Committee an idea of what
they put a developer through during their review. The minutes he read from gave an
example of several SPAARC members pondering over the appropriate color for the brick
frontage of a building. From his perspective as a developer, to go through this procedure
is a very difficult process to sit through. Finally, he mentioned that this adds to the
challenge that developers face in terms of delaying a second major hurdle in the process
and creates additional cost. He noted that this adds to the perception that its tough to do
business in Evanston and adds to the "red tape" with the probability of not even getting
the results of what you expected or started with. Finally, as a taxpayer, he is concerned
about the additional cost by having this additional board such as the resources that the
City will be needed for these reviews.
Mr. Ron Kysiak, said that he is with Evanston Inventure and lives at 1508 Elmwood. He
pointed out that Evanston only has approximately 11% of its land left for commercial
development; a lot less than Skokie has. He noted that every building they can have
developed would be beneficial to the City of Evanston. He said that his concern is with
the impact this type of review will have over the developer because the City already has a
lot of leverage. He too would prefer to see more incentives provided for development in
the City of Evanston. He mentioned that every single major commercial project that has
been built in the City within the last 15 years, other than a recent condominium
developer, have had for the most part, some correct City involvement in order to get the
project developed. Chairman Newman questioned if multi -family developments were not
included in this category, which Mr. Kysiak confirmed. He said this ordinance or
particular approach is going to have a lot more effect probably on commercial that are
non-residential than residential buildings. He reiterated that instead of adding more
leverage to the City's position over the developers, he suggested that incentives be
produced to encourage the developer to give you more and better materials, resulting in
better design. Mr. Kysiak stated that he does understand the frustration with a developer
or contractor showing a design in Site Plan Review, which is approved and then
something else is built or changes were made. However, he stressed that this is not a
design review issue, it is a building issue, which can be controlled at the permit level or
shut down by City inspectors after commencement of the building process, if the project
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 529 02
Page 4
not be allowed to do so under the current ordinance. He addressed Aid. Kent to note that
under his ideal. Halibunon or House of Thompson would never be able to expand their
businesses if they chose to do so and would keep them %%ithin a box limiting their chances
for growth and would also be a disservice to the community. He concluded that their
businesses are there to serve the community and an expansion of those services or
facilities should not be looked at as harmful to the neighborhood. Aid. Kent responded,
as he mentioned earlier, that he does not have any problem with the existing funeral
homes in the 5 h Ward, however he would like to prohibit the chance for any additional
funeral homes to come into the 5'' Ward because they would be over -saturated with this
use. He also feels the same way with churches in his ward, that any more would become
excessive. He stated to Mr. McBell that he would like representatives from both funeral
homes included in on the discussion with the Neighborhood Planning Committee for the
Set ward because their input would be valuable from the business aspect.
Chairman Newman moved to introduce this item tonight and refer bark to the
Committee for further discussion at the June 10"' meeting. Aid. Engelm*n seconded
the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
(P1) Sidewalk Caf6 Permit (with liouor) — Bluestone. 1932 Central Street
Chairman Newman noted that this item was held so that Ald. Engelman could be present
for any comments or concerns he may have since this business is located in his ward.
Aid. Engelman said that he has no objections and moved approval of the sidewalk caff
permit. Chairman Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 In favor.
f P61 Ordinance 46-0-02 — Bindine Appearance Review
Chairman Newman recalled that it was decided at the last P&D meeting that the
Committee would make this a special meeting to get through the issues on Binding
Appearance Review, however due to Ridge Avenue traffic lights matter, the meeting was
delayed in starting this evening. Also due to vacation schedule conflicts in the month of
June, it was hard to schedule a special meeting for this item. He apologized for the
delays and difficulty in scheduling appropriate meeting time for this matter. He
acknowledged the sign up list of people wanting to speak on this issue and requested that
everyone keep their comments to a minimum to allow time for all speakers to address the
matter. If time does not permit for everyone to speak, he requested that they hold their
comments to speak at the next scheduled meeting for this matter. Chairman Newman
assured that he would like to complete this item while he is still chairing the Committee
until the middle of July.
Mr. Kent Swanson. 727 Forest Avenue, said that he currently lives in the Yd Ward and
also grew up on the far north side of Evanston- He mentioned that he is also a principal
at the John Buck Co. and Real Estate Development Firm in downtown Chicago and he
worked on the 1603 Orrington project as well as the Park Evanston project. He felt this
important to mention because his company has made a $1 million commitment to
Evanston over the past 5 years and have an interest in the proposed binding appearance
review process. He said there are 3 main reasons for his opposition to the binding
appearance review. 1) Feels this is a wrong solution to the problems that exist, 2) it
P&D Committee
Minutes of 5n0'02
Page 3
that this item is up for introduction tonight and could be referred back for discussion on
June I O'h, therefore avoiding holding this up for an additional y weeks.
Aid. Kent pointed out that Mr. Donnellan mentioned that he would like to get started on
the renovation work for his company, however this ordinance %%ill affect all of Evanston.
He realizes that this may not be a problem for the other alderman, however he does have
a problem with this ordinance in the 5'h Ward because the Neighborhood Planning group
has been working very hard to plan appropriately for the near and far future. He feels for
this to come forward with the Plan Commission and talk about funeral homes being
permitted in the B districts, appreciating the special use status in the MUE district, in his
opinion is worse in those districts because they are much smaller and should attract more
neighborhood -type businesses. Mr. Donnellan stated that he can not go forward with his
project until approval from the City of Evanston and it would be unreasonable for him to
engage in architecture and contractor agreements before this approval is obtained. He
explained that their plans are to tear down the Maple Avenue building and replace with
an entirely new model. Chairman Newman explained to Ald. Kent that from his
understanding the way this came about was because when Council revised the Zoning
Ordinance in 1993, staff took the position when they reviewed Mr. Donnellan's
application, that the City did not really allow funeral homes anywhere in Evanston. He
further explained that staff was driven to request this zoning ordinance amendment to
include a category for funeral homes since Mr. Donnellan's application for reconstruction
of his building on Maple. However, Chairman Newman does feel that the list is too
broad, which he would like to narrow further down requiring more time for discussion.
Aid. Kent agreed and explained that from his perspective, Mr. Donnellan's project has
nothing to do with his feelings on how this ordinance could affect the rest of the City and
the smaller neighborhood business districts. This is where his concern lies, especially for
the 5`h ward which is limited in space for business districts. He also mentioned that this
has nothing to do with the existing funeral homes in his ward because the House of
Thompson and Haliburton have been there for a long time. However, he would like to
avoid the possibility of having another funeral home being permitted in the business
districts in the 5`h ward. He mentioned the prospect of having this category as a special
use in all the business districts being something that he could possibly support. He noted
the concern because of the close proximity to residential areas. Chairman Newman
agreed because of the issues with traffic, parking, etc.
Mr. McBell. Funeral Director for Haliburton. commented that historically the reason why
their business was called "funeral homes or parlors" was because of their location and
affiliation with the surrounding neighborhoods and the providing funeral services for the
people that live within the neighborhood. He said that this operation was formed and the
homes were located in the neighborhoods they served because most Cities and towns
were sectioned off by ethnicity. The business usually provided for those people in close
proximity to the home so that they would not have to travel far for their loved ones
services. He felt this very important to point out to the Committee to be taken into
consideration during their review. Mr. McBell acknowledged the fact that both
Haliburton and House of Thompson are considered "graandfathered" in, however it is his
understanding that if either of them also wanted to expand their business they too would
P&D Committee .%ttg.
Minutes of 5'20 02
Page 2
f P71 Ordinance 58-0-02 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Funeral Homes
Chairman Ne%% nan asked staff to elaborate on the request for this zoning ordinance
amendment. Mr. Wolinski explained that it was discovered that the definition of Funeral
Homes was left out of the 1993 amendments to the zoning ordinance. He stated that the
owners of Donnellan Funeral Home on Maple Avenue have approached Cite staff with
plans to redevelop their site with a total remodeled funeral facility. In checking, staff
discovered that there was no use category for them; not meeting the criteria for retail
service or similar, staff felt funeral homes were something that needed a specific type of
definition. He informed that staff has taken this before the Plan Commission for an
amendment, which the Commission has made a recommendation for the definition and
permitted use districts.
Aid. Kent said upon review, that he was surprised at the Plan Commission recommending
funeral homes as a special use in the MUE district since the only one is along Ashland in
the 5'h Ward which they have been having monthly Plan Commission meetings on.
Therefore, since his ward is going through neighborhood planning, he would request that
the MUE district be pulled out until they have had a chance to discuss this in the
Neighborhood Plan Commission meeting. In addition to this, he questions some of the
131, B2 and CI districts allowing permitted use because these districts usually have the
smaller neighborhood -type business districts, which he has a problem with allowing
funeral homes that usually are located in storefronts within residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Wolinski stated that one of the concerns raised, is that there are 3 existing funeral
homes in Evanston and one of the determinations they wanted to try and keep with was
not to make the existing non -conforming. Ms. Jeanne Lindwall, Plan Commissioner
recalled that one of the existing funeral homes is located on Emerson Street, which is a
B2 zoning district. Aid. Kent agreed that the home has been present there for many years
and is grandfathered in, however his issue is whether it can be permitted for another
funeral home to come in and be allowed in the neighborhood business districts with no
buffer to residential districts. Ms. Lindwall replied that the Plan Commission looked at
the way funeral homes operate and representatives from the existing funeral homes were
also present at the public hearing meeting. She said that it was determined that unless a
funeral is in session, the actual funeral homes have minimal impact on the neighborhood
and surrounding area and this is why the Plan Commission had them permitted in all of
the business districts and as special uses in the MU & MUE districts so that any
application could be reviewed. She also noted that in Cook County, cremation is not
permitted in the funeral home and must be done at a cemetery.
Chairman Newman noted that it appears this item is going to require more time for
proper discussion and consideration. He asked if there is any urgency or time constraints
with this ordinance. Mr. Donnellan responded that he would like to start demolition work
as soon as possible however they can not start work until the outcome of this ordinance is
concluded. Chairman Newman informed that the main item for discussion this evening is
Binding Appearance Review and this item was put on the agenda afterwards, so proper
time for discussion was not taken into consideration. He suggested that they put this item
on P&D's next agenda on June I Oh to allow more time for review. Mr. Donnellan was
worried about this going over to the June 24`h meeting. Chairman Newman mentioned
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of May 20, 2002
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. Barry, M. Mylott, E. Szymanski, J.
Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:53 p.m
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 22.2002 & MAY 6.2002 MEETINGS
Chairman Newman moved approval of the revised minutes for the April 22, 2002
meeting, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. He
cornmended staff for their additional review of the minutes for accuracy.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P2) Sidewalk Cafd Permit -- Chinotle. 711. Church Street
Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 3-0 in
favor of the motion. (Only 3 alderman present for this item.)
(P31 Sidewalk Cafd Permit — McDonalds. 1700 OrrinQton Avenue
Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 3-0 in
favor of the motion. Chairman Newman noted that there were no complaints received
last year on this sidewalk cafd.
(PS) Sidewalk Cafd Permit — JK Sweets. 720 t/z Clark Street
Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 3-0 in
favor of the motion.
Aid. Bernstein arrived at this point.
(P4) Sidewalk Cafd Permit (with liquor) Tommv Nevins, 1450 Sherman Avenue
Chairman Newman addressed this item with the arrival of Aid. Bernstein. Aid!
Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. With no further discussion,
the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
May 20, 2002
DRAFT COPY
dollar impact (of how the project proceeds) would sieniftcantly impact every Evanstonian. She agreed wilh
Alderman Engelman's point about the trouble the Cit) is in regarding this project and it would cost them some
money to get out. She said if the City could get help to minimize that cost. they should do that.
Alderman Feldman thought they should avoid the issue of blame that evening. lie asked Alderman Bernstein to
amend his motion to hold over until Monday. June 3 and have a special City Council meeting. Alderman Feldman
explained that he would be out of the country on June 10 and thought it was important that every member of Council
be present when this issue is dis.-ussed. Alderman Bernstein restated his two-part motion to abate the fabrication on
Ridge and two corners on Asbury and to hold for a report on June 3. 2002 at 6 p.m. Seconded by Alderman Rainey.
Alderman Moran asked if the state preservation agency was waiting to hear from the City? Yes. Alderman Moran
thought that the ball was in the City's court as the state wanted to heai back from them. He wanted to know where
they would be in two weeks? City Manager Crum stated that the City has been requested officially to provide IHPA
with information resulting from last week's Preservation Commission meeting and from that evening's meeting.
Reports from these meetings will be sent to the IHPA office. I`ir. Crum said they will also talk with the [DOT people
to express the City's concerns that this temporary delay be continued until there are answers to all of the questions
and that delay would extend until two weeks from that night.
At 10: 47 p.m.. Alderman Feldman moved adjournment of the joint committees and resumption as the City Council.
Seconded by Alderman Wynne. Motion carried No nays.
Mayne Press
Deputy City Clerk
Slav 20. 2001
DRAFT COPY
Citv Slanager Roger Crum responded that timing •%as critical and the next City Council meeting was three weeks
away He reminded Council that this is a state contrsct and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) has not
signed off on it }et and has asked the City of Evanston for its input. He stated the City should share with the state
historic office the City's concerns about the project going forward until the IHPA makes a decision. Mr. Crum
reported that IHPA officials admitted to Mr. Jennings and himself, when they met in Springfield the previous week.
that thev made an error by not reviewing the historic aspects of the project. He pointed out that the state has its own
list of historic preservation districts and they normallti go through their own checklist. if the City is interested in
stopping it. Mr. Crum thought d ey should do it through the fact that the state has not yet cleared it through their
historic preservation agency. He said that the state should take it under advisement because the City doesn't want to
see any more u ork incurred that the City might be responsible for until they clarify where they are coming from.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste wanted more information in relation to Alderman Moran's question. Mr. Crum responded
that the state had given the City authority to issue the letter saying "slow down." The City of Evanston cannot act
unilaterally without IDOT's permission, as the agency that holds the official contract for this project. Officially, the
City does not have the authority to stop the contract, Sir. Crum gave an overview of the work done so far on the $1.8
million contract: design work has been completed and installation of underground cables, which is probably worth
about 5100,000. and fabrication was started on the mast arms poles. He stated if that fabrication work stopped, they
would need to redesign something for post top poles, stop the general contractor while the redesign work is done,
and that the holes presently in the ground would be different from the new plan, because they are for the Oft. mast
arm posts. fir. Crum said there would be ramifications on the costs. at this point, they did not know who would be
responsible and what those costs would be.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste asked what fabrication work was being done? Mr. Jennings clarified that fabrication of the
mast arm poles had stopped for the ones within the Ridge Historic District, He said that presently, the contractor is
continuing to do u ork at intersections not in the district.
Alderman lean -Baptiste stated that he would vote in favor of the motion that evening. He thought at the next
meeting, %hen they are faced with the possibility of incurring millions of dollars in liability, it would weigh heavier
on his decision. He knew that a decision to stop this project and, perhaps pay damages and legal fees, would impact
programs that were on the "chopping block" last year when they work on the next budget. He urged the people with
clout, such as U.S. Rep. Schakowsky and state elected officials. to engage in aggressive negotiations with [DOT to
get some modification within the next 2-3 weeks.
Mayor Morton asked how they could help from the assembly (state) when it will recess in another week? Alderman
Bernstein responded that there are hearings held to obtain waivers. He pointed out that Ridge Avenue is an arterial
street that carries a lot of traffic, but is not a highway. He felt that on four corners, Ridge does not meet the mandates
of the statute. He reiterated his wish for Council to defer to state legislators to work with 1DOT to get a waiver.
Alderman Engelman stated that Alderman Jean -Baptiste raised a significant concern. He thought that evening's
proposed action could put the City further into "duck soup" because there would be a three-week delay and the
impact that might have upon the contractor. He cited Alderman Newman's earlier remarks about commitment
Council would be willing to put to this. Alderman Engelman stated that all Council members would fight as hard as
possible for evert neighborhood in this community, not just this neighborhood, but every neighborhood. He thought
they need to balance choices and noted that what is being proposed is to "pull out all the stops" and get the
combined weight of all of Evanston's legislative officers, focusing on this one issue. He speculated that they might
be able to pull it off. but cautioned that these legislators represent more than just this neighborhood and this city, and
there are only so many times we can go to the well. He noted that for S1.56 million, the well could be very deep, and
that was his concern about both the delay and the action being taken.
Alderman Wynne stated that Council is concerned about the potential costs of this projr:ct, not only in aesthetics. but
also in real dollars and that better answers are needed. She did not support the motion, as she did not have enough
information to endorse any plan. She pointed out that Ra Joy had indicated that U.S. Rep. Schakowsky was working
on the City of Evanston's behalf and she wanted to see what would be the result. Alderman Wynne noted that the
May 20, 2002
DRAFT COPY
see how the bronze -painted. single -arm signal v ocid. in any +.lay. deny the beau* of the tree canopy. She
envisioned it as a communi* that is to ing to pro-6 rde the best of both worlds — the ultimate in congestion mitigation
with new lights that Evanston could never afford -- plus the beauty of the trees. She would vote that night to support
the ongoing proposal for the new traffic signals Alderman Rainey thought that the new signals would work in
synchronization to move traffic and cut down on the jam-ups. She applauded the suggestion to remove the "No Left
Turn" signs at Dempster Ridge: agreed that the trussed am signal at Dempster Asbury was "horrendous" and
suspected if they had been more sensitive with that light fixture, they %could not be in this terrible mess.
Alderman Rainey stated she was mortified upon learning that there +ere 22 vehicular accidents in one year from
Oakton Street to Mulford Terrace along Ridge Avenue. She thought that was way too many accidents, especially in
the vicinity of a school and a hospital. She reported being in Iowa many times and could tell them that a lot of state
roads go right past people's homes. She did not think the fact that some of the studies had been done on state roads
lessened their impact. She thought that any improticment, especially synchronizing the lights, would be an added
safety feature and stated her disappointment that this project would not go forward.
Alderman Newman stated that he did not regard the people who expressed their views on what was going to happen
in the neighborhood as "purists." He regarded them as concerned citizens who had a point of view on how they want
their neighborhood to look. He pointed out that preservation is a high value in the neighborhoods of Evanston. He
remarked that, as a Council member who closely reviews packet materials, he had no idea about the mast arms here.
He thought the work was going to be on synchronizing and he knew what the cost would be. He suggested that
members of the A&PW Committee might have had more information on this project. Regarding the placement of
blame, he pointed out that it was not the neighborhood's fault that an application was submitted by the City that said
this was not a historic district. He termed the application "completely inaccurate" and noted that the state reached
out to the City, because they don't live here and asked if this was a historic district. Alderman Newman stated if they
had checked the right box, instead of saying, "this does not apply' that a different process might have begun at that
point. To compound the error, he noted, when asked if the people affected had been talked to, the response was that
there had been informal meetings. He remarked that one alibi he heard that evening was that informal meetings
equals City Council meetings. He did regard the vote of City Council as a measure of public support, which referred
to another part of the application. He commented that the people who live in that neighborhood did not get a fair
process from anyone because the value of those Aho completed the application, in his view, was not the same as
City Councils. He felt that preservation was a very strong slue with a majority of the Council. He asserted that the
preservation process never had a chance to worst because the proper boxes (on the application) weren't checked. He
questioned whether staff would make a serious effort to get a waiver from IDOT or if staff is willing to fight for this
neighborhood along Ridge Ave. to preserve what is there. More important, he noted, was whether the citizen
legislators agreed with the neighborhood and give it a chance to have a fair process that doesn't throw the credibility
of the City of Evanston into question. Alderman Newman thought the mast arms were inappropriate and cited the
example of the use of post top traffic signals in downtown Chicago along Franklin St. to preserve the ambience of
the theater district. He supported the motion.
Alderman Moran wanted an indication from the City Manager about the sensitivity of timing in relation to this -
motion. He noted that on the board is a S1.9 million project for modernization, synchronization and safety and
environmental improvements along the Ridge Avenue corridor and that 806/a of it would be reimbursed by the
federal government. He alluded to numerous scenarios earlier that evening where the City could face a loss of about
$1.5 trillion in funding should they depart from the standards that have been discussed. He said the other aspect is
that Council has been told that a contract is in place and activity with respect to it is proceeding. Alderman Moran's
perception is that the City would be threatened legally and financially should the City delay in such as fashion that
the contracting party, through a cessation of their activities, would lose the benefit of the deal. Given the size of that
contract, he pointed out, the City is at a momentous position financially on this project. He did not have a problem
with the motion if it was clear that waiting until the next Council meeting (June 10), did not put the City at -risk
f-utancialiy on two fronts — possibility of lawsuit (contactor) and loss of funding (stat0federal). He wanted to know _
where the City stands financially and legally?
DRAFT COPY
Special Joint Meeting — Part 2
Administration do Public Works Committee
Plannint? & De-.elonment Committee
Monda%. May 20, 2002
Citv Council Chamber
The joint meeting of the A&PW and P&D committees reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with Mayor Morton presiding to
continue the discussion on the Traffic Signal Replacement Project in the Ridge Historic District.
Alderman Bernstein reiterated that he did not ha%e enough information to make an informed decision. From what he
had heard from staff that evening, the black -letter law of IDOT indicates that the City of Evanston cannot do what it
would like to do. He reported having conversations with Congresswoman Jan Sehakowsky, Rep. Jeff Schoenberg
and Rep. Julie Hamos and they are working on behalf of Evanston in a legislative way that is different from what the
staff of [DOT is able to do.
Alderman Bernstein made a motion to abate the construction of the traffic lights, at least that portion that is non -
generic. He noted that the subsurface construction for the technology aspect of the project has continued on the
pretense that the interconnected wiring could be used regardless of what occurs at street level. In the short term,
rather than compound the mistakes made already. he would like to hold this item until Council has a report back
from the legislators (Schakowsky, Schoenberg and Hamos). Alderman Bernstein stated his motion had two parts: (1)
to authorize the City Manager to contact the contractor and abate all construction of materials relating to mast arms
along Ridge Avenue and (2) to hold taking further action until the June 10, 2002 City Council meeting. Seconded by
Alderman Newman.
Alderman Feldman sought clarification on the part of the construction that would be suspended. Public Works
Director David Jennings stated that the contractor had been directed to cease all work within the historic district,
which would include Church/Asbury, Church,'Ridge. Dmis'Asbury. Ridge/Lake, Ridge/Dempster. RidgelGreenleaf
and Ridge/Main. He said what was not included was Ridge/Davis, which is not in the historic district, and
everything south of Main St on Ridge Ave. Alderman Feldman asked Mr. Jennings, when he spoke of stopping
construction, did that include the fabrication of fixtures' Yes, it did. Alderman Feldman understood that fabrication
continues for areas outside of the historic district. Yes.
Alderman Feldman stated he would not support any solution that sectioned out various parts of Ridge Avenue and
treats them differently. He felt that all of Ridge Avenue should be included, regardless of whether or not the section
was part of the Ridge Historic District. He would support the motion if it included all of Ridge Avenue, plus these
two intersections: Davis/Asbury and Church/Asbury. Alderman Feldman said the solution he could support would
be new post tops with a variance, if the City could get permission and funds to do that. He remarked that [DOT's
present standards were absolutely unacceptable and he hoped that they would change.
Alderman Rainey remarked that, as Council members. they had done a disservice to staff that night in passing the
buck. She recalled voting on this matter three times and was fully aware on each of those occasions what she was
voting on. She knew she was voting on a state-of-the-art traffic signal modernization program that was being funded
SO% with federal dollars (coming through the state) and 206/6 City money. She pointed out that she had no
information at her disposal that other Council member did not have. Alderman Rainey asserted that, upon reviewing
minutes of the meetings when those votes were taken and the documentation from those packets. Council members
would know that this was not a program to repair traffic lights on Ridge Ave.
Alderman Rainey reminded Council that the City has a full-time preservation coordinator. She commented that the
job title meant that person is interacting with other members of the staff and a lot of the discussion that night
centered around whose fault was it that no one on the Preservation Commission knew about this? She did not think
that was so much the issue as was aesthetics. Alderman Rainey said to the "purists" in the audience that she did not
significant volt:.—.e? Are we, you know, is there a way to draw a
distinction between what they've done in the past and what our
situation is?
MR. :JJAHARI: They said they have never approved a
signal, modernization, interconnect project ever with post tops, that
they have always been mast a r+s.
CRAIPUMAN NEWMAN: Okay. There's two aldermen, but it
seems like we've got to go. Does everybody agree that we have to go
to our committee meetings?
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Just one more question.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: You'll get a chance later. I mean is
that okay?
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: No. It's very quick. It's a very
quick one. David, if this opportunity for federal funds was never
available, had not come up, the condition of the signals and the
system on Ridge Avenue would be such that you would recommend that we
do it without federal funds or not?
MR. JENNINGS: I don't think at our current level of
funding we could ever interconnect it. I think we would do a one or
two intersection per year replacement which is our current rate right
now.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Okay. We've got to go to the
committees. Is there a sense that we should continue this after the
consent agenda tonight? So we're going to -- I'm going to move to
adjourn until after the consent agenda, and we'll free to finish it
then. So I'm letting people in the audience know that we are going to
go to our committee meetings and probably get back here at a quarter
to 9:00 and we'll see where we are at that point. Okay.
(At which time there was
a break in the meeting.)
ALDERX-AN JEAN -BATISTE: And what is IDOT's comment
specifics:ly taken into account the fact that these modifications will
take place in a historic district? What did they say abc,:t the
concerns that we raised absut or the concerns that our local
preservation district has raised? What has been their specific
response?
MR. JENNINGS: Well, the letter that you were shown
earlier from IDOT indicates the mitigation that has been undertaken
already in the project design.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: Okay. In terms of the placement
of -- the variance that is being asked that we want to discuss with
IDOT, have they said that in historic districts and other places we've
installed mast arms and that has not been inconsistent with other
districts?
MR. JENNINGS: I haven't heard that statement.
MR. FUJAHARI: When we had our meeting on that Friday with
IDOT Local District 1, basically what they told us was that if we had
designed it with post tops they would have rejected the design and it
would have been redone with toast arms as it is now. They told me that
post tops are used on primarily two-lane highways of low volume. And
if you go to four lanes with volumes of any significance, the State
always wants mast arms; that that is their basic design standard.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: I'm going to have to jump in here. I
think we're going to have to go --
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: I'm trying to --
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: You want to just --
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: You just said that the State has
said that in every situation where there's been a four -lane highway
street with sianifirant vniiTmp. nisi ww rintorrnin• what is rhrt
'M.R. .?ENNINGS: The project as it is on paper right now is
designed per the state specifications. They approved the design.
A_D=R.M'AN JEAN-BAPTISTE: So the mast arm variation is the
only modifica=ion that we would be seeking from the State's
specification„ right?
Gi�.AIRMAN NEWMAN: He mentioned the quarter arm.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: Quarter arm, but mast arm anyway.
Is that correct? That would be the only variation that we're
seeking?
MR. JENNINGS: I'm confused. Are you talking versus the
post top.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: The compromise that has been
proposed is consistent with the State's proposal or specification in
all ways except for the mast arms, right?
MR. JENNINGS: No. The State would still have to approve
the existing locations if you went with the post top arrangement. It
would still have to approve that and that would be a variance, a
^49waver ^ waiver, or something, because they aren't where the current
standards say they should be.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: The questions that we asked of
the, of IDOT, you mentioned two questions. Did we put those questions
in light of the fact that these changes are occurring within a
historic district?
MR. JENNINGS: Not in the written question, but everybody
we're dealing with is aware of the current issues. I mean we didn't
say because it's in the historic district, but we had met face to face
with IDOT and gone through where we are. So I mean there was no
misunderstanding that it was historic or not.
placed. The air pollution has to do with the signal connection and
synchronization.. So, you know, I know you can't answer this, and
you're not the person that I'm arguing with, but it would seem to roe
that those arguments would hale to be made if in our approach to
the State. I mean, you know, so far every path that has been
suggested either by the community or the council or even has been
incompatible with one thing or another. And the representative from
Congress, Jan Schakowsky, indicated that she wanted all of the values
that we all have to be preserved. Well, so far it's very difficult
for me to see how that's going to happen without the City, the City
itself accepting full responsibility not only for canceling the
contract, but for deciding its own fate and spending the money
necessary to do it. I mean I haven't seen anybody give me any hope at
all that we can execute the contract and still have support from state
-- or from federal money. And do you --
MR. JENNINGS: I can't give you that support either.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: All right. Lionel?
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: Dave, who applied for the funds?
Evanston or the State?
MR. JENNINGS: Evanston.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: So the federal funds were granted
to the city of Evanston but IDOT has --
MR. JENNINGS: IDOT administers the program, right. IDOT
is a pass -through in this case. They supervise in the larger sense
the project because it's still a state route, it is an urban arterial
with about 20,000 cars a day and it is a state route.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: And besides this requirement that
we must do mast arms, are there any other requirements that the State
has asked us for that we have issues with?
ALDERMAN LDY.AN: Yes. David, tonight we've listened to
people talk about the possibility of not moving the present posts and
just repairing them or replacing them in the specisic location. That
would require two things: The ability to put the lights nn either the
present posts or new ones, but also it raises the same question which
is whether or not the funds would be available by doing just that.
MR. JENNINGS: My understanding is that it would require
local funding to do that approach. There would not be federal money
available to put them at a distance less than the requirements or
whatever the waiver would be granted if one were sought and granted.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: So according to your infort:ation, the
-- if we accepted the compromise of the neighbors, and that is to
repair or replace those posts, the cost would be bore by the city?
MR. JENNINGS: That's my understanding.
MR. NAGAR: Actually, any contract has to be approved by
IDOT irrespective.
MR. JENNINGS: Any contract that we enter into on Ridge is
going have to be approved by IDOT. If we dud it with our own funds
and our own staffing, I don't think that would still apply.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN- You're just raising another issue, and
that is the question that I asked is whether or not IDOT would allow
us to use the funds in the manner that was suggested by the community.
And you said you don't --
MR. JENNINGS: No. I don't I think no is the answer
to that one. I don't think they will divert these funds to do -- I'm
speculating at this point. I'm sorry. I don't think they mould.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: But one of the reasons clearly, and the
basis for the fund, had to do with air pollution. The air pollution
has nothing do with the architecture of the posts or where they're
M.R.-_-NNUNGS. We asked, as I said in the presentation, we
asked if we coLld d_ anything besides mast arms. And we received from
!DOT an e-mail today that said they would still be necessary on this
Project. T::ey wr,•sld consider the shortened mast arm, but it is their
policy and their practice to use mast arms on this type of project.
So we're sti11 :aced with that
ALOERKnN BERNSTEIN: Highways,
MS. CFATZ: What kind of project? Project in a historic
district? That's their --
MR. JENNINGS: Signal projects, signal projects.
MR. FUJAHA.RI: I asked our consultant V3 on Friday to
check about this "45waver " waiver of four feet, and he contacted
IDOT. And basically that's where this statement came from. Basically
IDOT came back and said to say exactly what they said would. I
believe we informed Evanston IDOT would allow reduced -length mast
arms, but mast ara:s are still necessary. Basically they're not
willing tc give us the four feet.
CHAIR.V.AN NEWMAN: But how hard have we attempted to
convince them that we need to get some type of waiver? Have we just
asked the general question or are we just --
MR. JENNINGS: Well, we asked them two questions. If
post -mounted traffic signals were installed instead of mast arms, can
a variance from a four foot -- from back of curb off -set guideline be
granted? Number two, if a variance would be granted for less than
four feet, what would the minimum distance be? The answer was that we
told you we would allow reduced -length mast arms, but mast arms are
still necessary. That was the answer to the question on the waiver.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Okay. I'm at the Council now, okay? So
I mean there will be another time and maybe we'll get to questions,
hvit T itin wi nht nr%w with the ,+nimr-1 l AlelnrMan ral ri++�ark7 -
everything that I've been trying to accomplish in this community, and
I think everything that most o! us have been trying to accomplish in
this ce.=unity fcr ry years on this podium. And to allow this to
happen -- notwithstanding the fact that it's going to cost us money,
that's another variah.e. We don't know exactly what it's going to
cos: us, but we have to know. I'm not going to change my mind, and I
try to remain open-minded unless and til I'm persuaded in a particular
way. But I am so concerned about the loss of that street. The
pleasure drive that was mentioned today, I last heard about it when
northwestern was disputing their inclusion of properties on the west
side of Sheridan Road. That, too, is a pleasure drive. You put up
these streets, we become something less than Evanston. I'm not
willing to let that happen.
CHAIRMAN NL%M..AN: Not seeing any other lights, David, I
have a few questions to ask. if you can come up here for a second.
There's been this claim, and I don't know what else to call it, that
somehow we can get a waiver on this four -foot rule or we might be able
to. Has that been discussed by the staff with anybody from IDOT?
MR. JENNINGS: Not that I know of, no. We know there are
waivers on certain projects because we investigated it when we were
looking at the McCormick project. But we have not specifically asked
on this.
CHAIRMAN NEtdMAN: All right. So we haven't asked that.
Now, in terms of the project that's ongoing, if we were able to get a
waiver, and at least in most of the area, which is neighborhood
historic district, that seems to entail this project, would we be able
to go forward with a project with the grant money that just if we
got a waiver that used the post tops instead of the mast arms?
MR. JENNINGS: I can't answer that, but I know that --
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Have we been trying to get an answer
over the last two weeks?
input from IDOT and what they will allow us to do on our own streets,
I'm not present -- not ready to go forward. Clearly, I don't want to
cost the city a nickel. We don't have it. don't want to cost it.
But we must take into consideration the fact, nurber one, as has been
stated here often tonight, we created the problem. The staff
presentation, the memo talked about rebuilding and interconnectivity.
Interconnectivity is an issue. That's why we got funds to address
the air quality from the agency from which we got those funds. We
submitted an application that was erroneous. I'm not saying it was
fraudulent, but the answers were wrong. We had in value a
preservation ordinance. Some weeks ago we told a property owner at
610 Callan that they couldn't expand the height of their roof line six
feet because it would have been in derogation of the standards of our
Preservation Ordinance. To me the additional six feet of height on a
property adjacent to the tracks on a one-way street, where if they
have ten cars a day it's a lot of cars, is not going to impact the
city as negatively as would the inclusion of those post arms.
People now have been screaming at me, those that
still scream at me, about the inclusion and the intrusion of
modern -looking edifices in city of Evanston. And almost every day
people come to me and say, "We're losing our style. We're losing our
traditional character. We're changing Evanston.' And my feeling has
been, I'm willing to change Evanston in certain areas. You want my
vote, go downtown, put up a 50-story building, I'll think about it;
but don't destroy the ambiance of the residential areas of this city.
Ridge Avenue, Ridge Avenue -- I just had lunch with the successful
bidder of the 1314, the District 65 building. He is an Evanstonian, a
preservationist, and I was heartened by the conversation that I had
with him. They got $2.8 million, I'm sure by this time everyone knows
about that, but had we not had the regulations governing what we can
and can't do on Ridge Avenue or in our historical districts, that
property would probably have been worth 10 or $15 million because
developers would have come in and just gone crazy with that.
So I think that what we're faced with now, I've
already got -- these are copies of the applications. I'm passing
them along. I don't think we should compound the problem that we've
crested by going forward with something that is totally contrary to
clear so that I understand what the compromise is. Compromise is to
either repair the present poles and put the new technology into then?
or tops.
MR. PAT.ON: Yes. And the new mast tops, new signal posts
ALDERMAN) FELDMAN: The new tops.
KR. PATTON: It will be a different kind of signal.
They're larger in diameter and more visible.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: And that would be either repair or
replace the --
HR. PATTON: The tops are going to be new and either
replace or repair the poles and the base.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Alderman Bernstein?
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Alderman. I think we've
gotten ourselves, and I include the staff along with city council,
into a rather untenable situation. And the only reason I think that
there's any consternation up here is because of the potential costs
not of going forward, but of stopping the project. A lot of what's
been not said is what I need to know; specifically, IDOT is the one
calling the shots with respect to the four -foot setback. I have had
communications with Representative Schoenberg, Representative Heymost,
with respect to their intervention with IDOT to determine whether or
not we can get a waiver or some kind of a variation. I would agree
with Steve, and thank you for your articulate presentation. These are
very visible. I don't think this is the super highway that IDOT talks
about when they mandate mast heads over an arterial street that
carries 20,000 cars.
So I'm not sure what we can come to, what I
decision we can come to tonight, because, quite frankly, absent the
paper for signatures, and we got signatures on a petition in two
hours cn May 5; 14 signatures against these lights in two hours.
-.ha.'s a lot of people who didn't say that they 'agreed " greed with
.his project, and that was only between our home at 941 Ridge and
Dempster on both sides. I mean if we'd had a few more hours to do
this, who knows how many signatures we could have gotten. i don't
know if they were the lost ones in Vera's portfolio, but I would like
to mention them.
The other things I'd like to say are that we hack
out onto Ridge Avenue from our home, and there is no other way for us
to get on or off Ridge. And if these lights that are now being
organized so that the traffic will be smoother make the traffic a more
consistent pattern, I don't know how we're going to get in and out of
our driveway. Because as it is now, we wait for the lull, and if
here is no lull, we stay home or we don't get home.
The other thing I would like to say is that my
family has lived in Evanston for four generations, and I remember as a
child Ridge Avenue with that canopy of leaves and the beauty in the
fall; that one day when they all turn gold, and then there's a wind
that picks up and they start swirling around. I would not want that
to be lost because of a bunch of arms sticking out obscuring that
beauty. I wouldn't want it for myself, I certainly wouldn't want it
for my children or their children who may come back here to live, too.
Anyway, I hope you'll think of these things. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: All right. Thank you. All right.
We've now concluded our list of speakers. Just so I can get a sense
here, how many people who are attending here tonight oppose the mast
arms? Can you just raise your hands?
Okay. That gives us an idea of the people
attending. Does anybody favor mast arias who came to speak in favor?
No brave sole is here tonight.
I think we have a few minutes to discuss this.
Is there anybody -- I see Alderman Feldman's light. Do you want to
start.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Yes. I just want to get something
congestion and the pollution, everything else, if you would enforce a
no trucks on Ridge. I see that now they have down -graded the things
on Ridge by allowing B plates, which I don't have that much objection
to, because, frankly, many of those are smaller than what I call the
urban tanks or SUVs. But they haven't done anything about stopping
the trucks; construction trucks full of concrete and gravel and semis
and moving vans and all this stuff are still pounding up and down the
street day and night. Nothing has been done to stop that. It doesn't
do any good to put bigger fines if you don't even stop them and give
them a ticket. And that would help a whole lot because my house is
very close to the street being older, and I'm going to be one of those
people with the light in my bedroom.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Thank you. Mr. City Manager, we asked
that you talk to the chief at P s D last time. So I'd like to get a
report on enforcing the no trucks on Ridge so we can get some answers
there.
Okay.
All right. I have left Cheryl Munow. Thank you.
It looks like Esther Berman at 1232 Ridge.
MS. BERMAN: We are the second house from the corner on
the west side of Ridge. And I just want to say that our family has
lived there for 22 years. We love it. We want to keep it the way it
is. We urge you, please, not put those lights with the mast -- what
is it called, mast arms. we urge you, please, don't. I know that I'm
going to see those flickering lights in my bedroom even though I'm not
in the corner. Thank you very much, and I really want to thank Steve.
That was a wonderful -- Is he asleep? No? Thank you. That was
very -- that was a very impressive presentation, and I want to thank
you. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Charlotte Hart?
MS. HART: I'm Charlotte Hart. I live at 941 Ridge. My
husband Bob and I have never been to a city council meeting, but this
has meant so much to us that we went to Vera Chatz's house and got
poles. Use some of your money to hire kids to scrape and paint the
bases and the poles during the su..-zer. That would work. That the
City explore alternate funding fcr such a project if IDOT doesn't give
you the money. One thing would be to put a bike path down the side of
Ridge Avenue and make it one direction in each way. That would clean
up the air and would get a different kind of funding. And that if
somehow this is overruled at some point along the way whether it be
you, and I hope you don't do that, or it be IDOT, that the Commission
be involved in suggesting the type of workmanship and the
configuration of whatever project is approved.
Further, there was a motion that was unanimously
approved that we would like to request a meeting with you guys, the
City Council, and staff to discuss this project in greater depth. We
want to be involved. We don't want to be obstructionists, but you
should have come to us in the beginning; and to say, well, it's too
late now is the wrong approach. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Thank you. All right. Barbara 5mutnik.
MS. SMUTHIK Smutnik.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN. I missed the "I."
MS. SMUTNIK: I want to thank Barbara for remembering
those of us who are south of the historic district. I've lived 42
years in my house which parts of which are over 150 years old.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: What's your addres97
MS. SMUTNIK: 701.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: 701 Ridge?
MS. SMUTNIK: Yeah. And there are many interesting houses
along where I am that are old, many old houses well kept -up and
beautiful variety of homes and things. But the main point I wanted to
make was last time I mentioned the fact that mnie a miles rvira tha
Standard No. 6, rhythm of entrance porches, front
recesses, and other projections. The relationship of entrances or
other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with the
property structure, sights, public ways, objects, and places to which
it is visually related. The projection into the street is far too
large and it didn't meet that standard.
Seven, the relationship of materials and
structure. The relationship of materials and structure of the facade
or object shall be visually compatible with predominant materials used
in the structures to which it is visually related. A large, metal
sleek -lined, sleek pole, modern pole is not compatible, so that didn't
meet that standard.
Standard number 10 it did not meet. The scale of
a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open
spaces, windows, door openings, porches, and balconies shall be
visually compatible with the properties, structure, sights, public
ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. I don't
think I have to go into this again. A mast arm that extends -- that's
20 feet high that extends half way through an intersection is too big.
Number 12, the distinguishing original qualities
or character of the properties, structure, sight, or object and its
environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or
material distinctive architectural features should be avoided whenever
possible. Putting these mast arms in the middle of the intersections
will destroy the character.
And the last one that it doesn't meet, signs.
Any sign that is readily visible from a public street shall not be
incongruous to the historic character of the landmark or the district.
Putting a decorative base on a structure that extends out into the
middle of the street is -- it's like putting Disneyland in downtown
Evanston. It doesn't make it any less. What people object to is not
the base. They object to the mast arm.
Now, the motion that we came up with
was -- It has several components, and this was voted on unanimously.
Because it does not meet, we moved that the city halt work on the
entire project, that we encourage you to explore the feasibility of
new wiring and -controls with revair and restoration of the existing
the entire block an the west side of the street is a landmark condo
building, and that is also on the corner o: Hull Terrace where there
is a light. These mast arm fixtures don't belong anywhere on Ridge
Avenue. we =ay have some protection is that Ridge Historic District,
but it doesn't mean that the people who live south who don't have the
protection should have to put up with these fixtures that are not
appropriate in a residential neighborhood.
At the Preservation Commission on Thursday night
we reviewed this project just as we review every project, and I'd like
to go over the standards which were cited. Incidentally, I spoke with
Ann Hacker at IHPA as to why we were not consulted prior to their
meeting. I think there may have been some misunderstanding. I'm not
going to say who's right and who's wrong, but she indicated to me that
they were led to believe that the Preservation Commission did not have
any say in this. And the normal procedure is we review it, we give
our recommendations to IHPA. They have not given their written
recommendations yet. So what they may have said verbally in the
meeting is not necessarily what the written recommendations are going
to be.
Now, I'd like to go over the standards that we
used. The first standard is height. Height shall be visually
compatible with property, structure, sights, public ways, objects, and
places to which it is visibly related. These mast arms extend out over
the intersection at a height of 20 feet, and the light, the lights
themselves are between 16 and 18 feet above the street. That is going
to put these mast arms in some people's bedroom windows. And so every
time at night the light changes there's going to be a blink, and I
don't think that people would be real appreciative of having the
lights going on and off all night in their bedrooms.
Our standards two, three, and four did not apply.
Our standard five, rhythm of spacing and structures on the street.
The relationship of a structure object to the open space between it
and the adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible
with the properties, structures, sights, public ways, objects, and
places to which it is visually related. These mast arms will be right
in the center of the open space, so that did not meet the standard.
MR. STAFFORD: Tcm Stafford from Croft Lane, just one
block off Ridge Avenue. I'd like to speak against the mast traffic
signals and in favor of the post top compromise suggested earlier. I
believe that safety can be enhanced by adequate enforcement of our
current traffic regulations. I think that if we talk to the judges at
Old Orchard and told them to place adequate fines on these violators
such that it would compensate the city for having a lawyer, for having
a policeman go to prosecute the violation, we would slow down traffic
considerably on Ridge Avenue by adequate enforcement, and we also
might be able to generate some revenue for the city such as is
generated by the parking enforcement.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Thank you. Barbara Gardener?
MS. GARDENER: I'm Barbara Gardener, and I'm the chair of
the Evanston Preservation Commission and home owner in the Ridge
Historic District. At the beginning of the century, Ridge Avenue was
Evanston's most aristocratic street. It was cited as the cathedral of
the elms. It was designated a pleasure drive in 1990 as was Sheridan
Road. Lots along Ridge were two times as valuable as lots near the
lake. I think that was the basis for the development along Ridge
Avenue, and it continued up through the 160s when the City decided
that somehow these big old houses weren't viable anymore and they
changed the zoning from Grove north to institutional use; and that was
at the same time that the banks were red -lining over in the Dewey
Community Conference. And in the '60s when the last time that Ridge
Avenue was repaired and repaved, it was turned into a four -lane
street. The residents have stayed. I'm probably one of the youngest
home owners on this street. I've talked to people who have been here
40, 42, 45, 30, 18. I mean people come and stay here because they
love it. The Ridge Historic District part of Ridge is from Main up
through Davis. In the area from Hain to Church, which is eight
blocks, there are 77 houses, 27 of which are landmarks. There are
eight landmarks south of Hain street. On the corner of Oakton and
Ridge, 50 percent of the intersection are landmark properties. If you
go one block more south to Austin between Austin and Hull Terrace on
So I ask each of you to cast your vote to endorse
the recc Y.e:.dations of your own ?reservation Co.-inission. Stop this
pro:ezt. Of the hearings that you should have had three years ago,
dec,ce what yzu want to do, decide what's right to do, and don't worry
as much about the federal rc.-ey as you worry about the citizens of
this town. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NEWK:L'4: Okay. I've had a request from one
member to ask the people to try to limit it at this point to two
minutes. I have six more speakers. Ann Dienner?
MS. DIENNER: Could I have just the mic, save of a little
time. I live at 1034 Sheridan Road. Sheridan Road is also a main
thoroughfare, and from what I understand, there are plans for Sheridan
Road which might be very similar to what the Ridge Avenue Historic
District is going through. I am in a historic district. In fact, the
Lake Shore Historic District was the first one defined in the city. I
concur heartily with what Steve has said. I think, indeed, people are
for safety and upgrading, but it is very important to keep the
ambiance in tact and so that future generations can enjoy what we're
enjoying now. So remember whatever you do now, we're going to be
living with for another 20 or 30 years, and maybe a lot of us won't be
around then, but we'll have our heirs, our friends, and neighbors
perhaps. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: All right. Is it Robert Munow at 1729
Oakton? Is it --
MR. MUNOW: It's Munow. Hi. I live at 1729 Oakton.
Raise your hand if you're my alderman. Just joking. I just want to
tell my neighbors in the historic districts that, you know, I really
get behind Ridge and all the trees and everything, and it's a
beautiful place and it should be preserved as best as possible. And I
just hope the Council will strike some kind of compromise with the =
historic district and the neighbors. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Thank you. All right. Tom Stafford?
has just pointed out, did not follow th-a proper procedures necessary
within a historic district. Three things: Review by the Preservation
Commission, pub..c hearings, and notification of residents.
Now, last month when word of this project came to
light only beca•.:se construction on it had begun, I've got the original
letter that Jerry Gordon wrote, and it was dated April 17. So we've
had less than a --onth to prepare what we've had to prepare in order
for this project to be halted. Anyway, at that time it became evident
that the comnunity was strongly opposed to this project. Petitions
were circulated, flyers were printed, meetings were held, people
called their aldermen. Subsequently you discovered that your
congressional representative opposed the project, Jan Schakowsky, came
out strongly against the project. Last Thursday, the members of your
own Preservation Commission finally having had the public hearing that
they should have had three years ago, told that you they oppose the
project. Also in opposition, and I found this on my parkway this
morning in front of one of the trees, and since we are a very activist
community here, I guess even our trees are activists, because they
also had a contribution to make. Even they had an opinion.
The City presently is engaged in a lawsuit with
Northwestern University regarding the establishment of the historic
district in North Evanston. If you don't support your own
Preservation Commission in asking that this project be stopped, how
can you even think of creating yet another historic district? So
who's in favor of this project? Employees of the city who tomorrow or
next week or next year may well be working somewhere else. And that's
their right. They're totally within their ^rights " writes to move
from job to job to job. But we also have rights. We who choose to
make our permanent residence here and to educate our children in these
schools, and, in my case, even our grandchildren. If we choose to
stay within this beautiful quirky city, then we citizens have rights
as well. These city workers may be gone some day, but those of us who
stay always will have to live with a series of ugly, overhanging
traffic signals along the street whose canopy of trees will never be
the same. That canopy of greenery will be gone forever. The nature
of our street, and it's not just our street, but it's our city as
well, is going to be unalterably changed for the worse.
that precious Ridge corridor intact. Thanks.
CHAIRXAN NEWMAN: Thank you. Lionel, can we keep on going
for a few minutes until 7:30? Well, we'd like to get some Council
discussion somewhere, but we have eight or nine more speakers. And I
hope they're not, you know -- we're not going to be able to complete
this if they're all a half hour. 5o Vera Chatz, you're next.
MS. CHATZ: I'm going to go up here, please. This is
going to be very brief, Art, so. First of all, I wonder if somebody
may have by mistake picked up a manila envelope that included copies
of my speech, copies of the original application, and some original
petitions? I can't find it. So it's a big manila envelope. Look
through your things and see if you have it.
This presentation I made to the Preservation
Commission, and I'm not going to go over it in the interest of time.
But you can see some of these new mast top signals in various places
both in Chicago and Evanston and along the north shore. The middle,
left, and the one right next to it are of Sheridan Road in Chicago
looking both north and south. You'll see that you look through
Sheridan Road from mast head to mast head to mast head, and that is
all that you see. The picture right next to it is of Ridge Avenue of
the trees right now along Ridge Avenue. And imagine, if you will,
that you were looking from mast head to mast head to mast head on that
street. The other one that I call your attention to is the lower
right and the picture right above it. The lower right photograph was
taken just west of Sherman Avenue on Grove, and you'll see it's a
warning light. It's a warning sign that announces to you that you're
going to come to a traffic signal. And what kind of a traffic signal
is it? It's a mast top signal which is supposed to be so very
visible. And all along Green Bay Road in Winnetka where mast tops
have been installed, before each mast top signal there is one of these
signs that let's you know that you're coming to a traffic light.
You aldermen have a very important decision to
make, but it's not a difficult decision because the elements are very
clear-cut. Three years ago federal funding was sought for a project
for traffic light improvement by employees of this city who, as Steven
what are the other values that need to rA balanced.
Third and final :Lin;, the excuse they give about
the rusted -out poles. -hat came up `.r tie first time last Thursday
night at the Preservaticn Coz.-.1iss:or.. A n•-ber of us went and
surveyed at least every role on Ridge Aven_e. We found one pole that
had a rusted hole. It's at the southwest corner of Hull Street. We
found one pole that was bent over at 0e=pster and Ridge. You saw a
picture of that. And I invite you. Are these pretty? No. They have
surface rust. And actually if you go around our city, you'll find
that many of our street lamps also have surface rust as well. And I
understand that the City budget includes sore hundred thousand dollars
go through and repaint -- and I can tell if you these were my street
lamps what I would do and if these were my light signals, I would
either sand them or sand blast them and paint them with rustoleum. If
the City decides not to do that, that it's =ore cost-effective, that
it's better to replace them or substitute, then fine, they can do
that. One of our group checked to see -- First of all, the
configuration, as many of you know, is a very simple configuration.
The original basis for octagonal, there's a picture of one right
behind Alderman Feldman there. Most of those have already been
replaced. Those might have been 30 or 40 or 50 years, but if you
look, most of our signals are a square base. It's a replacement base.
It's a very simple straightforward box and there's a four -inch
internal diameter tube. All right. Now, a local plumbing supply
store or company that will remain unnamed said how many, Jerry, that
you could get for $6,000?
JERRY: Forty posts to take it to the pavement.
MR. PATTON: That's the flanges and the poles. Are these
components available? They appear to be. I live just up from Lake.
We had a woman who ran one of these over about a month ago, and within
24 or 48 hours an they did a great job, just like they always do, they
got the new pole up or the replacement components. The components are
available. There's no need to change the locations, replace the
existing post tops. If you want to substitute new components or new
end, do that, but leave the architectural and historical integrity of
:nterstate highways, to U.S. highways, or Iowa State roads. Okay.
Ncw, I talked to the principal investigator on this study this
norning. He's no longer at Iowa State. He said he couldn't -- it's
been two or three years since they collected the data on this. He did
n-t believe that any c_ these lczations were in solely residential
areas, okay? But I can tell you -- and he couldn't be sure about
that. gut at least 54 percent -- and I can go through the list. I
tried to underline some of these to just show you. The ones
underlined are U.S. highways or Iowa state roads: US 6, Us 6, I35/80
entrance ramps, Iowa 192, Iowa 92. These are all state highways.
They're interstate entrance ramps. Okay. That's the basis of the
data that you've been provided to say you're going to have a 54
percent reduction in vehicular collisions, all right? And maybe it
has some applicability here. I question that. But fundamentally
there are values in addition to safety that we would ask you to
consider.
An analogy: I'm told 22 years ago when there was
discussion about the talmadge lights. And some of the same type of
staff, their predecessors came, this was before my time in Evanston
and said put our lights in. And I bet I could go on the internet
tonight and studies that say arc lights are safer. They reduce crime
more than these smaller type lights we have that are very aesthetic
and they're very nice.
Now, your predecessors balanced some competing
values some 22 years ago. They looked at public safety, I'm sure, but
they also looked at what made Evanston unique. And they looked at the
aesthetic value and what really distinguishes this community, and they
found a middle ground. They found lights that illuminate and that do
provide public safety, maybe not as much as those ugly arc lights that
you have in the city of Chicago, but they still illuminate. And I
don't think there's a member of this panel that would second-guess
that decision today.
And I urge you, view that same analysis, do that
same way, you know. Being against safety, invoking safety as an =
after -the -fact excuse, it's like being against motherhood and apple
pie. A11 right. What kind of safety? Is it vehicular collision or
is it pedestrians? All right. Is this really going to be safer? But
traffic engineer. We found a lithe support for this. I: you are in
a residential area where you've got people and kids and old folks and
people going to Church and to parks and so forth, I don't think you
wart people looking :fi cr iB feet up in the air in the middle of the
street or even nine feet into the middle of the street. I think you
wan: them looking at those intersections, looking to see if there is
some kid that's going to run into the street. And that's why I
question whether, although this -- these studies are right insofar as
the circumstances that they address, and I wouldn't argue with it, is
that really the safest course for Ridge Avenue? We don't have any
data that shows that it is.
Let me briefly go through these studies. First
of all, this point that I just mentioned to you, we found some
support. My wife actually did an internet search last night, and, you
know, this is from -- I think it's a Connecticut manual which seems
to support the point. I don't know. And, again, I don't purport to
be an expert, but what it says makes intuitive sense to me. Signal
head location has an effect on accident potential and traffic
efficiency. Signal heads should be placed for optimum visibility
during critical pedestrian vehicular movements. Head placement, and
that's the tops, head placement should not cause motorists to look up
rather than in front and to the side. And that's what I'm saying.
You know, McCormick, that's a different situation where people cross
there; but in a narrow residential street. Now, in terms of the
specific studies that have been cited, the principal --
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Are we almost -- we're almost wrapped
up?
MR. PATTON: We're almost wrapped up. The Iowa State
study was based on 94 projects, okay, 94 intersections, where a
variety of changes were made; some seven different types of
improvements or changes. One of those seven was replacement of post
top with mast arms, okay, and of those 94 projects, 33 involved this
particular kind of change. Now, we don't know which of those 33 are,
but the 94 locations, and I'll just briefly show you some of these,
something like 56 percent of them involved either entrance ramps to
narrow street. -n _act, it is no wider than a lot of twe-lane streets
with traffic on e:tner side. Now what does that mean about the
positioning of the existing post-tcp signals? Are those post for
signals way off t: the side where sswebody who is not paying attention
is going to miss tne= and you're going to have more vehicular
collisions? No. _ mean I can walk right out my front door and go out
to the curb and I :an look right do:rn and I can see signal after
signal. I invite you to do that. They're very, very visible because
they're right there. You can't miss them. That's distinguishing
feature number one. To use an example, McCormick. I wouldn't be up
here telling that you we should put post top signals on McCormick
Boulevard. Okay. 'hose are the kinds of intersections and streets
we're talking about. And I'm not going to argue that it's not safer
in that setting under those circumstances to have your mast arms as
opposed to post taps. That's not what we're dealing with with Ridge
Avenue.
The second thing is that these areas that are the
subject of these studies, insofar as we can tell from the studies, and
certainly it's true for the Iowa State study which is the most --
with the most robust data and certainly it's the principal source that
they cite, they do not appear to be in residential areas or even
downtown or other commercial areas where there is dense pedestrian
traffic. Now, why does that matter? Alderman Rainy, you asked the -
question, I don't think you got an answer tonight, or maybe it wasn't
as clear as I would like to be. Not one of these studies specifically
examines what affect mast arias has on the effect of pedestrians. To
the extent they include data about pedestrians, it is included in
total vehicular data. We don't know what effect mast arm as opposed
to post top has on people, okay. And why is that? Because most of
these study areas appear to be commercial rural areas where it's very,
very unlike a downtown area, very, very unlike Ridge Avenue where
you're talking about a narrow -- it is an arterial street, no question
about it, but it is a residential street where there is at least one
school, two or three churches, a couple of parks; and what makes it -
even more important, a number of crossings that don't have lights or
signals.
Now, here is my intuitive case. And I'm not a
original application, but it is also clear it was confined at
Thursday night's landmark or Preservation Commission meeting by Mr.
Cr=. Originally what the city proposed was we're going to use
existing post t-ps. We're going to modernize it, the LED signals and
the 12 inch as opposed to the 8 inch. It was a consultant who said go
ahead while you're at it and use the mast arms that resulted in the
problem that we now have.
Now, we've heard a lot of talk about safety now.
These statistics --
CHAIR!4;N NEWMAN- Do you know when that consultant gave
that recommendation?
MR. PATTON: I don't have the date of that, and I'm
relying on what Mr. Crum said at the Preservation Commission on
Thursday night in terms of that being the source of the change. They
cite several studies. Like any research, finding, or conclusion, the
conclusion is only as good as the circumstances an which it's based.
If you try to draw some black and white test or rule from something
that applies to a totally different circumstance, it's not going to
help you very much.
I'm going to go through a couple of these studies.
I've now looked at all of them. And what I think -- it's not always
clear what the basis is for most of them. The most detailed and the
principal one that the City relies upon is an Iowa State study done
for Iowa DOT in March of 2001. I do know about that and I know the
basis for that. But there were two very important features about
these studies. They appear to, an certainly the Iowa study, involved
wide multi -lane highways, principally in rural or commercial areas
where, due to the width of the highway and the distance between
signals, post tops -- when you've got a wide four- or six -lane
highway, a post top signal off to the side is not nearly as visible,
no question about it, as something that's right in front of you.
Okay. Now, think about that for a minute, and then I'm going to show
you some excerpts from a couple of these studies.
How does that compare with what we have at Ridge?
Ridge, as you know, particularly in the affected area here, is a very
upgrading these s_yrals; interconnect ivity, connecting them by wiring,
installing new si7na'_ heads, these are going to be LED as opposed to
incandescent lights; .'ey're going to be 12-inch diaweter at opposed
to 8 inch. We aon't ha.*e a problem wits any of those things. We
don't have any intent cf standing in the way of that. There is one
Feature and one feature only, and that is the use of the mast arms.
And I'd now like to address the arguments. We
have, since the very first meeting, at least the public meeting on
this, the Planning and Development Committee, we've come in, and I
think generally it's been a lot of emotional feeling about this, but
we've tried to search for some middle ground. And, quite frankly, we
have found ourselves in an adversarial setting with our own city
staff, where every meeting I go to I have a different excuse that we
now have to back down. And those of you who have attended these
meetings, we have three of them now, and they've changed over time and
they change yet again tonight. And I submit with all due respect to
the city staff here, these are after -the -fact justifications that were
never cited at the time as the rationale for this project, and they're
now being used after the fact to try to justify what was plainly a
mistake, a failure to comply with the law, a failure to take into
account the historic landmark nature.
Let me g❑ through those. first we heard and we
heard it again tonight, mast arms are safer than post top signals and
will reduce the number of accidents. Second thing I'm going to
address is the existing signal poles and the bases are, the city
manager said the other night, they're rusted through, quote, unquote,
said that on two occasions. They have to be replaced. We heard a
slightly different version tonight, surface rust, one is leaning, and
so forth. I want to address that. And then, third, installing new
post tops will entail a one-year delay and because IOOT regulations
require four -foot setback; they could entail, could entail trimming
and perhaps even removing as many as 50 trees.
Let's go to what I know is your concern, Alderman
Rainy and others, about the safety. This was not cited as a rationale
for this project at the time the application was made. In fact, the
original application called for using the existing signals, just c
putting new post tops on them. Now, that appears to be clear from the
weetings."
CHA=RYA:; NEoW.AN: That implies the community, and I don't.
think the cc^^u•:nity was notified here at this point, but we'll keep
.on going " ongoing. They're saying the city council meetings were
the informal meetings.
N.R. GORDON: Gerald Gordon. At those city council
meetings, did the traffic engineer inform that you he was talking
about intending to install mast arm lights or was he talking about the
coordination of the traffic lights and traffic flow?
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Do you want to answer it? Go ahead.
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: I'm reading from the City of Evanston
agenda sheet for the meeting that to which David made reference
earlier; namely, May 10 of 1999. Description of the action we're
about to take was the consideration of a resolution which indicates
that the City has sufficient funds committed to the fund of the
engineering portion of the grant which will, and this is the important
part, rebuild and interconnect 20 traffic signals on Ridge, Church,
and Davis.
I know that, and again, I don't want to take time
because we'll talk later, but rebuild and modify or change totally, to
me, are different things. So to the extent that this is the reference
that's being made about the informal meetings having been conducted;
maybe I was asleep at the switch, but had I known at the time the
intent to put in these arms that were like those at Dempster and
Asbury, I would clearly have had questions, you know. And I still
don't question the need for the technology and the improvements and
the upgrading of those posts.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Go ahead, Steve.
MR. PATTON: It's a good segue, because the second thing I
want to address is a compromise. We are -- and I don't purport to
speak for the concerned public here, but certainly those of us who
live on or near Ridge, we're not trying to stand in the way of
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Do you want --
ALDE?'".A..4 .7EAN-DAPTISTE: Just a minor goes:ion. Did we,
in fact, have meetings leading up to this project?
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: The City Council like the capital
improvement meeting --
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: He we had had city council
meeting and we had A & PW meetings?
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: I assume there was.
ALDER.KAN RAINY: Yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No one in the neighborhood was notified.
ALDERMAN JEAN-BAPTISTE: So there were meetings so we
even, by saying informal meetings, we even undermine the extent to
which there was scrutiny.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me. I live at 1232 Ridge which
is one house from the corner. And I want to let you know that I never
received any notification about the lights. The first time I heard --
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Can you put the application back up
there for a second. Let's see what it says. The question on the
public comment.
MR. PATTON: First of all, it said is there public
support.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: We saw that part. There was public
support. The City Council supported it. I understand.
MR. PATTON: And here is the part I was referring to.
'Has the affected public been involved/informed? Yes. How? Informal
why I dire=ted your attention to the firs: paragraph. It's not to
deny what is in the second, third, or fourth paragraphs. :he city
staff has already mentioned that. It is to bring to your attention
that there is no question that the Act applies, that there is no
disrste that there's an adverse effect, there is no dispute that the
Act was not complied with as it was supposed to be as a project was
being developed and approved, and that there is an after -the -fact
attempt to back and fill and approve, which we do not believe and you
might reasonably disagree, would be sustained if it were subjected to
judicial scrutiny. Now, that's not why I'm here tonight. And I'd
like to really get into the meat of it. It's to see if we couldn't
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Here is what I want to remind you of,
and then I'll come to you. Because at some point tonight, and I just
want to tell you what the schedule is, at some point the individual
committees of the council have to meet tonight. And I think the
latest P 6 D can get started is at 7:30. And I don't know what the
latest -- A and PW is saying they want to start at 7:00. Now, what
this means is this, and I have one person over here who doesn't want
me to shorten anything. What's -- a decision by the Council is going
to have to be made to some extent on this project tonight, and what's
going to happen here is this: I have ten more -- I have seven or
eight other people here, and at 7:30 -- or 7:00 o'clock, we're going
to get up and we're going to go and we're growing to do our committee
meetings. And everybody here who came is going to have to wait two to
two and a half hours for us to come back to get to this. I want to
let everybody know. Because I'm not trying to make you waft for two
and a half hours. So you keep on going, but at some point we're going
have to have a 20-minute to a half-hour discussion. And I want to
tell you, I am very interested in what you're saying. I mean, you
know, your presentation is highly insightful. But I just want to let
you all know at some point we're going have to move.
MR. PATTON: If we don't have further interruptions, and I
welcome them because we are trying to get to the bottom of this, I
think I can be done in ten minutes.
meeting?
MR. JENNINGS: It would not.
CHAIRMAN !;E%vAN: I find it hard for somebody reading that
application to get the gist that informal greetings meant City Council
of Evanston rreeting. Can you go ahead?
MR. PATTON: I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Wait. I have -- Do you want to ask
questions thus far? I have Steve and then Lionel
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: If I might just suggest to Alderman
Feldman that we do have an advocate for the staff's position, and
that's the staff. And I think they've had an opportunity to make
their case and will continue to make their case. So to the extent
that there are extrapolations from certain documents, I think that's
what the neighbors are trying to do; and I would submit that in my
mind, and my turn will come to talk later, but had we had these
informal meetings, these issues would have been raised two years ago
and some accommodation may have been determined. So I think that's
the input.
MR. PATTON: If I could respond to your question and your
comment to me, Alderman Feldman. I don't think there is any dispute
about what IHPA, we've been told it was reluctant and there's some
dispute about that, ultimately did when this was dropped in their laps
and they were told it was too late to now go back on the project.
Those facts were mentioned this evening. They mention it -- have been
mentioned at every meeting that I've attended. So the rest of this
letter we've heard about.
What we haven't heard about, okay, is the fact,
at least I've never seen anybody stand up and present to you all and
to the public, the application that led us to this point, or to bring --_
up to the Council what I think is a very germane fact in looking at
how do we get ourselves out of this problem. The fact that if you go
back to the legal requirements, there is an adverse effect, and that's
we're citing, if we're using these Feople as a resources, then we use
them as a resource. If they're not, it's very hard for quotes to be
taker out of context and for us to nct know everything.
MR. PATTON: Then let's look at the complete letter --
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Can - just finish?
MR. PATTON: Sure, you can.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: And, also, the third paragraph says,
"Ta mitigate, to mitigate any adverse effect on the new signals. IDOT
will ensure installation of posts and mast arms of the single
horizontal arm design." Now, I'm not making a case for any of this.
All I want us to have is a presentation that's reasonable and not just
as in a courtroom weighted, because we don't have any other -- we
don't have a defense attorney here. I mean this isn't a proceeding
where you have an advocate and a protagonist. We don't have that. So
all I'm interested in finding out is what's real and the truth, and if
you can shed light on that in that matter, it would help you.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: While we're on that subject, is there
somebody from the staff who can tell me what it means informal
meetings with the public? What were we thinking of? Informal
meetings don't refer to city council meetings to me. what are
informal meetings?
MR. JENNINGS: Well, that is the meeting. It went through
Council.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: But you Can't -- Wait, wait. So we're
saying that the informal meetings that appeared an that application
meant a meeting of the city council?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: It didn't mean an informal neighborhood
undisputed, there are adverse effects. IDOT admits that. The Statute
and tie Regulations have not been complied with, and we now know that
the reascn why they were not complied with is not because, as I've
heard at several of these meetings, IDCT somehow dropped the ball by
not telling IHPA about the historic landmark district that much of
this project is going to affect and is located in. It was the
original application, and that's what I was trying to point to from
the first paragraph of that letter. They also --
ALDERMAN RAINY: Could all of the aldermen get a copy of
that original application? Because I know even though I'm on
Administration & Public Works I don't have a copy of that. 5o at some
point in time if we could get that.
MR. PATTON: Yes. The application also, we believe, was
less than accurate when it represented that there was local support
for this. It asked local acceptability of federally accepted public
involvement program will be prepared during project development. Is
there local support generally? Yes. And then they went on to answer
a question in terms of how the public was apparently notified of this,
and they represented that there were informal meetings. Has the
affected public been involved/informed? Yes? Row? Through informal
meetings. This was in March of 2000.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Alderman Feldman?
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Well, my comment has to do, runs along
the sane lines as Ann's. I want people to understand that at least
this alderman, and I'm certain all the rest of us, are really
interested in getting it at some kind of a truth here. And it doesn't
help us if certain sections of a letter are stated and used for the
case and other sections of the letter are dismissed as not -- as
being against the case. I mean it just doesn't help us that way. I
don't know ghat I'm supposed to believe.
For example, when they say, "While the latter are
more intrusive in appearance, they are no more modern than the post
top and they do provide significant safety benefits." I mean that,
landmark properties because of the requirements of the Federal Act.
And here is what the application said on that subject. Part III of
the standard application form, en--i o=ental and special data, the not
applicable was filled in by the City. With respect to cultural
resources involvement, check all that apply: Historic district, there
is no check. Now, these aren't the only misstatements in the
application that led us t❑ the problem that we have here tonight.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Exc+:se me for a second, Alderman Rainy.
You have a question?
ALDERMAN RAINY: Well, I don't have a question, but given
the fact that some of us have a copy of this May 9 letter, I think it
would only be fair for you to point out the second paragraph in that
letter where the argument is made by the writer of the letter who you
point out made negative comments, also made some very neutral to
positive comments about the lighting improvement program.
MR. PATTON: We don't dispute --
ALDERMAN RAINY: You don't dispute it, but -- You don't
dispute it, but there are people who haven't had the opportunity to
see this who might think this is a letter that is a total Evanston
bashing letter when, in fact, they do make some positive comments
about the work involved, and that's all I'm pointing out.
MR. PATTON: And let's be clear about that, Alderman
Rainy. What happened with the IHPA when it was brought to them when
the horse was not already out of the barn but about three miles down
the pike, is they had elected, at least preliminarily, to treat this
as discovery of noncompliance during construction. And the part of
the letter you're saying is an attempt to, after the fact, approve,
and we believe that that after -the -fact approval is not in compliance
with the requirements of the statute and the regulations; and if it
were judicially challenged, that it would not be able to withstand
judicial scrutiny.
5o the fact of the matter is, and this much is
This was the letter that was sent by IDOT to
IHPA. :HPA is a designated agent for administrating the National
Historic Preservation Act with respect to projects like this. And it
says, "Dear Ann," who is the director of the IHPA, "following the
meeting Monday with you Cody Wright, Roger Crum, city manager of
Evanston, and David Jennings, public works director of that city, this
is to inform you formally of a project under construction that will
have an adverse effect on the Ridge Historic District in Evanston."
I don't think there is any question here, even
ID07 acknowledges that we have an adverse effect. Now, what does that
mean? In such cases, the federal regulations implementing the Federal
Act require that the sponsors of the project consult with interested
parties ^20cluing ^ including the public, quote, "to develop and
evaluate alternatives or modifications to the project that could
avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects on historic
properties." Now, it's also clear that that was not done here. These
requirements were not complied with. Indeed, the agency that's
responsible for administering the act in protecting historic landmark
properties here, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, was not
even aware of this project until approximately three weeks ago. They
did not review the project until that time. This was at a
hastily -arranged meeting three days before this letter on May 6 which
just happened to coincide with the first public hearing on this issue
in front of the Planning and Development Committee which includes part
of you here tonight on May 6. It's now clear why, and it's even
referenced -- I'm sorry . It's now clear why these requirements were
not complied with, why the IHPA was not involved at the time it should
have been to review this project. And it's clear even from this
letter. It says that the district is listed -- I'm sorry. A
miscommunication from Evanston to our highway district office
precluded coordination prior to construction. Bear with me. I have
to do my own slides here.
We now know the reason for that snafu, and it is
from the application that was filed for this project some two years
ago. Here is the copy of the original application for this project.
It was dated March 13 of 2000, submitted by Mr. Jennings, and this
application specifically asks if there are any effects on historic
I start with the legal context. As the Council
knows, the area affected by this project is a designated national
historic landmark area. This project is financed, as the Council also
Knows, with 80 percent federal funds. Accordingly, it is subject to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
regulations implementing that act. Now, the purpose of that act and
that provision, that statutory provision and those regulations, is to
identify in advance of approval any adverse effects on historic
landmark properties or areas and, quote, "to seek ways to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate any such adverse effects."
Now, as this Council probably knows from prior
considerations, adverse effects are very broadly defined by the
implementing regulations to include anything that would, quote,
"diminish the integrity of the property's location, setting, feeling,
or association," and I cite from the Code of Federal Regulations
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. Now, these
regulations cite us examples of adverse effects. The following: One,
change of physical features within the property setting that
contribute to its historic significance. And we submit that this, and
you've heard it, many of you, in our prior meetings, and there are
people here who could say this far more eloquently than me, but this
canopy effect, those of us who drive up and down Ridge Avenue,
particularly this time of year, feel and see. You know, the sense of
a very unique just residential beautiful neighborhood will be very
much diminished if not destroyed by these mast arms.
A second example that the regulations cite of
adverse effects is, quote, "introduction of visual or atmospheric
elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant
historic features." I submit that there is no dispute here that this
project will cause adverse effects within the meaning of the Act and
the regulations, and it's, therefore, subject to the Act's
requirements. And when I say that I don't think there is any dispute
by that, I cite two -- or would like to show you a letter that has
been referred to by Mr. -- by the city manager and others which some
of you may have seen. This is the May 9 letter that was sent by IDOT
to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. You probably have
copies -- Let me go back here. Can everybody hear me?
including safety, and I propose to do that. I'm not going to be able
to do :t in three minutes.
_: +:RMA?t NE WUN: Why don't we -- Do the best you can.
XA. PATTON: I will. And I will try to move it along. My
name is Steve Patton, and I live at 1462 Ridge Avenue which is just
north of Lake an Ridge Avenue. I've lived there for eight years.
Obviously I'm here because of a concern about the effect of this
project, and it's really one aspect of this project that I'm concerned
about, and it is the mast arcs features, the replacement of the
traditional and existing post top signals; concerned about the effect
that's going to have on what we think is an extremely unique and
precious resource of Evanston.
I don't need to remind this council, this has
been said in some meetings leading up to tonight, that Ridge is an
avenue. It's not a highway. It is an avenue that runs through a
residential neighborhood, and it is an avenue that runs through a
residential neighborhood in the heart of the historic landmark area.
And our position is that mast arm light signals, traffic
signals are fundamentally inconsistent with Ridge as an avenue,
fundamentally inconsistent with, as I'll show from the literature
including the safety literature that these gentleman have cited to you
but without really pointing you to it, is inconsistent with
residential streets; and it's particularly inconsistent with the
landmark, historic landmark preservation area.
I wanted to address three things tonight: First
of all, I want to address the legal context and why we believe that if
a challenge were made to this project, that it would be judicially
sustained. Two, I want to describe what we're really asking for here,
what we urge you to adopt, which is a compromise, and we think it's a
reasonable compromise, which will accommodate the public concerns with -
updating these intersections, interconnecting them, improving safety,
but at the same time preserving what is a very unique landmark
heritage of this community. And, third, and finally, I'd like to -
address the various arguments that have been raised by the city
manager and staff in opposition to our proposed compromise.
was addressed to Barbara Gardener, the chairwoman of the Historic
?reservation Corr�r::ssion and was also presented at the Historic
Preservaticn Neetir.g last Thursday.
CHAIRMAN NEW:'1,N: You know, as much as I'd love to hear
it, can we just pass :t out because we all have it up here. And, you
know, I read it.
MR. JOY: Again, I'd like to point out, and I appreciate
the trip to Philadelphia by our city engineer, but Evanston is a very
unique community. And also, there are national laws that are in
effect to make sure that projects that take place in a historic
district are done with community input and community endorsement. And
the main thing that I want to point out is that the spirit of
the law in this instance might have been violated if not the letter of
the law. And if you prefer, I'd be happy to pass out those statements
from the Congresswoman.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: I'd appreciate that. Thank you for
being here. Is it Steven Patton? 1462 Ridge?
MR. PATTON: Yes, 1462.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: And I'd ask that we keep the comments to
approximately three minutes, if you could.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's not fair. That isn't fair. He's
is been ^17aloud ^ allowed to make his statement three times in
detail, and it's not fair that we each have three minutes.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Well, I'm trying to complete the meeting
tonight so --
MR. PATTON: Mr. Chairman, I think that a number of us
who have made comments in the past have tried to consolidate our
comments in my presentation tonight. We thought it would be more
helpful to the Council to address substantively some of those points
instead of on the edge. We do have some on Ridge that are on the edge
on poles.
In =y travels in the last week, I looked around.
I went to Philadelphia, and : iust was trying to see, you know, what
other people are doing Ir. the historic areas. That's the Philadelphia
Museum of Art, and that happens to be Independence Hail. And
Independence Hall has a mast arm on the corner, a fairly significant
historic site.
Current project status: IDOT is responsible for
administering the contract with Hometown. Only IDOT can authorize
changes to that contract. And I've already said before, the IHPA and
IDOT are awaiting results of tonight's meeting. And it's also a fact
that we have no additional funding identified for changes that might
arise. Staff's recommendation is that we continue with the project
either as designed or with the shortened mast arms which IDOT would
accept. But we think it's in the interest of safety and, quite
frankly, I think provides the least impact to the trees because the
lights are out in the middle as opposed to being on the edge. You
don't have to worry about trimming the trees right on the edge. That
concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Members of the Council, any questions
for David? Okay. Not hearing any at this time, I'll come back --
are there any questions on Dave -- any questions on David's
presentation from the audience? Okay. Not hearing any . Raj Joy?
MR. JOY: Good evening. My name is Raj Joy, and I'm a
suburban contractor and grant coordinator for U.S. Representative Jan
Schakowsky. I know that this an issue that Jan is very interested in
as an elected official and resident of a historic district. I know
she's met with many folks in the room. Obviously this is a very
delicate situation. Jan wants to make sure that we do not lose the
federal funding and that we take into the account the safety issues on
Ridge Avenue, but that we don't compromise the integrity of the
historic district.
She's issued a note to the mayor and all the
alderman, and I'd like to read her statement tonight if I would. It
about.
over --
MR. J'z.'iSi'7G5: I don': know what arc light you're talking
MS. CHATZ: A big tall __ght, a halogen light that extends
MR. JENNINGS: No, no.
MS. CHATZ: Because that is present at some intersections.
MR. JENNINGS: It would not be on Ridge.
MS. CHATZ: Thank you.
MR. JENNINGS: Ridge has topic street lights.
MS. CHATZ: But would they be augmented by these?
MR. JENNINGS: No. These are traffic signals. There is
no proposal to do anything with street lighting on this street.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Okay. Dave. Why don't you finish.
MR. JENNINGS: Again, there's Ridge and Mulford, just
showing the design. This is the one where I wanted to show the
detector, that thing that's in between the two signals. The top of
that is a detector that picks up a strobe signal from the top of all
our emergency vehicles, all our fire and ambulance vehicles, and it
changes the light to green in the direction you're going. That's
called Opticom Emergency Vehicle Preemption System. The light
underneath there tells the operator of the truck or ambulance that
they have control over the intersection. If they have a green and
they don't have that confirmation light, that means that they just, by
chance, have the green. If you're running down any street and you're
under the impression you have control over the system, we need to tell
the drivers that they have control over the system. So that's what
the little light is for, and we do have those. And I think they're
safer if you put them out closer toward the middle of the street
ALDERM.kN FELDM;LN: So it's possible to put it on the pole
-- I mean on the arm?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes, it is. But there's an eight -foot
rini== separation between heads on a horizontal plane. So the, you
know, is the one exists over the lane line, the closest you could put
it would be a foot off the curb, the other one would be a foot off the
curb. You couldn't put them side by side is what I'm trying to say.
You need to get eight feet of visual separation along the pole.
CHAIRMAN NEIKMAN: All right. Dave, how much more -- do
you have much more?
MR. JENNINGS: Just a few.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Why don't we let Vera Chatz ask a
question.
MS. CHATZ: If you have the mast heads, that doesn't mean
that you're not going to have poles at the corner as well, nor does it
mean you may not have to a high arc light over them. Because I've
observed both of those at various intersections. I've looked at Davis
and Sherman today, Davis, Sherman, Orrington, and counted as many as
12 poles on the four intersections. So just because this is the only T
thing that you're showing, that doesn't mean those are the only poles
that would be present, correct?
MR. JENNINGS: Yeah. I said that earlier.
MS. CHATZ: Okay. I just wanted to make it clear.
MR. JENNINGS: That's why I was showing you the pin signal
to show you it wasn't on the mast arm.
MS. CHATZ: Right. So there could be multiple posts on
each corner. There could be two, three, whatever, and there could _
also be a large arc light extending over the mast; is that correct?
MR. ,'_tiNINGS: it could be, yes. It could be located on
the pole or it =c::ld be located cn the horizontal arm.
ALJER.MAIN FELDMAN: A.:d those post tops would be then --
those posts would be placed four feet from the curb, four feet in from
the curb?
MR. JENNINGS: A minimuzl of four feet from the curb.
ALDEFUwAN FELDMAN: A minimum of four feet.
One of the issues that's been raised had to do
with the fact that if post tops were used exclusively, the light would
not be seen because of trees in the way. How do you respond to that.
MR. JENNINGS: That if post tops were used exclusively --
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Well, one of the, in my literature that
I got, it indicated that a problem would be that if we used post tops
exclusively we'd have to cut trees down because the trees would be in
the way of the light, the sight lines.
MR. JENNINGS: That would, as Alderman Bernstein said,
that requires -- that's where you would put them if you had the
four -foot set back. And right now that is the requirement. It would
have to be four feet behind the curb. In other words, you could not
place them where they exist today.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: All right. So that would mean that the
light, if we have to do it exactly that way, if I understand
correctly, that the light on top of the post would be hidden by trees
that are in the parkway now?
MR. JENNINGS: Well, that's why I said it could be on the
pole or it could be on the arm. We obviously want to put it where
it's the most visible.
CHAIRMAN NEW AN: Gene?
n:.7ER.y�N L_N1+1:: Da:•id, could you go back to the
previous slide. Are you saying that the entire width of what you're
suggesting would be from the actual pole itself to the first traffic
light on the right?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: So everything else would be cut off?
MR. JENNINGS: There may be a little --
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: What kind of projection is that?
MR. JENNINGS: It depends on where the pole is. That's
probably, in that picture, it's maybe 12, 14 feet, in that range.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: That's 14 feet of that pole. I'm
talking about the total projection that you're suggesting.
MR. JENNINGS: Total projection I'm suggesting is nine
feet from the curb.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Nine feet from the curb?
a
MR. JENNINGS: That's where the lane lines are on Ridge.
It's 36 feet wide and four nines at 36. So the furthest projection
would be in the vicinity of that lane line. It may have, for some
structural feature, it may have to stick out a little bit beyond the
signal head; and there is a reason that we probably want a little bit
beyond the signal head because of the need to put the detectors for
the emergency vehicle preemption system. There's a detector, which
I'll show you in a minute, that needs to be out away from the tree =
limbs and trees.
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: The second light would be on top of the
post?
post top intersections, and there was no state money involved. It's
still a state r..zte, b_t no stare money involved. Funded totally with
local funds.
Next I have a series of pictures which show the
existing conditions and some of the signals that we are -- we have
put in recently. That was obviously the post top design. That's
northbound Ridge at Monroe. I put in some photos of Dempster and
Asbury to show what is looks like. The truss design is not what we're
recorrsnending, and we actually made a suggestion that that be replaced
as a change order to this project with the smooth mast arm design.
That's another one on Dempster and Asbury.
This is what's in the proposal as written. This
is as designed. This is southbound Oak at Davis, talking about five
years ago. It shows the signal, the left -most signal over the lane
line, and this is the one I think we should look at to see what the
shorter mast arm would look like if you can just envision removing
that left one and having the right one where it is; or, maybe better
yet, just visually shift over so that the right one is on the pole and
the left one is or. the arm. But it would cut off -- on Ridge Avenue
it would cut off about nine feet of pole per intersection per
direction, so.
This is an intersection we did last year. That's
Dempster and Hartrey, using the same, what I consider, a clean design.
It's a smooth mast arm bronzetone. It does have the two signals on
the arm,. We should point out that even though you're using mast arm
signals, there are times when you have to put post tops just to get
pedestrian signals at the right place or, in some cases, to get the
vehicular signals in the right place. That's also Dempster and --
no, it's not -- it's Hartrey and Central.
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: Post arms in addition to mast arms at
certain intersections?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes. Because you can't always -- the pole
for the mast arm is not always exactly where you need to be for the
pedestrian movement. So sometimes you have to put a pole, a post top
meet with IHPA officials at their request. And an that meeting they
made the following cornents: :hey said they would likely treat this
as a discovery during construction, and that would allow IHPA to work
with IDOT and FHRA to continue the project largely in compliance with
the approved plans. To document this, IDOT sent IHPA a letter of
request, and the ZHFA advised that that agreement that we had verbally
at the table is on hold pending the outcome of various meetings,
"10cluing " including this one and also the last week's Preservation
Commission meeting.
The other things they said at the table were that
mast arms were recognized as significant safety feature and they would
not pursue the use of post top signals. They had no objection to the
color, which is the bronzetone, and they considered, they suggested
that consideration be given using decorative bases on signal poles and
asked that the Evanston Preservation Commission review the designs and
give a recommendation at their next meeting.
I gave the P 6 D Committee some samples of what
was available from the company that we -- the company that is
supplying the poles. Within the last two weeks, IDOT met with -- city
staff met with IDOT. We approached them to determine if mast is arms
were a requirement for the project. They replied verbally last week
and via e-mail today that mast arms would be necessary. However,
there was a proposal that was talked about at that meeting which they
deemed acceptable, and that is using shorter mast arms. The short
mast arm I'll show you in a minute on a couple of pictures. I don't
have a representation, but I can show you what they're talking about.
Basically there's a signal over the center line and the lane line.
And what they are saying is they would allow the furthest signal into
the street to be at
the lane line, still over the street, but not over the center of the
street. And that would be acceptable to IDOT. Their policy and
practice, in the same e-mail, has been to use mast arms on new signal
projects for the last 20 years. In fairness, there was an exception
granted in Elgin about 15 year ago. Elgin took over jurisdiction of a
route in order to get mast -- post top signals. And locally in
E
Evanston they did allow post tops for a new signal installation
several years ago at Sheridan and Lincoln. It's between two existing
ALDERY1-N BERNSTEIN: What's the number of years?
uR. 'Eti::INGS: It's nine years. From '93 to 101. My
mistake. .he numbers are right. -re reading is wrong.
CHAIR. -PUN NEWMAN: There's no more lights, David. Keep
going.
MR. JENNINGS: I warted to go through, just for
completeness, what our involvement has been. We applied for funding
under the CMAQ program which is 80120, federal to local, in 199. It's
a program administered by IDOT. The City Council approved the
resolution in May of '99 committing money for the design with the
local share to be $38,000. We had to pay the whole thing, but we get
reimbursed from the federal dollars upon successful completion of the
design.
In June of 101, City Council approved 150,000 in
motor fuel tax funds, and on that same night approved the agreement
with IDOT and allocated 267,000 in GO bonds that came out of the CIP
program. That's where the funding cane from. The project was led by
IDOT. The contract is between IDOT and Home Town Electric in August
of 101, in the amount of $1.85 million through IDOT's standard bid
letting process. The last Council action on the project was December
17 of '01, in which Council approved hiring an engineering firm to
oversee the construction. That was contract with B3IS Infrastructure.
Construction was started in April of this year.
Work started on interconnect cables between the intersections and
materials were authorized for fabrication including the mast arms and
the poles. Contractor was directed to stop work within the Historic
District last week.
The Historic Preservation Process, as I
understand it, is that IHPA, the Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency, has jurisdiction over projects that have state and/or federal
funding. IDOT is responsible for advising IHPA work within the
historic districts, and that did not happen at the appropriate time.
IHPA was made aware of the project about a month ago. And we
went Roger Crum, the city manager and I, went to Springfield to
an Ridge. You'd have -- I think you'd have mast arms at Green Bay
and Emerson, you'd have post tops at Ridge and Church, mast arms at
Days. p-.st tops at Lake through Main, and then mast arms south of
Main. Yau could do it. I surely wouldn't recommend it. There needs
to -e sowe consistency in the display for the driver.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Well, we already do it in some places
because at Dempster in my ward, I think we use post top and going west
it's the mast arm. I'm just --
MR. JENNINGS: At what intersection?
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: If you go to Dempster and Forest, it's
post tops. And if you go to various parts of Dempster going west,
including Asbury, and I view it's mast arms.
Okay. I'm going to try to complete his, and then
I will go to questions. You want to ask something right on the
accidents?
MR. GORDON: On this chart.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Where is max? Is Max here? Okay. Max,
you're my helper with -- thank you.
MR. GORDON: Thank you, Alderman Newman. I'm sorry to
interrupt the presentation, but it seems to me that the period, 1989
to 2001 as Mr. Jennings just said, is 12 years. Then the average
figure on the second line total per year should be closer to 78 or 79
accidents per year. And then the expected reduction is similarly
reduced. So I think that there's a mathematical error in these
calculations which tends to make the accident situation worse.
MR. JENNINGS: It's the heading that's wrong. The number
of years is right. The math is right. My mistake.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Okay. Thank you.
accidents, the other one you're talking about another number. What do
those two numbers t:ean? Is the second number automobile,
non -pedestrian?
MR. JEtiti_tiGS: This is all accidents.
ALDER.4A.4 BERNSTEIN: That includes the 32?
MR. JENNINGS: Includes the 32.
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: But 32 alone in that period, which is
11, 12 years, is pedestrians where usually injuries are occurring?
MR. JENNINGS: True.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Alderman Rainy?
ALDERMAN RAINY: I want to clarify when I refer to 22
automobile accidents at those three intersections, I'm talking about
in a one-year period, a one-year period.
ALDEP1J_AN BERNSTEIN: At Oakton and Ridge. Is that what
you're --
ALDERMAN RAINY: Mulford, Hull, and Oakton, those three
combined which are bang, bang, bang, right in a row. That was one
year, not from 189 to 2001.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: David, I have a question. Can you, on
the different streets or on part of the streets, can we -- would it be
possible for some of the streets to go to post tops and the others the
mast arms? Could we divide it?
MR. JENNINGS: We don't recommend it. We'd rather see for
consistency for the driver, we'd rather see a consistent signaling
pattern as you move down the street. I think I mentioned at the P i D
meeting that if you just change the historic districts, for example,
you'd be switching back and forth as you move southbound, for example,
vehicle-tc-vehicle accidents are not. That's a pretty good statement
based on accident experience throughout the city. There aren't
many nc-in:-:ry pedestrian accidents.
accidents?
ALDERMAN RAINY: Can you get me that information?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes.
ALDERMAN RAINY: For the Oakton, Hull, and Mulford
MR. JENNINGS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Steve Bernstein?
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: David, just to clarify, the last
slide showed pedestrian accidents, and for the same period. So the
next slide is automobile accidents?
MR. JENNINGS: All accidents.
ALDERMAN RAINY: For one year. The automobile accidents
and the information we received in our packet was for one year.
MR. JENNINGS: Actually, I put the totals for the
automobile accidents for the full nine years. There's is an average
-- there's a little Excel chart that shows
intersection -by -intersection what the average number of accidents was. _
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: But this is a three-year, roughly,
intersection accidents. These are vehicular accidents? I just want
to know the disparity between the two slides. One is pedestrians, one
is automobile?
MR. JENNINGS: This is nine years, is it not?
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN: I'm thinking 199, a long time. But is that the distinction here? r mean here we got 22, 32 pedestrian
MR. JENNINGS: Not that we know of, no.
ALDEP�L204 FELruA4- So we don't know how serious those
accidents were?
MR. JZnNINGS: That is correct.
In the pedestrian accidents, the highest incidents of
pedestrian accidents in this time period was at Ridge and Oakton which
had seven accidents. That was the high one. And I think there were a
couple that had had zero, but there were seven at Ridge and Oakton.
For total accidents in the time period we've
experienced 945 accidents between 189 and 2001 at the intersections
that we're proposing to change; not the total project area, just the
intersections proposed to be changed from post top to mast arm or an
average of 105 a year. And I've given a series of expected reductions
Just doing the math; basically 52 percent comes from what we saw at
Dempster and Asbury on the high end, 25 percent is what IDOT and I
believe Kansas City showed. So that just gives you a range of 54 to
26 a year.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: David, Alderman Rainy has a question.
ALDERMAN RAINY: At Oakton and Ridge, for those who aren't
familiar with that intersection, that's the intersection where at the
southwest corner is Oakton School, which is a grade school, with
children crossing to the east and to the north probably and children
from Chute coming from the west and emergency vehicles traversing that
intersection going to St. Francis Hospital a block away. Of the 11
pedestrian accidents which concern me a great deal in ten years, in
just one year alone in the last year that you counted, one year, there
were 22 automobile accidents at that intersection. And do we have any
data about those or the severity of any of the pedestrian accidents
locally? I mean I can understand why you don't have them from
California.
MR. JENNINGS: Yes, we could look that up. But generally
pedestrian accidents are injury -producing; and generally
reduction. ?here is a study :n the literature from Atlanta which
showed an .3 percent redo~ _on, but it doesn't say how many
intersections were included in that study. I would not expect near
that degree t: reduction, tit that's what's in the literature.
Ventura, --a:ifornia, showe-d a 60 percent reduction, but it was a
single intersection. It was listed because it was part of a larger
study o! various safety measures that they were taking.
Locally, Illinois DOT quotes a 25 percent
reduction its one of their design manuals which is Methodology for Cost
Benefit Ratios for Roadway and Traffic Improvement. Even more
locally, we saw a 36 percent reduction at Ridge and Dempster --
excuse me -- Ridge and Asbury -- Dempster and Asbury, and a 40
percent reduction at Ridge and Noyes. At the Dempster/Asbury
intersection, if you just look at the raw numbers, I think we had a
little over 50 percent reduction. But we did other things besides
just change the signals from post top to mast arm. We changed the
line configuration and the actual signal phasing. So the reason I'm
using the 36 percent reduction is because I backed out all of the left
turn accidents before and after to get a little clearer picture of
what's going on there.
Looking a little more detail at the accidents, we
have the ability to determine if there are pedestrian accidents versus
vehicular accidents. If you look at Ridge, Ridge and Church through
Ridge and Mulford, the total for the time period we have data which is
189 to 2001 was 29 accidents involving pedestrians; three occurred at
the three intersections, three total occurred at Asbury, Church,
Davis, and Dempster. So it's 32 accidents in the project area well, the area recommended to be changed, not the total project area,
but just the intersections for mast arms
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN: Alderman Feldman, you have a question?
ALDERMAN FELDMAN: Yes. David, in the statistics that you
cited previously having to do with the various other cities, were
there any other kind of references to personal or pedestrian accidents —
or personal injury?
on Ridge, and basically our contention is we need to replace this.
That's the way sore of the.m look right there.
:he other components or. the street are the
cabinets. The cabinets hcuse the controllers, and that's what the
controller looks like on the inside. That's -- it's called a single
dial controller, because there is one mechanism that controls the
amount of time each street gets. The horizontal rod is an actual
array of contacts that send power to the individual signal heads, so
it's called an electrical mechanical device because the switching is
done both electrically, and it makes a mechanical contact to make the
lights change. That's what we replace them with. They're solid state
electronic units. They have different features that you don't find on
the electrical mechanical signals. They have conflict monitors, they
call them, that keep lights from showing green in two conflicting
directions at the same time, and they will immediately throw an
intersection into flash if that happens. But one of the best features
of these is that they are able to be interconnected and actually
change the timing at the individual intersections based on the amount
of traffic in the system.
The proposed system has detectors in the pavement
that determine both the direction and the volume of traffic. That
information is fed into a central controller which figures out what
the most appropriate timing plan is for that given traffic condition.
And so that's how you get improvement, how you get a system basically
that responds to the amount of traffic on the street. It's called a
closed loop system. That's the technology. That's the controller.
There's been a lot of discussion about the
accident experience and whether or not any studies existed, although
we're taught as traffic engineers that they are safer, there's a need
to look at the data and see what the data really shows.
Mast arias versus post tops. Here is a list of
four studies, some with a lot of intersections, some with only one,
that show what the measured accident reduction was in various
conditions. Iowa State University in conjunction with Iowa DOT did a
study at 33 intersections and found a 32 percent reduction when the
signal displays were changed from post top to mast arm. Kansas City,
all urban intersections, six intersections, showed a 25 percent
between Asbury and Berson. : e przDect is to replace most of the
signals which are 30 to yC tears c_c at least, some may be 50 years
:ld -- _ don't have a dame :n ai: of them -- and interconnect, once
.ne signals are replaced, interconnect them with a system that allows
.ra:fio _c determine the test =_air._ plan on the street for the
signals.
In terms of the hardware, the underground cables
~.ave been buried for that length of time and they're nearing the end
sf their useful life if not a: it. The signal hardware is rusting.
ks I mentioned before, the tiling doesn't adjust to traffic volumes.
71:e results include worsening of air quality, and I mention that
because the program that these signals are being replaced under is
called CHAO: Congestion, mitigation, and air quality. And one of the
goals is to try to reduce air pollution, improve air quality by
decreasing delays; stop time delay on streets is bad for the air. And
also if you drive Ridge, you know we have back-ups at several
intersections already that we would like to fix.
What I didn't have in the prior presentations are
score pictures showing how close the existing signals are to edge
pavement and also the condition. There have been statements that the
signals, you know, are in good shape and they don't need to be
replaced. So I put together a few slides of the existing condition of
the signals which I will run through. Some of the pieces are
alt=inum. These housings for the ped signals, pedestrian signals, are
aluminum so they corrode rather than rust. Some are just in general
disrepair, some are starting to lean. That's the southeast corner of
Ridge and Dempster which is basically starting to fail. The heads are
a mixture of 8-inch and 12-inch signal heads. The interesting thing
about this one is the terminal block, which is that horizontal piece
under the head, is being held together by electrical tape. So the
fittings where the screws go in are deteriorated to the point where
they can't use them anymore. So they're basically wrapped with tape
to keep everything together.
The poles have surface rust which is not
terrible, but surface rust eventually leads to more serious -
deterioration. We are seeing holes that have rusted through in some
of the signal poles. I'm not sure exactly where that one is, but it's
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COK41TTEE
ADMINISTRATION s PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
May 20, 2002
5:30 P.M.
CHAIRMAN NE"W"PA4, AI.i+EIRY.AN JEAN-BAPTISTE, ALDERMAN WYNN, ALDERMAN
BE?.NS:EIN, ALDERMAN KENT, ALDERMAN MORAN, ALDERMAN ENGELMAN, ALDERMAN
RAINE:', ALDEEUJAN ELOHAN.
RE: Traffic Signal Replacement in Ridge
Avenue Historic District
CHAIRwAN NE%IW: This is a joint meeting of Planning and
Develcpment and the Administration and Public Works Committee, and
there is a quor= present for the Planning and Development Meeting.
The way we're going to proceed is we're going to have a presentation
by David Jennings on where we are on the Ridge Avenue street light
project, then we will have -- we'll take questions for David from the
members of the two co=ittees, and then we will have questions for
David from anybody in the audience. And then after that we will take
the citizen comments. And then with a half hour to go in this
meeting, which I think we need to end by 7:00, 7:30 is it? We said
7:30 -- we'll try to end by 7:15, but the last half hour is going to
be devoted to Council discussion to attempt to resolve the matter here
or the discussion of the two committees.
David, you're up. Go ahead. And I'm going to
ask that anybody who speaks tonight from the audience give their name
and address for the minutes that we're taking tonight. And we'll have
a microphone for you when you want to address the committee so you can
stay right where you are. Go ahead, David.
MR. JENNINGS: I've put together a presentation that many
of you have seen portions of already. I used the portion of the
presentation from the original P 6 D meeting on May the 5th, and I
believe Keith altered it a little bit for the preservation Commission
meeting. So people have seen some of this, and some of it is new. So
I will start in with a little background for those that may need the
background. Ridge Avenue signal project is a project involving 21
signals, primarily on Ridge, but the project limits are Ridge between:
Church and Mulford, Church between Asbury and Arrington, and Davis
P&D Committee .%itg.
Minutes of June 10. 2002
Page 7
IP4) Ordinance 61-0-02 — Special Use for Subwav Restaurant. 506 Main Street
:old. WNTtne asked the hours of operation. The Subway representative responded that
they are proposing to open at 7:00 a.m. to try an experimental breakfast plan for a trial
period. If it is not feasible. they will go back to normal hours of operation to open at
11:00 a.m. He mentioned that the employees are there at 7 a.m. everyday to prepare for
the regular business so this is a trial program to make money during these hours with a
breakfast menu. Aid. Wynne expressed her concern with the opening for business this
early. She said the owner should be made aware of the extensive discussion and
deliberation surrounding the neighboring Starbuck's store and the many concerns with
parking and traffic congestion problems. She noted that there was not much concern with
this proposal because of the expected hours of operation and the difference in this being
known as a more lunch and dinner time operation. The early starting time does raise an
unexpected problem. She also pointed out a concern with the garbage collection for this
site because there already exists a refuse collection problem and overflowing of the
current dumpsters behind this building. The representative responded that the earlier
starting time is definitely not peak hours for their operation and they do not foresee a
large amount of business during this time. He reiterated that it is only on a trial basis; if it
does not work out in any way, they will cease this operation. He also claimed that they
could arrange for extra refuse pick-up during the week.
With lack of time permitting appropriate discussion of Md. Wynne's concerns, the
Committee decided to introduce this item tonight and refer back to Committee for further
discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adsoumed at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqu line�E. Brownlee
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of June 10. 2002
Page 6
(P7) Ordinance 58-0-02 — Zonine Ordinance .amendment — Funeral Homes
Chairman Newman reminded that this ordinance ++as introduced at the May 201h meeting
and referred back to Committee for further deliberation on which districts this use should
be permitted, prohibited or made a special use. He noted that Donnellan Funeral Home is
currently located in the D3 district and his proposal for redevelopment is on hold until the
final outcome is passed on this ordinance.
Aid. Kent reiterated his concerns with this use being permitted in the B districts because
the majority of these districts are neighborhood business areas that are adjacent to
residential districts. He is concerned with no protection of having a transition area
adjacent between those neighborhood business districts and residential with allowing a
use of this type. He again noted that he has no problem with the 2 current funeral homes
in his ward, one being in a B district, however he would not like to make it possible for
any further uses of this type to come in as -of -right. He proposed that this use be excluded
as a permitted use in the B districts. Chairman Newman suggested listing the B districts
under special use instead of prohibited, therefore allowing for the Council to review case -
by -case basis for any application to this district. Aid. Kent agreed.
The Committee reviewed in further length other districts they would like to see moved
from permitted use to special use as proposed in the ordinance. They decided on DI-D4,
C 1, C 1 a and the RP district to move from permitted to special use with MU and MUE
districts. It was a consensus to leave D3 permitted use.
Mr. Donnellan gave the Committee an update on funeral home statistics and the serious
debt problems that many of the larger conglomerate -type businesses are facing. Tie
smaller independent operations such as his business, House of Thompson and
Haliburton's are the funeral homes that stay and service locally. He informed the
Committee of the amount of taxes his business pays per year to stay in Evanston, pointed
out that cost of operation to be excessive. He said that they are hoping to rebuild their
facility and expand beyond services they currently provide.
From Committee discussion, it was decided to move the following districts from
permitted to special use: All B districts, Dl, D4, Cl, Cla, C2 joining the MU and
MUE districts. All other districts to remain in permitted use as Bated except the RP,
Research Park district, which is to be moved to prohibited. Chairman Newman
moved approval of Ordinance 58-0-02 as amended, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The
vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
lPSI Ordinance 62-0-02 -- Special Use for Ouizno's Restaurant. 812 Davis Street
Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Engelman. Chairman Newman asked
about employee parking and hours of operation. The representative from Quizno's
responded that most of their employees take public transportation but they do have 12
spaces in the parking garage half block away. He reported the hours of operation are
Monday through Saturday from 11:00 a.m. — 9:00 p.m. and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. —
8:00 p.m. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
P&D Committee R1tg.
Minutes of June 10. 2002
Page 5
reiterated the Plan Commission`s feeling about this originally was that they did not want
this to be a burden on the City but are not as concerned nowv with the knowledge that
there are minimal applications of this nature per year.
Chairman Newman stated that when he read the portion of the Chicago ordinance, one of
their key points was compatibility as a major issue. He believes that there are serious
compatibility problems, especially with downtown construction. He pointed out the new
construction building at Sherman and Davis with the orange balconies and its contrast to
the red brick building directly west. Although he is pleased with the addition of the new
units, he is not happy with the way this building looks and will remain for the next 30+
years. He feels that compatibility should be a major issue for the Evanston ordinance as
it is in the Chicago ordinance. His main concern lies with the downtown area with all the
new construction going on but he is also concerned with other major construction such as
in the P Ward with the new townhouse development coming in and this project going in
without any appearance review and also the Evanston Bank building construction. Aid.
Wynne added that she too is very concerned with the new projects in the Yd Ward,
especially with the zoning for the new townhouse development on Chicago Avenue. She
said the current zoning permits the level of density on the property, which is the problem
that most people find as objectionable. She pointed out that this is an example of the
work that still needs to be done with zoning.
Chairman Newman addressed Aid. Kent regarding his concerns, that his comments on the
exceptions are the proposal to include the I & 2-family new construction. He asked if
Aid. Kent has concerns with 2-flat additions. Aid. Kent responded that he is in full
support of the inclusion of 1 & 2-family buildings. He expressed his interest in wanting
to know within the last year, how many single-family conversions to 2-flats have been
done in Evanston because this is of major concern to him. He noted that such
conversions effect the character of the neighborhood on streets that are predominantly
single-family and it also affects the density, population, etc. He questioned if such
conversions would be included under additions, if so, he would like to see this included
in the exceptions. Chairman Newman requested that staff retrieve this information.
Aid. Wynne stated that the issues that the Environment Board raised are interesting and
valid. However she feels some of these issues may be dealt with in the building code
such as the storm water management, etc. Mr. Sciarra replied that these issues are not
dealt with in the building code. Ald. Wynne asked that staff respond back on this matter.
The Committee discussed a date and time to hold a special meeting solely to address
binding appearance review. After deliberation, the Committee agreed to set the special
meeting on Tuesday, June 18a' at 7.00 p.m. Chairman Newman fti Cher requested staff to
provide any information possible that was requested previously by Committee members
for this meeting. In addition, he asked that staff provide clarification of the extent to
which Chicago uses their binding appearance review. He also asked staff to retrieve the
information from the 1999 survey of neighboring communities using binding appearance
review and for what types of projects.
P&D Committee
Minutes of Jane 10. 2002
Page 4
Chairman Newman brought the exceptions to attention. He pointed out that in this draft,
they are proposing the exceptions for site plan mirror the exceptions for appearance
review. He questions whether this needs to be done. His feeling is why not treat all cases
equally and questions why they need to appl%. appearance review to additions at all for
commercial buildings. He requested clarification of what additions on which commercial
buildings are being referred to. He can not recall many additions of this type. Mr. Mylott
responded that one addition of this type that comes immediately to his mind refers to the
penthouse on the condominium conversion in the 1800 block of Ridge. This penthouse is
2-stories in height with aluminum siding. Chairman Newman replied that is a multi-
family building, not commercial.
For discussion purposes, he questioned the proposal of having appearance review apply
only to new construction of all buildings, including 1-2 family dwellings. This way they
would be eliminating a large number of any one area additions for everybody which are
mainly %fiat homeowners are involved in. He noted that there is a small number of new
construction which I & 2-family residential buildings. However, at the same time, if
they were to eliminate for appearance the additions to commercial buildings, they would
still be subject to site plan. In this case, he feels there should be no exceptions for
commercial buildings, new construction, new construction on I & 2-family buildings,
multi -family residences and take commercial buildings out for additions. Mr. Cook
explained that the reason the Plan Commission did not go in that direction is because they
were concerned with re-.iewing single-family dwellings and the typical feelings of every
homeowner in wanting to do what they want with their own property. Also they were
concerned with the burden on the City with the amount of appearance reviews that would
need to be done with the inclusion of everything listed above. However, his level of
concern has lessened with the realization that there are so few new construction of single-
family and 2-flat buildings and he has no objection to this amendment. With regards to
the elimination of additions, he does have concern because if the standards are going to
be applied new construction but not to alterations, this could leave the City open to
negativity. Mr. Mylott suggested that perhaps a threshold can be set for additions such as
a certain percentage.
Aid. Wysme pointed out the alteration to the new construction on the Main Batik
building, A-bich is also proposed to have alurninwn siding on the penthouse. She feels
this is a case where appearance review should be required. She also appreciates Aid.
Kent's position on the desire to include single and 2-flat dwellings and questioned what
would have to be amended to these standards in order to accommodate these buildings
with new construction. Mr. Mylott responded that he believes that a lot of the design
elements themselves would still hold, however he would suggest looking further at the
landscaping standards. He further pointed out that the intent of the design standards were
to be applicable regardless of style, extending down to regardless of scope. Mr. Cook
added, in response to Aid. Kent's point of view, that he has listened to his concerns
before regarding the new construction of single-family and 2-flats in his ward and has
taken them into consideration. He agrees that this is something that needs to be
considered especially when it is a majority of the property that is new construction in the
area He added that there are other areas where this situation is applicable also. He
P&D Committee Nitg.
Minutes of June 10.2002
Page 3
He requested that the Committee take into consideration the Environment Board's
proposal of suggested additions to the Evanston Site Plan and Appearance Review
Design Standards. He listed the 7 major items of concern that his board would like to see
incorporated into this ordinance.
`1r. Don Jeffers, informed the Committee that he is an architect and has lived in the
Evanston community most of his life. He pointed out several differences between zoning
and building codes and how they differ from what should be reviewed under site plan and
binding appearance review. He suggested that some of the standards are inappropriate
under binding appearance review.
Chairman Newman ended citizen comment due to shortage of time.
Md. Kent stated that he is still strongly of the opinion that this ordinance should include
single family and "police' 2-flats for the protection of neighborhoods. He elaborated
further on his concerns with this as he has expressed previously.
Chairman Newman expressed his opinion that he is not interested in having any
architects serve on this committee that do not live in Evanston. He also questioned there
being only 2 staff members allowed to vote and how would they determine who those
staff members would be. Mr. Mylott responded that the staff members would be at the
discretion of the City Manager. Chairman Newman noted that he is opposed to cutting
out key staff on voting who are very much involved in the appearance review process.
He made points on citizen volunteers and how they have to make the meetings of the
Boards and Committee's they volunteer on, which is a great sacrifice at times. He feels
that there is going to have to be a majority vote with this because he does not want to see
the situation where a volunteer on the board misses a meeting and needing to read the
transcript. He does not want to see property owners held to this type of delay because
someone can not make a meeting. He would like to use majority vote instead of 2/3 vote.
Md. Wynne pointed out that the present minutes for SPAARC are very summarized and
are not detailed such as transcripts. Chairman Newman asked staff to elaborate on what's
stated on page 39 of the document. Mr. Mylott explained that what is written on page 39
sterns from a hold -over from before they had split the vote to 2/3 for only design,
however this was revised when this was changed from all site plan members voting on
appearance review. Therefore this number needs some discussion. He noted that this is
not talking about a straight vote on appearance, it is referring to a vote where for some
unintentional reason, something did not quite work and a public benefit would have been
eliminated if a standard was applied. Chairman Newman questioned why not just go to
majority ntle with the vote. Mr. Cook agreed that this would work. Mr. Perman asked
the Committee as a principle, do they want non -design professionals voting on variations
to appearance review. Mr. Mylott said from his understanding he interpreted that a
majority of only those people voting on appearance review could grant a variation.
Chairman Newman concurred with Mr. Mylott's interpretadon but he is proposing to
expand this group to include more staff members.
P&D Committee Sitg.
Minutes of June 10.:002
Page 2
all times or risk the consequence of either denial for any further request or loss of current
sidewalk cafe permit.
Aid. Engelman noted that this restaurant is a type 1 %%ith only waiter service for both
inside and the outside cafd. With no further comments. the vote was 4-0 in favor of the
motion.
(P2) Sidewalk Cafd Permit — Starbucks. 1724 Sherman Avenue
Chairman Newman reminded the applicants to adhere to his previous comments. He
moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(P3) Sidewalk Cafe Permit — Cafd l Mozart. 600 Dais Street
Chairman Newman acknowledged that this is a new applicant and reminded them to
adhere to his previous comments and concerns. He moved approval, seconded by Aid.
Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(PG) Ordinance 46-0-02 — Bindine ADnearance Review
Chairman Newman allowed for citizen comments first due to lack of time permitted at
the last meeting to allow everyone signed up to speak.
Ms. Beth Steffen, representative of the SouthEast Evanston Association. Expressed her
strong support for binding appearance review. She commended the Plan Commission on
their work and efforts to come up this proposal. She made strong points on visioning and
how binding appearance review will allow for quality structural measures throughout
Evanston.
Mr. Dave Gallowav, lives at 728 Noyes and is also with Design Evanston. He noted that
over 2 years ago they began their investigation of binding appearance review and he
supports the proposed document. He pointed out several other communities that
currently use binding appearance review and how it appears to be working for their
towns. He feels that this review should first deal with buildings that have the most
impact. He noted that this document encourages good design and adds to the current site
plan and appearance review standards. He pointed out to the Committee several
buildings in Evanston where this type of binding appearance review would have
improved the outcome of the final design of the building. He went into further detail on
certain sections of the standards within the document and previous points made regarding
the sections that seem too vague or capricious. He agrees that majority design
professionals should be in on the design review along with key staff. In conclusion, he
supports this document and feels that it does not deter good design but will deter in
further poor designs throughout Evanston.
Mr. Frederico Vidarv.as, Design Evanston, made conunents in support of binding
appearance review and the benefits is will add to construction development in Evanston.
Mr. Un Sciarra, member of the Environment Board, brought to the Committee's
attention the packet of information provided to them as a communication from his board.
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of June 10, 2002
Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Engelman. J. Kent. A. Ne% man. M. Wynne
Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein
Staff Present: A. Alterson, tit. Barry, 1d. Mylott, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. He apologized for the
lateness in starting this meeting explaining that the Committee was held over in the
preceding Executive Session.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 2002 MEETING
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes for the May 20, 2002 meeting, seconded by
Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P 1) Sidewalk Cafd Permit (with liquor) -- Trullo a Trattoria, 1700 Central Street
Aid. Engelman moved approval, seconded by AId. Wynne.
Chairman Newman, for the record, commented that applied to all 3 sidewalk cafes on the
agenda for this evening. He made note of the sidewalk cafd that the Committee just
recently approved again, for Chipotle restaurant on Church Street, and his disapproval in
their operation and management of the cafd. He noted the amount of garbage and debris
in the area around and across the street from the establishment that initiated from the
restaurant. Also, he observed no wait stall' busing tables or managing the outdoor cafd.
He pointed out that he has been receiving several complaints lately on the cleanliness of
the downtown area and he is very disappointed that one of the sidewalk cafes that was
approved by this Committee, is directly contributing to this. At this point if further
improvement is not made, he will not be voting in favor of Chipotle's application for
sidewalk cafd next year and request that they be monitored for further non-compliance
for this year. Chairman Newman stated that he brought this matter to attention directed
towards the sidewalk cafd applicants this evening and for any future type 1 and 2
restaurants that will be applying. He stressed that these restaurants need to stay within
the guidelines agreed upon to operate an outdoor cafd and that compliance must be met at
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes - June 18.2002
Page Eight
Ms. Szymanski said in connection with the process, ► •hen she comes back to the
Committee with the completed draft, she would like to propose a detailed process that she
thought would answer the concerns here.
Aid. Newman made a motion that the Committee accepts the proposed changes to the
appeals process. The motion passed 4-0.
P&D members discussed the lighting in the new garage. Ann Dienner said that when you
are coming in to Evanston, going north or south, you know where the garage is. Mr. Mylott said
that the Plan Commission does not have an issue with the amount of lighting, but the fact that
you see the lighting fixtures. Aid. Newman said that the lighting issue needs to be considered
and reviewed.
Aid. Newman asked Ms. Szymanski how long she would need to rewrite the ordinance.
Ms. Szymanski replied that given her schedule and the need for corporation council's review, she
would need about 30 days.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Committee, they adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Ma . Baaske
Planning Division
Community Development
Planning and Development Committee
'Minutes - June 18. 2002 Pace Seven
he would have Iike to have had the opportunity to have much more of a community discussion
on compatibility issues with that building.
Aid. Wynne added that she would have liked to have more discussion on Tom Rozak's
project because it does not look like the renderings shown to the City.
Ald. Newman motioned to eliminate the review board. The motion passed unanimously.
Ellen Szymanski was concerned that final decisions on site plan review are best left to
City Council (4-17-8 (A) 1.c) she said she would consult with Marc Mylott and bring it back to
P&D. Also, when appeals go to the Planning and Development Committee and ultimately to the
Council, the question arises as to how the committee will proceed. Ellen Szymanski asked the
Committee if they wished to have a hearing de novo: do you want to do it solely on the record;
do you want to allow new evidence to be presented; or just the argument on either side.
Aid. Newman said he would like to hear the argument of either side, have people testify,
and have dialog with the appearance commissioners at the Site Plan and Appearance Review
Committee. Jonathan Perman said that in terms of expediting the process, it would be helpful to
have a transcript and would it be possible to offer the testimony, but then have a time limit in
terms of number of days in which a decision must be rendered. Aid. Newman said there could
be a time limit, but what about the Plan Commission. Richard Cook said he would like the Plan
Commission to be heard. Mr. Mylott said that transcripts on not done, but minutes are taken.
Aid. Wynne added that there would be reports from the design professionals. She also said that
P&D should be able to have arguments from the applicants.
Mr. Perman said that what a developer wants is same kind of sense or guarantee by a
certain date it will be yes or no. Aid. Newman asked if ,%Ir. Perman wanted the Council to wrap
it up within 30 days. Mr. Perman agreed. Mr. Mylott asked if Council does not act is there a
consequence that it is denied or granted, Mr. Perman asked if the SPAARC process would be
wrapped up in 30 days. Mr. Mylott said that they are given a decision at that meeting. An
applicant has to make their appeal within 30 days. Once the appeal is stamped received, staff has
30 days to get it on the P&D and City Council agenda.
Ms. Szymanski asked if 30 days were enough to get a written decision from the
appearance commissioner because the applicant cannot get any farther unless it has a written
decision. Mr. Mylott said that 30 days was reasonable. P&D agreed that the Council has 30
days to hear the appeal. P&D agreed that, if Council does not act, the appeal is denied. Mr.
Mylott asked if P&D be making a recommendation to City Council. Aid. Newman said P&D
would be making a recommendation to City Council and City Council has the final decision.
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes - June 18, 2003 Pape Six
Aid. Wynne said she agreed with the scope of review proposed by Aid. Newman. What
she has heard from the residents is the concern about the appearance and impact on the street that
you get from commercial buildings and the impact that you get from one and two families that
significantly alter the picture of what happens on the block. She said she does not hear from
people about additions because generally the homeowner stays in context.
Aid. Newman asked for a vote on his amendment. Proposal carried 4 ayes - 1 no (Aid.
Engelman).
Aid. Newman made a motion to change the number of design professionals in 4-17-1-1
E3b. from three to five, one (1) must be a registered architect." Motion passed unanimously.
Aid. Engelman said that (E) I will have to be changed as well. Marc Mylott said that there has
been discussion of getting rid of the alternate design professional. Aid. Newman asked Mr.
Mylott to strike the alternate design professional from (E) Io.
Ellen Szymanski (Assistant Corporation Council) said that in connection with 4-17-1-1-
E3c unless those terms are staggered, all of those design professionals would go off the
committee at the same time. Ms. Szymanski offered to prepare the text in time for the next
meeting.
Aid. Newman said that on 4-174 (C) Lb he would motion to change the two City staff
members to four City staff members. Motion passed unanimously.
Aid. Newman said he was proposing that a majority of the design professionals must be
present to vote on appearance, there would be no reading of transcripts to vote, you would have
to be physically be at the meting. To pass a motion would require a majority of this quorum.
Aid. Newman proposed to substitute for the board 4-17-8: Appeals (A) (B) La, I.c. that the
appeals would go directly to the City Council, with the first stop being Planning and
Development, but he understood that it has to be the City Council. Ms. Szymanski said that the
City Council has to have the final decision for the law department to feel comfortable about
certain constitutional issues. Aid. Newman said he would like to have a report on file from the 9
appearance commissioners at the time the appeal is heard and they will reference standards. -_
There will also be potential for minority opinions in that report. Mr. Mylott asked Aid. Newman
he wanted the appeal to first go to City Council and then be referred back to P&D. Aid.
Newman said appeals go straight to P&D, but the City Council would be the ultimate decision -
maker.
Aid. Engelman asked if there had been a project that a member of the P&D have voted
not to approve that has been approved in the last five years. Aid. Newman said that he could
name two examples such as the townhouse project at the Dominick site on Chicago Avenue, and
the Optima building. He said he is not saying he didn't want the Optima building to go up, but T
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes - June 18, 2002 Page Five
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE
Aid. Newman said that at the last P&D meeting, he proposed that E.3.a. or be employed
be stricken from 4-17-1-1 "Each design professional must reside or be employed within the
City". Aid. Newman explained that he felt that the design professionals that lived in Evanston
would have more of a vested interest in the community than someone who simply works here.
Committee members discussed the pros and cons of having a design professional who does not
live in Evanston be on SPAARC. Motion passed 4 ayes, I no (Aid. Engelman).
Aid. Newman proposed requiring appearance review for new and single family
residential construction. All tWO-family residential construction, and conversions of single
family to two fancily.
Aid. Engelman asked if Aid. Newman was proposing that some developers would be
required to go to appearance review but not to site plan review. Aid. Newman said that Aid.
Engelman's statement was correct.
Aid. Newman said that permitted temporary uses remain exempt.
Aid. Newman said that for 4-17-2 (C) 2d, "Arty use located within a U3 University
District and greater than one hundred (100) feet from any publicly dedicated right of way that
abuts the U3 District," he was changing 100 feet to 400 feet because construction - 100' from
Sheridan Road is highly visible. 400' would cover construction proposed within several existing
]awns/quads along Sheridan Road..
Aid. Bernstein asked James Wolinski how much more staff time would these reviews
require. Mr. Wolinski said that there should be one designated staff person to work specifically
with the SPAARC Committee and the development community, regardless of the suggested
additional items to be reviewed. He said to implement binding appearance review in a manner
that keeps permits moving, the City would need another staff person.
Aid. Bernstein said that when he reads the ordinance as a layman, he is confused. He
asked how you could quantify quality. If the City is concerned about the appearance of the
community, then let's review all construction. If we need a staff person, we should get a staff
person. What he does not want to do is anything that is going to stop development. Aid.
Bernstein asked how many additions per year there had been. Marc Mylott replied that in 1998
the Zoning Department reviewed approximately ten application for new single-family homes and
approximately 120 applications for alterations or additions. In 1999, 4 single-family homes,
approximately 100 alterations or additions. In 2000 there were 8 new single-family homes and
approximately 150 alterations or additions. 2001 there were IS single-family homes, and
approximately 50 additions and alterations. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Mylott to research that
same information for commercial construction.
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes - June 18. 3003 Paae Four
Mr. Perman asked the Committee to turn to page 25 in the proposed ordinance where
there is the beginning of a discussion of landscaping plans and one of his criticisms is that in
certain areas there is excessive regulation. On page 25 is a requirement for a landscape
program, and then a second requirement on page 29 that, that landscaping plan must be
developed in accordance with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Standards.
On page 30 there is a requirement that the developer shall be required to select plant
materials from the list of permitted plant materials contained in the Appendix or with the advice
of the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry or the City Landscape Architect. Also that the
applicant shall make reasonable effort to preserve any trees that measure larger than 6 inches
diameter at breast height (DBH) during the site planning process. The Committee shall consider
the species, size and general health of the tree when evaluating the efforts of the applicant to
preserve said tree during the site planning process. Mr. Perman asked if in addition to the
Design and Appearance Review Group analyzing and evaluating buildings, do you want to get
down to such detail that they are also evaluating species, size and general health of trees.
Aid. Wynne replied "Absolutely". This is a standard discussion in Chicago right now.
The easiest fasted growing tree you can plan is a honey locust and it is one of the ugliest trees
and has been taken off of our City plant list. The Honey Locust has been taken off the plant list
for the City's parkways, and she does not want to see some developer come in and plant it
because it is cheap and fast growing.
Mr. Perman said his question is what group of people on this SPAARC should be making
the decisions and voting on the decisions of species, size, and trees. Is that a decision that is
more appropriate the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry or is that something that should be
considered, debated, voted upon by this 17 member group of SPAARC. Jim Wolinski
mentioned that there will be three design professionals and two City Manager appointed staff
people that will decide appearance revie►r according to the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Perman asked about 4-17-3 C ? h. "A signage plan identifying the location, height,
type, size, color, and proposed message of all proposed exterior signage." Ald. Newman said
that this is a list of what must be submitted when the developer is getting the project ready to be
reviewed. Mr. Perman said that he just wanted to make sure that a proposed developer would
not have to go through the same exercise twice. Mark Mylott mentioned that the only time an
applicant goes to the Sign Review and Appeals Board is when the sign requires a variation. By
right, signage is not reviewed by the Sign Review and Appeals Board.
Jack Weiss, a member of the Sign Review and Appeals Board said that SPAARC does
review signs now and makes recommendation to the Sign Review and Appeals Board.
Aid. Newman thanked everyone for their comments.
r
I
Planning and Development Commnittee
Minutes - June 15. 204,12
Paee Three
that they all have the baicontes talked about tonight. They are jutting out without any thought
about appearance, without an thought to the neighborhood. There is also orange brick in all
three of the Rozak buildings. and most people she has spoken to do not like that color brick. She
added that tonight someone had mentioned that a small group of people would have a lot of
power. Right now, a small group of people has a lot of power - the developers. Ms. Wolley said
she would like a share of that power, and not let the developers have all the power.
Aid. Engelman said that currently, SPA.-kRC does talk about materials, color and
fenestration issues, and asked James Wolinski if SPAARC saw the material and the brick colors
of the buildings discussed tonight when it had the review. He asked if what was brought before
SPAARC what was built? air. Wolinski replied that substantially, yes. In reply to a question
from Aid. Engelman, \fr. Wolinski said that SPA.-kRC always discusses color and size of the
brick. Mr. Wolinski added that on the Rozak buildings on Chicago Avenue, the renderings really
did not show what eventually was put on the buildings. 515 Main originally came to SPAARC
with a buff brick and was very well received, later they came back and said they had decided to
do red brick. Site Plan tried really hard to persuade them to do buff because the other buildings
in the area were buff. The developers want to avoid the zoning review process if possible, and
they are constantly amazed when site plan tells them they want relief at the sidewalk and the
developer replies that they are following Evanston's ordinance.
Bonnie Hauser commented said she had been involved in various initiatives in the City,
and her experience in the processes is that having professional guidance process not only from
the developer and to guide the CIE}' in decision making goals would benefit everyone and would
accelerated some of the discussion process. Secondly, Binding Appearance Review would
protect Evanston from developers who have no long-term vested interest. Ms. Hauser said that
she was in a meeting with her neighbors a year or two ago where Mr. Rozak described the
development on Chicago Avenue. She said she personally encouraged her neighbors to support
this development. Ms. ??"? said that what Mr. Rozak promised is not what he built. In closing
she said that no one wants to discourage development but what they do want is quality.
Jonathan Perman said he wanted to speak on modernism and modemism in what context,
and make a few comments on some of the notations in the proposed ordinance itself. On June 2,
the Chicago Tribune had an article about some of the new modern designs, and pictured one
done by Mr. Hovy at 3I Street and Michigan Avenue on the near south side that is placed next to
a more traditional style residence. He said there are countless examples of that going on in
Chicago. Mr. Perman said that there are also examples of that in Evanston and some of those
homes have won Design Evanston awards. Mr. Perman showed several examples of modem
design. He encouraged the full Council to see what really are considered by he fine architects in
Evanston to be fine examples of modem architecture as well as other architecture taking place.
Mr. Perman said he thought the question before the Committee was will this ordinance
and guidelines as proposed still enable that kind of design to take place and to take place in these
varying kinds of context.
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes - June 18. 2002 Page Two
He shoved the Committee a picture of a house that had been on the market for one and
one-half years and had dropped S250,000 in price. He said the house did not use cheap
materials, it used good matenals in a terrible manner. fir. Kipnis said that he has heard that
people do not %vant to go before the Design and :appearance Review Committee, it takes two
hours and that's too much time. The person who o%%ms this house who has reduced the price
S250,000 and carried this house for 1 1/2 years would have greatly appreciated a lot of input. He
urged the Committee to consider this proposal.
Jeanne Lindwall said she has sat on the Binding and Appearance Review Committee of
the Plan Commission, but the comments she would make today were her own. She said she had
heard that there has been some discussion on not including additions to commercial, institutional
and multi families, she felt that it was very important they continue to be included in the Binding
and Appearance Review and Binding Site Plan Review as they are today. Ms. Lindwall thought
that the only difference in what's being recommended is that rather than appearance review
being advisory it would be binding.
She said the suggestion to include single-family new construction and Ald. Kent's
concern about the two family dwellings are real legitimate possibilities and her only concern was
that an additional staff person would have to be hired.
Ms. Lindwall said that several people tonight expressed concern about some of the things
that have happened on Chicago Avenue and she thought that it really relates to zoning concerns,
i.e., height, and bulk. Many of these kinds of issues have been addressed though the amendment
to the zoning along Chicago Avenue. She pointed out that zoning is really not a good vehicle for
dealing with site or appearance issues but that the zoning ordinance does attempt to do that.
Binding Appearance Review gives SPARC a little more ability to help mold and shape the
building that can be built under zoning to fit in with the context of its neighbors. It is really
important to remember that Binding Appearance Review does not change the underlying zoning
requirements. The same type building can be built under Binding Appearance Review as can be
built without it. Binding Appearance Review will help maintain the quality of life and the design
quality that the residents of Evanston have come to expect.
George Cyrus said that the goals of the ordinance are very good. However, he thought it
would be a big mistake to make this binding. It would put in the hands of a small group of
people and give this small group of people a great deal of power. This small group of people
can have their own pet peeves, their own particular predilections and their own powerful wills
that can lead to a stifling of creativity, diversity and development in Evanston. He said the
whole matter of appearance is one of opinion. Mr. Cyrus added that the fact is that SPARC does
have the power to enforce what is on the drawings. He cited several instances where the design
of the building was really a matter of taste and how different people have different opinions.
Jane Wolley said that when Ald. Engelman asked her what she didn't like about the
buildings she mentioned, (the new bank building and the Rozak buildings) she didn't mentioned
MANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesdav` June 18, 2002 }
6:00 P.m. �i�, •
EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER
Room 2402
MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Bernstein, AId. Engelman, Aid. Kent,
Aid. Newman, Aid. Wynne
STAFF PRESENT: James Wolinski, Judith Aiello, Stan Janusz, Carotin Smith,
Ellen Szymanski, Marc Mylott, Mary Baaske
PRESIDING OFFICIAL Aid. Newman, Chair
OTHERS PRESENT: Aid. Moran, Richard Cook, George Cyrus, Ann Dienner,
Bonnie Hauser, Debbie Hillman, Nathan Kipnis, Jeanne
Lindwall, Jonathan Perman, Jack Weiss, Jane Wolley,
DECLARATION OF OUORUht
Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:I5 p.m.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Debbie Hillman thought that if there was binding appearance review, buildings such as 10W
Central, the Northlight Condos on Chicago Avenue, the Great Bank Condos, the Rozak
buildings, the parking garage, the theater building and hotel, the townhomes on Maple and
Emerson, the townhomes on Maple and Foster, and the West Central Street Condos would have
been ameliorated.
Aid. Engelman asked if Ms. Hillman's main objection was the setback. She said the setback was
a major objection, but also there was the quality and plainness of the materials, and very little
architectural detail.
Nate Kipnis, said that this proposal impacts him and he wanted to share his opinions and feelings
regarding the proposal. He said that the goal of this proposal was justified, the information was
very well researched, and checks and balances seemed very fair. All binding appearance review
would do, would be to hold developers to nothing more than what is promised in the Appearance
Committee review. Mr. Kipnis felt the design guidelines were very straightforward and very
well implemented.
PRD Committee NItg.
Minutes of June 24. 2002
Pace 7
residential multi -family construction in the R Districts of the 51h Ward.- She pointed out
that there is an R district in the 2 d Ward as weIl. that she would like to have added to this
reference if possible. She explained further her reasons for this request. tier. Wolinski
informed the Committee and Ms. Ester that this discussion is continuing through the
Neighborhood Planning Committee. Chairman Newman asked if they can inquire as to
whether or not on this issue some 2nd Ward properties can be included or sections of this
ward. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff could inquire; however this whole process,
which has been going on for approximately 8 months, has targeted specifically the 5`h
Ward. Chairman Newman suggested that once the Committee receives this reference
back. they can discuss it and determine if they want to apply to a broader section. Mr.
Wolinski recalled that when this first came up from Ald. Kent, Legal Counsel that there
had to be some type of record as to support a moratorium. Chairman Newman assured
Ms. Ester that when this reference returns to P&D, they will take up the matter of concem
in the 2n° Ward.
Chairman Newman noted that there was a big article on residential teardowns and how it
is effecting the suburbs. He requested to staff that this article be retrieved and forwarded
to the Committee for discussion in the near future. Mr. Wolinski agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business. the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
=Brownlee
P&D Committer Mtc
Minutes of Junr 24. _QOC_
face 6
there has onl% been 2 %ears in the last ire %%here there has not been a death of a student
living in a dormiton.' lie said that the-. are proposing this ordinance to protect these
types of buildings and facilities -,;ith individuals that are either less able to do for
themsel%es in an emergenc% situation or are living in a rooming house or temporm-
living em ironment. These types of buildings have the potential for a large life -loss in the
event of a fire. He noted that there are dozens of situation in Evanston -where lives were
saved because of this system being in place. Chief Berkowsky recommended, if the
Committee agrees. to move forward to draft an ordinance.
Chairman Ne%vman raised questions on the average cost to install this type of system in
the buildings recommended. He asked if the current hotels in Evanston already have this
system in place or are in need of an updated system. Chief Berkowsky responded that is
does not have all the background information on actual cost to install in the different
types of buildings, but could retrieve this information and report back to the Committee.
Aid. Kent questioned why Primm Towers was not listed under the assisted living facility
category. Chief Berkowsky responded that Primm Towers is considered an apartment
building for independent living. Aid. Kent assumed that the Jacob Blake Manor would
be considered the same. He said these two buildings should be reconsidered under
assisted living or a new category added for buildings with all senior citizen independent
living. The two senior Housing Authority buildings in Evanston should be included in
such a category. Chief Berkowsky agreed that he would like to see all buildings with all
seniors or majority seniors. included in this ordinance.
Questions %%ere raised as to where Evanston is in terms of or compared to other
communities. Also how did other communities that do have such an ordinance, deal with
the cost issue. Chief Berkowsky responded that he will collect this information from
other communities and provide some examples to the Committee. Questions were raised
on rooming houses, however Mr. Wolinski noted that rooming houses are licensed and
inspected on a yearly basis. Nevertheless. the Committee still preferred that rooming
houses still be under consideration since a large number of these buildings are non -owner
occupied, some long distance landlords, and have had a history of problems and being
troublesome properties.
The consensus of the Committee was no objection to move forward and direct staff to
draft an ordinance with consideration of all suegestions and comments made previously.
The Committee requested that staff give notice to all buildings recommended under this
ordinance. Chief Berkowsky assured that he "ill forward notice to all buildings. Staff
agreed to have a draft ordinance prepared and the previous information requested back
before the Committee at the second meeting in July.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Betty Sue Ester requested to the Committee that they consider bringing forward
several of the references and items for future consideration listed on P&D's agenda. She
requested that the item regarding "consideration of a moratorium to limit any new
P&D Committee Mte
Minutes of June 24.
11"t! i
of Chicago announces to Jul% the rate that become, efiectke in September. Mr.
Schemterhom corrccied that the rate is announced in December to beuin the I" of the
}ear. however the initial rate started in Jul% because of the amendment to the Chicago
ordinance. Ile added that if the Cit% includes the Institute of Real Estate Management.
the Chicago Association of Realtors and the North Shore Barrington Association. these
organizations will cover giving notice to anyone affiliated with them.
Aid. Engelman asked if Evanston's current ordinance require the payment of interest
ever} year. his. Haynes responded that it is required to be paid every year. Aid.
Engelman stated his approval of this requirement and how this will make tenants more
aware. Nis. Betty Sue Ester recalled that the Housing Commission was discussing this
same issue at a past meeting and they discussed other avenues to look at other than the
Cite of Chicago. She questioned if the Housing Commission is in agreement of this
amendment. She also noted that this information has not been brought out to the tenants
and other interested parries that should be notified of this information before any
amendments are made. Chairman Nc«Tnan agreed with Ms. Ester's point. He reiterated
his motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to implement Chicago's method of
determination of interest rate paid on security deposits by landlords. He added for
staff to inform the Housing Commission and Human Relations Commission to give
both boards a chance to comment on the ordinance and he given notice of when this
matter will come back before Planning & Development Committee for
consideration. Aid. Bernstein again seconded the motion. The Committee members
agreed unanimously. his. Haynes suggested to the Committee to include in the
amendment the piece regarding the deposits being placed in a federally insured banking
institute. She noted that even though the bigger property management companies are
aware of this and the Chicago Ordinance, it is necessary to put language in the ordinance
for those landlords that are not fully aware or informed of this type of information on a
regular basis. Ald. Bernstein stated his concern for the smaller -landlords being able to
use the federally insured banks and understanding W9 forms and opening escrow
accounts, etc. It was noted that an individual landlord would only be required to deposit
the funds into an insured account. which is done all the time. It was a consensus of the
Committee to add language in the ordinance regarding the security deposit funds
being placed in a federally insured bank. The Committee voted 5-4 in favor of
amending the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance to mirror that of
Chicago's current ordinance.
Staff agreed to have the ordinance prepared and available to bring back before the
Committee at the second meeting in July.
(PDI1 Proposed l.ite Safety'Snrinkler Retrofit Ordinance
Chief Berkos;sky gave a brief overvie%% of the genesis of staff's proposal for this
ordinance as stated in their memorandum forwarded to the Committee in their packets.
He explained that this ordinance would require certain occupancies in Evanston to be
retrofitted with a fire sprinkler system, such as hospitals, hotels. nursing homes, assisted
living facilities. all dormitories, and non -owner occupied rooming houses. He mentioned
that dormitories have the worst track record for fires reported over the last decade and
P&D Committee MtL
Minutes of June N. 2002
Pace s
Chairman Newman expressed hin, concern %%ith emplo%ce parking because of the already
congested business area and lack cif parking. Ile doe; not %%anl to contemplate employees
parking on Hinman Avenue and suggested adding a condition to prohibit employee
parking on that street. Discussion took place. ifs. Szymanski said that they have
required employees to park in public garages, however this is different to actually
prohibit parking on a specified street where public parking is allowed, She expressed her
concerns with having such a condition. Chairman NewTnan recalled that they have
required in the past for applicants to provide an off-street parking plan other than the
public streets, which Ms. Szymanski agreed. Chairman Newman motioned to add as a
condition the requirement to provide an off-street parking plan to be submitted for
approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Chairman Newman moved to approve the ordinance with amendments, seconded by
Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Fraser expressed his approval for the off-street parking plan because he feels that if
employees used the parking provided on the street in front of the restaurant, it takes away
from their business by not alloying for the those spaces to be available for their patrons.
Chairman Newman agreed stating that many businesses hurt themselves by not thinking
in this same way.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD2) Amendment to Landlord.Tenant Ordinance Pertaining to Interest on Security
Denosits
Chairman Newman agreed with the information provided by staff. that the City should
follow what is being; done in Chicago. Aid. Engelman questioned who is going to make
the announcement, the Comptroller for the Cite of Chicago or the City of Evanston. Aid.
Bernstein suggested that a public notice should suffice. Chairman Newman suggested
that a notice be sent to each landlord every year in addition to a public notice. Mr. Dan
Schermerhom said that if the Citv uses the Chicago Ordinance, it is not necessary for
staff to send out to each landlord because most property managers receive a copy.
Chairman Newman moved that City staff prepare an ordinance consistent with
staffs memorandum and the Chicago Ordinance, seconded by Aid. Bernstein.
Aid. Engelman asked. in reference: to Mr. Schermerhom's comment, will the smaller
landlords really know about this without notice sent directly to them. Mr. Schermerhom
stated that the City of Chicago publishes this information in the newspapers and by public
communication. The Committee requested comment from Ms. Haynes who has more
contact with the smaller landlords. 'pis. Haynes suggested. from her experience, that a
mailing be done, information published on the CityWeb. public communication on the
cable channel, articles placed in the Highlights magazine and a public ad placed in the
local newspapers such as the Evanston Review, RoundTable. etc. She noted that with the
Highlights magazine, notification needs to be sent to them a few months before the article
is published, therefore this could pose a problem if the interest rate is not known at that
time, however an informational ad could be published. Aid. Engelman asked if the City
P& D Committee %tt-
Minutes of June =a. ZV3=
Pace 3
Associates. %kho reported that the restaurants in the building are not supposed to use the
dumpsters that are there and are required to ha%e their o►%n. He said that they are
arranging to have garbage pick-up -',-times per week and if this is not enough. can arrange
up to 5 pick-ups per week. Ald. %Wynne stated that this situation is of high concern.
therefore she would like to make this a condition of the special use, especially since she
does not particularly trust the management company for this building. Mr. Verani noted
that they talked directly with Waste Management Inc. to set up their ow-n garbage
pickups. %Vith this information. Aid. \Wynne still preferred to make the garbage
collection a condition of this special use because of the already existing problems within
that alley. Aid. Wynne moved to include as a condition with the special use to have 3
garbage pickups per week with their own dedicated dumpster, seconded by
Chairman Newman. ylr. Wolinski commented that staff has been requiring all new
type 2 restaurants to come in with a Sunday pickup because they find in all the business
districts where there are a number of food establishments that many of them receive a
pickup on Friday and not another until Monday. They Sind that even with having several
garbage receptacles, weekends require most of these businesses to have an additional
pickup because of the extra business. He noted that Sunday pickups are available.
usually at an additional cost, however this will help ease the rodent situations behind
many restaurants and other problems that occur with excessive garbage. Aid. Wynne
amended her motion to have the 3 garbage pickup, including a Sunday pickup also.
Chairman Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
Mr. Alterson brought attention to the ?,, condition recommended by the ZBA which
reads: "The operator of the subject type ? restaurant shall not utilize for the disposal of
trash generated in the production of any product for sale by said restaurant, any trash
receptacles owned and or maintained by the City or any not -for -profit agency, which the
City or said agency- maintains for the purpose of collecting litter or trash generated by the
general public." He also pointed out the next condition recommended by the ZBA which
states "No deliveries shall be made to the subject type 2 restaurant on any day prior to 9
A.M." He noted that several concerned neighbors did appear at the ZBA public hearing
and problems were mentioned with other business merchants on Main using the public
receptacles on the street to dump their garbage in. Aid. Kent directed to Mr. Wolinski
that it may be necessary to require certain other commercial businesses other than
restaurants to provide the additional Sunday pickup also because some do not provide
enough dumpster for their business or it depends on the type of business involved. He
said it can also be required for some of those businesses to provide an additional
dumpster. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff is recommending that it be a condition as
part of every special use for a type ? restaurant to have Sunday pickup, for an existing
restaurant they do not have that type of leverage. He said that the City can require more
dumpsters, however there is not much room in most alleys to put additional dumpsters.
this is why they usually require more frequent pickups. Chairman Newman moved to
add the 2 conditions previously stated by Mr. Alterson regarding i) non-use of
public receptacles on the street, and 2) no deliveries before 9 a.m. Aid. Wynne
seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
P&b Committer tittle
Minutes of June 24. _1Y.i_
Paae 2
Aid. Bernstein noted that Skokie has been doing this for the past = %cars along with many
other municipalities. Therefore. he does not belic%e this is an inconvenience to a
developer to ha%e to do.
With no further discussion. the Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
tP?) Ordinance 63-0-02 — Sneciai use for a Tyne 3 Restaurant. 410 Noyes Street
Chairman Newman acknowledged the owner of Rollin -in -Dough. Mr. Paul Camastro.
He noted that this restaurant is in the i'h Ward but borders the I" and 7'h Wards. Aid.
Engelman recalled that this restaurant was once a carryout pizza parlor and then went on
to all catering and now the request is to go back to carryout. Mr. Camastro confirmed
and added that this is an expansion of his current business. Chairman Newman asked the
hours of operation. Mr. Camastro said the hours are from 10:30 a.m. — 7:00 p.m..
,Monday through Saturday. Chairman Newman noted that the Mr. Camastro has been a
mainstay on Noyes for a long time. He commended the owner the good business that he
has provided for that community.
Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Engelman
questioned the parking situation in the area. It was noted that there is sufficient metered
parking available in the parking lot on Noyes and along the street. With no further
discussion, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P3) Ordinance 61-0-02 -- Snecial Use for Subw•av Restaurant. 506 Main Street
Chairman Newman asked how many Subway's are currently in Evanston at this point
because it seems. Mr. Alterson answered that are several Subways and there have been at
least %: dozen applications for sandwich shops since January. The Committee called to
mints that there are currently Subway's on Howard, Central and Sherman Avenue and
rumors of one going in the Dempster/Dodge shopping area. Mr. Alterson noted that
anecdotally, he has been informed of interest in having a Subway in the Church Street
Station building. however he has seen no plans as of date.
Chairman Newman asked the applicant, Mr. Moaiz Verani, how many Subw•ay's he
currently operates in Evanston. Mr. Verani responded that this is his first and only
Subway at this time. The Committee discussed the location of the business: Aid. Wynne
noted that this location is on Main Street near the Cafe Express restaurant and the
previous business at this location was a small store operated by the applicant also. Mr.
Verani said that he will have 6-10 employees. Chairman Newman asked where those s
employees will park. Mr. Verani responded that there is no parking available in the area.
He knows that there is a parking lot on Hinman and meter parkins, however commuters
usually fill these spaces.
Aid. Wynne recalled that at the last meeting. she raised concerns about the garbage
collection and the current problems and complaints in that particular alley. She noted
that this building especially does not have enough waste pickups. She asked how he
plans to address this problem. Mr. James Fraser of Warren Johnson Architects Inc..
informed that they have spoken with the building management company. B&A
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of.lune 24. 2002
Room 2403 — 7:30 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. Kent. A. Newman. %1. Wynne
Staff Present: J. A'olinski. A. Alterson. 41. Barrv. A. Berko%%sk_%'. E. Conrad, P.
Haynes. P. Keegan. E. Szymanski. J. Bro%%mlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUhI
Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10.2002 MEETING
Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes for the June 10. 2002 meeting, seconded by
Ald. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion (Ald. Kent was not yet present).
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI 1 Ordinance 57-0-02 — Reouired Diaital Submission of Construction Documents for
Building Permits
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Pat Keegan from GIS was present for
questions. He also informed the Committee that a page was eliminated during copying
from the original packet and the new page was distributed this evening. He noted that
this system Mll further modernize the City's method in how- we store documents. Ald.
Engelman questioned if most submissions of this kind of permit are being done digitally
now because $500.000 is not a significant amount when looking at construction cost. Mr.
Wolinski responded that currently this is not being done. He noted that it is very
common to see additions in Evanston for S500,000 plus and it is staffs intention here is
to catch all the new construction of new single-family housing and any type of
construction beyond this range. Ald. Engelman asked if most architects are now into the
digital age and possess the equipment to do this. Mr. Wolinski assured that a good
percentage of architects are up to date to supply digital documents. He also informed the
Committee that the City's GIS Department is going to provide this service for a minimal
cost. Mr. Keegan further assured that if someone does not have the ability to provide use
with additional documents, they will be able to utilize the City's database by providing
hard copies of drawings and plans to convert to digital form. Mr. Wolinski noted that this
new digital documentation will not omit the requirement for applicants to submit the
original drawings and plans along with.
P&D Cotamince Mtg.
Minutes of July 8.2002
Page 7
situation similar to what is happening in communities such as Hinsdale and other
comparable toms. He gave an example of a tear down that is going to take place on
west Central Street where there is a proposal to tear down the existing single-family
structures and replace %kith 6 luxury townhouses are going to be put up. Mr. WoIinski
noted that he personally does not have a problem with the tear downs that they have done
in Evanston for the most part, even though there are a few he can recall that are perhaps a
bit large and too tall. However, for the most pan, the developers that are doing them are
trying to stay within the character of the community with the exception of i or 2 that he
can recall. Chairman Newman stated that he would like to have Aid. Moran present for
further discussion with the Committee because the last he can recall was his concern on
the infringement upon the rights of property owners. He noted that the Preservation
District has prevented teardowns in those areas and was one of the main purposes of
regulating those districts. He stated his support in favor of regulating teardowns because
it has become a big problem in the suburbs today. He referred to a full page article in the
SunTimes about the amount of teardowns in the suburbs and the major concern by
municipalities in controlling this effect. Ald. Engelman recalled why Aid. Moran
originally made this reference because of his concern for the smaller properties being torn
down and replaced with the trophy houses or larger residential structures and he agrees
that this is of major concern on the infringement upon the rights of the property owners
adjacent to such construction tear down and replacement. The Committee and staff
continued with extensive discussion on this matter. The consensus of the Committee was
to request that staff continue to look into other Chicago land communities and their
dealings with residential teardowns and any regulations put into place. Staff
acknowledged the Committee's request and assured that they will report back to the
Committee in the near future with further information.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4 ,I
JacquglinetE. Brownlee
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of July 8. 2002
Page 6
structure fits in to the approval of acceptable design review. Mr. Mylott assured Aid.
Bernstein that he will forward a copy of that photo to Mr. Macsai for further review and
response back to him.
Amendment to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Pertaining to Interest on Security Devosit4
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this item is scheduled for the July 22nd
meeting, however staff will more than likely move this item to the meeting in August to
allow sufficient time.
Proposed Life Safety/SarinkJer Retrofit Ordinance
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he has received a number of phone calls on
this issue, as well as Chief Berkowsky. He noted that most of the calls received were
from those buildings that are concerned about the financial burden on complying with
this ordinance. He stated that another major concern was the question on the
amortization period in which compliance is expected. He noted that Chief Berkowsky is
going to send out a mass mailing to everyone on the list that would be effected by this
ordinance informing them of what the regulations entail and of the P&D meeting date to
give those affected an opportunity to comment and participate in the discussion. He
stated that this item will be placed on the agenda for the meeting August to give Chief
Berkowsky more time for proper notification and compilation of information to respond
to the inquiries and concerns received. _
Unscheduled Reference Items
Review and Discuss Licensin¢ of Rental Units in Evanston
Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that this reference originated from Aid. Rainey
and has remained on the agenda for a long period of time. He assured Ald. Rainey's
continued interest in this matter and suggested to the Committee that they consider
review of this item in the near future.
Consideration of a Moratorium to limit any new residential multi -family construction in
the R Districts of the 5th Ward
Mr. Wolinski stated that they are proceeding on Aid. Kent's reference about this
moratorium and the possible down -sizing of some sections of the 5th Ward as they go
through the plan review process in working with the Neighborhood Planning Committee
along with the neighborhood group that has participated together in unison with this
review process. He noted that at this time, he could not give a concrete future date for
response back to the Committee from the Neighborhood Planning Committee. Ald. Kent
assured the Committee members that he is content with the progress in working with the
Neighborhood Planning Committee and is confident that they will be ready for a
presentation of their review in the near future.
Discussion of Tear Downs
Mr. Wolinski stated that discussion of residential teardowns is a reference that originated
from Aid. Moran and this matter was discussed at his ward briefing with staff last week.
He noted that Aid. Moran's concern is that he does not want to see Evanston in the
rl
P&D Committee MW
Minutes of Jute 8. 2DD2
1 Page S
Travel has not yet cleared out the space, however the most viable inquiry made was from
a jewelry store business. id. Wynne recalled past situations where the Committee
suspended the rules for businesses due to certain times of the year where profit is most
viable such as the Christmas holiday season. In light of this fact, she feels the request
here is legitimate in the same nature and she has not objection to the applicant's rationale.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Segall informed that construction
would take approximately 5-8 weeks from this point to open and conduct business,
however, they are striving to move expediently to shorten that time frame in order to take
advantage of the profitable season.
With no further comment, Aid. Bernstein moved to recommend approval for
suspension of the rule, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the
motion. Chairman Newman requested that the applicants try to reach those businesses in
opposition immediately after this to notify them of this decision and to give them an
opportunity to have a representative present at the Council meeting by 8:30 p.m. if
possible.
Mr. Wolinski asked the applicant if they have submitted their plans to the Building
Division for a building permit yet. Mr. Segall confirmed that they have done so.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
The Committee and staff reviewed the items listed under future consideration to
determine the status of several references made in the past and plans to proceed on them
from this point. The following decisions were made from discussion.
Scheduled Items
Bindine ADDearance Review
Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that Mr. Mylott is leaving City employment by
August 2nd and noted his extensive work they he has done regarding this issue. There
was a consensus of the Committee to receive as much input from Mr. Mylott as possible
before his departure from the City. Mr. Wolinski stated that this issue is following two
[tacks at this point; first being that Mr. Mylott has been working with Ms. Szymanski by
going through all the design guidelines to try to explain changes and modifications to
make the guidelines more acceptable to the City's Legal Department. He continued that
Mr. Siegal is going to do a final review of the total guidelines at some point in the future.
He recalled that Ms. Szymanski had stated at the last P&D meeting that she could have
the draft ready to present back to the Committee within 30 days, however he can not
verify this at this time with legal staff not being present. Mr. Mylott informed the
Committee that he, along with Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Alterson, had a meeting with Ms.
Szymanski last week to talk about transition to insure the process continuation on this
issue. Aid. Bernstein requested that staff provide a copy of the photo of the farm house
with the lannon stone 3/4 of the way up to Mr. John Macsai for review because he would
like to receive input from his past inquiry regarding an architectural op'ution of how this
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of July 8. 2002
Page 4
soon as possible with their preference being in favor of Ben & Jerry's. However. STA
Travel is not willing to wait for Ben &- Jerry's to go through several months of hearings
to receive City approval. He said this is why there is the urgency to push Ben & Jerry's
application through the City hearings procedure. if possible, to give them a chance to
occupy this space, especially in lieu of what the applicant stands for and contributes to
the community. Ms. Krigbaum informed the Committee that they have tried to reach the
opposition that was present at the ZBA hearings, primarily being Marble Slab Creamery,
TCBY, and JK Sweets, to discuss in further detail their operation and YJC's primary
goals in this business. She noted that the response from those businesses in opposition
was either very short in conversation to no response back at all.
Aid. Engelman moved Approval of the special use request for a type 2 restaurant for
Ben & Jerry's at the proposed location subject to the conditions as specified under
the ZBA's recommendation. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion.
Aid. Bernstein commented that even though he has not had a chance to read the entire
transcript, he finds that the opponent's arguments are not substantial in this matter. He
especially noted Marble Slab Creamery and their close proximity to the Century
Theatres, as well as the locations of the other opponents, will not be significantly effected
by this business. He believes that zoning was not meant to regulate commerce and this
fact has been stated on past numerous occasions with respect to other overlaying
businesses such as coffee and sandwich shops. He feels that this business in particular
will be policed better than most locales because of the group of individuals that will be
employed at this business and the YJC's reputation and history of what their mission is
for accomplishment. He stated his support and stands firmly for YJC's concept. He
mentioned an article in the Crain Business Report regarding the Century Theatre
generated more than 1 million participants to downtown Evanston and it being the 17th
ranking attraction to the general Chicago land area and in lieu of this information, he
feels that there is enough business to go around to profit all businesses in the downtown
area Chairman Newman said that he finds it interesting with the recent approval of the
special use for Marble Slab Creamery in lieu of all the arguments he read from the
opposition in the transcript. He agrees with Ald. Bernstein in sending a strong message
that the purpose of zoning is not to regulate competition and the marketplace for
business. He continued that the argument that Ben & Jerry's will be popular in Evanston
and hurt the other ice cream businesses is sustainable because this situation could be
experienced by any other similar business (es) within close proximity of each other. He
firmly believes this is not a fair argument and he does not see anything in the transcript to
indicate that there is any strong controversy related to the standards.
The Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Chairman Newman asked for any Committee discussion regarding the request for
suspension of the rules. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that any other fast food
establishments that inquired about leasing this space would have to go through the same
zoning process and he asked Mr. Nash what other businesses expressed interest that
would be able to go through as -of -right. Mr. Nash responded that ai this point, STA
r
P&D Committer Mt&
Minutes ofJul� 8. 2002
Page 3
they will go through. `is. Jeannett responded that they plan to hire 30 people annually
who will work on approximately a 6-month basis, depending upon time needed for the
individual, and then they will be placed in another job. She noted that they will
emphasize on customer service. which is the number one complaint in the service
industry. Mr. Segall added they believe on a part-time basis that they will be able to train
the young people they hire at a cost of roughly 600,0 of what it cost to go through their
normal training program, which is very efficient on their terms. Therefore, they see this
operation as another extension of YJC's services that they have been providing. Aid.
Kent commended YJC on the number of kids they propose to assist in a year. He asked if
they would be able to also work with the children that are under 16 (14 & 15 year olds)
who are able to work because this age group is of concern in his mind due to their need
for waivers and preparing them for the work environment as well. Mr. Segall responded
that he is not an expert in legal affairs, however in terms of working with the child labor
laws, YJC is willing to worst with those children under 16 able to work. Ms. Jeannett
verified that the nature of their business is such that they can work with those children
and there will be certain employment opportunities for them as well.
Aid. Wynne asked what the hours of operation will be and will there be professional staff'
that has worked with this type of work environment. Ms Krigbaum responded that the
store will be open from l l :00 am. to Midnight during the Spring and Summer and open
until 10:00 p.m. during the Fall and Winter. She informed that she has worked in 2 other
Ben & Jerry's stores previously with a youth work program as well. She also has a social
service background working with teens. Aid. Bernstein asked about the seating inside the
store. Ms. Krigbaum responded that there will be very limited seating with only a few
chairs and tables provided. She envisioned that maybe next year they will request
sidewalk seating for next summer. Aid. Bernstein requested an explanation on why the
immediate urgency is necessary for this application in terms of wanting to suspend the
rules in this case. Mr. Segall responded that with this business being in the ice cream
industry there is an urgency to move as quickly as possible daring this time of year
because the largest part of the sales are during the period of time between Memorial Day
and Labor Day and they would like to take advantage some of this time. He asked Mr.
Nash to explain further the urgency with the lease situation for this proposed location and
the fact that there is other competition wanting to lease this space as well. Mr. Nash
explained that what has happened with this space is truly a victim of the September 1 Ith
occurrence. He continued that the space was originally to a travel agency whose business
went downhill after September I I th. Immediately afterwards, STA Travel came in a
purchased the existing travel agency along with many other travel agencies. However, at
the same time of this purchase, STA Travel was also opening another site on Church
Street in the McDougal Littel building. Therefore, this business had two locations within
2 1/2 blocks of each other and eventually notified Farnsworth Hill that they would have
to close their office on Orrington with over a year left on their lease. He said that STA
Travel then contracted with Farnsworth Hill to proceed in subleasing the space, which
they put a sign in the window and received an unbelievable amount of inquiries from
businesses to lease the space. Mr. Nash mentioned several of the types of businesses that
inquired about the space, however they had knowledge of Ben & Jerry's interest in the
location as well. He stated that STA Travel put pressure on him to lease the space as
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of Jul} 8. 2002
Page 2
Ms. Anne Dienner asked if it would be possible to set a condition with the sidewalk cafe
request to require them to clean or power wash the sidewalk beneath and surrounding
their sidewalk cafe. She has observed that many of the sidewalk cafes are in need of this
service. Mr. W'olinski informed that the City and Evmark advice against any of the
downtowm businesses to do their own power washing of the sidewalk because they
already provide this service at scheduled times throughout the year. He said that
additional power washing would damage the sidewalks. The vote was 4-0 in favor of
the motion.
(P5) Ordinance 65-0-02 — Snecial Use for 1634 Orrineton 1Tv3e 2 Restaurant: Ben &
JgM's
Chairman Newman acknowledged those present representing this application and asked if
anyone that expressed opposition at the ZBA hearing was present. There was no one
present in opposition to this request. He noted that the Committee just received a copy of
the transcript this evening. He asked the applicants to address the Committee at this time.
Mr. Ralph Segall, President of YJC Enterprises, spoke first on behalf of the group
representing the application and gave a brief statement. He informed the Committee that
YJC Enterprise is a not -far -profit organization whose parent is the Youth Job Center of
Evanston. He said that it is YJC Enterprises that is proposing to open the Ben & Jerry's
franchise in the form of partnership, which is a program that Ben & Jerry's offers to not -
for -profit organizations. The anticipation is that the partnership would be one as to fulfill
the mission of the Youth Job Center, which is to provide job training for young people in
the Evanston area primarily. Mr. Segall introduced the others: Mr. James Sibley, current
Executive Director of the Youth Job Center, Ms. Tern Krigbaum, who will be the General
Manager of the store and responsible for day-to-day operations. Ms. Ann Jeannett,
Founder of the Youth Job Center and also a Board Member of the YJC Enterprises, and
Mr. James Nash, representative of Farnsworth Hill (realtor). He noted that they have
come to the Committee to request the special use to open the Ben & Jerry's store and are
ready to go with all of their funding secured and location in place.
l
Ald. Bernstein asked for an explanation of the concept of "not -for -profit" in this matter,
specifically, does the City generate revenue from the rental of the store, does the City
receive any sales tax revenue generated, etc.? Mr. Segall responded yes to the latter
question. It was clarified that only YJC Enterprises will recycle the profits. Mr. Segall
added that they are anticipating the profits, such as they are, can't be earned by a not -for- _
profit. They expect to operate breaking even with a slight profit in order to protect
themselves against any unforeseen losses. He said that the mission here is to be able to
offer another avenue towards training disadvantaged youth. Ald. Bernstein asked if this
concept has worked elsewhere. Mr. Segall answered that there are 12 other partner -
shops. Ms. Jeannett added that from her experience, they have learned that you do not
make a substantial amount of money, however it provides wonderful training the clients
and also brings good publicity to the crowning agency. She reminded that the better the
publicity, the more business and the less dependent the agency becomes with using City
funds in the future. Ald. Kent asked how many people they will employ and the cycle
1 Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of July 8, 2002
Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. A'}tine
Alderman Tardy: S. Engelman
Stab Present: J. Wolinski, M. Barry, A. Berkowskr, N1. Mylott, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Newman
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chaimian Newman called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1& 2002 SPECIAL P&D
MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 24.2002
Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes for the special meeting on June 18, 2002,
seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Engelman was
not yet present).
Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes for the June 24, 2002 meeting, seconded
by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P1) Temporary Sian Reauest for American Craft Exposition
The Committee agreed this request has been approved for a number of rears without any
problems. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was
4-0 in favor of the motion.
() Sidewalk Cafe for Tine 2 Restaurant at 812 Davis (Ouizno's Classic Sub)
Chairman Newman addressed the applicant explaining to them the requirements and their
responsibility to have staff monitor the cafe at all times and litter and debris pickup
within a specified radius of the sidewalk cafe. Aid. Bernstein asked about the waiver for
non -reusable dishware and beverage containers. Staff noted that this waiver is listed
under the Site Plan & Appearance Review checklist for sidewalk cafe regulations and is
also noted on application. Therefore, this waiver request has not been noted on the past
sidewalk cafd request because the majority type 2 restaurants are in need of this waiver.
Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Quizno's sidewalk cafe request, seconded by
AkL Wynne.
P&D Committee bttg.
July 22.2002
Page S
discussed this further and came to a consensus that there is a need to go over the legal
issues thoroughly before mooting on to drafting such an ordinance. Aid. Newman
specifically questioned the outcome of the possibility of lawsuits against the City for
making such a drastic decision on the pan of staff. He said that consideration also needs
to be given to the rights of the mortgage holder. Mr. Wolinski noted that he has not fully
discussed this matter with the Legal Department, however due to the number of boarded
buildings in Evanston at this time, his concern is to start addressing this issue and
lessening the blight effect that these buildings cause. Aid. Newman agrees with staffs
reasoning in addressing the blight, however this solution definitely needs legal review.
He questioned how staff planned to proceed with such an action. Chairman Bernstein
recalled that staff indicated that this would go through the notice procedure and court
action before proceeding to the conclusion of demolition. Mr. Waiinski added that staff
was looking to add language to support the Building Official's position to allow the
demolition order of the building after all the proper procedures have been made. He
pointed out that the building code states that he as the Building Director can order a
building demolished if he feels the public safety is in danger, even without a court order.
After discussion, the Committee requested that staff retrieve the minutes from P&D when
this discussion took place. They also requested that staff review this farther with Legal.
Mr. Wolinski told the Committee that the second ordinance staff is working on is an
amendment to the BOCA Building Code to include language pertaining to certain types
of pile driving. He noted that staff' would like to see the type of pile -driving that was
used in the Roszak project in the 1200 block of Chicago Avenue, eliminated from use due
to the possibility of structural damage to surrounding properties.
Ms. Diener questioned the status of the tear down issue that has been under unscheduled
references for some time now. It was noted that staff is still working on gathering the
information requested from other communities and their procedures.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacq lin E. Brownlee
P&D Comminee Sit&
July 22.2002
Page 4
(P51 Resolution 57-R-02 — Honorary Street Name "Ed Gold"
Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor
of the motion.
COMMUNICATION
{PD1) 2300 Harrison Street — Retmrt Recommending Granting Evanston Landmark
Designation
Mr. Carlos Ruiz gave the Committee a brief overview of the property and the history. He
noted that the Preservation Commission completed their re dew and voted unanimously
for recommendation of the nomination of this property for Evanston Landmark
designation. He added that the architect, Mr. Bertrand Goldberg, is considered to be one
of the most prominent architects of his time. He said that if this Committee votes in
agreement for recommendation of this nomination, the ordinance will be drafted and
ready for City Council approval at the meeting of August 12'k. He also noted that the
owner could also be present at that meeting. The Committee unanimously agreed and
ampted the Preservation Commission's report recommending 2300 Harrison for
designation as an Evanston Landmark.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
Bindina AnDearance Review
Aid. Newman asked the status of this matter since Committee discussion last month and
if this item will be ready for review at the meeting in August. Ms. Szymanski responded
that she has not completed the re -write since the Committee's last discussion. She
recalled Aid. Engelman's request to have this forwarded to Mr. Siegel for his legal
review and opinions of the concept. She said per direction of the City Manager, Mr.
Siegel will be reviewing the original draft, however she is still doing some revisions. In
any case, the draft ordinance has been forwarded to Mr. Siegel and they are awaiting his
response. Aid. Newman requested that Legal staff forward the Committee's anticipation
to retrieve a respgnse as soon as possible so that this matter stays clear in their minds.
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that hopefully on August 12`s, staff will be
bringing before them two ordinance amendments that have been previously discussed.
One ordinance pertains to boarded buildings and how long it can remain boarded before
some action can be taken on it. Ald. Newman recalled that Committee has already
discussed this reference some time ago and reminded that it was decided at that time to
not take any further action. He asked staff to elaborate further on any changes since that
time. Mr. Wolinski explained that they are considering as a staff recommendation, to
draft an ordinance that if a building is boarded either by direction of the City or the owner
boards it for a variety of reasons, that after some period of time, the City can go in and
confiscate the building. He suggested the period of time be no longer than 9 months to 1
year and the consideration of demolition of the building at that time. The Committee
P&D Committee Mtg.
July 22.2002
Page 3
standards because she has not seen any of the paperwork. Mr. Wolinski assured that all
the various City departments have signed this plat.
Aid. Engelman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
Aid. Newman asked for clarification if this subdivision is requested to build a single-
family house on a separate -lot, which staff affirmed. He asked how big the house would
be. The applicant informed that that proposed house will be approximately 4000 square
feet. Aid. Newman noted that this could meet the criteria defined for a "trophy house"
and is Concerned because no one in the neighborhood has been informed of this since it is
administerial. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that currently there are two houses
that are currently going up on Isabella Street that are fairly large in size. He noted that
his is the last tract of land that is available in that area Chairman Bernstein asked if the
applicant is involved in a condo conversion of the property adjacent to this lot. The
applicant confirmed that they are currently in the process and are ready to file the
condominiums declaration. He mentioned that they always anticipated that this lot would
be used to ultimately build a single-family house, therefore they accepted it out of the
condominium declaration. The applicant pointed out on the plat diagram explaining
where the building to be rehabbed into condominiums is situated, the buildings parking
location and where the proposed new single-family home will be built on the subdivided
lot. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that this land has been open space for a tong time and was
owned by the same owner of Hampton Parkway Condominiums. Chairman Bernstein
asked Mr. Alterson what the zoning is for the property, which he responded R5. Mr.
Alterson informed the Committee that a member of the Zoning Board who is aware that
this is happening; the member being Mr. Ed Walsh owns the property to the east. He also
noted that this is plat is not required by the State Plat Act but is mostly being done so that
there is a coherent legal description for the property.
The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Berstein abstained from vote due
to his past consultation with the applicant.
(P4) Resolution 56-R-02 -- Honorary Street Name "Bvrne Piven"
Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Engelman.
Aid. Newman said his only comment with these honorary street naming is the
understanding of exactly when the sign is to come down and staying uniform with this for
all dedications. He stated that he personally has no problem with whatever time is agreed
upon or if the signs never come down, however it must be clear across the board and
adhered to all public street sign dedications. The Committee recalled their past
discussion on this matter and agreed that the time was expanded to a limit of 10 years
definitely. Mr. Doug Gaynor confirmed that the current amended ordinance allows for a
period of 10 years. He noted that the signs that were already up at the time of this
amendment, were incorporated for an extension of 10 more years.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
P&D Comrninee Nitg.
July 22.2002
Page 2
find it favorable when the actual ownem such as the Shipky's, appear before the
Committee to represent their business instead of store manager or other affiliate.
Mr. Shipky informed the Committee that there is a trash compactor in rear of the building
on the loading dock. He said that they do have trash pick-up 6 days per week and are
also planning to use the compactor for any overflow garbage in their own receptacle and
the city receptacles out on the sidewalk. Aid. Newman commended this plan as a good
solution.
With no further discussion, Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Newman.
Chairman Bernstein expressed his support for Aid. Newman's concerns and added to the
applicant that even though their business is adjoining the others mentioned, he reminded
them of their responsibility to adhere to the conditions of their ordinance and not depend
on the other businesses in keeping with their own. He noted that every individual
business should be accounted for. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(P2) HOME Fund Reservation for Three Housine Development Grouns per HUD's
HOME Program Resulations
Mr. Marino gave the Committee a brief ovendew of this matter. He explained that the
City's HOME Program receives approximately $500,000 per year from HUD, which is
money that is fended to not -for -profit organizations to do affordable housing,
composition finance and rehab as well. He said that over the past several years the City
has spent $1.67 million and HUD has indicated that they feel we should have spent an
additional S168,000 to be on target with our 5-year plan. He said by reserving money for
Evanston's 3 Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), as indicated on
the agenda item sheet, this will be sufficient to meet HUD's requirements. He said that in
the near future they will have very specific project proposals from the 3 CHDOs to use
this money. Aid. Engelman interpreted that this means the government is telling us that
we are not spending the funds fast enough, affirmed by Mr. Marino. He questioned why
the funds need to be allocated the 3 CHDOs indicated if they do not have a current
project to allocate to. He also asked if there are other CHDOs that could use the money
at this immediate time. Mr. Marino responded that the three CHDO's indicated are the
only ones in Evanston. He added that these 3 organizations do have projects that they are
working on but none that are ready to present at this point. This reservation of money is
available for the next two years. He also mentioned that the 3 CHDOs mentioned have
received special status from the City in which a certain percentage of funds is allocated to
in any case. He said in effect, what they are doing is acknowledging that they are
reserving this money for those CHDOs future use.
With no further discussion, Aid. Engelman moved approval, seconded by Aid.
Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
(P3) Plat of KIP Evanston Resubdivision
Chairman Bernstein asked Ms. Szymanski if this plat meets all the requirements since it
is ministerial in nature. She responded that she is not aware if this has met all the
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of Juh• 22, 2002
Room 2403 — 7:45 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman. A. Newmam ,t. Wynne
Alderman Absent: J. Kent
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:54 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY Il. 2002
Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes for the meeting on July Sth, seconded by
Ald. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion (Ald. Engelman was not yet
present).
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(Pl) Sidewalk Cafe for TvQx 2 Restaurant at 940 Church (Marble Slab Creamery)
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the owner Mr. Randy Shipky accompanied by his
wife. Ald. Newman stated that he has no problems with the sidewalk cafd request for this
business. However, he informed the applicants of the constant complaints that he
receives with the garbage on the streets downtown stemming from to the many outdoor
cafes. He said that there is a concern with type 2 restaurants not having adequate staff to
wait their outdoor cafds and there is a need for constant wait staff to monitor and
maintain the area. He mentioned, as an example, the many complaints that he has
received on Jamba Juice with their Sunday garbage build-up that is not properly disposed
of by the staff who are responsible for maintenance on the days that they do not receive
refuse collection. He even noted complaints along with photos that he received regarding
Wolfgang Puck's outdoor cafd, which is a type 1 restaurant, and his rising concern with
the entertainment area and stressing to the businesses the importance of monitoring and
maintaining their responsible areas. Ald. Newman made clear that these caudonary
words are not just for this business, but for all the current restaurants downtown and the
new ones coming in because cooperation on everyone's part along with the City is
necessary to try and keep a cleanly appearance. He pointed out that this is important in
how patrons view Evanston and their decision on whether to keep coming back. He does
.V
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minotes of 8-12-02
Page 12
every consideration be given to work with the Evanston Fire Department to gradually
install such sprinkler systems as it becomes available to the need for individual
renovation to each unit. Ms. Toumey explained in further detail the process of requesting
for additional funding to support the cost for installing this sprinkler system requirement
to each unit.
At this point, Ald. Newman again reiterated his concern with staff' addressing the
additional cost incurred and reasonable time frames for those buildings and organizations
that might need supplementary time to comply. Chief Berkowski acknowledged those
concerns and confirmed that staff' will further look into additional cost and time needed to
comply for those organizations and buildings that might need to be considered under
specific circumstances. This item was held in Committee for further discussion until
the September 91h meeting for staff to gather further information on financial
hardships and comparison of different circumstances.
COMMUNICATIONS
lPD31 Zonin¢ Mat) Included in ESRI Mat) Book
This communication was accepted without further comment.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further comment, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
%J"uelin E. Brownlee
P&D Committee %ttg.
Minutes of 8-12-02
Page ! 1
Aid. Newman requested at this point, in lieu of all the previous comments and concerns
made by citizen comment, that staff review this issue of cost constraints that will be
incurred by the various buildings that fall under the proposed requirements and forward
this information to the Committee at the next scheduled meeting. Chief Berkowski
responded that staff will comply with additional costs on these requirements, however he
referred the Committee to review the information gathered by his staff under
"Attachment C" in the agenda packet information which generalizes the cost on an
approximate average square footage estimate. He noted that this is primarily a
generalized cost estimate and mentioned that costs vary depending on the different
technologies either required or preferred that would be incurred upon the recipient. He
further noted that numerous older buildings in Evanston fall under additional concern
because when they were built in the 1940's and 1950's, the building requirements did not
look at or require exit issues that are seriously of concern currently and many buildings
have not yet been updated to full compliance.
Mr. Joe Ricchio, informed the Committee of his concerns with the appeal process and the
vague clarification on the process to do so as worded in the proposed ordinance. He too
noted his approval of the life safety issues addressed in compliance with this ordinance,
however he question what avenue does the landlord or tenant for that matter, has to
procedurally follow if they want to pursue further on an appeal basis. Further discussion
ensued amongst the Committee members, staff and Mr. Ricchio. Ald. Newman
concluded that he would prefer to see this matter discussed further and taken into serious
consideration before those Commissions that need to address this before bringing back
before this Committee. He personally stated that he supports having an appeal process in
place with this matter so be the need arises, and request that staff further investigate the
legal standpoint of this on behalf of the City's position.
Ms. Sioux Tourney, Manager of the 2 Cook County HUD Senior Citizen Housing
Authority buildings in Evanston located at I900 Sherman and the building on Noyes
Avenue. She also noted HUD's good relationship over the past several years between
their organization and Evanston's Fire Department staff. She informed the Committee of
the size of their two buildings and boasted that since 1990 they have only had 1 fire
reported involving a casualty of one of their senior citizens. She explained to the
Committee the hardship on complying within a certain time frame due to financial
hardships that will definitely incur in their case because of the fixed income status of
almost every resident senior citizen in their buildings. She agrees with the comments
made previously by several public commentators regarding the hardship burden placed
upon the tenants involved, however she stressed the acknowledgement of Council to the
very definite undeniable position of every tenant living under their senior citizen living
arrangement that fits within every qualification for government supported living. Ms.
Tourney admitted that although she agrees with the life safety requirements needed for
compliance to this ordinance, she informed the Committee of utter ciaos that transpired
during the simple inclusion of air-conditioning units some years ago. She worries about
the added ciaos that would be involved with the installation of the sprinkler systems
required with this ordinance proposal. She requested, on behalf of HUD's position, that
P&D Committee %Itg.
Minutes of 8.12-02
Page 10
this safety regulation because of the financial burden placed upon themselves or if they
have to propel this cost onto their tenants. Aid. Newman ;aid. in his opinion, especially
from the list provided by fire department records. there is substantiation of the fare
emergency calls made to dormitories on the history of life safety issues that conclude the
need for NLI to want to comply with the proposed sprinkler system requirements at any
cost that may incur the University or additional cost brought down to the parents who
solely support the housing and rely upon the safety for their students.
More discussion followed amongst the Committee regarding this issue. Chairman
Bernstein reminded that this proposed ordinance is still just for discussion at this point
and it is recognized that further concerns and amendments are expected. Chief
Berkowski agreed vdth Chairman Bernstein and assured that the Fire Department is not
trying to surprise anyone with this proposed ordinance at this time. As a matter of fact,
he noted that there have been several informational meetings including joint meetings
with the Evanston Chamber of Commerce and he again assured that this ordinance is still
at an analysis stage and all comments and concerns are still welcomed. He brought to
attention that the proposed ordinance is slightly different from what was currently
presented to the Committee because senior housing was added. He explained the reason
staff decided to include this housing was to insure the City's compliance with all
standards and to cover their back. Chief Berkow•ski pointed out that when you look at
dorms and senior housing buildings, there is documented proof of the number of student
housing fire/safety reports over senior housing reports.-%Jthough both numbers are
equally important in causes and matters, the point is student dorm housing has a
sufficiently higher amount and that is why it is equall} important to address the
requirement of compliance with student housing. He made further comparisons with
student housing versus senior housing; one being that student housing has a bigger
tumover in the years of residency and other similar issues. 'his. Szymanski clarified that
the Law Department did not make this list that Chief Berkow•ski has been referring to.
However, she noted that they do have a protection concern with regards to comments
made by the previous speaker and also that is a concern with the ordinance. She assured
the Committee that after the comments made at this meeting, the legal staff µ•ill be
reviewing the list for financial burdens that may effect those listed. Aid. Newman stated
that he has a problem with this last comment made by Ms. Szyrrtamki because he feels
that legal staff should have done this review prior to having this ordinance put out before
Council for public comment. He brought up one of his continuous questions with staff
communication between departments before any presentation to Committee.
Mr. David Reynolds, representing the operation of the Homestead. He requested that the
Committee give consideration, as mentioned in earlier comments, to the economic
hardship in complying with the proposed standards for life safety requirements. He also
agrees to these requirements, however he noted that the Homestead is one of the older
buildings in Evanston and renovations have been done to individual units as opportunities
have allowed. He noted that the economic hardship in their buildings cases would also
have to be passed onto the individual resident of that unit, therefore he reiterated his
request that the Committee give all consideration to the economic and financial hardship
to the time frames proposed for compliance to the requirements in those cases.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 8-12-02
Page 9
said the second issue of concern is with some of the common areas such as the lobby
areas. especially at the Georgian where the lobby area is very elaborate and could present
some real issues as they try to install some sprinkler systems that comply with this
ordinance. However. despite these concerns. the kfather Foundation is committed to
getting all their living units supplied with sprinkler systems. He noted that at the Mather
Gardens 100% of their units have sprinkler systems and approximately 98% of the units
at the Georgian are equipped at this time. Therefore. in conclusion, his request is for the
fire department to continue working with their organization on those units and areas left
to give ample time to comply with the current requirements.
Mr. Bill Banis, Vice president of Student Residency for Northwestern University, which
gives him the responsibility of providing and overseeing safe housing for the students.
He mentioned that he has no argument with any regulations regarding the compliance for
safety requirements for student housing, however he has two request or concerns for
consideration. The first concern he wished to bring to the Committee's attention is that
student housing at NU is self-supporting by parents, as such, no general funds from the
University support housing. He noted that all newer housing built does come supplied
with current code required sprinkler systems, however the numerous older dormitories
are not. His request and concern is that consideration be given to the implementation
time due to the financial burden because the additional cost to update and install
sprinklers in the older dorms will consequently effect an increase in the housing tuition
cost incurred by the parents having to provide this expense. He would prefer that this
cost be a gradual incline versus an initial major increase at one time. Secondly, Mr.
Banis said there is a major concern and request to establish the consideration of certain
types of properties that need assistance in complying with these safety requirements and
the inclusion as a condition to be stated in the ordinance. He gave several examples,
noting one of the major circumstances to be financial burden on complying within a fair
and ample time frame. He also pointed out the inconsistency with the requirement of 5-
stories or more and 50+ occupants because the majority of student housing is 4-stories or
less; this produces a definite inconsistency in the requirements as stated in the ordinance.
Chairman Bernstein noted that the proposal of the ordinance is for an extension of four
years for a time frame to comply; he questioned what Mr. Banis plan is outside of being
able to comply within this time allowance. Mr. Banis responded that additional time may
be needed for specific buildings depending on their age and updates needed to comply
due to the cost involved.
Ald. Newman referred to the comments made by Mr. Banis regarding his claim made on
the financial burden that will be incurred on the student and their parents but not on the
University. He pointed out that this additional cost will be incurred by all landlords and
management companies of all multi -family rental buildings throughout Evanston that
come fall within the requirements. Furthermore, he pointed out that those rental
buildings will incur rent increases that will fall upon the tenant in comparison to the same
situation with the student/parent incutxment on housing tuition increase. His point being
that with this safety benefit, someone will have to pay for public safety and he can not see
any case where the landlord will put themselves in the position of not complying with
P&D Committee %tte.
Minutes of 8.12-02 -
Page 8
work and requested that staff work with them in every way possible to clean up these
problem conditions on the public right-of-ways. Aid. Kent also informed Rev. Wade of
the monthly Neighborhood Planning meetings that are held at Fleetwood Jourdain
Community Center and encouraged his participation or to send a representative of
Ebenezer to attend these meeting. He welcomes as much neighborhood participation as
possible and that input from Ebenezer would be greatly appreciated.
Rev. Wade responded to the comments made by Aid. Kent regarding the employment of
minority workers with the Jacob Blake Manor. He informed the Committee that they
have received calls and related to everyone that called of the proper procedure, which is
to call the general contractor of the project and proceed with the application process that
is required of all workers in construction. He noted that the time has passed where
someone can approach a project off the street and request work because the current
requirements do not allow for such conduct and requires for everyone to meet specific
standards with the involvement of union regulations. He felt this information important
to note in light of the comments made earlier because it is not just a matter of being able
to hire any community worker oil' the street as so easily implicated. Ald. Kent agreed
with Rev. Wade and explained that his implication was to assist those community
workers by extending direction on the proper procedures to follow to give them an
opportunity for employment.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD1) CIP: Citv Proiects for Preservation Review and Comment/Section 106 Review
Chairman Bernstein requested to defer this item for discussion at this time and hold on
the agenda until the September 9th meeting. Ms. Aiello agreed.
(PD2) Proposed Life Safety/Sarinkler Retrofit Ordinance
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Alan Berkowski from the Fire Department present for
questions and comments and brought attention to his exhibit of the numerous sprinkler
head examples on display. He referred to the sign-up list for comments in the order
signed.
Mr. Joe Hautrhnev, Director of Operations for the Mather Foundation. He mentioned
first the excellent relationship that exists between the Fire Department and the Mather
Foundation. He noted that their nursing homes are fully sprinkled and have complied
with all the fire department regulations thus far. His only issues relate to the systems
present with the Georgian building and noted that throughout the remodeling of this
structure over the past several years, they have installed up-to-date sprinkler systems
within the units as they are renovated. He noted the issues that concern them is that some
of the work they have done is approximately 10 years old and presumably pre -dates the
new ordinance prior to the 1996 Ordinance. Therefore, he is concerned that some of this
work prior in the 1990's may not fully comply and may have several issues that are not in
full coverage. In those cases, he would request that they have the opportunity and some
leverage to work with the fire department on updating those situations. Mr. Haughney
P&D Committee tittg.
Minutes of 8.13-0'_
Page 7
Aid. Newman recalled some initial problems that Ebenezer incurred with the Jacob Blake
Manor project and getting started. He further recalled that the Committee strongly
discouraged Beth Emet when they were contemplated the request for permit fee %%-diver.
He said that although he supports the renovation of Primm Towers, he feels it is
unreasonable for even not -for -profit organizations to request fee waivers especially
considering the size of the project and the►fact that the building is already off the tax roles
and not being fair to the Evanston tax payers. He noted that the City still needs to
provide the service of inspections throughout the project including the cost of plan
reviews, etc. and that the City depends on the money that comes in with permit fees. He
stated that he could not support such a request and stressed that there needs to be a
consistent policy on this. He reiterated his support for this project, the organization and
his respect for Rev. Wade intentions, however he could not support the request of fee
waivers by any group that makes this request even if they are not -far -profit. Aid.
Newman motioned to deny the request for fee waiver, seconded by Aid. Kent.
Aid. Kent stated that he wished Rev. Wade had come to him previously for the
opportunity to discuss this matter because this request comes to him as a surprise. He
noted the indication of additional ways in which they would like to rehab and although he
would like to see this happen, if the current funding does not allow for it then Ebenezer
will have to proceed with the plans as proposed. He stated that he does not see how the
City is in a position at this time to waive an approximate fee of $60,000+ for one sole
project. He acknowledged the good work that has been done by Ebenezer but he would
like to see some of the project in progress come to some type of completion.
Specifically, he referred to the completion of the Jacob Blake Manor, which is
proceeding well at this point and the inclusion of community workers and employment
opportunities with that project. He hopes that this plan with that project is still being
implemented as discussed previously. In lieu of the request to waive approximately
$60,000 in pen -nit fees, with the building of Jacob Blake Manor and the addition of 70
units with that building, there could be the assumption of the need for street
improvements or the addition of a street light at that location, which could cost in access
of $80,000. AId. Kent also brought to attention that he would like to see a time line on
the renovation or proposed plans for the 1930 Maple property which has been sitting for
some time now and has been the source of numerous violations cited by City inspectors
and the cause for blight in that community. He stated that he would have to vote against
this request in light of all the concerns he has noted.
Rev. Wade at this point requested to officially withdraw Ebenezees request for fee
waiver. He thanked the Committee for their consideration and insight on their thoughts
of fee waiver requests and the status of other projects Ebenezer is involved in. He said
that he was not prepared to comment on the Jacob Blake or Maple Street project at this
time because they are separate issued from the request presented to the Committee this
evening.
Aid. Newman pointed out his concerns with some additional problems that exist in that
neighborhood such as the condition of the sidewalks and bus stop shelters. He
encouraged Rev. Wade to call some these concerns to the City during the renovation
P&D Committee %Itg.
Minutes of $-12-0'
Page b
of the unit and %,.hen this occurred, this particular landlord paid the interest three (3)
months later and %with the final threat of bringing the City in on this matter. Her point
being that even man,. of the landlords or not being fully informed of the regulations,
therefore it is assured that the tenants are equally not being fully informed of this right.
Even so if the tenant is aware of this regulation. they can sometimes have a very difficult
time in convincing their landlord of this right if they are not fully notified and even more
so if they feel there is no support from the City to pursue their rights without providing
the additional cost of legal fees if need to go forward with their due cause. She stressed
that most tenants do not have this additional fees or support available to them on a
personal basis, therefore it would be helpful to know that the City could assist them in
this matter. Ms. Hillman stated that although she can understand the landlords rights as
far as a fair return on interest rate proceeds, she stressed to the Committee to take into
consideration the disadvantage of the tenant in being fully informed and having a process
to go through with the assistance of the City to have fair compensation be considered on
their part.
Mr. Dan Schermerhotn, requested to make to points of clarification in the ordinance as
drafted. Although he agreed with the current wording changes made by Aid. Engelman,
he disagreed with the current wording in the second sentence of Section 5-3-5-1 and
requested to further amend the wording to read "the leases effective October 2, 2002 be at
the new rate". Aid. Newman agreed and moved to incorporate the amendment
stated by Mr. Scbermerhorn previously, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 54
in favor of the amended motion. Mr. Schermerhorn additionally requested that
consideration be given on security deposits being held in a secured federally funded
account because currently the State of Illinois requires Real Estate companies to do this
but not to individual property owners. Therefore he agrees that this requirement is not a
burden to his business organization and similar businesses, but could be for the individual
landlord. He stressed to the Committee to consider the burden that this could cause on
the individual landlord owner. After discussion, Chairman Bernstein noted that this was
an initial concern of his, however, this real estate rule should not effect the individual
property owner due to the fact that this regulation concerns the deposit of security deposit
funds in a separate federally funded account that should not negatively effect even a
smaller individual landlord owner. The Committee agreed but concluded that further
consideration could be extended in this case if it becomes a problem for the individual
landlord in the long run.
After all discussion, the initial motion was made by Aid. Newman and seconded by
Ald. Wynne with the 2 previous amendments included. The vote was 5-0 in favor of
the motion.
fP2) Fee Waiver Request - Ebenezer Primm Towers Renovation
Rev. Wade explained that if Ebenezer is granted this fee waiver request it would allow
for more funds to be put into the renovation of the building. He said that there are some
additional improvements that they would like to make beyond the estimated cost of
rehabilitation as stated in the proposal.
r
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 8-12-02
Page 5
available, especially to Section 8 tenants that might inquire, to be available for further
explanation if they were to request this of staff.
Aid. Neuman feels, even in consideration of all discussion ensued so far, that the
Committee should move forward on this ordinance because of the significance of what it
entails. Specifically, the purpose of lowering the interest rate to reflect a fair and
adequate return as far as the market which has been determined by identifying and
emulating the City of Chicago's process and procedures. He stressed to the other
Committee members that they keep focused on the precise rationale of the specific
amendments presented before them in this case and consider all other matters, even at
their level of importance, separate at this moment. Aid. Engelman agreed with Aid.
Newman in that fact as stated. Ms. Haynes further elaborated that she agrees with this
conclusion and reminded them of the fact that there could be some disparity in this rate
amount as time goes on, it always remains an adjustable amount. Aid. Wynne stated that
she agrees with all comments made beginning with Aid. Engelman's concerns with the
City being able to have knowledge of the landlord's requirement to have the security
deposit funds in a separate federally funded account. She continued by agreeing with
Aid. Kent's concerns with special notification to tenants such as Section 8 to be extended
assured notification on this amendment and forwarding information on their rights as
tenants. She also agrees with Aid. Newman that staff should make every effort to extent
notification to all tenants, whether Section 8 or not, before Council makes their final
action vote in September. She stressed the point that Ms. Haynes has agreed and assured
to send out a mass mailing to all Evanston tenants knowledgeable by City staff' before the
next Council meeting in September for proper notification of these amendments and
giving them opportunity to come forward with any comments and concerns before final
action vote. Aid. Wynne concluded that there is nothing more that this Committee can do
in this matter and she agrees with Aid. Newman that they should proceed forward with
this ordinance, in lieu of all previous discussion.
Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 81-0-02 with the inclusion of Aid.
Engelman's previous amendment made to amend the wording in the second
sentence of Section 5-3-5-1. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 to
favor of the motion.
Chairman Bernstein referred to the sign-up sheet to give those wishing to make comment
on this issue an opportunity to speak.
Ms. Debbie Hillman, noted that she has kept abreast of this entire issue on the
amendment to the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and any other housing issue in her
neighborhood in South East Evanston and as a member of the Nichols Neighborhood
Committee. She informed the Committee that prior to her recent homeownership at her
present address, she rented for more than 20 years formerly experiencing 3 landlords
through this time. She noted that only 1 of those realty companies paid the interest on a
yearly basis without a reminder phone call and with the other 2, she had to fully explain
her rights to receive this interest refund on a yearly basis. She noted that one landlord
thought that they only had to pay any interest when the tenant was planning to move out
P&D Committee .%ttg.
Minutes of 8-12-02
Page 4
for and he would like to see some way that the City could possibly keep records on or be
apprised of. He questioned if there is any t,%pe of provision in the Evanston
Landlord/Tenant Ordinance that they as a City enforce through a fine process or
something similar. Ms. Haynes responded that there is no such provision for City
enforcement of this nature. Further discussion ensued. From discussion, Aid. Newman
suggested the consideration of amending the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance to give the City
power to enforce landlords to provide such information on security deposit accounts,
therefore allowing the tenant to report any misconduct on their behalf if the landlord does
not forward their interest in a timely fashion and to allow City staff to have access and
knowledge of whether or not the landlord is keeping within the regulations of the
ordinance to keep the security deposit funds in a separate federally insured account.
Further discussion followed regarding what t;pe of penalty could be enforced if a
landlord was found violating this regulation. The Committee brought up the situation of
what would happen to the tenants interest due them if the landlord were to default on
their mortgage and forfeit their rights to the property; what would happen in this case?
The Committee members and staff agreed that these are important situations that need
further consideration and Iegal counsel before acting on. Nevertheless, Ms. Haynes
pointed out that these additional concerns nerd to be addressed separately after
consideration of the amendment presented to the Committee at this time addressing the
rate of security deposit interest that should be paid to the tenant on a yearly basis at a fair
rate. She agreed that these additional concerns are important and should definitely be
further considered for future amendment to the ordinance.
Aid. Kent asked what role, if any, do the Section 8 tenants have in this amendment. He
brings this issue up because in his experience with these tenants and the Cook County
Housing Authority, they handle the majority of what goes on with their tenants. Ms.
Haynes informed that CHA is not responsible for the tenants initial security deposit; it is
solely the responsibility of the tenants and they must come up with their own. Aid. Kent
questioned, in response to this, is the Cook County Housing Authority willing to help
their tenants and inform them of this security deposit interest information or will the City _
be responsible for notifying the Section 8 tenants of this information. Ms. Haynes
responded that whether a tenant is Section 8 or not. all tenants are responsible for their
own security deposit and staff will send out notice to al', tenants. Therefore, even the
Section 8 tenant will be notified of this amendment and because they are responsible for
providing their own initial security deposit, they too will be informed on the same level
as any other paying tenant and given the same equal opportunity to comment to this
amendment and further pursue any violation ensued upon them by their landlord if their
interest is not refunded to them as regulated by this ordinance. Aid. Kent concurred but
still feels that the Section 8 tenants tend to not be fully aware of their rights and are in
situations where their landlords are not respectable of their rights as well, therefore he
continues to have a major concern for these tenants and stressed the need for efficient
notification to be forwarded to these tenants. Ms. Haynes agreed, however she reminded
that the initial security deposit is provided by the Section 8 tenant, therefore, they are
entitled to be given the same notification as any other tenant regarding this amendment to
the security deposit rate and what they are privileged to. In light of Aid. Kent's concerns,
she assured that her staff will extend every consideration to extend all information
r
P&D Comminee Mig.
Minutes of 8-12.02
Page 3
technically this should be done and ready to put in place by the proposed October 1 st
date, however if Evanston is ensuing the procedures set by the City of Chicago, their
process is already done before this date. Aid. Newman strongly feels that every effort
should be made by City staff to give adequate notice to all Evanston tenants if at all
possible due to the comments that have been made regarding the accusations of the City's
insufficiency in giving prior notice to the effected public of amendments made to
ordinances. He believes the proposed amendments made to this ordinance are fair to all
involved, however it is presumable that the majority of tenants might have the perception
that this only benefits landlords and all parties should be able to comment on this issue.
He pointed out, on behalf of the tenant, that it is possible at some future date of the
chance that interest rates could rise and go back up to 5% or higher. Ms. Haynes
concurred. She assured the Committee that staff will make every effort to mail out notice
of this amendment to all tenants on their mailing list before the next Council date of
September 9th. Aid. Newman feels that the Committee should move forward with this
ordinance with the assurance that staff will forward notification to all tenants.
Aid. Engelman raised concern with wording in the ordinance under Section 5-3-5-1,
second sentence where it reads: "Interest on security deposits deposited prior to October
1, 2002, shall be paid at a rate of four percent (4%) per year, and five percent (50/6) per
year after January 1, 1976. He asked legal staff to elaborate. Ms. Szymanski responded
that Ms. Brenniman prepared this ordinance and she would have to discuss this with her
before making any comment to the Committee. Aid. Engelman said that he understands
the 4% prior to October 1st, however he questions the 5% after January 1, 1976. Ms.
Haynes explained that it is the order in which Ms. Brenniman phrased this sentence that
is confusing. However, it is assumed to clarify that the new rate kicks in October 1st but
there are some landlords who don't or have not paid the interest to their tenants where
some tenants have lived in a unit for 20 years or more. She further explained that this
sentence refers to such cases and the language is meant to cover the interest owed to any
tenants that this might effect. In light of this explanation, Aid. Engelman said that this is
understandable, however the wording should be amended to reflect that "prior" to
January 1st, 1976 versus "after". Ms. Haynes agreed that it should read that prior to
January i st, 1976 that rate was 4% and the ordinance was amended as of that date to
reflect the change of 5%. Aid. Engelman moved to amend the second sentence of
Section 5-3-5-1 as noted, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Bernstein agreed that
the wording as drafted here is ambiguous.
Aid. Engelman noted that although he agrees with this, he has an additional concern with
the requirement that landlords to now hold all security deposits in an assumed segregated
federally insured account- He pointed out that it is also noted that the landlord is allowed
to commingle security deposits, but can not can not co -mingle this money with non -
Security deposit money. He feels that regulation is not clearly specified in the proposed
ordinance and he questioned what the penalty would be if a landlord violated this. Ms.
Haynes responded that if a landlord violated this regulation, the tenant would have to
pursue the penalization of his landlord because City staff would not be initially aware of
this violation if it were not made aware to them by the tenant being violated. Aid.
Engelman feels that this is something that the tenant should not be made fully responsible
P&D Committee tittg.
Minutes of 8.12.02
Page 3
the inside which has also been kept as original as possible. Ms. McRaith informed the
Committee that an architect from the State of Illinois, Mr. Anthony Ribano, has visited
her property. His visit was before she had any renovation done to the inside and they
took into consideration his recommendations on what sort of materials would be best
used. She pointed out from pictures, how the ceiling has been renovated and restored
back to the way Mr. Goldberg' intended. She referred the Committee to look at the other
photos in their packets to further review the renovation work that has been done.
Aid. Newman asked the owner why they decided to have their house subject to landmark
status. Ms. McRaith explained that they felt very positive on the fact that the house is
unique due to the house being built in 1936 by Bertrand Goldberg and is a recta -linear
house as opposed to the usual cylindrical -shaped houses of that era. Also, she feels it
important in keeping the Douse as close to the original design as the architect intended.
She further explained the uniqueness of the dimensions within the house. She also noted
that the architect was only 23 when he designed the house, which adds to the uniqueness
of this structure. Aid. Newman asked if she is fully aware of the preservation ordinance
and the involvement of the Preservation Commission if she desired to make future
alterations to the outside of the house. Ms. McRaith responded that she is fully aware of
the preservation requirements and noted that she has no intentions at this time to make
any changes to the exterior of the house.
With no further discussion, Ala. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent. The
vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P3) Ordinance 81-0-02 - Amendment to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Pertaininct to
Interest on Security Deposits
Chairman Berstein acknowledged Ms. Haynes presence for questions and comments.
Ald. Newman recalled discussion and comments that were made at the Human Services
Commission meeting regarding the process with changes that are made with the
Landlordrrenant Ordinance and the concern with advertisement of these changes and
efficient notification to tenants. He does feel that there has been ample notification on
this issue via advertisements in the newspapers and that there has been a lot of
opportunity for people to know that the City is contemplating changes. However, he still
feels that there is a need for a process that is consistent so as to minimize the accusations
from the public that the City has not given or made every effort to give sufficient
notification or followed a definite procedure in doing so. He asked Ms. Haynes if she is
satisfied that tenants have been adequately notified and have been given the opportunity -
to be able to comment on the amendments to this ordinance. Ms. Haynes responded that
discussion on this amendment has been publicized throughout the process and copies of
the minutes of any discussion are available to the public. Aid. Newman asked low City
staff could additionally publicize these amendments to insure that all tenants receive this
information and notify them that they have adequate opportunity to comment prior to
Council voting on this. Ms. Haynes assured that staff' could do a mass mailing to all
tenants from their listing on file in her department. Aid. Newman noted that this
ordinance amendment is for introduction tonight and he asked if there is efficient time to
get out such a mailing before an action vote by Council. Chairman Bemstein noted that
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of August (2, 2002
Room 2403 — 7:30 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, A. Berkowski, P. Haynes, C. Ruiz, E.
Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 2. 2002
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes for the meeting on July 22nd, seconded by
Aid. Engelman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Kent & New -man were not
yet present).
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P1) 239 Greenwood Street — Plat of Subdivision
Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Wolinski for clarification because he was under the
impression that the Committee reversed the Zoning Board's decision when this case was
prior before them. He questioned if this is just for P&D's acceptance of the SPARC
referral. Mr. Wolinski responded yes and to clean up some of the legal issues and the
language; this is a ministerial act on the part of the Committee.
Ald. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor
of the motion.
(M) Ordinance 74-0-02 -- Grantine Evanston Landmark Status to the Proaerty at 3200
Harrison Street
Chairman Bernstein called on Mr. Ruiz to give a brief presentation on this case. Mr.
Ruiz explained that the property owner, Ms. Margaret McRaith, nominated this property.
There was a public hearing held and the Preservation Commission determined that this
property does qualify for landmark status. He noted that one of the most important
criteria is the fact that this structure was designed by Bertrand Goldberg, who is
considered to be one of the most prominent architects of his time and is recognized
worldwide. He noted further accomplishments of the architect. He informed the
Committee that the property has been restored almost to its original splendor, including
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 9-9-07,
Page 9
discussed earlier for consideration of use with the board -up buildings. She noted that the
City of Evanston receives $2+ million in CDBG money. She said that as long as the City
has been receiving these funds, none of it has been used to create one affordable unit.
She stressed that it is time that this money be used for what it was intended for, to help
the people that are poor because that is how and why the City receives the money.
Ms. Sue Carlson, supports Ms. Esters comments and opinions. She feels that there is a
need to move from criteria to action and minimize all the discussion by task forces and
commissions. 1t is time to act on all of the good ideas and intentions stated.
Ald. Wynne asked what position is being requested of the Committee with this. Ms.
Snyderman-Pratt and Mr. Dillon stated that the Housing Commission wanted to bring this
information to the Committee and request their input and whether they support the
formation of an Inclusionary Task Force. It is the consensus of the Committee to support
all efforts made towards supplying or preserving affordable housing. Ald. Wynne
requested more data on the creation of the task force. Ald. Engelman requested that the
Housing Commission present an infrastructure of this proposal and more specifics
expected to accomplish by this task force.
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD3) Letter from Esskav Develonment: 603 Main Street
The Committee observed the rendering of the proposed building for development and
noted the obvious changes made from the last plans they viewed. Ald. Newman directed
staff to forward a request by the Committee to Esskay representatives to be present at the
next meeting for further explanation of the changes made.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
espectfully submitted, (� 4 -
� 1 LR —
Jacq linetE, Brownlee
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 9.9.02
Page 9
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PDI 1 CIP: City Proiects for Preservation Review and Comment/Section 106 Review
This item w-as held for discussion on the September 23T° agenda.
(PDZ) Housin¢ Commission Presentation
Mr. Mark Dillon, Housing Commission Chair, Ms. Robin Snyderman-Pratt, Vice Chair,
and Ms. Judy Hurwich, Commissioner, were in attendance for explanation, comments
and to answer any questions or concerns. Iris. Snyderman-Pratt read from a prepared
statement summarizing the Housing Commission's position on supporting the Housing
Action Agenda and the Housing endorsement Criteria of the Metropolitan Mayor's
Caucus. She explained in further detail what these two housing issues address as stated
in the handouts distributed in the Council packets. She stressed how important and
serious the affordable housing issue is in Evanston and gave several examples of how
criteria and agenda is appropriate. She gave background on the Metropolitan Mayor's
Caucus and the types of projects and task forces they are involved with. She explained
that this is why the Housing Commission has come up with ideas for an Inclusionary
Housing Task Force to address housing policies for preserving or adding affordable
housing under the Housing Endorsement Criteria. She stated that the Housing
Commission proposes forming a group of 10 people for the task force from different
backgrounds including City officials and community groups to discuss the topic of
inclusionary housing policies for the City of Evanston. Mr. Dillon supported everything
stated by Ms. Snyderman-Pratt and went into further details on the Housing
Commission's ideas for the task force, as stated in the handout. He went over the tasks
listed: Study Examples and information on inclusionary housing tools, Discussion of
Housing Needs and Goals of the City, and Consideration of Various Inclusionary Policy
Characteristics.
Chairman Bernstein called on those listed on the sign-up sheet for comments.
Ms. Betty Sue Ester, said that she has read the Housing Endorsement Criteria and has
attended several meetings with the Housing Commission. She recalled a discussion
regarding an inclusionary zoning ordinance. She said the reality is affordable housing is
not going to happen on a voluntary policy, it is going to have to be mandated. She feels
that in the case where it is being volunteered to help the low-income population, it seems
to never reach those being discussed or in need. She noted that her reference specifically
being low-income people of color, which seems to be a reality. She pointed out that the
Housing Endorsement Criteria is a good document on paper but not for Evanston in her
opinion. She further pointed out that what the document is stating has already been done
in Evanston. For instance, putting housing near mass transportation, however all of the
recent housing developments in Evanston in the prime locations are not affordable
housing. She mentioned several developments under construction at this time, none
being anywhere near affordable housing. Ms. Ester suggested that what needs to be done
is to approach the developers and put some of burden on them since they no doubt gain
and profit in the end, and mandate that they supply a certain percentage of affordable
housing or contribute to the cause. She pointed out that there are HOME funds that were
P&D Comminee Mig.
Minutes of 9-9-02
Page 7
outside of Home Depot for McDonalds. Mr. Sweica confirmed but brought attention to
the signage on the kiosk that will be within the store. Ald. Feldman stated that his
concern has little to do with the existence of 4lcDonalds in the store, however his
concern is with the extended smice by the employees for clean up in and around the
store with litter originating from the snack station. He assumes that this proposed
McDonalds kiosk will attract more business than the small vendor that currently is in
place and also expects more litter and debris accumulating because of this. He would like
to have some definite reassurance that if this snack station is approved, that constant
maintenance of litter collection will be intact. Mr. Sweica assured that their McDonalds
staff will do everything within their capabilities to upkeep with maintenance of litter
emanated from their snack station, however due to the size of these operations there are
usually no more than 2 employees on duty at one time. He stressed that Home Depot
management will have to take charge and assume responsibility of the continued upkeep
of their store and the outside surrounding grounds, as they currently do now. Further
discussion ensued. Aid. Wynne pointed out to Aid. Feldman that the special use is being
requested by Home Depot and they would concurrently be responsible for compliance of
the operation of this restaurant and the special use conditions that are subject therewith
With this knowledge, Aid. Feldman felt more reassured that the continued maintenance
and cleanliness of the store would be adhered to as conditioned with the special use
ordinance.
After further discussion, Mr. Alterson read from the ordinance and asked for
confirmation of the amendments requested by the Committee members. It was agreed to
amend the existing language under Section 2 d to state that the property owner shall
provide and maintain cart collection with trash receptacles throughout the parking lot.
The Conunittee wants it specified that it is the responsibility of the property owner for
emptying and maintaining these trash receptacles. The Committee also agreed that
wording should be added to specify that cooking within the type 2 restaurant is limited
and use of odor restrictive devices should be in place. Absolutely no cooking with fryers
or grills is allowed.
Aid. Kent brought to attention the many programs that Home Depots sponsors that gives
kids and adults hands-on experience and involvement. He personally participates in
many of these programs with his son and other children. He suggested to Mr. Sweica to
pursuade the executives or management at McDonalds to consider having Ronald
McDonald visit the site and possibly have some interaction with the programs conducted
by Home Depot for children.
It was the consensus of the Committee to have staff make the amendments to the
ordinance as stated and bring back a clean draft of the ordinance at the next meeting.
Aid. Wynne moved to introduce the ordinance this evening and for staff to bring
back a clean copy of the ordinance with amendments at the next meeting. Aid. Kent
seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor (Aid. Newman was attending the
A&PW meeting at this time and Aid. Engelman abstained his vote).
P&D Committee Mcg.
Minutes of 9-9-02
Page 6
amendment to the ordinance at Council and there is no need to bring the amended
ordinance back before the Committee.
(P4) Ordinance 90.0-02 - St)ecial Use for 2201 Oak -ton - TN -De 2 Restaurant: McDonalds
in Home Depot •
Aid. Feldman was called over for discussion of this item. Ald. Engelman excluded
himself from participation in any discussion or vote on this matter due to his past
involvement in this matter. Chairman Bernstein asked for representatives in this case to
introduce themselves.
Mr. John Stumbaugh of Kostus Architects Ltd introduced himself, as well as Mr. Ron
Sweica, Construction Manager representing McDonalds Corporation, and Mr. David
Downing, Project Manager for Home Depot. In response to an inquiry from Aid.
Newman regarding hearsay that this McDonald's will not be selling any hamburgers or
items from their typical menu, Mr. Sweica confirmed that this location will be a
"MeSnack Station". He informed that these new snack stations %ill serve items on their
menu such as popcorn, pretzels, hotdogs, sweet rolls, doughnuts, coffee and juices. He
said that McDonalds is experimenting with these new McSnack stations operating inside
of major department stores. Aid. Kent asked if this proposed snack station would replace
the hotdog stand that currently exists at the entrance to Home Depot. Mr. Downing
responded that the current hotdog stand would no longer operate after the McDonalds
stand is in operation. Mr. Sweica continued with his presentation of where the proposed
McSnack Station would be located within the Home Depot and he presented to the
Committee several illustrations of the design, location and presentation of the operation.
He mentioned that this new experimental snack station by McDonalds, if approved,
would be the second one in existence so far with the first one being located in Dallas. He
noted that the one in Dallas is doing quite well and they are pleased with the results thus
far.
Chairman Bernstein asked stab for confirmation that this proposed operation would
replace what currently exist now as far as the hotdog stand and what exist there now
conform under code. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that this is strictly ancillary
to the use and that there would be no hospitality of customers coming in to use the eatery
that were not Home Depot customers and also that the facility that was there would not
be capable of preparing large items of food for a contractor to bring out to a work crew.
He said that with this project they could not make the same assumptions, so staff sent the
applicant through the type 2 process. Chairman Bernstein asked what methods of
cooking will be used besides the steamer for hotdogs; will there be microwaves or added
heating appliances. Mr. Sweica responded that there will be a popcorn machine and
heating appliances for the pretzels and Banishes. Chairman Bernstein asked if there will
be a hood or some type of exhaust for cooking odors. Mr. Sweica stated that there would
be no need for any exhaust systems for cooking odors.
Aid. Feldman said that he is pleased to discover that there will be no cooking on the
premises because this was one of his concerns with sanitation issues for the store and
control of food odors. He asked for confirmation that there will be no added signage
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 9.9-02
Page 5
(P2) Ordinance 88-0-02 - Sherman Plaza planned Development Extension
Ms. Aiello gave the Committee a brief overview of the developer's request. She
explained that they are close to bringing some revisions to documents and there have
been some changes over the past year made. Because of this, they have to meet the
technicalities of the ordinance to receive the extension. She informed that there may be
some additional changes that are being worked on right now based upon how layout of
the condominiums and if so, this is scheduled to go before a special meeting of the Plan
Commission on September 25th. She added that if this does occur, they will come back
before the Committee with a new modified planned development. Nevertheless, this
extension is being requested to meet the letter of the law.
Aid. Newman acknowledged that the developer is asking for a 9-month extension. He
noted that it appears that ever)lMng on this project is going well and the financing is in
place, therefore it is the assumption that the reason for the extension is to give time to tie
up the loose ends as mentioned by Ms. Aiello. He said that other than the need for this
extension to finalize documents and negotiations, this project is a definite go. Ms. Aiello
confirmed that this project is a definite solid go and they will be prepared with the final
documents to present before EDC on September 25th. She added that the developer
should also have all their financing documents, drafts, term sheets, etc. within this month
and it is optimistic that the project could begin as early as November. She further
informed that the developer is in lease negotiations with their proposed retail for the
project. She assured that there is no concern by the developer in proceeding forward, in
fact, staff met with their architects and will meet again tomorrow to go over their detailed
drawings.
Aid. Engelman raised the issue that if this extension is granted, it will begin as of
September 21st when the current special use expires, making this ordinance which is up
for action with an end date for the 9-month extension to June 21, 2003. It has been
clarified and confirmed by Ms. Aiello that the finalization of documents and negotiations
will be presented before EDC on September 25th. He questions why this length of time
needs to be extended for this special use if everything is a positive go and is moving
forward in a timely fashion. Ms. Aiello responded that this is in accordance with the set
of drawings that have been approved. She said that given this, when they go back before
the Plan Commission on September 25th, they will have an amended planned
development. She also mentioned that the developer does have S 14 million dollars going
on this project and the extreme unlikelihood of not proceeding forward. Ald. Engelman
had no question on that matter due to the obvious economics involved. However, he sti11
questioned the need for this much time for extension since the project is in definite
finalizing status. The Committee discussed this further and agreed that there is no
hardship need for the 9-month extension and came to the consensus that a four- (4) month
extension would suffice.
Aid. Engelman moved to amend the ordinance to grant a 4-month extension from
September 21, 2002 until January 21, 2003. Aid. Newsman seconded the motion and
the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Bernstein stated that he would note this
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 9.9-02
Page 4
foreclosure. He said that in many of these cases, staff would like to see the banks and
mortgage companies come to the forefront because they have foreclosed on these
buildings and are not taking responsibility for property. He stressed that with the threat
of demolition perhaps will bring attention to the entities that have foreclosed on the
properties and result in some type of action. Aid. Newman added that with the
complications involved, the City is not going to invest on any property where problems
exist with clear title. He noted that with most of these properties the title is so disordered
and confusing, including judgements etc. and it is hard to decipher ownership. Mr.
Wolinski informed that this is the exact problem with the CHDO's who have shown
interest in redeveloping some of the properties into affordable housing but are unable to
proceed due to problems with being unable to obtain clear title.
Staff has noted that there are twenty-two (22)-boarded buildings currently in Evanston.
Aid. Newman asked staff if they are aware of the condition of the title on all of these
properties and out of the 22 buildings, how many were the not -for -profit housing
organizations interested in. Mr. Wolinski responded that over the past several years, 6-7
of the buildings were of interest to the CHDO's and none were able to proceed because of
inability to obtain clear title. Aid. Newman suggested that this would be an excellent
topic for the Housing Commission to address.
Ald. Engelman agrees with Mr. Wolinski's cognizance that the people the City should
bring to the forefront on most of these buildings are the companies that have the property
in foreclosure during the lengthy time they have these buildings boarded and sitting
during the process. However, he pointed out that the City's fines are not significant over
their position with the foreclosure status and resell of the building. He reiterated his
opinion that stronger language must be added to bring attention to the banks and
mortgage companies that hold these properties in board -up status for lengthy periods of
time during their foreclosure process.
Aid. Kent urged that staff look into any possibilities of enabling ways to redevelop some
of these properties alternative to demolition. He stresses this point because it is obvious
that a majority of the board -ups are in the 5th Ward and with the result of concluding to
demolition on most of these properties could result in changing the neighborhood
drastically. Aid. Newman suggested that the use of HOME Funds be considered to rehab
some of these houses if at all possible. He noted that with $500,000 in HOME Funds
there is the possibility of rehabbing 5 houses at S100,000 each over a 5-year period.
Discussion followed on this issue %ith comments from Mr. Mark Dillon, Housing
Commission Chair.
Add. Newman moved to hold this item on the agenda with direction for staff to come
back with a total package including inclusionary enforcement language in the
ordinance and further i rch on the use of HOME Funds for rehabWtadon of
certain board-up's that could qualify. He suggested that this come back before the
Committee within 60 days. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was "in
favor.
P&D Comminee titre.
Minutes of 9.9-02
Page 3
that the owner does not ignore the importance of this ordinance and are made aware of
the enforcement behind it. He said in most of these cases the owner has not paid their
mortgage, the utilities, are unable to rent the units and most likely do not have sufficient
income. In these cases a judgement does nothing to the effect. He feels reasonable time
would be up to 120 days, then after a hearing, the City would be able to come in and
demolish the building. He also noted that the neighbors opinion of having the building
demolished should be taken into consideration also. Aid. Newman asked legal staff' if
this suggested consolidation of adding more enforcement language to the ordinance is
possible. Ms. Szymanski responded that legal is researching that point now. She
informed that Mr. Wolinski, Mr. Janusz and herself have been working on this, however
this is a big item and the particulars involved with this requires a lot of research, which
has not been completed, She said that it was staffs decision to bring the ordinance
before the Committee at this point.
Aid. Newman stated that he would like to see this ordinance amended to include the
enforcement language as mentioned. He pointed out that he strongly favors this
ordinance and supports having a mechanism in place that allows the City to take action
on boarded buildings. Therefore, he is not looking to delay this in anyway, however he
agrees with Aid. Engelman's concerns in making sure that they have something
unquestionably binding and enforceable in place before acting on this. He urged that this
ordinance stay on P&D's agenda so that it doesn't go too long without any action on it.
He suggested that staff' work on adding the appropriate language and examining the
legalities. He also suggested that a public hearing should be held before pursuing
demolition because it is important to have neighborhood input preceding any City
takeover of a building.
Aid. Kent agreed with Aid. Newman's last comment on including neighborhood input.
He also agrees with Aid. Engelman's concerns on incorporating stronger language to give
the City enforcement status without question. He also feels this ordinance looks good
and has good intentions, however in some situations demolishing the building may not be
the final answer. He suggest that there are other options to look at especially with
buildings or boarded up houses that have the potential of being rehabbed. He questioned
if the City could take over such buildings that have rehab potential and proposition some
developers that would be interested in turning the building into affordable housing. Mr.
Wolinski assured that staff discussed that alternative but with most of the boarded
buildings he would be curable to go before the Skokie Court House and obtain a
demolition on a majority of these buildings. He said that it would be hard to prove that
the buildings were in such a deplorable state that they are a public danger, if so, his staff
would have done so already. He affirmed that the majority of the boarded structures are
buildings that are in neglect and disrepair. He noted that they are faced with two issues;
one being that some of the buildings could be saved and provided for affordable housing,
however staff has been unsuccessful in reaching that point with most of the properties. In
the meantime, the neighborhoods are suffering where there are 2-3 board -ups on certain
blocks such as Darrow and Brown Avenues. He said from staffs standpoint, if the
building can be saved, no one is able to do so at this point. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that
a majority of the owners of these buildings are gone and many of the properties are in
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 9.9-02
Page 2
have occurred with pile -driving, they felt that this is an area where some type of control
needs to be in place. Chairman Bernstein recalled past discussion with respect to
potential City liability- in allowing too much input or control from staff over construction
methods. However in this case, partly due to a recent complaint from a current project on
Chicago Avenue and the case with the Rotary Building when BankOne was demolished,
there is due cause to have something in place for staff to prohibit such damaging
construction methods to surrounding properties. Aid. Newman asked if this fits and is
suggested under BOCA. Mr. Wolinski confirmed that it does fit under BOCA Code but
is not suggested because they do not normally get into the means and methods of how
construction is done. However, this is an area that is necessary to intervene by staff.
With no further discussion, Aid., Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
(P3) Ordinance 89-0-02 — Amendment to the Prooerty Maintenance Code
Mr. Wolinski explained to the Committee that this is the first of several ordinances staff
will be bringing before them concerning the boarded -up building problem in Evanston.
He noted that staff has been dealing with and trying to come up with ways to alleviate
this problem for some time. His personal feeling on this matter is for the City to be able
to go in and demolish the structure at some point if all means of trying to work with the
property owner has failed. He said this ordinance is based primarily on what Chicago is
doing currently, which calls for registering boarded buildings and a number of other
actions that need to be taken such as obtaining liability insurance and the owner
providing guard service for the building if the City deems necessary. He brought
attention to the other items of action listed in staffs memorandum including the
Committee's packet.
Aid. Engelman retracted back to Mr. Wolinski's comment on this being the first of a
series of ordinances concerning boarded buildings and questions the significance any of
this will have on helping to alleviate the problem. He can not see how this ordinance will
force the owner to obtain liability insurance, let alone even registering the building. He
questioned what the City is going to do if the owner does not comply, fine the owner
WO per day? Mr. Wolinski stated that they planned to fine the owner and even though
he does understand Aid. Engelman's point, staff does need to establish the basis as they
proceed with the boarded -up issue as far as doing the foundation for effective ineastnres
down the road Aid. Engelman asked why not put the entire package together and present
as a whole. In other worded, why bring the enabled legislation without the effective
measure. Aid. Newman agreed and additionally questioned if staff is implying that if a
building owner does not comply with the ordinance, this will eventually lead to acquiring
a demolition permit. If this is the implication, then the ordinance needs to have language
strong enough to that effect. He said the ordinance needs to have specific language that
states if the owner does not comply with any of the listed requirements as stated in stairs
memorandum, within a certain amount of days, then stronger measures will be taken
Ieading to demolition of the property. He especially felt that enforcement of security of
the boarded building needs to be strongly emphasized because of the potential dangers
that can occur. He stressed that strong language with "bite" to it needs to be added so
f'
Planning & Development Committee
;Minutes of September 9, 2002
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. Barry, P. Haynes, D.
Marino,
C. Ruiz, D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski, J. Bro%mlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12.2002 MEETING
Ald. Kent moved approval of the August 12th minutes, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The
vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion (Ald.'s Newman and Engelman were not present at
the time of the vote).
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P1) Ordinance 87-0-02 - Amendment to the BOCA Buildinie Code
Mr. Wolinsi i summarized staffs recommendation for wanting to limit the means and
procedures for pile driving. He said that this is in response to past discussions over the
last few years concerning the impact on surrounding neighborhood properties during the
driving of sheet piling on construction projects. He and his building staff considered this
and discussed what they should and should not allow and finally decided that it was best
to provide language that would be prohibited allowing staff to have control. He said that
impact -type hammering would not be allowed anymore, which is the pile driving of
extreme force that is liable to cause possible damage to surrounding properties. He gave
an example of the type of force caused by this type of pile driving compared to the
alternative pneumatic -driving which is less forceful but results in the same effect He
mentioned that the alternative method is more costly, however they feel it is in the
community's best interest to enforce this method of pile driving.
Ald. Kent expressed his support with staff being able to control the method of pile
driving with City projects. Mr. Wolinski noted that staff has always preferred not to
interfere with controlling how construction is done, however because of the problems that
P&D Committee Mt&
Minutes of 09-23-02
Page 8
OTHER BUSINESS
Aid. Newman asked for the status of Binding Appearance Review and the Tear Down
issues. Mr. Wolinski reported that Binding Appearance Review was sent to Jack Seigel's
office back when the Committee directed staff to do so. No response has been received
back as of yet. Aid. Newman suggested that legal get moving on these items as soon as
possible, especially the Tear Down issue which is one of the hottest subjects in the
suburbs at this time. Mr. Wolinski said that he would pass this information onto Legal.
He suggested that both items come back by the second meeting in October. The
Committee agreed that they would like both items back as soon as possible, no later than
the first meeting in November.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r t��
Jacqu line B. Brownlee
P&D Committee Otte.
Minutes of 09.23-0�
Page 7
Aid. Wynne agrees with Aid. Newman and that there are mane sensitive situations that
need to be considered before imposing such an ordinance. She also feels there is a need
for better understanding of the various categories and clarification of where the greatest
risks are. Aid. Newman made clear to the Chief that he has a high regard for their work
and their intentions on safety matters with the proposal of this ordinance. He pointed out
that he is not ruling out any suggestions made by this ordinance, only more clarifications
needed as specified.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PDI) CIP: Citv Proiects for Preservation Review and Comment; Section 106 Review
Aid. Newman expressed his support for the recommended policy and preservation review
of CIP projects. Aid. Engelman questioned why there is a need for parks and playground
equipment to be included under the list for projects requiring preservation review. His
opinion is that the Preservation Commission can seriously impact on some projects and
he does not see the justification of needing to have such equipment reviewed. Aid.
Newman disagreed because many of the parks in Evanston are located in the middle of
historic districts. He sees no harm in having this review in place. Aid. Wynne said that
she could see many potential problems come about with the inclusion of this preservation
review. Ms. Aiello informed the Committee that with many CIP projects she runs the
case by Mr. Ruiz for his opinion or review to see if it is under historical preservations or
located in one of the districts. She noted that this recommended policy is for inclusion of
the Preservation Coordinator to become a member of the CIP team so that as the plan is
being developed, he Aill be able to ascertain and address any preservation matters early
in the process. The inclusion of parks on the list was added because of the large amount
of parks located in historic districts. Mr. Ruiz added that this process would minimize
oversight. Whether the determination is no effect or adverse effect, by being a member
of the CIP team he will be above to advise the citizen from the beginning or in the early
stages.
Aid. Wynne still felt that this could open "pandora's box" with the inclusion of parks.
Aid. Newman stated that he would rather see a precautionary measure in place from the
beginning versus having a situation occur after decisions have been made, putting the
City in the position of legal disputes. Aid. Engelman, on the other hand. pointed out the
list of projects exempt from this review and suggested that some of these be reconsidered
to add under the list requiring review.
Aid. Newman asked if this matter has been discussed with the Preservation Commission.
Ms. Aiello responded that only representatives from the CIP team have met with Mr.
Ruiz at this point. Aid. Newman requested that Ibis be referred to the Preservation
Commission for comment. All Committee members agreed.
P&D Committee tiitg.
Minutes of 09-23-02
Page 6
raise rents due to the regulations the-, are bound by. He suggested that in cases such as
this that it could be referred to the CD Committee. however, there is no money in the
budget to assist with this type of upgrades requiring a substantial amount of funds. Aid.
Kent asked Chief Berkowsky how the system in place at the two Cook County buildings
rates in comparison to the sprinkler system in this ordinance and being able to notify the
Fire Department in a timely manner. He additionally asked if they are rating the existing
sprinkler systems in buildings and current fire safety measures that have been taken,
especially in light of the testimony that has been given regarding the financial hardship
and inconvenience involved. Chief Berkowsky responded that firstly, the Fire
Department does take these things into consideration and is the reason most buildings
have installed updated systems_ The one mentioned in the Cook County buildings will
call the Fire Department directly. however it still takes them approximately 7 minutes
before they would be able to reach the building. He said in buildings such as these, his
concern is that even with notification from the alarm system, with the proposed sprinkler
system in place, it would provide immediate action in the event of a fire.
Aid. Newman's opinion, in light of all the discussion, comments and testimony, that there
is a need to go back to the drawing board at this point on this ordinance. He said there is
a need for extensive cost analysis to be done concerning the problems involved with older
structures and a benefit analysis needs to be done as well in terms of what the problem
has been. He said in this particular case, it appears obvious that the Cook County
buildings are prohibited and are unable to comply because of their fixed budget and rents
being set by congress. Although he supports the Fire Department's efforts and intent, he
does not feel there is enough evidence to mandate this type of extraordinary expense in
terms of fire safety.
Aid. Newman moved to table this item in Committee for direction to Fire and
Community Development staff for more clarification defining determinations
among the categories of the levels of effect for the different types of buildings
recommended to comply with this ordinance, define where the fires have been and
the justification to requirecompliance by all the categories. He also requested that
staff do a thorough cost anah•sis in comparison to the benefits and a study of the
competitive disadvantage to the businesses this would effect. Aid. Engelman
seconded the motion.
Ms. Turnoy suggested for the Cook County buildings that regularly scheduled fire drills
be conducted together with the involvement of the Fire Department. She said that this
could be a possibility to be done with other buildings that can not afford to install the
sprinkler system.
Chief Berkowsky informed the Committee that there is legislative history in place to
justify requiring the sprinkler systems and especially there is evidence that should
mandate the retrofit for campus buildings due to the high number of fire reports in
dormitories, fraternities and sororities. He requested that the Committee keep this in
mind.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 09.23-02
Page 5
the restaurant too would ha%e to be sprinkled as weil. Aid. Newman asked the Gorman's
if since the 9-11 incident, ha%e they had a drop in business similar to most of the hotel
industry and did they hare to decrease their rates to be competitive. Mr. Gorman
responded that they did have to decrease their rates. Aid. Newman asked if they were
subject to this ordinance, would they have to increase their rates by a substantial margin
in order to pay the debt caused by installing the sprinkler system. fir. Gorman answered
that it would be a balance by either increasing their rates or increase the occupancy. This
would be the same for the restaurant. He also mentioned that they are also affected by
the new Hilton downtown as well. Aid. Newman pointed out from listening to testimony
that there is an obvious disadvantage between the older existing buildings and new
development and their ability to plan the entire building including the wiring and
necessary piping for the sprinkler systems. Whereas the older buildings are being asked
to put in a new code requirement that could never have been planned for because some
were built as long as 70 or 80 years ago. He feels it is unreasonable to ask these
properties to tear up the buildings to comply with the code, which seems like it would be
extraordinarily expensive and put them in a competitive disadvantage with their
competitors.
Aid. Newman noted that in the letter from Homestead they state that they are a smoke -
free environment. In his opinion, this is very compelling because all this was started with
an incident where smoking was the cause of a major fire. Mr. Gorman stated that his Inn
is smoke free in all the rooms, however they do allow smoking only in the parlor area
which is a general area right next to the main lobby front desk. He said that the
restaurant is also smoke -free inside.
Mr. Rich Olszewski and Sioux Tumov, representing the Housing Authority of Cook
County and the two buildings in Evanston. Mr. Olszewski informed the Committee that
at the 1900 Sherman Building, they spent approximately S250,000 on fire proofing and
safety improvements two years ago. He listed all the safety installments made in
currently in place, which include the updates to the elevators that were required to be
made a few years ago. He also mentioned that at their Noyes Court building, same type
of construction, additional updates, fireproofing and safety improvements were made
including sprinklers in all the corridors. He has contacted several companies that do this
retrofit, specifically Superior Mechanical Systems, who informed him that it would come
to approximately S1.5 million to do because both are existing buildings with concrete
between each floor. This company assured that it would take extensive and tedious
construction work to install this sprinkler system. Due to the fact that the Housing
Authority has put a substantial amount of money into both buildings over the past 2 years
and the fact that they are on a fixed budget, Mr. Olszewski and Ms. Turnoy requested to
the Committee for consideration of the two Cook County Housing Authority buildings to
be exempt from this ordinance.
Aid. Newman recognized that a large majority of tenants in these two buildings are living
off of social security or other fixed income. Ms. Turnoy confirmed and also noted that
their rents are set by congress. With this in mind, Aid. Newman agreed that the Cook
County buildings can clearly not afford to comply with this ordinance and are unable to
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 09.23-02
Page 8
OTHER BUSINESS
Aid. Newman asked for the status of Binding Appearance Review and the Tear Down
issues. Mr. Wolinski reported that Binding Appearance Review was sent to Jack Seigel's
office back when the Committee directed staff to do so. No response has been received
back as of yet. Aid. Newman suggested that legal get moving on these items as soon as
possible, especially the Tear Down issue which is one of the hottest subjects in the
suburbs at this time. Mr. Wolinski said that he would pass this information onto Legal.
He suggested that both items come back by the second meeting in October. The
Committee agreed that they would like both items back as soon as possible, no later than
the first meeting in November.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9.38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r � ,
Jacqueline E. Brownlee
P&D Comminee %tte.
Minutes of 09.23-0-
Page 7
Aid. Wynne agrees with Aid. Newman and that there are mane :sensitive situations that
need to be considered before imposing such an ordinance. She also feels there is a need
for better understanding of the various categories and clarification of where the greatest
risks are. Aid. Newman made clear to the Chief that he has a high regard for their work
and their intentions on safety matters with the proposal of this ordinance. He pointed out
that he is not ruling out any suggestions made by this ordinance, only more clarifications
needed as specified.
The vote W83 5-0 in favor of the motion
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PDl I CIP: Citv Proiects for Preservation Review and Comment/Section 105 Review
Aid. Newman expressed his support for the recommended policy and preservation review
of CIP projects. Aid. Engelman questioned why there is a need for parks and playground
equipment to be included under the list for projects requiring preservation review. His
opinion is that the Preservation Commission can seriously impact on some projects and
he does not see the justification of needing to have such equipment reviewed. Aid.
Newman disagreed because many of the parks in Evanston are located in the middle of
historic districts. He sees no harm in having this review in place. Aid. Wynne said that
she could see many potential problems come about with the inclusion of this preservation
review. Ms. Aiello informed the Committee that with many CIP projects she runs the
case by Mr. Ruiz for his opinion or review to see if it is under historical preservations or
located in one of the districts. She noted that this recommended policy is for inclusion of
the Preservation Coordinator to become a member of the CIP team so that as the plan is
being developed, he will be able to ascertain and address any preservation matters early
in the process. The inclusion of parks on the list was added because of the large amount
of parks located in historic districts. Mr. Ruiz added that this process would minimize
oversight. Whether the determination is no effect or adverse effect, by being a member
of the CIP team he will be above to advise the citizen from the beginning or in the early
stages.
Aid. Wynne still felt that this could open "pandora's box" with the inclusion of parks.
Aid. Newman stated that he would rather see a precautionary measure in place from the
beginning versus having a situation occur after decisions have been made, putting the
City in the position of legal disputes. Aid. Engelman, on the other hand, pointed out the
list of projects exempt from this review and suggested that some of these be reconsidered
to add under the list requiring review.
Aid. Newman asked if this matter has been discussed with the Preservation Commission,
Ms. Aiello responded that only representatives from the CIP team have met with Mr.
Ruiz at this point. Aid. Newman requested that this be referred to the Preservation
Commission for comment. All Committee members agreed.
P&Q Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 09-23-03
Page 5
the restaurant too would has a to be sprinkled as %%ell. Aid. Newman asked the Gorman's
if since the 9-I1 incident, hate they had a drop in business similar to most of the hotel
industry and did they have to decrease their rates to be competitive. Mr. Gorman
responded that they did have to decrease their rates. Ald. Newman asked if they were
subject to this ordinance, would they have to increase their rates by a substantial margin
in order to pay the debt caused by installing the sprinkler system. Mr. Gorman answered
that it would be a balance by either increasing their rates or increase the occupancy. This
would be the same for the restaurant. He also mentioned that they are also affected by
the new Hilton dow•nto%sm as well. Aid. Newman pointed out from listening to testimony
that there is an obvious disadvantage between the older existing buildings and new
development and their ability to plan the entire building including the wiring and
necessary piping for the sprinkler systems. Whereas the older buildings are being asked
to put in a new code requirement that could never have been planned for because some
were built as long as 70 or 80 years ago. He feels it is unreasonable to ask these
properties to tear up the buildings to comply with the code. which seems like it would be
extraordinarily expensive and put them in a competitive disadvantage with their
competitors.
Aid. Newman noted that in the letter from Homestead they state that they are a smoke -
free environment. In his opinion. this is very compelling because all this was started with
an incident where smoking was the cause of a major fire. Mr. Gorman stated that his Inn
is smoke free in all the rooms, however they do allow smoking only in the parlor area
which is a general area right next to the main lobby front desk. He said that the
restaurant is also smoke -free inside.
Mr. Rich Olszewski and Sioux Turnov. representing the Housing Authority of Cook
County and the two buildings in Evanston. Mr. Olszewski informed the Committee that
at the 1900 Sherman Building, they spent approximately S250,000 on fire proofing and
safety improvements two years ago. He listed all the safety installments made in
currently in place, which include the updates to the elevators that were required to be
made a few years ago. He also mentioned that at their Noyes Court building, same type
of construction, additional updates, fireproofing and safety improvements were made
including sprinklers in all the corridors. He has contacted several companies that do this
retrofit, specifically Superior Mechanical Systems, who informed him that it would come
to approximately $1.5 million to do because both are existing buildings with concrete
between each floor. This company assured that it would take extensive and tedious
construction work to install this sprinkler system. Due to the fact that the Housing
Authority has put a substantial amount of money into both buildings over the past Z years
and the fact that they are on a fixed budget. hir. Olszewski and Ms. Tumoy requested to
the Committee for consideration of the two Cook County Housing Authority buildings to
be exempt from this ordinance.
Aid. Newman recognized that a large majority of tenants in these two buildings are living
off of social security or other fixed income. Ms. Tumoy confirmed and also noted that
their rents are set by congress. With this in mind, Aid. Newman agreed that the Cook
County buildings can clearly not afford to comply with this ordinance and are unable to
P$D Comminee .% tc.
Minutes of 09.23-02
Page 6
raise rents due to the regulations they are bound bY. He suggested that in cases such as
this that it could be referred to the CD Committee. however. there is no money in the
budget to assist with this type of upgrades requiring a substantial amount of funds. Aid.
Kent asked Chief Berkow•sky how the system in place at the two Cook County buildings
rates in comparison to the sprinkler system in this ordinance and being able to notify the
Fire Department in a timely manner. He additionally asked if they are rating the existing
sprinkler systems in buildings and current fire safety measures that have been taken,
especially in light of the testimony that has been given regarding the financial hardship
and inconvenience involved. Chief Berkowsky responded that firstly, the Fire
Department does take these things into consideration and is the reason most buildings
have installed updated systems. The one mentioned in the Cook County buildings will
call the Fire Department directly, however it still takes them approximately 7 minutes
before they would be able to reach the building. He said in buildings such as these, his
concern is that even with notification from the alarm system, with the proposed sprinkler
system in place, it would provide immediate action in the event of a fire.
Aid. Newman's opinion, in light of all the discussion, comments and testimony, that there
is a need to go back to the drawing board at this point on this ordinance. He said there is
a need for extensive cost analysis to be done concerning the problems involved with older
structures and a benefit analysis needs to be done as well in terms of what the problem
has been. He said in this particular case, it appears obvious that the Cook County
buildings are prohibited and are unable to comply because of their fixed budget and rents
being set by congress. Although he supports the Fire Department's efforts and intent, he
does not feel there is enough evidence to mandate this type of extraordinary expense in
terms of fire safety.
Aid. Newman moved to table this item in Committee for direction to Fire and
Community Development staff for more clarification defining determinations
among the categories of the levels of effect for the different types of buildings
recommended to comply with this ordinance, define where the fires have been and
the justification to require compliance by all the categories. He also requested that
staff do a thorough cost analysis in comparison to the benefits and a study of the
competitive disadvantage to the businesses this would effect. Aid. Engelman
seconded the motion.
Ms. Turnoy suggested for the Cook County buildings that regularly scheduled fire drills
be conducted together with the involvement of the fire Department. She said that this
could be a possibility to be done with other buildings that can not afford to install the
sprinkler system.
Chief Berkowsky informed the Committee that there is legislative history in place to
justify requiring the sprinkler systems and especially there is evidence that should
mandate the retrofit for campus buildings due to the high number of fire reports in
dormitories, fraternities and sororities. He requested that the Committee keep this in
mind.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 09-23-02
Page S
the restaurant too would have to be sprinkled as well. Aid. Nev.-man asked the Gorman's
if since the 9-11 incident. have they had a drop in business similar to most of the hotel
industry and did they have to decrease their rates to be competitive. Mr. Gorman
responded that they did have to decrease their rates. Aid. Newman asked if they were
subject to this ordinance, would they have to increase their rates by a substantial margin
in order to pay the debt caused by installing the sprinkler system. %Ir. Gorman answered
that it would be a balance by either increasing their rates or increase the occupancy. This
would be the same for the restaurant. He also mentioned that they are also affected by
the new Hilton downtown as well. Aid. Newman pointed out from listening to testimony
that there is an obvious disadvantage between the older existing buildings and new
development and their ability to plan the entire building including the wiring and
necessary piping for the sprinkler systems. Whereas the older buildings are being asked
to put in a new code requirement that could never have been planned for because some
were built as long as 70 or 80 years ago. He feels it is unreasonable to ask these
properties to tear up the buildings to comply with the code. which seems like it would be
extraordinarily expensive and put them in a competitive disadvantage with their
competitors.
Aid. Newman noted that in the letter from Homestead they state that they are a smoke -
free environment. In his opinion. this is very compelling because all this was started with
an incident where smoking was the cause of a major fire. Mr. Gorman stated that his Inn
is smoke free in all the rooms, however they do allow smoking only in the parlor area
which is a general area right next to the main lobby front desk. He said that the
restaurant is also smoke -free inside.
Mr. Rich Olszewski and Sioux Turnov, representing the Housing Authority of Cook
County and the two buildings in Evanston. Mr. Olszewski informed the Committee that
at the 1900 Sherman Building, they spent approximately 5250,000 on fire proofing and
safety improvements two years ago. He listed all the safety installments made in
currently in place, which include the updates to the elevators that were required to be
made a few years ago. He also mentioned that at their Noyes Court building, same type
of construction, additional updates, fireproofing and safety improvements were made
including sprinklers in all the corridors. He has contacted several companies that do this
retrofit, specifically Superior Mechanical Systems, who informed him that it would come
to approximately 51.5 million to do because both are existing buildings with concrete
between each floor. This company assured that it would take extensive and tedious
construction work to install this sprinkler system. Due to the fact that the Housing
Authority has put a substantial amount of money into both buildings over the past 2 years
and the fact that they are on a fixed budget, Mr. Olszewski and Ms. Turnoy requested to
the Committee for consideration of the two Cook County Housing Authority buildings to
be exempt from this ordinance.
Aid. Newman recognized that a large majority of tenants in these two buildings are living
off of social security or other fixed income. Ms. Turnoy confirmed and also noted that
their rents are set by congress. With this in mind, Aid. Newman agreed that the Cook
County buildings can clearly not afford to comply with this ordinance and are unable to
P&D Comminee SUg.
Minutes of 09-23.02
Page
building is one of the better rooming houses. Howe%er, even the most careful household
can experience a fire. He addressed Chief Berkowsky regarding buildings that have
certain fire prevention measures in place such as cinder -block walls, sprinklers installed
in hallways. etc. He asked if this would be an option or substitution to an owner,
especially for the smaller rooming houses. Chief Berkowsky replied such substitutions
would not be sufficient in comparison to having an actual sprinkler system in place in the
living quarters because by the time a fire reaches the hallway it is overwhelming and the
tenants chances of making it out are limited by that time.
Aid. Newman asked Ms. Pokomi if her garbage pickup is in the front or rear of her
building. She responded that pickup is off the alley behind building. In response to
several more questions, Ms. Pokorni stated that does all the screening on her tenants even
in the situation of subleasing and she also stated that she does not reside in Evanston
Ald. Newman then asked Ms. Pokorni a series of questions regarding the monthly rent
amounts she collects and how much is put back into the building. She informed that she
collects between KD0045,000 per month, which comes to approximately $60,000 per
year. Her expenses include mortgage and related costs, utilities, and maintenance noting
that her building will well maintained on a constant basis. She hesitated to answer any
further questions of this nature to protect her privacy since this is a public 1ln. Ming. Aid.
Newman made clear his intention was to point out that the speaker testified that they can
not afford to install any sprinkler system and he wanted this justified. He added that this
is one of the main problems with non -owner occupied rooming houses in that the
landlord collects very high rents and puts nothing back into the building and failure to
monitor their tenants, which cause the blight and complaints on the tenants due to lack of
supervision. Chief Berkowsky agreed with Aid. Newnan and the reason why non -owner
occupied rooming houses were added to the list because there is clearly a difference in
the upkeep of building when the owner is on the premises, in most cases.
Tim and Barbara Gorman, owners of the Margarita European Inn at 1566 Oak Avenue,
They distributed an illustration of their building and gave a detailed description of the
excellent construction of the building that was required at the time it was built. They also
described the elegant interior of the buildings and that each room was personally
decorated by Mrs. Gorman. Mr. Gorman informed the Committee that this building has
more than sufficient ingress/egress locations and the entire building is fire alarmed that
alerts directly to the Fire Department. The German's stated that they would be willing to
look at alternative possibilities but assure that to comply with this sprinkler retrofit is too
expensive and would require a very costly and burdensome construction to do since they
would have to nun pipes through concrete flooring. They insist that this process would
put them out of business. In conclusion, the Gorman's requested that the Committee
consider cost hardships, especially for owners of older construction buildings and
requested that their building be exempt from this ordinance.
Aid. Newman asked if the restaurant, La Pensiera, was their tenant. Mr. Gorman said the
restaurant is a long-term tenant with a I0-year lease. He informed that the restaurant has
their own business fire alarm and sprinkler system in place. Chief Berkowsky replied
that their system is place in not the same as what they are requiring in this ordinance and
Pkb Committee +itz.
Minutes of09-23-02
Page 3
creation. He requested and urged that the Committee consider only buildings under new
construction be required to install this sprinkler retrofit system and give leniency and
case -by -case review of older existing buildings that would require excessive cost and
construction requirements to comply. Aid. Newman asked �ti1r. Keating if he has
consulted with an architect regarding this matter. Mr. Keating responded yes, however
he is not sure of the exact cost to install this sprinkler system but was assured by the
architect that it would be excessive.
Nis. Orvsia Pokorni. owner of rooming house at 718 Foster, expressed her objection to
this ordinance for rooming houses because they are already required to be licensed and
are inspected every year by the City. From her understanding, out of the 8 non -owner
occupied rooming houses in Evanston; there have been no reported fires in over 12 years.
She stated that she passes the regulations and requirements for rooming houses and rules
to be followed on to her tenants, which are majority students. She boasted that her
property is very well kept, clean. grounds maintained and screens her tenants thoroughly.
She concluded with her opinion that rooming houses appear to be under control, are
majority owned and maintained by small business people, and because of this, the cost
would be an extreme hardship on the owner. She feels it is unfair to place rooming
houses as a category requiring compliance to this ordinance.
Aid. Newman asked Nis. Pokorni if she has observed any of the rooming houses in the
800 block of Foster and the deplorable conditions that exist with many of them. She
responded that she is unaware of any existing conditions with other rooming houses.
Aid. Newman explained to her the number of recurring problems that exist with the
licenses rooming houses and how much time is spent on these properties by Property
Standards inspections, complaints and court time. He noted that many these properties
are on the same list Ms. Pokorni referred to and are considered firetraps. He asked Mr.
Wolinski to bring back to the Committee the list of violations on these properties that he
mentioned in the 800 block of Foster. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that there
are 90+ rooming houses total in Evanston and there are more than 8 non -owner occupied.
Chief Berkowsky noted that only 8 are listed as commercial/residential non -owner
occupied, meaning that they are not awned by Northwestern. He said this information
,A -as retrieved from the Property Standards staff. The Committee agreed that this needs
clarifying.
Aid. Kent stated that he supports this ordinance but questions what the actually cost
would be to install these sprinkler systems and how much the cost fluctuates between
different building types and materials the building is made out of. Although he
sympathizes with cost hardships, it is a responsibility of being a landlord to provide and
protect the safety and welfare of their tenants. He questions what should be considered
too expensive or costly when it comes to providing this service to the individuals residing
in your property. '.his. Pokomi made note that her building has sufficient fire/smoke
detectors in place, new electric, plumbing and gas appliances have been installed. She
said that there are also cooking rules in her house that are carefully followed by her
tenants. Aid. Kent concurred that if all these safety measures have been taken and
fortunately she has been lucky to have tenants that follow the house rules, then her
P&D Committee Mtg.
Mimics of 09-23-02
Page 2
last meeting he requested to the representatives of McDonalds and Home Depot to
investigate and inquire the possibility of interaction with the kids programs that are
offered at this store, such as hating Ronald ;McDonald visit the site and participate with
the children in some of the activities. ;fir. Da% id Downing. representing Home Depot
management, responded that he has tried to present this request to their Public Relations
Division and has received no response back at this time. Mr. Sweica. Construction
Manager for the McDonald's Corporation, informed that Ronald McDonald was present
for the grand opening at the Dallas location as a promotional attraction. He assured that
it could be possible to have Ronald McDonald present for the grand opening of this
location also, however it is difficult to have his participation in special hands-on
programs and direct interaction due to the constraints and limitations of his costume,
especially the hand gloves that he is required to wear. He added that there are also safety
issues and concerns involved with any direct interaction with the public. Aid. Kent
understood the limitations as explained and requested that Mr. Sweica proceed with the
necessary requirements to have Ronald McDonald present at the grand opening for this
location. Mr. Sweica assured that he would do so.
This item passed for action unanimously by the Committee.
fPll Ordinance 85-0-02 - Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with
Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code
Aid. Newman opened comment on this issue stating that from what he has read and
reviewed thus far and from direct discussion from concerned constituents in his Ward, it
appears evident that more consideration and research needs to be done. Staff should
research facts regarding more cost factors involved especially relating to older buildings
that were constructed over 54+ years ago and the requirements it would take for such
buildings to comply with this ordinance. He clarified his position on supporting the
efforts of the Fire Department and their conclusive intent to have all those buildings listed
as high consequence for large life -loss in case of a fire situation to have the proposed
sprinkler system in place. However, realistically it is not possible for some of these
buildings to financially be able to comply due to the high cost of installing such sprinkler
systems without some type of assistance or requiring major construction to the building.
Mr. Wolinski referred to the Committee to the letter included in their packet from
Ricchio & Ricchio Architects representing the Homestead Hotel and further information
stated in the letter received this evening from Mr. David Reynolds, Manager of the
Homestead, and distributed to the Committee. (A copy of this letter is available in the
Community Development Administrative Office.) Chairman Bernstein acknowledged
the letter from Mr. Reynolds this evening and included as testimony in the minutes. At
this time he called referred to the sign-up sheet for comment in the order signed.
Mr. Jack Keating, representing Northwestern's Sigma Chi Fraternity at 2249 N. Sheridan,
stated that his strong objection to this ordinance and its effect on existing older buildings
due to the requirements and excessive construction involved to install such a sprinkler
system. He gave a synopsis on the history of his building noting the concrete floors
between each level and the sound construction of the building that done at the time of
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of September 23, 2002
Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman. J. Kent, A. Newman, N1. Wynne
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, M. Barry,
C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski. J. Bro%%Aee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m. He apologized to all in
attendance on behalf of the Committee's tardiness due to Executive Session being held
over and thanked everyone for their patience. Ald. Newman extended the apology and
explained that it was unavoidable because of the matters requiring Council's deliberation
in Executive Session. He requested to Chairman Bernstein to extend the time of this
meeting as courtesy to all in attendance who have waited patiently at least long enough to
give everyone signed up for comments a chance to speak. Chairman Bernstein
acknowledged the request and assured that enough time will be extended to allow all
matters on the agenda to be considered.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9.2002 MEETING
Ald. Kent moved approval of the September 9th minutes, seconded by Aid. Engelman.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P2) Ordinance 90-0-02 - Snecial Use for 2201 Oakton - Tyne 2 Restaurant: McDonalds
in Home Depot
Chairman Bernstein noted that the Committee voted on this item at the September 9th
meeting to introduce and refer back to the Committee for staff' modifications to the
conditions of the ordinance including limiting cooking to such devices as convection
oven, steam tables, microwaves, and prohibiting fryers and grills. He pointed out that it
is also noted that staff has discussed the concerns mentioned regarding landscaping, cart
corrals and litter maintenance with Home Depot representatives. He acknowledged that
the same representatives from the last meeting are present and asked the Committee for
any further questions or concerns that they would like them to address. Aid. Kent stated
that he has no problems with the stipulations and amended conditions, however, at the
n&D Comminee Sttg.
Minutes of I(i IA 0_
Page I I
Aid. Newman expressed his opinion for his lack of interest in what has been presented as
far as it relates to the BPL He noted to the Housing Commission representatives that he
is more interested in hearing what this task force will concentrate on with housing issues
that are currently effecting Evanston and initially improving the dilemma for providing
affiardable housing to Evanston residents that are being affected by the lack of. He is not
interested in assisting any other people or associations outside of Evanston at this time
when there are so many residents that arc in need of assistance. I ie pointed out that
(.vanston has the third highest amount of Section 8 vouchers in the County and he feels
other surrounding municipalities need to come up to the plate in assisting the need for
providing affordable housing.
Aid. Engelman motioned for recommendation to proceed with this proposal. Aid.
Newman seconded the motion and added that this recommendation should be to
proceed with the formation of the task force. Immediately after, a meeting should
be set between the Task Force and P&D Committee to discuss and decide which
items they are going to address and prioritize.
Aid. Bernstein volunteered to be one of the members from P&D Committee. Ald. Kent
expressed interest as well. Ald. Newman suggested that the 2 for -profit developers
possibly be from Evanston with not -for -profit housing experience.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD4) Communication from Richard Stillerman re: Bindins: Annearance Review
This communication was accepted without comment.
(PD5) Sherman Plaza Planned Development
This communication was accepted without comment.
OTHER BUSINESS
Aid. %%'i.nne motioned for the Committee to go into closed session to discuss
litigation at 8:53 p.m. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion.
The Committee reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business. the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Jacqueline E. Bro%4rlee
P&D Comm inee Mtg.
Minutes of 10 14 02
Page 10
reading the correspondence the issue of the legislative final decision. She noted that
Legal Counsel has described the first scheme to the proposed ordinance as being invalid.
on the other hand. it is being explained no++ that the binding appearance ordinance is
valid at the Site Plan Revie++ Committee level if approved by this legislative body with
no appeal made. fir. Siegel reiterated his explanation that binding appearance review
can be approved at the Site Plan Review Committee level if there is no objection. If there
is any objection and an appeal. then the final decision would lie upon the Councils
decision. Ald. Newman then questioned if this mould make the Council an appellate
board at that stage.
Aid. Newman motioned for Nfr. Siegel to present back to the Committee with an
ordinance along the line of stating that not e►•ery single petition for building permit
coming to the Council. He added that he would like to see an ordinance where
everybody agrees at all levels that some howthis would be a legislative act of the
Council upon an appeal of a decision made by Site Plan Appearance Review
Committee. Ald. Wynne agreed and requested that legal staff also respond back to the
Committee regarding what Format would pass legal muster. Chairman Bernstein stated
that this is all subject to the standards being definite and this is the question that remains
in his mind. which he feels should be directed back to the Plan Commission for further
review with input from Mr. Siegel with regards to the +vagueness of these standards. Mr.
Siegel noted the problem he has with the large document received from staff with
pictures included and the draft ordinance stating the incorporation of all this with
standards. He added that the present ordinance is not the best. but at least has some
numerated standards. He questions what is applicable with the proposed ordinance
received. He also noted that the Committee minutes indicate that this would extend to all
structures as he read and questioned if this is what the Committee intended. The
Committee members agreed that their consensus was not to include all structures. mainly
single-family. However. Chairman Bernstein stated that in all fairness they need to hav
an ordinance that reads as if it is including all structures at this point and then make
further determinations for definite exclusions. Ald. Newman reminded the Committee
and \fr. Siegel that the conversation on single-family in the past was that it only happens
in this City when there is a demolition and they have only had historically approximately
14 that have come through City Council. Therefore. there are very few single-family
projects where there is a clear lot being developed in Evanston.
Aid. %Vvnne seconded the motion made and thevote was 4 in favor and i voting nay
(Engelman).
(PD3) Discussion with Housine Commission re: lnclusionary Housina Task Force,
Pronosal
Mr. Mark Dillon. Chair of the Housing Commission. opened discussion by giving the
Committee an update of what has been discussed amongst the Housing Commission and
their progression towards forming, this task force as proposed. He went through the list of
recommended members to form the task force as presented in the memorandum to the
Committee. Ms. Robin Snyderman-Pratt assisted \1r. Dillon by giving additional
information in detail of what the proposed plans are upon initiation of this task force.
P&D Committce Mtg
Minutes of 10 14 02
Page 9
which has been communicated and does effect all the residents Ald. Newman stated that
he does want to continue to my and sole thi= problem and acknowledged that a
tremendous amount of «ork has Lone into this project b% man people including the Plan
Commission and staff. Ile noted that none of those in%%,1%ed ha%a %%asted their time and
good faith efforts have been made with all intentions %) tr% and improve this City in every
way. including final appearance and aesthetics of proNcts that effect everyone in the
community.
Aid. Newman stated that he would like the Plan Commission to continue in review and
modification process of this ordinance, however there is a notable problem that exists.
This problem being with total involvement and cooperation of the staff. because what he
finds frustrating and another example of is the inabilit% of the Community Development
staff and Legal staff to work together. He noted that this is another situation that should
have been noted and caught some time ago and has chronologically happened many
times. He revealed that response turn -around time from the Law Deparment is too often
lengthy and in need of more expedient replies to other City Departments and thereafter to
Council. Mr. Siegel acknowledged Ald. NeaTnan's concerns and noted that there is
another method here. He said that rather than having every decision come to City
Council, if at some step in the process approval of the appearance review is given with all
notice hearing and postings established. with no objection. this should end the process.
Alternately. he said that ultimately it would only be if the Appearance Committee denied
a project and the developer or property owner felt aggrieved or if it was approved and the
neighbors objected. this case could be appealed and heard by the higher legislative body.
Aid. Newman noted the contradiction made by Mr. Siegel because this process was is
already in place for appeals. He said that his understanding from %%hat was said earlier. is
that this was going to be similar to a special use «here the Cite Council always has to be
the final authority in whether it is approved or disappro%ed. \Ir. Siegel responded that in
practical matter. if there is no objection at the Site Plan .appearance Review Committee
level, then there is no further need to proceed. Aid. Ne«man stated that he sees no
difference in what currently exists in the process and he questioned for explanation in
how this would differ. Mr. Siegel responded that from \+hat lie understands. the City
Council does not have final authority on appearance. :old. Newman reminded that they
are final authority on appeals. NIr. Siegel and Chairman Bernstein agreed and noted that
there is no definite structure in place for binding appearance and that is what needs to be
decided here before the Committee. Mr. Siegel clarified that he is not suggesting that this
is what the Committee wants. to do but is suggesting this as a possibility. Further
discussion follov%ed. Aid. Neuman asked that ti1r. Siegel put this scheme in the form of
an ordinance which he finds acceptable and passing with the legislative body to be in
control for the Committee. He added with the idea that not even- single project would be
coming before the Comm ittee.'CounciI for approval. Mr. Siegel responded that he would
provide that either the neighbors or any alderman could object to the findings of the
decision and in that case it would go before Cite Council. Aid. Newman agreed.
Aid. Wvnne noted that from all the discussion ensued thus far, she is more confused of
what the standards are at this point. She understands from legal correspondence received
that there is a need for very clear specific standards, howe\er she is still not clear from
MD Committee %Itc.
% inures of 10 14 02
Page S
Commission's a►►areness of this concern expressed by several Council members
previously. that has stamina rather than - Omething that puts the City in a position of
hawing a law suit against them that's bound to loss. Chairman Bernstein followed by
stating that he has heard to classes of changes: one with regards to changing the
ordinance from binding at the administrati►e level to recommending and having it be a
legislative decision. not unlike the Zoning_ Beard and secondly. to make the standards less
vague. He noted that his concern has been can you quantify quality. which is part of the
vagueness with this ordinance. Fie stated that he agrees with Ald. Newman's perception
and the direction to staff should be to proceed in incorporating both of these changes into
the ordinance.
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that from a procedural standpoint. any time the
Site Plan Committee makes recommendations concerning the appearance of a project that
were not put forth in the original design. then it would come before this Committee and
subsequently the entire Council for a final approval. Aid. Engelman contradicted this as
not being entirely correct because if it were a legislative act. it would require the Council
to approve or disapprove all appearance review applications. %fr. Siegel agreed. Aid.
Engelman continued that therefore it would be irrelevant whether or not the Site Plan &
Appearance Review Committee makes modifications or not because it can be assumed
that anything that is going to be built in this City is going to have to come before the City
Council acting as the appearance revie►► committee. %fr. Siegel responded that if they are
going to do this. in his opinion. the safest way. without guarantee. from a legal point of
view. is to put it in the legislative body because these cases are all over the map beyond
the question of delegation. Aid. Engelman bounced back that if the question from the
Chair was do we want to direct staff to go back and work out an ordinance that tightens
up the standards and then imposes the binding appearance review process, do we want
this to sit in the lap of the City Council'' He does not believe that this would be an
efficient use of staff time considering all the cases on the City's plate. He added that he
does not believe that City Council should be acting as the arbiters of appearance within
the City for the projects that are being built here. NIr. Wolinski clarified that he was
tn-ing to explain that if a project comes before the Site Plan Committee and they agree
and are in favor of the plan. this plan would consequently go before Council for final
approval. Aid. Engelman recognized. however this procedure and added step would put
more delay in the process.
Aid. Newman stated that he acknowledges Aid. Engelman's concerns and previous
derogatory remarks made with regards to this ordinance creating "taste police". however.
in his opinion he feels that Aid. Engelman has made it clear that he does not support this
ordinance and this is why he feels it would be a waste of staffs time. In spite of Aid.
Engelman's comments and justifications in support of, Aid. Newman confirmed that he is
in support of certain issues within this ordinance that need to be addressed and regulated
in uniform by City Officials. He does not want to do away ►with the intention of this
ordinance. however he does think that there is a problem with everything coming before
the Council for final approval. He stressed that he does not feel this would be a waste of
staffs time because there does exist a significant problem within the community of
concern with final appearance of major projects that are being developed in the City,
P&:D Comminee %tie.
Minutes of 1014 0_�
Paec 7
ordinance. However. on the other hand. if they have the zoning ordinance and building
code. the question is ►►fiat additional requirements can they convince the Court are
necessary in order to protect the public health and safety. He reiterated that aesthetics is
a subject that the Illinois Supreme Court has been very leery about. even though in his
past case the► did bu► his argument. He also pointed out that a couple subsequent cases.
the Courts ruled that aesthetics could be considered but is not controlling. Mr. Siegel
pointed out that what they have here. despite some prefatory language that says this is
related to the public health and safety. ►►hich fundamentall►• questions aesthetics. lie
assured that he is not trying to avoid the issue of whether or not a specific ordinance is
sustainable. however the problem is that the changes which the Council or Committee
apparently voted on in June. have not been incorporated into a final ordinance.
%Jr. Siegel stated that it is apparent that \1r. Mylott did an analysis of what he understood
in surveying what other communities were doing with respect to appearance rcview and
he informed the Committee that he respectfully disagrees with this examination. He
stated that he has no knowledge of any final decision made by an administrative body
which has been tested in Court. He mentioned that two other communities that he
represents do have site plan re►•ie►► and have an architectural commission. however in
each instance those are merely recommending bodies to the City Council with the final
decision being vested in the Cite Council. He noted that whether you want to call that
final review as final determination or not. in his mind, this is not clear. lie said that the
minutes indicate that the final decision would go from the P&.D Committee to the Cite
Council. He stated that when you say this is binding review. this is slightly different than
the normal concepts. which were originally invoked in the first ordinance. At that point
and time, it becomes a legisiati►•e act and differs more generally to legislative decisions
than they would to an administrative body.
Aid. Newman asked for more clarification. He questioned that if a change was made
which was not appealable to the Council from the SPAARC. however their decision was
recommending to the Cite Council. ►►hat would this do in these cases. He questions if
Legal Counsel is saying that because this is a legislative act and the SPAARC is a
recommending body then the}• a better case. Mr. Siegel confirmed. adding that both of
the cases he presented involved an intermediate body that made a decision that was
subject to appeal to the Village Board. In result, the Court said that since there was a
final decision initially. the standards ►►ere inadequate. Therefore, under any
circumstances. they need to sharpen up the standards to incorporate in this ordinance. He
further noted that given the law in the State of Illinois. they would have a much better
chance if the Council wishes to support this. that having it go to the City Council for
ultimate decision and the intermediate body simply be the recommendatory body. fir.
Siegel referred to his confidential memorandum distributed to the Committee this
evening suggesting that the Committee review the listed cases in relation to this matter.
Aid. Newman feels that the changes should be made as suggested by Mr. Siegel.
otherwise they are going to have an ordinance that is week and lacking the enforcement
in language needed. He does not see the point of passing an ordinance that is subject to a
very strong case of challenge. He would much rather have an ordinance, noting the Plan
P&D Comminee \tte.
Minutes of 10 14 0'
P32C 6
asked by the Committee to render an opinion as to the %alidit% of final appearance
review. Ile said that up to no%%. his understanding is that SPAARC handle: moth site plan
and appearance and site plan appro%al is appro%al %%ith respect to SPAARC but
appearance is voluntary. In discussing this %%ith Mr. Wolinski. he understood that if a
developer disagrees with the recommendations with respect to appearance. it is still up to
the developer currently. With the proposed ordinance. he interprets that this would
separate those two functions. create a separate committee of professionals and lay to pass
upon appearance and their judgement would be final subject to appear. Ile pointed out
that originally in the ordinance that %fr. Mylott drafted. there was a separate board
proposed. as he understands from the minutes of the Committee meeting, instead of that.
appeal would go to this Committee. He noted that it was unclear as to whether there
would be automatic appeal to the City Council or whether the City Council if it %vcren't
considered within a certain period of days. would constitute denial. In any event. he said
the issue was whether or not an ordinance which created a separate entity or series of
entities. which ultimately a final decision making on architectural design would be valid.
Mr. Siegel said there are a number of cases from across the Country and frankly the cases
go both ways. Ile brought attention to the memorandum presented to the Committee
where he has indicated some of these cases. He said that normally. the cases arise are
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. lie pointed out that in Illinois there has been a
history of reluctance on the pan of Courts recognizing aesthetics as the basis for the
exercise of the police power based upon the proposition that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder and no two people necessarily agree in this case. He mentioned that
approximately twenty years ago. there was a zoning case that gent to the Illinois
Supreme Court in which they convinced the Court that aesthetics was a reasonable
consideration in zoning. Since that time there have. however been two cases that he
found in the Appellate Court dealing with separate architectural committee review. He
said in both instances the pace -setter case and the subsequent case. the Appellate Court
struck down separate appearance ordinances from the grounds that the standards were not
definite enough. Mr. Siegel stressed the point that this is always the problem when you
attempt to delegate to a body with final approval: the question of whether or not a
building permit should be issued based upon characteristics outside of the zoning
ordinance. In light of this fact. he concluded that the simple answer is that they probably
could do this but nevertheless would have to very- clear and very concise with respect to
the standards. He further pointed out that there is no deciding case in Illinois that he has
been able to find that sustains a separate architectural review based upon aesthetics.
Mr. Siegel informed the Committee that he has looked at the standards that are to be
adopted by reference and in his opinion, some are very vague. He pointed out that what
he received from staff is of very large volume and he is unsure how many of those
standards could actually be applied. He again pointed out that the problems that he
foresees is the fact that there has been no decided case in Illinois which sustains the
aesthetic contribution to police power accept in connection with zoning ordinances that
also have other relations. He said the question is in any case involving police power, how
do you demonstrate that the requirements are related to the public health. safety, morals,
and welfare. He said obviously there is the presumption of validity if they pass an
P&D Committee %Itg
Minutes of 10 14 02-
Pare 5
Bernstein agreed that no matter what this Committee decides he feels the structural
integrity of the building has to be demonstrated to staff s satisfaction quick -IN.
Aid. Nev.-man clarified in response to :did. Kent's comments on .what has happened with
this case. He said initially the applicant was before the Committee with this plan almost
one year ago at which time the zoning of the property was being considered as being C I a
or 63. He said that the issue of ho++ long this has already been an eyesore has been a
minimum of 3-4 months. at least through the entire summer. He explained that when he
suggested two weeks and the applicant said he needed six weeks. this presumably could
mean that during this time. the applicant possibly go to the planned development process.
Even though the applicant is saving six weeks. at that point and time. this could take a
minimum of another four months and this building will be sitting there in the same
condition as it is right now if the latter route is taken. In his mind. what is being set up
here is the possibility of going into a much longer time period than presuming by the end
of the six weeks that something is going to be done with this building. It is his opinion
that the building oucht to be demolished sooner rather later and he was not suggesting
that this be done by court action. He reminded that the applicant put down demolition as
one of the alternatives that he was looking at in terms of what he wanted to do.
Therefore. he feels that they need to have a process that is going to somehow minimize
and not extend the time of this building remaining in the condition that it is in. Aid.
Newman stated that he initially suggested the two weeks to give the applicant an
incentive to move as quickly as possible on proceeding with this case. He added that the
community needs an answer promptly because this building is bringing the area down.
Mr. IMuilins responded to this assuring the Committee that incentive is not a problem
because they have been put in a position of hick motivation at this point to quickly come
to some conclusion or closure on this project because of the time and money that he and
his partner have invested in this development up to this date. Aid. \Wynne noted that she
does not disagree with Aid. Newman. however except for the fact that if there is the
possibility that they can have a perfectly acceptable project using the structure that is
already there. then she feels that they would not be necessarily advancing the ball here by
requiring the applicant to dcmolish the building at this point. She justifiably does not
grant see this remain as status quo with nothing foreseeable in the pipeline.
With no further discussion. Aid. Engelman made a motion suggesting that the
applicant report back to this the Committee no later than the second meeting in
November, preferably the first meeting in November, with a structural integrity
analysis completed and what their intentions are. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion
and the vote was " in favor.
{PD1) Discussion with Comoration Counsel Jack Siegel on [.eealit• of Bindine
Annearance Review
Mr. Jack Siegel addressed the Chairman and members of the Committee. He informed
that he has reviewed the ordinance as originally drafted by Mr. Marc MyIott together
with the proposed standards for site plan and appearance review for incorporation into the
ordinance. He also reviewed the minutes of the Committee from June 2002 where
substantial changes were made to the proposed ordinance. He acclaimed that he was
P&D Committee Nlte.
Minutes of ID Is 01_
Page 4
time and a decision needs to be made as soon as possible. lie stated that this is his own
opinion and dislikes that fact that this may go against the time frame suggested by \fr.
Mullins. however it does not take away the tact that a decision needs to be made quickly.
He feels that a decision and response needs to be received from the applicant by the next
few meetings. A firm timetable needs to be established for the future of this building.
Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Siegel. given that the role of the Counsel is to have the
applicant demolish the property, presumably. is there a statutory vehicle by which this
can be done. Mr. Siegel responded that there is a method, referred to the ILLS 65 511 l-
31-1. which provides for demolition of abandoned buildings by court order. This allows
the municipality to go in and demolish if the owner does not do so within 30 days and put
a lien on the property. Aid. Ne«man corrected that he was not suggesting demolition b}
this method. Chairman Bernstein also noted that both the City and the applicant have
worked together respectively and he would not want to see this change.
AId. Wynne noted that this building is in the 3Td Ward. and as ward Alderman she does
not want to see this building sitting there in its current condition for months on end. She
too acknowledged Mr. Mullin's cooperation in working with the Council, which Council
did accommodate the proposed plan. As pointed out, this is a critically important
intersection. commercial wise. to this community and is very visible from the commuter
train. She said that people tend to shy away from areas where there is on going
construction because of congestion. dangerous conditions, etc. She stated that it is very
important to the Committee at this time to know where this project is going in an
expeditious fashion. She also would like to see a more defined time line for the record
and does not want to see the building sit there as it is.
Aid. Event noted that the applicant has asked for six weeks in comparison to six months.
which is not crucial. He especially has a large amount of sympathy for someone who has
put their own money into a project and stems to loose a lot if it does not go through. He
said in terms of time, it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to come back to
them in two weeks. however they have stated that it will take approximately six weeks
for the building analysis to be completed and for them to report back to the Committee.
He felt it important to point out that there are many significant intersections in all comers
of Evanston and whenever they come across someone who is willing to try and make the
community better. in his opinion. the City should work .vith them and allow sufficient
amount of time needed by the applicant to proceed with the project or demolish if that is
the outcome. He reiterated that he would like to give the applicant the six -week time
frame to come back to the Committee with a report to find out what they are going to do
with this project. Mr. «'olinski added that from a structural and code standpoint, his
main concern with the structure as it is now is the fact that winter is closely approaching
and facing the freeze/thaw cycle. He informed that during this type of weather, there is
the added danger with buildings that have masonry on them that are in poor condition, the
heightened risk of building collapse because of weak and loose mortar. He said that even
though the building is protected. they have to be aware of this risk and this weather cycle
can run anywhere from the beginning of December all the say through spring. Chairman
P&D Commirce Mtc.
Minutes of 10 14 02
Pace 3
forced upon them. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that historicall\ the only cases
where building permit fees ha►e been waived have been for not -for -profit organizations.
Upon completion of Committee discussion. the rote was 2 in furor of the motion
(Kent, Newman) and 3 voting nay (Bernstein. Wynne. Engelman). resulting in the
motion being denied. Chairman Bernstein informed Mrs. Hoppa that this matter will go
before the entire Council this evening for final vote.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD2) Discussion with Steve Mullins of Esskay Development reuardinu 503 Main Street
Mr. Mullins informed the Committee of the hardships he has incurred since the
commencement of taking on this project. He explained that they were 40% over budget
with the bids that were presented in May 2002 and with the more recent bids this put
them into $1 million dollars of the SS million dollar project. Fie expressed he and his
partner's disappointment in not being able to proceed with this project as planned due to
all the unforeseen and unexpected dilemmas that have happened since the beginning. He
noted that they are in the: process of reevaluating the project and considering one of the
two options stated in their memorandum. Options being to demolish the property to the
north and demolish the building on the current site. combine the properties and proceed
with a totally new development or demolish the current building until something in the
foreseeable future can be decided. meanwhile use the property as a parking lot.
Chairman Bernstein said that he still feels that there is a chance of the project being do-
able. He would like to Live enough time to have the opportunity to determine the
building structure and integrity. Mr. Mullins reminded that the building frame is 80+
years old. Mr. Wolinski said an architect analysis needs to be done to test the reliability
of the structure. which «ould take a few weeks at least to be done. Aid. Wynne recalled
that this site was left as 13 to accommodate this project. it could have been zoned C 1 a.
Mr. Mullins responded that his intentions were clear from the beginning that he had no
desire to develop a taller building. He noted that the existing scaffolding was put in place
for the interior demolition. which has been completed and the building is clean out and no
danger of falling debris from the inside of the structure. He noted that upon completion
of the architect's analysis. they will know whether or not the building needs to be
demolished at that time. If the shell is strong enough. then the scaffolding can be
removed. Aid. Wynne was under the impression that the scaffolding was there to protect
pedestrians and should remain as long as current structure is in place. The analysis
should be done within sir- weeks at which time they will make the decision on what to do
with the remaining structure.
Aid. Newman acknowledged Esskay's intentions and efforts put into this project and
understands the need for the architectural analysis. however he feels this structure needs
to come down as soon as possible. He said the building in its current state is an eyesore
to the community and sits directly on a major intersection within the City. He reiterated
that the building. as is. does not need to be left up in that condition for an extended period
of time. He reminded that the building has been in this state already for some period of
P&D Committee tttc
Minutes of 10 14 0_
Page
Aid. Newman moved to approve the request of the owner to waive file building
permit fees. not to exceed the amount of S2,474.00 as stated in stairs
correspondence presented to the Committee. Aid. Kent seconded the motion.
Aid. Engelman asked staff if the fees presented and charged to the owner are within the
normal costs charged for the proposed work to be done. Mr. W'olinski confirmed that the
fees listed would have been charged for the work being proposed regardless of whether
this property was designated as an Evanston Landmark or not. The fees are calculated by
the scope of the work being proposed and the estimated work valuation. In light of this
information. Aid. Engelman questions the proof of hardship being presented in this case.
Although he sympathizes with the owner because of the additional steps and procedures
brought about by this property being designated as an Evanston Landmark. it is no
different than any other of the numerous cases and costs incurred by owners of landmark
homes. which are plentiful in this Cite. He stressed to the other Committee members that
they keep in mind the precedence that would be set by this case if they were to grant a
waiver of permit fees for this owner. in addition to the risk of lawsuits that could occur
because of this.
Aid. Newman acknowledged Aid. Engelman's concerns expressed. however his feelings
on this case is that the owner was forced into doing something that totally changed their
initial plans and has resulted in their loosing anticipated income from an existing rental
unit and lose of rear yard space to building the proposed addition. He recalled that their
initial plan proposed for the addition on the second Boor that would have resulted in
changing the front facade of the structure. %%high brought about the concern and ultimate
denial of the Preservation Commission. Therefore. he feels the owners have been subject
to significant inconvenience and cost to comply with the provisions of the Preservation
Ordinance. He also feels that this property should not have been considered as a
detriment to the Ordinance when taking into account the original plans presented by the
owner of the changes requested due to the small size of this structure and the limited land
they had to work with. He concluded that he does not see this as an unreasonable request
on behalf of the w-vner.
Aid. Wynne questioned the discontinuance of the rental unit and if the excepted plan
required elimination of this unit. tits. Hoppa explained that the initial plan would have
provided for her family to have the expanded space needed without changing the rental
unit space. With the revised plan. they are no longer expanding up instead they are
expanding with a one-story addition to the rear of the property. In order for her family to
have enough increased living space from the addition. they were forced to convert the
rental unit and include this space for single-family use.
The Committee discussed this in further length with Aid. Engelman affirming his
interpretation that the burden of proof of hardship has not been established in this case.
AId. Newman stood on his belief that this case should be considered as a hardship to the
owner because of the substantial inconvenience caused by the decisions made by City
jurisdictions that should not have occurred to such an extent. He also pointed out the
owner's position in complying with the ordinance and still going through with the plan
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of October 14, 2002
Room 2403.7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. Kent, A. Ne%timan. ,\1. Wynne
Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello. A. Alterson, M. Barry. J. Burdick. R. Crum,
D. Marino. D. Spicuzza. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Others Present: Mayor Morton. J. Siegel, R. Cook. M. Dillon. R. Snyderman-Pratt
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUiI
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23.2002 MEETING
Ald. Wynne moved approval of the September 23rd minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Exemption from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter
Aid. Newman moved to set public hearing for October 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Aid.
Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
(P2) 610 Callan Avenue - Reouest Waiver of BuiIdina Permit flees
Mrs. Nancy Hoppa, owner of the property, explained her request to the Committee to
waive the building permit fees because of the added cost and expenses incurred in order
to comply with the provisions set by the Preservation Commission and Ordinance. She
noted that extra expenses had to be paid to their architect in order to re -design and come
up with an acceptable plan for the Preservation Commission, in addition to the cost of
having to pay their architect for her presence at the additional meetings that required her
attendance. In addition. the revised plan resulted in having to eliminate their existing
rental unit and become a single family dwelling unit with the proposed additions. She
concluded that in light of these additional expenses incurred along with loosing their
rental unit and the overall inconvenience experienced by her family due to this entire
dilemma. that hardship has been proven on their behalf.
P&D Comminee 41tg.
NJiniutes of 1014 02
Page I 1
Aid. Newman expressed his opinion for his lack of interest in what has been presented as
far as it relates to the BPI. He noted to the Housing Commission representatives that he
is more interested in hearing what this task force will concentrate on with housing issues
that are currently effecting Evanston and initially improving the dilemma for providing
affordable housing to Evanston residents that are being affected by the lack of. He is not
interested in assisting any other people or associations outside of Evanston at this time
when there are so many residents that are in need of assistance. He pointed out that
Evanston has the third highest amount of Section 8 vouchers in the County and he feels
other surrounding municipalities need to come up to the plate in assisting the need for
providing affordable housing.
Aid. Engelman motioned for recommendation to proceed with this proposal. Aid.
Newman seconded the motion and added that this recommendation should be to
proceed with the formation of the task force. Immediately after, a meeting should
be set between the Task Force and P&D Committee to discuss and decide which
items they are going to address and prioritize.
Aid. Bernstein volunteered to be one of the members from P&D Committee. Aid. Kent
expressed interest as well. Aid. Newman suggested that the 2 for -profit developers
possibly be from Evanston with not -for -profit housing experience.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion.
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD4) Communication from Richard Stillerman re: Binding Annearance Review
This communication was accepted without comment.
(PD5) Sherman Plaza Planned Develonment
This communication was accepted without comment.
OTHER BUSINESS
Aid. Wynne motioned for the Committee to go into closed session to discuss
litigation at 8:53 p.m. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion.
The Committee reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Jacqueline E. Brownlee
P&D Comminee Mig.
Minuses of 10114,02
Page 10
reading the correspondence the issue of the legislative final decision. She noted that
Legal Counsel has described the first scheme to the proposed ordinance as being invalid,
on the other hand, it is being explained now that the binding appearance ordinance is
valid at the Site Plan Review Committee level if approved by this legislative body with
no appeal made. Mr. Siegel reiterated his explanation that binding appearance review
can be approved at the Site Plan Review Committee level if there is no objection. If there
is any objection and an appeal, then the final decision would lie upon the Council's
decision. Aid. Newman then questioned if this would make the Council an appellate
board at that stage.
Aid. Newman motioned for Mr. Siegel to present back to the Committee with an
ordinance along the line of stating that not every single petition for building permit
coming to the Council. He added that he would like to see an ordinance where
everybody agrees at all levels that some how this would be a legislative act of the
Council upon an appeal of a decision made by Site Plan Appearance Review
Committee. Aid. Wynne agreed and requested that legal staff also respond back to the
Committee regarding what format would pass legal muster. Chairman Bernstein stated
that this is all subject to the standards being definite and this is the question that remains
in his mind, which he feels should be directed back to the Plan Commission for further
review with input from Mr. Siegel with regards to the vagueness of these standards. Mr.
Siegel noted the problem he has with the large document received from staff with
pictures included and the draft ordinance stating the incorporation of all this with
standards. He added that the present ordinance is not the best. but at least has some
numerated standards. He questions what is applicable with the proposed ordinance
received. He also noted that the Committee minutes indicate that this would extend to all
structures as he read and questioned if this is what the Committee intended. The
Committee members agreed that their consensus was not to include all structures, mainly
single-family. However, Chairman Bernstein stated that in all fairness they need to have
an ordinance that reads as if it is including all structures at this point and then make
further determinations for definite exclusions. Aid. Newman reminded the Committee
and Mr. Siegel that the conversation on single-family in the past was that it only happens
in this City when there is a demolition and they have only had historically approximately
14 that have come through City Council. Therefore, there are very few single-family
projects where there is a clear lot being developed in Evanston.
Aid. Wynne seconded the motion made and the vote was 4 in favor and 1 voting nay
(Engelman).
(PD3) Discussion with Housing Commission re: Inclusionary Housing Task Force
Proposal
Mr. Mark Dillon, Chair of the Housing Commission, opened discussion by giving the
Committee an update of what has been discussed amongst the Housing Commission and
their progression towards forming this task force as proposed. He went through the list of
recommended members to form the task force as presented in the memorandum to the
Committee. Ms. Robin Snyderman-Pratt assisted Mr. Dillon by giving additional
information in detail of what the proposed plans are upon initiation of this task force.
P&D Commince %ttg.
Minutes of 10 1-t 02
Page 9
which has been communicated and does effect all the residents. :old. Ne%%man stated that
he does want to continue to try and solve this problem and acknowledged that a
tremendous amount of work has gone into this project b% many people including the Plan
Commission and staff. He noted that none of those involved have wasted their time and
good faith efforts have been made with all intentions to try and improve this City in every
way, including final appearance and aesthetics of projects that effect everyone in the
community.
Aid. Newman stated that he would like the Plan Commission to continue in review and
modification process of this ordinance, however there is a notable problem that exists.
This problem being with total involvement and cooperation of the staff, because what he
finds frustrating and another example of is the inability of the Community Development
staff and Legal staff to work together. He noted that this is another situation that should
have been noted and caught some time ago and has chronologically happened many
times. He revealed that response turn -around time from the Law Department is too often
lengthy and in need of more expedient replies to other City Departments and thereafter to
Council. Mr. Siegel acknowledged Aid. Newman's concerns and noted that there is
another method here. He said that rather than having every decision come to City
Council, if at some step in the process approval of the appearance review is given with all
notice hearing and postings established, with no objection, this should end the process.
AIternately, he said that ultimately it would only be if the Appearance Committee denicd
a project and the developer or property owner felt aggrieved or if it was approved and the
neighbors objected, this case could be appealed and heard by the higher legislative body.
Aid. Newman noted the contradiction made by Mr. Siegel because this process was is
already in place for appeals. He said that his understanding from what was said earlier, is
that this was going to be similar to a special use where the City Council always has to be
the final authority in whether it is approved or disapproved. Mr. Siegel responded that in
practical matter, if there is no objection at the Site Plan Appearance Review Committee
level, then there is no further need to proceed. Aid. Newman stated that he sees no
difference in what currently exists in the process and he questioned for explanation in
how this would differ. Mr. Siegel responded that from what he understands, the City
Council does not have final authority on appearance. Aid. Newman reminded that they
are final authority on appeals. Mr. Siegel and Chairman Bernstein agreed and noted that
there is no deftnite structure in place for binding appearance and that is what needs to be
decided here before the Committee. Mr. Siegel clarified that he is not suggesting that this
is what the Committee wants to do but is suggesting this as a possibility. Further
discussion followed. Aid. Newman asked that Mr. Siegel put this scheme in the form of
an ordinance which he finds acceptable and passing with the legislative body to be in
control for the Committee. He added with the idea that not every single project would be
coming before the Committee/Council for approval. Mr. Siegel responded that he would
provide that either the neighborls or any alderman could object to the findings of the
decision and in that case it would go before City Council. Aid. Newman agreed.
Ald. Wynne noted that from all the discussion ensued thus far, she is more confused of
what the standards are at this point. She understands from legal correspondence received
that there is a need for very clear specific standards, however she is still not clear from
P&D Committee httg.
Minutes of 10,114 02
Page 8
Commission's awareness of this concern expressed by several Council members
previously, that has stamina rather than something that puts the City in a position of
having a law suit against them that's bound to loss. Chairman Bernstein followed by
stating that he has heard to classes of changes: one with regards to changing the
ordinance from binding at the administrative level to recommending and having it be a
legislative decision, not unlike the Zoning Board and secondly, to make the standards less
vague. He noted that his concern has been can you quantify quality, which is part of the
vagueness with this ordinance. He stated that he agrees with Aid. New-man's perception
and the direction to staff should be to proceed in incorporating both of these changes into
the ordinance.
Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that from a procedural standpoint, any time the
Site Plan Committee makes recommendations concerning the appearance of a project that
were not put forth in the original design, then it would come before this Committee and
subsequently the entire Council for a final approval. Aid. Engelman contradicted this as
not being entirely correct because if it were a legislative act, it would require the Council
to approve or disapprove all appearance review applications. Mr. Siegel agreed. Aid.
Engelman continued that therefore it would be irrelevant whether or not the Site Plan &
Appearance Review Committee makes modifications or not because it can be assumed
that anything that is going to be built in this City is going to have to come before the City
Council acting as the appearance review committee. Mr. Siegel responded that if they are
going to do this, in his opinion, the safest way, without guarantee, from a legal point of
view, is to put it in the legislative body because these cases are all over the map beyond
the question of delegation. Aid. Engelman bounced back that if the question from the
Chair was do we want to direct staff to go back and work out an ordinance that tightens
up the standards and then imposes the binding appearance review process, do we want
this to sit in the lap of the City Council? He does not believe that this would be an
efficient use of staff time considering all the cases on the City's plate. He added that he
does not believe that City Council should be acting as the arbiters of appearance within
the City for the projects that are being built here. Mr. Wolinski clarified that he was
trying to explain that if a project comes before the Site Plan Committee and they agree
and are in favor of the plan, this plan would consequently go before Council for final
approval. Aid. Engelman recognized, however this procedure and added step would put
more delay in the process.
AU Newman stated that he acknowledges Aid. Engelman's concerns and previous
derogatory remarks made with regards to this ordinance creating "taste police", however, in his opinion he feels that Aid. Engelman has made it clear that he does not support this
ordinance and this is why he feels it would be a waste of staffs time. In spite of Aid.
Engelman's comments and justifications in support of, Aid. Newman confirmed that he is
in support of certain issues within this ordinance that need to be addressed and regulated
in tmiform by City Officials. He does not want to do away with the intention of this
ordinance, however he does think that there is a problem with everything coming before
the Council for final approval. He stressed that he does not feel this would be a waste of
staffs time because there does exist a significant problem within the community of
concern with final appearance of major projects that are being developed in the City, -
P&D Committee Sltg.
Minutes of 1014 02
Page 7
ordinance. However, on the other hand. if they have the zoning ordinance and building
code, the question is what additional requirements can they convince the Court are
necessary in order to protect the public health and safety. He reiterated that aesthetics is
a subject that the Illinois Supreme Court has been very leery about, even though in his
past case they did buy his argument. He also pointed out that a couple subsequent cases,
the Courts ruled that aesthetics could be considered but is not controlling. Mr. Siegel
pointed out that what they have here, despite some prefatory language that says this is
related to the public health and safety, which fundamentally questions aesthetics. He
assured that he is not trying to avoid the issue of whether or not a specific ordinance is
sustainable, however the problem is that the changes which the Council or Committee
apparently voted on in June, have not been incorporated into a final ordinance.
Mr. Siegel stated that it is apparent that Mr. Mylott did an analysis of what he understood
in surveying what other communities were doing with respect to appearance m iew and
he informed the Committee that he respectfully disagrees with this examination. He
stated that he has no knowledge of any final decision made by an administrative body
which has been tested in Court. He mentioned that two other communities that he
represents do have site plan review and have an architectural commission, however in
each instance those are merely recommending bodies to the City Council with the final
decision being vested in the City Council. He noted that whether you want to call that
final review as final determination or not, in his mind, this is not clear. He said that the
minutes indicate that the final decision would go from the P&D Committee to the City
Council. He stated that when you say this is binding review, this is slightly different than
the normal concepts, which were originally invoked in the first ordinance. At that point
and time, it becomes a legislative act and differs more generally to legislative decisions
than they would to an administrative body.
Ald. Newman asked for more clarification. He questioned that if a change was made
which was not appealable to the Council from the SPAARC, however their decision was
recommending to the City Council, what would this do in these cases. He questions if
Legal Counsel is saying that because this is a legislative act and the SPAARC is a
recommending body then they a better case. Mr. Siegel confirmed, adding that both of
the cases he presented involved an intermediate body that made a decision that was
subject to appeal to the Village Board. In result, the Court said that since there was a
final decision initially, the standards were inadequate. Therefore, under any
circumstances, they need to sharpen up the standards to incorporate in this ordinance. He
further noted that given the law in the State of Illinois, they would have a much better
chance if the Council wishes to support this, that having it go to the City Council for
ultimate decision and the intermediate body simply be the recommendatory body. Mr.
Siegel referred to his confidential memorandum distributed to the Committee this
evening suggesting that the Committee review the listed cases in relation to this matter.
Aid. Newman feels that the changes should be made as suggested by Mr. Siegel,
otherwise they are going to have an ordinance that is week and lacking the enforcement
in language needed. He does not see the point of passing an ordinance that is subject to a
very strong case of challenge. He would much rather have an ordinance, noting the Plan
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 10 I4 02
Page 6
asked by the Committee to render an opinion as to the validity of final appearance
review. He said that up to now. his understanding is that SP.4.-kRC handles both site plan
and appearance and site plan approval is approval with respect to SPAARC but
appearance is voluntary. In discussing this with Mr. Wolinski, he understood that if a
developer disagrees with the recommendations with respect to appearance, it is still up to
the developer currently. With the proposed ordinance, he interprets that this would
separate those two functions, create a separate committee of professionals and lay to pass
upon appearance and their judgement would be final subject to appear. He pointed out
that originally in the ordinance that Mr. Nlylott drafted, there was a separate board
proposed, as he understands from the minutes of the Committee meeting, instead of that,
appeal would go to this Committee. He noted that it was unclear as to whether there
would be automatic appeal to the City Council or whether the City Council if it weren't
considered within a certain period of days, would constitute denial. In any event, he said
the issue wns whether or not an ordinance which created a separate entity or series of
entities, which ultimately a final decision making on architectural design would be valid.
Mr. Siegel said there are a number of cases from across the Country and frankly the cases
go both ways. He brought attention to the memorandum presented to the Committee
where he has indicated some of these cases. He said that normally, the cases arise are
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that in Illinois there has been a
history of reluctance on the part of Courts recognizing aesthetics as the basis for the
exercise of the police power based upon the proposition that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder and no two people necessarily agree in this case. He mentioned that
approximately twenty years ago, there was a zoning case that went to the Illinois
Supreme Court in which they convinced the Court that aesthetics was a reasonable
consideration in zoning. Since that time there have, however been two cases that he
found in the Appellate Court dealing with separate architectural committee review. He
said in both instances the pace -setter case and the subsequent case, the Appellate Court
struck down separate appearance ordinances from the grounds that the standards were not
definite enough. Mr. Siegel stressed the point that this is always the problem when you
attempt to delegate to a body with final approval; the question of whether or not a
building permit should be issued based upon characteristics outside of the zoning
ordinance. In light of this fact, he concluded that the simple answer is that they probably
could do this but nevertheless would have to very clear and very concise with respect to
the standards. He further pointed out that there is no deciding case in Illinois that he has
been able to find that sustains a separate architectural review based upon aesthetics.
Mr. Siegel informed the Committee that he has looked at the standards that are to be
adopted by reference and in his opinion, some are very vague. He pointed out that what
he received from staff is of very large volume and he is unsure how many of those
standards could actually be applied. He again pointed out that the problems that he
foresees is the fact that there has been no decided case in Illinois which sustains the
aesthetic contribution to police power accept in connection with zoning ordinances that
also have other relations. He said the question is in any case involving police power, how
do you demonstrate that the requirements are related to the public health, safety, morals,
and welfare. He said obviously there is the presumption of validity if they pass an
P&D Committee hitg.
%Iinutes of 10114 02
Page S
Bernstein agreed that no matter what this Committee decides he feels the structural
integrity of the building has to be demonstrated to staffs satisfaction quickly.
Aid. Newman clarified in response to id. Kent's comments on what has happened with
this case. He said initially the applicant was before the Committee %vith this plan almost
one year ago at which time the zoning of the property was being considered as being Cla
or 133. He said that the issue of how- long this has already been an eyesore has been a
minimum of 3-4 months, at least through the entire summer. He explained that when he
suggested two weeks and the applicant said he needed six weeks, this presumably could
mean that during this time, the applicant possibly go to the planned development process.
Even though the applicant is saying six weeks, at that point and time, this could take a
minimum of another four months and this building will be sitting there in the same
condition as it is right now if the latter route is taken. In his mind, what is being set up
here is the possibility of going into a much longer time period than presuming by the end
of the six weeks that something is going to be done with this building. It is his opinion
that the building ought to be demolished sooner rather later and he was not suggesting
that this be done by court action. He reminded that the applicant put down demolition as
one of the alternatives that he was looking at in terms of what he wanted to do.
Therefore, he feels that they need to have a process that is going to somehow minimize
and not extend the time of this building remaining in the condition that it is in. Aid.
Newman stated that he initially suggested the two weeks to give the applicant an
incentive to move as quickly as possible on proceeding with this case. He added that the
community needs an answer promptly because this building is bringing the area down.
Mr. Mullins responded to this assuring the Committee that incentive is not a problem
because they have been put in a position of high motivation at this point to quickly come
to some conclusion or closure on this project because of the time and money that he and
his partner have invested in this development up to this date. Aid. Wynne noted that she
does not disagree with Aid. Newman, however except for the fact that if there is the
possibility that they can have a perfectly acceptable project using the structure that is
already there, then she feels that they would not be necessarily advancing the ball here by
requiring the applicant to demolish the building at this point. She justifiably does not
want see this remain as status quo with nothing foreseeable in the pipeline.
With no further discussion, Aid. Engelman made a motion suggesting that the
applicant report back to this the Committee no later than the second meeting in
November, preferably the first meeting in November, with a structural integrity
analysis completed and what their intentions are. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion
and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
P( D1) Discussion with, f'otporatio,n, Counsel Jack Siegel on L.e¢ality of Binding
Avvearance Review
Mr. Jack Siegel addressed the Chairman and members of the Committee. He informed
that he has reviewed the ordinance as originally drafted by Mr. Marc Mylott together
with the proposed standards for site plan and appearance review for incorporation into the
ordinance. He also reviewed the minutes of the Committee from June 2002 where
substantial changes were made to the proposed ordinance. He acclaimed that he was
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 10 14 02
Page 4
time and a decision needs to be made as soon as possible. He stated that this is his own
opinion and dislikes that fact that this may go against the time frame suggested by Mr.
Mullins. however it does not take away the fact that a decision needs to be made quickly.
He feels that a decision and response needs to be received from the applicant by the next
few meetings. A firm timetable needs to be established for the future of this building.
Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Siegel, given that the role of the Counsel is to have the
applicant demolish the property, presumably, is there a statutory vehicle by which this
can be done. Mr. Siegel responded that there is a method, referred to the ILCS 65 5/11-
31-1, which provides for demolition of abandoned buildings by court order. This allows
the municipality to go in and demolish if the owner does not do so within 30 days and put
a lien on the property. Aid. Newman corrected that he was not suggesting demolition by
this method. Chairman Bernstein also noted that both the City and the applicant have
worked together respectively and he would not want to see this change.
Aid. Wynne noted that this building is in the P Ward, and as Ward Alderman she does
not want to see this building sitting there in its current condition for months on end. She
too acknowledged Mr. Mullin's cooperation in working with the Council, which Council
did accommodate the proposed plan. As pointed out, this is a critically important
intersection, commercial wise, to this community and is very visible from the commuter
train. She said that people tend to shy away from areas where there is on going
construction because of congestion, dangerous conditions, etc. She stated that it is very
important to the Committee at this time to know where this project is going in an
expeditious fashion. She also would like to sec a more defined time line for the record
and does not want to see the building sit there as it is.
Aid. Kent noted that the applicant has asked for six weeks in comparison to six months,
which is not crucial. He especially has a large amount of sympathy for someone who has
put their own money into a project and stems to loose a lot if it does not go through. He
said in terms of time, it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to come back to
them in two weeks, however they have stated that it will take approximately six weeks
for the building analysis to be completed and for them to report back to the Committee.
He felt it important to point out that there are many significant intersections in all comers
of Evanston and whenever they come across someone who is willing to try and make the
community better, in his opinion, the City should work with them and allow sufficient
amount of time needed by the applicant to proceed with the project or demolish if that is
the outcome. He reiterated that he would like to give the applicant the six -week time
frame to come back to the Committee with a report to find out what they are going to do
with this project. Mr. Wolinski added that from a structural and code standpoint, his
main concern with the structure as it is now is the fact that winter is closely approaching
and facing the f-eezelthaw cycle. He informed that during this type of weather, there is
the added danger with buildings that have masonry on them that are in poor condition, the
heightened risk of building collapse because of weak and loose mortar. He said that even
though the building is protected, they have to be aware of this risk and this weather cycle
can run anywhere from the beginning of December all the way through spring. Chairman
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 10114 02
Page 3
forced upon them. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Comminee that historically the only cases
where building permit fees have been waived have been for not -for -profit organizations.
Upon completion of Committee discussion. the vote ►sas 2 in favor of the motion
(Kent, Newman) and 3 voting nay (Bernstein, Wynne, Engelman), resulting In the
motion being denied. Chairman Bernstein informed Mrs. Hoppa that this matter will go
before the entire Council this evening for final vote.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(PD2) Discussion with Steve Mullins of Esskav Develooment reaardine 603 Main Street
Mr. Mullins informed the Committee of the hardships he has incurred since the
commencement of taking on this project. He explained that they were 40% over budget
with the bids that were presented in May 2002 and with the more recent bids this put
them into $1 million dollars of the $5 million dollar project. He expressed he and his
partner's disappointment in not being able to proceed with this project as planned due to
all the unforeseen and unexpected dilemmas that have happened since the beginning. He
noted that they are in the process of reevaluating the project and considering one of the
two options stated in their memorandum. Options being to demolish the property to the
north and demolish the building on the current site, combine the properties and proceed
with a totally new development or demolish the current building until something in the
foreseeable future can be decided, meanwhile use the property as a parking lot.
Chairman Bernstein said that he still feels that there is a chance of the project being do-
able. He would like to give enough time to have the opportunity to determine the
building structure and integrity. Mr. Mullins reminded that the building frame is 80+
years old. Mr. Wolinski said an architect analysis needs to be done to test the reliability
of the structure, which would take a few weeks at least to be done. Aid. Wynne recalled
that this site was left as B3 to accommodate this project. it could have been zoned Cla.
Mr. Mullins responded that his intentions were clear from the beginning that he had no
desire to develop a taller building. He noted that the existing scaffolding was put in place
for the interior demolition, which has been completed and the building is clean out and no
danger of falling debris from the inside of the structure. He noted that upon completion
of the architect's analysis, they will know whether or not the building needs to be
demolished at that time. If the shell is strong enough, then the scaffolding can be
removed. Aid. Wynne was under the impression that the scaffolding was there to protect
pedestrians and should remain as long as current structure is in place. The analysis
should be done within six weeks at which time they will make the decision on what to do
with the remaining structure.
Aid. Newman acknowledged Esskay's intentions and efforts put into this project and
understands the need for the architectural analysis, however he feels this structure needs
to come down as soon as possible. He said the building in its current state is an eyesore
to the community and sits directly on a major intersection within the City. He reiterated
that the building, as is, does not need to be left up in that condition for an extended period
of time. He reminded that the building has been in this state already for some period of
P&D Committer SUg.
~unites of 10 14 01
Page
Aid. Newman moved to approve the request of the owner to waive the building
permit fees, not to exceed the amount of 52,474.00 as stated in stairs
correspondence presented to the Committee. Aid. Kent seconded the motion.
Ald. Engelman asked staff if the fees presented and charged to the owner are within the
normal costs charged for the proposed work to be done. Mr. Wolinski confirmed that the
fees listed would have been charged for the work being proposed regardless of whether
this property was designated as an Evanston Landmark or not. The fees are calculated by
the scope of the work being proposed and the estimated work valuation. In light of this
information, Ald. Engelman questions the proof of hardship being presented in this case.
Although he sympathizes with the owner because of the additional steps and procedures
brought about by this property being designated as an Evanston Landmark, it is no
different than any other of the numerous cases and costs incurred by owners of landmark
homes, which are plentiful in this City. He stressed to the other Committee members that
they keep in mind the precedence that would be set by this case if they were to grant a
waiver of permit fees for this owner, in addition to the risk of lawsuits that could occur
because of this.
Aid. Newman acknowledged Aid. Engelman's concerns expressed, however his feelings
on this case is that the owner was forced into doing something that totally changed their
initial plans and has resulted in their loosing anticipated income from an existing rental
unit and lose of rear yard space to building the proposed addition. He recalled that their
initial plan proposed for the addition on the second floor that would have resulted in
changing the front facade of the structure. which brought about the concern and ultimate
denial of the Preservation Commission. Therefore, he feels the owners have been subject
to significant inconvenience and cost to comply with the provisions of the Preservation
Ordinance. He also feels that this property should not have been considered as a
detriment to the Ordinance when taking into account the original plans presented by the
owner of the changes requested due to the small size of this structure and the limited land
they had to work with. He concluded that he does not see this as an unreasonable request
on behalf of the owner.
Aid. Wynne questioned the discontinuance of the rental unit and if the excepted plan
required elimination of this unit. Ms. Hoppa explained that the initial plan would have
provided for her family to have the expanded space needed without changing the rental
unit space. With the revised plan, they are no longer expanding up instead they are
expanding with a one-story addition to the rear of the property. In order for her family to
have enough increased living space from the addition, they were forced to convert the
rental unit and include this space for single-family use.
The Committee discussed this in further length with Ald. Engelman affirming his
interpretation that the burden of proof of hardship has not been established in this case.
Aid. Newman stood on his belief that this case should be considered as a hardship to the
owner because of the substantial inconvenience caused by the decisions made by City
jurisdictions that should not have occurred to such an extent. He also pointed out the
owner's position in complying with the ordinance and still going through with the plan
Planning & Development Committee
;Minutes of October 14, 2002
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, N1, Barry, J. Burdick, R. Crum,
D. Marino. D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Others Present: Mayor Morton. J. Siegel, R. Cook, M. Dillon, R. Snyderman-Pratt
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23.2002 MEETING
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the September 23rd minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Exemation from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter
Aid. Newman moved to set public hearing for October 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Aid.
Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor.
(P2) 610 Callan Avenue - Reauest Waiver of Buildine Permit Fees
Mrs. Nancy Hoppa, owner of the property, explained her request to the Committee to
waive the building permit fees because of the added cost and expenses incurred in order
to comply with the provisions set by the Preservation Commission and Ordinance. She
noted that extra expenses had to be paid to their architect in order to re -design and come
up with an acceptable plan for the Preservation Commission. in addition to the cost of
having to pay their architect for her presence at the additional meetings that required her
attendance. In addition, the revised plan resulted in having to eliminate their existing
rental unit and become a single family dwelling unit with the proposed additions. She
concluded that in light of these additional expenses incurred along with loosing their
rental unit and the overall inconvenience experienced by her family due to this entire
dilemma, that hardship has been proven on their behalf.
P&D Committee Mt?,
Minutes of 10,29 02
Page 6
OTHER BUSINESS
Aid. Ne«man requested to htr. Wolinski for an overall building permit revenue
projections for 20003/04, including the Klutznik project building permit fees, when they
are going to be paid and how these fees were estimated. In his opinion, he feels that
stalls estimated projections are below expectation. Mr. Wolinski replied that he will
provide information for the Committee in the near future,
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacque EABrownlee
I'&U Commince SUg.
htinuics of 10'28 02
Page S
because of all that µas granted in this request. Mr. Wolinski concurred, however Boards
change and the risk of keeping within the original conditions can be voted against. Mr.
Altcrson informed that the Preservation Commission put stipulations on the variations
because this house in considered landmark status. ,fir. Wolinski explained that he used
this house as an example to show where additions to existing house which make them
trophy houses can become a reality and if you put a garage on this site there would be
very little grass/yard space left. Mr. Alterson added that part of the rationale is that if you
took at the building lot coverage which is two-dimensional, and add the inside of the
house for three-dimensional, you have a lot more mass on the lot than you generally
would have if you build a garage. He pointed out the other issue with this is the
provision that would allow someone to rebuild a garage the same size as what existed if
the property were already over the building lot coverage.
Aid. Engelman asked who brought this matter to the Plan Commission because he does
not recall a reference coming out of Council or this Committee on this issue. Mr
Alterson noted that this reference did not come from Committee but from staff. Aid.
Wynne pointed out that there is a loophole in the zoning lot coverage that is allowing
significantly more house/structure to be built on the lot that what is intended Mr.
Alterson agreed noting that in all three instances illustrated where they have maxed out
the building lot coverage within the house itself. Aid. Wynne stated that she
wholeheartedly supports this text amendment and applauds staff for coming forward with
the initiative. She also appreciates the addition of wording to allow for someone to
replace a dilapidated garage if needed because there are many that need to be in
Evanston. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that one of the things that the Zoning
Committee of the Plan Commission did discuss was bringing, this back after a year to
review what effect this amendment has had.
Aid. Wynne referred to the chart in the back of the packet materials %vith this item. Mr.
Alterson explained that this chart includes both minor and major variations for garages
and building lot coverage. The chart covers cases from 1997 to the present. Mr.
Wolinski informed the Committee, with regards to rebuilding of dilapidated garages, that
in CDBG a number of years ago the Council approved several $100,000 of CDBG money
for garage reconstruction up to 55,000 per case for low to moderate income households.
He noted that the City has not done as many garages as hoped for, it appears that people
will go to any lengths to keep the garage they have to keep the nonconforming status and
not have change the location or size. He agrees with Aid. Wynne that there are too many
garages in Evanston in deplorable condition and he hopes that this amendment will cause
an increase in renovation or replacement of many of these garages.
With no further discussion. Aid. Wynne moved approval of this Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor
(Bernstein still present at A&PW meeting).
P&D Coramin" kite.
Minutes of 1028 02
Page d
Kent's motion for this Committee to move introduction of this matter and refer
back to P&D to allow further discussion before final vote. Aid. Wynne seconded the
motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor (Aid. Bernstein called over to A&PW
Committee).
Aid. Newman pointed out wording on the agenda item summary where it refers to people
speaking at the public hearing and some being in favor. some in opposition. In the future,
he would like for staff to elaborate further on what issues were addressed and of concern.
This would be more informative for the Committee. Aid. Wynne agreed especially in
cases such as this where the transcript is hard to follow. Ms. Dennier asked how far in
the Plan Commission's neighborhood study has the gotten as far as parking issues in the
discussion groups. She noted that she is on the housing study group and is not aware of
how far the neighborhood study has gone. Mr. Wolinski informed that the primary area
of parking has been talked about on Ashland Avenue, the Perm -a -Lawn area, and the
Sanitary District land. He can not recall any discussions that they have had about parking
in this specific neighborhood. Aid. Kent acknowledged that it is the Hill Development
people who are pushing for Ashland discussion on parking and direction. On the other
hand, the community has expressed interest on another section of Ashland between
Foster and Simpson regarding residential parking and other concerns. He said that staff
from Traffic Engineering has been working on a comprehensive plan for this area.
(P3) Ordinance 109-0-02 — Zoning Ordinance Text .amendment: Building Lot Coverage
Garage Debit Rule
Mr. Wolinski recalled past discussion in this Committee and references made about the
issue of teardowns and trophy houses being built in Evanston. He directed the
Committee's attention to the photo's staff distributed illustrating two new houses that
were built on Isabella. He noted that these houses were built within the lot coverage
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that there is a single-family garage
built on each property and the Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces.
Consequently. what has been happening in some instances as shown in the illustration, a
parking pad has been supplied. He said that technically, that parking pad for two cars
meets the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, however as a result, the lot coverage as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance, is basically any -thing with a roof. These types of
parking pads don't have a roof and do not count against lot coverage. He said it would
not be a surprise if the homeowner comes in for a variation sometime in the future to
build a garage.
Mr. Wolinski referred to the third illustration which is a photo of the rear of the house at
2332 Bryant. He explained that this was a massive addition where again a parking pad
was supplied. Therefore, if the addition were 2 V, stories. this could allow for additional
lot coverage of 800-1000 square feet. He pointed out where there is already a concreted
area a curb built around, which leads him to believe that there is going to be a garage
requested as some point in time. Aid. Engelman asked if this property was the topic of
discussion at the ZBA where they received permission to build this addition with a
condition limiting them not to come back for any additional variations for the garage
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 1028 02
Page 3
:lid. Kent said that there is a definite need for parking here. On the other hand, he hears
what Ms. Hudson and the neighbors are saying and understands their concerns because
there are issues in this area neighborhood that they can't seem to get a handle on. He
stated that Bishop 'Moody also knows these issues as well. He commended Bishop
Moody on showing some initiative with his compromise to withdraw the request for the
parking lot on the property to the east of the Church. He added the neighborhood's
appreciation for this also. He noted the fact of the Church on Darrow tearing down two
houses to build their lot and the concern with loosing more housing in this area. He
agreed with Ms. Hudson's concerns on the need for a traffic study to be done in this area,
especially with the addition of Ebenezer's Jacob Blake Manor on Dewey and Emerson.
Aid. Kent stated that what he would like to do with this case is send it on to Council as
introduced, if this Committee agrees, and refer it back. He said this would give him two
weeks to have an opportunity to meet with Bishop Moody and his board and go over
some of the plans and see if they could sort out and eliminate some of the needs and
wants of the community even to a further degree. He pointed out that this is no indication
that he is against the parking lot. On the contrary, he supports the parking lot and taking
some of the cars off the street. He clarified that what he is interested in doing is finding a
way in which they can even make this lot more equitable for the community in that area,
as well as a win -win situation for the Church. He informed Bishop Moody that this
would not hold up the process and there would be no need to suspend the rules.
Bishop Moody responded by informing the Committee that he has been in Evanston as a
Pastor for the past 45 years and has been at Faith Temple on Dewey since 1968. He
stressed the importance of wanting to have the parking lots was to get the cars of the
street and help to eliminate the shortage of parking there when his church has services.
He mentioned that the Hudson's have called the police on many Sunday's when patrons
park in front of their house to have their cars towed. He noted that this request for special
use and variances for their parking lot has been approved by Zoning and their case should
not be treated any differently or held up to discuss further plans or compromises. Aid.
Kent assured Bishop Moody that this will not hold up his request or the process and
explained the normal procedure for introduction and for action.
Aid. Newman stated that there is a definite problem in that area with pa: king and
congestion. He said that a big part of the problem in that area stems from lack of parking
at the Fleetwood Jourdain Center, which makes this a City problem as well. He
suggested that maybe the City should be helping to resolve the parking problem in this
area by looking into adding extra parking at the community center. Bishop Moody
informed the Committee that their lot is used often by people going to the center. Aid.
Kent agreed with Aid. Newman and stated that this is one of the situations that he wanted
to discuss further the meeting he is suggesting. Bishop Moody agreed to this meeting.
Aid. Engelman suggested that Aid. Kent and the Chairman of the Parking Committee
have further dialogue regarding this matter to try and find some solutions to the parking
problem in this area. He said especially to the extent that the parking problems are
exasperated by the one of the City's own properties/uscs. Aid. Engelman repeated Aid.
P&D Committee Mts.
Minutes of 1028 02
Pagel
:did. Engelman questioned whether the Committee i3 required to decide on an appeal
within 18 days after submittal. GIs. Sr.}manski responded that she has reviewed the
section that covers this requirement. Upon her review of the statutory construction
principals and this section. she concludes that the language about deciding it within 15
days is language which provides guidance and a system of direction to the deciding body.
She said typically when the language is provided for guidance without any penalties
attaching to the failure to make the decision within the prescribed time; the Counts have
been inclined to call that permissive rather than mandatory. In her opinion, she concludes
a decision will not be required tonight, particularly if the applicant is asking for an
extension of the time waiver. Mr. Malarkey stated that he agrees this.
Aid. Wynne moved to hold this item on the agenda pending discussion between the
applicant and staff. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion. Aid. Newman requested
that staff include in the Committee's packet a ropy of the applicant's memorandum
along with something in writing from Mr. Wolinski that states definitively whether
or not this generator was in the original plans. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the
motion.
Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda to accommodate those in attendance
for item (P4).
(P4) ordinance 110-0-02 — Special Use & Variances for 1945 Darrow (Church Parking
Lot
Chairman Bernstein called on Bishop Moody for opening comments he wished to make.
Bishop Moody said that he is available for any questions the Committee might have. He
noted that the Church is in need of parking. He informed the Committee that the
proposed lot is to the west of the Church and they have withdrawn the request for the lot
to the east.
Ms. Roberta Hudson, 1941 Dewey Avenue, stated that she and members of her
neighborhood group have done a survey around their community. She said the survey
showed that a number of residences in Darrow/Foster/Dewey/Ashiand neighborhood are
very concerned with having a parking lot right next to residential properties. She feels it
was appropriate for them to withdraw the request for the lot east of the Church, which is
located next door to her own property. She informed the Committee that St. Andrews,
which is also located on Darrow, have plans to tear down two houses on that street for a
parking lot. Therefore, there will be two parking lots located within the same block,
which causes more concern for traffic congestion and the problems created along with it.
Ms. Hudson stressed that this justifies the need for a traffic survey that should be done in
their neighborhood because the community is residential, started out residential and it
seems as if the Churches have taken over their neighborhood. She added that the second
floor neighbor directly adjacent to this lot has complained of being bothered by the car
fumes when the lot if being used.
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of October 28, 2002
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. Barry, C. Brzezinski, E. Szymanski, J.
Terry. J. Bra«nlee
Others Present: A. Denier
Presiding OfiicW: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14.2002 MEETING
Ald. Kent moved approval of the October 14th minutes, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The
minutes Were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P I) Public Hearing on Exemption from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter
Chairman Bernstein recognized the representatives in attendance from the Connections
for the Homeless. The public hearing was concluded with no comments or issues of
concern mentioned.
Ald. Engelman moved approval to renew the one-year exemption of Ordinance 49-
0-86 from special use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Wynne seconded
the motion and the vote was 54 in favor.
(P2) Appeal of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Decision — 515 Main Street,
Leteacv Development
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. John Malarkey representing Legacy
Development and asked for a brief summary. Mr. Malarkey stated that he submitted a
written appeal that was distributed to the Committee this evening. He informed the
Committee that since he submitted the appeal, he has talked with Mr. Wolinski and they
believe there is room for discussion of this without having to make a decision tonight.
He said there are some open issues regarding whether the original building permit and
plans show that the generator w-as installed in compliance with the plans. He requested to
have two weeks to address this matter.
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of 1 ill 1102
Page 10
was a huge apparition. The $2 million figure that is projected also includes the 10%
increase in rates from last year. Mr. Stafford again agreed with Ald. Newman's view on
the revenue projections and feels that with the increase they had, he does feet their base is
solid. Ald. Newman again thanks staff for the memorandum and mentioned that he has
never seen these figures on paper before in all the time he has been on Council.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacq 'ne IN Brownlee
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of I 1 11 02
Page 9
pay their rent, etc. The pattern for these types of stores toes on and on and never seems
to be regulated. tiir. Wolinski noted that Aid. Rainey wanted to find a way to close the
loophole in this ordinance that allows for these stores to come in as a permitted use.
The Committee still had several questions they need answered by Mr. Alterson. It was
the consensus of the Committee to hold this item on the agenda until the November
25"' meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
(PD1I Undate on Housing Sales and Condominiums
The Committee accepted this communication and noted from the memorandum that
people are paying big bucks to live in Evanston.
(PD2) Memorandum regarding the Binding Anoearance Review Ordinance
The Committee accepted this communication without comment.
(PD3) Memorandum regarding the Methodology on Proiectioe Building Permit Fees
Mr. Stafford was called over for this item. Aid. Newman appreciated the information
provided in this memorandum from Mr. Wolinski. He said what this information tells
him that he never knew before as a member P&D, is that basically except for $325,000,
everything is pretty "iffy" in building permits. He said this also tells him that when they
started the budget process in August, staff reported that building permits were at 1.2
million and are currently at a much more realistic figure of 1.6 million. He pointed out to
the Committee is that this figure and particular projection is probably the trickiest and
one of the most important that the City has, real estate transfer tax is another. He feels
the real estate transfer tax projection is going to go up as well since there is a lot of deficit
spending going on presently and there is a very good indication that interest rates will be
going up. Aid. Newman noted the problem he has with this is that they are still in their
budget and are improving to an extent because last year they budgeted at 2 million. He
said that it appears that they are getting closer to what the actual figure might be on a
regular year. He hopes the figure will be more than $325,000. He reviewed the projected
fees under "Projection Methodology" which show the Klututik project and a few condo
projects. This projection shows nothing from Northwestem or the hospitals. He feels the
1.6 million is an excellent projection because on one hand what it does is bring them
down from the 2 million last year but it is not so conservative a number and brings them
close to where they need to be. He would assume that next year they need to be closer to
1.2 million. Mr. Stafford agreed with Aid. Newman
Aid. Newman said that this memo states that they are solving half their problem. The
problem is they have in their budget $2 million, which means they take a S400,000 loss in
their budget on the projection of $1.6 million compared to last year. Aid. Newman
suggested to staff that what they need to be doing with this projection is having an
extensive memo to the rest of the Council members explaining what he has just
discussed. He recalled two years ago that other members of the Council were asking
whether or not their project was high enough and the S3 million dollar figure that came in
P&D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 1 I i 1102
Page 8
their own rules during a hearing. Having said this, he «ould like to address some of the
merits of this. He pointed out from reading parts of the transcript that there %vas some
points of discussion on concerns of what could happen to the City during these hours of
operation from midnight to six in the morning and the dangers that could occur and
potential mischief at this time. He said another issue that Aid. Rainey raised is the issue
of different food stores being considered on a case -by -case basis. He asked if Ramy's
Store would be considered a convenient store. Mr. Wolinski responded that this store has
a type 2 restaurant which would be considered a grocery store with a special use. Ald.
Engelman pointed out that this store also would be considered a convenience store as
defined in the proposed ordinance. Aid. he%+tnan chose the store on the corner of Church
and Dodge, which is considered a convenience store even if it is not opened 15 hours per
day. He said a point Aid. Rainey raised pertained to the cleanliness in and around these
stores, which he fully agrees and noted that even with conditions they set on maintenance
and garbage collection, it does not seem to be followed by the convenience stores in
downtown and many others all around Evanston.
Aid. Newman said that he would Iike be able to do is regulate hours of operation on new
convenience stores that come in. He said if this ordinance allows the City to do this
because the stores would then become special uses, then he could support this. He noted
that they need to weigh this against what the impact is going to be opposed to the
convenience stores that already have approval in the pipeline. Aid. Engelman agreed that
convenience stores with after midnight hours should be susceptible to greater regulations.
However, the way this ordinance reads. in appears to change the definition so that hours
of operation have nothing to do with being considered a convenience store. Aid.
Newman explained his understanding of this being that if a convenience store comes in as
a permitted use at the very beginning, they can request to be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. and would need special use for 24 hours. What this ordinance would be able to do is
make new convenience stores special uses allowing Council to put conditions in their
permit to regulate hours of operation. Aid. Engelman, on the other hand, said his
understanding of this is if a food service establishment comes in now with hours of
operation between 9-5, is a permitted use. Mr. Wolinski concurred with this
interpretation. Aid. Engelman also noted that a convenience store is currently defined as
a food service establishment that is open at least 15 hours. Therefore a store being open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. should not be considered a convenience store.
Mr. Wolinski explained to the Committee staffs logic was establishing a way to regulate
food stores coming in under 3200 square feet by putting them in the category of _
convenience stores and being a special use allowing the City to regulate the hours of
operation. He believes the genesis of this began because of Aid. Rainey's concern with
several "candy stores" opening up on Howard Street. She called him with her concerns
on how these stores are being able to open up as permitted uses. He informed her that the
stores are operating less than 15 hours a day and are under a certain square footage,
therefore coming in as a permitted use food store. Mr. Cook added that Aid. Rainey has
been very explicit with her concerns with the stores on Howard Street which tend to draw
certain clientele that have no regards for the surrounding community by littering and
loitering. He said some of the stores go out of business within a couple of months, don't -
P&D Committee Mtg.
Minutes of I V 11 02
Page 7
process to looking into adding the additional parking spaces and in the event, there is no
objection from the community and District b* ►%ould gi%e the City a 10-year lease in the
Foster field east of tennis courts for the sculpture garden. 11e said that the property
between Family Focus and Fleetwood Jourdain. is owned by Family Focus, therefore the
City owns very little land at this location. He noted that the sculpture garden has
tentatively been set between Family Focus and Fleetwood, so the design for balance of
the property is to put in three feet space parking lot just east of the Fleetwood Jourdain
Center adjacent to the basketball court which would add to the limited amount of parking
spaces that are currently available at this center.
Aid. Newman concluded that with the current parking situation at Fleetwood Jourdain
Center and the heavily attended functions that are held there, it results in a problem
parking situation that extends over onto the surrounding neighborhood and creates a
further detriment to the community. He stressed that this added intensity to the panting
problem in that area being caused by a City -owned community center, therefore
generating a share of the situation to be caused by the City as well. In light of this fact,
he stressed the importance of the City working notably with the applicant in this matter.
Aid. Kent agreed that the City should work diligently with this applicant to come to some
agreement in multiple use of this lot and these are important items to be discussed in the
meeting.
After all discussion concluded, Chairman Bernstein motioned to take this item off the
consent agenda and hold on the agenda until the next meeting for further discussion
as requested by Aid. Kent. The Committee members agreed unanimously.
fP21 Ordinance 114-0-02 - 7onine Ordinance Text Amendment: Convenience Stores &
Oven Sales Lots
Ald. Engelman questioned why it appears suddenly that a food store becomes a
convenient store, He recalled that A1d. Rainey made this reference originally with
regards to hours of operation. He said this text amendment is focusing an a whole
different direction. He pointed out that with this proposed ordinance a specialty store
such as Foodstuffs would be considered a convenience store. Aid. Newman disagreed
that such a store would be considered under convenience store. Chairman Bernstein
noted that such stores would not be considered as grandfathered but rather a permitted
special use. He would Iike to question fir. Alterson as to the distinction between those
two terms. Aid. Engelman said that he would like to know why they are suddenly
changing the definition of convenience stores or any store that serves food regardless of
their hours of operation. Chairman Bernstein said that he would like to hold this item
over for Mr. Alterson to be present to address the Committee's questions on this
ordinance. He would also like to have Aid. Rainey present for further discussion of this
item.
Aid. Newman suggested that the memorandum be re -distributed regarding Alderman not
being allowed to testify at Zoning Board or Plan Commission meetings. Mr. Cook said
that he was aware of this, however Aid. Rainey must not have been aware at that time.
Aid. Newman said that he would not like to see a situation where the Council violated
P&D Committet Mtg.
Minutes of 1 ! 11 02
Pate 6
Further discussion followed amongst the Committee members. Aid. Wynne noted that
she hopes in the City's building department that there has been some form of review of
procedures to determine how this situation occurred and that whatever modifications or
corrections have been made so that they don't experience this type of ambiguity that
results in any more generators being located on main commercial strips. Mr. Wolinski
consoled the Committee informing them that the individual that made this determination
is no longer with the City. He also assured that the department has reviewed this
situation in detail to avoid such circumstances with future developments.
In conclusion of all discussion, Chairman Bernstein noted the consensus of the
Committee to accept the applicants withdrawal of their appeal and to keep this item
on agenda for future information with respect to the responsibility of maintenance
of landscaping and guarantee in keeping of an acceptable decibel level by lowering
25% as warranted by the manufacturer. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that
what has been done in the past was to trade testimony and decisions made at Site Plan as
they do with the Zoning Board or statements made at the Plan Commission. He said that
permits are based on the applicant's testimony and agreement to certain conditions. He
stressed that it is within the City's power that if the applicant does not meet the
requirements that are agreed to in Site Plan, then the City can revoke building permits
and proceed with any action deemed necessary for compliance.
(P3) Ordinance 110-0-02 - Soecial Use & Variances for 1945 Darrow (Church Parking
Lot
Aid. Kent informed the Committee that since the last P&D meeting he has been unable to
schedule an agreed meeting with Bishop Moody and his representatives due to
uncontrollable situations by both parties. He requested that this item be held over in
Committee in light of those problems to allow the opportunity to still schedule this agreed
upon meeting and he has forwarded this request to representatives of the Church without
any opposition. The Committee members agreed to this request, however Aid. Newman
recalled the questions and concerns that were raised at the last meeting with regards to
the Fleetwood Jourdain parking situation and requested that Doug Gaynor be called over
for response at this time to hear any comments or suggestions he may have. The
Committee members agreed to hear any comments Mr. Gaynor might have at this time in
recognition that no final discussion will be considered until representatives of the
applicant can be present at the next scheduled P&D meeting. Aid. Newman reiterated his
concerns that he expressed at the last P&D meeting and stated that he would like to =_
propose usage of the Church's lot by patrons of Fleetwood Jourdain on occasions when
the Church is not using the lot and functions are being held at the center. He would like
to see some type of negotiation between the City and Faith Temple to obtain this
agreement and he asked staff if this could be something that can be assessed. Chairman
Bernstein noted that it was also mentioned that fencing around the parking lot has been
proposed assumably due to the drug trafficking in the neighborhood. Aid. Newman
asked Aid. Kent if there are plans to add any parking with the addition of the sculpture
garden. Ald. Kent responded that has been considered with additional parking spaces to
be added to the east side of the center. Mr. Gaynor responded that the property next to
the Fleetwood Jourdain Center is owned by District 65. He said they have begun the
MD Committee Nitg.
Slinutes of I 1 11 02
Page 5
alternative plan. She further questions the procedure on how this applicant could be
permitted to go back before Site Plan «ith a modified plan %%ithout the Committee's
approval to do so. especially after the City Manager's decision. Aid. Newman stated in
his opinion what happened here based on discussion thus far. is that the developer went to
Site Plan with one plan, this plan that they wanted to midigate was not accepted by
SPAARC. The developer then applied to the City'%tanager to overturn this decision and
was denied. He said that the developer then proceeded instead of continuing with the
appeal to the Committee, they presented another plan to SPAARC that is now acceptable
to them and has been satisfied and approved by Site Plan. He pointed out that this is a
new plan that has been approved by SPAARC and now the City Manager's decision on
the first plan is unsanctioned at this point and leaves the Committee in a position
questioning whether they are over -ruling. Mr. Wolinski clarified that he may have
misspoken on behalf of stating exactly who is responsible for maintaining the
landscaping and does not want to mislead the Committee with indecisive information.
He assured that he would like to confirm this fact by speaking with the developer and the
condo association and will forward this information back to the Committee.
Chairman Bernstein asked legal staff if they are comfortable with the City's position in
that this appeal can be withdrawn appropriately and as a result that the City Manager's
statement is now moot? Ms. Szymanski assured the Committee that she is comfortable
with this and the applicant's withdrawal of this appeal has been subsumed into the
amendment of the acceptable and approved plan by the Site Plan Committee. Chairman
Bernstein asked tits. Szymanski to have the City Manager submit a letter to the
Committee stating this effect.
Aid. Newman clarified to the Committee that at this point the condo association still has
an action in regards to the developer in violation to the noise ordinance. He pointed out
that if this does not solve the noise problem. then the legal action could still be pursued
by the condo association against the developer. Chairman Bemstein reiterated his
concern with wanting to avoid any third party suits against the City by approving this
subsequent proposed plan. Aid. Newman stated that he does not see how the City would
have any liability in such a case because of the developers mistakes. He noted that the
City approves plans within the code requirements governed that they are bound by and if
problems occur beyond that with such circumstances as violations against noise
ordinances, etc. or problems attributable to situations outside of the required building
codes for approval by the City, then it becomes a private and civil matter. Chairman
Bernstein addressed legal staff, noting the intent to avoid any potential litigation, asked
what is the import of the City Manager's decision with respect to this appeal by saying to
the developer to remove the generator and where this decision stands at this point. Ms.
Szymanski responded that she believes this decision has been subsumed into the amended
decision. Chairman Bernstein asked if the City Manager is satisfied with this amended
decision that has been accepted by SPAARC. Ms. Szymanski validated the position of
the City Manager on the amended plan and that he had no objections to this plan. She
noted that the SPAARC under the ordinance is in effect a designee of the City Manager.
P&D Committee Stig.
Minutes of 11 )1 02
Page A
position of questioning where did this process stop hccause their final knowledge was
awareness of the decision of the City Manager to remove the generator and then
subsequently being told that it is now their responsibility for maintenance of landscaping
around the generator that they were under the impression was ordered to be removed. He
concluded that this situation could cause the condo association to question City Council
when and how this happened and why the City is not responsible for perpetual
maintenance of the landscaping. He is concerned with this type of scenario happening
and the City's position if such a lawsuit were to come about. He noted that there is
already litigation in this building with respect to the interior structure integrity and he
would not want to see the potential for additional lawsuits.
Aid. Newman stated, with regards to the concern of Chairman Bernstein, that this all goes
back to his original point, which was always unclear from day one. Point being that the
City Manager might have said to remove the generator, however it all comes back to if in
their original building plans they illustrated the generator in its current location on Main
Street and the plans were approved to obtain building permits, then the City Manager, in
all due respect, does not have any right to make that directive. Nevertheless, if the
generator was not shown in this location, then they have a building that is inconsistent
with the plans that were approved for permit and the City Manager has the authority to
make demand for removal. He is certain that this is the key question that governs the
outcome of this case. Aid. Newman stated that he is assuming for sake of this discussion
and until it is indicated otherwise, that if the developer obtained a building permit then
they received them legitimately. He continued that if they received building permits
legitimately then he believes this whole second round is all about how they are going to
rnidigate what they did wrong and rectify the problem. He said if the developer is in
violation of the building permit then there is the situation where the condo association
will be looking at the City on this point. However, if the developer is not in violation of
the building permit, then there is the situation where the condo association, if they are
experiencing noise violations, then they would have action against the developer and this
circumstance would become a private action. Chairman Bernstein questioned with
respect to this issue, that implicit in the City '.Manager's denial of an appeal doesn't this
confirm that the developer was in violation of the permit. Aid. Newman disagreed that
this does not confirm such violation and he in turn questioned staff if such violation did
occur. Mr. Wolinski responded that there was an inconsistency in the drawings that were
presented. He explained that the original drawings that were presented to the SPAARC
did not show a generator location at that point. The drawings did show a generator
actually located inside a generator room within the building in the garage area. However,
the electrical drawings which were submitted to the City for review, modification and
changes were made and approved by the Plan Examiner and noted that the modified plans
showed the generator outside. Therefore, noting the inconsistency in the submission and
an inconsistency in the approval process of the plans.
Aid. Wynne pointed out that it appears at this point, the question is procedural. She
questions if the Committee is over -ruling a decision by the City Manager without any
recognition on what is procedurally permitted to proceed at this point with the applicants
withdrawal of their appeal and approval by SPAARC of their proposed modified
P&D Comminee tittg.
Minutes of 11 11 02
Page 3
confirmation of who's responsibilit% it is to maintain landscapinu. he does not think there
is any question of this once the developer is at completion of the project. Aid. Wynne
agreed. however it is obvious that the condo association is in the dark on this situation
and she feels some assurance should be confirmed in light of all involved in this case.
Mr. Wolinski assured that plans and permit drawings will be submitted that stab' will
review and approve and compliance will be bound by those approvals. Even with all
said, Aid. Wynne stood firm with her feelings on the need to see some type of written
confirmation stating an understanding of conclusive responsibility with landscaping
maintenance.
Mr. Cook questioned the size of the "chimney" or venting to be provided in the structure
for the generator. Mr. Wolinski clarified that he used the word "chimney" previously,
however in actuality it will be a type of flute with a cap on it and the proposed plan
provides sufficient height required for the type of ventilation needed for the generator.
Aid. Newman raised another point regarding obtaining some type of education that could
be provided and available so that the City can respond as to what the obligations are of
the developer in cases such as this. He points this out because it seems that many of the
condo associations are under the impression that somehow the City can hold the
developers to certain obligations and circumstances that are outside of the jurisdiction of
the City and are subsequently passed on to the association once the project is completed.
He recalled some situations that have occurred with new condo developments downtown
Evanston and they all seemed to fall into the question of responsibility of the developer
or the association. Aid. Wynne agreed because the same situations have occurred with
almost every new condo association in her ward as well and have concluded in the
associations having to hire their own lawyers and engineers to resolve issues. Chairman
Bernstein noted that with respect to common elements, there is 1% holdback for four
years potentially. Therefore, there should be some type of fund or credit on deposit
somewhere applicable for new conversions.
Chairman Bernstein presented a question for legal response. He noted that the
Committee is here to review an appeal of the recommendation of the City Manager's
direction to remove the generator and subsequently, that appeal has been withdrawn. His
question is if the Committee allows the developer to withdraw their appeal but does not
adhere to the City Manager's recommendation, has the Committee overturned the City
Manager's decision. Ms. Szymanski responded that the developer went back to
SPAA.RC and sought a subsequent modification to supercede the previous decision. Her
understanding from discussion with Mr. Wolinski, is that in the past there have been
several cases where developers have gone back to Site Plan where they have made a
submission of plans or when they are implementing a plan to SPAARC which either at
the time turns out to be contrary to what they want to do or think they can do. She said it
is apparent that this type of submission of plans can occur, in some cases, numerous
times when it turns out to not be appropriate to their development. Therefore, she
believes that what the developer has done was in effect to seek a modification satisfactory
by the Site Plan Committee for approval. Chairman Bernstein stated that his question
relates to subsequent concern by the association with respect to landscaping, which is
now their responsibility to maintain. He noted that the condo association could take the
P&D Conuninee ?site.
Minuies of 1 IA 1 02
Page 2
Ald. Wynne said that she %%ould prefer to have a requirement along with this plan for
landscaping. Mr. Wolinski responded that the plan included full landscaping and the
drawings illustrate this. She questioned why it was acceptable to SPAARC to now
enclose the generator when it was not acceptable previously. Mr. Wolinski responded
that he believes the determination was that the bricking they originally proposed had no
roof on the structure, therefore it did not provide the sound deadening effects that this
proposal has. Aid. Wynne raised her concern with assurance that compliance will be met
because of the fact that soundproofing is usually a difficult situation to correct and the
issue of the location of this structure and keeping up with the maintenance of
landscaping. She would like the opportunity to be able to re -visit this matter for
reassurance that compliance of these conditions is being upheld. She said the fact remains
that she still does not like where the generator is located and is still concerned that this
case went back to Site Plan after originally coming before the Committee. Although this
process is supposedly appropriate legally. it appears in her opinion to be a method in
which to evade what was originally presented to the Committee. She asked who will be
required to maintain the landscaping. ltiir. Wolinski responded that the condo association
will be responsible for the keeping up the landscaping. Aid. Wynne questions this
obligation because she has spoke with the president of the condo association and he was
not aware of this responsibility. She asked if they had representation present at the Site
Plan meeting. Mr. Wolinski said that only the developer was present at Site Plan,
nevertheless, the generator is now the property of the building and condo association.
Aid. Wynne questioned who would bare the cost of moving the generator if Site Plan had
determined that decision. Mr. Wolinski responded that he would assume the developer
would have to bare that cost at this point from his understanding. Aid. Wynne concluded
from this knowledge and her continuing concern. that she would like to see something in
writing stating some type of agreement between the developer and the condo association
to justify exactly who will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. She
recalled the developer's tract record from past actions which cause her to question the
reliability of their word, especially since she has spoken with the president of the condo
association who clearly did not seem to have knowledge of their responsibility for the
maintenance of the landscaping around the generator. She would like to hold this item in
Committee until a clear understanding is established.
Aid. Newman said that the answer to the question of responsibility should be obvious in
this case. He pointed out that a condo developer is basically giving the building over to
the association once the project is completed. He said the installation of the landscaping
should assumably be done by the developer because they are still involved in this case.
However, he pointed out to Aid. Wynne that the retraining problem in this is that
building permits were issued and subsequently this went back to Site Plan just to deal
with the situation of the generator. Therefore, if they turned them down, the City has
noticing in Circuit Court with regards to the generator unless they can prove that they
mis-represented their plans when they received their building permits. Aid. Newman said
in his opinion, it is not clear how this ever came back before them to begin with and he
would determine that the City has very little to go on since they did not sustain the City
Manager on the basis that the developer received their building permits by mis-
representation. He added that in terms of holding this item over to receive written
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of November 11, 2002
Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman. J. Kent, A. Newman, S1. Wynne
Staff Present: J. Wolinski. M. Barry. A. Jackson, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee
Others Present: R. Cook. A. Dennier
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2002 MEETING
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November 1 lth minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(PI) Anneal of the Site Plan and Armearanre Review Decision — 5I5 Main Street,
Leeacv Develonment
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the applicant's letter of withdrawal from the request
for appeal and noted from the SPAARC minutes that they have worked out an agreeable
remediation to the generator situation. Mr. Wolinski explained in further detail. He
informed the Committee that the architect, Mr. Warman, and the Developer were at Site
Plan last Wednesday. At Site Plan's insistence and with the developer's cooperation, the
generator will be enclosed in a brick masonry structure to match the existing brick of the
building with a roof on it and a chimney/exhaust pipe also. He said the structure will
have maximum sound proofing which according to manufacturing, will reduce the
amount of decibals by 25% and should bring the decibals level down to a tolerable
percentage. He said there was also an issue on the number of times the generator must be
run for testing. The Fire Department stated that it was not their requirement that it be run
weekly, however it was a manufacturers recommendation to keep up the warrantee. Mr.
Wolinski noted that staff' has requested and the developer has agreed, to run the generator
test twice a month for 15-20 minutes and this number could be reduced in the future. He
said with all agreed upon, the Site Plan Committee felt that the problems they voted
against approving the generator have been taken care of and the Committee then voted to
approve the final site plan with these changes.
P&D Committee NUg.
Minutes of 11 25 03
Page 9
He believes that pan of «hat they are wrestling with is the answer to the question of
whether they can come up with a generic set of rules that is going to somewhat control
this problem or does it have to be site specific, house specific, etc. by review of each
individual building plans. In his opinion. each case review will have to come under
consideration by a combination of the above. lie doesn't think there is any single rule
that they could establish that is going to control someone putting up a house that it out of
character with the neighborhood unless you consider on a site -specific basis.
Ald. Moran noted that in his discussion with people in the 6ei Ward, there is a consensus
that most do not think the City should enact an ordinance that tells someone they should
not be able to demolish or tear down a house. However the main concern seems to be
with what goes up after the demolition. Therefore. whatever combination or mix that
needs to be combined as mentioned by Mr. Alterson. to come up some type of remedy
could only help the situation. He commended Mr. Wolinski and his staff for bringing this
forward and providing the information supplied in the memorandums.
Ald. Newman said at this point, that he is not clear of what is being requested by Ald.
Moran. He would like to see something that addresses citywide instead of concentrating
in any specific areas. He would also like to see more information on the demolition
process.
Mr. Wolinski pointed out that from the literature provided from Ms. Jackson's research, it
is clear that there is no one solution to this problem. He said that unless you make a
mandatory demolition review. the issue is going to come up. From another standpoint, he
noted that there are only 5 or 6 developers in Evanston that are doing the teardowns and
he would suggest inviting them to a meeting for the Committee to have an opportunity to
discuss concerns directly with them.
Ald. Newman requested that he would like to have a survey of the neighbors in areas
affected by teardo%%ms to gather their opinions and suggestions on this issue.
This item was held in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, +�
Jacq line . Brownlee
0
P&D Committee I►ttg.
Minutes of I 125 02
Page 8
makers, being the Committee. Council, position should be in the recommendation of this
administering this policy. He still believes that Council. as the polic% makers. should not
be involved in any demolition issues other than for final approval in such cases as
required. He stated his personal belief that elected officials approval in the personal
teardown of houses should not be involved, especially in historic landmark projects. He
feels that the issue of teardow-ris does raise an opportunity to find a funding mechanism to
assist in addressing City affordable housing. in his mind to solve some of these issues, he
agrees with staffs proposal to require more setbacks. lower FAR's and lot coverage
requiring conformity with building a structure that is allowable for the property and
location. He suggested that it would be informative to hear from all the aldermen on their
opinions in assisting to solve this concern on the teardowm issue. especially from the
alderman that made this reference.
Aid. Moran stated that he is pleased with the direction of the memo and that the most
pressing concern is the house that's built afterwards and not essentially the teardown
itself. He brought attention to the fact, as pointed out in the map provided by staff, that
this situation is becoming a major problem in the 6t.h Ward and he is very concerned with
this issue, which is why he made the reference. He makes the assumption from
discussions he has had with constituents in his ward, is what bothers most people is the
method in which approval is given to demolish the smaller properties and further
approval given to permit the construction of the trophy houses in place of those
properties. He could support some type of review of all demolition permits where there
is the possibility of replacement in construction of trophy housing. He would also
support some type of temporary moratorium. as suggested to him by staff, on
construction following demolition of properties subject to review Of Proposed plans.
Aid. Kent stated that he feels one of the main issues of concern with teardo►►ns is the loss
and destruction of the character of neighborhoods. He gave several examples where he
believes this has happened. He is also concerned with retaining affordable housing that
could be saved versus being demolished and replaced by housing that is unobtainable for
the moderate income household. lie supports the suggestion and would be willing to
pursue the option of addressing the teardowrt issue at the demolition stage to possibly
allow the City to intervene before the replacement construction of any trophy houses.
Aid. Newman agreed with Aid. Kent, however the concern for retaining affordable
housing is not so much the issue in his mind as having the replacement construction to go
up being compatible with the surrounding properties. He also pointed out that restrictions
on FAR and lot coverage becomes very tricky and would need to be analyzed and
considered for all the different types of constructions and areas. There would have to be
a set of principles in place.
Aid. Wynne stated that her issue of concern is with the overall bulk and volume of the
new building. She questioned the possibility of making changes to the Zoning Ordinance
to have more control over the building volume and height so that the mass and size of the
resulting building stays compatible with the surrounding properties. She asked staff if
this could be done some hove. Mr. Alterson responded that he does not think they are =
going to find any one solution; he feels this is a matter of a mixture of many solutions.
P&D Committee Mig.
Slinutes of t V 25 Q?
Page 7
• Discussion regarding the time frame of upcoming meetings from January through March
of 2003 and the Committee assured that ample time will be accommodated on P&D's
agenda whenever they are ready to come forward for presentation even if a special
meeting needs to be set.
(PD2) Residential Teardowrs and Intill Housine in Evanston
Sir. Wolinski introduced Ms. Arlova Jackson to the Committee as the new- Zoning
Planner, replacing the preceding Mr. Marc Alylom and acknowledged her work on this
issue in the correspondence forwarded to the Committee.
Aid. Newman stated that he needs more information on this matter, especially dealing
with the issue of lot coverage because the FAR is very difficult to understand with this, in
his opinion. He said that the problem he has with the concept is that in his ward it is
practically all preservation properties that fall within concern for this matter, as well as
most of the 3rd ward. He points out that basically what is being suggested, from his
understanding, is some changes in the RI districts throughout the City eventually and he
thinks that it really would not be much of benefit for the properties that are already in the
historic districts but there would be a diminish of what people could do in this district.
Therefore, he would need an expansion of that first paragraph in staffs memorandum
that deals with demolition because he assumed the direction they were going with this is
to have some type of city-wide residential demolition ordinance. He requested to staff
that he would like to see a more expansive explanation of what the problems are, legally
in terms of having that type of ordinance. He would also like to get input from City's
corporation counsel on their opinion on this issue. Aid. New -man pointed out that the
approach that is being suggested is questionable in a city that has some major historic
districts already that prohibit teardowns without Council approval. He recognized that
there is not sufficient time at this meeting to discuss his concerns in further detail but
wanted to forward his thoughts and concerns to staff to keep moving forward with this
and provide more information as requested by the time staff' brings this issue back before
the Committee.
Mr. Wolinski acknowledged Aid. Ne%man's concerns and request for additional
information. He informed that staff concentrated basically on the issue subsequent to the
teardown being the trophy house that results ultimately. His feeling on this is what kind
of stand does the Council want to take on demolition in non -historic districts. He pointed
out that currently there is no requirement other than obtaining a demolition permit and his
inquiry to Council is their preference on whether the City should require mandatory
review of all demolitions. Aid. Newman reiterated that is why he would like to get some
feedback from corporation counsel addressing such questions as having a citywide
demolition ordinance. He also questioned if it is practicable to require approval of plans
for what is to be rebuilt before approving demolition or can design re%iew be
incorporated into this process that is largely zoning based.
Aid. Engelman recalled that this is the second time this particular issue of teardowm has
come before the P&.D Committee in the last two years. He pointed out that with both
occasions there remains the continuous discussion and argument as to what the policy
P&D Committee Slag.
!Minutes of 11 '25 02
Page 6
concerned with length of time that is remains Questionable at this point. He would hope 40
for e%er}Zhing to move along as expedientl} as calculated by Mr. Mullins and Mr.
Alatthe%%s, however it is critical that this process proceeds as quickl% as possible because
he does not want to see this building remain in its present condition any longer than
necessan•. If there is a confirmation and appro%al of the planned development then he
feels demolition of the existing structure should move forward and proceed with leveling
of the site as soon as possible. He noted that it is a plus that this proposed project appears
acceptable by Aid. Wynne and the Economic Development team and provides
encouragement for the Council to support to move forward.
Aid. Wynne validated that the previous meetings held were very productive where
considerable progress has been made. She confirmed her cognizance and support that the
developer will come in with the PUD application in the time frame that they have
assured. She empathizes with Mr. Mullins in his stated position that he does not want to
tear down the existing building until he has some certainty on where he is going with the
PUD process. She pointed out that in those meetings with Esskay Development,
Community Development staff was present (Mr. Wolinski, Mr. Alterson, and Ms.
Hrzezinski), as well as Mr. Crum, and initially there is still a concept, however they have
gone over many critical issues and the developer has made some changes requested of
them and they have showri interest in various components of concern to the City Council
over time. One of those components being the interest in the Chicago Avenue Corridor
Study and the streetscape study and their efforts to work with the City in accomplishing
some of those goals. Aid. Wynne pledged her confidence that the developer is moving
forward and will proceed expeditiously in the progression of this project. She asked staff
if the engineering study was completed. Mr. NVolinski responded that the structural
survey was conducted and staff did receive the engineering report, which stated that the
structural inspector feels comfortable in stating that there should not be any movement of
the building at least for one more year and at such time should be re-analvzed. He further
noted that staff had some questions regarding the study and confirmed that they have
responded satisfactorily to those questions, therefore he is content at this time that there
will be no problems with the building throughout this µinter and following spring.
Aid. Wynne made mention that from feedback she received from the community with
noted favorable response from the press, is that there is overwhelming sy7npathy and
support for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Kevin regarding this project. She thinks there is
recognition from the community that in some cases many projects and buildings do not _
go up overnight and decisions are not rapidly accomplished as anticipated. She reiterated
her support for the developer and the new proposed project and does not support
requiring them to demolish the building before some finalized plan is in effect. Aid.
Newman clarified that he is completely understanding of this predicament and also
supports a newly proposed plan that is evidently do -able, however his concern still lies
with the ability for the developer to get through the process and move as expeditiously as
possible on progression of this project. He noted that there was also an overwhelming
interest by the community to see this corner improved and developed sooner than later
due to the time frame that -the property has remained in a state of reformation.
P&D Committee hitg.
Minutes of 11 15'02
Pap 5
what they originally envisioned. lie further noted that Esskay Development's position
and desire is to stick with this development and they do not want to bail out even at this
point. Therefore, they have teamed up and brought in a lead developer. Mr. Robert
Matthews of Matthews Development. to direct the proceedings of this project. fir.
Mullins reiterated that this newly proposed planned development includes all three lots.
the present lot and adjoining two lots to the north of this property. He informed that to
date, they have had three meetings with Aid. U)mne and members of the City Economic
Development Team and in due course from those meetings, plan to move forward for a
new Planned Development application within the next month. He noted that they are
already on board for meetings in February and March. 2003 and hope for expeditious
progress through the entire process and to stay on schedule to proceed with the project in
a timely manner. He introduced tiir. Matthews and turned further presentation over to
him.
Mr. Matthews stated that he united with Steve and Kevin through association with mutual
architects in the City of Chicago. He enlightened the Committee on his past experience
as a developer in Chicago over the past 20 years specializing in new construction for
single and multi -family developments. He noted that he «71l be spear -heading the
development process for this project working with all the different entities from
architectural to financial, zoning. etc. He said that he is very familiar with and enjoys
working with the aldermanic process, in terms of understanding needs and desires for
their community and stated that he looks forward to proceeding with this project.
In response to a question from Aid. Newman. Mr. Mullins informed that they already
own the lot to the north where the karate store front is located and they have a letter of
understanding with the bank that owns the parking lot next to this lot. acknowledging that
their intent for development of this parcel and are under contract. Mr. Kevin added that
they have a lease agreement with the bank that teas present with the first project and is
still in effect. Aid. Newman asked how many residential units are being proposed with
this new development and commercial on the ground level. Mr. Matthews informed that
the proposal is for commercial and retail in the basement and at the grade level with
parking behind these spaces. lie said that they are envisioning at this time to provide
parking on the second level as well. He continued that the building as planned right now
from various sketchings, it is anticipated for 7-stories providing approximately 75 units.
Aid. Newman recalled that the original proposal offered 14 units: he questioned how this
new proposal could expand in size to offer that mane more units even with the inclusion
of the additional lots. Mr. Mullins responded that the original plan offered very large
units accommodated on just the one lot; the new proposal offers smaller units multiplied
by the additional square footage with the added lots. Aid. Newman asked how much
time is anticipated in the application process for the planned development. Mr. Matthews
responded that they plan to have the application in before the end of the year and noted
that they just recently received all the documentation needed to complete their
application, including support for financing.
Aid. Newman recognized that although it seems apparent that this new proposed project
and planned development is steadfast and provides a stable plan that is do -able, he is still
P&D Committee NUg.
Minutes of 1125 02
Page 4
feels this awareness needs to be communicated to all users of the community- center that
there is available parking versus the unknown drivers who park on the street or worse
cause traffic congestion by going around -and -around the drive to pick up children.
Nis. Lorraine ;Morton requested to speak on behalf of Faith Temple. not as the Mayor but
as a long-time citizen of the community and neighborhood. She noted that additional
parking has always been available at Famil, Focus and there is a concrete walkway that
crosses over to the Fleetwood Jourdain Center. She affirmed that there is sufficient
additional parking at this location with only a short walk to the center, approximately the
same distance as from the church's parking lot. She assured that she has parked there for
many years and there has never and will never be any problems vith toeing from this
parking lot as well. Mayor Morton backed Bishop Moody's affirmation that there has
always been an understanding and acknowledged agreement between his church, Ms.
Smith and Ms. Holmes for usage of their parking lot for any overflow of parking if ever
needed. She agrees with Bishop Moody that it would be an injustice to mandate any
condition for a parking agreement to be included in their ordinance when good faith has
been demonstrated all along by all parties involved. She feels Fleetwood Jourdain staff
should notify their participants of the additional parking available at Family Focus and
when needed and agreed upon with Faith Temple, available of usage of their lot as well.
Mayor Morton commended and expressed her appreciation to Bishop Moody and
representatives of Faith Temple on all their efforts in working with the community and
improving the quality of Iife in the area. She supports this request and urges the
Committee for consideration of their approval.
Aid. Kent endorsed Mayor Morton's comments. He clarified that his suggestion for the
use of temporary signage during special events still be considered, but not mandated, and
discussed and agreed upon by both representatives of Faith Temple and Fleetwood
Jourdain. Aid. Newman requested that some type of communication be developed to
inform people participating at the community center who are not familiar with the area to
notify them of all available alternative parking.
Aid. Kent moved approval to grant the request for special use and variances in
Ordinance 110-0-02, seconded by Ald. Newman. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the
motion (Aid. Wynne in attendance at A& PW Committee meeting).
Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda to accommodate those in attendance
remaining.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
{PD31 Undate from Esskav Develooment re: 603 Main Street.
Mr. Steve Mullins addressed the Committee giving an update on the progress and status
of this project since they last came before P&D six weeks ago. He informed the
Committee that he and his partner now envision proceeding with a development on three
lots; including the lots to the north of this site. He noted that there has been a lot of
architectural analysis on this because the proposed project would be much larger than
P&.D Committee Mig.
Minutes of 1125,02
Page 3
tspecial events and coordinate a parking plan with them. Chairman Bernstein asked both
Aldermen if they were impl- tng these suggestions as a condition to the ordinance. Aid.
Newman indicated that he ►could like to see some type of wording to acknowledge the
availability of alternative parking in this lot for users of the Fleetwood Jourdain center be
included in the ordinance, such noting a cooperative sign program that will in no way
take away from the church's ability to use that parking lot for their principal usage.
In response to the proposed condition's just stated. Anthony Moody stated that such a
condition should not be mandatary on their part. Bishop Moody informed the Committee
that this lot has been used for parking for many years and in all those years, he and
Mamie Smith have always had an understanding and agreement between them and there
have never been any problems. He noted that there has always been a close working
relationship %kith Ms. Smith and also with Nis. Holmes for Family Focus, that whenever
there have been special functions at either facility, the usage of their parking lot has been
unquestionable, as long as the church were not using the lot themselves. He has always
made the lot available for both facilities because he realizes the parking restraints for the
area and acknowledges that the church is part of the community and has always been
willing to offer assistance for parking whenever possible. With this in mind, he
expressed his opposition to any conditions mandating usage of their parking lot to
accommodate the City's recreation center because in good faith that courtesy has always
been provided and there is no anticipation in changing the current agreements he has
always held with Fleetwood Jourdain or Family Focus. Chairman Bernstein brought up
• the substantiality of this lot being created and considered as a full-time parking lot with
the use of the adjacent centers using the lot for overflow parking. Bishop Moody
responded that people park in the lot now without permission and he does not foresee the
usage of the lot to change drastically even after it becomes paved and officially
recognized as an actual parking lot. He assured that even thereafter, the church will still
not tow anyone who uses the lot if they are a participant at the community center. He
feels confident that nothing Hill change from the current usage of this lot except for the
aesthetics and any parking agreements in place between the church and Fleetwood
Jourdain will not be jeopardized. He reiterated that this is why he is opposed to any
mandated conditions being set in the ordinance. He also pointed out that it is very
important the realization of the fact that Faith Temple will be solely responsible for the
upkeep of this lot and the insurance covering the lot. He stated that the Church excepts
these responsibilities for the parking lot but does not feel it fair to impose mandated
usage by other facilities, especially the City, when sole responsibility lies only on Faith
Temple.
Aid. Neiman responded to Bishop lctoody's comments that he understands his position
as stated. He acknowledged that it is an imposition to the neighborhood with the current
parking situation at Fleetwood Jourdain and is clearly an issue that the City needs to
address also as a member of that community. He clarified that his proposal was only a
suggestion to improve this situation because it seems a possibility that it do -able with the
improvement of this lot. He also reiterated that although it is notable of the perpetual
agreement for alternative parking rc vveen he and !ifs. Smith, this is not conceived
knowledge by many participants of the center that do not live in that community. Fie
P&D Comminee Nits
Minutes of I I 15 02
Page 2
goes through. the plans will go back to the architect who will include a drainage plan for i
final approval.
Aid. Kent brought up the topic of past discussion regarding advantages to the community,
which he discussed with members of the church as well. One of the main concerns was
getting the cars off the street, which the church has provided for their members.
However, from past Committee discussion. Ald. Newman mentioned possibly working
out some type of agreement with the City Recreation Dept., as a suggestion. Aid. Kent
noted from his observation. that there appears to be an agreement that exists between Ms.
Mamie Smith, Director of Fleetwood Jourdain. and Faith Temple that whenever there are
large functions going on at the Center to call and let the church know in case of possible
parking overflow. He said it is apparent that Bishop Moody and members of the Church
are willing to work with the 5`s Ward community and the City. Ile pointed out that Faith
Temple is the only church out of 23 in the surrounding community that sends a
representative to the neighborhood meetings. Aid. rent mentioned to Mr. Moody
discussions that he has had with the Plan Commission regarding a Comprehensive Plan
for many of the streets and throughways in the 5`s ward creating some directional
changes. He pointed out that the churches in the community can play a big part to this
plan by helping or assisting in parking problems that currently exist. Again, he
acknowledged Faith Temple's participation and interest they have shown in
neighborhood and 5th Ward meetings and that this proposed parking lot is an example of
their efforts to improve the area. With all said. he stated his support in recommending •
approval of this lot and commends it as an effan in going along with what the Sth Ward
needs to accomplish comprehensive plan-%0se.
Aid. Newman stated that he has been made aware that the church has never towed anyone
out of that lot since it has been used for parking over the past 10+ years. He said that
problem that he is concerned with is more the City's problem in terms of the parking
problems created with use of the community center. He noted that there are only 5
parking spaces in front of the Fleetwood Jourdain Center, which is clearly inadequate,
and it is not readily apparent to many participants of the center that don't live in the
neighborhood, that the church has been gracious enough to allow overflow parking on
their lot without the risk of being towed. He understands that a parking lot is principally
for the use of the owner, however in this case in terms of helping the neighborhood, this
lot could be used on an agreed basis to assist in the parking congestion caused by the
highly participated functions that go on at the community center. His main concern is to
eliminate as much as possible the use of parking on the surrounding streets around the
center when there are special events, just as the church has provided for their members.
He suggested that if some type of permanent signage is not possible Ietting participants of
the community center know that parking is available in the church lot if it is not being
used by Faith Temple at the time, that some type of formal communication from the City
be forwarded to the people using Fleetwood Jourdain that alternative parking is available.
Aid. Kent agreed with Aid. Newman's suggestion but further suggested that another
alternative is the use of temporary sidewalk signs similar to what is used throughout the .
City whenever special events are held at other facilities. Ile added that whenever such
occasions are expected, Ms. Smith could contact Faith Temple to inform them of any
Planning & Development Committee
40 Minutes of 1ovember 25, 2002
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. Nf. Barry, A. Jackson, D. Spicuzza. E.
Szymanski. J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 8:23 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 I.2002 MEETING
Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November I Ith minutes, seconded by Ald_ Kent.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P2) Ordinance l 10-0-02 — Soecial use R Variances for 1945 Darrow (Church Parking
Lot
Aid. Kent noted the difficulty in scheduling a meeting due to the Bishop's traveling
itineraries and that it was much easier getting in touch with his son, Anthony Moody for
discussion on this matter who also brought this proposal forward during the summer. He
and Mr. Moody discussed several issues and from this discussion, he recommends to the
Committee to support the passing of this parking lot request. He assured that everything
that Faith Temple has brought forward in the community has been for the betterment and
improvement of the quality of life in the area. He pointed out that this particular lot will
not cause the need to tear down any residential property to develop and has been used for
many years to park cars on; paving the lot will only improve the condition, of the
property. He recalls that in the ten years he has been Alderman of the Ward, neighbors
on the Dewey and Darrow side have complained about the congestion that the Church
brings into the area and he feels this parking lot will only improve that condition. Aid.
Kent mentioned his conversation with Mr. Moody regarding lighting for the parking lot,
which he was assured would be added for the area. He noted that they also discussed
fencing of the lot, which is proposed to accomplish separation from other surrounding
negative entities and to provide safety for their lot. He said the aesthetics are important
here also and the addition of lighting as well. He talked with some of the residents
Sregarding drainage once the lot is blacktop over and from his understanding once this
P&D Committee Mt&
December 16, 2002
Page 8
towards the applicant because the rules for substitution in special use are significantly
looser than the initial standard where it just needs to be something similar to come under
only an administrative review. Chairman Bernstein expressed his concern with the
difficulty in enforcing such a condition because many times it is unclear when property
and businesses change hands.
Chairman Bernstein asked the will of the Committee as this point, noting that this item
has been held over once before. Aid. Newman moved approval of the convenient
stores without getting to the substitutions of special use issues, that the convenient
store definition be changed for stores under 3200 square feet regardless of the hours
of operation. No second was given because the Committee members were apprehensive
on forwarding this to Council with approval of only half the ordinance. Ald. Engelman
let it be known that he would not vote in favor of this ordinance because he feels the
ordinance is too vague and also there is no clear consensus or agreement on what exactly
they want to do and how they want it enforced.
It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item on their agenda for further
discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Re ctfully submitted,
Pvvxw�
Jacqueli E. wnlee
P&D Comminee Mtg.
December 16.2002
Page 7
when the garbage is clearly coming from a convenient store that is on the corner from
residential properties and has blown from the store location.
Discussion ensued regarding the amended definition of "Convenience Stores". Ald.
Newman stated, after clarification on the amendments from Mr. Alterson, that he
supports sales floor size of 3200 square feet or less. He also agrees with deletion of the
15 hours or more of operation. He questioned the amendment of the special use lists.
Mr. Alterson explained that this list only applied to open sales lots and including them on
the special use list. He noted that convenience store use is already a special use in the B,
C, and D districts. Ald. Rainey asked for clarification of the 3200 square feet and how
Us number was derived. which Mr. Alterson noted that this number is currently in the
Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Newman questioned that if convenient stores are a special use in
the downtown districts, then how did the convenient store in the Carlson Building come
in without having to come before the Committee. Aid. Engelman noted that even though
it is run similar to a convenient store, under the Zoning Ordinance it was not considered a
special use because of the hours of operation being less than 15 hours; this was
considered a retail food establishment. Aid. Newman disagrees with this determination
and feels the definition for downtown is defective. Aid. Rainey stated that this is her
point exactly because this ordinance amendment would take out hours of operation as a
determination.
Chairman Bernstein questioned how they should deal with pre-existing stores in
operation. Mr. Alterson responded that they are considered as legally existing special
uses. He said that under our Zoning Ordinance if something today is a permitted use as
of right and then by virtue of an amendment then becomes a special use, therefore any
land user that has that type of use automatically becomes a legally existing special use.
He said that in this case, none of those users ever had a hearing and there is no condition
that rides on their special use and when the proprietor sells the store to someone else, the
special use goes with it. In a sense, this allows more rights to the next owner because
they are not required to come in for a hearing. Aid. Rainey asked how we could recover
from this. She suggested that maybe with the ordinance change applying only to the user
and not to the land. then when the current user changes over, the new user should be
subject to the ordinance. There was a question of whether this can be done legally. Ald.
Wynne believes that it can be done by making the use expire when the current proprietor
sells the business or changes hands. Mr. Wolinski reminded that this was done at the gas
station at Oakton and Dodge. Aid. Newman noted that if this were done, it would hinder
the marketability of the store because no one is going to buy until they receive approval
for their requested use. Ms. Szymanski suggested, from what she understands from
Committee discussion, there is a font that special uses should be limited to the applicant
and then terminated upon change in proprietorship. Aid. Newman stated that he would
not like to see this blanketed for all special uses, but for those uses such as convenient
stores that need this r%pe of control and conditions. Thus allowing the owner the option
up front as to whether or not they are going to accept the condition. Ald. Wynne thinks
that this condition should b absolute for the category of convenient stores because this
use appears more likely to cause potential problems that the City wants to have some
extra layer of scrutiny and control. She tends to be in favor of the special use being
P&D Comminee Mtg.
December 16.2002
Page 6
influx of type 2 restaurants in the downtown area, as well as all over Evanston, and
turning down applications to level the number off. The other Committee members
agreed.
Ald. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 128-0-02, seconded by Aid. Wynne.
Discussion regarding parking for the employees followed and the concern for some type
of requirement to be understood for employees to use off-street parking for their vehicles.
It was pointed out that in the Ordinance under Section 2.d it has the word "encourage" for
employees to use off-street parking facility versus stronger language to mandate this as a
requirement. Ms. Szymanski assured the Committee that she will amend the ordinance to
replace the word "to encourage" with the word "requiring" for employees to use the off-
street parking facility.
Chairman Bernstein stressed that the ZBA transcript is insufficient and does not even
address all the standards and lacks enough information. He requested that staff forward
this concern to the ZBA and have better transcription provided in future ZBA cases.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion
(P3) Ordinance H 4-0-02 — Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Convenience Stores &
Ooen Sales Lots
Aid. Rainey was called over for discussion of this item. She explained her reason for
originally making this reference because of her concem with convenience stores and
wanting this use to be treated the same as a type 2 restaurant. Meaning that she would
like to see allowance for the City to place conditions on this use for garbage, hours of
operation, etc. She also want special use to be imposed on the user and not with the land
because 99% of the time the user is not the property owner. She especially is concerned
with the garbage issue that almost every late nightlong hours convenience stores
accumulate and their irresponsibility in maintenance. She mentioned several locations on
Howard Street and several other neighborhood convenience stores, including gas stations,
most notable around schools. She said that most type 2 restaurants litter is
biodegradable, not convenience store litter. Aid. Rainey stressed that all she wanted
from this request was to identify certain size convenience stores and reiterated the need to
treat them the same as type 2 restaurants and make them special uses allowing the City to
impose the needed conditions and requirements. She noted that there are some
convenience stores that currently do not have contract garbage collection; this should be a
mandated requirement, especially if there are metal oil drums being used. She strongly
feels that the litter is overwhelming in the community that it has reached the point where
the City needs to address this problem by controlling the source.
Aid. Engelman said that he appreciates Aid. Rainey's concerns and feels some of this
relates to the type 2 fast food restaurants as well. However, he thinks the best way to
address this issue is not through zoning but best resolved through property standards
regulations and policing. Aid. Rainey disagreed because the problem is to on going and
Property Standards cites the property that the garbage is on. She does not feel this is fair
P&D Comminee NUg.
December 16. 200"
Page 5
More discussion continued on the benefits of the City receiving housing funds back to
provide for more affordable housing and the type of loans or process to achieve this. Aid.
Engelman suggested making these housing loans as title -transfer loans with the S50,000
being assumable for qualified buyers. Sir. %'ohnski said that challenge still remains to
keep housing affordable. Mr. James Pauly, resident of the 3`1 ward, suggested a possible
solution to this conflict would be a possible zoning for properties converted to affordable
housing to only be sold in a low to moderate income perpetuity. Chairman Bernstein said
Us could be a possibility similar to how they do Habitat for Humanity properties. Aid.
Kent also agreed with Mr. Pauly that he would like to see something like this to keep the
property as affordable housing because he is interested in these programs providing for
stable long-term housing for deserving families that plan to stay in the community and
are not interested in short term purchasing.
Aid. Newman moved approval with the condition that the loan be 0% title -transfer
non -forgiving loan. No second received. Chairman Bernstein questioned staff on the
policy standpoint with this. Ms. Spicuzza responded that she believes that funds can be
kicked back, however because of the HOME funds and the amount, there has to be some
type of 15-year affordability vehicle provided. Aid. Newman noted that he is not asking
for the loan to be paid back if it remains as affordable housing, then the loan would
become assumable. Mr. Wolinski suggested that the Committee hold this item until staff
can get an answer to this question and to make sure this condition is allowable by HOME
fund regulations. The Committee discussed further and agreed with Mr. Wolinski's
suggestion.
Aid. Newman moved to hold this item in Committee to allow staff the opportunity to
obtain the information suggested above. Aid. Engelman seconded the motion and
the vote was 5-0 in favor.
Aid. Kent suggested to Mr. Davidson that in the future for these two properties, that
information flyerstpamnphlets be sent out to Churches and apartment buildings to reach
the population that might not see the notices in the paper as advertised for the seminar
regarding the 1816 Darrow property. Ald. Engelman requested that Mr. Davidson
provide a spreadsheet showing the figures from the beginning of the project through the
sale of the property.
(P4] Ordinance 128-0-02 — Saecial Use for 901 Church (Tvne 2 Restaurant: Baia Fresh)
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. Ray Stevens from Lettuce Entertain You
Enterprises, representing Baja Fresh. Mr. Stevens gave background information on the
restaurant. He informed the hours of operation would be from I 1:00 am. — 9:00 p.m.
Aid. Newman brought attention to the Committee that it appears that type 2 restaurants
are beginning to take over in this newly developed area of downtown Evanston. With
this take over is the over -accumulation of trash that is occurring in this area. He
acknowledged that Baja Fresh seems that it will be a well run establishment and is part of
a successful and prosperous company and he welcomes their business to Evanston.
However at some point in time, the Committee is going to have to start looking at the
P&D Committee NU&
December 16.200-'
Page 4
maintain affordable housing. Chairman Bernstein pointed out that this is over and above
the purchase money mortgage that the homeowner has to pay, therefore this gift may well
be the reason they could get funding for the first part of the loan. Ms. Spicuzza agreed
and added that the 1 4 -year forgivable loan is something to tn• to help insure that the
house will remain affordable if they sell the property. Aid. Newman questions this
because a homeowner is going to sell the property for the best possible price they can get
for it. He reiterated that as long as funding is coming from CDBG housing funds, then he
feels it is important to try and have this money come back to the City to use over for the
same purpose. especially since if this route would not affect the developers ability to
build the properties.
Mr. Davidson commented that he would like to sell the property for $175,000, however if
this were to effect the low interest rate of the construction loans, then he would be forced
to sell the property for S225,000. His thought is if the purchaser knows that they will
have to pay the S50.000 back from the beginning, then they will have to get a mortgage
for the $225,000 versus S175,000, which would take the property out of the affordable
housing range. Aid. Engelman asked how the sale of the 1816 Darrow property is going
and if the process from the beginning to the sale of the property went as planted and
within their projected budget and timeframe. Mr. Davidson informed that they do have a
buyer who is in the process of obtaining a mortgage and he expects to close by February.
He said that appears that they will end up going over budget by the completion of the
project, however the final outcome on the numbers came pretty close.
Aid. Kent stated that he has been a big advocate and supporter of the project on Darrow
and feels this project will also benefit that area and neighborhood and contribute to
supplying affordable housing. He recalled a seminar was held for people interested in the
house that qualifies, however this seminar was held on a Saturday morning at 10:00. He
also recalled that there was a request made at the Council meeting when they were
informed of this seminar, to have more information on this forwarded to Council and
distributed in the community. He said this information was never received and he also
feels the time the seminarwas held may be inconvenient for many people. He requested
to Mr. Davidson that he would like to see more information on the people who were
chosen to purchase the property, would like to know if they are from the 5'h ward, and
more overall background information on their selection process, than what he has
received in the past. He noted that he had a Iist of 4-5 people who were interested in
trying to purchase the Darrow property and wanted to attend the seminar, but the
Saturday morning was inconvenient to those individuals. Aid. Kent pointed out
something that he feels has not seen working with these affordable housing projects and
he would like to see more of is a component and inclusion for some type of skill -based
training programs for interested community residents. Mr. Davidson noted that they did
have a few minority subcontractors work on the project. Aid. Kent said he would like to
see more background information on these workers and minority contractors be
forwarded to the Committee as well. Mr. Davidson assured that he would be able to
supply the information requested.
P&D Committec Sttg.
December 16. _tbo2
Page 3
Otherwise they could chose to sell to someone who fits into the qualifying income range
and the balance of the forgivable loan would continue.
It was noted that the existing house at 1813 Lyons has already been demolished. Aid.
Newman asked what the difference is between how HOME funds and CDBG funds can
be used. He questions that if the HOME funds are not being used up then why would we
ever fund the loan program again under a program that is not as flexible in use. He also
asked if in this years CD Budget if they are funding the revolving loan program, which
was confirmed yes. Mr. Wolinski noted that there are some differences on how each of
those funds can be used between HOME and the revolving Ioan fund. He confirmed that
the analysis is correct in that the majority of it has the same type of standards. Lengthy
discussion followed regarding the feasibility of this HOME Loan program and the benefit
for the City to maintain funds for affordable housing. Aid. Newman stated that his
concern is using CDBG funds for the revolving loan program and basically with this
program there is an abundance of money that can only be used for housing. He noted that
he will bring this matter before the CDBG Budget Committee as an item for discussion
and review. He feels it makes no sense to spend monies from the CDBG funds when
there is money sitting in HOME funds that is not being used up, especially since HOME
funds can not be used for streets, parks, etc. Mr. Wolinski suggested forwarding a
memorandum to the Committee on how each of the housing funds can be used and to
compare their similarities and differences. Aid. Newman agreed that this is the
information that needs to be re,.iew•ed by the CDBG Committee. One of his concerns is
whether this is reusable or transferable• money. He would be much more interested in
giving a title -transfer loan where they can use the money for the low interest rate and then
have the money come back to the City. He noted that the two families/purchasers in this
case are going to profit a great deal if they stay in the property with nothing coming back
to the City to maintain affordable housing.
Aid. Engelman pointed out that the ideal with this program is that the family has to stay
in the home for IS years before all the money is forgiven. Mr. Wolinski reminded that
this is the portion of the Ioan that is a second mortgage, however Aid. Newman pointed
out that it is also a second mortgage that is never repaid in money back to the City only if
they are required to pay the balance if they sell before the 15 years. This comes back to
his question on the benefit of giving out S50,000 in HOME funds to build affordable
housing that has the possibility of not remaining affordable housing, with no actual
repayment back to the City. He would prefer to see some type of repayment bank to the
City for these affordable housing loans or find a way to keep the property available as
affordable housing. Aid. Engelman feels that it is just as important to provide for low to
moderate income families the ability to purchase a home that they would otherwise be
unable to afford. He added that families in this income category should be able to lire
the American dream of home ownership with the same opportunity to profit and gain
equity from their purchase. Aid. Newman argued that the amount of profit is imbalanced
in comparison to the reducing loan that was given to make their purchase possible. He
believes that if the purchaser stayed in the home for the 15 years they would still make a
profit even if they had to pay back the S50.000. He agrees that all homeowners should
benefit from their purchase, but in these cases, housing funds are used to make and
P&D Committee S4
December 16. 2002
Page 2
In response to a question from Aid. Kent. it was noted that this application is for an
Evanston family. He suggested to staff that it may be reasonable to re-educate the
religious institutions about the FIT program evident of the lack of applications over the
past 4 years. ifs. Spicuxza agreed that staff could send out new and updated information
on the program including more not -for -profit organizations such as Connections for the
Homeless. Mr. Wolinski added information that a couple of the churches who
participated in the past were burned on the sponsoring half of the agreement and were left
with the responsibility of the burden of the tenant/family being sponsored. This type of
information is communicated throughout the church community, which probably
contributed to the Iack of interest in the program. Aid. Newman also suggested that
persistence be maintained on real transition for the family and the reality with the amount
of funding be closely monitored. He pointed out that close monitoring and insistence is
much more possible with not -for -profit organizations such as Connections for the
Homeless because they have actual staff on duty at all times who can follow up and work
directly with these families versus the possibility with church staff.
The vote was 5-0 is favor of the motion.
fP21 Reauest for S100.000 in HOME Funds for New Construction at 1813 Lvons
Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Neil Davidson to give a brief overview of this project.
Mr. Davidson said that this property has been sitting vacant and boarded for
approximately 10 years. He said that Econ Development decided to purchase this
property, demolish the existing building and propose to build a duplex on the site. He
noted that they intend to fit under the same program as for the 1816 Darrow property,
which they currently have a potential buyer for. He explained further that they propose to
sell each unit for S 175.000 reduced from S225,000 supplied by the $50,000 HOME
subsidy per unit. The perspective buyer must qualify under household income and must
currently work or live in Evanston for more than 2 years.
Aid. Newman questioned if the City is actually loaning the S 100.000 and what the terms
are for this loan program. Ms. Spicuzsa explained that the City is loaning Econ
Development funds for construction; this is a low interest loan at 3%. After construction
when the units are sold. this loan will become assumable by the purchaser with a second
mortgage that is forgivable over a 15-year period. If the property is sold before 15 years,
then the balance would be due to the City unless they sell to another household income
qualifying family. Ald. New7rtan asked if there is a revolving HOME Loan fund. Mr.
Wolinski responded that this could be possible, however the City is getting quite a
surplus of HOME funds: close to $1 million. He said there are not enough projects
therefore the return of the money is not as critical as getting projects done and getting
affordable housing built. He said that is why these are forgivable loans as long as they
are maintained as affordable housing and the question is in keeping the property as
affordable housing. He believes the key way to do this is if the purchaser wants to sell
after a short period of time after such as 5 years, then they will have an option of selling
to someone who is not fitting in the affordable range of 80% median income and will
have to repay the second mortgage to the City for the remainder of the balance.
REVISED
Planning & Development Committee
Minutes of December 16, 2002
Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m.
Evanston Civic Center
Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne
Staff Present: J. WoIinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, S. Janusz, D. Spicuzza, E.
Szymanski, J. Brownlee
Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein
DECLARATION OF OUORUM
Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25.2002 MEETING
Ald. Wynne moved approval of the November 25th minutes, seconded by Ald. Newman.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(P1) Funding Request under "Families in Transition" (FIT) Program -- Application 02-1
Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the Housing Planner, Chair of the Housing
Commission, and representatives from the Connections for the Homeless. He asked for
background information on this case.
Ms. Spicuzza gave a brief overview on the program in general and noted that there have
been no applications since 1998. The Housing Commission recommended this
application in its November meeting. She reminded that this program provides a rent
subsidy to families that need some type of support and this is in conjunction with a
transition plan that the sponsoring agency assists with. She broke down the calculations
for the rent subsidy, the tenant's contribution and the sponsor's responsibility.
Ald. Newman asked staff what is left to fund this program. Mr. Wolinski responded that
these funds come out of the Mayors Special Housing Fund (MSHF) which is the residue
of the Bond Capitalization program that the City acquired 15 years ago. He noted that
there is roughly about $230,000 in the MSHF program at this time. The amount for this
family is not to exceed $14,500 for the two-year period.
Aid. Newman moved approval of FIT Program Application 02-1, seconded by Ald.
Wynne.