Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2003I%1 Planning & Development Committee Minutes of January 13, 2003 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, D. Spicuz a, E, Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7.43 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER lb. 2002 MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the December 16th minutes, seconded by Aid. Newman. The minutes were approved unanimously. Ald. Rainey made a correction to the minutes afterwards. On page 6, center of first paragraph under (P3), where it reads "She said that most of the garbage seems to be biodegradable." She made the correction that it should read "She said most type 2 restaurants litter is biodegradable, not convenience store litter." The correction will be made to the minutes for the record. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Reauest for $100.000 in HOME Funds for New Construction at 1813 Lvons Chairman Wynne called on those signed up to speak on this matter first. Ms. Judith Hurwich, Housing Commission member expressed her support for this proposal and is eager to see the project get going. Mr. Larry Biondi & Jan Weeks. Ms. Weeks stated that she and Mr. Biondi represent the ADA Committee in Evanston. She expressed her concern with projects being approved without handicap accessibility, especially government funded projects. They are also concerned with more provisions for Section 8 housing because there is a high need in Evanston for more of this type of housing to be provided. Mr. Wolinski called the Committee's attention to the staff memorandums responsive to their questions raised at the last meeting. He noted that the memorandums cover HOME funds, HUD funds, CDBG funds and their uses. He also made note of Mr. Neil Davidson's (President of Econ Development) correspondence regarding his minority participation in the project. Aid. Newman conveyed to Mr. Wolinski that he appreciated the information provided in staffs memorandum and stated that his question asked at the P&D Committee tittg. January 13, 2003 Page 2 last meeting was resolved. From his understanding, staff explained the need for some type of reducing forgivable grant because it is required under the HOME regulations. As stated in the memorandum, if the HOME subsidy is over S40.000 for homeownership projects, the affordability period is 15 years. And if sold before this period is fulfilled, then the remaining balance of the forgivable loan is due payable unless sold to a family income qualifying under the guidelines for affordable housing. Mr. Wolinski confirmed Aid. Newman's perception and stated that they are bound by the regulations set for the Federal HOME program and are unable to fluctuate the years of the reducing forgivable grant periods. Aid. Newman reiterated that staffs memorandum addressed his concerns regarding the reason for a forgivable Ioan as opposed to a returnable loan. Aid. Kent recalled his concerns stated at the last Committee meeting regarding community involvement/assistance in this project in the form of some type of training program and the inclusion of minority contractors. He questioned if this request is being fulfilled. Mr. Davidson assured that there is involvement of a resident in the immediate area doing subcontract work. He informed that there has been several others, however those individuals did not follow through. Aid. Kent stated that he feels projects such as this where federal funds are being utilized for affordable housing, as an opportunity to connect with the minority businesses and workers in the community and he does not believe this is being taken advantage of. He feels that more effort should be put into seeking out this workforce within the community and should be obligatory. Mr. Davidson agreed with Aid. Kent and fully supports such involvement and assured that complete effort has been made. He informed Aid. Kent that he called the eight individuals on the list forwarded to him and noted that none returned his calls or followed through. He stated that he is still willing to work with any other contractors that can be recommended but he cannot personally guarantee that such individuals will comply. He stressed that this project is also under construction time constraints and everyday cost money, therefore it is essential that responses are received in a timely fashion as with any other project. Mr. Davidson reminded that he is also bound by all the same codes and requirements of the City of Evanston to have licensed and experienced tradesman on the job such as carpentry, HVAC, plumbing, electrical etc. Aid. Kent assured that he is not trying to change those rules however regardless of educational and experience levels, he still feels that there are minority subcontractors and people in the community who have the simple desire to want to work and be productive, that should be able to assist or lend a hand in the production of the project. He reiterated that he would like to see more effort made to employ or utilize more residents from the immediate neighborhood. Aid. Kent raised his additional concem with the challenge that still remains in keeping housing affordable. He informed that he has discussed this with Sue Carlson who has a great deal of information on this matter. He believes that there are very few affordable places to live in Evanston, one being in the area of this project. He strongly believes that this type of affordable housing should be subject to and directed to long-term residency. Especially for low-income families that are blessed to have such an opportunity for homeownership that would otherwise be impossible to acquire under the standard conventional methods. Aid. Kent passed on the correspondence faxed to him from Ms. Carlson to Mr. Wolinski, requesting that he and his staff along with legal staff review P&D Committee Mtg. January 13.2003 Page 3 because it contains a lot of information that he feels could be useful in containing affordable housing in Evanston. Mr. Wolinski responded that although this information may be informative and suggestive in keeping affordable housing that is one of the requirements of this project from HUD to try and keep this housing affordable for that 15-year period. If the owner wants to sell before this time frame, they will have the option to sell to someone who fits within the income guidelines or be required to forfeit and pay the remaining amount of the forgivable loan. He acknowledged that this domination remains a challenge. Ald. Kent recalled his concern also raised at the last meeting regarding the seminar for purchase of this housing and his request that other time schedules be considered other than the Saturday time frame held for the previous house on Darrow. Mr. Davidson directed attention to his correspondence forwarded to the Committee addressing his marketing plan proposal, which includes optional times for the homeownership workshop. Ald. Bernstein asked about information regarding overhead and profit on the project because it is not specified in any of the correspondence. Mr. Davidson responded that there basically is none; he estimated an approximate 5% profit margin. The question was raised about the profit margin if handicap accessibility was added in the plans. Mr. Davidson responded that he would assume from the loan commitments along with current construction costs, the addition of adding handicap accessibility would take the project way over budget and no profit would be made. He estimated that the cost for this addition would be around $50,000. Ms. Weeks expressed her disagreement with this amount assuring her knowledge of that price to be excessive and that the addition of handicap accessibility structures does not add that much expense if incorporated in the plans from the beginning. Ms. Betty Sue Ester made comments on keeping property built for affordable housing to remain affordable housing because the funds used to construct such buildings are for this purpose specifically. She feels this is important to maintain because there is such limited affordable housing offered in Evanston and any property that is deemed affordable should try and be mandated to keep as such. Mr. Wolinski responded that although this suggestion would be desirable, the second mortgage from the City is what makes and guarantees the affordability of the housing. So, in order to make the housing affordable a longer period of time than the 15-years, you would have to extend the mortgage period 20-30 years and he has not ever seen this done. He stated that 15-years is the maximum period known. Ald. Newman noted that the point was at the last meeting the Committee asked staff to go back and look at the regulations of the HOME program and see whether or not they could keep the property as affordable housing. He said that it was confirmed that the HOME program cannot be done in that matter and their regulations on the funds are deemed satisfied within the 15-year period. Therefore, the program being followed is consistent with what the federal housing program wants to do. He concluded that the City is following HUD regulations of the funds forwarded to the City for the use of affordable housing and are being satisfied by the rules set. P&D Commince Mtg. January 13, 2003 Page 4 With no further discussion, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of this request, seconded by Md. Engelman. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 114-0-02 — Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment: Convenience Stores & Oxen Sales Lots Aid. Rainey was called in from A&PW for discussion on this item. Ald. Engelman stated that from his understanding of how this ordinance is worded, that any grocery store that wants to stay open for 24 hours would be classified and considered a special use. Mr. Alterson responded that in the case of grocery stores such as Jewels and Dominicks, this would not be the case because currently under the Zoning Ordinance they are considered as a different type of use from convenient stores. The Committee argued that Jewels on Howard Street is opened 24 hours, but none of the other major groceries stores in Evanston are. Under the proposed ordinance, would this store be considered a special use? Aid. Newman pointed out that particular Jewels was approved before the 1993 Ordinance, therefore making it exempt from this ordinance. Aid. Engelman stated that from this knowledge he has clearer clarification on the existing ranks and assurance of his hesitation on supporting such an ordinance that cannot be undoubtedly enforced. Chairman Wynne recalled that at the last meeting the Committee asked for additional clarification on a number of issues and they have received several memorandums from staff addressing "grand fathering" and information on open sales lot definition. She also acknowledged receiving another copy of the transcript from the Plan Commission meeting. Aid. Newman requested to address the open sales lot issue of this ordinance, noting that he does not want to get into any new issues however taking into consideration whether or not the tightening of the definition is desirable. In his opinion, he feels it is desirable because of the potential operations on such lots and its close conjunction in the _— objectionable operation of convenience stores. He brought to the Committee's attention a well-known location of a convenience store in downtown Evanston and pointed out several intolerable actions that occur with that business. He expressed his opposition to convenience stores and their potential for trouble in the community. He strongly feels it would be to the City's advantage to make convenience stores a special use allowing the ability to place strict and specific conditions on the owner and operation of the business _ to comply with. He realizes that enforcement issues are difficult, however this would still =_= allow conditions to be placed on the business for reassurance measures to be taken. He concluded that overall it would be beneficial for the community to place convenience stores under the special use category and expressed his support for this amendment. In response to the memorandum from legal on special uses running with the land, Aid. Rainey reiterated her opinion that it would be in the best interest if the special use were committed to the owner/business operator and not with the land. She stated that if this special use were to run with the land, it would defeat the entire purpose keeping some type of control over the conditions for the specific use or business in operation. She reminded that many of these convenience store operations change proprietors quite often and each individual business operator should be subject to following strict conditions for P&D Committee %1t& January 13.2003 Page S maintenance of their establishment. She informed the Committee, for example, that from Ridge Avenue east to the train tracks there are at least b convenience stores on Howard Street and since this discussion began, another convenience store has opened. She feels that this should not be a property standards issue and should definitely be directed to the responsibility of the specific business. She also noted that the owner of the property should be in favor of this because it would allow the possibility of some type of other form of retail to come in that doesn't require a special use. Aid. Rainey asked stab' if there are any other special uses that do not run with the land. Mr. Alterson responded that he believes there are some type 2 restaurants that have a condition that when the specific user changes, it is required to come back and apply for a special use. Aid. Engelman expressed his appreciation for trying to address the concerns and problems with convenience stores. He said that it would be more acceptable to him if they could figure out a way to add language to the ordinance to.narrow down to single out convenience stores for justification unquestionably. However, he still feels very hesitant towards this ordinance because of the vague stature that remains. He stated that a Zoning Ordinance is designed to regulate land usage and is not designed to regulate the users. He stands strong in support of this theory of the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated his understanding and appreciation for the problem, however he can not support amended text in the Zoning Ordinance to address this problem. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Alterson for clarification of his memorandum with regards to if they make this text amendment, will they create a raft of special uses with no conditions on them and essentially become permanent. Mr. Alterson confirmed. She questioned how could they put some conditions on those to make sure to have some type of control over them and enforce and be able to revoke if not followed. Mr. Alterson answered that possibility under the City's Zoning Ordinance something that is a permitted use and of right point that that use category twinges into a special use category. All the current land users that are operating that way have in fact a special use permit that has no conditions on it and can go on forever. He said there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that states even if that special use permit laps or if the use were to laps. Aid. Newman explained to Chairman Wynne, that from his understanding, if there is a business that is now a permitted use but they change this definition, then it ultimately becomes a special use. Therefore if that business wants to expand or make changes, then they would be treated like a special use. Mr. Alterson added that only if they are expanding to a property or adjoining property that is not benefited by a special use permit. However, if the business wants to expand up above the existing property, they would not be subject to applying for a special use permit. Aid. Kent followed up on comments made by Aid. Engelman, noting that this ordinance amendment is targeted towards the "slum lord" of convenience store owners. He pointed out examples of what type of stores he was referring to such as the convenience store on the comer of Church Street and Dodge Avenue. He noted that the main items for sale in this store is basically junk food such as bags of chips, pop, candy, and also cigarettes. Assusnably, most convenience stores specialize in such similar items and appear to attract certain clientele. He supports having the special use run with the owner of the business P&D Committee Mtg. January 13.2003 Page G versus the land because he feels it would be advantageous on the City's behalf to be able to go after and deal one-on-one with the proprietor. He realizes that the landlord should be involved as much as possible, however the responsibility lies up front with the business owner and their day -today mode of operation. Ald. Rainey recalled that this is exactly the type and nature of discussion and concerns expressed that occurred when type 2 restaurants became special uses. She mentioned, as an example to consider, that whenever hospitals want to expand a use within the confines of their campus, they are required to come in for a special use versus convenience stores that are out in the community and effect their surrounding neighborhood. She concluded that this is an important matter and fully supports this ordinance. Chairman Wynne asked for the Committee's will at this point. Ald. Newman moved approval of the change of definition for the convenience stores. Aid. Kent seconded The motion for discussion. Aid. Engelman stated that he still remains hesitant with voting on this because of the vagueness in precise definition and also still questions why this ordinance is being presented now and the purpose. Mr. Alterson responded that curnndy they do not regulate open sales lots. While it is perfectly permissible and understandable, if City Council wants retail sales not in a building to be a permitted use in those places where retail sales within a building are permitted uses, then the purpose of the amendment is for the consideration of what Council desires. Ald. Engelman asked if they currently permit outdoor sales. Mr. Alterson responded yes and noted that they curmtly have language in the ordinance to cover those temporary uses such as seasonal sales however they are missing language in the ordinance that further regulates or distinguishes between retail sales in a building and out of a building. Mr. Wolinski clarified that the purpose of adding language to regulate open sales lots would cover such actions as, for example, the operation of outdoor selling of various items on the lot adjacent to the Dairy Queen on Howard Street. He mentioned various bizarre items that have been sold on that lot in similarity to a flea market. He noted that the City has shut certain businesses down in the past, however language in the ordinance regulating open lot sales would reinforce their enforcement. After final discussion, Aid. Newman amended his motion to approve the entire ordinance 114-0-42 for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for convenience stores and open sales lots. Aid. Kent seconded the motion with a vote of 4 in favor and 1 voting nay (Md. Engelman). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 _ . 1.R� J 1' E. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of January 27.2003 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. `e%%man. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: Aid. Engelman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Siegel, A. Alterson. M. Barry, J. Burdick, S. Janusz, E. Sz}manski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Alderman from A&P%*, Mavor Morton, R. Cook, A. Diener Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUAI Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13.2003 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the January 13th minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent. The minutes were with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to address Binding Appearance Review first and to accommodate the A&PW Committee who are present for this discussion. (PD2) Ordinance 46-0-02 — Binding Appearance Review Mr. Wolinski gave a brief overview of the packet materials for this item. He went through the correspondence in the order placed in the packet, as listed on the agenda item sheet. In the Friday packet, Council was forwarded a memorandum with an opinion from Jack Siegel, Corporation Counsel and a table showing the changes that have been made through the progression of the ordinance as they have been re -drafted. Mr. Siegel opened discussion. He referred to his memorandum, which is a result of conferences held with members of staff and is incorporated in the last draft of the ordinance dated January 15, 2003. He said, unfortunately when reviewing the various issues, there are a number of questions he and staff vmTe unable to come to any definite conclusion or make a recommendation. He has tried to point out some of the problems in his memo that require some additional input from P&D Committee. He recalled several P&D Comminee Mtg, Minutes of 1.27-03 Page months ago, that he pointed one of the major problems is coming up «ith standards, which would survive an attack. As he indicated. there are two appellate court opinions; the pacesetter in this district is the DuPage County case and the second district in which ordinances provided for in effect architectural appearance retie« %%ere held invalid for the lack of standards. 41r. Siegel noted that the ordinances for%%arded to Council do not contain any effort to come up with standards. He said his last %%as to tn- and figure out a method of procedure pertaining to the unhappiness of the appearance of certain buildings of which apparently conform to the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code. He said although SPAARC has had appearance reviews. it has been primarily and totally advisory, therefore developers are not bound by this. His understanding is that the Plan Commission is looking for a method of binding appearance review. Mr. Siegel suggested in follow up from past discussion .with P&D Committee and what he feels is conceptually correct is to have a measure of responsibility in Site Plan Review, in which professionals and lay people become involved at a differentiation for appearance review where professionals alone «ould make the decision. He said the question of whether there should be an appeal if a decision is made. which either doesn't comport with members of the public or perhaps even members of the City Council. Not withstanding the term "final review.- whether some avenue of appeal should be available. He supposed theoretically that any decision of an administrative agency can be somehow challenged in the courts. He pointed out the most recent cases on this are so confining because it now appears that even on special uses and variations are all under the administrative review act even if the City Council or the County Board makes the decision or any administrative agency which claims to have final authority . Mr. Siegel said that what he suggested in this draft was that final authority be given to the Committee of Architects or the professionals subject to the possibility of appeal either by the owner or neighbors) within 250' of the property if there is a decision which is not acceptable. This deserves a compromise so that the City Council would not have to look at all the appeal cases and cutting off the possibility of any review at the local level. He noted that this brings upon the question of when do you notify and who do you notify. He reminded the present procedure is a two or three fold step procedure where decisions are made initially and requested and at what stage do you appeal. His judgement is if you appeal, it should be after the reported final decision is made. Then the notice question arises whether it should be required to give notice before any final hearing in order to protect the due process of neighbors. He noted the solution that was suggested is the possibility of giving notice after a decision has been made where the window of _— opportunity for an appeal would be given to the P&D Committee or City Council. He said, however, bearing in mind the fact that theoretically final review may very well be desirable the consequences of cutting off any appeal and/or the consequences of removing the City Council totally from these decision, raises very important issues. Mr. Siegel stated that there is a basic theoretical problem here, and that is the existence of a Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. He pointed out that all of these ordinances's powers are considered to be the minimtun requirements to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Having said this, how cart we then say that a building that meets all the building codes and zoning requirements can not be built? He said that this point was MI PhD Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1-27.03 Page 3 raised in staff discussions and the possibility still remains that they be able to accomplish some of the objectives without final appearance review by dealing with provisions in the zoning ordinance or building code which can meet some of the objections to solve some of the appearance problems caused. For example. types of materials, additional height limitations, setback limitations, bonuses, etc.; may alleviate some of the kinds of problems that are summarized in the Plan Commission's recommendations. Mr. Siegel pointed out that in the most recent draft ordinance that the Committee received dated January 15, 2003, there are some problems with and unanswered questions as mentioned in his memorandum. He noted that this is a %%ork in progress. In his opinion, along with staff, he would like to have some discussion and feedback from this Committee as to whether or not an appeal procedure to City Council or P&D is preferential. Secondly, whether there are other opportunities in the existing ordinances to deal with some of these problems. He pointed out there are some technical problems, for example, as to the number of members of the special committee (architectural committee) that would require a majority vote of a quorum of the larger group which consists of and would include lay persons. doting that this consideration would be given even if a quorum of professionals was not present. Underlying all this. as he believes the Council agrees with, the purpose of this is not to put up additional roadblocks to slow the process of development or required procedure. He stated that what they are looking for is some kind of expeditious resolution of this problem if it is a sufficient enough problem to warrant getting into final review for appearance purposes. He stressed that what exists are sustainable ordinances in that regard. He said until we know what that standards are and the architectural guidelines which were prepared but never adopted, in his judgement, this remains subsequently pretty much vague and fails to meet the necessary definitive decree to withstand a judicial challenge. Mr. Siegel concluded having said this, that the ordinance as it stands, is inclusive. He stressed to the Committee, on behalf of all of staffs efforts, that at this point in time, he needs some additional thoughts from this Committee as to whether they actually want a final determination at the administrative level and if they want an appeal process. If so, how to proceed with it and at what point in time should these procedures be put in place. He reminded to keep in mind their overall objective to have a consensus to something that is not only functional but follows some agreed upon standards. Aid. Bernstein brought up the same question that remains in his mind which is how do you quantify quality? He informed that from his discussion with architect professionals, he too finds the standards inconclusive. He said that he tried to read them as a layman and was not able to or given the proper guidance with which he could determine what kind of a building would be agreeable to a Committee. He recalled past discussion regarding a final appeal to City Council. However, Council members would be qualified and considered on the same level as laymen and would need definite standards in place to use as a guideline. He repeated that this was always his primary concern; the standards and the creation of standards that are unambiguous. He suggested providing pictures of what is acceptable but this could limit creative architectural expansion. He said it is obvious that this is going to be a very difficult task. Aid. Berstein said another concem of his is that his constituents are most concerned about appearance. He noted that when P&D Committee NItg. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page d they speak of appearance the}, use as an example the aluminum house on Main Street and the new orange balcony building. He informed the Committee that he received an irate phone call from someone moving out of Aid. 1;'ynne's %%ard into his. %%ho bought a unit in the orange balcony building and once they saw the outcome, wanted to get out of their contract. He also recalled that when he brQught up the feelings on this building to an architect on the SPAARC Committee, he was surprised at their response because they liked this building and felt it was acceptable appearance -wise. He pointed out that it is going to be difficult to come to any conclusion with the many differences in opinions on acceptable appearance for buildings. He questions; can a group of seen come to any conclusive decision? How do you quantify quality:' Whatever the outcome, to be enforceable the standards have to be unambiguous. Chairman Wynne agreed that Aid. Bernstein has valid concerns. As she understands at this point, directing her comments to Mr. Siegel. that there are two parts of this discussion. One part is the standards question that legal counsel is not addressing to the Committee at this time. Mr. Siegel concurred that this is his critical issue. She stated that one of the significant things that she would like to know. and recalls the Committee requesting previously, is the issue of what are these legal standards in Illinois with respect to aesthetic standards. She requested a legal opinion carefully delineating what are the standards. If the legal standards are vague, she would like an in-depff opinion regarding this at some point. The other part of this discussion is the process and what it is that they have to carefully layout in the ordinance to make sure it passes legal gathering on the process issue. Chairman Wynne concluded that there is not enough information on the standards issue at this point. She noted that legal counsel's memorandum lays out several issues that the Committee needs to address in order to give staff the feedback needed to come to some consensus on the concerns listed. She does not want to see this drag on much longer, therefore she stressed the urgency for staff to address the two issues she just stated and come back to the Committee to move toward finalizing some decision on this ordinance. Aid. Newman agreed with Chairman Wynne's request, however he does not think another memo from staff would be time advisable. He also agreed with Mr. Siegel that there is the theoretical problem with the existence of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code and trying to incorporate standards for appearance. He asked if all the preservation ordinances basically deal with what goes up and what is torn down within a district. He feels assured that there has to be something out there that deals with when you are trying =_ to maintain a ctrtain ambience. He pointed out there are other problems that surround the orange balcony building such as the adjacent building that the new construction totally does not fit with He noted that even with these obvious problems in existence, the City had no ability whatsoever because the building was built within the code. He feels they are going to have another problem when people see the outcome of the townhouse development on the old Dominicks site and believes there is going to be a tremendous reaction to this development. With this in mind, Aid. Newman questioned how standards can be developed for appearance when a development comes within the building envelope. In his opinion, he feels legal counsel's interpretation is that this can not be done. Mr. Siegel clarified that the law in Illinois, as Aid. Wynne has asked for, that are P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of 1-27.03 Page 5 acceptable; it appears to overlap between standards and process. Ile stated that the standards that ha%e not met judicial approval are such st mdards as compatible with its surrounding neighborhood of similar character to existing development, etc. J'he courts question who makes this decision and how can you judge this. Ile noted that this is the question that creates the problem. He pointed out that all of these ordinances have rather vague kinds of reported standards such as character of the neighborhood, compatibility with existing structures. architectural design in harmony with the surrounding area. These are the kinds of things that show up in the ordinances that are knocked down. Chairman Wynne again asked what does pass judicially. Mr. Siegel boasted that many years ago he won a case called "LaSalle National Bank versus City of Evanston." which was based upon the Comprehensive Plan where somebody wanted to up a high-rise building near the lake. He continued that the Comprehensive Plan at that time stated to bring buildings down from the downtown to the lake. He said the Illinois Supreme Court said aesthetics can be part of zoning and won the case based upon this opinion, which was the feeling of the City. Aesthetically the Zoning Ordinance protected the objectives to the Comprehensive Plan, which was to keep the higher structures within downtown and not be allowed near the lake; subsequently the building was not allowed to be built. He concluded that aesthetics can be part of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore this is not impossible to incorporate. Ald. Newman requested to look at the process issues. He asked Mr. Siegel if he is suggesting that they need a process where City Council is final authority or we have to work on the notice provision. Mr. Siegel responded that there is always the due process problem if neighbors are not allowed to participate in these kinds of decisions. He started out by saying lets give our customary ten or fifteen days notice and staff informed him that this is going to interrupt and delay the process. He said that it is frequent where staff receives the information for the appearance aspect of the site plan review, three or four days before the meeting rather than fifteen or twenty days, therefore a notice would not be meaningful. Mr. Wolinski backed Mr. Siegel's information and added that usually the agenda for Site Plan is set either late Friday or early Monday prior to the Wednesday meeting. Therefore, Mr. Siegel noted that to give notice to make these public hearings, would be impractical based upon present methods of procedure. He stated that his alternative was simply to have a post meeting notice, which also raises a problem because there is the question of if this notice should go to the surrounding properties within 250' and the alderman of the ward. However the 250' area seems to be most agreeable. Ald. Newman pointed out that this would not be agreeable downtown due to the number of notices that would have to be delivered to not only the building owner but all the tenants of each building. Mr. Siegel realized this could be difficult. however by giving a post hearing notice it would allow the opportunity to object, would probably be due process. He noted that he is most worried about final decisions in which the community has no input. Aid. Kent feels that the community has to have some input and the opportunity to voice any objections to development in their neighborhoods. He said no matter what time frame is given for notices; the community should be able to voice an objection that ties into the aesthetics of the situation. He said what worries him is regardless of how many P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page b people are on the proposed board, he finds most architects are generally vern good in making sure that there is exciting building going up structurally. etc. Ho%vever, what he finds is that it seems some of those same architects don't really know his neighborhood and what is aesthetically pleasing to the residents in his communit}. fie pointed out situations where residents in his ward have come in the 250' radius for notices and recalls much confusion that stemmed from differences in opinions"and objections from his constituents. This is why he feels the input from the community is very valuable. Again, he feels this is where he has experienced the shortfalls, when it comes to the neighbors being shut out in the decision making that impacts on their living. Mr. Siegel understood Aid. Kent's comment and clarified, as he stated before, that he is more concerned about the neighbors being participants in final reviews as opposed to input participation in the draft and advisory stages. He stated another problem that was not mentioned in his memorandum, is that several people who know about these things make sure that the presentation that the developer makes is in fact the exact plans for the development. This is a problem because there have resulted many cases where a plan is acceptable by all and due to economics or other unforeseen problems. the outcome of the development is something less that what was originally accepted. Aid. Bernstein stated that he understands the aversions between process and standards but he does not see the process as being that dissimilar to the zoning process. He said there can then be a recommendation to the final arbitrary board, which could be the P&D Committee or ultimately the entire Council. This way, the Council can rubberstamp a group of professionals and can give due process 500' from the subject site. However, absent an unambiguous set of standards that are absolutely non -vague and clearly donating exactly what you can and can not build, then he believes the process fails. He noted that this is his main concern with this ordinance. He mentioned that he has had discussion with Mr. Alterson about whether it is sufficient to put a sign in from of the subject location because people going by within, for example, a 10-day period should see this signage. If they do not see the signage within this time, then they will probably not be impacted by the new development. He said this is a lesser concern opposed to his concern with having concrete standards. Mr. Alterson pointed out that the notification is a major concern to staff' when it comes to appearance review because this review is not only for large building developments but also includes virtually everything that comes in for a building permit other than 1-2 family structures. Therefore if staff is required to start sending out letters to everyone within 250' that require appearance review, this would have a dramatic impact on when permits can actually be issued, not to mention the addidonal impact on staffs time to comply with such a notice procedure. Aid. Kent said although he understands and sympathizes Ahith any additional impact this would have on staff, in his opinion the developer should be willing, to wait because the City should have the right to hold up any project until it is done right. He also feels that many 1-2 family dwelling projects should be required to go before appearance review even if they are not being expanded over 25%. He said it is important to bring to attention the many projects around town that have been exempt or gone through the process somehow and pointed out how horrendous the outcome is on these buildings and how some have added to the density in many areas. In these cases, the neighbors have P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page 7 had virtually no input whatsoever. He concluded that the possible wait time that a developer may experience from any notification process should not be considered critical because he feels the developer should feel privileged to build in Evanston. Mr. Alterson suggested to the Committee that staff could suppl► a list of what Site Plan actually looks at. He noted that very little of what site plan looks at is a new building; most of it are changes to existing buildings and changes that are pretty pedestrian such as replacing doors. He said for these types of projects to have to wvait the amount of time to follow notice procedures, would be unreasonable for the applicant. Aid. Kent was not referring to these types of remodeling projects. but is mostly referring to new development of 2- flat buildings. many of which he can recall that are fairly news that don't appear to fit in with the immediate residential structures surrounding the property. Mr. Alterson clarified that the existing site plan regulations do not cover 2-flats or single-family homes unless they are coming in for some type of zoning ruling. He continued that the present City Site Plan regulations do cover commercial structures where the owner is changing the door or putting in new windows. Ms. Aiello said that there are many who are of the opinion that it is the one and two family houses that may have an even greater impact on certain areas and communities. She noted that there is the additional concern of teardowns in some areas to replace with the trophy single-family house. Regardless, single-family and some 2-flats have had greater impact than some new commercial developments. She is of the opinion that if they are going to go with binding appearance review, then it really should be done on everything. realizing that this would bring in more projects for review than what the Site Plan Committee currently does with preliminary and final stages. She does feel that time effort should be considered also because even though it is important that the developer should be willing to wait in order for proper procedures to be completed; timeliness is also important so as not to lose valuable developments that could be an asset to and benefit the City. Aid. Newman recalled past discussion and agreeing to take out the alterations and this only being required for new development. He pointed out that there were only 16 houses built in Evanston in a one-year period and he does not find this number to be detrimental, however alterations to existing structures are so great in number that it would be unreasonable to review all. The other alderman agreed that they did not come to a clear consensus on this issue either. Aid. Newman pointed out that this could be for new construction of commercial and residential, leaving out simple alterations on commercial as well. He said this would dramatically limit what would have to be reviewed. He agrees with Mr. Alterson on staffs concerns with the notice requirements for appearance review if they included everything. He suggested that they could eliminate much of this if only new construction is considered, which was his original understanding on the intent of this ordinance. In view of the small number of new single-family houses that were built in Evanston in a year's time, this would not have a big impact on staff or the review committee. Mr. Alterson asked the Committee if major renovations should be considered as well. Chairman Wynne recalled that the Committee specifically discussed this matter at their meeting last year, the question of whether this should only be for new commercial constnution and alterations to commercial construction. She further recalled the question was whether they should have some alterations included or not. She said her memory of P&D Committee Mtg. % inutrs of 1.27-03 Page 8 this is that the Cottunince discussed the issue of a major alteration, not minor renovations such as doors. winde xs. etc. Aid. Bernstein said to fir, alterson that he does not want to maximize the impact on the Zoning Division of ha% ing to get notices out. He brought to the attention that Evanston is one of the only municipalities' left that allocates staff to send out notices. Most other municipalities allocate this responsibility to the applicant and require them to submit a statement to staff that they have complied. He stressed that this is something that they can address and alleviate from staff readily. The Committee discussed further on what was actually agreed upon from discussion at their last meeting on this issue, Aid. Bernstein recalled that they were talking in terms of all new construction. in consideration of how many actual single-family houses were built in 2001. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance exempted single and two- family houses, but from concerns addressed by Aid. Kent and himself, it was understood the these developments could be an even greater impact in many areas and neighborhoods. There was also the concerns discussed with teardowms and replacement of single-family trophy houses. Aid. Newman said it is a major issue of how much time the staff is going to spend on sending out notices and following due process. He suggested that all new construction should be considered and some definition of major alterations that should be considered as well; for example, projects that would be highly visible and completely changes the overall appearance of the structure. He acknowledged staffs additional concern with having all the meetings for site plan issues as well and all the additional cases involved. Mr. Alterson responded that it depends on where they draw the line on which cases they want reviewed. He reminded that the Committee already looks at these cases currently, except for I-2 family homes; it is the notice requirement that is would be the actual burden on staff. He pointed out that for binding appearance review, in looking at all the drafts of the ordinance so far, covers all the same things that the Site Plan Committee currently is reviewing for discretionary appearance. Mr. Steve Knutson addressed the Committee stating that he is puzzled about the notice onset. He informed that today's site plan and its staff make absolute decisions on covering the Zoning Ordinance and make absolute decisions interpreting the Building Code. With this, no neighbors are ever notified. Ms. Siegel responded that there obviously some discretion, however our codes are sufficiently clear on the administration aspects. He noted that they are not changing any of the ordinances but are trying to reflect what the codes actually say; this would be well beyond the review boards authority. Mr. Cook added that this could be an interpretation of the code and the zoning ordinance. He said this interpretation comes down to one person and if we are stuck on having a standard, then be feels that what should be done is to try and incorporate this into the building code or zoning ordinance. Ms. Dienner commented that with the separation of powers, for example, Site Plan for one and Appearance Review an entirely different group. She feels that where a lot of the problems occur is in the Site Plan area as opposed to the appearance issues. Chairman Wynne responded to the comment made by Mr. Knutson. She said there is a great deal of latitude in terms of siting a building that MI P&:D Cotttmince Mtg. ;Minutes of 1-27-03 Page 9 occurs at Site PIan and this has enormous impact on the appearance of the building as to what the site is. She pointed out that this is not noticed to the public in terms of what occurs and there is a lot of discussion at a number of Site Plan meetings that she has attended. An example of one that ended up not requiring a public hearing was the Dubin towmhouse project where there was extensive discussion about this project. She noted that this is a case where it is relied upon by the professional at site plan to use their experienced decision -making following their ordinances and codes. Mr. Wolinski said that one of the issues that staff talked about with Mr. Siegel prior to the drafting of his memo. was the fact that any project requesting any type of zoning relief be it planned development, special uses, etc., could have mandatory appearance review by the Site Plan Committee. He said that lair. Siegel agreed with this that it would be legitimate under their current laws. He noted that the Council could write in as a condition of that they have mandatory appearance review by whatever body they decide, which right now would be the Site Plan Committee. He informed that one of the issues that they also talked about was the fact that. as %fr. Siegel expressed previously, is that the appearance issue of being not quantifiable perhaps as the building code or the zoning ordinance is, is such that the ultimate decision -making powers would be with the legislative body being the Council. Alternative to this would be that if the Council didn't want to see everything that comes in front of Site Plan, then the Site Plan Committee could be delegated that authority, however that there had to be a review and appeal process by neighbors so that process would allow them to voice objection. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that in the draft the Committee has before them dated January 15, 2003; the notice requirements are listed prior to the hearing of the final site plan approval. He noted that staff discussed this and talked about the time element involved, realizing that everyone wants to get their building permit as quickly as possible. They also discussed that if a notification process is going to be done prior to final site plan approval, that there would have to be a notification after, which would be anywhere from 15-30 days. He mentioned that this would also stymie a building permit because he would not issue any until the appeal process was over with. With all this in mind, he said that no matter which direction they go considering the stipulations that Mr. Siegel has talked about, they are going to increase the time element to get a building permit. He felt this important to point out because part of his job is pushing permits in this community and timeliness is of the essence, otherwise his department is subject to a high complaint volume. Ald. Newman said that he does not agree with Mr. Wolinski because he feels that if some flexibility is given to the way things are currently being done now, then there could be a way not to lengthen the process. For example, there are some cases where someone will drop of plans and the Building Division may not review it fully until a month later because the applicant has not supplied everything needed. He suggested that maybe another method would be to look at what the application and what is being supplied with it at the time someone brings it in. This way letting the applicant know exactly what else is needed right away and letting them know when their site plan review can be scheduled He said the main complaints he hears is where someone has waited over three weeks to find out their missing something with the application. He also suggested some type of checklist could be done with the applicant as soon as they bring their application and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1-2"-03 Page 10 plans in. However the case. this process should be fit into how the Department is doing business currently because he feels there are ways to not prolong the process. ,ifs. Carolvn Brzexinski responded that there are two issues that need to be mentioned with this suggestion. She agreed with Ald. Ne►►man that the Building Division could re- evaluate and re -arrange some of their methods to come up with a way to streamline this new process. However, she feels this would take additional staffing to expedite such a process as suggested by Aid. Newman. She agrees that it would be a preferable method to be able to give a handout and do a checklist at the time someone brings in their application and plans and be able to give a date to them for site plan but in reality the scheduling for site plan is more difficult than this. It is important that ever►ihing for the application be submitted before any site plan is scheduled. Also. ,Ms. Brzezinski expressed her opinion that it is a bit discerning to separate site plan from appearance review because they are very intertwined. Aid. Newman and Mr. Siegel clarified that this is not the case; it is their understanding that everyone would meet at the same time with different indhiduaWprofessionals voting on the appearance review. Mr. Dick Silverman addressed Mr. Siegel. lie said in terms of the larger developments, can the City make those developments go through the plan development process as a mandatory requirement. Mr. Siegel responded that with some of his other municipalities such as Arlington Heights and Schaumburg's ordinance, developments of a certain size come in as planned developments. He said this is where they do have an architectural committee in Arlington Heights and a site plan review in Schaumburg. He stated it all goes final to the Village Boards. He concurred with Mr. Silverman, that it is possible that if you draw the lines such as in Arlington Heights where if there is more than one building on a site, it is automatically a planned development. Chairman Wynne asked if this is their binding appearance review. Mr. Siegel clarified that it all goes to the Village Board for legislative approval and all of the committee's are recommending bodies to the Village Board. In his opinion, this has worked very well in those communities; this is because their Village Boards are willing to undertake these reviews. He pointed out that there is much more development in Schaumburg that has occurred over the past 40 years in comparison to Evanston. Ald. Newman asked what their minimum is for Schaumburg to be considered a plumed development and not qualify to be built as a matter -of -right. He used the building at Sherman and DaNis that measures 105' that came in as a matter -of -right under the Zoning Ordinance, and questioned in comparison to what Schaumburg does or uses as a guideline to consider a development as a PUD. Mr. Siegel answered that they consider all building developments except for single-family homes, this would include any multi- family buildings and all commercial. Ald. Bernstein noted that everything they have goes through site plan review also even if it comes in as -of -right. He asked what the distinction is between what our ordinance does compared to Schaumburg, because it appears that they elevate everything to a PUD status giving the legislative body some authority to make an appearance change as a condition of the PUD. He noted that something like this would add a big element to our ordinance that would justify requiring binding appearance review. Mr. Siegel said this requires all developments to have site plan review and allows the legislative body to have final authority on appearance review P&D Committee A1tg. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page 1 I and make conditions. Beeping in mind that Schaumburg is a different community with a different set of demands with the extreme increase in population and job market for that area. .aid. Newman said that it seems that nothing would come in as a matter -of -right. Aid. Bernstein also felt that it appears Schaumburg in effect have what could be called a binding appearance review, even with buildings conforming to the Zoning and building codes. The Committee questioned what Schaumburg's standards are being used. Mr. Siegel responded that Schaumburg's Village Board takes very seriously their responsibility for these building reviews, which from his understanding, is not what this Council wanted passed onto them in such volume. 1%4r. Cook commented that he has worked in all those communities and has gone through their procedures, especially in Schaumburg. He said this method has worked for Schaumburg but is very arbitrary. Mr. Wolinski stated that he personally feels there is merit in the discussion thus far regarding the planned development and many things that are not considered planned developments becoming PUD's in Evanston. He pointed out that certainly the Dubin development found a way to escape all of the zoning relief that %vould have been needed and still went through site plan review. He questions if this still would have turned out any different if it had went through Council since it did come within the zoning and building code requirements for that site. He said there are many other major condominium buildings that were built as a matter -of -right because they did not want to go through a review process. if they were all required to go through the planned development process then they would have mandatory control. Ald. Newman stated that they are trying to deal with this within the confines of the approach that the Plan Commission started with. He is not being critical of this, however if they really wanted to get to the big projects, then there needs to be language that states if a project is so big then it becomes a planned development. He said they could then have appearance review added as a component of the planned development ordinance. He noted that this is a factor to look at. He feels they would be protected in a sense that appearance would be within a broad category of many things they would be able to look at to determine whether they wanted the project. Mr. Siegel reminded that if it is a PUD, the Council would have the option of passing on the development. Chairman Wynne asked the Committee how they wished to proceed at this point. Ald. Newman suggested the need to schedule a special meeting, preferably on one of their off Monday's. He would like to see and review at this meeting the Schaumburg ordinance. He feels that if they can come up with another solution similar to Schaumburg's approach then there may not be the need for extensive standards with this method. it was the consensus of the Committee in agreement that a special meeting would be needed. Chairman Wynne suggested that they need to summarize what the Committee would like Mr. Siegel and staff to assemble for this special meeting and forwarded to the Council members so that they can be fully briefed on this matter beforehand. She said there is the need to have the research done on this planned unit development and questioned raised as to what it is they need to discuss and decide and what the impact would be. The Plan Commission Chair, Mr. Larry Widmayer, said that one of his questions is that if they went to the planned development approach and they took the guidelines published by the Plan Commission or some variation thereof, and said these were the recommended P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page 12 guidelines. He continued that they would then look at the planned development based on those recommended guidelines. would this fulfill some of the concern of the Committee. The Committee members agreed that this would be worth looking at. Chairman Wynne recapped that for the special meeting the Committee would like to have research and an opinion from Mr. Siegel about this issue of whether it is possible to create a threshold level above which everything is a PUD and also includes some appearance review aspect to it. She further requested an answer as to whether this is an effective means of doing what most of our goals are. obviously not reaching the one and two-family homes. Aid. Newman reminded that their major concern to begin with was not with the one and two-family homes but with the obvious struggle in getting to the big projects. He suggested that the Committee just concentrate on this issue for now. It was also a consensus of the Committee that members of the Plan Commission should be present at this special meeting. Chairman Wynne reiterated that the Committee would like to review the planned development ordinance for Schaumburg. She stressed to stag' the need to have all materials forwarded to the Committee in an appropriate time beforehand to allow them time for proper review. at least more than a week before the meeting. The Committee agreed to hold the special meeting on Monday, March 31'° at 6:30 p.m. This time was also acceptable for Mr. Siegel to attend. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance 10-0-03 -- Soecial Use for 1029 Davis (Performance Entertainment Venue Ald. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 10-0-03 with the incorporation of Mr. Siegel's recommendation as stated in his memorandum. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Mr. Siegel explained his opinion to the Committee. As he understands, this particular operation requires a liquor license. Therefore, if someone else takes over the business, they would be required to apply for a new liquor license. He said this process will give the City some type of control over what type of business will be operated at this location. Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant in this case and asked if he wanted to address the Committee. Mr. Murray agrees with Mr. Siegel's opinion and the amendment to the ordinance to incorporate this. He stated that this is a straightforward matter and there seems to be substantial support a unanimous vote from the Zoning Board. Aid. Newman stated that he accepts for purposes of this particular operation and he thinks any owner to be successful in this business is going to really have to be tied into the music business. He concurs with the monitoring of what type of business and owner if it changes hands, through the liquor license process. Ald. Bernstein also feels that this can be addressed through the liquor license renewal. Ald. Newman stated that he does not see a problem with this particular use or the current applicant. He recognized Mr. Gilmore's past experience and success in this business and feels assured the operation will go well at this location. P&D Committee Mfg. Minutes of 1-27-03 Page 13 It was clarified that with the incorporation of Legal Counsel's recommendation, the ordinance will be amended to eliminate items c & d of Section 2. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Development Committee Minutes of February 10, 2003 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Engelman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, A. Berkowsky, S. Janusz, D. Spicuzza, E. Szy-rnanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27. 2003 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the January 27th minutes, seconded by Aid. Newrrran. The minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION f P 1) Ordinance 16-0-03 — Increase in Roomins House Fees Chairman Wynne called on those signed up to speak on this item in the order signed. Mr. Bruce Hutcheon, General Manager of the Omni Orrington Hotel, distributed a letter to the Committee. He urges the Committee to consider an alternative to this increase in fees. He mentioned that even though there are three hotels in Evanston, they still compete with the market outside Evanston with the surrounding, communities. He informed the Committee that they general look at this fee on a cost per occupied room what it takes to provide different amenities to their guest. For example, this increase in fees would result in their having to reduce certain luxuries offered to guest incompetition with hotels in the surrounding communities that would be able to provide and more. This would place his hotel under an economic disadvantage. His letter also suggest that since the hotels already pay an occupancy tax, that the Committee consider a separate treatment for their lodging fee. Ms. Diane Korling, resides and operates a rooming house at 1914 Orrington Avenue. She said that this structure was built in 1895 as a rooming house and she has lived there for the past 25 years. She said that her clientele are students that prefer not to live in the dormitories and remain in close proximity to the University and downtown Evanston. She informed the Committee that since she has owned this property, it was put back on P&D Committee Mtg. February 10.2003 Page 2 the tax role, because the Episcopal Church previously o:vned it two decades before her. She further informed that since she has owned the property the taxes have increased from S 1,500 to approximately S 14.000 per year and she has continued to pass this cost onto her tenants. In conjunction, she will also have to pass this increase in fees onto her tenants a well. She acknowledged that she has benefited from the rooming house inspections and has kept her property up to code for licensing and takes pride in letting the parents of her student tenants know this. She does not want to start thinking of this fee as another tax. In response to a question from id. Newman. Ms. Korling responded that this is a 12- bedroom house and she continues to maintain paying the licensing fee for this amount because it is her understanding that if you diminish the number, you can not add them back. Her current fee was 5374 per year and would increase to $748. Mr. Tom Hollowed said that he represents SPN Management in the Best Western University Plaza. He seconded Mr. Hutcheon's comments. He said since the "9-11" occurrence and with the opening of the Hilton in downtown Evanston, the revenues for his hotel have suffered severely. He estimated the revenues to be down by 40% from what they were two years ago and the rates continue to drop because of competition. He reminded that not only do the Evanston hotels have to compete with their neighboring communities, who pay less in fees, but also have to compete with each other. He also urged the Committee to reconsider this fee increase and rind another option. Mr. John Mroczka, Director of Residence at the hfcGaw YMCA, read from a prepared memorandum to the Committee. In summary. he informed the Committee that there are 172 rooms in the Y all occupied by low- income men. He said that any increase in fees would have to be passed on to the occupants who are already living on tight budgets. He request that if this ordinance is passed, that the rooming house license fee be waived for the McGaw YMCA. He mentioned that they currently pay a fee of $4,664 per year. Renresentative from the Hilton Gardens Hotel, also made note of being able to compete _ with the hotels in neighboring communities. Because as they increase expenses in the hotels, while their rates are dropping, they still have to recover these expenses. He said _ while some hotels are certainly struggling more than others, all have seen a drastic downturn since "9-11." He said any additional increases would only hurt their financial system even more. Aid. Bernstein asked if star' could explain what the costs actual are. He assumed there is - a fixed cost for the rooming house and an additional fee per roomer. He questioned if hotels pay the S26 per guest. Mr. Wolinski explained the formula figured for hotels is that they give the maximum number of roomers/guest that would be allowed in the hotel and multiply this number by the cost of the fee. He clarified further that this is not a duplicated number and is not multiplied by the number of rooms; it is based on the maximum occupancy number. ;Iir. Hutcheon revealed that he has based his reported occupancy figure on the number of rooms in the hotel; being 280 x S26 plus the $166 fee, resulting in their yearly licensing fee of approximately S7,400. He explained that it is more logical to use the number of rooms per say versus if they were to base it on the number of people that might occupy the hotel at any given time. Aid. Newman agreed = P&D Comminee Attg. February 10, 2003 Page 3 that is how he established the most comprehensible number to use in figuring the charge for rooming house licensing for hotels. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that the ordinance does not specify this principle. That is why he raised this question because the proposed ordinance states that the projected dollar amount is per roomer. guest, or transient occupant. Nevertheless. it is apparent that there is some perplexity in the case of hotel or transient usage if it should be based per room or room capacity. He asked staff for further clarification of category "c" and "e." Mr. Wolinski explained that category "c" is commercial rooming houses and "e" is educational. The distinguish being educational ownership by the university or colleges versus commercial ownership of rooming houses run by private individuals of homes in the I" and 5 h wards and a few other Iocations that were converted to this use. Aid. Newman asked staff, in regards to the 21 rooming houses classified as non- educational/commercial as stated on the agenda item summary sheet, if this figure includes hotels, retirement homes/hotels, etc. Mr. Wolinski assured that the 21 rooming houses classified as commercial include all rooming house uses that are not considered educational. He directed attention to the list that staff forwarded to the Committee listing all 92 rooming houses in the City and pointed out several that are classified as commercial. Aid. Newman stated that since this ordinance has been presented, he asked two questions: First, whether or not they could exempt owner -occupied rooming houses. He noted that he has received a verbal response from legal staff on this question but would prefer and requests a written response before Council votes on the budget. He elaborated further on his reasons to justify this request using 809 Foster as an example of a non -owner occupiedlabsentee landlord property. He pointed out that this property is frequently inspected by City inspectors over and beyond the scheduled inspection for rooming house licensing due to numerous complaints and non-compliance versus a rooming house such as Ms. Korling's, which is owner -occupied and maintained immaculately and up to code. Secondly, he asks whether or not the hotels that pay the hotel tax could be exempted from the rooming house fee entirely. He justified his logic being in recognition of those classified uses that pay the hotel tax and are making a substantial contribution to the general fund. In his opinion, he views this as paying a form of double taxation. Aid. Newman requested a legal opinion to this question for all hotels in Evanston, including the Homestead, the Margarita, and any similar uses that would qualify in this classification. Aid. Bernstein questioned if the McGaw YMCA should be considered as well. Mr. Mroczka informed that the YMCA also pays this hotel tax, which is paid from the first four weeks of every roomer's fee. Aid. Newman further requested that staff verify this account for the YMCA; if factual they should be included also. Chairman Wynne said in light of the inquiries requested from Aid. Newman, it would be imperative to receive a response from legal staff expeditiously in order to move forward on this issue as it relates to the budget also. Aid. Newman stated that the he would not want the Committee to move forward on a decision of this item until a legal opinion is received. He also noted that they need to know the amount of revenue that would be lost in eliminating those fees. This was a consensus by the Committee. Mr. Stafford informed P&D Committee tittg. February 10. 2003 Page 4 the Committee that under this proposed ordinance, the revenue would be approximately 542,000 in fees not collected from the classified uses considered for exemption. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that there is a difference between a license and a tax and their ability to go into all of these various hotels and inspect as it is based under the rooming house ordinance. He asked that the Committee keep this in mind if considering whether or not they would still want the City inspectors to continue inspecting those uses if the rooming house licensing fee is exempted. Aid. Newman acknowledged that information because it does fit in with the cost analysis and should be inclusive with the legal assessment and opinion forwarded to the Committee. Chairman Wynne reiterated the importance of obtaining this legal opinion as soon as possible, by the next Council/Committee meeting date of February 20, because it is also the same date that Council will be making their final vote on the budget as well. Mr. Crum informed the Committee that this amount of money the City could work with and have other options prepared in the budget if they went with no increase, 50% increase, or full increase. Whatever the outcome of the Committee's decision on this matter, it could be worked out as an open item on the budget. Aid. Bernstein said that it occurs to him that in part the genesis of this ordinance and why they raised it several years ago was primarily for those people that constantly do not maintain their property. He asked staff' if they could provide a list of those properties to determine whether or not they might be able to increase the fines for subsequent inspections. He would like to address the problem directly and have any increase in fees or fines aimed at those that should be accountable for non-compliance. He thanked Mr. Stafford for his memorandum forwarded to the Committee listing the cost for inspections, etc., however it is evident that some properties exceed the regularly scheduled inspections and cost projected in the inspection fee for their property. He requested to legal staff to determine if it is possible to have an escalated fine or inspection cost for those properties that go beyond the estimated expense determined for their property. Mr. Wolinski stated that the majority of rooming houses are kept up to code and come into compliance if there are any violations noted. The rooming houses that Aid. Newman is referring to are the smaller commercial private owned properties with absentee landlords and there are some issues with the fraternity houses as well. However, in his opinion, uniform inspection service provides and follows up for good maintenance. Aid. Bernstein raised the issue in some cases of exactly who is the owner, for example in the case of some fraternity and sorority houses. There is the question of whether they are owner -occupied or is the University in some way involved in the ownership of the building. He feels that the ordinance as proposed, has too many open-ended questions and uncertainty to several issues. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee for legal staff to provide responses to the questions and inquiries raised as previously stated. Chairman Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. P&D Committee ',*fig. Febnmrr% 10.2003 Page 5 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION' (PD2) Environment Board Presentation Ms. Mardi Klevs announced that she has been elected as Chair of the Environment Board this year. She acknowledged the number of proposals recommended by the Board as listed in their memorandum and being presented to the Committee at this time. She introduced Mr. Len Sciarra to gi%-e the presentation and overview of their recommendations to the Committee. Mr. Sciarra informed that he is an architect and also works writing energy codes for an organization called ASHRA, which is a national energy standard. He stated that the Environment Boards proposal is for Evanston to adopt the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code, which would go along with the requirements of the Building Code. He noted that many communities/cities in Illinois have already adopted such a code. He said that this code is not real controversial. applying minimum standards. In his opinion, the standards of this code are not strenuous enough in light of the seriousness of this issue. Chairman W,.mne asked what Chicago is doing with this code. Mr. Sciarra responded that Chicago used the International version and modified into their own code. They specifically added one requirement on roofing that is somewhat controversial, but primarily Chicago's code is a business code. Aid. Kent asked for more detail on their requirements for roofs. Mr. Sciarra explained that they made their roofs more reflective because Chicago is very concerned about their summertime heat temperatures at the ground level. He said that there have been a number of studies done that have shown that blacktop surfaces will raise the ambient temperature of the surrounding areas, therefore their initiative was to make all the roofs, which are normally blacktop, with reflective white finishes. Ms. Klevs added that this is an ozone control measure for the City of Chicago and metro area. Aid. Kent asked several more questions regarding the many condo buildings with flat roofs that are blacktop and the concern for manufacturing of the preferred white -top materials. Mr. Sciarra responded that materials are available, however there are few suppliers. As this code becomes more notable, manufacturing of the supplies will increase. Ms. Klevs pointed out that the roofs are not the major concern here. The interest and concern for adopting the International Code came about from a trip to Europe by Mayor Daley where he was introduced to green buildings and the expansion thereof. Aid. Newman revealed his interest in adoption of this code, however he would prefer that staff be given time to do a study on the effect this would have to residents and the additional costs versus benefits, for the Evanston community. He agrees with the concept of being more energy efficient and its conclusion into our building code or proposed Binding Appearance Review ordinance, if approved. Aid. Bernstein recalled his reference made some time ago to add a member of the Environment Board to the SPAARC Committee, this way including recommendations for energy -efficiency at the building permit review stage. Mr. Sciarra informed Aid. Newman that there is some background information provided on incremental construction cost versus energy savings costs provided in one of the memorandums. He also has more detailed background information available that he has done research on. He asked Aid. Newman if his main P&D Committee Sttg. February 10, 2003 Page 6 concern with cost is for the City or the builder. Ald. Ne«man responded that his main concern is for the consumer and property owner and the cost versus benefits of providing energy -efficiency in the design and construction of new homes and buildings. Chairman Wynne mentioned that she ]earned from discussion with Mr. Wolinski previously, that the City adopts the updated BOCA code approximately on a three year cycle, which is up for consideration this fall. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he has had conversation with the members of the Environment Board regarding this issue. He noted that since the 1950's the City has always adopted the BOCA National Codes and this primarily is a code that is designed for the mid -west. There are other building codes throughout the country that are designed for their region, such as a southem building code, international, etc. He said that subsequently all the various code regions came together and produced the international code. He told the Convnittee that staff is looking to adopt the 2003 versions of all the various international codes for building, electrical, mechanical, etc. He said that there has not been an outcry to adopt an energy code because to his knowledge, BOCA has had model energy codes since the 1970's. He said that staff has always viewed the codes as minimum for life safety and want to make sure that the building is safe to live in, the mechanical units work, plumbing, etc. He noted that this has always been their primary focus in the building industry. He pointed out that the energy conservation that is talked about here, is an additional overlay to look at. Frankly, this decision will be up to the Council with input from both the Environment Board and City staf% to decide whether or not they want to adopt that portion of the International code. Mr. Wolinski said the 2003 codes are not out yet and are anticipated to be out by spring. He informed the Committee that they will begin internal staff meetings once the codes are out and will bring this matter before the Committee in the fall with recommendations. He noted that in the past they have not reviewed the energy code, but will do so upon the Committee's request and will work with the Environment Board to implement. Chairman Wynne expressed that she feels it is very important for Evanston to adopt the International Energy Conservation Code. She pointed out that in looking briefly at the consumer savings numbers listed in the memorandum, it makes sense and seems feasible. With all said, Ald. Newman moved for the Committee to direct staff to provide additional detailed information on taking a look at what it would entail to adopt the International Energy Conservation Code, seconded by Chairman Wynne. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Gladys Bryer said that it has been pointed out that there would be cost in terms of - implementation at the City level. She mentioned that many other cities have implemented compliance tools to help alleviate the cost to the City. Mr. Sciarra elaborated on implementation assistance suggesting some type of self -certification program, which Chicago has put into practice. Chairman Wynne said that she is skeptical about any self -certified programs, especially when it comes to construction matters. Ms. Klevs informed that there is grant money available for building codes assistance projects _ and the agency she has spoke with is particularly interested in working with the City of Evanston. Aid. Kent asked how can this help in making affordable housing better in any P&D Committee Sltg. February 10.2003 Page 7 way. He asked this question in light of the many older homes in his ward that are wood framed or still have plaster with very little insulation. He asked the Board members if they could bring back any information on this and what other communities are doing with energy efficiency for affordable housing. Mr. Sciarra responded that the City of Chicago has a green bungalows program,%A-hich is looking at taking existing standard Chicago - style bungalows, circa 1920's, and renovating it to make it more environmentally stable. He affirmed to Aid. Kent that he would follow-up on this information and forward to the Committee. Ms. Bryer gave an overview of the benefits of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code for Illinois. She explained the SB 1797 Illinois Energy Efficiency Building Act, which lists the facts in the handout to the Committee. She explained the State Bill and its relevancy to Evanston and the importance of adopting the energy code in 2003. Aid. Bernstein questioned the Boards availability in having a member present at all the SPAARC meetings, which meet every Wednesday afternoon. Ms. Bryer assured that a member from the Environment Board could attend the weekly meetings, however it may not be the same person. The Board members agreed that even if it is not the same person every week, they would brief the person attending on the cases for the meeting and what issues to address. The Committee members felt that this would be a problem with rotating membership because there is a need for consistency-. They support a member from the Environment Board being a part of the SPAARC Committee but agree that it should be the same person for an extended period of time. The Committee members also feel that the Board is greatly over -estimating what SPAARC can do or their involvement in the actual building plans. The developer listens and takes into consideration SPAARC's recommendations, however they do not always incorporate these suggestions. This is why there is the need to adopt an enforceable Binding Appearance Review and with this, incorporate the energy code. fir. Sciarra still feels that the inclusion of the environmental and energy -efficient recommendations is most valuable at the building plan stage. He reminded that sustainability deals with the building and all of its surroundings. In conclusion from discussion, Chairman Wynne requested an opinion from the SPAARC Chair on the inclusion of adding a member from the Environment Board. Mr. Wolinski suggested that perhaps it would be more beneficial to schedule a meeting where members from the Environment Board attend a SPAARC Committee meeting allowing comments and recommendations from the members of both groups. The Committee members agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Retfully submitted, C\7' .1 Jac elinl E. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of February 24, 2003 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center AIderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. M. Barn. S. Janusz, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official. Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10.2003 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the February 1 Oth minutes, seconded by Ald. Newman. The minutes were approved 3-0 (Ald.'s Engelman and Kent were not yet present). ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P I) Ordinance 16-0-03 — Increase in Roomine House Fees Aid. Newman motioned to remove the proposal for increase in the annual rooming house fees. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor (Ald.'s Engelman & Kent not yet present). Aid. Newman reported that based on all the information provided, it w-as the consensus of the Committee that this does not seem workable. (P2) Ordinance 21-0-03 — 5necial Use for 1729 Sherman (TvI)e 2 Restaurant) (Aid. Engelman arrived.) Aid. Newman brought to attention a procedural matter because he feels there is a need to spend time on this issue requiring lengthy discussion; it can not be done without the transcript. He asked staff when they expect to receive the transcript. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff was anticipating receiving it last Friday, however it has not yet arrived. Aid. Newman requested that discussion begin at this meeting, but he would not like to make a final decision for action until the Committee has received a copy of the transcript for review. Chairman Wynne and the other Committee members agreed. She called on the applicant for his presentation. Mr. Richard Dux informed the Committee that he is the Subway franchisee that would like to open his business at this proposed location. He acknowledged the Committee's ongoing concern for garbage and litter problems with type 2 restaurants. He distributed and handout to the Committee describing his garbage plan in detail. The handout P&D Committee Sttg. M inures of 2-24-03 Page 2 describes the current situation and location of garbage containers then goes into his proposed plan for container locations. dealing ►►ith monitoring for overflow of containers, emptying the garbage containers and disposal on a regulated basis. etc. He also illustrated and explained the proposed locations of the garbage containers. His garbage plan proposal includes litter patrol ever~ three hours. Included along with his garbage plan is a copy of the Family Properties Rules and Regulations for the building and a copy of their restaurant evaluation and compliance review form. (Aid. Kent arrived.) Mr. Dux distributed to the Committee a cope of his Preliminary Site Plan which includes an overview of the business covering their mission statement, policies, procedures and systems of controls, and employee training. This handout also covered plans for the site location, litter collection and garbage policy, landscaping, delivery service, and hours of operation. He pointed out the copy sample of his daily compliance checklist that was attached to the back of this handout. He emphasized, from what he has presented to the Committee so far, that his management plan has a strong handle on keeping a level of control over rules and regulations to be followed by employees and keeping in compliance with his garbage plan and daily checklist of items to be maintained on a regular schedule. Mr. Dux gave background information on himself informing the Committee that he was working as a CPA and Corporate Financial Officer for 25 years until the company he worked for that managed trade shows closed business in 1948. He was experienced in the process of buying and selling trade shows so he started his own business as a business broker for the next couple of years. His business was effected by the September I I'" event, which put him back out in the job -seeking market and eventually lead him to the idea of starting his own business. He became interested in the Subway business and got involved with the company in February 2002. Mr. Dux informed that once he became interested in opening his store in Evanston, he met with Evmark on the demographics of the area to determine whether there is a market need. He distributed to the Committee a site analysis study summary and overview. This study gives an overview of the building and population projections for the downtown area with the expansion of entertainment, retail space and the addition of condominiums and 24-hour living downtown. Aid. Newman informed the Committee that he has had the opportunity to met with Mr. Dux and Mr. Macy from Subway because he wanted to find out what the reasoning was on adding another Subway in downtown Evanston. Aid. Newman commended Mr. Dux on his interest in downtown Evanston and the thorough research and analysis presented. He also acknowledged his meticulous garbage plan and policies proposed, and feels with his management skills that his business would be an asset to the community. However, the proposed location of this establishment has several negative issues of concern. He pointed out that this particular location is one of the problem areas in downtown next to the Taco Bell. He informed the Committee of the aggressive panhandling from the hangers-on at Taco Bell to the point where they _ P&D Committee tittg. Minutes of 2-24-03 Page 3 installed bars to discourage people from sitting outside the restaurant, however the panhandling continued. He feels that part of the problem with the allowance of in -and - out traffic and hanging out in Taco Bell is because of the kid managers they hire. lack of English-speaking personnel on duty at times,; situations that cause communication problems. Aid. Newman recalled one of the questions he asked Mr. Dux at the time of their meeting was whether he was in contact with the other Subway on Sherman Avenue. The response was yes and that there would be some type of corroboration to the owner or offering the possibility of buying them out. Mr. Dux reported that he and the owner of the other Subway were unable to work any plan out. He said there was never any actual offer that took place, however they discussed various prices, none of which made any sense relative to the sales volume of the business. When he presented the sale amounts to his bank (Parkway Bank which does most of the lending for Subways in the Chicago area), they would not consider a loan at the pric,. s offered. Aid. Newman stated that another problem with this particular site is that there appears to be an accumulation of special uses. He named the numerous type 2's in the one block and noted the serious existing problem with garbage in the area and all over Allbrecht Park just north of this block. He said it is especially bad over the weekend because the garbage is not picked up timely during those days and the trash is overflowing the bins and blowing all over the street and into the park. He reminded of the existing rat problem in downtown Evanston that the City has been trying to get a handle on and the additional problem of accumulative dumpsters in the alleys. Aid. Newman said in his opinion what they should be looking at as a Committee is the fact that in this particular area there is a proliferation of special uses and somewhat of a "food court" forming. He noted that SBX store has moved out and the Music Wherehouse will be closing soon also. He questions the vision for this block of Sherman Avenue and is concerned at what type of future businesses will be interested in moving into this area. He did find it reassuring that Mr. Dux relayed that he would be an on -site manager working at least 40 hours in the restaurant and that he would be willing to commit to this by making it a condition of the special use if necessary. Although there legal staff questions this, he would feel more assured that maintenance issues would be handled if the owner/manager were on -site full time. Aid. Newman is also concerted with this comer and being located next to the alley, with double parking for pickups, etc. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Dux his opinion, if it seems feasible to have two Subway's in the downtown district and if it would be reasonable to have two of any fast food restaurant in the Evanston downtown area when looking at the size of the area. He said it appears that they are duplicating over and over again the same types of fast food restaurants especially submarine sandwich shops. Mr. Dux responded that when you look at the size of Subway's in comparison to the Burger Kings or McDonald's, etc., it is much less impacting. He said his perception of clients to his restaurant would be majority foot traffic and he does not expect anyone would drive to this particular location to pickup only. He said in terms of the market for restaurants in downtown Evanston, there appears to be 4 zones or "food hubs" in restaurant clusters. He distributed to the Committee a handout explaining the locations of the 4 hubs being south, center hub (east), center hub (west), and north hub. Aid. Newman asked if it is correct that Mr. MD Cummittee M,.Z. %tinutes of 2-24-0: Pace 4 `lacy, the District 'Manager for Subway, receives 350 a of profits for opening up a second restaurant downtown Evanston. Mr. Dux responded that 8% of profits go to Subway Corporate and he is not sure how they divide this percentage. Aid. Newman requested to have Mr. Macy present for questions at the next meeting because he would like this question answered as well as other questions he would like him to address. Mr. Dux went back to Aid. New-man's question to him regarding the feasibility of having the two Subway's downtown. He explained his view- of the geographical distance between the two restaurants, using downtown Chicago as an example because there are some locations that are within 75 yards apart. He pointed out that the market supports this because all Subway's are very active high volume stores. He feels rather than looking at this in terms of geography where stores should not be a certain distance from another, it should be looked at in terms of a marketing perspective. He referred to his handout on his opinion of the "food hubs' in downtown Evanston and pointed out that the two stores would serve two different hubs. He assumes that the same foot traffic that has been going to the existing Subway will continue and it is unlikely that someone would go out of their way to go to another Subway three blocks away. In response to a question from Aid. Newman on how many Subway's currently exist in Evanston, Mr. Wolinski recalled ones on Central Street, Sherman Avenue, Howard Street and Main Street; this would be the fifth location. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Magill, property owner. the same question and his opinion of the feasibility of having two restaurants of the same type in downtown Evanston. He also asked as a property owner on Sherman in the block between Church and Clark, what types of businesses he envisions or would like to persuade there. Mr. Magill responded that it is the nature of the dynamics of Sherman Avenue that depend on what tvpes of business will go in. He said stores reflect the consumers otherwise they wouldn't be able to stay with the business. He said that if the place doesn't serve the community then the store will not survive; this is a simple economic force. In terms of the dynamics of who or what type of business will be going in on Sherman Avenue, this is very difficult for him to speculate because its influx. He said there is a lot of retail coming on line from the numerous construction projects downtown and how this will all fit together has yet to be seen. In addition, there does not seem to be any grand plan for the City of Evanston as far as incentives to bring in a balance of businesses. In his opinion, where any plans have come into play is in the downtown revitalization of such communities as Oak Park and downtown Highland Park. He pointed out that those plans brought together integrated parking, creation of TIF's in order to form the retail centers, etc. Therefore, in order to create some type of master plan would have to be considerable.. Mr. Magill informed that he has instructed his agent to give every possible consideration to any proposals presented. Aid. Bernstein said presuming the City had a plan, how would we give incentives to draw in retail. In his opinion, it is better to have some type of consumer versus leaving a vacant store. Aid. Newman agreed, however there is a need for balance and currently there is an over -abundance of type 2 restaurants in the V' ward. He said the reason for the garbage problem downtown is because the City is not equipped for as much foodservice that exist. Another problem is with the double-parking of delivery service P&D Comminee %Ug. Minutes of'_'-24-03 Page 5 vehicles and for pick-up orders, conditions that were agreed upon at the time of their hearing to prevent. He can not recall in his eleven years on Council where the City has taken action against an applicant with a special use who has not kept the conditions. He reiterated his comments expressed in the past that at some point and. time, City Council needs to address the problem of having too many type 2 restaurants and this needs to be forwarded to the Zoning Board as well. Aid. Newman let it be known his concern with hearing at this meeting from the owner of the current Subway that there was no actual collaboration between he and Mr. Dux as he understood from what was conveyed to him in his meeting with the applicant and district manager. He is eery concerned with how the 1" ward is being overcome by type 2 restaurants and the lack of compliance by these businesses in garbage issues and not complying with the conditions set in their special uses. Aid. Bernstein clarified that he does not want to encourage more type 2's in the 1" ward, however the City has to do with the market and what types of businesses are being attracted to our downtown. He suggested that they should consider at this point instigating closing down some of the problem type 2 restaurants who are constantly and knowingly not complying with the conditions of their special uses. Aid. Newman pointed out that it seems there is a rise in the closing of retail on this strip of Sherman Avenue. He asked Mr. Magill for information on the closing of the SBX store. Mr. Magill informed the Comminee that Northwestern wanted to move the SBX store onto campus since it focused on the sale of NU paraphernalia. Aid. Bernstein added that the City also needs to look at the changing market for downtown Evanston and the causes of why certain stores are closing. With SBX, this is an NU store that wants to keep their profits on campus, and with Music Wherehouse, there is an influx of CD burning and other various sales of CD's so that music store sales have dropped tremendously. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that another issue is what a retailer is willing to pay per square foot compared to a fast food restaurant who is willing to pay more per square foot because their volume of sales per day is higher. The owner of the property is more likely to rent to the subsequent one. Ald. Bernstein suggested there may be a need to offer some type of subsidy in that case to achieve a balance of retail and food establishments. Aid. Bernstein asked legal staff if the City has the ability to close down any business operating under a special use if the conditions have been violated. Ms. Szymanski confirmed that the City does have this ability. Aid. Newman referred back to Mr. Magill's comment suggesting that Evanston has no revitalization plan for the downtown district. He said it is obvious that this plan is not well known by all the merchants in Evanston. He suggested that this should be conveyed to Evmark so that they can make sure that all businesses and merchants are made aware of the revitalization and parking plans that have already been put into place. Mr. Marc Blumenthal, attorney for Dr. Kishan Patel, owner of the Subway franchise at 1551 Sherman, referred the Committee to his letter included in the packet materials. He agrees with Aid. Newman that this matter should be continued to the next meeting so that the transcript is available and reviewed by the Committee. He noted the two and half- hours of discussion and deliberation that took place before the ZBA. He went through P&D Committee .Mg. Minutes of 2-24-03 Page G the summary of the opposer's testimony and the five significant points, as stated in his correspondence. He also pointed out that there is no encroachment law in Illinois for businesses as it is in several other states. He said there is an apparent "submarine warfare" going on, especially in the Chicagoland area. He stressed his clients strong opposition to this proposal and the obvious negative cumulative effect is would cause. Dr. Patel confirmed that the Subway Corporation does take $°Jo of their profits off the top. He mentioned the already existing struggle with the many competitors of different submarine restaurants in downtown Evanston. It seems illogical to have to compete with another store from his franchise. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item on the agenda for further deliberation at the March 101h meeting. The Committee requested to staff to have the transcript available for this meeting. They also requested that Mr. Macy be available for questions if possible. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • 1 Y'�tn+Nrr 1.3L.21 Jacque ' e Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes ofMarch 10, 2003 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Aldermsn Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. M. Barn', S. Janusz, D. Spicuzza, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wy ne called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARV 10.2003 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the February 24th minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent. Aid. Newman made corrections to the minutes. He pointed out on page 3, second paragraph, that "Allbrecht Park" was incorrect and should be "Oldberg Park". He also made a correction to page 4, 1" paragraph where it refers to Subway's in downtown Chicago being within 75 yards apart. His point was that in downtown Chicago there are many fast food places that are in close proximity to each other, the actual distance is not factual. This sentence was sentence was stricken from the minutes. With no further corrections, the minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Federal HOME. Ooeratine Grant to Reba Place Develonment Comoration Ms. Spieu77a informed the Committee that staff from Reba Place Development were unable to attend the meeting this evening. Aid. Newman stated that he strongly supports what Reba Place is doing and the type of housing they are providing is exactly what he expects of organizations that are tn•ing to deal with affordable housing issues. He pointed out that they have gone into their buildings and made contacts with the good tenants and working on the problems with the more difficult tenants. He feels that one of the things they need to do with this since it is a disbursement of a $15,000 grant for operations, is make clear that the HOME funds are given to the City by the Federal government and there are more funds available for affordable housing developments. It is his understanding that the City has not been spending all of the money allocated as fast as the federal government's expectation. He also pointed out that all of Reba Place Development's properties are on the tax rolls. He noted that by giving them the $15,000 for operating assistance, this helps in part to keep rents down, which is one of the goals for keeping affordable housing on the market. P&D Committee Nttc- Minutcs of?-10.0: Page Aid. Newman moved to approve the recommendation for Reba Place Development for the S15,000 in HOME funds for operating assistance use, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Chairman Wynne stated that her only concern about this is will the CHDO's become dependent upon the City for this operating assistance. because she questions ► •hat would happen if the City were unable to provide the funds for some reason. Mr. Wolinski responded that in his opinion, he does not believe this will happen because Reba Place Development and Interfaith are fairly solvent. He said this is the first time they have asked for this assistance and he believes they are asking for it at this time because it is available to them. As Aid. Newman pointed out, there is a surplus of HOME funds presently. He said that because of these two CHDO's standing, he does not feel that the S13,000 will make or break them. Aid. Newman also pointed out that the City receives HOME funds based on a formula that takes into consideration population and other factors, therefore these funds should continue to be provided to the City in the future. He said the issue to look at is how the HOME funds are being used and ways to use more of the funds on more housing projects. Aid. Kent asked if all three CHDO's in Evanston received a divided amount of money some months ago. Ms. Spicuzzn explained that money was set -aside funds to develop planned affordable housing projects. She said that these funds had to be reserved for future projects due to the HOME regulations. Aid. Kent asked if there is money available for new groups if they ►►•ere to go before the Housing Commission with a proposal. Ms. Spiclina responded yes that there is HOME funds available for new groups. The group has to meet certain requirements to be designated as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). However, she noted that HOME funds can be given to groups that are not designated CHDO's as well. He asked if the money that is being held by HUD. Ms. Spicuzza explained that this money is not being held, but has not been drawn down from HUD to date, but has been earmarked and reserved. Mr. Wolinski added that traditionally over the past 4-5 years since the City has been receiving HOME funds, the Council has been allocating those funds with the recommendation of the Housing Commission to the various CHDO's in Evanston. He noted that the City has seen a slow down since the first 3 years of receiving HOME funds when they were averaging issuing out S 1 — 1.5 million compared to now having a surplus. He said that they have not seen any groups come forward with any project proposals in the past 6-9 months. Aid. Newman asked if most of the funds have been spent in the 8`" Ward where most of Reba Place properties are located. Mr. Wolinski responded that at least 3040% has been spent in that ward. Aid. Newman feels that staff needs to be actively promoting fair distribution of the HOME funds throughout the targeted areas in Evanston. Aid. Kent agreed and mentioned that he has a group from the Sei ward that he would like to recommend for approval of HOME funds. He informed Ms. Spiciam that he would like to bring this group before the Housing Commission at their next meeting. With no further discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committee Mfg. Minutes of 3.10-03 Page 3 IP21 Federal HOME Ooeratine Grant to Housing Oavortunity Develooment Comoration Ald. Bernstein moved to approve the recommendation for Housing Opportunity Development Corporation for the SI5,000 in HOME funds for operating assistance use, seconded by Chairman Wynne. Aid. Bernstein stated that approval and support for this is basically for the same reason the Committee put forth Reba Place Development's request. He noted that this is one of three organizations that has brought recognizable affordable housing to Evanston. He asked staff ghat the reserve will be after disbursing these requested funds. Mr. Wolinski and Nis. Spictuza confirmed that close to $1 million would in reserve. Chairman Wynne asked if the slow down in projects is due to the organizations being at capacity in terms of what they can do and what is available. Mr. Wolinski noted that Interfaith (HODC) is actively developing all along the north shore and can only administer so many projects at one time. He said that Reba Place Development he assumes is working at their capacity currently for any new projects. He said that Evanston Housing Corporation has been quiet for some time now and have not come forward with any new projects in the past couple of years. He noted that Econ Development is the most recent project that the Committee approved funds for to redevelop 1813 Lyons; they also built the single-family house on Darrow. He believes that this organization will be coming back to request more funding in the future as they continually try to provide single-family affordable housing. Aid. Bernstein mentioned that this organization, HODC, has volunteered to assist the City in the affordable housing provided in the new development at 1930 Ridge. With no further discussion, the vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Newman in A&PW at the time). (P3) Plat ofResubdivision — Optima Views Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Tom Cison from Optima. Mr. Cison explained that this request is because the property is owned by someone else and is currently subdivided by metes and bounds. He explained that this won't be part of the association and that part of their obligation to this owner from the original agreement, is to file a plat of subdivision to divide the property. Aid. Bernstein asked who would be responsible for management if it is not a part of the association. Mr. Cison responded that Hill Development would be responsible but this is subject to change in the future. Aid. Bernstein noted that this space will be for leased retail and not converted to commercial condominiums; Mr. Cison concurred. It was noted that this is a vertical subdivision which separates the condominiums from the retail. Mr. Cison again concurred. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Plat of Resubdivision for Optima Views, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Newman in A&PW at the time). Aid. Bernstein mentioned for the record, that he was less than complimentary of the Zoning Board against handling of the last type 2 case sent to the Committee. He requested that staff forward his commendation to the ZBA and that they have made up for the last case with this one. He pointed out that the ZBA asked all the right questions and addressed the issues appropriately and gavid the -case the kind of credibility needed. P&D Committee Nttg. Minutes of 3. i 0.03 Page a (PDl 1 Vacant Building Ordinance Undate Aid. Bernstein noted that there was a recent case in the suburb of Lake Villa with respect to a vacant building. Fie requested that staff obtain a coPy of this new case. He said that his concern \%ith vacant buildings is the availability of demolition because he does not vivant to have the buildings condemned if there is the possibility of people addressing the problem. (P4) Ordinance 21-0-03 — Soecial Use for 1729 Sherman (Tvoe 2 Restaurant) Chairman Wynne brought attention to the transcript attached to the agenda item summary as requested by the Committee at the last meeting. The Committee requested to be provided a larger copy of the transcripts for easier reading in the future. She acknowledged the presence of Mr. Dux and the District Manager, Mr. Phil Macy. Aid. New7nan addressed Mr. Macy. He said that the Committee was informed by communication from the existing Subway owner that you personally receive a percentage of the gross from each Subway that opens up in your district as regional manager. He asked if this information were true and feels it is important to know because personally, he feels that if Mr. Macy is personally benefiting from this then all past discussion held is not as credible. He recalled Mr. Dux's analysis and theory on why two Subway's could co -exist and Mr. Macy's comments on why the analysis was correct. Mr. Macy introduced himself as the developing agent for Subwav's in the Chicagoland area. He said that can speak to the history of the development plans for downtown Evanston for Subway. He opened up the first location with a Mr. Dave Woods who is a resident of Evanston, 15 years ago. He has had that contract for 19 years and they have not placed another location in downtown Evanston in 15 years. He stated that based on recent developments in the last 5 years with the theatre district, additional hotel, and other planned developments, consideration of opening another Subway came up for the north shore area for Mr. Dux's restaurant. He said that Mr. Dux found a location in downtown Evanston, they researched the site and did a site review and are in the process of moving forward with this proposal. Mr. Macy pointed out that just based on the history, their plans are not to open as many Subway's in downtown Evanston due to the influx of recent development. He boasted that if that were his plans, he could of applied many times over the past 15 years for other locations throughout Evanston. He feels at this time, the proposal for another Subway in downtown Evanston makes sense and is appropriate. In response to Aid. tiewman's question, he informed the Committee that yes he does receive a percentage of how well the stores perform, however if the stores does not do well, this cost him money as well. Aid. Newman told Mr. Macy that he is trying to get a sense of how many more Subway's are planned for Evanston; to date there are 5 locations throughout Evanston. Mr. Macy responded that at this point, he does not know of any future plans for any additional Subway's for downtown Evanston. There may be future plans for other locations around Evanston, however those plans are not definite. He noted that there have been internal denials within the Subway Corporation for other locations in Evanston that have been proposed. P&D Comm ince Ntt_c. Minutes of 3-10-03 Page S Aid. Bernstein noted that he does not want to get into «hat was discussed and agreed upon in the meeting between Aid. Newman and the applicants because he was not privy to those conversations and it is not clear what credibility is at issue. He.stated that he does not want to get off on a tangent of how many Subway's are too many for downtown because their Zoning Ordinance does not allow this Committee to do so. Also, they are not in the business of negotiating a contract for the prior or future owner with respect to exclusivity. He feels the Zoning Board hit the point when they stated that our responsibility is to determine based on our standards whether or not a type 2 restaurant is going to exacerbate an existing problem. He noted that Streets & Sanitation staff has expressed that they do not feel there is a liner problem downtown. however he disagrees with this. He feels one of the main reasons there is a huge litter problem downtown is because the City does not enforce their statutes and the conditions set in the special use ordinances for the type 2 restaurants. He stressed that this is the City's problem and responsibility, therefore he does not view the Committee's function as a board reviewing the zoning process to determine competition or commercial feasibility of a particular applicant. To this extent, he requested to limit the discussion to whether or not the addition of Subway in this location is going to negatively impact the cumulative effect of garbage and transportation, because he feels these are the two main issues that need to be addressed. He noted that one consideration that Aid. Newman, as well as himself, was brought to bear by the other Subway owner in his testimony is regarding the existing parking problem downtown. He said that in many cases where there is an absentee owner running a storefront and allowing his personnel to park their vehicles in the meter parking spaces; they are essentially hurting the other businesses in the community. These arc the types ofissues that the Committee needs to look at and take into consideration. Aid. Newman agreed with Aid. Bernstein in what standards the Committee needs to deal with and realizes that their authority does not deal with the competition issue. However, he explained that the credibility issue that he referred to has to do with the promises that are made to the Council relating to conditions made with special use's. He informed that there was certain representation made to him in his meeting with the applicant in terms of when he sought to get information about this application because it is in his ward. Therefore, if they are going to believe some other representations that are being made here such as the owner being on site. the trash plan presented, etc., he felt it important to clear up some of the questions he had that relate to credibility of what was stated in the meeting held with the applicants. - Aid. Newman feels that whenever a type 2 restaurant is added to the downtown area, it will definitely add to the already existing garbage problem. He brought attention to the recently taken photos by staff of areas in downtown showing garbage overflowing in trashcans. He pointed out that some of the pictures were taken on Tuesday when there was a Monday pickup. He also pointed out the angled parking that is in this block of Sherman Avenue and the already existing difficulty with parking issues and the already existing accumulation of type 2 restaurants. With this over -accumulation comes the numerous garbage containers and dumpsters with each restaurant. He again pointed out the overflow of garbage blown into Oldberg Park and destroying the beautiful P&D Comminee Ntte Minutes of 3-10-03 Page 6 landscaping that is there. which is a humiliation to the Cit,.. He .emphasized his struggle with this because another type = restaurant will only add to all the problems that already exist in that immediate block. Also. with this particular type 2. it is not as if they are adding something new to the restaurant choices downtown because there is already one of the same franchise in this area. He stressed that the garbage situation must be dealt with now and it is the City's responsibility to make sure compliance is met. Chairman Wynne referred to the transcript where Mr. Dux is discussing having extra garbage pickup on the weekends and the cost of this added sen ice being S70 versus the S40 for regular pickups. 4ir. Dux said that discussion stems from him explaining to the ZBA that there are 1 I garbage cans that go along the south wall of that building in which 9 belong to another building. He continued that the 2 that do belong to this building, they propose move to the east side behind the building so that they are not at all visible from Sherman Avenue. He had asked around to other restaurants about weekend pickups or more frequent pickups and inquired to the three collection companies on services provided for weekends and the cost. He noted that only National does Sunday pickups and Onyx does Saturday's as a premium. He said that only one other larger restaurant in downtown Evanston has Sunday pickup due to their high volume weekend business. He feels that to the extent a business knowingly will have a high volume of garbage accumulation over the weekend, a Saturday afternoon pickup should eliminate the overflow until the regular Monday pickup service. Chairman Wynne feels it is critical to have weekend pickups and also feels this should be required of all fast food restaurants. She considers the difference in cost to be relatively small for the restaurant businesses to undertake in order to aid in the maintenance of the downtown area. This is clearly one of the issues that is of great concern to the Committee and it is also apparent from reading the transcript, that the ZBA is equally concerned. She realizes that such a requirement to have weekend garbage pickup would be hard to police and get a handle on, however due to the increasing problems with garbage downtovvm she asked staff; how possible this would be to weekend pickups. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Site Plan Committee with the past few type 2 restaurants they have looked at, has been requiring Sunday pickups. He noted that the pictures presented were taken by Property Standards Inspectors whose primary focus is on residential. He informed the Committee that because the garbage situation dow-nto%m has become such a big issue, he is relegating a property inspector every Monday morning to visit all of the dumpster sites of all the restaurants downtown. He further informed that they %%ill be citing businesses against the ordinance regulating that the lids on dumpsters must be closed. He said it will either be that the business pays the extra cost for a weekend pickup or pay the City for ticketing each week that they are cited. `fr. Janusz noted that the fee is S50 for the I" violation. Aid. Bernstein feels that the City needs to change their emphasis on this issue. Aid. Feldman expressed his strong opposition to this type 2 restaurant or any other type 2 restaurant request for Evanston at this time. He said that all the agreements and conditions with these type 2 special uses are never enforced. In all the time he has served on Council, he can not remember ever taken away a special use permit due to non- compliance of the conditions set. In his opinion, the over -abundance of type 2/fast food restaurants is killing Sherman Avenue, which is a vital corridor of the downtown area. P&D Comminee titte. �linutts of : • 1 U-03 Pace 7 These restaurants are making it less attractive to the uses that Evanston vearns for in the community. He agrees with Aid. Newman's comment that this block is beginning to look more like a food court. He strongly feels that particular area has reached an exasperation point and any additional fast food will further diminish the value of the street. He reiterated his strong opposition to this request and feels it is not a good addition to the City at this point. In light of his strong opposition, Aid. Feldman noted that he would be making a reference to put a moratorium on type 2 restaurants. Further discussion ensued regarding weekend garbage pickup. Aid. Kent pointed out that the problem is not with this applicant; the problem is already existing and it is the Iack of compliance which is the City's problem with enforcement. The Committee members agreed that the City should be able to close down an operation for garbage violations. Aid. Newman realizes that the problem is not with this applicant, in fact he feels Mr. Dux would be an asset to the downtown community. However, they need to start to draw the tine somewhere and begin addressing the increasing problems. Aid. Bernstein again stressed that the City need to change their way of doing things and finding what ever means necessary to police conditions that have been agreed upon. Aid. Newman asked if any inspectors work on the weekend. Mr. Wolinski replied that there are no inspector working on the weekend. This is an area that would also have to be addressed. Aid. Newman stated that if this is approved, he strongly emphasized that the staff and ZBA conditions that are listed on the agenda item sheet need to be incorporated into the ordinance. He has been informed by legal staff that item number 3 is not appropriate, however he stated for the record, that Mr. Dux has testified that he would be working in the facility for at least 40 hours per week. He let it be known that if this is approved, he would personally visit the facility frequently to make sure that this promise will be held. He would still prefer that this assurance by Nit. Dux could somehow be mentioned with the ordinance. Aid. Kent still questions the fact that the problem is already existing and what the City can do with the current offenders. Aid. Bernstein suggested that the City start by changing their attitude and emphasis on enforcing the conditions set with each special use. He suggested that staff' begin a project to go back and look at each special use and do a sweep of the businesses for compliance and figure out some type of schedule to adhere to for inspections. From conclusion of the discussion above, it was the consensus of the Committee to introduce this item tonight and refer back on their agenda to review the amended ordinance. The amended ordinance should incorporate every condition listed on the staff summary sheet except item #3. The addition of weekend pickup should be included also. Aid. Bernstein moved approval to introduce and refer back to Committee, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. JEB Nqb . Planning & Development Committee Minutes of March 24, 2003 Room 2403 - 7:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 10.2003 MEETING Aid. Kent moved approval of the March loth minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION iPll Request for Building Permit Fee Waiver— 1813 Lvons Mr. Neil Davidson explained his request for waiver of building permit fees on this project. He informed the Committee that when he put this program together and presented to the City of Evanston, one of the pieces of the program he originally recommended was to have the City waive all the permit fees. He said this was done with the project at 1816 Darrow and request that the same consideration be give to this project as well. He noted that both housing projects are for affordable housing and the profit margin is already very small. He said that permit fees were not budgeted for and he was anticipating the City's assistance with this in the project. Several Committee members did not recall that agreement; Chairman Wynne asked, for further clarification. Mr. Davidson responded that this was discussed when he presented this project to the City staff and requested then for consideration of a waiver of all permit fees, including the sewer and water hookups to defray some of their cost. He noted that they are selling the units for $175,000. Ald. Newman asked for clarification of the building permit fees being waived for the project at 1816 Darrow. Mr. Wolinski explained that they did waive the building permit fees for that project. He said the City is also contributing for this current duplex project as well at $50,000 for each unit out of HOME funds. Aid. Newman asked about City funds contributed toward the 1816 Darrow project. Mr. Davidson informed that he bought the land for $1 from the City. Mr. Wolinski added that this Iand was owned by the City as part of a tax scavenger sale 10 years ago, which was the fourth property purchases as such for the Habitat for Humanity program but was never built on. Ald. Nev*man pointed out that there is a difference with the Habitat for P&D Comminee %Itg. Minutes of 3124 03 Page 2 Humanity program whereas absolute no profit is gained with that organization. He asked Aid. Kent's feeling on this request. Aid. Kent noted that Habitat for Humanity only had an opportunity to build on 3 of the 4 lots purchased for the program, therefore was a good opportunity. for the property to still be used for some type of affordable housing. He pointed out that this property, 1813 Lyons, was formerly had a vacant house that was unsafe to the neighborhood. He let it be known that he supports the request for waiver of fees totaling in the amount of 56,174.80, for the simple reason that he believes Mr. Davidson is already into the project. He feels they are making progress and that the building is going up well. He recalled his concerns he stated the last time Mr. Davidson was before the Committee regarding neighborhood Iabor participation in affordable housing projects. He has a list of individuals for recommendation, one being in the 5's ward and one outside of the ward. He also knows another gentleman from the neighborhood who has worked as a laborer with Mr. Davidson. Therefore, he feels his expectations with these affordable housing projects is working and Mr. Davidson is living up to his part of the deal as agreed. However, he pointed out that he has still not received the information he previously requested on the 1816 Darrow project such as the pro forma, information on the seminar given, and the list of eligible families in the position to by the house. Aid. Kent said that he would still like to see this information and the current status on the 1816 Darrow property, as well as the same information with the current project at 1813 Lyons. He concluded that he still supports this request for waiver of permit fees. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee of an issue that was mentioned in stall's memorandum, that not all of these fees are soft costs. He pointed out that the City does provide about $904 worth of water meters, other water tapping valves and sleeves that are part of this total amount requested for waiving. He noted that the staff recommendation is that if the Council is going to waive the fee, that it be kept in mind that these are cost that the Water Department actually incurs to by the materials and are usually passed on along to the developer. Therefore staff recommends, if Council approves, to waive the fees less the hard cost as he previously noted. Aid. Newman brought up the standard on hardship that should be considered with the issue of waiving permit fees. He feels no real hardship has been proven or shown on paper by way of a pro forma or numbers to see the cost versus any profit. He also noted the City funds that have already been forwarded for this project of 5100,000. He recalled the matter and discussion when the applicants for the Jacob Blake Manor were before them requesting waiver of building permit fees. Aid. Kent remembered that discussion and agreed with Ald. Newman. He also recalled that he did vote against the waiver of fees for Jacob Blake Manor, however he feels this is a different type of project with a much smaller margin. Ald. Bernstein agreed with Aid. Newman on the issue of showing actual hardship with numbers on paper, as it related to the standard. Chairman Wynne suggested that this should be held in Committee to give the applicant the opportunity to put together a pro forma and to discuss with staff the provisions of the HOME funds. P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of 324 03 Page 3 Aid. Newman moved to bold this item io The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. would still like to see the pro forma and project. Committee, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Ald. Kent reminded Mr. Davidson that he information requested on the 1816 Darrow (P21 Ordinance 30-0-03 — Svecial Use for 174I Sherman (Tvve 2 Restaurant) Chairman Wynne called on the applicants, Mr. Gary Seltzer, President of Gary Poppins and Peter Zullo, Executive Vice -President. Mr. Seltzer gave background info on himself, informing the Committee that he has been a resident of Evanston most of his life. His Father and Grandfather ran a bakery in Evanston for 45 years. He also has been in the restaurant business for 25 years and is very excited about the development growth in downtown Evanston over the past years. He informed the Committee of his culinary educational background and the fact that he had an executive chef that worked on the formula for their popcorn. He feels that their popcorn will be a very unique operation to the Evanston community because it is unlike any other fast food establishment. His shop will offer gourmet popcorn and frozen custard of the highest quality, similar to Garrett's Popcorn Shop in do%mtowm Chicago. Mr. Zullo added that this shop is going to not only have a retail operation but also a gift ends for corporate and website purchases. He noted that if the operation takes off they may eventually franchise this and advance further with the business; as of now this will be the flagship store. He said they are optimistic from the business relationships that they currently have that the business will go further. Ald. Newman asked if this store will be selling bags of popcorn similar to the movie theatre where it is available to open up and walk down the street and eat once you leave the shop. Mr. Seltzer responded that this operation will more or less have customers buying popcorn in volume such as in tins and sealed bags. However, the popcorn is usually not consumed on the premises, so it is possible the many people will open once they leave the store. Mr. Zullo added that because the popcorn and custard is consumable, it is obvious that people will probably open and eat after they leave the store. However, they do not anticipate because of the type of business they run, that it is going to have a large portion of it to be consurnables. He repeated that there will be no eating/seating on the property and they do not anticipate a lot on the street. They also do not believe that they will have a large contribution to the'garbage situation, however they have agreed to do 250' in either direction of their property for clean up 3 or 4 times a day. He noted to the Committee that both he and Mr. Seltzer are 1971 graduate from Evanston Township and this is their home town and they take pride in its appearance and are more than willing to contribute to the cleanliness of the community. Ald. Newman informed the applicants of his ongoing concerns with the already existing garbage problems and parking and traffic problems caused by too many type 2 establishments in downtown Evanston, especially within this block. He noted that one of the main problems is lack of staff to go out and enforce the conditions agreed upon for the special use for these type 2 restaurants. He asked staff if there are any inspectors available on the weekends. Mr. Wolinski responded that there are no weekend inspectors. The inspectors in his Property Standards Division main responsibility is for residential inspections and are on tight agendas to keep up with their already full P&D Committee .Mtg. Minutes of 3124 03 Page a scheduled inspections. He noted that he is already pulling I inspector from their routine to do the Monday morning sweep of dowTtto%%m for garbage. Aid. Newsman reiterated that this is why the problems have escalated in the do%Nmto%m because there just is not enough staff to monitor and enforce the type 2's to comply with the conditions of their special use. He used Jamba Juice as an example of one of the worse offender's downtown, although it is one of his family's favorites. He noted that there are many other favorite eateries in that same area that are also guilty of not complying with the conditions they promised before this Committee to follow but are clearly not abiding by. This is the problem he has with yet another type 2 application requesting to go in with another list of conditions and promises to abide by, but not City enforcement or monitoring to make sure of compliance. He made clear that he is not accusing this applicant of knowingly refusal to comply, however he is only going by the example and pattern that has been established with the already too many type 2 establishments with this 1-2 block radius. Mr. Wolinski informed Aid. Newman that staff is in the process of pulling all the type 2 special use approvals since 1995 and contacting the business to remind them of their responsibilities in conforming with the conditions set in their ordinances. He said that they would also be informing the business owners of the City's position to close them down if compliance is not being followed. Ald. Newman did a count of the type 2 special uses within that area and asked for staff to substantiate for the record. He counted on the immediate block all the way around, 10 special uses and as you go l-% blocks further pass Church Street in either direction, he counts up to I6. He noted that with this request and the Subway, would make the count 18. He said there is no other neighborhood or ward that has this many type 2/fast food restaurants within a 11/2 block radius. He asked that staff provide him with the actual number of type 2 special uses that are within that block. Aid. Bernstein asked how many employees are anticipated in the shop at one time and where they plan to park. Mr. Seltzer said himself and 3 other employees and the parking plan is to use any either of the City lots downtown. Aid. Bernstein said that he is contemplating to ask for some clarification of special use or anything for which they give zoning relief. He referred to discussion at the last meeting regarding Subway when it was pointed out that this it is the City's problem with enforcement of the conditions with special uses. He asked the applicant if they would have any problem with putting it in the record as a condition of their special use that if they are found to be in violation of any of the provisions of the special use ordinance, that their license could be taken away. Chairman Wynne pointed out that the City has that right already. Aid. Bernstein said that this has never been evoked; yet the City does have the ability to remove the special use in generic zoning law. Mr. Zullo responded that he feels as a community, this is a legitimate concern that they share. He said that if there is a way that they can uniformly apply, they are willing to be a part of the solution rather than a problem. However, to select their special use and business because they are the applicants that carve up afterwards, then he would like to see the existing problem addressed because he sharks in the Committee's feelings about this. He does not want to carve out an exception for them that doesn't exist for everybody. Ald. Bernstein said that he is proposing that there won't be an exception of them because he would like to see this provision for all special uses, P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 3 24103 Page S past and present. Chairman Wynne noted that they have been having this very intense discussion in Council and this Committee about the level of garbage, which is clearly directly related to the collaboration of particularly type 2 restaurants. She asked Mr. Alterson to clarify- that if someone violates the condition of a special use, can the City revoke the special use and what the procedure would be. Mr. Alterson confirmed that the special use can be revoked and he would ticket the restaurateur, before the Council does anything, for the violation of the condition in the special use. This could go before Administrative Adjudication where some kind of fine could be placed and non- compliance would further this to the next step of taking away the business special use. Ald. Newman insists that there is obviously a need for enforcement, therefore there is a definite need to have the funding for this enforcement in order to provide for an additional inspector. Ms. Aiello informed the Committee that a task force has been formed of several key staff members who would be directly involved, who are looking at the maintenance of downtown and working on solutions of way to address this issue. Aid. Tisdahl asked about the possibility of Aid. Feldman's suggestion of having a moratorium on type 2 restaurants at this time. Aid. Newman responded that even if there were a moratorium, it does not change the fact of the need for additional funding for an additional inspector to accomplish a means of enforcement. Chairman Wynne informed the applicant that the Committee just received the material before them this evening and still do not have the transcript. Therefore, the Committee will not act on this tonight and recommends holding in Committee. Aid. Bernstein so moved Chairman Wynne's recommendation, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ald. Bernstein also suggested. that from talking to the landlord and his promise to work with his tenants on the garbage issue and complying with their conditions, that consideration be given to adding some language to the ordinance to give the City "teeth" in being able to enforce this promise. He suggested that the landlord become an applicant to enable the City to do so. This will also allow the landlord to be more pro -active in terms of monitoring dumpsters and enforcing what is done on his property. He asked Mr. Magill if he would be willing to do this. Mr. Magill responded by informing the Committee that some of the worst violators of the garbage problem are the people that are actually putting their dutnpsters up against his property off the alley to the south. He assured that he personally has confronted some of the people, one being Panda Express and also Einstein Bagels who have been accused of being one of the worst violators. However, his experience with Einstein is that they have always cooperated with him whenever he has complained to them about their garbage pile up. He noted that he has property in other areas such as Chicago, and truly believes that enforcement helps this issue. As for being added as an applicant, with this being his property, he feels his neck is already on the line at this point. (P3) Ordinance 21-0-03 — Svecial Use for 1729 Sherman (Tvne 2 Restaurant) Mr. Dux distributed to the Committee a handout outlining the Refuse Ordinance summary for the City of Chicago. Also included with this was his observations and comments on the comparison of the Evanston downtown area to the Chicago ordinance. He noted that the fine for violating the ordinance is not less than S200 and not more than P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 324/03 Page 6 S500 for each use. He also informed the Committee that he spoke with an associate business owner of his in Milwaukee who said that they have a similar ordinance to the City of Chicago with the same fine amount starting at S200 that is charged to the property owner. Aid. Newman said that he has given lots of thought to this matter since their last meeting. He stated that he is sympathetic and acknowledges Mr. Dux's efforts and time put into this matter. However, the Committee is bound by specific standards, one of them being will this special use have a negative accumulative effect on the surrounding area. In this case, the addition of another special use, of any type, would add to the accumulative effect of too many special uses. He feels it has reached the time to stop adding to the problem and start addressing the garbage and traffic situation caused by the over- abundance of special uses and type 2 restaurants. This has become an accumulative burden to the City to handle. Therefore, he feels they have reached a time when this is going to cost the City some substantial money to clean up. He said to have an additional inspector is going to cost $50-60,000 before benefits. He said to that Evmark is supposed to be paying for the additional trash pickups, which is made up of the property owners. However, it is the property owners that are bringing in the special uses, so they are getting the benefits of the rent and passing the problem on to the City. He said it is also time to find a way to monitor and start enforcing the conditions set upon all the special uses to get a handle on the garbage and other problems in the downtown. area. Aid. Newman said the owner of this property is pushing us; we not only have Subway before us but a popcorn shop as well. He feels beside himself and at the end of his rope with type 2 restaurants. He does not know how the vote will go with this, but pleaded that if this does pass, he's asking that staff be able to have the manpower and ability to enforce any special uses to adhere to the conditions set in their ordinances. He is assured that passing this request would be a mistake. If they all agree to wanting a clean downtown, then they are going to have to have the staff and put the money into it. He urged to not vote in favor of this if not willing to find the funding for an additional inspector or pickup service provided. He said it is not fair to his neighborhood and the people of his ward; there is not any other neighborhood in the City that has 18 special uses in the same area. He said that they have a distinction in their ordinance, type i with silverware and glasses and then there is type 2 with disposable paper and plastic: He feels that whoever came up with the type I distinction is brilliant because they had the foresight to know the type 1 eateries would not create this paper cup, trash and garbage problem. He noted that this is why they let the type 1, sit dawn restaurants to come in without having to come before Council. He strongly feels that this use will not add anything to the downtown and if they do decide not to pass this, it will basically be moving in the direction of beginning to find ways to start solving the problem. Aid. Newman said that he has a vision for what Sherman Avenue should be and he feels that they are doing that with the Klututik project, which will attract a new atmosphere and different types of stores. He also feels this project will be doing a favor to the downtown business and building owners. As Mr. Dux said earlier, that originally the City helped create this marketplace by having the Hill project and putting millions of dollars into the new parking garage. He feels confident of having stronger aspirations for the downtown and there is no need justifying a second P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 324103 Page 7 Subway in the downtown. However, there is a crying out in the community for a clean downtown. With all said, Aid. Newman stands in opposition of this request. Aid. Bernstein said that he also has re-evaluated his position on this since the last meeting. He apologized with Mr. Dux, but explained that when Aid. Feldman spoke at the last meeting and talked about his vision for Sherman Avenue. He has since then walked that block from Einstein Bagels to Osco's and obtained a better look at what is actually there, he can fully understand Aid. Newman and Aid. Feldman's concerns as stated. He also had an occasion to talk to many Northwestern students to get an ideal of their needs and most responded that they would like to see more retail and feel there is enough food establishments already. He noted that Aid. Newman has talked to a group of business owners in the downtown area who categorically would like to try and enhance the downtown scape. He said where he was previously willing to accept as a compromise a laundry list of conditions; his actually feeling is that it is time now to start addressing the current and on -going problems that exist downtown instead of adding to them. Aid. Bernstein concluded that although he believes that Mr. Dux would be true to his word, he too can not support this due to all the concerns talked about. Aid. Tisdahl stated that her opinion on this is persuaded with the realization of knowing that an extra inspector needs to be hired costing over 550,000, to address and monitor the enforcement of conditions set with all the special uses. Aid. Newman clarified that the City budget just reduced one inspector position and Mr. Wolinski has declared that he has does not have an inspector that works on the weekends and would have to pay overtime in order to cover the weekends at this point. He said the problem that would result with this is fairness to the other Alderman and attention to their wards. This is not what he wants to accomplish, however his intention is not to take away from other wards and hiring an additional inspector would help resolve that situation. Aid. Kent recalled that he mentioned at the last meeting that whether or not this Subway comes in is not the real problem. He admitted that he would like to see Mr. Dux business somewhere in Evanston and has no problem with having an additional Subway in Evanston. However, what he does yield to is the perrogative of those Alderman who have the downtown. He said the only thing he takes exception to is when they say they want a clean downtown, whereas he would like to see all the other areas of Evanston that are in need to clean up shown the same interest and consideration. He does not feel it takes the hiring of another inspector to resolve this, but extra work on the part of the inspectors the City has. He said that when there is any garbage accumulation in the rear of buildings, off alleys, it is the inspector's job to require the owner of the property to add more garbage dumpsters or increase the pickups. He knows that most owners do not want to do this because it also requires extra cost, on the other hand, in the case of businesses that do not want to do their part in keeping their area clean, he has no problem with shutting the business down either. Ald. Kent pointed out that the downtown/Sherman Avenue already has more support than the other wards with Evmark and the Chamber of Commerce. He noted his opposition to this special use as well, however he would like it understood that he views the Council/Alderman all being in the same pot. However, in his opinion, he feels that over the years he has been on Council, P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 3 ?4'03 Page 8 that all the Alderman and wards are not in the same pot and are not given the same consideration. He reiterated that it is not this Subway or the other special use request before them this evening that are the problem, it is the existing businesses that the City has allowed to come in before them that have abused their privileges and conditions. Chairman Wynne said that she also has a concern about the negative accumulative effect as it relates to the standards. She said with respect to any special use, a negative accumulative effect is in combination with all of the other special uses in the particular area. She interprets this in the ordinance, in this instance, to look at all of the special uses and determine that there may be a negative accumulative effect in having too many type 2 special uses in the area. She sympathizes with Mr. Dux and agrees with her colleagues that doing business with him would be an asset to the community and that he would maintain the property well, however the concern and issue of the existing garbage and traffic problems downtown needs to be addressed. She feels that adding another Subway to the downtown is not the real problem. In her judgement, it is the fact that they have reached the negative impact point at this time with respect to type 2 restaurants. She said that what she is hearing from the people is the lost of any sense of community of what they formerly had in Evanston on Sherman Avenue, which are individual Evanston -based businesses. Instead it is appearing more like a food court. She understands that they can not necessarily dictate that they have home -based businesses there, however they do have the ability to say and realize that they have reached the negative impact point of additional type 2 restaurants. She also is in opposition of this request. With all said, the recommendation to grant Ordinance 21-0-03 for a special use for 1729 Sherman for a type 2 restaurant (Subway) received a vote of 0 voting aye, 5 voting nay. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu ine E. rownlee MINUTES Planning & Development Committee Special ;Meeting March 31, 2003 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Alderman Present: ].Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl..M. Wynne. Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein Staff Present: J. NVolinski. J. Aiello. A. Alterson. M. Barn.. J. Burdick, C. Brzezinski. J. Brownlee Others Present: Mayor Morton. Aid. Jean -Baptiste, Aid. atiioran. Members of Plan Commission: Presiding Official: Aiderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman A'ynne called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION' Chairman Wynne announced that she would like to start with discussion from Mr. Siegel about the legal opinion that was received from him. Secondly, she would like to receive comment from Mr. Wolinski, providing staff's opinion and summary from Site PIan and Appearance Review discussion, which had three meetings discussing Binding Appearance Review. Third, will be input from the Plan Commission and community, and finally ending with Committee discussion. Mr. Siegel reminded that he was asked in January 2003 to prepare an opinion with respect to the problems which were raised on appearance review. He noted that previously. staff and he had submitted an ordinance without standards. In memorandum to the Committee, he has raised certain issues which were unresolved: 11hether the final decision making body should be a subcommittee in essence of the Appearance Committee; 11hether City Council would he involved in the final decision making, and; What specific projects would be subject to appearance review. He indicated at the meeting in January, that he felt the problem that the standards was a particularly difficult one in light of the cases which are limited in Illinois on the request of an architectural review. Subsequently, Ald. Wynne asked for answers to 2 specific questions: What the legal standards are in Illinois with respect to aesthetic standards, requesting that they be 5p. P&D Committee %ita. Minutes cif March 31. 2003 Pale carefully delineated. Second question being ►►hether it is possible to create a threshold level ab►%e which everything is a PUD and includes appearance re►ie►► aspects to it. Mr. Siegel referred to his memorandum dated March 26. 2003. which ►►as distributed to the Council and mane others in attendance. fie notes his conclusion that based on Illinois la►►, it makes it extremely difficult to come up ►►ith standards that ►will meet the Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts review. Ob►iousl►, ho►►ever it does not mean that it could not be done, but the kinds of standards which are generally employed simply have not met the standards which the courts would insist on. Mr. Siegel pointed out that in his memorandum he referred to 3 Appellate Court decisions beginning with "Puc;sener Homes hrc. r f i1►age of Olimpia Fields " hack in 1968: "R..S.T. Builders, Inc. r. ! illage of Bolingbrook and. the most recent opinion being "Waterfront Estates Develnpment. Inc. r. Cite- of Palos Hills ". He said in those cases the Appellate Court has reversed standards such as harmonious conformance, inappropriate materials. durable quality. good proportions. exposed accessories, and monotony of design. He said generally because the view in Illinois is in essence while aesthetics can he part of consideration in regulations which include other police power aspects. the problem of determining what is desirable from an appearance or an aesthetic standpoint, because it is very subjective and the language which has been used in the various ordinances, apparently do not meet the standards that the courts are looking for. Interestingly enough. he said the cases all indicated that even when the initial decision is made by an appearance commission or an architectural control committee. etc.. with final decision in the corporate authorities (being City Council or Village Board). that still required standards which the court felt were insufficient. He did indicate that the law in Illinois appears to be. specifically when zoning cases arise. that aesthetics can be part of the determination as to whether the Zoning Ordinance is reasonable. He cited Rathkopf. which is the leading text on this subject and also cites the City's case of **LaSalle National Bank v. City of Evanston". where he argued that the denial of multiple family zoning was justified in part by the plan of the City at that time which indicated a gradual diminution in height going from the central business district to the lake front. Mr. Siegel continued that he argued at that time that was an aesthetic consideration. which under the earlier decisions of the US. Supreme Court could give rise to a basis for the operation of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the court bought this argument and cited some earlier Appellate Court decisions that indicated aesthetic considerations were coupled with zoning or something which on that determinative could help form the basis for acceptable zoning ordinance. He concluded that portion of his opinion by stating that the difficult in drafting standards is apparent. He said even if appeals went to City Council it would still be very difficult. in light of these case. to come up with acceptable standards. He said that if we restricted the standards to an appearance commission or a bode which was concerned with aesthetics primarily, not withstanding the fact that even our present ordinance talks about relationship to public health. safety and welfare, and all of the ordinances which were thrown out in the referenced cases also paid lip service to the same concept. Mr. Siegel referred to part I1 of his memorandum. which refers to Ald. Wynne's second question of whether or not the planned development procedure could offer some solution. Sp. P&D C,mminee Otte. Minutes of March 31. 200" Pace ? His opinion concluded that en tact this method offers the best way of writing into a police power ordinance aesthetic :tandards. which coupled ►with other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance. have a ►erg• cood chance ofsur►ival. He cited several cases involving PUD's ►►hick indicate the acceptance b% the Illinois Supreme Court and the .appellate Court of the concept of a PUD encompassing a very broad spectrum of land use considerations beyond the normal perimeters put in zoning. Therefore, he concluded that his recommendation would be that they look at amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Particularly the ordinance provisions related to planned unit developments. He suggested two options: First. to emphasize and to add aesthetic considerations in the standards. which then may not sun-i► a and an architectural standard that might survive with PUD's because of the broader application. Secondly. to determine areas in which all types of uses should be treated as planned developments. He cited. without tr%ing to be inclusive, a few areas which he thought the application for planned unit developments that might form the basis for utilizing PUD's for aesthetic features. He went down the list of substances that the threshold could be. as listed in his memorandum: • Any residential development beyond two -flats: • Any office or commercial development containing more than two stores or in the alternative a number of offices: • All industrial developments: • Any land use exceeding a lot area of 20,000 square feet; • Any alteration of existing structures falling within the above -mentioned criteria which results in an increase of 25% or more of floor area dwelling units, offices or other pertinent criteria. Mr. Siegel noted that some of these are recognizable from the previous draft of the amendment to the Appearance Review Ordinance. He pointed out that there is a catch to this procedure. which is the fact that planned unit developments are normally listed as special uses and each district normally now lists PUD's as such. He said the Supreme Court. first with the Chicago Heights case and more recently the Kiaeren v. Village of Lisle. has changed the law. It used to be when the decision on special uses ►►as made by a legislative bode, that was to be reviewed as if it were challenged in court. in other words., -what went on before the le6slative body•►►as not to be considered, the case was to be tried based upon evidence before the court the first time. He said this followed a general proposition that zoning of all kinds is basically a legislative function and therefore is reviewed with the question of whether there is an abusive discretion by the legislative body. Therefore. the presumption applied that a legislative act is valid and the burden is on the party attaching the Iegislative act. He pointed out that a denial of a special uses always have to be justified by baring substantial relation to public health, safer• and welfare. Ho►ve►er. case after case. the Supreme and the Appellate Court held that decisions on special uses if made by the legislative body were to be reviewed under the standards as in the case of LaSalle National Bank with the presumption of validity. He said in some instances special uses were granted by a Zoning Board of Appeals or a Plan Commission haying final jurisdiction. He said in those instances, those decisions haying been made by an administrative agency, was subject to administrative review act Sp. UD Committer Mtg. Minutes of %larch 31.:00: Pace 4 based upon the Chicago heights and the Klaeren cases and in his opinion. a terrible decision in the 2" district called Gellic s s. Count% of Lake. In that case. the Appellate Court through the_2`` district said all decisions on special uses are subject to the administrator of rcvie« in %%hich case %ou look at the record and don't take anv new evidence for the court. He said the Gellic case based upon Klaeren. which held that the decisions on special uses %%erc administratis a and quasi judicial, not legislative. Fee said those decisions are no%k subject to the Administrati%e Review Act. which means that any decision is made on the record which «as made for the hearing body. He pointed out that there are all types of technical problems %%hich he needs to discuss with staff because it means in effect that the City Council or the Plan Commission, etc.. is in a position instead of being a neutral arbitrator may be put in the position of making final decision. This means that all the evidence is by the proponent. nothing by the opponents, and if City Council or Village Board doesn't like it. there is nothing on which to base a defense if this goes to court. Mr. Siegel said this is important because if the City adopts the special use PUD approach, it probably %gill be subject to the Administrative Review Act. This means that hearings on the special use are going to be based upon evidence, which would be produced before whatever body hears the special use. This presently would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. This also means that if City Council sees an application coming up. they may instruct the staff to take a position. He said normally staff gives technical advise and information and does not take a position. Mr. Siegel said that with this caveat and with the limitations of these two decisions, it appears in his mind that their best chance of survi%-ing a challenge of an ordinance which has major aesthetic standards, lies with utilizing the special use technique, He added the fact of the matter is this is a N ery difficult proposition if you want to make it "binding;". He believes the best chance to make it binding. %whether the decision is made by the Appearance Committee or City Council. etc.. is to use the PUD/special use method. He added that this will also involve. however based upon these recent cases. the necessity of the hearing body being still neutral. Aid. Tisdahl asked Mr. Siegel if he believes there %►ill be more lawsuits as a result if such an ordinance is adopted. Nfr. Siegel responded that he has had more litigation in the last 5 years compared to the past 35 years with the City. He does believe there will be more lawsuits if this ordinance is adopted. Chairman Wynne asked for comments from members of the audience at this time. Mr. John ltacsai. asked if Cite Council has collected any matter from the various surrounding suburbs who have binding review because it %%ould be beneficial to know other communities experience with this. %fr. Richard Cook answered that they have looked at all the binding appearance reviews in the surrounding communities and have had representatives from the different municipalities come in and talk with them. He vowed that those representatives talked of no lawsuits experienced out of the norm. Aid. Newman stated that they have heard from Corporation Counsel and the Plan Commission and noted that everyone has their own constituents who have expressed a lot of concern about some of the directions of development and the unsatisfactory examples of Sp. P&D Comminre %ttc. Minutes of March 31, 240: Pace t architecture going on. He continued that the Plan Commission ;kent through their process and recommended to the Committee a tray to deal with this problem by haying an appearance review ordinance. He stated that if the Corporation Counsel's office is doing a good job. all problems. obstacles and issues of concern. %%hether people agree with them or not. will be brought to attention. He said it is Legal's job to inform Council. City staff, etc. whether or not the proposals that are on the table are going to be problematic in the future. He is confident that Corporation Counsel is doing his job by telling us what the pitfalls might very well be. From his point of ; ie«. he would rather solve the problem in a way that puts the City in sirong position. He pointed out that Mr. Siegel has explained that if they add some type of appearance component to the planned development process it would be a much more feasible approach. Mr. Hans Friedman. member of Site flan and Appearance Review Committee. said that he has been involved with this issue since 1998. He gave history of the progression from the beginning when SPAARC did the investigation into binding review. then moved onto the Plan Commission involvement «7th the subcommittee chaired by Richard Cook. then presentation to P&:D Committee. He informed the Committee that the 2 meetings of SP.kARC concerning this matter were very democratic with no decision or conclusion agreed upon. He expressed his concern with staff needs and time to accommodate the additional work that would be involved. He is also concerned kith all the projects that will fall by the wayside that would not be included in the PUD's. which he feels are just as important to Evanston's architectural environment as any of the big projects. He said that these are the pedestrian level projects that are seen directly from the street and sidewalks. He said the architectural visual environment of the community is seen from this level. not from many stories above the ground and he feels this is what counts. He said as important as projects are at the sidewalk level. these are the apes of projects that %%ill be ignored if they take the PUD approach. He stressed that this is why Mr. Mylott. Mr. Cook and himself put so much time into this so as to cover all the projects that should require appearance review. He noted that they also put a lot of time into talking with other communities finding out their experience "Ith binding appearance review. Mr. Friedman informed the Committee that they did not find one case in Glenyie«. Wilmette. Park Ridge, %%hick are communities that are more compatible Mth Evanston than Schaumburg and Arlington Heights. He pointed out that the Sign Ordinance is binding and has language in it that should be in the appearance review ordinance. There is the Presemation Ordinance that sets the standards, which is a binding appearance review. He questions why- this ordinance should be any different in implementing. Mr. Dave Galloway. 728 Noves Street. President of Design Evanston. He informed that Design Evanston has worked with the Plan Commission on this binding appearance review for some time. He said they reviewed numerous ordinances from around the Chicagoland area as well as nationalordinancesoutside of this state. He seconded Mr. Friedman's comments and noted that in all of their research and talking to staff from different communities who are in charge of implementing their respective ordinance. that he never heard of one law suit. He noted that he was chairman of the Preservation Commission when they ',vent from advisory to binding appearance review. He said prior to that, everyone's outlook was that the City is going to be sued with numerous lawsuits 5p. P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of March 11. 90 Pace 6 from angn residents. His therr% at the time ►►as ►►hat the Preservation Commission needed %tas some substantial stature. ►►hich the► ►►ould get through the binding appearance re► ie►►. He said the Commission also became more compatible and understanding and as a consequence to this. there has probabl% been less dissension in ['reservation Commission and less antagonistic or counterproductive arguments for them than when the% had adwison. powers. Ile does not recall and la%%suits that have been brought up as a result of the binding appearance ro iew in presen-ation. Aid. Newman pointed out that there ha►e been la►►suits in the historic district. Mr. Galloway stated that the historic district is different. He asked what other ordinances has this City passed where there is some agreed upon exposure to some level. to a lawsuit and how much of that is general practice. He also noted his hesitation with going to a special use through the PUD process for the same reasons fir. Friedman stated. He said that unless you start defining very small-scale projects as being special uses or falling into the PUD category, these projects ►%ill be omitted from appearance review. which he feels is very essential to the average person. He feels the threshold number needs to he reviewed carefully and should the threshold be different for different zoning districts and areas. Mr. Galloway concluded that he truly believes that this binding appearance review will not deter excellent architecture. It will however deter below average architecture. Aid. Newman said that one of the things he took out of Mr. Siegel's memo is based on his experiences in being on Council and dealing with planned developments. He pointed out and it has been mentioned in the SPA.kRC minutes, that when these developments reach Council level. thev do not have architectural skills. This was also referred to the Plan Commission as well. He said that one of the things he has seen missing from their deliberations on planned developments is having the advise or having the PIan Commission take a much more aggressive advisory role on the architectural aspects. He said what needs to be approved is the planned development process for the big projects and institutionalize architectural ad► ice. He used the Roszak development on Chicago Avenue as an example of a large-scale project where Council could have used more architectural advice and input before approving. He feels that Mr. Siegel's opinion %611 work for the bigger projects. however some other means of architectural review needs to be considered for the smaller scale projects. Mr. Richard Cook agreed with Aid. Newman's last statement. He pointed out the scale, which was mentioned by Nir. Friedman. is pan of what the large project is all about. He said the scale means a lot and the type of project. He realizes that they can't make ever\lhing a PUD. Chairman 'W}nne agreed. She said the discussion at this point is with regards to Mr. Siegel's advise that a straight binding appearance review ordinance will not survive legal scrutiny. according to the case la►w presented. The question now is if they made most projects a PUD and included some form of binding appearance review with design standards, then this apparently stands a much better chance of surviving legal attack. She pointed out other important questions that need to be considered is appropriate staffing to implement, what will be the threshold level, which Mr. Friedman has indicated needs to be low to make sure you capture a number of smaller scale buildings. The other critical issue is the process and the question of is this the right tool to achieve what they want. Aid. Ive%%man pointed out that the right threshold needs to be Sp. P&D Commirtec Size. Minutes of %larch 3 [. ZM11 Psec examined. such as half acre. which is 20.000 square feet. He said assuming this threshold %were in effect. then pr,�iects such as the Dubin dcwelopment, the orange -balcony building and mane others %would. hawe tonne under the PUD approach for binding appearance review%. The buildings and developments that have come under the most comments and concern would fall under the special use category for PUD's. Mr. Barn• Greenberg. architect with Design Evanston. Ile disagrees with the PUD approach. He said that this would solve part of the problem. however he feels Mr. Friedman is correct on the smaller projects that will be missed with the PUD approach. He pointed out problems in Ald. \loran's ward with teardoww•ns and replacement structures of large proportion: these are the types of projects that also need binding appearance rew•iewv. As in the zoning or building ordinance. if it is something that is clear on the client level. then the architect will use the ordinance as a tool. He feels the residential architect in Evanston is becoming horrible and in some cases, is more disturbing that the larger scale developments mentioned by Ald. Newman. He stressed that there is a need for design standards in Evanston. - Mr. Doug Doetsch. 'Member of the Plan Commission. He agrees with Mr. Siegel's opinion of the planted development approach as being one solution, but feels it is the second best solution. He questioned the 3 cases cited in the opinion and pointed out that they were all summary general and seem more procedural ordinances. He pointed out examples from the 3 cases of the general language that he refers to. He noted that the Platt Commission's draft is 40 paces lone and very in depth with guidelines, pictures, dravwings. etc. He questions the similarity of what they are presenting compared to these cases in other municipalities and how comparable are their ordinances to their 40 page proposal. Mr. Siegel responded that the original draft ordinance adopted these general criteria. which he reviewed. He noted that he is a lawyer. not an architect, and the standards seemed extremely vague. He felt that all 40 pages. as voluminous as it is. would be very difficult to defend because he did not Find them specific enough. However. he is not saving that it is impossible if you can come up with standards strong enough to withstand scrutiny in the courts. He said the case law in Illinois has definitely frowwmed upon the concept simply because it is in the eye of the beholder. He did affirm that the 3 cases he cited their guidelines were not nearly as extensive as the Plan Commission draft. 'sir. Doetsch asked if any of the cases state that there can't be anv subjective proponent. fir. Siegel said that is what's generalized. He said in all due respect. upon reviews of the draft. he questioned the architects professional opinion on if thew would swear by this in court if put up on the stand and feel assured that this is so definite that anvone would come to the same conclusion. If so. then you have a workable standard. He does not feel these guidelines would meet that criteria. Mr. Doetsch asked how specific or long .vere the guidelines in the 3 cases cited. Mr. Siegel responded that they were not nearly as extensive as the Plan Commission's draft, averaging 1-2 pages. Mr. Doetsch stated in comparison to their 40 pages. this is not equivalent. Ms. Jeanne Lindwi•all. 625 Library Place. She said in thinking through the notion of dealing with binding appearance review and planned development as a special use, she questions if the City could also treat all developments within a particular zoning district 5p. P&D Comminee Hite Minutes of %larch 11. 200? Page 8 as requiring binding appearance She feels this would start to address Mr. I-riedman's street level re\ iew as he mentioned. For example. could they require appearance re%ie%% to be a component of all the business districts. \Ir. Siegel said that he has seen something similar to this for central business districts. Again. there is the problem of setting up the standards for certain business districts .without telling people specifically what is acceptable and «hat isn't. Ms. Lindwall said that she .was thinking more on the lines of where many zoning ordinances have a landscape ordinance with provisions in many "ays that are similar to the kind_ of provisions contained in the Plan Commission draft. She said that there is a certain amount of flexibility built into most of these ordinances. Mr. Siegel stated that the landscape ordinances are generally part of and included with zoning review. He said if you can put criteria into the zoning ordinance so that if somebody challenges it you sa. that the appearance is an essential part of the zoning review. He said the whole concept of planned development is to forin flexibility and to get a%%a% from the strict applications by giving bonuses, etc. to allow for development within a community. Mr. Steve Knutson. Architect. 923 Michigan Avenue. He suggests that an analogy of the standards needs to be done. He said aesthetic revie,�k is an art. not a science. Therefore they are never going to ha%e a mathematical formula or a precise union agreed upon. He said what is needed is something in writing done by a group of editors who could form a readable and understandable document for all. He said this group of editors could have a very good consensus of «hat is needed within the: text without precluding to one specific style, providing variety as well. He said as an architect, the Plan Commission's guidelines are very meaningful to him. Mr. Jonathan Perman. Evanston Chamber of Commerce. He said that while the proposed guidelines may be 40 pages long, commending the time and effort put into this draft by staff, members of SPAARC and the Plan Commission. it is the vagueness that the member of Chamber find objectionable. He feels this parallels some of Mr. Siegel's opinion. He pointed out examples in the draft that he was referring to as vague. lie said it is important to remember that N1r. Siegel brings valuable knowledge of case law in Illinois. He acknowledged %Jr. Nfylott's work in surveying 20 communities that they would like to think of as good comparisons with Evanston. however he thinks it is important to go beyond this survey and look at a much greater spectrum of communities throuehout Illinois. AMr, Larry Widmayer, member of the: Plan Commission. He noted that they have heard reference to the Sign Ordinance and to the historical reviews. He asked how they are more or less specific. from a legal standpoint, than the appearance revietiw. Mr. Siegel responded that he has problems with the standards. He said that the courts have been much more generous with historic preservations. The Supreme Court recognizes the importance with presen•ing historic buildings and are generous with historic districts. He said to the best of his knowledge. there are no cases from the Illinois Supreme Court on this. He noted that Illinois on this architectural control ordinance issue, is much stricter than other jurisdictions where the same standards. which have been thrown out in Illinois, have survived in other courts. He added that they have in Illinois a very conservative Sp. P&D Committer %tsc. Minutes of March 3 I. 2603 Pale 9 court s►stem .with respect to aesthetics: for a long time the% didn't buy this at all. He ackno►►ledced his position and contribution to the states position due to cases that he had in the pant. Mr. Maesai responded to Mr. %N*idma}er's question. He noted that he has sat on the Sign Re►ie►% Board and noted that all decisions are binding. He sees appearance review in a similar wa\ that should also be binding. He said there ►►iIl always be people who do not Hunt to folio►► the ordinances and the Committee and Board members job is not to argue with them but to work out a compromise which is aesthetically acceptable to the City and economically acceptable to the property owner. He said it is an educational process between the sides and the hopeful outcome is to come to some conclusion that can be worked out and foIlo►ws the standards. In his 40 years experience. he has newer come across anyone who disagrees with an ordinance that intentionally sets out to sue the City of Evanston because of their disagreement: it is usually preferred to be worked out and be acceptable by all parties. Aid. 1e►►-man pointed out that sign cases versus building development and binding appearance review. is not the same with a much different magnitude. Mr. Ron Naylor. representative of Northwestern University. He feels that the threshold must be lowered so as to cover many of the smaller projects that many feel impact on the community as well. lie said unless this threshold is lower. they -.►ill miss a significant number of developments that would be of concern to many. However. if the threshold is lowered. they are into another issue which is that planned development is a special use and right now is sort of a floating zone in the Zoning Ordinance. He said it is brought to bear by the developers choice rather than it being imposed on the developer. He said it is a special use that allows the City to give bonuses because it is a negotiation between the City and the developer. He feels that this proposal is actually saying while they ►►ill review planned developments by certain criteria. however. thew are now actually taking away propert\ rights from either a smaller class of property owners because now they will have the right to develop that property under the zoning ordinance as it is. For the larger developments it will automatically put them as a special use and allow the City the opportunity to say no to the special use. He said it is not clear to him that any group of property owners in the City of Evanston would know what this really means for them. He feels that if this is going to be considered. it is certainly an obligation of the City to insure that all property owners. whether small or large groups. all come under some hype of appearance review to make it fair. Extensive discussion took place between the P&D Committee and members of the audience. Many comments ►►•ere made with concern regarding the smaller projects and having binding authority. All in attendance seemed to agree that Mr. Siegel's opinion in dealing with the larger projects is right with the PUD as a special use approach. However. all equally agreed that there must be some conception for the smaller projects for appearance review as well. After much discussion and deliberation. Aid. Nev.-Man suggested that it might be the best approach to go with the PUD approach for the larger projects and continue the same site plan and appearance review for all the other projects under an agreed upon threshold amount. Chairman Wynne asked for more clarification. Sp. P&D Committee %lte. Minutes of %larch ? I. 2001 Pave IO He explained that they could adopt the proposed standards. add more architects for the PUD as a special use approach to allow this re%ie« %%ith their expertise in the majority and decide on a bod% to deal %%ith the appeal process. preferable this Committee or Council as a whole. Mr. Doetsch agreed %%ith Aid. Nc%%Tnan's suggestion. affirming that this could be a great compromise. Aid. Kent referred to the 1930 Ridge project and expressed that he felt the process in negotiating with the developer could have been better. so he still has some concern with hov.- the bigger projects will be dealt with. He reminded that his main concern is with the smaller projects that occur in the residential neighborhood communities and have just as great an impact on the surrounding properties as the bigger projects have on their surroundings. Mr. Galloway agreed with Aid. Kent's concerns and that it is just as important that the smaller developments do not get looked over for appearance review. He also agreed with Aid. Newman's concept because this could insure that the smaller projects still go before appearance review %%ith Site Plan. Mr. 1Volinski reminded that single family and 2-11ats are not included in the current ordinance. his. Lindwall recalled that at the meeting on this issue back in June of 2002. it was considered that all new single family would now be considered for appearance review. The Committee agreed that this could be another option to consider. After much deliberation, Mr. Doetsch said it appears the general consensus of all in attendance is an agreement with Ald. Newman's suggestion, therefore at this point some direction needs to be given to accomplish incorporation of this proposal. Chairman Wynne recommended that staff review different thresholds that could be used such as the acre threshold and how this would work procedurally. Nfr. Wolinski informed the Committee of what was discussed in the special meetings held by SPAARC concerning binding appearance review. Some of those concerns were the ' : acre threshold, which there was no consensus. who «ould be the deciding body, etc. There was also the concern of Evanston not looking good from a de%c.lopment standpoint if the PUD/special use approach is used. Ms. Brzezinski added that there was also concern on whether this is the right tool to be used and the general consensus of the SPAARC members was that it was not the right tool. She said there was concern on the frustration at the day-to-day level from this approach with zoning issues and other related concerns. There was also concern for the projects that would not be addressed under this approach. In conclusion. Chairman Wynne felt there is a need for staff to come up -.vith a workable threshold that could be used. Aid. Newman's suggestion of having everything under this threshold amount should still be reviewed under the current ordinance guidelines for site plan and appearance review, was the general consensus agreed upon. Aid. Kent still felt concerned and that he does not see this approach protecting the smaller residential neighborhoods. Mr. Galloway sympathized with Aid. Kent's concern and reminded the increasing concern for residential teardowns and replacement development. Chairman Wynne announced that she could not be present for the April 81h meeting and requested that continuation of this discussion commence at the April 2 1 " meeting. Aid. Ne«Tnan directed that staff look at various thresholds that could be workable. Sp. MD Committee Nit& !Minutes of March 31. 2003 Page I I ADJOURUNINIENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacqueline E. Brownlee DRAFT - NOT APPROVED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MLti UTES Tuesday, .4pril 8, 2003 ?: 00 p.m. -Room 2403 Evanston Ci-,7c Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl ALDEILyIAN ABSENT: M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, M. Barry, S. Janusz, A. Alterson, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Bernstein OTHERS PRESENT: Neil Davidson, Gary Seltzer, Seymour Seltzer, Scott Seltzer DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2003 Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the March 24.2003 minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION fPl) Request for Buildine Permit Fee Waiver- 1813 Lvons Aid. Bernstein explained that this was a request for a waiver of building permit fees on 1813 Lyons. This was held in Committee at the last meeting because the Committee w-as concerned about potential precedence being set by abating fees for a profit company without a finding of hardship. Ald. Newman said that the costs are S250,000 and Mr. Davidson has been given $100,000, the units will sell for $175,000 a piece leaving Mr. Davidson with a profit of $100,000. Mr. Davidson said that the cost of $250,000 could be higher if there are cost overruns. Aid. Newman said that Mr. Davidson should come back when and if there are cost overruns. Mr. Davidson said that when he first put this program together the City agreed to waive the building permit fees. He said that staff members told him they would waive the fees. Aid. Newman asked James Wolinski if anyone on his staff had agreed to waive the fees. Mr. Wolinski replied that this may have been discussed, but staff does not have the right to waive any fees without receiving council approval. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Wolinski if he offered to waive fees to people and Mr. Wolinski replied no. Aid. Newman said that he felt that P&D Committee Aitg. Minutes of4,8;03 Page 2 Air. Davidson was already 595.000 in the black and he felt that he should come back if and when he had cost overruns. Aid. Kent said that at the last P&D meeting he asked for information on 18 16 Darrow and still has not received it. Mr. Wolinski mentioned that at the last P&D meeting he was asked to see if HOME funds could be used, and after research he found that it was not an eligible cost. Aid. Kent said he would like some information on 1816 Darrow and what has been done about getting a family into this house. He added this was his third request for this information. Aid. Newman moved to deny the request for waiver. Motion seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 30-0-03 - Sveciai Use for 1741 Sherman (T),pe 2 Restaurant) Gary Seltzer stated that he and his family feel a deep commitment to the Evanston Community. He said he felt that his restaurant was more of a specialty shop than a Type 2 restaurant. He told the Committee about his father and grandfather running a bakery in Evanston for 45 years. He introduced his father, Seymour Seltzer. Seymour Seltzer said that he has lived in Evanston over 56 years. Mr. Seltzer said that he felt his son had a unique product that is different than anything that has been in Evanston. Aid. Tisdahl said that she had gotten the zoning transcript faxed to her today, and it seemed to her that the Zoning Board felt that this project would generate less garbage than most Type 2 restaurants. She said she wanted to vote for this project, but did not want any more garbage in downtown Evanston. Aid. Feldman expressed his support for the 1741 Sherman Avenue store. He added that A&PW was talking about a fine for the first offense of litter on the street. Aid. Feldman said that his objection was never to Type 2 restaurants, but to the concentration of those kinds of businesses in an area. Aid. Newman said that Mr. Seymour Seltzer's 55-year residency in Evanston counted for a lot. He said that he was taking Gary Seltzer's promise to make sure that 3 or 4 times a day a Gary Poppins employee would check for litter within 250 feet in either direction of their business very seriously. However, Aid. Newman said that other Type 2 restaurants had made promises and did not keep them. He said he was going to visit the "well of faith" once again and have faith that Air. Seltzer would keep his promise where other Type 2 restaurants have not. Aid. Newman said he understood that Mr. Seltzer would not be selling drinks in cups, but by the can. Mr. Seltzer said Aid. Newman was correct. Aid. Newman stated that he wanted to amend the ordinance to "any beverages sold would not be in cups". Aid. Newman moved approval of the Gary Poppins store, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Bernstein said that this would be introduced in Council tonight. James Wolinski informed the Committee that over the past 4-5 weeks, his department has cited P&D Committee.%ltg. Minutes of 4/8!03 Page 3 37 businesses in the do.%ntown for overloaded dumpsters or for dumpsters not closed. He explained that a business «ill get cited tw1ce and the third time they eet a ticket. Three of those will be in Administrative Adjudication on Thursday, April 10, 2003. Mr. Wolinski added that the Committee had asked for a survey of all the Type 2 restaurants in and around Church StreevOrrington. He said that was in the Committee's packet for tonight. Also, a letter has be sent to everyone who has had a Type 2 designation since 1995 informing them of their requirements for a litter control plan to be enforced. Aid. Newman asked that the letter been sent out annually. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS (PD3) Building Demolition - Current Cite Authority James Wolinski said the BOCA Code generally governs the demolition process. The only time property owners have to come before Council is when the homes are landmarks or in a Historic District and they have to get a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Preservation Commission. Aid. Kent said that what is in place for demolitions is not working for residents of the Fifth Ward. He said he refused to believe that there is nothing that can be done to protect the houses that are worth much less than S500,000. If a resident owns a S500,000 house, it is probably close to or within an historic district where a Certificate of Appropriateness is required before you can tear down a house. Residents in the Fifth Ward are under siege constantly from developers wanting to purchase property AId. lent said that if the Fifth Ward is ever going to be stabilized, some kind of roadblock must be in place to stop the developer. He said that tearing down a building and putting up a three or four story building changes the character of the neighborhood. He added that there does not seem to be the same kind of concern for the character or stabilization of the neighborhood in the Fifth Ward. Aid. Kent said the only thing to stop the demolition in the Fifth Ward is to create something like a historic district such as a conservation district. He said that the Fifth Ward does have culturally significant houses and a culturally significant neighborhood which is a part of Evanston. Aid. Kent said that if something is not done soon, there would not be much of a neighborhood left to need any deterrents. James ',Wolinski mentioned that there are tzar down issues in Aid. Nloran*s ward, Aid. Tisdahl's ward, and Ald Kent's ward. Aid. Rainey said underlying this whole problem, not really having to do with demolition but it leads to demolition, is the board up issue of residential properties. She said they are a blight on our community and the most urgent matter is to deal with the board up issue. Aid. Rainey said she made a referral over a year ago to this committee that boards on properties cannot stay on the property longer than 30 days. She strongly urged the Committee to do something about this issue now. Ald. Bernstein said that the Committee has a proposed ordinance before them that they P&D Committee Mie. Minutes of 4r8/03 Page 4 have asked be made stronger. Aid. Kent said that the problem in the Fifth Ward is twofold. He said that one of the ways the Fifth Ward was going to address the board up problem is with the Westside Residents Association and the help of Reba Place. He said that good stable homes are not being purchased by people in the community, they are being purchased by developers. There is a house on Dodge that is for sale and when Aid. Kent called to inquire about it, he was told that the real estate agent was currently talking to a developer. This was a house owned by someone in the community for many years, they have passed away and their children were selling the house. The developer is not concerned about affordable housing, multi -family affordable housing, he is concerned about knocking down a single family house and putting up a multi -family apartment building on that location. He said that the Fifth Ward is getting hit twice, on the one hand they have the board ups and houses where a realtor's sign is up one day and the next day there is a developer there. Aid. Kent added that the Fifth Ward is losing houses every single day. AId. Newman said that on Main Street is something called Anticipatory Zoning when you are about to make a zoning change from B3 to C1 A you can then put a moratorium in effect because you have the legal authority to make the change. He felt the demolition issue was a perfect issue for the Housing Commission. What the Housing Commission should do is to inventory every single board up and find out who the owner is. Aid. Nev.-man asked what the standard is for declaring a conservation district. Mr. Wolinski said he would get that information for Aid. Newman. Mr. Wolinski said that the Committee felt that the proposed ordinance he submitted to the Committee last November was not strong enough. He said that the legal department halted the ordinance because of the Lake Villa case. Aid. Kent said he was not in favor of tearing down boarded buildings after ninety days, especially in the Fifth Ward. He said that a boarded up building is a prime opportunity to create affordable housing. Not every boarded up house or house a developer buys in the Fifth Ward is structurally damaged and in need of tearing down. Neil Davidson stated that some of the buildings that are boarded up do not meet City code. In some instances, it takes more money to rehab it than to tear it down. A developer has to weigh both options. Stan Janusz said that there are two parts to the information that was provided to the Committee. One is the registration of vacant buildings. He said that some inventory of the boarded up homes has been done. One of the problems with registering vacant buildings is foreclosures. The majority of buildings that end up boarded and vacant is because of foreclosure problems. Foreclosures drag on and on and the City has no way of knowing if, at some point, someone has bought the building. In 2002 there were 69 foreclosures with scheduled sale dates in 2002. Some of these foreclosures date back to 1994 when the complaint was originally filed. If these P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of 4 S 03 Paee 5 buildings could be registered, the City could kno« «hen the building changed hands and could stay on top of the new owners. The second pan that was presented to P&D was the condemnation and code compliance inspection. If the building remained vacant/boarded for 30 days or more we could do an intent to condemn. This means the City would conduct an interior inspection. The condemnation of the building means that the building is unfit for human habitation and not necessarily, that it is in need of demolition. Ald. Newman said that if you take Binding Appearance Review and apply it to new single family construction, when there is a demolition and the developer wants to build a house you will have the ability to say that the house has to be built to the scale of the block where the property is located. He added that he was not talking about additions, but brand new construction. Committee members discussed the merits of Binding Appearance Review for new single family construction. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Staff Memorandum on Evanston Condominium Proiects 1999-2002 James Wolinski reposed on the staff memorandum on Evanston condominium projects of 1999- 2000. He said that over the last three years approximately 1066 condominium units have been added to the Evanston housing stock. Over 600 condominium conversions have taken place reducing the rental units in the City from 15,000 units to 1.3,500 units. Mr. Wolinski said that the Plan Commission was concerned about the overbuilding of new condominium units and wondered how many of these units sere being flipped for investments instead of being owner occupied. After a small survey of five of the larger condominium projects already built, he found that less than 10% of the condominiums were being bought for investment. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, it adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary aaske Planning Division Planning & Development Committee Minutes of April 21, 2003 Room 2403 - 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Aiello, M. Franz, S. Janusz, D. Marino, C. Ruiz, D. Spicuzza, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 6:46 p.m. She announced that the order of the agenda would be changed to accommodate first the discussion of Binding Appearance Review under "Items for Discussion." APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 31.2003 AND MINUTES OF APRIL 8.2003 MEETINGS Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the March 31" and April Sth minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The both sets of minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION JPD1l Ordinance 46-0-02 — Binding Appearance Review Aid. Newman asked staff if any notice had been sent out for this meeting notifying those that have been involved with Binding Appearance Review from the beginning. He informed that he has received complaints from several people claiming that they were not informed of this issue coming up on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff has a interest list on this issue and assured that a notice is sent out every time this item comes up on the agenda, including this meeting. Chairman Wynne referred to the Site Plan & Appearance Review meeting notes forwarded to the Committee in their packets. She noted their discussion of the proposed two-tier approach to binding appearance, which the Committee discussed at the special meeting on March 31'. She also noted the SPAARC's recommendation to the P&D Committee and asked Mr. Wolinski to summarize their discussion. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this meeting took place on April 14'h specifically at the P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 4-21.03 Page 2 direction of the P&D Committee to answer some of the issues that were directed to look at. He said one of the first things discussed was to recommend to the Committee that binding appearance review not include single-family and two-family residential construction. Their recommendation on the threshold of the planned developments is for new construction in excess of 40,000 square feet, new construction of residential/mixed use in excess of 36 units, or new construction of retaiVcommercial space in excess of 20,000 square feet of footprint floor area He noted that these recommendations were passed unanimously by SPAARC. He said that they also discussed the teardowm issue and recommended to P&D that this issue be sent to the Plan Commission for further study to look at teardowns as a zoning issue opposed to an appearance issue. Also, one area that they feel are lacking in with all the development going on in Evanston is impact fees. He explained that many of the streets are damaged by heavy construction equipment and trucking involved with development of some of the larger sites. He said there are numerous street cuts made both for water/sewer connection and disconnection of old water/sewer stubs. He pointed out that if you ride by the Dubin or Roszak projects, you will notice patches in the street approximately every 10-15 feet. in conclusion, the Site Plan Committee recommends an impact fee also be studies for future development, either as part of the planned development process or as part of permitting process as a whole. Aid. Newman questioned the reasoning why single-family was excluded since there were only 16 new construction reported last year. Mr. Wolinski responded that he can only speak for the members of SPAARC that were in attendance at the meeting, which the Chair determined no quorum, and that this was only a recommendation. However, he does not think that Site Plan has been very strong on binding appearance review for single-family construction because the feeling is that there is an issue with some of the houses that are being built, i.e., size. height, density, etc. They feel this is a zoning issue and not an appearance issue and the feeling that single-family homes are more on an individual and personal level. Aid. Tisdahl asked staff that she would appreciate information on what zoning would improve the current problems that exist with some of the teardowns because there are loopholes that are creating problems in some neighborhoods. She does feel zoning is a very appropriate way of getting a handle on this situation but questions what changes need to be done for this to happen. Mr. Wolinski said that one of the biggest loopholes in the ordinance is how they calculate height. Mr. Alterson further informed that height for a residential does not include cellars or basements, which is a sizeable item these days with people wanting new houses with basements that have 8 foot ceilings in them. He said this extra 34 feet does not count towards the building height. He noted that there is also a median height of 35 feet for the R1 -- R4 districts; this comes to 2 '/2 stories. Although the height regulations were reviewed extensively several years ago, this area could use another looking at since it is questionable. In his opinion, the real issue as far as height goes is probably the 4-5 feet that is easily given because it is not counted in the height calculations because it is not counted from grade. Mr. Wolinski added that although you can't go beyond the 35 feet in height, one of the concerns back in 1993 when they passed the zoning ordinance, was the fact that they still wanted to have gabled P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4-21-03 Page 3 roofs in Evanston. Therefore, the way the actual height is figured up with the gabled roofs in an average of the first two floors and then the actual height of the roof. He said there are two sides to this, one is if you kept it right at 35 feet with nothing above, you may end up with all flat roofs, which is undesirable by most. However the problem is in trying to allow for the gabled roofs, which quite frankly he feels developers have taken advantage of this by building very large attics that are almost a Yd floor in themselves. With this type of allowance, it could allow someone to go to a peak of 42-45 feet. Aid. Tisdahl asked about building close to the lot line and if this could help with regulating the bulk of a building; she referred to the new single-family construction on Grant Street. Mr. Allerson responded that the setbacks that they have for R1-R3 for residential is 5 feet from the lot line and seem to work well. However, what they do not count is anything sub -grade, which is acceptable because you can not perceive it, but the window -wells in many of the larger houses are featuring very extensive ones because they are also being used to provide fire exits. He said that zoning has been allowing these window -wells within those required yards and if there were a restriction on how much these window - wells could encroach into the yards, then they would probably tend to curb some of the construction. Aid. Tisdahl requested that staff come back to the Committee with a possible proposal for resolution of these problems by zoning requirements. Aid. Newman said that he does not particularly have a problem with the height requirements, it is the lot coverage that seems to have more effect especially when doing an addition. He said that they have had this problem of teardo Ams and new houses going up in place in the northern part of the City, using the new house on Grant as an example also. He said it seems to him that if they had the single-family houses for new construction as part of binding appearance review, it would stop the teardowns in their track. He noted that anybody how has in their plans to do the teardown/rebuild job, they would think twice before they invested their money into this plan if aware of the binding appearance review process that the new construction would have to go through. He pointed out that it would take more than looking at the height requirements in zoning to have any control and this would not change the economics of tearing do%%m the smaller houses that can accommodate smaller families, to build much larger houses in their place. He reminded the Committee, in his absence, that Aid. Kent feels very strongly about including single-family and two-family new construction in with binding appearance review. He also noted that he was under the impression that inclusion of this category of new construction would help deal with the issue/problems of tear downs. He does not agree that zoning will handle this problem. Chairman Wynne pointed out that there is two ways to look at this in that binding appearance review could assist with the tear down issue, however this process would not worst for all tear downs. She feels the Grant house in a good example of where they used the basement and with the gabled roof, the peak of that house is 45' high. Aid. Newman feels that this is a verbal suggestion with no real supporting evidence that all the complaints in northwest Evanston of compatibility with tear downs and replacement new construction would be solved by the basement and roof height requirements. Aid. Bernstein said that he feels there are two factors involved, one being the volume of the trophy houses and the other is the context relative to adjacent properties, which he has P&D Comrninee ti1tg. Minutes of 4-21-03 Page 4 heard complaints about both of these issues. He assumed when they first started discussion about this, the Committee's concern with extending binding appearance review to single and two-family dwellings is the enforceability issue. lie said, however that when you consider that there were only 16 single-family new construction projects last year, this does not seem like an insurmountable task. He said if there is nothing, he does not see why these types of new construction should be excluded. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee their direction to staff to conduct a survey of property owners who live adjacent to some of these trophy homes to get their opinion on the matter. He reported that Ms. Jackson; the City's Zoning Planner conducted this survey and is in the stage of finalizing her report, which he hopes to have ready for the next Committee meeting. He informed the Committee that in some instances the neighbors were very happy to see the old houses torn down, for example, the house at 2720 Noyes which he just signed the demo permit, and the neighbors on both sides of this property expressed their gratitude. These same neighbors have seen the plans for the new house and are very pleased with the new construction. He pointed out that Mr. ,lames Genden is in attendance, who is the adjacent neighbor to the 1210 Grant Street house, however, who has a different opinion to the teardown and new construction being built. He knew from first site of the drawings for the new construction that it was being built to the zoning limits resulting in a trophy house compared to the compatible 2-story Georgian house that was demolished. Mr. Steve Knutson, Chairman of the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission, informed that his committee has had extensive discussion on the tear down issue. He said that they were hoping that binding appearance review would be part of the solution to this problem because the issue is really in context with the compatibility situation to what is surrounding the building. He pointed out that the height of an inf ll house between two premium houses, to be compatible is a very different house than a house between two craftsman bungalows. In other words, height restrictions would address the compatibility to the heights of neighboring houses but would not solve the entire problem. He said the current zoning ordinance, he feels encourages better infill housing than the old ordinance did because many of the infrll houses during that time were in fact too Iow. He explained that the FAR and the other criteria of the houses weren't tall enough to be compatible in some neighborhoods. Aid. Newman asked what conditions the Georgian house was that was demolished for the new construction at 1210 Grant. Mr. Wolinski said in his professional opinion, the house was in substantial condition with no major problems existing. Aid. Newman noted that this is one of the things he feels strongly about with tearing down some of the significant older structures and homes with specific styles of construction that we will never see again. He acknowledges that new construction is good sometimes and for the better, but not in the case on Grant Street. He said in this case it is outrageous what the previous house was torn down and being replaced with. He still questions in this case if height control would have eliminated much in comparison to if these proposed new construction were to go before binding appearance review. Chairman Wynne said that if they are going to use the binding appearance review for single-family new construction, there are going to have to be some type of guidelines or standards. She reiterated the zoning P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of4.21-03 Page 5 problems with not including the height of the basement and the averaging of the roof height, which brings the new building on Grant to at least 45'. :old. Newman agreed that this is extreme; they asked for more clarification from staff. Mr. Alterson informed that there is no limit on cellars and if it is only a '/2 foot underground and the rest is above ground, it would count as a basement. He pointed out that there is a distinction between cellar and basement, however neither count in the height of the structure. Chairman Wynne requested that the survey Ms. Jackson is working on be forwarded to the Committee as soon as possible. She also requested to staff to put in memorandum form to the Committee, these various issues such as height, basement/cellar issue, and the lot linelsideyard line issue. She also wanted the issue of maximum paved surfaces and the ratio added to the memo as well. ?did. Newman requested that the zoning analysis for the 1210 Grant house be forwarded to the Committee as well. Mr. James Gensen said that he lives next to the house at 1210 Grant Street. He expressed his opposition to the new house and his concern with the loopholes that exist in the zoning ordinance to allow such trophy structures within residential areas despite any compatibility with the surrounding homes. He noted that the lot is of basic size, approximately 150'x60', and the footprint of the house comes within 1 square foot of the maximum 301/6 limit. He said that they have paved approximately 48% of the entire lot. He informed the Committee that the house will be occupied by only 4 people with over 4,000 square feet of living space whereas the majority of the homes in the neighborhood average approximately 1,500 — 2,500 square feet. He pointed out that there are other consequences besides the enormity of the structure, including flooding problems, drainage problems caused by the excessive paving coverage. There is also a tree in his yard that could be damaged by excessive flooding, which he feels the City will be liable for if the tree needs to be removed if it dies. Mr. Gensen feels strongly that something needs to be done to stop the building of structures that are totally in disproportion to the rest of the neighborhood. He said when impacting on neighborhood properties is not considered or the neighbors are not consulted, then there is a fault in the system because this effects other peoples lives as well. He said there should be an opportunity for neighborhood input or notification in cases such as this before any plans are approved. Chairman Wynne recalled that when the Committee discussed having the two tier approach having everything above a certain threshold become a PUD, one of the questions that she, Ald. Newman, and Mr. Wolinski have discussed is what happens to the underlying zoning; does it disappear? If this is the case and everything becomes a PUD, are they leaving behind any zoning guidelines? She used the building on Chicago Avenue as an example where they worked to reduce the height down to 67' and questions if they will still be able to do this if they lose the zoning guidelines. Mr. Altetson responded that he believes that when the Plan Commission and when City Council reviews planned development applications presently, they look at 3 separate thresholds. Onc: the as -of -right threshold of the underlying zoning district, Two: the developmental allowances for a planned development within that specific zoning district, Three: "sky is the limit" approach where exceptions can be asked for to the development allowance. He said theoretically, the only thing that becomes untouchable are the uses, whereas you can not alter the permitted uses for the specific zoning district. He said as far as the bulk P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4-21-03 Page 6 regulations go, it is possible for the developer to ask for virtually anything under a planned development because it is either going to a PUD developmental allowance in which case the developer would need a simple majority vote from Council or it will be a request to exceed the developmental allowance, in which case the developer would need a super majority. The Committee discussed having a height threshold. Mr. Wolinski informed that their thought as far as height, was that the limits that are put on the footprint as well as the number of units, would basically determine the height threshold. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Wolinski how SPAARC arrived at the numbers for their recommended thresholds. Mr. Wolinski responded that there was concern that if the threshold was lowered too much, with the understanding that the caveat is that binding appearance review was going to be throughout the development process. He said the PUD is to make it go through the process from the Plan Commission to Council easier. He said if the threshold were too low it could back up the process. In discussion with Aid. New -man, they figured to have approximately 6-7 PUD's per year, however if the threshold were lowered to %: acre or 20 units, for example, this would add another 10 planned developments assurnably. Aid. Bernstein said that they also need to be mindful of what Ivir. Genden referred to; being the need for some type of public process. He said that even though there would be standards or guidelines, many of the concerns that people have would be taken care of with a process in which there is the opportunity to hear explanations and have someone address their concerns. He also noted the concerns expressed not to add another level to the permit process, but the importance of having a public meeting may matte it unavoidable. The Committee pointed out and discussed certain projects that have been approved that would have come under binding appearance review with the recommended thresholds by SPAARC. Developments such as the Dubin Development, the new Optima "orange balcony" development, the 16-story Optima development would have come under binding appearance review. Aid. Newman asked how many additional planned unit developments does staff' expect these guidelines would generate. Mr. Wolinski responded that the City is running out of developable property for the most part, but when looking at the developments from last year, he pointed out several that would gone to binding appearance review and would not have been built as of right. Aid. Newman asked if staff is comfortable with these recommended guidelines if they were adopted. Mr. Wolinski confirmed that staff is comfortable with these thresholds. Chairman Wynne asked the Committee if they had any other requests or directions to staff at this point. Aid. Newman feels that the planned development portion needs to be incorporated into the ordinance as a factor. He requested that staff forward this onto Mr. Siegel so that he can draft another ordinance. He also suggested that it would benefit the Plan Commission and the Committee if those new architects that will be added to the Site Plan Committee, for every planned development to submit a report to be considered for evaluating how the project meets or doesn't meet that factor. Aid. Tisdahl reminded that she would like staff to provide a list of potential zoning recommendations that could P&D Committee trig. Minutes or4-21-03 Page 7 address some of the issues they are also trying to address with binding appearance review, as discussed previously, especially in the area where it could address the tear down loopholes. Air. Wolinski informed that the binding appearance review on single- family will definitely close that loophole, however this will also leave a house to be built and constructed to a Committee as opposed to looking at the zoning ordinance and looking for some type of uniformity. Aid. Tisdahl agreed with the latter and that is why she would like to look at a zoning alternative. Aid. Bernstein reminded that the Committee still needs to address standards and this is the real problem that Mr. Siegel stated that he is having; how do you quantify quality? He stated that without standards the ordinance is not enforceable. Aid. Newman noted that if we had a binding appearance review process, which the standards were basically trying to aim at compatibility of bulk and height with the neighboring houses, they would then have a process that would include public attendance and input. Whereas if there is just a change made to the zoning ordinance, it could still allow some plans on single-family new construction to go through without notice to the neighbors and a chance for them to view the plans and comment before they are approved. Aid. Newman stressed that he does not want to close the door yet on single-family and two-family homes from inclusion to binding appearance review. Aid. Bernstein agreed because if they are going to do this, he feels nothing should be excluded at this point. Mr. Ruiz asked the Committee if a house «ill have to go through two processes and hearings if there were a major addition to a house of historical significance. The Committee agreed with Mr. Ruiz question and asked that this issue be addressed as well by legal and the appropriate staff for review. Aid. Ncw7nan suggested that the Committee ask the Plan Commission to begin the process of considering and reviewing this item. He said that everything that has been discussed so far is enough for the Commission to get started with for review and working on some type of standards to be considered. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that the Plan Commission is going to have a full agenda with the upcoming planned developments that have not yet been heard. Mr. Widmayer, Chair of the Plan Commission, assured the Committee that these zoning issues can go directly to the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission beginning with their next agenda. This item will be held on the agenda for further discussion and updates at the next meeting. (PD2) Building- Demolition It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item on the agenda for the next meeting since Aid. Kent was not present. There was a suggestion from the Committee for staff to took into the possibility of having a moratorium for the triangle area until this matter has been reviewed. P&D Comminre %ttg. Minutes of 4 1-03 Page 8 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Emolover Assisted Housine Proposal Mr. Janusz gave the Committee an overview of the proposal that would provide rive (5) grants of $5,000 per household to City of Evanston employees as financial assistance on downpa}mcnts. He said that it is the programs intention to give an incentive for city employees to purchase a house in Evanston. He informed that this grant money would be funded through the Mayor's Special Housing Fund. In addition to the grants, S6.500 in support services would be provided for home purchase education and program administration for non-profit partners. The total requested funds are $31,500. Mr. Janusz explained in further detail how the program is to work, noting that the grants will be 0% deferred loans over a period of 5 years as long as the employee remains in the house, and that the HODC will receive the funds for administrative costs. He noted that this will be an 18-month pilot program. He concluded that staff has been discussing the program with REACH partners for over a year, with the encouragement of the Housing Commission, who give their support for this program unanimously. Aid. Newman stated that he appreciates staffs work and time put into this proposal, however he does not see the value of this loan assistance amount compared to the property values in Evanston. Mr. Janusz explained that this assistance is to help bridge the gap for the purchaser between their savings for downpayment and the required amount. Ms. Spicuzza agreed that this amount may seem small, however it is a beginning and a pilot program the Evanston could be the leader at encouraging other communities and not -for -profit agencies to begin doing. She suggested that maybe the amount could be raised in the future if this program works out. Aid. Tisdahl expressed her full support for the program and thinks this is an excellent launch program for something bigger in the future. Aid. Newman totally agreed with Aid. Tisdahl and explained that he was not saying that he does not support this program, however he would prefer that the program offer more in the amount of assistance if it is going to really make an effect against the price of homes in Evanston. He questioned if any survey was done to see how many city employees would actually take advantage of this program at the offered amount. Ms. Judith Hurwich, Housing Commission, informed that a survey was done in 1999 and the majority that responded to the survey said that it would make a difference in their decision to purchase a home in Evanston. She also agrees that it is a small beginning, but Evanston could definitely be the leader in encouraging other communities and organizations to follow suit. Aid. Newman requested that he would like to have a survey of the Police and Fire Departments to see if this proposed amount would sway them into purchasing a home here in Evanston also. The Committee requested that staff come back a year from now with a report of the results of this program. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Employer Assisted Housing Program as proposed, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of4-2)-03 Page 9 (P2) Sidewalk Cafe for T%w 2 Restaurant at 500 Main Street (Cafe Exvress) Chairman Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Resolution 22-R-03. Bond Volume Caq Allocation for Year 2003 Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT Aid. Bernstein will be Chair beginning with the meeting on May 7, 2003. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JacqdOne W. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of May 7, 2003 Room 2403 - 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, C. Brzezinski, S. Janusz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bemstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21.2003 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the April 21st minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda to cover the sidewalk cafes first. fP2) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 2 Restaurant at I745 Sherman Avenue (Einstein Bap -ell Mr. Rick Shore, General Manager, was present for questions. Aid. Newman asked how long he has been employed with Einstein Bagel since their special use application request from the beginning. Mr. Shore responded that he is aware of the ordinance and understands the conditions for keeping their area clean. Aid. Newman noted that he is in the downtown area every Sunday virtually during the summer. He pointed out the city trash receptacle in front of their store is known for overflowing frequently. He asked how the management of Einstein's reacts to seeing this overflowing trash on a Sunday afternoon. Mr. Shore responded that they empty the receptacle. Aid. Newman pointed out that this receptacle needs to monitored constantly and emptied several times a day during the weekend or it will tend to keep overflowing. He described incidents of being in Oldberg Paik with cups blowing all over the park from this receptacle. He acknowledged the beautiful landscaping that Northwestern does in this park that is ruined by the blowing garbage coming from the city receptacles. Mr. Shore asked why the City does not have weekend pickup for those receptacles. Aid. Newman said that the City does not have weekend pickups at this time but will be spending additional money in this area to do so. Nevertheless, he strongly feels this is everybody's responsibility, especially the stores in the area whose garbage is in those receptacles. He pointed out that this request is for a sidewalk cafd for Einstein's, and he feels it is only fair that in granting this request, the store should equally feel a responsibility to help the City keep P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 7. 2DO3 Page 2 the downtown area clean. He noted that the litter plan with the sidewalk cafe ordinance is to monitor an area of 250" radius from the business. Mr. Shore suggested that the City supply an additional receptacle in front of their store would also help the situation. Aid. Newman resolved that he would like to see Einstein's with a sidewalk cafe but wants a firm commitment from store management to assist in keeping the city trash receptacle in front of their store emptied and to abide by the litter plan set in their ordinance. Mr. Shore gave his word and a firm commitment to adhere to the litter plan and any assistance in keeping the city receptacle in front of their store emptied. Aid. Newman requested that staff make a note to attach to the sidewalk cafd permit to have a record of the commitment made by management of Einstein's. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Shore for his cooperation. Chairman Bernstein explained to Mr. Shore and for insight to the other sidewalk card applicants, the situation in the downtown area and why the Committee is being so strenuous in requiring that every business, especially those with sidewalk cafes must cooperate and adhere to the litter plan. He informed all of the rising litter problem in the downtown area that has accumulated over the past couple of years due to the increase in type 2 restaurants that have concentrated in this vicinity. He pointed out that out of the 1 I sidewalk cafd's on the agenda this evening, 8 are located in the downtown area He said the increasing litter has resulted in rodent problems and other unsanitary conditions. He stressed that all type 2 restaurants are obligated, for perpetuity, if you're given the privilege to operate as a type 2 or have a sidewalk cafd, these privileges will now be subject to enforcement that previously the City was not doing. He admitted the City's fault in not being able to enforce the code due to available manpower up until now and having to come down hard on staff to provide this service. He said the extent they can determine who the offenders are, Council and staff will be rescinding and taking away the privileges given. Therefore, he declared that this enforcement on the litter control is across the board and they are holding every business responsible wherever possible in F helping out on this problem. He assured that the Committee is trying to be negative with the sidewalk cafd permits, however there are some people who have been given this privilege previously who have abused it and the I' Ward Alderman is aware of who they are. Mr. Shore informed the Committee that his stone currently has 2 dumpsters for their business and asked where they should be additional garbage when those are full if they will be required to now empty the City dumpsters. Chairman Bernstein instructed that in those cases, the business should order more service for scavenger pick-up. Mr. Shore noted that he works for a corporation and is on tight budget. The Committee suggested that he pass the information from this discussion on to the Einstein Bagel Corporation letting them know what is required in the City of Evanston and that it has become absolutely imperative to enforce the ordinances. Mr. Shore also suggested that the City should supply more trash receptacles as they do in the City of Chicago in high volume eatery areas. The Committee agreed. Aid. Newman informed that Mr. McGill, the building owner, is a member of Evmark, which is an organization that manages the downtown. He noted that as part of the downtown streetscape, the City purchased all the garbage cans and Evmark, as the building owners, took on the responsibility of keeping up the maintenance of downtown. He assured that he has been told by Mr. Jennings that P&D Committx Mtg. Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page 3 more garbage cans will be forthcoming, so the City is making effort also. He acknowledged that all the garbage in the receptacle in front of Einstein's is not from their store, however this is why they are reaching out and asking for the extra help from the applicants here tonight seeking sidewalk cafd permits. He suggested to the representative from the Chamber of Commerce in attendance to consider organizing the block of businesses for garbage maintenance. With no further discussion, Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe permit for Einstein Bagel and waiver of use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 5-0. (M) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvoe 2 Restaurant at 901 Church Street (Baia Fresh) The Committee acknowledged Mr. Steve Ottman in attendance representing Baja Fresh. Aid. Newman commended Baja Fresh on the appearance of their store. He brought attention to the trash receptacle on the comer of Church and Maple in front of Wolfgang Pucks. He asked for Baja Fresh assistance in monitoring and keeping this receptacle emptied at all times. Mr. Ottman gave his word and to also monitor the alley adjacent to the store. Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe permit for Baia Fresh and waiver of use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne, The motion was approved 5-0. (PO Sidewalk Cafe; for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 600 Davis Street (Cafe Mozart) The Committee acknowledged Mr. Ted Angelopoulos representing Cafd Mozart. Chairman Berstein noted that a question was raised on the ability to take the cafd tables in at night out of the path on the sidewalk. Mr. Angelopoulos assured that they would be able to. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the sidewalk cafe permit for Caff Mozart and waiver or use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 5-0. (P51 Sidewalk cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 711 Church Street (Chinolte Mexican Grill) The Committee acknowledged Mr. Miro Kostov, General Manager of Chipolte. Mr. Kostov said that he has worked at Chipolte for approximately 1 month and has been made fully aware of the pre-existing problems with trash. He assured that he would make it a priority to stay on top of the litter plan and maintenance of the area. Aid. Newman recalled that part of the original agreement for Chipolte's sidewalk cafe was the requirement to have a wait person monitoring the cafd and questioned if this is being done. Mr. Wolinski said that it is his understanding that they have one of the regular staff go out periodically and clean up the cafd area. Mr. Kostov assured that they would have a full-time person assigned to monitor the cafd at all times. Aid. Newman pointed out that he would like their assistance in keeping the trash receptacle emptied that is located at the comer by McDonald's. He noted that this receptacle is within 250' of Chipolte's P&D Comminre Mtg. Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page 4 and he would speak to the other businesses along the block to have a group effort in keeping that trash receptacle emptied at all times. Ald. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafd permit for Chipolte Mexican Grill and waiver of use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved S-0. (P6) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvoe I Restaurant at 2545 Prairie Avenue (Jacky's Bistro) The Committee acknowledged the attendance of Mr. Jacky Pluton, owner of Jacky's Bistro. The Committee noted that there have been no complaints on the previous years that Jacky's has operated his sidewalk cafd. Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafE for Jacky's Bistro with !liquor service outside of the Liquor Control Regulations Core Area within 1.50' of residential. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. (P7) Sidewalk Caf6 for Tyne I Restaurant at 1450 Sherman Avenue (Tommy Nevins The Committee acknowledged Mr. Jamie Fritz, General Manager of Tommy Nevins. The Committee noted that there have been no problems in the past with their sidewalk caf6. Aid. Newman brought attention to the city trash receptacle in front of their store which Mr. Fritz assured that they would keep emptied as they always have. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the sidewalk caft for Tommy Nevin's Pub with liquor service within 200' of a residential zone, seconded by Aid. Newman. The motion was approved 5-0. (P8) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvoe 2 Restaurant at 812 Davis Street (Ouizno's Classic Subsj The Committee acknowledged Mr. Lawrence Castle representing Quizno's. Mr. Castle responded from questions, informing that this is a new business however it will be their second request for a sidewalk cafd. He committed to assisting in any way with the litter control in their area. Aid. Newman asked that Quizno's help in monitoring and emptying the trash receptacle on the southeast comer near Jamba Juice. Aid. TisdaM moved approval of the sidewalk caft for Quizoo's Classic Subs and waiver of use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 5-0. (P9) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1634 Orrinmon Avenue (Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Partnershia The Committee acknowledged Ms. Ann Jennett representing Ben & Jerry's. Ms. Jennett expressed her concern for the litter control problems and informed the Committee that she has already talked with the kids in the problem about this problem who are enthusiastic to help out. P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page S Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for Ben & Jerry's ice Cream and waiver of use of non -disposable flatware, dishware and beverage containers, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 5-0. A 0) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 1 Restaurant at 707 Church Street (Flat Ton Grill) The Committee acknowledged Ms. Megan Addington, General Manager for Flat Top Grill. Ms. Addington informed the Committee that they recently purchased a power washer to keep the sidewalks clean in front of their store. She said that their establishment does not create much litter since they use re -usable dishware, however training is given to all employees on maintenance of the area to pick up any litter in the vicinity. She pointed out that much of the blowing litter comes from the restaurant and trash container at the corner of Church and Orrington. She assured their continued cooperation in picking up blowing litter and emptying the receptacle on the corner. Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for Flat Top Grill with liquor service within 200' of a residential zone, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 5-0. (P11) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvae 1 Restaurant at 1700 Central Street (Trattoria Trullo) The Committee acknowledged Ms. Doreen Price representing Trattoria Trullo. Aid. Tisdahl expressed her support for this since it is located in her ward and the Committee agreed that there have been no problems with this sidewalk cafd in the past and commended their operation. Aid. Newman moved approval of the sidewalk caff for Trattoria Trullo with liquor service within 200' of a residential zone outside the Liquor Control Regulations Area. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. (P12) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 1 Restaurant at 1932 Central Street (The BlueStone) The Committee acknowledged Mr. John Enright representing The BlueStone. The Committee agreed that no problems have been reported in the past with this sidewalk cafd and commended their operation. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for BlueStone with liquor service within 200' of a residential zone outside the Liquor Control Regulations Area. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. This concluded the sidewalk cafe applications. fP11 Optima Horizons Resubdivision Chairman Bernstein called on Mr. Tod Desmarius representing Optima Horizons. Mr. Desmarit s explained the subdivision in detail. Chairman Bernstein asked how this impacts what the Zoning Board just did. Mr. Alterson said not at all. Chairman Bernstein noted that this is ministerial in nature. Aid. Newman announced that the Parking Committee spent that last hour previously before this meeting discussing the P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page 6 parking for this project. He informed that Committee that the parking issues seemed to be resolved in this meeting. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved 5-0. (P13) Ordinance 47-0-03 — Amendin¢ the Citv Code reaardina Chan_ ter 12. Shin Regulations. Real Estate Shins and Awnines Chairman Bernstein called on Mr. Mark Lassen, Chair of the Sign Review and Appeals Board for explanation of this amendment. Mr. Larsen informed that the 3 revisions are minor in nature and explained in further detail each requested amendment. He said the first one refers to Section 4-12-6: Exempt Signs. This amendment is in regards to the many condo conversions and developments in residential areas to allow for projects of 5 to 36 dwelling units to have temporary signage of 32 square feet in size and 10' high maximum. This signage routinely was allowed by variation. He said the second amendment is to Section 4-12-10: Permitted Sign Types, paragraph (F) 3. This amendment is to allow for an awning, to be considered an awning, it must project a minimum of 36" to a maximum of 24" away from the curb line. He explained that this it to prohibit any so-called awnings to become wall signs. He said the third amendment is to Section 4-12-10 also, paragraph (A) 2. This change is to reduce the allowable wall signage from 15% of the eligible wall area down to I0: and to limit the maximum wall sign from 200 square feet down to 125 square feet. Mr. Wolinski explained the issue with the temporary signs for real estate and that for construction they are only allowed 2 months to have these temporary signage. He noted that most projects take a year to 15 months for completion resulting in almost every development to have to go before the Sign Board requesting a variation. This amendment will cut down on some of the traffic going before the Board Aid. Wynne asked if the amendment for the awnings will still allow the current requirements in the Sign Ordinance and if the assumption is that we will see less awnings. Ms. Brzezinski responded that if the applicant comes in with an application that qualifies as true awning, then it can extend the entire length. She explained that there is a percentage of coverage of an awning area that is allowed. She said the problem is if they have an awning that is the whole length of a building, the area gets bigger, therefore the change is not about the size of lettering that is allowed, it is to maximize the allowable size of what a true awning should be; not a wall sign. She noted that they may see fewer awnings due to the fact that there may be more expense, however she can not predict the outcome. Ald. Wynne asked if the existing awnings that will now be in violation will be grandfathered in. Mr. Wolinski reminded that there is an amortization period that will take effect in 2005. With no further discussion, Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of Ordinance 47-0-03 for The proposed amendments to the Sign Regulations. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page 7 (P14) Ordinance 48-0-03 -- Amendine the City Code reeardine the nrc%iously annroved Church Street Plaza St)ecial Sitm District Chairman Berstein acknowledged Mr. Tom White and Mr. Greg Hakanen from Arthur Hill & Company. Mr. Hakanen explained that their request for amendments to the Church Street Plaza Special Sign District are to accommodate the incoming Borders store. He went through the list of issues to be presented being: 1. Signage for 1706 and 1710-16 Maple Avenue (ground floor retail in Optima Views) 2. Illuminated window signage within the District 3. Banner signage for the main pavilion (theater) building 4. Monument signs for the Church Street Plaza neighborhood, and 5. Technical amendments to District standards (red letters, raceways) Mr. Hakanen explained in further detail item number 5 on the requested technical amendments. Chairman Berstein asked Mr. Larsen if he would like to give any input on this issue. Mr. Larsen noted that the Sign Board did meet with the representatives of Arthur Hill on this issue and debated back and forth somewhat. However, what is being proposed was basically agreed upon by both parties. Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 48-0-03, seconded by Aid. TWI&hl. Chairman Berstein clarified that this proposal does not have anything to do with the west side of the pavilion. Mr. Hakanen assured that it does not apply to the pa%ilion at all, this applies to the banners that will go on the north, west and south sides of the building. Mr. White noted that they still have to bring in the east side. He also informed the Committee of an item that was amended that was not addressed. This amendment is in the packet and pertains to the fact that they are proposing to do monument signs if approved by Site Plan and the Sign Board. He pointed out that there are examples of these signs in the Committee packet and informed them of their proposed locations through the Church Street Plaza. He also noted that if they deem it appropriate, in lieu of one of the Northwestern Research Park signs at the corer of Benson and Clark, they would take it down and put one of the monument signs in its place. The motion was approved 5-0. (P15) Ordinance 49-0-03 — Planned Development: 603 Main1900 Chicano The Committee acknowledged Mr. lames Murray representing the developer in this case. Mr. Murray displayed diagrams and hindering of the proposed development. He brought attention to a few small typographic errors in the ordinance and pointed them out to the Committee. He said that there has been no change in the project designation or any of the statistical materials relative to the project. He pointed out the different levels of the project and site plans from the drawings. He introduced others present representing the project, Mr. Steve Mullins and Mr. Kevin Pearson, Managers of Esskay Development and Mr. Robert Matthews of Matthews Development Corporation, Mr. David Brininstool, architect for the project and representatives of the contractor for the project. 'sir. Murray noted that there are a few typographical errors in the legal description which will be P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page a corrected. He went through the zoning relief requested, as described in detail in his memorandum included in the packet, as needed for the project such as setback relief along Chicago Avenue and Main Street as well. He explained the zoning relief for the FAR which provides for 4.0 by right and the developer is proposing 3.9. Aid. Wynne asked if the 136 parking spaces pro%ided meets the zoning requirement. Mr. Murray responded that this does both for residential and a modest surplus for the commercial. He was informed today that from 2-6 additional parking spaces will be added due to some redesigning of the parking ramps. Aid. Wynne asked for more information on the retail space. Mr. Mullins informed that British Collectables and his operation will take up approximately 2/3 of the retail space on the Chicago Avenue side. He said there will be about 800 square feet left on the Chicago Avenue side to the north of the residential entrance. He said there is additional retail space on the Main Street side, which is approximately 3800 square feet. More discussion followed regarding the retail space and use of the retail space in the basement. Mr. Mullins said that they envision that their museum will be Iocated in the basement. Aid. Wynne raised questions from the Plan Commission's transcript and discussion regarding the architecture. She referred to comments made specifically by Commissioner Rebechini which she felt were important issues. She said Ms. Rebechini referred to a number of things that were described in terms of giving the building architectural relief and more interest. She noted that one of the critical things of concern was that Ms. Rebechini was commenting that all of those things and visual interest and texture to the building, which is very large horizontal building. Her question was how do they insure that those things get built and stay in the plan. Aid. Wynne said this is important because there is a concern here in Evanston on how building appear, noting that too frequently they have buildings that is approved and the building that goes up does not look like the i building that was approved. Mr. Brininstool responded that he can only address this as the process, explaining that one of the nice things they are doing here, rather than designing this more or less in a vacuum and then going out to the market place afterwards, they have the contractor as part of the design team. He said that this assures that what they are doing here in the early stages will be there at the end stage. A1d. Wynne noted that under a PUD they would have binding appearance review, therefore she asked staff' what is it they can do as a City Council in the PUD ordinance that says what the developers describes the relief that they were going to put onto the building, - how do they insure that this is done. Mr. Alterson responded that an extreme solution would be to attach the rendering of the approved design as an exhibit to the ordinance. It was mentioned that in some cases the rendering does not portray an accurate representation. Mr. Alterson suggested that they should bring back to the Committee any amended drawing with something that has a condition in it referring to the elements they are looking for. Aid. Wynne expressed her interest in this because she does not want to see any more buildings that go up that do not remotely look like the project presented and approved. Ms. Szymanski stated that typically at,, ordinance is granted zoning relief have words to the effect that the construction shall be in terms with the plans as approved. She noted that they could be more specific with respect to what Mr. Alterson suggested, stating specific concerns in the ordinance. Ald. Wynne agreed that this method is what P&D Committee .Mig. Minutes of May 7. 2DO3 Page 4 she would like to see adopted. More discussion ensued regarding comments made by the Site Plan Committee on the architect of the project. The Committee reviewed the Site Plan minutes in detail and pointed out critical comments made. Aid. Newman requested that when projects of this nature are before the Committee he would like a representative from SPAARC that was part of the discussion to be in attendance to answer or explain and Committee concerns. He said specifically with this project because there are very critical decisions to be made for this corner due to the density of the area, the close streetscape and the surrounding projects to this site. Aid. Wynne did say in favor of this design, that the building is pushed back from the lot line providing for a widened sidewalk the entire length of the building, which she feels is a definite plus for this project. The Committee agreed. Aid. Kent stated that he agrees with the comments made thus far. However his concern is with the price ranges for the residential units and the 77 units being added to that comer and adding to the already dense area He feels this is a negative accumulative effect for that area. He also is very concerned with this project not contributing any affordable housing, noting that the average price of the units is beyond affordable to the average family in Evanston. He questions who the building is being built for; it does not appear to be the typical Evanston family. Mr. Murray called attention to the study done in their packet that was prepared using the national standards. Aid. Kent said that he is not phased by the national standards because they do not seem to address the real problem of providing affordable housing. Chairman Bernstein agreed with Aid. Kent's concerns on the density and also questions just how much that corner can take. He also noted that there is another proposed development to the south that would bring an additional 50 more units. He reiterated that this does raise an important concern that should be taken into consideration. He suggested, as far as affordable housing, that maybe the affordable housing task force that was recently formed, could review this case. There was extensive discussion regarding proper notice provided for this proposed development because many residents in the immediate vicinity have sworn that they did not receive any notice regarding the 2 neighborhood meetings held at Lincoln School. Mr. Murray assured that notice was sent out and has a copy of the list of residents that the notice was sent to. It was noted that for the first meeting there was a distribution of flyers around the neighborhood as well as being posted in the stores along Main Street. For the second meeting, post cards were mailed using the list Mr. Murray displayed. Aid. Newman brought to attention a discussion that occurred at the 202 School District meeting where concerns were expressed regarding the influx of kids into the school system due to the rise in condo developments in Evanston over the past few years. He requested that staff due a survey of the condominium developments that have gone up in the past few years to get an accurate number of kids that have come into the school system from these buildings. This will provide a fact -based number on the impact onto the school districts. P&D Committee NO& ' Minutes of May 7, 2003 Page 10 Aid. Newman pointed out on behalf of the developer, that they complied with the significant parking requirements for that building which is also a substantial amount of money for the developer to recover by pro,, iding all the required spaces. Ms. Judy Freeman, 937 Sherman, informed the Committee that she did not receive any notice of the meetings at Lincoln School. She requested that time be given to allow for another neighborhood meeting, with proper notice given to all the neighbors within the required radius of the project, for their information and input. Ms. Tina Dace, resident directly to the west, expressed her opposition to the pmjecL She informed the Committee that the proposed building's exhaust system will be directed into their yard. Chairman Bernstein announced that this item will be held in Committee for further discussion to be continued at the May 19th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. espectfully submitted, n JacquNne . Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of May 19, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein Staff Present; J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, C. Brzezinskl, A. Jackson, S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official; Alderrnan Wynne (in Aid. Bernstein's absence) DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 7. 2003 MEETING Aid. Newman moved approval of the May 7th minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PII Sidewalk Cafd for Tvue I Restaurant at 505 Main Street (Oceaniaue) Mr. Renee Andre was present representing Occanique. It was mentioned that this is Occanique's P year having a sidewalk cafd with no reported problems or complaints. It was also noted that liquor ser%ice is also included. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved 4-0. (P21 Sidewalk Cafd for Tvoe 2 Restaurant at 1700 Orrincrton Avenue McDonald's) Mr. Mark Bear was present representing McDonald's in place of his father. Aid. Newman informed Mr. Bear of the litter and garbage problems that downtown Evanston is experiencing and the City's efforts to gain control of this situation. He asked Mr. Bear's opinion on McDonald's standing with their litter control. Mr. Bear responded that management monitors full-time the litter and garbage situation in the vicinity of their store. He informed the Committee that McDonald's has added an extra pickup service in effort to keep their dumpsters from overflowing. Aid. Newman stressed that the City is being very strict on enforcing the garbage and litter control ordinance for each and every restaurant and business in downtown and especially enforcing the conditions associated with sidewalk cafes. He asked if McDonald's has had many problems with panhandlers in their sidewalk cafe. Mr. Bear responded no, that they monitor this situation as well. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page 2 He vowed McDonald's commitment on doing their part in assisting the City with the litter control emblem and emptying the City trash receptacle in front of the stone, especially on Sunday's as requested by Aid. Newman. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that McDonald's was cited and deketed for overflowing garbage dumpsters in the past month. He noted that they have attempted to rectify the situation by ordering more frequent pickups, however it took 3 notices from the City before any action was taken on this. Mr. Bear claimed the fact is that the notices from the City were not getting to management directly because they were being mailed to the store. However, they have ordered more pickups from their refuge collectors to rectify the problem. Ald. Newman informed that this particular alley is where they have had ongoing problems with homeless people and other problems such as with pigeons. He stressed that this alley must be kept spotless. Mr. Bear again claimed that the facts are not accurate because in his opinion the dumpsters were not actually overflowing at the time the pictures were taken. In any event, he swore that they will monitor the alley diligently, but noted that there is a large homeless problem throughout downtown Evanston, not just in their location. Mr. Wolinski presented the pictures taken by City staff showing the dumpster overflowing in accordance with the ordinance. He noted the resolutions for this problem is to order more pickups or add additional dumpsters, which McDonald's has done since Administrative Adjudication. Aid. Kent noted from looking at the pictures, that it appears that the over flow of garbage is from boxes that could have been broken down, which doesn't necessarily classify as overflowing garbage in his opinion. He suggested that maybe chaining the dumpsters so that once a business has filled, then no other garbage could be added from outside sources. Mr. Wolinski said that this is not a requirement but could definitely be considered. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent. The motion was approved 4-0. __ (P3) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvve 2 Restaurant at 1724 Sherman Avenue (Starbucks) Ms. Karen Alexander was in attendance representing Starbucks. Aid. Newman discussed the problem with their cups overflowing in the City trash receptacles and blowing around Sherman Avenue. He asked for a commitment from management and their ongoing cooperation in helping the City with litter control and emptying City receptacles when _ they are noticed to be overflowing. Ms. Alexander pledged management's commitment. Ald. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved 4-0. (P4) Ordinance 49-0-03 — Planned Development: 603 Maird900 Chicago Chairman Wynne brought to attention the communication just received by the Committee from the CTA to Jack Siegel, regarding concerns for their right-of-way and plans for significant infrastructure improvements to this location. She feels staff and the developer —_ should have time to address these concerns with CTA and the impact of the proposed development. She pointed out that CTA has just recently found out about the proposed new development for Main/Chicago. She opened the floor starting with a presentation P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page 3 from the developer to be followed by comments from the audience. She also noted receipt of a communication today from Aid. Bernstein to be passed onto the other Committee members. Mr. James Murray, Attorney representing the developers, referred to the series of exhibits before the Committee and audience. He noted that the developer made some modifications as an attempt to address those issues that came up during the course from the last meeting. He pointed out that this matter has been in process for several years but more specifically and intensely within the last 6 to 8 months. He informed the Committee that a series of meetings has occurred which need to be pointed out since it was an issue mentioned at the last meeting from the constituents of both wards effected. These meetings included the attendance of Aid. Wynne along with constituents from both the east and west sides of this project. He said this began with an informal discussion of a plan last year with the developers, their architect, and basic members of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, including the Chair of the Plan Commission, the Alderman of the Ward and key members of staff. This meeting was a means by which to create a preamble for activity on the part of developers with reference to the alternative review and passage of the proposed ordinance. He informed that they have been back to the SPAARC on a concept basis after making some modification that were in response to observations and recommendation that members of that particular Committee have made during the consulting stage. He noted that they conducted 2 public hearings pursuant to notices that were anticipated from the first meeting distributed by hand through the auspices of Mr. Pearson (Esskay Development) utilizing a list prepared for the developers by Mary Summerville. This list was put together information out of directories and over 100 pieces of mail were delivered regarding this particular planned development. He also noted that notices were placed in the newspaper pursuant to their request concerning the neighborhood meeting and concerning the Plan Commission meeting. He said the Zoning staff produced a list from a GIS map that were also mailed notice of the Plan Commission meeting. Therefore he noted that they have been through layers of review, all of which have had some impact upon the present state of the development as it has been presented to the Committee. He stated that their request this evening is two -fold: 1) to make a basic presentation of what is the project that they proposed a hope to be approved; as well as a review of some the design element that seem to be of concern to either Aid. Wynne along with concerns of several other members of this Committee relating to specific design aspects. They have also submitted some recommendation to the Law Department relative to some oversights or typographical errors to the ordinance that was prepared. He said that they have also been in touch with Mr. Alterson concerning certain zoning elements and their attempts to address those issues as well. He introduced the architect, Mr. David Brininstool for further comments and explanation on this project. Mr. Brininstool walked the Committee through the general characteristics of the project and the modifications made. In summary, he noted that the proposed project is for a 7- story building that was originally to the property line. He pointed out that a major modification that was made puts the building at a set back of 9 feet in order to give some relief from the street and also to create terraces for the residential portion as well. This P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page 4 modification resulted from early discussions with the City and the realization of the narrowness of the sidewalks, therefore making a wider public right-of-way. He said immediately above that, the 2sd floor of the building comes back out the property line which accommodates the parking structure. He pointed out the automobile access at the furthest northern portion at the ground floor for second floor parking and access to basement parking off of Main Street. He noted that they have 2 distinct retail portions that will be split by the entrance to the lobby on the corner of Main and Chicago Avenue. Ald. Wynne asked the distance of the height of the arcade. Mr. Brininstool responded that the height is 15 feet and pointed this out in the diagram displaying this. He also noted that the clear part of the arcade is at 11'6". He pointed out that they originally had 80 units and 131 parking, spaces, however as a result of the meetings, modifications were made focused on making a building that has less impact as a vertical element. Mr. Brininstool said a result, they modified the building to pull the 7 h floor back a lowazd the floor to floor heights of the units so that they now have a building that at the street is 65'2" tall, 9' back from the street at a total of 75' 10" in height. He pointed out that a good thing in pulling this back is the opportunity to do some roof modifications and to lower the unit count to 77. He also pointed out the importance of modification allowing much needed pedestrian walkway for this comer. He brought attention to the materials of the building, which for the most part have remained the same throughout the changes made to the project. He said the majority of the building from the street level is a brick veneer, noting that it is not a tile texture which is misconstrued as being similar. He explained in further detail the structural materials proposed including the outcome color of the bricks being similar to a limestone color and texture. He also described the proposed awning that would surround the ground level of the building. Mr. Brininstool concluded that the modifications made to their proposal he feels addresses many of the concerns expressed at the neighborhood and public City meetings. He also feels this project would fit in with the expectations of the Chicago Avenue Corridor Streetscape as comprehended. He described in detail, from questions raised by Committee members, the entranceways to the parking garage access and the lighting and luminous glow impact. Aid. Newman expressed his concerns for the ingress and egress from the parking entranceway especially with cars turning left onto Chicago Avenue. Mr. Murray responded that they have discussed this matter with the Traffic Engineering Department who have expressed to them that because of the setback of 220' from the intersection, that there would not be any traffic problems developed because of the breaks that are created from the existing traffic signalization. Mr. Wolinski requested that Mr. Fujihara be called over for comment on this matter. Ms. Brzezinski noted that the Site Plan Committee's concem more than the distance from the comer is the wall that comes out to the sidewalk that is set back significantly from that corner. Aid. Newman asked if the Site Plan Committee considered whether there should be no left turn coming out of the driveway onto Chicago Avenue. Ms. Brzezinski recalled that they did discuss the site line issue with the garage door placement, however she does not recall any major concern expressed for having no left turn. Mr. Wolinski believes that there was some concern by Traffic Engineering. Mr. Mullins disputed that they have been through this many times and recalls no major concerns. Ms. Brzezinski noted that this plan has changed since Site Plan Committee review, therefore if there was an issue it could have been resolved in P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page S some way that has not been reviewed or aware of by 5PA.ARC. Mr. Brininstool said that no changes have been made on this matter. Mr. Fujihara recalled that originally the developer had 3 entranceways and then reduced this to 2. He felt this was far enough from the comer that it should not cause any backup of traffic on Chicago Avenue. In response to the concerns for left turns onto Chicago Avenue, Mr. Fujiham said that Traffic Engineering believes this entryway is far enough away from the comer so that even left turns coming out of the building should not cause traffic problems. He said that this proposal is not much different from what is there now with the current parking lot in its location. However, they were more concerned with the entryway to the south off of Main Street. He explained that they felt it would be difficult turning left onto Main Street because of the blocked view from the viaduct. Ald. Wynne said this problem has been resolved by having on right turn in and out from this entryway. Ald. Newman requested that this resolution be included in the ordinance to ensure that this be a condition. Mr. Fujihara added that a porkchop could be added at the end of the driveway to ensure Us movemrnt as well. The Committee asked about left turns into the building from northbound traffic on Main and if there was concern for this movement. Mr. Fujihara responded that still, Traffic Engineering felt that with the entrance being 220' from the intersection there should be no threat causing traffic congestion. He said they felt it might be a bit discriminatory since they allow left turns out from the bank. Aid. Wynne noted that a change was made so that now entrance is from the alley off of Whin. She said that concerns for left turns in and out of this project have been expressed to her from several constituents. Therefore, she requested that staff do further review of this left tum situation. Mr. Fujihara reiterated that Traffic staff did not feel situation would be a problem, however if it becomes a problem they could always put in islands/porkchops at the entranceways to the garage eliminating and left-hand turns. Ald. Kent asked where the loading dock for this building will be located and where will the trucks maneuver getting in and out. Mr. Brininstool explained that the loading dock is located at the north end of the building and pointed out from the diagrarn this location. He said the trucks would pull in off of Chicago Avenue and back out as well. The Committee all felt this would be a very tight situation for trucks to maneuver, especially for loading and unloading for the retail businesses. Mr. Brininstool said there were some questions asked concerning impact of the building as far as shadows. He presented a shadow study that was conducted which concluded that on the March 21' and September 21 ' equinox, there is 1 hour from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. where there is a west bound shadow that goes across Custer. To the east of the building, on December 21', they have a substantial shadow that goes mid -block between Hinman and Chicago Avenue. For the June 21' equinox, the sun is higher and shadows are cast further north of the building. This concluded Mr. Brininstool's presentation. Mr. John Macsai gave background information on himself regarding his expertise and professional experience with architecture and that he is also a professor teaching architecture for 26 years at U1C. He feels this building is modem and fairly good architecture but not perfect in his opinion. He informed the Committee that he has talked to the architect and recommended a few improvements, which he was very receptive to. Those remnuncndations are: t P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 19.2003 Page 6 l) The arcade. He pointed out the north part of the arcade even though aesthetically pleasing; the retail strip is so narrow that the further the glass is moved back, he feels would hurt the rentability of those spaces. However, the arcade south of the entrange in his opinion should be made 5' between the column and the glass so that 2 people feel comfortable passing under it rather than being restricted. He said the same for the comer of Main Street. He also feels the comer should be cut diagonally to make it possibly more spacious and be somewhat sympathetic to what happens across the street. 2) Comer of the project at Main and Chicago. He mentioned the architect responding to SPAARC's suggestion of opening up the corner more. In his opinion, he feels this could be improved slightly by diagonally cutting the glass and having a triangle balcony above eliminating the other balconies so the developer is not loosing any saleable square footage. Being a developer's architect for many years, in his experience he is very cognizant of the fact that it is easy to recommend something where the developer is loosing money. He does not want to do this. 3) Balconies. He said the balconies are well camouflaged by being recessed and having an uneven irregular rhythm as possible. He feels this is acceptable but could be improved. He explained how to improve the rhythm of this pattern, noting that the columns give a strong regular rhythm, however the yellow balconies seem to upset the pattern. Granted the realization that the rhythm of the balconies fits, therefore as he mentioned to the architect, it does know if this problem could be solved with the design of the building. In conclusion, Mr. Macsai said that he would not like to make recommendations to Mr. Brininstool that he were unable to do himself. Therefore he has asked the architect if he could get a copy of the floor plan of the units and review over the next 10 days to see if he can come up with some type of recommendation for improvement. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Mullins and Mr. Murray if they have heard about this suggestion previously and if they would have a problem with Mr. Maesai`s offer. Mr. Mullin informed that they just heard about this before the meeting, however they would be willing to consider. He also noted that originally the plans had the balconies triangled on the corner but were asked to put them to the side, now they are suggesting to be put back. Aid. Wynne expressed her support for the additional review of the plans because the modifications that have been made up to this plan were in response to many people studying this project and looking over the building. She is very optimistic with any other review due to the response received by the developers from the past. Ms. Judy Freeman, 937 Sherman Avenue. She made a correction from the last P&D Committee meeting noting that she received mis-informed information. She said that this project is not directly behind her house as she stated at the last meeting. She pointed out that this is one of the major problems in their community, misinformation or lack of information and communication. She informed the Committee of a signed petition she has started with signatures of people in the community who were not informed of the Plan Commission meeting. With this matter being a requirement before holding an r N P&D Committee Nitg,. Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page 7 official meeting, she feels it is only fair for this project to go back before the Plan Commission as a public meeting. She said that she has so far received 35 signature from people within 1000" of this development who state they did not receive any notice of the previous meetings. She has received 85 signatures from people outside of this radius who are in support of this request. Aid. Newman said that they assume that when Council receives these proposals and ordinances through the Planned Development process, that the City staff has followed the Zoning Ordinance and notified the appropriate people. He noted that they have had a pretty good record of complying with this requirement in his opinion. He requested feedback from staff. Mr. Wolinski replied that there is a GIS map included in the packet that shows the 1000' radius. Also included in the packet materials is a copy of the actual notice that was sent out to all those on the list developed from the GIS map. Discussion ensued regarding how this list is compiled from the GIS map and its accuracy. From review of the listing, there were many addresses that appeared not to have been included that should have been. Discussion followed with several questions on if proper legal notice was achieved. Chairman Wynne asked legal for comment. Ms. Szymanski responded that she would need to have more facts, however typically if there is an affidavit that service was made on all of the people who were entitled to get notice, then the City would be at liberty to rely on that. However, from what has been said, it appears that more investigation is needed based upon the petition that Ms. Freeman has prepared, as to whether or not the list is complete. Aid. Newman requested that the Corporation Counsel's office look at the materials and advise the Committee whether proper notice was accomplished. The Committee also requested that staff report back to the Committee with further explanation of the memorandum received from the CTA. The Committee discussed whether this item should be introduced tonight or be held in Committee once again for response to the issues requested by staff. Aid. Newman stated that he does not feel they need to hold this again for response when these issues can be addressed for further discussion at the next meeting without holding up the process. Aid. Kent stated that he feels they should hold this in Committee, especially with the Ward Alderman not present and because of the importance of any decisions made for PUD's, he feels is worth being held over for. After much discussion, Aid. Newman moved to introduce Ordinance 49-0-03 and refer back to Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3 in favor of the motion and 1 voting nay (Aid. Kent). Aid. Newman requested that P&D begin at 6:00 p.m. for the next meeting on June 9's to allow more time for discussion of this matter and to hear all citizens signed up to speak as well. The other Committee members agreed. Chairman Wynne apologized to all others signed up to speak this evening that were unable to due to lack of time. She assured that they would make time at the next meeting for them to be able to speak. Mr. Wolinski also informed the Committee that staff should have District 65 & 202 information that was requested at the next meeting. 4. 1 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 19, 2003 Page 8 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Ordinance 46-0-03 — Binding Annearance Redew Chairman Wynne moved for Committee direction for staff to refer this matter to the Plan Commission for further review in accordance with the staff memorandum received in Council packets. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 4- 0 in favor. (PD2) Building Demolition Ald. Kent thanked Mr. Ruiz for his work done on putting together the PITCH information that has been discussed as far as trying to re-establish the study of a conservation district. He said that another meeting should be scheduled to obtain a proposal for a possible moratorium. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Wynne confirmed from previous discussion, that more time would definitely be needed than normally allowed with the obligatory adjournment time of 8:20 p.m. It was a consensus of the Committee to begin the meeting at 6:00 p.m. on June 9a'. Aid. Rainey expressed her concern for the time period that the item for discussion regarding the "Vacant Building Ordinance" has been on the agenda. She requested that this item be reviewed for consideration in the near future because it is an ongoing problem in her ward as well as the 5 h Ward. She suggested that consideration be given to scheduling a special meeting if necessary for this matter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?Z- CL I Jacqu in E. BrownIee PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COINIMITTEE MINUTES Monday, June 9, 2003 6: 4S - Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, M. Barry, A. Alterson, C. Brzezinski, A. Jackson, S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2003 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the May 19, 2003 minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P6) Ordinance 49-0-02 - Planned Development: 603 Main/900 Chicago Aid. Bernstein stated that at the last Planning and Development Committee (P&D) meeting, there was some question in a petition submitted to the P&D Committee where some citizens noted non -receipt of notice. Since that time, Corporation Council has given a legal opinion that substantial notice was delivered. The fact that some people did not receive their notice did not negate the notice that the City sent. He said that the notice relates to the meeting of the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission voted to recommend to P&D to approve the Planned Unit Development on this location. (P5) Ordinance 56-0-03 - Establishing a Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for Construction of New Sinele-Familv Residential in Rl Zoning Districts in the Sixth Ward. Aid. Bernstein was concerned that the Alderman of the Fifth Ward has been asking for this for the same period of time and did not understand why both items were not brought to P&D at the same time. He said that he made a reference to the Legal Department in Aid. Kent's absence to address what standards have to be met to procure a moratorium. Aid. Bernstein said that from the information in the P&D packet, it is clear that the 60' Ward is being inundated with new single-family residential construction. He said that P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Page Two this is not a tear down ordinance per se, but is crafted in such a way that it precludes the construction of houses in excess of 3,000 s.f., except to the extent that where there is an existing house that is torn down and has a footprint of 3,000 or larger, the new house can have the same footprint and square footage as the original house. Aid. Moran stated that during this moratorium, houses that would be larger than 3,000 s.f could not be built. It is his intention that within the ninety -day time frame there will be the formulation of some suggested revisions to the zoning ordinance in the R1 districts related to the size of single-family homes that could be built as replacements to other houses that would be torn down. The moratorium does not contain the prohibition against transferring property or tearing a house down; this of course excludes landmarks where they have to go to the Preservation Commission for approval. Aid. Newman asked James Wolinski how big a house could be built in an R1 district. Mr. Wolinski said that is determined by lot coverage, not footage. The house can not exceed 30% of the lot coverage. Aid. Newman asked if the new ordinance being discussed would deal with lot coverage. Mr. Wolinski said that it may, but the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission has addressed how height is defined and how the basement is treated. Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator said that a gross floor limitation would also be considered. In response to a question from Aid. Nm7nan, Ald. Wynne stated that the 3000 st came out of a Plan Commission meeting where they were trying to establish some definition of the super sized houses being built. She added that there could still be teardowns, but a super sized house could not be built over this tear down. James Wolinski stated that in the last three years there have been 22 teardowns in the 6`h Ward and all of the homes that replaced the 22 teardowns were over 3,000 S.F. As has been done with previous moratoriums, there has to be a limit on time and there has to be some type of proceedings or actions to remedy the situation_ Even though this moratorium is in the 6`h Ward., if there are zoning changes to the Rl district it would affect the City citywide. Aid. Newman said that he felt that there has to be an R1 district that works for the entire City, not just one ward. Aid. Tisdahl said that larger homes cause height and drainage issues in the 7`h Ward and said that this is also citywide. Aid. Bernstein said his sense is that what is being talked about now is not the ultimate method by which the Zoning Committee and Council will address the issue that is now in the 6`h Ward. It is an attempt to stop what is happening now for a short period of time during which Council can analyze and determine what can be done. Aid. Newman asked if the Ordinance states that this will go on for a specific amount of time or is it saying that the length of this moratorium is the entire time the Plan Commission is considering the matter. Aid. Bernstein replied that the length of the moratorium is finite - 90 days, but if needed it can be extended. Aid. Kent said that 3,000 s.f. or trophy houses is not the issue in the 5`h Ward. He said that the same thing that is happening in the 6`h Ward is happening in the 5`h Ward, it is P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Page Three just happening in a different way. While there are not any trophy houses in the 5,h Ward there are other things coming into the 5`' Ward that are just as undesirable. In proposed Ordinance 56-0-03 where it states "WHEREAS, the City has historically drafted its RI Single -Family Residential District regulations to provide for areas of lesser density and more open space on each lot than on lots in other Residential Zoning District" he said his Ward is the other and he doesn't see any concern there for the other. He said that while you are not going to see any trophy houses coming into the 5`h Ward, there are other things that are just as bad. So, while you are talking about RI Districts you are also talking about everybody that pays taxes, that wants to live the American dream. After reading "WHEREAS, these new constructions are of concern to neighboring owners and to the public because of the resulting effects on drainage and water runoff, the blocking air movement and light, the casting of shadows, the effect of larger structures on existing sewers...;" from proposed Ordinance 56-0-03, Aid. Kent stated that all of this effects us every day. Going back to segregating it to the 6'h Ward, he is not saying he could not go along with that, what he is saying is it doesn't ever seem to be an effort where we are pulling the whole City along with us together. He said if he goes along with the Moratorium for the 6th Ward his Ward still has a problem in the 5'h Ward and he can't separate it - only by price. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the Introduction of Ordinance 56-0-03. Motion seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. Motion passed 5-0. Isidro Lucas said that he was extremely concerned that there have been two megahouses built on his block. It changes the neighborhood, it will impact their opportunity to sell their house and taxes have increased by 30%. He said that many years ago he built a dormer on his house and had to wait about a year for approval, had to get a variance, and had to get a signature of all the property owners on the block. The people building these megahouses seem to be building in a matter of weeks. He felt that the entire system could use some reviewing. Celestine Van Dorpe, 2425 Thayer, said she wanted to emphasize how hard it is to live with the flooding and see the open space in your neighborhood disappear. She invited the Committee to come to her house and see the way her house is now, full of light and no standing water. She said she wanted them to come later when her house is no longer full of light but is enclosed by two large buildings. Joanne Benge spoke of the two large homes built on her block. She said that one of the buildings towered over other two story homes on the street. On the 2300 block of Thayer are two small homes for sale with a small house in the middle of them that is not on the market. She said that she thought that this was an opportunity for someone to come in and build megahouses on those lots that will be totally out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Pate Four Jeff Wilson, 2611 Thayer, said there are 13 house on the south side of Thayer. Ofthose two are teardowns, and three are renovations. He asked for the Committee's help in supporting Aid. Moran's proposal. He presented the Committee with a petition signed by 64 citizens asking the Committee to pass Resolution 56-0-03. Mr. Wilson also said that stricter enforcement of the rules are needed, it doesn't matter what rules there are if they are not enforced. He said he thought that there were two houses across the street from him that are not be in compliance with City codes. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Wilson to give Aid. Moran the address of those two homes. Kenneth Wylie, 2517 Thayer, said that he has lived on Thayer Street for over 37 years. He said that this was a block of small houses that change ownership frequently as families become larger and move out. Currently there is one home that has been built over a smaller foundation and hangs over that foundation in the back. There is the possibility of four more of these megahouses being built on Thayer. Mr. Wylie said that he and his wife moved into their home because of the neighborhood and they wanted that area to remain a neighborhood. Anne Earle pointed out that what she thought Aid. Kent was referring to is that there is R4 and R5 in the 5`h Ward, but what you have on the ground is R1. Dave Galloway, president of Design Evanston stated that he did not live in that neighborhood, but that Design Evanston takes great concern with any designs that are created over the City. It is very disheartening to see these totally inappropriate and often times characterless residences built in such charming neighborhoods. He said that the building code and zoning ordinance are woefully inadequate to handle the changing circumstances of a few individuals in our society that can afford to go into any neighborhood and maximize their housing potential. Mr. Galloway urged the Council to move immediately to address this issue not only in this yard, but also in every ward in the City. Aid. Bernstein said that this item would be on the consent agenda for introduction tonight. (P) Reouest for Mayor's Special Housing Funds for the Westside Resident's Association Judith Hurwich, vice chair of the Housing Commission stated that the Housing Commission fully supports this request. Ald. Bernstein asked Betty Sue Ester who would monitor the distribution of these funds. Ms. Ester stated that this was a one-time payment to be paid to the consultant for his initial consultation. Aid. Wynne asked if the consultant would be writing a report. Ms. Ester said that the consultant would be submitting a report approximately every three months. P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9, 2003 Pace Five Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the request of S 1,171 from the Mayor's Special Housing Fund for initial consultation charges. Ald. Kent seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-0. (P) Ordinance 54-0-03 - GrantinR Evanston Landmark Status to the Property at 3312 Dartmouth Place. William Reich, owner of 3312 Dartmouth place, said that one of the reasons he submitted the application was that his is a small two -bedroom house of significant architectural character situated on a double lot. He said he wanted it to stay exactly as it is and with Landmark status he felt it could. Mr. Reich said that if this house were sold it would be a good opportunity for a developer to build a megahouse on that property, with Landmark status that could not happen. Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 54-0-03. Motion seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. Motion was approved 4-0. (P) Ordinance 49-0-03 - Planned Development: 603 Main/900 Chicago James Murray, Attorney representing the developers, said that one of the inquiries related to the issue of intensifying the use of properties within Evanston producing a substantial increased burden for the school district. He said that in the material submitted in the packet given to the Committee this evening was a study which indicated that of the 452 various units built in five or six condominium structures (1580 Sherman, 515 Main, 640 Maple, I210 - 1230 Chicago Avenue, and 2953 Central) there were two school age children. Also, there is an opinion from EIlen Szymanski in the Evanston Law Department, based upon Supreme Court Ruling that there was substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the Evanston Ordinance. There was a question that was raised by Council for the CTA in a letter to Mr. Siegel, evidencing a concern how this particular development was going to impact upon the LTA's intention to improve its right-of-way, particularly the viaduct over Main Street. Mr. Siegel advised that the City had no kind of requirement to establish any kind of setback on private property to aid or assist the CTA in its casement exercises relative to the right-of-way. Both before and since the inquiry, meetings have been held between McShane of the offices of Brininstool and Lynch, developer's representatives to address the issues that were quite clear from the beginning. Those conferences have resulted in a resolution of all concerns on the part of the CTA and that the essence of the resolution that sheeting will be installed to protect the CTA's embankment construction and wall issues as well as a drainage system emptying into a manhole on the premises owned and operated by LI.0 provided they have Council's approval to proceed. There were concerns about the propriety of right and left-hand turns from the north entrance or exit of the proposed structure approximately 220 feet north of the intersection of Chicago and Main. He said that Mr. Keith Fujihara, Evanston Deputy Director of P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Page Sir Public Works was asked to review the issue and responded that he had reviewed the issue and based upon his studies, indicates the right-hand turns in and out of the premises proposed for the north end of the building are acceptable as far as traffic engineering standards are concerned. Concerns expressed by Mr. John Macsai, architect, at the last meeting have been addressed to his satisfaction. Mr. Macsai complimented the developers for their cooperation. Aid. Bernstein asked if there is room for construction of both the Main Street overpass and this development at the same time. Kimberly Beattie, Senior Government Relations Officer of the CTA stated that she too wanted to compliment the development team. She said that there were a number of concerns to the initial reactions of the CTA that the developers have addressed piece by piece and set up caissons that are staying on the east side of the right-of-way, a drainage program that will be beneficial to both interests as well as some precautions on the retaining wall and maintaining the integrity of the structure. The CIA's construction of the Main Street Viaduct will not begin until after this building is complete. Ald. Bernstein asked if the CTA was waiting for this building to be complete before it starts it construction of the viaduct. Ms. Beattie replied that the CTA is in the design phase of the viaduct right now and the design phase is not scheduled to be complete until January of 2004. The construction will be done May 2004 to June 2005. Mr. Bernstein asked Mr. Murray the expected time of the planned development. Mr. Murray replied that given the ability to proceed with the passage of the ordinance this evening, his expectation was that the actual construction will commence in July or August of 2003 and will conclude in August or early October of 2004. Aid. Kent mentioned that the Committee was supposed to receive financial statistics and asked if the Committee could also receive statistics on affordability. Mr. Murray said that was not in his capacity to respond and did not think it was directed to him to respond. Aid. Kent said that it was referred to staff. Mr. Walinski said he would get that information for the Committee. Mr. Murray said that there was the question of providing low/moderate income on the site, but the developer's capacity was limited to offer some specific types of financing. But in terms of the cost of the units, they were pinned within specific parameters. Judith Hurwich said that the Housing Commission was going forward to make it enticing to planned development to include units for affordability for people that are approximately 80% of the median income. Aid. Bernstein said that there is an Inclusionary Housing Task Force that is talking in terms of what tools might be available in order to impact developers. He said that when he asked the developers last month if there is any affordable housing that he was told that was not possible. Mr. Murray stated that because of the need to address issues of construction, particularly underground multi -levels of parking needed by virtue of additional impositions for any developer with multiple bedroom units, you will find it is very difficult to offer a concession to a modest lower income housing stock. P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Pace Seven Ald. Kent asked why seven stories instead of four and why 77 condominiums instead of 50, and not 50 that everyone can afford. But, at least something that would be a decent height for the neighborhood. Kevin Pearson said he lives in the 515 building just around the comer and runs a business just opposite it. He said he has talked to a lot of his neighbors, mainly his colleagues within the small businesses and in the 515 building. He said that a lot of them are frustrated Aith the way the community is and he has been getting, a lot of positive feedback. In terms of what he as a developer is trying to achieve in terns of density, a lot of which is driven by economics. Because of earlier problems concerning the foundations and structural issues of the bank there is a need to do a larger building to overcome that and to bring the bank building down and to cover those costs. Once you start going across three lots a developer is looking to maximize. Of course they are looking to maximize, but they are also looking to do the best job possible. He felt that they had achieved that, they have committed the past three years to this development. He and his partner have attended 14 meetings and gone in front of the public twice. Steve Mullins said that he felt they have been very responsive from day one to the concerns brought to them. He said that is the charge he gave to David Brininstool of Brininstool and Lynch and to be responsive to concerns brought by the City. While they want the development to be economically successful, they also want it to fit into the neighborhood and they have done that the best they can. Mr. Pearson said that there are many issues that drive them, such as parking. They have sufficient underground parking, but you cannot have that without having a sufficient building to provide some recompense. Aid. Wynne said that the zoning that the City permits prices the land. The way any land property owner looks at something is what is the maximum development that someone can achieve on my land when they sell it. She said that the way for the City to address it is to look at what is being allowed by the zoning. Aid. Wynne said that she doesn't usually speak in support of developers, but the City is getting a much better streetscape than could be had from any developer. The sidewalk will nearly double in size, which is critical in this section of Chicago Avenue for a length of almost 280 feet. She said that this developer has gone much further than any other in listening to the City and its Citizens. The City needs to go back and look at what is the density and the height issue that has been allowed in outer limits, because that is no longer the outer limits, it is now the target that developers want. James Wolinski said that 80% of the median income for Evanston is 556,500 for a family of four, 50% of the median income is 537,700. One of the things the City has been trying to achieve in the planned developments is a give back, to allow a number of units that people in a lower income bracket could afford to purchase with 30% or 35% of their income. He said he was in agreement with Aid. Kent that it would be wonderful if some of the lower income people could buy a unit in this development. P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Pace Eiebt Bill Foy said he lives within the 1,000-foot range. He said that he wanted to ask this Committee to ask City Council to take seriously this whole Question of density. Chicago Avenue is changing and with the corner of South Boulevard having 90 units, there is a proposal at Kedzie and Chicago Avenue for 50 more units, this project will have 77, and there is still the possibility of more units with another proposed project. He said he had nothing against this project, but his concern was that the City has to look beyond individual projects. Judy Freeman stated that people in the third and fourth wards were not very different from people in the sixth ward. They live in Evanston for the very much the same reason, spaciousness, trees, peacefulness, and quality of life issues. She said that her family and her neighbors have put a lot of money in to their homes. She was concerned about what seems to be the unrestrained development up and down Chicago Avenue. She felt that this development would only add to the traffic problems. Ms. Freeman said that she wanted to protest the list that is used for sending notices. She felt that it was not up to date. Many people were not getting their notices because they were not addressed to the current owners. She also said that she questions the traffic study that was included in the original packet. Also, there is already a line of traffic waiting to get in the parking lot east of Sherman Avenue on Main Street on a Saturday. It was her opinion that there would be a lot of rentals in the proposed development. There would be people moving in and out all the time. She asked the Committee to be diligent in craning an ordinance that keeps in all the beneficial elements that are in it. She asked about the long-term plans for landscaping. Aid. Wynne stated that was in the Ordinance. Nis. Freeman asked what would happen if the developers didn't use the materials they had promised to use. James Wolinski said that if it is specifically stated in the Ordinance that certain materials were to be used in certain ways, and the developers were not using stated materials, the City would stop construction. Ms. Freeman asked what the process is for herself and her neighbors to have input in this project. Aid. Wynne said that this is the third time that this project has been on P&D's agenda. Kevin Pearson said that there have already been two public meetings. Aid. Bernstein said that the notices are not the purview of the applicant, it is the City that sends out notices. He said that what P&D is trying to do is to hear concerns now. The — Plan Commission is a recommending body to the P&D Committee. P&D members have read all of the discussions of what went on and many of the points Ms. Freeman is bringing up tonight were addressed at the Plan Commission meeting. Ms. Freeman said she appreciates that she is being heard, but there are other people who are not aware of these meetings. Aid. Newman said that if there is not going to be a vote tonight on this project, the City should leaflet all residents within 1,000 sq. ft of the proposed development stating that P&D will be taking a vote on this planned development. He suggested that the leaflet should describe the project so that this notice issue can be settled. P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Page Nine Ms. Freeman said that there are issues concerning whether the units «ill sell. She added that vacancies are up. Aid. Newman asked her why is that an issue for the City of Evanston. The Developers are taking the risk and investing their money putting up 77 units and if they don't sell it is the Developer's problem. Ms. Freeman said that if they don't sell, they become rental apartments. Ald. Newman asked James Wolinski if there was anything in the ordinance they would prevent the developers from building rental apartments. Mr. Wolinski replied there was not. Mr. Wolinski said that an analysis has been done of the condominiums built within the last five years and how many of those units have been rented or flipped, and 10% of those units were not owner occupied or had flipped. (P) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvve 2 Restaurant at 720 1/2 Clark Street UK Sweets) Aid. Newman stated that there is a big issue of trash right where this Cafe is situated. He asked ifJK Sweets had employees picking up the street around their Cafe. The applicant said that her employees were picking up the trash and also emptying the trash receptacles on the street on the weekends. Aid. Newman moved approval of the Sidewalk Cafe for JK Sweets. Motion seconded by Aid. Kent. Motion passed 5-0. Ald. Bernstein said that this would be an action item for City Council tonight. (P) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvve 2 Restaurant at 1640 Chicago Avenue (Whole Foods) Aid. Newman asked James Wolinski if his staff had been checking trash receptacles last week. Mr. Wolinski replied that they had and his staff found the trash receptacles overflowing last Monday morning. Ald. Newman told the representative from Whole Foods that this trash must be picked up. The representative replied that afier her conversation with Ald. Newman last week the employees are picking up trash up to 250 feet from her store. Aid. Newman moved approval of the Sidewalk CaM for Whole Foods. Motion seconded by Aid. Wynne. %lotion passed 5-0. Aid. Bernstein said that this would be an action item for City Council tonight. P) Ordinance 49-0-03 - PIanned Development: 603 Main/900 Chicago - (Continued) Kate Saccany, 926 Judson stated that she had been in contact with a woman that owns a unit in the bank building. This woman has had her condo an the market for one year and has not been able to sell it. Ms. Saccany said that this woman was advised to turn it into a rental unit. She said that she had walked around her neighborhood and all the rental properties have rental signs out that have been out for three months at least. In the past, these signs would only have been up a week or two at the most. A couple of meetings ago it was brought up that these properties/developments increase the surrounding homes property values, but at the same time if there is so much rental saturation on the market it will actually decrease property values. During the weekdays Starbucks has a policeman directing traffic, but on the weekends there is no policeman and there is a lot of traffic not only of cars, but delivery trucks. With more condos there will be more traffic. She also said that the list the City is using to notify residents of meetings must be updated. She P&D Committee Meeting Minutes - June 9.2003 Page Ten notices mailings coming from the City to people who haven't lived in her building for 8 years. Debbie Hillman said that the points have all been well made. There has been a lot of sympathy expressed for 6 h Ward residents. She said that the residents in her neighborhood have asked for that sympathy for 3 or 4 years. She said they had gotten some sympathy by getting a downzoning to Zl A. As a result of their efforts they keep getting developments that want to go bigger than that. She said that they made a compromise, but this is overdevelopment. It is a building that will go lot line to lot line. She didn't see that the community was getting anything out of this. She felt that a double sidewalk was not enough. They were also getting a big development, no open space and on top of all the other traffic issues, at this intersection this will only make things worse. She felt that this building would have a bad entrance and exit creating traffic problems. The City is not enforcing the laws they have now, so how are they going to enforce the new laws regarding this buildings traffic flow. Aid. Newman said that the P&D meeting would have to adjourn at this time and this issue would be continued at a later meeting. It was decided that City staff would leaflet the neighborhood surrounding this development before the next meeting. Ald. Kent made a motion to hold this item until the next meeting. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted Mary Baas e Planning D ision Planning & Development Committee Minutes of June 23, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: A. Newman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, A. Jackson, S. Janusz, D. Marino, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein's DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. At the last meeting, the Committee had discussed having a special meeting to address the vacant and boarded building ordinance. The Committee voted unanimously to hold the special meeting on Tuesday, July 1 ", 2003 at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DUNE 9.2003 MEETING A1d. Wynne moved approval of the May 7th minutes, seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein announced that he will be changing the order of the agenda to address item (P3) first regarding the Planned Development for 603 Main Street. He opened with where they left off on the list for citizen comments. Tina Dace, neighboring resident, brought to the Committee's attention a letter that was submitted to them this evening from Judy Freeman. Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the Committee's receipt of this letter and that it would be admitted into the record. Ms. Dace seconded everything that Ms. Freeman's letter addresses. She expressed her specific concerns with added traffic from this proposed building with the addition of 77 units. She questions the accuracy of the traffic studies done for this project_ She assumed that at least 77 more cars would be added to the area, if not double this number per unit and does not see how a study would conclude no change or negative effect to the neighborhood. She also expressed her opinion of disagreement with the aesthetics of the proposed building appearance. Mr. Peach from the Evanston Chamber of Commerce spoke in Mr. Jonathan Penman's place since he was absent. He expressed the Chamber's support for this project and the P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 23.2003 Page 2 economical opportunity for that site and area. He feels the addition of 77 more residential units «till only enhance the businesses for that neighborhood. He said another critical aspect is the fact that this project will bring in thousands of dollars worth of tax dollars to the community and to the school districts. He said the economic development issues are important points he feels the Committee should keep in mind as much as the brick and mortar aspects of this project. Mr. David Galloway, President of Design Evanston as well as an Evanston resident. He said after close consideration of this project, he and his organization are in favor of it. He believes that the planned unit development proposed is a far better product that what could be built by right on that property. He noted that his organization are somewhat familiar with the architects and their work and assured their production of high quality work and are conscientious developers and appear to be considerate of the surrounding community and open to input, new ideas and suggestions, as offered by John Macsai. They believe that the improvements that have been made in the project since its original introduction, have been significant and noteworthy. He said as far as traffic is concerned, they believe that traffic would be significantly worse if this project was strictly commercial. He said they echo the Chambers sentiments with regards to economical development as well. Mr. Doug Geyer, resident of 811 Chicago Avenue building. He informed that he has lived in the neighborhood since 1981 and had a business in the Main building. He noted the parking problems then that have only worsened since. He said that there has always been a parking problem in that neighborhood and with all the recent new construction, the area and trend has become too dense and overpopulated. Ms. Jean Esch said that she has lived in Evanston since January 1944. She recalled back to the way Evanston was in those days and said that if it were still that way, they would be the "Galena" of the Northshore and would be making a fortune in tourism. Her point is that they must anticipate change and she feel this project will be a great change for that site. She said as far as the parking problems in the area, it is evident, but many areas in Evanston have a shortage of parking. However this project is providing additional indoor parking that will provide off-street parking. She pointed out that there are not many good options to build along the railroad tracks and this project will fit well there. She is impressed with the project and supports it. Karl Schmedders, resident of Evanston, said that the big picture needs to be looked at here for all of Evanston. Being the facts of the interest rates are so low at this time, therefore money is cheap resulting in rapid building and construction and real estate buying. This its happening nationwide, cspecially with the influx of condominiums due to the demand for ownership. However, with more and more building and development, Evanston has reached its point of saturation and rapidly reaching the point of over - saturation. In his opinion, it is important to keep in mind that the influx of condominium boom here in Evanston, when the economy goes up, it is going to hit the market negatively. In addition, when this happens, all of Evanston residents will have to pay for this dramatic over -saturation of hi -rises and other condominium buildings. P&D Comminee %11g. ,Minutes of June 23, 2003 Page 3 Two other citizens spoke with regards to concern for density in the neighborhood and the additional students going into the school districts with the addition of all the residential units to Evanston over the past recent years. Chairman Bernstein closed citizen comment on this issue and asked Mr. Murray for any final presentation. Mr. James Murray informed that they have prepared some modifications that failed the aspect of Mr. Macsai's suggestions that dealt with the corner. The renderings particularly describe the last of the modifications to the design that fulfill Mr. h1acsai's suggestions. Mr. Alterson distributed to the Committee a fill -in -the -blank copy of the draft ordinance with the changes from what was introduced at Council in May. He referred to page 8, Section 9 which covers design characteristics of the building that they may wish to see as conditioned in the ordinance if passed. He also referred the Committee to the last page of the draft ordinance in their packet where there is a list of exhibits. He noted that those exhibits have changed over the last month; the latest set of drawings he has are dated June 9 h. He mentioned one of the things to keep in mind should this be passed onto City Council, is to decide what drawings and renderings the Committee wants incorporated as exhibits in the ordinance that gets voted on the floor. Chairman Bernstein gave an overview of what has occurred so far. From his understanding, the portion of the process in which the Committee stands at is that this particular ordinance went to Council for introduction and was returned back to P&D for additional discussion and comments from citizens. He noted that there are new proposed modifications to the ordinance that was introduced. He further noted that those modifications, since first presented this evening, has not given the Committee an opportunity to accurately review. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that actually what was in their packets over the last 2 Council meetings was for the most part the alterations from what was introduced. He said that the ordinance before them in Section 9, page 8-11, are some suggestions for what they might want to see as specific conditions to address appearance related features of the property. Therefore, the Committee needs to direct staff as to what they ►vant in the ordinance; noting that this draft is only a working tool for that purpose. With that in mind, Chairman Bernstein pointed out his concerns with the blank to fill in on page 9, paragraph 8 regarding the inclusion of characteristics, and asked the other members for their concerns as well or any suggestions. Mr. Murray explained that there are several items that dealt with those particular issues that are contained in the pass -out that he provided to Aid. Wynne, Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Alterson earlier. He noted that the issues in that handout are more specific than Mr. Alterson's version in where it explains in more detail the areas of having display windows on the entire first floor frontage with standardized aluminum framing, pre -finished aluminum ban for signage, translucent security in garage doors, and a unified signage program. He noted that there are also down -lighted elements under the gallery and a translucent illuminated band above it on the exterior. P&D Committee %ttg. Minutes of June 23.2003 Page 4 Aid. Wynne stated that she is struggling with this because it is the critical part of this building. She is concerned because what they are discussing right now are all of the characteristics that she has worked for as well as a number of members in the architectural community, that are major concerns addressed for the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan that they have all worked and pushed very hard for. These issues pertain to widening sidewalks, creating better setbacks, etc. She again stressed her concern wit this being the worse possible way to incorporate conditions into an ordinance. She recalled that the Committee asked staff at the last meeting to prepare an exhibit that detailed all of these fine architectural details including ever}rthing that Mr. Brininstool has come back with over and over again in modifications. She noted that such an exhibit as she had in mind is not presented here tonight. Therefore, she is very reluctant to put this ordinance to a vote tonight without a very thorough examination of what they are agreeing to in terms of the final outcome of this building. Aid. Wynn recalled the situation where repeatedly they have accepted a building on the face drawings and then seeing a building in conclusion as not what was originally presented. She assured that she is not accusing that this developer would do that, in fact, this developer has done the opposite in terms of being willing to meet with all concerned and consider suggestions as well as incorporate some. However, the fact remains that the Committee has vowed not to approve a building without putting into the ordinance all the details presented a promised that will make it a better building from a architectural standpoint as well as a variety of other issues that are critical to the acceptance of a planned development. She reiterated her reluctance to sit and pencil in the blanks on this working tool ordinance at this present time without the Committee having due time for the opportunity to review properly. In essence, Aid. Wynne apologized to the developer but strongly feels there is no conclusive ordinance to vote on tonight. She said in all fairness, this matter needs to be held over for the Committee to review the modifications and amendments to the ordinance, address and find some consensus to the blanks needing response in order for staff to prepare a final draft ordinance for consideration. With all said, Aid. Wynne moved to hold in Committee for the reasons stated above. She also requested that the P&D Committee members review the ordinance before them and inform staff of their conclusions, and for staff to meet with the developers on a final presentation and ordinance for this project by the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 1411%. Chairman Bernstein seconded the motion. Aid. Kent expressed his appreciation for Aid. Wynne's motion to hold this matter over because he agrees that it is too big a project with many critical issues still not addressed and confirmed for any final vote. He made aware that if this matter were not held over, even with it being introduced, he would have voted against moving forward. He reiterated his concerns he expressed at previous meetings on this development with the fact that he still feels the neighbors concerns have not been fully addressed. He also reiterated that in his opinion, 7-stories is too high for this particular site due to the tight nature of that intersection. Also the proposed project is too dense for the neighborhood as well. Aid. Kent stressed his point, as he has repeatedly done with many of the recent residential developments that have or are being constructed in Evanston, that the issue of P&D Committee Sftg. Minutes of June 23, 2003 Page 5 affordable housing is not being addressed with the acceptance of these buildings in the community. He stated that this brings back his question of who these new residential units are being built for because the cost of them are beyond the average working class, moderate income family in Evanston. He recognized the high cost of construction and the ability to provide affordable housing units in some projects, however the fact still remains that the average moderate income family is being forced out of this community and something needs to be done to address this problem. Aid. Kent made aware that he does sympathize with the developer in this project due to the delays and hold oven from the beginning. He also believes this developer has good intentions for the community as they have proved by their willingness to hear and incorporate the many suggestions made along the way, However, as the project stands in its current state of presentation, he would vote against it due to his belief that improvements can be made to address the concem as he stated above. Mr. Murray stated that he would like to move toward a point which they could agree on what are the critical drawings so that they can be distributed in the appropriate fashion for Aldermanic and staff review. He made aware that Mr. Brininstool is present and can identify those drawings along wit the owners of the property who can identify and agree to the conceptualization that is delineated on those elevations and renderings. He said that they could then consider perhaps the difficulty of attempting to identify by line item the design elements agreed upon that can be incorporated in the structure when built. Chairman Bernstein responded that this is part of the argument against binding appearance review, however, it is difficult to quantify quality which is what he believes Aid. Wynne and Mr. hlacsai have been trying to do. Aid. Kent recalled past discussion he had with Mr. Perman from the Chamber regarding the influx of hi -rises and residential units brining in tax dollars, which benefits the school districts as well. He stated his appreciation for this added tax monies for the school systems, however is the burden of additional students in the school system really addressed. He said by the same token, he would like to know if it is possible or the Chamber to take a stand not only on the buildings coming here to Evanston but also on the communities and the group of people that he has mentioned that are being left out of the entire process. His point being that the Chamber should represent all of the people of Evanston and how any new development will effect the entire community on all levels. He stated that this is his opinion and advise to the Chamber, recalling the 1930 Ridge project as a negative to the citizens of that community which the Chamber supported because of the added tax dollars and business to Evanston. He directed to the Chamber that they should take into consideration that the addition of all added development to Evanston is not necessarily good to for the community as a whole. Aid. Tisdahl raised the question of what can actually be built on this site as -of -right. Mr. Alterson referred her to a chart that was forwarded to the Committee at a previous meeting that has an in-depth zoning analysis. Aid. Tisdahl pointed out that from her understanding it appears evident that even if this project as proposed does not go through, some residential will most likely be built on this property. It is confirmed under the as - of -right zoning analysis. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 23.2003 Page 6 With no further discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion to bold this item in Committee !P2) Ordinance 59-0-03 — Snecial Use for 640 Church Street (Tune 2 Restaurant) Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the applicant, Mr. William Ng. He informed Mr. Ng that the Committee has not had an opportunity to review the ZBA transcript, which was not completed in time to be included in the Council packet. He noted that without the transcript for conclusive discussion, it has been a consensus of the Committee to withhold final vote. He also noted that the Alderman of the Ward in which this business would be located is not present this evening for comment or concerns. He suggested that the Committee could introduce tonight and refer this back to the Committee for further discussion so as not to hold this item up in the process. The Committee agreed. Chairman Bernstein moved to introduced and refer back to Committee, seconded by Ald. Wynne. Chairman Bernstein gave Mr. Ng an opportunity to give any comments or presentation he had prepared for this evening. Mr. Ng gave a brief synopsis of his background informing the Committee of his educational level as an Illinois licensed Architect. However, his family owned and operated a restaurant since his childhood and he expressed his passion to continue this tradition. He gave an overview of his restaurant operation including the preparation of fresh foods for sushi and keeping products fresh in a deep freezer. He also acknowledged the litter collection plan as explained at the Zoning Board hearing and from staff; he vowed to adhere to the regulations of this plan. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P11 Ordinance 61-0-03 — Buildine Permit Moratorium in the 5'h Ward Chairman Bernstein acknowledged this item as a reference made by Aid. Kent. Before any discussion he asked Ms. Szymanski to give the Committee some analysis of the standards that need to be addressed with respect to this moratorium. Ms. Szymanski referred the Committee to her memorandum dated May 14, 2003 that was forwarded to the Committee in a previous packet. She noted that she specified in that memorandum that an order for a moratorium is a reference with a property owner's right to develop his - — property. In order for government to interfere with that right there has to be an articulated need of a duration to last only long enough for the municipality to address the need. She continued that more specifically here, the articulated need would be the stated reduction in the neighborhood traffic, parking concerns, the types of construction that block air, movement and light, the stress and additional strain that new construction would put on the existing water and seiner infrastructure, etc. She stated that type of need is articulated in the ordinance. She said from her understanding from Mr. Wolinski that in so far as the City's studies of the effect of a new construction in the 50' Ward on the particular problems enumerated in the ordinance, that for the last several years there have been meetings of the Neighborhood Plan Committee and various sub -committees along with the local neighborhood groups. She said at these meetings there was discussion on — P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of June 23.2003 Page 7 identif}-ing the nature of the problems and address possible solutions. its. Szymanski said again, based upon Mr. Wolinski's information forwarded to her, the various committees and commissions which are still yet to meet and prepare reports for consideration by their superiors. will require approximately 180 days. She said with the specific articulated meetings necessary to bring any consideration by reports, transcripts, etc. forward, she believes that the ordinance is sustainable on the basis of its time period. In conclusion, Ms. Szymanski said primarily the details of the articulated need and the duration that is tailored to resolve and aggress that need, are justified. Chairman Bernstein at this point referred to the sign up sheet for citizen comment. Mr. Todd Smith, said that he is a third generation Evanstonian and has owned and managed property in Evanston over the last 30 years. He strongly feels this moratorium will hurt the 5`' Ward and does not understand where this is coming from or the reasoning behind it. He said that he has been attending the neighborhood meetings for over the last year and does not understand the objectives for this. He opposes any moratorium for 180 days because he feels there is no need for it. He said there are people here that want to improve Evanston in this ward and a moratorium %ill only repress any plans for future development. Ald. Kent asked Mr. Smith to elaborate his feelings that this will hurt the 5'h Ward. Mr. Smith stated that his opinion on stopping new development at this time will also hurt the work done by all sub -contractors, insurance agencies, the real estate market in this area, etc. In other words, it will stunt the growth in the areas of business, employment and the overall economy for the neighborhood. He said it can also effect the possible development of bringing in some affordable housing as well. Mr. Andv Soatz, concurred with Mr. Smith's comments. He believes the ordinance obstructs positive economic changes that are already happening to the 50' Ward because it seems contrary to what the City's sponsored Mayor and aldermanic attended Planning Commission meetings that have taken place over the last few years, have been trying to accomplish. He said this appears to ignore the votes that they have had at the preliminary neighborhood planning meetings from the draft dated April, 2000. Also, this is contrary to the division statements by the Mayfair Neighborhood Association, E-Town, West Side District Council, and the Doctor Hill Community Association. He noted that there is overwhelming anxiousness that has been expressed by these groups to get things moving in this area and participants realize that money in development need to come in order for the neighborhood to regain the goods and services desired by the residents. He said this proposed ordinance stops all momentum gaining interaction, in its tracks. He also feels that this ordinance puts a dangerous precedence for potential development, as well as sending a precarious message to potential investors. Mr. Spatz pointed out that on page 6 of the proposed ordinance it basically stops all building permits from taking place, as it is worded. He noted that his particular project located at Dewey Avenue and Payne Street, based on his interpretation of the ordinance, will halt any further work and will basically put him out of work for the next 6 months. He informed that he has pre -leased 48% of phase I1 of his project. which he has been working with the Site Plan Committee on, and he will not be able to deliver on his occupancy dates. If this occurs, he will be opening P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 23, 2003 Page a himself up to litigation, will loose credibility and more importantly, he will loose some really good tenants that are hard to find. He stated that he can not allow this to happen and insisted that he would have to seek legal consultation as far as his options would be in this situation. The "Stamp Factory", which is the name of his project, has been an overwhelming success and appraised by the planning Division to the extent that he has had four field trip visits by staff. He has also leased the project three months early and 800/6 of his tenants are Evanstonians. He also mentioned the overwhelming response from residents in the neighborhood has been positive as well. He concluded that he sees no evidence in support of this moratorium at this time, especially in relation to teardowns in the 5 h Ward, even in the case of threat by replacement of possible multi -family housing. He further noted that any possibility of development in providing any affordable housing to this ward would be diminutive. He feels that any positive development will only attract investments into this neighborhood that is heeded to bring in more housing and businesses to the area. In response to Mr. Spatz's comments, Chairman Bernstein asked staff what happens to projects in the pipeline with regards to such a moratorium? Ms. Szymanski responded that she is not familiar with the status of Mr. Spatz project, nevertheless she referred the Committee to page 7, section 4 of the proposed ordinance where paragraph A states "that if there is a connected building permit on file with the Cite on or prior to the effective date of the ordinance, then such a project would be allowed to proceed." She reiterated that without knowing the scope of Mr. Spatz status, she can not confirm at this time where his project would be considered in the pipeline of its development. Mr. Spatz noted that from his understanding of the ordinance, if the project has any kind of residential component, then it is going to be under the umbrella of the ordinance. In fact, he further noted that from the way the ordinance reads, it seems that you can't even repair your home or put an addition on. Mr. Wolinski explained at this point, that staff took a direction from the Council with the adoption of the ordinance for the bu' Ward that was passed at the last meeting. He continued that the 5`h Ward ordinance for the moratorium was crafted with the idea, in his perspective, that this refers to new construction. He noted that it is unsure as to the director of the motion, if you wanted to get into adapted reuse and certainly this could be changed per the Alderman of the Committee's request. He stated that his interpretation of this moratorium was simply addressing everything residential beyond a single-family house that would be built from the ground up. He said that it is up to Aid. Kent as to whether he would prefer to add an adapter for use included in this ordinance, which is an issue that can still be addressed at this time. Ald. Kent responded that when he discussed this issue over the phone with Mr. Spatz, he was under the impression that the discussion was in relation to the business district; not any residential. From what he has just heard at this meeting and from his interpretation, he feels that Mr. Spatz project has already gone through the process of being fully acknowledged as being in the pipeline and appears to be fully phased out. Therefore, he does not understand where Mr. Spatz would feel this moratorium would effect his project from what is stated in the ordinance and further explained by Ms. Szymanski. He assured Mr. Spatz that in his opinion, this moratorium would not effect his project and his interpretation of the ordinance as he feels would relate to the residential component, is misconstrued. However, Aid. Kent noted that if by proper analysis his project for any P&D Committee Mug. Minutes of June 23. 2003 Page 9 reason is not considered in the pipeline, then assuredly it «ould be expected to full under the provisions of the moratorium as %yell, as it relates to the residential component. Ms. Beta I Palmer. stated that she has been actively involved throughout the neighborhood meetings and various other meetings relating to this issue over from the beginning. She claimed that there have been several rumors within their neighborhood regarding some major developments planned for the 5`h Ward. She explained that what occurred with many neighbors was the rise in concern for their position as property owners and how this could evidentially effect them. She said that in anticipation to eliminate some of the problems that have occurred with many projects throughout Evanston with regards to over -development and final outcome of bad new developments, this moratorium is a tool to halt any further progress of new development in their ward before an agreed upon process or set of regulations is made that are acceptable for this neighborhood. She referred to the 1930 Ridge project as a good example of people/developers coming in from outside of their community with a vision of profit only and no consideration of what the people in the ward want or desire. She stressed the opposition of the 1930 Ridge development by the neighbors and pointed out the undesirable plan and the evident outcome of the building as it appears today. Ms. Palmer urged the Committee to take into consideration that this occurrence is what the residents of the 5`h Ward who support this moratorium arc trying to cease. She feels that 180 days is not too much to ask for if the outcome is to better their neighborhood and demand and have in effect a set of regulations and stipulations for any developer to follow in order for new development to improve the area. She noted that the 5`h Ward suffers enough with shabby construction, illegal dwelling units and construction work done without permits. Chairman Bernstein asked stafito look into Ms. Palmer's accusation of work being done without permits. Ald. Kent thanked Ms. Palmer for her comments expressed. He noted that the West Side Resident's Association asked for the Neighborhood Planning process to be there and were the sole reason initially for their involvement. From the beginning, their intentions were to bring in people that were concerned for the improvement of the neighborhood and the people that live there; not just about development for their personal economic benefit. He stated that if you went into the neighborhood planning process and think that that process is supposed to tie into serving the hands of the alderman as far as representing the ward, he stressed that this is sorely mistaken. He said that everything that comes out of that planning process, when it is a full packet, is still going to be discussed here at the P&D Committee. He stated that this is a tool in which to pick and choose and hopefully have a consensus to build a better quality of life in the 5`h Ward. Ald. Kent stated, that if in some impression that this somehow has tied his hands or discards his power from representing his ward, then that is not the intent that it was brought in there for. He explained that his intention for mentioning this point is because he feels that it has been construed that the neighborhood planning process is supposed to be the end-all for decisions made for this area, however, he assured his stance is that it is not. He used the Chicago Avenue Corridor issue as an example where the Committee and Council are still discussing and finding themselves defending the position of what was collaborated on. PhD Committee NO& ~minutes of June 33. ?003 Pap 10 Mr. Gary Jovice, said that he has lived in Evanston since 1982 and has been involved in many community activities ever since. He informed the Committee of his original occupation as a special education teacher and evidentially had the opportunity to start purchasing property for management and continued with this livelihood. He said that when he moved to 1837 Wesley and he witnessed some of the activities in that neighborhood that were going on at that time and realized that serious change needed to be made and felt the urge to aide in this capacity on his own to assist in changing the neighborhood. He said that for the last 20 years he has obligated his time and energy in doing just so in t*ing to help build a better west side and make improvement to his neighborhood. He boasted that he has owned approximately 15 properties on the west side for some time now with the intent to only improve this area with better housing that what was currently there. He stated that he has often been concerned that there is a notable fear for change on the west side and supports that there is no real need to be. Mr. Joyce stated that there needs to be a trust for neighbors and people who have expressed and imposed their ideas and proposals for change for the betterment of the community in that area. He elaborated further on the intentions of those investors and developers who have recently come into the neighborhood who have only presented and made positive changes, and stressed the negative impact this moratorium would have on the present projectives, as well as any future investors and planned proposals for this area. He strongly feels that any positive economic improvements can not be accomplished with this type of moratorium in effect. He urged the Committee to look at and consider the negative impact such a moratorium would have on the 5`h Ward and the negative message it would send out to any outside investors that might be interested in this community. He pointed out that there has been very little new construction in the 5,' Ward, specifically only 3 new housing developments within the past years and the new development of a senior housing building. Mr. Joyce strongly backed the need for an improved climate in this ward and neighborhood to enhance any investment for affordable housing that Aid. Kent has expressed much concern for. He further expressed his support for Aid. Kent's concern and desire to bring in more affordable housing and avenues to assist the current residents of this community to improve their housing status, however, this moratorium is not the way to go about that effort. In conclusion, Mr. Joyce brought attention to a signed petition that he achieved with 33 signatures within 2 hours from residents in the neighborhood that are against the moratorium and noted that if he had more time, would have received much more support. He strongly urged the Committee to reconsider acceptance of this moratorium in consideration of all the strong arguments against it as stated by himself and those who commented before him. Aid. Kent responded that Mr. Joyce's comments are admirable. However, Mr. Joyce has stated in the past that he would not rent to any Section 8 or low-income families. In that capacity, he questions the intentions of how this could be construed as helping out the residents that live in that community. He stated that if someone is coming into the neighborhood to develop and make a profit, but are not actually doing anything to help the residents of the 5d` ward, then he has a problem with this and supporting their development. P&D Comminee `tt& Minutes of June 23. 2003 Page ] t Mary hlcCaulev. from the Dr. Hill Business Association. said that there is a need to find constructive creative ways to improve the 5°t Ward area. She said there is no precedence for this moratorium and it will be sending out a bad and negative message to possible investors that might be interested in putting money into the neighborhood. She opposes this moratorium and feels it would not be good for the betterment of the 5`h Ward. New development should be welcomed into the 5'h Ward. Lester Blair. said that he owns property in the 5'h and 6`h Ward and a few other locations in Evanston. He stated that he wishes to keep his right to vote and to keep his right to build. In his opinion the 5 h Ward does not have a problem because there is a zoning ordinance that allows certain types of construction. The City also has staff that review the plans for the different building codes that need to be followed. Therefore, only so much can be built or developed in certain areas. He feels a 180-day moratorium is not warranted for the 5`h Ward. He has a 4-unit currently in this ward and would like to continue to build when he feels it is appropriate. He noted that he does rent to low- income people and tries to accommodate as much as possible to allow everyone that want to rent one of his units and stay in Evanston. He said the point he wants to make is that right now they do not need an ordinance to say you can not build in this area because there is a need here to bring people in who will build and help develop this community. He said there is also a need to bring money into the community and find jobs for the residents as well. Aid. Kent commented that the problem has never been bringing people in who want to build. He does have a problem with people coming in to build that want to move out the residents that are there. He stressed that all the 180-day moratorium does is give the residents a chance to get together, to empower the residents, to therefore direct the staff as to what they would like to see as far as future developments are concerned. Terry January, said that she lives in the Habitat house built on Dodge Avenue. She is troubled with the repeated negative comments made on the appearance of the 5'h Ward and nothing being done for improvement and no new development or business. She feels that the 5`h Ward is being kept impoverished and this moratorium will only worsen the situation. She said new development is needed in the 5`h Ward. Chairman Bernstein concluded citizen comments. He said that due to lack of time to continue this discussion, there would be no way the Committee could vote on this issue this evening. He suggested that this matter be continued for discussion on July I" special P&D meeting scheduled to discuss vacant and boarded buildings. The Committee agreed. Aid. Tisdahl requested that staff re -send the list of any teardowns and what has been built to replace them. Chairman Bernstein is also interested in any permits or projects that are in the pipeline in the 5`h Ward. Aid. Kent reminded that this moratorium is in no way related to the same issues as the teardo%kms in the 6'h Ward. He said although the list of teardowns in the 50' Ward would be useful, it is not the whole issue of concern that needs to be addressed in this ward. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 23, 2003 Page 12 Aid. Rainey requested to the Committee members that they keep in mind that the special P&D meeting was originally scheduled to give ample time for discussion and consideration of the vacant and boarded building ordinance. She would like that such time be given for this discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. rRespectfully submitted, Jacqueline E. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of July 14, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Benmein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Barry, A. Jackson, S. Janusz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:58 p.m., apologizing for the hold over in Executive Session. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23.2003 MEETING Ald. Wynne moved approval of the June 23rd minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda, (P2) Ordinance 61-0-03 — Buildine Permit Moratorium in the 5d, Ward Chairman Bernstein announced that their sponsor, Aid. Kent has informed him, that the community will be ready to present a proposal at the meeting on July 2e. As a result, there will be a motion to hold this item in Committee until then. Aid. Kent moved to bold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved with a vote of5-0. Chairman Bernstein asked that all those signed up to speak this evening on this matter hold their comments until the meeting on July 28 h. (P4) Ordinance 59-0-03 — Snecial Use for 640 Church Street (Tvne 2 Restaurant) Chairman Bernstein called on the applicant, Mr. William Ng, who gave an overview of his restaurant and operation at the last meeting when this was held. He noted that the transcript has been received since then and forwarded to the Committee in their packets. He asked Aid. Newman for any comments or concerns that he wished to address with this restaurant. Aid. Newman informed the Committee that he has discussed with the owner some of the problems with trash that the City has been experiencing in the downtown business area. He noted that the owner has a unique concept in his understanding with P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of July td. 2003 Page 2 the pick up and monitoring of garbage and the trash dispensers within 250' of his business. Ald. Neuman also made note that since the City has gotten more involved with policing the downto"m area, the alley next to McDonald's has drastically improved. He is confident of this owner based on his background and his understanding of his responsibilities. Chairman Bemsteih added comments and information to Mr. Ng on Council's expectations of all special use applicants on their contribution with respect to assistance in picking up garbage and helping to keep the downtown area clean. Aid. Newman also noted that the block that this restaurant in going in does not have a row of type 2 restaurants; more t}pe 1's are in this particular area. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 59-0-03, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved with a vote of 5-0. (P1) Temoorary Sianaze ReQuest for American Craft Exposition Mr. Wolinski noted that this is a proposal that has come before the Committee for several years held at the Henry Crown Sports Pavilion. Staff recommends approval. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 49-0-03 — Planned Development: 603 Main/900 Chicago Aid. Wynne recalled that the last time they met regarding this issue, there were no detailed renderings with architectural details of the building and she requested that the applicant provide a full exhibit. She noted that such an exhibit is needed for planned developments and should be held until accomplished. She said that staff held a meeting, which she was able to attend, with the developers and the architect. There were approximately 10-15 people in attendance and the meeting lasted for 3 %= hours to describe all the architectural aspects and sighting of the building. She has reviewed the entire ordinance and has a few amendments that she would like to make. However, out of all the descriptions that have been received. the size of the setback from the sidewalk through the description of the glass, the type of brick, architectural detailing that has been made in response to requests from Alderman, constituents, and other Evanston architects, have been incorporated and the outcome is acceptable in her mind. Aid. Wynne commended staff and all involved for putting this together and doing a very thorough job. She feels this is the standard and idea process by which all PUD's is envisioned and should go through. She noted in that meeting staff along with the developer and architect, went through line by line with discussion and conclusion on the item and all this w-as incorporated into the ordinance. She is pleased with the outcome of this proposal. With regards to Aid. Wynne's suggested amendments, Chairman Bernstein asked for confirmation from staff on the procedure after an item has been introduced. Ms. Szymanski suggested to the Chair that this be taken off the consent agenda and read into the record the underlined amendments as well as the one's by from Ald. Wynne this evening. Aid. Wynne began with a technical point she wanted to amend regarding the landscaping of the building including the streetscape in Section 6, page 6. She referred to P&D Commince 1ltz. Minutes of Jul. 14, =003 Page 3 the copy of the ordinance that she received from staff this evening which includes additional language she discussed with staff this afternoon. (A version of this amended ordinance was copies and distributed to the other Committee members.) She suggested that the additional language in italics be incorporated into the final ordinance. Her proposal" is to have language to cover the landscaping of the terrace and she wants assurance that this planting is maintained. She said that one of the prior versions of the ordinance had language to this effect and her request is to add it back versus this proposed ordinance that only has language for the landscaping to be maintained in good and sightly condition. She recalled that this language is similar to the condition put on landscaping with the Osco site at Oakton and Asbury where there are standards that should be followed and some type of penalty fined if not in compliance. She questioned why this section was ever altered because the previous language adds better protection as she has requested be put back into the ordinance. Aid. Wynne also requested that the fine be reduced from $5,000 to S500. She feels that the higher fine is appropriate for Osco's but the reduced amount would be more appropriate for a condominium association. Aid. Wynne motioned for approval of inclusion of her amendments made above. AK Tisd tbl stranded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Bernstein referred to item 3 of Section 6 on page 7, where it lists the 900 Chicago, LLC which is the developer, will subsequently give way to a condo association and this fact should be made clear in the ordinance. Mr. Murray pointed out that this matter is addressed in Section 4 of the ordinance that was forwarded in Council's packet. Ald. Wynne recommended an amendment to Section 9, which is in italics in the ordinance passed out this evening. This amendment is to add the wording "subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development." She explained that this will cover the applicant developers right to substitute materials upon approval of the Director as stated above. Aldr Wynne moved approval of the amendment to Section 9, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. With no further Committee amendments, Chairman Bernstein called on citizen comment. Mr. John Macsai. architect, stated that architecture has nothing to do with style and he feels this is an outstandingly good project as presented by a very conscientious architect and urges the Council's approval. He admits that this street has been cursed with many bad buildings that have been constructed lately but does not want to see this project being penalized because of this. Aid. Newman stated that Mr. Macsai's comments are important and should be taken into consideration. He says this because one of the things that has happened, in his %iew, is that there has been some community dissatisfaction with several of the buildings being built in that area. He also appreciates that fact that Mr. Macsai has volunteered his time with the architect of this project and this type of assistance and advice from professionals is valuable in the process of planned developments. P&D Comminee Ntte. Minutes of July 14.:Yj; Page 4 Ms. Judv Freeman. expressed her disapproval with Section 8 of the ordinance referring to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Specifically, she has problems with the "right turn only" onto Main Street forcing vehicles to go west. She is concerned with the vehicles that needed to go east on Main Street and these cars using Custer or Sherman as a turnaround avenue, which will cause traffic problems and hazards just west of the viaduct. She pointed out that both of these streets are very crowded, especially in the winter. She feels the traffic study done for this project and site is flawed and inadequate and does not address the impact to the community on traffic flowing west out of this development. Ms. Freeman requested that the City come up with some options for the ingress and egress off of Main Street since it appears that this project is a done deal at this point. Mr. Fujihari responded that the Traffic Engineering staff' looked at this project as having a site problem with traffic exiting out going east on Main St because of the viaduct obstruction. He said that if they found in the future that too many cars are disobeying the signage, then the City would come in and put up a partition to make sure traffic turned right only. He said with regards to how this effects the neighborhood to the west, Traffic Engineering did not look at this and were more concerned with safety coming in and out of the development. He said the same thing applies to the ingress/egress onto Chicago Avenue where staff felt it was far enough away from the intersection where left turns in and out of the development will be acceptable. He noted that the bank across from this site is allowed the left turns in and out without any major reported problems, therefore felt it was justified to allow this development as well. Mr. Brininstool informed that two different areas of the parking garage separate the two points of ingress and egress. Mr. Fujihari was under the impression that both points could be accessed in the garage because he assumed that someone would exit turning right out of the Chicago Avenue side to go south or east on Main versus using the south exit from Main Street. Chairman Bernstein asked how many parking spaces will be utilizing the Main Street exit. Mr. Brininstool responded 52 parking spaces all for residential. He also reminded the Committee that sometime in the near future, CTA plans to remove the center abutment. After this occurs, they would like the right turn only reevaluated. Mr. Fujihari responded that the City would have to look at this closely because this entryway is still very near to the intersection. ,is. Rennie Heath questioned if the turning left into the building on Main Street from traffic going east, will be obeyed. Other member of the audience expressed their concern with the traffic problems caused by this development. Mr. Fujihari responded that the City Traffic Engineering Department looks at traffic situations in another way, for example, they consider 18,000 cars coming down Chicago Avenue per day and 10,000 cars coming down Main Street. In consideration of this, there will be 52 residential cars coming in and out of this development and the number of cars who will use the public parking section. It is not as major, in actuality, minimal compared to the actual count of cars using both these streets per day. Chairman Bernstein added that it can be assumed that many people will use public transportation with the close proximity to it. Ms. Freeman still feels that the traffic study done for this project did not address ingress and egress adequately for this intersection. Aid. Wynne asked the developer if they have changed the design since the traffic study was conducted. The developer responded that the design has stayed consistent since the study. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of July 14. 300: Page S Ms. Patricia Dolton, expressed her concern and disapproval with the City allowing the continuous building and adding of condominium development in Evanston. She feels a referendum is needed for the City to stop and take a look at the strain they are putting on their limited infrastructure and available building space remaining. She says there seems to be no economic development plan that takes into consideration addition of population with the added residential units. She noted that a majority of the new development began within the last 2-3 years and is becoming a hazard to the community. She said there appears to be no concern with how the residents in the community feel who express their objection to what their elected officials are allowing to happen with this influx of development. Chairman Berstein came to the defense of the Council in that they do listen and take into consideration everyone's opinion, but as elected officials it is their job to make final decisions that will never have a consensus in the end. Ms. Katherine Sucurnvi?), seconded the comments made by Ms. Dolton. She appreciates the change in the appearance of the building and the amendments made, however the fact still remains that there is a citywide problem with congestion that the steady influx of condominium developments is only adding to. She feels that City government and staff need to address this problem and come up with a plan before going any further with additional development in Evanston. Ms. lean Esch, brought attention to the fact that studies have been done on Evanston's green house gas problem, which is a nationwide problem that is growing. She pointed out that all Evanstonians should look at how many cars are being used within a household and how everyone can contribute to the reduction of this problem. She raised this issue because she too does not approve of additional strain on congestion to the City, however she feels there is very little that can be done to minimize the traffic at that intersection. She said that Evanston is not a "real" suburb anymore; we have become an urban suburb. She touched on the many changes she has witnessed since moving to Evanston in 1944. She stated that change in inevitable and feels this project would be an asset to that site in consideration of what can be built there by right. She expressed her disapproval of what exists there currently and something needs to be built to replace the unsightly appearance of that comer. She also expressed her support for small businesses within the Chicago/Main shopping district and this development will only help those businesses and support the neighborhood. Ms. Rennie Heath, noted that if the developer had of thought this through beforehand, the current building as it sits would not have happened. Because of this, she feels the developer is arrogant and irresponsible and does not take the neighbors and surrounding community into consideration. She also supports the comments and feelings of Ms. Dolton and Ms. Sucumv that the City needs to put a halt to all the development and think through a plan for the City to support what is here now. She referred to Aid. Kent's past comments about over -development of Evanston and to stop and take a look at how it is effecting the City. P&D Committee .%tts. Minutes of July 14. Z003 Page 6 Mr. Dave Gallow•av, said that he is concerned with the amount of people disturbed by this project. He noted his position as president of Design Evanston, where their function is to try and look out for the overall general welfare of the aesthetics of anything built in the City. He noted that they try and weigh all the pros and cons of all projects they look at. He said a City of this size and economic climate does not have much choice but to grow and how they grow is always open to debate. He pointed out the growth has been legislative and voted on and approved in the Zoning Ordinance and it available to look at and reconsider at any moment. However, they are faced with a decision at this moment and time as to what to do with this property. He said based on his understanding of what can happen on this property if this project does not go through, could be disastrous and much worse in comparison to this plan. Mr. Galloway said in defense of the developers, that they have shown an extraordinary amount of sensitivity, patience and talent in addressing a difficult site. He noted that this design is eery temporary in style and there is a great market for buildings like this. He does not share any concerns over any profound downturn in property values and that there has been no history to this fact. He gave his support for this project and urged the Committee's approval. Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Alterson to indicate again what can actually be built on this site as -of -right. Mr. Alterson, first off, noted that this project is not that far off from what is as -of -right on this site. He stated what could be built on this site under CIA which is 77 dwelling units, if B3 could be 67 dwelling units, the project proposes 77 units. Under B3 buildable area could be 81,312 square feet, under CIA could build 108,416 square feet, the project is at approximately 95,000 square feet. Building height on the section of the project under B3 can go up to 125' and under Cla could be 67', and this portion is requested to be 76. Ald. Tisdahl asked if this project was built as -of -right, would the City have any control over building materials, landscaping, etc. Mr. Alterson replied no. Mr. Murray requested to clarify one point in Section 5, which addresses the applicant's contribution to the Chicago Avenue plan. He said in conversations with Mr. Fujihari, it has been suggested that they relate this specifically to the cost of construction and installations on the third line where it ends with the "amount of $70,000". He suggested an amendment that would contain this language: "an amount equal to one-half of the actual cost of construction not to exceed $70,000." There was no consensus from the Committee to support this amendment. Mr. Murray further suggested an amendment be made to Section 7, item 3c & d. In item 3c it should read "not less than 60 feet" and in item 3d it should read "not less than 8 feet". Aid. Wynne moved to accept these two amendments, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The Vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ald. Wynne commented in response to the concerns expressed previously. She noted the extensive work done and the hundred's of hours spent on the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan by herself and others in attendance such as Penny Miller, Debbie Hillman. She said the majority of members on the Committee for this plan when she was elected as Alderman 6 years ago, were mainly from the 3rd Ward and some from the 0 Ward. This plan was to analyze Chicago Avenue and change the zoning ordinance. The Committee P&D Committee Attg. Minutes of July 14, 2003 Page 7 had the height limitation on Chicago venue reduced, including this site and what could potential be built by over 35%. She noted that the Committee fought against many developers who said that such amendments as made would make it virtually impossible to build on Chicago Avenue. She said that statement has proven not to be true. Aid. W)mne admitted that the Plan is not perfect anZl has recently made a reference to go back and look at Chicago Avenue again, but she supports this building because of all the efforts this developer has made. She made clear that she is no fan of developers, however she would have to dispute anyone calling this developer arrogant. She said that this developer, in her six years on Council, has been more willing to listen to constituents than any other she has worked with. She pointed out several changes the developer made to their plan in order to accommodate some concerns of the neighbors, the alderman of the ward, and a retired architecture professor here in Evanston who volunteered his time to assist the developer's architect. She commended Mr. Brininstool on his cooperadon and willingness to listen and make modifications to the design. She clarified that this is not her favorite design in architecture, however she does believe they received a better building than what was originally presented or what could have been done as -of -right. Aid. Wynne further pointed out several modifications that were made by the developer that also follow the plan for the Chicago Avenue Corridor. In conclusion, Aid. Wynne moved for approval of the entire ordinance with inclusion of the amendments made above, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3-2 (Bernstein & Kent voting nay), motion passing. (P3) Ordinance 69-0-03 — Planned Development: 1100 Ciark/1719 Ridge. Chairman Bernstein said that due to lack of time this item would have to be continued. It is also the consensus of the Committee that this item will probably require the need for a special meeting. Aid. Newman requested that staff provide for the next meeting a memorandum specifically listing everything allowed on this site for development as -of - right. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacque�e E. rownlee • Planning & Development Committee Minutes of July 28, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. ►A'olinski. J. Aiello, A. Alterson, M. Barry, S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. L. Jean -Baptiste. Aid. G. Feldman Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUINi Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 14. 2003 MEETING & SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 1.2003 Aid. Kent moved approval of the July l" and July 14th minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes %verc approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION With regards to the first three items on the agenda concerning the honorary street naming, Chairman Bernstein asked staff' about the representation of these recommendations. He noted that one of the three requests %�as presented by an Alderman, the other two were not. He asked for clarification because the resolution states that these recommendations need to be presented by an Alderman. Aid. Kent stated that it is his understanding that these recommendations are normally brought forward by a community group to the Alderman. Therefore, the Alderman becomes the sponsor of the request. Chairman Bernstein noted that with respect to Ms. Holmes, Aid. Kent was the sponsor. He questioned the sponsorship of Fountain Square and Mr. Hannan. Aid. Newman stated that he was involved in the recommendation of renaming Fountain Square and accepts sponsorship of this request even though the application was presented and signed by The American Legion. Aid. Jean -Baptiste confirmed his involvement with the recommendation for Bill Hannan and also accepts sponsorship. Mr. Gaynor, as staff for the Citizen's Advisory Committee, noted that the original request was from Mr. Hannan's daughter in Skokie. However, he confirmed the approval of both Aid. Newman and Aid. Jean -Baptiste on the requests for Fountain Square and Bill Hannan. With all confirmed, the following cases were voted on. 6 P&D Committee brig. Minutes of 7.28.03 Page (Pl) Resolution 43-11-0 3 - Honorary Street Name: Recoenizinr Fountain Sauare Veterans Memorial Plaza Aid. Newman moved approval of Resolution 43-11-03, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Resolution 44-R-03 - Honorary Street Name: "Delores A. Holmes Avenue" Aid. Kent moved approval of Resolution 44-R-03, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Resolution 45-R-03 - Honorary Street Name: "Bill Hannan Drive" Aid. Wynne moved approval of Resolution 45-R-03, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 61-0-03 - Building- Permit Moratorium in the 5ei Ward Chairman Bernstein opened with citizen comments from the sign -in sheet. Ms. Mary McWilliams informed that she was one of the members of the "PITCH Committee" in Aid. Kent's ward and helped conduct the survey of the properties in the 5'h Ward. She helped organize the program, along with Ms. Pauline Williams, with the National Trust in 1996. She said the issue became very clear to her that there is no question that the 5'h ward represents a significant part of Evanston's history and this area should be preserved. Whether it is through a conservation district or historical, it is justified and would be relevant. She feels as long as it is not for an indefinite period of time, the moratorium does allow the issue to be raised and gives everyone the opportunity to understand what the goals of the neighborhood are. She noted that even though some of the single-family houses may be 2-family houses now, the area is represented by single-family houses that are separated by a yard. She encourages and supports the moratorium for those reasons. Elizabeth & Kendra Johnson, sisters who own property and land in the 5"' Ward. They are opposed to the moratorium. From their understanding, this ordinance is telling them that they can not build a 2-flat on land that they own and feel that this is not fair. Instead of building a single-family house on their empty lot, they would prefer to have income property that would help pay the mortgage. In response to Aid. Kent's question on the location of the land they own, Ms. E. Johnson informed that one lot is on Dodge and on Brown Avenue. She said the lot on Dodge once had a 2-flat building on it; this was torn down and they would like to replace with another 2-flat. Aid. Kant explained that they have been misinformed because the moratorium will cease building permits for 180-days but does not mean that they won't be able to re -build a 2-flat on the property. He noted that the 5'h Ward is already top-heavy with 2-flats, which is much more preferable over the 3 or more unit buildings. He continued that the moratorium is aimed at major development plans for the 5`h Ward and not to discourage single-family development. However, even if the building is a 2-flat and the owner is not living on the premises, he opposes because the building then comes under absentee landlord issues and concerns. However, he assured that the moratorium is not to discourage the replacement of 2-flat P&D Committee hit& Minutes of 7-28-03 Page 3 buildings or the development of affordable single-family homes and if the building plans are in the pipeline, then the moratorium would not effect that project. Aid. Kent also noted that during the time of the moratorium will allow an opportunity for the residents to consider the conservation district aspect. Ms. Kendra Johnson voiced her opinion that the 5 h ward need major development and she would like to see an opportunity to eliminate many of the vacant lots and boarded properties. She echoed her sister's comments that they would like to be able to re -build on their vacant lot a 2-flat similar to the one that burned down on that location. She is opposed to any moratorium of suspending building permits, halting development and progress in the 5`h Ward. Chairman Bernstein directed attention to page 7 of the ordinance under Section 4 which clarifies what the ordinance does not apply to: a) Where a perfected building permit is on file with the City on or prior to the effective date of the ordinance, and b) Where the new construction will not exceed the footprint, height, density, and other parameters of the torn -down structure. Mr. Wolinski noted that section b was derived from and is similar to the moratorium constructed for the 6 h Ward. He also noted that zoning will always control exactly what can be built on a property, even after a moratorium has been lifted. He assured the Johnson's that this section would exempt them during the moratorium if the footprint of their proposed 2-flat matched what existed there before. In response to the question from Ms. Johnson, it was clarified that if a single-family was tom -down, this could not be replaced by a 2-flat. Aid. Kent noted this is one of the reasons for wanting a moratorium because of the "patchwork quilt" pattem of construction that exists in the 5"' Ward. Ms. Johnson disagrees with this concept because rebuilding/replacing with a 2-flat versus an existing boarded -up vacant house should be more desirable for the neighborhood. Aid. Newman said it was his understanding that the point of the moratorium was to give an opportunity to look into the consideration of forming a conservation district in the Yh Ward. if agreed to do so, the effort would be to begin or accomplish the formation of the conservation district and committee within the 180 days. Aid. Kent responded to Aid, Newman that he is correct in the sense of examining the needs to of the 5 Ward and the residents desires for their neighborhood and also trying to decide if the conservation district is the way to have control of this and what is built in the Ward. He said that if there is a conservation district and once a committee is put into place, they are still not as strong or as rigid as the historic district ramifications. He said what they found the conservation district would do is truly empower the residents that live there, as far as what is going up in their community and not allowing a developer or person with an access amount of cash to come into the community to take up two or three houses and rebuild with some structure that totally overdevelops the property. Aid. Newman stated that he does not question what the conservation district could do but feels it important for everyone to understand the purpose and process involved with having this moratorium. Aid. Tisdahl pointed out that in Section 3 it states that if "upon finding that continuation of the moratorium for further study beyond the 180-day moratorium authorized hereby etc." She questioned if some conclusion or deciding procedure will be accomplished P&D Commitlee .%ttg. Minutes of 7-28-03 Page 4 within 180 days. Aid. Kent responded that it is possible that the process could take more than 180 days. however he feels it is unlikely that this would take more time than 6- months, Mr. Lester Blair said that he owns property in both the 5 h and Oh Wards. He feels 180 days is a long time to put a halt on development when there is only a short period of time where the interest rates will be this low to take advantage of. He said if he is unable to do improvements to his property now. it will be much more cost effective after the moratorium time frame. He is not saying that a moratorium is a bad thing to do for the community, however this is the wrong time to do it. He mentioned his involvement with City government, including his chairmanship of the Property Standards Board. From his experience, he has witnessed how development works in Evanston and the City is rapidly developing at this time. With that in mind, this is no time to halt new development in the 5`h ward while the rest of the City is prospering. He reiterated that this is not the right to time to have a moratorium in effect when development is so cost efficient. Mr. Gary Jovice acknowledged that he has already spoken at the previous meeting. He asked for a show of hands in opposition to this moratorium. Approximately 15-20 people in the audience raised their hands. Ms. Roberta Hudson presented a rendering of the 5`h Ward neighborhood study area. She pointed out the green dots were property owned by Mr. Robinson and the blue dots were property owned by Manchester. She accused that many of those properties were rehabbed and developed without proper permits if any at all. She showed more renderings of Mr. Davidson's projects on Darrow and Lyons Street and pointed out areas she believed to be dangerous and shoddy construction. She said these are examples of why there is a need for a moratorium to get a better handle on the type and quality of construction being done in the 5`h Ward. Ms. Hudson showed additional renderings of several Manchester properties pointing out areas where the construction was deteriorating. She showed more pictures of scattered rental properties throughout the 5'h ward that area in poor condition owned by absentee landlords. She presented these examples as proof of why many residents are behind the moratorium because they want to see better types of housing, proper development for the area, and improved living conditions for the 50'Ward. She said that the pictures speak for themselves. Mr. Robinson responded that he has been accused by Ms. Hudson and Aid. Kent for years of work that he has done without permits and points out that now real concrete = evidence has ever been presented to prove the accusation. He said in reference to his parking lot between Foster and Emerson, that the proper permits and procedure were done, otherwise the lot would not be there now. He also commented on the quality of construction expected versus keeping rents affordable. He said it is very difficult to keep rents at $5004700 and provide top quality materials for construction. You can't have it = both ways. He also reminded that when he was granted approval to construct the bus lot, it could have been constructed in a way where it was wonderful for the entire community, - however this was not how it was done. In his opinion, he feels that Mr. Robinson is his elder and had a longer opportunity to work and make improvements in the 5`h Ward than P&D Committee Nfig. Minutcs of 7-26-03 Page 5 he has. Ald. Kent reminded that there was no permit in place when the easements were started for the bus lot. therefore ifs. Hudson would seem to have a valid accusation to make. Mr. Davidson expressed his anger at the misrepresentation of the photos presented by Ms. Hudson. He said she has no knowledge of construction and what is considered "shoddy" work and is attacking something that she has no experience in. He pointed out that what she was showing in the photo to be deficient brick material was actually Styrofoam used for the insulation in the mold for the concrete walls. He backed the construction done on the house at 1618 Darrow and would challenge anyone to the quality of work on the construction of this property and its durability. He said the property has also been landscaped. Mr. Andv Snatz said that if the conservation district and committee is formed, to add another layer to the building permit process is too much. It will be timely as well as costly for the developer and'or investor. He feels that this added process will only discourage potential development opportunities for the 5`s Ward. He also noted that a moratorium takes away the property owners rights, especially in this case where there appears to be no real concrete reasoning or logic for having one that halts building while discussing the issues and concerns that have been stated. He also seconded Mr. Davidson's comments on its. Hudson's misrepresentation because she is not a professional and he is. Therefore he assured the quality level of construction and materials used. Ms. Muffv Leinweber reminded that the City partnership with ECON Development for both projects on Darrow and Lyons and have been involved with the construction and from the beginning and City Inspector conducted inspections as well. She also reminded that in order to build affordable housing, government funding is needed and in many cases the developer makes linle if any profit. She said that the developer only has a certain amount of funds to work with and have to build and construct within that budget. She informed that the house on Darrow is selling for 5175,000 and cost approximately $240,000 to build. Mr. Charlie Sheridan informed that he is a resident of the 5`h Ward and is a construction specialist by profession. He made a suggestion as an alternative for the City to provide fagade funding for affordable housing projects to improve the overall appearance of the final outcome. He said this would vastly improve the aesthetics and quality of the project. He agrees that the affordable housing that has been shown in the photos and others that he has observed in the City do not have a quality finish and could be improved. Chairman Bernstein ended citizen comments and moved to Committee discussion and final direction. Aid. Wynne stated that she is very confused about what will happen during the moratorium period. She said there is a need for more clarification in what is supposed to P&cD Committee N. Ug. Minutes of 7-28.03 Page 6 transpire such as what exactly will be discussed as far as what the residents want and is the main objective to form the conservation district within the I80 days. There remains a need for more specifics in what the goals are aimed for accomplishment within this timeframe and more so, an even more clear reason if more time was needed beyond this moratorium timeframe. She questioned if the conservation district is what is being considered, why is this not stated in the ordinance. Aid. Kent explained that within the 180-days the one thing they can be certain of is that there will be any permits pulled that the residents won't be blind -sided by someone coming and deciding that they will take Iiberties within their community. He clarified that within the 180-days what will be done is to finish their study, which half has been completed, as far as the 5`h Ward being a conservation district. He said they request the 180-days that they %%ill continue so the study can be finished. He said by this study, the people that were involved in PITCH, had already began the study and many of the previous documents and photos have been saved and will be used. He said at the end of the 180 days, if not before this, they will come back before Planning & Development Committee presenting a concluding report. He said there will be findings on buildings in the 51h Ward that should actually be in historic districts but knowingly do not have the structures, per say to get them there qualifying the 5's Ward as conservation district, meaning that there will be buildings that have cultural significance. In this, the conservation district will give them the opportunity to pull from within the community from people who live in those blocks to form a conservation committee. He said that when development resumes after the 1 SO - days, while they won't be able to stop development, they will be able to be privy to proposed plans before they are approved and go through the City building permit process. He believes this process will help keep the character and fabric of the 5 Ward in place. Aid. Kent questioned if they would be able to talk about the issue of choice of tenants. He said other questions that have arisen are is this going to work as far as the character of the community, is it going to work as far singling out certain houses and property that is harmful to the community including those properties that are causing their surrounding properties taxes to rise. He said that these are some of the things that will be rapped up once they complete their study as a conservation district. Mr. Wolinski explained, in absence of City legal representation, the 180-day process. He referred to page 6 to the "Whereas" clause pertaining to the Neighborhood Planning Committee process that has been taking place in the 5t' Ward. Aid. Wynne noted that she attended this committee meeting 3 years ago when this district was decided because it was a continuation of the Chicago Avenue Corridor study. She said this was the formation meeting and her understanding is that those meetings have been going on since then. She asked how this Committee's study fits into the 180-day moratorium. Mr. Wolinski responded that it is anticipated that the report will be back to the Plan Commission and back to Council by the end of the year, beginning of next year. Aid. Wynne reiterated her confusion Kith this whole process and questioned why the Neighborhood Planning Committee did not include the study of the conservation district. From her understanding moratorium ordinances have to be very carefully tailored or they are challengable. Ald. Kent disagreed with Ald. Wynne in that his reasoning for the moratorium should be challengable; he feels the analysis has been clarified. P&D Committee tittg. Minutes of 7-28-03 Page 7 Ald. TisdahI referred to statements on page 5 of the ordinance regarding new constructions being of concern to neighboring owners and to the public when it results in effects on neighborhood character, parking, traffic, drainage, etc. She said that if Ms. Hudson's photos are an example of this concern, it appears valid from the renderings presented. Aid. Kent agreed. He strongly feels the problems in the 5`h ward are just as serious as the tear-down/trophy house replacement issue in the Oh Ward. He said it is just harder to visualize the whole issue in the 5`h ward compared to the one issue in the 6'h Ward. Chairman Bernstein expressed his concern that it is been indicated that the Neighborhood Planning group is opposed to this moratorium. He would like to know their feelings on this matter. He also feels confused about what will be done exactly during this moratorium period and in unclear as to what the plan or process for accomplishment. He agrees with Aid. Wynne that more specifics need to be clarified in the ordinance. Aid. Newman said that it appears from discussion and concerns expressed by the Committee thus far, that no clear consensus is going to be reached. He said that all of the Alderman have had a chance to sit in on some of the discussion, therefore he feels that it would be reasonable to have the whole Council vote on this. Aid. Newman moved to forward Ordinance 61-0-03 on to Council without a recommendation from Planning & Development Committee. Aid. Wynne seconded and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 69-0-03 — Planned Development: 1100 Clark11719 Ridge Chairman Bernstein asked that a special meeting be scheduled to set aside for this item only because of the magnitude of the project. The Committee, staff, the applicant, and Aid. Jean -Baptiste discussed a date that the meeting could be held on within the next 2- weeks that their schedules would agree upon. All came to a consensus that the meeting would be held on August 14'h at 6:30 p.m. Aid. Newman requested as a point of order, that he would like to at least see some of the slide presentation that the applicant has brought with them since they sat through this meeting and the last meeting as well. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that he would prefer to hold off on everything until the special meeting. This way the applicant will have sufficient time to give a full presentation, following by citizen comments and Committee discussion. The applicant's consented to this and stated that they welcome comments and concerns since they have not had an opportunity to meet with them. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �. (V. Jacq line Brownlee PLANNING AND DEVELOPIMEtiT C011IMI'ITTEE MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:30 - Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne ALDERMEN ABSENT: S. Bernstein STAFF PRESENT: A. Alterson, C. Brzezinski, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ald, Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION (P6) Ordinance 69-0-03 -Planned Development: 1100 Clarkl1719 Ridee Consideration of the findings and report of the Plan Commission regarding granting a Planned Development for Roszak, ADC to construct a mixed -use development of 348 condominiums and retail. Thomas Roszak introduced Eric Doersching, Vice President and Managing Partner for Tracy Cross and Associates, Mr. Doersching said that his firm performs market feasibility and consulting services throughout the Chicago region and around the country. His Firm was retained by Roszak, ADC, to conduct a market study on the viability of the proposed condominium project. The analysis has been completed and presented to the Plan Commission. In summarizing his findings, he said that he found the market potential for the proposed project to be exceptionally strong. A number of reasons for that - the site's location relative to Downtown Evanston, to public transportation, its visibility, its accessibility all lends support from a market standpoint. The product line as proposed relates to the continuum of unit sizes in the mix and the overall footage is very consistent with what the market can bear. Mr: Doersching said that the center of employment is approximately one mile • west of O'Hara, This means that there are the same number of employed people north, south, east, and west of this point. The majority of development that is occurring in this Planning & Development Committee Svecial Meeting - August 14, 2003 entire region is almost equally distant (22 miles) from that center of employment. Evanston is within eleven miles, which is half the distance of the majority of development. Mr. Doersching stated that what has happened in Evanston is that everything has come together at the same time to make this a very desirable place to live. There is a downtown area second only to the City of Chicago. Prices in Chicago have escalated dramatically, and Evanston represents an alternative to the high price escalation in Chicago. At the same time, there is virtually no condominium supply on the north shore. All these elements combine to make Evanston a very desirable location for condominiums. Mr. Doersching showed charts illustrating how many condominiums have been sold yearly since I996-97. In 1996-97 there were 39 units sold annually, 1998-99 48 units were sold, in 20W there were 117 units sold and between 2001-02 there were 284 units sold. This year the market is on pace to achieve 317 sales. He said that Ns showed that Evanston was capable of absorbing 300 condominium units on an annual basis over the next five years. Nir. Doersching said that currently, Evanston is the strongest condominium market in this entire region. Aid. Wynne asked if Mr. Doersching's statement that Evanston was capable of r continuing to absorb 300 unit sales was based on the speed of the previously mentioned condo sales. Mr. Doersching replied that it has been occurring annually for the last three years and the number of people is so substantial that it could be even greater than 300 units. Ald. Wynne asked at what point Evanston would hit saturation. Mr. Doersching said that Evanston is such a desirable place to live and there has been such limited new housing demand, when you have 45,000 workers employed locally and you are with a reasonable commute to 2.2 million jobs he could not see when Evanston would ever get to a saturation point. Aid. Tisdahl asked at what point density is considered. Mr. Doersching said that density is not a factor relative to the marketability of the project. Thomas Roszak gave an overview of the proposed project. He said the condominiums will provide new housing stock and enhance the vitality of the retail shopping and entertainment base of the downtown. The project is projected to add about 541 residents to the downtown population. There will be few school age children and, as a result, the fiscal impact analysis shows that the net benefit to the city after subtracting added costs from the new population will }field over S 1 million dollars a year every year in recurring tax revenues. The project proposes to supply approximately $2.6 million in private mortgage subsidy assistance to new buyers for 10% of the units, funding one-third of the purchase price in deferred and soft second mortgages. The project will have pedestrian access to mass transit lines. Residential use generates less traffic than office use, the increase caused by the new development will not bring more cars onto Oak Street than 2 Planting & Development Committee Special Meeting - August 14. 2003 what residents in the area have been experiencing as recently as August 2002. He added that he is committed to designing a first rate project. He explained changes that were made to the project at the recommendation of the Plan Commission and from neighbors of the project. Slides were shown of the facade and to illustrate the proposed changes including eliminating the 20 story building and rebalancing the buildings so that there are two 14 story buildings, three 12 story buildings, one l 1 story building, and one 10 story building. Aid. Wynne asked what the distance is between the various buildings. Mr. Roszak replied that the distance between the buildings is almost 40 feet. Buildings at the base are approximately 30' apart and open up to over 70 feet. Public Comment John Macsai stated he has been a resident of Evanston for over 30 years, is a retired architect and has designed a lot of buildings in Chicago. He stated that his criticism is for the building and not about Thomas Roszak. He said the only things he found good about this project was the floor plan and the fact that it provides a percentage of its condos for low/moderate income people. His basic criticism was that placing six towers parallel to each other was brutally overcrowding the site. He said he was not talking about density, that there is nothing wrong with density as long as it is done right. It was his opinion that the project could be improved if there were only four towers, maybe they would be twenty stories but once you have 14 stores, a little higher wouldn't matter and the site would be tremendously relieved. He raised this issue with Mr. Roszak but was told that this could not be done because of the possible turndown in the economy, with the smaller number of buildings, it would prevent him from doing the step by step development. Mr. Macsai said that windows were only meaningful if they can be opened and can be seen through, but the windows on the garage levels are false windows with tenant lockers behind every one of the windows. He felt that the only reason for the four story parking garage is it makes the project economically attractive for the developer. He found the entrances to the condominiums Questionable. The center building on the south can only be entered through the service drive. Two other entrances are entered from Claris, and none of these entrances are wide enough that a cab could drop someone and turn around. It was his opinion that the P&D should turn the development down. Sue Walton. I I I I Church Street, said that her condominium faces north and if this development is built, she will be looking at a brick wally She also felt that the project was not in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance Section 6-1-1 Purpose And Intent: (C) Conserving and enhancing the taxable value of land and buildings throughout the City; E) Minimizing or lessening congestion in the public streets; (F) Preventing the overcrowding of land by regulating and limiting the height and Planning & Development Committee Soecial Meeting -August 14, 2003 bulk of buildings hereafter erected, as said buildings relate to land area; (H) Regulating and limiting the intensity of the use of lot areas, and regulating and determining the area of open spaces within the surrounding buildings. Ms. Walton said that this project would overcrowd the neighborhood. Alice Rebechini. 2022 Hawthorn lane stated that she is an architect and also a member of the Evanston Plan Commission. Even though Ms. Rebechini has made her recommendation regarding this project known at the Plan Commission by voting against the project, she was speaking tonight because she felt the Plan Commission meeting minutes failed to sufficiently detail her commentary at the Plan Commission. She pointed out the Plan Commission has to address the findings of fact. She felt that there are a great many lists of findings of fact that are not particularly pertinent to a project like this. Those that are particularly issue a cumulative effect resulting from density, also the necessity of exceptional design being granted the development allowances that are being requested through P&D. In those two particular points she thought that there is a dearth of data as to how human density is affecting Evanston in a variety of ways, traffic being one of the major concerns, but other quality of life issues as well, was rather well illustrated by the representative from Tracy Cross tonight. Velocity is enormous, it is going so fast, we don't know what is happening and we don't know what the cumulative effect is and only observations as we live out our lives in town will we know. She did not think it appropriate to exceed the density that is available to us through zoning without exceptions to the planning and development process. As for the issue of exceptional design, she felt that there were a number of semi successful efforts made tonight, and she still did not think it to be exceptional to the point where the allowances should be granted. Scott Walton. 1 I I I Church, said that he agreed with part of Mr. Rozak's comment that the density may be less than some other projects, but he pointed out that the rest of the block has 125 housing units on it. This makes the block a rather densely populated block, he said that some of the other projects Mr. Roszak mentioned did not have other residential components on the block. He said that when this project was first presented most of the parking was underground, now most of the parking is above ground. He understands the reason behind this is not necessarily cost, but a high water table. It is possible that there is some old infrastructure that Evanston should be looking at repairing and then maybe the water table would not be as high and the parking could be depressed and the project would be more attractive. He offered several scenarios that he thought would make the project less objectionable. Carlean Gilbert, 11 I I Church. said she moved to Evanston a few years ago. She said that she lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina ten years ago when Forbes Magazine selected it the number one best place to live in America. At about that time, many 4 Planning & Development Committee Svecial Meeting -August 14, 2003 developers moved into the area and what happened in Chapel Hill is that many big projects were approved simultaneously by the City as if the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. The outcome of that was that there were a huge number of development projects, many of which sat empty for awhile because of the overbuilding. These developments also placed an increased burden on the city in terms of requiring road expansions, sewer projects, increased school costs and social services. Steve Hillver. I i I I Church, said that he agreed with what other Evanston residents had previously stated. Stan Wasmiki. 11 I I Church. was concerned that with the new project, the view from his condominium would be gone. He said that while Evanston needs the tax base, this project is too big for this area. Mary McWilliams, 1606 Wesley, stated that as a neighbor of the proposed development she was concerned about the negative impact this development would have upon Ridge Avenue and Evanston. She said that for years the City has followed planning policy by basing its zoning related ordinance on a carefully drafted Comprehensive General Plan, In doing so, the City has been able to manage growth and change thoughtfully by weighing carefully the cost of benefits that each project will bring to Evanston. The process also allows for citizen comment on proposed variation of the written zoning ordinance. She felt that allowing this development would set a very bad precedent. The 1993 Zoning Ordinance was written to recognize the very real differences in use of the Central Business District (CBD) and the residential areas that surround the CBD. In all of the recent development, Ridge Avenue has continued to be the transition zone between business and commercial uses and single family houses. Rather than an orderly transition from business to residential use the developer is requesting to be allowed to jump over what used to be the Shand Morhand Building and create the Central Business District West at Ridge and Clark. The developer is asking the City to expand the CBD, but not in a way that respects the presence of existing buildings. Ms. McWilliams said that she was concerned about the overbuilding of condominiums in Evanston and cited newspaper articles concerning over building condominiums in Chicago. She summed up her statement by saying that Evanston has prided itself on the high quality of design that is seen all over the City ranging from modest single family houses to that of large office and residential complexes. The planned development at Ridge and Clark is a particularly unfortunate example of mediocre architecture that is entirely out of scale with the neighborhood. She urged the P&D Committee to reject this particular development request. Jonathan Perman. executive director of the Chamber of Commerce, said he wanted to speak about the project in the context of overall economic development in Evanston and 5 Planning & Development Committee Soecial Meeting - August 14. 2003 try to answer the fundamental question that Aid. Kent has posed before many development projects in Evanston and that is "What does this project do for Evanston?" Mr. Perman said that from a financial standpoint this project provides a very significant amount of money to schools - S1,000,000 between the two districts at a time when funding and future funding of schools are in jeopardy given the State and Federal situation. He added that real estate booms occur in cycles. Right now, Evanston is in a moment in time where it has the opportunity to gather a significant amount of revenue for our children and put it toward the future when in a few years from now we may not have that opportunity. The second critical thing this project does is provide critical mass for the small independent retailer. A project like Mr. Roszak is proposing will add 500 new residents who will become consumers for those businesses. At the Chamber of Commerce it is felt that this is a project that provides significant benefit to the children of Evanston, to the retailers of Evanston and helps the future funding stream. Aid. Newman asked if Mr. Perman was saying that the S1,000,000 goes directly into District 65's and 202's budget or that it expands their base. Mr. Perman replied that it expands the base. Steven Friedman. with SP Friedman & Comnanv located in Chicago said he wanted to reply to Aid. Newman's question of how a new development impacts the school districts. He said it was his understanding that this comes on as new development, which they can apply their rate to so that the levy is not capped with respect to this development. When you have new development that comes under the tax rolls, that is added to the base upon which you apply the rate and the rate is determined based upon the prior levy so you get the whole effect of new development as it comes on the tax rolls. Aid. Newman asked Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager to get back to him with a response to this question Debbie Hillman, said she lives in the Nichols Neighborhood. Ms. Hillman said it was her understanding that this was not the development plan approved by the Plan Commission and asked why P&D was considering this Plan when it should have gone back to the Plan Commission. Arthur Alterson. Zoning Administrator, said it did not go back to the Plan Commission because the City Council is re-6ewing a draft ordinance on its agenda, there is nothing that would have triggered it to go back to the Plan Commission. He discussed this question with Mr. Macsai and it is at the discretion of P&D and City Council as to whether they want to send it back to the Plan Commission. It is a sliding scale as to whether we are looking at a modified plan or we are looking at a different plan. Within the scope of what the zoning ordinance allows should the Committee and the City Council wish to approve this development without it going back to the Plan Commission, he did not believe that would violate the zoning ordinance. If P&D and City Council 0 Planning & Development Committee Swial Meeting -August 14, 200 believed that the changes are so significant that it should go back to the Plan Commission, he believed that it would also be appropriate. Bruce Hubart, said that the changes on the development did not effect the exterior materials from what was recommended by the Plan Commission. He reminded the Committee that in making these changes to the development they have tried to be the poster child for the good developer. They have had a lot of informal neighborhood meetings, have met with all of the surrounding neighbors a number of times and one of the things that the Plan Commission asked us to consider was various permutations and combinations - how we could make adjustments to the height of the buildings. If Evanston wanted a developer who is responsive to comments throughout the process, a developer that goes to this much trouble to generate a design that lowers the building and tries to accomplish some of the goals and realize some of the objections and dispose of them, that's what you have in Roszak, ADC. The FAR has not been changed, the lot coverage has not been changed, what we have done is respond to concerns of the neighbors. Reverend Norwood spoke in support of the project not only for the opportunities that it might bring in support of our schools and our community, but he supports it because it provides his church a new opportunity for a new challenge of persons who might break this ethnic barrier. Carl Gromelski. 2727 Broadwav, said that as a resident of Evanston he often takes Green Bay that turns into Ridge. He said he has been following the project as it went through the Plan Commission. It was Mr. Gromelski's opinion that the City should look at other options for that site. With all the new condominiums being built in Evanston he was concerned about the traffic, the crime rate, undesirable people and the insurance hike he saw that would happen in Evanston if all these Condominiums were built. He asked if the City could build anything they want on this site, is this what they would build? Steven Friedman, said that his analysis took into account the costs that were reasonably anticipated to be related to the population and the school children generated and a number of different population estimates were used. The number used in his study is the net number of the net fiscal benefit and he presumed that the Rotary number was a gross number. His gross number was almost S1.8 million. Mr. Friedman also addressed Mr. Walton's comment that because of the assessment rate in Cook County apartments could actually generate a higher tax per unit. He said he has studied that issue and it is not true. Even though the assessment ratio for residential is around 16%, apartments typically appeal their taxes and his company is estimating around $5,000 a unit for the units in this project, the 2001 property taxes per unit at Park Evanston/Evanston Place is around $4,000 per unit. 7 Planning & Development Committee Smial Meeting -August id, 2003 Michael Wertman, traffic engineer said that his firm did a traffic study for the project. He said that his goal was to see if the roadway system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this development. All of the intersections do except the intersection of Emerson and Ridge. Right now it is operating at a service level of E. The proposed development's impact on that intersection is not significant (less than I % increase in traffic). He said that the development's impact on traffic would be lessened because of its proximity to train stations and to the downtown. This development would generate less traffic than an office building that would generate traffic during peak hours. Mr. Wertman added that according to the most recent census bureau over 35% of the residents commute to work by means other than automobiles. Robert Teska, with Teska Associates, Inc. said that he had been a resident of Evanston since 1961, a member of the Plan Commission, and participated in many other activities related to the revitalization of the downtown. He said he would not be here tonight if he did not think that this development was overall a benefit to this community. The development being proposed is basically consistent with virtually every planning document that he has participated in or read for the last forty years. People are saying let's review the alternatives when the alternatives have been reviewed for thirty or forty years and the market potential has not supported those alternatives for one reason or another. Along comes another prospect with a proposal to build residential on this site and this is completely in sync with the market trends and demand for housing, it is in sync with the Comprehensive General Plan and the 1989 Downtown Plan for this community. He feels the comments about scale and density have been well handled, the density on this site is not significantly greater, perhaps no greater than would have been sought by any other developer or any other use. Aid. Jean Baptiste said he wanted to comment on Mr. Roszak's accessibility and willingness to incorporate a lot of the ideas that the community has suggested. In addition he has been open to the idea of affordable housing which most developers have not accepted as a component of their project. He suggested the Council continue to discuss the project and advance it as opposed to sending it back to the Plan Commission. Ellen Szymanski said that after a conversation with Judith Aiello and Mr. Huber, and based upon some preliminary information from Mr. Huber, she and Ms. Aiello had concerns whether referral to the Plan Commission is appropriate. Between now and Monday Mr. Huber and Mr. Alterson will provide her with information she needs and she will have an opinion ready for Council Monday night. Aid. Newman stated that this site had a current use. It served as required parking for the building across the street. In order to build this project, Mr. Roszak has to replace the E Planning & Development Committee Soecial Mectina - Aueust 14. 2003 parking for that building as well as suppling parking for his development. That's why he has to provide over 800 spaces at the cost of 16 million dollars. Aid. tieA- man said he agreed that this development would expand the City's tax base, but at what cost. He suggested that this developer has had the opportunity to make a significant amount of money. Looking at this developer's track record, he is in a law suit with people for a building done on Chicago Avenue, and those people do not consider themselves well treated in that process. Aid. Newman thought that the design and materials of that building hurt Chicago Avenue. He felt that the architecture of Mr. Roszak's development on Chicago Avenue was terrible and does not want to entrust Ridge Avenue to the developer that built that project. The lot on Ridge where the project is proposed is a parking lot, it was never intended to be anything but a parking lot. He felt that it was time to take a deep breath and see how downtown Evanston is going to work out. Ridge Avenue is the signature street of Evanston, it is the most beautiful street that could possibly be had. Ald. Newman did not want another Chicago Avenue project on Ridge Avenue, he wants a world class architect if a project is to be done on Ridge Avenue. Aid. Wynne said that she also could not support this project. When she looks at this design it looks like a fortress. It exceeds the amount of condominiums allowed, the architecture is awful, and the sky -bridges separate people even more from the community. She agreed that the City needs to slow down and look at the issue of how many units are added to the Community. Ald. Tisdahl commented that she too would not support the project. While she liked the landscaping, the affordable housing aspect was wonderful and Mr. Roszak had done many wonderful things, she is concerned about density, traffic and stepping back and taking a deep breath and seeing the cumulative effect of density. Ald. Kent said he too agreed with everything that has been said, he also agreed with the 30 or 40 affordable units. The question that always comes up is affordable to whom? One scenario suggested was that someone would put down 550,000 on an affordable unit and he felt that if someone could put down 550,000 they could take care of themselves and didn't need the affordable unit. He said he would be casting his vote as no for many of the same reasons as the other aldermen. Aid. Newman made a motion to reject the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. 9 Planning & Development Committee Special Meeting - August 14, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, it adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tMWaaske Planning DNision 10 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES .Monday; .august 18, 2003 ': 00 p.m. - Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Ne% nan, E. Tisdahl, M.Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Burdick, A. Jackson, E. Szymanski PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Bernstein DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 28.2003 Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the July 28, 2003 minutes, seconded by Aid. Newman. The minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P2) Ordinance 74-0-03 Svecial Use for 1900 Demnster Street (Tvne 2 Restaurant) Chairman Bernstein clarified the specific location of the proposed establishment as being on the southeast portion of the Dodge/Dempster center, fronting Dodge Avenue. He asked Mr. Alterson how the Zoning Ordinance differentiates this proposed use from a game room or arcade. Mr. Alterson replied that the Zoning Ordinance does not have a definition for an arcade. He explained that this proposal is very similar to the current business operating on Sherman Avenue in downtown and the line between this use and a video arcade is very blurry. He went on to state that this is not a video arcade, but depending on how it would be run, could result in similar behavior such as loitering. Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Alterson to provide a distinction between this type of establishment and an arcade. Mr. Alterson replied that the only distinction he could make would be in terms of the type of equipment to be used Customers will be on-line, as opposed to using freestanding video arcade equipment. Alderman Kent expressed concern with the potential for underage customers to view pornography and other inappropriate material that can easily be accessed through the web. Dan Okonmah, the proposed business owner, stated that preventative measures will be fully utilized to assure that these sites are not accessible to minors. He explained that this business would allow the customer to access the Internet, e-mail, software, and computer games. Chairman Planning and Development Commiucc tiiinutcs page 2 Monda). august 18. 2003 Bernstein asked if gambling would be permitted. Mr. Okonmah stated that no illegal activity would be allowed, including gambling, pornography, etc. Aid. Kent inquired as to the business' hours and whether there would be some sort of monitoring to assure that kids are not in the establishment instead of at school. Mr. Okonmah replied that the business would not be open before 3p.m. on weekdays and noted that the Evanston Police Department is considering opening a Police Substation in the shopping center. Aid. Wynne asked if there would be a limit as to what games are allowed to be played. Ivir. Okonmah stated that there would not be a limit. Aid. Wynne followed up by asking why video arcades are looked upon less favorably than this type of establishment. Mr. Wolinski stated that there is an ordinance that limits the amount of video games that are permitted in an establishment to eight to prevent the potential for loitering and hanging out. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Okonmah what the staffing level of the establishment would be. He replied that there would only be 15-20 stations, cost of access would be based on time on a machine, and membership fees would be assessed. This should prevent some of Aid. Wynne's concerns. Aid. Tisdahl asked why there is a negative perception to kids hanging out. Chairman Bernstein stated that the common perception of kids "hanging out" relates often to illegal activities such as drinking and smoking. Ald. Kent stated that Evanston needs more places for kids to hang out, but that it takes a special sort of management of an establishment to assure that the type of hanging out occurring is productive and positive. He asked if the school districts have been contacted and if there have been any efforts to coordinate the merits of this business with the educational goals of the school districts. Finally, Aid. Kent asked if there .would be a sort of contract between the business and parents regarding the types of games that can be played. Mr. Okonmah stated that there is technology to prevent certain games from being accessed and that the membership process would require permission by parents of underage individuals. Aid. Newman stated that there is a compatibility issue in terms of this use and the residential uses across Dodge Avenue. He requested that the ordinance include language stating that the business would remain open until 10 p.m. Sunday -Thursday, and 1 Ip.m an Friday and Saturday night. Chairman Bernstein asked if this special use would run with the land. Ms. Szymanski stated that special uses run with the land. Chairman Bernstein expressed concern regarding the possibility of this location eventually being a fast food restaurant or other eating establishment, if this business was to cease. Mr. Alterson suggested incorporating language stating that the special use would limit the restaurant to certain type of food. Ms. Szymanski stated that in the past, the City has placed conditions on Type 2 restaurants limiting the type of food to be served in the establishment. Chairman Bernstein notified Mr. Okonmah of the requirements that come with a Type 2 restaurant, such as the picking up of all trash within 250 feet of the establishment. Audience member Betty Sue Ester informed the Committee that the notice for this special use was not printed in Spanish, and many of the nearby residents speak Spanish as their first language. Aid. Newman asked staff to consider printing notices in Spanish as well as English. Aid. Newman motioned an amendment to Ordinance 74-0-03 stating that the business would stay open until 10p.m. Sunday Thursday, and ilp.m. Friday and Saturday. The motion was seconded by Aid. Tisdahl and passed unanimously. (5-0). Planning and Development Committee Minutes Page 3 Monday. August 18, 2003 Aid. Newman motioned a second amendment to Ordinance 74-0-03 stating that the business only serves food that does not require venting. The motion was seconded by Aid. Wynne and passed unanimously. (5-0). Aid. Wynne motioned approval of Ordinance 74-0-03 as amended. The motion was seconded by Aid. Tisdahl and passed unanimously. (5-0). (P4) Ordinance 70-0-03 Saccial Use for 1642 Manle Avenue rr%w 2 Restaurant) Linda Mailers introduced herself to the Committee and explained her proposal. The store provides gear and apparel to triathletes and adventure sport enthusiasts. She stated that including a cafd in the store would provide an environment of sharing and networking among customers and prospective triathletes. Chairman Bernstein asked Ms. Mailers if she contemplates using grills, ovens, etc. on this site, especially considering that residents are located above the store. Ms. Mallers stated that she would not consider this type of equipment anytime in the future. Audience member Judy Fiske informed Ms. Mailers that she is on the board of the Francis Willard Historical Association and that the Association is working on brining a woman's triathlon to Evanston. She expressed her support for this special use proposal. Chairman Bernstein motioned an amendment to Ordinance 70-0-03 stating that the business only serves food that does not require venting. The motion was seconded by Aid. Newman and passed unanimously. (5-0). Aid. Wynne motioned approval of Ordinance 74.0-03 as amended. The motion was seconded by Aid. Newman and passed unanimously. (5-0). (P3) Ordinance 75-0-03 — Porch/Deck Inspection Ordinance Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Wolinski to provide background as to how this ordinance came to appear before the Committee. Mr. Wolinski noted the tragedy that occurred in Chicago where nine people lost their lives in a porch collapse and stated that the City has decided to look into requiring a higher degree of expertise when reviewing the structural limits of deck or porch. The proposal is for the cyclical inspection for buildings with three or more units to trigger the requirement of a structural engineer report on the porch, deck, and exterior staircase. The reason that two-family units were not included is because most of these units are owner occupied and generally are reviewed more thoroughly. Mr. Wolinski also noted that many inspectors are not trained to properly determine structural limitations of decks and porches. Aid. Newman asked how much a structural engineering report would cost a building owner. Mr. Wolinski stated that from his research, the cost would be approximately $250 for the first level of inspection, and 5150 per levels after that. Cyclical inspections take place every three years for CDBG Target Area Buildings and every 5 years for non -Target Area buildings. Ald. Newman stated that closer inspections are needed, but that this is the wrong way to handle this situation. He felt that the right amount of inspectors is needed on staff and that the cost should not be passed off onto the Planning and De%elopment Comminee Minutes Pagc 4 Monday. August 18.2003 building owners. Aid. Wynne asked how much it would cost the City to hire a qualified structural inspector to perform the appropriate inspections. She noted that building permit fees are designed to pay for the cost of employing such inspectors. Chairman Bernstein called on members of the public who signed up to speak on this matter. Martin Merel: Mr. Merel explained that he owns apartment buildings in Evanston and stated that he is concerned with this proposal on a couple of levels. First, the proposal is redundant in that the building permit is supposed to pay for the inspector. Second, he noted that he spoke with contacts who told him that it would be hard to get a competent structural engineer to perform a relatively minor inspection on a three -unit residential porch. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Wolinski if it is really possible for a structural engineer to be procured by building owners for such inspections. Mr. Wolinski stated that, from his experience, many structural engineers are available for such inspections. Mr. Mere] also noted that the predominate concern regarding a porch's structural soundness comes from the potential for large groups of people to congregate on the porch, which is a common occurrence near the Northwestern University campus. He suggested that such a regulation not be initiated on a citywide level. Ashraf Manji: Mr. Manji explained that he owns several residential buildings in Evanston. He stated he agrees with Aid. Newman's previous comments. He also noted that an apartment owner can fmd a certified structural engineer that is going to inform him or her that the deck/porch is structurally sound, so there is a bias factor present. Furthermore, Mr. Manji asked why this proposal only would deal with apartment buildings and not condominiums. He stated that limiting the ordinance to cover buildings with three or more units is arbitrary. Finally, Mr. Manji stated that it is unfair to require property in the CDBG Target Area to incur the cost of a structural engineer report on a more frequent basis than property outside of the Target Area. Aid. Newman stated that he agreed with most everything stated by Mr. Manji. Mr. Wolinski stated that because two property inspectors are funded through CDBG funds, it has been the policy of the CDBG Committee to require more frequent inspections of properties within the CDBG Target Area. Aid. Kent noted that the CDBG Target Area is more likely to be negatively affected by absentee landlords and may be in need of more frequent inspections. He suggested a method where lists of absentee landlords or problem properties are maintained and inspections of those properties are done more frequently. Aid. Newman requested that this issue be further examined by the Committee, and asked for further information regarding intervals of inspections, cost of inspections, and other methods of assuring structural soundness of porches and decks. Chairman Bernstein asked the members of the Committee if they want to continue the discussions regarding this ordinance in the PIanning and Development Committee forum. The members of the Committee unanimously agreed to hold further discussions at the Planning and Development Committee level. Planning and Dc%eiopmeat Committee Minutes Page 5 Monday, August 13, 2W3 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Bernstein noted that a revision of the Fifth Ward :Moratorium Ordinance has been made available to the Committee members, stating that the moratorium deals only %ith propem in the R5 District and is effective immediately. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted Jeffrey Burdick Planning Division Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 8, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl, ,M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, .M. Barry, A. Jackson, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. E. Moran Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and apologized for the tardiness due to Executive Session. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING ON AUGUST 14. 2003 AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 18.2003 Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the August 14t' and 18th minutes, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION {P21 Ordinance 84-0-03 — An Ordinance Providing for a 90-dav Extension of Ordinance 56-0-03 \Which Established a Moratorium on the issuance of Building Permits for Construction of New Single Familv Residential in R1 Zoning Districts in the Sixth Ward Aid. Moran was called over from A&PA' for discussion and comments. Chairman Bernstein asked what standards need to be applied to extend the moratorium. 14s. Szymanski explained that the original ordinance made a provision in it that if upon finding that the extension was in the public interest and necessary for completion of the charge. i.e. that the full study of the need for the zoning changes in the 61h Ward, then the Council was authorized to extend the moratorium by an additional 90 days. Aid. Newman asked the status of the Plan Commission's study: are they only working on changing the Zoning Ordinance to deal with the 7 % foot ceiling height that is indicated in the ordinance or are they reviewing more zoning issues. Mr. Wolinski responded that there has been three public hearings to date and many constituents from the 6'h Ward have attended these meetings who have expressed their support for this moratorium. The constituents would like to see some amendments to the Zoning Ordinance not to allow the very large houses to be built. which is the base for the moratorium. He noted that P8❑ Comminee NMI Minutes of 09 68 01- Pace 3 there ha%e also been se►eral reaitors and developers in attendance at those meetings who have opposed the moratorium. He said that the discussion has basically centered around several major stems. ane being building height and how this is measured. The question is should these be a limit on the amount of height that is allow►ed because currently height is figured at maximum of but with a sloped roof you can go abo%c 40'. He said that there was also discussion about whether or not this issue should specifically be geared to certain sections of the 6L" Ward or is this a citywide issue. He said the suggestion of an overlay district ►►as discussed in areas specifically effected such as several blocks of Thayer Street, etc. Mr. Wolinski said that after these three public hearings have been held, the Plan Commission has closed testimony and this Wednesday prior to their regularly scheduled meeting, they will caucus and discuss the issue in depth for their recommendation. Aid. Wynne pointed out that it appears at this point that the Plan Commission is in the process of making a decision since all testimony has been closed and they need more time to finalize their recommendation. She asked if the Plan Commission feel the 90-dav extension is a sufficient amount of time. Mr. Wolinski assured that the general feeling of the Plan Commission was that they would have the recommendation to P&D in October and leaving time for additional discussion. that this amount of time would be efficient. He reminded that the moratorium ends on September l O`h. Ms. Szymanski reminded that a moratorium is an interference with the right of a property owner to develop his or her property to its fullest extent. For this reason, the Law Department favors shorter moratorium periods subject to extension feel the 90 days should be sufficient based upon the information forwarded from Mr. Wolinski. She called to the Committee's attention that there is a provision in Section 3 on page 3, which provides for an admission on a 90- day extension should it be appropriate. Ald. Newman said with regards to the overlay district, that virtually his entire ward is a historic district inhere no tear down are allowed without Preservation review and � approval. He pointed out that if this comes back with something that effects lot coverage in R I will result in reducing the rights of property o\kHers in his ward to be able to put on additions when they are already in an historical district. He would be very concerned if this were to occur. Therefore, the proposal of having an overlay district raises some concern for his ward. Mr. Wolinski responded this idea ha only been discussed by the Plan Commission but was not concurred upon. Ald. Nev-man said that the height limitation is not a problem, however if lot coverage is changed in RI overall, there is going to be a lot of properties effected by this outside of the 6`h Ward that are currently unaware that this zoning amendment would affect them as well. He noted that this could cause significantly more time if notice has to be sent out to all property owners I RI districts throughout Evanston. Mr. NVolinski pointed out that the Plan Commission has been very cognizant of the effects that any zoning amendments could have overall. Aid. Newman reiterated that the height issue Citywide should cause no major controversy but the concern for lot coverage in the R 1 districts should be closely reviewed before making a recommendation. _— MD CC-r'!7Tn•.•. '.tit, xtinU:a of 45 rig Pace 3 Aid. Iisdahl expressed her concern ►wi.h the owcra:l moratorium concept because if you give e►er}one 90 daNs. they will take 40 days. She pointed out the fact in the knowledge of the moratorium deadline being September 10`` and questions why this ►was not an information item on the agenda at the previous meeting. Aid. Newman added that Council could also have to suspend the rules this evening. Ms. Szymanski informed that there is no legal issue with regards to this extension and that the Law Department responded to this request after the ;ast Council meeting. The Committee asked Aid. Moran for explanation on this matter. Aid. Moran stated that he would take the weight on making this request on such short time before the deadline. He explained that there has been a series of hearings where the Plan Commission has more or less delegated to their Zoning Committee. He said the hearings have been on -going up until xery recent. From his perspective, he wanted to keep the moratorium period as constrictive as possible. He felt it was important to see where this was going so that he would have a sense of how they could complete it without jumping forward to quickly to an extension of the moratorium. He said by having it sit as it was, the Zoning Committee has felt a certain amount of pressure to move forward and this approach has been effective because the Committee has made significant progress. Aid. Moran informed that when the Zoning Committee meets this coming lKednesday at 5:00 p.m. with the regular Plan Commission meeting following at 7:00 p.m.. he is hopeful that the Committee is going to vote on recommendations that evening. He noted that this is conceivable but not definite. He believes that to get to major revisions in the Zoning Ordinance in 90 days in Evanston or even to the point where they want to make recommendations, is something of single accomplishment. Therefore. he feels strongly that they have made significant progress. He said that he was not anxious to come and ask for more time to for in advance of the deadline date because of his apprehension that the Plan Commission wouid fee some propulsion that there would be a need for much more time beyond the moratorium deadline to conclude their review. Aid. Moran said as far as the 90 days are concerned. if they can do this in less time he would be very pleased Mth this. He concluded by taking full responsibility for the 90-day extension request with the notion that the Plan Commission has to complete their work. make presentation before Planning & Development then on to final Council vote within this period. He said that he was tempted to ask for less than the 90 days however, any less time did not seem realistic when contemplating all involved to conclude deliberations and make final recommendation. Aid. Newman stated that he is somewhat confused because it sounds like they have made substantial progress however in consideration of staffs comments regarding discussion of the overlay district, it is uncertain of %where the Plan Commission stands on this issue. He pointed out that if the only deliberations are with the height limitations, this would seem relatively straightforward but if other issues are still at question, more time may be needed beyond the 90 days. fir. Wolinski responded that he believes the Zoning Sub- committee of the Plan Commission has discussed numerous issues on dealing with the concern of trophy houses. He explained that because they have not caucused yet due to testimony that has been heard and considered at all the hearings held and now the Zoning Sub -committee can concentrate on their final deliberations. He further noted that they P&D Committee Hite Minutes of 09 08 03 Page 4 have been weighing in all the issues and how it effects not onl} the 6"� Ward but also the City has a whole. He noted that if the Chair of that Committee �%erc present here tonight. he could probabl; state their o% erall consensus of his members and the direction on specific issues. From his observation. it appears the height issue has been concurred with but the overlay district he is unsure of %there they stand. He said that it is certainly a tool that could be used but whether or not the% will propose this remains an issue that will be concluded in their final deliberations. Aid. Ne«man followed up that he is still concerned with this entire process because he questions if moratoriums are needed to get zoning concerns and proposed amendments on the Plan Commissions agenda for serious consideration within a specified time frame. He recalled specific zoning concerns such as building to the lot line. etc. that seems to sit on their agenda along with other zoning issues that need review. He realizes the Plan Commissions load, however it seems that if you go by way of moratorium, specific zoning issues are given carte blanche over those issues that have been sitting for some time. He said this is why the moratorium approach causes concern because it also has such a significant effect on property owners in the specific area. With this in mind, he asked staff for their opinion on what is needed at this point and if an extension of the moratorium is absolutely appropriate process. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Plan Commission could resolve this on Wednesday night or may need an additional meeting beyond that, however staff can not foresee the outcome. He did reiterate that the Plan Commission has closed all testimony and are at the stage of caucusing for final deliberations, therefore the time frame from this point should not be significant. Aid. Wynne stated after all discussion and comments heard that she feels a 90 day extension is not excessive and is a reasonable request at this point in light of the Plan Commission's progression and that they are moving diligently on this. Aid. Moran's explanation for requesting this extension of the moratorium is exceptable and understandable to give appropriate time for the Plan Commission to conclude their deliberations. With this said Aid. ~Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 84-0-03 providing for 90-day extension of the moratorium approved under Ordinance 56-0- 03. Aid. Newman said that he still feels uncertain of what they are going to come back with. If they came back with amendments that wilI revamp R1 city-wide then we have a situation where this is no longer just about tear downs that are going on in the 6`h Ward. He said in terms of lot coverage, this is an issue where all that could be effected should be notified, which would require longer than 90-days. Mr. NVolinski stated that he has not heard anyone on the sub -committee reducing the lot coverage in R 1. He said that several people brought up the fact that other communities ha%e larger lot coverage requirements thinking that ours was larger such as Deerfield that allows 40% versus our 30%, therefore making Evanston more restrictive. He said that if he were to make a guess on what's going to happen, he would assume at a minimum they will change the height regulations and how this is calculated. The overlay district remains Questionable. P&D Committec %!%: Minutes of 09 06 0. - Page 5 Aid. Tisdahl questioned if 90 days is needed just to make a height recommendation. In her opinion, she would hope that this will not require that amount of time. The other Committee members concurred. Chairman Bernstein said that it is regrettable that a moratorium appears to be the only way to move things up on the agenda, however it seems to work in this regard. He agrees with Aid. Wynne that he also has no problem with the 90-day extension due to the diligence and progress so far by the Plan Commission and that they are definitely moving forward. He seconded Aid. Wynne's motion. Mr. Derek Eoyalci, realtor, commented that it is important that this matter move forward as quickly as possible. He noted that there are many properties in the 6 h Ward that have been effected by this moratorium and are at a stand -still on real estate deals by prospective buyers and is subsequently effecting owners financially as well. He personally feels a 90-day extension to the moratorium already in existence is too long. He feels sufficient time has been given to work the zoning issues in question out and any further time is unfair to property owners effected in this Ward. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion with inclusion of the rules to be suspended. (P 1) Ordinance 75-0-03 — Walkwav Structural Report Ordinance Chairman Bernstein brought attention to the letter from Nevin Belser. Reba Apartments dated August 12, 2003. included with the agenda item packet. Reason being, he feels many of the concerns and points raised by 41r. Belser are legitimate and need to be addressed and reviewed in further detail by staff before such an ordinance can be considered for Council approval. He acknowledged Mr. Ashraf Nianji on the sign up sheet to speak on this issue. Mr. Ashraf Manii. made comments in opposition of this proposed ordinance as presented. He feels this proposal from City administration has not been thoroughly thought out and is not reasonably workable. He agrees with Mr. Belser's concerns and that this ordinance should be re -considered. He suggest that the Committee and staff consider alternatives to this costly proposal. Aid. W)mne made 3 points. First, she feels that at the last meeting discussion and comments were very helpful in terms of comprehensive and in actually achieving the goal intended. She said although staff came back with something that addressed her question on the cost of having an additional structural inspector on staff, it did not address a number of the points mentioned be Mr. Manji. Secondly, the letter received by Mr. Belser raises a very good workable solution and she would like staff to look at this and also incorporate the points that Mr. Manji made at the last meeting regarding actually dealing with porches above a certain height. She said that if they are going to address porch safety then let`s make it comprehensive and not be punitive in terms of requiring people to pay for structural engineering inspections that may not be necessary. Thirdly. she would like to find out what Chicago has actually decided to do about this issue as well. She does not feel this issue is ready for any final decision to vote on based on what PSD Committee 161te Minutes of 04 08 0: Nee 6 has been presented by staff. :old. Wynne also noted a concern raised regarding the difficulty in obtaininse a structural engineer to actually do these types of inspections based upon what has happened in Chicago. She requested staff research this as well. Aid. Newman suggested in consideration of the concems addressed by \Ir. Belser and Mr. Manji that the altemative of having our City inspectors trained to identify these issues. might be feasible. IF a problem is noticed and cited by the inspector of a porch that is in question on a safety code, then the inspector should cite the property owner requiring that they seek structural engineering inspection, recommendation and approval for the citation to be lifted. Aid. Newman moved for direction to send this item back to staff for further study and review of the concerns as stated above. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) Alderman Reference from Aid. Tisdahl re: Rezonine the Kendall School Campus from U 1 to RI Chairman Bernstein informed that there is no action by this Committee other than the matter needs to be forwarded to the Plan Commission by direction of Planning & Development Committee. This was agreed upon by the Alderman of the Ward and the adjacent Ward. He asked Aid. Tisdahl for a summary. Aid. Tisdahl reported that on July I I `s, she called Howard TaIman, President of Kendall College, and informed him that she would be making a reference to rezone the Kendall property based on the Tribune article stating that the school would be relocating and leaving the Evanston campus. She said there was concern in the neighborhood that dormitories, fraternity houses, multi -family or university housing, was aIlowed as of right under the U1 zoning. Also, the Roycemore property, which Northwestern owns, will soon revert to the universities control. This will change the nature of the neighborhood bringing more university into that immediate neighborhood. She said they felt that if Kendall College could go back on the tax rolls and be used for residential purposes, that this would the best possible use to maintain the quality of life in the neighborhood. Aid. Tisdahl, along with Aid. Newnan. met with the neighbors who are very organized, savvy and have agreed that an Rl zoning would be the best use for the site. They are also very open to a planned development with townhomes. which is the only project that Kendall has discussed with the neighbors. However. neither Kendall or the developer will convey for certain what their planned development is. She informed of her phone call with %Ir. Tom Siegel, an associate of Kendall's President, who quoted that he is "passing on information that Kendall is planning to sue her personally and individually" with regards to this reference. At this point, she is unsure of what Kendall's plans are for the property, but she is sure that if Kendall's plans are to leave the site, the rezoning of the property can be done. This would be a win -win deal for the neighborhood and Kendall College. Aid. Newman stated that it was interesting to find out the planned development provision under the RI zoning that he did not realize was there. He noted that this property is on PAD Committee .%1tp. Minutes of 09 08 02 Pape 7 the border of the 7" and 1 Ward_ and on the south side of the property on Colfax, is all 1" Ward residences. Fie pointeJ out that on east Orrington A%enue. Kendall has a significant impact in the I" Ward as %tell, ficme,.er. the property is technically all located in the 7`h Ward. Therefore. he would like to note his appreciation far this reference and he totally supports i:. He said it is a %ery important thing for them to have this property back on the tax rolls. so if they can get this property zoned R1, it would be very beneficial. He requested that the P&D minutes be forwarded to the Plan Commission to be included in their review. He said that this particular neighborhood and the Kendall property. is approximately blocks from the Northwestern University's main campus. He said that the entire neighborhood is dominated by commuters trying to park in the area, some going to Kendall but many going to Northwestern. In addition, they have an entire row of fraternities on Lincoln Avenue, on Colfax are dormitories and these are very difficult blocks to park on. He feels that if the Kendall site is rezoned to R1 with residential homes and private parking, instead of institutional use, would very significantly improve the neighborhood. He said there is also the concern with speeding from young drivers in the area, which a residential use would improve upon this issue also. Aid. Newman also requested that the neighbors in attendance let their fellow neighbors know and to follow through by attending the Plan Commission meetings on this matter as well since the Alderman are not allowed to testify at their meetings. Chairman Bernstein reminded that Tom Siegal represents the interest of Kendall and there is the possibility that the information passed on to Aid. Tisdahl may be misguided statement on his own behalf. However, he said it is apparent that Aid. Tisdahl feels the comments were repugnant and an attempt to intimate any alderman will certainly not ingratiate anyone's cause, in his opinion. He said that every method will be used to address this type of concern with the threat of suing an alderman. Aid. Newman mentioned his concern that Aid. Tisdahl has been attending all the meetings with Kendall and is still not fully aware of their intentions. He feels the main reason for this is because Kendall has not been forthcomine with information to the neighbors, members of the Council, and staff. He said to this extent, it is apparent that Kendall needs to be up front %%ith everyone as to what the plan is and what the prospective buyers intents are. He said the City does have an interest in this property with being compatible with the neighborhood and being back on the tax roll. Aid. Tisdahl added for the record. that they can do this deal because it is good for the Kendall and good for the community. Chairman Bernstein said also for the record, to acknowledge tits. Penny Brown's, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, letter dated August 25, 2003 and that he spoke with her requesting that this matter not be considered at this meeting as was requested at the last meeting in August. He said from further investigation on his part, he became aware that not only was this matter on P&D's agenda for discussion but was also an item for action on the PIan Commission's agenda. He notified Ms. Brawn to inform her that Planning & Development would address this at their meeting just in terms of being a reference to the Plan Commission and have no control over items on their agenda for consideration. He suggested to ibis. Brown to have representation present at the Plan Commission meeting to request a motion for continuation. P&D Committee Aite. %tinutes of 09 08 03 P3ee 8 Ruthanne De'kh'olfe. 811 Colfax Street. e\presSed support for Ald. Tisdahl reference and commended her for her efforts. She has lied at this location for 37 %ears and has yer\ deep roots in the Evanston community. She raised her family here %kith all her children attending Evanston schools and graduating from E\ anston Toy+reship. She also has two graduate degrees from Northwestern [: ni,.ersit% and volunteers for Evanston Hospital and the animal shelter and has played in the Ec anston Symphony for 18 years. She noted that her significant ties in the Evanston community are apical of half of the neighbors in the Colfax area. She said the other half are %oung people who have just spend astronomical amount of money for RI zoned housing and additional huge amounts of money to put up architecturally coherent additions to their houses. She vouched on the shared concerns of the neighbors on the intentions and proposals for the Kendall property upon relocation of the school. They have heard rumors of prospective buyers and developers who have proposed to put up maximum height dormitories with no setbacks and other proposed over -development of the property. She verified previous comments made by Aid. Tisdahl and Newman with regards to Kendall not being forthcoming and upfront with their intentions and plans for the property to the neighbors, alderman and staff. At this point, the neighbors decided to have a meeting where her organization, the Northeast Evanston Neighbors Association, which she has been the Director for over 20 years, along wit the Northwestern Neighbors and the Evanston Historic District Preservation Group, met at her home last Thursday. Ms. DeWolfe noted that over 30 families attended this meeting as well as Aid. Tisdahl and Aid. Newman who were very helpful on explaining zoning issues and other City matters. They all tried to come up with a win - win situation for the neighboring property owners, the neighborhood as a whole and for Kendall College. She said the conclusion being in concurrence with Aid. Tisdahl's reference for rezoning the property from U I to R1 which would benefit all parties involved. Ms. De'Wolfe concluded by giving full support on behalf of the neighborhood groups mentioned. She also extended her commendation to Aid. Tisdahl on her leadership in support of her Ward and that her constituents are outraged that anyone would threaten her with litigation regarding this matter. She assured that they stand fully behind her in this matter. (PD4) Ordinance 61-0-03 — Establishine a Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for Certain Residential Construction in the Fifth Ward Chairman Bernstein said that he requested adding this matter as an item for discussion on Planning & Developments agenda tonight because he was contacted by Mr. Neal Davidson who wasn't quite sure about the status of his project regarding whether it is considered as being in the "pipeline" with respect to the moratorium. He asked staff for background on this issue. Mr. Wolinski explained that the issue is Mr. Davidson has a piece of vacant property at 1503 Emerson Street and has submitted for a building permit with plans to construct 6 townhouses on this comer property. His plans were in prior to the moratorium, however the problem is that after doing a zoning analysis, the outcome is that only 4 towrtltouses could be put on the property as -of -right. therefore resulting in the need for zoning relief or a planned development. He pointed out that the moratorium ordinance is quite specific P&D Committee Mte. Minutes orO9 08 ri3- Page 9 about the fact that no %arian;es or special uses shall be allowed during the moratorium period. \is. Szymanski concurred pointing out to the Committee that in the ordinance under Section ? on page 7 it states that no building permits for new construction projects in R5 districts other than single-family detached. are prohibited. \Ir. Wolinski added that the issue is the problem that -hey can not even give notice for a hearing for this project under the current language in the ordinance. Chairman Bernstein stated that there is a notch in the ordinance with respect to this project. He questioned if there are any other projects with similar circumstances affected by this ordinance. Mr. Wolinski responded not to his knowledge. Chairman Bernstein noted that this item is only under discussion on tonight's agenda, therefore depending on the rule of the Committee for further action. He said that modification to the ordinance could be considered if deemed so. He stated that in any effect, Legal staff needs direction from the Committee. Discussion followed on the consideration of being in the "pipeline" and the degree or status of the process of an application. 41s. Szymanski stated that what she recalls from previous discussion, was thorough investigation of what status the application was in on a case -by -case basis to determine their position and who much monetary commitment has been made, which she recalled was the dominating consideration. Ald. Newnan agreed. however there are other circumstances that could be just as important as monetary but not exactly the main issue. Chairman Bernstein concluded tha the question of where this project stands as far as being considered in the pipeline needs to be addressed and answered. Ald. Newman stated that he would be opposed to amending a moratorium ordinance to address specific projects, however more importantly. he is very opposed to not having a consistent understanding and clarification in writing explaining the "pipeline" status. It was the consensus of the Committee to fomard this matter to Corporation Counsel Jack Siegel for legal determination on whether this project should be considered in the pipeline. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q NJacqine row-nlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 22, 2003 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: A. Newman Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, D. Marino, D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Plan Commission Chair L. Wedemeyer, Housing Commission Chair R. Snyderman-Pratt, R. Grossinger & J. HurK7ch, Housing Commissioners Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. He acknowledged the agenda addendum item for consideration regarding the proposed moratorium on portions of Main Street and Chicago Avenue. Mr. Wolinski informed that the original agenda developed for tonight had only two discussion items and two communications and there was an addendum to this agenda that was sent out on Friday. The addendum is an ordinance 90-0-03 that was published and is a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for 90 days in the areas mentioned in the 133 zoning district. Chairman Bernstein noted that staff has asked the Council to introduce tonight. He changed the order of the agenda to accommodate those in attendance. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8.2003 Aid. Kent moved approval of the September $th minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Uodate and Discussion with Housine Comm ission/lnclusionary Housing Task Force Chairman Bernstein informed that several months back the Housing Commission came before P&D Committee requesting to create a task force to study inclusionary housing. He noted that this task force was created; he represented P&D along with Aid. Kent and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of o922;03 Page 2 occasionally Ald. Jean -Baptiste. He said that they have been meeting for months and have come up with some sense and statements contained in the packets tonight. Ile said the logistics of this is that theoretically it now goes from the task force to the Housing Commission. He said that his question and fir. Wolinski's direction is that ultimately the will of the Council is going to determine what if anything they are going to do by way of inclusionary zoning. He said that what they want to do tonight is to have members of the Housing Commission give a synopsis explaining what has occurred thus far and to determine what they believe the will of the Council will be with respect to policy decisions regarding inclusionary housing. 'Nis. Robin Snyderman-Pratt, Chair of the Housing Commission and Mr. Rob Grossinger, Housing Commissioner were the representatives on the task force. Mr. Grossinger stated that it was actually 12 months ago when the Housing Commission came before P&D to request participation in the creation of the task force. He said the whole concept on inclusionary housing was generated by their experience with the 1930 Ridge project. He said that the Housing Commission was not aware of that projects existence until it was well down the line and at that point, they were always playing catch up trying to talk about the question of set aside affordable housing. He said in the meantime, they were well aware of a number of discussions around the country and a very voluble discussion in the City of Chicago around the issue of inclusionary zoning. At that point, the Housing Commission came before P&:D Committee to talk about the idea of creating a task force. He recalled a question from P&D at that time was if this could be something that just the Housing Commission itself could handle. Mr. Grossinger said their feeling was, and has been proved, that they needed to bring in other people, specifically profit developers and people from other walks of City government, so that their discussion could be more diverse with different points of view. He noted that as the task force was working through this over the Iast few months, the business and professional people to the public interest aided them very strongly. He said that this group did a tremendous amount of research and needs assessment for Evanston in terms - of affordable housing needs and provided a tool kit of what many other communities around the country have done in both areas of inclusionary zoning and affordable housing. Finally, Mr. Grossinger noted that they have watched as the state level progressed which coincided with their activities and are going to impact municipalities when it comes to affordable housing. He brought attention to the handout of Governor Blagojevich's newsletter regarding the appointment of a task force to development and =- implement plan to create a state-wide housing policy which will have issues to address surrounding municipal support or opposition to affordable housing. Ms. Snyderman-Pratt talked in more detail about the state level, which she feels that this issue is really beginning to open up. She said that while the task force was meeting, House Representative Julie Hamos held a public hearing and was appointed the new Chair of the new Housing and Urban Development Committee of the State of Illinois and their transition team made recommendation to the Governor. Because of this, at the end of August the Governor signed House Bill 625 which essentially says that if you're a municipality and have more than 5000 people, that 10% of your housing stock is not affordable to people earning 80% of the area median income for homeowners or 50% of - P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 09/2103 Page 3 area median income for renters. then they have to bridge the gap. However this does not apply to Evanston. She said after certain given period of time, if you are not producing and a developer comes in and ask the municipality to build affordable housing and is denied, then this same developer can go to the state and have the decision overturned. She said the obviously Evanston is doing better in the area of affordable housing and do not have to wont' about failing this test. Ms. Syridennan-Pratt said the other item at the state level is the executive order creating a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Initiative. This is where the Governor says that they have never had a state housing policy and now they are going to prioritize resources to address the needs of people earning less than 80% of area median income, specifically looking at the needs of people who can't afford to live near where they work. Also, this policy looks at people struggling with homelessness, seniors and people with disabilities and people living in housing that's at risk of being affordable. She said the exciting thing about this executive order is that it gives municipalities the initiative to address these housing needs. She noted that the state's task force includes participation from just housing people, it includes the Department of Transportation, OMB, Department of Human Services who have all come together to coordinate their resources. Ms. Snyderman-Pratt addressed the proposed draft policy and program included in the packet. She went section by section noting 100% consensus on the proposed policy statement and the targeted population. There was 100% consensus that this should apply to all new development/Pub's. she explained the "In Lieu of Provision" and the ways that this can be accomplished and agreed upon within satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. She explained the Control Period and the City's Right of First Refusal. She explained the items listed under "Inclusionary Housing Program Characteristics" section. (A copy of this draft can be obtained from the Community Development Administrative Office.) Ms. Snyderman-Pratt noted that this document and program is still a work in progress. She feels that Evanston can progress in this area with the right resources in place. She said that the task force has spent a lot of time on each of these items and looked at what has worked in other communities and trying to come up -,ti7th something that is "Evanston specific". Mr. Grossinger highlighted three issues that they found as public policy butting head with no specific right answer to. He said two things that they found hard to match with was offering density bonuses as a way of encouraging the creation of affordable housing versus the need to keep density from overwhelming the City of Evanston. This issue troubled many of the task force members and they agreed that more discussion is needed on this subject. He said another issue is whether the public policy, which is not mutually exclusive but they do have some components that are, is the public policy to create a diverse population whether in the downtown Evanston development process or the production of affordable housing units in other part of the City but using the resources that can be generated from downtown development. He noted that this comes in to play not just in the last two questions on diversity versus production but also the question of what is actually being produced downtown. He said there are not that many large family units being done downto%m so if they traded an inclusionary zoning process and program and say this is their affordable housing policy, have they excluded P&D Committee `fig. ttintnes of 0922 03 Page 4 larger families from the affordable housing stock. He reiterated that these are issues that still need to be reviewed. .Lis. Sny-derman-Pratt added that if they look at the math about how much development is in the pipeline and how much whether 10, 15 or 20% set -aside would provide versus looking at the needs assessment, you can see that this is a drop in the bucket. There are not that many homes in the course of a year and one of the things they have had to stress over and over again in terms of the public process is that this is just one piece of the puzzle. She said that one of the documents contained a tool using Housing Trust funds and Community Land Trusts and other vehicles that maybe the Housing Commission can use in the years ahead to develop. However, this is bigger than the Housing Commission requiring the need for Council support and direction. Aid. Kent stated that when he considers the development downtown, which is fantastic, he honestly doesn't worry about the diversity because if a person has the funds to buy there then they should do so if they choose. He is more concerned with the peripheral and the families that can't afford to be downtown if they wanted to be. And also the development spilling over into the neighborhoods raising the price of homes and rent in the areas that should remain affordable. He said this causes in more way than one, gentrification resulting in the families on moderate to poor incomes being forced to move out of the City of Evanston because they can not longer afford to live here. He acknowledged the Task Force and Housing Commission's work in this area however this is a real situation that is becoming more and more a problem. Aid. W)mne questioned the Highland Park affordable housing work that is being done and asked that a copy of their ordinance be forwarded to the Committee. Ms. Synderman-Pratt said that she would pass this information on to the Committee. Aid. Wynne commended the Task Force on all their work put into this and that the information provided thus far is very interesting and informative. She still has curious on what other communities have folded in as -of -right that say if a developer wants to build in their community they have to provide an affordable housing component with no trade offs. She looks at how they have fought for three years to increase the parking requirements and worked hard to reduce the height and density issues and worked on the FAR requirements. All of these issues have been something that many people in Evanston wanted to scale down and not trade away to make their requirements tighter. in her opinion, this is a very difficult choice as a trade off to provide more affordable housing. Aid. Wynne also questioned how the fee in lieu of provision works. Mr. Grossinger responded that one option would be to have a fiat amount such as 50-100,000 per unit or have the developer pay the difference on 10% of their units between what would be affordable to someone at 80% of the area median income. Aid. Wynne questioned if this money/fee would make it possible for the City to actually recreate the number of units? She feels the fee should make the difference to provide those units elsewhere. Mr. Grossinger suggested that additional housing funds could be used to make the difference. Aid. Wynne said that she would like to see a structure of how the fee in lieu of provision could be used and again stated that the fee should cover the entire cost for providing the unit elsewhere. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 09, 22/03 Page S The Committee members questioned where they should go with this from here. Chairman Bernstein stated that the next step has been pre -ordained. He said the Task Force will take its findings to the Housing Commission and recommendations back to P&D Committee. He said the Council would then make certain recommendations or decisions based on the statements and tools contained herein. He said when they started discussions, his first comment after they talked about the potential tools and realizing how many units have been constructed in Evanston over the last three years, his sense was they are three years too late. Had they begun this process before Evanston massive construction commenced, they would have been ahead of the game. However, the reality is that their threshold has changed where they are now at the point of saturation and looking at what developers can provide in return for Evanston. He believes now that this is the appropriate time because they can now be more selective and the Task Force wanted to receive feedback and a sense from the Committee if they feel the same way. He suggested what they might have to do at this point in conjunction with affordable housing is to roll back their zoning and make as -of -right less so that they can build up to what might be reasonable for a developer to do. Chairman Bernstein thanked all the members of the Task Force and Ms. Spicuzzs for all their work. He said it has been good interplay by all involved and to find out that developers do not necessarily shy away from inclusionary housing but would like it to be definitive. He told the Committee that direction is requested at this point by the Task Force. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she is more than happy to tell developers that they have to include affordable units and to have inclusionary zoning. However, she also wants to be sure that they have a regular provision for fee in Iieu of to insure that the City will be able to build units for families elsewhere. She is very concerned with the types of unit that can be built and provided if this provision is used also. Aid. Kent added that it is also important to keep in mind that when they go to the Housing Commission one of the things they wrestle with is the question of providing actual affordable housing for the targeted how to moderate income population. He says this because most of the condominiums being built still remain non - reachable in the affordability price range for the average family in the targeted income levels. Aid. Wynne asked why the bill signed by Governor Blagojevich does not apply to Evanston. Ms. Snyderman-Pratt explained that this house bill does apply to Evanston however they do not have to worry about failing the test because more than 10% of their housing stock is still considered affordable at the current time. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance 90-0-03 — A Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for 90 Days on Portions of Main St. and Chicago Ave. in B3 Zonincz District Mr. Wolinski pointed out a correction in the proposed ordinance on page 2 in the fifth Whereas clause where it has the date of September 10, 2003, it should be the year 2001. He informed that this was a request by Aid. Wynne last week because of on -going issues with zoning on Chicago Avenue. He recalled that they visited this area before however the change in the 603 Main Street project prompted concern that this project was originally going to be much smaller than what initially came out which probably tripled P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 0922 03 Page 6 in size. He said there is concern tha the corner of Chicago Ave. and 'Main %%ith the B3 zoning located on the southeast corner needs to be studies again as far as v.-hether this is the property zoning for that location. Chairman Bernstein called an citizen comments from the sign-up sheet. Ms. Debbie Hillman. 1118 Sherman. Ms. Hillman noted her involvement with the Chicago Avenue Corridor project and several other projects in the Chicago/Main area. She noted the ongoing concerns in the neighborhood for more compatible zoning and additional concerns including traffic, density, parking and other related issues. She wished to specifically focus on the original September 10, 2001 ordinance that changed a lot of Main Street. She noted this left four specific properties at the B3 zoning. The reason these properties were left B3 were not based on principal as each one was left under that zoning because of extenuating circumstances. The northwest corner of Main/Chicago being the Old Evanston Bank building where the developers whose proposal at that time, they requested the need for the B3 zoning to allow a couple of feet in height. She said the northeast corner remained at B3 where they saw nothing happening in the foreseeable future at that time. The Evanshire building at Hinman remained B3 and the fourth parcel being the southeast corner of Main/Chicago (The Main) which had been in the pipeline when the originally because the developer/owner brought in Some plans to the City and tore down the apartment building along the alley. However since then nothing has been done and she believes the consensus of their alderman, the neighbors and what City officials consider, this building is no longer in the pipeline because no permits have been applied for and no further plans have been discussed or forwarded to the City. Therefore, she feels it is time to review the zoning for that parcel and it should be brought down to scale. She feels the B3 zoning is not on principal for this location because this area should not be considered on the same scale as downtown Evanston which would not be in keeping with the Comprehensive General Plan as well. She hopes for the Committee's support on this issue and for immediate discussion and resolution thereafter for proper zoning on this parcel. Ms. Pennv Miller, seconded and supported Ms. Hillman's comments. Ms. Catherine Saccarv. 926 Judson, also seconded and agreed with Ms. Hillman's comments. Ms. Mane Woolev, also supported Ms. Hillman's comments and added that they do not need another 125' building at that corner. Mr. Hans Viia, 811 Chicaizo. Mr. Vija said that he concurs and supports this moratorium to allow time for review of proper zoning for The Main parcel. He pointed out that in the Zoning Ordinance the B3 zoning states that the purpose is for intense business use and building height. He does not feel this area can handle any added intense uses of this magnitude because of the already existing traffic, parking and density problems. He said review is needed to see how the current zoning impacts on the area and the need for reduction of that zoning is evident. P&D Committee yttg. Minutes of 09 12:03 Page 7 Mr. Doue Gever. 811 Chicago. Mr. Gever looked at the rationales in the ordinance for consideration of this specific are and he agrees with Mr. Vija that the intense business and building uses under the B3 zoning are inappropriate for that comer of Main and Chicago. He also is very concerned for the pedestrian traffic in that intersection and how any additional over -development will strongly have a negative impact. He supports the moratorium. Mr. James Murrav, stated his concern on behalf of the developers/owners of the 603 Main Street property, that the ordinance not be deemed to apply to the process that this project has finally reached in the approval stage. Mr. David Herbst, Attorney representing the owners of The Main building, expressed on their behalf objection to this moratorium. He asked for the opportunity to address the entire Council on this issue since they received short notice on this proposed ordinance. Chairman Bernstein said that he would have that opportunity during citizen comment during the Council meeting. Ald. Wynne addressed Mr. Murray's concern and agreed in reviewing the ordinance to make an amendment. She moved to amend the ordinance on page 4, Section 2 where it states after "to deny issuance of any permit" to add language to the effect stating "except for any project which has been approved by the City Council proper to the effective date of this ordinance." She made this amendment because obviously they did approve the 603 Main Street project and the intent of this moratorium is to prohibit issuance of building permits from this point and this is not retroactive. Ald. Kent seconded the motion. Ms. Szymanski asked Aid. Wynne to consider changing "projects" to "planned developments", which she concurred. In response to a question, Mr. Wolinski stated that no other projects are in the pipeline to this effect. He recalled the zoning analysis done on The Ivlain project and proposal a number of years ago but he believes this to be moot at this point. He would certainly require a completely new application at this time. Chairman Bernstein noted that there is another case in the 50' Ward where a project is awaiting interpretation of being considered in the pipeline with regards to that moratorium. He asked for Legal's opinion on the 603 Main Street project. Ms. Szymanski responded that she believes this is two different aspects of the same issue. One way of looking at this is of course the traditional case -by -case analysis with the expenditures and change of position that the applicant has made. The other way is, as Aid. Wynne has suggested, justif}-ing Council making the finding that except for any planned development approved by ordinance. Aid. Wynne said that it would be preferable to make this clear in the ordinance rather than having to seek further legal opinion. Ms. Szymanski stated that either way is acceptable. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion to amend page 4, section 2. Ald. Wynne explained in further detail why this moratorium request abruptly came about and the urgency at this time. She said it is becoming obvious of the race against some of these developers to change things that they see as a problem before a project comes in and is considered in the pipeline. She recalled that twice before on Chicago Ave. they P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 0921,03 Page 8 were not able to move fast enough and fortunately in both instances the developer either did not move forward or failed to build what was proposed. She pointed out the Coronet Theatre property where the developer proposed to build a 1 I tall by 41' wide building including a car elevator. This project was deemed to be in the pipeline even though they changed Chicago Ave. to reduce the height to 67' and have more parking requirements. She said that it appeared at that time this building would be constructed even after spending 3 years making every attempt to lower the height and density in a very thorough and comprehensive way. Fortunately for whatever circumstances occurred, that developer ended up building something less than proposed and they were spared that over development of the property. She noted the second instance was a building project proposed for a 125', 12-story building at the corner of Main/Chicago. To give an example in comparison, the new bank building at the northeast comer of Main/Chicago is 105' tall and the proposed building would have been 20' taller. Aid. Wynne pointed out that this intersection is already becoming so congested that people are beginning to avoid the area. She said at this time, the developers plans for that site are considered no longer fresh because no further movement on the original proposal has occurred since it was presented over three years ago. Therefore, they should be allowed at this point to go back and look at the original intent for that site and what should be allowed under the proper zoning. Chairman Bernstein asked Mr. Wedemeyer his opinion on if the 90 days is sufficient amount of time for the Plan Commission to address this issue. Mr. Wedemeyer stated that he would feel better with 120 days due to the existing load on the Plan Commission's agenda. Aid. Wynne agreed that 120 days would be more appropriate. Aid. Wynne moved to amend Section 4 on page 4 from 90 days to 120 days. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. The date for termination to be detennined upon adoption of the ordinance. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the ordinance with amendments, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of approval or Ordinance 90-0-03. Aid. Wynne noted her intention to move to suspend the rules this evening for adoption of this ordinance. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (cont'd) (PD 1 l Discussion with Plan Commission Chair Mr. Wedemeyer brought the Committee's attention to the memorandum in their packet on the Pending Matters Inventory of the Plan Commission. He informed the Committee in more detail of the Plan Commission's workload at the current time. He explained that the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission was foamed as a tool to expedite the process by taking away certain issues from the heavy agenda load that deal specifically with zoning issues. He went through the items on the Plan Commission's agenda as listed on staffs memorandum and the current status of each item. PAD Comminee Ntts. ,Minutes of 092w 43 Page 9 Mr. Wedemeyer requested to the Committee and staff that references to the PIan Commission be received in writing. He said that many references are received verbally, which is hard to decipher and leaves too much question open as to the specifics of the reference. He noted that the Commission is also looking at the cumulative effect of all the planned developments are having on the community. He stressed the importance of the Plan Commission having the time to study this matter at this time so they can begin to take into consideration issues that need to be addressed that have been negatively effected by all the development and to inventory the positives that have occurred. He acknowledged the comments that have been made regarding the time length it takes to get to some of the issues that have been on their agenda for some time and the recent comment on how it appears that moratoriums are the way to go in expediting the process. He stressed that it is hard for the Plan Commission and the Zoning Committee to trove any faster at this time due to the heap} workload, however it does foresee this to ease up in the near future as the moratoriums terminate and they are able to address other items on their agenda. He noted that the Commission is already meeting at least twice a week. Aid. Wynne commend the Plan Commission on all the time and work they have put in especially in the past few months. She realizes their workload and appreciates their thoroughness given to each item on their agenda. Discussion ensued regarding if some issues can bypass the Plan Commission and come directly to Planning & Development such as planned development cases. Aid. Tisdahl felt it is appropriate for the Plan Commission to address and review any such zoning cases, especially planned developments because that is their purpose and why they exist. She would not like to see these cases come to P&D before it is been worked out and reviewed by the Plan Commission with recommendations forwarded. Aid. Kent said that this City suffers from so many different problems in many different areas, that it is important to have subcommittee's do what they are there to do. In his opinion, it already appears as if the Plan Commission's workload seems to recycle itself over and over again. Mr. Wedemeyer agreed. The Committee thanks Mr. Wedemeyer for his information and discussion. COMMUNICATIONS fPD3) Change in Chairmanship This communication was accepted without comment. (PD4) Letter from Ashraf Manii Concerning Ordinance 75-0-03 This communication was accepted without comment. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 09/22/03 Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Rainey questioned the status of the Vacant and Boarded Buildings issue and why it has not come back on the agenda since last discussed and returned to staff' for legal opinion. She is concerned with the time length that it has taken to respond back to this Committee and does not want this issue to become to far back on the bumer. She requested that this item be returned back on the agenda for the next meeting. Staff acknowledged and agreed to have a response by the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline . Brownlee Planning S Development Committee Minutes of October 13. 2003 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent, A. Newman. E. Tisdahl, M. «'tinne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson. J. Aiello. S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. Rainey. L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OI:ORUNI Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m APPROVALS OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2003 Ald. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 13L` minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Newman informed everyone in attendance that he will be changing the order of the agenda and addressing items to accommodate time and others in attendance on specific matters. JP5 1 Reauest For Housing Rehabilitation Funds for Over-The-Rainbow-2040 Brown Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Eric Huffman, Executive Director of Over -The - Rainbow association and asked staff to give a summary of this case. Mr. Wolinski responded that HOME funds should be used for providing additional affordable housing according to the regulations. He discussed this matter with Mr. Huffman and his request is simply to put a new roof on the building and does not actually qualify for HOME funds because it is not adding additional units. Therefore, the revolving loan fund is recommended as the proper resource to use in this case. Ald. Bernstein noted that he is totally behind providing the funds to this organization in whatever circumstances qualified for but questions that lost of units in replacing the roof and because of this, does it essentially meet the criteria in providing back the accessible units lost. Mr. Wolinski responded that in this situation it does not meet the same criteria and is stated clearly in the rights that they would have to be providing additional affordable units as well. Aid. Rainey questioned if it is necessary to charge this organization the interest indicated. Mr. Wolinski responded that the interest rate on the revolving loan can be negotiated. P&D Commitucc .%1%!- Minutes of 10-2--0: Pale Aid. Rainey said in tha: case, she would argue the interest rate charged in that it should be lo«ered because o::ne acknowledged Aork done by this organization in combination with their not -for -pro;:: status. She strongly supports either lowering the interest rate or giving this organization a 00o interest rate on a revolving loan in support of their good standing and ability to pay back the loan. Mr. «'olinski agreed with Aid. Rainey's suggestion. Chairman Newman pointed out that their interest rate is already set at a low 15% at 30 years and feels this is a fair rate in comparison to the customary rates. Mr. NVolinski noted to the Committee that fir. Janusz just informed him that the 2.5% is per the CD guidelines which was approved by the Council years ago. Nevertheless, the Council has within its purview to reduce or waive this amount if so reasoned. Chairman Newman stated that maintaining the interest even at that low rate does at least get the money back at some equivalent value over time. AId. Tisdahl concurred that this organization has done astonishing work within their purview and feels they are entitled to the recognition of their ability to repay the loan at the interest rate charged. Mr. Huffman responded that their main concern is to be consistent with the CD Committee decision and they try to leverage in every case with the funds their organization can match. Therefore, he assured that they are able to afford the pa}Tnents and when they first looked at the agreement, felt that the contract was fair and within their resources. He noted his appreciation for Aid. Rainey's concern and proposition but assured his organizations position and approval of the revolving loan requirements as indicated. With no further discussion, Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P 4) Reauest From Econ Housing for Additional Funding — 1816 Darrow Avenue Chairman Newman called on Mr. Davidson for any comments that he wished to forward to the Committee. fir. Davidson noted that he has discussed this matter with Mr. Woiinski and is satisfied with the agreement and conclusion from that discussion. Mr. Woiinski informed the Committee that staff reviewed the job as a whole and concluded that some type of City subsidy was not out of order on this specific project. He said the City received the land for SI from Cook County in a scavenger sale in the early 1990's, therefore they incurred no real cost on the land. The City sold the land to the developer for SI and also made a loan to the developer in the amount of S30,000 which they paid back at the time of the closing. He noted that the developer did run into reasonable construction overages that he informed staff as the project was going on. He stressed that what he is trying to do is stay away from the land issue, which is very confusing and was originally proposed by Mr. Davidson that he felt that it was unfair that the City retained a second mortgage on the land and would get some portion on the return on the land of S50,000 if the land was sold before the termination time frame of the reducing grant amount to a non -incoming qualifying household. Chairman Newman questioned this reservation because the City is in a position where they may not every gain from this grant. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that fact, however even if he did buy the property from the City for S1, his company did agree to build the housing at an affordable amount to provide affordable housing. In actuality, the expected cost for the project exceeded the P&D Co=nee Mia. Mint;%cs of hat . amount proiected resulting in a lost and no prc� is to the developer. He also ackno%%1edzed the fact that this project was a first �.-,d a learning experience for them with affordable housing and the actual cost were underestimated. He is only asking for a fair return in some profit gained. Chairman \eu,,. an said it is difficult to see the developers loss because the land was only purchased by the City for SLOO and sold for SLOO. In this case, it appears that the City is pa -.-Mg, for the provision of affordable housine. Mr. Davidson feels that the value of the land should be forwarded to the developer since the City does have a S50,000 lien on the property, Mr. Wolinski reminded that this lieNgrant reduces 1'20 over the next 20 years as long as the property remains in ownership to an income qualifying family. otherwise the remaining grant is due to the Cite. He noted this is the City's yw aof maintaining the affordable on the property by putting a value of 550.000 on the land and reverts back to the City if the property is sold to a non -qualifying family. He said that this is a format that the City has used in a number of affordable housing cases. He informed the Committee that upon discussion with `1r. Davidson on the construction Iosses suffered with this house, he made the recommendation that it would not be unreasonable to suggest reimbursing back the difference in actual construction cost of S206.()(i0 and the sale of the property for S175.000: the difference being S31,000. Aid. Bernstein asked what were the causes for exceeding the construction budget. Mr. Davidson explained that this project was his first in the program and cost were underestimated. In addition, they added a few luxuries to improve the quality of the final outcome and impress the City into continuing the program by providing a better product and value to the neighborhood. Aid. Bernstein stated that by providing 3 bathrooms with 3 bedrooms could be considered a bit extreme in providing too much quality to the final product. In response to a question, Mr. Davidson said that he supervised the project but was not the general contractor. \ir. Wolinski noted that the purpose of the S30,000 loan was to help the developer with his construction cost. which was paid back to the City with interest. He aiso recommends that this disbursement be tied to the duplex project on Lyons in that funds will not be disbursed until the City receives occupancy certificates to insure that these units are completed prior to lssulnu any funds. Chairman Newman recalled :old. Kent's concern for S175,000 as affordable because it appears evident that affordable housing can not be built for S175,000 realistically. He pointed out that in order to provide this one unit of affordable housing. the City will have essentially put in S80,000. :old. Kent stated that this is supposed to be a "program" to provide affordable housing and this "program" does not seem to be working out as the answer. However, it is a program to try and bring some type of affordable housing and to provide the intended use for the land that was originally bought for Habitat for Humanity. He said even with the City pa%ing only S I for the land and selling it for the same, what was expected to be built as affordable housing on this land is different from what .vas originally planned. In reply to Aid. \ewman's comment, he clarified that he meant affordable housing could not be built for S175,000 anywhere else in Evanston. He said in this case a disbursement of S31,000 to fir. Davidson would be a sympathy payment from the City because he simply overspent on this project. He agrees with Aid. Bernstein in that he does not recall from the onset of this project that upgraded cabinetry xwould be provided, etc. and if there was an absolute need to provide any upgrades, even the need for a Yd bathroom. He P&D Co:nmatcc 1.1t= 1iinu:-4 of Page agrees that this is a u onderful house on the exterior and interior, however it is over and abo%e expectai:on for this project. Aid. gent declared that if there is another affordable house built b: Econ Development. especially in the 5 Ward. he does no, want to see this situation happen again. He said that he is an original supporter of this program. however as affordable housing. it is expected to provide decent housing and he feels they should not be responsible for reimbursing the overage for upgraded cabinetry, etc. Chairman \e-man agreed with Aid. Kent's vie%v. however the question is that Mr. Davidson showed food faith effort in doing a top notch job with this first job and being his first project he overspent and if they find it reasonable to reimburse him in this case. The City is under no obligation because they made a deal for a house to be sold at S175,000 and the Cite has kept their end of the bargain under the terms of the contract. fir. Davidson noted that the upgrades are not anything spectacular, it is simply better quality cabinetry, tiling in the kitchen and baths. He hoped that the Council would have had to opportunity to visit the house after it was completed. Ald. Rainey said that she has a theory on providing affordable housing and that is there is no such thing as building housing in an affordable way with new construction. The only way you can sell housing as affordable is if you subsidize it. She used Jacob Blake Manor as an example. which was a totally subsidized development and much needed. She pointed out that those small units cost to build in excess of S100,000 per unit; millions of dollars of subsidy went into the construction of this building. In addition, millions of dollars go into subsidizing those who rent these units. She stressed that affordable housing can not be done without this type of help. In the same instance, you can not have smaller developers providing single family affordable housing without reasonable subside because it is too much cost to the developer. She said it is a judgement call on the upgrades provided by Mr. Davidson in this job being his first project because it would be argued by those income-qualifjring for affordable housing to say that why not provide such amenities in these projects as well. Isn't affordable housing deserving of good quality work as well? In conclusion, Aid. Rainey supports staffs recommendation. Ald. Bernstein agreed with Aid. Rainey's theory and that it should be acknowledged in affordable housing construction projects. He still is shocked by this house having 3 bathrooms and remains questionable in his mind as over and above expectation for affordable housing. However, the fact still remains should they make Mr. Davidson whole at the expense of other projects that are potentially coming in the future. He said even if the land was purchased for S50,000, it seems the City would still be requested to subsidize the S31,000 in this case, therefore the City is now contributing money out of their funds. Ms. Betty Sue Ester suggested to the Committee that the question they need to ask themselves is the developer was supposed to build affordable housing and he underestimated his construction cost. She said that as a developer, he should have figured more closely to the actual cost of the project. She said this developer has come back before the Committee before to ask for fees to be waived and no%;• to cover other cost that he had not projected. She pointed out that the City is already agreeing to subsidize fir. Davidson's project on Lyons for S50,000 per unit totaling S100.000 for the project. Chairman Newman reminded that the money for any other projects has nothing P&D Committee Ntty, Minutes of Pane to do v ith this case. Ms. Ester noted that the Cite is constantl-, gi%ing away funds that they are not reco%erin2. She feels there needs to be a line dra%%n somc%%here in what the City can do and realize this is the cost of business. \lr. Davidson responded that in any case, the City «ill act back some of their funds if the property is sold before 20 years to a non-qualif%in2 fancily and if not, the Cite still has gained its supposed purpose in providing affordable housing to a qualifying family. Aid. Wynne said that Mr. Davidson does have a point. their goal is to provide affordable housinu and the City has will have achieved that goal. She also agrees with Aid. Rainey s theory as well and if they grant fir. Davidson this subsidy will it provide him to continue building affordable housing with reasonable cost projections in the future. She said this could provide long term relationship that can be successful and these are the issues she loofas at that supports a reason to reimburse this developer in this case only. Mr. Wolinski informed that the developer's original proposal was the intention to build the house for S150,000. realization that in almost any case with this first project there would have been construction overcost_ Aid. Tisdahl also agreed that the City needs to make the developer whole in this situation because it is a first time job. However, it can not be expected to be done again and she would not like to see a precedence set because of this. Chairman Newman moved approval of staffs recommendation of a grant of S31,000 to Econ Housing from the Mayor's Special Housing Fund with the condition also recommended by staff that the funds are not to be released until the occupancy of the 1813 Lyons units. Aid. NVynne seconded the motion. id. Bernstein requested that it be made clear in the minutes that the P&D Committee does not want a precedence to be set from this case and that they do support the fact that the City has not obligation in this case as well. It is a one time grant given to this developer because of cost overages not expected at the onset of this contract. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P6) Ordinance 99-0-03 - Special Use for 315 Howard (TN -De 2 Restaurant)' Chairman Newman acknowledged fir. Bhavah Patel, owner of the proposed Quizno business. fir. Patel noted that he does own a Dunkin Donuts also and that his partner manages that store. The gentleman (name unknown) present with Nfr. Patel would be managing the Quizno's store. In response to a question. NIT. Patel informed that employees would park in the City garage across Howard Street. Aid. Tisdahl asked about deliveries. N1r. Patel responded that deliveries come one a week and takes about 20 minutes to remove items from the truck. These deliveries would be made to the front of the Store on Howard Street during non -rush hour times and the trucks are fairly small. He said delivery in the alley is possible if the truck can maneuver through, the small trucks most likely can. , Aid. Rainey took pictures and spent over an hour at this location today. She distributed the photos to the Committee. She expressed her feeling that the ZBA hearing on this case was woefully inadequate and this concerns her that these hearings are done in such a half -hazard manner and then passed on to P&D to deal with. She pointed out in the P&D Committee MIL,. Ntinutrs Page 6 photos ho%% the City garbage is collected on the block of Howard Street from the sidewalk: the picture was taken around 3 p.m. The second photo displayed the two buildings with the Subway and two doors down «here the proposed Quizno would be. She pointed out the traffic light. w hich is located directly in front of the proposed location that directs traffic in 3 directions including the bus depot. She strongly feels this location could not be any worse for this use. This building location is not adequate for any such uses because of its configuration to the street, traffic and congestion problems for this site. Any vehicle that stops or double parks for this location will stop traffic and cause congestion for blocks coming from the east. She said it took her several minutes to cross at that intersection in front of 3I S Howard today and there is almost never a time during the day where there isn't traffic in that area. Aid. Rainey brought attention to more photos she took, including a current picture of 315 Howard showing an existing pile of garbage in front of the store being placed in one of the City garbage receptacles that where included with the streetscape funds. The receptacle was filled to the rim and the litter and garbage collected in the Quizno doorway. has literally been sitting there for weeks. She pointed out that the sign has been up for some time now with this garbage sitting in the doorway and the area has not even been swept or maintained in all this time. She showed a photo taken from the front of 315 Howard looking across the street where you can see the quality development put up by the City of Chicago. She also showed a photo of the front of 321 Howard where a cardboard box is located for garbage collection. She noted the condition put on most fast food establishments to maintain and pickup litter and garbage within 250' of their location that was also put on the Subway site. She also reminded that the PB.D Committee unanimously supported the Subway, which she fought against and it is one of the filthiest businesses on the street with litter and paper wrappers from this store up and down the street. There is absolutely no parking on the Evanston side of the street in this block. She also confirmed that there is no way deliveries are going to be made in the alley behind this building. In fact. that is one of the issue that are planned to be addressed with the TIF funds, which is to create a new alley to make it functional to use including for garbage collection. Aid. Rainey read from the transcript quoting the ZBA Chair: "Everyone knows that just for the record, this is just that little piece of Evanston that is along Howard Street near the El and east of Clark Street. So at this point it is just a strip of the B2 zoning and to the question of having fast food restaurants there, he thinks it is essentially a struggling commercial area over the years, And in his opinion, an}thing that will succeed, is welcomed there." She also pointed out that in this same transcript, the ZBA Chair questioned the Subway establishment along with the Quizno application. Therefore, she feels there is no knowledge of this area by the ZBA because it is obvious that the are is way too congested and impacted in its current state. The cumulative effect isn't just of type 2 uses but is a combination of all the uses together that negatively impact this 300 block of Howard Street. In conclusion, Aid. Rainey stated that this location is much too congested for this special use in question, this business adds nothing to the area, the establishment sign has been up for some time and the advertisement reads that they will P&D Comrrmuce %!:z %tinutes of Page be opening soon. She said it is visually evident in combination with the building owner's actions, that these is no respect for this property and for the surrounding nei=hborhood. Mr. Patel responded to Aid. Rainey's remarks. He said that they installed the sister unaware of the need or a special use permit and that it would take this length of time after they found out to go through the process. Chairman Newman asked where the landlord is and if he ever informed them of needing a special use permit. fir. Patel said that the owner is not present but could be at the next meeting if needed. He said they were made aware of this process when they applied for the building permit. He said they received permission for the sign and gave the consent for the sign company to go ahead and install. [:nfortunately, the sign was installed before the building permit process was completed and they were told that this use required zoning approval. He apologized for the garbage in front of the site but he was halted in the process and did not have access to the property to clean up in front of the store. Regarding the parking concern, he assured that management .would address this problem if it arose upon opening the store and they would abide by whatever requirements the City imposed. Aid. Rainey recalled that even in a past case where a security officer was assigned to monitor and regulate traffic problems as a condition with a type 2 establishment, there were still difficulties with enforcement. She reiterated that this particular location has to be one of the worse locations for traffic congestion and the operation of a commercial operation given the alley configuration, the traffic configuration, lack of parking and also the already existing problems with garbage coilection. She encouraged the Committee to seriously take all of these issues into consideration and deny this application for a special use request. Aid. Bernstein addressed the obvious problems with the Subway and that it is apparent that they are not complying with the conditions set forth in their special use permit. He directed to staff that they should go out and cite this establishment and if necessary reject their special use permit for non-compliance. He also noted that recognition should be given to the strenuous objection of the ward alderman in this case and her concerns are taken into full consideration. Chairman Newman added that it should also be noted that Council essentially created this problem with the approval of Subwvay's special use. Aid. Bernstein said that the negative cumulative effect is overwhelming in this case. He pointed out that the City of Chicago has put a lot of money and effort into the project directly across the street from this location. He totally agrees with .aid. Rainey that this business adds nothing to the Evanston side and would negatively coincide with any planned news development just west of this site. Aid. Bernstein moved to reject the recommendation of the ZBA to grant the special use for Quizno's. seconded be Aid. Wynne. Aid. Wynne concurred with Aid. Rainey's comments made earlier, referring to the Starbucks on Main and Chicago, that she strongly objected to, even with the security guard being present to control traffic and parking situations in the area, this has not been enforced. She admitted that she did vote in favor of the Subway at the time of their application and fully understands and supports Aid. Rainey's concerns and objection to any further type 2 uses for this location. P & D Cornrn: %Ir_ Mmutcs of Pa.c Mr. Patel inform:c the Committee that he has already invested approximately S50,000 into this business at this location. The Committee as a whole, sympathized with Mr. Patel, but agreed that he should address this issue with the landlord and be released of am• further oblieatton. The mote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (Pi) SO1 Chica-zo Avenue -- Recommendation from the Plan Commission to Denv a Pronosed Planned Develot)ment Aid. W%mrie informed the Committee that the applicant has again requested a continuance of this matter. which she has no problem with. She requested that this be held in Committee until the November 10`' meeting. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Murray expressed his concurrence. (P2) PUBLIC HEARING - Exemption from Special use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. William Sunblad, Executive Director of Connections for the Homeless. He called on anyone in attendance that wished to comment on the shelter in support or objection. Mrs. loan Mariin. 1.330 Chicano Avenue, expressed her support for the shelter and the overall management as well. She said that they have never experienced any problems with the shelter. More importantly, she feels the homeless shelter actually adds somethinc to the neip-hborhood and feels it is a valuable addition. Her husband added that with Evanston being one of the richest communities on the North Shore, this shelter is a sign of the City's position in handling their responsibility of providing for the homeless. He too supports the extension for the homeless shelter. Mr. Wolin -ski informed the Committee that he did receive one anonymous phone call from someone who expressed their objection to the shelter. Aid. Bernstein stated as alderman of the ward that the shelter is located in, that he has not received any objections to the shelter and has really experienced no real problems during his term. He made a request to be considered by this Committee for possibly extending the time frame of the extension to at least every 2 years or more. He supports this because there have been no major problems with the shelter over the years and because of the reputation of the Connections for the Homeless. Mr. Wolinski reminded that in consideration of the operation of such a facility, it is to the City's best interest to be able to review this use on a yearly basis. Also. if management were to change in the future, it is important for the City to stay on top of this. Aid. Bernstein agreed, however it would seem agreeable as long as Connection's for the Homeless were in charge of the shelter. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committer Minutes of I Fi•''-0? Page 9 1P31 Annlication for Appeal to Cite Council - 1333 Church Street, Construction of a New Garage Chairman Newman called on Mr. Carlos Ruiz, Presence -.ion Coordinator. for a summary of this case. He also acknowledged the property owner. Mr. James McAuley. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee of the procedure that needs to be addressed in this case. He introduced his. Mary Brugliera. member of the Preservation Commission and has a written statement from the Chair. Ms. Barbara Gardner to present. He noted that this is an appeal to a decision made by the Preservation Commission by the property owner requesting th the Planning & Development Committee accept this appeal and recommend the Council's acceptance. He said if the P&D Committee as a whole decides to accept this appeal, then a decision would have to be made to either support the appeal or sustain the Preservation Commission's decision. If the Committee accepts the appeal and sends it to Council, the Council will either uphold the appeal or refer back to P&D for a hearing. Mr. Ruiz pointed out the importance of this matter because there was a specific case back in 2002 in the 600 block of Callan where the applicant wanted to construct a second story addition over an existing landmark and certain decisions were made at the P&D Committee level to accept and hear the appeal. There were also some members of the City Council who preferred to have the hearing at the City Council level. Chairman \e«man stated that this is something that can be cleared up in the ordinance. He feels the entire City Council should ultimately rule on the appeal and the P&D Committee should remain the recommending body to Council. He said P&D should not be the final body to rule on appeals of this nature. The other Committee members agreed and Chairman \eeman directed to staff that this situation should be clarified in the ordinance. Ald. Bernstein asked legal staff if there is a need to have the entire Council accept this ruling. Ms. Szymanski confirmed that if the decision on the sense of the Committee is that the preference is to have City Council rule on the appeal, then her opinion would be that this is appropriate. The motion should be in the form of P&D recommending to Council to accept the appeal. She said this is acceptable whether the Committee decides to accept or reject the appeal. Chairman Newman reiterated that in any case, clarification of this needs to be stated in the ordinance so there is no question to the ruling. Mr. James McAuley noted that the property is a landmark` home, which he purchased a few years ago. He informed that this property has no garage at this point. He described the property as being a corner lot at Wesley and Church and that there is no access to an alley from either street. He said in order to have a garage for this property, entrance would have to be from either of these streets. On the Wesley side, an engineer informed him that the pitch entrance from this street would not be desirable because of the pitch in the property being right behind Ridge Avenue. He said this option was too difficult requiring a lot of excavation, changing of sidewalks, etc. This leaves the option the entrance from Church Street, which is preferable to his family as well. He noted that the front of the house is setback 75' off of Church Street. Mr. McAuley said they want to set the garage back from the front of the house 17' in a position that they feel minimizes its intrusion into their open yard space, and to both their side window views and their P&D Conunittr{ Mt_. Minutes of 30-2--{i? Pare 10 neighbors vier~ from :: X%indows on that side. He said that this proposed location also minimizes the length o.' .he driveway. Mr. McAuley noted tha the Preservation Commission approved this plan but requested that they move the earaze back further by 15% which obstructs their views from their breakfast nook and side \-iews. Most importantly, this would obstruct and minimize their open Ward space. Their preference is to preserve the open green space existing and to build a garden. which is very desirable by his wife. He presented renderings to the Committee showing the desired location of the garage as explained as well as a rendering showing where the Preservation Commission is requesting that it be located. In conclusion, Mr. McAuley stands firm that the location he prefers for the garage does not distract from the front of the house, it allows for open yard to remain and space to build a garden area with privacy behind the garage. supplies open views from important areas in their house as well as for their neighbor. Also his preference is slightly cheaper although not significant in this case. Finally, he noted that in his configuration, the garage is not visible from Weslev. therefore minimizing visual impact in consideration of this property being of historical status. in response to a question from Chairman Newman, Mr. McAuley responded that his proposed location of the garage would be between his house and the neighboring property. He noted that the neighbors only concern expressed was that they be able to finish some painting work being done on their property, otherwise they have no objection to this garage location. Aid. Bernstein moved to accept the application for appeal, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Barbara Gardner. Chair of the Preservation Commission, entered the meeting at this time and read from her prepared statement that Ms. Brugliera was going to read. This statement defined and addressed the criteria by which the Preservation Commission is bound. Her statement also clarified the Commission's position in this case and their resulting recommended ruling. Ms. Brugliera added that in support of the Commission's position that their number one concern is to preserve historic stature in all cases and properties presented before them. She noted that many decisions are hard to make, especially in cases such as this, however several options were reviewed. Discussion followed amongst the Committee with several questions being raised on the actual hardship of the applicant adhering to the Preservation Commission's recommendation. id. Bernstein questioned why it would not be feasible to locate the garage even further to the back of the lot, which would seem to put the structure out of view, satisfy the Preservation Commission and would still allow plenty of green space and yard. Mr. McAuley responded that this is not a desirable option by he and his wife because it wold result in the need to have more concrete taking up yard space for the driveway to go all the way back. This location would also be visible and block views from Wesley. He stressed that they do not want to destroy this space and would like to preserve it as it is. His proposed location would not jeopardize that area. He reiterated the only impact from his proposed location would be to the neighbor's property and they have no objections to this proposal. PRQ Cor. �..__ �i•• Minutes Pace t l Aid. W%nne moved to uphold the Preservation Commission's ruling. seconded by Aid. Dent. Ald. Wynne made clear that even though she sympathizes with \lr. NtcAule-.'_ dilemma and the realization that this is his property, it is also a historical landmark -'-at she is sure �x as of knowledge when this property was purchased. This status has significant value and is certified to abide by certain regulations under the Preservation Ordinance which the Preservation Commission is sworn to uphold. This ultimatel% can effect the homeowner's rights and desire to make certain construction and alteration_ to the property. She feels the Preservation Commission did try and work with this applicant and feels their compromise was fair. Aid. Tisdahl stated that although she understands— and suppons the Preservation Commission's position, there is a point where reasonable rights of the homeowner should be taken into consideration. On the saute accordance. she feels the applicants desire to preserve the open yard and greenery is Just as important in keeping with the landmark status. She feels the applicants' request in not unreasonable and understands their desire to minimize concrete surfaces and their desire to have a garden. The vote was 4 in favor of the motion and 1 nay (Aid. Tisdahl). (P7) Ordinance 100-0-03 — Special Use for 1549 Sherman (Tvoe 2 Restaurant) Chairman \e%vman acknowledged Nir. Christopher Casas, the applicant and lessee for this type _' special use. Mr. Casas informed the Committee that he would be purchasing 2 parking spaces in the garage across the street for employee parking. He does not foresee problems with patrons double-parking or causing any traffic congestion in this area. Aid. Bernstein. as the ward alderman, stated that he has no real problem with the acceptance of this business for that ;ocation. However, he asked the applicant if he was aware of the existing coffeehouse located across the street. Mr. Cacas responded that he is aware and does not expect any conflict because the other business already has their own clientele established. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 100-0-03 with inclusion of the conditions as stated by the ZBA and forwarded by staff with this application. Aid. NN'ynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Nev.-man felt it important to mention the problems with Jamba Juice that is located north of this location and their litter collection. He does not want to see any further addition to the existing problems with litter and expect them to abide by their litter collection plan. Mr. Cacas assured that his business will be operated on a different level with different clientele and he does not expect any of his patrons to leave his store and dispose of their coffee containers. It is not that t%pe of business. (P8) Ordinance 101-0-03 — Special Use and Maior Variance for 2115 Ashland, (Religious Institution Parking Lot) Chairman Newman acknowledged fir. Sampson Campbell Jr. and Mr. Bruce Fossler representing the Evanston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. He also acknowledged the letter received from the Dr. Hill Community Association by staff' and presented to the Committee this evening. He noted that the letter received addresses some concerns for the parking lot and the need for parking in that area. The commercial P&D Committee Miz. Minutes of 10-3"-rj_ Page 12 neighbors are proposing to have aces_ to use this lot during business work hours when the congregation is not using the parking lot. Representatives from the Dr. Hill Community Association were also present. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Fossler introduced themselves. They informed that there are approximately 500 coneregants to this location and there is a definite need to provide more off-street parking. This parking lot proposal can supply at least 20 parking spaces. In response to a question. `Ir. Campbell said they were not planning to fence off this parking lot especially if the City is in opposition to this. However. the use of this lot by the neighbors is questionable and how they intend to use the lot. They are very concerned by their proposition. He informed that the Jehovah's Witnesses Congregation purchased this lot and should be allowed to rule on how it is used, if approved. Aid. Kent suggested that this matter be introduced tonight and referred back to the Committee. His reasoning being to give opportunity for him to meet with the applicants and representatives from the Dr. Hill group so their proposal can be discussed and concerns addressed. Mr. FossIer noted that this property is located in the `SUE district, which is an area zoned that allows parking lot usage. He questions why the property owner should have to accommodate or come to some agreement with the surrounding businesses for their usage of their lot. Mr. Alterson informed that church parking lots in the MUE district do require a special use permit. Aid. Bernstein said that it seems inconsistent to the zoning regulations to allow a commercial parking lot use and not an auxiliary parking use in the same district. This issue should be addressed. Aid. Kent motioned to introduce this item and refer back to Committee for further discussion. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 In favor. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Newman requested that they start the meeting early on November 1Oh, at least 6:30 p.m. to allow appropriate time to address the items on their agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Jacqueline E. Bro%%mlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of October 27, 2003 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. J. Aiello, S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, E. Sz)7nanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. Rainey, L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m APPROVALS OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2003 Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 13'h minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Newman informed everyone in attendance that he will be changing the order of the agenda and addressing items to accommodate time and others in attendance on specific matters. !PSI Reauest For Housing Rehabilitation Funds for Over -The- Rai nbow-2040 Brown Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Eric Huffman, Executive Director of Over -The - Rainbow Association and asked staff to give a summary of this case. Mr. Wolinski responded that HOME funds should be used for providing additional affordable housing according to the regulations. He discussed this matter with Mr. Huffman and his request is simply to put a new roof on the building and does not actually qualify for HOME funds because it is not adding additional units. Therefore, the revolving loan fund is recommended as the proper resource to use in this case. Ald. Bernstein noted that he is totally behind providing the funds to this organization in whatever circumstances qualified for but questions that lost of units in replacing the roof and because of this, does it essentially meet the criteria in providing back the accessible units lost. Mr. Wolinski responded that in this situation it does not meet the same criteria and is stated clearly in the rights that they would have to be providing additional affordable units as well. Aid. Rainey questioned if it is necessary to charge this organization the interest indicated Mr. Wolinski responded that the interest rate on the revolving loan can be negotiated. P&D Cots rout Mig. Minutes of :4-_--4_ Pace -' Aid. Raine,. said in that case. she ►could argue the interest rate charged in that it should he lo%%ered because of the ackno►►ledged ►►ark done b} this organization in combination with their not -for -profit status. She strongly supports either lo«•erinti the interest rate or Li%in-this organization a 00o interest rate on a revolving loan in support of their good standing and ability to pay back the loan. fir. Wolinski agreed with Aid. Rainey's suggestion. Chairman Newman pointed out that their interest rate is already set at a low 2.50/6 at 20 years and feels this is a fair rate in comparison to the customary rates. Mr. %l'olinski noted to the Committee that Mr. Janusz just informed him that the 2.5% is per the CD guidelines which was approved by the Council years ago. Nevertheless, the Council has within its purview to reduce or waive this amount if so reasoned. Chairman Ne-winan stated that maintaining the interest even at that low rate does at least get the money back at some equivalent value over time. Aid. Tisdahl concurred that this organization has done astonishing• work within their purview and feels they are entitled to the recognition of their ability to repay the loan at the interest rate charged. Mr. Huffman responded that their main concern is to be consistent with the CD Committee decision and they try to leverage in every case with the funds their organization can match. Therefore, he assured that they are able to afford the payments and when they first looked at the agreement, felt that the contract was fair and within their resources. He noted his appreciation for Aid. Rainey's concern and proposition but assured his organizations position and approval of the revolving loan requirements as indicated. With no further discussion, Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 In favor of the motion. (114) Request From Econ Housing for .Additional Fundinu -- 1816 Darrow Avenue Chairman Newman called on Mr. Davidson for any comments that he wished to forward to the Committee. Mr. Davidson noted that he has discussed this matter with Mr. Wolinski and is satisfied with the aereement and conclusion from that discussion. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff reviewed the job as a whole and concluded that some t►pe of City subsidy was not out of order on this specific project. He said the City received the land for S1 from Cook County in a scavenger sale in the early 1990's, therefore they incurred no real cost on the land. The City sold the land to the developer for S 1 and also made a loan to the developer in the amount of S30,000 which they paid back at the time of the closing. He noted that the developer did run into reasonable construction overages that he informed staff as the project was going on. He stressed that what he is trying to do is stay away from the land issue. which is ven• confusing and was originally proposed by Mr. Davidson that he felt that it was unfair that the City retained a second morteage on the land and would get some portion on the return on the land of S50.0W if the land was sold before the termination time frame of the reducing grant amount to a non -incoming qualifying household. Chairman Newman questioned this reservation because the City is in a position where they may not every gain from this grant. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that fact, however even if he did buy the property from the City for Sl, his company did agree to build the housing at an affordable amount to provide affordable housing. In actuality, the expected cost for the project exceeded the P&D Commtnee \Stu. %tinutei of 14•''-0: Page 3 amount pro iected resulting in a lost and no profit to the developer. He also ackno« ledged the fact that this project was a first and a learning experience for them with affordable housing and the actual cost %%ere underestimated. He is only asking, for a fair return in some profit gained. Chairman Newman said it is difficult to see the developers loss because the land was only purchased by the City for Sl.(Jfa and sold for SLOO. In this case, it appears that the Cite is paying for the provision of affordable housine. Mr. Davidson feels that the value of the land should be fon%arded to the developer since the City does have a 550.00O lien on the property. \fr. Wolinski reminded that this lien grant reduces 1 30 over the next 30 years as long as the property remains in ownership to an income qualifying family. otherwise the remaining grant is due to the City. He noted this is the City's .way of maintaining the affordable on the property by putting a value of 55O,000 on the land and reverts back to the City if the property is sold to a non-qualif)ring family. He said that this is a format that the City has used in a number of affordable housing cases. He informed the Committee that upon discussion with Mr. Davidson on the construction losses suffered with this house, he made the recommendation that it would not be unreasonable to suggest reimbursing back the difference in actual construction cost of S206.O00 and the sale of the property for 5175,OOO; the difference being 531.000. Aid. Bernstein asked what were the causes for exceeding the construction budget. Mr. Davidson explained that this project was his first in the program and cost were underestimated. In addition, they added a few luxuries to improve the quality of the final outcome and impress the City into continuing the program by providing a better product and value to the neighborhood. Aid. Bernstein stated that by providing 3 bathrooms with 3 bedrooms could be considered a bit extreme in providing too much quality to the final product. In response to a question, Mr. Davidson said that he supervised the project but was not the general contractor. Mr. Wolinski noted that the purpose of the 53O,O00 loan was to help the developer with his construction cost, which was paid back to the City with interest. He also recommends that this disbursement be tied to the duplex project on Lyons in that funds will not be disbursed until the City receives occupancy certificates to insure that these units are completed prior to issuing any funds. Chairman Newman recalled Aid. Kent's concern for 5175.000 as affordable because it appears evident that affordable housing can not be built for 5175.0OO realistically. He pointed out that in order to provide this one unit of affordable housing: the City will have essentially put in 580,OOO. Aid. Kent stated that this is supposed to be a "program" to provide affordable housing and this "program" does not seem to be working out as the answer. However, it is a program to try and bring some type of affordable housing and to provide the intended use for the land that was originally bought for Habitat for Humanity. He said even with the City paying only S1 for the land and selling it for the same, what was expected to be built as affordable housing on this land is different from what was originally planned. In reply to Aid. Newman's comment, he clarified that he meant affordable housing could not be built for 5175.000 anywhere else in Evanston. He said in this case a disbursement of 531,OOO to Mr. Davidson would be a sympathy payment from the City because he simply overspent on this project. He agrees with Aid. Bernstein in that he does not recall from the onset of this project that upgraded cabinetry would be provided, etc. and if there was an absolute need to provide any upgrades, even the need for a 3" 1 bathroom. He P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10 .()? Page 4 aurces that this is a \\onderful house on the exterior and interior. howeycr it is over and Love expectation for this project. Aid. Kent declared that if there is another affordable house built by Econ De\-elopment. especially in the 5�� Ward. he does not want to We this situation happen again. He said that he is an original supporter of this program, however as affordable housing. it is expected to pro\ ide decent housing and he feels they should not be responsible for reimbursing the overage for upgraded cabinetry. etc. Chairman Newman agreed with Aid. Kent's view. however the question is that Mr. Davidson showed good faith et%n in doing a top notch job with this first job and being his first project he overspent and if they find it reasonable to reimburse him in this case. The City is under no obligation because they made a deal for a house to be sold at S 175.000 and the City has kept their end of the bargain under the terms of the contract. \fr. Davidson noted that the upgrades are not anything spectacular, it is simply better quality cabinetry, tiling in the kitchen and baths. He hoped that the Council would have had to opportunity to visit the house after it was completed. Aid. Rainey said that she has a theory on providing affordable housing and that is there is no such thing as building housing in an affordable way with new construction. The only way you can sell housing as affordable is if you subsidize it. She used Jacob Blake Manor as an example, which was a totally subsidized development and much needed. She pointed out that those small units cost to build in excess of S 100,000 per unit; millions of dollars of subsidy went into the construction of this building. In addition, millions of dollars go into subsidizing those who rent these units. She stressed that affordable housing can not be done without this type of help. In the same instance, you can not have smaller developers providing single family affordable housing without reasonable subsidy because it is too much cost to the de► -eloper. She said it is a judgement call on the upgrades provided by Mr. Davidson in this job being his first project because it would be argued by those income-qualif}ing for affordable housing to say that why not provide such amenities in these projects as well. Isn't affordable housing deserving of good quality work as well:' In conclusion. Aid. Rainey supports staffs recommendation. Aid. Bernstein agreed with :old. Rainey's theory and that it should be acknowledged in affordable housing construction projects. He still is shocked by this house haying 3 bathrooms and remains questionable in his mind as over and above expectation for affordable housing. However, the fact still remains should they make Mr. Davidson whole at the expense of other projects that are potentially coming in the future. He said even if the land was purchased for S50,000, it seems the City would still be requested to subsidize the S31.000 in this case, therefore the City is now contributing money out of their funds. Ms. Betty Sue Ester suggested to the Committee that the question they need to ask themselves is the developer was supposed to build affordable housing and he underestimated his construction cost. She said that as a developer, he should have figured more closely to the actual cost of the project. She said this developer has come back before the Committee before to ask for fees to be waived and now to cover other cost that he had not projected. She pointed out that the City is already agreeing to subsidize Mr. Davidson's project on Lyons for S50,000 per unit totaling S100,000 for the project. Chairman Newman reminded that the money for any other projects has nothing P&D Commince %tic Mimic$ of 10-2%." Pace to do with this case. Ms. Ester noted that the Cin is constantI% ui%inL away funds that the% are not reco\ enng. She feels there needs to be a line drawn somewhere in what the Cit% can do and realize this is the cost of business. fir. Davidson responded that in any case, the City w ill get back some of their funds if the property is sold before 20 years to a non-qualiRing family and if not, the Cite still has gained its supposed purpose in providing affordable housing to a qualiRing family. AId. Nk'%nne said that Mr. Davidson does have a point. their goal is to provide affordable housing and the Cite has will have achieved that goal. She also agrees with Aid. Rainey's theory as well and if they grant \lr. Davidson this subsidy will it provide him to continue building affordable housing with reasonable cost projections in the future. She said this could provide long term relationship that can be successful and these are the issues she looks at that supports a reason to reimburse this developer in this case only. Mr. Wolinski informed that the developer's original proposal was the intention to build the house for S15O.W. realization that in almost any case with this first project there would have been construction oyercost. Aid. Tisdahi also agreed that the City needs to make the developer whole in this situation because it is a first time job. However, it can not be expected to be done again and she would not like to see a precedence set because of this. Chairman Newman moved approval of staffs recommendation of a grant of $31,000 to Econ Housing from the Manor's Special Housing Fund with the condition also recommended by staff that the funds are not to be released until the occupancy of the 1813 Lyons units. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Aid. Bernstein requested that it be made clear in the minutes that the P&D Committee does not want a precedence to be set from this case and that they do support the fact that the City has not obligation in this case as well. 1t is a one time grant given to this developer because of cost overages not expected at the onset of this contract. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P6) Ordinance 99-0-03 - Special Use for 315 Howard (Tune 2 Restaurant) Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Bhavah Patel, owner of the proposed Quizno business. Mr. Patel noted that he does own a Dunkin Donuts also and that his partner manages that store. The gentleman (name unknown) present with Mr. Patel would be managing the Quizno's store. In response to a question. Mr. Patel informed that employees would park in the City garage across Howard Street. Aid. Tisdahl asked about deliveries. Mr. Patel responded that deliveries come one a week and takes about 20 minutes to remo%e items from the truck. These deliveries would be made to the front of the Store on Howard Street during non -rush hour times and the trucks are fairly small. He said delivery in the alley is possible if the truck can maneuver through, the small trucks most likely can. Aid. Rainey took pictures and spent over an hour at this location today. She distributed the photos to the Committee. She expressed her feeling that the ZBA hearing on this case was woefully inadequate and this concerns her that these hearings are done in such a half -hazard manner and then passed on to P&D to deal with. She pointed out in the P&:D Committee Mtc. Minutes of 10•2'a7? Pace G photos ho►v the Cite garbage is colizvted on the 300 blckk of Ho%%ard Street from the sidewalk: the picture was taken around 3 p.m. The second photo displayed the two buildings with the Sub►►ay and n►o doors do►►n ►►here the proposed Quizno would be. She pointed out the traffic light, which is located directl% to front of the proposed location that directs traffic in 3 directions including the bus depot. She strongly feels this location could not be any worse for this use. This building location is not adequate for any such uses because of its configuration to the street, traffic and congestion problems for this site. Any vehicle that stops or double parks for this location will stop traffic and cause congestion for blocks coming from the east. She said it took her several minutes to cross at that intersection in front c f 315 Howard today and there is almost never a time during the day where there isn't traffic in that area. Ald. Rainey brought attention to more photos she took, including a current picture of 315 Howard showing an existing pile of garbage in front of the store being placed in one of the City garbage receptacles that where included with the streetscape funds. The receptacle was tilled to the rim and the litter and garbage collected in the Quizno doorway, has literally been sitting there for weeks. She pointed out that the sign has been up for some time now with this garbage sitting in the doorway and the area has not even been swept or maintained in all this time. She shoved a photo taken from the front of 315 Howard looking across the street where you can see the quality development put up by the City of Chicago. She also showed a photo of the front of 321 Howard where a cardboard box is located for garbage collection. She noted the condition put on most fast food establishments to maintain and pickup litter and garbage within 250' of their Iocation that was also put on the Subway site. She also reminded that the P&D Committee unanimously supported the Subway. which she fought against and it is one of the filthiest businesses on the street with litter and paper wrappers from this store up and down the street. There is absolutely no parking on the Evanston side of the street in this block. She also confirmed that there is no way deliveries are going to be made in the alley behind this building. In fact, that is one of the issue that are planned to be addressed with the TIF funds, which is to create a new alley to make it functional to use including for garbage collection. Aid. Rainey read from the transcript quoting the ZBA Chair: -Everyone knows that just for the record, this is just that little piece of Evanston that is along Howard Street near the El and east of Clark Street. So at this point it is just a strip of the B2 zoning and to the question of having fast food restaurants there, he thinks it is essentially a struggling commercial area over the years. And in his opinion, anything that will succeed, is welcomed there." She also pointed out that in this same transcript. the ZBA Chair questioned the Subway establishment along with the Quizno application. Therefore, she feels there is no knowledge of this area by the ZBA because it is obvious that the are is way too congested and impacted in its current state. The cumulative effect isn't just of type 2 uses but is a combination of all the uses together that negatively impact this 300 block of Howard Street. In conclusion. Aid. Rainey stated that this location is much too congested for this special use in question, this business adds nothing to the area, the establishment sign has been up for some time and the advertisement reads that they will P&D Committer Hite. Minutes of 10-2-.03 Pace 7 be opening soon. She said it is visually evident in combination %. ith the building owner's actions, that there is no respect for this propene and for the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Patel responded to Ald. Rainey's remarks, He said that they\- installed the sign unaware of the need or a special use permit and that it would take this length of time after they found out to go through the process. Chairman Newman asked where the landlord is and if he ever informed them of needing a special use permit. \fr. Patel said that the owner is not present but could be at the next meeting if needed. He said they were made aware of this process when they applied for the building permit. He said they received permission for the sign and gave the consent for the sign company to go ahead and install. Unfortunately, the sign was installed before the building permit process was completed and they were told that this use required zoning approval. He apologized for the garbage in front of the site but he was halted in the process and did not have access to the property to clean up in front of the store. Regarding the parking concern, he assured that management would address this problem if it arose upon opening the store and they would abide by whatever requirements the City imposed. Aid. Rainey recalled that even in a past case where a security officer was assigned to monitor and regulate traffic problems as a condition with a type ? establishment, there were still difficulties with enforcement. She reiterated that this particular location has to be one of the worse locations for traffic congestion and the operation of a commercial operation given the alley configuration, the traffic configuration. lack of parking and also the already existing problems with garbage collection. She encouraged the Committee to seriously take all of these issues into consideration and deny this application for a special use request. - Aid. Bernstein addressed the obvious problems with the Subway and that it is apparent that they are not complying with the conditions set forth in their special use permit. He directed to staff that they should go out and cite this establishment and if necessary reject their special use permit for non-compliance. He also noted that recognition should be given to the strenuous objection of the ward alderman in this case and her concerns are taken into full consideration. Chairman Newman added that it should also be noted that Council essentially created this problem with the approval of 5ubivay's special use. Aid. Bernstein said that the negative cumulative effect is overwhelming in this case. He pointed out that the City of Chicago has put a lot of money and effort into the project directly across the street from this location. He totally agrees with Aid. Rainey that this business adds nothing to the Evanston side and would negatively coincide with any planned new development just west of this site. Aid. Bernstein moved to reject the recommendation of the ZRA to grant the special use for Quizoo's, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Wynne concurred with Aid. Rainey's comments made earlier, referring to the Starbucks on Main and Chicago, that she strongly objected to, even with the security guard being present to control traffic and parking situations in the area, this has not been enforced. She admitted that she did vote in favor of the Subway at the time of their application and fully understands and supports Ald. Rainey's concerns and objection to any further type 2 uses for this location. P&D Commmnce `ttz. Minutes of Page 5 Mr. Patel informed the Committee that he has already invested approximately S50,000 into this business at this location. The Committee as a whole. sympathized with Mr. Patel. but agreed that he should address this issue with the landlord and be released of any further obligation. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P1) 801 Chicaeo Avenue — Recommendation from the Plan Commission to Denv a Pmtiosed Planned Develooment Aid. Wynne informed the Committee that the applicant has again requested a continuance of this matter, which she has no Problem with. She requested that this be held in Comminee until the November I0' meeting. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Murray expressed his concurrence. (P2) PUBLIC HEARING — Exemntion from Snecial use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Chairman Ne\,.-man acknowledged Mr. William Sunblad, Executive Director of Connections for the Homeless. He called on an•one in attendance that wished to comment on the shelter in support or objection. Mrs. Joan Marlin. 1430 Chicaeo Avenue, expressed her support for the shelter and the overall management as well. She said that they have never experienced any problems with the shelter. More importantly, she feels the homeless shelter actually adds something to the neighborhood and feels it is a valuable addition. Her husband added that with Evanston being one of the richest communities on the North Shore, this shelter is a sign of the City's position in handling their responsibility of providing for the homeless. He too supports the extension for the homeless shelter. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he did receive one anonymous phone call from someone who expressed their objection to the shelter. Aid. Bernstein stated as alderman of the ~yard that the shelter is located in. that he has not received any objections to the shelter and has realty experienced no real problems during his term. He made a request to be considered by this Committee for possibly extending the time frame of the extension to at least every 2 years or more. He supports this because there have been no major problems with the shelter over the years and because of the reputation of the Connections for the Homeless. Mr. Wolinski reminded that in consideration of the operation of such a facility, it is to the City's best interest to be able to review this use on a yearly basis. Also. if management were to change in the future, it is important for the City to stay on top of this. Aid. Bernstein agreed, however it would seem agreeable as long as Connection's for the Homeless were in charge of the shelter. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. «'ynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committee Minutes of 10-27-4: Page 9 f P31 ADDlication for Appeal to Cit% Council - 1333 Church Street, Construction of a New Garage Chairman Newman called on %fr. Carlos Ruiz. Presen-ation Coordinator, for a summary of this case. He also acknowledLed the property owner, Mr. James titcAuley. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee of the procedure that needs to be addressed in this case. He introduced Ms. Mary Brugliera_ member of the Preservation Commission and has a written statement from the Chair. Ms. Barbara Gardner to present. He noted that this is an appeal to a decision made by the Presen•ation Commission by the property owner requesting th the Planning & Development Committee accept this appeal and recommend the Council's acceptance. He said if the P&D Committee as a whole decides to accept this appeal, then a decision would have to be made to either support the appeal or sustain the Preservation Commissions decision. If the Committee accepts the appeal and sends it to Council, the Council will either uphold the appeal or refer back to P&D for a hearing. Mr. Ruiz pointed out the importance of this matter because there was a specific case back in 2002 in the 600 block of Callan where the applicant wanted to construct a second story addition over an existing landmark and certain decisions were made at the P&D Committee level to accept and hear the appeal. There were also some members of the City Council who preferred to have the hearing at the City Council level. Chairman Newman stated that this is something that can be cleared up in the ordinance. He feels the entire City Council should ultimately rule on the appeal and the P&D Committee should remain the recommending body to Council. He said P&D should not be the final body to rule on appeals of this nature. The other Committee members agreed and Chairman Newman directed to staff that this situation should be clarified in the ordinance. Aid. Bemstein asked leval staff if there is a need to have the entire Council accept this ruling. Nis. Szymanski confirmed that if the decision on the sense of the Committee is that the preference is to have City Council rule on the appeal, then her opinion would be that this is appropriate. The motion should be in the form of P&D recommending to Council to accept the appeal. She said this is acceptable whether the Committee decides to accept or reject the appeal. Chairman Newman reiterated that in any case, clarification of this needs to be stated in the ordinance so there is no question to the ruling. Mr. lames McAuley noted that the property is a landmark home, which he purchased a few years ago. He informed that this property has no garage at this point. He described the property as being a comer lot at Wesley and Church and that there is no access to an alley from either street. He said in order to have a garage for this property, entrance would have to be from either of these streets. On the Wesley side, an engineer informed him that the pitch entrance from this street would not be desirable because of the pitch in the property being right behind Ridge Avenue. He said this option was too difficult requiring a lot of excavation. changing of sidewalks, etc. This leaves the option the entrance from Church Street, which is preferable to his family as well. He noted that the front of the house is setback 75' off of Church Street. Mr. McAuley said they want to set the garage back from the front of the house 17' in a position that they feel minimizes its intrusion into their open yard space, and to both their side window views and their P&D Committer Mtg. Minutes of 10-2"-03 Page 10 neighbors view from their «indou s on that side. He said that this proposed location also minimizes the length of the dm%euay. Mr. McAuley noted tha the Preservation Commission approved this plan but requested that they move the garage back further by 15'. which obstructs their views from their breakfast nook and side views. Most importantly. this would obstruct and minimize their open yard space. Their preference is to preserve the open green space existing and to build a garden, which is very desirable by his wife. He presented renderings to the Committee showing the desired location of the garage as explained as well as a rendering showing where the Preser-ation Commission is requesting that it be located. In conclusion. Mr. McAuley stands firm that the location he prefers for the garage does not distract from the front of the house, it allows for open yard to remain and space to build a garden area with privacy behind the garage, supplies open views from important areas in their house as well as for their neighbor. Also his preference is slightly cheaper although not significant in this case. Finally, he noted that in his configuration, the garage is not visible from Wesley, therefore minimizing visual impact in consideration of this property being of historical status. In response to a question from Chairman Newman, Mr. McAuley responded that his proposed location of the garage would be between his house and the neighboring property. He noted that the neighbors only concern expressed was that they be able to finish some painting work being done on their property, otherwise they have no objection to this garage location. Ald. Bernstein moved to accept the application for appeal. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Barbara Gardner, Chair of the Preservation Commission, entered the meeting at this time and read from her prepared statement that Ms. Brugliera was going to read. This statement defined and addressed the criteria by which the Preservation Commission is bound. Her statement also clarified the Commission's position in this case and their resulting recommended ruling. Ms. Brugliera added that in support of the Commission's position that their number one concern is to preserve historic stature in all cases and properties presented before them. She noted that many decisions are hard to make, especially in cases such as this. however several options were reviewed. Discussion followed amongst the Committee with several questions being raised on the actual hardship of the applicant adhering to the Preservation Commission's recommendation. Ald. Bernstein questioned why it would not be feasible to locate the garage even further to the back of the lot, which would seem to put the structure out of view, satisfy the Preservation Commission and would still allow plenty of green space and yard. Mr. McAuley responded that this is not a desirable option by he and his wife because it wold result in the need to have more concrete taking up yard space for the driveway to go all the way back. This location would also be visible and block views from Wesley. He stressed that they do not want to destroy this space and would like to preserve it as it is. His proposed location would not jeopardize that area. He reiterated the only impact from his proposed location would be to the neighbor's property and they have no objections to this proposal. P&D Corrumnee \Ite. Minutes of Page 11 Aid. Wynne moved to uphold the Preservation Commission's ruling. seconded by Aid. Kent. Ald. Wynne made clear that even though she sympathizes with fir. McAuley's dilemma and the realization that this is his property, it is also a historical landmark that she is sure was of knowledge %Then this property was purchased. This status has siLmificant value and is certified to abide by certain regulations under the Preservation Ordinance which the Preservation Commission is sworn to uphold. This ultimately can effect the homeowner's rights and desire to make certain construction and alterations to the property. She feels the Preservation Commission did try and work with this applicant and feels their compromise was fair. Ald. Tisdahl stated that although she understands and supports the Preservation Commission's position, there is a point where reasonable rights of the homeowner should be taken into consideration. On the same accordance. she feels the applicants desire to preserve the open yard and LTeenery is just as important in keeping with the landmark status. She feels the applicants' request in not unreasonable and understands their desire to minimize concrete surfaces and their desire to have a garden. The vote was 4 in favor of the motion and I nay (Aid. Tisdahl). (P71 Ordinance 100-0-03 — Special Use for 1549 Sherman (Tvi3c 2 Restaurant) Chairman Newman acknowledged fir. Christopher Casas, the applicant and lessee for this type 2 special use. Mr. Casas informed the Committee that he would be purchasing 2 parking spaces in the garage across the street for employee parking. He does not foresee problems with patrons double-parking or causing any traffic congestion in this area. Ald. Bernstein, as the ward alderman, stated that he has no real problem with the acceptance of this business for that location. However, he asked the applicant if he was aware of the existing coffeehouse located across the street. Mr. Cacas responded that he is aware and does not expect any conflict because the other business already has their own clientele established. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 100-0-03 with inclusion of the conditions as stated by the ZBA and forwarded by staff with this application. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the note was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Newman felt it important to mention the problems with Jamba Juice that is located north of this location and their litter collection. He does not want to see any further addition to the existing problems with litter and expect them to abide by their litter collection plan. Mr. Cacas assured that his business will be operated on a different level with different clientele and he does not expect any of his patrons to leave his store and dispose of their coffee containers. It is not that type of business. (P8) Ordinance 101-0-03 — Snecial Use and ,Maior Variance for 2115 Ashland (Religious institution Parkin: Lot) Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Sampson Campbell Jr. and fir. Bruce Fossler representing the Evanston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. He also acknowledged the letter received from the Dr. Hill Community Association by staff and presented to the Committee this evening. He noted that the letter received addresses some concerns for the parking lot and the need for parking in that area. The commercial P&D Committee .ttc. Minutes of 10- -fj?� Page Q neighbors are proposing to have access to use this lot during business work hours when the congregation is not using the parking lot. Representatives from the Dr. Hill Community Association %%ere also present. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Fossler introduced themselves. They informed that there are approximately 500 congregants to this location and there is a definite need to provide more off-street parking. This parking lot proposal can supply at least 20 parking spaces. In response to a question. Mr. Campbell said they %vere not planning to fence off this parking lot especially if the City is in opposition to this. However, the use of this lot by the neighbors is questionable and how they intend to use the lot. They are very concerned by their proposition. He informed that the Jehovah's Witnesses Congregation purchased this lot and should be allowed to rule on how it is used, if approved. Aid. Kent suggested that this matter be introduced tonight and referred back to the Committee. His reasoning being to give opportunity for him to meet with the applicants and representatives from the Dr. Hill group so their proposal can be discussed and concerns addressed. Mr. Fossler noted that this property is located in the MUE district, which is an area zoned that allows parking lot usage. He questions why the property owner should have to accommodate or come to some agreement with the surrounding businesses for their usage of their lot. Sir. Alterson informed that church parking lots in the MUE district do require a special use permit. Aid. Bernstein said that it seems inconsistent to the zoning regulations to allow a commercial parking lot use and not an auxiliary parking use in the same district. This issue should be addressed. Aid. Kent motioned to introduce this item and refer back to Committee for further discussion. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 In favor. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Newman requested that they start the meeting early on November IUh, at least 6:30 p.m. to allow appropriate time to address the items on their agenda. ADJOUR.NNIE.NT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Jacqueline E. Bro%vmlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 10, 2003 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Aiello, A. Jackson, S. Janusz, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newrman called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m APPROVALS OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27.2003 Ald. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 27"' minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 4.0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P2) 801 Chicano Avenue — Recommendation from the Plan Commission to Denv a Proposed Planned Develonment Chairman Newman noted that this item has been held in Committee over the last two meetings. He asked for a show of hands in attendance to address this matter, 6-7 hands were raised. He brought attention to staffs memorandum informing of the problem with the zoning notice, which explains that the notice on this meeting and proceeding is no good because the issue on enclosed parking was not included. Mr. Wolinski confirmed, in fact this matter was brought to staffs attention by one of the Hinman Avenue residents. Upon staffs inquiry, did concur that they did not identify a certain type of relief that was needed and was not identified in the notice that was sent out for the Plan Commission initially. He apologized on staffs behalf, however they feel this can not go forward with the project as it was noticed and recommend to the P&D Committee that this issue be sent back to the Plan Commission and be re -noticed including the excluded relief for the enclosed parking. He said that this would not be a withdrawal of the application, but a re -referral back to the Plan Commission. Staff would reschedule the case as soon as possible and have this back to P&D soon after. Chairman Newman asked for response from the applicant Mr. Murray informed the Committee that his client, Mr. Ornoff, was in route to the meeting at this moment. He noted that they have not seen the memorandum from staff since it was just distributed to the Committee at the beginning of this meeting, therefore his immediate response is that P&D Committee ,%ttg. ;Minutes of t I.10-03 Page:. they are exasperated by this news. He further noted that process is a lengthy one to get to the level and point and have an issue relative to the notice come up is somewhat difficult. He suggested that perhaps this could have been included within the concept of the site ,-plan allowance issues that are generally attributable to the planned development process. He thinks that staff has indicated its opinion that they do not accept that particular rendition of the methods undertaken today. He said on behalf of Mr. Ornoff, that he is interested in pursuing the process to whatever extent he can and has in this posture, submitted additional modifications to the original proposals to Ald. Wynne today for review by her and members of the community interested in the ongoing process. Chairman Newman said that he is concerned when changes are introduced the evening of their meeting. He asked if this indicates their position to not go any f mhcr with this matter at this meeting because the changes to the proposal that need to be reviewed is a whole other matter beside the issue regarding the notice. Mr. Murray agreed. He noted the changes that have been suggested do not relate to the parking issue. He said it is not their attention to continually present a modification on the same evening of a decision - making meeting. However, in this case, the applicant has been making substantial efforts to accommodate the concerns of the community, the community leadership and those evoke modifications are a signal of their good faith in attempting to deal respectively with the process. He recognized that there is a hiatus between each submission, response to that submission and any modifications, which is a frustration to all involved. He stated that their position is that they are interested in maintaining the on -going process to the extent that they can and hope that ultimately will receive the benefit of a recommendation from the P&D Committee as well. Chairman Newman said with regards to staffs memorandum, that he feels that it is unfair to the applicant to just send this back because it might very well be that this is not the main issue. He said that they may have enough information before them to go forward with consideration of the Plan Commission's unanimous recommendation for denial of this project. Otherwise he noted that the applicant would have to pay more architects and his lawyer to go back to the Plan Commission and the outcome could still be to go with the denial recommended. He questions if it is even worth all the time, efforts and expense to go back. Aid. Bernstein followed that the unanimous decision of the Plan Commission to deny this proposal; the new changes could be even more restrictive resulting in the modified proposal being denied also. He questioned if the Committee could even vote definitively to uphold the Plan Commission's recommendation with the defective notice. He said it is a matter of due process which now the applicant has been precluded from having because of staffs mistake. Chairman Newman agreed that the Committee can not vote definitively but feel that sending the applicant back due to fault not of their own, is wasted on all accounts. Ald. Wynne agreed that this situation would be unfair to any developer and is a very costly consequence on them. She stressed that this type of oversight is inexcusable and should not occur. She informed that she spoke with Mr. Ornoff this morning after she was told then that they made some additional modifications over the weekend. He brought the plans to her home this morning as well. She has talked to several members of the community but they have not had an opportunity to review the modified plans. She • • • P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11-10-03 Page 3 feels it fair to the other community members to be given time to review the modified plans as well. She does not like the idea of making any rushed decision this evening, despite the defective notice issue. Aid. U*yne suggested to the Committee that she would like to have an opportunity to have the community look at these modified plans and herself to be given more time in general to review than just the few hours she has seen them. She said perhaps the Committee could make a recommendation that this move forward depending on what the response is after review. She stated that quite frankly her inclination as of this morning was to not support the building until the revised plans were presented. She needs to look over the plans to determine whether the modifications alter her opinion, as well as the community's, of the building. She recognizes that staff's memorandum indicates that procedurally, this case needs to go back. Chairman Newman said that no matter what choice is made on how to proceed, it is a difficult situation and time consuming. He does not blame the applicant's frustration on this. Mr. Omoff expressed his appreciation for the Committee's acknowledgement of his frustrating position in this case. He claimed that his goal here is to develop a property that is beneficial as a business decision and as a community decision. He said it is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that they find themselves in a position after reaching this point in the process to be told that they need to go back. He did present a new plan to Aid. Wynne today that he and his architects feel address the concerns of community, as they have tried to do throughout the entire process. He noted that the majority concerns focus primarily on the neighbors directly to the north of the building. They believe the proposed modifications to be a good and fair compromise. He stated that what they are asking for is now very nominal. He agrees with Aid. Wynne that the opportunity should be given to allow her more time and the community a chance to review the modified plans. He also agrees that he would not want to waste anyone's time on what is now a very unfortunate incident %Oth the notice, not to mention the obvious hardship on his behalf. He requested to table his application at this point for future consideration and allow the opportunity to examine the options. Chairman Newman clarified to Mr. Ornoff that based on staffs memorandum; there is a very high likelihood that he will be required to go back to the Plan Commission because of the initial defective notice. Since this item is requested to be tabled, he wanted to make note of his concerns with this case. He noted that he is very concerned with whether they should grant any planned development at all where the proposed building is going to basically be built so close to another building. He said this Aill result in wiping out the views and obstructing light to building that was already there. He said it is one thing if the building was being built as of right, but for the City to give additional zoning relief that allows height beyond the allowable 67' and less that 15' between buildings, he does not see how they can get around the standards. He noted that this would clearly diminish the property value for the building to the north. Chairman Newman stressed to the applicant that this is an important concern that should be clearly addressed with any modified plan presented, in his mind. Ald. Bernstein stated that he would have to uphold the decision by the Plan Commission to deny this project, if a vote was taken tonight. He agrees with Chairman Newman and the severe impact that any development would have on the building directly to the north P&D Committee .%itg. Minutes of 11.10.03 Page a of this site. He said his concern is with the Chicago Avenue Corridor and the 3+ years put into the work on the plan and he does not believe it was worked far enough. He said to now come in and change and increase what they have done before, in his mind, seems counter-productiXe. Chairman Newman addressed the citizens from the community in attendance regarding 801 Chicago. He stated that it is unfortunate that they all came out to hear a decision made on this case tonight, however one of their neighbors was attentive to detail and came up with some information that the City is taking very seriously. At this point, he does not know when this case will be back before the Committee and questions if there is any point for additional comments to be heard. Aid. Wynne noted that she has a copy of the revised plans and will make copies and distribute to the community tomorrow. They will begin their review of the plans immediately. Chairman Newman asked staff about the notice procedure required for this case at this point. Mr. Alterson responded that they could get a notice out for the January Plan Commission meeting, however as of yet, staff has not even seen or reviewed any of the changes that have been made to the plans. Aid. Wynne noted that the changes that have been made, until the notice defect pointed out today, would have changed their notice provisions for the Plan Commission. However, one of the issues here is that the variance they need obtain is to move parking no closer than 20 feet from the lot line on the Kedzie Street side. She questions whether this is physically possible to do or whether they need to request a variance to obtain this requirement. The entire building may have to be redesigned and this is an option that may have to be faced by Mr. Ornoff. Chairman Newman noted that this item needs to stay on P&D's agenda for the November 24`h meeting at which time decision of how to proceed will be discussed. Mr. Ornoff requested to Aid. Wynne to not distribute the revised plan so as to give him an opportunity to discuss with her directly first, any further plans intended. Aid. Wynne agreed. Aid. Bernstein recommended that this be published under the old plan and go forward. Mr. Murray stated that the number of units have evolved downward from commencement of the project from 50+ to 38 units, which is one over the as of right construction. He said there are some elements of that particular building as it has now devolved that need to be further discussed, in Iight of the relationship between the new building and the existing building at 811 Chicago Avenue. Chairman Newman said that it will probably be necessary to have Mr. Widmayer present at the November 24 h meeting. This Item was tabled until the November 24"' meeting. (P3) Ordinance 101-0-03 — Soecial Use and Maior Variance for 2115 Ashland (Religious Institution Parkin¢ Lot) Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Bruce Fossler and Mr. Sampson Campbell representing the Evanston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc, He recalled that this matter was referred back to the Committee to address the conditions. He asked the other Committee members if they are all in agreement that the second condition with regards to letting the neighbors use the parking lot during non -church hours is something • • P&D Committee tittg. tit inutes of 11-10-03 Page 5 that they can not impose as a Committee. This was concurred by the other Committee members. The question of the landscaping as a condition remains to be addressed. Aid, Kent stated that his only concern was for the condition on the landscaping, not the usage by others of the lot. He recalled the Committee asked Ms. Szymanski to provide a legal analysis of whether or not either of the conditions could be imposed and asked her to summarize the memorandum she submitted. Ms. Szymanski explained that the legal opinion is based upon an analysis of federal constitutional law. She noted the basic principal is that it is a violation of federal as well as state constitutional provisions to take private property without just compensation. She explained that in the past the courts were requiring an actual physical taking of someone's property. In later years and present status of the constitutional law today is that the government doesn't actually have to take the property away from a person but rather if regulations are imposed on a property which are so burdensome as to deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property, then as a practical effect that is considered a taking from which the owner must be compensated. Ms. Szymanski said that when she analyzed those legal principles against the request made here, she determined that the request was to have the private citizen use the church parking lot during all non -church hours. This would require the church to construct, operate, maintain, insure and repair a private lot for the benefit of the public. She declared that there is no question in her mind that this goes well beyond the powers of a government to require absent compensation to the owner of that private property. Furthermore, even if the Council were planning to consider such a condition, there has been no proof in need of the community for a parking lot in that area. She noted that they have an assertion that the parking lot will result in the lose of four parking spaces because of two curb cuts. This is probably very likely, however, this is anecdotal evidence because there hasn't even been a parking study to show a need or the obligation of the City to provide a parking lot in that area for the residents. Ms. Szymanski said the landscaping issue is a different matter as she pointed out in her memorandum and underlined, which clearly states in sections 6-3-5-12 and 6-3-8-14 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding special uses and major variations. Landscaping is of no question a condition that the City Council is empowered to impose under the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. She concluded that reasonably related in this instance, there is no standard to be met regarding the neighboring residents usage of the private parking lot because they would be giving the grantee the right to use his property only a few hours a week and taking away form him the right to use that property as he sees fit. This would provide usage of the ownrs property free to the public without compensation and this is beyond the scope of the Council's powers in the Zoning Ordinance to impede such a condition. She reiterated that the landscaping provision is entirely different and can be imposed as a condition by Council as is supported in the Zoning Ordinance. . Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Albert Bowen, a member of the Dr. Hill Association, in attendance and asked if he wanted to respond to the legal analysis heard. Mr. Bowen responded that the letter from the Dr. Hill Association group that was distributed to the Committee previously state their position on requesting usage of the P&D Comminee A11g. Minutes of I I-10.03 Page 5 parking lot during non -church hours and he supports that request made. He had no I further comment on the outcome of the legal analysis made. Chairman Newman suggested thV the applicant still needs to go back to the SPAARC for final approval and the condition should be set upon that approval and the maintenance of the landscaping as recommended and approved by Site Plan. Otherwise the Committee could place a condition at this time. Aid. Kent's opinion on this and his motion would be to approve this request and give the applicant an opportunity to develop the parking lot free of any stipulations whatsoever given the fact that the applicant has already included and presented a landscaping plan. He says this because in comparison to some cases where they have worried about certain developers and entities coming before them and meaning what they say and adhering to it, he strongly believes this applicant is sincere and will comply and carry out their responsibility to the maintenance of their property. He noted that this congregation has been here since 1966 and is a group that has engaged in landscaping and beautification of their property that didn't work in the past and on their own accord, took it upon themselves to rectify, correct and re -plant a landscaping scheme that they have always maintained. He feels this applicant has been community - minded all along without any complaints or enforcement needed. He has no worry that they will maintain their entire property and reiterated that he backs the approval of this request without Question. Aid. Kent moved approval of Ordinance 101-0-03 without restrictions other than what is required in the Zoning Ordinance. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5- 0 in favor. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION f PD I) Reauest for Redevelopment Provosals Chairman Newman briefed the Committee on the Perking Committee's position regarding this proposal. He informed that for the last couple of years from time to time the Parking Committee has been looking at all the City lots owned which there are approximately 60 lots. He said about two years ago, they made a lot available on Chicago Avenue and although some people can reasonably differ on how that project on that lot tumcd out, from a parking standpoint and from a tax roll standpoint, it turned out very well for the City. He says this because they used to have a parking lot there for approximately 45 cars and the City bought the property around the sum of $300,000 and took it off the tax roll. He said the City was able to recoup this property back for close to S800,000 some 10 years later after purchasing the property. In addition, the City was able to maintain virtually all the parking that was provided there and at the same time put the property back on the tax roll and make a profit. Therefore, what has happened is that from time to time developers have contacted Ms. Aiello in the City Manager's Office interest in doing the same type of development to other parking lots throughout the City. He pointed out the fist of lots they came up with that are noted in this request, as lots developers have considered and would like to use the same concept of putting the property back on the tax roll by replacing the parking lot and putting some P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of 1 1-10-03 Page 7 additional housing units on the same property or adjacent property. In conclusion. Chairman Newman stated that the Parking Comminee's consensus was to support this proposal for consideration by Council. He said several of the developers appeared to be very quaUried and reputableminoritydevelopers who have made proposals to redevelop some of those lots. In most instances there were proposals for providing some affordable housing units as well. Chairman Ne«Tnan made clear that this proposal for redevelopment of the lots is only for discussion and consideration to improve at this point. He said that his is not a final list or any obligation on any decision in any way at this time. He suggested that the Committee address each site separately as listed in the draft proposal on page 4. Site #1 -- South Blvd. 8t Hinman Avenue (SW corner) — Aid. Wynne assured that this lot is currently being used to its capacity at this time. Ms. Aiello noted that when this lot was considered it was not being used to full capacity but currently is due to the Dominick's site redevelopment She has talked to several developers in the past who have suggested proposals to redevelop the lot by building 2-3 levels of parking with residential above, some proposals were for townhouses and some condominium buildings. She said the townhouse development proposals were much more desirable for that area. However, with the development of the Dominick's site, she is skeptical of any redevelopment of that lot at this time. She noted that she has received some strong opposition for any development of this at any time in the future, however depending upon the proposal and the final outcome after completion of the Dominick's site, this lot could be one to consider. Site #2 — 825 Hinman Avenue -- Aid. Wynne strongly opposed redevelopment of this lot and requested that this time be removed from the list for any consideration in the future. She pointed out that with the current and ongoing parking and traffic congestion problems in this location, redevelopment of this lot would only add to that problem and cause additional impact on the neighborhood. Site #3 — NW Corner of Judson and Main — Aid. Wynne also strongly opposed this site for any consideration of redevelopment for the same reasons stated for Site #2. She requested removal of this site from the list also. Ms. Aiello mentioned that as of right development proposals for sites 42 & #3 might be considerable, especially if the proposals include in their plans to provide the parking that was provided in that lot She brings this to attention because it is an important aspect to consider particularly if the City can sell the property for a notable profit, put the property back on the tax roll and still keep all the parking, if not more, currently provided on those lots. After further discussion, it was a consensus of the Committee that Site #3 should be removed from the list in consideration of lot configuration and location. Site #4 — 2243-51 Central Street — Aid. Tisdahl informed that there is a traffic study currently being conducted on Central Street, which includes the area of this lot She noted the study is being done to assess the current parking problems on Central Street in the business district and the impact of this parking spilling over onto the residential P&D Committee hitg. Minutes of 11-10-03 Page 8 streets. She requested that this site be held for any further consideration until completion of that study. She said upon completion of the study and those recommendations, if a suitable development proposal were presented that were acceptable for the site, she would probably consider it with the definite supplement of proAding back the existing parking spaces on that lot. She is somewhat concerned with this parking lot being in close proximity to a park and any development that would impact on that park. Site 45 — 1621-25 Oak Street. Ms. Aiello informed that the adjacent property owner to this lot is interested in acquiring the property and a negotiation is possible. She feels this proposal is supportable and could be in the best interest for that location. Currently the lot is being used by the Evanston Post Office primarily. The Committee requested staff to look into the City lot located at Lake and Maple across from the Police/Fire Department. This lot may be a possibility for future consideration. (PD3) Plan Commission Recommendation: Rezoning of Kendall Colletae Chairman Newman informed' all that the Committee has received back and forth communication on this project and there appeared to be some confusion and difficulty with the applicant being here tonight. However, despite the confusion, the applicant and representatives are present and will allow them to introduce themselves first before discussion. He made clear that the Plan Commission's recommendation obviously leaves it up to the P&D Committee's discretion to make some decision here tonight on how to proceed. Therefore, he clarified that the Committee is not going to be taking any action tonight but will start discussion and hear the neighbor's comments after introduction of the applicant. There is no formal presentation by the applicant tonight since they just closed on the property and the issue up for discussion is consideration of the rezoning of the property. Mr. Berard Citron, from the law office of Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, representing the current owner of the Kendall College property introduced himself along with Mr. Bill Smith, Principal of Smithfield Properties LLC out of Chicago and Keith Jacobson. Chairman Newman welcomed them. He noted that it is hard for neighbors to react when they are unaware of what the plan is for the property. He recognized that the new owner has just closed on the property and has not had time to put together a plan to presenL Therefore he thought it might be helpful to the new developer this evening to hear comments and concerns from the neighbors and take them into consideration when draf3ing out the plans for the property. Aid. Tisdahl requested to continent before the neighbors speak. She apologized for any confusion to the neighbors this evening but she was under the impression that the Smithfield Properties group would not be present. She was out of town until late this afternoon and trig to get word to all the neighbors at the last minute that Smithfield would be present and to come to the meeting. She said that many of her neighbors are not here that wanted to be because of this miscommunication. Mr. Citron expressed his appreciation for that effort and apologized for the confusion. However he made clear that they are glad to be here just to hear comments from the neighbors at this time and assure there will be marry more oppomuw ities to meet with them at future meetings. He said that the fully intend to meet several times with the P&D Committee 4ttg. Minutes of 11.10-03 Page 9 neighbors during the process as it goes forward. He realizes that agreement between parties may not always occur, nevertheless they intend to work diligently along with the community all along the way. Chairman Newman called on those signed up to speak on this matter in the order listed. Ms. Barbara Janes. 802 Colfax Street, said that site has lived in her house for over 30 years and the Kendall property directly impacts on their property. She strongly feels it is important for the Kendall property to be rezoned Rl because on three sides there are substantial single family homes. She urges City Council to take a strong stance behind the neighbors of this property because the area is majority single family and any other development of the property would not be fitting with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Suzie Mortell, said that she has lived in this neighborhood all her life for 44 years. She was raised here and now raises her family here. The neighborhood is very family oriented and is a single-family residential community. She requested to Smithfield that they be respectful and considerate to the surrounding community. She strongly supports the Kendall property being rezoned to R I. Mr. Nick Agnew, seconded Ms. Mortell's comments and also requested to Smithfield to be respectful to the neighborhood with their redevelopment plan. Keith Wood, said that he lives on Lincoln Street. He wanted to make note of to the developers of the historically and architecturally significant homes in the surrounding area of the Kendall property. He also requested that the developer keep in mind to be respectful and considerate of the neighborhood when making plans for the property. He would like to see single-family homes on the property. Ms. Judy Fiske, welcomed the developer to the Evanston Northeast Historic District- She informed the developer of all the time put into creating this historic district and huge sense of pride in the neighborhood for this historic district and the celebration of the architecture. She said a study was done of how the zoning evolves in RI districts. She noted that when Evanston did its first Zoning Ordinance, there was a general sense in the community that there are uses within zoning districts that are compatible with single- family houses. One of these uses are educational institutions, basically schools. In 1899 Sidwell maps, Kendall College was the Swedish Theological Seminary and the brick building stood there by itself with trees all around it. In 1907, Ms. Cornelia Lunt purchased the property and resubdivided to allow for houses on both sides of Colfax. So the houses you see east of Sherman on Colfax that face Colfax, are Ms. Lunt's subdivision. Her house happens to be part of this subdivision. Ms. Fiske's point was that the idea for this property was always to build single-family homes surrounding the school. As a matter of fact, Roycemore is located directly across the street to the east of the property and is now a national historical landmark. She said this landmark status is extremely important because there are only 6 national historic landmarks in all of Evanston. She stressed that this be taken into consideration as well. P&D Committee %tte. Minutes of 11-14-b. Page ) 0 She urged Council's support and the developers consideration of having the property rezoned to R L Doue Halverson. 805 Colfax stated his concern %%ith having a planngd development on this site. He stressed the importance of maintaining the open space and hoped that the property would not be overdeveloped. Ms. Jennifer Gemmel), lives in the 700 block of Colfax. She stated that her family moved to this location with the expectation in mind that Kendall College would always be there and they liked living next to the school and in this family oriented neighborhood. She would not want to see this property over -developed. She supports that R1 rezoning for this site. Mr. Dave Sereika, 723 Colfax, said that he supports the R1 rezoning of the Kendall College property. He also noted that this neighborhood is very family -oriented and very single-family residential as well. There are many neighbors who have been in the neighborhood for years and many that are new, such as his family, and everyone works together well. He has quite a few children as well as many others in his block and on his greet and this is the way the entire neighborhood is surrounding this site. He urged the developer to keep the character of the surrounding neighborhood in mind as he works on the redevelopment plan. Chairman Newrn.an asked the developer to take the neighbors comments into consideration on their strong desire to have the property rezoned to R1 residential. He also said that the Committee will take these comments into consideration as well. Mr. Bill Smith commented that this is his company's first project on the North Shore but they have renovated seven buildings listed on the Historical Registry. He assured that they are very aware of the significance of a historical district and in keeping with the character of s_ the neighborhood. He also assured that his intentions for redevelopment of this property have always been for residential mix; maybe some single-family, townhouses in combination %%ith condominiums possibly in the existing red brick building. He said no official plans have been drawn up yet but all comments heard Ai11 be kept in mind. - The Committee discussed when this item should come back before them. There was a preference suggested to schedule next on the December 15e' meeting. This would give the developer time to draw up some preliminary drawings for presentation. Aid. Bernstein reminded that the Committee's position is to consider the rezoning for the property at this time. He feels the Committee should move forward and continue beginning the hearing at the next meeting on November 24ei. After discussion, it was finally agreed to hold this item for consideration until the December 1 Sth meeting. 1PD23 Atrattment Rental Licensing Chairman Newman began discussion noting the joint meeting between Northwestern, the - City and other interested parties regarding the over -occupancy, property maintenance and behavioral problems that are occurring around the Northwestern campus area. He said that several landlords are getting away with murder and many are absentee who live out P&D Comminee Sttg. Minutes of 1 i.10-03 Page i 1 of town. He reminded that initially was a reference by Aid. Rainey. He pointed out that most of the problem buildings are with repeat owners of several different properties. These landlords buy up several buildings in the area, charge high rent and no maintenance or supervision of their properties. The Committee recalled when this first was proposed that many of the "good" landlords came out and opposed this licensing and the Committee was cominced to hold off on this issue. Now many of those same problems have escalated in different areas of town. especially around the Northwestern campus. Chairman Newman noted that if this licensing program is to be successful, it would require the need to hire two new inspectors and one clerical staff. There would definitely be the need to hire new staff because the current inspectors are working to capacity covering all of Evanston. This program would bring in revenue which could support itself. Aid. Wynne questioned why this method would be a better tool than what exists today such as the over -occupancy violations and others listed in the City ordinances. Staff assured that landlords are simply not abiding by the citations and current enforcement. There needs to be even more bite in their enforcement regulations that what currently exists. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that since the initial discussion of this matter back in 2000, there have been several improvements with enforcement of the physical issues, however the social issues still remain and the need for enforcement on this level. He feels that when we eliminate the landlord's income from their properties, this would make an effect on the landlord. The Committee discussed how they wanted to proceed with this issue. Chairman Newman suggested that another meeting needs to be held inviting all the landlords just as they did in 2000, to give them an opportunity to respond and comment. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that no actual ordinance was drafted initially. There is a need for more input from the Committee before an ordinance is drafted. It was a consensus of the Committee to direct staff to draft an ordinance based on past information collected in combination with the new information obtained in consideration of the on -going problems that are being discussed in the joint housing task force meetings with Northwestern. There was a consensus to exclude 2-3 flat buildings where the landlord lives on the property. Aid. Ne%%man requested that coachhouses be included. The Committee discussed when to bring this back on their agenda giving staff time to draft an ordinance. Chairman Newman requested that some type of draft be presented at the next meeting on November 24`h as a working tool. Aid. Bernstein stated that enforcement of any type of apartment rental licensing is the key to being successful. He does not want the revenue aspect of this to take over. Chairman Newman requested to staff to not invite the EPO people before an ordinance is drafted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Jacqueline E. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 24, 2003 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson. J. Aiello. P. Haynes. S. Janusz. R. Molinari. E. Szymanski. 0. Thomas, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. E. Moran Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. He reminded that the Committee will be addressing the 801 Chicago case first, as promised at the last meeting. This item is under "Items for Discussion" on the agenda. APPROVALS OF THE MUNUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10. 2003 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November 10`h minutes, seconded by Aid. Kent. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION' (PD1) 801 Chicano Avenue — Recommendation from the Plan Commission to Den• 3 Proposed Planned Development Chairman Newman noted that this item is not on the Council's agenda as an item for consideration. He brought to attention the memorandum received from Mr. James Murray stating his opinion that the notice that went out was sufficient. He accepted this memo as a response from the applicant in regards to the notice problem. Aid. Bernstein stated that the applicant can waive his reaction to the notice. However, he questioned that in spite of the fact that the City did not notify the applicant of the need for the variation for setbacks and the fact that someone save the placement of the improvement on the lot. if this gives the applicant sufficient notice? Mr. Murray responded that their intention was to respond to the suggestion of staff on their opinion that every intentional relief was required to have been contained within the notice. He talked generally about the idea that there are many multitudes of side issues that are to be considered by the Plan Commission in every PV D. He aid the nature of the notice requirement is irate in the fact that it is required to give some information to those people who are interested in the potential development of the site and that something is going to happen there. He said that those who do have interest are then able to come forward and present their points of P&D Comminee %ttg. %tinutr4 of 11-:4-03 Page view% to the re iewine bodw. Mr. `Surray belie%es that this %was clear]} what was intended and that the nature of the noti,-e that v,as prntided %was sufficient to evoke that type of response from persons who %were interested in the project. Aid. Bernstein said that he understands Mr. \Iurra%*s point. however this question becomes whether the people to whom the notice was given should be re -notified of the inditT'erence not stated on the original notice. lie questions the legality point in favor of anyone sent notice on this project. lie pointed out that the setback requirement need was brought to attention by an interested neighbor on Hinman and the technicality of the fact remains that the original notice is defective. He reiterated that the applicant can waive this %without question. but strong ground is real on behalf of anyone who was sent the original notice, Mr. Nfurray asked if this were up to the Committee to either refer this issue to the Law Department or take action %which is suggested by staff to send this back to the Plan Commission? Aid. \V%mne stated that she agrees with Mr. Murray on the point of sending this back to the Plan Commission. However. she disagrees with his opinion on the notice because she feels that this is a significant enough variance where someone from the public would be very interested in the project and all the aspects involved. She feels the setback issue is not a minor issue in this case. She said that if the project were to move forward, in her opinion. the only path to be followed would be to return to the Plan Commission. Chairman Newman asked Legal staff if there is an official position on the notice that can be stated here. NIs. Szymanski responded that she just received the letter from Mr. Murray tonight and can not officially respond to it. However, she is familiar with the issue and based upon what she understands. there was a deficiency in the notice in that one of the items necessary for construction of the project was not set forth in the notice. Her belief is that this is defective notice to the public because certain persons may have made their decisions to participate or not in the process based upon that particular item. Therefore. she can not agree that this would suffice the notice as being defective, although the City Council has the final word. Aid. Tisdahl supports send this back to the Plan Commission in consideration of star' opinion. Chairman Newman commented that he does not have a problem send this back to the Plan Commission. However, he does not have a problem with the fact that this is basically the Cit''s fault. He said the implication is that they would send this back to the Plan Commission and have the developer. who has already put in a lot of money and time, go back and have to spend more money and time when there is the possibility that Council may be of the mind to dent the project anyway. He stated that this is only his = opinion however the possibility should be kept in mind due to certain extremities involved with this project. All in all. the fact remains that the City's involvement in this is very problematic and this morally troubles him. Aid. Wynne noted that at the last P&D meeting, INir. Ornoff had just presented to her that day with rough sketches of some additional modifications he had made to the building in response to her telling him that she would not be able to support his project beforehand. She informed that she has met wvith Mr. Ornoff over the weekend and he presented more P&D Commintr fists:. %Nnutts of 11-24-03 Pazt'. soph:,ticated draw+ines. %which she looked over and forwarded to the communinv. She said the community has met and reviewwed the draw+inus. Howe+er. even after review of the new drawings and modifications. she still has the same opinion as two weeks ago. which is that she doesn't think there is enough good coming back to the benefit from this building that balances the negative impact that it will have on the surrounding properties. She also mentioned her serious concern that this is a developer who has stated to them that when he purchased the property had had no ability to build as -of -right economically sensible. She does not want to head down a path where developers now look at our height and density limits and view that as the base to start building on. Aid. Wynne noted that she made clear to Mr. Omoffthat even with these modifications. she was not interested in the project. She informed the Committee that in discussion with Mr. Omofl it was talked about this not being worth his time and effort if he were to pursue this project back to the Plan Commission as it is. Aid. Bernstein noted that he did tell Mr. Omoff at the last meeting that be was not inclined to support his project as submitted. He pointed out in that particular location: he could not support any development other than an as -of -right project. He noted tha this is not dissimilar to another situation that thev have been dealing with and he feels in all fairness that the City should set the standards and preclude the applicant from going any further in expending more time and money. He realizes the injustice done to the public with regards to the notice but the injustice done to the applicant goes beyond that because whether or not there was defective notice Given. would this case have been over -turned anyway:' Why have the applicant go further in cost and time if the outcome may be the same. Chairman Newman stated his feeling on this project remains as he mentioned at the last meeting. He feels the proposed building is extraordinarily close to the existing building to the north and is going to have a strong impact. He noted that while you can say to the owners of 811 Chicago that when they bought their units they were aware of the possibility of any development that could go up around their building within the Zoning Ordinance could be built and those owners took that risk. He pointed out the expectations of what can be built within right of the Zoning Ordinance. however in this case the planned development on this site is asking for zoning relief that would wipe out the adjacent buildings vie%vs and have an adverse impact on the values of their property. Chairman Newman feels that this project would severely impact the building to the north and he could not support this. He noted that if the developer could present a project that is within the zoning requirements. then he would be included to consider. He stated that it is up to the applicant if they feel it is worth continuing with this project if it were to be sent back to the Plan Commission. .after all discussion. the motion by Aid. Wynne to send this back to the Plan Commission, seconded by Aid. Bernstein, stood. Aid. Wynne wanted to cMfv that procedurally this Committee can not vote on this at this time because of the legality of the defective notice but do have the ability to send it back to the Plan Commission. The vote w•as"in favor of the motion. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of t ]-24.03 P"t 4 Petition From the Kendall College Prone rtv Neighbors Chairman Newman made note that this is not an item on P&D's agenda this evening. however the neighbors of this community requested to present this petition this evening and that it be recognized in the record. He assured that this document would be 17 mentioned in the minutes and noted to be included for discussion %%hen this item is considered at the December 15'h meeting. Mr. Tom Gemmell of 720 Colfax presented the petition to the Committee and mentioned that the petition has approximately 100 signatures in support of having the property rezoned t R1. He also noted that this petition request that consideration be given to the matter of rezoning the property first before: any planned development proposals are accepted for this site. Chairman \ewman assured that the item on P&D's agenda for December 151h is to consider the rezoning of the property, not consideration of any proposals for development of the site. He informed that the Committee will look at any preliminary development sketches for the site if presented by the developer but reiterated that the rezoning issue is what up for consideration. Aid. Tisdahl informed the other Committee members that she and her constituents have been meeting since July regarding the rezoning process and the efforts to have it zoned as Rl. She assured that they will be condnuing these efforts until rezoned. Aid. Bernstein noted that this Committee can not stop the submission of any plans by the owner if he chooses to submit them prior to the conclusion of the rezoning issue. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION IP2) CVS Asbury Consolidation Plat Chairman Newman brought to attention staffs request to hold this item on their agenda. .%lr. Wolinski explained that there is a missing tax stamp that needs to be on the plat. He said that staff has notified the applicant of this and to come back ;when they have the tart stamp on the plat from the City Clerk's office. The Committee agreed and this item w-as held in Committee until the December 15'b meeting. (P1) Housine Rehabilitation Guidelines Chairman Ne%vman started off by questioned how you help a single unit in a owner - occupied condominium building fix violations without fixing the other units that may have code violations as well. His concern with this is the association rules and guidelines that differ for every condo building. Aid. Bernstein responded that this would be self- contained to the individual unit. which is how most condominium conversions are done by installing separate mechanical works in each separate unit. He Said this way each condominium unit would be considered the same as a single-family dwelling unit excluding the common areas. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this was a reference some time ago made by Ald. Rainey to include condominiums as pan of the City's rehab guidelines. He noted where the $7.500 figure comes from is the fact that for multi -family rental this is the limit that the City can provide per unit_ therefore staff decided to apply this amount to condo ownership as well. He believes the issue is that rehab money always goes towards code compliance issues first. Therefore. he views this as if there are other minor type of code violations that need fisting such as leaking faucets, GFI installations, etc., are things that should be included. Assistance does not go towards P&D Committee %ttr. Minutes of 11-2-9-0: Page S cabinet upgrades: floor refiniihiri and other items considered "luxuries" under the assistance program. Aid. Bernstein noted that cn7cominiums are still considered single-family owner - occupied dwelling units that should he considered in the rehab guidelines. His concern is how do we maintain the single-family usage of the property and %%hat about condominium association clauses and the legalities on separation of each unit. Ntr. Wolinski responded that single-family owner occupied are the majority of their rehab loans for low -to -moderate income families. Ike said that these applicants can qualify for up to S30.000 under the guidelines. He said that once the homeo%%ncr's application is accepted and approved. then the Rehab Specialist would go in and cite code violations as required when city funds are requested for rehab. Chairman Newman stated that this whole concept is confusing to him because condo's are not being inspected first of all and second of all the reason they are doing this rehab loan program is because there is a public good to fixing violations that are visible to the neighborhood. He feels no violations to a condo are visible and the City would not subsidize a condominium association who is responsible for the exterior of the building. In actuality he does not see ho%v this could work for individual condo units when there is an association involved and common elements shared. He further questions what income market they would be targeting in lieu of the current cost of condo units in the City of Evanston. Aid. Tisdahl responded that many of the condo conversions occurred some 15-20 years ago and were very affordable at that time and some have remained affordable today. She said many of these homeowners may still qualify under the income guidelines. Many of those buildings that were converted at that time have now started to deteriorate in some areas and would possibly have code compliance issues. She feels that if such condo owners qualify under the present guidelines. they should be eligible for assistance the same as single-family homeowners. She feels that condominium ownership may be one of the only remaining means of affordable homeownership and these homeowners should be able to qualify for assistance as long as their request for funding does not intrude on any association clause rulings. Aid. Kent pointed out that in the last sentence on the second paragraph it states that condominiums are amongst the most affordable form of housing in Evanston. He feels a separation has been recognized that in his opinion. he has not seen yet. He noted that the concept of being a condominium definite]y does not make it an affordable housing unit. He further pointed out reading that assistance to condominiums could benefit many lower income condo owners. He does not recall many low-income condominium owners and cannot see how this statement can be justified. He asked staff if they could further elaborate on this point. Mr. Wolinski responded that there has been many condo conversions that have taken plan in southeast Evanston over the past 10 years. He noted that the City has been involved in a few of those conversions. for example the 124 Clyde project where those condos were sold for $60-70.000. Granted those units have gone up in value. which is an issue with the condo market appreciating so quickly. However they do have some conversions that are going, in the S150-160.000 range where perhaps the developer has not gone in to great lengths with installing quality items during the PRa Committee Mtr- Minutes of l 1 Paee b conversion. in other words he celi:-, e.:here is a market for the affordable housing rehab to condominium . but he is una::re e\act buildings this program %%ouid qualifv. Chairman Newman recognized the :-,,sition of a situation «here ma%he an elderly applicant who purchased their conk, -L;nit mane years ago. may qualify. However, this addition to the existing program cool i ma a away from wvhat they do in the multi -family rental assistance program. which is more beneficial to an entire building than for one single-family condo unit in a building of many. It contradicts the existing program guidelines. Aid. Bernstein stated that consideration of condominium units should still be considered under single-family residential home ownership and in fairness. these homeowners should not be excluded from being able to qualify for rehab assistance. Chairman Newman noted that there is no extreme urgency for final decision and vote on this item this evening. He requested to hold this item on the Committee's agenda, the Committee members agreed. (P3) Ordinance 110.0-03 — Vacant and Boarded Building Ordinance Mr. Walinski stated that ordinance is a compilation of probably a years worth of work with bringing this ordinance back before the Committee several times asking for input and have tried to put this into ordinance form that hopefully puts enough "teeth" in it to push this to the edge of the envelope within the law. He noted that Mr. Janusz has worked diligently with tits. Sz%manski on this ordinance and that he could further elaborate on it. Mr. Janusz informed that the ordinance before them deals with a number of aspects that staff has put before the Committee over time. He said it deals with both boarded buildings as well as buildings that are not boarded but vacant. Within the context of the ordinance there is a requirement that the City's Community Development Department identify those buildings which are considered vacant. prelude to this, consideration of the building being un-occupied. He noted that vacant could be a combination of unoccupied in combination with being unsecured as well as vacant and boarded. as well and unoccupied and considered dangerous. These are the bases for a building being considered vacant. Mr. !anusz continued that the Director of Community Development would issue a determination that a building is in fact vacant. this determination goes out to the building owner. The building owner upon receiving this information that the building is considered vacant can actually appeal this determination, however as far as requirements go. the building is considered vacant. He noted that one key issue that was brought before the Committee was the ability of being able for the City to get within these buildings that are vacant. He said as time goes on these buildings are subject to abuses. subject to more wear and tear and decay within the buildings. Therefore the ordinance provides that a vacant building will be. -upon the building being registered by the owner as vacant_ Within the registration they also must agree basically to a City inspection of the building. This would allow the City's code inspectors from Building. Health and Property Standards to go through the building and cite code violations. Mr. Janusz said the other important aspect of this is if a determination is made that the building is in such a poor state existence, that the City can then go after the building for condemnation and subsequently demolition. He said there are a number of buildings that are boarded and they have no real ability to get within those buildings often P&D Committee NIte. Minutes of 11.24-03- Pap 7 times. lie said once the ability is available for the C its to force entrance into those boarded buildings and halve a chance to inspect to see what is umng and if the building does need to be demolished. He pointed out that in mar.% ca:_s the building does not need to be demolished but some definitel% do and this gi%es them the ability to go ahead. get the inspection done. and have the case for the actual demolition. Mr. Janusz summarized the steps involved being I 1 building need to be registered. 2) need the inspection of the building. 3 t there is a fee for the registration and a fee for the inspection. Also if a building is determined vacant. the City will not issue any transfer stamps for that building. The building has to have liability insurance. A vacant building plan is required meaning a plan should be in place for rehabilitation of the building to address any code violations within a time frame specified and ongoing maintenance of the building. He said this plan is pan of the ordinance in requirement that the owner provide this information to the City with a plan of action. The ordinance also sets a maximum time limit of b months where a building can be boarded and two (2) years where a building, which is vacant unboarded and also no violations. He noted there is a east difference between the two. The City's basically can take any of these items to Administrative Adjudication and to the Circuit Court. Again- the ability within the ordinance, if approved. is to withhold transfer stamps. Aid. Tisdahl thanked staff on their work in drafting this ordinance thanked staff on their work in drafting this ordinance, she feels it can be a useful tool in solving blight issues throughout Evanston. Aid. Wynne raised a question in Section 4-204. which begins on page 5 of the ordinance. in the way that section is worded and asked if something is missing in that section. Ms. Szymanski responded that she discovered after drafting that a line had been dropped in this section. She explained that the concept is that the director of Community Development needs a "safety valve" to the effect that if there is a situation in which the building meets the criteria of the ordinance that it is vacant for the 2-year period but code compliance. that the is not required to declare it a building subject to this ordinance. She felt this important because there may be a situation in which the Director knows credible facts such that it is not appropriate to subject the building this ordinance. An example would be the situation that Aid. Tisdahl has expressed concern about and that would be a building that is code compliance but vacant for a number of years. She said if the strict terms of the ordinance were followed then the Director would be required to declare such a building subject to the ordinance. She said such cases could be where the owner is actively trying to market the building and the market conditions are perhaps poor and beyond the owners control to sell the building within the 2-year period. She believes such a "safety valve" is important with respect to such cases. She assured that she would amend this section to clarify the concept as she explained it. his. Szymanski also brought to the Committee's attention a memorandum she forwarded to them dated October 13. 2003 regarding the recommended time frames of 180-days for boarded buildings and 2-years for code -compliance vacant buildings. She recalled her recommendation to the Committee that these are dates that she believes must be substantiated by fact finding by the Committee because otherwise they are open to a challenge on the question of harm in a building being vacant for 179 days versus 181 days. The same would be true for the 2-year period. She explained fact-finding on the P8D Committee Mtc. Minutes of 11-34-63 Pace 8 basis of neighborhood concerns. Communiv. De%elopment staff data and information is essential to be gathered and presented to the Committee. This wa% the Committee can hear that evidence and can make a let_islative decision to have reflected in the "whereas" clauses of the ordinance. Aid. Wl nne brought up the example of a house in Aid. Bemstein's ward that has been vacant for mane %ears. recently boarded. but may be code compliance. She questioned how this case fits within this ordinance. %.Ir. Janusz responded that if the building were code compliance. which in this particular case he has evidence that it is not. but if it were boarded. he believes the building should fall under the same requirements for being boarded for the 6-month maximum. Ms. Szymanski further noted that the code compliance term as it is being referred to in the ordinance includes not being boarded in addition to not having any code violations in accordance to the Property Maintenance Code. AId. Kent expressed his approval for the ordinance but is concerned with properties that have been foreclosed on and taken over by a bank. He asked staff if this ordinance also gives "teeth" to deal against bank powers and being able to take over a property in those instances. Mr. Janusz responded that he believes within the context of the ordinance that it would hold a bank to the same level as any other property owner. He also feels in the interim time when the bank is foreclosing upon their client. that the bank has an invested interest in the building and they can hold the bank responsible. Mr. Wolinski added that he believes the key to Aid. Kent's question is the fact that because many of the buildings are single-family owned the City does not have the right unless they obtain a administrative search warrant to go in the building and do a code inspection. Therefore, basically all they can do is cite the property for the exteriors. However. if the City has the ability to go inside the building and cite major issues in the interior that are going to cost a lot of money to rehab. this gives the City a lot of ammunition to go forward to either present before Administrative Adjudication or the Circuit Court with hefty violations that need to be corrected. He said if the ownership chooses not to correct those violations. then the City can apply constant pressure to either sell the building to a reputable owner or even push demolition. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that right now, the City does not have the right and an administrative search warrant is difficult to get unless there was criminal activity on the property. Ms. Szymanski added that an owner still has the right to refuse to let the City in. In this case. they would have to apply for an administrative search warrant ifthev wanted to pursue any further. However. she believes that since this ordinance does have some "teeth" in it about an owner not being able to transfer the property without complying then this gives the City power that it did not currently have. She pointed out to tie into Aid. Kent's concerns. that buildings in foreclosure do have a habit of being transferred from one bad owner to another. She said at least in the situation where the first bank that is doing the foreclosure can't get real estate transfer stamps unless they permit an inspection. this may give the City a chance to go inside the property to see the condition of the building. Chairman Newman called on a citizen from the audience that wished to comment on this issue. She resides at 811 Chicago Avenue and commented on the privacy issue that should be taken into consideration with this ordinance. She questioned the rights of any municipality having the power to grant search and seizure of any property unless they P&D Committee %te. Minutes of I 1-2a-03� Page 4 have direct evidence of non-compliance and only if the building has proven circumstantial evidence of it beinc a ! azard and dancer to the neighborhood. She said if such evidence is not substantial. then pri+ac% issues can be out++eighed against the City's determination of time limits for a building being vacant. She pointed out that no criteria is gi%en where if a building is boarded but is in code compliance. should be taken over by the City simply because it is boarded over a period of time. Ald. Bernstein responded that he was in support of this citizen's comments until this point. He strongly supports the City having the right to have police powers on boarded buildings because such they are a plague on the community. Even if the property is in code compliance on the interior. if the property is boarded it is blight to the neighborhood. His concern is with a building that is well maintained continuously but nevertheless for some reason the owner chooses not to live there but wants to keep ownership of the property. He supports Nis. Szymanski's concept of haying such properties not being subject to the 2-year period as required by the ordinance. At this point. Chairman Newman motioned to introduce and refer back to Committee on December 15'". Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Neuman requested that staff have Aid. Rainey's comments included on this matter or that she be present for comments at the December 15'h meeting because she has been a moving force behind this ordinance. (P4) Ordinance 107-0-03 — Extendina the 'moratorium Provided For By Ordinance 61- 0-03 Aid. Kent moved approval of Ordinance 107-0-03. Chairman Newman asked Aid. Kent if he wanted Council to suspend the rule on this ordinance tonight. Aid. Kent responded that it is up to the Committee and that he has discussed this with Mr. Wolinski who could elaborate further. fir. Wolinski informed that the moratorium on the 5'h Ward for four months expires on December 16a'. He confirmed his conversation with Aid. Kent and their discussion at that time where he noted that the Plan Commission had a hearing a week ago about issues on this matter but unfortunately a quorum was not met. Therefore nothing could be concluded at that meeting. He noted that this matter is still in the neighborhood sub -committee of the Plan Commission to discuss various issues in the 5'h Ward. He asked Mr. Cook for further detail. Mr. Cook confirmed to the Committee that the Plan Commission is going to need another 60-days to conclude discussion and draft a response to present to the P&D Committee. In response to a question, Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the moratorium has been in effect for 3 '/2 months to this date so far. Aid. Kent confirmed that he knows the people that are working on this are going to need another 60-days just to tie up all the loose ends. He believes they have finished the inventory of the housing stock. have met with the Preservation Commission one time and are going to have to meet «7th the Plan Commission again. He noted there may be a need for an additional meeting with the Preservation Commission. He feels pretty confident that the 60-day extension should give adequate time to be able t present their findings before the Committee. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor, Aid. Kent said that he will be requesting suspension of the rule on Council floor. P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of 11 •24•03 Pace 10 f 115I Ordinance 108-0.0 — Fxtendinc the Morazonum Pro%ided For By Ordinance 56- 0-03 Chairman Newman first made clear for the record that he would not be supporting suspending the rule on this case. Aid. Moran explained to the Committee that before them tonight is a request to extend the moratorium another 60 days. He said that pan of the emphasize for making this request is that the% are in the time of the year where Council, standing Committee's and sub -committees meetings are sporadic and inconsistent with the normal ?-week span due to the holidays. He noted that the current moratorium is going to expire early in December and there is only one Council meeting scheduled for this month. Nevertheless, the date comes after the expiration date of the moratorium. He stated that there has been a tremendous amount of extremely exciting positive work that is going on with the proposed amendments to be considered. He acknowledged the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission in this work. Aid. Moran noted that the Zoning Committee recommendations for changes in numerous sections of the Zoning Ordinance related to residential propem in Evanston has been a really inspiring effort in his perspective. He believes there have been about ten meetings held so far in connection with this matter and a tremendous amount of discussion culminating and getting before the Plan Commission. He said most recently without hesitation the Commission not only endorsed what the Zoning Committee proposed but also he believes in being fair to the Plan Commission that they ha%a actually embraced a very broad scan of what has been presented. He noted that the proposal as it is currently coming forward. is accompanied by the suggestion that there be an overlay district within the 6"' Ward. He stated that this particular proposal will be presented to the Comminee and will relate only to the 6th Ward. He pointed out an interesting aspect to the Plan Commission's discussion and their approach and views in relation to this particular proposal was that it was found to be near notorious in the 6"' Ward. however they do feel that it's applicability could be much broader than the 6 h Ward. Aid. Moran said that he agreed with this, however he is not asking this Committee to examine the issue of whether it should extend the moratorium for another 60-dais to contemplate that issue. He suspected that over the course of the next several months and perhaps years. all Council members will have constituents that will come to them and state their support that there are benefits to be gained from this proposal. In conclusion. Aid. Moran assured of his constituents support on the proposal being %%orked on with the Plan Commission and their overwhelming sentiment in favor of this. He also believes that if Council does not support extending this moratorium with suspension of the rule tonight. that there are people waiting on the sidelines that will move ven• quickly to take steps to thwart the remedial effects the proposed changed in the Zoning Ordinance if the moratorium were not kept in place. He said that this request is for a 60-day extension to the moratorium with the notion that this Committee should have full opportunity to discuss the proposals that are coming forth from the Plan Commission before the extension date. He also noted the tremendous amount of work and effort put forth to this point and that the extension is only to give time to adequately draw final conclusion for presentation and their recommendations before the P&D Committee. Chairman Newman stated that he is very troubled by this request which is why he stated previously that he could not support suspension of the rules in this case. He said that P&D Committce Otte. Minuses of I 1-24-03� Page I 1 what he feels is going on here is proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance without public hearings is not suffice and illegally acceptable. He recalls Aid. Moran's concerns at the time when the Preservation Commission ruled that an owner on Callan Avenue could not go up 6' and the Council supported this. of the Council's totarian actions. fie noted that what this proposal does basically sets thousands of houses to the same circumstance where they will not be able to build up 6' under the same minor circumstances. Chairman Newman is strongly in the opinion that this is a massive intrusion on the R1 property rights of people in the 6`s Ward. He asked Aid. Moran if part of the problem here is with regards to the new housing development in the 2700 block of Hurd Street. Aid. Moran responded that he does not believe there is any existing house that has an%1hing to do with this at this point because what is done is done. However, what this moratorium has to do with is to address and put a handle on any further development or over -development of existing property in the 6`h Ward. After further discussion. Chairman Newman reiterated that he will not support suspension of the rules in this case because the leeway time is of knowledge to the Ward alderman on set Council meeting dates and the expiration dates of his moratorium. He made note that 2 90-day periods have already been given to this issue and sufficient time has been given. He feels any request for extension of the moratorium should have been put on the Committee and Cauncil's agenda 2-weeks ago. Aid. Wynne stated that she has some concern with this being on the alderman of the Ward and his lack of bring this before the Committee in a timely fashion. However due to the evidence testified of the status of the Plan Commission on this issue. the people in the ward that have been behind this effort should not be penalized by the Ward alderman's untimely presentation of this request. She supports extension of the moratorium in view of all the work and effort put forth so far on this and to give the Plan Commission accurate time to conclude their final presentation. Mr. Wolinski verified that most of the discussion and the Zoning Committee on these issues has accomplished review but the various transcripts have not been received vet. He confirmed the Committee would need time to finalize their proposal. which he feels can be done within the 60 days. Aid. Wynne moved to introduce ordinance 108-0-03, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was four (4) voting in favor of the motion, one (1) voting nay (Aid. Newman). The motion to suspend the rules was voted four(4) in favor and one(l) nay (Aid. Newman). ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Ordinance 109-0-03 — Anartment Rental Licensing The consensus of the Committee was to schedule a special meeting to address this matter due to the overwhelming response and concern by property owners received by staff and present at this meeting. The Committee and staff concurred to set a s?ecial meeting of the Planning & Development Committee for Monday, December 8` , 2003 at 7:00 p.m. The Committee also concurred for staff to send notification to all EPOA people and anyone else on City lists for ownership of rental properties of this meeting. P&D Committee %ttc. .r %tinstes of 11-24-4 Paze I_' i PD, y Ordinance 7 -;-0-03 — Walkway Structural Renort Ordinance Mr. Wolinski brought to attention start-s memorandum presented to the Committee stating that all Property Standards inspectors ha%e pone through an extensive training seminar on this issue and %gill reeei%e additional training knowledge through their participation in the 1 ACE quarter!} meeting on December 10`h. He assures at this time sufficient training and knowledge will be given to his Property Standards inspectors to be capable of identifying any structural code %iolations to walkways, rear porches, decks, etc. as applicable t the Property Standards Code and the ability to determine if further structural review is needed beyond their inspection. If Property Standards inspectors determine such further structural review. the% are required to refer such cases to the structural inspector of the Building Di% ision for further inspection. He stated that if determination is concluded by his structural inspector that a walkway. rear porch, deck is unsafe and has code violations, further action will be taken to have the owner rectify the problem. Mr. Wolinski requested. as stated in staff's memorandum, that this recommendation be withdraws from the P&D Committee agenda at this time. The Committee supported staffs request and recommendation. IPD-I<t Bindine Annearance Re%iew Chairman Newman noted that the Committee has received a memorandum on this issue and that there is no proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the memo basically says suggest to not do single-family- or 2-family residential construction under appearance review. He further noted that the memo says to lower the threshold on PUD's. He asked .Jr. Cook for further elaboration from the Plan Commission position. Mr. Cook responded that anything presented in that memorandum is in response to the Committee's request to consider single-family construction in the RI districts. Chairman NewTnan brought to attention that it was stated that it would be an increase in City staff work if single-family were included, even if there are only 10-1 5 per year new construction. Mr. Cook stated that it would be more appropriate for hlr. Wolinski to respond to that issue, however the Plan Commission discussed this issue and they did come to a consensus that it would be a burden to Cite staff to have ail new and major additions to single-family included. fir. Wolinski concurred that he does not have adequate staff at this time to review single-family for binding appearance review. He said with regards to multi- family buildings that he has had to hire additional construction review for several projects during their construction period. He %vould not have adequate staff time to keep up with the continuous inspection schedules required by all the major construction going on. Aid. Bernstein questioned the need for additional staff and other persons needed to maintain Site Plan and Appearance Review cases. Mr. Cook stated that the Plan Commission has not worked out all of these deWis for essential members and their being available during the currently scheduled meeting time. He suggested it may be more appropriate to hold the meetings before regularly scheduled work hours similar to other committees that meet at this time. Discussion continued on this subject. In conclusion, Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the Plan Commission unanimously agreed that 1-2 family dwellings should be included for review under Binding Appearance Review. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of E l-?4-03 Page 13 Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Cook to go over the recommended threshold for planned development. She pointed out that it vas mentioned that it was lowered for new construction in access of 30,000 square feet of Iot area to be considered. Mr. Cook explained the Plan Commission's reasoning for reducing the threshold amount as mentioned in their memorandum. Chairman Newman suggested having staff present an ordinance back to the Committee. incorporating the amendments discussed and forwarded in the memorandum. fir. Cook informed the Committee that the Plan Commission can not schedule this on their agenda before the January, 2004 meetings. After discussion amongst the Committee, staff and Mr. Cook, there was a consensus for staff to present a recommended tentative meeting date to pursue further discussion and review of this item on P&D's agenda sometime in the near future during the early part of 2004. AD3OURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JacquelA IL Brownlee SPECIAL Planning & Development Committee Minutes of December 8, 2003 Council Chambers — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. S. Janusz. R. Molinary. J. Bro%vnlee Others Present: Aid. G. Feldman. Ald. L. Jean -Baptiste. Aid. A. Rainey Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Nev.-man called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION' Ordinance 109-0-03 — Anartment Rental Licensing Chairman Newman gate background and brief history on how this topic came about. He informed that the City Council and the Human Services Committee have in the past six weeks held several meetings and heard testimony concerning the way certain rental housing has been operated. This area of concert is bound mostly west of Sherman Avenue. north of Emerson, south of Lincoln and east of Ridge. He noted that the Committee considers the concerns they have heard very serious and at one point there was a suggestion that is a way of dealing with some of the problem there. This solution was to consider apartment rental licensing and this consideration is being taken seriously by the City. He noticed the amount of people signed up to speak on this item this evening and assured that he would try and call on every on the list and requested that comments be limited to approximately 3-5 minutes. He decided to start with some of the neighbors who have attended those special meetings and voiced their complaints and informed the Committee of many of the situations they are referring to. Mr. Dan Garrison. 1228 Simason. Mr. Garrison presented several photos to the Committee for evidence into the record. These photos illustrate some of the situations on property maintenance issues that he and his neighbors are referring to. He informed that he has been an Evanston resident for 37 years and an Evanston landlord for 30 years. In his opinion, property owners who convert houses into small apartment buildings for students, have shown that they are not a self-regulating community. They have caused blight to this neighborhood where they have bought several houses to rent for unregulated, densely concentrated, short-term occupancy primarily for students. These s.eciai A&D Committee kite. %Ii r. sirs of 12 8 (A ?nee particular landlords have driven out many resident property owners. He noted that many Of those apartment buildings he is refeming to have also contributed to the problem of rrn�dy. nighttime behavior likewise driving out long-term residents and depleting the constituency of citizens that need to lire in adult surroundings. Mr. Garrison noted that at present staffing levels. the City can not effectively regulate the situation which a significant number of absentee landlords who are chronic offenders degrade an entire neighborhood in pans of Evanston which should be prime residential property, He said by doing so, these property owners also degrade the tax base and increase demands on police services. He informed that he has maintained a log since 1996 of those chronic offenders in the 800-900 blocks of Simpson Street, which is on his route to and from work. He noted for example. that at one address he has reported 34 trash yioiations. 10 snow removal violations. and 4 lawn parking violations. Even worse, the neighboring progeny he reported 78 trash violations. 37 lawn parking violations, 7 snow removal violations, and 121 sidewalk parking violations. Mr. Garrison summarized that there are three types of problems that he and his neighbors face in this area. First problem is the "animal ho�ise" type em ironment with tenant misbehavior by failing to respect the neighborhood. Many of these student tenants are not mature enough to join the adult community and are still in need of supervision. Therefore the absentee landlord is the second problem by failing to maintain occupancy and proper supervision of their tenants and property. He noted that many fraternities hold their parties' off -campus to escape university regulations. This situation fits under both the first and second problems. Thirdly is unauthorized construction, which is a common violation. He distributed photos showing examples of this third problem. In conclusion, Mr. Garrison strongly supports and urges the Committee to consider this apartment rental -licensing ordinance as a City Code. Ms. Jane Evans. 813 Gaffield. Ms. Evans has lived in Evanston for 28 years. She stated that she wants her neighborhood back. She is tired of living next door to houses where the side and the backyards are being used as parking lots. She is tired of having her house vandalized. She is tired of students walking in hordes and urinating on her property. She acknowledges the fact that people choose where they want to live and that they- were fully aware of living in close vicinity to the university. However, she insists that the situation has worsened with the expansion and increase of homes being converted into rooming houses by absentee landlords who go around buying property in the area just for this reason. Ms. Evans noted that many of her neighbors are working together with the City and ;northwestern to come up with some solutions to this problem that are beneficial to everyone. She believes that this proposed licensing is beneficial to her as a property- owner, but also for the students that need safe housing and living conditions as well. She feels licensing will give the City a tool to hire more inspectors and allow for _ more inspections of these properties and follow-up to the conclusion of any problem existing or complained on the property. She said that her 2 children are both in college in communities where off -campus housing is licensed and information that is passed on to parents. She noted that someone has to pay for this service and the licensing fee would cover the cost for such a beneficial service to all of Evanston because absentee landlord Special P&D Commince I-ttr. Minutes of 12 8 04 Pace and tenant problems rust throughout the Cit} . She also noted to all present that are in opposition to this licensing. that if you are a ••ood landlord" this cit\ code should be of no worm and considered as a small price to pa}y to ensure that all surrounding properties are kept up to code and maintained properly. Because surrounding properties do effect the value of their neighboring properties. She said there are guaranteed parking problems involved with converting what \%as once used as a single family home into a rooming house with multiple students bringing multiple cars and lack of parking. She said that neighbors are tired of walking by some of these properties and seeing bunk beds through living room windows. She concluded that this situation must be controlled and in need of regulation. Ms. Patricia English. 1023 Garnett Place. Ms. English distributed photos to the Committee shoeing examples of bad conditions of some properties on her street. She said that she has rented to several Northwestern students and experienced no problems with them because she also lives in the building. The properties in the photos are buildings owned by absentee Iandlords. She is very concerned about the parking situation because if there are I I students living in one house, there is the possibility of all those students owning cars in an area where there is already a shortage of available parking. She is concerned about property values for homeowners who have to live next to one of these problem buildings and how it effects their living conditions every day. She pointed out where some of these landlords have made illegal curb cuts in order to provide parking for their tenants. She said that the student parties are out of hand with no supervision of these properties by the property owner. She too feels the City is inadequately staffed to provide the needed assistance and inspection of these properties in order to control improper situations. GIs. English stated that she is in full support of this proposed ordinance to have apartment rental licensing. She seconded Ms. Evans comments regarding if you are a "good landlord" this ordinance should be of no threat to your rental property and should be considered a service owed to all property owners in order to maintain property values and control over inappropriate activities within residential neighborhoods. She insists that those in support of this licensing are not anti - anyone but are concerned with safe living conditions and environment for everyone, including students who need this assurance as well. Mr. Brian Becharas said that he is a life-long resident of this community and currently lines in southeast Evanston. He stated is concern about the financial standpoint of having this licensing. He noted that many owners of rental properties are already experiencing difficulties with renting units due to the current financing rates available and the influx of condominium construction and conversions. He feels that there is already adequate codes and regulations in place that need to be enforced without adding another fee and additional cost to property owners, especially for the large number of landlords who do take pride in their properties and go to extra measure to abide by these codes. He urged the City to look at other alternatives such as more extreme procedures to fine those property owners who are committing these violations. He also suggested that stricter parking regulations and fines be executed. He concluded that there are other alternatives that can be considered without the need to pass this responsibility on to all other property Special Pct D Committee Ntts!. Minutes of 12 8 04 Pace owners and responsible landlords who should not be persecuted because of s small group of landlords. whom the City is aware of, that are in %iolation. Ms. Marilvn Gardner said that she has been an Evanston resident for 30 \ears and a landlord for 25 hears. She expressed her opposition to apartment rental licensing. She noted her understanding of the existing problems with off -campus housing surrounding Northwestern. In her opinion, there is no need for this licensing because the problem is that the current codes are not being enforced. She said it is not fair of the City to tax everyone to assist in code enforcement, especially if the initiation of this ordinance is seemingly due to a major concern in a specific area. :his. Gardner said that it seems apparent that this ordinance was constructed by people who are not rental property o% ners and unaware of the real issues and difficulties involved in dealing % ith tenants and problem situations. She pointed out several sections in the ordinance supporting her accusation and where it appears that several sections replicate codes that are already in existence and contradict the Landlord,'fenant Ordinance. She noted that eviction procedures are not an expedient process and the landlord has to carry the financial burden with loss of rental supplement during the months it takes until conclusion of this process. Mr. Wolinski explained that the draft ordinance dated December 5, 2003 is the amended version from the draft that was given out previously. Ile noted that many of those amendments are with regards to Landlord?enant Ordinance issues. Ms. Gardner responded that this explanation concerns her because it seems apparent that staff still has much research to do, which should include looking at other alternatives. She reiterated the alternative is to strongly enforce the codes that are currently in existence. Ms. Barbara Dolan, 1825 Monroe Street. Mls. Dolan noted that the rent market is very hard on landlords right now. With the low interest rates people are taking advantage of this and are buying property instead. She said that they do not need another fee to pay at this time ,when many landlords are struggling with empty units and having to bear the cost of this. She feels that one of the problems is single-family houses being converted into rooming houses. She said the City needs to look at the rooming house allowances. In all. she opposes licensing and feels the timing is all Urong to even propose such a fee at this time. Mr. Fred Gieave. 2639 Gross Point Road. Mr. Gleave said that he owns a'_ -flat at 1616 Crain Street and has lived in Evanston for over 30 years. He feels the Property Standards inspectors have done a good job in enforcing the code in the neighborhood of his 2-fiat and he has seen much improvement over the years. He also feels that the City needs to use the existing codes and work on stronger enforcement. He is concerned with "doubling -up" on the codes because much of what is being proposed in this ordinance, already exists in the property standard codes and the landlord tenant ordinance. Ms. Monica Blair, 1631 Monroe Street. Mr. Blair expressed her opposition to apartment rental licensing. She said that she owns a beautiful rental building and can only seem to Special P&D Comminee Ntte. Minutes of 12 8 04 Pace 5 get renters on Section 8 in her building. Good tenants are hard to come by these days due to the low interest rates and ream people buying instead of renting. as mentioned previously by several citizens. She and her husband are retired and she does not want to see any more fees and burden put on the property owner and that the Cite should enforce the codes that are already in existence. Mr..Liark Davis. owner of 718-20 Foster Street. Mr. Davis stated that he is an absentee landlord but should not be treated or looked upon as a second-class citizen of this community. He still pays the same taxes as any other property owner in Evanston. In his opinion. landlords should not have to become police officers or do the job of building inspectors. He said that the cost of taxes here should cover those services entitled to all property owners. He questions exactly what this licensing is supposed to cover or accomplish. In his mind, he considers City inspections as a branch of police powers and if an owner were cited for violations. every means of enforcement should be utilized. He questions if this is a license for harassment? He feels everyone is not being treated equal on this front. Mr. Davis said that it is apparent that this ordinance has come about from problems with several rooming houses for students of Northwestern University. He said such problems with known buildings should be addressed on an individual basis. It is not fair for everyone to be burdened by charging a fee for licensing of rental units to the majority of property owners who are not in violation of the stated problems occurring at buildings that the City is aware of Mr. Sheldon Kantoff. property manager. He said that his management firm rents to many students. Their apartments are large and roomy and their general policy is 1 student per bedroom. His company manages buildings in the 1600-1700 blocks of Ridge and a large building at Noyes and Ridge. In total, they manage approximately 300 units in Evanston. He said in all the time that he has managed these properties and rented to students, he never experienced the severity of the problems indicated by the neighbors previously. However. his firm does keep close supervision of their properties and monitor what goes in their buildings. With students. it is their policy to include and have the parents involved with the leasing to the student. He finds this ven• helpful in most situations when a student is involved in a complaint or disagreement. Mr. Albert Bowen. 1623 Thelin Court. Mr. Bowen said that he has lived in Evanston and managed rental buildings for over 37 years. He said it appears the whole ordinance seems to be geared toward Northwestern related problems and a specified radius near the university. Therefore, why should everyone else throughout Evanston be penalized because of a small percentage of buildings aware of by the City? He feels if the culprits are clearly known in this matter, the City should go after those causing the problem and enforce the codes and regulations that already exist. He said that he has never experienced such problems in any of his buildings because he was always visible around his properties and available for his tenants and immediately addressed any situations that occurred. He said this is imperative when you own rental property. He pointed out that it is important to realize that this fee can be a financial burden on a multi -family building owner. He said it seems the City always looks at what a landlord brings in and never considers what that landlord has to pay out such as mortgage payments on the building, Special P&D Commiree Mtc. Minutes of 12 S 0-1 Pace 6 utilities and other expenses involved in management a rental unit building. lie reiterated that the City needs to address the specific problem and go after the properties directly who are violating Cite codes. Ms. Sonhie Lisouski. 1216 Florence A+enue. Ms. Liso++ski agreed with the comments made that it appears to be a target a -ea towards North++estern student off -campus housing. She feels this needs to be specifically addressed and should not be a citywide responsibility to clean up this targeted area. She suggested that students should be more strenuously fined who continuousl} violate City codes. NIs. Lisowski also expressed her concerns with the parking problems mentioned with single family dwelling units converted into multiple housing for students. She said such problems are going to naturally occur when you go from single-family to rooming house. However these are also police matters and parking violations that need to be enforced. which she feels the university should be held accountable for assistance along with the Police Department to ensure that their students abide by the same parking regulations that all citizens in Evanston are expected to abide by. Ms. Paula lacucci, 2134 Nlaple Avenue. Ms. lacucci said that she owns a two flat and rents her upstairs unit to students. She is grateful that she has had very good tenants and has incurred no serious problems such as the ones mentioned by her neighboring homeowners. She does support the same belief that property owners with rental units should take responsibility of what goes on at their properties and they should keep up with the maintenance and supervision. especially when young adults/students are involved. She reminded that in the maiority of cases, these students are on their own away from home for the first times in their lives and are not ready or sensitive to the responsibilities and consideration of others living directly around them. She mentioned the problems she has experienced .kith her neighboring building that is occupied by young adults, however she addressed her complaints with the individuals directly and the building owner. She reiterated that it is the responsibility of all property owners to take responsibility for their property and what goes on at the premises. However, she agrees with the comments made previously that students should be fined directly and those fines enforced to what ever measures it takes so that police powers are taken seriously. She suggested going as far as having the university accept some of this responsibility by upholding fines placed on students who continuously violate City codes and send out warnings that diplomas will not be given out if outstanding warrants are in their files. %Is. lacucci also agreed with previous comments that the City needs to go after and stay on the properties that these continuous complaints and violations exist and not penalize all the other rental property owners who work in conjunction with the City to keep their properties up to code and are not experiencing tenant problem issues such as the ones evident in the targeted area noted. She reminded that most of the problems noted are with student related problems and with off -campus housing, many of these problems are common in all university communities. However, she feels you can not legislate attitude, but the City can legislate any codes within their jurisdiction and have the power to enforce those codes to what ever measures it takes especially in warranted target areas. Special P&D Commirte Nttg Minutes of 12 8 Ga Pace 7 Mr. Joshua Browm. 800 Custer Avenue. fir. Brown expressed his opposition to a licensing fee for all rental propene owners in Evanston. He said that although he owns rental property in south Evanston. he has not experienced the problem issues addressed by the neighbors in north Evanston around the Northwestern area but definitely believes those problems exist. He noted his sympathy and support for those neighboring property owners who live in that area and their justification of the need to address these problems directly. However, he feels the answer is not to license and charge a fee to all rental property owners so that the City can fund additional inspectors and police powers to go after a targeted area of identified properties who are responsible for the escalation of concern to address specific problems and violations. He stressed that it is the responsibility of the City to identify who is responsible for tenants misbehavior and who is responsible to enforce the management and supervision of these properties known by the City inspectors, police department. continuously complained on by the known neighboring residents, and Northwestern [.university resources that have been included in these joint meetings that have been held. Mr. Brown stressed that it is not just a problem with student tenants and their disorderly behavior. it is the responsibility of the landlord to manage and enforce the rules of their leases and to work with the City to enforce these rules and City codes violated. He also supports the logic that some responsibility needs to be expected of the university to take part in enforcing that their students abide by all City regulations. Mr. Brown seconded the comments made earlier by a citizen with regards that it seems apparent that this draft ordinance was created by persons who are not landlords and have no real experience as to what landlords have to actually endure in dealing with problem tenants and having to deal with extreme measures of eviction procedures. He strongly feels that the Committee dealing with landlord/tenant issues. be it Human Relations or the Housing Commission. needs to include the requirement of more rental property owner Commissioners. He said this large class of property owners in Evanston is not equally sustained on the City Boards that deal with landlord/tenant issues. Mr. Carlis Sutton. 1821 Darrow Avenue. Mr. Sutton's first comment was civility and how he feels double standards are obvious with regards to how the City staff and Council deal with the same issues in different areas. His property is in the 5`h Ward CDBG targeted area, however the area that is of major concern surrounding the Northwestern University neighborhood is being brought to attention because of the problems that they are experiencing with certain student misbehavior conduct and continuous violations on those properties. Mr. Sutton informed the Committee of numerous complaints made of similar nature on tenants in his neighborhood, but the outcome of how these complaints were addressed by the City were not taken as seriously as the ones being addressed here tonight by Northwestern students in the neighborhood adjacent to the east of his 5'h Ward neighborhood. He reiterated this as tvidence in support of his accusation of double standards in the City of Evanston. He noted that his neighborhood is considered in the CDBG targeted -area for Evanston and is required by the City of Evanston to inspect the rental properties in these areas every 2 years. However. it seems that many properties in their area are inspected more frequently than every 2 years for minor violations and constantly reinspected and the owner scrutinized to come into compliance within a Special P&D Commince Mig Minutes of I' 8 14 Page S specified amount of time or be reprimanded to Administrati%e Adjudication and fines placed against their properties. fie stressed that some of these tines are of much lesser concern and seriousness than man% of those mentioned in the targeted Northwestern otT- campus housing area specified at the beginning of this meeting and notably the targeted area that initiated this licensing fee ordinance. Mr. Sutton agreed with all comments made previously with regards to landlords being held accountable for their property because that is a responsibility you take on as a landlord and rental property owner. However, in his opinion. it seems that tenants have more rights in Evanston with the existing landlord/tenant ordinance and with the citations presumptuous of the Property Maintenance Code, resulting in the landlord continuously being put in a liable position. He urged the Committee to look at this situation and bear in mind before taking into consideration adding any more additional fees and cost onto the rental property owner. He agrees that it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain and manage their rental properties, however he does support fining any tenant that continuously violates City codes and for the landlord to take the position firmly in enforcing rules and regulations stated in their leases. Ms. Barbara Sizemore. A gentleman spoke on behalf of Ms. Sizemore who was unable to be present. He wanted to convey her opposition to this apartment rental licensing fee. He also fully agreed %►ith all of Mr. Sutton's comments made beforehand. Mr. Dan Schermerhorn, Property Management owner. Mr. Schermerhorn echoed many of the comments in opposition that have been made previously. He strongly agrees that the targeted area for the initiation of this licensing fee ordinance is geared towards Northwestern University off -campus housing problem properties. In his opinion. it seems that this licensing would give the Community Development Department staff the ability to revoke someone's license without going through the Administrative Adjudication process that is in place for all other property maintenance code violation issues. He feels that such a position by City staff to mo%a forward with such authorization is not practical without going through proper administrative procedures. Such proceedings by the City would indubitably make way for numerous lawsuits against the City. Mr. Scherrnerhom noted that the violations indicated by the neighbors in support of this licensing with regards to the "animal house" like problems conducted by students, should be addressed and have the ability to be enforced by police powers under the City of Evanston's jurisdiction. There is no need for this additional ordinance and fee to be included along with the ordinances and codes that exist because all of the sections within this proposed ordinance are subsequently incorporated or repetitive in what already subsists. He too agrees with comments made earlier that the problem buildings have already been pinpointed and the City should go after those specified property owners in enforcing the existing codes. - Rev. Ndunau 3.13. 1Kenve. Rev. Ikenye expressed his opposition to this apartment rental licensing fee. He went into detailed comment regarding affordable housing issues and how the majority of smaller multi -family property owners are currently bearing the cost of the effect the current interest rate market is burdening on their supposedly income- SPCO31 PRD Commt:._e NI*Z Minutes of 12 6 (A Page 9 based units ++ere profiting them at one time. He urged the Committee and City Council to take into consideration the burden that the maturity of these minor rental property o%vners of 2-slats -nd '-flats are experiencing alone ++ith owners of major rental properties that are al -so experiencing vacancies and haying to senle for lesser rent fees due to the difficulty in renting units these days. He stressed that the solution to the problem expressed +with the initiation of this ordinance this evening. is not the responsibility of all the rental propert% owners throughout Evanston. but confined to a definite few in a definite targeted area as specified. He additionally urged the City to address this issue appropriately by going after the property owners that are in violation of those complaints expressed previously. Mr. Ashraf Manii, I I-0 Sherman Avenue. Mr. Manji expressed his opposition to this apartment rental licensing fee and insisted that this is not a simple problem to the solution. He noted that the problems expressed by the neighbors living in the Northwestern University residential are valid and should be addressed on the basis and severity of the complaints and the issues that repeatedly occur in this area. He also agrees with previous comments that the City should address those specific properties identified and go after the property owners of those addresses and continuously stay on those owners and proceed with whatever measures possible to enforce City codes and demand compliance in conclusion, lie reiterated that the final termination of these problems will not be solved any more expeditiously with this ordinance than with undeniably enforcing the City codes that already exist. Nevertheless. Mr. Manji stressed the need to be sure the infrastructure of any existing ordinances should be solid and it appears the City is irresolute of the codes that already exist and the ones that they are expected to enforce without doubt. He pointed out several examples of property maintenance inspections of his rental properties that were constantly inconsistent and questionable in conclusion when resulting to the position of coming before court complaints or Administrative Adjudication. He suggested in observance of these constant inconsistencies with the existing codes. that more teeth needs to be added to the enforcement of existing codes and the City's ability of police powers to more expeditiously enforce them. He reiterated his point that there is no need to add an additional licensing fee and another ordinance with codes that coincide with what is already- in existence. Mr. Manji pointed out that the same over -occupancy issues that are cited in this proposed ordinance are already in existence and remain an uncontrollable problem beyond any landlords' domain ++hen initiall- screening their tenant's applications. He stressed that this is an ongoing problem that landlord's face continuously but are constantly penalized by the existing landlord tenant ordinance and City codes whenever there is a situation involving a bad tenant circumstance. He recalled a previous comment made by a citizen regarding the landlord taking on the responsibility of taking on police power matters into their hands when it should be expected by the property owner to anticipate the City's assistance with matters that have gone beyond the landlords control. Mr. Manji clarified that his is not condemning the fact that it is still the property o%%mers responsibility to maintain and super%ise what goes on at their rental properties, however all responsibility can not be continuously singled out on the landlords behalf. He pointed out that the Special P&D Comminee %1tr. Minutes of l _ S 0; Pace 10 Landlord Tenant Ordinance is er} bias and in fa% or of the tenants rights and he lays blame on the effects of this in support of his accusations of inequality on K-half of the landlords in this ordinance. Mr. `tanii feels that the Human Relations Commission is very pro -tenant and it is obvious in the requisition of Commissioners requested for this board. He pointed out that it seems equally apparent with the Housing Commission wxho require at least 3 tenants on their board with no requisition for rental property owners of the same number. He reiterated that both of these Commissions that should represent equally tenants and rental property owners. It is evidently not equal and apparently very anti -property owmer representative. He urged the Committee to Iook into this matter and seriously consider how it is effecting the rental and affordable housing issue for the City of Evanston. He concluded that if this type of ordinance control continues in Evanston. it «ill assuredly have a negative effective on what affordable rental housing will remain available in Evanston. Just as importantly. major Commissions that should be taking all these issues into consideration are not properly addressing the fairness and equality issues. Mr. John Roche, 1014 Garnett Place. Mr. Roche expressed his opposition to this ordinance and seconded the previous comments made in opposition also. He does not support any additional fees or taxes incurred by the City of Evanston. especially when it involved Northwestern University. He feels the university needs to step up and take a more responsible role for their students in lieu of the taxes that they do not pay the City versus the property owners who do. Ms. Elizabeth Diderson. Ms. Diderson said that she has very mixed emotions about City staff drafting ordinances with such control over all rental property owners. She feels that one of the City`s appropriate boards or commissions should be involved in drafting ordinances that concern any housing issues. She also agrees with previous comments in that the City should go directly after the owners of these problem buildings and handle these cases on an individual basis. This should not be the responsibility of all the other rental property owners to subsidize the City for enforcement of a few problem buildings. She feels the City should work with the current ordinances and City codes because the are appropriate but just need to be enforced. This ordinance is a repeat of what already exists. Mr. Robert Tavlor, owns buildings in 1000 block of Garnett Place. Mr. Taylor said that he is along standing citizen of this community. He graduated from Northwestern Universit:-. He is currently co -president of the EPOA. He feels the timing for this ordinance is totally Nvrong. The opposition for this licensing totally outweighs the handful few that are for this. He noted that the system for this is already in place. it just needs to be applied. He noted as someone previously pointed out, that landlords in Evanston are struggling to rent apartments as it is: there is no need for this additional licensing fee and ordinance at this time. He pointed out that there are sections cited in this ordinance where the City judges who you rent to and what they feel is appropriate. he feels this is problem. He said this ordinance raises many liability issues which assuredly will be tested against the City. Mr. Taylor stated that he sympathizes with the complaints Special P&D Commince Ott_. Minutes of 13 8 0-t Pate I I and concerns of the neighbors in favor of this licensing and does feel it is %yell intended. however it is misguided. He strongly urges that Council drop this matter at this point and go no further in considering it. He reiterated that the majority opposed clearly outweighs those in favor. %is.Betty Ester. 1806 Grey Avenue. Ms. Ester said that after reviewing this draft ordinance, she could clearly point out several sections that continuously repeat and replicate current ordinances. She went through the ordinance and pointed out several sections that she was referring to and even where it refers to inspections that are in target areas of Evanston. She said the City does not need a 2-tier ordinance. Many of these citations are already laid out in the current Landlord/Tenant Ordinance or other city codes that deal with issues of over -occupancy. nuisances, etc. Ms. Cheryl Brideeman-Malonev, lives on Brummel Street. Ms. Maloney stated that she is with the minority and supports this apartment rental licensing. She noted that the document is not perfect but it is a draft and can be worked with modifications. She understands the problems that exist with students living in off -campus housing in the Northwestern neighborhood. However she lives in south Evanston where there are many other severe Iife-threatening problems that her neighbors lire with day -today such as gangbangers. gun shots. drug dealing on the street, etc. She said that many of these individuals involved in such activities also live in the neighborhood. If this licensing fee w•iIl cover the cost of allowing the City to hire more inspectors for more frequent inspections and enforcement of the codes, then all property owners for the safety and living enjo«nent for all Evanston residents should support it. Ms. Charlene Bos, 1034 Florence Avenue. Ms. Bos expressed her opposition and seconds the comments made regarding the decline in the rent market due to the low interest rates today. She has even dropped the price of her rental unit $135.00 from last year just to rent the unit that was empty for months. Many landlords are giving away free months of rent to entice renters because it is so hard to find good tenants these days. She agrees that the timing is all %Tong to propose another fee or tax on property owners. She also agrees with previous comments that there are Iaws already in place that just need to be enforced. Mr. Camil Halim. property owner. Mr. Halim said that he owns buildings in south Evanston and near the Northwestern campus too. He noted his good relations that he has maintained over the years with City of Evanston inspection staff and haw they have helped him with many problems in the past at some of his buildings. In his opinion. Northwestern need to step in and take some responsibility for their students and to assist the City in forcing property owners of off -campus housing to keep their buildings up to code for the safety of their students and to properly manage their buildings to avoid nuisance situations. Mr. Gary Joyce. Mr. Joyce said that he owns several properties in Evanston in areas that are also susceptible to gangbangers. gunshots and drug dealing activity. He feels this is very unfortunate, however these are all police matters where arrests should be involved, Special P&D Coe t nittee Mtz. Minutes of 12 8 Paee 12 not the landlord's responsibility to police their tenants. He said that the maiority of landlords t* and screen their tenants as carefull% as possible. however no one has an? ,xay of kno%%inv- %%ho might move in after you have rented to someone or if they will be involved in anti nuisance lifestyles. He said there should be a certain amount of respect for personal pri%acy. He doffs not find it acceptable for landlords or City inspectors to go into someone's home and count toothbrushes as proof of how many are occupying a dwelling unit. He does not find it acceptable to ask someone what relationship they have with the other tenants or for a tenant to prove that the other tenants are family. These are clearly invasion of privacy, which he feels this ordinance is asking landlords to do. Nir. Joyce said that from his observation. it appears that various City departments do not communicate well with each other. He said that if the departments did work together then enforcement of all City codes would probably be much more manageable and compliance achieved in a more timely fashion as well. Ms. Mary DeYoune. o%%ner of 2-flat in Main/Sherman area. Ms. DeYoung said that it would have been appropriate to have students from Northwestern in attendance at this meeting to receive their input, hear out those complaints and concerns, and participate in this discussion. She is also opposed to this ordinance and feels it will not solve anything more than what she existing codes will. Enforce what is already in place and not penalize everyone because the City is having a problem enforcing a few property owners to come into compliance or manage their buildings better. Ms. Bettv Bums Paden. Ms. Paden said that five generations of her family have lived in Evanston. which goes back almost 165 years. She feels this ordinance is just another attempt of the City raising money- and questions if the funds will really be used for. She feels the inspection process is not across the board and is in effect to monitor targeted areas such as having inspections in the CDBG target areas every two years and every four years in all other area. However, when there is a complaint or problem in the other areas, these matters are handled immediately or become of great concern to the City. Whereas complaints go unanswered or allowed to linger on over an extended period of time. On the other hand. property owners in the targeted area are harassed by City inspectors for minor details and taken to court for items such as chipping paint, etc. She reiterated that the inspection process is not equal for all neighborhoods. In her opinion, the City has already made up their mind in the planning of this ordinance and will find a way to incorporate it regardless of the obvious majority opposition because the problem is in the Northwestern campus area. Mr. Colin James. Mr. James said that he has lived in Evanston for over 30 years. He also is opposed to any apartment rental licensing and questions the Cit_y's real purpose of this ordinance. Special P&D Comminee %Itg. Minutes of 12 8 04 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Newman ended citizen comments with the last person on the list speaking. He said that this matter will be on the December 1 S`h agenda. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Jacqueli E. Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of December 15. 2003 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: J. Kent. A. Newman, E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein Staff Present: J. WoIinski. A. Alterson, S. Janusz. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. E. Moran Presiding Official: Alderman Ne%,6-man DECLARATION OF OUORI; .%l Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m APPROVALS OF THEMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24. 2003 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November 24th minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee of a correction on page 12, last paragraph, where it reads: 1-2 family dwellings should be included for re%-ie«- under Binding Appearance Review. He corrected that it should read "should not be" is what was intended to be. This correction was accepted by the Committee and included in the motion. The vote was 4-0 in favor of approval of the minutes as corrected. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P3) Ordinance 112-0-03 — Zonina Ordinance Text Amendment (P4) Ordinance 113-0-03 — Zonina Ordinance Man Amendment Chairman Newman acknowledged the number of citizens in attendance for the items regarding the 61h ward zoning amendments and made the decision to address these matters first. He informed that the Committee would be able to spend no more than one hour on this item in consideration of the other items listed on their agenda. He noted that the moratorium that has been in effect for approximately 180 days and the extension that was introduced at the last Council meeting. He further noted that this matter has already been before this Committee, however if any citizens want to make comment about the moratorium this evening the Committee welcomes any testimony. He requested that anyone making testimony regarding the moratorium inform the Committee for the record to identify whether they had notice of the last meeting or not. In addition to the moratorium, he acknowledged the proposed zoning changes and proposed overlay district P&D Comunittee fit= Minutes of Page 2 for the 6'` Ward. Chairman Newman further ackno« iedged the attendance of Plan Commission Chair. Larry Widmayer. %% ho is a� ailable to call on for questions and comments by the Committee and citizens as well, He called on those signed up in the order signed. Mr. Martv lorkett. 2430 Ridge%vay, informed of his past history and experience as a Plan Commissioner and commended fir. Widmayer and all the other members of the Plan Commission on their continuous hard work. In his opinion. the key thing that is missing with this, is that there is no economic impact study: no statistics or feedback on how these proposed zoning changes will economically effect the City or the residents. He confidently feels this study should be done and request that Council and City staff take this into consideration before any final decision on the proposed zoning amendments. Chairman Newman asked if he only referring to the CC' Ward or for the entire City. Mr. Norkett is in favor of a citywide study, however with this being a 6'h ward matter initially; the study should be done in this ward first. Regardless, he reiterated that such a study should be done immediately thereafter of the entire City especially if the proposed amendment to definition of building height is considered citywide. Mr. Craie Walker. 2418 Payzte, said that he lives directly on the borderline of the fi`h Ward. He noted in answer to Chairman tie%vrnan's interest in notification of the previous meeting that he only learned of the overlay proposals right before the last Plan Commission meeting. Once notified, he did attend the meeting but is disappointed that he was not aware of the previous meetings because he would have attended those also. He said that based on what he heard at the PIan Commission meeting he attended, he suspects that he may be somewhat of a lone voice here because he does have some objections to the proposed amendments. fir. Walker stated that he grew up in Evanston and in his opinion. the architectural variety of the city is one of the things that make it so unique. He feels that you can not legislate "good taste". «•hich in his opinion this has a lot of drive for this proposal. He feels that no ordinance should stiffer building and construction enhancement because it is evolution. However, he does agree with conducting an economic impact study to support appropriate tear down replacement construction in view of how it effects the other properties around it. He said the value of the tear down structure should be taken into consideration and how that property was effecting the value of the neighborhood in its existing state. Ms. Carol Rot;ulski. builder and realtor of Signature Properties of Illinois. its. Rogulski seconded Mr. Walkers comments and from first hand experience she can tell about the negative economic impact of the proposed zoning amendments as they relate to the demolition of blight structure with replacement of new appropriate housing development. She told her story and experience of purchasing a property in the 6'h Ward back in April 2003 at 2719 Pane. She noted that the block is filled with beautiful english country/georgian style homes. As she mentioned previously, the existing structure on this lot was substandard to the location, set back extremely far on the property, and totally in non-compliance of any type of current standards. Ms. Rogulski informed the actual value was in the vicinity of low 5200,000 but she paid 5450,000 for the property because of the value of the land and location for rebuilding. When she purchased the P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of 1 Z-14-03 Pace 3 property she had no ideal the moratorium was coming and the restrictions involved. By the time she found out. she had alr ead� closed on the property and invested S25,000 in earnest money. his. Rogulski noted that it is costing her S1.7700 per month over the last 6 months since the moratorium, in addition to the property taxes with no option to sell the property in the interim. She concluded that she has experienced extreme financial hardship due to the moratorium time constraint and because of the proposed zoning amendments. she is further burdened on the redeveloping the property or even sale of the property in its current state. Ms. Rogulski expressed her opposition to having an overlay district in the 6'h Ward specifically because it mandates what can be developed in a specified area of the City where property is very valuable and economically rich. This specific area should not be excluded from being able to build the type of house desired. She stated her disinterest in doing anymore business in Evanston because of her negative experience and the politics involved. She reiterated that the house she proposed to demolish was in non-compliance and not worth rehabbing up to standards of any current codes. Tear down and redevelopment construction was the only option. Chairman Newman asked Ms. Rogulski to elaborate on the cost of rehab of the property. She responded that any possibilities of rehab to the property was not logical economically to bring into compliance up to any current standards. She presented photos to the Committee as proof of the current condition of the existing structure. his. Rogulski informed the Committee that she received no notice of the meeting on November 24th regarding the extension of the moratorium. Aid. Kent questioned the final purchase price of this property being S450,000 and asked what the expected sale price of her property after new construction if she were able to build the house as planned. Ms. Rogulski responded that the expected sale price was in the proximity of S1. 50,000. Mr. Larry ,laeill. 2744 Lincolnwood. said that he has lived in Evanston for 7 years. He signed a contract to purchase a house in the area in April and has been held up for building since the moratorium. He has been carrying the cost for over 180 days now and has become a heavy financial burden on him. He informed the Committee that he never received any pre -warning notice of the moratorium coming. He expressed his strong opposition for the moratorium and opposition for the proposed amendments and overlay district. He said everyone should be entitled to equal protection and subject to the same zoning requirements throughout any community. He said that it would seem to be a constitutional challenge that could be appropriate with regards to this overlay district. He informed the Committee that he has purchased the lot for S450,000 and would like to build something appropriately as he planned originally. He responded from question, that the existing house could not be rehabbed in its current state. Chairman Newman pointed out that he would have to agree with Mr. Norkett's view on the unawareness of the impact this moratorium would have on the area and how these proposed zoning changes will economically effect many property owners. Aid. Kent said he struggles with the reality and thought of how much people are saying they are paying for these properties to tear down only to rebuild something in value multiple times that amount. He is particularly amazed at the idea of what some consider a "shack" in this P&D Committee \itg. Minutes of 12-15-03 Page 4 area that is still estimated at a value of S200.000. He said that this is proof of how zoning effects all areas of Evanston in different ways. but si•nilar in the fact tha over- development of any property can negati%ely effect the surrounding neighboring properties. Chairman Newman called attention to the photos included in the packet of the most recent new construction single-family houses built. He noted that fir. McGill's house is right next to two of these new development houses. He requested to staff that he would like to see a contrast study of how the proposed zoning changes will effect what Mr. McGill wants to build in comparison to what he would be able to build if the proposed zoning changes were in effect. This contrast comparison would be helpful for the Committee's review. Mr. NVolinski noted that the photographed houses provided were from 1997-2003 and consist of houses. a fey are outside of the 6`' Ward. Mr. Richard Stillerman said that he is a Ionz time resident of Evanston and has been involved in building houses in Evanston over the past 25 years. He expressed his opposition to the overlay district proposal and disagrees with having any overlay districts because he feels this to be an unreasonable alternative in resolving any zoning issues. He also feels it is bad government and zoning policy whenever moratoriums are put in effect. He agrees with the philosophy that zoning requirements and any amendments should effect all districts citywide, keeping a community uniform under the same zoning laws. Mr. Stillennan supports the amendment of measuring height from grade and being a requirement citywide because he feels it is a reasonable solution in controlling the height issue and impact of mass over adjacent structures. He said this is also helps keep compatibility within the neighborhood. He said that the 45% building lot coverage is reasonable although 500 is allowed in Winnetka. He said consideration of the lot size is important too, therefore the 45% allowance should be adequate and fair. He questioned the proposed zoning amendments for garages because in some cases circumstantial provisions must be looked at, however the intent here is aesthetically understandable. In conclusion, Mr. Stillerman feels that there are many issues that need to be reconsidered in this ordinance due to the negative effects overall they can do. He reiterated that moratoriums of this nature and suggestions of proposing overlay districts is bad public policy. Ms. Carolyn Smith, Realtor. GIs. Smith said that she agrees with the comments made previously suggesting that an economic impact study should be done on how these zoning amendments could effect residents and the City as a whole. She feels that adequate consideration has not been given to all the pitfalls and consequences this ordinance will actually do to potential new buyers interested in this area who are very adamant in their choice of location to live in Evanston. Also, there is concern on how this will ultimately effect the property worth and potential value in selling for the existing property owner in this Ward. Her professional opinion is that any such negative effects can erode the tax base and diminish property values for many long-term property owners of the smaller homes and lots of which many are in a non -conforming status and not worth rehabbing. She pointed out that many of these home owners she is referring to are now senior citizens who have owned their properties for long period of time and could benefit from tear down sales. On the other hand, many of these smaller homes are owned by young families who bought their house as a starter home with the intent to build a LE P&D Committee Mte. Minutes oft_'-1=-G?� Page 5 major addition or tota:ly rebuild a new house became the% desire to stay in this prime location to raise their families. his. Smith said that it is yen- important to make any potential buyers aware of this ordinance and restrictions before purchase and she assured that the proposed amendments would sway many from w anting to pursue ownership upon knowledge of the limitations that would be effected by this ordinance. She described houses that could be built with this proposed ordinance if it were in effect, pointing out the restrictions for major additions and new construction. Mr. Jeff Clark, 2815 Hartzell stated that the teardown situation has become an epidemic in the NorthShore communities and the 6``' Ward in particular in Evanston. He pointed out several properties within the 6t` Ward as a reference and gave a sense of scale and proportion that the "monster" replacement houses have impacted over their adjacent neighboring houses. He has no opposition in making some of these zoning amendments proposed city-wide however this moratorium for the 6`' Ward is just that, to deal with the impact of the tear down rebuilding problem that has already taken effect in this area. He said this is why the Ward Alderman and many residents have work hard with the Plan Comission to stop this intrusion of over -building in the 6`` Ward at this time and want the overlay district here to take effect immediately. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Clark's opinion if he feels the surrounding houses adjacent to the larger new single-family construction are suffering property value loss due to the impact in mass. Mr. Clark responded that to his knowledge no one has actually loss any property value, however compatibility issues are just as important and many properties tax base will be affected by new construction. Ms. Suzanne Cooney. Realtor said that she appreciates the diversity that Evanston offers, especially in the 6" ward that so many people young and old are interested in and express a desire to live. She supports the rights of any property owner to be able to build and develop their property in keeping with land values in the area and prosperity. She also feels zoning requirements and laws should support this new development for the public good. She strongly is of this opinion for the Oh Ward and that this area particularly should have the right to build as an)- other ward or area in Evanston. She supports the philosophy that all zoning laws and requirements should be effective citywide and opposes the idea of overlay districts in any community. Nancy Traver, 2617 Thayer said that she speaks on behalf of several of her neighbors who were unable to be here tonight and their full support for the proposed zoning amendments and overlay district for the Oh Ward. She feels tha the smaller existing homes on Thayer have been significantly negatively impacted by the teardowns and replacement trophy houses on their street and that the new construction has effected their property values in contrast to the opinions stated previously by realtors. She supports the height restriction by measuring from grade because the height issue is of major concern to many neighbors as well as the mass impact and bulk allowance on a property. She pointed several circumstances and problems with one of the trophy houses built on Thayer. She stressed the major problem is there is just too much bulk allowance on these properties and the houses are not in conformity with the existing houses. She does not understand why our zoning would allow such massive impact of another structure in a P&D Coln ncic %1w. %IInutes of 12-15 Prix 6 neighborhood of pretty much uniforn size houses. Chairman Newman asked her opinion about the stone building material used on one of the houses. :his. Traver responded that the aesthetics are her least concern in comparison to her main concern with the problems with bulk and height as its effects the neighboring properties negatively. This impact can not be changed versus the outer appearance and materials that could constantly change over the years. Mr. Jeff Wilson. 2611 Thaver said first of all that he would like to respond to Ald. Newman's request for knowledge on notice of the meeting on November 2. t' regarding the moratorium extension. He assured that he was notified and fully aware of that meeting as well as all other previous meetings held since the moratorium became in effect. He said that this information was public notice in the paper and constantly updated on the City Web site. Nlr. Wilson sympathized with anyone who was caught up in the process when the moratorium was presented. however in this situation someone is always going to be effected and it is unfortunate but unavoidable. He commended the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission for all their hard work and tremendous job they have done on this matter. He also thanked ald. Moran as well for his time, hard work and drive that he has put forth for his constituents and this cause in his diligent efforts to push this matter along. %.tr. Wilson stated that the effect on Thayer Street is a lost cause at this point because the damage has been done. However, it is an evident problem primarily in the 6'' Ward of the tear down situation and its effect throughout this area that is of immediate concern to address during this moratorium period. He noted his full endorsement of these proposed zoning amendments as well as the overlay district. He stated his concern for all of Evanston and would extend his support for city wide zoning as recommended for the 6'L Ward overlay district, however, he reiterated this is a major 6`` Ward concern and effort put forth at this time. If this proposed overlay district works in the 61h Ward, then the same concept can be used for other areas of Evanston as needed. He noted that 3 applications for building permits slipped through during the request period for extension of the moratorium and he urged the Committees support and expeditious review to conclude this matter. Ms. Renee. 2.122 Hastines - noted that this tear down issue has immediately effected a 9- block radius within the 6'� Ward. She expressed her support for the overlay district because of the evident problem in the 6* Ward in comparison to all other areas of Evanston. She urged the Committee's support and extension of the moratorium to conclude this matter. Mr. Robbie Lipton informed the Committee and to the residents who spoke that live on Thayer, that he is a buyer of one of the properties on Thayer and plans to be a future neighbor. He noted that he was caught in the process after purchasing his property right before the moratorium took effect. He described his plans for the tear down of the existing non -conforming structure on his lot and the proposed plans to rebuild a new house that was not in the category of the "monster' trophy houses, but a proposed plan that was within the building height requirement proposed. He did however run into a problem with the build requirement that halted his proceedings with the building permit process due to the moratorium. He assured that even though they were minor, it has P&D Coln mute Nttg. Minutes of 1 2-15-0? Page 7 stifled his progress to mo%a forward with his construction plans. He made aware the financial burden he has endured since the moratorium because of this. He urged the Committee to proceed as expeditiously as possible so that he can proceed with his plans. After conclusion of citizen comments on this matter. the Committee discussed their position and opinions on how to proceed at this point for ample time to review, discuss and conclude this matter within the requested moratorium extension time. The consensus of the Committee was to hold a special meeting on the agreed date of January 6`h, 2004 to address this matter. (P1) Housine Rehabilitation Guidelines This item was held in Committee until the January 12meeting. (P2) Ordinance 111-0-03 - Snecial Use for 3330 Central tTvve z Restaurant w•la Drive - Through Facilitv) Chairman Newman asked for any objectors to this request - none being present. It was recalled that Starbucks withdrew their application previously in the year and decided to re -apply after consideration. Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. %Wynne. It was noted that the adjoining neighbor to the east of this property had objections and concerns. The neighboring property owner testified that his concerns have been addressed satisfactorily and he now has no objection. Aid. Tisdahl brought attention to the concerns expressed by the private nursery school, Barbereux School. and asked if their concerns have been addressed as well. Representatives from Starbucks responded that they have been in contact with the school administrators and have eased their concerns as well. With the school catering to nursery age children, the likelihood of having any heavy children pedestrian traffic is eery minimal nor will children this age ever been unaccompanied or supervised at all times. Chairman Newman moved to incorporate the agreement made with the neighbor to the east as a condition in this ordinance. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (PS) Ordinance 1 10-0-03 - Vacant and Boarded Buildine Ordinance There was a consensus of the Committee that expert public testimony would be valuable and needed on public nuisance issues from the Police Department, as well as neighbors who have specifically been involved or witnessed incidents of public nuisance nature. Also any other relevant testimony from expert opinions on property appraisals and impacts on neighboring properties within the problem areas, etc. Legal staff would not be available for the first meeting in January so it was decided to put this item on the agenda for the second meeting in January. Chairman Newman suggested that the first %: hour of the meeting be given to this matter depending upon any pending matters that might require the Committee's attention first. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION P&D Committer \ttg. Ntinutesof 12-1f-0-7 Page 5 (PD1) Plan Commission Recommendation: Rezoning of Kendall College Mr. Tom Gemmel]. -20 Colfax, handed a petition to the Committee signed by people in support to have the property rezoned to R1. He also noted the large support in their neighborhood on the interest in saving the historic administrative building. Ms. Ruth Ann DeWolfe expressed her support to have this property zoned R1 which she feels will maintain the character of the neighborhood. She noted that their neighborhood is a very tight and age diverse community and the clear majority also support the R1 rezoning. Doug Alverson. 805 Colfax recalled Aid. Bernstein's comment refacing to questioning waiting on the rezoning issue for the developer's presentation. The rezoning of the property is on the table now and for consideration before the Committee and should be addressed first. Ms. Barbara Janes, 802 Colfax stressed that there is no detention amongst the residents — all are in agreement and support of rezoning the Kendall property to R1 zoning. Nick Agnew. 819 Colfax also expressed his support for the RI zoning for the Kendall property. Judv Rosenbaum. 815 Colfax also expressed her support for the R1 zoning for the Kendall property. Jean Lindwahl. 625 Library said that this property is similar to the District 65 property and the unique use. Discussion followed on "unique use" and what this category is actually defined as. Ms. Judv Fiske feels that it would be more appropriate to have detached single family housing on this property with no more than 3 thoroughfares. With the administrative building _ it is understandable that this building was not meant for residential, however there is the possibility of gutting and converting to condominiums. She questions how this will all work together with respect to the single-family houses. Mr. Bernard Citron. Attornev for Smithfield assured on behalf of his client that their intentions from the beginning were to have single-family housing on this property. He said there was some anticipate for possible townhouse development as well, but this is still all negotiable and no plan has been set in stone. He said with regards to the Administration Building aspects make this a hard job for rehabilitation since the building was never intended for any type of residential use. Again, he assured that no proposed development sketches are available for presentation this evening. Mr. Gemmel and Mr. Agnew recalled a letter from Smithfield dated November 7, 2003 stating their plans for townhouse development on this property and believe that these are the "real" plans the developer has in mind for the Kendall property. They urged the MD Corrurunee .Xttg. Minutes of 12-15-W Page 9 Committee to address and tape care of the rezoning issue now. Mr. Citron explained that that letter was only a development concept and idea for the property. nothing was concrete of final by that letter. He did admit that their original intent was to have some to\%mhouse development. Chairman Newman proposed a solution to solving the neighbors concerns by having the Developer meet with them before the next P&D meeting to address their concerns, have questions answered, and an opportunity for the developer discuss optional plans for the property. The developer agreed to scheduling this meeting with the neighbors. Chairman Newman moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance for the rezoning of the Kendall College property to RI, seconded by Aid. TisdahL The vote was 40 in favor of the motion. Aid. Wynne requesters a memo from staff regarding "unique use and zoning'; she feels more explanation on this concept is needed. (PD?) Ordinance 109-0-03 — Anartment Rental Licensine Chairman Newman suggested bringing the matter of having the same number of landlordsiproperty owners as tenants on the Housing Commission before the Rules Committee. He suggested the same be rule be considered for the Human Relations Commission as well. ADJOUPMMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline E. Brownlee