Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2004SPECIAL Planning & Development Committee Minutes of January 6, 2004 Council Chambers — 6:00 pm. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Brownlee Others Present: Ald. E. Moran, L. Widmayer, S. Knutson, S. Sampson Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION Ordinance 112-0-03 — Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ordinance 113-0-03 — Zoning Ordinance Mao Amendment Chairman Newman said the purpose of this special meeting is for the P&D Committee to continue their consideration of the zoning ordinance text amendment in regards to the overlay district and map amendment. He acknowledged the presence of Plan Commissioners and Zoning Board of Appeals members who helped create: the ordinance. He first introduced Mr. Larry Widmayer, Chair of the Plan Commission and asked him to introduce the others. Mr. Widmayer introduced Mr. Steve Knutson, member of the Plan Commission and Chairman of the Zoning Committee, Mr. Larry Raffel, member of the Plan Commission Zoning Committee, and Steve Sampson, ZBA member and liaison to the Plan Commission. He said they would like to begin discussion by giving an overview of the proposed ordinance. He noted that there are three separate parts: first part applies to all residential districts, Rl through R6, and merely changes the way they measure height which is currently from the first floor down to the ground level as defined in the proposal. He said with the proposal the measurement starts from the ground up and is the only change in R1 to R6 districts. The second part is the proposed conservation district, which is an overlay district designed for those areas where the citizens want growth to be of a contextual nature from what is there today. In other words, it's intent is evolutionary rather than revolutionary growth or change within certain parts of the community. He said that passage of the overlay district gives the City a tool that they can then use in P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6.2004 Page 2 various geographic areas where this type of growth is requested. He said assuming that this overlay district is approved, then the third part to consider would be a map amendment where the overlay district has been requested to be applied to parts of Northwest Evanston. Mr. Widmayer said that Mr. Knutson as Chair of the Plan Commission's Zoning Committee, will further elaborate on describing the conservation district, which seems to be the area with the most concern and questions. Chairman Newman requested that he address the issues that could effect citywide first. Mr. Knutson informed that the Plan Commission has had 9 public hearings on this issue with numerous testimony, discussion and collaboration to come to this point with the recommendations set forth in this ordinance. He called attention to the diagram illustrating Mean Building Height for city wide in regards to the first issue (See Attachment "A"). He explained that in many communities this mean building height is a good convention to use and encourages uniformity. He pointed out that the four examples all comply to the mean height of 35 feet, which is in keeping with what is currently required in the Zoning Ordinance today. However, the change is that the measurement of 35' is from grade or where the property intersects the sidewalk near the front property line versus from the first floor in the Zoning Ordinance today. Mr. Knutson noted that the public input expressed equal agreement with the Plan Commission that this ruling is fair and acceptable. He continued that changes made on pages 2-5 are to definitions that needed more clarification. Chairman Newman asked for more detailed explanation on the four examples and how the dotted line effects each one. Mr. Knutson explained that all four examples comply with the proposed amendments. The first example is a flat roof at 35' measured from grade and the other three are examples of pitched roofs where the average height comes to mid -point between the attic floor or joists to the roof peak. Chairman Newman asked if there is any knowledge in terms of the teardowns that have already occurred, how many of them would have had to have been lowered to a lessor height if this rule would have been in effect. Mr. Wolinski responded that based on evidence of drawings that his Department have approved, the majority of the new construction single family comes several feet out of the ground with the basement. He said that most of the houses average above 40' but still were allowed under current zoning by starting the measurement from the first floor. Aid. Wynne clarified that with the current ruling in the Zoning Ordinance, we do use the mean building height at 35' but it is calculated from the first floor level excluding the inclusion of an elevated basement from the grade level. Mr. Knutson concurred. She asked if this proposal would still have the allowance for basement windows or will it also be included in the measurement from grade level. Mr. Knutson clarified that total building height would be under the ruling of 35' from grade level to the allowance for pitched roofs, therefore this would include any basement elevation as well. Aid. Wynne referred to a house on Grant Street where she recalled the height to be at 42', as an example of the basement elevation being substantial in building height under the current allowances in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Newman recalled the memorandum on the house Aid. Wynne refers to at 1210 Grant Street received from the Zoning Planter, Ms. Jackson, stating that the mean building height at pitch to be 35' but does not state the actual height to the top of the structure. He requested explanation on how this implies to P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6. 2004 Page 3 mean height of pitch. Mr. Wolinski explained that this refers to measurement from the attic joist to the peak and you consider the average height between them. Mr. Alterson further noted that he believes that in the column where it refers to height mean of pitch, that this is height as defined currently. 'Therefore, any of the heights for those houses such as 1210 Grant, which is 35', probably does not include the amount of the basement. Chairman Newman asked staff if there is a way of taking the list of tear down and obtaining the actual heights under the current ordinance and how the proposed change would effect each one of these houses. Mr. Wolinski responded that it is possible for staff to go back and look at the plans for each of these houses and see how far the basements rise above the ground and include this with the building height as measured from the first floor. Chairman Newman said that this information would be appreciated because the Committee could then compare what the effect of this ordinance would have been on these tear down houses had this ordinance been in effect at the time of application. Mr. Wolinski assured that staff would research this information and report back to the Committee. Aid. Tisdahl questioned how this proposed change in building height would effect some of the large 3-story houses in her ward near the lakefront. She asked if those properties would be able to rebuild to their current capacity and heights. Mr. Wolinski responded first that technically you can not build a 3-story single-family in Evanston, they are classified as 2 % stories but agrees that most are well over 35'. He further clarified that those properties would still have to comply with the 35' requirement regardless of their larger lot sizes. However, if there was a fire or destruction to the house due to natural disaster, this is another issue and where allowance would be made to rebuild what as existing. Chairman Newman pointed out that this specific issue is addressed on page two in the section that refers to Nonconforming Uses and Non -Compliance structures where there is language stating that "such status shall terminate in the event that said building is removed or destroyed by means within the control of the owner." He said that the owner would have to apply for zoning relief if he voluntarily wished to tear down and rebuild. Ald. Tisdahl expressed her concern with this restriction because she feels any property owner should be able to rebuild or do major additions to their property to its existing status because the nonconformance was already there. She agrees with not being able to exceed in rebuilding beyond any existing nonconformance. Upon discussion that followed on this matter. there was consensus among the Committee that a change in wording should be made under Section 6-8-6-8 so that it allows a property owner to be able to rebuild back to existing original height. The Committee suggested taking out the word "terminate" in this section and replacing with "continue" where it refers to this issue. Chairman Newman questioned the beginning language in Section 6-8-2-9 under Mean Building Height where it states "shall for the purpose of the district and the requirements of this ordinance be deemed complying with the mean building height requir=nent, it shall have the status of legally permitted structure or use rather than having the status of legal non-compliance." He asked what this language does for the property owner. Mr. Alterson explained this gives the owner the status of a legally existing conforming structure opposed to a legally existing non -conforming with P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6. 2004 Page 4 the district, the owner could rebuild to 100% if due to fire or other natural disaster. Mr. Knutson asked if the Committee's desire is to have it state where the owner can build to the existing height no matter what the circumstance. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Knutson continued with his overview of the ordinance. He referred to pages 5 and 6 where the proposed addition of the oNC district and took away the oDI district. He noted the changes made for housekeeping that address this change regarding housing and parking issues in the neighborhood conservation overlay district with incentives for developers in this district. He explained that this supplements the underlying zoning amendment. He said that Council may amend the zoning map to apply this district when and where they wish. He stated the desire of his Committee is that after some observation and to see how it works, that maybe with some change it would be applied to other districts in other parts of the City. Mr. Knutson directed attention to page 7 in the oNC district; there is the suggestion that garages be addressed where there is an overwhelming habit in Evanston to not have garages in front of the house facing the street. Chairman asked why this proposed amendment for garages is not considered citywide as opposed to having it just in the overlay district. He feels this is similar to the front yard fence issue and questioned if the Plan Commission had any discussion on considering this citywide. Mr. Widmayer responded that the Plan Commission did talk about that, but with regards to the issues of new construction, there was a consensus here that garages that stick out in front of houses are not desirable. He stated that this specific issue was a matter of concern with new construction in the overlay district under consideration before the Plan Commission. Nevertheless, this was considered by the Plan Commission as something that should be in effect citywide. Chairman Newman feels this is a requirement that should be for all tear down and new construction throughout Evanston. Mr. Knutson explained maximum impervious surface. He said that in their hearings there was a lot of discussion on the current ratios allowed in comparison to other communities where there are far greater limitations on this. He noted that this issue was addressed in consideration of many citizens concerns with run off and flooding situations that occur with major construction. He explained in further detail how neighborhood amenities should be considered. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that the figures presented are 50% over what the existing building lot coverage requires. Mr. Knutson added that the typical lot coverage is fewer than 30%. Chairman Newman asked what the average house covers in terms of impervious surface. Mr. Alterson responded that staff did an analysis of one block on Cowper Street that the Plan Commission looked at as part of this discussion and that is what they considered in the 50% figure. He said that this figure appeared fair in comparison to the houses surveyed in the block on Cowper and did an estimate of how much is pervious area as distinct from what counts towards building lot coverage. He did not have the figures at hand but could forward this information to the Committee if so desired. Mr. Knutson stated from his personal observation and experience in residential construction, that most houses he has worked on are under 301/6 lot coverage. He said that most properties in Evanston use an alley garage so they don't have driveways. Therefore, he would say the majority of houses in Evanston today are P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6, 2004 Page 5 under these figures. He informed the Committee that Evanston is the only northshore community that does not have this requirement in their Zoning Ordinance that he is aware of. Chairman Newman requested that information on what other communities are requiting, such as Wilmette, Winne" Glencoe and Glenview, be supplied to the Committee for review. AU Tisdahl said that from her understanding, many other communities require for new construction to have an engineer study and drawings on lot draining and asked if the City also has this requirement. Mr. Wolinski responded that they do require engineer drawings especially if there is going to be any change in the slope of the lot itself, which must be approved by the City Engineer office. He said that this is part of the foundation approval procedure. He said the ultimate goal is to not change the grade, which unfortunately does not always happen particularly with the large new houses. He said in these cases, what staff attempts to do is to require some type of draining system on the property to eliminate run off onto adjoining properties. Ald. Tisdahl questioned if this is a required procedure then why are there so many circumstances where new construction effects adjacent properties with flooding. She feels this is a very important requirement that City staff needs to enforce during the application process and during the construction stage to insure that it is followed through. Ald. Bernstein asked if typographic maps are required. Mr. Wolinski said that the Engineering Department does require this map with the drawings for all new construction. However, he noted that this procedure is fairly new as a requirement in the building permit and construction stage because it has only been required for the past several years due to the complaints received with drainage problems. He explained that in many occurrences it is the shear mass of the structure that is being built in place of the structure that was previously there before where the surface that used to drain is replaced with hard surface. Ald. Tisdahl stated that she raised concern with this issue because in her opinion, this is something that should be required for all construction citywide because of the effect it causes. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Wolinski what are the nature of the complaints received related to the new construction in terms of flooding and water run-off. Mr. Wolinski responded that the City Code requires downspout disconnection on all new construction for single-family and they have to run either to the front or the back of the property. However, because of the massive size of some of these roofs eventually that water may slope and flood the neighbors yard. Chairman Newman referred to the list received from staff of the 48 teardowns by Ward and address from 1997 to 2003. He asked if staff has knowledge of the complaints from neighbors of these 48 properties on drainage and flooding issues from the new construction. He noted that a number of those houses are in the 7`h Ward as well and he would like to get a feel of the actual impact this problem has on all new construction city-wide and the importance level of if this should be considered. Mr. Wolinski responded that he can recall approximately 15 years ago that the City required all single-family houses to disconnect their downspouts from the sewer system. This requirement was part of the overall sewer improvement plan. He recalled the only cases where you were allowed to keep the downspout connected to the sewer system was in the cases where it appeared an obvious danger of flooding your neighbor or having to run the downspout across a public way. He said this has contributed to P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of Jan. 6, 20 4 Page 6 surface water run-off problems. From his experience, there has historically been a run- off problem in Evanston because of the size of many lots and other circumstances that are unavoidable due to the configuration of land in this area. Chairman Newman asked the Plan Commissioners what their expectation was in this solving any problems with inclusion of this impervious surface requirement. Mr. Widmayer responded that their intent was to address the water run-off issue with new construction and its effect on neighboring properties. He said they took into consideration the natural effects of heavy rains, however they wanted to ensure a certain percentage of area to absorb water. This also does not assure to completely solve drainage issues. After more discussion on this matter, Chairman Newman suggested for staff' to look at 5 properties on the list and review the drainage problems and any known complaints received from neighbors and how the maximum impervious surface ratio requirement would have effected the property. He requested that they look at a variety of small and large lot sizes for comparison. Mr. Alterson said that they would also forward to the Committee staff's study conducted on Cowper Street. Mr. Knutson continued with changes on page 9 where they are suggesting porch exemption from the maximum impervious surface and building lot coverage requirement. He explained in further detail. He noted that from his experience with the Zoning Ordinance before and after the amendments made 10 years ago, that the front yard setback is determined by the adjacent front yard setbacks. He feels this to be a very good rule and promotes consistency. Therefore, the Zoning Committee's consensus was to address the height of new construction in the same fashion under absolute building height tin Section 6-I5-14-12. He explained the concept of taking the average of 4 houses equal on either side of the subject propem-, that absolute building height may not exceed 1.2 times the average of the absolute heights of those 4 closest principal structures. He said in looking at a mean building height of 25' or more, the maximum allowed would be 39.5'. He said they have shifted to absolute height here because it does not take a - judgement call by a surveyor. Their opinion as that this is a figure that can be quickly identified and a surveyor can measure by. He said that they also believed that everyone should have the right to build a 2-story house %ithin reason, therefore they have allowed no less than a 25' mean height. Mr. Knutson pointed out that the top row in the diagram illustrates the absolute height as he defined. Chairman Newman questioned how the average person would be able to follow the formula for mean height and absolute building height without questioned if they are in compliance. Mr. Knutson said that it is really not that difficult keeping in mind that the average height of the 4 closest properties, the new construction can not exceed 1.2 times the average of those heights. Aid. Wynne asked if you look at the average height of a ranch style house, this formula would not allow new construction of a complete 2-story home. Mr. Knutson responded that this formula still would allow a mean building height of 25'. Aid. Bernstein followed up on = Aid. Wynne's thought process; it seems the whole sense here is to have new construction theoretically be in context with the area- However, he pointed out in neighborhoods such as Aid. Feldman's Ward where there are majority I -story single-family ranches, someone —_ would still be allowed the 25' mean height not withstanding the adjacent properties. He '= questioned this concept to be contradictory in keeping with the context of the area. Mr. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6, 2004 Page 7 Knutson said that the consensus of the Zoning Committee was that everyone should be able to have the right to have a 2-story house depending upon the area. He realizes that some areas where there are majority 1-story ranches and bungalows that the limitation for building will have to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, they felt the 25' mean height to be fair in the overlay district and in the majority of residential areas throughout Evanston. Ald. Bernstein still felt that this concept is inconsistent with the whole theory. Mr. Knutson stated that the concept is to make it contextual and be fair in allowing a property owner to build up appropriately without over -building in context with their neighboring properties. He said the mean building height in a neighborhood area of ranch houses would be 25' but not the 35' as allowed in other arcas where this height would be allowed. Mr. Widmayer noted that the Plan Commission's consideration for this theory was in looking at the overlay district and this refers to major construction. He also noted that their intent is not to inhibit building growth but to allow reasonable building growth within the context of the immediate area. In depth discussion followed on this issue with ARL Bernstein still in the opinion that it is questionable on the compatibility of allowing a mean building height of 25' in an area of majority ranch style homes to allow for 2-story construction. Aid. Wynne stressed that in reality, a 25' mean height is not significant for any house even in comparison to the average ranch house, which is usually around 18' in height. Mr. Knutson continued onto page 10 with yard requirements for all oNC districts. He further addressed Non -binding Advisory Appearance Review on page 10 under Section 6-15-14-14. He said his experience with serving on the Preservation Commission before the, is that such an advisory board does do some good. In his opinion, this allows for more opportunity for neighbor's input on any new development and an opportunity to address immediate concerns before final application. Aid. Wynne stated her opinion that it would not appropriate to allow a quorum of no fewer three residents at any time, since at least 3 members must be residents. Mr. Widmayer agreed. Chairman Newman commented on item #5 regarding where it states no later than within 30 days of this City's receipt of a perfected building permit application for an Appearance Review Committee meeting. He feels this item needs more clarification because it could result in holding up the application process unnecessarily if they meeting is not necessary or requested at the latter end of the 30-day period. Aid. Bernstein said that he understands Aid. Newman's concerns however he supports this 30 day period because it does allow for the opportunity to have a meeting involving neighbors within that time before final submission of building permits. If no neighbors come forth within this period, then the applicant should be able to more forward without delay of any dispute from neighboring appeal. Mr. Knutson agreed to the extent that the Committee's intention here was to allow or require sufficient time for at least one meeting if necessary. Chairman Newman said in most cases where there is one meeting requested, it usually takes 2 meetings to resolve which allows for the architect/builder's presentation and allowance of time for neighbors to respond. Discussion followed. Aid. Bernstein expressed his concern with this becoming "binding" if it is considered in nature as a requirement. With this in mind after discussion, the consensus of the Committee was the agreement that it should state "at least one meeting should be held within the 30 day period" to allow sufficient timer for the applicant to present their plans and for neighbors to address any concerns. P&D Committee :Nttg. Minutes of Jan. 6, 2004 Page ti Chairman Newman raised question on page 13 where it list the items the Committee may require for construction proposals or development plans for review. Mr. Knutson responded that today currently 4-6, 8, 9 and I 1 are not required. In response to Chairman Newman's question, he concurred that #9 would be required for the overlay district, but is not required today. Chairman Newman asked about the requirements on page 14 and which of these are required today. Mr. Knutson answered that A and C are fully required today but the other items can be considered beyond expectation of what is required currently. The Committee specifically questioned items E-G and their requirements. Aid. Bernstein stated that hypothetically, these items should be required for new or major construction today and always. Chairman Newman asked if staff will attend the neighborhood Appearance Review meetings and if this should be a requirement. He also questioned how many meetings would be estimated for just the overlay district. Mr. Wolinski responded that if just for the overlay district, staff could assumably handle those meetings, however in consideration of the amount of meetings that could be held for city-wide, staff would have a problem in being able to handle that amount of meetings. Discussion followed regarding charging a fee to cover staff time if required to attend these meetings. Mr. Knutson said that the Plan Commission discussed this issue and their suggestion would be to consider such a fee in an amount compatible with the issue. Chairman Newman agreed and felt that a fee for teardowns should be appropriate due to the nature of its effects. A suggested amount of S5,000 was recommended. Mr. Wolinski noted that many communities charge even higher fees than that such as Highland Park who charges around $10,000. He prefers charging the maximum amount with teardowns. Mr. Steve Sampson, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, commented on his opinion of the overlay district. He does not want to see the overlay district dismissed and urged the P&D Committee to strongly consider approving it. He said that this overlay district could be considered to apply in other parts of Evanston after time to assess how it works here. Mr. Knutson said that he is troubled with the political avenue of this. He too feels this overlay district would be a good pioneer area, easy to manage and if it works, then apply this to other areas in Evanston. Mr. Nick Kalm. 2635 Lawndale Avenue, applauded the Zoning Committee and the Plan Commission on their work, including Aid. Moran. He noted the wide spread support on this matter in their Ward and the desire to move forward expeditiously and come to final conclusion within the moratorium time frame. This matter has been going on for some time now and needs to come to a close. He requested the Committee's support on this matter. Mr. Jeff Clark. 2815 Hartzell, said that he has lived at his present address for 12 years and has lived in the a Ward for nearly 30 years. He expressed his full support for this proposal. He passed out to the Committee a copy of a flyer he created and distributed throughout the community (copy in the Community Development administrative offices). He feels the tear down issue and rebuilding of the monster houses drastically reduces -= P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6, 2004 Page 9 affordability in their neighborhood and other major issues that are a negative impact to their neighboring properties. He urges the Committee's support on this issue. Mr. Patrick Novak. Developer of house in 2300 block of Hastines. Mr. Novak noted that he build a house at this location during the moratorium and believes he is one of the last building applications to get through before the moratorium came into efFecL He expressed his opposition to having a fee on teardowns specifically because many of these houses are an eyesore, nonconforming and in no condition to rehab the existing oucture. He pointed out that not all teardowns are replaced with the monster houses that they are referring to. He feels this fee would be unfair across the board with all teardowna. He also disagrees with residents being members of the neighborhood appearance review board because he does not feel your neighborhood should have such power over another neighbor's property in the same area. This causes animosity amongst neighbors. Ms. Joanne Benve. 2422 Hastinas presented photos of a monster house being built on her block. She also showed the previous house that was torn down, which was much smaller in size. She also pointed out that the house next to this new construction is going up on the market, which is also a small house. She is concerned with what will be replaced here also. She too urged the P&D Committee and Council's support on this proposal. Mr. Jeff Wilson. 2611 Thaver Street presented to the Committee a signed petition with 152 signatures total. He obtained 70 of those signatures on his own. There was no one in oppositions that he came across when he was out getting these signatures. He read the petition (copy in the Community Development Administrative Office). Mr. Henry Puckett. 2723 Noves Street expressed his support for the overlay district. He is also interested in the Appearance Review Committee and feels that it is a good idea to have equal residents and design professionals on the board. He feels that this tear down issue violates the spirit of the community and there needs to be some control over the allowance of bulk on properties. Mr. Dave Olson. 2333 Central Park, said that he is a life long resident of Evanston. He does not like the idea of singling out the a Ward for the proposed overlay district or this ward being a "guinea pig" example for the entire City. He strongly feels zoning should be citywide and not be amended to suit any certain Ward or specific area. He gave his opinion to the requirement for height measurement. He feels that measuring from sidewalk grade because many lots are sloped and this would not be fair measurement for those properties. He suggests that this be changed to measure grade from the existing pre -construction grade at the foundation. Mr. Olson is not in favor of a tear down fee, instead any damage due to demolition should be recorded and paid for by the developer. Also fees for improvements to any public ways should be charged to the developer as well. He feels property rights need to be reviewed and to set citywide zoning laws that are agreeable to the entire community. Ms. Karen Riaotti. 2722 Central Strut, echoed her support for the proposed inning amendments and overlay district made in past comments. She said Evanston appears to P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of An. 6.2004 Page 10 have uncontrolled development and she does not want to see any further over- development with the monster houses in the 6`s Ward. Scott & Laura Jandu. 2514 Thaver, expressed their support for the proposed zoning amendments and overlay district. Ms. Nancv Traver, 2617 Thaver, expressed her support for the proposed zoning amendments and overlay district and recapped on her comments made at the last meeting on this issue. Ms. Norma Friedemann. 2646 Reese, expressed her support for the proposed zoning amendments and overlay district. Mr. Jerry Todd. 2414 Thaver Street, expressed his support for the proposed zoning amendments and overlay district as well. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she feels this problem with teardowns and the monster house issue with now fall over into the Vh Ward from the 0 Ward if the overlay district is approved. She noted that her ward has already had some incidences with this but feels it will elevate with the overlay district and zoning changes. She agrees with the impervious surface requirements and suggests that this be a requirement citywide. She also agrees with the measurement of height from grade. However, she does feel the matter on absolute height needs further consideration. Aid. Moran made concluding comments to the Committee. He noted the hard work put into this by the Zoning Committee/Plan Commission, the assistance of the ZBA, and time put in by he and his constituents. He stressed that his ward is already infiltrated with the tear down problem and it is their desire to have the overlay district now for their Ward due to the existing situation. He does not want to speak for other parts of the City when this issue has come about due to the concerns that he and his constituents have put forth to address during this moratorium. Chairman Newman said that this ordinance still has some very far-reaching issues remaining that have not been answered. For instance, he would like to fully understand -_ what the effect this lot coverage requirement will change or compare to the existing requirements. He also feels that Mr. Olson's suggestion with measuring from the existing pre -construction grade at the foundation is a valid one and should be reviewed. Members of the Zoning Committee informed that their intent was to have a steady measuring tool that could not vary, Mr. Olson's suggestion could become very controversial. Chairman Newman asked the Committee their preference on proceeding at this point. Several citizens expressed their concern for concluding this matter before the moratorium expires and urged the Committee to act on this as soon as possible without any further delay with reviews and time to collect even more information than what has already been E P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Jan. 6.2004 Page I I presented. The Committee took the citizens concerns in mind, however "ith the importance of this matter it would not be appropriate to move forward or have a vote if there are still any unanswered questions or concerns by the Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee that there is a need to schedule an additional special meeting for final discussion and conclusion before voting and forwarding on to Council. A decision would be made at the next regular Planning & Development Committee meeting forthcoming on Monday, January I P. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquelin)3�E. 9wnlee DRAFT - NUT A. �D PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Monclat-. Januan 1'. 2004 6. 30 - Roan :: 00 Evanston Civic Center ALDERINIEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ald. Newman 1. DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2003 Ald. Tisdahl made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2003 meeting. Motion seconded by Ald. Kent. Motion passed unanimously. III. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P7) Ordinance 110-0-03 - Vacant and Boarded Building Ordinance This item was introduced at the meeting on Aovember 24, 2003 and referred back to Committee; held in Committee 12115103. The Committee will hear public testimony on boarded buildings as Public nuisances. James Wolinski, Community Development Director, stated that there were three experts (Commander Nilsson with the Police Department, Chief Berkowsky with the Fire Department, Steve Kochis, Appraiser) A filling to speak tonight. Mr. Wolinski stated that what will be discussed tonight is the effect a boarded up building would have if it were boarded up six months and the effect it has being boarded for two years and more. Commander Nilsson referred to a Broken Windows article published in the Atlantic Monthly 1982 publication. The philosophy of this article is the same philosophy the Police Department uses today, and that is that a broken or boarded up window left unattended for any length of time, social psychologists and police tend to agree that more windows will be broken. The analogy is that a boarded tip house left unattended will be an attraction for wild dogs, vermin, criminals, drug dealers, drug Planning & Development Committee Meetine - January 12. 2004 Paue 2 users, and gangs. If the abandoned building is Icft unattended, it sends a message that the neighborhood doesn't care and it spills over to the building next to it. People will start avoiding the block the building is on, they will actually walk around the block to eet to sontenvhere on the block inhere the boarded up building is located. Good people not out to do anything criminal treat vacant buildings differently. These vacant and boarded up buildings cause an increas. in police and fire department calls. There is an increase in calls in the «inter when the homeless, the drug dealers and drug users are looking for a place to keep warm. Fires are started to keep warm and then there is a problem. Even after the building is repaired, it takes a long time to restore justice to the neighborhood. Chief Berkowsky said that the fire department has fought many fires of boarded up structures over the years. These structures attract transients looking for temporary shelters and when they find the need for heat a fire is started that can result in a structural fire. Chief Berkowsky gave some examples of boarded up buildings where people have ripped the boards off and gotten inside and the damage they caused. Kate Collinson, said she is a homeowner on the 1200 block of Maple. She said that there is a boarded up house at 1242 :tMaple that has been vacant for over two years. Last year a vagrant started a fire at the house and the Fire Department was called. She said she cannot imagine anything besides this ordinance that will make the owner of this house do an}thing about the home. Steve Kochis stated that he is owner and president of Anton, Koches and Boothe, Ltd, an appraisal firm and he has done appraisals in Evanston for 18 years. He addressed that part of the ordinance that deals with boarded up buildings and how that might possible impact property values. He said that there is a Iine in the proposed Ordinance that states "a boarded up building may contribute to a decrease in value of neighborhood property". Mr. Kochis said that uncertainty is the main point. When a buyer comes into a marketplace and sees a boarded up building and is uncertain how long the building will be boarded up, it is an unsightly building, the buyer has no control over it, and as soon as you have uncertainty in the marketplace there is more risk there is more possibility the buyer will discount the property and offer a lower bid. If there is an ordinance that says the limit on boarded up buildings is six months, a buyer would think that the boarded up building %will be taken care of in six months, there is less risk and more information. There is a greater probability that the buyer will not put in a lover bid when he is able to look at a report that will be on these properties when they are registered and be able to find out the information he needs. Mr. Kochis said the more boarded up buildings in a neighborhood, the more buyers will see that as a trend and there is more uncertainty again. Planning & Development Committee Meetine - January 12. 200-4 Pave 3 Evelyn Orange. 1160 Leonard Place stated that there are three buildings that are not boarded up, they are maintained on the outside but have had a very limited occupancy the last fcw Sears. The neighborhood has been lucky so far in that no one has tried to occupy these buildings illegally. Betty Sue Ester, I Sob Gray said that there has not been any clear-cut testimony that states we need this Iaw. There are other communities that have laws that deal with boarded up buildings. not buildings that are maintained. She felt that someone's property should not be taken because they choose not to live in it, but they keep it maintained. Ellyn Szymanski stated that she would have to have a copy of tonight's P&D minutes in order to make amendments to the Ordinance. She asked that the ordinance be held. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold the Ordinance. Motion seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. Motion passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. (P4) Ordinance 4-0-04 - Special Use - 824 Emerson Drive -Through Consideration of the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special use and variations far a drive -through banl: Aid. Newman moved to approve the Special Use for 824 Emerson Drive -Through. Motion seconded by Aid. Wynne. Motion passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. (P8) Ordinance 1 11-0-03 - Special Use for 3330 Central St. (Starbucks) Consideration of a recommendation of the ZBA to grant a special use for a type 2 restaurant with drive -through vvindow for Starbucks. Item is -as introduced at Council and referred back to Committee. Aid. Newman moved introduction of the substitute Ordinance. Motion seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Motion passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this PAD Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. Planning &- Dc%clopment Committee Mectine - January 12. 2004 Paue 4 (P2) Aunlication of Preservation Commission Anneal - 904 Hinman Consideration of Staff recommendation for the Conrmtree to hear the appeal by the o►rtuer. The property is aft E►-ansiott lcntchnrrurk and the on•ner is requesting replacement ofsIvel casement ivindaus with alumnrum double hang ►vindo►ss without a Certificate of Appropriateness or budding pernutts. James Nlurray, attorney for the owner of 904 Hinman requested that this be heard at a later date. Aid. Wynne moved to accept the appeal for purposes of hearing the appeal. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Niotion passed unanimously. Aid. Newman said that the whole City Council would vote on accepting the appeal tonight. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. (PI) Housine Rehabilitation Loan Guidelines Staff recommentlation to include condominiums ivithin the guidelines. Staff response to information requested b'v the Committee is transmitted hereivith. This itern it -as held in Committee at the December 15, 2003 meeting. Aid. XV}mne moved approval of the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Guidelines. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the ,Evanston Civic Center. — (P3) Request for Mayor's Special Housing Fund to Evanston Housing Coalition Consideration of the Housing Commission reconrniendation for approval of the request for a construction loan to rehab one of Evanston 11oresing Coalition's single- famil), rental homes in preparation for sale to income eligible household at an affordable price. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Request for Mayor's Special Housing Fund to Evanston Housing Coalition. Motion passed by AId. Wynne. Motion passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee rase is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. i- 4 Planning & Development Committee Meeting - January 12. 2004 Pagc 5 (P6) Ordinance 07-0-04 - Zoning Nfav amendment: Rezoning of Kendall College Consideration of a recommendation on Chef ridings and report of the Plait Conmtission and directive froin the Planning & Development Committee to re -zone the area bounded by Sherman, Lincoln. Orrington and Colfax from U! to R1. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this P&D Committee case is on file kith the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center Robert Buono, principal of Smithfield Properties introduced his partner Bill Smith. He stated that they are the owners of the Kendall College property. He said that while Kendall College intends to relocate to a campus in Chicago, it will stay at its current site until the end of 2004. Mr. Buono explained how difficult it would be for Smithfield Properties to pursue single-family development on this site. While it has been widely reported in the newspapers what the property sold for, what has not been widely reported is that there is an extensive environmental abatement that must be done because of the asbestos in the dormitorti• buildings. The buildings must be demolished, and infrastructure must be worked on. To explain why he wanted to build to%kmhomes on this property, Mr. Buono said that over the last few years (2002/03) there have been 15 homes sold that were in excess of 51.2 million, of the 15 homes sold, eleven have closed. The average home selling above 51.2 million is 51.5 million. The size of these homes were quite Iarge and more than double the size of the lot that could be put on the site of Kendall College. He added before he makes a profit if they were to build single-family homes, to compete in the current market the home would have to sell for Sl .7 million. The current homes in excess of S 1.2 million that are on the market today, have been on the market for 235 days. Mr. Buono stated that he would not be showing a project consisting of single family homes, the project he was proposing consisted of townhomes. He showed the architectural drawings of the project and explained it in detail. The project consists of 117 units and 186 parking spaces. The average size of the townhomes average 2,300- square feet, there is nothing smaller than two bedrooms. There are some three and four bedroom units. The purchase price would be approximately 5600,000. The price of a single family home, which they are not prepared to build, would range from 51.9 million to 52.3 million. 5 Planning & Developmert Committee Meeting - January 12, 2+ 64' Pane 6 After the proicct presentation, Chairman Aid. Newman opened the public commentary. Several members of the public spoke regarding this proposal. Tom Gernmeil spoke for some of the neighborhoods and groups concerning the project. He said that the neighbors of the project fclt they had a responsibility to keep the integrity of the neighborhood and did not believe that the proposed townhomes did that. 4Ir. Gcmmell asked the Committee to approve the proposed ordinance tonight. He went on to give the reasons why he and his neighbors opposed the project. Mr. Gemmell gave the Committee a petition with over 162 signatures. Judy Fiske reminded the Committee that there are five structures on the Kendall College property that are contributing structures to the Evanston northeast Historical District. She said that because this property is listed both in the National Register of Historic Places and the local Historic District, the process will also include the Department of Interior, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, the Landmark Preservation Council which is the statewide arm of the National Register, as well as the Evanston Preservation Commission. Jennifer Gcmmell stated that she lives across the street from Kendall College and there is no parking now, and that the 1.6 or 1.8 parking spaces would not be enough for a couple or family that had two cars buying a town home. Doug Halverson said that he fully supported RI and was not in favor of this project. Robert Atkins commented that three sides of the Kendall College property is Rl property. He said that it was essential it remain an RI zone. Mr. Gephart said he was embarrassed to live across the street from Kendall College because of its deterioration and is encouraged that there is going to be some kind of development there. It was his hope that the community could work with the developer and figure out something that works, Aid. Kent said that after hearing the same thing from the community for the last 14 years he has been an alderman, he said that no community in Evanston should be about profit. Somewhere along the line, the City is going to lose what Evanston is all about. Instead of having problems in little communities all over Evanston, it was his wish that the citizens xould come together forever and keep the character that is Evanston which is the reason people live here. Aid. Kent said that Zir. Buono has presented his R4 and R5 idea knowing beforehand that the residents were against this development. He asked Mr. Buono if he had an r alternate plan. - 6 = Planning & Development Committee Meeting - January 12, 2004 Page 7 A1r. Buono said that what he has tried to emphasize from the beginning is that while he does not believe in an Rl designation and the development potential that comes with that as a feasible development for his company, he is prepared to figure out a compromise and that this project is not written in stone. Mr. Gentmell responded that he was not interested in a compromise, in spite of months of requests they have not seen an alternate plan from Mr. Buono. He said that the property was purchased with an Rl plan and he and the people he represented wanted it kept R1. James Wolinski, Director of the Community Development Department said that he thought the developer has a unique opportunity to develop quite an exclusive block of single-family homes. The teardowns that are currently being developed in Evanston are being sold (a lot of them on fairly small lots) for SL I, S1.2, and S1.3 million. He added that building a home on a 7,200 square foot lot as close to the lake as this property is, in a very residential beautiful neighborhood, the opportunity to get what the developer %wanted for their homes is something to be considered. Mr. Buono said that based on the lack of housing at that price point that has sold over the last few years and at a price that is less than he would have to sell the homes for suggests that that is not a market that would be worth that kind of development risk. He added it was less an issue of profitability, but he didn't feel that there was a marketplace based on what they have seen. Aid. Newman moved introduction of the Ordinance of Rl. Motion seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. Aid. Newman said that this would be introduced before Council tonight and will be up for a vote on January 26, 2004. Aid. Bernstein said that he was concerned with keeping the character of Evanston. He said he wanted the developer to do well, but he wanted it done within the context of what the City of Evanston sees is appropriate for itself at this time. Aid. Kent said he was going to vote against this motion because what he is beginning to understand that he has to live in a neighborhood that has S300.000 and S400,000 homes to influence what goes on at this Committee. He said that this Ordinance only serves the people that can afford it. His concern was for tire people that only wanted to live in Evanston, Aid. Kent said he was not against the motion and not for it, but would wait to see how it balances out. Motion passed 4 ayes I no. Aid. Newman said there would be a meeting regarding the 6th Ward on January 20 at 7:30 p.m. For people wanting to discuss the Kendall Property development, the Aldermen will be available from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. that same night. (P5) Ordinance 05-0-04 -Zoning Planned Development: 1100 Clark11719 Ridge Consideration of the findings and report of the Plan Commission regarding granting a Planned Development for approximately 237 dwelling units. 7 Planning & Development Committee Meetine - January 12. 20(1.1 Pace S .4 verbatim transcript of they proceedings of this PAD Committee case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center, Thomas Roszak said that his entire team was at this meeting to answer questions from the audience. Chairman Aid. Newman opened the public commentary. Scott Walton, I I I I Church said that while he liked the new development, there were still a few things he would like addressed. With the zero lot line off the alley he was concerned about snow removal and garbage pickup. Mr. Roszak said that he would have snow removal of the alley written into the condo association agreement. He added that the dumpsters are located in the building, not in the alley. Aid. Newman said that these items would be written into the ordinance. Aid. Newman requested that the items mentioned tonight would be written into the ordinance by the next meeting. Sue Walton, 1111 Church asked for a meeting with Thomas Roszak to discuss the brick wall facing the alley. Steve Hiller, 1100 Clark said he was happy with the changes but would like to see a drawing of the blank wall facing the alley. Ann Tanner, Central & Crawford said she was concerned with the fumes from the parking garage going straight to the alley. Mr. Roszak said there would be some vents, but that they would not all come out to the alley and that they would meet City code. Stanley Woznicki, I I I 1 Church Street expressed concern about fumes from the parking garage. Carlene GiIben, 1100 Clark complimented Mr. Roszak on the changes he has made to the development. She added that she would like to see a setback on the alley. Don Gold, I I I I Church said that this development would enhance the neighborhood. Judith Hurwich, co-chair of the Evanston Housing Commission commented on the affordable housing plan submitted by Mr. Roszak. She said that the Housing Commission would like to see something permanent instead of the plan submitted by Mr. Roszak. She said the Task Force recommends a 20% set aside as opposed to the 5% currently offered in the proposal. She added that the Housing Commission would Planning & Development Committee Meeting - January 12, 2004 like to meet with ,\1r. Roszak. Paste 9 Bruce Huvard responded that the decision to go with a plan that phased out alter 15 %-ears instead of another plan was intentional. He gave the reasoning behind the development's affordable housing plan. Mr. Huvard added that he would be happy to meet with the Housing Commission. Betty Sue Ester stated that she is working ti+yth a group of citizens to form the Citizens Lighthouse Community Land trust. She said that through a land trust condos can stay affordable forever, and when the condos are sold the owner does get some equity. Ms. Ester offered to discuss this at a later meeting with Mr. Roszak. Aid. Newman said that Oak Street and Clark Street are in very bad shape. He asked Mr. Roszak if he could help out with that. Mr. Roszak said that he would pave the streets adjacent to his property. Aid. Newman thanked Mr. Roszak and said he would add that as a condition to the special use. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 05.0-04. Aid. W)mne seconded the motion. Aid. Newman said this would be introduced tonight at City Council and would be brought back before this Committee. IN'. OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Newman said that the items not discussed tonight would be discussed at the next P&D meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, it adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ma . Baaske Planning Division Vol SPECIAL Planning & Development Committee Minutes of January 20, 2004 6:00 P.M. Evanston Chic Center Room 2200 Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. E. Sz}Tnanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. E. Moran, S. Knutson. Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Alderman Newman declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:10pm. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION Kendall College Redevelopment Chairman Newman stated that the purlx re of tonight's meeting was to facilitate communication between the developer and the neighbors concerning the rezoning and redevelopment of the current Kendall College Site. Alderman Tisdahl thanked both the developer and the neighbors for coming. She stated that if the current zoning for the property remains U 1, the property could be resold for another educational use. Alderman Bernstein asked if the administration building and the dormitories were contributing structures? Jeanne Lindwall responded that the administration Building and the four houses were all contributing structures to the National Register. The dormitories were non-contributing structures. Chairman Newman then proceeded to ask the developer to begin. Sir. Robert Brono of Smithfield Properties LLC. Began by introducing the rest of the development team. Mr. John Malarkey, attorney, Mr. Keith Jacobs of Jacob's Homes, and W. Larry Booth of Booth Hansen Architects. Mr. Brono then began by stating that the issue is a simple fact; Development balanced against financial feasibility. Smithfield has developed single family homes, condominiums and townhouses. To be successful, the development must be financially feasible as well as fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The Kendall site is a unique piece of property. From what he had heard from the neighbors at previous meetings, there was a demand for single family housing. He suggested that Smithfield had crafted a development concept, with single family housing on the perimeter of the site, and townhouses on the interior. If the Administration Building was Special P&D Comm. Mig. Minutes ofJanuar) 20. 2004 Page 2 to be retained, multi -family for it was the only option. Mr. Brono did not wish to elaborate on how many units in the Administration Building. At this point, several neighbors in attendance complained that they thought Smithfield would be presenting plans for an RI development. :alderman Bernstein responded that the Committee had given no such direction. He stated that tonight was to begin a dialogue between neighbors and Smithfield. He reviewed the problems that have occurred with the District #65 Development site at 1314 Ridge, and the lengthy process that is still on going. In answering a question from the audience, Mr. Brono stated that Smithfield has purchased the Kendall site without any contingencies. Several audience members stated that a profit for Smithfield was not their concern, and perhaps Smithfield failed to do proper due diligence on the property before they purchased it. This was a neighborhood of single-family and they strongly urged that Smithfield propose a plan that only incorporated single family homes. Mr. Brono continued his presentation by reiterating that their concept at this point was single family homes on the perimeter of three sides of the block, the Administration building be redeveloped into condominiums, and townhomes on the interior. 'Ihe townhouses would be no taller than three stories. no taller than the existing dormitories, and would not be stacked, as previously proposed. He further stated that this plan would reduce the number of units from the 117 that he had presented at an earlier meeting. When questioned how many units, Mr. Bronor stated perhaps the number would be sixty, but at this stage he did not want to be held to an exact number. %len questioned how it would be possible to build townhouses on the interior of the site, Mr. Brono replied that the single-family home sites would have to be smaller than the usual R1 lot. He stated that the single-family homes would sell in the vicinity of S750,000. Mr. Bono then introduced Keith Jacobs of Jacob Homes. Mr. Jacobs stated that the single-family homes would be of the high -end quality with masonry construction and non -vinyl siding. Jacob Homes have built homes all over the North Shore, including Highland Park, Lincolnwood and Buffalo Grove. He invited audience members to contact him for locations. Discussion then ensued between audience members and Mr. Brono about the possibility of building only single family homes. Neighbors argued that homes in the neighborhood sold for well over one million dollars. Mr. Brono countered that to only develop single family homes on the Kendall site, Smithfield would have to sell homes between 1.9 to 2.3 million dollars. He felt the market could not support this. Audience members reminded the Committee that the rezoning process had been going on since August, and they urged the Committee to approve the RI rezoning. Discussions with the developer could continue, but the R 1 rezoning needed to be acted upon now. Special PRD Comm. Mte. Minutes of Januan- 20. 2004 Page 3 Chairman Newman stated that the time was now 7:30 P.M.. and the Committee needed to close this discussion and move on to other business. This item would continue on the Committee agenda to the January 26.2004 meeting. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Ordinance 112-0-03 -- Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment Ordinance 113-0-03 -- Zoninc Ordinance Man Amendment Chairman Newman called on those signed up to speak first before closing to Committee discussion and conclusion of these items. Mr. Fleck said that he is a resident of the 60' Ward for the last 20 years. He commented specifically on the issue of side yard setbacks. He feels that these amendments do not address that issue as it relates to the overall concern with density and bulk. He said the result of these changes will be narrow deep structures having a major impact on neighbors on either side of the property. Mr. Larry McGill felt it important to inform the Committee that he stills holds the position that the ordinance and the people in the 6`h Ward behind it do not represent the entire 6'h Ward. He requested that before Council takes action, there needs to be more information provided to the many residents in the 6a' Ward who still do not fully understand what is going on and how it will really impact them. He said there is a need for more discussion and review of the consideration for the overlay district. He said if the majority of people on Thayer are in support of and want their street to come under the overlay district, then that should be acceptable. However, there are many streets that do not want or need to be under the overlay district. He reiterated that there needs to be a more in-depth review of which streets want to be under the overlay district and this would be a way of notifying and informing many people who still do not understand what is going on that will effect their property in the 6ei Ward. Ms. Renee Cavrin mentioned that she wrote and article to the Editor that was read by many in her ward. She said that her family lives on Cowper Avenue where there are very small homes and if the new ordinance goes into effect, they will not be able to an addition they had planned to add a second moor and expand their living space to accommodate their growing family. She pointed out that the homes on Cowper Avenue are very different than from much of the homes in the 6 h Ward; and they are not the only street that still has very small homes in this ward. Her husband pointed out that if you take the average height of the adjacent 4 houses in their block, all being small bungalows, this would effect their ability to build their second story at a decent height without going over the 25' rule. He said that their proposed plans come to a maximum height of 31', therefore this rule would seriously effect their plans. He noted that they are not asking to build a "McMansion" but a simple 1100 square foot 2-story addition. Special P&D Comm. Mtg. Minutes of January 20. 2004 Page 4 Mr. Dare Olson stated that he is not in favor of the special overlay district for the e Ward. He feels that if they are going to change the zoning then it should be done citywide. He added that he sees no special reason for having this district in the 6 h Ward and he does not feel that the pace of development has been very dramatic. He said at a past nei&hborhood meeting, it was pointed out that there are approximately 4000 houses in the 6 Ward and only 22 teardowns in the past 5 years. He is also in opposition to the proposed height changes and measuring from grade. He suggested that an alternative to this would be to craft it in such a way that grade is taken pre -construction so that there wouldn't be any manipulation of the grade. With the change in height requirement, this will bring down the actual height of the houses down fairly considerably already. He feels that houses built on slope land must be taken into consideration because you can not fairly measure from grade. Mr. Jeff Clark reiterated his comments made at a previous meeting that this is a 6's ward issue and is not just a Thayer Street issue. He feels the tear down issue is widely effecting the entire 6'h Ward and will continue to multiply in this area because of the unique and diverse housing stock and value of property in this particular area of Evanston. He responded to the previous comments made regarding lack of knowledge an notification to many residents in the 6`h Ward of this issue. He stated that this matter has been going on for a long period of time now and there has been plenty of opportunity and numerous public meetings and notice given to everyone in the 6`h Ward if they were interested to take part in this process. He urged the Committee that it is now time to move on and conclude this matter. Mr. Richard Stillerman said that he agrees with the comments and opinions that Mr. Olson has expressed tonight and at previous meetings. He said that philosophically that zoning should be on a citywide basis. He noted that there is Rl zoning throughout the City and he does not believe that this zoning district should be treated differently in the 6'h Ward than any other ward throughout Evanston. He recalled that the Chairman of the Plan Commission said that the conservation district was proposed just for the 6`s Ward because there wasn't sufficient Council support for citywide restrictions of this kind. He said this may be true, however this does not mean it is good policy to do what the Plan Commission has recommended. Mr. Stillerman said that he has specific objections to some of the items in the proposed ordinance. He noted that he does not object to the citywide proposal for height measured from grade, however he does object to the lower restrictions on 6a' Ward housing. He stated that the Oh ward is very diverse and opportunity should be available for the smaller homeowners to be able to build to the same height you can build in any other ward. For example, from grade up to 35' a mean height. He said with regards to the side yard restrictions moving it to 50lo of the width of the lot; he feels is discrimination against 6`h Ward residents effecting their ability to build an adequate addition. He does not object to the regulations for impervious surfaces but would recommend a 50% limit instead of 45%. He does not object to the garage location regulations. In his opinion, 1tr. Stillerman feels that the problem in the 6m ward and probably citywide, is the problem of bulk of some of the new housing construction. He realizes that in the Zoning Ordinance floor area ratio is abandoned in favor of using ground coverage, however this viewpoint has not worked. He concluded suggesting that Special P&D Comm. Ntig. Minutes of Januar% 20, 2004 Page 5 if you wrist to control bulk, it should be done through a floor area ratio, %%hich would then control the size of the house that could be built on a particular lot. lie supports this alternative and theory to control bulk. He believes having a conservation district will decrease the value of people's property and allow more opportunity to improve properties and build in other wards. He reiterated that such zoning changes should be cit}-wide and not restricted upon any certain ward or particular area; this type of zoning would be very detrimental to the property owners effected. Mr. Martv Norkett informed that on Sunday he visited the Caprin's house and had an opportunity to thank Mrs. Caprin for her letter to the Editor of the RoundTable. He further noted that the Caprin's did not know about this meeting tonight and are here on 2 mays notice by coincidence of his visit. He noted that at the Alderman's meeting for the ward, approximately 20-25 people showed up, pointing this out as proof that there still may be many people in the & Ward who are unaware of what's going on. He reiterated his concerns for the economic impact that such zoning changes will have on this area, especially if under an overlay district and the importance of having such a study conducted before Council makes any final decision. He stressed the Committee to consider having some type of thorough economic impact study done on the entire 6`h Ward before voting on an overlay district in this area because there are factual circumstances that have been testified upon and obvious cases where all housing should not be restricted to the zoning in this proposed overlay district. Mr. Jim Genden informed that he actually lives in the 7 h Ward but his property is adjacent to the Oh Ward. He noted that he lives across the street from one of "poster child" properties that initiated the movement behind the 6'h Ward moratorium and proposed zoning ordinance and map amendments. He agrees that it is a citywide problem but he supports his neighboring 6`h Ward residents efforts to address the tear down issues and problems and desire to amend the zoning regulations to control the development of replacement trophy houses that is happening in this area. He supports the proposed zoning amendments to be considered citywide because assuredly the concern for bulk and over -building effects new development throughout the City. Mr. Jeff Wilson presented the Committee with 45 more additional signature to the petition he presented at the previous meeting. He noted that the area they covered is very broad based and it appears that most residents were very knowledgeable of these proposed ordinances and changes effecting the 6`s Ward. Although he agrees many residents in the Oh Ward need to know more about this, it is obvious that there are a large number of residents who are and he noted that there is very accessible means available in place to make notice and awareness to anyone in the 6` Ward. He also believes the zoning changes proposed are a citywide concern and would support that effort, however he strongly believes the emergency exists in the & Ward and needs to be addressed right now. Ms. Carol Karlson said that she lives in the 7`s Ward and said that she is here to express her concerns for the same situation resulting in her ward that is happening in the 6'h Ward. She agrees with the opinions stated that it is a citywide concern and not just for Special R&D Comm. tttg. Minutes of January '_ri. =Uc6t Page 6 the 6th Ward. IF the proposed overlay district is approved for the 6'h Ward, these teardowm problems %till surely spill over into the 7'h Ward and throughout the rest of Evanston. She feels what is good for the Oh ward is good for the entire City. She supports citywide zoning and urges the Committee to consider this in their final deliberations. Chairman Newman ended citizen comments moving into Committee discussion and review. Aid. Tisdahl recalled that at the last meeting she proposed that 3 of the zoning amendments be considered citywide, specifically the height measured from grade, the impervious surface percentage and the garage frontage restriction. Chairman Newman acknowledged Aid. Tisdahl's recommendation and requested the Committee to address each point one at a time. He pointed out the first part of the ordinance was to do the height from grade. He said there were some suggested changes to this regarding non- conforming properties, which staff has not had an opportunity to make these changes. Mr. Aiterson pointed out that there is a memorandum from staff to the Committee on this matter in their packet. He asked the Committee for any discussion. old. Bernstein asked Mr. Knutson for response to his concerns for over -development of any lot throughout Evanston, where it concerns bulk requirements. From previous comments made, he asked about the consideration for FAR and if this is an accurate means of measuring bulk. Mr. Knutson replied that the Zoning Committee did consider FAR and did not include it because the lot coverage system that Evanston uses is particular user friendly. HE said that many communities do use the FAR system and it is very involved in its configurations for lot coverage and height. Therefore, it makes applying for this very problematic because Evanston's building permit application is too tedious. Currently in Winnetka it is more lenient and clients typically pay approximately $2,500 for the FAR review. When considering FAR in Evanston it would be even more tedious and require additional cost. He said in his experience, he believes that having height and lot coverage will get us to the same place and be very user friendly. Chairman Newman referred to the recommendation on the building height essentially to change our ordinance in all the R districts to measure height from grade. Therefore, he pointed out the porches where the building would get additional feet above the allowable 35', that this exception would be eliminated. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Committee requested previously to staff to find out what that impact would be with regards to porches. He informed that staff did an analysis of '/: dozen homes that staff still had drawings of that had been built recently and also did drive -by assessment of the property and estimated anywhere from 34' of height has been a bonus by the way it has been measured in the past. Therefore he supports that if you measure from grade that many of the new development houses would have been required to be 34 feet lower in height than what exists if this proposed zoning amendment were in effect. Aid. Bernstein acknowledged Mr. Olson's previous concern with properties that are on sloped land and whether they should have some forgiveness as well as existing properties so that they could take advantage of the foundation grade. He even used his business property as an example that is b' up from grade and that it is realistic for many properties throughout Evanston. He insists that there has to be some consideration for such Special P&D Comm. Mtg. Minutes of Janum-. 20. ZOW Page 7 properties, especially for existing properties and expansion of non -conforming properties. Measuring from grade as it is recommended in the proposal is not fair to many properties that are on sloped land. The Committee discussed this concern. Mr. Wolinski suggested to the Committee that he would recommend they consider measuring from the foundation grade for additions to existing properties only as opposed to new construction. He acknowledged Mr. Olson's concerns and his respect as a developer, however in his opinion, a developer of new construction has the ability to work with the grade and level of the land once they tear a house down or dig out the basement. He said he would like to avoid having any situations where there is any argument with neighbors regarding the construction of new housing when it comes to the reasonable ability to measure from a required point versus existing property on sloped land where the foundation is not being changed. Mr. Alterson added that he is hesitant to adding anything in this ordinance that is going to make it cumbersome to figure out what the actual height that is allowable on any given property. The Committee members agreed with Mr. Wolinski's suggestion. Chairman Newman moved to amend the recommendation to 35' height from grade, citywide, and In the can of additions YOU can measure from the existing foundation of the house. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Newman moved on to the proposal that in the overlay district that garages have to be in the back off the alley if so possible. Chairman Newman moved to make this Proposal applicable to all RI districts citywide. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Newman suggested that consideration be given to expanding this to R) and R3 districts. In addition, he requested staff comment on having this requirement in R4 and R5 as well. Chairman Newman amended his motion to add the addition of R2 and R3, citywide, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Alterson asked for clarification with regards to the garage setback. He noted that the appropriation that is in the draft is for where there is no alley, that the door widths can not be any wider than 12' between front of the building and 3' back from the front of the building. He asked if the Committee still wants this in the ordinance. He noted there is no limitation in the current Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Newman stated that he does not want to put any further limitations that aren't currently in R1. He asked the Committee if they have any objections to this. Ald. Bernstein questioned if this effects lack of parking in the front yard. Mr. Alterson responded that this would make for a longer driveway and would still allow parking in a driveway leading to a legal parking space. He reiterated that in the current Zoning Ordinance there is no limitation on where you put the garage door for an attached garage. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for what it calls temporary parking on a legally existing driveway, therefore in this case would allow for front yard parking in that driveway. Mr. Wolinski asked Mr. Alterson if they have a notification issue since they are taking this citywide with the garage issue if it effects the impervious surface limitation. Mr. Alterson replied that he does not think so because there was nothing specifically in the notice that much like the mean building height has changed across the board. He said there is nothing specifically in the notice that addressed any of the devices for restricting how much some one can build. Chairman Newman resolved that Special P&D Comm. Mag. Minutes of January 20. 2OW Page 8 staff can address the notice issue as it relates to specific issues that are passed by the Committee and adopted by Council. Chairman Newman moved on to the lot coverage issue. He asked staff if they had the opportunity to look at other communities and how they are addressing this issue. Mr. Alterson responded that through this process Zoning staff has looked at a dozen other communities. He pointed out that it is very difficult to compare across the board because you are looking at other communities that don't necessarily have what would be a typical lot size. Nevertheless, he believes that they are in close proximity with coverages with impervious surface maximum that the Committee came up with. He noted this to be 15% more than the building lot coverage; 45% for RI, 55% for R2, etc. With no further discussion Aid. Tisdahl moved that the impervious surface change be citywide at the percentages presented by staff. Chairman Newman recalled the handout given to the Committee previously that listed lot coverage's and asked if the Zoning Committee or staff was able to go back and translate this into how those lots would be effected wit the proposed zoning amendment. Mr. Alterson called attention to the correspondence forwarded to the Committee of the study used by the Plan Commission dated October 14''. He noted that this is an analysis of one block on Cowper as near as staff can come as to what our existing building lot coverage is and what is the existing amount of impervious surface above and beyond lot coverage. Chairman Newman repeated Aid. Tisdahl's motion and seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. OVERLAY DISTRICT DISCUSSION Chairman Newman moved to eliminate from the Overlay District the 7.5% side yard requirement, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Chairman Newman noted that his understanding of this is a 50' lot would not be able to exceed a 35' wide house. He feels this is too narrow and unreasonable. Aid. Tisdahl agreed as well as the other Committee members. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the :notion. Chairman Newman moved on to addressing the matter of creating the overlay district. Chairman Newman moved that they create a conservation district without consideration of mapping, that included the 1.2 height And all other amendments, as an overlay district that can be mapped anywhere in Evanston at this point. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion for discussion only. Chairman Newman explained that he want the option of creating this district not limited to the 6's Ward with consideration of other areas in the City as so desired based upon need. He elaborated that this would allow the option for any block throughout Evanston to be considered for the restrictions under such an overlay district. He strongly feels there are several streets and blocks within the 6d' Ward that do not want or need to be under the overlay district as proposed. This case has been testified by several homeowners in the 6`s Ward and appears factual especially for the smaller size and height houses. Furthermore, in consideration of the entire City, there are R districts throughout that should be considered to be under the overlay district. Aid. Tisdahl questioned for clarification, that this overlay district contains the 1.2 provision on height and non -binding appearance review by a = Special P8D Comm. Nltg. titinutes of lanuar} 20. 2004 Page 4 conservation board for the overlav district. Chairman Newman verified that to be correct and would be included with the amendments with the exception of the 7.5 side yard requirement. He elaborated further on his concept that he envisions a block coming in with a petition of hypothetically 75% support to be under the zoning restrictions of the overlay district. This option should apply to all RI districts of Evanston and not be limited to one Ward or specific area. He noted that this still gives the option to any block in the 6`h Ward to immediately be considered under the overlay district. He strongly feels that there should be a consensus or majority of the entire 6'h Ward to accept being under an overlay district and that is not apparent here. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she is not willing to do this for two reasons. First, she believes that even if 75% of a block is in favor of this, it limits the other from not being able to build a reasonable addition to their home if so desired and creates limitations. Secondly, she feels it would be very confusing to have different zoning block by block in Evanston. She also does not support the 1.2 height provision. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Wolinski if it is possible to do a block by block analysis and zoning from a city staff likelihood. Mr. Wolinski responded that if it is the will of the Council, staff could come up with a formula similar to what they do with front yard fences. Aid. Kent stated that if he had to vote on this issue tonight regarding the overlay district, he would have to support this amendment. In his mind, from listening to all the citizen comments over the past meetings and tonight, this problem and concerns have been told to us by people in the 6th Ward, if you have an R1 district in your area and this would give them the possibility of not starting over and recreating the wheel. He said it is their opportunity to jumping on something that has already been created and it is an effort to try and relieve the burden in this particular area. He likes this aspect of it because it is an attempt to immediately address an emergency situation in their area, which he can relate to the efforts of the people in the 6`h Ward because of the efforts made by himself and other residents in the 5'h Ward during their moratorium. He said the problem of teardowns in the Oh Ward he considers an emergency- to get a handle on before the problem becomes any worse. He said when you talk about addressing specific issues citywide, that is relevant however certain areas are being targeted for existing problems that must be addressed immediately. This is why he supports the idea of putting such issues in the hands of residents in the ward that are effected and concerned with their neighborhood. He is concerned with those residents that may not be fully aware of what is going on but he also agrees that this matter has been going on for some time now and ample time and notification has been given to allow for any concerned or interested resident to take part in the process. He said by the same token, if there for teardowns in the 6'h ward now, he feels the same concerns for teardowns and control of zoning requirements for new construction should be considered for the entire City. However, the point is he feels the Committee should address the 6'h Ward issues because that is what is before them at this time and the other wards will have the same opportunity to bring these concerns forward if they are effecting their areas as well. Aid. Moran made comments addressing the Oh Ward overlay district versus citywide. He agrees with citywide but stressed that this effort is being made at this time by the 6'h Special P&D Comm. Sttg. Minutes of Januarn 20. 2004 Page 10 Ward residents and their immediate attempts to solve some of the problems with over- development of propem• that exists. He also recommended that 27' height be considered rather than the .-.5' proposal. Mr. Knutson questioned that if they were to do zoning block by block, what is the percentage needed today for passage of alley improvement and speed bumps. The response was 51% for street improvements and 75% for alley. Discussion continued on this concept. After discussion, Chairman Newman reiterated his motion and asked for a vote count. His vote was aye, Aid. Tisdahl was nay and Ald's. Bernstein and Kent were still undecided. More discussion took place and the Committee asked for Mr. Knutson's opinion. He answered that it is good zoning grammar to have a clear set of rules either for all of Evanston or for specific defined areas. He feels this way makes for a clear and understanding set of rules. Aid. Bernstein asked when the 6e' Ward moratorium expires. Mr. Wolinski r►espondcd the expiration date is February 14, 2004. Ald. Bernstein recommended that consideration be given to holding these items in Committee and extending the moratorium possibly 60 days to give time to address the overlay district matter and whether it is feasible to do block by block and probably an economic analysis on the effects of certain blocks with smaller homes that would be drastically limited by the proposed amendments. The consensus of the Committee was in favor of this suggestion. Chairman Newman removed his motion and requested staff to prepare an ordinance extending the moratorium for an additional 60 days to be put on the agenda for next weeks meeting on January 260'. He further requested that staff put these items back on the agenda for the first meeting in February on the 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquetipe E Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of February 9, 2004 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Mterson, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OI± OVORUNI Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He apologized for the lateness in starting due to litigation issues in Executive Session. APPROVALS OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 26.2t1p4 Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of January 26th, seconded by Ald. 7isdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of appro% ing the minutes. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION fP31 Ordinance 24-0-04 -- Amending the Membership_ Requirements of the Housing Commission AkL Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. TisdahL Chairman Newman acknowledged the Housing Commissions position on this matter. Ms. Judith Hurwich noted that the Housing Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter and requested to the Committee to give them a change to review and respond back to the Committee by the next regularly scheduled meeting. The P&D members agreed. Ms. Hurwich noted that the Housing Commission already has 2 landlords as members and have always welcomed the participation of tenants however, it has been difficult to get tenants as members. Chairman Newm = explained how this has always been a Housing Commission issue as it relates to landlordq=mt issues, however this order of command was changed when these matters were referred to Human Relations, which reports to Health and Human Services. He personally supports the concept of directing any such issues to the Housing Commission and welcomed their comments back to the Committee. Ald. Kent stated that he supports this as well and the concept that representation must be equal from both sides. However, he does want to see tenants in various living and economic levels participating on this Commission. Chairman Newman stated that it is the purview of the Mayor to make appointments to the Commission and hopes that qualified tenants will be located. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7J9/04 Page 2 Chairman Newman moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Kent. is The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Hurwich noted that the Housing Commission has always welcomed tenants to participate on their board with various backgrounds. She also noted that there is currently a vacancy for a tenant member at this time. (P2) Ordinance 23-0-04 — Sr)ecial Use for 1168 Dodge Avenue (TvDe 2 Restaurant) Chairman Newman called on Ms. Betty Sue Ester for comments. Ms. Ester expressed her concern with the influx of type 2 restaurants in the Dempster/Dodge area and recent consumer development. She strongly urged the Committee to consider requiring the same conditions and restrictions for the downtown type 2 establishments with regards to control of trash, disposable wrappers and debris pickup. She said this should be the responsibility of the restaurant management and all the outer food establishments in the Dempster/Dodge area. She urged the Committee to consider placing the same conditions for litter collection and debris pickup for a specified radius be a minimum requirement. Mr. Wolinski assured that this condition is stated and included in the ordinance for this type 2 establishment as well and read from the language as stated in the ordinance. Mr. Rex Snvder, representative of Joseph Freed as the landlord of the property, acknowledged the concerns of the Committee and staff. He informed that the current owner is a long time owner and manager of the Gold Coast Dogs restaurant in the Old Orchard food court for the past 7 years and has notable experience. He acknowledged all conditions as requested by the Committee. However, there was discussion of the desired hours of operation because the applicant requested 24 hours. These hours of operation were unacceptable by the Committee. After discussion between the applicant and P&D Committee, Chairman Newman moved approval to introduce and refer back to Committee for further discussion with the store manager. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Chairman Newman expressed his opinion that it is totally inappropriate for this applicant to request 24 hours especially at this location, which was supported by all the Committee members. Aid. Wynne requested that staff relay this opinion back to the Zoning Committee who from reading their transcript, did not seem to have much concern for the request of 24 hours operation. fPII Ordinance 22-0-04 — S=ial Use for 845 Dodge Avenue (Tvne 2 Restaurant) Chairman Newman asked Ald. Feldman for any comments or concerns he wished to address to the applicant. Aid. Feldman stated that he has no objections except that he would request the elimination of any public phone usage within the establishment. The Committee members supported this request. Chairman Newman moved approval and to amend the ordinance to include a condition of no public phone usage, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 54 in favor of the motion. 0 P&D Committee tiitg. :Minutes of 29104 Page 3 fPa) Ordinance 112-0-03 — Zonina Ordinance Text Amendment (P5) Ordinance 113-0-03 — Zonina Ordinance hlav Amendment Chairman Newman called on citizens signed up to speak who have not spoken previously. Mr. Jim Kenchi said that he has been an Evanston resident for 20 years. He distributed a handout to the Committee (available in the Community Development Administrative offices) regarding the factors negatively impacted by this proposed ordinance. This handout also points out the values of property investor motivations and factors effecting the values of properties. He read from a brief summary prepared. He stated that the ordinance does not carefully consider all the factors involved. He pointed out the unfairness in the proposed ordinance and overlay district to be forced upon many homeowners in the 6t Ward who are against this and will be negatively impacted by these changes. Mr. Kepchi directed attention to his correspondence as it relates to the expectations if the downzoning proposal is passed. He specifically addressed the issue of property taxes and the fact that these amounts grow while the value of the property will not as it relates to the effect of surrounding over -building of adjacent properties. He concluded that the negative impacts on value of property in lieu of the restrictions on additions and remodeling on limited houses in the 6`s Ward will be drastically effected by . the building restrictions. This ordinance is totally unfair to too many homeowners in the 6" Ward. Mr. John Lucas said that he lives at 3200 Colfax at the corner of Hastings. He is a neighbor of Mr. Kepchi and supports his comments and views as stated. He noted that he is a new homeowner and has only been a resident for the past 18 months. With his growing family, his intentions were to expand their house and stay in the neighborhood, which is a very desirable location for family living and raising children. He is opposed to the proposed zoning changes and overlay district because it will restrict his ability to build onto his small house purchased in this ward with the intention of expanding with a reasonable addition. He questioned the Committee and Plan Commission members where this idea and formula originated from and what the actual benefits that are intended to derive from these restrictions. He acknowledged the concern for controlling the bulk of building on the larger lots, but what about the consideration of the many smaller lots and cottage size homes that are numerous in the 6 h Ward as well. Mr. Riles of 2726 Isabella expressed his opposition to the proposal for the overlay district. He feels any zoning rulings and decisions should be made citywide and not for any one Ward or specified area. He further supports the fact that there are many regulations and rules in place that should be considered or changed appropriately to address the concerns for bulk citywide as they will surely effect the zoning of the 6* Ward as well. Mr. Vandorn, homeowner in the 6 h Ward, stated that he believes the taxes have tripled in the last 12 years, especially in this ward. He feels there is a need to control the over- P&D Co=Itwe .Mtg. Minutes of?J9,D4 Page 4 development in the Vh Ward at this immediate time as it has been addressed in the proposal set forth by the P&D Committee. He agrees to this being a citywide problem but acknowledged the efforts made by the alderman and concerned residents of the 61s Ward to address this concern for their neighborhood immediately because it is evident of the trophy house development that has occurred in this area. He expressed his support for Us proposal and urged the P&D Committee's consideration. Ms. Barbara Baren-Riley spoke against the proposal for zoning changes and the overlay district. She stated that she has been a resident of the 6`b Ward for the past 24 years and is also a realtor with interest in this Ward as well. Her concerns are personal as a homeowner and business -wise as a realtor with investments in this neighborhood also. From her professional experience, she noted the reality of concern for decrease in property values because of the proposed zoning restrictions in this ward if the overlay district were adopted. The restrictions are notably unfair to many property owners and detrimental to the value of their property and tax base. She supports citywide zoning changes in all fairness to the community as a whole. As a resident and property owner in the Oh Ward, she is also against this proposal and feels the proposed overlay district would drastically effect her expectations far home improvements and realistic additions. She also feels the 1.2 height limitation is unacceptable and very difficult to work with for many small homeowners in the a Ward. Ms. Kit McCarthv expressed her opposition to the proposed overlay district restrictions. She informed the Committee of the past history that originally existed with the little cottages that were built in this area as seasonal summer homes and how these smaller lots and houses developed. Her point being that originally this area was all small houses and have beers dwarfed by the larger homes and now the trophy size houses. She supports the zoning amendments and overlay district as it relates to control of bulk buildings and height allowance. Chairman Newman called on citizens who have previously spoken. Ms. Gail Cu ry said she lives on Thayer Street and is deeply grieved about the mis- information that has been generated as mentioned by previous speakers. She assured that these changes would not eliminate the possibility of someone still being able to build a second story addition. The amendments are intended to control bulk of what can be built on a given lot but should not eliminate anyone from being able to build reasonable additions and remodeling. She recalled many years ago when her and her husband wanted to add on to their home and were told they would not be allowed to add on if the basement was livable, at that time. At that time, her hoitse was considered one of the larger homes on their street and is one of the reasons for their restriction of adding onto to their home. She said now their once considered larger home is now dwarfed in comparison to the trophy houses that have recently been built. She feels this ordinance is necessary and does not believe the negatives that have been expressed up until tonight, are valid or will happen at all. P&D Committee A3tg. Minutes of 2 9,04 Page S M.Jeff Wilson, read from a prepared statement and distributed additional photos of the latest trophy house construction at 2510 Thayer Street. The photo showed the massive structure over the adjacent houses. He also feels there has been a large misconception of what this ordinance is all about as proven from comments heard tonight. He said there has not been any study conducted showing that the value of homes will go down in the 6t' Ward because of these amendments. In fact, from studies done in other communities where there has been restricted building requirements, the property values had actually gone up. Mr. Brandon Litten seconded Mr. Curry's comments and urged the Committee's support. Mr. Jeff Clark commented on the many residents speaking in opposition this evening. He said it is apparent that there has been some misinformation communicated on the concept of these proposed amendments. He again stated his support for these ordinances and the overlay district and urged the Committee's approval. Chairman Newman ended citizen comments. He asked if any member of the Committee were in favor of the overlay district to be mapped for the 6`h Ward There was no support by any Committee member. Tbereforc, Chairman Newman declared that there is no support for item (PS) Ordinance 113-043 for the Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment. He then pointed out that the ordinance under (P4) for the Zoning Text Amendment still has the overlay district in it. Mr. Alterson explained that (P4) contains all of the text changes as they stand right now as a result of the various meetings that the P&D Committee has held. He said that you still have within (P4) the shell of the overlay district and what distinguishes this from (PS) is that you don't have anything that should be mapped into the overlay district. He noted that the ordinances are separate however Section 3 of the ordinance in (P4) needs to be eliminated to remove the referral of the overlay district. With this, Chairman Newman moved to eliminate Section 3 of Ordinance 112-0-03, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. He added that the effect of eliminating Section 3 would be to discard all of the overlay district language from the ordinance. He further explained the motion, which is that the Committee has previously recommended 3 changes to the Zoning Ordinance Citywide. These changes are in the area measuring height at 35' from grade, requirement for all garages where there is an alley to be on the alley, and thirdly is the impervious lot coverage at 45% for R1 City- wide with an increase going up to R5. Mr. Alterson also informed the Committee that the definitions that were correct in the previous ordinance have been eliminated from this draft which staff will put back in for the final draft. The Committee acknowledged this correction. Committee Comments Chairman Newman said that he attempted to offer a compromise on this matter. He recalled one speaker's comments tonight that this was ridiculous, which he chooses not to comment on because he feels this speaker has been acting in good faith to try and improve something for his neighborhood He respects this, but on the other hand, his personal view and in all due respect to the Plan Commission, he believes to apply a new set of regulations for the 60' Ward only and take away from those property owners the P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 19 Os Page 6 right to build to 35' that every other owner in RI can do City-wide, is ill-conceived and unfair. He said if an entire block wanted to do this then he would support that but can not supporting putting an entire area under these restrictions. He feels that people such as some elderly, who have homes that are not going to be repaired and many are in no condition to economically rehab, then these homes should be tarn down. He also feels that people should be able to build additions just like their neighbors have in the 60 Ward to 35% no one should be restricted from this. In his opinion, the term "monster house" has been grossly misused here. Granted there are some houses that clearly are too big and over 35' because they were allowed to measure at the porch level, which one of the proposed zoning text amendments wili cover. He stated that many of the new homes in the Oh Ward are very nice, although he has to admit that some of the homes built in Thayer should be considered as trophy houses and he sympathizes with those residents. In conclusion, Chairman Newman feels that the remedy that has been brought forward is much too broad and he does not agree that there is a consensus amongst 6 h Ward property owners in support of this proposal. He reserves his right to disagree with the neighborhood even though he realizes many have come in good faith but in Evanston you still have a right to disagree and he is not concerned with how many letters there are going to be from a certain group attacking me in the Evanston Review. He is happy with his vote and feels it is fair all around. He would have been willing to do this on a block to block basis if there was consensus and if there was notice to the people involved, however this alternative has been rejected. He expressed his appreciation to all that have participated in this effort. Ald. Tisdahl feels the people from the neighborhood who have been involved from the begiming in this matter have done a tremendous job, as has the alderman for the 61" Ward She believes that what the Committee has done this evening, while it is not everything the neighbors wanted done, has made major changes that will benefit city- wide. She hopes that the problem with the monster houses will be resolved by this or drastically effected by these changes. She commended the Plan Commission on their work and complimented a job well done along with the neighbors involved and the Ward alderman. She reiterated that she looks at this as taking into consideration most of the issue but not all as presented, which is usually the way change occurs in any community. She thanked everyone involved for coming and for creating a great deal of change in this community. Ald. Wynne commended the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission who worked diligently on this matter from the beginning as well as the Ward Alderman. She feels the ideals they came up with were very valid and were presented in a way that provided many altematives. She said initially she was very interested in the concept of 1.2 for height limitation. However as she spent time in the neighborhood and listened to the various arguments from people in other parts of the community, she was concerned with the fairness application of the 1.2 concept. She understood the evolutionary aspect but did not like the fact that if you were early into changing your house then you'd be disadvantaged in a latter stage. She said in regards to the 25' height limitation as 0 explained by Mr. Knutson on how the Zoning Committee arrived at this was a number that from their experience and close examination of what has been used in other similar P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 2/9/04 Page 7 communities, was a comfortable compromise. However, after time and consideration she feels this measurement from grade does not give much leeway if your house is built slightly above grade from the sidewalk. On these two issues she felt were too restrictive. She stated that all along she did not like the idea that this overlay district should follow a political border. She understood that this was just for expedient sake but never liked the idea of being proposed on a political boundary and not one that was thought out in terms of what was really happening in the neighborhood. She pointed out that political borders change as proved just recently. Aid. Wynne concluded that she supports the alternative proposal as motioned here tonight attacks the major issues of concern with bulk and restricting the building of future trophy houses to an extent. She acknowledged the damage that has already been done in the 6 h Ward and sympathizes with those neighbors who have been effected by this and their notable efforts to make change in their Ward to immediately address those problems. However, she reiterated that the alternative proposal motioned is fair and adequate in addressing the 6`h Ward problems as well as the entire City. Again, she stated the proposal of the overlay district to only effect the e Ward residents is too restrictive and initiates change by political boundaries which she can not support. She strongly feels the steps that the P&D Committee is taking tonight address significantly the issues of bulk and lot coverage and garages that are overwhelming on the street. These changes are important ones that need to cover the entire City. She agrees with Aid. Tisdahl that if these changes weren't enough then she would also be willing to revisit this issue again in the future. Mir. Widmayer pointed out to the Committee members that there is a problem in the distinction of the overlay district. In other words, there are other factors beside the issues addressed in the Committee's proposal specifically with the Advisory Appearance Review. He asked would this be considered in the future for Citywide in comparison to only being considered for an overlay district as proposed. Chairman Newman responded that from his understanding the Advisory Appearance Review Citywide is more of a budgetary issue at this point. He said they have been told that there is not adequate staff to have available for such a committee, which was confirmed by Mr. Wolinski. He said that if they could resolve this issue, then a citywide appearance review board could be possible and he would support this especially for single-family homes. He recalled that this concept was referred to the Plan Commission for single-family homes but was not accepted at the time. With this in mind, he acknowledged the certainty in lack of staff support at this time but would support future consideration of having such an advisory appearance review if it were possible. Aid. Bernstein stated that he could not support anything on a per -ward basis because there are so many inconsistencies within each ward. He pointed out in particular a specific property that he %isited in the 6`h Ward and referred to several others that are on small lots and are apparently inconsistent with other areas of this ward. TherefbM he would only be willing to vote for something citywide as it relates to zoning. He is also concerned with the 1.2 increase as it relates to the 25% mandatory minimum because in his mind, if you are trying to maintain the context of an area with la' houses that would only be allowed 1.2 height increase, would not even make the 25' height. He points this out as an example of the too restrictive boundaries set in the proposed overlay district by P&D Committee mts. Minutes of 2r9104 Page 8 the 1.2 limitation as it effects the smaller bungalows and ranch houses that do exist in the e Ward. He recalled Mr. Knutson's comments on floor area ratio and from his experience, he would feel more comfortable with this alternative measurement on controlling bulk to lot size. In his opinion, this is a concept that is understandable. He would like to maintain the context of the neighborhoods within this community and supports any zoning changes that are effective citywide. Aid. Kent refrained from any comments. With no further Committee discussion, the vote was 54 in favor of the motion. (P61 Ordinance 15-0-04 — Extending the Moratorium Prol ided For by Ordinance 56-0- 03 Chairman Newman moved to amend the date for the moratorium to February 73, 2004, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was "in favor of the motion. A,pnmval of the Minutes of the Special Mectine of January 20m and Rearular Meeting of January 26.2004 Ald. Wynne made one correction to clarify that she was not present at the meeting on January 26t' She moved approval of both sets of minutes with the correction to the January 26td minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was " in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) Memorandum from the Housing Commission Ms. Hurwich spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission and requested a date of March 41h to meet with the P&D Committee to discuss inclusionary zoning. After discussion, the Committee agreed on a date of March 29t° at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquel E. mwnlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of February 23.2004 Room 2200 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bermstein. A. Newman. E 'I isdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman tieaman called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. He announced that they would address the 413-21 Howard Street issue first this evening and hear the appeal for 904 Hinman at 7:00 p.m. He noted that there are 3 items on the agenda tonight that require :alderman on A&PW to be present that he would like to toyer first if possible. APPROVALS OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF 3ANUARY 26. 2004 Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of February 9th, seconded by .old. Tisdahl. The rote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P4) Ordinance 29-0-04 — Zoning Planned Deyelonment: 413-21 Howard Street Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that staff is still waiting for the second half of the transcript which will be forwarded to the Committee at their next meeting. Chairman Newman acknowledged the representatives present for this project and asked them to introduce themselves and give a brief presentation. Mr. Jack Lawlor said that he lives in Evanston and is the attorney representing the applicant. Bristol Chicago Development. He introduced the principal. Mr. Bill Walsh. the architect. \fr. Jim Curtin. Mr. 'Neal Kenny- from KLOA, and Mr. John Jaeger from Appraisal Research Co. Mr. Lawlor expressed their excitement about this project and a good way to implement the recently adopted Ho%%ard and Ridge TIF district. He turned to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Curtin for a brief presentation of the project. Mr. Walsh described the site location with the industrial district to the north occupied by the CTA yards. B3 districts to both the east and west of the subject and south of Howard there is the City of Chicago`s Gateway Shopping Center project, which is also in a TIF P&D Comminee %etc Minutes of _-_'=-M Page 2 district %with the Nev, Howard Street station and parking garage. He said from zoning standpoint. they are consistent %kith trends in the area and the site is somewhat isolated. Ile pointed out the challenging nature of the site by its narro%% depth. Ile said the site has 220' of frontaec aloni: Howard and the challenge is that the► onl% ha%e 85' in depth and they "ill be pursuing in alle% vacation immediatef% south of the %►all separating the CTA yard from this site. This alle% vacation will allo%% for I'A * in depth that gives them the opportunity to be able to build on this lot. He said they ye currently working with David Jennings and the Traffic Encineering group, He als--�� pointed out that they will be providing a substitute alley s%siem for the buildings located to the east by dedicating a 16' width alone the eastern perimeter. He said this alleV%%av %►•ill be much more functional that what is currently there now. Mr. Jim Curtin gave an overview of the building itself and the floor plans. He said that on the ground floor there till be public building functions and fitness area to the east with the building office. main lobby and hospitality room as well. The parking lot entrance is located to the west end of the building adjacent to Howard; the lot will provide for 245 cars and will be 4-stories. fir. Curtin said that one of the things that was recommended from their meeting with SPAARC is that they incorporate planter boxes on the streetscape by setting the window opening back 2-feet to allow for planter boxes within the property line along Howard Street. He pointed out the importance of having the 101' width provides for them to have the parking, ramp located on the north side of the building versus having the ramp coming directly- out onto Howard Street. He said that there will be 221 units in the building and the parking rate is 1.1 parking spaces per unit. Chairman Newman asked how many studios. one -bedroom. and two -bedroom apartments will be pro%ided. Mr. Curtin informed that there will be 26 studios. 1.33 one - bedroom and 52 t%►o-bedroom units. Mr. Jaeger. who is a feasibility expert, said that they projected an average rent of S1500 for the entire property. which would come to approximately $1000 for studios going up to S2200 for t%%o bedrooms. Mr. Curtin gave an overview of the exterior of the building. Iic showed illustrations of the building from east and west vie%%s. the elevations. and views from the street level. He pointed out where there will be recessed balconies in all the units. He described the 4-story parking WE structure area where there will be patterned brick in two colors and other materials used in specific areas to shield the cars and make for a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. He pointed out where a projected canopy that will run the length of the project from the parking entry all the %%a%- to the main entry. There will be a 10' wide sidewalk and the canopy will enhance the streetscape along with new streetlights. tree plantings and planters placed within the recessed areas on the ground le, el. He described the materials that will be used for the overall exterior of the building and that they propose using two paint colors for a two-story rhythm that will provide a certain amount of elegance to the building. He described the main entrance of the building and the fitness center area. Ald. Wynne asked if the garage is totally enclosed. 'fir. Curtin explained that the garage will be naturally ventilated and the north fagade is open and they are currently coordinating this with CTA in terms of providing that open %entilation. He is unaware at this point of any objection, however he would assume that they would probably have to provide some type of fencing. Ald. Bernstein asked about the alley vacation and if there = P&D Committee Mic. Minutes of 2-23-04 Page 3 is sufficient space for trucks to maneuver. He also asked about the scan icing and garbage pickup for the a43acent buildings and businesses to the east and %%est. such as 5ubwa%. Mr. Lawlor responded that it ++ill aetuall+ be easier than ho++ it is nc�++, explaining that currently the stores have to put their garbage cans out onto Ho%+ard Street because the trucks can not make the turn. He further explained that Mr. Curtin has designed a notch in the building so that the smaller trucks can manew. er. hogve%er the large garbage trucks will still not be able to. fir. Alterson brought attention to Committee that a cope of the draft of the dedication of the ►aeation of the alley in their packets. Aid. Bernstein said that from visiting the site and driving down the alicy. he .vas surprised that there was not vent or outlet and the amount of garbage in that alley. Aid. Rainey informed Aid. Bernstein that there is a letter that the developers have from the building to the east thanking them and explaining their gratefulness for"hat they are proposing to do with the alley vacation and not having to put their garbage out in front of the store at the curb. Mr. Lawlor noted that the garbage pickup will he in the loading spaces in the rear and there has been n, discussion about the pickup for the adjacent building because they were under the impression that they would still have curb pickup. However. he assured the Committee that they would work out something with the building owner. Aid. Bernstein brought this to attention because for the amount of rent they will be asking for. the expectation of garbage pickup and not having garbage set out at the curb with the building directly next door. is in order. He noted that there is a Starbucks and Bally's within the Gateway shopping center and asked why they would offer a fitness center and cotTee store on the ground level of this building. Mr. Lawlor responded that the primary reason was to offer amenities to the tenants of the building with the convenience of not having to lea%e the premises. lie informed that Ball+'s has sent their support for this development via letter also and welcome this building and the business because there are definitely going to be tenants that want a more full-scale workout and classes that are offered at Ballv's. Chairman Ne«man raised question about the assessed tar amount per unit. tier. Lawlor responded according to the tax lawyer. it would be approximately 53300 per unit. which comes to about 5720.000 for the entire building. Chairman Newman noted that there is a fairly soft rental market at the current time and questioned the market for financing. Mr. Law+ior responded that the market is on recovery for rental developments. He pointed out that some of the major rental projects in downtown Evanston are offering concessions such as the Park Evanston and The Reserves. He said that they view this project as competing with the two previously mentioned and the Park Evanston is currently 90% occupied and The Reserves is currently 20% occupied since opening. He mentioned that their project %%ill take approximately 30 months to completion if they can start construction in November of this year as planned. Aid. Rainey informed the Committee that within the last'_4 hours there have been emails to approximately 300 people being sent by the Housing Affordability Task Group. This email was not written by this group but it being forwarded by them. She requested to correct some noted errors in the email that is being very irresponsibly forwarded. First error. is that the Cite of Evanston did not suspend the rules on October 13'" and pass the TIF without any discussion. however on this date Council suspended the rules to set the MD Committee Mte Minutes of 2-23•0a Paige -t date for a public hearing which %was in December and also to set the date for the Board of Tax Review for all the T1F's. She noted that the public hearin wyas held on December i 2`h and introduced and -was not voted on until the Januar4 26` meeting, therefore this was not a rush deal and there was plenty of opportunit% for people; to express their opinion on the T1F. Another error she wished to make note of is regarding the potential tax for this propene. She noted that their TIF consultant indicated that in the first year this building is up the City would get approximately 5600.000 increment versus now• where for all 4 lints current tax increment is 516.337 per year. aid. Rainey said that she also wanted to address the issue of requiring lesser than market rents in some of the units in this building. She pointed out that for the entire City of Evanston per census block. the 8ei \Vard has the third lowest income census block group which is immediately adjacent to the census block group of the 400 block of Howard. This area also includes Howard Street from Ridge to Custer and the percentage is 62.2%. She noted that there is no other concentration of this devastating poverty any place in the City of Evanston including the Yh and 2nd Wards. She pointed out several locations within the targeted area where specific low income housing such as the Anixter Center for the disabled, two locations for the Housing Options for the Mentally Ill, and also a low income rooming house. She also noted that this area has approximately 67% of all the Section 8 housing vouchers for the entire City of Evanston as well. She aid it is her opinion and the opinion of marry others in south Evanston that this neighborhood is doing more than its fair share for the entire City of Evanston in providing housing for people with special housing needs and assistance. Aid. Rainey stated that one of the things she wants to do with this development is to provide for some balance development to bring in some market rate rentals and income qualified families. which is desperately needed for this area. She recognized the man% conversions that have occurred in this neighborhood but thankful of the fact that most were of dilapidated buildings that were in a state of disrepair beyond any chance of being capable as rental propem•. She pointed out that over the last year in the 300 block of Howard Street there are 9 '/ pages of police calls to two buildings that range from drastic domestic violence to vandalism and drug abuse cases, even calls on suspected e prostitution. With all this in consideration, she expressed her support for this project in the 400 block of Howard Street where there w ill be no added retail offered in the around floor frontage. Furthermore, she does not want to compete with all the wonderful store and business offered in the Gateway Shopping development directly across the street. Aid. Rainey noted that this building is going to be in the range of S44,000,000 and that is a terrific investment in the 8`}' Ward and that targeted area of Howard Street. She fully supports and welcomes this project as a positive entity for the area and for south Evanston. She reiterated on the affordability issue point and when this reaches a climax at Council when this issue is finally voted on. she will back her view on this matter and will remind all that she is the single Alderman in the City of Evanston who fought to make th source of income discrimination illegal when it comes to affordable housing, low income and subsidized housing. She supported this effort so that Evanston could open up their community and have a truly diverse forum where people of all economic background could rent throughout the City and not be denied solely on the basis of - having Section 8 vouchers. In conclusion. Aid. Rainey urged and encourages the P&D Commmee MtE. Minutes of=•=:1� Page c Committee's support of this pr.,:.ct and strongl% reels this is the hest thing that has been proposed for Ho%%ard Street or. he E%anston side. She stated that this project would parallel µhat Chicago has do::. %% th their responsibility for the improvement and gentrification of Hoµard Street She said that this building is going to brine in 221 household Tamil% c%es to this s:towneet and if any street in this ton needs it. it is Howard Street. Chairman Newman moved approval of Ordinance 29-0-04, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Rainey introduced Mr. Michael Land. a representative from Aid. \loore's office of Chicago that represents the ward adjacent to Evanston on Howard Street. which contains the Gatewa\ Shopping Center. 'fir. Land expressed full support on behalf of Aid. .\loore's Ward and staff on this proposed development. He informed the Committee that they would only add for the record that they urge the developers to not build any higher than needed to make a reasonable profit. He stated that the\ do concur with the proposed height of the development to be sufficient and the number of units and projected rental rates. Ald. Feldman requested to comment on this project expressing his full support for this development. He agrees with Ald. Rainey and backs her opinions that this proposed project is the most important development to come to Howard Street and is confident that it will only be a positive mo%e for improvement of that area, the neighborhood and for the 8" Ward. He said the approval of this project is in the hands of the Council and reminded that the neighborhood rests on this decision as the future effect on this area. He recalled that Council passed the TIT with a lot on its plate and this project is the most ambitious TIT that City Council has ever established. He is confident that this building will start and be the first step in contributing to the economic improvement and appearance on the Evanston side of Howard Street. Chairman Nev.-man called on citizens who wished to comment at this time. Nir. Calvin Lynn said that he oµns property on South Boulevard just north of this site beyond the CTA yard. He questioned if the developer has given any consideration to the added traffic and noise that he feels will definitely effect properties and the neighborhood on South Boulevard. He feels traffic will multiply on his street with detouring of vehicles down Chicago Avenue and onto South Boulevard when construction starts. He noted that this area has alread% been etTec:ed b\ traffic problems caused by the Dubin development and this proposed project will only add to that congestion. Ile is also concerned with the added noise level from the CTA yard with the echo that will come from the height of the proposed building once it is erected. He stated that the noise level has already heightened since the CTA has reconstructed their station. I le is also concerned with the open area of the garage facing north, which µill also heighten noise levels as well. Mr. Lynn strongly urged the Committee's consideration of haying a full traffic and noise study done to make sure this developer does everything possible to minimize any further noise levels from the open air parking structure or traffic congestion to the neighborhood on South P&D Committee Nfig. !Minutes of 2-23-04 Page 6 Boule%ard. Chairman \e%%Tian told Nlr. Lynn that he appreciate: his comments but in terms of the other side Of the street with the Gatewa% Center and the Howard Street El station. this area has al«a%s and still current!% in%iies thousands of people e%er}day. He stated that even with the :21 units proposed with the development man} will probable use the public transportation pro\ided within close proximity to this building. On the other hand. even if this is not the case. he belie -,es the positives offered from this project for Howard Street are inclined to outweigh the concerns for added traffic congestion to this area. He questions the real impact of any detoured traffic on to South Boulevard from this proposed project during construction. Ms. Doric Stein, 550 South Boulevard. seconded Mr. Lynn's comments and concerns and the already existing tratiic problems caused by the Dubin Development in their neighborhood. She said the traffic congestion on Chicago Avenue during peak hours is very heavy now and will only multiply during the construction period of this proposed building and even after with the added housing to this already dense area. She reminded that even if the Dubin Development provided parking spaces for each unit there was no consideration given to guest parking which overflows into the surrounding neighborhood that already suffers from lack of parking. She questioned if any consideration has been given to this same problem with for the new development on Howard Street where there is very limited parking available. Aid. Bernstein responded to the comments and concern for traffic congestion and parking problems on South Boulevard. He stated from his experience and knowledge from having his business office at the corner of South Boulevard and Chicago Avenue for over 25 years, that he can agree and back the concerns with the Dubin project directly impacting that immediate surrounding area. fie agrees that traffic problems have multiplied as well as parking problems within the neighborhood caused by the Dubin development. However. he can not see the seriousness of any immediate impact added to the South Boulevard neighborhood from this proposed project on Howard Street. He stated that Chicago Avenue will probable be impacted with additional traffic as well as on Howard Street, but not specifically on South Boulevard. He states this from his own experience being in the neighborhood from so man years and possible longer than many of the residents that are currently there now. He clarified that he realizes the neighborhood property owners concerns but reiterated that the major impact has been from the Dubin Development on South Boulevard. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Newman requested tha the last two speakers concerns be directed to Mr. Jennings and Traffic Engineering and that some type of response be fontarded to those citizens. Mr. Lawlor asked for assistance from the A&D Committee on a change they would like to request in the draft ordinance itself. He pointed out that there is a routine clause stating that the owner, meaning the applicant and successor owner and operator of the property reads from the wording. He said that this is acceptable. however there is a previous P&D Committee,ttg. Minutes of 2-23.04 Pace 7 clause in Section 6. which states "currentl% no building permits shall he issued without the Cite having first received rri4ence satisfactorn to it that the applicant is the owner of the subject property." fie said ben+ecn now and then. Mr. Walsh may be creating a different investment vehicle and he requested that appropriate wording be clarified to address this issue without misunderstanding of the wording as currently stated in the ordinance. Chairman Newman sucgested that between now and the next Council meeting. he should negotiate with staff and the Legal Department on "hat language is agreeable to address that issue. He directed that staff bring the final amended language agreed upon in the ordinance back before the Committee for final review. 14r. Wolinski assured that staff will work with the developer on this matter. Ald. Wynne asked if in the ordinance they require the same level of architectural detail as they did for 603 Main Street because she feels it is important that the same conditions be set for all planned developments to assure that the final outcome is the same as presented and approved by Council. Mr. Wolinski responded that the ordinance as it is drafted does not contain that level of detail. Ald. Wynne motioned to amend the ordinance to include this level of detail, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Ne%vman suggested that this amendment also be incorporated to the ordinance within the next 2 weeks as well. Ald. Wynne also stated for the record her opinion that she does not accept the close proximity to public transportation as a substitute to back the argument of less parking needed. This argument has obviously failed in the pass cases of developments built within walking distance of the public transportation stations. (P7) Ordinance 23-0-04 — Special Use for 1168 Dodee Avenue (Tyne 2 Restaurant The Committee agreed, as well as the Ward Alderman Jean -Baptiste, to hold this item on the agenda due to lack of representation from the applicant. Gold Coast Dogs. (P6) Ordinance 22-0-04 — Snecial Use for 845 Dodee Avenue (Tune 2 Restaurant Chairman Newman recalled that this item was introduced on February 9`h and referred back to Committee for further discussion with the applicant/business+operator was not present at the last meeting. He acknowledged the Subway Restaurant owners. Mr. Moazi Verani. The hours of operation were discussed and confirmed allowing the restaurant to be open until midnight on weekends only. This was agreeable with Aid. Feldman as well. Chairman Newman recalled Ald. Feldman's concerns with having public phone usage and requested that no public phone usage be allowed on the premises. This %vas agreeable with the owner. Chairman Newman also discussed with the applicant the condition of the 250' radius for garbage and debris pick up this his establishment is responsible for. Chairman Newman moved approval of Ordinance 22-0-04, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (PI) Appeal — 904 Hinman Avenue Chairman Newman asked staff the urgency in time for this appeal and if this Committee must act on this item tonight. Mr. Ruiz responded that the Committee must act on this matter tonight due to the 45 day time period for appeals and to allow time by the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. MD Committee %tug. Minutes of2-23-04 Pace 8 .fr. Ruiz gave an ower•ie%% on the histor, of this case up to date as summarized on the agenda item sheet. He distributed additional photographs to the Committee. He explained that on September 8. 2003, Citw staff issued a stop order for the ongoing replacement of steel caszement windowws %with aluminum double hung %vindo%%s at the subject property. which is an Evanston landmark. On October 28. 2003, the property owner, fir. Perocevich presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Preservation Commission. The Preseration Commission reviewed the application and found that the -vindow replacement as submitted did not meet the applicable standards for review of alteration. He read from the list of standards and addressed each one that the Commission felt was not met. He said the only standard that was met %-.w number 10 because the ne%w %windows could be removed at any time without destroying the integrity of the structure. Ultimately. the Preservation Commission approved a motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Also. \fir. Ruiz pointed out that aside from the windows, no permits were obtained for any of the %work done on this building. �4r. James tifuuray, attorne% representing the property owner, Mr. Ramo Perocevich. wvho purchased the property in April 2003. He explained to the Committee that the building at that time was in substantial state of disrepair and had been the subject of deferred maintenance program over the last 20-30 years. He acknowledged that the building has been designated as a landmark and they do not contest this historical status in that respect. He informed that the building has I>7 windows, not including the storefront windows. A contract to replace all the windows was entered into in May 2003. The Work commenced beginning in May also and continued through the months of Jute. July, August and into September %%hen &fr. Ruiz became aware that work was being done on this building. As a part of the %vork contracted. the roof was replaced. new ,gutters were put up, the building %was entirely tuckpointed. the hails were painted and floors re - carpeted. Also work was done on restoring the original colonnade balcony in the front of the building on ,Main Street. %fr. 4furray acknowwledged the fact that none of the work that was undertaken with a specific permit or application to the Preservation Commission. It is his understanding that there is no building permit required for the replacement of windows except when the building is a designated landmark and that there is no fee is charged to the applicant but is forwarded to the Preservation Commission for review and approval. With a majority of the work being completed and approximately S60.000 had been expended into the project. then work on the windows began. By the time the work was stopped, 131 windows had been replaced leaving only 26 %windows unfinished. He noted the hardship on maintenance and upkeep of the old steel casement windows from the owner's experience as a janitor and owner of several building in Chicago. The tenants of the building were complaining and the windows were in desperate need of replacement. He said the contract to replace the windows was done as a means to enhance the quality of the tenancies within the structure and was not intended as a cheap means to solve the problem. Mr. Murray assured that fir. Perocevich was unaware that the window issue would be in vioMon of the Preservation Commission's guidelines and Ordinance and would have - chosen to paint and repair the existing windows if he had known of this violation. He =— P&D Committee %tte. Minutes of?•'__ -Oa Pace 9 reiterated the hardship and maintenance problems with the steel casement windows and frames. From his point of %iew. it is clear that the Preservation Commission determined that it was inappropriate of Mr. Perocevich to replace the windows and that the design of the window replacements was indeed inappropriate for this landmark structure. Nfr. Murray suggested and asks that the Committee would conclude as well that it is also inappropriate to squander 540.000 when that money could be better served in the further restoration of this historical landmark. He further suggested that the better choice of how to deal with this particular is to permit the property owner a means by which to amortize the value of these windows and the investment that has been made over a period of time. As an inducement to the City to permit them to do this and to forestall enforcement by means of whatever violation of the Preservation Ordinance that the Cite has determined to be existence. He said in this order of compensatory. that the}, would offer to undertake an aggressive program of restoration and improvement of this structure in the following respects. 1) They would propose that by Fall 2004. that the fagade on the Hinman side, which is now in part boarded up and painted black. 2) As to the storefront on the first floor that this particular window that has existed there for over 50+ years, be replaced with the appropriate Iimestone. And the existing window frame be replaced and that the large pane glass that would normally fit within the window in two pieces. be replaced and the glass sense of the commercial property be allowed to be visualized interior to exterior and that the portion of the building be restored. They also suggest that the program would include a replacement and scavaging of the existing 26 that remain undone. In order to replace all those windows on the Main Street fagade at street level, which there are only 12. with the original casement windows so that this fagade will return to its former status. 3) By or before the end of October 2007, the star and/or remains of the star that effect the Hinman and Main fagade, all this requires sort of cosmetic improvement and be removed and that portion of the fagade be restored with limestone, glazing and other materials that are suitable. Finally. he hoped that the City would allow them to amortize that S40.000 expenditure that has been undertaken and allow them to retain by replacement or otherwise. in a fashion which is at least in compatibility for each fagade of the building. Aid. Wyrine asked staff if the CitY requires a building permit for the replacement of the roof. Mr. \Volinski responded yes and also require a permit for downspout and gutter replacements; the applicant obtained none of these permits for the work done. He said that he could not comment on the roof because he has not seen the actually work that has been done; the City does allow for 2 layers before replacement. Aid. Tisdahl asked if the applicant has been fined. Mr. Wolinski informed that staff has taken no action yet until Council has made a ruling on the appeal. Aid. Wynne noted that there are two separate issues here; one being the appeal regarding the windows. and the other the case of no permits being obtained for any of the additional work done beside the windows. Even the replacement of windows on an historical landmark requires a permit to receive approval from the Preservation Commission. Chairman Newman noted that all other interested parties before the applicant were fully aware of the National landmark status of this building and it is hard to believe that he was not conscious of this fact too. From questioning, Mr. Perocevieh admitted that he owns other buildings in Chicago that he has also done work on. Chairman Newman said that this applicant as an experienced P&O Committee Mtg. Minutes of 2.23.04 Page 10 property owner, should be aware of the building permit process and %what is required to do work. He said it appears obvious that this applicant clearly does not get permits or respect local policies. %which has nothing to do with the preservation issue but it how the issue came about. The Committee asked staff to clarify exactly what permits should ha►e been obtained for the work that has been done. Mr. Wolinski informed that permits are required for roof replacement, gutters and do►;mspouts. replacement of any plumbing or electrical work however the interior maintenance work down is questionable. Fie said that permits are not required for painting or carpet replacement. Aid. Wynne said that she would like more information on the potential hardship of casement windows and would also like the opinion from the Preservation Commission and other architects on casement ww indows and what is considered an acceptable replacement. The Committee also wanted to know exactly what work was done and how much the permit fees would have been so that an appropriate fine can be issued. Chairman Newman said that he is most concerned with the obvious defiance of the Evanston codes and regulations that this applicant has shown. He said that it is very hard to have any empathy for anyone that does not follow the rules that apply every property owner that owns property in Evanston. The Committee questioned staff on any ability to extend beyond the 45 days to allow for more information. Ms. Szymanski said that this is possible if the applicant .vaives right for appeal. fr. N•lurray said that client would be willing to do so. Ms. Szymanski recommended against holding this item in Committee but instead to have the applicant ►►-give his appeal and continue from there. Chairman Newman asked the Committee's opinion on this because he probably would consider if there some evidence of acknowledgement of any wrongdoing here by the applicant. but the applicant clearly shows no concern for intentionally defying the procedures for obtaining permits. h1'ith this in mind, he moved to recommend denial of the appeal, seconded by Aid. Wynae. The vote was 2 ave (Newman. Wynne) and 2 nay (Bernstein, Tisdahi). Due to the split vote. it was the consensus of the Committee to pass this onto to the Council floor for consideration on how to proceed. (P21 Reauest for Redeveloament Proposals Ms. Aiello explained the RFP process and suggested to the Committee that a special meeting be held at a later date for review of the proposals that come in from the RFP. The Committee agreed. Chairman Newman asked for hands of those in attendance for this item. Several raised their hands and were directed to give their names to staff' for notice to be sent to them when the special meeting is set. Discussion took place on the replacement of existing parking on these lots. It was clarified that one of the requirements to any potential developer is to provide and maintain the current number of public parking spaces plus additional for any proposal presented. Aid. Bernstein addressed the parking lot on Hinman and South Boulevard which is opposed to for further development since the Dubin project; noting that this development has provided no additional parking in the area for guest or otherwise. However. he would be willing to P&:D Cor=iree %itg. Minutes of=•_:-04 Page 11 support if the current parking is maintained and according to the size of the proposed development. The Committee all agreed 4-0 to staffs recommendation. (P3) Ordinance 1-8-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4 -? of the Evanston Cite Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairmwz Newman mentioned that this notice %%as sent out b}. staff without referring with him first because if they had of. he would have suggested scheduling this item for a later date such as March 22nd. The Committee agreed that sufficient time is needed for this item to allow for citizen comments and discussion. He recognized the few citizens that wished to make comment in opposition to this ordinance, Ms. Sioux Tourney representing the 1900 Sherman and 2300 Noyes Court buildings. a representative from the North Shore Hotel. Steve Ferguson from 2339 Sheridan Road (Northwestern Frat House). a representative from the Mather Foundation. Also there was a letter received from Ms. Barbara Gorham. owner of "The Margarita Inn" expressing her opposition to this ordinance as well. The main point of opposition in agreement with those citizens present is the economic feasibility and cost of installing this type of sprinkler retrofit work especially in the older and historical buildings. Chairman Neuman addressed each representative from the locations mentioned above and asked each the cost estimate given to them for this work. The representatives from Northwestern said they were given an estimate of S180-S200,000, the North Shore was given an estimate of'i. of a million dollars and there were several problems with the HUD funded buildings with regards to the fact that all their tenants are on fixed incomes and HUD does not have the funds to cower the cost to do this work at this time. The Committee agreed to hold this item in Committee and will start the meeting at 6:00 p.m. with this matter on the agenda first. (P8) Ordinance 24-0-04 — Amending the Membershin Reouirements of the Housing Commission his. Judith Hurwvich spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission. She said that the consensus of the Commission that they can definitely benefit from the landlords' perspective and encourage this participation. However, she noted that the Human Relations Commission not the Housing Commission deals specifically with landlord tenant issues. Therefore, she stated that the Housing Commission members support appointment as it represents those interests, but are opposed to making membership more prescriptive. which could result in longer vacancies on the Commission. Discussion took place between Ms. Hurwvich and the Committee and it was agreed to require only I tenant and I landlord. Chairman Newman moved approval of this decision, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 07-0-04 — Zonine Map Amendment: Rezonine of Kendall College Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Maloney, attorney representing the property owner. It was agreed that a meeting with the Neighborhood Task Force needs to be scheduled before the March 8't' P&D meeting. Mr. Maloney said that Mr. Bono has a problem in scheduling and will not be available before March Wh. Chairman Newman P&D Committee .Mtg. Minutes of?-23-W Page I2 suggested that he meet with Mr. Bono and then meet with the Neighborhood group to forward his comments or visa -verse. This item was held in Committee until the March 81h meeting. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD11 Consent Decree — Northeastern Historical District The Committee agreed to keep this on their agenda for discussion at the March 81h meeting. Chairman Newman suggested that staff invite Mr. Bob Atkins to join the Committee for discussion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '� - 9\"�\ 9A. Jacyuelr�e E. roHnlee - Planning & Development Committee Minutes of March 8, 2004 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent. A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, &l. Wynne Styli Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, V. Jones, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 2004 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the February 23,d minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P2) Ordinance 28-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modification to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Kent called on citizens that signed up to .speak on this issue first. Mr. Rich Olszewski, representing the Cook County Housing Authority, reiterated the hardships for their organization to comply with this ordinance as explained at previous meetings. He explained one of the problems they have with their buildings is the lack of ceiling space to adequately install the needed piping for the sprinkler system. The buildings are 10 stories with standard 8' ceiling heights, therefore this does not provide the adequate ceiling height and any piping would have to be exposed. He said it is an extreme cost issue to install the required piping and sprinkler system and would also result in a maze of exposed piping. If said at least 10' ceilings are needed to install this piping in the ceiling to allow enough room for a dropped drywall ceiling to cover the piping because these are living units. He noted the cost per building would be a minimum of approximately '/2 million dollars per building. He informed the Committze that they have had budget cuts in their funding and have to provide for maintenance to both buildings within their limited budget. Mr. Olszewski noted that 34 years ago Cook. County installed a very sophisticated smoke detector system to every portion of the building, which is identified and signaled to the Fire Department directly. The elevators are also hooked up to this system as well ad the stairwells have a 4-hour rate closure on theta. This smoke detector system cost approximately IA million dollars a few years ago P&D Committee SUg. Minutes of 03-08.04 Page and was approved by the Fire Department. He noted that the funds to pay for that system were very difficult to raise. Chairman Kent recalled `tr. Olszewski and tits. Turnoy testifying these same hardships the last time this matter was before the Comminee. Ms. Sioux Turnov wanted to make clear that the)- do agree with the sprinkler system and support Chief Berkowsky's direction. However it is not feasible for all the reasons Mr. Olszewski mentioned and also one of her concerns is the impact on the residents. She noted that both 10-story buildings are fully occupied by people who average in their 70's and 80's, some older, and some with physical disabilities. She said to do this type of work while these people are living in those units could be detrimental to their health. She also noted that all their residents are on fixed incomes and the Cook County Housing Authority is also on a fixed budget, which the government keeps cutting in various areas. Therefore, the residents pay reduced rents that are set by the government so there is no way to pass this cost onto their tenants as well. - Aid. Bernstein asked if the County has any regulations as far as fire safety requirements; he questions who actually governs these buildings. Ms. Turnoy responded that the Housing Authority of Cook County is a municipal corporation chartered by the State and funded by HUD, therefore they are not governed under the County but come under Evanston's regulations. Chairman Kent called on Chief Berkowsky for comments and explanation of the modifications to this ordinance since last discussed. The Chief gave a brief history account of the ordinance, which was originally presented for consideration in April 2002, modified slightly and brought back to Committee the following June and August. He said the actual ordinance was introduced September 23, 2002. At that time, they held a meeting where many building owners came out and commented in opposition to this ordinance with the main concern for cost hardships and installation problems. He noted that no fires have ever occurred in the owner -occupied rooming houses, however a major fire occurred at 718 Foster. Aid. Newman said that it would be great to require the sprinklers in the rooming houses but the problem in this category is who to apply to; should hotels be included and put in the same category? He said total clarification is needed in this category. Chief Berkowsky responded that the ordinance does separate rooming houses from hotels and non -owner occupied. He informed the Committee of a fire that occurred at St. Francis Hospital last year and due to the sprinkler system in place in the area of the fire, it was extinguished with 2 sprinkler heads with minimal damage to the building and no injuries. He noted that they have made good progress with other properties such as the Best Western Hotel and several Northwestern dormitories that does include the greek housing, which probably has the worse history of fires and continues to be a problem. He explained what has been modified to the ordinance was creating two categories, one for buildings to come in compliance within a 4-year period and two for buildings to come in compliance within an 8-year period. The difference being do the occupancies being recommended for a 4-year period represent the greatest concern with individuals that cannot fend for themselves plus dormitories and greek house that have an alarming history of fires over the past years. P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 03-08-04 Page 3 Mr. David Revrsolds who operates the Homestead. said that he does not doubt or question the Chiefs intent with this ordinance. However. although it can be done he specified the difficulties with installing such a system at the Homestead because of the construction and age of the building. He explained those difficulties in further detail. He stated that this would be a very costly job for the Homestead and their residents who are also all senior citizens and on fixed incomes. He informed the Committee of the current rent rates and the difficulty it would be for the majority of their residents to have this cost passed do%%m onto them. Mr. Reynolds does approve of the latest modification to allow an 8-year period for hotels and senior citizen housing. Mr. Duke Ferauson said that he represents one of the greek fraternity houses at Northwestern and noted that they have been following the sprinkler ordinance throughout its evolution. He concurs with everyone that has spoken before him and agrees that there is absolutely no doubt that sprinklers can save lives. However, they too share in the previous comments made regarding the economic hardships to comply with the installation of such a system and the aesthetic hardships that will also result within the current building and ceiling configurations, especially if the building is of considerable age. He noted that they have put a lot of money and effort into preserving their buildings historical aspect. He said having met all recent fire safety standards they believe that there are many buildings that can go without the sprinkler retrofit that should not be considered "unsafe". He feels a specific buildings history should be brought into account such as all greek houses being considered or ran the same. Chief Berkowsky said that he understands Mr. Ferguson's concerns however greek housing and dorms have an incredibly alarming history of fires and safety issues and it would be hard to exempt one gmek house from all the others. Mr. Oslewski commented on the 8-year time frame period.. Even though this allows for more time for a building to come into compliance, most contractual work is far more expensive over longer periods of time. This will eventually be even more costly over time. Ald. Newman sympathizes with the Cook County Housing Authority and acknowledged their evident economic hardship in complying with this ordinance. Not only is the organization operating on a limited budget from the government but also their entire residency is on social security fixed incomes in the range that qualify for low income housing. Ms. Turnoy verified that the majority of their tenants are living on incomes of 500-(M per month and paying fixed rent amounts as well. Ald. Newman agrees that it is impossible for these buildings to comply. It was also mentioned that the rents in the North Shore Hotel are around $1200 - S1500 per month, which is very expensive for senior citizens and the majority of residents living there. It would be unreasonable to pass this expense onto those tenants as well expectation on any of the other tenants in similar senior housing. Chief Berkowsky recognizes all the difficulties stated, unfortunately buildings with an aging population there is a major concern for mobility of these individuals in case of a fire or other emergency. Md. Tisdahl commended Chief Berkowsky and recognizes his responsibility and that he doing what he is supposed to do and is required of him. She noted his major concern is for saving lives under any circumstances at whatever cost measures it may take. She P&D Committee Nttg. Minutes of03-09-04 Page a further noted his modification by allowing a 4-}ear and 8-year period depending on the category of the building. However even ►►ith the time extended for funding concerns, it is definitely apparent that the cost hardships still remain for many buildings. She stated that this issue is at an impasse. Chief Berkowsky informed the Committee and audience that there are funding mechanisms available from different methods or assistance for certain organizations. Several of the building managers in the audience said that they would be interested in seeing a list of these organizations or funding proposals. In conclusion, Aid. Newman said that he would be interested in seeing additional figures on cost to these buildings stating economic hardship and a list of the funding sources available. The other Committee members agreed. Aid. Newman moved to hold this item on their agenda for further information at a discussion level. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. (PI) Anrw.al — 904 Hinman Avenue Mr. Chris Carey, Chair of the Preservation Commission. addressed the Committee to enlighten them of the Commission's position on their decision with this case. He gave the Committee further commentary of the Commission's reaction to each standard. He felt the most important standard that was not met was #3 which states "that any exterior architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and visual quality. It was the consensus of the Commission that this standard was clearly not met and agree that the windows are an important feature in historical structures and all measures should be taken to preserve this architectural feature of the building. The Commission agreed that the current owner did not respect this standard. Mr. Carey stated that the Commission would request that P&D uphold their decision. With this in mind, he informed the Committee that the Preservation Commission has made efforts to work out some type of compromise with the owner and are still willing to meet with Mr. Perocevich and Mr. Murray to further negotiate. Aid. Nc%%Tnan encourages such negotiations bemren the Commission and owner, however the fact remains that this owner did not respect or acknowledge the City's building codes and requirements. He accepted staffs memorandum resulting from their inspection of the building and the work that has occurred on this building up to date since the new owner took over. It was the consensus of the Committee that all fines should be passed onto this owner to the full extent. Aid. Bernstein brought to the Committee's attention a pamphlet he obtained from the City Clerk's office on the Preservation Commission and historical landmarks. He pointed out that the pamphlet is incredibly ambiguous and does not clearly explain the entire process and What exactly is required of the owner as far as what requires a permit or certificate of appropriateness. Further discussion took place ending with Ald. Bernstein directing staff to review the pamphlet and make some modifications to the wording for more clarification. Mr. Ruiz assured that he would review and make any necessary amendments for clarity. P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of 03-08-04 Page 5 Aid. Bernstein questioned if the windows acceptable by the Commission are available and what the estimated cost would be for replacement. Mr. Murray noted that the windows that are acceptable and desired by the Preservation Commission are very expensive and would have come to approximately 5360,000 to replace all the windows of the building. He reiterated the same reasons on the feasibility of replacing with the casement windows and the hardship on maintenance and upkeep. The windows remaining undone currently do not function properly. He also mentioned that many of the casement windows that previously existed in the building were very unsafe and were a hazard to children with the risk of falling out because of how they open up. He again mentioned the cost that Mr. Perocevich has already put into the existing replacement windows at the cost of over $40,000 that he has already spent. He noted the major difference in prices of the windows and that the windows preferable by the Commission would clearly be a cost hardship to his client. lie made clear of the fact that they do not argue the lack of obtaining proper permits and his client is willing to pay any penalties due him. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she strongly urges negotiation discussion to conclude as some compromise, especially with the testimony given on the cost of the casement window replacements. She is also concerned with the safety of children if these casement windows open in such a way that could be dangerous of risk of falling out. The cast issue of concern to her as well and questioned if there were an alternative window more cost efficient that could be considered. In any case, this owner has already replaced over 100 of the windows and the cost for re -replacing these windows needs to be taken into consideration as well. Aid. Ncwman said that the economic hardship may be his only argument if the comparison is the difference from S40,000 to $360,000. Mr. Mary Brugliera, Preservation Commissioner, informed the Committee that there are many vendors that are currently available with the rise in rehabilitation and preservation of buildings. She noted that window restoration is very marketable at this time so cost fluctuations is very possible. She acknowledged that the amount stated by Mr. Murray at S360,000 is very expensive but the same style of window can be purchased at a much lower cost that aesthetically look the same but use less expensive materials. She also mentioned that casement windows are still being made and are available so the safety issue is questionable depending on the maintenance and upkeep of the windows. She suggested an alternative to rectify this problem is to have a phase in progress over a period of time to replace the windows that have already by done. Mr. Ruiz stated for the record that safety is an important factor that the Preservation Commission always takes into consideration. If casement windows were unsafe manufacturer would not keep mailing this type of window. He seconded Ms. Brugliera's comments on researching to locate this type of window at an affordable price; it can be done. The consensus of the Committee was to allow time for negotiations of alternatives between the building owner and the Preservation Commission. Aid. Wynne moved to hold this item in Committee until negotiation meetings have occurred, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committee Mtg, Minutes of 03.08-04 Page 6 IP31 Ordinance 07-0-04 — Zonine .%13D Amendmcnt -- Rezonine of Kendall Collece Aid. Newman said that it is his understanding that talk between the developer and the neighborhood task force are still going on. %fr. Malarkey concurred that the meetings have been productive and will continue. its. Szymanski suggested to Chairman Kent to table this matter on Council floor until further action. (P4) Ordinance 23-0-04 — SDecial Use for 1168 Dodce Avenue Chairman Kent called Aid. Jean -Baptiste over for discussion of this item. He asked the applicants to re -introduce themselves, Mr. Rafia Ghaswala. said that he is the Vice President of Operations for Gold Coast Dogs franchise systems. He was requested at the last meeting to bring the manager/operator before the Committee at the last meeting. He brought with him the President, Mr. Nizarali Ladhani. In response to a question regarding hours of operation, Mr. Ladhani stated that he still prefers and request consideration of being open 24 hours. He said that they are not pleased with having the restricted hours condition. Mr. Ghaswala updated the Committee what has transpired since they last came before P&D. He explained that since the last meeting they have lost the franchisee for this location due to the length of time it has taken since application and other concerns with this location. This site will now have to operate as a corporate store. He further explained that corporate stores are managed directly by themselves, the franchise owners. Mr. Ladhani informed that although they would run this location directly, they will still be trying to obtain a franchisee for this site. Aid. Bernstein expressed some concern because the intention tonight was to speak directly with the person that would be managing the store. If this changes and a franchisee is obtained in the near future, P&D will not have: the opportunity to discuss the conditions with them directly. Aid. Newman expressed his concerns as well with not being able to talk directly to who ever will be running the store if a new franchisee is acquired. His concerns are with the strip of property a few blocks north of this location going towards the high school where the litter and debris is abundant and very unsightly. He considers this area an embarrassment for all of Evanston. Chairman Kent agreed and noted that the neighbors in that area have tried to deal with it and clean up but they are overwhelmed because the trash is so heavy in that area. Ald. Jean -Baptiste agreed with the previous comments expressed by the Committee regarding this strip, which he said has been a constant aggravation because it is a heavily trafficked area by high school students. He also is very concerned with this opening as a corporate store and later in time being run by a franchisee who they will not have an opportunity to talk to. He stressed the fact that firm accountability is needed here and assurance that all conditions will be complied by. Mr. Ghaswala and Mr. Ladhani both assured that they would take full responsibility the franchise owners to pass on any directions to the new franchisee if one is obtained. Ald, Newman brought up the fact that the problem with this intersection is that there arc too many type 2 restaurants at Dempster and Dodge and being so close in proximity to the high school. The litter problem in this area will always be a constant problem because of this. However the direct frontage of the shopping center seems to stay clear of debris and the grounds kept up. He directed staff to report back to the Committee with a P&D Committee titlg. Minutes of 03-08-0a Page 7 dollar amount for the City to clean up and maintain the strip of property referred to north of Dempster. He added to extend this distance to as far north as Church Street and south to Main Street. tits. Aiello said that she would report back to the Committee with information. Discussion on hours of operation took place. Aid. Newman suggested that at this particular location, appropriate hours would be from whatever time in the morning to a closing time of 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends. Aid. Jean -Baptiste supported this and agreed that this location does not need to be opened any later and certainly not 24 hours. The Committee members all agreed to the suggested hours of operation. Ms. Aiello also suggested that a condition be included that if a franchisee is obtained, the owner of Gold Coast Dogs must report this information to the City and forwarded to P&D as well. Aid. Bernstein moved approval subject to the conditions stated above. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. (P5) Ordinance 29-0-04 — Planned Develor)ment 413-421 Howard Street This item was brought back before the Committee due to Aid. Wynne's request that some condition be added to require the same level of architectural detail similar to the project at 603 Main Street. She feels what has been added is acceptable. With this said, Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Consent Decree — Northeastern Historic District Aid. Newman recommended Mr. Dave Schoenfeld and Mr. Bob Atkins, who both live on Orrington, to sit on the review Committee for this matter. He also has a third recommendation in case needed; this individual is a law Professor for Northwestern. The other Committee members accepted Aid. Newman's recommendations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquel a E. wnlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of March 22, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl..N1. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, V. Jones, D. Marino. D. Spicuzza. E. Szymanski. J. Bro-,vnlee Presiding Official: .alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUhI Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2004 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the March 8'h minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1) Request for HOME Funds from Econ Housing Grout) Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Neil Davidson and asked for a brief explanation of his request. Mr. Davidson gave a brief history and overview of his project. He request the City's assistance to pave the alley from Darrow to Dodge and has obtained all the signatures from the homeowners adjacent to this alley for a special assessment. Chairman Kent asked for more explanation on the amount of funds requested originally and the difference submitted being much less. Mr. Davidson explained that part of the reduction is the cost of the alley and some reduction in the construction. He noted the original budget was for four units and the project is now down to three units and also some of the square footage has been reduced. He further noted that another change from the original plan was to add an extra parking spot per unit. Chairman Kent asked for staff input. Mr. Wolinski added that he and Mr. Davidson discussed this at length when he first came in with this concept. Mr. Davidson then when before the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for four units, the property is zoned for two, and the compromise was to allow for three units. He along with Ms. 5picuzza and Mr. Marino have worked extensively with Mr. Davidson trying to get the amount of subsidy down. He noted that part of the problem is the land cost in this case, which is $143,000 for the lot, and Mr. Davidson handled the negotiations and was unable to get the owner of the property to reduce this cost. He said that they are looking at approximately S97,000 subsidy per unit, noting that this amount is much higher than what has been requested in the past. However there are HOME funds available with a balance of $1.8 million. He said that P&D Committee %IIa Minutes of 3-22-04 Nee they are trying to stimulate more affordable housing activity but at this time. Ecun Housing Group is the vnl� de\eloper coming forward with any affordable projects at this time. He affirmed staff's support with this program. Aid. Bernstein asked the construction cost of the bath. questioning if eliminating this bath could reduce the cost. Mr. Davidson responded that the cost of the extra ' bath is not significant and would result in minimal reduction in the final cost of the project. Als. Spicuzza explained the affordability aspect to the project and the resale clause in effort to keep the price affordable within the 20-year affordability period. The subsidy would stay with the unit so that the owner would not have to pay back the remaining subside and the property would have to be sold at an affordable price for 80°lo median income. She said the owner would be allowed a fair return on the sale, all which the new potential owner would be notified of from the beginning. Upon explanation, Aid. Newman stated that with this restriction, there appears to be no incentive for the new owner. He feels if the property is sold before the 20 year period, any part of the grant should be repaid, allowing the owner to keep any equity earned within the time they owned the property. He added that there is no real deal for the buyer in this case and feels that every homeowner in Evanston should be entitled to the same benefits of earned equity; affordable housing owners should be no different. Mr. Wolinski responded that the aim in this clause is an effort to keep the property affordable for qualifying households that would otherwise not be able to afford this type of housing. which is the goal with the development of affordable housing using HUD funds. Mr. Davidson added that when he market and sell these units it will be with the understanding that the buyers that are buying these homes would not be able to buy in Evanston. He said there will be equity incentives involved in the resale and this will be stated in the covenant. Ms. Spicu77.a said one other point with HUD regulations for HOME loans gives you the option of either recapturing the funds, which the City followed previously where the homeowner would pay back a percentage. She said typically when you see recapture agreements, they do not pertain to the higher loans such as involved in this case and in different affordable housing programs. She said the advantage that this has; as mentioned by Mr. Wolinski, is that it really tries to keep the unit affordable for a longer period of time. Further discussion followed on the resale questions and the benefits to the property owner. Chairman Kent stated his opinion that the main goal is to target people who would otherwise not be able to own a house in Evanston and have the same opportunity and benefits of raising their families here. The goal should not necessarily be to make a large profit but to profit from long time homeownership and the reaping the benefits of living in this community. Ms. Spicuzza noted that the fair market return expected in this program is at 3% of the 5185,000 to begin with and subsequently 3% of the market value per year owned. Plus the owner would receive back their down payment amount and all the equity put into the property since ownership. Chairman Kent asked if the lottery system would still be used for these 3 townhomes and questioned if the list of people who applied for the 3 previous affordable homes built would be put back in the lottery as well. He noted that those who are already in the system and were turned down previously, have had time to correct their credit or other problems, are Evanstonians and would be target households for the townhouses. He prefers those people be given a chance and that the townhouses be sold as they are built. PRD Committee %1te. Minutes of 3-22-04 Page 3 Aid. Bernstein moved approval. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The %01e H-95 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Ne%%Tnan requested that in the future all affordable housing HOME fund cases should include a pro forma. and this should be a requirement within their packet presentation before the Committee. (P2) Ordinance 40-0-04 — Special Use for 2401 Brummel Place (Religious Institution) Aid. Rainey was called over for discussion on this item. Chairman Kent acknowledged the applicants, Mr. Scott Krone. Architect. Mr. Bob Hamilton. Traffic Engineer, Mr. Bill Ilanawalt, Reverend of Vineyard Christian Fellowship, and Mr. Mark Sargis, Attorney. tiir. Sargis introduced everyone involved with their application and gave an overview of their request and a description of the site from an aerial view photo. Ile described the building to be used for worship. which is the former Shure Brothers site. He went into further detail on the building location and access which is from Iloward Street along the west border of the shopping center via an easement and Shure Drive.%Brummel Place is a recorded easement for a private road to the building as ►sell. Ile described the portion of the property that is located on the Metropolitan NVater Reclamation District that was originally a 100-year lease that the Vineyard would take over the remaining 45 years. This property has 39 on -site parking spaces on the Vineyard's purchase parcel and also the 406 space parking lot immediately west of and running the lenuth of the parking lot of the shopping center. Mr. Sargis recalled discussion from the ZBA hearing regarding a condition limited to traffic coming in off of Howard Street into the property for access to the parking lot and building. He said none of the original building will be demolished but will be interior renovated for use. He brought attention to the letter he distributed to the Committee this evening from CenterPoint Properties. the current owner of the property. The letter addresses a question that came up at the recent ZBA meeting regarding the marketability of the property immediately adjacent to the east for continued industrial use. The current property owner clarifies their position that the sale to Vineyard will present no difficulty or impede their ability to sell 222 Hartrey for industrial use. Mr. Sargis also acknowledged the benefit of the shopping center for use by the Sunday parishioners. He also noted that the population of the congregation is very stable and they do not anticipate any boost in membership or decline. Aid. Rainey brought to the Committee's attention several issues that she remains concerned about. She informed that several neighbors attended the Zoning hearings and voiced their concerns and suggestions and alternatives, which seemed to be ignored by the Zoning Board at that time. She clarified her position in that she feels this proposed site is the best place for the Vineyard to be and supports and welcomes their relocation to this site. However, there are several issues that the ZBA did not deal with that she feels is crucial to be dealt with and confirmed by way of specified conditions in granting this special use. She acknowledged the Vineyard's position and respected reputation on their intentions to refurbish the parking lot up to par, but it is not being required of them. Aid. Rainey noted that even if the parking lot is in Skokie, she assumes that they can place a condition on this parcel of land in connection with the special use. She informed that Shure Brothers have not used this parking lot for years and because of this, the lot is in very bad condition and there is obvious visual damage and deterioration to the point f &p Committee %etc. Minutes of 3•'=•0a f ale a %►here total resurfacing needs to be ,lane. She %%ould like to see this made a condition with the special use. Chairman Kent asked the applicant if total resurfacing of the parking lot is within their plans. Rev. Flan3walt responded that they definitely planned on cleaning the parking tot and repairing it to the point of making it presentable for use. He said that one of their members o-wns a resealing company who has volunteered to do this work. Aid. Rainey stood firm that she would prefer this be established by way of condition on the special use in light of the current deplorable condition of the lot. Secondly, Aid. Rainey expressed her concern for a condition with the special use for landscaping of the parking lot along the easement/driveway from Ho►yard Street. She described the current condition of this strip of land including excessive debris and unkempt shrubbery of no conformity. She stated that she does not recall the ZBA approving a special use without some condition having to do with landscaping. She informed the Committee that several of the neighbors requested to the ZBA to place a condition on landscaping and maintenance, which the ZBA seemed to pay no attention. She pointed out where the required landscaping should be along the huge length of the parking lot. She insisted that there has to be a condition to require this landscaping and maintenance to include some type of conformity with acceptable concealing shrubbery for the parking lot. She noted that it is only fair to require the same condition and expectation for Vineyard that the City requested Im the adjacent shopping, center u7th their parking lot. Thirdly, Aid. Rainey addressed her concern for traffic control along Brummcl Place and exclusion of any use for ingress and egress from the Hartrey entrance by use of the church. She recalled a neighbor's comment at the ZBA hearing stating their trust for the pastor's assurance of controlling this traffic from the Hartrey entrance. However, even with her assurance of trusting the pastor and his word in this matter, she does not trust his parishioners to comply with this promise. She accredited on the reverend behalf that this type of control is difficult to handle overall and can easily get out of hand on a busy Sunday with the heavy traffic from parishioners in combination m ith traffic for the shopping center. She informed the Committee of testimony given at the ZBA meeting by a neighbor who has lived in that neighborhood for over 45 years. This neighbor stated that the reason why their neighborhood is what it is today is because they maintained control of traffic into their neighborhood with the cooperation of a major corporation and the shopping center. As neighbors they worked together to control the traffic and that the neighbors are only requesting this continued cooperation and compliance. Aid. Rainey asked the Committee to place a requirement to keep this same control over traffic into the neighborhood. She suggested to the applicant that a barrier of some sort be used on Sundays to keep traffic from going out onto Hartrey. Aid. Rainey concluded by expressing her support for keeping the Vineyard congregation in Evanston and reiterated her opinion on this being an ideal location for them. She also informed the Committee that in the past weeks she has had 3 inquiries about the development for the adjacent site to the east knowing that the Vineyard is going to be there. Therefore, she does not feel their presence is going to have any effect on the marketability of the property. P& D Committee Otte. !Minutes of 3-22-04 _ Pai:e i In response to a question from the Committee on having a barrier ,just on Sunday's or permanentl%. Ald. Rainey responded that definitely on Sundav*s during worship hours and also during the week whenever any activities are expected bti the Church. She is not referring to simple use by the employees coming and going. Mr. Sargis responded to Aid. Rainey's concerns. He noted the flow of traffic concerns through the neighborhood and stated that this issue was addressed with the Zoning Board and was one of the conditions discussed. He recalled at that time the Church did state at the hearing that they agreed to have a prohibition of traffic into the neighborhood. He further pointed out the rights of the casement adjacent to the property which is a private roadway allowing the east property the right to traverse to the west and exit down to Howard Street. Therefore, he stated that care needs to be considered in this case not to limit the rights of the east property for ingress and egress to the west. He further stated that this was one of the difficulties the Zoning Board had in setting a condition with this matter. He went on to defend the churches history and reputation in controlling their traffic and minimizing any impact on surrounding neighborhoods. In conclusion, he stands confidant on their word to control any traffic caused by the church and their ability to maintain a handle on it. Ald. Rainey agreed with the notable reputation of the Vineyard, however in actuality a verbal statement of "best effort" as given in the ZBA transcript. is not sufficient when it refers to a binding special use ordinance. She reiterated her position that a confirmed condition is appropriate in this case, as well as for the parking lot and landscaping. She has knowledge of the discussions with the City's Traffic Engineering staff in assistance on this matter. However, the City's traffic staff should not have to assert any extra time for this case because it is for private property and the applicant should take the responsibility for any traffic mnintenance and control, which should be a condition of the special use. Aid. Wynne agreed with Aid. Rainey on this matter, as well as the other concerns addressed that she has requested specific conditions be set in the special use. She also feels the ZBA seemed to rush over this case and not make concrete conditions with this special use that are legitimate and crucial issues that need to be addressed to satisfy neighbors concerns and expectations that should be taken care of that relate to and effect the surrounding community. Further discussion followed between the Committee and applicant regarding the issues of concern brought forward by Ald. Rainey. Discussion on Brummel Place being a private easement owned by Shure Brothers was commented on by Mr. Hamilton who explained in detail that Brummel Place is actually named Shure Brothers Drive because of its ownership by easement. Chairman Kent asked the applicant if they would have any problem in complying with Aid. Rainey's request for the landscaping condition. Rev. Hanawalt responded that they have no problem and were anticipating cleaning up that strip of property. He only questioned what type of shrubbery was expected of them to replace with and if there is an affordable alternative if necessary. Aid. Rainey clarified that she was not expecting them to totally remove and replace any shrubbery if it is savable. She suggested that a study be done to evaluate any existing shrubbery and every P&D Committee %he. Minutes of 1-224" Pace 6 effort be made to ma:nta,n is Flue an% addit:onal shrubbery of equal level for continuation. Othem kc. r.placement should be made of an acceptable grade and maintained landscaping dome. She suggested uniform screening shrubbery be planted along the parking lot length. The Committee unanimously agreed with AId. Rainey on this condition. Discussion continued on placing a condition for resurfacing the parking lot and if there would be a problem with placing an% conditions on this lot since it is technically in Skokie. The Committee asked for legal stalls ad%ise. tits. Szymanski responded that she would need to confirm if an} actual problems are in%olved with regards to the parking lot being under Skokie jurisdiction. llowever. since this parcel is under lease with the business location, there probabl% is not a problem but she would request the opportunity to review the Iegalities and respond back to the Committee confirming this. The Committee concurred. Chairman Kent stated that he has a problem with requiring the applicant to replace the landscaping along the parking lot with all new shrubbery if any existing is salvageable. He requested that if this situation is the case, that wording be added to clarify. Ald. Rainey assured that she agreed to this and reiterated that this condition is only if absolutely necessary. However. she does not want to see any mix -matched shnibs there, either match or totally replace %%ith new. Ald. Kent concurred. Final discussion on the condition of requiring resurfacing the lot followed. Ald. Rainey again described the current condition of the lot in detail and insisted that resurfacing is absolutely needed. She made note of Mr. Sargis inability to commit to this condition at the ZBA hearing and her disappointment with his attitude towards this matter. She pointed out that this site is exceptionally acceptable for the Vineyard because of the connecting parking lot and this applicant should be willing without hesitation to redo the lot up the City's expectation and acceptability. The Committee members agreed with Ald. Rainey's comments. Ald. Newman added that resurfacing of the lot may not be enough because it may require drainage and run-off requirements to be complied with as well. Therefore, any City requirements for this parking lot in combination with the aesthetic rehabilitation should be done. Discussion followed and the Committee decided that further review by staff needs to be made regarding the requirement for drainage and run-off for this lot and estimated cost for total re -surfacing. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 40-0-04 subject to the conditions stated Above, seconded by AId. Tisdahl. Rev. Hanaw-alt offered to get construction bids for the parking lot and present back before the Committee. The Committee agreed to this. The Committee requested legal staff to respond back regarding the position of the City in placing conditions on this parcel of land. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. This item will be introduced and referred back to the Committee. (P3) Ordinance 41-0-04 — Zoning Test Amendment: 01. Office District Uses Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Ald. Tisdahl asked if there are any cultural facilities in the 01 districts. Staff' responded no and noted that this is P& D Committee MUg. 1linutes of . -«-Oa Page 7 basicall► a result of the consent agreement. :old. Bernstein said that his understanding is that the) already removed the cultural facilities and now what they are doing is removing membership organizations from this district. Ald. Tisdahl pointed out that there are two Ol districts on Central Street. Ald. Bernstein noted that there are actually six 01 districts within Evanston. The Committee requested to see a Zoning Map for clarification of the OI district locations which staff pointed out. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Kent, in concurrence with the other Committee members, cancelled the special meeting scheduled for March 29 h %vit the Housing Commission to discuss inclusionary zoning. his. Spicuzza informed the Committee that she has passed this information onto the Commission Chair. Upon discussion, the agreed date for rescheduling the meeting was decided for Monday, April IV'at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JacqueNne E.%rownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of April 13, 2004 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. A. Alterson. C. Bush. V. Jones, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 22.2004 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the March 22nd minutes, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The minutes were approved 4-0. (Ald. Newman not yet present) ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Consideration of Sidewalk Cafes (Pl) — (P10) Chairman Kent asked the Committee if any member had any specific problems with any of the following sidewalk cafes to pull out for further discussion, otherwise they could consider all together. He noted that several locations are requesting liquor as well. He went through the list of sidewalk cafd restaurants and made sure there was representation present for all locations and asked for any comments or information they wished to share with the Committee. Representation for each location was present with no significant comments made by any. Ald. Wynne noted that a number of the restaurants are located downtown. She asked staff in Aid. Newman's absence if there have been any problems or violations from any of these restaurants regarding the City's significant liner program that was put into place. Mr. Wolinski informed that the primary issues last year in the downtown were with the dumpster issues. He acknowledged Carla Bush from the Health Department who he requested to be present to comment on any specific community health issues or concerns with any of the restaurants listed. Ms. Bush informed the Committee that there may have been l or 2 that had been ticketed or cited last year but not routinely. She said those violations are now in compliance and she said that all the locations for consideration this evening have worked along with her department with no problem. The Committee members were satisfied with this response. Mr. Alterson brought to attention the clarification that the City Code prohibits Type 2 restaurant from having liquor at sidewalk cafes; this would apply to Flat Top Grill and Chipode's. Chairman Kent asked the representatives from those two locations for comment. Megan P&D Committer kits. Minutes of 4-13-04 Page from Flat Top Grill responded that it was their intention to serve liquor at their cafd and was under the impression that this was allowed for the last several years they have operated the sidewalk cafe. Mr. Alterson assured that no liquor was approved for a type 2 restaurant: the only way would be if Flat Top were to request a change to be considered a type 1 if they qualified. Megan felt that their restaurant should be considered a type 1 because they do offer full wait and bus service and use non -disposable dishware at the sidewalk cafd. The Committee recommended that Megan meet with the Zoning staff to further discuss this matter, until then. no approval can be made to serve liquor for this sidewalk cafe. The representative from Chipotle informed the Committee that they have no intention to serve liquor at the sidewalk cafe and will remain to serve liquor only indoors. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the sidewalk cafes (P1) -- (P10) with the exception of no liquor service for (P2) and (H). The other cafe's requesting liquor are type 1 restaurants and approved for this service. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P1) Sidewalk Cafe for TN -De 2 Restaurant at 1745 Sherman (Einstein Brothers Baaels) Approved. (P2) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 707 Church (Flat Top Grill) Approved without liquor. (P3) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1724 Sherman (Starbucks) Approved. (P4) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 901 Church (Baia Fresh) Approved. (PS) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvve 2 Restaurant at 711 Church (Chinalte) Approved without liquor. (P6) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1743 Sherman (Taco Bell) Approved initially. Upon Aid. Newman's arrival, he pulled this item from the approval list to hold in Committee for further questioning of the management of regarding past and ongoing problems at this establishment. fP71 Sidewalk Cafd for Tyne 2 Restaurant at 500 Main (Cafe Express South) Approved. (PS) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvpe 2 Restaurant at 600 Davis (Cafd Mozart) Approved. (P9) Sidew-alk Cafd for Tvne I Restaurant at 1450 Sherman (Tommy Nevins Pub) Approved with liquor. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4-13-04 Page 3 (P101 Sidewalk Cafe for Tvve 1 Restaurant at 505 Main (Oceanioue) Approved with liquor. (P11) Misa Subdivision Plat, 1243 Marle Avenue Mr. Wolinski briefed the Committee on the background of this case. He noted that this property is located in the Ridge Historical District and by City Code, must be reviewed by the Preservation Commission. The Commission revieN%,ed this proposal at their meeting in December and ended up in a tie vote of 4-4. therefore failing to make a recommendation. The Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee reviewed it and approved it. However according to the Preservation Commission rules and Council rules. in order for the Council to approve this subdivision at this point. you would need findings of fact that would be in accordance with the standards listed in the Preservation Ordinance. He said that Committee would have to establish findings of fact at this level. (Aid. Newman arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Ms. Szymanski suggested that one wad- of approaching this would be if the Committee were to give staff a direction as to whether the Committee would be inclined to approve or not approve the subdivision. She said between now and the next Committee meeting, stair could prepare proposed findings for the P&D Committee's consideration. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Miss Subdivision with direction for staff to forward findings of fact. He noted that this property is located in the 4`h Ward and what this proposes is only a division of the property. He noted that since this is in a historical district, which in effect means that the Preservation Commission would have to approve any construction that is done on the property. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that this item is up for action tonight, therefore would have to be held in Committee. :old. Bernstein amended his motion to hold in Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor. (P12) Nomination of Two Citizen Members to the ?Northwestern University/City, Committee Aid. Newman is of the opinion that this item has already been approved previously. He noted that the nominations are to a non -voting Committee and %ill be conducted as open meetings. He noted that there has been some concern expressed regarding the rules for nominating members to this Committee. Aid. Tisdahl said that she would like to have someone from the 7th ward be appointed to this Committee as well since her ward encompasses Northwestern. She has someone in mind for her nomination, Ms. Judy Berg who is the Chair of the neighborhood association around the stadium. Aid. Newman suggested this item be held in Committee to confirm if an additional nomination can be made and to allow Aid. Tisdahl an opportunity to discuss this with her nominee. The Committee unanimously agreed. P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 4-13-04 Page 4 f13131 Ordinance 49-0-04 — Zonina Text Amendment: Mixed Residential LsmUnioue Uses Aid. Newman does not see this item as a project presentation because in actuality this is asking for an amendment to Rl-R4 districts and should not be project oriented. He has a definite problem with this approach to amend the Zoning Ordinance for one property and is very concerned with the speculative outcome and what it could cause for other R1-114 districts and properties. He noted that the proposed ordinance is very expansive and there is wording that insinuates the basis of economics and this is not what should be done in residential neighborhoods nor should those districts be supportive of economic development projects. He pointed out in the ordinance where it refers to residential preservation unique use exception where it says "w-hen a particular residential use is not listed as a specialty permitted use within a zoning district but would be of substantial land user economic benefit if approved for a contributing structure in a designated historic district." He reiterated that for this one property, the City would be opening up and changing RI citywide, In his opinion. this is inappropriate to change the entire R1 district because it could be an economic benefit for the City. He said this will also open up all sorts of possibilities in the residential districts causing residents to have to defend their neighborhoods from economic development projects that they currently do not have to worry about as much because those uses are not permitted. Mr. Murray directed the Committee to page 7 of the ordinance and pointed out that there are two very specific criteria there. He noted that the zoning lot has to have at least 15,000 square feet and that the dwelling units that might be contained within the particular project have to have a minimum floor area of' 2,000 square feet. He believes that these two elements narrow the gate, which might be applicable to the number of projects or properties that would be of concern. Aid. Bernstein understands Aid. Newman's comments and in part this addresses a defect in the ordinance, which was brought about in 1993 when they precluded the use variations from the zoning ordinance. He feels that the unique use is a catch all and he felt the same way as Aid. Newman when he read this proposed ordinance as well. He does feel there are sufficient protections here to make this an ordinance that won't open the floodgates to all type of mixed -use proposals within the residential districts. He said that an alternative would be for the applicant to come in because all other methods of use are precluded by their ordinance. The applicant could also ask for a Certificate of Appropriateness because the building is in disastrous condition. He noted that according to his understanding of the Preservation Ordinance, the applicant might have a shot at getting the approval to demolish the property then they could develop it into 7200 square foot lots. Aid. Newman feels the ordinance is not consistent and reiterated that it is too expansive. He does not agree with this approach to deal with the problem for this one property. Aid. Bernstein acknowledged Ms. Liza Shuldiner, a neighbor of the property who has done an excellent analysis of "unique use". Ms. Shuldiner made comments to the inconsistencies in the ordinance as she understood from her review. She feels that there are sections in the ordinance that are misleading. Aid. Tisdahl agrees with Aid. Newman's view as well. She noted that the Kendall College property was mentioned throughout this packet and she questions how this zoning amendment to the RI district = P&D Committee tins. Minutes of4-13-04 r Pace S could effect possible development on the Kendall property. She could not support or vote in favor to allowing mixed or unique uses in combination with the 1114 districts. Ms. Betty Ester also commented on this issue and requested that the Committee not open this door that will allow different uses in combination with R1 uses. Ald. Newman again questioned why they are involving the entire City in this project by making an amendment to all the R1 districts. He does not want to add any more action in his ward allowable that could be effective if this amendment is made to the RI district. He suggested consideration of adding a Rla district %%ith a Planned Development and zone those properties to be effected by this zoning amendment such as 1314 Ridge. Aid. Wynne agreed with this idea but would be worried about the special legislation involved. Ms. Szymanski said that she could review that issue after clear direction from the Committee. The owner of 320 Dempster said to the Committee that he would like consideration of such a district proposal for his property. He just finished a 3-year historical restoration project on this duplex house, which was designed by an Evanston architect. He informed that he just received a citation approval from the U.S. Park District as to the historical restoration of his property. He said that behind the duplex sits a 4,000 square foot carriage stable that dates back to the 1870's which the City was not aware of nor the Illinois Department of Preservation. He is now having a problem as to what he can do with the property because he does not want to tear it down and the problem of questioning what his best course of action is. He said they are looking for a way to stabilize the building and restore it back to its original condition. He was relving and looking for guidance from City Council and staff for an alternative means to allow him the ability to rehab the historical building for a different or mixed use. He is sure there are several other properties throughout Evanston that also need special zoning. Discussion amongst the Committee followed regarding how to proceed with this. Aid. Newman does not want to see this case go back before the Plan Commission and through the process again. The other Committee members agreed and asked legal staff if they could proceed from the publication that has been sent out or for an alternative suggestion. Ms. Szymanski said that she would not be comfortable giving any suggestion at this time until she has had an opportunity to revie%,., all the legalities. Chairman Kent suggested they hold this to allow legal review and to give staff the opportunity to address the other questions raised by the Committee. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Murray if his recommended concept of Rla work for this property and proposed project. Mr. Murray said to bear in mind that the project that is under consideration in Ordinance 50-0-04 is substantially different from the original plan that contained 3-unit attached dwellings. The project has changed to a proposal of working with the two existing buildings of the Dryden estate with a subdivision for individual single-family development of seven additional lots. Ald. Bernstein pointed out that the ordinance in Council packets is wrong because it relates back to the previous plan. He feels some empathy for this applicant because he has been cooperating and doing what the City has asked him to do and it would be to his detriment to delay any length of time to go back to the drawing board with another rezoning. He recalled past discussion with Mr. Widmeyer regarding this being the Plan Commission's attempt without spot zoning to accommodate a project for this site that the majority of the neighbors and community would like to see on this property. He said the P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of 4.13-04 Page 6 catch all would be the individual lots of 7200 square feet; he questioned if the applicant will have to come in prior to any construction before the Preservation Commission for each Iot. Mr. Alterson responded that he is uncertain where the confusion comes in. however keep in mind that in the Ordinance in the whereas clause they stated what was in the notice, which was the original townhouse concept that has since been eliminated. He clarified the Plan Commission's recommendation is not for the townhouses but was just a re -statement of the history of the development. Ms. Shuldiner informed the Committee that the October 23'd minutes of the Plan Commission are missing from the Council packets, which contain a healthy dose of discussion and neighborhood comments. She requested that these minutes be forwarded to the Committee for their review. W. Murray concluded that Aid. Newman's concept may be the way to go however he announced that his client has been very patient throughout this lengthy process of the past 18 months. He requested to the Committee that some type of vehicle be put in place to keep the progress moving forward instead of halting progress. He offered to work with City staff on any issues to expedite the process. Aid. ?Newman reiterated that he does not want to send this back to the Plan Commission. The Committee requested that staff look into the legalities on how to proceed without delaying the process. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item to give staff time to respond back to the Committee, seconded by Aid. Newman. Aid. Newman also wanted to propose some type of Rla district as well and directed staff' to review this concept. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P14) Ordinance 50-0-04 — Planned Develonrrtent & l;niaue Use: 1314 Ridee Avenue Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. 1P15) Ordinance 40-0-04 — Snecial Use for 2401 Brummel Place (Retieious Institution) Aid. Rainey was called over for discussion of this item. Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the memorandum that staff received just this afternoon by email. He requested to the Committee to hold this item over to allow staff time to review. Mr. Sargis asked to summarize the three points addressed in his memorandum. The first point is Kith regards to the parking lot and the estimated cost of maintenance. The memo has attached an updated report from Gewalt-Hamilton on the condition of that west parking lot and the estimated cost of maintenance over the next 5 years. Because of the high cost, the Vineyard proposes to repair and maintain the north half of that parking lot and fence off the southern portion. If in the future there becomes a need for more parking, the Vineyard will do similar repair and maintenance to the southern half of the parking lot. Also with regards to the parking lot, he was under that language would be changed in the ordinance to address the requirement of "resurfacing" the MWRD lot located on Skokie property, to "repair, resealing, restriping and sewer cleaning". It was noted in Gewalt-Hamilton's recommendation that resurfacing is not indicated immediately for that parking lot. P&D Committee tiitg. Minutes of 4-13-04 Page 7 ,Nfr. Sargis second point is with regards to the provision concerning traffic flow in and out of the Hartrey Avenue entranceway. He does not see how it is feasible or practical to require movable horses and signs or other barriers before and after all activities at the Church if the Hartrey properties are to have access to Howard Street via Brummel Place. This provision will also effect any development that comes to 222 Flartrey. He suggested that this condition be reevaluated to consider only blocking this exit for church use for functions where total attendance is expected to be greater that I00. Finally. the last point is with regards to the Vineyard's concerns over the formality of the landscaping requirement. The Vineyard has no control over the north -south access. which will also be heavily used by shopping center traffic. He is concerned with the cost of landscaping maintenance with the combination of shopping center traffic and the plowing and salting of the road as well. He also noted that he has not come across many special use conditions relating to landscaping at this level of notice and detail. He feels it is appropriate to have a landscaping conditions that (1) has a landscaping plan, (2) is approved as part of the zoning application or delegated to staff for approval. (3) the applicant be under obligation to maintain the conditions of approval according the their landscaping plan, and (4) the City has enforcement authority if there is every any problem. He feels these conditions would be sufficient in this case. Aid. Rainey responded to the alternatives from the applicant. She said it is eery unusual for anyone to propose only resurfacing and maintaining half lot. this not appropriate nor acceptable. She urged that the entire Iot should be maintained in whole. She said with regards to the landscaping condition, for the applicant to submit their Iandscaping plan for Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee approval. She requested that staff review the traffic issue with regards to the Hartrey Avenue access. Rev. Hanawalt explained their parking lot alternative for resurfacing. which they plan to totally de -weed, fill in any cracks, reseal and restripe. Aid. Rainey said this would be acceptable to her in place of resurfacing. The Committee accepted.- Further discussion continued between Mr. Sargis, Aid. Rainey and members of the Committee regarding his alternatives recommended in his memorandum. After discussion, Aid. Newman recalled staf 's original request to the Committee to hold this item to give them time to review the applicant's memorandum in further detail. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold also allowing staff time to address the traffic flow issues. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold for the reasons stated above, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion, OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee of their special meeting on Monday, April 19'h at 7:00 p.m. for discussion of the Inclusionary Housing issue. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4-13.04 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT The meeting %%us adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 %-4 x am---t Jacque 'ne Hrawnlee SPECIAL Planning & Development Committee Mioutes of April 19, 2004 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center-- Room 2403 Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. W}Tine Staff Present: J. Wolinski, V. Jones, D. Spicuzza, J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. Rainey. Aid. Jean -Baptiste, State Rep. J. Hamos Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION Consideration of the Housing Commission Recommendation for an Inclusionary Housing Program for the Citv of Evanston Chairman Kent called on Ms. Robin Snyderman Pratt to introduce her group to everyone and the audience. Ms. Pratt first introduced herself and Mr. Rob Grossinger, both Housing Commissioners and will be the primary spokesman representing the Housing Commission. She introduced Mr. Nick Btunick from BPI which stands for "Business and Professional People for the Public Interest." She acknowledged all of Mr. Brunick's work and input on this proposal and the time that he has committed to this project. Ms. Pratt also acknowledged Ms. Julie Hamos being present in support of this concept. She asked Ms. Hamos for comments at this time. Ms. Julie Hamos, States Representative spoke in opposition to inclusionary housing and feels that this concept finally puts affordable housing on the forefront. She said this is a significant public policy and sends a message to the rest of the State. She is happy to see more and more northshore communities requiring major developments to take part in helping to provide for much needed affordable housing with the rise in housing costs. She feels this is an economic development strategy that can be crucial in aiding with the never-ending loss ofaffordable housing with the rapid rise in the housing market. Ms. Pratt proceeded with a slide show presentation of their proposal. The first slide focused on background information regarding affordable housing need assessment with the most important need being income level. Secondly, there is fewer housing sold at affordable prices therefore the median income can not afford. There is also the lack of housing and services to provide for median income households. She said that there is a Special P&D Meeting Minutes of 4.19-04 Page 2 noticeable increase in the number of households payine more than 30% of income to debt.. She introduced the Inclusionan• Housing Task Force participants as listed: Aid. Bernstein, Aid. Kent, Ms. Sharon BwAie (Evanston Plan Commission), Mr. John Heimbaugh (Heimbaugh Capital Development Corp.). Ms. Victoria Higgins-Wolpoof (Evanston Human Relations Commission), Mr. Thaddeus Lenick (Optima Development), Mr. Richard Koenig (Housing Opportunity- Development Corp.), Mr. Phil Nyden (Loyola University/North Suburban Housing Partners), and Ms. Pat Vance (CEDA Neighbors at Work/North Suburban Housing Partners). ifs. Pratt then turned the presentation over to Mr. Brunick who will give an overview of Inclusionary• Housing 101. Mr. Bnmick began by giving information on BPI and their purpose and services they provide. He went on to explain what inclusionary housing is and does for a community. He pointed out the inclusionary housine ordinance elements which are: - Threshold - Applicability - Set -Aside Requirement - Developer Incentives - Income Targeting - Control Period - In -Lieu Alternatives - Housing Provider In short, Mr. Brunick said that inclusionary housing promotes the production of affordable housing through new developments and multi -family housing projects. He said that by following this concept, there could be benefits offered to the developer such as receiving cost offsets for their projects. He showed illustrations of several examples of other inclusionary housing in different areas around the [mites States as in Fairfax County, Virginia, Prince George and Montgomery County in Maryland, and the Boston area. He also showed several illustrations of some Iocal examples in Highland Park. He directed the Committee's attention to a diagram in their packets which breaks down in more detail of the different types of inclusionary housing shown in the illustrations. Mr. Brunick went over the benefits of inclusionary housing. The major points being: - Strengthens Communities - Prompts Market Driven, Fiscally Responsible Solutions - Stimulates Economic Development - Supports Smart Growth Principles and Protects Against Disinvestment - Enhances Economic and Racial Integration - Overcomes Longstanding Stereotypes - Offers Predictability and a Level Playing Field to Developers In summary, the benefits of inclusionary housing is having a market -based tool, it strengthens the social fabric, and stimulates the local economy. 5pecial P&D !Stetting Minutes of 4-19-04 Page 3 Ms. Pratt gave an overview of the Proposed Policy Statement and the targeted population for inclusionary housing in the Cite of Evanston. She explained the proposed Inclusionary Housing Program Characteristics and the seven basic elements beginning with the application that this requirement would apply to all new construction, condo conversions and substantial rehabilitation that contain five or more residential units. The provision will also apply to developments that fall under the Planned Unit Development process. She explained the suggested set- aside percentage according to the size of the development; i.e. 5-20 units — 10% affordable set aside, 21-99 units -- 15% set aside, and 100 or more units — 2(rset aside. If less than 10 units, the developer would pay fiaction fee in lieu amount as determined by the City. She said the consensus of the Task Force was that this formula be mandatory. She talked about deed restricted tax assessments at market value and a recommended price control period for rental -- 40 years and ownership — in perpetuity or as long as allowable by law. The Task Force also discussed ways of having a resale clause on the affordable housing units. Mr. Grossinger gave an overview of the suggested Developer Cost Offsets. He said that the task force came up with several alternatives of which resulted in a list of inducements whereas the City could pick and choose which ones will best benefit the developer and the City per project. The list of inducements include: - Density Bonus - Increased building height allowances - Increased floor area ratio - Decrease in minimum lot area requirements - Reduced front or side zoning setbacks - Fee waivers - Reduced parking requirements - Cash subsidy. Mr. Grossinger gave an overview of the In Lieu of Provisions. He said the Task Force suggested that the "fee in lieu" per affordable unit would be determined by a formula established by the City's Community Development Department and approved by City Council. Other suggested alternatives are `off site" development or land donation. The Task Force agreed that the "in lieu of provisions shall not be granted unless the developer demonstrates to the Director of Community .Development and City Council that 1) The alternative means of compliance will further affordable housing opportunities in the City to an equal or greater extent than what could otherwise be built on -site or 2) The developer faces extreme hardship in building the units on -site. He talked about having a housing provider provision by writing a "Right of First Refusal" for the City of Evanston. This concluded the slide presentation. Mr. Brunick gave an overview of "fee in lieu" calculation scenarios that could be used He also outlined some sample pro -forma applications that could be used in Evanston. He gave four different examples for 1) A 200-unit new construction condominium, 2) A40- Special P&D Meeting iN inures of 4-19.04 Page a unit new construction condominium. 3) An 18-unit new construction rental building, and 4) A 40-unit rehab condo conversion. In conclusion, Ms. Pratt, Mr. Grossinger and Mr. Brunick agreed that from their experience, most developers are more than willing to work with a municipality if clear precise guidelines are put into place and in writing. They also agree that these guidelines must be mandatory for all new construction, condo conversions and substantial rehabilitation work to multi -family buildings. The consensus of the Task Force is that this method of inclusionary housing is a proven tool and it is a market -based solution. The Task Force fully endorses this proposal as presented this evening before the Planning & Development Committee. Chairman Kent acknowledged the wide range of people and talent that were involved on this Task Force and the tremendous amount of work put into this proposal. Chairman Kent went to the sign-up sheet and called on those who wished to make comment at this point. Ms. Bettv Sue Ester commented the presentation by the Task Force and supports the entire concept of having mandatory inclusionary affordable housing. She suggested that the Housing Trust Fund should be used in conjunction with this program. Ms. Gail Schecter expressed her support for this program as well and gave a fair housing perspective on this issue as it relates to inclusionary housing. Mr. Richard Girard said that he lives at 1028 Austin. He supports having mandatory inclusionary housing for all new construction housing projects in Evanston and feels that the Task Force findings are indisputable. Ms. Sue Carlson is a member of the Evanston Housing Future Group. She read from a prepared statement which she ernailed to all the Alderman previously. This concluded citizen comments. Chairman Kent opened the floor for Committee discussion. The Committee members agreed to review each element. Ald. Newman said that he has a problem with the "in -lieu of" alternatives if the inclusionary housing concept is to be mandatory. He feels it can become an issue of concern with deciding where to place the off -site affordable housing and he questions how the land donation alternative would work. He questioned who would build the off -site affordable housing; would the City take bids from other developers? Mr. Grossinger responded that several developers including many developments in the City of Chicago have used this method and this method seems to be very preferable by their City officials. Aid. Bernstein added that there are different methodologies in which to make it possible and beneficial to the location of the housing and for the City. Special P&D !Meeting Minutes of4.19.04 Page S Aid. 1Vynne expressed her disapproval with the entire list of options under the "cost off- set incentives". She feels these options are unreasonable and arc asking way too much, especially with the density- bonus. She feels too much time and effort by so many people have gone into downscaling our past and current zoning laws. She does not feel the issue of providing affordable housing should allow reason to give developers any building bonuses or cost offsets. She would be more supportive of having a mandatory requirement for all new construction to provide a percentage of affordable housing units. She feels it is also important that the surrounding community be informed of the affordable housing units coming into their neighborhood as well. Aid. Tisdahl also questioned why a cost offset has to be considered with each project. In her opinion, inclusionary housing should be mandatory and the bonus should be the allowance to build their development in Evanston. Aid. Kent agreed with that concept in lieu of all the recent development of new construction housing and condo conversions and the extremely high cost in the selling price of those units. He said developers are making a lot of money in Evanston and this is a method of those developers giving back to the community. Ald. Neuman said that everyone wants to reduce zoning and the allowable building envelope and many people have worked very hard to accomplish this goal. He said the political reality of this is that it will be very difficult to use any of these cost offset options listed. He also noted that Evanston has the highest tax rate in the Chicagoland area and it is not fair to ask residents to tolerate any leniency for developer incentives to provide affordable housing. Ms. Pratt reminded the Committee that this inclusionary housing tool is not just about new construction but also targeted for rehab construction and condo conversions. She said to summarize, from listening to discussion and comments made by the Committee members, out of the eight elements it seems the major concern is regarding the cost offset element. She asked the Committee if they could move forward to draft an ordinance based on the other seven elements. The general consensus of the Committee was additional concern with the "in lieu of' alternative as well. Ms. Pratt suggested that the Task Force can go back and do additional homework on those two issues of concern and come back before the Committee. The Committee members all agreed to this. Discussion followed regarding the condo conversion ordinance and if the wording and content could be amended. Mr. Wolinski responded that the condo conversion ordinance is not tight enough and agreed that there should be an affordable housing component included for each conversion. He also commended the work done by the Task Force and taking the initiative on this issue. Aid. Wynne moved to direct stiff to draft an ordinance in accordance to what the Committee has agreed on for the Task Force to back and do further research or eliminate the "cost offset" and possibly the "in lien or elements. Aid. Newman seconded the motion. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Hrunick for additional information and possibly contact information for those developers in the City of Chicago that have provided affordable housing, especially those projects where the "in lieu of" element has been used providing off -site units. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Special P&D Meeting Minutes of 4-19-04 Page 6 Newman questioned if there would be any need to make changes to the Zoning Ordinance. If so, this would have to go through the Plan Commission. Aid. Bernstein thanked Mr. Bnmick and BPI for all the pro-bono %vork done on this proposal. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquelt E. rownlee E. &aNVILt— DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of April 26, 2004 Room 2403 — 7.00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bemstein. A. Ne%tiTnan, E. Tisdahl..\1. Wr7tne Aid. Absent: J. Kent Stan Present: J. Wolinski, A. Jackson, V. Jones. E. Sn'manski, J. Brownlee Others Present: L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. He chaired the meeting in Aid. Kent's absence. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13.2004 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the April 13th minutes, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PD Sidewalk Cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1100 Davis (Liouid Cafd) Chairman Newman acknowledged Ms. Adrian Stanciu. In response to question, she said that her business is strictly a coffeehouse with no liquor being served. She opened approximately 3 months ago. The Committee talked with Ms. Stanciu about the requirement of having bus service to the sidewalk cafe; an actual employee that is separate from the cook, cashier, etc. They also confirmed that she must abide by the trash and litter ordinance for the downtown area as required. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. W21 Sidewalk Cafe for Tyre 1 Restaurant at 2545 Prairie Oarkv's Bigtm) Chairman Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The Committee recognized no past complaints or problems with this establishment and the operation of their sidewalk cafd. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committee Otte. Minutes of; _6 44 Page 4 Ms. Penny Miller also read from a prepared statement. She pointed out that she was on the Housing Commission for 6 %tars and is %ery familiar with the inclusionary housing issue and is in favor of it. Ho%%C%er there must be different alternatives than the housing allowance tools proposed. She stated that the members of the Southeast Evanston Association have fought and worked too hard to give any additional height, density or parking restrictions. there has to be different incentives. She does support the alternative of developers paying a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units so that the municipality can provide housing in another area and location. She believes no one in their neighborhood would support such altematives. She noted her involvement in the Chicago Avenuc initiative since 1997 until September 2001 when Main Street was finally resolved. She emphasized that they never included this particular parcel in their deliberations. Therefore she believes it is not a fair statement by some of the Plan Commission members to say that it is too soon to revisit the zoning on this particular parcel. Aid. %Vyr ne stated that the 133 zoning originally was created for this parcel in 1960 and when the Zoning Ordinance was being amended in 1993, the zoning was left at 133. Her point being that the zoning for this parcel has not been altered for 44 years. Aid. Wynne moved to deny the Plan Commission's recommendation of B3/oRD with an overlay and make a replacement motion recommending to rezone the property to Cla. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Aid. Wynne strongly supports this replacement zoning along with her constituents. She recognized several in attendance who participated in the Chicago Avenue Corridor Study from the very beginning in 1997. including Mr. Widmaper. As for as she is concerned, this is the final piece, which they essentially had to wait to do while Mr. Flannigan either activate his rights or at this point not move forward. In her opinion, 125' building at the comer of Main and Chicago is very inappropriate at this time and assumes that when parcel was zoned 133 in 1960 there was no envision of any building being built to that height. It is evident that the Main & Chicago neighborhood is absorbing a lot of the new - development in Evanston with approximately 440 new housing units built on Chicago Avenue since 811 Chicago was built. She noted that part of their interest with the Chicago Avenue Corridor study was to understand and try to get control of some of the issues of development. They did a strcetscape, increased the parking requirements significantly to mitigate what they saw as the coming of an already congested parking situation. They also reduced the height by 34% on the rest of Chicago Avenue because there was recognition that these heights were going to be reached and realized that this would create a canyon effect. Aid. Wynne stated that she does disagree with the Plan - Commission members who said that this is a revisiting of the zoning because this parcel was not considered in 2001 and the City legal counsel advised them that they were prohibited from doing anything to the zoning at that time. She said from her standpoint, this is the first attempt to address the zoning for this comer and she would like to expeditiously see this parcel rezoned to Cla. She reminded that the moratorium expires in mid -May so this matter needs to be concluded as soon as possible. Aid. Tisdahl questioned if the legal determination of the pipeline issue for this property was resolved. Staff responded that legal interpretation was that this property was no P&cD Commince titte. % inures of 4 26 04 Pace c longer in the pipeline. Chairman Newman clarified that if this %vere zoned under B3, any project would have to come in as a planned development. Aid. Wynne pointed out that a critical aspect of this overlay district is that the underling zoning still controls, therefore the owner can come in with a planned unit development but as long as it still meets the as -of -right, it does not give them a lot to negotiate with. Chairman Newman added that even so, they do have to right to turn down the planned development with good reason and cause. He further noted that the project on the Dominicks site came in as -of -right without the Council's approval. He questions what wiil happen on the site in question whereas he does agree with the height restriction under Cla but still is concerned with what can be built within what is allowable without the control of coming in as a planned development. If the owner wants to build a taller building that 68' he has to come in on a planned development, however he wants to come in under 68' with a less than desirable design, he would be able to if the building is as -of -right within the zoning envelope. He said the only other option would be to amend the planned development ordinance hopefully before the owner can submit any plans to be considered in the pipeline. He noted that he was the only one on the Council back in 1993 and recalls there was minimal discussion regarding Main & Chicago because there was virtually no development there at that time. He does recall concern at that time regarding the auto dealers along Chicago Avenue and what will happen with development if those businesses were to move. The alderman at that time supported the C l a and the 133 zoning because of the lack of development. What has happened that is different now than back in 1993 is that there has been a discovery of Evanston in terms of the condominium market and redevelopment of the downtown, along with many other amenities such as convenient transportation, location, etc. Aid. Newman said the reason he supports the motion is because it seems that amount of development on that corner is way too much height along with being built to the lot line under the B3 zoning. Despite the difference in height, he reminded that the FAR is 4 for C I a and 3 for B3 zoning, which could result in allowing more density. Mr. Wolinski said as a point of historical clarification with regards to :yid. Wynne' recognition of the 1960 Zoning Ordinance amendments and what the Council at that time was considering when they approved a zoning classification that would allow 125'. He pointed out that actually the maximum height under the 1960 ordinance was 85' whereas the allowance for the 4 floors of relief for parking came much later in the 1980's. Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee of a slight amendment to be made with respect to the memorandum that she issued given the quality of the facts she had to work with when she issued that opinion. She noted that it was impossible to provide a concrete decision and recommendation at that time. However, she requested that the Committee allow her to reissue that opinion to them in their packets for the next meeting. She informed the Committee that she has discussed the proposed rezoning from the B3/oRD to the Cla with the Corporation Counsel who raised no objection to the rezoning. The Committee expressed that they were under the impression that the issue of any past proposals for this parcel being in the pipeline was resolved. Ms. Szymanski responded that she is confident that the opinion is such that the Council may proceed, she does not want to leave the Committee with the impression that she had a hard and fast conclusion on this. MD Committe{ Mig % inures of s 26 0-1 face 6 With no further discussion, the vote w25 4-0 in favor of the motion. (118) Ordinance 49-0.04 -- Z_onine Text .amendment: Mixed Residential Uses,Unioue Uses Mr. Wolinski pointed out to the Committee a slight error on the ordinance that was in their packets, which staff has subsequently corrected and handed out a new copy this evening. He informed that the change -vas only one word but was an important change to make on page 7(F) under Criteria 1. a — the word "or" was removed so that only "and" remains. Ald. Tisdahl clarified that this change was made so as not to include the Kendall College property. This change requires for each unique use application to meet both a & b under Criteria 1. Chairman Newman informed those in attendance that the Committee has some discussion Of the proposed unique use technique and felt they were not really getting to the merits of the applicants proposed project. He said they were getting to what the implications were for the rest of the City on using this unique use technique and making that amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Committee discussed and the consensus was to make changes accordingly. The Committee addressed changes made to page 7 first. Chairman Newman does not like the wording in (F) that addresses Section 6-3-7-1(B). He felt the wording should read "for a unique use to be granted both of the following criteria must be met." However as staff indicated earlier. by striking the word "or" should address that concern. The Committee discussed the wording of "landmark that existed prior to the adoption of the first City of Evanston Zoning Ordinance on January 19, 1921." Chairman Newman questioned why this language, which leaves out landmarks after 1921? He noted that this language applies to the house, what about the rest of the property the open space that is not developed? Does unique use only apply to the part of the parcel that is in the building. He stated that the rest of the property is in a preservation district and does not qualify as a landmark. He said that the attempt here is to not have an ordinance that broadly applies all over the City, which was the Committee's concern. He said despite the owner's situation which he is truly sympathetic to, just because this property has a problem he does not want to open up anything that wasn't desired in his ward as well as the others to effect their R 1 zoning. Chairman Newman said that they could get a unique use in the District 65 structure that is in R1 with townhouses but condominiums are not allowed until R4. Therefore it seems that the unique use will be allowed in the structure but there still remains some question about what can be allowed or considered a unique use on the rest of the property. Aid. Bernstein said that he believes the problem in the drafting is that unique use wants to address the improvement. The second criterion was that those two landmarks in a preservation district has to also be a zoning lot of record which exceeds two (2) acres. Chairman Newman asked how this will effect the Kendall property if zoned R1. Aid. Bernstein said in effect you want to use the 2 acres for purposes of this unique use evaluation of the improvement. He said upon looking at the site plan map received this evening, he does not think they want to do is then go back and utilize the planned unit development for each of the 7 lots because that might give them to much leeway in the P&O Committee 1ttz. sunuics 44 26 04 Page 7 rest of the creation of the single famil% lots. Ile clarified that he is on the subject of the draftsmanship of the ordinance and controlling the use of the unique use zoning. Chairman Newman said his concern %%as that he does not t%ant by passing this ordinance to effect an)Yhing in his ward and to open up an opportunity without notifying all those that would be effected b%. this amendment: it would not be fair. He pointed out that there are other large parcels that could be effected by this amendment. He questioned how the 15.000 square foot gross floor area comes in to effect. Aid. Bernstein responded that it is with regards to the improvement and he believes Mr. Murray wanted to find a way to reduce that because of other possible developments. Chairman Newman noted that the Kendall lot is more than 2 acres and questioned if they pass this what they will have done if the property is rezoned to R 1 and there is the opportunity of use the unique use for redevelopment. Aid. Bernstein disagreed with this not unless they concurrently use the administrative building landmark. He called on tits. Liza Shuldiner for comment on this matter in recognition of her noted research and involvement in this unique use matter. Ms. Shuldiner stated that she completely disagrees and said in her opinion if the ordinance is kept in the current way it reads it will definitely effect the future development of the Kendall property. She feels that if the ordinance remains where it can apply to effective landmarks with the Iimitation of 2 acres and 15,000 square feet, then it will not at all address "A" under Section 6-3-7-1. She called attention to this section under "B" which categorizes structures designated by Ordinance as Evanston landmarks and then go back a look at "A" which addresses everything. She noted that this is exactly what Aid. Newman was objecting to 2 weeks ago. She said it is only the landmarks that have these qualifications where these requirements must be met. She reiterated that under "A" there are no constraints. Chairman Newman recalled that because of his initial concern he had suggested an alternative method of developing an R 1 a district for the District t�65 property and then they wouldn't be effecting any other R I in the City. He stated that if there is the desire to push this amended ordinance with the unique use, he wants to know and would request a definitive statement of all the properties in the 1 s' Ward that would be effected. He does have a preservation district in his Ward with the inclusion of many landmarks and he would like to know that information. He assumes that the other Alderman would probably like to know what properties this might effect in their wards as well. He reiterated that he definitely does not want to open up the door to effect all other R1 zoned districts throughout the City and only want this to deal with this property. This is why he would support having an R 1 a to allow- the desired unique use for this parcel. Aid. Bernstein feels there is an altemative. He referred to Ms. Shuldiner's memorandum which addresses this from a planned development aspect and feels that with all due respect, her opinion should be considered by the Committee. He pointed out that the unique use doesn't change from what exists in the code now. This was an attempt to in effect, particulate landmark structures. Chairman Newman remarked that unique use comes to his mind similar to a nuclear reactor in how it could effect other properties. Aid. Bernstein stated that what they should be doing here is not to try and resume the unique use stature here. He believes what the Zoning Administrator is trying to do here is to try and achieve is to amend this for landmark properties in RI. P&p Comminee NUB. ;Minutes of 4 26 04 Page 8 Chairman Newman stated that at a minimum he would like to know, from the Zoning Administrator and Legal staff point of %iew and opinion, whether or not these proposes changes have any impact on any other parcel within the City. Ile stresses that this proposes ordinance before the Committer: is not very clear or easy to interpret as worded. Aid. Bernstein informed that from his understanding from conversation with Mr. Akerson was that he was going to make sure that this could not he applied without spot zoning. Chairman Ncwman responded that there still remains the question of what can be done on the Kendall property, which is in a historic preservation district where there is more than 2 acres, etc. :old. Bernstein responded back that it could be open to such development allowed under the unique use category. The Committee discussed this in further length. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she was under the impression that the Kendall property would not be effected by the amendments to this ordinance. She no longer feels this assurance upon what has been discussed so far this evening. She agrees with Aid. Newman in wanting some farm of statement from staff or clarification on how any final consent on this amendment could subsequently effect the future allowable development of the Kendall property if rezoned to Rl. Chairman Newman followed that there is a motion on the table in the P&D Committee to rezone the Kendall property to RI, therefore this proposed amendment is questionable in how it will effect this property. Aid. Bernstein clarified in his opinion, that unique use under Section 6-3-7-1(A) if Kendall came in theoretically in a landmark district and there are 2 or 3 properties on the perimeter not including the administration building. The way he interprets this is that the unique use would apply to the improvement so long as it was a landmark and within a landmark district. Therefore, if those 3 single-family residentials, if they exceeded 14,515 square feet, could be converted into units. This does not include the administration building. He stated that right now they could still come in as a unique use for the administration building because under RI there is no provision under the ordinance to come in as condo units. lie continued that under "A" the owner could try a convince the Council that there is a substantial land use and economic benefit to the City by allowing that which is not contained in the ordinance mainly to convert the administration building into condos. Chairman Newman asked what about the consideration of the rest of the parcel. More discussion took place on the site plan proposal for development of the District #65 property. They discussed the location of the 7 single-family lots and the conversion of the existing mansion and coach house. The two existing structures would be subject to this unique use amendment. The Committee was in consensus agreeing that this last proposal %Nas very suitable for the redevelopment of the District #65 parcel. Aid. Bernstein said that he has a problem with the 2,000 square foot minimum, he would like to see this not exceed 4 units in any single dwelling. They again discussed the administration building on the Kendall lot, which was clarified that this building is not a landmark so would not be subject under the unique use category. However, if the building were to be voted on and became an Evanston landmark, then this building could be subject to unique use and being redeveloped into condominiums. Aid. Bernstein said that what is omitted here is some type of wording that states that any building can not exceed 4-units, which he feels will control over -development of condominiums. He recommended this amendment be made to the ordinance. In termination, Chairman P&D Commince Mtg. Minutes of 4 26 04 Page 9 Net+man asked Ald. Tisdahl it she was satisfied that in the administration buildings current standing. it would not be subject to the unique use category. Aid. Tisdahl said that she is still not assured that this building could be deemed a landmark in the near future. Chairman Nc%%man directed to staff that he %ants clarification in the form of a memorandum from Mr. Alterson on the ruling of the administration building by the next P&D meeting. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Mr. Alterson is out of the office and will not be present before the next meeting. However he has discussed in length with Mr. Alterson abong With Mr. Murray and determined that the Kendall property and administration building would not be effected. \fr. Ruiz made the Committee aware for clarification that the Preservation Ordinance does not have an age requirement for landmarks. In other words. it was Ieft on purpose for recognizing contemporary structures. Unlike in the National Register. they require a 50-year minimum for a structure to become eligible for landmark status. Ms. Judy Fiske informed the Committee that she is pan of the Kendall College Neighborhood Task Force Committee. She was asked to attend the P&D Committee meeting this evening to report back to the Task Force. which is also meeting at this time. She said that the Task Force would actually like to see the unique use approach for the Kendall College site and the administration building. She said their feeling on this is that this approach would give them some options and some flexibility in dealing with the developer. Ald. Tisdahl said that she was unaware of this decision by the Task Force. She clarified that if the unique use is used. this could result in condominiums and townhouses on the property. ifs. Fiske said that as they understand unique use, it would only apply to the administration building. The Committee members proceeded in a lengthy discussion, including Xts. Shuldiner, on the elimination of "A" under 6-3-7-1. Mr. Wolinski noted that "A" is from the original language in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Newman said that the wording has been changed to make much more open and broader. Upon asking Ms. Shuldiner's opinion on the elimination of "A", she responded that she does agree with the elimination however it still does not take care of the other problem on page 7 under the Criteria sections. She stated that she would personally prefer to make changes to Planned Development ordinance and does not want to see this in the R1 zoning districts. Mr. Wolinski reminded that if they go with the R 1 a approach. this would require the applicant to have to go back before the PIan Commission. It was the consensus of the Committee to avoid this situation and to further incon%enience the owner. In conclusion, the Committee made the following recommendations and direction to staff. Aid. Wynne recommended that Legal and Zoning staff work together on the amended draft. The Committee directed to eliminate "A" under Section 6-3-7-1 on page 3 and to clean up the language on page 7 to (E) and (F). Chairman Newman requested a legal opinion on how this could effect the Kendall property with the requested amendments. He also requested that Planning & Development start at 6:00 p.m. for the next meeting in order to have sufficient time for discussion and to finalize this matter. P&D Committee'Ntta. Minutes of 4 36 04 Pagc 10 Aid. Bernstein moved to introduce this item and refer back to Committee with the aforementioned requests by the Committee. Aid. «'� nne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P41 Ordinance 50-0-04 - Planned Development & Unioue Use: 1314 Ridee Avenue Aid. Bernstein moved to introduce this item and refer back to Committee upon consideration of the aforementioned requests by the Committee under Item (PS). Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote w•as 4-0 in favor. (PIO) Asbury Ridee Re -Subdivision Plat, 1314 Ridee Avenue This item was held in Committee for consideration at the ,May IOth meeting. (PI 1) Ordinance 40-0-04 - Special Use for 2401 Brummel Place (Reliuious Institution) Aid. Rainey was called in for discussion and comment on this issue. Aid. Rainey gave the Committee a summary of the events that have occurred since last Friday. She reported that on Friday staff worked out all the wording and amendments to the ordinance as agreed upon at the last meeting, which was sent out to Council in the Friday packets. She subsequently talked to Rev. Hanawalt over the phone on Sunday who verbalized that his satisfaction with the amendments that were made as I informed him of. This morning (Monday) staff received a letter by fax from the property owner, CenterPointe Properties. The letter states their disapproval of putting up a barrier to prohibit the flow of traffic from the church to the Hartrey entrance. She noted that the property manager was told that a permanent non -movable barrier was being requested to be installed. She spoke with the property manager, Mr. Dan Swolinsky. who is also present at this meeting for verification, and explained to him that one of the conditions to this special use ordinance was to put up temporary street -horse barriers during church service and special event times as they occur. She assured that in no way were they requiring a permanent barrier to be installed and are fully aware of prohibitions or any other restrictions that could not be legally allowed. Aid. Rainey was told by Nlr. Swolinsky that Rev. Hanawalt's attorney gave him this information. She said that CenterPointe then requested to officially withdraw their letter, which Mr. Swolinsky verified. She further noted that Mr. Sargis followed up with an additional memorandum where he still continues to argue the conditions as agreed upon by the applicant, Rev. Hanawalt, who has expressed his satisfaction with the amendments and conditions as made. She requested that the Committee act upon this directly with the applicant on this issue. Chairman Newman asked Rev. Hanawalt directly if he had spoken with Aid. Rainey and expressed his agreement and approval of the conditions and amendments set in this ordinance. Rev. Hanawalt confirmed his conversation with Aid. Rainey and assured his approval with the ordinance as it exists. With no further discussion, Chairman Newman moved approval of Ordinance 40-0- 04, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. PAD Committee Mtg. Minutes of 4f26 04 Paue I OTHER BUSINESS The Committee members discussed with Mr. Widmayer the references and items directed to the Plan Commission. Mr. Widmayer gave an update on the status of the current issues that the Plan Commission is working on. He requested in writing from Mr. Wolinski direction for the Plant Commission to review the setback allowance issue as ask for by the Committee. Aid. Wynne also requested that the Plan Commission resolve the planned unit development issue try and get back to P&D within 30•days if possible. ADJOURNMENT adjourned at 9•1,8 p.m. Respec! r " P, ' ' 01-5 OTaPLA QirD� PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Ho►zday..Vav 10, 2004 6-00 - Room 403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, A. Newman, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, A. Jackson, E. Szymanski, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUAI Chairman Kent noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2004 AND APRIL 26, 2004 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the April 19, 2004 minutes. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion, Motion carried 5-0. Aid. Tisdahl made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting. Motion seconded by Aid. Wynne. Motion carried 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P2) Sidewalk Cafe for Type I Restaurant at 1700 Central Street (Trattoria Trullo) Aid. Tisdahl moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne, The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (PI) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 720 1 /2 Clark (JK Sweets) Aid. Newman asked Ms. E. 1I. Chou, oumer how many tables she was planning on putting outside and who would be responsible for keeping the area clean. Ms. Chou replied that there would be approximately 5 tables and she would assign an employee to keep the area clean. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Sidewalk Cafe for Type 2 Restaurant at 1743 Sherman (Taco Bell Express) Aid. Kent stated that this permit was held up because of litter concerns. Aid. Newman said his concerns are that in the past there has been a hangout outside, and if there are tables on the outside there must be supervision and an employee to clean up the area. Neil Borkam, owner Planning and Development Committee Minutes - %lav 10. 2004 Page Two replied that he would have a trash can put on the outside of the store convenient for people sitting at the tables and he would have the managers go out periodically and pick up the litter. Aid. Newman stressed that if there are people loitering outside the restaurant causing trouble that the City would ask Mr. Borkam to hire a security guard. .old. Wynne asked ifthere was a violation over the summer could their permit be pulled. James Wolinski replied that it could be pulled at any time. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) HOME Fund Reservation for 3 Community HousimQ Development Organizations for HUD Comnliance James Wolinski explained that this w•as to allocate funds for the City's 3 CHDOs. When they come up with a plan these funds will be available. This is with a recommendation from the Housing Commission. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (PS) Ordinance 52-0-4 - Zonine Man Amendment - Bain $ Chicago James Wolinski distributed a corrected copy of Ordinance 52-0-04. Aid. Wynne said that it did not extend through 860 through 904 Hinman, so there is a change at the top of the page. The 904 Hinman, the Colonnade Building is designated 132 in the recent past, the purpose was not to include the Colonnade Building, that was an error. Staff was also asked, because the recommendation from the Plan Commission was not approved by the Committee, rather there was a substitute from an overlay district B3 2C IA. that the staff findings of fact that is listed under Section 3. Ellen Szymanski said that because the Plan Commission did not make these findings, yet findings arc required as the basis of the Ordinance, she asked there be a discussion as to each of stairs proposed findings. if the findings are satisfactory, she asked the Committee to make a motion to accept the findings. If there are any modifications that are required she asked they make a motion accordingly. Aid. Wynne stated that one of the goals of the Chicago Avenue Corridor Study was to reduce the height and maintain the pedestrian orientation and the residential neighborhood surrounding Chicago Avenue recognizing that it was going to be redeveloped and at a greater intensity than in the past. The goal of the three year study was to make sure the intensity of the development did not overwhelm the surrounding neighborhood. C i A was reduced in height in the Year 2000 to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. The corner of Main and Chicago is a critical component to the community in terms of density. She said from her standpoint and most of the people in the community that a reduced building height and a lower level of development will be beneficial to issues related to congestion, pedestrian safety. traffic congestion and maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Aid. Newman and Aid. Tisdahl voiced their support for ibis Amendment. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Planning and Development Committee Minutes - Mav 10, 2004 Pace Three (P6) Ordinance 49-0-04 - Zonint; Text Amendment: Mixed Residential Uses.'Uniuue Uses James Wolinski stated that staff has provided an ordinance that provides safeties that had been discussed. He pointed to a map the GIS Department had produced that shows the various areas of containment. A minimum of two acres in an R I zoning is pointed out in yello.-v, adding on to that is another two acres in the Rl zoning and historic districts showed colored in orange, then another two acres in RI zoning historic districts and landmarks which leaves the District 65 property. Aid. Bernstein said that (P6) Ordinance 49-0-04 goes along with (P7) Ordinance 50-0-04. The applicant and neighbors have agreed that there will be four condos in the main house, and two condos in the coach house. Under the Planned Unit Development there will be 7 single-family residential Iots. His concern was that, in reading the ordinance, he did not see an)Ihing preventing the applicant or subsequent owner coming in and asking for a variation from the R1, it's a portion of a planned unit development therefore they want the extras given by a planned unit development. James Murray, attorney for the developer said that the developer was aware of the constraints of the R1 zoning district and bulk regulations applicable to the R1 zoning single-family lot when the request was submitted for subdivision into 7 lots for this property. Mr. Murray said that there is no understanding that the planned development would have any special application to the single-family lots once the approval has been granted. He said it is the developer's thought that the single-family lots could be developed for single-family use without any variations required. When asked for her opinion, Ellen Szymanski said that even if this Ordinance did state that all 7 lots shall be developed in strict accordance with strict Rl regulation, that Ordinance could be modified itself. Aid. Newman said that this is a planned development, if the house and 7 lots are approved, is a variation request in a planned development a request for a change of a special use. He asked this question because major variations go to the ZBA they do not come back to P&D, but special uses - planned development does come back to the P&D Committee. Ms. Szymanski said that this Ordinance would be the governing document. Her opinion was that if this Ordinance were to be in place and did contain such a restriction as Aid. Newman stated, then the ZBA, in a final variation case would not be able to grant any variation that did not comport with this ordinance. Aid. Newman asked to what government body the variation request goes. It was tiis. Szymanski's belief that the request would come back to the P&D Committee. James Wolinski said that Ms. Szymanski was correct, because it would be an adjustment to the planned development which always comes back to the Plan Commission and to the Council. Mr. Wolinski said that language could be put in the Planned Development Ordinance that states that any changes from the R 1 zoning would have to be approved by City Council. Planning and Development Committee Minutes -May 10, 2004 Passe Four Mr. Murray said that by virtue of the fact that this continues to be dealt with as a Planned Unit Development even though the Planned Development by virtue of the proposed amendment for the Unique Use reservation residential would offer a means by which to deal with out particular issues. the fact that it's a planned development and continues and remains a planned development carries with it the concept of special use and deal with and carries along with any of the lots that are created. Lisa Scholdiner, neighbor of 1314 Ridge Avenue, said that one point that hasn't been addressed is that you can always come in and ask for a variance but what you can ask for is very different if you are a straight R1 single family lot from what you can ask for if you part of a planned development. If five years from now with a different City Council someone comes to and asks for something under a planned development they have greater rights and ability to ask for greater things than if they were just a single family home. She felt that this was the issue. Ms. Scholdiner and Committee members discussed Ordinance 50-0-04. Kristin Frieman, neighbor of 1314 Ridge Avenue was concerned with the seven single family lots located at 1314 Ridge Avenue becoming Mcmansions. She said that a planned development is intended for a piece of property that is going to be developed as a unit and felt that the intent of the developer is to sell the seven individual lots them off individually. Ms. Frieman asked how could these lots be considered part of a planned unit development, Aid. Newman said that you can sell off different pans of a planned development. Mr. Murray said that this is a Planned Unit Development Ordinance, it gets recorded with the subdivision and becomes in essence the covenant that the City seems to be seeking to protect the ultimate development of any one of the individual lots some 20, 40 or 80 years from now. These limitations as part of the Ordinance say the density and intensity of use is to be consistent in terms of number of dwellings built upon areas that comply with the as -of -right constrictions of the underlying R1 single family district. Aid. Bernstein said he was looking to codify the agreement that he thought was reached. Legally he thought this could be done by imposing conditions on the Planned Unit Development which are recorded against the property as a covenant. In reply to a statement by Ms. Scholdiner Aid. Newman said that even if the Developer sold off any or all of the individual seven lots, whoever builds is limited to R 1 and it would have to go through the Preservation Commission. Aid. Newman said that this is the maximum protection the City could have whether it is the current owner or someone who buys one of the lots. When asked if he intended to sell any of the seven lots or was he going to build, Mr. Niazmand replied that he intended to build on the seven lots himself. He said he planned on building approximately two homes a year. Planning and Development Committee Minutes - Nlav 10, 2004 Page Five Aid. Newman moved approval. seconded by Aid. «'vone. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P) Ordinance 50-0-04 - Planned Development & Unique Use: 1314 Ridge Avenue Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P8) Asbury Ridge Re -Subdivision Plat, 1314 Ridge Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. REFERENCE Aid. Newman made a reference to change Sherman to Ridge, Foster to Noyes to a new district called 115A. Whatever is permitted in RI would be permitted in 115A and everything else that is now as -of -right would be a special use. Aid. Newman explained that single families are being squeezed out by student housing. OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Kent asked James Wolinski to tell the Committee the status of the affordable housing portion in the conversion of apartments to condominiums. hir. Wolinski said he is attempting to set up a meeting with Robin Synderrrtan and is hoping to have some information by the end of June. He said that there have been contemplated changes to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance that staff would like to recommend beyond the issue of affordability. He asked if the Committee would like to see that as one package or would they prefer that come at a different time. When asked by Aldermen what was staff is trying to accomplish, Mr. Wolinski replied that there are some loopholes in the Ordinance. He said that as of now, Evanston's conversion ordinance applies to three units and up and staff thinks that the schedule in that ordinance for affordable units for new housing should be looked at and seen if that can be adopted to conversions. This means so many affordable units for an eight unit building, so many for a ten unit building. Aid. Kent said he would like this information as soon as possible. Aid. Kent said that he thought that there was some momentum behind this and the Committee would react positively to affordable housing. AId. Newman said he thought there would be discussion on what tools are on the list and what is realistic. When new property is developed neighbors want as little density as possible and when you promote as little density as possible that flies in the face of all the tools that are on the list for affordable housing. He said that the political reality is that there won't be a lot of height variations or major variations to give the developers more units in order to ask for affordable housing. Aid. Newman felt that the Committee really needs to go over the tool list. Planning and Development Committee ,%linutcs - `lav 10, 2004 Pave Six Aid. Kent said that the tool list was there to see what can be created and what could be done far affordable housing. His feeling is wherever there is a piece of land -&here the City can build; the City should be able to put affordable housing on that property. If the community or particular community doesn't want that there, then that is something that Evanston has to deal with when they talk about Evanston being such a diverse community. However there are certain sections that he thought were still very buildable and create the opportunity for some exciting project as far as affordable housing. Aid. Kent thought it would be great for houses to be built at the Kendall College site and cost S 1.5 million as long as some of that money was channeled to be able to help people that in no way, shape, or form could even get into that community -- or even into Evanston. Aid. Bernstein said that the development at Ridge and Emerson was given the ability to have 190 apartments in return for 10% affordable units. Aid. Bernstein said that we do now give forgivenesses for height, for parking, for setbacks; but we don't extract anything from them. Aid. Wynne said that the apartments on Ridge and Emerson was a perfect example of the City trading off density and got some affordable housing and that is what people are worried about. One of the things that worried her was that these two things are getting mixed. Everyone wants affordable housing, but people do not want what happened at the Whole Foods site happen in their neighborhood. CITIZEN COMMENT Betty Sue Ester, representing the Citizens Lighthouse Community Land Trust has asked the Housing Commission not to divide the whole S63,000 between the three CHDO's. The Citizens Lighthouse Community Land Trust will be in contact with the Housing Commission in of June to ask for S25,000, but would accept what they could get. They will also be requesting a CHDO status. They have partnered with an existing CHDO - the Evanston Housing Coalition. James Wolinski stated that because the Lighthouse group is not a CHDO at this time, they are not recognized by HUD. He said that there are lots of HOME funds available and when the Lighthouse group comes up with a project to come back to the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, it adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Baaske Planning Division DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of May 24, 2004 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, A. AIterson. V. Jones. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. apologizing for the Committee's tardiness in starting this meeting due to Executive Session held previously. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING ON APRIL I9nl AIND REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF MAY 10. 2004 MEETING Mr. Wolinski brought to the Committee's attention changes that were made in the minutes of the April 19"' meeting. He noted that the changes were in bold in the revised copy- distributed to the Committee this evening. Changes were made to page 1 correcting a comment made by State Representative Julie Hamos, correcting the presence of Aid. Moran, a correction on page 4, and a correction to the motion made on page 5. With no further corrections, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the amended minutes of April Wk Special Meeting and the minutes of the May I O'd meeting. Aid. Tisdahi seconded the motion and the rote was 4-0 in favor (Aid. Wynne not yet present). ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Sidewalk Cafe for Ttine 2 Restaurant at 1549 Sherman (Italian Coffee Bar) Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this is a first attempt by this establishment, which has not opened yet officially. They also were scheduled to be on the agenda for the last regularly scheduled meeting, however they had not yet received Health Department approval to open. The owner had been notified but was not present. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee until the next meeting to give the owner an opportunity to be present. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote wa3 4-0 in favor (Aid. Wynne not yet present). For the record, Ald. Bernstein wished to give his opinion on this sidewalk cafe request since he will not be present at the next meeting, he stated that he has no opposition. P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of eta} 24. 200.1 Page Chairman Kent skipped to (P: i to hold L)IT on i P21 until Ald. Wynne could be present for discussion. (P3) Ordinance 59-0-04 - Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment Aid. Nev.-man began by thanking the Chair of the Plan Commission for finally bringing this item forward on their agenda and responding back to P&D and that he appreciates all the Commission's work. He strongly supports this change in the Zoning Ordinance because in his view, within the years of 2003 through 2004, Evanston has changed tremendously since 1993 when the Zoning Ordinance was amended. He noted that there was virtually no development back in 1993 compared to the amount of recent development and development opportunities. He said that they have seen a number of instances where very large projects have gone in that have been less than desirable that have come in as a matter of right. In his particular ward, the new Optima building next to 1800 Sherman started off as a Planned Development and there was much opposition to that project. However in his opinion he feels the project became worse when the owner of the property decided that he did not want to go through anymore approval processes, therefore resulting in the City loosing the opportunity to be able to have that project go through the involvement of the Planned Development process. He agrees with the recommended changes that will allow for City Council an additional opportunity to be able to affect major large projects in the City. He feels with the on -going requests for continued redevelopment of property in Evanston, this ordinance is very appropriate at this time. Ald. Newman commended the Plan Commission's work on this and reiterated his support for this ordinance. Aid. Newman moved approval for Ordinance 59-0.04, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Berstein concurred with Ald. Newman's comments. He would assume that one of the proposed reasons for opposing this would be the possibility of slowing down the process and being burdensome on the applicant. However, he does not feel this will be the case today, as it would have a few years ago at the influx of the development surge. He agrees with Council having the ability to meet and work with the developer and be able to have an impact on the final outcome. He referred to the Dominick's site project and how this ordinance would have resulted in a different development with probably more green space and less concrete. Also. there would have been allowed neighborhood input and their opportunity to address the developer and possibly impact on the project. He recalled that when he ran for Council he felt that the City was obstructive to incoming -- development but has since been proven just the opposite. Therefore, he does not feel any impediment caused by any extra step in the process due to this ordinance. He fully supports the Plan Commission's recommendation. Aid. Wynne arrived at 7:43 p.m. Aid. Tisdahl asked what does this accomplish that clear and predictable zoning does not. She feels that if they want more green space, they should be able to have it by asking for more setbacks. Aid. Newman responded that if you look at many of the commercial districts now, you have a build to lot line requirement. In the downtown districts this is - P&D Comminee !%itg. "Minutes of stay 24. 2004 Page 3 very appropriate to build to the lot line requirement �,ut as sou go out to the other districts such as the C l a and some of the B districts. it is not as appropriate. lie recalled that P&D did make a reference on this matter. However. he noted that what this ordinance does as opposed to having to rezone and go over all the districts. %%hich would be a lot of work, this basically puts the developer into a situation and gives an opportunity for P&D to receive projects in review process. He said that there might be other reasons than just the setback. This is one very important issue that is reason to want to go through the planned development process. Aid. Newman recalled back during the 1993 Zoning Ordinance amendments where he and others like Mary Singh who spent a lot of time going through all the zoning districts regarding maximum zoning requirements that should be allowed in each district. He feels that this approach will allow City Council to review and be involved during the review process for all large projects that come in under the proposed thresholds. He referred to the Roszak project where they were able to lower the number of units coming in because they were able to work with the developer during the review process as a planned development. Mr. Widmayer gave an overview of the Plan Commission's analvsis on this ordinance. He said that if you go back to the very beginning of this reference, the one thing they can not figure out how to zone is quality with a fit and appropriate finish to any project in the end. He said that all of these factors they have seen in 2 to 3 by -right projects, people are now sitting back and saying that in $0 years the City %sill still be stuck with something they is less than desirable in the community. tie said that the Plan Commission looked at Binding Appearance Review and decided for a number of reasons that this was not the best approach for Evanston. Therefore, they took a look at all of the projects that seem to be large enough that they have an impact on the future of this city. The Commission then said that if they take that level and work with the developer during the review stage, the results will end up with a better product, better architecture and better quality in conclusion. The only way they could think to do this and avoid the concept of binding appearance review was through the Planned Development process. Mr. Widmayer believes that this process gives the City and developer more flexibility, it doesn't set us to a group of firm standards as have existed in some of our neighboring communities. He said it does allow us to review proposed developments and look at a project and determine if this is the type of project they want in this community and at the same time one that the developer can make money on. He said that if you look at the problem with the Dubin project, for example, that was a build -to -cost project. %%hick is worse than build to the lot line. He explained what happened with Dominicks starting out by setting a high price for the land by looking at what the maximum you could build on that site, figured this at a percentage of the total with maximum build and maximum sell price, and the outcome figure is what they marked the price of the land for. He said that because there was no opportunity for the City to go in and say that something such as that proposed project is not desirable for that site or the entire community in terms of what the project would look like, this project was built to cover the cast of the land. He is positive that this is not the type of by -right projects that the Evanston community wants in their City. He feels they are facing the same problem with [he Kendall College property even though this property is going to end up being a planned development if this ordinance is passed. P&D Committee Rttg. Minutes of Nta% 24. 2ON Page 4 Aid. Bernstein pointed out that realistically; the Plan Commission would not have sufficient time to review all cases under a Binding Appearance Review process. He fully supports this approach, which will limit the Commission and City Council to review the larger projects that come in under the proposed thresholds. In response to Aid, Tisdahl's question, he noted that the Plan Commission would also require sufficient time to examine the build to lot line requirement per zoning district. However, Council continues to reference items for review to the Commission that also needs immediate attention. He recalled that there was ample time back in 1993 when there was virtually no major development at that time. He also feels the planned development approach will allow them more opportunity to talk about affordable housing in the context of the development that is under consideration. He believes this is consistent with the development progress for the City of Evanston. Mr. Wolinski stated that Aid. Newman expressed staffs opinion to Aid. Tisdahl's question about why this method is better than as -of -right construction per the zoning requirements for that district. He said one of the things that is they wanted from this community for a long time is for the developers to give something back to the City. He said if someone builds as -of -right, they do not have to give anything back to the City in return. He stated that at least under the Planned Development ordinance, it will require some type of gift back be it affordable housing, open space. whatever the Council deems it should be. For instance, in the Dubin project, the City could have required several of those units to be affordable and with the 800 Elgin building if you have to go through the process and meet opposition, the developer then amends his project to as -of -right development; this process closes that loop hole. He said that when staff examined many of these projects with the Plan Commission, they tried to look at the ones that they believed Council had issues with that have been built as -of -right. With the thresholds proposed, they believe this ordinance will cover those projects in need of mandatory planned development review. Aid. Wynne expressed her support for this proposal as well and she is pleased that this issue is finally before the P&D Committee. She stated that one of the things she likes the most about this is that it gives us some ability to have input in building a quality project versus as -of -right projects. She recalled that too often there has been the situation where the architect comes before them and describes what seems to be an aesthetically pleasing building. However, too frequently when a building is developed as -of -right, when the construction starts, many "quality points" described for the building are changed due to high cost as the project gets underway. She said that under this format, the City has the opportunity to make sure and require that the developer stick to what is presented to be built and to use the materials proposed. She said this issue is something that City Council and staff' have been concerned with for a long time. She also feels the Dubin property is a very good example to use regarding as -of -right building, agreeing with Mr. Widmayer's explanation of Dominicks hiring an appraiser who assessed the value of land in Evanston and housing costs then sold the land at a price where the developer ended up with a build - to -cost project. P&D Committee Sttg. Minutes of eta% 24.2004 Page 5 Ald. Newman commented that an% time you deal with proposed developments in a community. it is veD- complex and is never a simple and easy task for City Council when decisions have to be made. He reminded that it is always a learning process with each new large development and many times mistA-es are made in decisions along the way especially %tiith the larger projects. At least with this process on the big projects there will be opportunity for community input. He used the Optima building as an example of a very large project that came in as -of -right with no community input and the City is now stuck with the final outcome of what has now been constructed. He believes that the final product with the Optima building would have been more acceptable if this ordinance had of been in place at the time. The Committee and mentioned several projects where if this ordinance had of been in place would have come out different in the end. Aid. Wynne especially feels this way with the 515 Main building that has been a disappointment to many of her constituents and others in the City. Aid. Tisdahl asked how many more planned development projects could come through this process; is there an estimated number in view of the amount of development land available. Mr. Wolinski responded that staff is constantly receiving calls from developers looking for land in Evanston. He can not give an exact number with land available because there is always the possibility of tearing down existing property. A couple of sites that came to mind were the National Louis University property, the Belmont Steel site, redevelopment of the old Border's Book store dowritoAm, a several others that could become available as well. Ald. Wynne pointed out that Chicago Avenue is also a constant question and consideration for redevelopment. Mr. Wolinski agreed especially with possible future development on the several car lots in that vicinity. Aid. Tisdahl asked Mr. Widmayer to elaborate on the Plan Commission's theory on using the Planned Development approach versus Binding Appearance Review. Mr. Widmayer explained that the Plan Commission took a look at the concept of Binding Appearance Review where they combined a set of standards with a mandatory review. He said that it was suggested that this might not pass the constitutional muster. Therefore, the Commission reviewed again. dividing it into two parts: first being the Planned Development approach and working with the developer. Secondly, which they will bring before P&D in a few months are some standards that the Commission would recommend as City construction standards, not necessarily binding appearance standards. He informed the Committee that man• of the contractors he has talked to about this prefer such standards to work by. Mi. Widmayer finished that the Plan Commission is presenting this as two pieces in an attempt to accomplish a quality construction component to our building programs without going into the binding appearance review aspect. Aid. Tisdahl asked how much more time and money is this estimated to take for a developer to go through the planned development process. Mr. Widmayer that once they come up with design standards, most of the developers will look at these and take them into consideration and will design around that. Therefore, it will take a little longer because there are more steps with the process. However unless someone comes in with some drastic measures that they want to meet or a situation similar to District 65, then there should be no major impact with extra time. He said in comparison to what happens in places like Schaumburg or Wilmette where you have binding appearance review; he P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of !kta% 24, 2004 Page 6 feels the planned development method will be easier for Evanston. He said that this method is user friendly for contractors and deN elopers. Mr. Widmayer stated that because each project is unique, zoning requirements as Aid. Tisdahl had suggested, and binding appearance review standards are difficult to define. He reminded that the planned development process would only be for the larger projects; the ones that are particularly difficult to define. This method will allow the City to work with the developer on the uniqueness of each development. Aid. Newman said that he does not believe that the experience has been recently to scare any developers away with the planned development process. He says this because there have been multiple planned developments proposed. He said that when someone wants to put up a project that has 100+ units and worth millions of dollars, they are going to have an expectation that they are going to have to go through several planning and zoning stages and approval process. The developer is willing to go through this because they realize the substantial profit they will make in the end. He said there is a strong desire to develop in Evanston at this time especially in close proximity to the Metra line. Therefore, this ordinance is very appropriate to deal with that marketplace and other future large development proposals. He supports these thresholds for control over the larger projects. Chairman Kent also supports this ordinance. He agrees that more times than not it seems that when there is a big project or coming down the pipeline, they are always reacting to it and defending their areas against the project and fighting to get the very 'input to the developers. It is this aspect of the ordinance that he agrees. However, he questions why the I1 General Industrial Office was left out. He is concerned with this district because sooner or later developers will begin proposed development in this area as well. He asked Mr. Widmayer to elaborate on the Plan Commission's thoughts regarding the Ii District. Mr. Widmayer responded that the Plan Commission felt there were a couple of — areas where timing was considered. He said that they did not address the Industrial district initially. He said at their last meeting the flan Commission did start addressing the Industrial district and he agrees with Aid. Kent that this area needs to be included. He said that they looked at the Industrial in terms of what they felt will be proposed for development in that area. They do not expect to be able to bring any industrial business back because of being S5 per square foot compared to S1.25 in DuPage County. He —_ recommended that the Industrial District be included. By the same token, he would personally recommend to not include the University Lake Front Campus district. He does not feel this area would be worth the time and effort for anything under planned development. Ald. Newman thought this included practically all districts except residential. From his understanding, residential is not permitted in the Industrial districts. Therefore even for a planned development an amendment would have to be made to the use Iist to allow what ever types of housing you want in the I districts. He said this is an example of where what they intended in 1993 did not happen. He said at that time they tried to preserve some area of the City so there could be some manufacturing, however this has not happened. He questioned what is there a market for in the Industrial districts; if residential, they would have to revisit this section of the Zoning Ordinance. On that same note, Mr. Wolinski also recalled discussion back in 1988 regarding concern about P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of tia} 24. 2004 Page 7 making the existing manufacturing in the 1 districts nonconforming by changing the zoning. This is one of the reasons why the% kept the Industrial districts involved. Chairman Kent said that his memory from back in 1993 when they started talking about the Industrial districts %%as the debate because they saw heavy industrial leaving. The intent was to try and preserve some type of industrial. however it doesn't seem as if it will be coming back. He feels they need to find a way to be in front of the curve before this gets to point where the developer is ready to present a proposal for that land. He is positive that this will soon be the case. Mr. Widmayer could not recall off hand what is allowed in Industrial outside of industry but this ordinance includes thresholds for retail and office as well. Mr. Alterson said that retail and office would be allowed as a special use in the I Districts. 4tr. Widmayer suggested to add the I zones for that purpose even if it does not today include residential. Aid. Tisdahl raised questions on the Ul. U2, and U3 districts and why they were included. Aid. Newman said that there is U1 in his district and brought to attention a large project on Hinman in the 1800 block where there would be substantial impact. He recalled another project in his ward under U I zoning that he also appreciates being included under this ordinance because it would be devastating to the people on Orrington if that property were to be developed into a dormitory use. He pointed out that in most of the U 1 and U2 districts there are large* parcels that are directly across from residential homes where large developments would have great impact. Aid. Tisdahl agreed. It was a consensus of the Committee to agree with Mr. Widmayer that the U3 district could be removed. Ald. Tisdahl moved to remove the U3 District and leave the Ul and U2 Districts, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The rote was 4-0 in favor of the motion (Ald. Wynne in A&PA) Chairman Kent asked the Committee what is the suggestion for the Industrial District. Aid. Newman responded that he suggested that if there is a large scale residential development ultimately that is in the 12 that is above 24 units, the issue is whether or not the Council wants an opportunity to be able to review and have input. He said at this point they are not sure whether multi -family will be a special use or permitted uses, etc. He said they need to review the special use list and include the types of housing. He noted that a planned development is a form of a special use. Therefore, if they change the 1 Districts it depends on what list, permitted or special, that they put housing on and what kind of housing. In any case, the planned development method would be helpful with any large housing development proposal in the I Districts. Chairman Kent reminded the Mr. Widmayer said that the Plan Commission has begun discussion regarding the Industrial Districts. He asked if what has been suggested is under consideration. Mr. Widmayer responded reiterated that the Commission just started this discussion at their last meeting so he is unsure at this point what direction they will end up with. However it is evident that heavy industrial future is very limited. He said that the Commission will look into more uses than just residential for the Industrial districts; it may be opportunity to look at the work/live environment for this area. Mr. Alterson reminded the Committee that there is a reference from Aid. Rainey regarding looking at residential possibilities in the Industrial Districts. Mr. Widmayer stated that this reference is what started the Plan Commission's discussion. More discussion continued with the Committee consensus to P&D Committee Mig. minoes of May 24. 2004 Page 8 ha%a the Plan Commission report back to them upon conclusion of their study of the Industrial Districts. Nis. Szymanski suggested that if the Committee is inclined to ha►e this ordinance introduced tonight, she would request that it be referred back to Committee. Because in the inter►cning time between now and the first meeting in June, staff will need to prepare findings for the Committee's consideration and discussion and eventual adoption to support the threshold numbers of the 30,000 and 20,000 and the 24 units as well as which districts are to be included. She has spoken to Mr. Widmayer about this, which he quoted that when the Plan Commission had their discussion at the April meeting regarding this text amendment, they had in mind from its previous meetings over the last several years having reviewed projects that the}, felt had at various levels of intensity. However, what the Plan Commission had in their minds was not carried over into discussion on the record. Therefore, staff will need to extract information from those previous discussions and put them into findings for the Committee. The Committee agreed. Aid. Tbdahi moved to approve Ordinance 59-0-04 as amended and to be introduced and referred back to Committee as requested by Legal staff' direction. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. f P21 Ordinance 60-0-04 - Zonine Man Amendment Chaimnan Kent called on the 3 people signed up to speak on this item. Ms. Deborah Allen lives at 1319 Chicago Avenue in the block directly west of the subject block. She supports the rezoning to B2. She referred to the development at Chicago and Main, which is what would be allowed in the subject block. She informed the Committee that she and the majority of her neighbors are happy with the current scale in their neighborhood and would like to see it remain the same. Ms. Pennv Miller reported 79 more signatures to be added to her original letter and petition. Ms. Beth Reynolds reported that she is commenting on behalf of Beth Steffan who could not be present. She read a letter written by Holly Reynolds from the SouthEast Evanston Association to the Committee expressing their support for the rezoning of the subject area from B3 to the B2 zoning. _ Ald. Wynne said that she was pleased with this amendment and strongly supports this zoning map amendment along with her constituents. She said that it is an accomplishment to protect another business district from the extreme height of being able to build to 125' like the building at Chicago and Main. She agrees with Ms. Allen's comments as well. She strongly urges the Committee's support and for Council's adoption. Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 60-0-04, seconded by AhL Bernstein. — The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. - P&D Committee %itg. Minutes of May 24. 2004 Page 9 ADJOURtiIStENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L. �RIwr1 L�-- Jacqulkne INBrownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of .tune 14, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: J. Kent, A. Newman. E. Tisdahl Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein, M. W-*mne Stab Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. V. Jones, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m. He apologized for the Committee's tardiness in starting this meeting due to Executive Session held previously. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 2004 MEETING Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the May 24`" minutes, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of approving the minutes. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION f P I) Sidewalk Cafe for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1634 Orrinaaton (Ben & Jerrv's) Chaimmn Kent acknowledged Mr. Rodney Lane, General Manager. Aid. Newman asked how many tables they are planning to have at their cafd and what their planned procedure is to keep the cafd clean. Mr. Lane responded that someone from their staff will constantly clean off the tables and pick up any debris around the cafe. He said that staff will bring in the tables each evening. Mr. Wolinski stated the rules upon request: that there be a dedicated person for clean up for the outside cafe tables at all times. Aid. Newman addressed Mr. Lane that it is very important to follow this rule and the requirement of picking up not only their garbage and debris but any other that come within the required radius of their establishment to keep clean. He used Chipolte as an example where the maintenance of their cafd has not been kept up because on several occasions he has gone by and picked up %Tappers with their name on it. He reiterated the importance of all businesses living up to the responsibility with complying to the regulations for sidewalk cafe maintenance or risk their permit being revoked or not extended for the following year in order to assist in keeping the downtown area clean. Mr. Lane assured that they would follow the regulations. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Comminec trig. Minuics of 6-14-04 Page 2 (P2) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvoe I Restaurant at 1932 Central +Bluestone) Mr. John Enright, owner of the Bluestone, was in attendance. fie noted that this would be their third year for a sidewalk cafe permit with liquor with no previous problems, Aid. Tisdahl confirmed and recommended approval, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of approval. fP3) Sidewalk Cafd for a Retail Food Store at 2106 Central (Foodstuffs) Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Steve Wessel, Controller of Foodstuff's. He noted that they would have 4-5 tables and would be serving salads. sand%%iches, etc. Ald. Newman asked if Foodstuffs, under Retail Food Store. would be considered the same as Wholefoods, who have operated a sidewalk cafe in the past. Nlr. Wolinski concurred. Upon question, Mr. Wessel informed that although there are a total of 4 Foodstuffs, he works specifically for the Central Street location. He runs the entire operation and has managers that run the store who will supervise the employees that will work the sidewalk cafd. He assured that they have read and understand the rules and regulations for operation of sidewalk cafe and w711 abide by them. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Sidewalk Cafe for TvDe 2 Restaurant at 930 Church (Noodle's & Comoanv) Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Morrell representing Noodle's & Company. Mr. Morrell stated that this would be their first year requesting a sidewalk cafe, however he is familiar with Evanston regulations. He said that their restaurant is a type 2 but their customer's order at the counter and they do have food runners that bring the orders to them and constantly bus the tables. He informed that he is the district manager and is not at the Evanston location all the time. The general manager is Scott Hasselburger, the assistant manager is Bobby Wanger, who are both familiar as well with the sidewalk cafd regulations. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Sidewalk Cafd for Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1549 Sherman (Italian Coffee Bar) Aid. Newman moved approval for this sidewalk cafe. He stated that Aid. Bernstein told him prior to the meeting that he also approved of this request. Mr. Christopher Casas was in attendance representing the Italian Coffee Bar. He listened to the previous cases and assured he understands the regulations as well. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (P6) 800 ElaWI800 Sherman: Optima Horizons Amended & Restated Resubdivision Mr. Matt Cison was present from Optima. He explained briefly that the previous subdivision approved for the site has been amended to more accurately reflect building conditions as well as the approved construction drawings. Ald. Newman asked what the responsibility is of the Committee. Mr. Wolinski responded that this is a ministerial act. P&D Commince Nit_c. Minutes of 6.14-04 Page 3 Aid. Newman expressed his disapproval of the building and its overwhelming massive appearance. He asked if Optima has responded to the complaints from Sherman Gardens regarding the illumination from the lights on the building. Mr. Cison assured that they have resolved that issue. Aid. Newman continued to point out several other aesthetic issues with the outcome of the building that he disapproves of. He pointed out that this building is a perfect example of a major development that came in as -of -right and the main reason why he supports item (P9) on the agenda to establish minimum standards for planned developments. Mr. Cison claimed that they received some eery positive comments at the Site Plan & Appearance Review meeting. Mr. Wolinski repeated that this is a resubdivision and requires a ministerial act on the part of the Committee. As long as they meet City codes and has been signed off by the various City Departments, there is no problem with this. Aid. Newman asked for clarification on why this is being done now and not before building permits were issued. Mr. Cison explained that this procedure was done previously, however this occasion reflects the minor revisions to the construction drawings that have been made from the original. Mr. Alterson added that this has actually already been done but has been revised largely because of some internal revisions to the hallways above the first floor, which reflect ownership interest. Ms. Aiello also noted that once a building is built, because it may be slightly different than what was originally approved, this procedure sets the record straight so that accurate information is on file. She also concurred with Mr. Cison's comment that this plan was received well in Site Plan by a majority of the Committee members. Aid. Newman said that it appears that mixed message have been received on this development. Aid. Newman moved approval of the Optima Horizons Amended & Restated Resubdivision. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor, Aid. Newman stated that he want the record to reflect the reason he asked those questions was because the building that was constructed did not have any approval of the City of Evanston. It was built within the Zoning Ordinance as a matter of right. Although this went to Site Plan, there was no planned development process required with no zoning relief to be considered. (P7) Ordinance 62-0-04 — Zonine Text Amendment: O 1. Office Districts Uses Mr. Wolinski explained that this ordinance is just to clean up some language when the 01 District section of the Zoning Ordinance was amended under Ordinance 41-0-04 adopted on April 13, 2004. He noted that a couple of uses were mistakenly omitted that the Plan Commission had recommended be retained, specifically "retail goods and retail service establishments." The Committee members concurred. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of Ordinance 62-0-04, seconded by Aid. Newman. The motion was approved unanimously 3-0. (P8) Ordinance 66-0-04 — Sherman Plaza Planned Develonment Aid. Newman immediately questioned why there is the request to suspend the rules for this item tonight. Ms. Aiello responded that the planned development will be introduced and she directed attention to the letter that was distributed to the Committee this evening P&D Commitsce tiitg. Minutes of 6-14-oa Page 4 from the development team requesting that Council suspend the rules for approval to the changes to the planned development. She noted that all the other documents pertaining to the amendments to the redevelopment agreement and the public improvement concerns were introduced at the previous Council meeting. Ald. Newman still questioned the necessity of suspending the rules and if there is any major impact on the process. He noted that there are two Planning & Development members absent tonight, one of who has some problems with this development. He said this request would be considerable at this point if it will assure action to begin construction sooner, otherwise he does not see why this can not go through the normal process. Mr. John Terrell responded explaining that they are on a tight schedule of approvals all along so that they can start construction by the end of summer. He said these approvals are tied to the financing of the project. Aid. Newman informed that when Council is asked to suspend the rules it should be under extraordinary circumstances. That is why he questions if this can not be done in the normal course of business. fir. Terrell stated that the intent, as they have discussed with staff, is that they want to have all the entitlements in place from the City so that their financing team is assured of this approval because the due diligence period is going to soon go into effect. He reiterated that their request to Council to suspend the rules is primarily tied to the financing approval for this project. Aid. Newman asked if everything else has been done to proceed with the project. Ms. Aiello informed that this would conclude everything being done as far as it relates to the City"s entitlement. Mr. Terrell responded that there are still some issues remaining as far as the conditions to the letter intent of the loan, however the pre -conditions in terms of the loan commitment have been done. Aid. Newman asked what else is needed to finalize and start construction. Mr. Terrell responded that final documentation and signatures needed would remain and the lenders due diligence because this is part of the process that the finance team is going to be concerned with. Therefore, they would like to present to them with documentation that shows completion in terms of entitlement from the City. Aid. Newman still questioned why suspension of the rules needs to be done in this case when the normal procedure would still seem sufficient for presentation to the developers financing team. He pointed out that this has been going on for over two years now. Chairman Kent agreed and noted that this item has been marked for introduction tonight. He stated that he can not speak for the two alderman that are absent this evening, however he knows that at least one of them did have some questions. He was under the impression that this item could b introduced this evening and referred back to Committee to allow the absent alderman the ability to address any concerns they had and he assumes they were under the same impression. Ms. Aiello stated that this project has been before the Economic Development Committee and the Parking Committee where the two absent alderman have been present. Aid. Newman said regardless of that fact, in both of those Committee meetings they did not go over the planned development and what was addressed in those meetings has nothing to do with what is on the table for consideration tonight with Planning & Development. He requested the applicant to elaborate on the changes from the original plan that was presented under the approved ordinance 145-0- 99. Mr. Terrell presented to the Committee two illustrations showing the original plan and the revised plan. He explained in detail the modifications as explained on the agenda items sheet and within the attached documentation in Council's packet. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6-14-04 Page 5 Upon completion of the applicants' presentation of the modifications. Ald. Newman summed up that the three modifications under this request are: l } Change in retail - reduction in taking off the 3`d and 4`h floors originally presented. 2) Increase in number of condominium units by 33. 3) A height change to the retail and actual high point of the condominium building. (All modifications are specified on the agenda item sheet and in Council's packet.) Aid. Newman requested the developer's assurance that these are the only changes being requested under this ordinance and to proceed with this project. The developer gave their assurance, which was backed by Ms. Aiello. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 66-0-04 and to the changes as presented and agreed upon and recommendation for Council to suspend the rules as requested. It was also noted to amend Section 3(C) to reflect the modification. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P9) Ordinance 59-0-04 - Zoninc Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Kent noted that this item was referred back to the Committee from the May 240' meeting. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff feels at this point that the recommendations of the Plan Commission do not support the minimum standards that they have put forward. Therefore, Legal Counsel has advised that they need to work on the findings of these proposed minimum standards and bring the ordinance back to the Committee. Aid. Newman moved that the P&D Committee ask the staff to incorporate some proposed findings and that the ordinance reflects those findings and present back to this Committee. Additionally, in concurrence with this motion, he requested that the Committee direct staff to schedule a meeting with the City of Evans ton/Northwestern University Committee for June 22' so that there is a public meeting regarding how this ordinance will effect the Consent Decree with the University. He further requested that staff inform and invite an individuals recommended for members of this specific Committee be notified and invited to attend. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and was approved 3-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that it appears that for the meeting on June 28"' they will have the application for the Mather Landmark status on P&D's agenda Ald. Newman stated that due to the Committee's agenda load, he would suggest that staff' put this item on the agenda but requested to the other Committee members that they address P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of6-14-04 Page 6 this by setting a special meeting for this item only to allow sufficient time for discussion, comments and concerns to be addressed. The Committee concurred. He also requested that staff notify the management at the Mather to avoid the residents from wasting their time in attending the meeting on June 28`h. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacque a E. Brownlee Planning & Development Committee DRAFT Minutes of June 28, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. Kent, N1. Wynne Alderman Tard-.•: A. Newman Alderman Absent: E. Tisdahl Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello. A. Alterson. V. Jones, C. Ruiz, D. Spiccuza. E. Sz)manski. J. Brownlee Others Present: L. Widmayer. J. Lindwahl. J. Fiske Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. He noted that Aid. Tisdahl would be absent this evening and that Aid. Newman was expected to arrive at 8:00 p.m. Therefore, he wrill hold off setting the special meeting for the Georgian until Aid. Newman's arrival and will also try and hold off discussion of the 801 Chicago case since Aid. Newman had several concerns with this as well. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 14, 2004 MEETING "MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the June 14°i minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 3-0 in fa% or of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Temnorary Sian Request for American Craft Exoosition Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Mr. Wolinski noted that this request has been approved over the past 10 years or so. There are no changes in the sign locations and there has never been any problem Kith this request. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) HOME Fund Request for Housing Opportunity Development Corporation 3-unit Rental Rehab Mr. Michael Roane, Housing Development Coordinator Aith the Housing Opportunity Development Corporation (HODC) introduced himself and gave a brief overview of the request. He stated that this proposal is for a 3-unit rehab that they intend to maintain as P&D Committee Nttg. Minutes of 6-28-04 Page'_ low-income housing on Jackson Street. He said most of the rehab will involve • maintenance or repairs to water damage of the building and also lead abatement through the house. He thanked the Committee and the Cite for their consideration of HOME funds and noted HODC's long history of working with the Cite of Evanston. They have been ven successful in the work done using these funds. Mr. Wolinski added that both the Housing Commission and City Staff support this use of HOME funds. He said there have been major issues on the I900 block of Jackson with anti -social behavior for some time now and they have been working with the Police Department and other neighbors to try and get some ownership of some of those properties. They feel that HODC will be a very good landlord to have in this neighborhood. Chairman Kent asked if there are any tenants in the building at this time. fir. Roane responded that ? units are currently occupied and those families will be staring. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. N't'ynne. The vote was unanimous 3-0 in favor. Aid. Bernstein asked why the name change from Interfaith Housing. Mr. Roane explained that the name change occurred about 7 years ago to distinguish themselves as the development arm of Interfaith. (P4) Ordinance 67-0-04 — Variation for 1500 Darrow (;� Parkine Soacesl Chairman Kent acknowledged the owner of the property. fir. Eric Kerlow. tiIr. Kerlow said that he and his partner have owned this property for the past 5 years. The building is built on slab with 5 small )-bedroom units. He informed that originally there were 3 buildings built in a complex, one on Lake Street, their building and one building adjacent to the north. There is a parking tot just north of the buildings on Darrow and originally at the time these buildings were built, they all shared this one common lot. In the mid- 1960's the buildings were separated and there was supposed to be a promise that the parking would be deeded for their building on this lot. However, 40 years ago the follow through was not completed and the deeds were not honored. Therefore. he and his partner are asking for major variance to the parking requirement for their 5-unit5, which the ZBA has recommended to grant. He said this is eery similar to a condo conversion with the 5-units being fee -simple townhouses without parking. Mr. Kerlow assured that the street parking seem to be very adequate in this area. Aid. Wynne asked if they are planning to renovate the units and the exterior of the building. Mr. Kerlow responded that the building is in good shape but they are planning to do some upgrading to the interior of the units and will remain 1-bedroom I -story townhouses. Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee that when she received the transcript she observed that the ZBA did not make findings in this case. She clarified this means that Ms. Jackson (Zoning Planner) with the assistance of the ZBA Chair granted to proposed findings of section 2 of the Ordinance. She suggested a motion by the Committee to specifically adopt the findings as set forth in paragraph 2. Aid. Bernstein observed that it appears there were no objectors according to the report. he also has no objections to its. Szymanski's information and suggestion. PRD Committee ,tte `tinutes of 6.:" Page 3 is Aid. Bernstein motioned to accept the recommendation of the Zoning Board subject to the modification which would include findings of fact as prepared by Zoning Staff. :his. Szymanski s-.:ted to the Committee that she has reviewed this and feels staffs report is adequate in supporting the findings of fact. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (115) Ordinance 59-0-04 — Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Kent recalled that this item was introduced and referred back to Committee on May 24`" and subsequendy held in Committee at the June 14'h meeting. He also recalled that wi"n this time a meetin was scheduled for the Cit,,. Northwestem University Committee to meet on June 22' to discuss the proposed thresholds at which an achieved consensus was agreed upon to exempt and remove certain properties from binding appearance review or any similar proposal in accordance to the Consent Decree as established on Februar% 7. 2004. Aid. Wynne recalled that this was held because two Alderman were absent at the last meeting but questioned if there were any other circumstances involved for holding this. Chairman Kent clarified that this was held so that the absent Alderman could make sure that their concerns were addressed and also to allow time for more investigation from the Legal Department to tie up and conclude certain concerns. Ms. Szymanski referred to Mr. Alterson in confirming that staff had to address the fact that since there were no findings in the Plan Commission transcript, Mr. Alterson reserved the situation and prepared a detailed presentation involving various projects and based findings upon them. Mr. Alterson agreed with Ms. Szymanski's comments and stated that the information provided to the Committee in their packets is a literary presentation that includes a series of charts that are sorted by address and number of dwelling units. .aid. Bernstein asked for clarification that he understood that the Committee did vote on this with the understanding to bring back for the approval of findings in accordance to staffs report. Mr. Alterson agreed and noted the inclusion of the Northwestern L:niversity'City Committee meeting discussion and conclusion on how to address the properties within the Consent Decree. %As. Szymanski drew the Committee's attention to the amended ordinance passed out this evening and explained that the amendment is to the last page. which adds a footnote to explain that the map referred to in Table 1 SC is in fact the map approved in the Consent Decree. This was done so that there is no doubt in the future reading of this ordinance. Ms. Jeanne Lindwahl. 625 Library Place, informed the Committee that she did attend the Northwestern l:niversitY City Committee meeting and had a couple of questions and observations on the ordinance that she was concerned with that she addressed at that meeting as well. First. with respect to the 20.000 square foot gross area under roof development for planned developments. she pointed out the language reads that building area is limited to commercial, business retail or office use. This is probably acceptable in those districts, however the question is with respect to the special overlay districts that include the University- districts. She asked what happens if they are dealing with a University use that is not among the excluded properties. Ms. Lindwahl suggested either ending the sentence after 20,000 square foot of building under roof or expanding it to . include Institutional Uses as well. She directed the Committee to making this amendment on page 9 of the ordinance. She further noted that this language is carried P&D Committee titr Minutes of 6-28-4 Paxe .t throughout the ordinance and suggested that this amendment be made where appropriate. • She speciticalI} pointed out on page 5 under Section 6-9-1-9fdi Business Districts. under number 5 to be amended as well as pace 4. Ms. Lindy+•ahi continued that the other basic issue with respect to the Findings of fact that were put together. she believes that the reference as to how this supports the Comprehensi%a Plan should also ha%a referred to the objectives on institutions in Chapter 6. She noted that the objective is assured that institutional development enhanced surrounding neighborhoods as well as the economic development of Evanston. She continued that there are a whole series of policies under this objective that relate to the importance of ensuring that institutional development does not have negative impact on their surrounding neighborhoods. She concluded that this factor is important in including in the findings. She suggested that it would be helpful to include in the ordinance the map of the excluded properties since it is included as an exhibit. Staff assured that this map has recently been acquired and is available at this time. It was not when the ordinance was prepared. Mr. Alterson for clarification read the definition of "Institution as defined in the ordinance. "An organization establishment with providing religious. educational, charitable, medical, cultural, or governmental services." He pointed out that this is not purely a University issue with the ordinance under "institutional" use category. HE clarified that this is a decision of the Committee's ruling on this category. Mr. Widmayer clarified to all that it was never the Plan Commission's intention to get involved with the institutional uses when this item was under their review. He continued that certainly it was not their intention to get involved with any educational uses. be it secondary, primary, or university setting. Ald. Bernstein asked Mr. «'idmayer if it were their intention to exclude institutional from this ordinance. Mr. Widmayer responded that he recalled it was never a point of discussion except that at one point to discuss the University property not being included. He clarified that the main focus of discussion was on retail, the residential. and the office complex developments. Mr. Ruiz addressed the Committee to clarify in terms of what is considered excluded and included from this research and determination. He stated that what came to his mind from discussion amongst the Preservation Commission, is that their opinion is based upon the providence that the designation applies to the developer of record. not just the building. Therefore, it would appear that anything that is built on that lot of record, the Preservation Commission would review in accordance to the Ordinance. Subsequently. this fact needs to be clarified to the fact of the building only or the owner of record. which is something that is useful for future reference. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he staffed the Northwestern University/City Committee meeting. He recalled that when Ms. Lindwahl brought up those issues concerning the Institutional Uses, he does not believe there were any response from the University representatives either pro or con on this issue. However. he noted that one thing they need to be clear on tonight is that if there is a movement towards including Institutions, he suggest that perhaps this item should be held tonight so that staff has an opportunity to inform the University representatives of this. He noted that in the P&D Corn►nince %lig. Minutes of 6-28.04 Page 5 • conclusion of the Northwestern L'ni%ersit� Cite Cortrnt:tee meeting, they agreed that any changes that would be made to this ordinance %%ould be forwarded to them and subsequently agreed upon before adoption of any chances. Aid. Wynne acknowledged Mr. Wolinski's comments and the position of the University,`City Committee. Nevertheless. she would be reluctant to delay this for any period of time brining attention to the time involved in consideration of this matter up to now. However she supports the need for more time to consider additional thought in terms of all institutional uses and if they should be incorporated into this ordinance. However, she stressed that the Committee decision should not be made too quickly. Mr. Wolinski informed that the University indicated that they had no immediate plans for further construction. However there are de% elopments covered by this ordinance that are floating around that are not institutional uses that could be effected by this ordinance. AId. Wynne stated that because the meeting has tai, :n place she would hope that the map would clarify the University exempted properties to this threshold. She suggested that the Committee move forward on this and acceptance of the small technical amendments set forth. tits. Szymanski stated in connection with the particular findings here as there were none at the Plan Commission. that Mr. Alterson has prepared for this the basis for your findings. She would strongly recommend that staff guide the Committee on some type of discussion through this so that there can be a record at this Committee followed by a specific adoption of the report prepared by staff. Ald. Wynne agreed completely that they should make this as proper as possible. Mr. Alterson stated that the issue is not so much that the principle of having all developments above a certain size required to come under specific review, which has been specified in the handout presented to Council in their packets. He stated several communities have adopted this principal including the City of Chicago. However the exact number you use for this threshold he believes is specifically something that is related to the Committee and asked that they look at this and decide whether or not these numbers concluded by the Plan Commission are acceptable. The Plan Commission suggested 25 dwelling units. 30.000 square feet of lot area and 20.000 square feet of floor area ratio as being appropriate in light of this list of previous developments and developments that are currently on the dra%%ing board. Staff recalled from memory as best they could but there are probably still some developments that were not included on this list. Mr. Alterson referred to the second to the last column and said from his findings he questions «ill this proposal be captured by the thresholds that are under consideration right now and it is where the probably not meets with the probably that he would urge the Committee to take a good look at. He said his personal conclusion was that because their size and the amount of community discussion that they generated and because of potential impacts that those projects have had on the appearance of the streetscape and light, that the thresholds that they have working together in this draft do pretty well capture all of the developments that he believes there is a consensus in the community should have had some type of extraordinary review in the form of a public hearing. He said the ones that appear, although he is unsure of some of the floor areas that they would not have been forced over to a zoning hearing. These cases are the ones that he feels there is a consensus that these were a minimal enough sine where they did not reall% cause any negative effect. P&D Comminee Ntte. Minutes of 6.28-04 Page 6 Aid. Bernstein felt that the list is eery conclusive. Aid. Wynne agreed and feels that the list is very useful in terns of identih.-ine above a certain level in which there is a significant impact on the community. She said that if you Inok at all the buildings that would definitely fall under this. the%- are all significant enough structures at this point that they do have an impact on the community, their immediate neighborhood. on the street and traffic impact. She said that it starts at the Edmonton project which is in the Third Ward on Chicago Avenue. with 20 units that probably would have come under the threshold. She pointed out that this building significantly altered the block and created a lot of community discussion. This building is a good example of the smaller end of the spectrum and would be appropriate to be included with this ordinance. Aid. Bernstein asked if she would suggest reducing the threshold back from 25 to 20 units. Aid. Wynne said that she would keep the number of units where it is at because of the floor area ratio factor. She said the whole point binding appearance review when this first started was to gain control over some of the appearance and bulk issues that they were experiencing in the community and this list just adds up to all of the reasons why people in the community have been so concerned. She agrees that this type of threshold is appropriate for Evanston and the size of the projects they see coming in. Mr. Brian Callahan made comments on appearance in general. He has lived in Evanston for the past 17 years and has always loved the beautiful architecture here. He is not an architect, however when he sees some of the new developments, they are unattractive to even his untrained eye. He appreciates the work that Aid. Wynne and others have done to downzone some building heights. He has recently heard the phrase "taste police" and that the City can not be such, but he feels that the City should have a stronger appearance ordinance. There are other municipalities who have adopted such ordinances that are working for their community. Mr. Alterson pointed out to the Committee to be aware that the ordinance before them that has come from the Plan Commission does not include the industrial or open space districts. Aid Wynne asked Mr. Widmayer if they are shelving the standards portion that was followed before. fir. Widmayer responded no and that the Plan Commission is planning to discuss this issue of recommended City standards to be used whenever evaluating any architecture at their next meeting. Aid. Wynne asked Legal Staff if they have met the discussion level for the findings. Ms. Szymanski felt their discussion was sufficient and suggested also adopting Mr. Alterson's exhibit and make the finding to specifically adopt the findings set forth in the revised ordinance. Aid. Wynne moved to accept Mr. Alterson's Section 2 as the landings to support the ordinance, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Bernstein said that one concern he has relates to the binding appearance review ordinance, which he could never understand. He is concerned because from previous discussion about this there was no consensus and he is not sure that the layman is going to appreciate the views of the architects as it was acceptable many years ago. In consideration of Mr. Callahan's comments, many people do not agree from an untrained eye, with the newer architecture of the more recent developments. He said there are other P&D Cemminet %lts. :Minutes of6-28-04 Page 7 reasons for this ordinance and as a caution to the Plan Commission. he is concerned. He noted that the aluminum house on Main Street and the orange balcony building are ones that he has received numerous complaints against. however these two structures have both received architectural awards. Chairman Kent asked how the number of 25 units was derived. Mr. Alterson responded that at one time a higher number was being discussed but did not capture some of the new condo buildings that actually have a large impact on the street. Mr. Wolinski added that he believes that it was the 1672 Maple Building (Roszak Development) which is under construction at this time, that was the basis for deriving at that number. This development has 28 units. Mr. Widmaycr concurred that is why they brought the number down to 25. The Plan Commission did not vivant to get into_'-. 3- or even 6-flats or the smaller developments. Chairman Kent said that his complaint to this is where it states "incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and contributes to a sense of overcrowding and cast shadows on existing properties." In his opinion, he feels this negative effect can result from the smaller developments of 6-8 units or even less, depending on where it located or property adjacent to. He said depending on the neighborhood: a development could still be incompatible even on the smaller scale. His concern is with balance as development effects individual neighborhoods. The positive factor with this ordinance is that it gives neighbors the opportunity to be involved. He feels there are still many undesirable people that are milking money out of 2-3 flat buildings and the smaller scale developments. Even though these developments may . seem minimal. thev can be detrimental to a majority singele-family residential neighborhoods or already dense areas. Mr. Widmayer concurred that the Plan Commission excluded developments on the smaller level. He agrees with Chairman Kent and the concern for the need to address the smaller scale developments as it effects certain residential areas and problems with density. However, this problem requires a different level of discussion than what they are dealing mith when this ordinance was proposed but nevertheless is important and needs to be addressed. Aid. Bernstein recalled past discussion involving height and bulk as it effects adjacent property and is why he always agreed with the floor area ratio process. Mr. Wolinski noted that because they are setting thresholds does not mean that applicants can not use the planned development procedure on smaller developments. In fact it even appears that many developers prefer the planned development method for zoning relief. He said that when he is asked by developers on the best approach, either through planned development or variance requests before the ZBA. he suggest that they do the planned development method because of the controls plus it comes through the Plan Commission which is perhaps looking at things a bit more liberal than the Zoning Board does on a land use aspect and aesthetically. Aid. Bernstein asked for staffs opinion on including 2-flats under planned development. Mr. Wolinski responded that personally he feels this would be difficult or even possible to do. He noted that the planned development process takes 34 months now and if they added up all the new construction of 2 and 3 flats would put quite a burden on the Plan Commission and Council. Chairman Kent agreed that it would be a burden if they take P&D Commatee Xttc Minutes of 6-=8.(W Pace 8 that path. hove, er he suggest the possibility of de%eloping a new process for the smaller , scale de% elopments or coo ersions into rooming hou{es, etc. With no further discussion, the vote a as 3-0 in favor of the motion. his. Szymanski reminded that this item Mill take 6 votes b\ Council. fP31 Ordinance 65-044 — 7_onine Planned Development: 801 Chicano 523 Kedzic Chairman Kent welcomed :fir. lames Murra% to begin with his presentation and introduction of everyone present for this case. Mr. Murray, attorney representing the developer. Mr. Ornoff, also acknowledged two members of the architectural firm of Pappageorge 'Haymes Ltd.. fir. David Haymes and fir. Garrett Stefanowski. He noted the smaller rendition of the exhibit boards including in Council's packet materials. He recalled that this matter was last before P&D in December 2003 and was referred back to the Plan Commission because of what was considered to be a failing version of the planned development. In that it could not call to the attention of the general public the fact that there were some requirements for a variation of the setback requirements of the parking structure. The variance would be required in order to establish a different requirement that the planned development multi -family building with a special use. He said there was a third item that was addressed with the issue of the alley setback and screening of the alley. He said there is a provision which requires that an alley loading zone which is adjacent to a residential district be screened with appropriate screening materials. In this instance they have represented that the screening issue is presented and was felt by almost all involved. including residents and :old. Wynne, that this presented a) a security difficulty and b! a blockage of the alle% which was intended to remain as open as possible. This also reflected the vie,.%-s of several residents. He said that when they were on their way back to the Plan Commission. N-lr. Omoff directed that a eery serious review of the entire project be undertaken. And in response to criticisms that were made relatively loud and clear by the community and various members of the Plan Commission, a virtually entire redo of the plan was accomplished. He noted that the primary issues of concern including number of units. number of parking spaces, and number of types of use that would be on this property as part of the development. were substantially revised. The result was to reduce the number of units from 41 by eliminating the originally proposed ,g 1-bedroom units and retain the larger units for a total of 28 units. He said they would retain virtually units that are considered to be more highly stylistic and well thought out aesthetic aspects of the project. He said the setback off of the alley would be maintained at 10' and that the gallen• along Chicago Avenue — fagade of 7' will also be retained as part of the overall structural and design. nor. Murray said as a result of the rethinking and redrafting of the project, the originally galley for the courtyard at the level above the parking was eliminated and a more direct single facade was created but enhanced by substantial variations of mason-. He noted that height of building has been reduced to the maximum height within the district and as of right to 67'. Also the number of units within the FAR have been reduced to as -of -right number comfotmmancy. He said there are no allowances being sought to add units or to seek additional relief from the parking regulation other than that regarding the setback. The setback was essentially attributable to the second floor of the parking structure and those areas, which are not part of any. eliminate of corridor or aisle, which he pointed out to the P&D Comminee Sttg. Minutes of 6.28-04 Page Q • illustration. fir. Niurra% concluded that with respect to all previously stated. they have attempted to address all of the issues previously of concern. He noted that they have been back to the Plan Commission and haze indicated the nature. size and market values and ha%e presented new traffic and parking studies as well as tax studies. He said all of which underlie the positive values of this particular project. In his opinion, this proposed plan would be a very nice use of that site. Aid. Wynne asked for clarification on the parking variance that is being requested only impacts the second floor. Mr. Murray explained that it does impact the second floor and that portion of the first floor that effects 4 parking spaces. Aid Newman arrived at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Murray pointed several issues relative to the ordinance which may need some amending because of an overstatement of the necessary eliminations of relief for this project. He pointed out there are three unnecessary items under Section 3 on page 3 which are C. D, & E that can be eliminated. These items have been adjusted and eliminated by virtue of design modification. He also pointed out that there is a blank space on page 1, which should refer to Section 6-10-3-3. The Committee agreed to these changes in the ordinance. Chairman Kent called for citizen comment at this time. • Mr. Hans Viia, constructed a small-scale model of the site and proposed building before the Committee. He pointed out the previous brick building was a structure that did not fill out the entire site. He identified numerous problems that will be caused by this proposed structure involving traffic within the alley. problems with delivery trucks that need to use that alley for other business within the block. Also there are currently 144 cars that use this alley for people that live within this block. This project will add 30% more cars to an already congested heavily used alley. He feels this will create a very restrictive and negative impact within that -area. Mr. Vija pointed out the north elevation of the building that will face the adjacent building to the north with a blank brick wall. He totally objects to this developers proposals, even with this second proposal which appears to be downscaled and still has the ability to shoe -horn a large building on this site. He believes Evanston has plenty of examples where this same occurrence has happened by the same method. He feels. based on principal, they should not be granted a variance unless the standards and facts are met. In this case. he feels thev have not been met and disagree with the findings of the Plan Commission. Mr. Vila informed the Committee that the neighborhood group did have some expertise testimony at those meetings. however it is very expensive and would have cost the neighborhood many thousands of dollars to retain for all the meetings. He went into further detail explaining the traffic problems with this proposal and that this alley is the only ingress and egress for the majority of people that live within this block as well as the businesses. He pointed out that this applicant purchased this property at a high price knowing the problems involved with development on this site. He urged the Committee to consider all the negatives before acting on this case. P&D Committee MtS. Minutes of 6•28-04 Pane 10 Mr. Tim Cronin. 811 Chicago :Avenue, pointed out that this proposed development would be a true danger to the community for pedestrians and contributing to vehicular accidents as well. This area is already incredible dense and congested during rush hour and this proposed building %►ill only add to that :..isting problem. He feels it is inevitable &,at someone will be hurt eventually. He %%ould like to see something built on this site that is compatible with that corner at a much loiter scale and a lot less units. Aid. New7nan said that he is confused with all the tragic issues mentioned. lie reminded that in reality the developer could build up to 37 units by right and the proposal is for 34 units. This result is actually for less cars than what would be allowed as -of -right, which he would consider much more as a threat than what is being proposed. Aid. W)mne stated that she could not support this building. She pointed out that the Plan Commission originally unanimously denied this and this proposal is still too dense for this site in her mind. She said the standard of negative impact an adjacent property has not been met because it clearly takes awmy from the owners in the building next door. She does however, appreciate the building architecturally but there is still the need for a variance, which causes Council to act. If the building came within the package then Council would have not legal ground to deny. She strongly disapproves of the blank brick wall that the neighbors at 811 %%ill end up with and reiterated that she feels the standards have not been met in this case. Aid. Newman pointed out that there are 62 units at 811 Chicago Avenue and here the developer is proposing the addition of 24 units. He understands Aid. Wynne's position. however the developer has addressed the concerns and issues presented originally and the building is being built within the envelope except to the setback requirement for parking. He noted that with this variance, you have to consider the effect and how it is almost impossible to come within the setback requirement in this case for this site. He pointed out that the building proposed is very attractive whereas the next proposal may not be if this is denied and someone comes in after him with a project that fits the envelope totally as -of -right. He reiterated that he feels the developer has addressed all concerns and issues from the original proposal and that he could support this. Aid. Wynne reminded Aid. Newman of his comments when this was last before the Committee that he could not support any proposal that would need zoning relief, it should come in within the building envelope. He agreed and feels that this proposal has come in within the building envelope and that the zoning relief requested in this case appear to be necessary and are minimal in comparison to his efforts in revising from his original plans to come this close within the building allowances. Mr. David Haymes, architect, recalled comments that he heard regarding the point of de - evaluation of property in the adjacent building. He said this is a fallacious argument and there is no entitlement here. Aid. Newman added that he feels the 811 Chicago building when built was the beginning of the height epidemic that kicked off the effort to change e the zoning in that area. In reality, there was never any guarantee that 801 Chicago would not be redeveloped at some time in the future. P&D Committee Nitz. Minutes of 6 ^8.4a - Paee I 1 Aid. Bernstein stated that what they do here tonight will impact on future development on Chicago Avenue. He informed the Committee that he has received word of future development to the north on Chicago Avenue with plans of one of the car dealerships moving out because condo development is more beneficial in that area. He reminded of plans for future development of the Flannigan property as well. He also noted that no affordable housing component has been addressed here and questioned if there are any plans for this inclusion. Nevertheless. he appreciates the developers intent and evident efforts in addressing all the concerns that were raised with the original plan. Aid. NV%mne suggested holding this item because she feels more discussion is needed before the Committee should act on this. Aid. Newman suggested introducing and referring back to Committee so as not to hold this up an additional two weeks regardless of how the final vote will be. Chairman Kent agreed with Aid. Wynne's suggestion to hold this item in Committee because he also would not like to see Council act on this item hastily. The developer has come this far and has made great effort in addressing concerns and revising their plans, so he would hope they would be understanding of the Committee's position in this case. This item was held in Committee. (P7) Ordinance 70-0-04 — 422 Davis Street. The Georgian is The Committee members, staff, Mr. Paul Shadle representing the Georgian, and Ms. Judy Fiske of the Preservation Commission suggested and discussed several dates in July to set the special meeting. There was a final consensus on the date of Thursday, July 291h at 6:00 p.m. to be held preferably in the Council Chambers. OTHER BUSINESS The Committee asked for updates on several issues pending with P&D. Chairman Kent asked for an update on the inclusionan- affordable housing issue. Ms. Spicuzza responded that she has recently met with the members of BPI who forwarded a completed draft ordinance for staffs review and comments. She stated that this ordinance was just received a few days ago and she will re%iew and respond back to BPI for completion of the final draft. Aid. WNmne asked for an update on the 904 Hinman case. Mr. Ruiz gave an update and said that he was in the process of setting up a site visit of the building with the owner and making obsen-ations and suggestions to work with the applicant. The Committee asked the status of the rezoning of Kendall College. Mr. Wolinski informed that this was tabled at Site Plan to give the developer an opportunity to redesign his proposal. He said there is a nomination for landmark status for the Administration Building. U P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6-28-04 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting %-. s adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f—. "U Jacq\uel�ne E. rownlee • • Planning & Development Committee DRAFT Minutes of June 28, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. M. Wynne Alderman Tardy: A. Newman Alderman Absent: E. Tisdahl Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello. A. Akerson, V. Jones. C. Ruiz. D. Spiccuza. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: L. Widmayer, J. Lindwahl. J. Fiske Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. He noted that Aid. Tisdahl would be absent this evening and that Aid. Newman was expected to arrive at 8:00 p.m. Therefore, he will hold off setting the special meeting for the Georgian until Aid. Newman's arrival and %kill also try and hold off discussion of the 801 Chicago case since Aid. Newman had several concerns with this as well. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 14.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the June 14'' minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1) Temporary Sian Request for American Craft Exuosition Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Mr. Wolinski noted that this request has been approved over the past 10 years or so. There are no changes in the sign locations and there has never been any problem with this request. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) HOME Fund Request for Housing Oo_ nortunity Development Coro_ oration 3-unit Rental Rehab Mr. Michael Roane, Housing Development Coordinator with the Housing Opportunity Development Corporation (HODC) introduced himself and gave a brief overview of the request. He stated that this proposal is for a 3-unit rehab that they intend to maintain as P&D Comminee tittg. !Minutes of 6-28.04 Page = low-income housing on Jackson Street. He said most of the rehab will involve maintenance or repairs to writer damage of the building and also lead abatement through the house. He thanked the Committee and the City for their consideration of HONE funds and noted HODC`s lone history of %%orking with the City of Evanston. They have been %en• successful in the work done using these funds. Mr. Wolinski added that both the Housing Commission and Cit% Staff support this use of HOME funds. He said there have been major issues on the 1900 block of Jackson with anti -social behavior for some time no%i- and they have been working with the Police Department and other neighbors to try and get some ownership of some of those properties. They feel that 14ODC will be a very good landlord to have in this neighborhood. Chairman Kent asked if there are any tenants in the building at this time. Mr. Roane responded that 2 units are currently occupied and those families will be staving. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was unanimous 3-0 in favor. Aid. Bernstein asked w-hy the name change from Interfaith Housing. Mr. Roane explained that the name change occurred about 7 years ago to distinguish themselves as the development arm of Interfaith. (134) Ordinance 67-0-04 — Variation for 1500 Darrow (e Parkine Snaces) Chairman Kent acknowledged the owner of the property. Mr. Eric Kerlow, Mr. Kerlow said that he and his partner have owned this property- for the past 5 years. The building is built on slab with 5 small 1-bedroom units. He informed that originally there were 3 buildings built in a complex, one on Fake Street, their building and one building adjacent to the north. There is a parking lot just north of the buildings on Darrow and originally at the time these buildings were built, they all shared this one common lot. In the mid- 1960`s the buildings were separated and there was supposed to be a promise that the parking would be deeded for their building on this lot. However, 40 years ago the follow through was not completed and the deeds were not honored. Therefore. he and his partner are asking for major -,ariance to the parking requirement for their 5-units, which the ZBA has recommended to grant. He said this is very similar to a condo conversion with the 5-units being fee -simple iowwrtltouses without parking. Mr. Kerlow assured that the street parking seem to be ven adequate in this area. Aid. Wynne asked if they are planning to renovate the units and the exterior of the building. Mr. Kerlow responded that the building is in good shape but they are planning to do some upgrading to the interior of the units and will remain 1-bedroom i -story tommhouses. Ms. Szymanski informed the Committee that when she received the transcript she observed that the ZBA did not make findings in this case. She clarified this means that Ms. Jackson (Zoning Pianner) with the assistance of the ZBA Chair granted to proposed findings of section 2 of the Ordinance. She suggested a motion by the Committee to specifically adopt the findings as set forth in paragraph 2. Aid. Bernstein observed that it appears there were no objectors according to the report. he also has no objections to Ms. Szymanski"s information and suggestion. 40 P&D Committee NI IS. Minutes of 6•3$-04 Page 3 Aid. Bernstein motioned to accept the recommendation of the Zoning Board subject to the modification which would include findings of fact as prepared by Zoning Staff. Ms. Szymanski stated to the Committee that she has reviewed this and feels stairs report is adequate in supporting the findings of fact. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the Vote was 3-0 in favor. (P5) Ordinance 59-0-04 — Zonins Ordinance Text :amendment Chairman Kent recalled that this item was introduced and referred back to Committee on May Nth and subsequently held in Committee at the June l4`h meeting. He also recalled that within this time a meeting was scheduled for the City Northwestern University Committee to meet on June 22" rto discuss the proposed thresholds at which an achieved consensus was agreed upon to exempt and remove certain properties from binding appearance review or any similar proposal in accordance to the Consent Decree as established on February 7. 2004. Aid. Wynne recalled that this was held because two Alderman were absent at the last meeting but questioned if there were any other circumstances involved for holding this. Chairman Kent clarified that this was held so that the absent Alderman could make sure that their concerns were addressed and also to allow time for more investigation from the Legal Department to tie up and conclude certain concerns. Nis. Szymanski referred to Mr. Alterson in confirming that staff had to address the fact that since there were no findings in the Plan Commission transcript, Mr. Altcrson reserved the situation and prepared a detailed presentation involving various projects and based findings upon them. \fr. Alterson agreed with Ms. Szymanski's . comments and stated that the information provided to the Committee in their packets is a literary presentation that includes a series of charts that are sorted by address and number of dwelling units. Aid. Bernstein asked for clarification that he understood that the Committee did vote on this with the understanding to bring back for the approval of findings in accordance to staffs report. 11r. Alterson agreed and noted the inclusion of the Northwestern Universit}:'Cits Committee meeting discussion and conclusion on how to address the properties within the Consent Decree. Ms. Szymanski drew the Committee's attention to the amended ordinance passed out this evening and explained that the amendment is to the last page. which adds a footnote to explain that the map referred to in Table 15C is in fact the map approved in the Consent Decree. This was done so that there is no doubt in the future reading of this ordinance. Ms. Jeanne Lindwahl. 625 Library Place, informed the Committee that she did attend the Northwestern University City Committee meeting and had a couple of questions and observations on the ordinance that she was concerned with that she addressed at that meeting as well. First. with respect to the 20.000 square foot gross area under roof development for planned developments, she pointed out the language reads that building area is limited to commercial, business retail or office use. This is probable acceptable in those districts, however the question is with respect to the special overlay districts that include the University districts. She asked what happens if they are dealing with a University use that is not among the excluded properties. Ms. Lindwahl suggested either ending the sentence after 20,000 square foot of building under roof or expanding it to . include Institutional Uses as well. She directed the Committee to making this amendment on page 9 of the ordinance. She further noted that this language is carried P&D Committee !6tti Minutes of 6.38-04 Page 4 throughout the ordinance and suggested that this amendment be made %where appropriate. She specificall% pointed out on page g under Section 6-9-1-9tdi Business Districts. under number S to be amended as +ell as page 9. Ms. Lind►vahl continued that the other basic issue with respect to the findings of fact that were put together. she believes that the reference as to how this supports the Comprehensive Plan should also have referred to the objectives on institutions in Chapter 6. She noted that the objective is assured that institutional development enhanced surrounding neighborhoods as well as the economic development of Evanston. She continued that there are a whole series of policies under this objective that relate to the importance of ensuring that institutional development does not have negative impact on their surrounding neighborhoods. She concluded that this factor is important in including in the findings. She suggested that it %would be helpful to include in the ordinance the map of the excluded properties since it is included as an exhibit. Staff assured that this map has recently been acquired and is available at this time. It was not when the ordinance was prepared. Nir. Alterson for clarification read the definition of "Institution" as defined in the ordinance. "An organization establishment kith providing religious, educational, charitable. medical, cultural, or governmental services." He pointed out that this is not purely a University issue with the ordinance under "institutional" use categor}. HE clarified that this is a decision of the Committee's ruling on this category. Mr. Widmayer clarified to all that it was never the Plan Commission's intention to get involved with the institutional uses when this item was under their review. He continued that certainly it was not their intention to get involved with any educational uses, be it secondary, primary, or university setting. Ald. Bernstein asked Nlr. 1X'idmayer if it were their intention to exclude institutional from this ordinance. Mr. Widmayer responded that he recalled it was never a point of discussion except that at one point to discuss the University property not being included. He clarified that the main focus of discussion was on retail, the residential. and the office complex developments. Mr. Ruiz addressed the Committee to clarif-, in terms of what is considered excluded and included from this research and determination. He stated that what came to his mind from discussion amongst the Preservation Commission. is that their opinion is based upon the providence that the designation applies to the developer of record. not just the building. Therefore, it would appear that anything that is built on that lot of record, the a Preservation Commission would review in accordance to the Ordinance. Subsequently, this fact needs to be clarified to the fact of the building only or the owner of record. which is something that is useful for future reference. _ Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he staffed the Northwestern University/City Committee meeting. He recalled that when Nis. Lindwahl brought up those issues concerning the Institutional uses, he does not believe there were any response from the University representatives either pro or con on this issue. However, he noted that one thing they need to be clear on tonight is that if there is a movement towards including_ Institutions, he suggest that perhaps this item should be held tonight so that staff has an opportunity to inform the University representatives of this. He noted that in the P&D Comminee Nttg, Minutes of 6--'" Page 5 . conclusion of the Northwestern L'ni%ersiv, Cite Committee meeting. they agreed that any changes that would be made to this ordinance would be forwarded to them and subsequently agreed upon before adoption of any changes. Aid. Wrote acknowledged Mr. Wolinski's comments and the position of the University.City Committee. Ne%ertheless. she would be reluctant to dela,. this for any period of time brining attention to the time involved in consideration of this matter up to now. However she supports the need for more time to consider additional thought in terms of all institutional uses and if they should be incorporated into this ordinance. However. she stressed that the Committee decision should not be made too quickly. Mr. Wolinski informed that the University indicated that they had no immediate plans for further construction. However there are developments covered by this ordinance that are floating around that are not institutional uses that could be effected by this ordinance. Aid. W)mne stated that because the meeting has taken place she would hope that the map would clarify the University exempted properties to this threshold. She suggested that the Committee move forward on this and acceptance of the small technical amendments set forth. Ms. Szymanski stated in connection with the particular findings here as there were none at the Plan Commission. that Mr. Alterson has prepared for this the basis for your findings. She would strongly recommend that staff guide the Committee on some type of discussion through this so that there can be a record at this Committee followed by a specific adoption of the report prepared by staff. Aid. Wynne agreed completely that they should make this as proper as possible. Mr. Alterson stated that the issue is not • so much that the principle of having all developments above a certain size required to come under specific review, which has been specified in the handout presented to Council in their packets. He stated several communities have adopted this principal including the City of Chicago. However the exact number you use for this threshold he believes is specifically something that is related to the Committee and asked that they look at this and decide whether or not these numbers concluded by the Plan Commission are acceptable. The Plan Commission suggested 25 dwelling units. 30.000 square feet of lot area and 20,000 square feet of floor area ratio as being appropriate in light of this list of previous developments and developments that are currently on the dra%%ing board. Staff recalled from memory as best they could but there are probably still some developments that were not included on this list. Mr. Alterson referred to the second to the last column and said from his findings he questions will this proposal be captured by the thresholds that are under consideration right now and it is where the probably not meets with the probably that he would urge the Committee to take a good look at. He said his personal conclusion was that because their size and the amount of community discussion that they generated and because of potential impacts that those projects have had on the appearance of the streetscape and light. that the thresholds that they have working together in this draft do pretty well capture all of the developments that he believes there is a consensus in the community should have had some type of extraordinary review in the form of a public hearing. He said the ones that appear, although he is unsure of some of the floor areas that they would not have been forced over to a zoning hearing. These cases are the ones that he feels there is a consensus that ® these were a minimal enough size where they did not really cause any negative effect. P&D Committee titre. Minutes of'6•_8-W Paee 6 Aid. Bernstein felt that the :ist is ►e,; conclusive. :old. Wynne agreed and feels that the list is ver% useful in terms of identifying above a certain level in which there is a significant impact on the commurar.. She said that if you look at all the buildings that would definitely fall under this. the► are all significant enough structures at this point that they do have an impact on the community. their immediate neighborhood, on the street and traffic impact. She said that it starts at the Edmonton project which is in the Third Ward on Chicago avenue, with 20 units that probably would have come under the threshold. She pointed out that this building significantly altered the block and created a lot of community discussion. This building is a good example of the smaller end of the spectrum and would be appropriate to be included with this ordinance. Aid. Berstein asked if she would suggest reducing the threshold back from 25 to 20 units. Aid. W)mne said that she would keep the number of units where it is at because of the floor area ratio factor. She said the whole point binding appearance review when this first started was to gain control over some of the appearance and bulk issues that they were experiencing in the community and this list just adds up to all of the reasons why people in the community have been so concerned. She agrees that this qpe of threshold is appropriate for Evanston and the size of the projects they see coming in. Mr. Brian Callahan made comments on appearance in general. He has lived in Evanston for the past 17 years and has always loved the beautiful architecture here. He is not an architect, however when he sees some of the new developments, they are unattractive to even his untrained eye. He appreciates the work that Aid. Wynne and others have done to downzone some building heights. He has recently heard the phrase "taste police" and that the City can not be such, but he feels that the City should have a stronger appearance ordinance. There are other municipalities who have adopted such ordinances that are working for their community. Mr. Alterson pointed out to the Committee to be aware that the ordinance before them that has come from the Plan Commission does not include the industrial or open space districts. Aid Wynne asked Mr. Widmaver if they are shelving the standards portion that was followed before. Mr. Widmayer responded no and that the Plan Commission is planning to discuss this issue of recommended City standards to be used whenever evaluating any architecture at their next meeting. Ald. Wynne asked Legal Staff if they have met the discussion level for the findings. Ms. Szymanski felt their discussion was sufficient and suggested also adopting Mr. Alterson's exhibit and make the finding to specifically adopt the findings set forth in the re►ised ordinance, Ald. Wynne moved to accept Mr. Alterson's Section 2 as the findings to support the ordinance, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. Aid. Bernstein said that one concern he has relates to the binding appearance review ordinance, which he could never understand. He is concerned because from pre►ious discussion about this there was no consensus and he is not sore that the layman is going to appreciate the views of the architects as it was acceptable many years ago. In consideration of Mr. Callahan's comments. many people do not agree from an untrained eye, with the newer architecture of the more recent developments. He said there are other — P&D Committee tittg. Minutes of 6-28-04 Page 7 is reasons for this ordinance and as a caution to the Plant Commission. he is concerned. He noted that the aluminum house on Main Street and the orange halcon% building are ones that he has reccived numerous complaints against. however these t,%o structures have both received architectural awards. Chairman Kent asked how the number of 2.4 units was derived. Mr. Alterson responded that at one time a higher number was being discussed but did not capture some of the new condo buildings that actually have a large impact on the street. Mr. Wolinski added that he believes that it was the 1672 Maple Building i Roszak Development) which is under construction at this time. that was the basis for deriving at that number. This development has 28 units. Mr. Widmaver concurred that is -vhy they brought the number down to 25. The Plan Commission did not %vans to set into 2-, 3- or even 6-flats or the smaller developments. Chairman Kent said that his complaint to this is where it states '-incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and contributes to a sense of overcrowding and cast shadows on existing properties." In his opinion, he feels this negative effect can result from the smaller developments of 6-8 units or even less, depending on where it located or property adjacent to. He said depending on the neighborhood; a development could still be incompatible even on the smaller scale. His concern is with balance as development effects individual neighborhoods. The positive factor with this ordinance is that it gives neighbors the opportunity to be involved. He feels there are still many undesirable people that are milking money out of 2-3 flat buildings and the smaller scale developments. Been though these developments may . seem minimal, they can be detrimental to a majority single-family residential neighborhoods or already dense areas. Mr. Widmayer concurred that the Plan Commission excluded developments on the smaller level. He agrees with Chairman Kent and the concern for the need to address the smaller scale developments as it effects certain residential areas and problems with density. However, this problem requires a different level of discussion than what they are dealing with when this ordinance was proposed but nevertheless is important and needs to be addressed. Ald. Bernstein recalled past discussion involving height and bulk as it effects adjacent property and is why he always agreed with the floor area ratio process. Mr. Mlolinski noted that because they are setting thresholds does not mean that applicants can not use the planned development procedure on smaller developments. In fact it even appears that many developers prefer the planned development method for zoning relief. He said that when he is asked by developers on the best approach. either through planned development or variance requests before the ZBA. he suggest that they do the planned development method because of the controls plus it comes through the Plan Commission which is perhaps looking at things a bit more liberal than the Zoning Board does on a land use aspect and aesthetically. Aid. Bernstein asked for stafl"s opinion on including 2-flats under planned development. Mr. Wolinski responded that personally he feels this would be difficult or even possible to do. He noted that the planned development process takes 3-4 months now and if they added up ail the new construction of 2 and 3 flats would put quite a burden on the Plan ® Commission and Council. Chairman Kent agreed that it would be a burden if they take P&D Committer Nttg. Minutes of 6-:8.04 Page 8 that path. hom c%er he suggest the possibilit, of de,. eloping a new process for the smaller scale developments or conversions into rooming houses. etc. With no further discussion, the vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Szymanski reminded that this item will take 6 .ores by Council. (P31 Ordinance 65-0-04 — Zoning Planned Det elorment: 801 Chicago '525 Kedzie Chairman Kent welcomed Mr. James Murray to begin with his presentation and introduction of everyone present for this case. - \fr. Murray, attorney representing the developer, 41r. Ornoff. also acknowledged two members of the architectural firm of Pappageorge!Haymes Ltd.. fir. David Haymes and \fr. Garrett Stefanowski. He noted the smaller rendition of the exhibit boards including in Council's packet materials. He recalled that this matter was last before P&D in December 2003 and was referred back to the Plan Commission because of what was considered to be a failing version of the planned development. In that it could not call to the attention of the general public the fact that there were some requirements for a variation of the setback requirements of the parking structure. The variance would be required in order to establish a different requirement that the planned development multi -family building with a special use. He said there was a third item that was addressed with the issue of the alley setback and screening of the alley. He said there is a provision which requires that an alley loading zone which is adjacent to a residential district be screened with appropriate screening materials. In this instance they have represented that the screenings issue is presented and was felt by almost all involved, including residents and Aid. Wynne. that this presented a) a Security difficulty and b) a blockage of the alley which was intended to remain as open as possible. This also reflected the views of several residents. He said that when they were on their way back to the Plan Commission. Mr. Ornoff directed that a very serious review of the entire project be undertaken. And in response to criticisms that were made relatively loud and clear by the community and various members of the Plan Commission, a virtually entire redo of the plan was accomplished. He noted that the primary issues of concern including number of units. number of parking spaces, and number of types of use that would be on this property as pan of the development, were substantially revised. The result was to reduce the number of units from 41 by eliminating the originally proposed 29 1-bedroom units and retain the larger units for a total of 28 units. He said they would retain virtually units that are considered to be more highly stylistic and well thought out aesthetic aspects of the project. He said the setback off of the alley would be maintained at 10` and that the gallery along Chicago Avenue fagade of 7' will also be retained as pan of the overall structural and design. Mr. Murray said as a result of the rethinking and redrafting of the project, the originally galley for the courtyard at the level above the parking was eliminated and a more direct single fagade was created but enhanced by substantial variations of masonry. He noted that height of building has been reduced to the maximum height within the district and as of right to 67'. Also the number of units within the FAR have been reduced to as -of -right number comformancy. He said there are no allowances being sought to add units or to seek additional relief from the parking regulation other than that regarding the setback. The setback was essentially attributable to the second floor of the parking structure and those areas, which are not part of any, eliminate of corridor or aisle. which he pointed out in the P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of 6-28-04 Pate 9 illustration. Mr. Murra- concluded that xvith respect to all previously stated. they have attempted to address ali of the issues previously of concern. He noted that they have been back to the Plan Commission and have indicated the nature, size and market values and have presented new tmffic and parking studies as well as tax studies. He said all of which underlie the positiN a %alues of this particular project. In his opinion, this proposed plan would be a very nice use of that site. Ald. Wvnne asked for clarification on the parking variance that is being requested only impacts the second floor. fir. Murray explained that it does impact the second floor and that portion of the first floor that effects 4 parking spaces. Ald Newman arrived at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Murray pointed several issues relative to the ordinance which may need some amending because of an o-.erstatement of the necessary eliminations of relief for this project. He pointed out there are three unnecessary items under Section 3 on page 3 which are C, D, & E that can be eliminated. These items have been adjusted and eliminated by virtue of design modification. He also pointed out that there is a blank space on page 1,,.+•hick should refer to Section 6-I0-3-3. The Committee agreed to these changes in the ordinance. Chairman Kent called for citizen comment at this time. • Mr. Hans Viia, constructed a small-scale model of the site and proposed building before the Conunittee. He pointed out the previous brick building was a structure that did not fill out the entire site. He identified numerous problems that will be caused by this proposed structure involving traffic µithin the alley. problems with delivery trucks that need to use that alley for other business within the block. Also there are currently 144 can that use this alley for people that live within this block. This project will add 300/0 more can to an already congested heavily used alley. He feels this will create a very restrictive and negative impact within that area. Mr. Vija pointed out the north elevation of the building that Ail] face the adjacent building to the north with a blank brick wall. He totally objects to this de%elopers proposals, even with this second proposal which appears to be doµmscaled and still has the ability to shoe -horn a large building on this site. He believes Evanston has plenty of examples where this same occurrence has happened by the same method. He feels. based on principal. they should not be granted a variance unless the standards and facts are met. In this case, he feels they have not been met and disagree with the findings of the Plan Commission. Mr. Vija informed the Committee that the neighborhood group did have some expertise testimony at those meetings, however it is wen• expensive and would have cost the neighborhood many thousands of dollars to retain for all the meetings. He went into further detail explaining the traffic problems with this proposal and that this alley is the only ingress and egress for the majority of people that live within this block as well as the businesses. He pointed out that this applicant purchased this property at a high price knowing the problems involved with development on this site. He urged the Committee to consider all the negatives before acting on this case. P&D Comm irtee %Ile. Minutes of 6-28-04 _ page 10 Mr. Tim Cronin. 811 Chicago Avenue. pointed out that this proposed development would be a true danger to the communin for pedestrians and contributing to vehicular accidents as well. This area is already inc-.edibly dense and congested during rush hour and this proposed building will only ada w dhat existing problem. He feels it is inevitable that someone will be hurt eventually. He would like to see something built on this site that is compatible with that corner at a much lower scale and a Iot less units, Ald. Nc% man said that he is confased with all the traffic issues mentioned. He reminded that in reality the developer could build up to 37 units by right and the proposal is for 24 units. This result is actually for less cars than what would be allowed as -of -right, which he would consider much more as a threat than what is being proposed. Aid, Wynne stated that she could mit support this building. She pointed out that the Plan Commission originally unanimously denied this and this proposal is still too dense for this site in her mind. She said the c-tandard of negative impact on adjacent property has not been met because it clearly takes away from the owners in the building next door. She does however, appreciate the building architecturally but there is still the need for a variance, which causes Council to act. If the building came within the package then Council would have not legal ground to deny. She strongly disapproves of the blank brick wall that the neighbors at 811 mill end up with and reiterated that she feels the standards have not been met in this case_ Aid. Nc«man pointed out that there are 6' units at 811 Chicago Avenue and here the developer is proposing the addition of 24 units. He understands Aid. Wynne's position, however the developer has addressed the concerns and issues presented originally and the building is being built within the en,. elope except to the setback requirement for parking. He noted that with this variance. you have to consider the effect and how it is almost impossible to come within the setback requirement in this case for this site. He pointed out that the building proposed is ver% attractive whereas the next proposal may not be if this is denied and someone comes in after him with a project that fits the envelope totally as -of -right. He reiterated that he feels the developer has addressed all concerns and issues from the original proposal and that he could support this, Aid. W)mne reminded Aid. Ne+kman of his comments when this was last before the Committee that he could not support any proposal that would need zoning relief. it should come in within the building envelope. He agreed and feels that ;his proposal has come in within the building envelope and that the zoning relief req,jested in this case appear to be necessary and are minimal in comparison to his efforts in revising from his original plans to come this close within the building allowances. Mr. David Haymes, architect, recalled comments that he heard regarding the point of de - evaluation of property in the adjacent building. He said this is a fallacious argument and _ there is no entitlement here. Aid. Neuman added that he feels the 811 Chicago building when built was the beginning of the height epidemic that kicked off the effort to change the zoning in that area. In reality. there was never any guarantee that 801 Chicago would = not be redeveloped at some time in the future. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6-28-04 Page 11 Aid. Bernstein stated that ►►hat the• do here tonight ►►ill impact on future development on Chicago Avenue. He informed the Committee that he has received word of future development to the north on Chicago Avenue with glans of one of the car dealerships moving out because condo development is more beneficial in that area. He reminded of plans for future development of the FIannigan property as well. He also noted that no affordable housing component has been addressed here and questioned if there are any plans for this inclusion. Nevertheless. he appreciates the developers intent and evident efforts in addressing all the concerns that were raised with the original plan. Aid. Wynne suggested holding this item because she feels more discussion is needed before the Committee should act on this. Ald. Newman suggested introducing and referring back to Committee so as not to hold this up an additional two weeks regardless of how the final vote ►►ill be. Chairman Kent agreed v►iih Aid. Wynne's suggestion to hold this item in Committee because he also would not like to see Council act on this item hastily. The developer has come this far and has made great effort in addressing concerns and revising their plans. so he would hope they would be understanding of the Committee's position in this case. This item was held in Committee. (P7) Ordinance 70-0-04 — 422 Davis Street. The Georgian • The Committee members, staff, Mr. Paul Shadle representing the Georgian, and Ms. Judy Fiske of the Preservation Commission suggested and discussed several dates in July to set the special meeting. There was a final consensus on the date of Thursday, July 29" at 6.00 p.m. to be held preferably in the Council Chambers. OTHER BUSINESS The Committee asked for updates on several issues pending with P&D. Chairman Kent asked for an update on the inclusionar) affordable housing issue. Ms. Spicuzza responded that she has recently met with the members of BPI who forwarded a completed draft ordinance for staffs review and comments. She stated that this ordinance was just received a few days ago and she will review and respond back to BPI for completion of the final draft. Ald. Wynne asked for an update on the 904 Hinman case. fir. Ruiz gave an update and said that he was in the process of setting up a site visit of the building with the owner and making observations and suggestions to work with the applicant. The Committee asked the status of the rezoning of Kendall College. Mr. Wolinski informed that this was tabled at Site Plan to give the developer an opportunity to redesign his proposal. He said there is a nomination for landmark status for the Administration Building. 0 P&D Committce Mtg. Minutes of6-2" Page 1; ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L Z. "VU- ,Jacque 'ne E. rownlee • CORRECTED Planning & Development Committee llinutes of Juls• 12. 2004 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl. A Wynne Staff Present: A. Alterson. J. Aiello, G. Morgan. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: L. Widmayer. J. Lindw•ahl. J. Fiske Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OCORL'NI Chairman Kent called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JCNE 28. 2004 MEETING NI1NCTES Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the June 28`t' minutes. seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance-5-0-04 - Snecial Use (Type 2 Restaurant) for 1813 Dempster Chairman Kent called Ald. Jean -Baptiste over for participation in discussion of this item with this being in his ward. He called on the applicant. Ms. Carol Kent for an overview of her proposal. She explained that this application is for a coffeehouse located on Dempster directl% across from the uniform store next the Bill's Finer Foods. The coffee house will seat approximately 50 people and they will have servers, however there is the need for a special use variation as being a type 2 restaurant because of the coffee take out orders. She said one of the main things she is trying to do is to have a meeting place for their neighborhood. including students and many stay-at-home moms in the area, that need a place to go to socialize and relax within the community. She would like to have an open -mike night. wall space available for people to display art work, and other programs which in% olt a the community. She along with many of her neighbors feel this type of establishment is needed in their community rather than just fast-food restaurants, which they all feel are already overwhelming in the Dodge Dempster neighborhood. Aid. Jean -Baptiste noted that the community has been aware of this proposal for some time and have been very supportive of this initiative. He has spoken with Ms. Kent and feels confident with her initiative as well and finds no problem with this business proposal. He also noted Ms. Kent's awareness of the ordinance for type 2 restaurants and the litter collection plans. He believes this coffeehouse will be a very good addition to P&D Committee %tt_, Minutes of 13-6" Passe 2 the neighborhood and area. .aid. Bernstein asked about parking a%ailability. Ms. Kent responded that she has been talking -.%I*h the mana__em.nt of the uniform store regarding the use of their parking lot. which has plent% of a%ailability during business hours. However. she does envision attractin__ a tnaionty «alking cro%%d within the neighborhood or from the students stopping in on their .%ay home from school. Mr. Alterson informed that there was no need for a parkin_ %ariation with this case. Aid. Newman moved approval. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. Ms. Szymanski said that with respect to the nature of the action of the Committee and Council are asked to take zoning as we kno%% regulates the use, not the user. In this particular case, the ZBA recommended limiting the particular use as type 2 to a coffee shop operated as set forth in the plans approved and the testimony of the applicant. She said if the Council is inclined to approve this in :he manner of limiting it to a coffee shop, she would strongly recommend that there be some discussion of the Committee as to why that is appropriate and beneficial. This would then allow staff to prepare findings for the Committee based upon their discussion. She further suggested that this item could be introduced and referred back to Committee for the findings. The Committee agreed and Ald. Newman amended his motion to include tits. Szymanski's recommendation. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. (P2) Ordinance 65-0-04 - Zoning Planned Development: 861 Chicaeol525 Kedzie Chairman Kent noted that this item was held in Committee at the June 28th meeting and acknowledged \fr. lames Murray to begin discussion of this item. Mr. Murray stated that they have come back again with a modified plan. He advised the Committee of some progress that has been made during the past few weeks. He also had discussion with Aid. W rtne last week that related to some very specific concerns of hers that dealt with height of the building. the setback off the alley at the east side of the building and the essence of the north wall. She asked that they attempt to do something that would improve the aspect of the north wall in a fashion that would break up the plains of the various elements by attempting to reduce the Boss height of the building as well. She also asked that they attempt to reduce the gross hei:_ht of the building as well. She also asked that they recognize the concern that she had about the visualization of pedestrian and vehicle conference that might occur at the southeast corner. In response to Aid. W Tine's suggestion, he along with Mr. Haymes. Mr. Stefanowski. and Mr. Omoff attempted to provide some modifications, which are presented in the I I"x17" drawings that have been presented this evening to the Committee. Mr. Murray pointed out that the black and white drawing is a simple explanation of how the setback off the alley works. He explained further that they took the ramp and pushed it into the building approximately 4' and that combined with the window treatment that has been set for as an architectural element of the southeast corner at the alley provides what they consider to be a means by which a driver exiting the building can visualize pedestrian traffic before actually entering the alley. He said this provides the opportunity then for a fuller and complete 90 degree turn in order to go south within the alley and basically allows the vehicle then to straighten up to be parallel to the north -south direction. PsD Co M:s:;et �Sta. Pa� _ M.- directed the Committee to the second page of the drawings which displays the rnoi-:'.cation to the north wall and where they have attempted to break up the large mass s of masonry. He said that the coloration of masonry is plain over from the Kedzie sire:; s:de to the north side of the buildin! in such a fashion to create essentially 16— 8' spar:_ or bays which have color variations within the masonry as well as a setback in the darker masonn- so that there is a modulation effect. He noted that Aid. Wynne suggested the use of glass in the process, however the nature of that wall needs to have fire separation capacity. Therefore glass windows on that wall would not pass the Evanston Building Ordinance. He said the only Blass solution would be through the use of spandrel glass %which opaque and would be reflective and cause glaring onto the 811 Chicago building. This solution was rejected due to that affect. He said the solution exhibited in the drawing is a masonry and architectural solution in that there are recesses of approximate]y 2 inches and the horizontal limestone elements have been retained above the second moor. The masonry was taken down to the ground floor in an effort to reduce the commercial appearance of the building for the lover levels. He also noted that same rendition retains the gallery on the front and has the recess at the alley side where the man -door is Iocated. .10r. Murray said the last element is with the issue of height. He pointed out in the new rendition indicates the reduction in height by 18 inches made available from the first and second levels of the building, He said they have compromised what might be considered a standard floor to ceiling height with the commercial space in an effort to bring as much height out of the entire project as they possibly could. He assured that they made every effort to address further concerns of Ald. W%mne by setting the building off of the lot lines but this would cause structural conflicts with beams and weight bearing elements within the parking structure. He stated in this particular instance the IS inches that they saved is a pan of the overall amount of about 5' that is saved by reduction of the elevator override and equipment penthouse that has been eliminated and replaced with a hatchway system that allowed them to reduce the height by 3 k i feet. Mr. Murrav noted that these efforts have been only recently conveyed to Aid. Wynne and she has been very positive about the method by their solution for the alley and parking garage ramp. However, she is not as supportive of the methods by which the north wall was addressed or the overall height. He assures that those proposed solutions were conclusive with both issues, the north wall limited because of the required fire separation needed and with the height because of the engineering construction constraints that will not allow them to reduce the height with the residential aspect any further. He concluded that in consideration of all their compromises and attempted efforts, he would hope that the Committee would assess their effort to comply- with all of the reasonable requests that have been made. He also pointed out that a review of the legislative history with reference to the setback that they have requested, indicates the Plan Commission and presumably the City Council in terms of its minutes, the concerns there were that the first floor parking issues and setbacks, the idea by the members then (John Leyman, Steve Knutson, etc.) addressed the issues to avoid the concept of having the appearance of a four plus one style. He stated that they feel the architectural solution that they have provided with both windows as well as very modest ventilation elements avoids the real P & D Cori.: -,::cc Nita. Minux_ of - :-'.44 - Pace - issue —at ►►as addressed b► the Plan Commtssion at that time and that ►►'as to obviate the need ;or lariw scale louvers or screens that ►►ould simple add a different dimension as ►► ell as unpleasant appearance to the street side use. Chairman Kent brouuht attention to the memorandum received from the Plan Commission Chair. M Lam. Widmayer that ►► as also distributed to the Committee this ewenina. Mr. Widmaver read his memo. ►► hick addresses the Plan Commission's position back from their first recommendation to reject the initial proposal. The Commission gave a list of initial major recommendations for the development and this spring a revised Planned Development %► as presented. He states how all of the recommendations the Plan Commission had for the original proposal had been resolved thus resulting in their present recommendation for approval of the revised Planned Development before the Committee. The memo goes on to address his opinion of the responsibility of the Plan Commission and ho►► they took into account all considerations that they are responsible in addressing with every case. (A copy of this memorandum is available in the Communitv Development Administrative Office.) Aid. Newman asked Mr. Widmayer to elaborate on the Plan Commission's feeling on the architecture of this building. fir. Widmayer responded that it was highly praised by the architects on the Commission, which he admitted that he relies largely on their professional expertise. However there was a consensus on the way it was broken up, the way the balconies were built into the building and not extended out, the setback on the first floor on Chicago Avenue. they agreed on the windows off the alley and the exit off the alley, which is an excellent improvement. He feels that even more improvements have been made since this has been before PRD. `Ir. Ha% nes added from his perspective as the architect, that the feedback that they received was on the order that the building was friendlier and more compatible in terms of the historic character of the neighborhood. He said unlike some of the other projects that they have seen recently in Evanston as being more offensive. He stated that this feedback was not just from the Plan Commission but also the Site Plan Review Committee and many positive responses from residents as well. Aid. Newman reiterated one of his concerns that he has expressed at the previous meeting that if Council denies this project that has gone through the planned development process. the owner can start over and do something completely as a matter of right without Council having the opportunity for input. He said this could be a very regrettable conclusion, for example, this is what has happened in his ward with the new building at 800 Elgin. Ms. Jennifer Johnson. 811 Chicago, said that she also represents the opinion of many of her neighbors. She stated that they do appreciate the compromises made by the deweioper and see improvement but still feel that not enough has been done to address their concerns. Her opinion is that each parcel of land should be looked at separately and considered for what can reasonably be built on it. She feels that this proposed project still does not fit that parcel because of the parking requirement in Section 6-10-3-10, which requires the 20' setback for parking spaces. They still feel the project is too dense for this site as well and any condo building in the Cla district also requires special use permission. Because of this, virtually any condominium project would require the approval of City Council. She said a proper analysis of this piece of property last year should have resulted in the development that was much smaller. She said the 67' wall is P&D Commitrcc %tti. %tinurrs of t _"-+)- - Paec very repressi% e and is proposed to be built directly or, the lot line whereas their building is setback off the lot line b% : -'--I She feels it does not meet the standards and findings of a special use and this is still taking money out of residents' pockets. The placement of the ramp directly on the slle,- is still danLerous and they feel someone is going to get hurt. In conclusion, she and those she is representing. are requesting to the Committee not to approve this development that is going to directly impact the alley. increase the traffic by approximately 300 o. and because of the other issues she stated. They would like to see the developer forced to truly compromise with the community and come up with a proposal that fits that site and get some public benefit for this planned development. Aid. Newman asked what is on the commercial use list for allowed in the Cla district as a comparison of .what could be developed there besides condos and to compare the traffic that could be caused by those uses. Mr. Alterson read from the Zoning Ordinance "caterer. commercial indoor recreation, commercial shopping center, cultural facility, dwellines, educational institutions private and public. financial institutions, food store establishment, government institutions, hotel, office, public utilities, religious institution, type 1 restaurant, retail goods and retail services. Ald. Newman said the reason he raises this is because the 28 units being proposed here in comparison to many of the commercial uses, in his opinion it seems is a lot less impacting on traffic and the alley. He does not think that there is a reasonable fear here in terms of what the traffic can be when you compare to some of the other uses. for example, such as a CVS Pharmacy, White Hen store, etc. These businesses would also require daily truck deliveries as well. He feels this developer has considerably compromised from his original plan by going from 41 to 28 units amongst other compromises. He feels it is apparent of this developers significant effort to in. and address the concerns raised. Aid. Wynne responded to Ald. Newman that on this issue of what could be developed there, puts her in the mind of the Dubin project. She recalled that Dubin presented to them a comparison of what he could build and an alternative of what might be built, which appeared far more frightening to the community than what he was offering. Therefore. when she looks back on this situation, people bought into that fear of the alternative and she thinks this analysis can be yen misleadinu. She said there could be many different uses, however they are not being presented right now so there is no comparison and what was presented by Dubin ended up being far more aggressive for that property than what anyone in the community imagined. Aid. Newman said that he is addressing this simply from a parking and traffic perspective in lieu of «•hat he considers a minimal variation due to the uniqueness of that property and in consideration of the compromises that have been made by the developer. He said a two-story retail development might be beneficial in some ways for the residents of 811 Chicago Avenue, however this type of commercial development would worsen the traffic in that area and impact the alley. Aid. Wynne said that she appreciates the architecture of Mr. Haymes and commended him for his efforts and willingness to repeatedly come back with modifications. She said that even Nvith the first plan that was rejected, 'Iv1r. Haymes architecture was praised. She PSD Cote :attee Mtr. 1linutesof-•1Z-44 - Page 6 feels the alle% solution was very cretin% e and is something that the Site Plan Committee should look at as a new potential aay io deal %%ith these right-angle corners. She said this solution is innovative and %%old ,%ork well. However. fundamental]v her key issue :hat she continues to return to is that she views this whole proposal as a single package that is interlocking. By granting this parking variance, they very directly impact the immediate community in ways that during the last discussion, then said they wouldn't do. She recalled previous discussion when it was agreed that if someone did come in and build without any request on the part of City Council, then the community would accept that. She said in order to build a building this size. they must have the parking variance. Therefore. she still comes back to the point that even as much as she agrees with the architecture of this building and appreciates all the significant improvements that have been made from the original plan, she is still faces with the question of by casting her vote in favor of something that grants this developer a variance or exclusion from the ordinance then this building is truly not as -of -right. This was an understanding of the community surrounding this property and she could not in good conscience cast a vote that then -allows the building to go higher and negatively impacts the surrounding community. Aid. Bernstein concurred with Aid. Wynne's analysis. But with respect to :did. \ewman's views, he is locale specific and is concerned with maintaining what's left of Chicago Avenue. He agrees that a commercial development on that space could be a far greater negative impact in terms of cars generated. He also understands that residential use is far less intense than commercial. However the reality is what he believes Council has to start doing, rather than giving in to developments that knowingly will require zoning relief from the City, he would like to see developers comply by the zoning for that property and make plans to build what is allowed for that particular site. This would force early consideration of the developer as to whether it will be worth their while to go forward and acquire the property in Evanston or not. He said this is the approach that he would like to see in effect here and would like to see this message get across to developers. He said for this particular area he feels there is a need to come in as -of -right, otherwise it would be hard for him to support any proposal as well. He strongly feels that what is approved here will send a message for further development to the north on Chicago Avenue. He said there needs to be some continuity of expectation. He actually would like to see some type of two-ston, commercial development there that would fit in with that locale and benefit the neighborhood_ Aid. tiewrnan reminded that if a 7-Eleven type of convenient store were put there is would be disastrous for the neighborhood as «yell as many of the other permitted uses mentioned by Ivtr. ?►lterson earlier. In his opinion, there is a need to look at the circumstances and uniqueness of this particular lot. He pointed out that here they have a developer who has reduced from his original proposal 33% less units, the architecture is assuredly top quality her, not to mention all the other compromises that have been made by this developer. In lieu of all done and considered, he finds the parking variation requested to be minor and practically unavoidable with this lot. :old. Newman said this developer is not going to the maximum envelope for this site. That 20-foot setback was known the first time around with the original plan and as he recalls, it was a citizen who MD Cmr-minc.- Nitr._:ts of Pa.e found this proh:_m- His point be:r.g that where this developer has come in with this project at this in his opinion. is something that is responding to us as a City. Ma;. -be not to the nei;_rborhood. which he would prefer. that everyone could be happy. but as a City, this developer is responding. Aid. Tisdahl _,!so concurs that the architecture is very good. especially on the Kedzie Street side. Hov e% er, the north elevation is not as pleasing ad she agrees with Aid. Wynne that this is a package deal. Therefore, she feels that if a variance is needed, the %hole package to give something to the neighborhood. She realizes the modifications tha, have been attempted to the north elevation but it still is not quite acceptable in the fact that it negatively impacts on the neighboring property. Because of this, she remains concerned about supporting this. She agrees that parking on the second Boor is not a major issue but her concluding thoughts are with concern for the north elevation and considering this as an entire package. Chairman Kent concurred with Aid. Tisdahl's position because he has the same concerns. He acknowledged his known reputation with developers on his opinions with over -development and building that does not fit within a neighborhood. However, he commend the work and efforts of this developer and his architect who have worked very hard in truing to address many of the needs of the community in an effort to make this proposed development work for this site. He might even be satisfied somewhat with their solution for the alleN situation and thing to focus some attention on lessening the impact there. He personally thinks that the experts when it comes to the use of that alley are the people who actually live there. In this same analysis, he agrees with Aid. Tisdahl on the impact of the north elevation. In consideration of this, his whole feeling for the project changes. He said it largely changes because he heard from some of the residents and the Alderman of the Ward that it is not totally there yet and he does not have a problem with accepting this. He feels Ms. Johnson's comments were very appropriate in the fact that she did not imply to kill the project but that they would still like to work with this developer further because they realize the efforts made. However, they still feel that what is being proposed is not quite acceptable yet. In his opinion, more work needs to be done with the north wall. Chairman Kent acknowledged fir. Murray's reasoning on why they can not do %windows, however there must be some other alternative. He said that if he were a resident of 811 Chicago .avenue. he too would find that wall very offensive by being directly on the lot line. He understands the analysis that it would seem that this developer shou:d be rewarded in consideration of all th compromises that have undoubtedly been made, however he feels they should continue to work on the scheme to come up with something more acceptable to create a win -win situation. He realizes the complications involved and the numerous modifications thus far, but he feels this would be the only %%ay he could consider this project further. Aid. Bernstein stated that in looking at this further, he questions whether he would really prefer having windows on that north elevation if he lived at 811 Chicago versus the blank wall. He raises the issue of privacy and having a neighbor at that close proximity with a window directly across from his residence. With this in mind, the black wall could be more desirable if it were not built directly on the lot line but moved further in. He P&D Cam=rc: �t`z %IInuici of " Pur 5 believes the of the %all is %%hat is more intrusive and impacting on the neighboring_ propert%. Chairman bent stated to the Committee that at this point they need to come to some consensus on ho« to proceed with this matter. Aid. Wynne noted that in her discussions with the development team. that there is no more room to make improvements to the plans for this proiect. She said they have had numerous exchanges back and forth today and the thinus they have indicated on a number of these issues that have been raised by the Committee are questionable by the developer to make further compromises. However. she believes there are always other alternatives that can be considered. Mr. Murray gave responding comments back to the Committee. He stated that there is room to address some of the deshm- issues on the north wall. however he does not believe they- have any further capacity to deal with the height issue. They have reduced the height to the extent that they possibl} can. He said the geometry of the units with the requirement of mechanical; conduits and ductwork make it virtually impossible to reduce any further. He stated that the north wall can be addressed further, possibly not as satisfactorily as requested. but they can replicate a window style of openings that are displayed on the Kedzie Street side in the masonry work without windows. He said the reality is that on the other side of any glass will be concrete block and could never be a full penetration wall because the building code requires otherwise within 5' of the lot line. Mr. Murray said what can be done he suspects and with Mr. 0moff"s concurrence and Mr. Hawnes goodwill, is to attempt to re -treat the north wall. He mould like to say that they will find a way- to make it work to the Committee's desire, but he would also like to have some reassurance by the Committee as well that if thev fix the north wall, the project will receive their approval. He understands this is a save -or -take process and assures that they will do what they can to address this issue. Aid. Wynne noted that from her discussion with the residents, there are two concerns about the north wall. One is the blankness. which was agreed that this last modification is an improvement, but still remains too intrusive. The second concern is that it is within inches of the lot tine and this is certainly something that the developer can do however allowable it is extremely impacting and offensive. She pointed out that it is fortunate that 811 Chicago building is not on the lot line and %vas done deliberately this way according to the developer of that building: to create some southern air and light. She believes that this is one of the aspects that are so affecting. on the opposition of the neighboring residents and the surrounding community. Nevertheless, she and the neighbors would be willing to continue «orking with the developer. if they desire to do so. Aid. Newman commented that in this case it is one of those situations where you have to make up your mind what the priorities are at the beginning because if they want that wall further away from the lot line, one of the solutions might be to alloy more height, which is something nobody wanted to do here. :old. Wynne responded that she is not convinced yet that some other agreeable solution can be worked out here. Aid. Newman questioned how much distance off the north lot line would be acceptable to not be as aggressive. Mr. Murray assured, on behalf of the development team that they would make one more effort with the north gall. Aid. W%-nne acknowledged the developers position and agreed P&D Commuttre Mtc. Minutes of Pace 9 that if no azreeable solution can be made in this attempt, it may not be ;e: sible for them to proceed any further. The de,. elopment team concurred. Aid. Wynne moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD I) Ordinance 70-0-04 - 422 Davis Street. The Georgian Chairman Kent recalled the Committee's request for legal staff to rc%-ie'6% the procedures for consideration o this proposed ordinance regarding designation of The Georgian as an Evanston Landmark. He called attention to Ms. Sz«manski's memorandum in response to the Committee's request and asked for further elaboration. Ms. Sz,%-manski called the Committee's attention to Section 2-9-5(Gi of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is the section of the City Code that governs the approaches that the Planning & Development Committee of the City Council can take as the hearing and recommending preservation matters. She explained that this section provides that the City Council does not have to hold additional public hearings in order to make its decision on the Preservation Commission's recommendation. She read from the section which states that Council may act without further required public hearing. She explained that this means that if the Council chooses to not conduct additional hearings that it would act in the manner of an appellate body. Therefore it would review the transcript. the record, evidence submitted by the way of documents, the application, and all documentary evidence received by the Preservation Commission. She said in addition, the Committee may hear "comment". it is not argument from the party. She noted "comment" as she understands would mean public comment, being the applicant, the property owner, the Preservation Commission, and persons who %%ish to address the Committee. She said the one restriction on that, however, would be that all of those comments and remarks to the Committee would not be able to introduce new evidence and would be limited to commentary on the record in an attempt to sum up the speakers position as to whether the City Council should approve or reject the designation. Discussion followed regarding the time limits for each side to give presentation, re - adaptation time, and time for open comments. It was decided after debate, that the following times would be allotted: 1) Preservation Commission presentation 15 minutes 2) Opportunity for both sides to give re -adaptation of the building 20 minutes each 3) Additional presentation time for both sides 30 minutes each 4) Open comments 30 minutes total 5) Concluding in Committee deliberations. P&D Committee Mrg. Minutes of 7-12.04 Page 10 ADJOUPMNIE\T The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submined. Jacqueline E. Bro«nlee iPlanning & Development Committee DRAFT Minutes of July 26, 2004 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. A. Alterson. G. Morgan, D. Spicuzza. E. Szymanski, 1. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 12. 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the July ]?'h minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1 ) HOME Fund Reauest for Reba Place Development Comoration's Affordable Condominium Conversion Chairman Wynne asked for a brief overview of this request from a representative of Reba Place Development Corporation. Mr. Nevin Belser first thanked the Committee for taking the time to consider their proposal this evening. He drew attention to the summary presented before the Committee in their packets, which he confirmed well represents their proposal and that he was here to clarify and answer any questions that may follow. He wanted to highlight the long-term affordability component, which he feels is one of the most important aspects of this proposal. He explained that their goal is to keep the subsidized component as affordable for a 15-year period. He said they would allow the resale price to conform with the area income and affordable housing level, thereby keeping the units affordable for qualified families during this period of time. At the end of the 15-year period. there would be an appraisal and whatever percentage, if the owners investment has grown to 55% of the market value at that time, then their percentage would effect that. Mr. Reiser acknowledged that with this clause there may be some loss over a long period, however they are hoping that this subsidy for each unit will stay and prosper for the owner and the Corporation's benefit over time. Mr. Belser said it is always a question of balancing how much equity the homeowners realize and how affordable the property is kept that upsets their plan for this project. However, homeownership for the targeted income level is the major goals in this effort. P&D Committee %ttg. Minutes of 7.26-04 Page 2 Aid. Newman re%ieued the calculations in HOME Funds requested at S186,000 for 5 units and hypotheticalh considered 30 units at this same calculation. which would equal around approximate],. S 1.8 million dollars. His point being the "bank for the buck" is not very great. He pointed out the importance of realizing how expensive affordable housing is because they are spending 562,000 per unit for this project alone. Aid. Newman further pointed out that everything Reba Place has done thus far with HOME funds have been successful projects and with properties that remain on the tax roles. He continued on that this organization has always done a really good job and are a benefit to the Evanston Community in their efforts to promote affordable housing. He reiterated his point to show the high cost of supplying and promoting affordable housing and that there is no big profit made by this organization in their efforts. He forwarded his support to Reba Place and all the work they have done. He asked staff how much funds are available in the HOME fund at this time. Mr. Wolinski informed that 51.5 million is available at this time. Aid. Bernstein agreed with Aid. Newman's comments. He noted the ongoing consideration with respect to the 5`h Ward and certain people that are targeted to protect but are already being pressed out of the market. Regrettably this is the reality of what is happening with the housing market here is Evanston and the availability of affordable housing. He wished to second all of Aid. Newman's commendations for Reba Place Development Corp. and also stated his ongoing support for their efforts from the beginning. Aid. Kent brought attention to the second page of the documents included in their packet referring to affordable for the mixed income group and where it states this project proposes to be affordable to homebuyers who will purchase 5 units ranging in the initial price of $100,000 - S200.000 in $25.000 increments. He asked for further clarification of this process. Mr. Belser explained that the most affordable unit would be $100,000, the next price would be S 125,000, $150,000. S 175,000, and the most expensive being $200,000. He noted that each of these 5 units are priced within S25.000. He said the S 100,000, $125,000, and S 150.000 units are units that are going to be subsidized by the money that is under discretion. Aid. Kent stated this is when: his concerns come in question. Although he agrees with all the comments that have been stated in support of this, he noted this building already exists most likely with low-income tenants. His concern is for those tenants that are already there, possibly on Section vouchers and the possibility of making homeownership possible for those tenants. He questions if there is very going to be a plan to really deal with this population of residents to include them in qualifying for the affordable housing ownership plan. Mr. Belser responded that this project is Reba Place's first effort in condo conversion and homeownership. In his opinion, he feels it is not realistic to talk about condo ownership much lower than what they are offering. He noted that their rental rehabs have been more suitable for the low- income target population that is being referred to in this case. He noted that there are minimal limitations that have to be considered and are out of their control by any organization to push any further. Aid. Newman agreed and noted that one of the assessments is for the tenants that currently live in the building. He calculated that according to the affordable prices being offered for these 5 units, which are more than P&D Comminee %tte Minutes of--26-(A Page 3 is reasonable. with the minimal down payment required and the estimated housing cost thereafter. if it is not affordable to the tenant on Section 8 then that would be the reality. It would not be fair to any other family who could come up with the minimal down payment and be able to cover the monthly housing cost. He noted that this program is made to accommodate the low-income working family and realistically. there is nothing more that can be done or subsidy given. Mr. Wolinski stated in reference to what Aid. Newman w•s saying about the price of affordability. staff does constant surveys of housing prices in Evanston. He stated for the pat 6-months, immediate housing prices here for single-family and townhouses are approximately 5383.000. The prior 6-monts to that was $350,000 citywide. He said there was also 10 transactions in access of $1 million dollars. He felt these numbers important to acknowledge in consideration of what is considered affordable housing for Evanston at this time. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Resolution 38-0-04 — Authorizing Continued Fundine of the Evanston Housing Corporation With no discussion. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote . was 5-0 n favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 75-0-04 — Special Use (Tune 2 Restaurant for 1813 Dempster Street Chairman Wynne noted that this case was introduced at the meeting on July 12'' and referred back for findings and the question of a water bill that exists with this property address. She called on legal staff to elaborate further. Ms. Szymanski said that this was noted at the last meeting that when a special use is approved. the law is that any other special use, which means the definition of a particular special use approved should a able to step into the shows of the applicant. More specifically in a case like this, they have before them a type 2 restaurant. The law is that if Council approved a type 2 for a particular location and that applicant seizes business, that another type 2 business that meets the definition under the building code would be allowed to operate at that same location. She said here, however. the ZBA has recommended to the P&D Committee to accept a limitation of that special use to a particular operation. In this case a "coffee house". There is no definition of coffeehouse in the City Code. Ms. Szymanski said that with Mr. Wolinski's direction and other Zoning Staff, they came up with a method of avoiding defining coffeehouse and limiting the menu such that it would be primarily for the sale of various coffees, encouraging patrons to bring refillable mugs. She stated there would also be other types of food services supplied within these boundaries, no fried or grilled foods included. Ms. Szymanski stated that these distinctions were discussed with Mr. Wolinski and his staff and agreed upon. Mr. Wolinski concurred. • Ms. Szymanski went over the findings as defined in the ordinance with the Committee. This particular use as stated will consist primarily of coffee drinks for consumption on site and that the use will provide performance space to be utilized for live performances P&D Comminee 11tr Minutes of "•_6 JA Page a of poet*-. theatre and or music. She stated if the Committee so finds Section (A) is satisfied. She referred to Section (B) and in order to qualify for this standard that the special use has to be in keeping with the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. She said again. Mr. Wolinski and his staff have advised that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as within the retail and mixed -use commercial area and that this proposed use is a ground floor location with residential abot e. Nis. Szymanski said ~with respect to Section (CO that it refers to the standard of negative cumulative effect. She said that the various coffees that have been made offering would diversify- the types of businesses and type 2 restaurants located in the neighborhood. She pointed out that the menu with its emphasis on various coffees with no fried or grilled foods makes it different from the other special uses. She continued that this business will not have a drive-thru and the applicant has stated that pedestrian traffic is expected to exceed vehicular traffic. She also pointed out that other special uses don't encourage refillable mugs. She said with respect to not diminishing the value of neighboring properties, this provides a useful service in the neighborhood that can be accessed by pedestrians. She pointed out the special use is on a major public street and is served by a 16' wide public alley. She said with respect to #6, this special use would not cause any undue traffic congestion because patrons are anticipated to be largely pedestrians and neighborhood customers. The standard regarding significant historical and architectural resources is inapplicable. She said that the green space would not be detracted from or reduced by this use. Finally, the special use complies %vith all other applicable regulations of the Bi District. :pis. Szymanski stated that if the Committee so finds and agrees with these standards, then the next step would be to go to the conditions under Section 3 beginning on page 3 through 4. She noted the only change there is under Section (B) on page 4. which pertains to the condition of the limitation of the menu. She advised the Committee that their motion would be to adopt those findings and agrees with F them and moves to approve. Ald. Bernstein raised the concern of noise complaints that might occur with the live performances. He compared this to Bill's Blues downtown and the numerous complaints he receives regarding the loudness of the live bands and their instruments. He is concerned because this location is in closer proximity to residential neighborhoods and may have the potential of becoming a blues club or musical venue with liquor. He asked the applicant for additional information on their expectations with musical instruments. Ms. Kent responded that they are not planning to be open past 10:00 p.m. She said in terms of the music. she assured that there is not going to be any type of amplification. She said it will be just the instruments, non -electrical. Aid. Bernstein requested that he would like to have some inclusion in the ordinance to this extent as a condition. He also _ is concerned with future application for a liquor license and feels some condition to this _ effect should be considered. Aid. Newman pointed out that this is a case of a local neighborhood resident promoting local neighborhood business and he feels Council should support this type of business and efforts. 0 P&D Committee %Ito. %tinmes of 7.26•04 - Page c • Aid. Newman moi ed approval with acceptance of the findings as stated in the ordinance. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion. The Committee discussed Aid. Bernstein's requested condition regarding the amplification of musical instruments. Aid. Newman suggested making a condition of no liquor license approve for this use and location, which would eliminate any effec: of becoming a blues club type setting. Aid. Bernstein argued that e%en without liquor. that does not conclude the possibility of having amplified music. After discussion. the Committee considered the applicant's assurance for only having acoustical music and not amplification or electrical instruments. With this in mind. Aid. Newman amended the motion to include the condition that music other than acoustical under Section (A), will have to be approved by this Committee. Ms. Sz%manski noted that they do not need to include this as a condition in the ordinance because this is already implied. She noted that they cannot go beyond what is stated in the ordinance without haying to come back before Council. The Committee concurred and Aid. Newman withdrew his amendment. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 65-0-04 — Zonine Planned Develonment: 801 Chicago/525 Kedzie Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. lames Murray, Attorney representing the applicant/developer in this matter. She asked him to address the Committee at this time. Mr. Murray stated that since they were last here before the Committee two weeks ago, in response to specific request by the Committee members, Mr. Haymes has created a • revision to the north w•alI of the building. He indicated that they included a masonry styled perception with relief and setback elements. Although not great, they are within the capacity of the wall to give an illusion creating a similarity to the front wall placing it in masonry on the north wall. He brought to attention the diagrams distributed to the Committee this evening displaying that change. He acknowledged Mr. Haymes and his associate architect. Mr. Stefanowski. being present this evening to elaborate on this change or answer any questions by the Committee or others. Mr. Murray stated in the context of what they -have attempted to do since they were last here. he pointed out the reaction of one of their colleagues on the Cite Council that this is one of the prettiest walls that very few people ever see. He said that they hoped it will be well conceived by the neighbors of 811 Chicago but they feel confident that this is a nice alternative and configuration to what was presented before. He pointed out there are other elements that he would like to address at some point. Particularly issues relative to the Plan Commission's approval and statements of Mr. Widmayer being recanted to the Committee's attention with reference to the dictation of construction standards and building possibilities by elements other than the existing zoning ordinance. Mr. Murray said that if there are any other questions about the north wall or any other aspect of the construction of this particular project. he said they should be addressed to Mr. Haymes and his associate. Aid. Tisdahl concurred that it is a better -looking walI. Mr. Murray recalled to the attention of the Committee the statements that Mr. Widmayer made two weeks ago with • reference to the policy issue that is presented here this evening. He referred to the reduction in both the terms of density. number of units. the size of the units, the permissible limitations that exists with reference to the Cla district for this particular P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of 7.26-04 r Page 6 property. All have been well met and they have even reduced the density in number of units and intensity of use substantially by as much as 25-33%. W. Murray noted this project, in his view. indicates its worthiness to be approved and to be introduced tonight. He requested the Committee's support. Aid. Tisdahl asked what is the density of this project versus what you can build as -of - right. Mr. Murray responded that as -of -right, they could have 37 units opposed to their proposal for 28 units. As -of -right, the floor area ratio for this site is 4.0 and they are proposing to construct a building that is 2.82. He said in essence. 66-75% of what is possible. He noted once again, the reason for the variation request is to deal with the issue of the second floor parking setback 20' from the street side lot lines. He stated the legislative history for that particular regulation within the C I a district is placed upon the effort to avoid the ugly appearance as was stated by several members of the Plan Commission on a 4-1 type of structure that could have open parking at the 1" floor level and apartments above. He said this was found to be unacceptable particularly in the area that would have a commercial interest to it. Thev believe Mr. Havmes has done a meticulous job in camouflaging the parking and offering the very residential look to the entire building. Aid. Newman said that he drove by this location to view the block and the building on the Coronet site is an as -of -right building. He pointed this out as an example of what can happen. In his opinion, the Coronet site is a terrible building that is much shorter, less units. Even though it doesn't have an ugly wall to look at but the building still brings down the entire block and the street. He feels the subject building is a better looking building and the City has control over the architecture because it still is a planned development. He said this is the lowest impact planned development that can possibly be built on this site. He noted that the applicant is asking for very minimal with the 20' exception because of the way the parking is laid out. They are coming in with a plan that is within the height, within the FAR less than the allowable units. have the required amount of parking and very importantly, this is a high quality project. Aid. Newman pointed out that what's going on in the block now. 811 Chicago was the leader and the beginning of the height limitation concerns. That building is 78' in height and started the trend. He said that it is unrealistic to believe that no building was going to be built on the 801 site and if 811 Chicago wanted to negotiate with distance in between the two buildings, then this should have been the primary- goal right at the beginning. More height may have possibly been the negotiation. All things considered. there was going to be an impact on the subject site in some way. He said the as -of -right projects that come through, many of the residents feel Council is responsible for such as the Dominick's site, I800 Sherman project, the orange balcony building, etc. He said there is a chance they will have no say in what is developed on this site as well if a plan comes in as -of -right. He feels Chicago Avenue in that area is not looking very good at this point and currently there is a hole in the ground on the subject site. He reiterated this proposal is a high quality project and the north wall is regrettable, however there is the realization that something can come in there at 67' as -of -right and will still create a wall of some sort. The zoning relief here is as miniscule as it can be. P&D Committee ttte. ,Minutes of 7.26-04 Page 7 Chairman Wynne called on citizens signed up to speak. Mr. Hans Vija. 811 Chicago Avenue. said that he is very disappointed about the process because he was hoping and under the expectation that the neighbors would be able to have some communication with the developer and the architect before he submitted another rendering. He said they not only wanted the change in masonry but were also requesting some space between the two buildings. He said the fact is that the neighbors have tried to work with this developer before. On numerous occasions they have tried to engage with them and only after they came back after the first proposal and the denial of zoning relief, did the developer make an attempt to downsize the project. He said that if you take the parking into account, it is not correct and is not possible to accommodate the minimum parking spaces for 37 units without stretching over 1 '/2 to 2 floors. He feels this can not be done and still maintain the height they are at. He said the density and geometry of the site and everything together as a package, does not square up and is not possible. Mr. Vija said with regards to the worry for as -of -right construction, there is only so much you can build on that site. He said there should always be a mechanism for the Cit) to have involvement in what is built here. He feels the residents of 811 Chicago Avenue are the customers here. ]even if they choose to sell and move out, it will be difficult to sell their units because of the impact of this building. He said it is obvious that this building will have a detrimental effect. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Vija for clarification of his belief that if a building comes in as -of -right that the City has any control of the architecture. Mr. Vija thought that a special use would still be required. Mr. Alterson clarified that it is possible that a project can be built on a property that would not require any zoning relief. Chairman Wynne said that it is her understanding that within this block zoned C l a. all projects require a special use. Mr. Alterson said only if it is going to be an entirely residential building. Aid. Newman said that it is his understanding that they have to build to the lot line in C I a and have to have commercial on the bottom, just like 811 Chicago Avenue, which came in as -of -right. Mr. Vija asked how likely is it to have a building there having the first floor fully commercial and provide parking too. he questions if this is even possible. Mr. Alterson said that it is possible by putting the parking underground but would be very costly. Mr. Vija recalled the developer stating that it would cost approximately $1 million to put underground parking. With this in mind. this would raise the square footage price so high that the cost per square foot would be outside of the price range for Evanston. Aid. Tisdahl asked Mr. Vija if he thought when he bought his unit at 811 Chicago, that he assumed the subject lot was unbuildable. Mr. Vija responded that he did not assume that. but clarified that he has talked to his real estate agent and looked at the site and they did not at that time assume that somebody would come in with a project like this with commercial, parking, and residential because of the lot configuration and size. He said that they did assume or believed that the then existing building would be remodeled or renovated. Aid. Newman recalled that when 811 Chicago was built and for some period of time after it opened, you could build a building on the Kedzie Iot at 106' because that was the maximum of C 1 a with the parking allowances. He pointed out that it was only after they changed the ordinance and brought C 1 a down to 67', he questioned if one of the reasons that they passed the zoning change to bring the height Iimitation down, is because they PRD Committee Ste. Minutes of 7.26-04 Page 8 didn't want any more 811 Chicago Avenue projects to come in. He said by the time that building was built and the units sold. the property on Kedzie could have been 106'. Chairman Wynne noted that fir_ Vija bought his unit last year and did his research right before he bought it. She raised the point that 811 Chicago was built with windows on all four sides and is wvell within the zoning requirements when it was built. She said it is also built off the south lot line by a considerable amount. She said that if there were another 811 Chicago type building on the subject site, it would have windows on all four sides and built with a distance from the north lot line. :fir. Tim Cronin wished to make a couple of points. He feels the statistics Mr. Murray presented are great and that statistics will tell you whatever you want to Iisten to and however you want to use them. To say that he is within the right of C 1 a is a bit deceptive because there is an over-riding factor here and that is the lot size and the geometry of the site, as mentioned by .Mr. Vija. He said the geometry of the lot is now dictating what Cla is. He said the developer could build within the defined regulations, however he has chosen not to. He said not once has this developer brought in something that actually followed all the rules that they could look at. He said that City staff' has noted that something can be built on this lot that fits all the required zoning requirements. Mr. Conin said that what they have here is a situation where the lot itself creates an overriding limitation. He said the reasons these changes have been made to the plan are not out of the kindness of the developers heart but because they, the citizens in the area, have forced this to happen. He requested that the Committee force this developer or require that any other plan be made to fit the zoning requirement for that lot. Ms. Beth Stefen read from a letter distributed this evening to the Committee from The Southeast Evanston Association and their recommendation that the PRD Committee deny the current proposal for 801 Chicago. The letter goes into more detail on their opinion as a group and concludes that they are unable to support this if a variance is required to make their parking requirement possible. They would like to see something go in that does not require any variances and fits the zoning package for this property. Aid. Newman reiterated his previous arguments in favor of this project and the minor variation that is being requested here being miniscule to the majority that comes in under the zoning requirements for this district. Chairman Wynne responded back to Aid. New-inan's comments. She said that filling in a hole and getting tax revenue are not reasons to grant variances that allow buildings to go larger than are regularly permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. She said that if this were their basis for decision making, they would have never done anything to reduce the height of zoning on Chicago Avenue. She said the economic development with the argument for all the members of the Plan Commission who thought height was fine, density was fine along Chicago Avenue, all changed their minds because of community pressure that made them realize that there was a negative impact to that. She does not believe the community is saying they don't want development here on the whole, but on the other hand, what they have been struggling with is to get development that is not oppressive to the rest of the community. Chicago Avenue has taken enough beating from the current developments and construction that have taken place over the past years. She said they worked for four P&D Committee %N,. %tinute3 of 7.26-04 Page 9 • years to reduce the height and the density and put other restrictions on Chicago Avenue. She said that 67' was a compromise because the original proposal was for 55' to 67'; she wishes they had of proposed at the time for 45' to 55'. Chairman Wynne said they advocated reducing the density for floor area ratio. She completely disagrees with Mr. Murray- about the worry was a 4-1. She was part of that Plan Commission discussion and it was to avoid having a blank wall with parking behind it and just having a lobby, this is why the parking restriction was put into place. Her point is. and the communities point is. that a developer can come in and ask for a variance but the question is when are they going to stop and make these developers come in without asking for any variations and build within the allowable envelope. She would like to see all their work honored that was done and achieved in the year 2000. She realizes and the resident of 811 Chicago realize that no matter what is built there they may be faced with a wall but the fact that they would have to affirmatively vote to allow this developer to have the variance, which then creates this building, she can not do. She said the lot is buildable within the required zoning and it can be done but maybe not if the site has been overpaid for. She said that even though this project is coming at less than 67' and is a lower density, that is not what is governing here. She recalled that according to Mr. John Lyman, previous Chair of the Plan Commission, he stated that it is always the geometry of the site that governs it. She does not believe that it is even possible to ever build 106' on this site, even when the zoning allowed this height. In conclusion, these community members are saying that they will take the risk of having a blank wall but make someone come in and do it without having to ask for anything from the City. She again commended the architecture on his work. Ald. Newman responded that he would like Chairman Wynne to go back and read his comments made and that he was one of the seven votes in favor to reduce the height in C 1 a. He stated that his comments that he made when he voted for this are in no comparison to hers. He said it was never contemplated by some of the people who voted for the changes that they would never again have a planned development on Chicago Avenue. He recalled that he told the Chamber who were opposing this, that this will not rule out projects above 67' and he still feels that way. It did not say when they brought the height down to 67' that they were throwing out any planned developments above this. He said it was stated at that time to bring the height down so that if someone wanted to be higher than 67' or denser, the City would have control. He said what they have done just recently to get control of the architecture is by going to a planned development ordinance that has lowered the thresholds to 25 units. He views this ordinance as very valuable for the City and Council. He pointed out that here they have a planted development, very consistent with the new ordinance that has excellent architecture, much more superior than the work done on the Coronet site. In his mind, this is a perfect example of what they have been trying to do. Again, the excellent, quality architecture to this proposed building, compared to what they have been getting, is a public benefit in addition to the money. The tax base is very important in this City because of all the numerous things it pays for that benefit all the citizens in Evanston. 0 Ald. Newman moved approval, no second was received. The motion failed, P&:D Comminee %Itg. Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 10 Chairman Wynne moved to reject this proposal and deny Ordinance 65-0-04. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor and 1 noting nay (Newman). ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8: l6 p.m. Respectfully submitted, iVL-, Jacque'!ne E. rowtilee • 0 40 DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of Juh 26, 2004 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. A. Alterson. G. Morgan. D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF O[:ORCM Chairman V&'ynne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE Ji:LV 12. 2004 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the July 12`s minutes, seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. The vote %vas 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) HOME Fund Reauest for Reba PIace Development Cory_ oration's Affordable Condominium Conversion Chairman Wynne asked for a brief overview of this request from a representative of Reba Place Development Corporation. Mr. Nevin Belser first thanked the Committee for taking the time to consider their proposal this evening. He drew attention to the summary presented before the Committee in their packets, which he confirmed well represents their proposal and that he was here to clarify and answer any questions that may follow. He wanted to highlight the long-term affordability component, which he feels is one of the most important aspects of this proposal. He explained that their goal is to keep the subsidized component as affordable for a 15-year period. He said they would allow the resale price to conform %vith the area income and affordable housing level, thereby keeping the units affordable for qualified families during this period of time. At the end of the 15-year period, there would be an appraisal and whatever percentage, if the owners investment has grown to 55% of the market value at that time, then their percentage would effect that. Mr. Belser acknowledged that with this clause there may be some loss over a long period, however they are hoping that this subsidy for each unit will stay and prosper for the owner and the Corporation's benefit over time. Mr. Belser said it is always a question of balancing how much equity the homeowners realize and how affordable the property is kept that upsets their plan for this project. However, homeownership for the targeted income level is the major goals in this effort. P&D Committee Ntte. Minutes of 26-04 y Page 2 Aid. Newman reviewed the calculations in HOME Funds requested at 5186.000 for 5 units and hypothetically considered 30 units at this same calculation. ►%hick would equal around approximately 51.8 million dollars. His point being the "bank for the buck" is not very great. He pointed out the importance of realizing how expensive affordable housing is because thev are spending S62.000 per unit for this project alone. Aid. Newman further pointed out that everything Reba Place has done thus far with HOME funds have been successful projects and with properties that remain on the tax roles. He continued on that this organization has always done a really good job and are a benefit to the Evanston Community in their efforts to promote affordable housing. He reiterated his point to show the high cost of supplying and promoting affordable housing and that there is no big profit made by this organization in their efforts. He forwarded his support to Reba Place and all the work they have done. He asked staff how much funds are available in the HOME fund at this time. Air. Wolinski informed that S 1.5 million is available at this time. Aid. Bernstein agreed with Aid. New•man's comments. He noted the ongoing consideration with respect to the 5`s 'Ward and certain people that are targeted to protect but are already being pressed out of the market. Regrettably this is the reality of what is happening with the housing market here is Evanston and the availability of affordable housing. He wished to second all of Ald. Newtnan's commendations for Reba Place Development Corp. and also stated his ongoing support for their efforts from the beginning. Aid. Kent brought attention to the second page of the documents included in their packet referring to affordable for the mixed income group and where it states this project proposes to be affordable to homebuyers who will purchase 5 units ranging in the initial price of $100,000 - 5200.000 in $25.000 increments. He asked for further clarification of this process. Mr. Belser explained that the most affordable unit would be $100,000, the next price would be $125.000. S 150.000. $175,000, and the most expensive being $200,000. He noted that each of these 5 units are priced within 525,000. He said the S 100,000, $125,000, and $150.000 units are units that are going to be subsidized by the money that is under discretion. Aid. Kent stated this is where his concerns come in question. Although he agrees with all the comments that have been stated in support of this, he noted this building already exists most likely with low-income tenants. His concern is for those tenants that are already there, possibly on Section vouchers and the possibility of making homeownership possible for those tenants. He questions if there is very going to be a plan to really deal with this population of residents to include them in qualifying for the affordable housing ownership plan. Mr. Belser responded that this project is Reba Place's first effort in condo conversion and homeownership. In his opinion, he feels it is not realistic to talk about condo ownership much tower than what they are offering. He noted that their rental rehabs have been more suitable for the Iow- income target population that is being referred to in this case. He noted that there are minimal limitations that have to be considered and are out of their control by any organization to push any further. Aid. Newman agreed and noted that one of the assessments is for the tenants that currently live in the building. He calculated that according to the affordable prices being offered for these 5 units, which are more than MD Comminea .'Ate. !Minutes of "•_6-rat Page 3 reasonable. µith the minimal down payment required and the estimated housing cost thereafter. if it is not affordable to the tenant on Section 8 then that would be the reality. It would not be fair to any other family who could come up with the minimal down payment and be able to cover the monthly housing cost. He noted that this program is made to accommodate the low-income working family and realistically, there is nothing more that can be done or subside given. Mr. Wolinski stated in reference to what Ald. Newman w•s saying about the price of affordability, staff does constant surveys of housing prices in Evanston. He stated for the pat 6-months, immediate housing prices here for single-family and townhouses are approximately S383,000. The prior 6-monts to that was $350,000 city%side. He said there was also 10 transactions in access of SI million dollars. He felt these numbers important to acknowledge in consideration of what is considered affordable housing for Evanston at this time. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 In favor of the motion. (P21 Resolution 38-0-04 — Authorizing Continue,.d Funding of the Evanston Housing Corooration With no discussion. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5-0 a favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 75-0-04 — Soecial Use (Tyne 2 Restaurant] for 1813 Dempster Street Chairman Wynne noted that this case was introduced at the meeting on July 12,h and referred back for findings and the question of a water bill that exists with this property address. She called on legal staff to elaborate further. Ms. Szymanski said that this was noted at the last meeting that when a special use is approved, the law is that any other special use. which means the definition of a particular special use approved should a able to step into the shows of the applicant. More specifically in a case like this; they have before them a type 2 restaurant. The law is that if Council approved a type 2 for a particular location and that applicant seizes business, that another type 2 business that meets the definition under the building code would be allowed to operate at that same location. She said here, however, the ZBA has recommended to the P&D Committee to accept a limitation of that special use to a particular operation, In this case a "coffee house". There is no definition of coffeehouse in the City Code. Ms. Szymanski said that with Mr. A'olinski's direction and other Zoning Staff, they came up with a method of avoiding defining coffeehouse and limiting the menu such that it would be primarily for the sale of various coffees, encouraging patrons to bring refillable mugs. She stated there would also be other types of food services supplied within these boundaries, no fried or grilled foods included. Ms. Szymanski stated that these distinctions were discussed with Mr. Wolinski and his staff and agreed upon. Mr. Wolinski concurred. Ms. Szymanski went over the findings as defined in the ordinance with the Committee. This particular use as stated will consist primarily of coffee drinks for consumption on site and that the use will provide performance space to be utilized for live performances ftD Comrninee Mte, Minutes of'•_6-04 Y Page 4 of poetry. theatre and or music. She stated if the Committee so finds Section (A) is satisfied. She referred to Section (B) and in order to qualify for this standard that the special use has to be in keeping with the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. She said again. Mr. Wolinski and his staff have advised that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as within the retail and mixed -use commercial area and that this proposed use is a ground floor location with residential above. Ms. Sz)-manski said with respect to Section (CO that it refers to the standard of negative cumulative effect. She said that the various coffees that have been made offering would diversif - the types of businesses and ty ? restaurants located in the neighborhood. She pointed out that the menu with its emphasis on various coffees with no fried or grilled foods makes it different from the other special uses. She continued that this business will not have a drive-thru and the applicant has stated that pedestrian traffic is expected to exceed vehicular traffic. She also pointed out that other special uses don't encourage refillable mugs. She said with respect to not diminishing the value of neighboring properties, this provides a useful service in the neighborhood that can be accessed by pedestrians. She pointed out the special use is on a major public street and is served by a 16' wide public alley. She said with respect to #6, this special use would not cause any undue traffic congestion because patrons are anticipated to be largely pedestrians and neighborhood customers. The standard regarding significant historical and architectural resources is inapplicable. She said that the green space would not be detracted from or reduced by this use. Finally. the special use complies with all other applicable regulations of the B l District. his. Szymanski stated that if the Committee so finds and agrees with these standards, then the next step would be to go to the conditions under Section 3 beginning on page 3 through 4. She noted the only change there is under Section (B) on page 4, which pertains to the condition of the limitation of the menu. She advised the Committee that their motion would be to adopt those findings and agrees with them and moves to approve. Aid. Bernstein raised the concem of noise complaints that might occur with the live performances. He compared this to Bill's Blues downtown and the numerous complaints he receives regarding the loudness of the live bands and their instruments. He is concerned because this location is in closer proximity to residential neighborhoods and may have the potential of becoming a blues club or musical venue with liquor. He asked the applicant for additional information on their expectations with musical instruments. Ms. Kent responded that they are not planning to be open past 10:00 p.m. She said in terms of the music, she assured that there is not going to be any type of amplification. She said it will be just the instruments, non -electrical. Aid. Bernstein requested that he would like to have some inclusion in the ordinance to this extent as a condition. He also is concerned with future application for a liquor license and feels some condition to this effect should be considered. Aid. Newman pointed out that this is a case of a local neighborhood resident promoting local neighborhood business and he feels Council should support this type of business and efforts. P&D Commmee Nita Minutes of %26454 Page 5 Aid. NeNman moved approval with acceptance of the findings as stated in the ordinance. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion. The Committee discussed Ald. Bernstein's requested condition regarding the amplification of musical instruments. Aid. Newman suggested making a condition of no liquor license appro%e for this use and location. which would eliminate any effect of becoming a blues club type setting. AId. Bernstein argued that even without Iiquor. that does not conclude the possibility of having amplified music. After discussion. the Committee considered the applicant's assurance for only having acoustical music and not amplification or electrical instruments. With this in mind. Aid. Newman amended the motion to include the condition that music other than acoustical under Section (A), will have to be approved by this Committee. Nis. Szymanski noted that they do not need to include this as a condition in the ordinance because this is already implied. She noted that they cannot go beyond what is stated in the ordinance without having to come back before Council. The Committee concurred and .old. Newman withdrew• his amendment. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P41 Ordinance 65-0-04 — Zoning Planned Develonment: 801 Chicago/525 Kedzie Chairman 'Wynne acknowledged Nir. James Murray-. attorney representing the applicant/developer in this matter. She asked him to address the Committee at this time. Mr. Murray stated that since they were last here before the Committee two weeks ago, in response to specific request by the Committee members. Mr. Haymes has created a revision to the north wall of the building. He indicated that they included a masonry styled perception with relief and setback elements. .although not great. they are within the capacity of the wall to give an illusion creating a similarity to the front wail placing it in masonry on the north wall. He brought to attention the diagrams distributed to the Committee this evening displaying that change. He acknowledged :fir. Haymes and his associate architect. Mr. Stefanowski. being present this evening to elaborate on this change or answer any questions by the Committee or others. Mr. Murray stated in the context of what they have attempted to do since they were last here. he pointed out the reaction of one of their colleagues on the Cite Council that this is one of the prettiest walls that very few people ever see. He said that they hoped it will be well conceived by the neighbors of 811 Chicago but the% feel confident that this is a nice alternative and configuration to what was presented before. He pointed out there are other elements that he would like to address at some point. Particularly issues relative to the Plan Commission's approval and statements of Mr. Widmayer being recanted to the Committee's attention with reference to the dictation of construction standards and building possibilities by elements other than the existing zoning ordinance. Mr. Murray said that if there are any other questions about the north wall or any other aspect of the construction of this particular project. he said they should be addressed to Mr. Haymes and his associate. Aid. Tisdahl concurred that it is a better -looking wall. \fr. Murray recalled to the attention of the Committee the statements that Mr. Widmayer made two weeks ago with reference to the policy issue that is presented here this evening. He referred to the reduction in both the terms of density. number of units. the size of the units. the permissible limitations that exists with reference to the Cla district for this particular P&D Committee Otte. Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 6 property. All have been well met and they ha% a even reduced the density in number of units and intensity of use substantially by as much as 25-339/16. Air. Murray noted this project. in his view. indicates its «orthiness to be approved and to be introduced tonight. He requested the Committee's support. Aid. Tisdahl asked what is the density of this project versus what you can build as -of - right. Mr. Murray responded that as -of -right. they could have 37 units opposed to their proposal for 28 units. As -of -right, the floor area ratio for this site is 4.0 and they are proposing to construct a building that is 2.82. He said in essence. 66-75% of what is possible. He noted once again. the reason for the variation request is to deal %vith the issue of the second floor parking setback 20' from the street side lot lines. He stated the legislative history for that particular regulation %kithin the C I a district is placed upon the effort to avoid the ugly appearance as was stated by several members of the Plan Commission on a 4-1 type of structure that could have open parking at the I" floor level and apartments above. He said this was found to be unacceptable particularly in the area that would have a commercial interest to it. They believe Mr. Haymes has done a meticulous job in camouflaging the parking and offering the very residential look to the entire building. Aid. Newman said that he drove by this location to view the block and the building on the Coronet site is an as -of -right building. He pointed this out as an example of what can happen. In his opinion, the Coronet site is a terrible building that is much shorter, less units. Even though it doesn't have an ugly wall to look at but the building still brings down the entire block and the street. He feels the subject building is a better looking building and the City has control over the architecture because it still is a planned development. He said this is the lowest impact planned development that can possibly be built on this site. He noted that the applicant is asking for very minimal with the 20' exception because of the way the parking is laid out. They are coming in with a plan that is within the height. within the FAR. less than the allowable units, have the required amount of parking and very importantly-. this is a high quality project. Aid. Newman pointed out that what's going on in the block now. 811 Chicago was the leader and the beginning of the height limitation concerns. That building is 78' in height and started the trend. He said that it is unrealistic to believe that no building was going to be built on the 801 site and if 811 Chicago wanted to negotiate with distance in between the two buildings. then this should have been the primary goal right at the beginning. More height may have possibly been the negotiation. All things considered. there was going to be an impact on the subject site in some way. He said the as -of -right projects that come through, many of the residents feel Council is responsible for such as the Dominick's site. 1800 Sherman project, the orange balcony building. etc. He said there is a chance they %Wl have no say in what is developed on this site as well if a plan comes in as -of -right. He feels Chicago Avenue in that area is not looking very good at this point and currently there is a hole in the ground on the subject site. He reiterated this proposal is a high quality project and the north wall is regrettable, however there is the realization that something can come in there at 67' as -of -right and will still create a wall of some sort. The zoning relief here is as miniscule as it can be. P&D Comminee %tte. Mm res of-'6-W Page Chairman Wynne called on citizens signed up to speak. Mr. Hans Vija. 811 Chicago avenue. said that he is tery disappointed about the process because he was hoping and under the expectation that the neighbors would be able to have some communication with the developer and the architect before he submitted another rendering. He said they not only wanted the change in masonry but were also requesting some space between the two buildings. He said the fact is that the neighbors have tried to work with this developer before. On numerous occasions they have tried to engage with them and only after they came back after the first proposal and the denial of zoning relief, did the developer make an attempt to dow•nsize the project. He said that if you take the parking into account. it is not correct and is nut possible to accommodate the minimum parking spaces for 37 units without stretching over 1 Y, to ? floors. He feels this can not be done and still maintain the height they are at. He said the density and geometry of the site and even -thing together as a package. does not square up and is not possible. Air. Vija said with regards to the worn' for as -of -right construction, there is only so much you can build on that site. He said there should always be a mechanism for the City to have involvement in what is built here. He feels the residents of 811 Chicago %enue are the customers here. Even if they choose to sell and move out, it will be difficult to sell their units because of the impact of this building. He said it is obvious that this building will have a detrimental effect. Aid. 'Newman asked Mr. Vija for clarification of his belief that if a building comes in as -of -right that the City has any control of the architecture. Mr. Vija thought that a special use would still be required. Mr. Alterson clarified that it is possible that a project can be built on a property that would not require any zoning relief. Chairman Wynne said that it is her understanding that Hithin this block zoned Cla. all projects require a special use. Mr. Alterson said only if it is going to be an entirely residential building. Aid. Newman said that it is his understanding that they have to build to the lot line in C 1 a and have to have commercial on the bottom, just like 811 Chicago Avenue. which came in as -of -right. Mr. Vija asked how likely is it to have a building there haying the first floor fully commercial and provide parking too; he questions if this is even possible. Mr. Alterson said that it is possible by putting the parking underground but would be very costly. Mr. Vija recalled the developer stating that it would cost approximately Sl million to put underground parking. 'With this in mind. this would raise the square footage price so high that the cost per square foot would be outside of the price range for Evanston. Ald. Tisdahl asked Mr. Vija if he thought when he bought his unit at 811 Chicago, that he assumed the subject lot %-as unbuildable. Mr. Vija responded that he did not assume that. but clarified that he has talked to his real estate agent and looked at the site and they did not at that time assume that somebody would come in with a project like this with commercial, parking, and residential because of the lot configuration and size. He said that they did assume or believed that the then existing building would be remodeled or renovated. Ald. Newman recalled that when 811 Chicago %+•as built and for some period of time after it opened, you could build a building on the Kedzie lot at 106' because that was the maximum of C1 a with the parking allowances. He pointed out that it was only after they changed the ordinance and brought C I a down to 67'. he questioned if one of the reasons that they passed the zoning change to bring the height limitation down. is because they P&D Committee Nttg. Mir wtes of' 26.04 Page S didn't .vant anv more 811 Chicago Avenue projects to come in. He said by the time that building was built and the units sold. the property on Kedzie could have been 106'. Chairman Wyrtne noted that wir. Vija bought his unit last year and did his research right before he bought it. She raised the point that 811 Chicago -was built with windows on all four sides and is well within the zoning requirements when it was built. She said it is also built off the south lot line by a considerable amount. She said that if there were another 811 Chicago type building on the subject site. it would have windows on all four sides and built with a distance from the north lot line. Mr. Tim Cronin wished to make a couple of points. He feels the statistics Mr. Murray presented arc great and that statistics will tell you whatever you want to listen to and however you want to use them. To say that he is within the right of C 1 a is a bit deceptive because there is an over-riding factor here and that is the lot size and the geometry of the site, as mentioned by ,%Ir. Vija. He said the geometry of the lot is now dictating what Cla is. He said the developer could build within the defined regulations, however he has chosen not to. He said not once has this developer brought in something that actually followed all the rules that they could look at. He said that City staff has noted that something can be built on this lot that fits all the required zoning requirements. Mr. Conin said that what they have here is a situation where the lot itself creates an overriding limitation. He said the reasons these changes have been made to the plan are not out of the kindness of the developers heart but because they. the citizens in the area. have forced this to happen. He requested that the Committee force this developer or require that any other plan be made to fit the zoning requirement for that lot. Ms. Beth Stefen read from a letter distributed this evening to the Committee from The Southeast Evanston Association and their recommendation that the P&D Committee deny the current proposal for 801 Chicago. The letter goes into more detail on their opinion as a group and concludes that they are unable to support this if a variance is required to make their parking requirement possible. They would like to see something go in that does not require any variances and fits the zoning package for this property. Ald. Newman reiterated his previous arguments in favor of this project and the minor variation that is being requested here being miniscule to the majority that comes in under the zoning requirements for this district. Chairman Wynne responded back to Ald.` Newman's comments. She said that filling in a hole and getting tax revenue are not _ reasons to grant variances that allows buildings to go larger than are regularly permitted _ under the Zoning Ordinance. She said that if this were their basis for decision making, they would have never done anything to reduce the height of zoning on Chicago Avenue. She said the economic development with the argument for all the members of the Plan Commission who thought height was fine, density was fine along Chicago Avenue, all changed their minds because of community pressure that made them realize that there was a negative impact to that. She does not believe the community is saying they don't want development here on the whole, but on the other hand, what they have been struggling with is to get development that is not oppressive to the rest of the community. Chicago Avenue has taken enough beating from the current developments and _ construction that have taken place over the past years. She said they worked for four P&Q Comminet %Ug Minutes of '•=644 Page 4 years to reduce the height and the density and put other restrictions on Chicago Avenue. She said that 67' was a compromise because the original proposal was for 55' to 67% she wishes they had of proposed at the time for 45' to 5F. Chairman 'Kynne said they advocated reducing the density for floor area ratio. She completely disagrees with Mr. Murray about the worry was a 4—I. She was part of that Plan Commission discussion and it was to avoid having a blank wall with parking behind it and just having a lobby, this is why the parking restriction was put into place. Her point is, and the communities point is. that a developer can come in and ask for a variance but the question is when are they going to stop and make these developers come in without asking for any variations and build within the allowable envelope. She would like to see all their work honored that was done and achieved in the year 2000. She realizes and the resident of 811 Chicago realize that no matter what is built there they may be faced with a wall but the fact that they would have to affirmatively vote toallow this developer to have the variance. which then creates this building, she can not do. She said the lot is buildable within the required zoning and it can be done but maybe not if the site has been overpaid for. She said that even though this project is coming at less than 67' and is a lower density, that is not what is governing here. She recalled that according to Mr. John Lyman, previous Chair of the Plan Commission, he stated that it is always the geometry of the site that governs it. She does not believe that it is even possible to ever build 106' on this site. even when the zoning allowed this height. In conclusion, these community members are saying that they will take the risk of haying a blank wall but make someone come in and do it without having to ask for anything from the City. She again commended the architecture on his work. Aid, Newman responded that he would like Chairman Wynne to go back and read his comments made and that he was one of the seven votes in favor to reduce the height in C 1 a. He stated that his comments that he made when he voted for this are in no comparison to hers. He said it was never contemplated by some of the people who voted for the changes that they would never again have a planted development on Chicago Avenue. He recalled that he told the Chamber who were opposing this, that this will not rule out projects above 67' and he still feels that way. It did not say when they brought the height down to 67' that they were throwing out any planned developments above this. He said it was stated at that time to bring the height down so that if someone warned to be higher than 67' or denser, the City would have control. He said what they have done just recently to get control of the architecture is by going to a planned development ordinance that has Iowered the thresholds to 25 units. He views this ordinance as very valuable for the City and Council. He pointed out that here they have a planned developmem very consistent with the new ordinance that has excellent architecture, much more superior than the work done on the Coronet site. In his mind, this is a perfect example of what they have been trying to do. Again, the excellem quality architecture to this proposed building, compared to what they have been getting, is a public benefit in addition to the money. The tax base is very important in this City because of all the numerous things it pays for that benefit all the citizens in Evanston. Aid. Newman moved approval, no second was received. The motion failed, P&D Committee Sitg. Minutes of 7.26-0 t Page 10 Chairman Wynne moved to reject this proposal and deny Ordinance 65-0-04. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor and 1 voting nay (Newman). ADJOU%NME1'T With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacque\' ue E. ro%mlee • DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of August 16, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 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. G. Morgan, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 26.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the July 26`h minutes, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION fP11 540-548 Weslev Resubdivision Plat Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee approved this on the 7"i of July to Mr. James the developer who is the applicant. Mr. James spoke briefly telling the Committee that this conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and two lots are currently vacant. There are no drainage problems and this is a very straightforward resubdivision. Aid. Bernstein clarified that with the resulting lots all be conforming; the Committee's job here is ministerial. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. (P2) Resolution 44-R-04 — Resolution to Denv the Recommendation of the Preservation Commission to Anorove Landmark Status for 422 DavisMe Georgian Chairman Wynne recalled the special P&D meeting regarding The Georgian where they took testimony and public comment and the Committee voted 5-0 to reject the recommendation of the Preservation Commission. At that time Council advised that they would need to codify the resolution and bring it back to Planning & Development. She noted that this was included in their packets and Council told her that they need to approve the codification of that vote. She informed the four people signed up to speak on P&D Comminee Nitg. Minutes of August 16, 2004 Page 2 this matter that at the special publi, hearing where 36 citizens spoke and she does not believe it necessary to take any further comment on this matter. Aid. Bernstein said that he has no problem hearing the four citizens signed up to speak. He suggested the time be limited for each speaker and not to be repetitive. Aid. Tisdahl agreed. Chairman Wynne suggested a limit of no more than 2 minutes per speaker. Aid. Newman also reminded that testimony should be limited to this resolution on the agenda at this time; no comments on the Committee's rejection of the Preservation Commission's recommendation to approve Iandmark status of this building. Chairman Wynne called on citizens signed up to speak in the order signed. Ms. Judv Fiske, distributed a letter to the Committee urging them to accept the report of the Preservation Commission to designate The Georgian as an Evanston Landmark (available in Community Development Administrative Office). She also expressed her opinion that she felt the proper procedure was not followed appropriately. She said according to the Preservation Ordinance, no testimony regarding rehabbing should have been introduced into the process and their attorney rejected at that time to this. Aid. Newman felt they need to revisit the Preservation Ordinance on this issue because he finds this idea that you landmark something and then saw to the property owner to go and file their petition. He believes it factors and should be very clear in the ordinance especially in regard to commercial property. He feels that how this property is going to be redeveloped and its potential in the future should be prrt of the discussion. He noted that they can do what ever they want in terms of what the criteria is going to be to make something a landmark. Therefore to the extent there's a dispute, the ordinance must be clear. He reiterated that he sees no problem at all when you have a discussion of a landmark that redevelopment potentials should be a part of the dialogue. Chairman Wynne asked if he would like to direct staff to bring the Committee back something on this issue? Ald. Newman responded that he feels they need to have a meeting to discuss this matter and other issues such as whom should receive notice when the Preservation Commission is considering making something a landmark. There are several other issues that need to be addressed with the Preservation Ordinance. All the issues should be addressed at this special meeting. Mr. Reifman, attorney representing Mather Lifeways, agreed that the record needs to be absolutely clear that the Planning & Development Committee made its particular decision based on some specific criteria within the Preservation Ordinance and not based on whether the property is rehabbed or not. He noted that all five criteria that were nominated were considered and discussed. He said, however, that the Committee's decision to go forward and make changes to the Preservation Ordinance is a different matter. He said from a legal perspective, the matters the Committee is voting on are the five criteria discussed. Ald. Newman responded that he did not want to imply in any way by the aforementioned. He noted that when he cast his vote, he was looking at whether or not the nomination met the standards and this is what he was focused on. The other Committee members agreed. Ms. Jill Wortrnan distributed a letter which repeats her previous comments from the special meeting. She added that she thinks the Preservation Commission did make a P&D Committee Mtg, Minutes of August 16. 2004 Page 3 recommendation based on the standards and they stated the case why this building did meet the standards of the criteria to be designated a landmark. She said on behalf of the neighbors she represents. she has fifty-seven (57) names listed at the bottom of her letter, all believe that The Georgian is their historical integrity. She said that this building represents the past and is their gateway into the future of Evanston's downtown with all the new buildings. Mr. Bill Schwimmer expressed his disappointment with Council's decision and not taking preservation in Evanston on a more serious level. He said what the City is continually doing is destroying the architectural integrity and Evanston's historical past. He said it would seem that the Preservation Commission's recommendation was not given due course of discussion. Mr. Reifman asked the Committee if they would consider an amendment to represent what they discussed previously regarding clarifying the Committee's decision based on specific criteria. He referred to the first whereas clause on page 4 of the Resolution, requested that language stating "solely on the basis of the criteria set forth in Section 2-9- 4 of the Ordinance." Ms. Szymanski stated that the Resolution was reviewed and substantially drafted by Corporation Counsel. She is not comfortable in recommending that the Committee make any changes at this time. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee of in important issue to remember that when staff sent this item to their attention, originally there was also a copy of the nomination for the National Register. He noted that in his memo that Council had until September 16`s to respond and this matter is still p [ending. He said that Council can take action at the next meeting on September 13`', one way or the other, because the City Preservation Commission has also been requested to advise the Advisory Board in Springfield about the nomination for the National Register. He noted that the Committee does not have to take any action as of right being a local government in the State of Illinois. However, this is the chance to give Council's opinion and to specify that the Mayor should submit a letter in support or not in support of the nomination. Mr. Ruiz wanted to remind the Committee tha the Mayor send a letter indicating her view but then City Council might want to take further action to make sure that it is clarified of Council action and not just the Mayor's action. He reiterated that this is still pending however the Committee does not have to do this if they choose not to do so as long as this is clear. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Ruiz that if Council passes this resolution this evening, doesn't this suffice as their response. Mr. Ruiz responded that this does not effect the nomination for National Register because it is a separate entity from their rejection of granting the landmark status. He said that they only have the opportunity to comment on the nomination for the National Register. Chairman Wynne noted that the State has requested City Council's comments on the nomination, therefore if they pass this resolution then they can direct stall' to draft a letter stating that the Council voted to reject application for landmark status of The Georgian and that this would represent the Committee's/Council's position on this matter. Mr. Ruiz responded that this could be acceptable however whatever the Council's decision, it must be clarified. She asked if this would be a proper response to the State. Mr. Ruiz responded that his understanding is that if Council does not P&D Committee h1tg. ylinmes of August 16. 2004 Page 4 recommend the National Register nomination then they have to address the standards for this and how they have not been met. He said this is the advice he received from the State representatives. Chairman Wynne noted that the Committee does not have those standards before them so how are they able to address this unless they base this on their vote regarding the landmark status. Mr. Ruiz agreed and said this is why he recommended that on September 13u` that Council can take action and staff can forward those standards to the Committee beforehand in order for them to properly respond. Chairman Wynne asked for the Committee's opinion on this. Aid. Newman recalled that the last time this happened they received complaints from the group that opposed the Northeast Historic District that the Mayor had written a letter in support of it. In his opinion, he thinks it is relevant if they have a resolution that does not accept the landmark status should be sufficient. He said what it is up to the State what they want to do with it because they can in terms of what their own decision making process is. He stated the City is only informational. Aid. Tisdahl agreed with Aid. Newman. Chairman Wynne also agreed but asked do they want to have the standards come back to the Committee for further response. Aid. Newman responded that this Committee is not arguing the case, it is the Mather's responsibility. He does not believe the City Council is involved in this process but is responsible to let the State know what Council has voted on in support of their decision. Ms. Fiske stated strictly speaking under the certified guidelines, the request for comment goes directly to the City's Preservation Commission and to the Mayor, not to the City Council. She noted although in Northeast Evanston, City Council did ask to be informed of when the National Register nomination was submitted. She stated that since our local criteria are based on those of the National Register but are somewhat different in that they focus more on local relevance, she feels it is not appropriate for the City Council to comment on this. Aid. Newman responded that this is another point that needs to be cleared up with the Preservation Ordinance. He noted tha the Preservation Commission when this Comm ittee.'Council is the final authority, should be nothing more than advisory to the City Council. He stressed that this is what the Preservation Commission's sole principle is here. He said as far as anyone wanting to know where the City of Evanston stands, that is the City Council's job. He stated the last time this occurred it would have been very helpful in the case of the Northeast Historic District if the City Council as opposed to the Mayor, if the responsibility positions would have been clarified. Therefore, he strongly believes that this needs to be very clear in the ordinance that City Council speaks in regard to landmark status or preservation district on behalf of the City as the final authoritative body. He said if the 'Mayor wants to send her own letter she certainly can but he definitely feels this issue needs to be cleared up and not be told that there is any dispute regarding position. Mr. Reifinan noted that the owner of the Georgian intends to object the National Register designation, however there is the eligibility criteria. He said that if the Mayor indicates that she is not in support and if the property authority of the local government indicates that it is not in support, the nomination will not move forward. He cited Section 2-9-3 (G) regarding "Powers and Duties" of the Preservation Commission where it states "so P&D Committee Sttg. Minutes of August 16. 2rXA Page S only upon request of the Council." He noted that it is important that City Council makes a clear statement that Planning & Development made a specific policy decision. He requested to the Committee that the resolution be amended to clarify the Committee's decision. Aid. Bernstein moved to amend the resolution to include in the "whereas" clause that the Council made a decision based on an analysis of the standards. Ms. Szymanski noted that Council is acting in the legislative mode. She informed the Committee that she did review this with Corporation Council and this is the resolution that he did recommend and that Council considers. In %iew of this, she urged the Committee to defer to Corporation Council if any amendments are considered. AId. Bernstein asked Ms. Szymanski if she has any sense of why it wasn't specifically indicated. She responded that it is the legislative judgement of the Council. She said Council could, as it can in other cases, listen to the evidence presented and the standards. In this case, if in fact the Council's decision is based solely on the standards, that is acceptable and is acting in its legislative capacity. Aid. Bernstein asked legal staff that if Chairman Wynne went through the standards does this Committee need to make findings of fact with respect to this. Ms. Szymanski responded no. With this in mind, Aid. Newman recommended to adopt the resolution that the City lawyers drafted and to send a record of the City Council's action. Aid. Newman wanted to make clear that just because this Committee is agreeing that this building is not a landmark does not mean in any way that they are endorsing this project. He noted that there are very serious and legitimate neighborhood issues and concerns that need to be addressed, including his own questions about this project. He reiterated that the mere fact that he does not believe that this building is a landmark does not mean that he disagrees with the people that have signed the petition in opposition and any others that oppose. He thinks it is unfortunate that this project was entangled in the preservation process. Aid. Tisdahl agreed and added that she voted based on the standards at the time she voted and thinks that all the other testimony was taken into consideration. However the Committee's responsibility is to address and vote on the standards. The Committee concurred. Aid. Berastein's motion to amend the resolution did not receive a second. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Resolution 44-R-04 as drafted. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Aid. Newman asked staff the status of the proposed project. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that a zoning analysis has been performed on the plans submitted and is currently being reviewed by Iegal staff. He said construction is not expected to proceed before 2006. Building plans have not been submitted and will require the planned development application submission. He noted that this proposed project is still in the early stages and has several approval processes to go through including Planning & Development Committee re%lew. Chairman Wynne clarified what has occurred thus far. She stated at Council there are two actions that need to be performed. She pointed out on Council's agenda there are two items to be addressed, one regarding the Preservation Ordinance which requires them P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of August 16. 2004 Page 6 to accept the recommendation of the Preservation Commission via the ordinance and to reject this by way of the resolution. She pointed out that procedurally they need to introduce this according to Corporation Counsel but first they must introduce the ordinance with the recommendation and defeat that and then present the resolution rejecting this ordinance. Ald. tiewman disagreed and stated that he feels they should vote on the recommendation of the Committee, which is the resolution, to reject the recommendation of the Preservation Commission and then they remove (P3), which is the ordinance, from the agenda. Ms. Szymanski explained that she has discussed this with Mr. Hill at length and their concern here is to make the ordinance procedurally correct. She noted that the ordinance has a quirk in it with regards to if there is going to e an approval in designation of a landmark, this is by ordinance. She said they now have an affirmative recommendation from the Preservation Commission as embodied in the ordinance to grant that designation. She said that affirmative recommendation needs to be disposed of, speaking in terms of understanding that the will of this Committee would be to reject the designation.. Therefore, the Preservation Commission recommendation must first be disposed of. After that, because of the quirk in the ordinance, there is another step that is to pass the resolution to affirmatively reject this ordinance. Ms. Szymanski stated the Law Department's recommendation is that both of these steps be taken to make it absolutely correct with following the procedure. Chairman Wynne clarified that legal stairs recommendation is to take (P3) before (P2). i Ms. Szymanski concurred, recommending to act on this and then dispose of (P3) completely. Do not remove this item from the agenda Discussion took place. Aid. Newman feels this procedure has been followed with this resolution. After further discussion and agreement of the Committee, Chairman Wynne stated the Committee's recommendation is to follow Corporation Counsel's direction. She clarified the steps that the Commission must move to introduce and then to suspend the rules and proceed to vote negative on the ordinance. To follow, Council must then move to the resolution to permanently reject the landmark designation. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. tfully submitted, (� Jacque a E. rownlee a 1 7` Planning & Development Committee Minutes of August 16, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Nen-man, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, G. Morgan, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman AK)-nne DECLARATION OF OUORU M Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JL;LY 26.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the July 26's minutes, seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) 540-548 Weslev Resubdivision Plat Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee approved this on the 7 h of Jul- to Mr. James the developer who is the applicant. Mr. James spoke briefly telling the Committee that this conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and two lots are currently vacant. There are no drainage problems and this is a very straightforward resubdivision. Aid. Bernstein clarified that with the resulting lots all be conforming; the Committee's job here is ministerial. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. (P2) Resolution 44-R-04 — Resolution to Denv the Recommendation of the Preservation Commission to Approve Landmark Status for422 Davis/The Georgian Chairman Wynne recalled the special P&D meeting regarding The Georgian where they took testimony and public comment and the Committee voted 5-0 to reject the recommendation of the Preservation Commission. At that time Council advised that they would need to codify the resolution and bring it back to Planning & Development. She noted that this was included in their packets and Council told her that they need to approve the codification of that vote. She informed the four people signed up to speak on P&D Committee %Itg. �Sinutes of August 16. 2004 Page 2 this matter that at the special public hearing where 36 citizens spoke and she does not believe it necessary to take any further comment on this matter. A1d. Bernstein said that he has no problem hearing the four citizens signed up to speak. He suggested the time be limited for each speaker and not to be repetitive, Aid. Tisdahl agreed. Chairman Wynne suggested a limit of no more than 2 minutes per speaker. Aid. Newman also reminded that testimony should be limited to this resolution on the agenda at this time; no comments on the Committee's rejection of the Preservation Commission's recommendation to approve landmark status of this building. Chairman Wynne called on citizens signed up to speak in the order signed. Ms. Judv Fiske, distributed a letter to the Committee urging them to accept the report of the Preservation Commission to designate The Georgian as an Evanston Landmark (available in Community Development Administrative Office). She also expressed her opinion that she felt the proper procedure was not followed appropriately. She said according to the Preservation Ordinance, no testimony regarding rehabbing should have been introduced into the process and their attorney rejected at that time to this. Aid. Newman felt they need to revisit the Preservation Ordinance on this issue because he finds this idea that you landmark something and then say to the property owner to go and file their petition. He believes it factors and should be very clear in the ordinance especially in regard to commercial property. He feels that how this property is going to be redeveloped and its potential in the future should be past of the discussion. He noted that they can do what ever the}, want in terms of what the criteria is going to be to make something a landmark. Therefore to the extent there's a dispute, the ordinance must be clear. He reiterated that he sees no problem at all when you have a discussion of a landmark that redevelopment potentials should be a part of the dialogue. Chairman Wynne asked if he would like to direct staff to bring the Committee back something on this issue? Aid. Newman responded that he feels they need to have a meeting to discuss this matter and other issues such as whom should receive notice when the Preservation Commission is considering making something a landmark. There are several other issues that need to be addressed with the Preservation Ordinance. All the issues should be addressed at this special meeting. Mr. Reitman, attorney representing Mather Lifeways, agreed that the record needs to be absolutely clear that the PIanning & Development Committee made its particular decision based on some specific criteria within the Preservation Ordinance and not based on whether the property is rehabbed or not. He noted that all five criteria that were nominated were considered and discussed. He said, however, that the Committee's decision to go forward and make changes to the Preservation Ordinance is a different matter. He said from a legal perspective, the matters the Committee is voting on are the five criteria discussed. Aid. Newman responded that he did not want to imply in any way by the aforementioned. He noted that when he cast his vote, he was looking at whether or not the nomination met the standards and this is what he was focused on.. The other Committee members agreed. Ms. Jill Wortman distributed a letter which repeats her previous comments from the special meeting. She added that she thinks the Preservation Commission did make a P&D Committee tiftg. 4tinutes of Aupst 16, 2004 Page 3 recommendation based on the standards and the%- stated the case why this building did meet the standards of the criteria to be designated a landmark. She said on behalf of the neighbors she represents, she has fifty-seven (57) names Iisted at the bottom of her letter, all believe that The Georgian is their historical integrity. She said that this building represents the past and is their gateway into the future of Evanston's downtown with all the new buildings. Mr. Bill Schwimmer expressed his disappointment with Council's decision and not taking preservation in Evanston on a more serious level. He said what the City is continually doing is destro%ing the architectural integrity and Evanston's historical past. He said it would seem that the Preservation Commission's recommendation was not given due course of discussion. Mr. Rei6nan asked the Committee if they would consider an amendment to represent what they discussed previously regarding clariA ing the Committee's decision based on specific criteria. He referred to the first whereas clause on page 4 of the Resolution, requested that language stating "solely on the basis of the criteria set forth in Section 2-9. 4 of the Ordinance." Ms. Szymanski stated that the Resolution was reviewed and substantially drafted by Corporation Counsel. She is not comfortable in recommending that the Committee make any changes at this time. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee of in important issue to remember that when staff sent this item to their attention, originally there was also a copy of the nomination for the National Register. He noted that in his memo that Council had until September 16u' to respond and this matter is still p [ending. He said that Council can take action at the next meeting on September 13ei, one way or the other, because the City Preservation Commission has also been requested to advise the Advisory Board in Springfield about the nomination for the National Register. He noted that the Committee does not have to take any action as of right being a local government in the State of Illinois. However, this is the chance to give Council's opinion and to speciN- that the Mayor should submit a letter in support or not in support of the nomination. Mr. Ruiz wanted to remind the Committee tha the Mayor send a letter indicating her View but then City Council might want to take further action to make sure that it is clarified of Council action and not just the Mayor's action. He reiterated that this is still pending however the Committee does not have to do this if they choose not to do so as long as this is clear. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Ruiz that if Council passes this resolution this evening, doesn't this suffice as their response. Mr. Ruiz responded that this does not effect the nomination for National Register because it is a separate entity from their rejection of granting the landmark status. He said that they only have the opportunity to comment on the nomination for the National Register. Chairman Wynne noted that the State has requested City Council's comments on the nomination, therefore if they pass this resolution then they can direct staff to draft a letter stating that the Council voted to reject application for landmark status of The Georgian and that this would represent the Committee's/Council's position on this matter. Mr. Ruiz responded that this could be acceptable however whatever the Council's decision, it trust be clarified. She asked if this would be a proper response to the State. Mr. Ruiz responded that his understanding is that if Council does not P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes orAugust 16. 2004 Page 4 recommend the National Register nomination then they have to address the standards for this and how they have not been met. He said this is the advice he received from the State representatives. Chairman W%mne noted that the Committee does not have those standards before them so how are they able to address this unless they base this on their vote regarding the landmark status. :fir. Ruiz agreed and said this is why he recommended that on September l ;h that Council can take action and staff can forward those standards to the Committee beforehand in order for them to properly respond. Chairman Wynne asked for the Committee's opinion on this. Aid. Newman recalled that the last time this happened they received complaints from the group that opposed the Northeast Historic District that the Mayor had written a letter in support of it. In his opinion, he thinks it is relevant if they have a resolution that does not accept the landmark status should be sufficient. He said what it is up to the State what they want to do with it because they can in terms of what their own decision making process is. He stated the City is only informational. Aid. Tisdahl agreed with Aid. Newman. Chairman Wyrute also agreed but asked do they want to have the standards come back to the Committee for further response. Aid. Newman responded that this Committee is not arguing the case, it is the Mather's responsibility. He does not believe the City Council is involved in this process but is responsible to let the State know what Council has voted on in support of their decision. Ms. Fiske stated strictly speaking under the certified guidelines, the request for comment goes directly to the City's Preservation Commission and to the Mayor, not to the City Council. She noted although in Northeast Evanston, City Council did ask to be informed of when the National Register nomination was submitted. She stated that since our local criteria are based on those of the National Register but are somewhat different in that they focus more on local relevance, she feels it is not appropriate for the City Council to comment on this. Aid. Newman responded that this is another point that needs to be cleared up with the Preservation Ordinance. He noted tha the Preservation Commission when this Committee'Council is the final authority, should be nothing more than advisory to the City Council. He stressed that this is what the Preservation Commission's sole principle is here. He said as far as anyone wanting to know where the City of Evanston stands, that is the City Council's job. He stated the last time this occurred it would have been very helpful in the case of the Northeast Historic District if the City Council as opposed to the Mayor, if the responsibility positions would have been clarified. Therefore, he strongly believes that this needs to be very clear in the ordinance that City Council speaks in regard to landmark status or preservation district on behalf of the City as the final authoritative body. He said if the Mayor wants to send her own letter she certainly can but he definitely feels this issue needs to be cleared up and not be told that there is any dispute regarding position. Mr. Reifman noted that the owner of the Georgian intends to object the National Register designation, however there is the eligibility criteria. He said that if the Mayor indicates that she is not in support and if the property authority of the local government indicates that it is not in support, the nomination will not move fom-ard. He cited Section 2-9.3 (G) regarding "Powers and Duties" of the Preservation Commission where it states "so P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of August 16. 2004 Page 5 only upon request of the Council." He noted that it is important that City Council makes a clear statement that Planning & Development made a specific policy decision. He requested to the Committee that the resolution be amended to clarify the Committee's decision. Aid. Bernstein moved to amend the resolution to include in the "whereas" clause that the Council made a decision based on an analysis of the standards. Ms. Szymanski noted that Council is acting in the Iegislative mode. She informed the Committee that she did review this with Corporation Council and this is the resolution that he did recommend and that Council considers. In view of this, she urged the Committee to defer to Corporation Council if any amendments are considered. Ald. Bernstein asked Ms. Szymanski if she has any sense of why it wasn't specifically indicated. She responded that it is the legislative judgement of the Council. She said Council could, as it can in other cases, listen to the evidence presented and the standards. In this case, if in fact the Council's decision is based solely on the standards, that is acceptable and is acting in its legislative capacity Md. Bernstein asked legal staff that if Chairman Wynne went through the standards does this Committee need to make findings of fact with respect to this. Ms. Szymanski responded no. With this in mind, Ald. Newman recommended to adopt the resolution that the Cite lawyers drafted and to send a record of the City Council's action. Ald. Newman wanted to make clear that just because this Committee is agreeing that this building is not a landmark does not mean in any way that they are endorsing this project. He noted that there are very serious and legitimate neighborhood issues and concerns that need to be addressed, including his own questions about this project. He reiterated that the mere fact that he does not believe that this building is a landmark does not mean that he disagrees with the people that have signed the petition in opposition and any others that oppose. He thinks it is unfortunate that this project was entangled in the preservation process. Ald. Tisdahl agreed and added that she voted based on the standards at the time she voted and thinks that all the other testimony was taken into consideration. However the Committee's responsibility is to address and vote on the standards. The Committee concurred. Aid. Bernstein's motion to amend the resolution did not receive a second. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Resolution 44-R-04 as drafted. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in f2vor. Ald. Newman asked staff the status of the proposed project. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that a zoning analysis has been performed on the plans submitted and is currently being reviewed by legal staff. He said construction is not expected to proceed before 2006. Building plans have not been submitted and will require the planned development application submission. He noted that this proposed project is still in the early stages and has several approval processes to go through including Planning & Development Committee review-. Chairman Wynne clarified what has occurred thus far. She stated at Council there are two actions that need to be performed. She pointed out on Council's agenda there are two items to be addressed, one regarding the Preservation Ordinance which requires them P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of August 16. 2004 Page 6 to accept the recommendation of the Preservation Commission via the ordinance and to reject this by way of the resolution. She pointed out that procedurally they need to introduce this according to Corporation Counsel but first they must introduce the ordinance with the recommendation and defeat that and then present the resolution rejecting this ordinance. Aid. Newman disagreed and stated that he feels they should vote on the recommendation of the Committee, which is the resolution, to reject the recommendation of the Preservation Commission and then they remove (P3), which is the ordinance, from the agenda. %Is. Szymanski explained that she has discussed this with Mr. Hill at length and their concern here is to make the ordinance procedurally correct. She noted that the ordinance has a quirk in it with regards to if there is going to e an approval in designation of a landmark, this is by ordinance. She said they now have an affirmative recommendation from the Preservation Commission as embodied in the ordinance to grant that designation. She said that affirmative recommendation needs to be disposed of, speaking in terms of understanding that the will of this Committee would be to reject the designation., 'therefore, the Preservation Commission recommendation must first be disposed of. After that, because of the quirk in the ordinance, there is another step that is to pass the resolution to affirmatively reject this ordinance. Ms. Szymanski stated the Law Department's recommendation is that both of these steps be taken to make it absolutely correct with following the procedure. Chairman Wynne clarified that legal stafrs recommendation is to take (P3) before (P2). Ms. Szymanski concurred, recommending to act on this and then dispose of (P3) completely. Do not remove this item from the agenda Discussion took place. Aid. Newman feels this procedure has been followed with this resolution. After further discussion and agreement of the Committee, Chairman Wynne stated the Committee's recommendation is to follow Corporation Counsel's direction. She clarified the steps that the Commission must move to introduce and then to suspend the rules and proceed to vote negative on the ordinance. To follow, Council must then move to the resolution to permanently reject the landmark designation. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. spectfully submitted, (� ]acquel a ElBrowrilee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 13, 2004 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, A. Alterson, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. She apologized for the delay in starting due to the Executive Session held previously. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 16, 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the August 16`h minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) 90-0-04 — Variation for 525 Sherman (Width and location of Parkine Snace) Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicantlowner of property, Mr. John Darin. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Darin to elaborate on his variance request. Mr. Darin explained his proposal is to utilize the only effective portion of the present driveway being within the front yard by removing the existing paving between the house and the south lot line which will improve drainage and storm water on the property. He said the driveway is the narrowest point between the street and the garage therefore their proposal is to widen the area to 6.9 foot wide and provide open parking in the front yard. He noted that there is no alley access to their garage. With no further questions or explanation Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by AIL Tisdahi. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. fP2) 1501 Hinman — Anneal of the Preservation Commission Decision Chairman Wyrim stated that this appeal is to a decision regarding the windows in the Raymond Paris Building. She noted that the P&D Committee has two decisions to make here; first haying to determine who the final hearing body is going to be — either this Committee or Council. She said the option being P&D as the recommending body to Council and Council as the final hearing body. Aid. Newman preferred if they could avoid having Council as the final hearing body and keep this at the Committee level. Legal staff confirmed this to be satisfactory if it is the consensus and decision of the P&D Committee Mts. Minutes of Sept. 13. 200-S Page i Committee. Chairman Wynne sated that this is an issue. unlike some of their other issues. where it would be appropriate to keep here. Mr. Wolinski reminded that the Committee could also choose to not have a hearing and just to deny the appeal. Aid. Newman moved that P&D hold the hearing for the appeal. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion approved with a vote of 5-o. Chairman Wynne then addressed the second decision of the Committee is to whether they are the final hearing authority or Council. Aid. Newman expressed his concern for the ret of the Council possibly feeling that this Committee is excluding them, however on the other hand, it makes a lot more sense to end this at P&D in considering the matter involved in this case. He asked staff if there are any more of these appeals in the pipeline" Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee that the case at 904 Hinman is still pending. Chairman Wynne noted that particular case is at the Council level for final hearing body and decision. Aid. Newman's opinion is to hold the heating here at P&D and that this Committee also be the final authoritative body because they have time tonight to give to this case and he suggested that it be explained by P&D's Chair that we should hear from the other Council members whether it is acceptable by them in the future to do this. He questioned what the policy should be on this matter and feels that this policy decision should be clarified and agreed upon by the entire Council. Aid. Bernstein asked for clarification in the case of 904 Hinman and as to whether the applicant would have some appeal problem if in fact they chose to hear it as a subcommittee. Ald. Newman and Chairman Wynne recalled the situation to do with timing because the time frame allowance was expired and they agreed to accept this in lieu of Council agreeing to allow a time extension for staff to address this issue with the applicant. Chairman Wynne said that from a policy standpoint, this Committee could decide to have these appeals all stop here or could choose to be the recommending advisory body to Council as the final hearing body. She further suggested on that note that the policy consideration could be to define less significant cases were P&D would be the final authoritative body versus more significant cases that Council would hear. In light of that point of view, Aid. Newman felt this case could be considered less significant and handled at the P&D Committee level for final authority. In response to Chairman Wynne's question on distinguishing this case versus the 904 Hinman case in level of significance, Aid. Neuman felt in all honesty that he could not distinguish the two cases because they both involve window issues. However the fact that there are several other violations involved with the 904 Hinman case where additional renovations were made without permits, makes that case more significant. Chairman Wynne agreed adding her opinion in the 904 Hinman case where there is an obvious high degree of violation to the Preservation Ordinance and the City's building permit requirements. Mr. Chris Carey, Chair of the Preservation Commission, related that there are some other issues in this case as well. One being the fact that after the year 2002, they did replace 38 windows and at that time members of their board were aware of the Preservation Ordinance regulations. Aid. Newman again pointed out the difference in this case that no other violation to the permit process was committed except for their not receiving check -off approval from the Preservation Commission to replace those windows. Chairman Wynne P&D Committer MIS. Minutes of Sept. 13. ZOW Page 3 also recognized another distinguishing characteristic in this case is the fact that Raymond Park's Board discovered their own error and attempted to correct it whereas this is not the case with 904 Hinman. Mr. Wolinski also noted that with 904 Hinman it w-as a complete change of style with a replacement of casement windows to double -hung. This case is replacement of double -hung with another variation of double -hung window style. Ms. Szymanski addressed Chairman Wynne and the Committee with respect to their discussion, she noted that each building is different and unique. They both sit differently on their lots and have distinctive surroundings and features immediately adjacent to both properties. She noted even the windows on both buildings are different and unique in style. Therefore, she suggested to the Committee that they do not need to focus on this issue simply because the window replacements are not exactly like each other and must be considered as two separate issues. Ald. Newman agreed and assured that the Committee is more focusing on trying to come up with a coherent policy on when they will hear cases as final authoritative body versus going to Council. He believes in substantial cases where more serious or a combination of violations have been committed should be considered by the entire Council body. Otherwise the less substantial cases should stay at the P&D Committee level for finaf hearing. Chairman Wynne agreed with AU Newman and feels it is an acceptable approach to keep the more minor issues/cases here. Aid. Newman amended his motion to hold the hearing here at P&D in view of the consensus of the Committee's determination of this case as being considered fairly minor W nature. Aid. Bernstein said that he would like to have more standards in place to make the determination in classifying a case as minor versus more substantial. He noted that this determination is very subjective and needs to be clarified. Aid. Newman presented his determination as being able to clearly see or any change being obvious and effecting the building in a way that negatively affects the preservation of the structure. He said the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain its preserve to the look or original design essentially. He stated that this is his personal interpretation. He feels this case is minor because the way they are doing these windows compared to the way the Preservation Commission would like them to. in his opinion does not substantially effect the district or the building's nature as a landmark. Ald. Bernstein noted that if these windows are not visible from the walkway or the alleyway. then why does the Preservation Commission have this to begin with. Aid. Newman agreed that is a good point in this case; the windows are too high up and clearly not visible or noticeable with the replacement windows proposed versus the style preferred by the Commission. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Aid. Tisdahl said that although she voted in favor to hear the case at P&D, she does support the need to have guidelines in place for determining the definition in what should be considered minor versus substantial cases. Chairman Wynne began the hearing by referring to the citizen sign-up sheet first. Mr. Thomas Prairie, introduced himself as a member of the Preservation Commission but also representing himself as a resident of Evanston. He also informed that he has a P&D Committee Nitg. 'Minutes of sept. 13, 2004 Page 4 private architectural practice in Evanston specializing in working with older buildings and historical renovations of residential, commercial and institutional structures. He pointed out two areas of concern. One being with the applicant challenging the denial in seeking a certificate of appropriateness. He explained the Preservation Commission's position in reviewing this application and their consensus of the appropriateness for replacement of the windows proposed for metal clad instead of wooden as recommended. He said that this has been a consistent criterion in which the Preservation Commission has looked at a considered in comparison with historic buildings of the same category. He recognized that the recommended windows would require painting maintenance for upkeep versus the aluminum clad but would be more in compliance with the preservation of the original windows. Mr. Prairie stated the second concern was asking them to replace the 38 windows that were installed since 2001. He noted that the Preservation Commission didn't ask them to go back and replace any of the new windows that they installed since approximately 1982-84. However, the new windows were replaced after the Board was made aware of the requirement to have a certificate of appropriateness. He brought attention to a memo sent by Mr. Friedman to the Board of Directors in 2001 so stating this fact of awareness. Mr. Prairie said he finds this very upsetting in view of the fact that Mr. Friedman has a 30-year background of preservation experience and was a former Preservation Commissioner. He said it might be understandable from someone with no experience or awareness, however it is very hard to understand that in this case. He feels windows are a very important element of preservation consistency and it has been violated in this case. Aid. Newman raised several questions first whether the Preservation Commission inquired what it would cost to replace the 38 windows. Mr. Prairie responded that they were quoted a cost of approximately 575,000. There are 28 units in the building. Aid. Newman felt this is a significant cost per unit averaging around $3,000 per owner. He asked the location of the 38 windows. Mr. Friedman informed that 17 windows are on the street elevation. Mr. Ruiz clarified an important concern with the Preservation Commission is for the primary facades. So even with the 38 windows that were replaced, they realize some of the windows are not on the primary facade and this was clearly indicated that those windows were not as crucial in being replaced. He defined primary fagade as the sides directly facing the street. Aid. Newman asked if this also refers to the windows 8-stories up on the primary faVade sides. Mr. Ruiz responded yes because it is visible from the public way. Aid. Newman expressed his opinion that he finds this standard to be ridiculous. He said although he respects the Preservation Commission's work, he challenged anyone to go up to the building and be able to see any difference in the windows that are not wood. He personally went to the building to make this observation and admits that he could not tell the difference or ascertain any noticeable visible distinction between the windows even standing as close up to the first 2 stories. Therefore the higher up the windows, this visible difference assuredly can not be seen. Aid. Newman argued his point and stands behind his opinion that compliance to this standard is totally unnecessary and extreme. He noted tha the Preservation Ordinance has received criticism regarding windows because it is too nick -picky. He said this is a beautiful building and the Preservation Commission's decision is not going to make the building's appearance any better because you can not tell the difference with the P&D Comrmttee SUg. Minutes of S4T4, 13. 2DO4 Page c windows. He also pointed out that there were absolutely no complaints to the window replacements from any of the neighboring buildings and the error was brought to attention by the building owners and was not discovered by the Preservation Commission. He challenged for any member of the Commission to go over to the building with him and admit if they could actually see any visible difference in the 6 h through the 8's floor windows from the street level.' Mr. Prairie said that he respectfully disagrees with Aid. Newman. He asked if his implication is that they should only restrict themselves to the lower portion of the building. Ald. Newman responded yes if it is not visible from the street making it unnecessary to ask the building owners to replace the windows. He understands the Commission's point of view on appearance but in this case, it is not effecting the took of the building or impacting on the preservation of the building as well. Mr. Prairie pointed out that these windows are visible from the adjoining buildings at that height. Ald. Newman responded that he does not believe so if the windows at street level are not risibly noticeable. He can reasonably understand replacing the windows at street level if they were impacting but in this case, even those windows are not noticeable. He reiterated to have the entire building having to pay almost $3,000 per unit to replace these windows is excessive and going too far. He continued to argue his point that in the case of these particular windows, it is minor in comparison to preservation issue that relate to demolitions, physical changes and renovations to landmark buildings. Mr. Prairie responded that one of the purposes of the Preservation Commission is to preserve a building so it doesn't get to the point where it does get demolished or get eaten little by little to the point where it's original stature is destroyed. Aid. Bernstein asked if you could tell the difference if painted between the aluminum clad or wood window. Mr. Prairie responded that visually there would be no difference, however in actuality the materials and window are totally different. He said that what they are proposing is a replacement window that essentially was done here where they took the old sash out leaving the old frame to place, then slipping a new window within that opening also leaving the brick molding around the exterior. He said this basically changes the style and character of the original window that was once in place. He said it makes the width of the window slightly larger. Mr. Prairie noted that they compromised to go along with the modem wood windows but have a problem with the clad style. Chairman Wynne said that when she read through this application, acknowledging her support for the preservation issues in Evanston, she feels to some extent that she does not completely agree with Ald. Newman's position, however she does take into consideration the height of this building and the windows involved and also the maintenance of those windows with painting in the future. In her mind, she is surprised that the Preservation Commission permitted simulated divided tight because she feels this is where you can actually see the differences and is much more visible. She said in view of this, it would seem much more appreciated and reasonable to use the aluminum clad windows in place of the wooden over time. Mr. Prairie responded that with the simulated divided light windows there is the type where they are attached to the exterior and the interior of the glass and the divider inside and there is the type that just has a removable grill. Chairman Wynne asked if an option was given for either type of window. Mr. Prairie answered tha P&D Committee Nfig. '+tinutes of Sept. l:. 2004 Page 6 the Preservation Commission wanted the simulated divided light windows. Chairman Wynne stated that given more than 40a of the windows have already been replaced and that they are similar in design. she tends to agree that the building owners request for aluminum clad is not out of line and does not believe this to be a significant change in the window style. :also. she feels the maintenance issue is very important in a building of this size where there are not a great number of units that have to bear the cost. Mr. Ruiz pointed out to the Committee that he feels it is important to mention the Preservation Commission's thoughts on the simulated divided lights. He explained the reason why the Commission has adopted this style is because most people do want to have the energy efficiency rather than the single pane glass plus they will require storm windows as well. Therefore, he believes the Commission has accommodated to technology as well as taking energy efficiency into consideration. Aid. Tisdahl asked for more explanation as to why the building was recommended for the National Register when simulated windows had already been replaced. Mr. Friedman said that he moved in the building in the summer of 2000 and was shocked by the melange of windows throughout the structure. He noted that wood window had been replaced since the late 1970's and the Board of Director's was apparently unaware that there was any restrictions relating to preservation requirements for replacement of windows. He pointed out that this was before the Preservation Commission had binding review powers. In any case, the Board was ignorant of those aspects during the time of those window replacements. When the building was nominated as part of the historic apartment buildings, in which this building was a special nomination to the Park Service, the Board at that time voted and decided that they did not want to be listed on the National Register and did not want government interference in their building. He said when he moved into the building in 2000, he examined some of these issues and at that time suggested to the Board that they could get a resolution to the Park Service to list their building on the National Register. He said the Board agreed and had their attorney present the resolution in Springfield, resulting in the National Park Service placing the building on the National Register. Mr. Friedman referred the Committee to photographs he presented which show the building as it was in 2001 illustrating the aluminum clad windows that were replaced and the wood windows still in place. He pointed out that these photos show the great variety of windows in place at that time which apparently did not trouble the National Park Service because the building was still accepted on the National Register. Mr. Friedman noted that what Mr. Prairie accused him of is that he knew in 2001 that there was a requirement for a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the Preservation Commission. He informed that they were prepared to do this however at that time he recalled the building experienced a problem with a portion of the masonry wall separating and falling from the building. He said ever since that time the Board has been worried about keeping the building together and making major repairs so they did not go to the Preservation Commission in 2001 and ask for the certificate of appropriateness. However, what they did do was at least determine that all the replacement windows were to be the same manufacture, style and quality. Ald. Newman questioned why the preservation requirement with the windows was still not addressed at the same time with the falling masonry problem. Mr. Friedman responded in all honesty P&D Commirtee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 13. N*4 Page 7 that this issue just didn't come to realization as a priority in comparison to the life threatening situation of the building's failing structure at that time. llowever, he reiterated tha this matter was recognized soon after and %%as addressed immediately thereafter. Mr. John Macsai, gave his presentation in support of the appeal in concurrence with Mr. Friedman. He informed that he lives in the building and that he is the President of the Board of Directors. He presented several photos of the building to the Committee illustrating the current vendors in existence. These photos included illustrations of several different aspects. First, he pointed out the entire building as a whole showing the character of the structure as a very exciting, gothic and quirky individual type of building. He said that ideally the building should all have the original wood windows. He brought attention to a photo that illustrated an original wood window and confirmed that there are still several of these windows in existence in their building; several being the windows in his unit. Mr. Macsai stated that even if he does support the Preservation Commission efforts and the preservation of historic structures, it is unrealistic and very hard to maintain any original wood frame windows in this day and time. He pointed out the many problems with the existing wood windows preferred by the Commission with cracks and bug problems. Also in the winter they suffer with wind coming in through these windows and problems with heat control. He noted that the storm window concern was the first desecration, which occurred on this project. Mr. Nlacsai explained that the storm windows came in a variety of arrangements. He described the variety of windows in detail noting that many were too heavy to handle and operate with easement. He went on to describe the easier styles of windows to operate included the windows that have numerous divisions that require less light. lie noted that most varieties were unacceptable and totally not in compliance with the original window style or agreeable with the building in general. He noted that after several tests of different styles of windows the consensus of the Board, which consists of several architectural and preservation expertise individuals, was to go with the aluminum clad wood windows that are very similar to the standard wood windows requested by the Preservation Commission. He continued to describe in further detail the windows proposed versus the Commission's preference and argued in support of their choice of window. In conclusion, Mr. Macsai stated that he is here in representation of the Board for 1501 Hinman to appeal the decision of the Preservation Commission on a number of levels. He noted that they are asking in the future to only replace windows with wood. He stated that all they are asking is to allow them to have aluminum -covered wood the same color. He pointed out that he does not understand the stubborn position of the Commission regarding these windows. He read the guidelines regarding the standards for review under 2-9-9, paragraph 6 which states: "in the event replacement is necessary that new material should match the material being replaced in composition designed in color, texture, and other visual qualities." Mr. Macsai stated in his opinion, what they are proposing fulfills the required qualifications of this standard. The proposed windows are easier to maintain and are not going to deteriorate over time. He continued to address the Committee with his request that they would like to be able to utilize the windows proposed in light of their similarity of what the Preservation Commission request. These windows are also more economical and energy efficient. He feel the Commission is P&D Committee .Lttg. Minutes of Sept. 13.1_004 Page $ being totally unfair and unreasonable in not taking their points into consideration as well as the economic hardship involved. He agreed with Aid. Newman that they would be willing to address the first and second floor %%indows if necessary because they are at street level %iew. But to require this same standard and request replacement of the upper Moor levels is unrealistic. Mr. Macsai requested to the P&D Committee to take into consideration their request to please not penalize them on this issue. He feels it is totally uncalled for to ask them to replace the 17 windows or not to allow the replacement of the windows that have arrived and are waiting to be installed. He pleaded with the Committee to allow them to do and to take into consideration the economic hardship that their building owners would incur to go back and replace windows. He thanked the Committee for hearing is presentation. Aid. Newman reiterated his argument and position in that you can not possibly see most of the majority of the windows. He totally feels in this case that the Preservation Commission is carried away. He specified his support in preserving landmark buildings and structures, however in this particular case involving these windows, it is not significant in his mind and he definitely considers this minor in comparison of the proposed windows versus the windows preferred by the Preservation Commission. He also views this case as minor in comparison to other preservation cases where the ordinance has clearly be violated. Aid. Newman also pointed out that an important factor in this case is that there are two architects involved here, which he has trouble in the fact that if even they don't clearly understand the preservation ordinance then how can they expect anyone else to. He noted his respect for Mr. Friedman and Mr. Macsai in their architectural backgrounds and the time volunteered over the years to the Boards and Commissions they have served on. He assured that they are both well meaning and constructive individuals. Aid. Newman also questioned the Preservation Commission's position in regards to recognizing financial difficulties in their requests for compliance to their ordinance. To expect the unit owners to come up with additional funds to replace the existing windows at a rate of 33,000 per unit on top of what they have already paid with the replacement windows that are so similar, in insensitive and excessive of the standard in the ordinance. He stands in support of the applicant and their good faith effort to comply in consideration of their initiative to come forward and address the issue. Ms. Susan Rundle, informed that she is a Preservation Commissioner and also an architect. She stated in regards to preservation, windows are a very important matter and do make a difference in the preservation of historical significance. As it has already been discussed here it is subjective in how far to let it go before it does make a difference. She noted when people come before them the Commission makes a point to work with the applicant on issue of economic hardship and try to apply a certain amount of leeway. However they do have standards that they have to meet. She stwsscd to the Committee that the standards are what guide the Commission's decisions. She said these standards are provided and the Commission asks that the applicant prepares or restates their case against are in consideration of these standards. She specified that the standards of the P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page 4 ordinance need to apply to everyone and every case and that is what the Commission is bound by. She realized it is unfortunate and may seem unfair in some cases. however, the standards must be considered in all cases. Mr. Ruiz followed up with reading Standard =6 in the ordinance. fie pointed out that the Preservation Commission is trying to be consistent with the standards in all cases. Their determination with the standards is not based on minor cases versus significant cases as P&D has implied in comparison. Aid. Tisdahl asked how much leeway does the Preservation Commission have in making their decisions; are they allowed to take economics into consideration. In any case, financial hardships should always be considered. She feels it would be extremely difficult for the building owners to spend any more money tearing out practically new windows and replacing them with more new windows that are more costly to maintain and look basically the saute. Mr. Ruiz assured that economics are always taken into consideration and the Commission tries to Rork with the applicant by suggesting several different methods or materials that can be used when possible. Aid. Kent expressed his opinion that he would have to agree with the Preservation Commission, especially Ms. Rundle's comments regarding their being bound by the standards. He feels the standards are there and are fair if they are used and across the board in every case. He brought up the case where the Preservation Commission was involved with the 1817 Church Street building where their advice was taken and complied with. The Commission worked together with the building developer throughout the rehab work. He supports the Preservation Commission's vote and that they are on target with what the preservation ordinance states. He regrets any economic hardship on anyone and would like to see some type of compromise done only with the request to have to replace the 38 windows that have already been done. He agrees that this would be an excessive expense on the property owners. Aid. Bernstein does not want to see the Preservation Commission taking so much abuse for doing what they are expected to do and following the standards of the ordinance to which they are bound. However when there is an expense involved to this nature, he too feels that this request is excessive. He is especially persuaded by the fact that you literally can not tell the windows from each other and the windows proposed by the Board are less expensive to maintain. Ms. Szymanski pointed out to the Committee that the in Standard 46, the word "should" is used versus using the word "shall". The latter word is more binding and giving no option. Chairman Wynne brought up another point that to replace the existing windows from 200I would really be unreasonable because those windows are still considered new. She associates this also with the economic hardship standard as well. Aid. Newman wished to respond to the comments made with regards to "attacking" or "abusing" the Preservation Commission. He clarified that is not his intent, however he is P&D Comminee tittg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page 10 challenging the standard within the ordinance that the Commission must abide by. He said that there has to be some leeway in certain cases where intelligent solutions must be compromised. He acknowledged that the Preservation Commission is very conscientious. Aid. Newman moved to uphold the appeal in favor of the applicant, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Kent asked for the Board to elaborate on what they ate willing to compromise with the Preservation Commission, even though he will probably be voting against upholding the appeal because he still feels that the Commission's decision was a fair vote. Mr. Macsai reiterated the Board's plan. The vole was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman moved to adopt the plan presented by the appellant, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4 in favor of the motion and I voting nay (Aid. Kent). Aid. Newman said for the record that he feels this ordinance needs to be reviewed and amendments made to clarify some issues. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1I Ordinance 28-0-04 -- Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston City Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code This item was held over for discussion at the September 27`b meeting. COMMUNICATIONS (PD2) Planned Develoament — 801 Chicaeo Avenue The Committee accepted the letter of withdrawal from Neil Ornoff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquelt� E. B wnlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee :Minutes of September 13, 2004 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, A. Alterson, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. She apologized for the delay in starting due to the Executive Session held previously. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 16. 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the August 16'h minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) 90-0-04 - Variation for 525 Sherman (Width and Location of Parkine Space) Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicant/owner of property, Mr. John Darin. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Darin to elaborate on his variance request. Mr. Darin explained his proposal is to utilize the only effective portion of the present driveway being within the front yard by removing the existing paving between the house and the south lot line which will improve drainage and storm water on the property. He said the driveway is the narrowest point between the street and the garage therefore their proposal is to widen the area to 6.9 foot wide and provide open parking in the front yard. He noted that there is no alley access to their garage. With no further questions or explanation Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) 1501 Hinman - Anneal of the Preservation Commission Decision Chairman Wynne stated that this appeal is to a decision regarding the windows in the Raymond Park Building. She noted that the P&D Committee has two decisions to make here; first having to determine who the final hearing body is going to be - either this Committee or Council. She said the option being P&D as the recommending body to Council and Council as the final hearing body. Aid. Newman preferred if they could avoid having Council as the final hearing body and keep this at the Committee level. Legal staff confirmed this to be satisfactory if it is the consensus and decision of the P&D Committce 1`tte. Minutes of Sept. 13. 1004 Page 2 Committee. Chairrnsri Wynne sated that this is an issue, unlike some of their other issues. where it would be appropriate to keep here. Mr. Wolinski reminded that the Committee could also choose to not have a hearing and just to deny the appeal. Ald. Newman moved that P&D hold the hearing for the appeal. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion approved with a tote of 5-0. Chairman Wynne then addressed the second decision of the Committee is to whether they are the final hearing authority or Council. Aid. Newman expressed his concern for the ret of the Council possibly feeling that this Committee is excluding them, however on the other hand, it makes a lot more sense to end this at P&D in considering the matter involved in this case. He asked staff if there are any more of these appeals in the pipeline? Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee that the case at 904 Hinman is still pending. Chairman Wynne noted that particular case is at the Council level for final hearing body and decision. Aid. Newman's opinion is to hold the hearing here at P&D and that this Committee also be the final authoritative body because they have time tonight to give to Ns case and he suggested that it be explained by P&D's Chair that we should hear from the other Council members whether it is acceptable by them in the future to do this. He questioned what the policy should be on this matter and feels that this policy decision should be clarified and agreed upon by the entire Council. Aid. Bernstein asked for clarification in the case of 904 Hinman and as to whether the applicant would have some appeal problem if in fact they chose to hear it as a subcommittee. Aid. Newman and Chairman Wynne recalled the situation to do with timing because the time frame allowance was expired and they agreed to accept this in lieu of Council agreeing to allow a time extension for staff to address this issue with the applicant. Chairman Wynne said that from a policy standpoint, this Committee could decide to have these appeals all stop here or could choose to be the recommending advisory body to Council as the final hearing body. She further suggested on that note that the policy consideration could be to define less significant cases were P&D would be the final authoritative body versus more significant cases that Council would hear. In light of that point of view, Aid. Newman felt this case could be considered less significant and handled at the P&D Committee level for final authority. In response to Chairman Wynne's question on distinguishing this case versus the 904 Hinman case in level of significance, Ald. Newman felt in all honesty that he could not distinguish the two cases because they both involve window issues. However the fact that there are several other violations involved with the 904 Hinman case where additional renovations were made without permits, makes that case more significant. Chairman VVynne agreed adding her opinion in the 904 Hinman case where there is an obvious high degree of violation to the Preservation Ordinance and the City's building permit requirements. Mr. Chris Carey, Chair of the Preservation Commission, related that there are some other issues in this case as well. One being the fact that after the year 2002, they did replace 38 windows and at that time members of their board were aware of the Preservation Ordinance regulations. Aid. Newman again pointed out the difference in this case that no other violation to the permit process was committed except for their not receiving check -off approval from the Preservation Commission to replace those windows. Chairman Wynne P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page 3 also recognized another distinguishing characteristic in this case is the fact that Raymond Park's Board discovered their own error and attempted to correct it whereas this is not the case with 904 Hinman. Mr. Wolinski also noted that with 904 Hinman it was a complete change of style with a replacement of casement windows to double -hung. This case is replacement of double -hung with another variation of double -hung window style. Ms. Szymanski addressed Chairman Wynne and the Committee with respect to their discussion, she noted that each building is different and unique. They both sit differently on their lots and have distinctive surroundings and features immediately adjacent to both properties. She noted even the windows on both buildings are different and unique in style. Therefore, she suggested to the Committee that they do not need to focus on this issue simply because the window replacements are not exactly like each other and must be considered as two separate issues. Aid. Newman agreed and assured that the Committee is more focusing on trying to come up with a coherent policy on when they will hear cases as final authoritative body versus going to Council. He believes in substantial cases where more serious or a combination of violations have been committed should be considered by the entire Council body. Otherwise the less substantial cases should May at the P&D Committee level for final hearing. Chairman Wynne agreed with Aid. Newman and feels it is an acceptable approach to keep the more minor issues/cases here. Aid. Newman amended his motion to bold the hearing here at P&D in view of the consensus of the Committee's determination of this case as being considered fairly minor in nature. Aid. Bernstein said that he would like to have more standards in place to make the determination in classifying a case as minor versus more substantial. He noted that this determination is eery subjective and needs to be clarified. Aid. Newman presented his determination as being able to clearly see or any change being obvious and effecting the building in a way that negatively affects the preservation of the structure. He said the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain its preserve to the look or original design essentially. He stated that this is his personal interpretation. He feels this case is minor because the way they are doing these windows compared to the way the Preservation Commission would like them to, in his opinion does not substantially effect the district or the building's nature as a landmark. Aid. Bernstein noted that if these windows are not visible from the walkway or the alleyway, then why does the Preservation Commission have this to begin with. Aid. Newman agreed that is a good point in this case; the windows are too high up and clearly not visible or noticeable with the replacement windows proposed versus the style preferred by the Commission. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Aid. Tisdahl said that although she voted in favor to hear the case at P&D, she does support the need to have guidelines in place for determining the definition in what should be considered minor versus substantial cases. Chairman Wynne began the hearing by referring to the citizen sign-up sheet first. Mr. Thomas Prairie, introduced himself as a member of the Preservation Commission but also representing himself as a resident of Evanston. He also informed that he has a P&a Comminee %fig. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page .t private architectural practice in Evanston specializing in working with older buildings and historical renovations of residential, commercial and institutional structures. He pointed out two areas of concern. One being with the applicant challenging the denial in seeking a certificate of appropriateness. He explained the Preservation Commission's position in reviewing this application and their consensus of the appropriateness for replacement of the windows proposed for metal clad instead of wooden as recommended. He said that this has been a consistent criterion in which the Preservation Commission has looked at a considered in comparison with historic buildings of the same category. He recognized that the recommended windows would require painting maintenance for upkeep versus the aluminum clad but would be more in compliance with the preservation of the original windows. Mr. Prairie stated the second concern was asking them to replace the 38 windows that were installed since 2001. He noted that the Preservation Commission didn't ask them to go back and replace any of the new windows that they installed since approximately 1982-84. However, the new windows were replaced after the Board was made aware of the requirement to have a certificate of appropriateness. He brought attention to a memo sent by Mr. Friedman to the Board of Directors in 2001 so stating this fact of awareness. Mr. Prairie said he finds this very upsetting in view of the fact that Mr. Friedman has a 30-year background of preservation experience and was a former Preservation Commissioner. He said it might be understandable from someone with no experience or awareness, however it is very hard to understand that in this case. He feels windows are a very important element of preservation consistency and it has been violated in this case. Aid. Newman raised several questions first whether the Preservation Commission inquired what it would cost to replace the 38 windows. Mr. Prairie responded that they were quoted a cost of approximately $75,000. There are 28 units in the building.. Aid. Newman felt this is a significant cost per unit averaging around $3,000 per owner. He asked the location of the 38 windows. Mr. Friedman informed that 17 windows are on the street elevation. Mr. Ruiz clarified an important concern with the Preservation Commission is for the primary facades. So even with the 38 windows that were replaced, they realize some of the windows are not on the primary fagade and this was clearly indicated that those windows were not as crucial in being replaced. He defined primary fa*e as the sides directly facing the street. Aid. Newman asked if this also refers to the windows 8-stories up on the primary faVade sides. Mr. Ruiz responded yes because it is visible from the public way. Aid. Newman expressed his opinion that he finds this standard to be ridiculous. He said although he respects the Preservation Commission's work, he challenged anyone to go up to the building and be able to see any difference in the windows that are not wood. He personally went to the building to make this observation and admits that he could not tell the difference or ascertain any noticeable visible distinction between the windows even standing as close up to the first 2 stories. Therefore the higher up the windows, this visible difference assuredly can not be seen. Aid. Newman argued his point and stands behind his opinion that compliance to this standard is totally unnecessary and extreme. He noted tha the Preservation Ordinance has received criticism regarding windows because it is too nick -picky. He said this is a beautiful building and the Preservation Commission's decision is not going to make the building's appearance any better because you can not tell the difference with the PSD Committee %itg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page S %indoµ's. He also pointed out that there were absolutely no complaints to the window replacements from any of the neighboring buildings and the error was brought to attention by the building owners and was not discovered by the Preservation Commission. He challenged for any member of the Commission to go over to the building with him and admit if they could actually see any visible difference in the 6" through the 8`s floor windows from the street level. Mr. Prairie said that he respectfully disagrees with Aid. Newman. He asked if his implication is that they should only restrict themselves to the lower portion of the building. Aid. Neuman responded yes if it is not visible from the street making it unnecessary to ask the building oAmers to replace the windows. He understands the Commission's point of view on appearance but in this case, it is not effecting the look of the building or impacting on the preservation of the building as well. Mr. Prairie pointed out that these windows are visible from the adjoining buildings at that height. Aid. Newman responded that he does not believe so if the windows at street level are not visibly noticeable. He can reasonably understand replacing the windows at street level if they were impacting but in this case, even those windows are not noticeable. He reiterated to have the entire building having to pay almost S3,000 per unit to replace these windows is excessive and going too far. He continued to argue his point that in the case of these particular windows, it is minor in comparison to preservation issue that relate to demolitions, physical changes and renovations to landmark buildings. Mr. Prairie responded that one of the purposes of the Preservation Commission is to preserve a building so it doesn't get to the point where it does get demolished or get eaten little by little to the point where it's original stature is destroyed. Aid. Bernstein asked if you could tell the difference if painted between the aluminum clad or wood window. Mr. Prairie responded that visually there would be no difference. however in actuality the materials and window are totally different. He said that what they are proposing is a replacement window that essentially was done here where they took the old sash out leaving the old frame in place, then slipping a new window within that opening also leaving the brick molding around the exterior. He said this basically changes the style and character of the original window that was once in place. He said it makes the width of the window slightly larger. Mr. Prairie noted that they compromised to go along with the modern wood windows but have a problem with the clad style. Chairman Wynne said that when she read through this application, acknowledging her support for the preservation issues in Evanston, she feels to some extent that she does not completely agree with Aid. Newman's position. however she does take into consideration the height of this building and the windows involved and also the maintenance of those windows with painting in the future. In her mind, she is surprised that the Preservation Commission permitted simulated divided light because she feels this is where you can actually see the differences and is much more visible. She said in view of this, it would seem much more appreciated and reasonable to use the aluminum clad windows in place of the wooden over time. Mr. Prairie responded that with the simulated divided light windows there is the type where they are attached to the exterior and the interior of the glass and the divider inside and there is the type that just has a removable grill. Chairman Wynne asked if an option was given for either type of window. Mr. Prairie answered tha P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page 6 the Preservation Commission wanted the simulated divided light %�induws. Chairman Wynne stated that given more than 40% of the %%indows have already been replaced and that they are similar in design. she tends to agree that the building owners request for aluminum clad is not out of line and does not believe this to be a significant change in the window style. Also, she feels the maintenance issue is very important in a building of this size where there are not a great number of units that have to bear the cost. Mr. Ruiz pointed out to the Committee that he feels it is important to mention the Preservation Commission's thoughts on the simulated divided lights. He explained the reason why the Commission has adopted this style is because most people do want to have the energy efficiency rather than the single pane glass plus they will require storm windows as well. Therefore, he believes the Commission has accommodated to technology as well as taking energy efficiency into consideration. Aid. Tisdahl asked for more explanation as to why the building was recommended for the National Register when simulated windows had already been replaced. Mr. Friedman said that he moved in the building in the summer of 2000 and was shocked by the melange of windows throughout the structure. He noted that wood window had been replaced since the late 1970's and the Board of Director's was apparently unaware that there was any restrictions relating to preservation requirements for replacement of windows. He pointed out that this was before the Presmation Commission had binding review powers. In any case, the Board was ignorant of those aspects during the time of those window replacements. When the building was nominated as part of the historic apartment buildings, in which this building was a special nomination to the Park Service, the Board at that time voted and decided that they did not want to be listed on the National Register and did not want government interference in their building. He said when he moved into the building in 2000, he examined some of these issues and at that time suggested to the Board that they could get a resolution to the Park Service to list their building on the National Register. He said the Board agreed and had their attorney present the resolution in Springfield, resulting in the National Park Service placing the building on the National Register. Mr. Friedman referred the Committee to photographs he presented which show the building as it was in 2001 illustrating the aluminum clad windows that were replaced and the wood windows still in place. He pointed out that these photos show the great variety of windows in place at that time which apparently did not trouble the National Park Service because the building was still accepted on the National Register. Mr. Friedman noted that what fir. Prairie accused him of is that he knew in 2001 that there was a requirement for a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the Preservation Commission. He informed that they were prepared to do this however at that time he recalled the building experienced a problem with a portion of the masonry wall separating and falling from the building. He said ever since that time the Board has been worried about keeping the building together and making major repairs so they did not go to the Preservation Commission in 2001 and ask for the certificate of appropriateness. However, what they did do was at least determine that all the replacement windows were to be the same manufacture, style and quality. Aid. Newman questioned why the preservation requirement with the windows was still not addressed at the same time with the falling masonry problem. Mr. Friedman responded in all honesty P3D Committee ,ttg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2004 Page 7 that this issue just didn't come to realization as a priority in comparison to the life threatening situation of the building's failing structure at that time. However, he reiterated tha this matter was recognized s� -ln after and was addressed immediately thereafter. Mr. John Macsai, gave his presentation in support of the appeal in concurrence with Mr. Friedman. He informed that he lives in the building and that he is the President of the Board of Directors. He presented several photos of the building to the Committee illustrating the current vendors in existence. These photos included illustrations of several different aspects. First, he pointed out the entire building as a whole showing the character of the structure as a very exciting. gothic and quirky individual type of building. He said that ideally the building should all have the original wood windows. He brought attention to a photo that illustrated an original wood window and confirmed that there are still several of these windows in existence in their building; several being the windows in his unit. Mr. Macsai stated that even if he does support the Preservation Commission efforts and the preservation of historic structures, it is unrealistic and very hard to maintain any original wood frame windows in this day and time. lie pointed out the many problems with the existing wood windows preferred by the Commission with cracks and bug problems. Also in the winter they suffer with wind coming in through these windows and problems with heat control. He noted that the storm window concern was the first desecration, which occurred on this project. Mr. Macsai explained that the storm windows came in a variety of arrangements. He described the variety of windows in detail noting that many were too heavy to handle and operate with easement. He went on to describe the easier styles of windows to operate included the windows that have numerous divisions that require less light. He noted that most varieties were unacceptable and totally not in compliance with the original window style or agreeable with the building in general. He noted that after several tests of different styles of windows the consensus of the Board, which consists of several architectural and preservation expertise individuals, was to go with the aluminum clad wood windows that are very similar to the standard wood windows requested b-, the Preservation Commission. He continued to describe in further detail the windows proposed versus the Commission's preference and argued in support of their choice of %window. In conclusion, Mr. Macsai stated that he is here in representation of the Board for 1501 Hinman to appeal the decision of the Preservation Commission on a number of levels. He noted that they are asking in the future to only replace windows with wood. He stated that all they are asking is to allow them to have aluminum -covered wood the same color. He pointed out that he does not understand the stubborn position of the Commission regarding these windows. He read the guidelines regarding the standards for review under 2-9-9, paragraph 6 which states: "in the event replacement is necessary that new material should match the material being replaced in composition designed in color, texture, and other visual qualities." Mr. Nfacsai stated in his opinion. what they are proposing fulfills the required qualifications of this standard. The proposed windows are easier to maintain and are not going to deteriorate over time. He continued to address the Committee with his request that they would like to be able to utilize the windows proposed in light of their similarity of what the Preservation Commission request. These windows are also more economical and energy. efficient. He feel the Commission is P&D Committee ittg. Minutes of Sept. 13, 2004 Page 8 being totally unfair and unreasonable in not taking their points into consideration as well as the economic hardship involved. Ile agreed with Ald. Newman that they would be willing to address the first and second floor windows if necessary because they are at street level view. But to require this same standard and request replacement of the upper floor levels is unrealistic. Mr. Macsai requested to the P&D Committee to take into consideration their request to please not penalize them on this issue. He feels it is totally uncalled for to ask them to replace the 17 windows or not to allow the replacement of the windows that have arrived and are waiting to be installed. He pleaded with the Committee to allow them to do and to take into consideration the economic hardship that their building owners would incur to go back and replace windows. He thanked the Committee for hearing is presentation. Aid. Neumian reiterated his argument and position in that you can not possibly see most of the majority of the windows. He totally feels in this case that the Preservation Commission is carried away. He specified his support in preserving landmark buildings and structures, however in this particular case involving these windows, it is not significant in his mind and he definitely considers this minor in comparison of the proposed windows versus the windows preferred by the Preservation Commission. He also views this case as minor in comparison to other preservation cases where the ordinance has clearly be violated. Ald. Newman also pointed out that an important factor in this case is that there are two architects involved here, which he has trouble in the fact that if even they don't clearly understand the preservation ordinance then how can they expect anyone else to. He noted his respect for Mr. Friedman and Mr. Macsai in their architectural backgrounds and the time volunteered over the years to the Boards and Commissions they have served on. He assured that they are both well meaning and constructive individuals. Aid. Newman also questioned the Preservation Commission's position in regards to recognizing financial difficulties in their requests for compliance to their ordinance. To expect the unit owners to come up with additional funds to replace the existing windows at a rate of S3,000 per unit on top of what they have already paid with the replacement windows that are so similar, in insensitive and excessive of the standard in the ordinance. He stands in support of the applicant and their good faith effort to comply in consideration of their initiative to come forward and address the issue. Ms. Susan Rundle, informed that she is a Preservation Commissioner and also an architect. She stated in regards to preservation, windows are a very important matter and do make a difference in the preservation of historical significance. As it has already been discussed here it is subjective in how far to let it go before it does make a difference. She noted when people come before them the Commission makes a point to work with the applicant on issue of economic hardship and try to apply a certain amount of leeway. However they do have standards that they have to meet. She stressed to the Committee that the standards are what guide the Commission's decisions. She said these standards are provided and the Commission asks that the applicant prepares or restates their case against are in consideration of these standards. She specified that the standards of the P&D Comm inee Nita. Minutes of Sept. 13. 2org Page 9 ordinance need to apply to everyone and every case and that is what the Commission is bound by. She realized it is unfortunate and may seem unfair in some cases. however, the standards must be considered in all cases. Mr. Ruiz followed up with reading Standard 06 in the ordinance. He pointed out that the Preservation Commission is trying to be consistent with the standards in all cases. Their determination with the standards is not based on minor cases versus significant cases as P&D has implied in comparison. Aid. Tisdahl asked how- much leeway does the Preservation Commission have in making their decisions: are they allowed to take economics into consideration. In any case, financial hardships should always be considered. She feels it would be extremely difficult for the building owners to spend any more money tearing out practically new windows and replacing them with more new windows that are more costly to maintain and look basically the same. Mr. Ruiz assured that economics are always taken into consideration and the Commission lies to work with the applicant by suggesting several different methods or materials that can be used when possible. Aid. Kent expressed his opinion that he would have to agree with the Preservation Commission, especially Ms. Rundle's comments regarding their being bound by the standards. He feels the standards are there and are fair if they are used and across the board in every case. He brought up the case where the Preservation Commission was involved with the 1817 Church Street building where their advice was taken and complied with. The Commission worked together with the building developer throughout the rehab work. He supports the Preservation Commission's Vote and that they are on target with what the preservation ordinance states. He regrets any economic hardship on anyone and would like to see some type of compromise done only with the request to have to replace the 38 windows that have already been done. He agrees that this would be an excessive expense on the property o%%mers. Aid. Bernstein does not want to see the Preservation Commission taking so much abuse for doing what they are expected to do and following the standards of the ordinance to which they are bound. However when there is an expense involved to this nature, he too feels that this request is excessive. He is especially persuaded by the fact that you literally can not tell the windows from each other and the windows proposed by the Board are less expensive to maintain. Ms. Szymanski pointed out to the Committee that the in Standard t*6, the word "should" is used versus using the word "shall". The latter word is more binding and giting no option. Chairman Wynne brought up another point that to replace the existing windows from 2001 would really be unreasonable because those windows are still considered new. She associates this also with the economic hardship standard as well. Aid. Newman wished to respond to the comments made with regards to "attacking" or "abusing" the Preservation Commission. He clarified that is not his intent, however he is P&D Committee Sltg. Minutes of Sept. 13. 20D4 Page 10 challenging the standard within the ordinance that the Commission must abide by. He said that there has to be some leeway in certain cases where intelligent solutions must be compromised. He acknowledged that the Preservation Commission is very conscientious. Aid. Newman moved to uphold the appeal in favor of the applicant, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Kent asked for the Board to elaborate on what they are willing to compromise with the Preservation Commission, even though he will probably be voting against upholding the appeal because he still feels that the Commission's decision was a fair vote. Mr. Macsai reiterated the Board's plan. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman moved to adopt the plan presented by the appellant, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4 in favor of the motion and I voting nay (Aid. Kent). Aid. Newman said for the record that he feels this ordinance needs to be reviewed and amendments made to clarify some issues. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI) Ordinance 28-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code This item was held over for discussion at the September 27's meeting, COMMUNICATIONS fPD2) Planned Development — 801 Chicago Avenue The Committee accepted the letter of withdrawal from "veil Ornoff. ADJOUR1NMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueli}� E. Bi+oK•nlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 27, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: A. Nev.-man, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein, J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chaimian Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. She announced that Aid. Bernstein would be absent this evening and that Aid. Kent is expected to join at Council later this evening. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the September 13th minutes, seconded by Aid. Newman. The minutes were approved with a vote of 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1) 944)-04 -- Zoning Maa Amendment. National Louis University Pmnerty Chairman Wynne acknowledged that three people had signed up to speak in regards to this matter and wished to call on them first. Mr. John Haser, said that he lives at 900 Isabella Street which is directly across the street from National Louis University dormitories that is being considered for the zoning amendment. He informed that when he attended the Plan Commission meeting he made the similar statement that the dormitory is currently surrounded by R1 completely before it was even a dorm and the University had been R1 property as well. He said they are hoping that if this property will be considered to convert back to RI if it is not being used as a dormitory for university purposes. He feels this conversion will help the value of the property for the entire surrounding community. Mr. Haser also expressed major concern with existing traffic problems at that intersection and the number of children that cross there. He informed that a number of accidents have occurred at that intersection over the last 3-years that he has lived there. He is hoping for any relief that can be done to minimize traffic and pedestrian problems, will be taken into consideration for that intersection. P&D Commence Hite Minutes of 9-,''-04 - Page 2 Chairman Wynne mentioned for information. that that corner's traffic signal has been slated to be changed in the near future. Mr. Haser acknowledged that he has been made aware of this and is grateful and hopes it %%ill also aid in the safety of children crossing at that light. Chairman %V%nne said she fully understands. mentioning a similar situation in her ward on Forest Avenue with traffic congestion and children crossing at this intersection. Mr. Harry Foley. 2766 Ridge, said that he lives at the last address on Ridge next to 900 Isabella. He has lived at this address for the past 5 years and have truly enjoyed their residency at this location for a number of reasons including the proximity to the university atmosphere in combination with the RI residential living. lie stated that this ideal living environment is why he and his wife chose this specific location to live. In view of this, he stated that most likely they would choose to move if the National Louis property were zoned or developed anything other than R I . Ald. Newman asked for clarification if Mr. Foley is saying that even if the property is zoned R2 that he would still have this opinion. In follow-up response to this, Mr. Alterson verified that even under R2 zoning would allow for single-family development with less required square footage per lot. Mr. Foley responded that even with this information, he would still prefer the RI zoning for the property over all. Ms. Enid Shapiro, lives at 28I5 Sheridan. She informed that her residence is in close proximity to the National Louis campus. She feels that in consideration that this property is completely surrounded by R I zoned property, it would be completely appropriate to rezone back to R1 as well. She stressed the need to preserve, maintain, and endorse any opportunity for R1 single-family development in light of the City's current saturation of commercial and multi -family development. She urged the Committee to consider this important factor that that it is especially for an area that is predominately R1 zoned. Chairman Wynne called on others who wished to speak at this time that were unable to sign the citizen comment sheet. She also asked if a representative from National Louis was present to make comment. Staff confirmed that notification of this meeting was forwarded to their representatives. There was no one in attendance representing the university. Mr. Junad Rizki, 2708 Sheridan, recalled his comments and summarization made at the Plan Commission meeting regarding this mater that this basically meets the standards of E the zoning requirements for Rl. He said that this is probably the most important factor in considering the zoning and future development for this site. He requested the Committee to strongly consider the factors outlined and the standards met to rezone this property to R1. Mr. John Austin, 2801 Gerard, said that he lives approximately a block away from the National Louis University dormitory. He emphasized to the Committee that historically this property came to National Louis as a gift. Therefore any consideration on the sympathy of National Louis making any substantial profit to gain on the sale of the property in light of the zoning, should be minimal. He feels the University has always P&D Committee Mtz. titinuies of 9.27-04 Page 3 profited on their here as a gift from the beginning. Mr. Austin requested that the Committee keep this information in consideration of the rezoning of the property to Rl to benefit all the Surrounding community. Ms. Susan. 811 Roslyn Place. expressed her concerns for the safety of children crossing at the intersection of Isabella. Ridge, and Sheridan. She is in total support of rezoning the National Louis property to R 1 to match the surrounding single-family zoning. She has spoken with all the residents on Roslyn Place and swears that all are in support of rezoning the university property back to residential. Chairman Wynne closed citizen comment. Aid. Newman stated that from his understanding, this is about .73 acres on a total of 6.7 acres. In addition to this, there has been notice of all meetings sent out to the representatives of National Louis as well as the residents. He noted that they can continue to use the property as a university and sell for continued use as a university. However, what they can't do is take down the buildings around the .73 acres. Staff' verified this to be true. Ald. Newman moved that they make that portion of the .73 of the 6.7 acres as RI zoning. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Alterson if a university has to continue in the current use as a dormitory or could it be converted to some other similar use. Mr. Alterson responded that the Zoning Ordinance allows it to be continued with a use of the same or lesser intensity. Aid. Newman reminded that if someone comes along requesting to continue the same use, this could qualify for another 50 years. The motion was approved with a vote of 3-0 in favor of the motion. A1d. Newman asked on the .73 acres with RI lot size requirements, how much can be built there. It was pointed out that 4 houses could be built_ Mr. Wolinski informed that an acres is 40,000 square feet and you need 7,200 square feet per residential structure. Aid. Tisdahl thanked her constituents that attended the meeting this evening on behalf of this matter. She explained that this would be introduced this evening before Council with final approval at the next meeting in 2-weeks. Mr. Wolinski informed that Corporation Council reviewed the transcript from the Plan Commission and felt that significant findings were not made. Therefore, legal staff recommended that the Committee consider that staff work Mth the Committee to come up with findings to meet the standards. Aid. Newman suggested that legal staff do some recommended findings based on the transcript and factual testimony in the transcript since the P&D Committee is in possession of this. Therefore. it was the consensus of the Committee that this matter will be introduced and referred back to Committee giving legal staff the opportunity to come back with findings or the standards for formulation of the final ordinance. (P2) Plat of Subdivision — Sherman Plaza Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this is a ministerial act on their part. Chairman Wynne questioned if this can be done without Ms. Aiello's input. Aid. Newman pointed out that the questions he has regarding this matter are of an executive P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of 9-27.04 Page .t session level and he is not comfortable %%ith proceeding without comment from Ms. Aiello. She was called over to the P&D meeting. Aid. Newman asked when did this subdivision go into effect. 'pis. Aiello responded that this wouldn't feet recorded until they do the actual swap closing which can not be done until all the conditions have been met. Aid. Newman said they are approving this subject to both parties completing the swap and the developer receitiing final confirmation of all findings, etc. Ms. Aiello concurred. He requested that this be understood by Council because this divides the property into 4 lots and should be clarified on all issues. Ms. Aiello agreed. Chairman W,.nne stated that this is subject to the swap which is also subject to the redevelopment agreement. Aid. Newman asked if this is a request of the developer. Ms. Aiello responded that they would like to have it all done because they are looking to close October I5'h and this gives them a little extra time to finalize paper work for the sway. In view of this scenario, Aid. Newman recommended to give the City Manager the authority to make this subdivision conditional on that project be initiated on the construction of the Sherman Plaza. Chairman Wynne questioned what the ordinance states. Ms. Aiello explained that this is not an ordinance but a motion by Council. Therefore, this would be subject to the swap closing conditions being met. Aid. Newman suggested that this could be held until the next meeting. Nis. Aiello noted there is a request from the developers to suspend the rules for the amendment in order to allow time to get all the paperwork done and be ready by closing date. There was a consensus of the Committee to hold this until the October 11'h meeting and would not effect the process. Therefore Aid. Newman recommended in agreement with the other Committee members, to give the City Manager's Office the authority to do the subdivision conditional on the project going forward with closing on October 15"' as planned. Ms. Aiello stated that they would not release this until signed off' as part of the conditions with closing. The Committee directed Nis. Aiello to prepare something in writing to this effect to go before Council this evening. Ms. Aiello complied. Aid. Newman moved approval to give authority to the City Manager to go forward and approve the subdivision subject to the land swap agreement being met. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (P3) 715 Sheridan Road Resubdivision Plat Mr. James Murray announced that he was here on behalf of the owner. He gave an overview of their request for plat approval to divide the existing 57.000 square foot lot into two lots with the results of one lot being approximately 20.000 and the other lot being the remainder. The larger of the lot, being approximately 37.000 square feet would have the existing residence on it. The owner proposes to construct a new residence in the character of the existing residence on the smaller lot that will be more remote from Sheridan Road. Aid. Newman pointed out that in order to construct the new residence it will have to meet the approval of the Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray informed that this matter has been through the Preservation Commission and they did not formulate the recommendation to this body relative to the subdivision. They did however review the residence and they responded to some of the concerns that the Commission had by P&D Committee %ttz Minutes of 9-2 -N Page 5 adding w•indo%+s to the Sheridan Road side. lie said the vote in the Preservation Commission was : in fa%or. : against and i abstained, which did not allow them come to a recommendation to P&:D relative to the subdivision and to the residence that is to be constructed on the subdivided lot. He said they are before the Committee without that recommendation but are able to provide detailed drawings and plans that illustrate the proposed new construction of the coach house, the existing house and the entire lot configuration. He handed out copies of the drawings to the Committee members. He pointed out that the design of the new proposed residence pays very close attention to the design details of the existing landmark residence. Chairman Wynne said she had a couple of points of concern with this. First, the Committee was not supplied with the standards in their packet. A list of those standards has been forwarded this evening to the Committee. She asked that at the Preservation Commission meeting did they address the subdivision. the structure to be built or both together? Mr. Murray responded that they considered all of it, however just the ministerial decision on the subdivision is only before the Committee this evening. Chairman Wynne informed that she received a email message from Ms. Lloyd today indicating that one of these lots is going to be built on and one is going to be left as unused property. She asked for clarification. Ms. Susan Lloyd addressed the Committee. She is the owner of the 1 113 acre property. She explained that in an earlier subdivision approved by the City Council that never entered in, the actual lot was divided into three different properties. NNIat she is proposing to do now to this single lot is to divide it into two, build and occupy a house that looks like a coach house to the existing larger residence, and then legally prevent any other development from happening on the rest of the property. Therefore, she can sell the larger residence with a substantial amount of land, live in the smaller home, and give an easement to the new owners into their garage so that there is only one driveway. There will be a permanent easement on the property so that either the ncww owners or herself can`t develop it in the future. Nis. Lloyd clarified to Chairman W)mne that this is what she intended to explain in her email. Aid. Newman said that it appears the new residence is going to be far back off of Sheridan Road. Ms. Lloyd confirmed this and Mr. Murray added that because of the great differential in distance, only the upper story of the new residence will be visible from Sheridan. The new residence will be closer to the lake and there is a difference in elevation, which virtually makes the house non -visible from the street frontage. Aid. Newman said that if this is the case, in his view, it has much more limited preservation issue in terms of the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. He asked when someone comes in for a subdivision of a lot in the historic district and they want to build a structure, do they have to get approval for the subdivision and then later approval for the structure? He said this is what is confusing with this issue. He questions if the new structure still should require approval if it is not visible. Mr. Murray said it is presumed to be visible because it has two accesses one from the street and one from the lake. Aid. Newman questioned that in order to move forward with the owner's plan, if the Committee approves this subdivision. this will still have to go back to the Preservation Commission for approval of the design of the new structure. Mr. Murray concurred. With this in mind Aid. Newman stated that he would definitely want to approve this in P&D Committee Nttg. Minutes of 9-27-04 Page 6 view of the lot sizes, preserved open space and the proposed design detail of the new structure. His concem is that he was under the impression that upon approval of the subdivision and with the plans that have been presented, he assumed the owner could then proceed forward with obtaining building permits. However, this still must go back before the Preservation Commission. He disagrees with this process. Chairman Wynne agreed. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. She stated that she was in support of this from the beginning but also agrees with Aid. Ne-wman's view with the preservation process. The Committee agreed that this situation needs to be addressed and the process re-evaluated because it is clearI% an unnecessary step and consumption of time when both cases can be considered together by the Preservation Commission and forwarded as one complete package. Chairman Wynne stated that especially in a case such as this where she can support because of the sensitivity shown by the property owner to preserve the historical nature of the existing property, even with her strong belief in preserving these larger lots that are unique and magnificent. She asked the architect, Mr. Knutson, what materials are proposed for the new structure:' He responded that brick construction in similar detail to the existing structure would be used. Ms. Szymanski stated to the Committee that with respect to what she senses will be a motion to approve the plat of subdivision, she drew attention to the Ordinance, Section 2- 9-12 (D) and (E). As Aid. Newman said earlier. this is not discretionary because of the particular language of this ordinance. As the Preservation Commission does not have findings because there was no recommendation or findings of record, what Council would need to do to approve this is to make a positive finding an the standards in 2-9-12 (B). She suggested that if the Committee is comfortable in doing that this evening it need not be in writing. Otherwise staff can prepare findings and bring back to the Committee in 2 weeks. The Committee agreed that they would be more comfortable with staff doing the findings and bringing back something in writing. Mr. Murray stated that this would be a motion before the Citv Council at whole and the fact that it would be delayed for 2- weeks would not have a substantial impact. Aid. Newsman stated that it is the sense of the Committee to approve this with direction to staff to come up with findings rather than the Committee doing so at this time. Mr. Wolinski noted that this is an action item therefore he suggested holding this in Committee, which was agreed. Chairman Wynne urged on behalf of the Committee, that the Preservation Commission, also the Plan Commission, make sure that when they arse making these recommendations to the Committee that they do walk through the standard and make findings of fact. The vote was 3-0 in favor of holding this item in Committee for staff to prepare findings of fact to be presented at the October 27`h P&D Committee meeting. P&D Committee %ite. %Iinutes of 9-27-04 Page 7 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI) Exemotion from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Chairman Wynne acknowledged that this is a recurring yearly procedure to set a date for a hearing, which has been recommended for the next meeting on October I I". Aid. Newman recognized that this has been an ongoing procedure for many years without much opposition or numerous problems with the shelter's operation. However, he felt it important to mention some recent problems have again arisen with homeless individuals in close proximity to the shelter where these incidents have occurred. The complaints are sleeping in vestibules and urinating on private property as well. He realizes that this problem is not directly at fault of the shelter however because of the nature of the problems, this is a concern that may be directed towards the shelter with accusations of overflow onto the surrounding neighborhood. He said that there might be some opposition or concerned citizens in attendance at the hearing that will raise these issues. The Committee agreed to hold the hearing at the October 11'b meeting. (PD2) Ordinance 28-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code The Committee asked if any notification was sent out regarding this update to all the buildings that would be effected by this ordinance as was done when this previously w-as before them. Chief Berkowsky informed that no notification was sent out because at this point it is only at a discussion level. Whereas he is updating the Committee on research and new legislation and staffs recommendation to make any changes at this point before notifying those buildings that would be under effect of this ordinance. Chairman Wynne asked Chief Berkowsky for a summary of the recommended changes. Chief Berkowsky gave a summarized update pointing out first the buildings listed that they still insist should require this sprinkler retrofit ordinance. He distributed a copy of a CN. news article to the Committee members regarding a deadly fire where 3 students died in a fraternity house. He stressed the importance of his continued urgency that all university housing be included and made to comply with this ordinance. He informed the Committee of a large fire that occurred on April I5'h at a large rooming house at 720 Foster. He recalled that approximately 2-years ago the owner of this property spoke against this ordinance stating that their property was clean and in compliance. This proves that even the buildings with no property maintenance issues and everything up to code are subject to fire hazards, no property is exempt. He noted that upon rebuilding 720 Foster a sprinkler system was installed, which is required for new construction. Chief Berkowsky stated that the City needs to take some type of action on this especially for the aforementioned types of occupancies and those listed in his memorandum. He recognizes the high cost to install this type of sprinkler system but it is only going to get more expensive with time. He feels the Fire Prevention Bureau has done a good job in encouraging sprinkler systems but they need more tools in enforcing this requirement. He noted that in current legislation, the State of Illinois recently passed a new law entitled PRO CommineeLttg. Minutes of 9-27-04 Page 8 "Fire Sprinkler Dormitory :act" %%hick requires all public and private dormitories in Illinois to install sprinkler systems by 2013. Ho«ever this law does not include fraternities and sororities. He said to subsidize cost the Dill provides for the Illinois Finance Authority and the Office of the State Fire Marshal to administer a revolving loan program. It also allows institutions to levy a surcharge passed onto student fees every year. He also mentioned pending legislation in Washington that could have an impact on existing structures in Evanston. Chief Berkowsky reiterated his opinion that he feels the 8-year period for compliance to install the sprinkler system is too long. He stressed his reasoning why he would like fratemities/sorority to be included to this listing with all other university housing and rooming houses. He said this is of major concern. He is also very concerned with nursing homes and hospitals. He would like to see the members of this Committee consider the modifications as proposed to start moving towards addressing these types o occupancies that nerd to be a priority. Chairman Wynne asked if there arse any off -campus frat or sorority houses that would also need to be considered. Chief Berkowsky responded that all Greek housing is on - campus property. She said this housing should follow under university dormitory housing. AId. Newman brought up several locations off -campus that he thought was Greek housing. Chief Berkowsky noted that Greek housing is not considered under university housing this is why it is crucial to bring that particular housing under this ordinance. He said that even though these buildings are on university property, the university according to their leases does not operate them and it is the responsibility for the building to be maintained and operated by the management of each specific fraternity or sorority. Chairman Wynne asked what percentage is Greek housing. The Chief counted 18 fraternities and 12 sorority in total. She asked if it would be legal or appropriate to pass this as an ordinance requiring fraternity and sorority housing to be included in this. Chief Berkowsky said it absolutely can be done that way and asked to Committee for direction to proceed. The Committee discussed and agreed on Chief Berkowsky's proposals and recommended course of action. Aid. Tisdahl suggested that notice be sent out to all effected building owners informing them of this discussion that has taken place and that they also be notified when this comes back before the Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct staff to draft an ordinance and send out notice of this item being forwarded to the Committee on the October 25'h meeting. Aid. Newman presented photos of City -owned garbage cans in a park across the street from a non -owner occupied rooming house. He requested that staff keep on top of this situation and cite any property owner if accountable. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 9-27-04 Page 9 COMMUNICATION (PD3) Letter from the Citizen's Liththouse Community Land Trust Board This letter was addressed to Ms. Robin Snyderman Pratt thanking her for the work done by the affordable housing task force. The Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust Board (CLCLT) said that from their understanding at the last meeting that City staff were to do some research and bring back before the Committee for further discussion. They expressed their concern with not hearing anything to date on this matter and requested an update. Along with this letter, Ms. Snyderman Pratt sent a memorandum to the P&D Committee with the Housing Commission's recommendations for inclusionary housing. (Memo available in Community Development Administrative Office.) ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquet i �ro%mlcc DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 27, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: A. New7nan, E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein, J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUhi Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. She announced that Ald. Bernstein would be absent this evening and that Aid. Kent is expected to join at Council later this evening. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the September 13th minutes, seconded by Aid. Newman. The minutes were approved with a vote of 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) 94-0-04 — Zoning. Man Amendment. National Louis University Property Chairman Wynne acknowledged that three people had signed up to speak in regards to this matter and wished to call on them first. Mr. John Haser, said that he lives at 900 Isabella Street which is directly across the street from National Louis University dormitories that is being considered for the zoning amendment. He informed that when he attended the Plan Commission meeting he made the similar statement that the dormitory is currently surrounded by RI completely before it was even a dorm and the University had been RI property as well. He said they are hoping that if this property will be considered to convert back to Rl if it is not being used as a dormitory for university purposes. He feels this conversion will help the value of the property for the entire surrounding community. Mr. Haser also expressed major concern with existing traffic problems at that intersection and the number of children that cross there. He informed that a number of accidents have occurred at that intersection over the Iasi 3-years that he has lived there. He is hoping for any relief that can be done to minimize traffic and pedestrian problems, will be taken into consideration for that intersection. P&D Committee 11tg. Minutes of 9-27-04 Page Chairman Wynne mentioned :or information. that that comer's traffic signal has been slated to be changed in the near future. Mr. Haser acknowledged that he has been made aware of this and is grateful and hopes it will also aid in the safety of children crossing at that light. Chairman Wynne said she fully understands. mentioning a similar situation in her ward on Forest .avenue with traffic congestion and children crossing at this intersection. Mr. Ham Folev, 2766 Ridge. said that he lives at the last address on Ridge next to 900 Isabella. He has lived at this address for the past 5 years and have truly enjoyed their residency at this location for a number of reasons including the proximity to the university atmosphere in combination with the RI residential living. fie stated that this ideal living environment is why he and his wife chose this specific location to live. In view of this, he stated that most likely they would choose to move if the National Louis property were zoned or developed anything other than RI. Ald. Newman asked for clarification if Mr. Foley is saying that even if the property is zoned R2 that he would still have this opinion. In follow-up response to this. Mr. Alterson verified that even under R2 zoning would allow for single-family development with less required square footage per lot. Mr. Foley responded that even with this information, he would still prefer the RI zoning for the property over all. Ms. Enid Shapira, lives at 2815 Sheridan. She informed that her residence is in close proximity to the National Louis campus. She feels that in consideration that this property is completely surrounded by RI zoned property, it would be completely appropriate to rezone back to R1 as well. She stressed the need to preserve, maintain, and endorse any opportunity for R1 single-family development in light of the City's current saturation of commercial and multi -family development. She urged the Committee to consider this important factor that that it is especially for an area that is predominately R1 zoned. Chairman Wynne called on others who wished to speak at this time that were unable to f sign the citizen comment sheet. She also asked if a representative from National Louis was present to make comment. Staff confirmed that notification of this meeting was forwarded to their representatives. There was no one in attendance representing the university. Mr. Junad Rizki. 2708 Sheridan. recalled his comments and summarization made at the Plan Commission meeting regarding this mater that this basically meets the standards of the zoning requirements for R 1. He said that this is probably the most important factor in considering the zoning and future development for this site. He requested the Committee to strongly consider the factors outlined and the standards met to rezone this property to RI. Mr. John Austin, 2801 Gerard, said that he lives approximately a block away from the National Louis University dormitory. He emphasized to the Committee that historically this property came to National Louis as a gift. Therefore any consideration on the sympathy of National Louis making any substantial profit to gain on the sale of the property in light of the zoning, should be minimal. He feels the University has always P&D Committee Nfig, !Minutes of 4-.--(A Page 3 profited on their residence here as a gift from the beginning. Ivlr. Austin requested that the Committee keep this information in consideration of the rezoning of the property to R I to benefit all the surrounding community. Nis. Susan. 811 Roslyn Place. expressed her concerns for the safety of children crossing at the intersection of Isabella. Ridge. and Sheridan. She is in total support of rezoning the National Louis property to Rl to match the surrounding single-family zoning. She has spoken with all the residents on Roslyn Place and swears that all are in support of rezoning the university property back to residential. Chairman '%'ynne closed citizen comment. Aid. Newman stated that from his understanding, this is about .73 acres on a total of 6.7 acres. In addition to this, there has been notice of all meetings sent out to the representatives of National Louis as well as the residents. He noted that they can continue to use the property as a university and sell for continued use as a university. However, what they can't do is take down the buildings around the .73 acres. Staff verified this to be true. Aid. Newman moved that they make that portion of the .73 of the 6.7 acres as Rl zoning. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Akerson if a university has to continue in the current use as a dormitory or could it be converted to some other similar use. Mr. Alterson responded that the Zoning Ordinance allows it to be continued with a use of the same or lesser intensity. Aid. Newman reminded that if someone comes along requesting to continue the same use. this could qualify for another 50 years. The motion was approved with a vote of 3-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman asked on the .73 acres with RI lot size requirements. how much can be built there. It was pointed out that 4 houses could be built. Mr. Wolinski informed that an acres is 40,000 square feet and you need 7,200 square feet per residential structure. Aid. Tisdahl thanked her constituents that attended the meeting this evening on behalf of this matter. She explained that this would be introduced this evening before Council with final approval at the next meeting in 2-weeks. Mr. Wolinski informed that Corporation Council reviewed the transcript from the Plan Commission and felt that significant findings were not made. Therefore, legal staff recommended that the Committee consider that staff work with the Committee to come up with findings to meet the standards. Aid. Ne-Amw suggested that legal staff do some recommended findings based on the transcript and factual testimony in the transcript since the P&D Committee is in possession of this. Therefore, it was the consensus of the Committee that this matter will be introduced and referred back to Committee giving legal staff the opportunity to come hack with findings of the standards for formulation of the final ordinance. f P2) Plat of Subdivision — Sherman Plaza Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this is a ministerial act on their part. Chairman Wynne questioned if this can be done without Ms. Aiello's input. Aid. Newman pointed out that the questions he has regarding this matter are of an executive P&D Cornminee Mrg. Minutes of 9.27-04 Pact a session level and he is not comfortable with proceeding without comment from Ms. Aiello. She was called over to the P&D meeting. Aid. Newman asked when did this subdivision go into effect. Nis. Aiello responded that this wouldn't get recorded until they do the actual swap closinz which can not be done until all the conditions have been met. Ald. Newman said they are approving this subject to both parties completing the swap and the developer receiving final confirmation of all findings, etc. Ms. Aiello concurred. He requested that this be understood by Council because this divides the property into 4 lots and should be clarified on all issues. Ms. Aiello agreed. Chairman Winne stated that this is subject to the swap which is also subject to the redevelopment agreement. Aid. Newman asked if this is a request of the developer. Ms. Aiello responded that they would like to have it all done because they are looking to close October 15`s and this gives them a little extra time to finalize paper work for the sway. In view of this scenario, Aid. Newman recommended to give the City Manager the authority to make this subdivision conditional on that project be initiated on the construction of the Sherman Plaza. Chairman Wynne questioned what the ordinance states. Ms. Aiello explained that this is not an ordinance but a motion by Council. Therefore, this would be subject to the swap closing conditions being met. Aid. Newman suggested that this could be held until the next meeting. Ms. Aiello noted there is a request from the developers to suspend the rules for the amendment in order to allow time to get all the paperwork done and be ready by closing date. There was a consensus of the Committee to hold this until the October 11`h meeting and would not effect the process. Therefore Aid. Newman recommended in agreement with the other Committee members, to give the City `tanager's Office the authority to do the subdivision conditional on the project going forward with closing on October 15'h as planted. Ms. Aiello stated that they would not release this until signed off as part of the conditions with closing. The Committee directed Nis. Aiello to prepare something in writing to this effect to go before Council this evening. Nis. Aiello complied. Aid. Newman moved approval to give authority to the City Manager to go forward and approve the subdivision subject to the land swap agreement being met, Aid. Tisd*W seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (P3) 715 Sheridan Road Resubdivision Plat Mr. Jaynes Murray announced that he was here on behalf of the owner. He gave an overview of their request for plat approval to divide the existing 57,000 square foot lot into two lots with the results of one lot being approximately 20,000 and the other lot being the remainder. The larger of the lot, being approximately 37,000 square feet would have the existing residence on it. The owner proposes to construct a new residence in the character of the existing residence on the smaller lot that will be more remote from Sheridan Road. Aid. Newman pointed out that in order to construct the new residence it will have to meet the approval of the Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray informed that this matter has been through the Preservation Commission and they did not formulate the recommendation to this body relative to the subdivision. They did however review the residence and they responded to some of the concerns that the Commission had by P&D Committee %Ite. Minutes of9.27-at Page 5 adding windows to the Sheridan Road side. lie said the vote in the Preservation Commission was 3 in favor. 2 against and I abstained, which did not allow them come to a recommendation to P&D relative to the subdivision and to the residence that is to be constructed on the subdivided lot. He said they are before the Committee without that recommendation but are able to provide detailed drawings and plans that illustrate the proposed new construction of the coach house. the existing house and the entire lot configuration. He handed out copies of the drawings to the Committee members. He pointed out that the design of the new proposed residence pays very close attention to the design details of the existing landmark residence. Chairman Wynne said she had a couple of points of concern «ith this. First, the Committee was not supplied with the standards in their packet. A list of those standards has been forwarded this evening to the Committee. She asked, that at the Preservation Commission meeting did they address the subdivision, the structure to be built or both together? Mr. Murray responded that they considered all of it, however just the ministerial decision on the subdivision is only before the Committee this evening. Chairman Wynne informed that she received a email message from Ms. Lloyd today indicating that one of these lots is going to be built on and one is going to be left as unused property. She asked for clarification. tits. Susan Lloyd addressed the Committee. She is the owner of the 1 V3 acre property. She explained that in an earlier subdivision approved by the City Council that never entered in. the actual lot was divided into three different properties, What she is proposing to do now to this single lot is to divide it into two, build and occupy a house that looks like a coach house to the existing larger residence, and then legally prevent any other development from happening on the rest of the property. Therefore, she can sell the larger residence with a substantial amount of land, live in the smaller home, and give an easement to the new owners into their garage so that there is only one driveway. There will be a permanent easement on the property so that either the new owners or herself can't develop it in the future. Ms. Lloyd clarified to Chairman Wynne that this is what she intended to explain in her email. Aid. Newman said that it appears the new residence is going to be far back off of Sheridan Road. Ms. Lloyd confirmed this and bir. Murray added that because of the great differential in distance, only the upper story of the new residence will be visible from Sheridan. The new residence will be closer to the lake and there is a difference in elevation, which virtually makes the house non -risible from the street frontage. Aid. Newmari said that if this is the case, in his view. it has much more limited preservation issue in terms of the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. He asked when someone comes in for a subdivision of a lot in the historic district and they want to build a structure, do they have to get approval for the subdivision and then later approval for the structure? He said this is what is confusing with this issue. He questions if the new structure still should require approval if it is not visible. Mr. Murray said it is presumed to be visible because it has tw-o accesses one from the street and one from the lake. Aid. Newman questioned that in order to move forward with the owner's plan, if the Committee approves this subdivision, this kill still have to go back to the Preservation Commission for approval of the design of the new structure. Mr. Murray concurred. With this in mind Aid. Newman stated that he would definitely want to approve this in P&D Committee Nfig. -t Minutes of 9 2y-U Page 6 view of the lot sizes. preserved open space and the proposed design detail of the new structure. His concern is that he was under the impression that upon approval of the subdivision and with the plans that have been presented. he assumed the o%vner could then proceed forward with obtaining building permit. However, this still must go back before the Preservation Commission, fie disagrees with this process. Chairman Wynne agreed. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. She stated that she was in support of this from the beginning but also agrees with Aid. New•man's view with the preservation process. fhe Committee agreed that this situation needs to be addressed and the process re-evaluated because it is clearly an unnecessary step and consumption of time when both eases can be considered together by the Preservation Commission and forwarded as one complete package. Chairman Wynne stated that especially in a case such as this where she can support because of the sensitivity shown by the property owner to preserve the historical nature of the existing property. even with her strong belief in preserving these larger lots that are unique and magnificent. She asked the architect. Mr. Knutson, what materials are proposed for the new structure? He responded that brick construction in similar detail to the existing structure would be used. Ms. Szymanski stated to the Committee that with respect to what she senses will be a motion to approve the plat of subdivision, she drew attention to the Ordinance, Section 2- 9-12 (D) and (E). As Aid. Newman said earlier. this is not discretionary because of the particular language of this ordinance. As the Presenation Commission does not have findings because there was no recommendation or findings of record, what Council would need to do to approve this is to make a positive finding on the standards in 2-9-12 (B). She suggested that if the Committee is comfortable in doing that this evening it need not be in writing. Otherwise staff can prepare findings and bring back to the Committee in 2 weeks. The Committee agreed that they would be more comfortable with staff doing the findings and bringing back something in writing. fir. Murray stated that this would be a motion before the City Council at whole and the fact that it would be delayed for 2- weeks would not have a substantial impact. Aid. Newman stated that it is the sense of the Committee to approve this with direction to staff to come up with findings rather than the Committee doing so at this time. Mr. Wolinski noted that this is an action item therefore he suggested holding this in Committee, which was agreed. Chairman Wynne urged on behalf of the Committee, that the Preservation Commission, also the Plan Commission, make sure that when they are making these recommendations to the Committee that they do walk through the standard and make findings of fact. The vote was 3-0 in favor of holding this item in Committee fbIr staff to prepare findings of fact to be presented at the October 27"' P&D Committee meeting. MD Committer .Sitg. %timncs of 9-2"-4: Pue - ITESIS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI ► Exetnt3tion from Special Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Chairman Wynne acknowledged that this is a recurring yearly procedure to set a date for a hearing, which has been recommended for the next meeting on October I Ph. Aid. Newman recognized that this has been an ongoing procedure for many years without much opposition or numerous problems with the shelter's operation. However, he felt it important to mention some recent problems have again arisen with homeless individuals in close proximity to the shelter where these incidents have occurred. The complaints are sleeping in vestibules and urinating on private property as well. He realizes that this problem is not directly at fault of the shelter however because of the nature of the problems, this is a concern that may be directed towards the shelter with accusations of overflow onto the surrounding neighborhood. He said that there might be some opposition or concerned citizens in attendance at the hearing that will raise these issues. The Committee agreed to hold the hearing at the October 11'' meeting. fPD2) Ordinance 28-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston City Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code The Committee asked if any notification was sent out regarding this update to all the buildings that would be effected by this ordinance as was done when this previously was before them. Chief Berkowsky informed that no notification was sent out because at this point it is only at a discussion level. A hereas he is updating the Committee on research and new legislation and staffs recommendation to make any changes at this point before notifying those buildings that would be under effect of this ordinance. Chairman Wynne asked Chief Berkowsky for a summary of the recommended changes. Chief Berkowsky gave a summarized update pointing out first the buildings listed that they still insist should require this sprinkler retrofit ordinance. He distributed a copy of a CNN news article to the Committee members regarding a deadly fire where 3 students died in a fraternity house. He stressed the importance of his continued urgency that all university housing be included and made to comply with this ordinance. He informed the Committee of a large fire that occurred on April l5`h at a large rooming house at 720 Foster. He recalled that approximately 2-years ago the owner of this property spoke against this ordinance stating that their property was clean and in compliance. This proves that even the buildings with no property maintenance issues and everything up to code are subject to fire hazards, no property is exempt. He noted that upon rebuilding 720 Foster a sprinkler system was installed, which is required for new construction. Chief Berkowsky stated that the City needs to take some type of action on this especially for the aforementioned types of occupancies and those listed in his memorandum. He recognizes the high cost to install this type of sprinkler system but it is only going to get more expensive with time. He feels the Fire Prevention Bureau has done a good job in encouraging sprinkler systems but they need more tools in enforcing this requirement. He noted that in current legislation, the State of Illinois recently passed a new law entitled P&D Committee 4ttg. Minutes of 9-27-04 Page 8 "Fire Sprinkler Dormitor%. Act" %%hich requires all public and private dormitories in Illinois to install sprinkler systerns by 2013. However this law does not include fraternities and sororities. He said to subsidize cost the Bill provides for the Illinois I-inance Authority and the Office of the State Fire Marshal to administer a revolving loan program. It also allows institutions to levy a surcharge passed onto student fees every year. He also mentioned pending legislation in Washington that could have an impact on existing structures in Evanston. Chief Berkowsky reiterated his opinion that he feels the 8-year period for compliance to install the sprinkler system is too long. He stressed his reasoning why he would like 1'ratemities/sorority to be included to this listing with all other university housing and rooming houses. He said this is of major concern. He is also very concerned with nursing homes and hospitals. He would like to see the members of this Committee consider the modifications as proposed to start moving towards addressing these types o occupancies that need to be a priority. Chairman Wynne asked if there are any off -campus frat or sorority houses that would also need to be considered. Chief Berkowsky responded that all Greek housing is on - campus property. She said this housing should follow under university dormitory housing. Aid. Newman brought up several locations off -campus that he thought was Greek housing. Chief Berkowsky noted that Greek housing is not considered under university housing this is why it is crucial to bring that particular housing under this ordinance. He said that even though these buildings are on university property, the university according to their leases does not operate them and it is the responsibility for the building to be maintained and operated by the management of each specific fraternity or sorority. Chairman Wynne asked what percentage is Greek housing. The Chief counted 18 fraternities and 12 sorority in total. She asked if it would be legal or appropriate to pass this as an ordinance requiring fraternity and sorority housing to be included in this. Chief Berkowsky said it absolutely can be done that way and asked to Committee for direction to proceed. The Committee discussed and agreed on Chief Berkowsky's proposals and recommended course of action. Aid. Tisdahl suggested that notice be sent out to all effected building owners informing them of this discussion that has taken place and that they also be notified when this comes back before the Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct staff to draft an ordinance and send out notice of this item being forwarded to the Committee on the October 2Vh meeting. Aid. New -man presented photos of City -owned garbage cans in a park across the street from a non -owner occupied rooming house. He requested that star' keep on top of this situation and cite any property owner if accountable. P&D Committee %ftg. Minutes of 9.27-04 rage 9 COMMUNICATION (PD3) Letter from the Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust Board This letter was addressed to Ms. Robin Snyderman Pratt thanking her for the work done by the affordable housing task force. The Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust Board (CLCLT) said that from their understanding at the last meeting that City staff were to do some research and bring back before the Committee for further discussion. They expressed their concern with not hearing anything to date on this matter and requested an update. Along with this letter, Ms. Snyderman Pratt sent a memorandum to the P$D Committee with the Housing Commission's recommendations for inclusionary housing. (Memo available in Community Development Administrative Office.) ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JacqueQ� E. rowniee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of October 11, 2004 Room 2.103 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, J. K nt , 1 . 'risdahl..%I. W'y7tne Alderman Delayed: A. Newman Staff Present: J W'olinski. A. Alterson. G. Morgan. C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. She announced that Aid. Newman would join them later in the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTE,MBER 13.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the September 27th minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes Mere approved with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to accommodate Aid. Tisdahl who needs to leave the meeting for an issue at A&PW. (PZ)94-O-04 — Zoning \fan amendment, National Louis Universitv Provertv Chairman Wynne noted that this item was introduced and referred back to Committee for findings to make sure that the ordinance met legal muster. Mr. Wolinski informed that this is a revised ordinance that contains sufficient findings to go ahead with the rezoning. Ms. Szymanski added that since there were no findings at the ZBA, she would request that the Committee go through the findings and discuss them briefly for the record. Chairman Wynne complied referring to Section 3 of the ordinance. She began with one of the critical issues that they discussed at the last meeting which was raised by the community- is with monitoring institutional development evolution making sure that they limit the negative impacts on the surrounding community and ignoring land uses. She said a critical issue that was raised was that this is an island surrounded by Ri residential property and that includes with respect to Wilmette as well. She said it was a very big concern of the community members that we take into account that this is completely single-family residential surrounding the property and no institutional evolution occur which has a negative impact. Aid. Tisdahl agreed and added because of Evanston P&D C,•r-.r-inre %ttt P_at llospital's proximpa7kin_ zd ,ra:tic �.srcu!:Jlion are ..:.i1or concerns. Therefore to lave this p.-opert; be R1 %%ould 6e beneficial, Chair -man Wynne said that %%ould be .%ith respect it, subsection t ll 1 :did. Kent said that tru--hfull•. he does not care ►%hethe: this is surrounded by R1 properties because h: thinks to a certain degree that %hat has been before this Committee is trains: to create something that %%ould tit into am community within the residential districts to include di,.erse housing. lie asked if this R1 <%:Ined property going to be for million dollar homes only because there is that opportunity here to create something to provide housing for moderate -income families %sigh a st%le that is compatible with the surrounding houses. not like stuttered site houainc- Ile questions %%ith all the talk about inclusionan• housing. how does this help all of E %anston in the larger perspective. He noted that this building of diterse mired housing has been accomplished in such communities compatible with Evanston like Highland Park. Lake Bluff and even Lake Forest. Aid. Tisdahl pointed out that in %ie%% ofthe entire National Louis property, they are onN. looking at the small portion that is Evanston, the vast majority is in Wilmette and the_%- haie alread% zoned their portion fOr RE This section can accommodate 4 houses. She noted that Wilmette has asked that Evanston comply with their zoning to match. Aid. Kent said that there is no economic diversity here. Aid. Tisdahl said that along with diversity. there has to be some place for the million dollar homes as well. Aid. Kent asked for stairs opinion in conjunction with Aid. Tisdahl's view. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Zoning Ordinance is the enforcement tool of the Comprehensive Plan. He would state on the record that the zoning of this property from I:1 to R1 simply states that the rezoning will require a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet per lot. Whether or not you are going to build affordable housing on those lots, he does not believe the Zoning Ordinance concerns itself with the price of housing, the type, etc. It is concerned with bulk regulations. setbacks. minimum lot coverage, etc. He said there is nothing to say that if it is rezoned from l.:I to RI that those 4 lots of 7200 square feet could not be bought b} a developer that does affordable housing. Ald. Bernstein said that the reality is that this can not happen because the acquisition cost of the land in that area would preclude any affordable housing. He said the cost would still be too high if the property were do«nzoned to R3. He understands where Aid. Kent is coming from but they run into this problem all the time with absence of subsidy in the acquisition of land makes it almost impossible to develop on. Aid. Kent said that he was under the impression that there was an offer by a developer who proposed building housing on smaller lots. The other Committee members said that he was probably referring to the Kendall College property that includes a lot more land as well. Aid. Tisdahl agreed because as far as she knows no developer has put in an offer and it may be some time with the land being less than one acre. Chairman Wynne reminded that Wilmette does have the majority of the property and that the Evanston portion is only .73 of acre in the area where the dormitory currently sits. Wilmette has asked Evanston to be uniform with their zoning. , Aid. Kent still argued the point of not addressing the problem with housing opportunities for residents that already live in Evanston and are eventually being forced out because P& 1) Committee ."O•a %1,nuirs of 10 11 (P they can not lonetr af:ord to huy here. Ald. Bernstein asked .old. Dent -.what he would propose as an alternati•.r. Aid. Dent responded that he could not specify a plan but feels that a ith the R 1 zoninc and subsidy from the Cite. that at least one lot could be for housing for a moderate -income family. He assured]y feels that something could be created to conform on that property in combination with the million dollar homes as well. Aid. -I'isdahi stated that %without an affordable housing police on the books it is hard to enforce the issue at this time, especially on such a small but expensive piece of land. Chairman Wynne asked legal if they haw a adequately addressed the findings. Nis. Szymanski said that she believes that the discussion they has been had does support the finding's of A. B. aid C However (D) still needs io be addressed which basically refers to parking and traffic circulation being adversely affective at that busy intersection and in being near Evanston Hospital with density greater than RI. Chairman Wynne included discussion that took place at the last meeting regarding school children crossing at this intersection that %%w a bia concern of the neighbors. Aid. Kent asked if this was supposed to be sufficient in addressing the findings. Chairman Wynne recalled that there was a lot of testimony at the last meeting regarding traffic and pedestrian crossing. She said in combination with addressing subsections A. B & C this evening, she would concur that they haw a addressed the findings. :old. Kent disagreed and added that he does not agree with the reasons that this has to be zoned R1. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of Ordinance 94-0-04 and acceptance of the findings as addressed by the Committee. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 3 in favor and I voting nay (Aid. Kent). (Aid. 'fisdahl left the meeting at 7:54 p.m. for A&PW.) (PI i PUBLIC HEARING - Exemntion from Soecial Use Provisions for Homeless Shel er his. Jan Klingman from Connections for the Homeless, gave a brief statement on behalf of the Shelter. She wyas here in place of Mr. William Sundblad, the Executive Director, who %was unable to attend this meeting. Aid. Bernstein moved to conduct the public hearing, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Bernstein mentioned that Aid. Newman had received complaints of homeless people sleeping in vestibules in the area, ►which historically has always been attributed to the shelter. He stated that the shelter has been a good neighbor and he has heard of no problems from people in his ward. No comments or complaints came from the audience, nor was there any discussion amongst the Committee. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that only one call has been received in his office regarding the shelter and they were in support. With no further discussion. Aid. Bernstein mowed approval of extending the one-year exemption of Ordinance 49-0-86 with a request that staff bring back a modification P&D Corrmi!tti ti'.• Minutes of iG ; t r,4, Pauc to the ordinance to lengthen the time frame for renei+al. NVolinski reminded the Com-mittee the original reason for the 1-year rene%eal %%ah I,., 'Keep a close monitor on the operation of the shelter and to insure close relationship %%ith the management in case it %%ere to chance o%er time. Aid. Bernstein sucgested a :itne frame of 10 %ears. Discussion follo%%ed. .AId. Kent Said that he could not support I0 years. suggesting a period of no longer than every 5 years. The Committee agreed. Aid. Bernstein amended his motion for staff to modify the ordinance to extend the period of time for renewal to ev en S-� ears. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the rote was 3-0 in favor. (113) 715 Sheridan Resubdi%ision flat Chain -nan Wynne noted that this was held in Committee for appropriate findings. ,Ms. Szymanski said that since there were no findings at all. she suggested that the findings be read into the minutes particularly since this is not pan of an ordinance. She said this should be done at the Council level, however here at P&D she belie% -es it would be sufficient to reference the document prepared by \fir. Ruiz dated October 11. 2004 ulth the findings on the proposed subdivision. She said that there needs to be some discussion amongst the Committee involving the standards. Chairman Wynne updated Aid. Kent on the discussion from the last meeting with one of the critical issues for her was with the Preservation Ordinance and all of the aspects that would protect this as property in the historic district. The proposed new construction on the proposed lot #2 would maintain the view from the street to the Lake. another issue in support is the tremendous length of the property. which supports both parcels here. By creating these two lots. the lot is large enough and doesn't subdi,, ide the: property into lots to provide several properties where there used to be only one house. She recalled that one of the things they heard from the architect, N1r. Knutson. «as that the design of the new structure is compatible with the main house and will actually function on the property in the style of a coach house. She said the materials are similar and the rooflines as well, therefore the new construction will not look like a completely different style of architecture. She brought attention to the drawings submitted in Council packets and it confirms that there will be no blocking or obstructing the view from the public street or public way of the main house on the property. The ne%k structure %%ill be approximately 210' from the front property line and located cast of the landmark structure. She said as a result of that the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark would remain in tack. Chairman Wynne said on the question of whether this mould adverselN effect the traffic pattern. she does not believe it would because they are going to be sharing a common driveeti-a•-. There will be little or not additional traffic caused by this subdivision. Ms. Szymanski approved as sufficient for findings. :old. Bernstein asked about the easement on the property. Mr. Murray said that there probably %ill be so that new construction will not obstruct views from the main residence and vice e-ersa. Aid. Bernstein moved approval and to adopt the findings set forth in the memo provided by ,Mr. Ruiz dated October 11, 2004. Aid. Kent seconded the motion. Nfr. Wolinski informed the Committee that he and Corporation Counsel just discussed the issue that the proposed subdivision meets the signature requirements of the various City PLtD Committee Mir Minutes of 10 11 (P; PaL'e t Departments including the Zoning Division. Public Works. Finance and Law Department. With this amendment included in the motion, the vote was 3-0 in favor. 1114 E Ordinance 101 •i t.04 - SDecial use + r• ne = Restaurant) for 1611 Sherman Chairman A'%nne a.:AtM the applicant: for a brief statement and overview of their business. Mr. Tushar Vaid.va and Mr. Purav Shah introduced themselves as the lessee's. Mr. Vaidya gave the overview. The business name being Cold Stone Creamery operating as an ice cream parlor. They propose to be open 7-days a week. provide seating for 4-5 people with a seating area of approximately 55 square feet. He noted that they are aware of litter collection plan and have one in mind to pick up any litter within 500 feet of their store bemeen 1-3 hours per day. They also haze a parking plan to provide parking for their employees in the lot across the street. They have also set up with a local disposal company for garbage pick up 3-times and week and more if necessary. They will also train all employees to keep all waste receptacles cover protected at all times. The building has a back alleyway entrance where deliveries can be made and where all dumpsters will be located out of public view. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. He commended the applicants awareness of the conditions involved with operation of a type ? restaurant. He also told them it is in the best interest of all businesses to aid in keeping the do-wntown clean. He warned the applicants of the immense concern for litter. debris and garbage problems that have arisen since the rise in type ? restaurants and that City Council has pledged to do something about it and City Staff is very much on the case in enforcing the regulations. Mr. Vaidya and Mr. Shah said that they understood the rules and consequences if not followed. With no further discussion. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IPD11 Oakton Historic District - Nomination to the National Reeister of Historical Places Aid. Rainey was called over from A&PNV for discussion on this item. Mr. Carlos Ruiz gave a brief overview- on the background of this request as stated on the agenda item sheet. Aid. Bernstein asked if the Committee is only being asked here for approval to refer this to the Preservation Commission for their comments and written recommendation to be forwarded to the State. fir. Ruiz said that is correct and Mr. Wolinski pointed out that it has been requested for the Committee's approval but is not mandatory. Ms. Barbara Gardner continued on where Mr. Wolinski left off to explain how this confusion with the process keeps coming into conflict. The State Officials have letter from the Commission had no right to go without notifying P&D and having them say to the Commission to issue its findings. She said this is the confusion of the wording. As far as she is concerned, there is nothing to even discuss this evening because everybody is supposed to go about doing their thing when it was on the docket for P&D and the Preservation Commission has not even heard this yet. Aid. Bernstein agreed. Chairman Wynne said at the %-er% least the Preservation Commission has to act really fast because P&D comr^ t-cv %1tc Ntinuir- of � i i-� (1 1'aev n the State needs the letter F} enb r 8.. Mr. RL iz inti►rmed that the (on Mission has chosen ttio dates. October i �.. yr the 20". Chairman W\ nne asked if this ma:tzr needs to conic bac} before PRD. %Ir Rui/ re-;pondcd no because it is a National Register nomination instead of local. (Aid. Newman arrived at 8:2u. r He asked for an update on the discussion thus far. Chairman Wynne informed hint that according to the staff. the State needs to hear from two entities: The Mayor. representing the Council. and the Preservation Commission. Aid. Newman asked for the larieuage as written in the Ordinance that states this. It was noted that Mr. Ruiz read this from Section G. 7.. of the Ordinance and is included in writing on the agenda item sheet. :yid. Newman recalled this same dispute with the Georgian where the Preservation Commission wanted to take a different vie«• potentially than the Cit) Council on the issue of whether or not the Georgian should be National. From his point of view. this dales not need to go back to the Preservation Commission. Ile feels the City should take a position based on the advise of the Preservation Commission if requested. but the} should !n talking to the ,alderman of Ward as to whether or not they want to support it or not. In his opinion. the Preservation Commission is not always totall} in line. and then have the same problem here differently as they had with the Northeast Evanston Historic District where there was a complaint back then. Mr. Jack Weiss, Chairman of the Oakton Historic District Committee. He addressed Aid. Newman informing him that the way the process is supposed to work. is that two people have responsibility for responding to this: the Mayor and the Preservation Commission. The review• and written submittal to the State should come from the Commission with a letter from the ,Aayor. He said the Council is not supposed to hear this beforehand nor do they need to approve the Preservation Commission's recommendation. Aid. Bernstein noted that what Mr. Weiss states is not clear in the %%ording of the Ordinance. also, Aid. Newman pointed out that the final wording in that paragraph reads: "Upon request of the City Council." In his opinion the Mayor should not be writing letters on this. He said this is a Council matter and the Preservation Commission doesn't get involved and this does have implications. even though there is no local district. \h'hen it is a National District. it creates advisor• responsibilities for the applicant if they wish to effect any building in the historic district. where the case would then go before the Preservation Commission. Ms. Gardner disagreed. ti1r. Ruiz stated that the Zoning Ordinance addresses that issue and further explained the process for properties in National Register districts. :old. Newman pointed out that there still is no local requirement for demolitions. etc. but there is still an implication for the property owner. From his point of view in reading and understanding this. the City Council is elected City%%ide and the Preservation Commission is a volunteer board with no election. lie continued that the Commission is a hard -wonting advisory Stroup for the City Council that has some final authority in some areas. However. when it comes to making a National District, the Council and ward alderman should make that review and decision. He recalled that the Mayor was out of sync with the rest of the Council by telling the people in Springfield that the City did not support the district after first Stating that they did support it. In the end with the Georgian. the Preservation Commission by a 5-4 vote thought this building MD Commint:c 1-1te %tinutc, of 10 1 ± Oa f'a4c - should ha%e Nen a landrna-le. . re t'it► Council. %%hick is made up oq elected officials. said it �ht�ulan't tk a ]an,irrarl,. In his mind. if the Commission ►►csuld ha►e been allowed to comment on this to the people in Springfield, there ►►ould ha►L been a miscommunication by the state officials on what the position of the City of Evanston would be. Therefore. in phis ► iv%%. the ►►ay the►- should respond on OA-ton District. he ►►ould be glad to support this if he heard the Alderman of the ►►ard supported and made a convincing case for National status. However. he is opposed to haying the Mayor comment and is opposed to ha► ing the Preservation Commission comment because they are an advisory board to Council. He did welcome the Commission to for►yard their advice which could hate been done with this request. Chairman W%nne asked ho►► to address the point that what the State organization doesn't recognize that the Mayor and the Council may not share the same vier and where the Preservation Commission has an advisory role. Whereas the State may be technical "sticklers" for hearing only from the Sla►•or or only from the Preservation Commission. She stated to Aid. Ne% man that the Committee heard earlier before he arrived that with the Georgian. the State recei►ed the letter from the Mayor but ►,ern much wanted to hear from the Preservation Commission and they were quite concerned that they did not hear any recommendation from them. Ald. tic►►man said that he does understand why they would want to hear from the Preservation Commission but he questions the State Officials not wanting to hear from City Council and would like to hear from them in writing regarding this matter. In his belief, there is a eery close working relationship between the Preservationist all around the State. which is acceptable because they all work together, local. state and federal. Ilo►yeyer. as far as he is concerned, the Preservation Commission in E► anston does not make policy on these issues for the people of Evanston. tie reiterated that the Commission is an advisory committee and can be solicited by the Council and they shouldn't be giving policy recommendations on behalf of citizens in Evanston: this is the responsibility of the elected officials. In the case of the Georgian, the State could have been forwarded the transcripts of the Preservation Commission findings. He feels that if the Commission does not receive this, then they need to make it more explicit in the Ordinance. He recalled when this first came up with the Northeast District. the people who opposed the District were all angry somehow that they were not able to participate in a proc4ss before they went as a City do►►rt-State to support the nomination. Ile stressed that they need to get this issue clarified. He also reiterated his opinion that the %fa►or should also not be sending letters representing the C it►. Ms. Gardner brought up an issue dated back to 1985. %►here the %ia►or at that time signed an agreement with the State of Illinois making Evanston a Certified Local Government. She pointed out that in Council's packet it explains what the responsibilities are, one of them is that the Mayor and the Preservation Commission are to comment on any nomination going for national landmark status. She stressed that this is clarified in the 1985 agreement and if they go changing the rules at this time, Evanston will not be a certified local government and there are economic benefits to the City that ►+ill be lost. Ald. Rainey left the meeting at this point. P&DCernmmet kite klin►.tes Parr 3 Ald. Newman que.,floned that allegation of los;n an-, economic benefit. He noted that «hen this preservation Ordinance ►►as dra,- .d back in 1994. the Presmation Commission at that time and an expert. Mr. Xhiie. ►►ent through eery part of this ordinance and the% all ne%% at that time that the Con of Evanston was a Certified Local Go►ernment. Therefore. to the t:xtcnt that their Ordinance is in conflict with State rules, then he suggest that ma► be the} need to take a loi:.k at this. Aid. Bernstein asked legal aboui the ►►ording in the ordinance "upon request of the City Council''. Ms. Szymanski stated that this is not mandator%. According to the words of the Ordinance, referral by the City Council is not mandator-%. Aid. Bernstein said this is peculiar because he was under the impression th.a •►ith the Cie erg::. the Presenation Commission's recommendation was going to the State along %%ith their recommendation against the landmark nomination. Aid. Neuman agreed and had the same understanding. his. Gardner informed that there a ere two responses from the City. one from City Council and one from the Mayor. where she ►%as opposed also. Aid. Bernstein questioned why the Mayor's response�uas separate if she is supposed to be sending the response back in representation of the Council. Ile has no problems giving this to the Preservation Commission to conduct hearings with the idea being that their decision then comes back to P&:D. His interpretation of the language before them seems that this may not be the case. Ile does not understand in any case why the Preservation Commission's recommendation on the Georgian was not forwarded to the State. Mr. Ruiz responded that the ►►hole ideal not to send the Preservation Commission's recommendation was ►►fiat "as interpreted from the comments made by the P&D Committee and it u-as understood that the recommendation from Council would be the final decision to be for►Narded to the State. This final decision uas that Council did not support the Commission's recommendation and this vias all that was said and that was the Commission's understanding at that time. Mr. Ruiz referred back to the 1985 agreement and this basically states that the Commission and the Mayor should issue the recommendations. Chairman Wynne added that it states that the Council's responsibilities are to rerieu and comment upon nominations to the National Register of Historic Places for properties within the jurisdiction. Within bU days of receiving the nomination, submit to the State Historical Preservation Officer written recommendations of the Commission and the Chief elected official as to whether the property meets the criteria in the National Register. This is the agreement that Mayor Joan Barr signed in 1985. (:old. Tisdahi returned to the muting at 8: *8 p.m. } The Committee agreed that there is a definite conflict with the current Ordinance and the 1985 agreement. Aid. Newman said that he thinks the Committee should not refer to the Preservation Commission. His reasoning is because he is not sure that the Commission will respect the City Council as the final authority on this particular point. It appears their belief is that they have their our independent powers that in some cases override Citv Council. which he finds in error. In fact, the Preservation Ordinance doesn't exist in this Cit• if there are 5 ►otes that sa%s it doesn't exist. lie suggested that the Committee have the Cite Legal staff tell use whether the home rule ordinance of the City of Evanston t'.i:D Committee %Ire Minutrs of 10 It 03- Paue 4 is over -ridden b• the certified eoverarn nt agreement sicnea, b• + ,an Barr. which he does not belie.e it is. lie ucluld like to kn,:-,.k • the Preser►aticn Commission and Cit► stag' spent thousands of dollars to hire consu;tants %%ho should ha.e been aware of that atreement when the• --worked on the drat, ordinance. He noted that \fr. Ruiz was on staff in 1994 ►when the ..rdinance %►as be:ni: gifted and this aureemeni should have been presented before the ordinance ►was appro::d. He %%ants to know ►what the implications are from legal counsel ►with regards to losing our certified local government status. Chairman Wynne pointed out that cle arl% the) 985 agreement is not square with their own Presen-ation Ordinance. Therefore she counter -suggested that what they need to do is have communication directly with our staff and the State to explain this conflict bet%%een their ordinance and this agreement. We also need to :Iarif% for the State the structure of our go. ernment in Evanston. .and. Newman has a sense that when they adopted the ordinance in 1994. they repealed ►whatever the Mayor signed beforehand, this needs to be determined by Legal staff. He asked .161r. Ruiz if he discussed this 1985 agreement with Legal staff before writing his memorandum. Mr. Ruiz responded no. Aid. Newwtnan said that he has a problem .with this incident and the Department staff` and Legal staff apparently not working in conjunction ►with each other. No memorandum of this nature should go out without Legal staff review and approval. He said this has been a continual problem within City departmental communication. fie said tifr. Ruiz's responsibility is to the City and Council, not just the Preservation Commission and Council depends on staff to communicate any conflicts or problems such as this to them first. He commended \fr. Ruiz hard .work- with preservation. however any legal issues should be reviewwed and interpreted beforehand and the Council informed in a timely manner. Mr. Weiss said that he is here tonight on behalf of the Oak -ton District because they would like to have this request approved by the Preservation Commission and sent on to Springfield by November 8`h. He said chat if they are going to get into this legal battle, it will newer happen. ifs. Gardner added that at this time there is the opportunity for both bodies to comment. Aid. Newman said his;xisition is that he would be glad to comment on it with the advice of the ward alderman for the Council, riaht away. Aid. Rainey responded that her comment after listening to the dialogue so far, is that if this Committee messes up any opportunity for this district to be formed, then she would be as disappointed than she has ewer been in our City Council. She request to forward this on to the Preservation Commission so they can comment on it and then move on %with this in a time]% form to make the No.ember 81h date. She wants to hear chat the Preservation had to saw about the Oak -ton Historic District and so do her constituents that live in that neighborhood. She .would encourage bypassing the legal conflict for this particular request but pursue the matter of concern without holding up this request. She is not sure if evertione in the district appro►es, but she is sure that if the district is designated as a national district. then it is going to bring such prestige and attention to this neighborhood that she would be very proud of. Aid. Newman commented that the conflict here between the ordinance and the 1985 agreement is a yen• important issue that needs to be resoled and that staff has apparently knot-m about it. lie said that not following the la►+ in a situation because ►we somehow have time pressure should not be MD Cemmi:Zee \tt_c Minutes of 10 11 04 Pace to considered. As far as he is the State %kill prohahk make this a district %whether or not they sad so because - tend it) support mane things and this is a legitimate request to consider that :t. designation, The process needs to be clarified and it is important to recei%e these tr.:_.i:etations. lie strongly feels final authorit.. and control should be %%ith Cit% Counci: Ne%%man said that he %\ould like to see this district designated and suggested that t ; Committee refer this to the Preservation Commission for comment with an understanding in pt1sitiun that this he referred back to Committee by their next meeting so as it) ma :%e :he November 81" deadline. Ald. Rainey- noted that the co.tiizt here has evidently been festering for some time with the issue of process. All she Izz; ng i, that the Committee not use this district proposal as an example and obstruct thet:.hances and to meet the deadline date. She also noted that she has never discussed this district with the Mayor and was not aware of her having or needing to send a letter of comment to the State. Aid. Bernstein said that it seems that they are discussing 3 different issues here. First of which according to Ms. Szymanski, the Committee is given the opportunity but not the responsibility or absolute right. to refer to the Preseration Conuzission. Ms. Szymanski concurred that it is not mandatory. Secondly, the language from Springfield seems to read that they could send this directly to the State without any opportunity for Council or the Preservation Commission to comment. Thirdly, in that same letter the State has given their opinion that even if then don't receive any comment, the` already feel this district qualifies. He agrees %with the procedure to refer to the Preservation Commission for their comment and have this come back to them by the next scheduled meeting. Chairman Wynne agrees with Aid. Rainey on this to meet the deadline and the process issue needs to be untangled separate from the Oakton District proposal so as not to obstruct their chances or not to meet the deadline for comments. Ald. Newman said that Md. Bernstein made a good point with the opinion all ready received from a State Official that they feel this district qualifies. Therefore the clash with time frame pressure should actually be of no real concern. However. he would agree to moving forward with the suggested procedure including the Preservation Coordinator working with Legal stab' to obtain an opinion before the next meeting as well. Aid. Newman motioned to send this to the Preservation Commission with specifiic instructions to give their opinion as to whether or not this district ought to be supported and with the specific instructions that they must respond back to this - Committee by the October 25's meeting. He said that this should be the first item on their agenda for that meeting date. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Aid. Bernstein made clear that his vote to send this on is not a statement for or against a district. Aid. Newman made clear that he does support the district. Ms. Betty Sue Ester, raised the question about property values placed in the district, similar to the other historical districts in their assessment, %till they be getting the same type of tax break as the other districts. If so, %what %gill this do to the other tax pa+ers and - properties outside of the historical district. Chairman Wynne responded that this is a V&D Committee Otte. Minutes of 10 11 04 Page I I good question that Aid. Ti--.dahl asked before the mectine. She suggested that an ans%%er to this should be obtained by the next mectine. ADJOURNMENT 1Vith no further business. the meeting «as adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted. �\ W,4 us- Jacqine K Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Dv%elopment Committee Minutes of October 11, 2004 Room 2403 -- 7:00 p.m. Fvanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kcnt . 1 . Tis iahl, %I. Wynne Alderman Delayed: A. Newman Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A Ahcr<on. G. %lorgan. C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: .alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORU.NI Chairman W%nne called the meeting to order at 7.21 p.m. She announced that Aid. Newman %mould join them later in the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTE1tBER 13, 2004 AIEETING MINUTES .aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the September 27th minutes. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to accommodate Aid. Tisdahl who needs to leave the meeting for an issue at A&PW. P2194-0-04 — zonine plan Amendment. National Louis University Provcrtv Chairman Wynne noted that this item was introduced and referred back to Committee for findings to make sure that the ordinance met legal muster. Mr. Wolinski informed that this is a rn-ised ordinance that contains sufficient findings to go ahead with the rezoning. Ms. Szymanski added that since there were no findings at the ZBA. she would request that the Committee go through the findings and discuss them briefly for the record. Chairman tip vnne complied referring to Section 3 of the ordinance. She began with one of the critical issues that they discussed at the last meeting which was raised by the community is with monitoring institutional development evolution making sure that they limit the negative impacts on the surrounding community and ignoring land uses. She said a critical issue that was raised was that this is an island surrounded by R1 residential property and that includes with respect to Wilmette as well. She said it wus a very big concern of the community members that we take into account that this is completely single-family residential surrounding the property and no institutional evolution occur which has a negative impact. Aid. Tisdahl agreed and added because of Evanston Pit] Corr..:ate %tiL Minutes of 10 I I r+.3 face Hospital', Proxima%. parkin- an , tr.s:tic circulation ar -na,ior c��ncern; Therefore to hase thi, propert% he RI «( -LIi nc beneficial. Chatrnan %V%nne saiJ that %%ould be with respect tl+ subsection if)) Ald. Kent said that truthfu::;. he does not care �Nhcther this i> surrounded b} R1 properties because he thinks to a certain degree that %%hat has been before this Committee is trying to create something that %could tit into an% ccimmunit% within the residential districts to include di%erse hc•usins,. He asked if this RI toned propert% going to he for million dollar homes onl because there is that opportunity here to create something to provide housing for moderate -income families 111:h a st%le that is compatible with the surrounding houses. not like-cancred site housing lie questions %%ith all the talk about inclusionary housing. ho%k does this help all of L%anston in the larger perspective. He noted that this building of die erse mixed housing has been accomplished in such communities compatible %%ith F %anston like Highland Park. lake Bluff and even Lake Forest. :old. Tisdahl pointed out that in - iew of the entire National Louis property. they are only looking at the small ponion that is F:%anston. the east majority is in Wilmette and the% ha%c alread% zoned their portion for R1. This section can accommodate 4 houses. She noted that Wilmette has asked that B anston comply with their zoning to match. Aid. Kent said that there is no economic diversity here. fold. Tisdahl said that along with diversity. there has to be some place for the million dollar homes as well. Aid. Kent asked for staff's opinion in conjunction with .Aid. Tisdahl's view. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Zoning Ordinance is the enforcement tool of the Comprehensive Plan. He would state on the record that the zoning of this property from Ltl to RI simply states that the rezoning «ill require a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet per lot. Whether or not you are going to build affordable housing on those lots. he does not believe the "Zoning Ordinance concerns itself %%ith the price of housing, the type, etc. it is concerned with bulk regulations. setbacks. minimum lot coverage. etc. He said there is nothing to say that if it is rezoned from U I to R I that those 4 lots of 7200 square feet could not be bought by a de%eloper that does affordable housing. Ald. Bernstein said that the reality is that this can not happen because the acquisition cost of the land in that area would preclude any affordable housing. He said the cost would still be too high if the property were dowazoned to R3. He understands where Aid. Kent is coming from but they run into this problem all the time with absence of subsidy in the acquisition of land makes it almost impossible to develop on. ;old. Kent said that he was under the impression that there was an offer b% a developer who proposed building housing on smaller lots. The other Committee members said that he �%as probablN referring to the Kendall College property that includes a lot more land as well. Ald. Tisdahl agreed because as far as she kno%%s no developer has put in an offer and it may be some time with the land being less than one acre. Chairman Wynne reminded that Wilmette does have the majority of the property and that the Evanston portion is only .7; of acre in the area where the donnitory currently sits. Wilmette has asked Evanston to be uniform with their zoning. Aid. Kent still argued the point of not addressing the problem with housing opportunities for residents that already live in Evanston and are eventually being forced out because P&D C,,mT,,*I r '.t,c titmutr, of : 1 ' » faze ; they can not loncer afford to bu• here. Ald. Bernstein asked :old. Kent what he would propose a,� an alternati% e. Aid. Kent responded that he could not specify a plan but feels that with the RI zoning and subsidy from the Cit%. that at least one lot could be for housinr for 3 moderate -income family He as-�uredl% feels that somethine could be created to conform on that property in combination ith the million dollar homes as well. Ald. Tisdahl stated that %vithout an affordable housing ptlic} on the books it is hard to enforce the issue at this time, especially on such a small but expensive piece of land. Chairman %V%nne asked legal if the% ha%e adequately addressed the findings. tits. Szymanski said that she believes that the discussion they has been had does support the lindinus of N. 13. and C. Ilowe%er (1)1 still needs to be addressed which basically refers to parking and traffic circulation being ad%ersely affective at that busy intersection and in being near F%anston Hospital with density greater than RI. Chairman Wynne included discussion that took place at the last meeting regarding school children crossing at this intersection that was a bib concern of the neighbors. Aid. Kent asked if this was supposed to be sufficient in addressing the findings. Chairman Wynne recalled that there was a lot of testimony at the last meetint regarding traffic and pedestrian crossing. She said in combination with addressing subsections A. B & C this evening. she would concur that the% have addressed the findings. Aid. Kent disagreed and added that he does not agree with the reasons that this has to be zoned R1. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of Ordinance 94-0-04 and acceptance of the findings as addressed by the Committee. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 3 in favor and 1 voting nay (Aid. Kent). (Ald. Tisdahl left the meeting at 7:54 p.m, for A&PW.) (PI) PUBLIC HEARING — Exemption from Smial Use Provisions for Homeless Shelter Ms. Jan Klingman from Connections for the Homeless. gave a brief statement on behalf of the Shelter. She was here in place of Mr. William Sundblad, the Executive Director, who was unable to attend this meeting. Aid. Bernstein moved to conduct the public hearing, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion, Aid. Bernstein mentioned that Aid. Newman had received complaints of homeless people sleeping in vestibules in the area, which historicall% has always been attributed to the shelter. He stated that the shelter has been a good neighbor and he has heard of no problems from people in his ward. No comments or complaints came from the audience, nor was there any discussion amongst the Committee. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that only one call has been received in his office regarding the shelter and they were in support. With no further discussion, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of extending the one-year exemption of Ordinance 49-0-86 with a request that staff bring back a modification `t:nu':-. of " 1 4 In the ordinance to lengthen tht time frame for rencNal. Mr. Wohn:-ki reminded the Comaiince Lie onJnal rea-,.-n :i-r the . -,,ear rene%kai %-.a:� I. keep a close monitor on the operation of the shrlter and to inrure close relationship with the management in case it were to chance o%er time Aid Bemsteln •U�L'_L'e+tc.l a time frame Ot 10 years. Discussion fo1lu.%ed. Aid. Kent ,aid that he cL.u;d n0t SLppon 10 }ears. suggesting a period of no longer than e%cr;. 4 %ears. 'I he Committee agreed. Aid. Bernstein amended his motion for staff to modify the ordinance to extend the period of time for rencHal to eN er►' 5-vears. .aid. Kent seconded the motion and the note was 3-0 in ravor. . i P31 715 Sheridan Resuhdi. i ion I'lai Chairman NV%nne noted that this was held in Comminee for appropriate findings, Ms. yz♦manski said that since there .%ere no findings at all. she suggested that the findings be read into the minutes particular,% since this is not part of an ordinance. She said this should be done at the Council lc%cl. however here at PB:D she belie,'es it would be sufficient to reference the document prepared b% %fr. Ruiz dated October If. 21004 with the findings on the proposed �ul%di%ision. She saint that there needs to be some discussion amongst the Committee in%olving the standards. Chairman %Vynne updated aid. Kent on the discussion from the last meeting with one of the critical issues for her was with the Preservation Ordinance and all of the aspects that would protect this as propem in the historic district. The proposed new construction on the proposed lot .=2 would maintain the view from the street to the Lake. another issue in support is the tremendous length of the property. which supports both parcels here. By creating these t«o lots. the lot is large enough and doesn't subdivide the property into lots to provide se-,eral properties •%here there used to be onl% one house. She recalled that one of the things the} heard from the architect. fir. Knutson. was that the design of the new structure is compatible with the main house and will actually function on the property in the style of coach house. She said the materials are similar and the rooflines as well. therefore the new construction will not look like a completely different style of architecture. She brought attention to the drawings submitted in Council packets and it confirms that there %+ill be no blocking or obstructing the view from the public street or public way of the main house on the property. The ne« structure will be approximately 210' from the front property line and located cast of the landmark structure. She said as a result of that the critical features of the strectscape associated with the Iandmark would remain in tack. Chairman Wnne said on the question of whether this would adversely effect the traffic pattern. she does not believe it would because they are going to be sharing a common driveway. There will be little or not additional traffic caused by this subdivision. Nis. Szymanski appro%ed as sufficient for findings. Aid. Bernstein asked about the easement on the propem. \fr. Murray said that there probably will be so that new construction will not obstruct views from the main residence and Mice versa. Aid. Bernstein moved approval and to adopt the findings set forth in the memo provided by Mr. Ruiz. dated October 11. 2004. Aid. Kent seconded the motion. fir. Wolinski informed the Committee that he and Corporation Counsel just discussed the issue that the proposed subdivision meets the signature requirements of the various City P&D Commirer Mtc Min.ites of 10 1 pue 5 Departments inc'.udinc the loninc I)i%ision. Works. Finance and Law Department. With this amendment included in the motion. the rote was ;-0 in favor. I P4 i Ordinance Rd - Snecial use f T% re 2 Re�taurant i for 1611 Sherman Chairman %k %One asked the applicants for a hr:ef st-tement and m crvie%% of their business. Mr. l'ushar Vaid\a and fir. Pura,. Shah imrc-fuced themselves as the lessee's. Mr. Vaidya gave the overview. The business name being Cold Stone Creamery operating as an ice cream parlor. They propose to be open 7-day s a week. provide seating for 4-5 people with a seating area of approximately 55 square feet. He noted that they are aware of litter collection plan and have one in mind to pick up any liner within 500 feet of their store between I - - hours per day. The%- also hay e a parking plan to pro% ide parking for their employ ees in the lot across the street. They ha%e also set up with a local disposal company for garbage pick up 3-times and week -and more if necessary. They %,.ill also train all employees to keep all waste receptacles eo,.er protected at all times. The building has a back alley -way entrance where deli%eries can he made and where all dumpsters will be located out of public view. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. He commended the applicants awareness of the conditions involved with operation of a type 2 restaurant. He also told them it is in the best interest of ail businesses to aid in keeping the do•vnto«n clean. He warned the applicants of the immense concern for litter. debris and garbage problems that have arisen since the rise in type 2 restaurants and that City Council has pledged to do something about it and City Staff is very much on the case in enforcing the regulations. \fr. Vaidya and Mr. Shah said that they understood the rules and consequences if not followed. With no further discussion. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDl) Oakton Historic District - Nomination to the National Reeister of Historical Places Aid. Rainey was called over from A&P«' for discussion on this item. \fr. Carlos Ruiz gave a brief o%er•iewr on the background of this request as stated on the agenda item sheet. Aid. Bernstein asked if the Committee is only being asked here for approval to refer this to the Preservation Commission for their comments and wrinen recommendation to be forwarded to the State. Ruiz said that is correct and Mr. Wolinski pointed out that it has been requested for the Committee's approval but is not mandatory. Ms. Barbara Gardner continued on where lair. Wolinski left off to explain how this confusion with the process keeps coming into conflict. The State Officials have Ietter from the Commission had no right to go without notif}-ing P&D and having them say to the Commission to issue its findings. She said this is the confusion of the wording. As far as she is concerned. there is nothing to even discuss this evening because everybody is supposed to go about doing their thing when it was on the docket for P&D and the Preservation Commission has not even heard this vet. Aid. Bernstein agreed. Chairman Wynne said at the very least the Preservation Commission has to act really fast because P&D Comm t,ee %!t_L Minutes of I j 01 Pa: - t, the State need!. the letter hti V. Mr. P..: in ,,m d that the Commission has chosen two dates. O1ctc;ber 1,, or the 26". Chairir..::i :-me asked ifthi> matter needs to come back before P&I)" Mr Ruii responded no -<cause it is a National Register nomination imea,! of local. (Ald. Newman arri%ed at 3 =,J.1 lie asked ti►r an 4r-date on the discussion thus far. Chairman W%nne informed him that according to the staff. the State needs to hear from two entities: The Mayor. representing the Council. and the Preservation Commission. Ald. No%Tnan asked for the language as wTitten in the Ordinance that states this. It was noted that Mr. Ruiz read this from Section G. 7.. of the Ordinance and is included in writing on the agenda item hett. :old. Ne"m.:r,-ecaKed this same dispute with the Georgian where the Preseration Commission %%anted to take a different view potentiall) than the City Council on the issue of "hether or not the Georgian should be National. From his point of %iew. this does not need to go back to the Preseration Commission. lie feels the City should take a position based on the advise of the Preservation Commission if requested. but the% should be talking to the Alderman of Ward as to whether or not they want to supporl it or not In his opinion. the Preservation Commission is not always totally in line, and the% ha%a the same problem here differently as they had with the Northeast Banston Iistoric District where there ►%as a complaint back then. Mr. Jack Weiss. Chainnan of the Oakton Historic District Committee. He addressed Ald. Newman informing him that the way the process is supposed to work, is that two people have responsibility for responding to this: the Ma%or and the Preservation Commission. The review and written submittal to the State should come from the Commission with a letter from the Mayor. He said the Council is not supposed to hear this beforehand nor do they need to approve the Preservation Commission's recommendation. Ald. Bernstein noted that what fir. Weiss states is not clear in the %%ording; of the Ordinance. Also. Ald. Newman pointed out that the final wording in that paragraph reads: "upon request of the City Council." in his opinion the Mayor should not be writing letters on this. He said this is a Council matter and the Preservation Commission doesn't get involved and this does have implications. even though there is no local district. When it is a National District, it creates advisory responsibilities for the applicant if they wish to effect any building; in the historic district, %%here the case %kould then go before the Preservation Commission. its. Gardner disagreed. Mr. Ruiz stated that the zoning Ordinance addresses that issue and further explained the process for properties in National Register districts. :old. Newman painted out that there =till is no local requirement for demolitions. etc. but there is still an implication for the property owner. From his point of view in reading and understanding this. the City Council is elected Civ,'Wide and the Preservation Commission is a volunteer board .%ith no election. He continued that the Commission is a hard-working advisory group for the City Council that has some final authority in some areas. However, when it comes to making a National District, the Council and ward alderman should make that re% iew and decision. He recalled that the Mayor was out of sync with the rest of the Council b% telling the people in Springfield that the Cite did not support the district after first stating that they did support it. in the end with the Georgian, the Preseration Commission by a _54 vote thought this building PSI) C,�" - t'rr '.N: I'd o: should aa%e been a landmark Ih,: Cit% ('­ur."l.rnade up of') elected officials. .aid it _houldn't N- a landmark. In his mind. it .he Corntr,:� ,ion %%ould ha%c been allowed to comment on this ILI the 1 _•orle in Springfield. there %could have been a miscommunication b%- the state oftici�]• tin '.that the of the Cite of Evanston %%uuld br. Therefore. in hie the %%a% they >hou!J respond on Oakton District. he %%ould be glad to support this tl he heard the Alderman the -,yard supported and made a con%incine case for National. status. llo\%eyer. he is opposed to having the N1.1yor comment and is opposed to hating the Preservation Commission comment because they are an advisory board to Council. Ile did \%elcome the Commission to forward their advice which could have been done with this request. Chairman W\nne asked how to address the point that \khat the State organization doesn't recognize that the :Mayor and the Council ma\ not share the same view and where the Preservation Commission has an ad\ isory role. Whereas the State may be technical "sticklers" for hearing only from the Mayor or onl\ fmm the Preservation Commission. She stated to id. Newman that the Committee heard earlier before he arrived that with the Georgian. the State recei\ed the letter from the Mayor but eery much wanted to hear from the Preservation Commission and they were quite concerned that they did not hear any recommendation from them. :old. Newman said that he does understand why they would want to hear from the Presen•ation Commission but he questions the State Officials not wanting to hear from Cite Council and %%ould like to hear from them in writing regarding this matter. In his belief. there is a %en- close working relationship between the Preservationist all around the State. \%hick is acceptable because they all work together: local. state and federal. I lows\ er. as far as he is concerned, the Preservation Commission in Evanston does not make polic\ on these issues for the people of Evanston. He reiterated that the Commission is an advisory committee and can be solicited by the Council and they shouldn't he giving policy recommendations on behalf of citizens in Evanston: this is the responsibility of the elected officials. In the case of the Georgian. the State could have been forwarded the transcripts of the Preservation Commission findings. Fie feels that if the Commission does not receive this, then they need to make it more explicit in the Ordinance. He recalled when this first came up with the Northeast District. the people who opposed the District were all angry somehow that they were not able to participate in a process before they went as a City down -State to support the nomination. lie stressed that they need to get this issue clarified. He also reiterated his opinion that the Nla�or should also not be sending letters representing the Cit%- Ms. Gardner brought up an issue dated back to 198-5. ►%here the Mayor at that time signed an agreement with the State of Illinois making Evanston a Certified Local Government. She pointed out that in Council's packet it explains what the responsibilities are, one of them is that the Mayor and the Preservation Commission are to comment on any nomination going for national landmark status. She stressed that this is clarified in the 1985 agreement and if they go changing the rules at this time. Evanston will not be a certified local government and there are economic benefits to the City that will be lost. :did. RaineN left the meeting at this point. P&D Crrnrr;tcr: %1•_ %tinutrs Of 1'aLc ti :Md. Ne%%:Tian .yue!,tioned tha*, w..e`»:: It of losine an% cconomic benrrit. fie noted that %%hen this P;e�en ation Ord:rs:t,:e aas dratted back in 1994. the Preservation Commio,io t at that ttme and .:r. Mr. White. %%ent through e%er} part of this ordinance and the% all ne%% at that tmr.. that the Cit< of E:.anston was a Certified Local government. Therefore. to the cNtent that their Ordinance is in conflict with State rules. then he suggest that maybe the% reed to take a look at this .did. Bernstein asked legal about the %%Crding in the ordinance "upon request of the City Council". Ms, Szymanski stated that this is not mandatory. According to the %%ords of the Ordinance, referral by the Cit% Council is not mandaton. .old. Bernstein said this is peculiar because he %%'as under the im ression, that %%i:f :h: Geotuian. the i'reser%ation Commission's recommendation %•as going to the States along %%ith their recommendation against the landmark nomination. Aid. tie%%rrar agreed and had the same understanding. his. Gardner infon-ned that there .,,ere t%%o responses from the City. one from City Council and one from the Ma%or. %%here site %%as opposed also. Aid. Bernstein questioned why the Mayor's response kNas separate if she is supposed to be sending the response back in representation of the Council. fit: has no problems giving this to the Preservation Commission to conduct hearings %%ith the idea being that their decision then comes back to P.D. His interpretation of the language before them seems that this may not be the case. He does not understand to any case %%hy the Preservation Commission's recommendation on the Georgian %.as not forwarded to the State. Mr. Ruiz responded that the %%hole ideal not to send the Preser%'ation Commission's recommendation was what was interpreted from the comments made by the P&D Committee and it was understood that the recommendation from Council would be the final decision to be forwarded to the State. This final decision was that Council did not support the Commission's recommendation and this was all that %%as said and that was the Commission's understanding at that time. Mr. Ruiz referred back to the 1985 agreement and this basically states that the Commission and the yiayor should issue the recommendations. Chairman Wxane added that it states that the Council's responsibilities are to re%ie%% and cornment upon nominations to the National Register of Historic Places for properties %%ithin the jurisdiction. Within 60 days of receiving the nomination, submit to the State Historical Preservation Officer written recommendations of the Commission and the Chief elected official as to whether the property meets the criteria in the National Register. This is the agreement that (Mayor Joan Barr signed in 1985. (Aid. Tisdahl returned to the meeting at 8: 38 p.m.) The Committee agreed that there is a definite conflict with the current Ordinance and the 1985 agreement. .old. Newman said that he thinks the Committee should not refer to the Preservation Commission. Ilis reasoning is because he is not sure that the Commission will respect the City Council as the final authority on this particular point. It appears their belief is that they have their own independent powers that in some cases override City Council, which he finds in error. in fact. the Preservation Ordinance doesn't exist in this City if there are 5 %cues that saes it doesn't exist. lie suggested that the Committee have the City Legal staff tell use %%hether the home rule ordinance of the City of Evanston PitD Corn !rice MtC %tinulort '(I 11 04 Page 0 is o%er-ridden b% the ce^ined government agreement signed 1-;, 1, an Barr. «hick he does not believe it is. lie %%oulj like to kno%% "hy the PresernattOn Commission and City staff spent thousands of JoEars to hire consultants «hey should ha% a been aware of that attrcement %%hen the% v,orked on the draft ordinance. Ile noted 'l.a, NIr. Ruiz was on staff' in 1994 %then the ordinance %%as beinc drafted and thi, aire:ernent should have been presented before the ordinance was apprmed. He «ants to kr.-)-.,6 chat the implications are from legal counsel «ith regards to losing our certified local government status. Chairman Wynne pointed out that clear]% the 1985 agreement t: not square with their own 1'resen ation Ordinance. 'rherefore she counter -suggested that «hat they need to do is have communication directly with our staff and the State to explain this conflict bet►%een their ordinance and this asreemeni. We also nerd -w �:a:if% for the State the structure of our go%ernment in Evanston. Aid. Neuman has a sense: that when they adopted the ordinance in 1994. they repealed %%hatever the Mayor signed beforehand, this needs to be determined by Legal staff. He asked Mr. Ruiz sf he discussed this 1985 agreement with Legal staff before writing his memorandum. !.Ir. Ruiz responded. no. :old. Ncµ7nan said that he has a problem with this incident and the Department staff and Legal staff apparently not µorking in conjunction %%ith each other. No memorandum of this nature should go out µ ithout Legal staff review and approt al. lie said this has been a continual problem within City departmental communication. lie said 'Mr. Ruiz's responsibility is to the City and Council. not just the Preservation Commission and Council depends on staff' to communicate any conflicts or problems such as this to them first. He commended Mr. Ruiz hard work with preservation, hov e,.e:r any legal issues should be reviewed and interpreted beforehand and the Council informed in a timely manner. .Mr. Weiss said that he is here tonight on behalf of the Oak -ton District because they Mould like to have this request approved by the Preservation Commission and sent on to Springfield by November 8`s. fie said that if they are going to get into this legal battle, it will never happen. his. Gardner added that at this time there is the opportunity for both bodies to comment. Aid. Neuman said his position is that he %-,ould be glad to comment on it with the advice of the %%ard alderman for the Council. right a,%ay. Aid. Rainey responded that her comment atler listening to the dialogue so far, is that if this Committee messes up any opportunity for this district to be formed. then she would be as disappointed than she has ever been in our City CcunciI. She request to fonvard this on to the Preservation Commission so they can comment on it and then mote on with this in a timely form to make the November 8`h date. She «ants to hear what the Preservation had to say about the Oakton Historic District and so do her constituents that live in that neighborhood_ She would encourage bypassing the legal conflict for this particular request but pursue the matter of concerts without holding up this request. She is not sure if even.one in the district approves. but she is sure that if the district is designated as a national district. then it is going to bring such prestige and attention to this neighborhood that she would be very proud of. Aid. Neµ7nan commented that the conflict here between the ordinance and the 1985 agreement is a %ery important issue that needs to he resolved and that staff has apparently known ah-)ut it. }le said that not follox%ing the law in a situation because �Ne someho« have time pressure should not be P&D Co-mr+• .. tit! f'ssc 110 c.,nsidered A;. far as .,_ . ,n,crned. the Sw-e probably make thi, a district whether Or not the% +a% SO becat,-e t',_ . tend let sup-, mangy things and this is a legitimate request CO ci+ns'der that ;:strict ,6r designation. The process nerds to he clarified and it is important to receive t1 Cam: :n:e :l -e tationti. lie ,trongly feels final authority and control should be with City C, . ;,c:!. A!j. \c%%man said that he would like to see this district d4sicnated and suggested !'hat the Committee refer this to the 11resen-ation Commission for comment %%ith an understanding in position that this be referred back to Committee by their nett meeting so as to rn ke the November 8"" deadline. Aid. Rainey noted that the conflict here has evidently been festering for some time with the issue of process All • e inu is that the Committee not use this district proposal as an example and obstruct their chances and to meet the deadline date. She also noted that she has never discussed this district with the Mayor and was not a%%are of her having or needing to send a letter of comment to the State. Aid. Bernstein said that it seems that they are discussing 3 different issues here. First of which according to tits. Sz,.rnanski, the Committee is given the opportunity but not the responsibility or absolute right, to refer to the Preservation C'nmmiss un. :pis. Sz%manski concurred that it is not mandatory. Secondly. the language from Springfield seems to read that they could send this directly to the State without any opportunit% for Council or the Preservation Commission to comment. Thirdly, in that same letter the State has given their opinion that even if they don't receive any comment. the% already feel this district qualifies. He agrees with the procedure to refer to the Preservation Commission for their comment and have this come back to them by the next scheduled meeting. Chairman Wynne agrees with Aid. Rainey on this to meet the deadline and the process issue needs to be untangled separate from the Oakton District proposal so as nut to obstruct their chances or not to meet the deadline for comments. Aid. Newman said that Aid. Bernstein made a good point with the opinion all ready received from a State Official that they feel this district qualities. Therefore the clash with time frame pressure should actually be of no real concem. However, he would agree to moving forward with the suggested procedure including the Preservation Coordinator working with Legal staff to obtain an opinion before the next meeting as well. Aid. Newman motioned to send this to the Preservation Commission with specific instructions to give their opinion as to whether or not this district ought to be supported and with the specific instructions that they must respond back to this Committee by the October 35t6 meeting. He said that this should be the first item on their agenda for that meeting date. Ald. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Aid. Bernstein made clear that his vote to send this on is not a statement for or against a district. .old. Newman made clear that he does support the district. Ms. Bettv Sue Ester, raised the question about property values placed in the district. similar to the other historical districts in their assessment, will they be getting the same type of tax break as the other districts. If so, what %sill this do to the other tax payers and properties outside of the historical di -strict. Chairman %Vynne responded that this is a P&p Commince Mte- Minules of 10 11 (4 Pave I I good question that Ald. Tisdahl asked before the meeting. She suggested that an ans%%cr to this should be obtained by the next meeting. ADJOUR`NIEtiT With no further business. the meeting %%as adjourned at 9.00 p.m. Respectful]% submitted. Jacqu ine Bro«nlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of October 25, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. .Newman. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Berkow•sky, A. Alterson. S. Janusz, G. Morgan. C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7.48 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2004 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 1 Ith minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION f P I 1 Anaeal of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avenue Ms. Kelly Drew introduced herself as a representative for Sprint PCS. Her position is Site Acquisition Specialist working at acquiring telecommunication facilities throt:ghout Evanston for Sprint PCS. She explained that currently Sprint is experiencing a significant coverage gap in and around the area of Evanston. To that end, they are interested in placing a telecommunication installation at this location. She reiterated that currently their customers are experiencing blocked and dropped calls. Ms. Drew went through a chronological history of what has occurred to this date. She said they first appeared before the Site Plan and appearance Review Committee (SPAARC) on March 24, 2004 and presented a proposal to construct a 150-monopole installation to accommodate their telecommunications antennas. She explained the intention of that %vas to provide improvement coverage for a specific area. She said whenever possible, Sprint PCS attempts to utilize existing structures in the area and do all they can to minimize the development of towers in any area they go in. Unfortunately in this specific area. there were no existing structures that were viable candidates. She said their first choice was the smokestack at Evanston Township High School, however the ETHS w-as not interested in working «ith Sprint towards an agreement. Over the course of two more meetings in May and working closely with the SPAARC towards a height that would be P&D Committee %fig. %tlncstes of 10 Z! 04 1'acC acceptable to Sprint and meet their coscrau ohliec:ti%es a. .+ell a.; minimize the visual impacts of the to%ker. Ihe% came to a conclusion that I It)' ssould he the minimal height they could eu to meet a specific coverage need as well as not heing obstructive to passerby's. She said on Nlas IV' they receked preliminary and concept approval from SPAARC. They proceeded to file their building permit. as directed, and when they proposed for final approval from SPAARC. they were actually denied on August 1$'6 , 2004. She stated that they were not gisen any specifics to their denial and that is why they are here today to request that Planning &: Development Committee reconsider this proposal. Chairman Wynne asked Air. Wolinski to represent SPAARC and elaborate on their view of this matter. She also asked for input from Aid. lean -Baptiste with this being in his ward and asked that he be called over from A&:PW. Mr. Wolinski explained that these decisions are always very difficult for the SPAARC on the siting of these monopoles for the various cellular phone companies. He referred to the map that ifs. Drew provided included in their packet 'illustrating the carious rooftops and monopole locations that are in the Evanston/Skokie area. lie said while they all recognize and certainly believe that there is a coverage problem. they were concerned with the site that Sprint had selected at 1235 Hartrey because directly ssest are majority single-family residences. He said in the final analysis, SPAARC felt uncomfortable gis ing final approval to this simply because of the effect this can have on the single-family home owners and honestly felt that they have not had this encouragement into a single-family neighborhood any where else in Evanston. They have been lucky enough to be able to site these antennas either on tap of the water towers or atop fairly large buildings. Fie said SPAARC suggested maybe the possibility of a location in Skokie sliest of McCormick, however Ms. Drew and her advisor stated that the Skokie location would not take care of the coverage problem that exists in Evanston. Mr. Wolinski noted that they did talk about the location at the High School in SPAARC, however the school currently has numerous antennas on their smokestack now and were not interested in putting any additional antenna at this time. He acknowledged that the Sprint representatives did their homework and made an obvious effort to obtain other location possibilities. He believes that in the final result, this is something that Site Plan felt very uncomfortable approving at their Committee level. This effects the neighborhood and SPAARC felt the best svay to approach this was to have it brought before Council. Aid. Tisdahi asked if the neighbors have been notified of this proposal. Staff responded that no notice has been sent out as of yet since this has only been heard at the SPAARC level. Aid. Tisdahl said that she would be very uncomfortable making any decision on this without proper notice sent out to neighboring residences. Aid. Bernstein questioned the appellate process because it states that appeals are supposed to go to the City Manager or designee. He noted that ;its. Aiello made the motion to deny this at Site Plan, so therefore it is assumed that she has designated this Committee to hear the appeal. Mr. Wolinski stated that is the interpretation. Chairman Wynne asked Ms. Dress svhv they initially wanted the I50' antenna. Ms. Dress said that they were initially trying to cover a much larger broader coverage area. In working closely- With the SPAARC, they realized that may be a visual obstruction to passersby and it may not be a very good fit with the P&D Commitnce Miz. Minutes of 10 =5 04 Page neighborhood as it i=. She expanded that the% chose this particular site because it is tuned Industrial t 2 i : rea. She distributed photos to the Committee showing the Iroposed location beinz =Ct ;pack behind industrial loading docks. trucks. and garbage bins. She does not consider this to be a residential area even it is located adjacent to residential. Chairman `k }nne pointed out that buildings might hide the base of the monopole but the other 55 ' of the pole would be visible to the neighboring residential area. She asked Nis. Drew if they pursued sites in Skokie. Nis. Drew responded that they did unfortunately Skokie's ordinance is w- inen in such a way that they only allow telecommunication facilities in Industrial areas and there are not any industrial areas except for well south of Main Street. This was the closest industrial area available and would not meet their objectives. Chairman Wynne asked what would happen if they increased the height of the one at 640 Hartrey. which is located on the water tank. She noted that her preference .%ould be to locate such an antenna on a large structure such as the water tank or the high school smokestack before allowing this directly adjacent to residential homes. She said it doesn't matter whether it is zoned Industrial or not. Ms. Drew introduced Mr. David Raymond, RF Engineer for Sprint, who could be better answer this question. fir. Raymond explained that raisins the height of the antenna on the water tower could help their coverage but would hurt them capacity wise. He elaborated on the technology standpoint as to why it would not help the situation. He noted that Sprint as N%eii as the other cellular companies are having such a dramatic increase in users over the past several years that they have to keep up by adding more telecommunication facility sites. He said that the original request for the height of I50' was to try and cover a specific area with one facility- rather than having to consider two sites to cover the same area. Chairman Wynne asked his. Drew to elaborate on the efforts with the High School; she said that her understanding was that the lease amount would be approximately $50,000 at this proposed site. its. Dreg responded that figure was not accurate. In actuality the yearly amount is not even half that figure, the amount does not even exceed $20,000. She distributed copies of the letter from Evanston Township's Director of Operations to Sprint explaining their disinterest at the time to add another antenna installation due to aesthetics concerns. Aid. Jean -Baptiste entered the meeting at this time. He informed the Committee that his suggestion would be to hold this item in Committee so that the neighbors could be properly notified of this proposal. He would be interested to know- the neighbors concerns if any. He said that if there are no objections from the neighbors, he would not object to the location as «ell. He requested that the businesses be notified too and the day care center. It was decided that the usual radius of 500' for notification and that staff would provide this list to the applicant. Aid. Newman moved to hold in Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. The Committee directed staff to work with the Sprint representative in getting out the notices in due time before the next meeting. P&D Committee ,%ttc. Minutes of 10 _5 04 f'aee 4 11'31 Ordinance 109-0-0 4 — Ame-dment to Section 4-5-' of the Evanston City Code with Modifications to Section 1--. ,2 and F-501 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman %V%nnr recalled that the,. asked staff to provide notification to all building owners that wwouid be effected by this pro.posed ordinance, which has been done. Chief BCTkowsky summarized the draft ordinance that requires existing hospitals, nursing home facilities, fraternities and sororities and ron-owner occupied rooming houses to install sprinkler systems. As he previously r.3s stated, these occupancies are his biggest concerns. lie brought attention to his handout distributed to the Committee with an article reflecting on the recent deadly fire at the [University of Mississippi killing 3 fraternity members and a copy of the now requirement to put sprinklers in the dormitories. He said that this is referred to the title of "The Tombstone Requirement" because it happens after something bad as already occurred. He said this brings to mind the fire that occurred 1 Y, years ago at a non -owner occupied rooming house at Northwestern where the owner claimed to run a clean well managed rooming house. The owner installed sprinklers with the renovation from the fire damage and resulted in several installations of sprinklers as well. He pointed out several examples in Evanston where sprinklers saved lives and extensive damage. One example is a recent fire in a unit at the Georgian where the occupant came out not even needing medical attention. a fire in the basement of another nursing home where the alarm system malfunctioned but the sprinkler system went off and put out the tire, a fire in the hallway of the St. Francis Medical Building at 800 Austin where the sprinkler system put out the fire before serious damage and they were back in business the next day. These are just a few examples of many %%-here the sprinkler system has aided in putting out fires even before the Fire Department arrived. He said typically water damage is much easier to clean up and put things back in order quicker than any fire damage. Chief Berkowsky said that he would like the members of the P&D Committee to consider the approval of the ordinance presented this evening. Aid. Newman asked which nursing homes were not sprinkled. Chief Berkowsky mentioned the ones listed in his October 18'' memorandum: Presbyterian Home with areas that are not sprinkled: GreenwwoQd Care Facility, Albany House, and the Georgian/Mather Homes that are majority sprinkled but not completed. Aid. Bernstein asked horn he classified rooming houses. Chief Berkowsky answered houses and buildings licensed as rooming houses. this does not include buildings such as the N-fargarita Inn. Aid. Newman defined them as residences where they want to have 3 or more unrelated occupants and are licensed to do so. He said the problem is with most of the people violating our ordinance do not come and get licensed, however there are many of rooming houses that have been for a lone period of time. For example, the house at 1945 Sherman and many of the houses around that corner. In response to the number of rooming houses, 4fr. Wolinski noted that all the dormitories are considered and have license to operate as rooming houses but there are approximately 20 non -university rooming houses. He believes only one has the owner living on the premises. Aid. Newman brought to attention one of the rooming house owners in his Ward by the name of Steven Simms who he knows to be one of the biggest slum landlords in P&D Committee !.ttc. Minutes of }n _'5 r�a� Page ; 1vanston. lie owns several properties at this time, one heinv at 801) Meister. lie noted the many violations with this building tram nwer-occupanc%. no grass on the front lawn, constant beer kegs on the front porch. the landlord t; completely absentee and is taking in huge amount of money without putting anything hack into the property. .another property of Mr. Simms that was just inspected resulting in multiple nuisance violations and no smoke detectors were found. He has witnessed in some of the rooming houses where people are literally living in rooms the sire of closets. junk and debris filling the house. Aid. Newman feels that the sole purpose of ow►•ners like Mr. Simms. who now owns 5 properties, is to soak the money out of the property, they don't care about the well-being and safety of the tenants. Therefore the City needs to make these people who are drawing in big rents, their houses safe for the occupants. He shared information that Iir. Simms is corning in with his lawyer. fir. Steven Engelman, to meet with City staff regarding some of their inspections. He strongly supports this ordinance; especially to have some control over being able to force landlords such as the one mentioned, to comply and to make the people that live in these properties safe. He reiterated that this particular landlord hasn't even invested in smoke detectors with multiple tenants living in one building, to insure their safet%. Ald. Newman again assured his support for this ordinance and would like to start with 809 Sherman and 1945 Sherman rooming houses, Ald. Bernstein said that he does not have a problem wvith the concept but does have a problem with the ordinance itself specifically with respect to what he believes is discriminatory. According to the wording. there is an appellate process which considers the net worth of the building relative to the cost of installation, the availability of financing. In his mind, it sounds like if you can't afford the installation, the City won't make the owner do this or will expand the amortization period. Chief Berko-wsky responded that he would have this option to decide if the owiter needs more time, he could provide an extension if necessary. Ald. Bemstein said that as the ordinance reads now, he feels it is unconstitutional because it differentiates between classes of people: those who can afford this and to building owners who can not. He said that this is suggesting that tenants living in buildings owned by landlords that have less money should go without having the sprinkler systems installed because they can't afford it. This is unconstitutional. it should be required across the board for all buildings because every tenant in all buildings should have this same measure of safety. He would like to see an ordinance pass that is going to be enforceable for all landlords and building owners throughout Evanston. The other Committee members asked hire what he would suggest to rectify this language in the ordinance. Aid. Bemstein suggested to get rid of the wording in Section F503.7.4 or rewwrite to address this concern for enforceability of this ordinance for all building owners in the categories of concern as listed by the Fire Chief. Aid. Newman brought to attention that more than likely there are no building owners in the categories of the occupancy types that could not afford this retrofit 'within the amortization period suggested by the Fire Chief. He said that the building owners of the non -owner occupied rooming houses are charging astronomical rents for rooms practically the size of closets and many of the landlords are not putting any money back into the property. He admitted that he has no real empathy for these absentee rooming house landlords. Aid. Bemstein agreed but stated that was not his issue here. it is the enforceability of this ordinance as it is written. P&D Committee lttg Minutes of 10 25 04 I'aL!c 6 Aid. Bernstein said another problem he has ►►ith this that has been di -,cussed before. is the communication with `orth►►estern. Ile recalled past discusuE}n regarding the potentiality of Northwestern licensing these rooming houses and undertaking the Cit}-'s responsibility for inspections also because in fact their students are at risk here. This would be for approved Uni►ersity housing; that meets their requirements. He also recalled the concerns of Aid. }gent and Newman over the years about the lack of enforcement and communication between the City and Northwestern. In summary, his concerns are twofold: first ►with the enforceability of the ordinance to require all buildings under the listed categories to install the sprinkler retrofit regardless of the value of the structure or net worth of the owner. He suggested Legal Staff review and either remove or re -write the Appeal Process Section to make less subjective, it can not be a function of inability to pay because that sets up a protective class. Secondly, he would also like to talk to Northwestern University about collaboration with the City in terms of having them go out into their community so that we do not have to spend our efforts. It is a method by which without physically putting our hand in their pocket. they can accommodate the needs both of the City of Evanston financially and their students practically. Chairman Wynne informed the Committee that she just recently had a discussion with one of her constituents that works for Northwestern regarding that enact point and ►►as told that the University does not have enough staff to accommodate this. She suggested that this be one of the first concerns to address with Northwestern and that they pro► ide a list to the students and their parents of approved housing and known nuisance housing as well. Ms. Carla Diaz said that she lives at 1907 Sherman and is here as the City government liaison for the student government in her class. She also lived at 625 University Place for the last two years, which is one of the sorority houses so she has had a lot of contact with their House Corporations. She said that one of the recent concerns of the House Corporation is that they are working with the University to turn over the leases because the University wants to take over the leases and turn the sorority and fraternities into University housing. Therefore, the University would do all maintenance for these particular buildings. She said they are in the process of dealing with when the leases expire and to proceed. She informed the Committee that because of the plan in process, the Housing; Corporation is concemed that if this ordinance goes into effect immediately, the they are going to have to raise the money where the State has allotted funds to do. The University would actually be able to do this if they allotted for the turn over of the lease. Ms. Diaz concluded from the sorority and fraternity perspective. they are concerned that this might happen before the leases are turned over so that the University can assist them. She noted that she and her fellow classmates do agree ►►ith this ordinance but are concemed with the financial burden if the Greek houses have to pay for this on their own, it will be passed onto the students living in those houses. She requested that the Committee and staff keep this in mind. Aid. Tisdahl suggested that Ms. Diaz look at the amortization calendar, which does allow for a time period of 5-years to fully comply. Ms. Peeiw ? , said that she is the House Corporation Board President for Delta, Delta, Delta Sorority. She confirmed Ms. Diaz's comments and concerns and said that the leases are on 10-year cycles. The houses all have their ovvn leases and vary in expiration dates, therefore this is driving the process to get the new leases in place. t'&D Comm;nee %it_c %tmuies of ! r, _5 (y face - I loweyer. the% are ►%orking on turning o%cr the leases that are expiring nor or in the near future and a� she ethers e\plrc :n % ars. she% «ill he gi\cn the option Io turn o\er their leases at that time. She informcd that the Uni+ersit is vv.in_u allowance it) the Rousts \%ith expiration dates within a f_t% %tar,- the option and opportunity to move to the new lease structure early. In response to a question. she said that currently Northwestem owns the property and the building and the sorority fratemit� is responsible for the full maintenance. This will change with the new lease structure. Aid. Newman moved to introduce Ordinance 108-0-04 and refer back to Committee to allow Legal to review and make amendment to Section F503.7.4. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0. Aid. Tisdahl directed staff to notify Northwestern University Administration regarding all that has been discussed and occurred at this meeting. lP2l Ordinance 107-0-04 — SDecial Use (Tyne 2 Restaurant I for 1158 Dodge Aid. Jean -Baptiste was. present for this iicrn. Mr. Dan Skurek introduced himself as the representative and consultant for Domino's Pizza. He gave a brief overview of their proposal. He acknowledged awareness of all City requirements for the type 2 restaurants as it pertains to litter and garbage pickup and all other issues necessary for allowance of this type of restaurant to operate in Evanston. He went through some of the standards addressed at the Zoning Board meeting and how they met those standards. He described the dumpster area and how it is practically hidden from public view. The dumpsters will also be chained. Mr. Skurek introduced Air. James Fisher. the franchisee. and Mr. Mark Snyder from Joseph Freed & Associates representing Evanston Plaza. I. LC "ho are also present for any questions. Aid. Newman moved to deny the special use, seconded by Aid. Bernstein for discussion purposes only. A. `ewTnan explained his motion to deny is due to the consideration of the plan coming out of the 3h Ward TIF which basically wants to look at getting rid of the McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken currently at Dempster and Dodge. He questioned why the% should keep granting special uses on this corner because there is at present too many fast food restaurants. He feels they will be doing a great dis- service by continuing to put in fast food restaurants. It is time to start making a statement here that there are too manv type � restaurants on that corner from almost every fast food franchise existing. It was mentioned that there is no Domino's Pizza currently in Evanston; the two that existed are now closed. Ald. Newman addressed that Joseph Freed & Assoc. are not doing that center any good if they do not start marketing better for that location. Mr. Skurek defended that Domino's is really not a fast food establishment because even- piz7a is made to order and it is only pickup or deliver%. There are no drive -windows or order lines. It %kas also mentioned that Domino's no longer has the 30- minute delivery guarantee so drivers will not be speeding in and out to delivery pizzas. Aid. Bernstein explained to Mr. Skurek that there is actually no longer a category for fast food establishments; it is now either type I or type 2. - He gave the definition and difference between the two types, which qualifies Domino's to be categorized as a type 2 restaurant. He would be in support of going back to some gradations among their fast P&D Committee Mig. %Iinut:; of Pave 5 loud categories tit -cause there are different types of operations that vary in amount of clientele and level of business. Aid. Jean -Baptiste first asked how long the lease is for this location. tiir. Snyder responded 1 I -years. AId. Jean -Baptiste stated that one of is major concerns is for the vacancies that exist over there and the importance of filling them to avoid blight and to bring in needed revenue. He said that the 5'h Ward TIF would not be effected at all by this special use or filling any of the vacancies that exist within that mall at this time. He feels that this use will not negatively impact the Plaza or the comer of Dempster and Dodge due to the less intense business operation with pick-up and delivery only with no seating available. He also feels that Domino's is consistent with what is already there and Mould not greater the impact of type 2 restaurants on that comer. He has no problem with approving this special use. Aid. Jean -Baptiste. however, did suggest to the manager. Mr. Snyder. that Joseph Freed & Associates be more aggressive in their marketing of Evanston Pla7.a. He used as an example the center on Main Street were the new Food - For -Less Store recently opened and how they are doing well because of the excellent marketing and publicity they have done for the ne%v store. Aid. Newman withdrew his previous motion and made new motion to approve the special use for Domino's as proposed in Ordinance 107-0-04. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that he would like the hours of operation to be clearly specified in the Ordinance so that there is opportunity to extend the hours in the future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqune Brownlee DRAFT Planning S Development Committee Minutes of October 25, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. E►anstun Civic Center .alderman Present: S. Bernstein... tieµman. E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman :'Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Berkowsky, A. Alterson, S. Janusz, G. Morgan. C. Ruiz, E. Sz,Tna.nski. J. BroNsniee Presiding Official: Alderman �t'�T►ne DECLARATION OF OI:ORUNf Chairman «'ynne called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m. .APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER IL 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the October I i th minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CO`SIDERATION I P I 1 Anneal of the Site Plan and Avezarance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avenue Nis. Kelly Drew introduced herself as a representative for Sprint PCS. Her position is Site Acquisition Specialist wonting at acquiring telecommunication facilities throughout Evanston for Sprint PCS. She explained that currently Sprint is experiencing a significant coverage gap in and around the area of Evanston. To that end, they are interested in placing a telecommunication installation at this location. She reiterated that currently their customers arc experiencing blocked and dropped calls. Ms. Drew went through a chronological history of what has occurred to this date. She said they first appeared before the Site Plan and :appearance Review Committee (SPAARC) on March 24, 2004 and presented a proposal to construct a 150-monopole installation to accommodate their telecommunications antennas. She explained the intention of that %%-as to provide improvement coverage for a specific area. She said whenever possible, Sprint PCS attempts to utilize existing structures in the area and do all they can to minimize the development of towers in any area they go in. Unfortunately in this specific area, there were no existing structures that were , iable candidates. She said their first choice %as the smokestack at Evanston To►vnship High School, however the ETHS was not interested in working «7th Sprint towards an agreement. Over the Course of two more meetings in May and working closely with the SPAARC towards a height that would be P&D Committee Ntte yt,nutts of 10 25 4�- Vai:v acceptable to Sprint a.?-j meet their co%erase ,,�%Jecti►es a:� ►►ell a.; minimize the ►isual impacts of the t-:•.►c- came to a eon:lustrm that 1 IU' ►►ould be .he minimal height the► could go to r::_ct a specific coverage need as well as rn.t being obstructive to passerby's. She :s:,: Nla% 19" they recei-, ed preliminary and -_ omept approval from SPAARC. The; pr,_<ec,Jed to rile their building permit, as directed, and ►%hen they proposed for final approval from SPAARC. the► were actuall% denied on August 18`h, 2004. She stated teat they were not given any specifics to their denial and that is vvhy they are here today to request that Planning Development Committee reconsider this proposal. Chairman Wynne asked Mr. Wolinski to represent SPA.NRC and elaborate on their view of this matter. She alsr asked for input from Aid. Jean -Baptiste with this being in his ward and asked that he be called o%er from .A&P%V. Mr. Wolinski explained that these decisions are al►►ays :ry difficult for the SPAARC on the siting of these monopoles for the various cellular phone companies. He referred to the map that Ms. Drew provided included in their packet illustrating the varinus rooftops and monopole locations that are in the Evanstori'Skokie area. He said while they all recognize and certainly believe that there is a coverage problem. they were concerned with the site that Sprint had selected at 1235 llartrey becaus-e directly melt are majority single-family residences. He said in the final analysis. SPAARC felt uncomfortable ei\ ing final approval to this simply becausemi of the effect this can have on the single-fal home owners and honestly felt that they have not had this encouragement into a single-family neighborhood any where else in Evanston. They hawe been lucky enough to be able to site these antennas either on top of the water towers or atop fairly large buildings. He said SPAARC suggested maybe the possibility of a location in Skokie west of McCormick. however Ms. Drew and her advisor stated that the Skokie location would not take care of the coverage problem that exists in Evanston. Mr. Wolinski noted that they did talk about the location at the High School in SPAARC. however the school currently has numerous antennas on their smokestack now and were not interested in putting any additional antenna at this time. He acknowledged that the Sprint representatives did their homework and made an obvious effort to obtain other location possibilities. He believes that in the final result, this is something that Site Plan felt very uncomfortable approving at their Committee level. This effects the neighborhood and SPAARC felt the best way to approach this was to have it brought before Council. Ald. Tisdahl asked if the neighbors have been notified of this proposal. Staff responded that no notice has been sent out as of yet since this has only been heard at the SP.AARC level. Aid. Tisdahl said that she would be yen uncomfortable making any decision on this without proper notice sent out to neighboring residences. Aid. Bernstein questioned the appellate process because it states that appeals are supposed to go to the City Manager or designee. He noted that his. Aiello made the motion to deny this at Site Plan. so therefore it is assumed that she has designated this Committee to hear the appeal. Mr. Wolinski stated that is the interpretation. Chairman Wynne asked NIs. Drew why they initially wanted the 150' antenna. Ms. Drew said that they were initially trying to cover a much larger broader coverage area. In working closely with the SP:LARC, they realized that may be a visual obstruction to passersby and it may not be a very- good fit with the PRD Committee SSta. 1linutes of 10 =5 04 Page ? neighborhood as it is. She expanded that the% chose this particular site because it is zoned Industrial 1121 area. She distributed photos to the Committee sho►►ing the proposed location being set 'ra.k behind industrial loading docks, trucks. and garbage bins. She does not consider this to he a residential area even it is located adjacent to residential. Chairman Wynne pointed out that buildings might hide the base of the monopole but the other U of the pole would be visible to the neighboring residential area. She asked Ms. Drew if they pursued sites in Skokie. Ms. Drew responded that they did unfortunately Skokie's ordinance is written in such a way that they only allow telecommunication facilities in Industrial areas and there are not any industrial areas except for well south of Main Street. This was the closest industrial area available and would not meet their objectives. Chairman Wynne asked what would happen if they increased the height of the one at 640 Hartrey, which is located on the water tank. She noted that her preference would be to locate such an antenna on a large structure such as the water tank or the high school smokestack before alto►►ing this directly adjacent to residential homes. She said it doesn't matter whether it is zoned Industrial or not. Ms. Drew introduced Mr. David Raymond. RF Engineer for Sprint, who could be better answer this question. Mr. Ra►mond explained that raising the height of the antenna on the water tower could help their coverage but would hurt them capacity wise. He elaborated on the technology standpoint as to why it would not help the situation. He noted that Sprint as well as the other cellular companies are having such a dramatic increase in users over the past se► era] years that they have to keep up by adding more telecommunication facility sites. He said that the original request for the height of 150' was to try and cover a specific area with one facility rather than having to consider two sites to cover the same area. Chairman Wynne asked Ms. Drew to elaborate on the efforts with the High School; she said that her understanding was that the lease amount would be approximately S50.000 at this proposed site. Ms. Drew responded that figure was not accurate. In actuality the yearly amount is not even half that figure, the amount does not even exceed S20,000. She distributed copies of the letter from Evanston To►►-rtship's Director of Operations to Sprint explaining their disinterest at the time to add another antenna installation due to aesthetics concerns. Aid. Jean -Baptiste entered the meeting at this time. He informed the Committee that his suggestion would be to hold this item in Committee so that the neighbors could be properly notified of this proposal. He would be interested to know the neighbor concerns if any. He said that if there are no objections from the neighbors. he would not object to the location as well. He requested that the businesses be notified too and the day care center. It was decided that the usual radius of 500' for notification and that staff would provide this list to the applicant. Aid. Newman moved to hold in Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. The Committee directed staff to work ►►ith the Sprint representative in getting out the notices in due time before the next meeting. P&D Committee Mir. %tinutes of 10 2f 04- Pa4c 4 c 1 i Ordinance 168-0-04 -- Amendment to Section 4-*-2 of the Evanston Citv Code Lath Modifications to Section F-:0= and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Pre%cntion Code Chairman %V,,nne recalled that the% --ked staff to provide notification to aii building owners that �tiould be effected by this proposed ordinance. which has been done. Chief Berkowsky summarized the draft ordinance that requires existing; hospitals, nursing home facilities, fratemities and sororities and non -owner occupied rooming houses to install sprinkler systems. As he previously has stated, these occupancies are his biggest concerns. He brought attention to his handout distributed to the Committee with an article reflecting on the recent deadly fire at the University of Mississippi killing 3 fraternity members and a copy of the now requirement to put sprinklers in the dormitories. fie said that this is referred to the title of "The Tombstone Requirement" because it happens after something bad as already occurred. He said this brings to mind the fire that occurred I %, years ago at a non -owner occupied rooming house at Northwestern where the owner claimed to run a clean well managed rooming house. The owner installed sprinklers with the renovation from the fire damage and resulted in several installations of sprinklers as well. He pointed out several examples in Evanston where sprinklers saved lives and extensive damage. One example is a recent fire in a unit at the Georgian where the occupant came out not even needing medical attention, a fire in the basement of another nursing home where the alarm system malfunctioned but the sprinkler system went off and put out the fire. a fire in the hallway of the St. Francis Medical Building at 800 Austin where the sprinkler system put out the fire before serious damage and they were back in business the next day. These are just a few examples of many .where the sprinkler system has aided in putting out fires even before the Fire Department arrived. He said typically water damage is much easier to clean up and put things back in order quicker than any fire damage. Chief Berkowsky said that he would like the members of the P&D Committee to consider the approval of the ordinance presented this evening. Aid. Newman asked which nursing homes were not sprinkled. Chief Berkowsky mentioned the ones listed in his October 18'h memorandum: Presbyterian Home with areas that are not sprinkled: Greenwood Care Facility. Albany House, and the Georgian/lfather Homes that are majorit% sprinkled but not completed. Ala. Bernstein asked how he classified rooming houses. Chief Berkowsky answered houses and buildings licensed as rooming houses, this does not include buildings such as the ,, fargarita Inn. Aid. Newman defined them as residences where they want to have 3 or more unrelated occupants and are licensed to do so. He said the problem is with most of the people violating our ordinance do not come and get licensed, however there are many of rooming houses that have been for a long period of time. For example, the house at 1945 Sherman and many of the houses around that comer. In response to the number of rooming houses, 'sir. Wolinski noted that all the dormitories are considered and have license to operate as rooming houses but there are approximately 20 non -university rooming; houses. He believes only one has the owner living on the premises. Aid. Newman brought to attention one of the rooming house owners in his Ward by the name of Steven Simms who he knows to be one of the biggest slum landlords in PSD Comminte Mic. Minutes of 3 ) :t 04 Pare c F %anston. Ile owns se%eral properties at thi: ti r=. .-.e''%ing at 809 Faster. Ile noted the man violations with this building from no grass on the front lawn. constant beer kegs on the front porch. the IandL)r' :> mpletely absentee and is taking in huve amount of mone% without putting anih:nz ^a,k into the property. Another properly of Mr. Simms that was iust inspected ._-.:`:::+C in multiplenuisance violations and no smoke detectors %%ere found. Ile has in some of the rooming houses where people are literally li%ing in rooms the size of closets. junk and debris filling the house. Aid. Newman feels that the sole purpose of owners like Mr. Simms, who now owns 5 properties. is to soak the money out of the property, they don't cam about the well-being and safety of the tenants. Therefore the Cin• needs to make these people who are drawing in big rents. their houses safe for the occupants. Fie shared information that Mr. Simms is coming in with his lawyer. fir. St -.'.en Engelman, to meet with City staff regarding some of their inspections. Ile strong];. supports this ordinance; especially to have some control over beine able to force landlords such as the one mentioned, to comply and to make the people that live in these properties safe. He reiterated that this particular landlord hasn't even invested in smoke detectors with multiple tenants Iiving in one building. to insure their safet%. Aid. Ne%man again assured his support for this ordinance and would like to start with 809 Shem an and 1945 Sherman rooming houses. Aid. Bernstein said that he does not have a problem %vith the concept but does have a problem with the ordinance itself speciticall} Mth respect to what he believes is discriminatory. According to the %vording. there is an appellate process which considers the net %tiorh of the building relati%e to the - +ost of installation, the availability of financing. In his mind, it sounds like if you can't afford the installation, the City won't make the owner do this or will expand the amortization period. Chief Berkowsky responded that he would have this option to decide if the owner needs more time, he could provide an extension if necessary. Aid. Bernstein said that as the ordinance reads now, he feels it is unconstitutional because it differentiates between classes of people: those who can afford this and to building ow-ters who can not. He said that this is suggesting that tenants living in buildings owned b% landlords that have less money should go without having the sprinkler systems installed because they can't afford it. This is unconstitutional. It should be required across the board for all buildings because every tenant in all buildings should have this same measure of safety. He would like to see an ordinance pass that is going to be enforceable for all landlords and building owners throughout Evanston. The other Committee members asked him what he would suggest to rectify this language in the ordinance .did. Bernstein suggested to get rid of the wording in Section F503.7.4 or rew7ite to address this concern for enforceability of this ordinance for all building owners in the categones of concern as listed by the Fire Chief. Aid. Newman brought to attention that more than likely there are no building owners in the categories of the occupancy types that could not afford this retrofit within the amortization period suggested by the Fire Chief. He said that the building owners of the non -owner occupied rooming houses are charging astronomical rents for rooms practically the size of closets and many of the landlords are not putting any money back into the properly. He admitted that he has no real empathy for these absentee rooming house landlords. Aid. Bernstein agreed but stated that was not his issue here, it is the enforceability of this ordinance as it is written. P&D Committee Mte Minutes of 10 25 04 P.1ge b Ald. Bernstein said another prohlern he has .pith this that has been discussed before, is the communication with Northwrs:.,:,. lie recalled past discussion regarding the potentiality of Northwestern iicens:ag:hcsc rocminu houses and undertaking the City's responsibility for inspections also Coccau-ce :n fact their students are at risk here. This would be for approved Uni%ersiv. 1<ousing that meets their requirements. He also recalled the concerns of Aid, lent and Newman over the }ears about the lack of enforcement and communication between the Cit. and `orthwestem. In summary, his concerns are twofold: first with the enforceability of the ordinance to require all buildings under the listed categories to install the sprinkler retrofit regardless of the value of the structure or net wonh of the owner. He suggested Legal Staff review and either remove or re -write the Appeal Process Section to make less subjective; it can not be a function of inability to pay because that sets up a protective class. Secondly. he would also like to talk to Northwestern University about collaboration with the City in terms of having them go out into their community so that we do not ha%e to spend our efforts. it is a method by which without physically putting our hand in their pocket. they can accommodate the needs both of the City of Evanston financially and their students practically. Chairman Wynne informed the Committee that she just recently had a discussion with one of her constituents that works for Northwestern regarding that exact point and was told that the University does not have enough stag' to accommodate this. She suggested that this be one of the first concerns to address with Nonhwestem and that they provide a list to the students and their parents of approved housing and known nuisance housing as well. Ms. Carla Diaz said that she lives at 1907 Sherman and is here as the City government liaison for the student government in her class. She also lived at 625 University Place for the last two years, which is one of the sorority houses so she has had a lot of contact with their Mouse Corporations. She said that one of the recent concerns of the House Corporation is that they are working v6th the University to turn over the leases because the University wants to take over the leases and turn the sorority and fraternities into University housing. Therefore, the University would do all maintenance for these particular buildings. She said they are in the process of dealing with when the leases expire and to proceed. She informed the Committee that because of the plan in process, the Housing Corporation is concerned that if this ordinance goes into effect immediately, the they are going to have to raise the money where the State has allotted funds to do. The University would actually be able to do this if they allotted for the turn over of the lease. Ms. Diaz concluded from the sorority and fraternity perspective, they are concemed that this might happen before the leases are turned over so that the University can assist them. She noted that she and her fellow classmates do agree w0th this ordinance but are concerned with the financial burden if the Greek houses have to pay for this on their own, it will be passed onto the students li,. ing in those houses. She requested that the Committee and staff keep this in mind. Aid. Tisdahi suggested that Nis. Diaz look at the amortization calendar, which does allow for a time period of 5-years to fully comply. tics. Per-gy ? , said that she is the House Corporation Board President for Delta, Delta, Delta Sorority. She confirmed ,its. Diaz's comments and concerns and said that the leases are on IQ -year cycles. The houses all have their own leases and vary in expiration dates, therefore this is driving the process to get the new leases in place. PRD Committee \11g. Minutes of V) _S 04 Pace - Iloweyer. the% are working on turnine over the leases that are expiring now or in the near future and as the others exr1re in %cars. the% «ill �%- :i-,en the option to turn over their leases at that time. She informed that the t nic er>>r is gk ins; allowance to the houses with expiration dates within a few years the option and opportunity to move to the new Lase structure early. In response to a question. she said that currently Northwestern owns the property and the building and the sorority fraternity is responsible for the full maintenance. This will change with the new lease structure. Aid. Newtnan moved to introduce Ordinance 108-0-04 and refer back to Committee to allow Legal to review and make amendment to Section F503.7.4. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0. Aid. Tisdahl directed staff to notify Northwestern University Administration regarding all that has been discussed and occurred at this meeting. t P2 t Ordinance 107-0-04 — Snecial Use (Tvne 2 Restaurant) for 1168 Dodge Aid. jean -Baptiste was present for this item. Mr. Dan Skurek introduced himself as the representative and consultant for Domino's Pizza. He gave a brief overview of their proposal. He acknowledged awareness of all City requirements for the type 2 restaurants as it pertains to litter and garbage pickup and all other issues necessary for allowance of this ty�a of restaurant to operate in Evanston. lie went through some of the standards addressed at the Zoning Board meeting and how they met those standards. Fie described the dumpster area and how it is practically hidden from public view. The dumpsters will also be chained. Mr. Skurek introduced Mr. James Fisher, the franchisee. and Mr. Mark Snyder from Joseph Freed & Associates representing Evanston Plaza. LLC. who are also present for any questions. Aid, Newman moved to deny the special use, seconder] by Aid. Bernstein for discussion purposes only. Aid. Newman explained his motion to deny is due to the consideration of the plan coming out of the 5d' Ward TIF which basically wants to look at getting rid of the McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken currently at Dempster and Dodge. He questioned why they should keep granting special uses on this comer because there is at present too many fast food restaurants. He feels they, will be doing a great dis- service by continuing to put in fast food restauranLs. It is time to start making a statement here that there are too many type 2 restaurants on that comer from almost every fast food franchise existing. It was mentioned that there is no Domino's Pizza currently in Evanston; the two that existed are now closed. Aid. Newman addressed that Joseph Freed & Assoc. are not doing that center any good if they do not start marketing better for that location. Mr. Skurek defended that Domino's is really not a fast food establishment because every pizza is made to order and it is only pickup or delivery. There are no drive -windows or order lines. It was also mentioned that Domino's no longer has the 30- minute delivery guarantee so drivers will not be speeding in and out to delivery pizzas. Aid. Bernstein explained to Mr. Skurek that there is actually no longer a category for fast food establishments; it is now either type I or type 2. He gave the definition and difference between the two types, which qualifies Domino's to be categorized as a type 2 restaurant. He would be in support of going back to some gradations among their fast MD Committee Nttg. Minutrs of 10 _; 04 t'aec & tOod catecories because there are different types of operations that %ary in amount of clientele and level of business. Aid. Jean-Baptistc first asked how long the lease is for this location. `Ir. Snyder responded 1 i -%ears. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that one of is major concerns is for the %acancies that exist over there and the importance of filling them to avoid blight and to bring in needed revenue. He said that the 5"' Ward TIF would not be effected at all by this special use or filling any of the Vacancies that exist within that mall at this time. He feels that this use will not negatively impact the Plaza or the comer of Dempster and Dodge due to the less intense business operation with pick-up and delivery only with no seating available. He also feels that Domino's is consistent with what is already there and would not greater the impact of type 2 restaurants on that corner. He has no problem with approving this special use. Aid. Jean -Baptiste, however, did suggest to the manager, Mr. Snyder, that Joseph Freed & Associates be more aggressive in their marketing of Evanston Plaza. He used as an example the center on Main Street were the new Food - For -Less Store recently opened and how they are doing well because of the excellent marketing and publicity they have done for the new store. Aid. Newman withdrew his previous motion and made new motion to approve the special use for Domino's as proposed in Ordinance 107-0-04. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that he would like the hours of operation to be clearly specified in the Ordinance so that there is opportunity to extend the hours in the future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9.00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu 'nel Brownlee - DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 8, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent. A. Newman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Berkowsky. A. Alterson, S. Janusz, G. Morgan, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUINI Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11.2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 25th minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The minutes were approved %%ith a vote of 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to save the items in Aid. Jean- Baptiste's ward last so that he could be present. (P41 Ordinancel 13-0-04 — Special Use request for a Retirement Community at 3200 Grant Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the letter distributed to the Committee this evening from the Presbyrterian Home requesting that their issue be held because they could not send a representative tonight. Aid. Bernstein said that the letter is actually asking that this item be introduced and held until they can be present. Aid. Tisdahl pointed out that the case is pretty innocuous. Chairman Wynne said that they can do this by acclamation. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that they will not have a representative to send at all in November, requesting to hold this over until the December meeting. The Committee asked if there were any objectors; there were none. Since the Presbyterian Home representative can not be present until December, it was the consensus of the Committee to bold this item in Committee until the December 13" meeting. P&D Committee .%Itg. Minutes of 11 08 04 Page (P3) Ordinance 108-0-04 -- Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA 'National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Wynne noted that the Committee decided to hold this item in Committee because of aid. Bernstein's concerns with the appeal language, which has been changed by Legal Staff. Aid. Bernstein reiterated his concerns that the language as written previously sets up a protective class, which in his opinion creates a problem with enforcement. He appreciated the fact that Legal has taken this out, however his concern now is what standards will the Chief use in the appeal. He said the language is still very vague. Ms. Szymanski responded that this is the section that she obtained the language from is that which is already in the City Code. This language is on page 5 of the ordinance, underlined in section "B" regarding the granting of the appeal. She said that in the City Code section of the Fire Prevention portion that is Title 4, Chapter 5 where there is an appeal provision whereby any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Fire Official under the fire provisions of this City Code may appeal to the Fire Chief. This is the standard that the Code follows. Aid. Bernstein questioned the entire standard; it has nothing to stand on, which the other Committee members agreed. his. Szymanski suggested that she can make another attempt to modify the language, She addressed the language that was in the ordinance previously that she has discussed with Aid. Bernstein. This language came from several appellate court cases wherein the Appellate Court's were asked to consider whether or not particular buildings had to be retrofitted with either sprinkler systems or in other cases had to comply with the building codes of the City of Chicago. She said in all cases, the Appellate Courts held that retrofitting was permissible and in one of the cases there was a challenge the court laid down the items that it would consider. Among those were the value of the building. the amount of encumbrances, the availability of the financing, cost of the system, and net worth of the owner. She said all of that was in those cases where retrofitting was appealed before the Appellate Court. Aid. Bernstein noted that new construction is not a problem because the BOCA Code comes into effect requiring compliance. He pointed out the issue is with people owning older buildings, all of which are very difficult and costly to retrofit. His concern is if they are going to have a statute, noting that the State now has a statute that they are now in situation where they .are following rather than leading. He said that they have always valued health and safety, which is why the Chief has been pushing for this ordinance, however there has to also be financial considerations. He believes this is what gave rise to the fact of the appeal but the issue of fairness and equality between people who are financial capable versus those who may be considered not financial capable and the effect on both their tenants is what is a question here. Ms. Szymanski responded that with the language in the ordinance as it was originally, the person would not be able to meet the remainder of the standards to avoid retrofitting entirely. The appeal process in the current draft is very broad, it encompasses a person's ability to appeal throughout the installation process of orders that the Fire Official has given. Aid. Bernstein still questioned what grounds or basis for the appeal? He said in order for them to have a statute there needs to be some standards so that if the Chief is not present, the Fire Official on duty will have these standards to go by. He said also without some standards, what %%ill Council review the appeal of the Fire Chief? P&D Committee %Stg. Minutes of 11 08 04 Page 3 Chairman Wynne asked for an example, questioning if someone can actually come in and say that they can't afford it. Would this be an appropriate reason? Chief Berkowsky responded there are alternative means that could be an option. For example the building may not have the proper ratings, so in lieu of that they may be able to put a fire detection system for early warning. Another example is a building that may not have the proper lot line separation; instead of protective glass they could put sprinklers on the outside of their windows. He assured that not being able to afford the retrofit or other alternative means definitely can not be a reason used. He said the alternative for financial difficulty is to grant more time to complete the retrofit. He said that with these types of occupancies that he is suggesting the requirement of retrofitting, there is no other alternative for having a sprinkler system. Aid. Bernstein reiterated his argument on what is there to appeal if this sprinkler system is suggested as a requirement for the listed occupancies to be retrofitted by the Fire Chief whose main concern is for health and safety to all residents? What will Council use as standards to review the appeal of the Fire Chief`? He feels there is no basis for them to overtum the decision of the Fire Chief. The Committee asked what the State is doing with an appeal process. Ms. Szymanski responded that subsequent in preparation of this ordinance and the reason that the appeal process to come through the City Council was presented in the way, is that the Chief and she sensed that from previous discussions before, the City Council did want some input in this. She continued that subsequent to preparing this ordinance, the Chief obtained a copy of the City of Chicago's Sprinkler Ordinance. In this ordinance there is no appeal from the decision of the Fire Chief, any person aggrieved goes to Circuit Court to make sure due process is done. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she does not want there to be an appeal to Council if they have no grounds on which to grant the appeal. Chairman Wynne agreed also and suggested that they follow the City of Chicago's system. Aid. Tisdahl informed that she has spoken with a representative from Northwestern University today to inquire about the position of the Greek Housing and what would happen if this ordinance were to be approved. She said that the representative assured that the Greek system would survive, but he did say as they went over the I0-year lease problem that they might need some flexibility. It does appear from the Chiefs stated alternatives, that there will be some flexibility, whether it be with time extension or other option. Chief Berkowsky confirmed that he does have the authority to grant an extension if situations are presented. Aid. Bernstein said that he wants the Fire Chief to make health and safety decisions and also agrees that any appeals should not come back before Council and should go to Circuit Court. He stressed that this is a life safety issue and not a zoning issue that is more appropriate for the Council to hear on an appeal basis. Ms. Szymanski said that she will prepare the amended language to the ordinance to bring back before the Committee for their review and approval. Chief Berko%%iky clarified a type in the ordinance on page 3-4 in Section F503.7.2 regarding the installation schedule. He noted that the schedule is actually a 4-year plan instead of 5 years; the 5-year time schedule would be at his discretion and approval. P&D Committee Mtg. !Minutes of 11 08 04 Pare S correspondence in the Committee's packet noting there are 3 one -pager's attached to her memorandum. One is a very brief summary of facts on assessment of Evanston housing needs that BPI assisted with. This summary also outlines some of the opportunities available with housing in Evanston. The second one -pager gives a summary of how the Housing Commission came upon the whole inclusionary housing proposal and the process of the Task Force. She reminded that Ald.'s Bernstein and Kent were members of this group as well. his. Pratt noted that one thing Ms. Spicuzua ( Housing Planner) asked her to stress is that they talked about what motivated them to do this work. It was mentioned how they were guided by some of the activity happening at the State level and what she wanted to be clear about was that they were not talking about that affordable housing and planning program that has received a lot of press lately for the 49 communities out of approximately 1300 in the State of Illinois that are required to comply and come up with an affordable housing plan in April. She assured that this was not an issue in Evanston where they have over 20% of their housing stock is considered affordable. She noted that they were guided more by the executive order that the Governor signed last September that the Task Force has been working on to offer incentives to municipalities that are advancing in specific ways. Ms. Pratt said that the third handout is the one that really outlines the key proposals advanced through three different documents or ordinances that are now being reviewed by the City's legal department. She described each document the first adding a new "Inclusionary" section to the City Code which outlines how private sector activity and new construction or major rehab can and should advance the City's affordable housing goal. The second document is a new section of the condo conversion regulations which outlines the same goals of the many developers and owners transforming rental buildings in Evanston into homeownership buildings. The third document is a new ordinance that can serve as a new resource to support these proposals and advancing a preservation tool by adding a new tear down tax. (This correspondence is available in the Community Development Administrative Office.) Ivis. Pratt then acknowledged the four members of BPI that were present as well as her colleague from the Housing Commission. Judith Hurwich. She introduced the members from BPI: Mr. Nick 13nmick, who has been the lead attorney through this project, Mr. Hoy McConnell, the Executive Director of BPI and an Evanston resident, and Ms. Kelli Harsch and Jessica Webster who have also put in a lot of work on this project. She mentioned that before she gives an overview of the third document that the BPI residents and her colleague are also available for input, questions and comments on these documents. She noted that the Policy Assumptions are the same. She went on to the 7 Basic Elements. Under #1 "Threshold, Applicability and Set -Aside Requirements", there was a change made in the set -aside percentage for 6-24 homes up to 10%. This change was a reflection on a reality check especially from staff input on condo conversions and what is currently happening in the market. She said for the sake of simplicity, they thought this threshold should be the same for both condo conversions and new activity. Under #2 "Income Targeting", this is the same except for one exception where they added some language where existing families who are living in buildings that are being converted can benefit from this new ordinance by capping the income at a higher level at 90%. This was a staff recommendation. Under #3 "Developer Cost Offsets", she P&D Committee Mfg. Minutes of 1108,04 Page 6 recalled was a big topic of discussion in April with the Committee. She said that thev looked at a few different options of ways to off -set what this might cost for the developers and the highest comfort level seemed to come both at the staff level and City Council level was to pro,,ide a subsidy. Therefore, what is seen here in this current version is an automatic subsidy based on available funds for anybody who is complying with this. She said the other cost off -set are subject to City review and they outlined which ones would require City Council review and which would be discretionary by City staff. Ms. Pratt said that while funding for the subsidies could come from CDBG, HOME, or Mayors Special Housing Fund dollars, they have heard from staff how there have been points over the last couple of years where they are underutilizing HUD dollars because the housing market was so expensive it was hard to find units that could actually be within that price range. She pointed out that one relatively major detail that has emerged since they Iast met with the Committee is identifying potential source for covering some of those subsidy dollars and that is with a tear down tax. She said basically that would kick in for the demolition of any single-family detached home with the exception of homes where the City has ordered a teardowm or there is an agreement with the developer to provide some affordable housing. She said the proposed fee would be S10,000 for single-family or S3,000 per unit for multi -family housing site, which ever is greater, She said that all the remaining elements, #W Price Control Period, 45 Resale of Affordable Homes, #6 "]n-Lieu' Alternatives, and :97 Housing Provider, have not been changed. Ms. Pratt concluded her update on the proposed affordable inclusionary housing ordinances. She said on behalf of the Housing Commission to the P&D Committee that time is of the essence with all the new development activity going on with very little going towards affordable housing. Aid. Tisdahl asked how this will affect new rental buildings — for example a building with 100 units. Ms. Pratt said they are hoping that 20% of those new apartments will be affordable and set -aside for families less than the median income. Aid. TisdaM expressed her concern with the lack of rental apartments getting built, therefore she would want to hold off on that until the rental market improved instead of discouraging this type of development. Ms. Pratt said that from her experience, when rules are set clear up front and expected playing field is, that people are still willing to do business, especially in Evanston. Mr. Brunick informed that the ordinance does contain significant cost off -sets for developments that are doing rental. Much would depend on how the City reviewed it so the market situation for the developer doesn't really change. He said the second point to keep in mind is what is discouraging developers from doing rental apartments, not just in Evanston but all over the State, has mostly to do with federal tax policy that's not Iikely to change any time in the near future. One of the best things that could be done locally would be to require that some rental be affordable and to have incentives for cost off sets included in this ordinance. Chairman Wynne's opinion to the ordinances that have been proposed is that they are not responsive enough to the main concerns made by the Committee back in April. She said in reading this, she Iooked for some response to Aid. Tisdahl's, Newman and her concern P&D Committee Slug. Minutes of If 09,04 Page about wanting to require or make mandatory payment -in -lieu. She noted that element 96 regarding in -lieu alternatives is very vague and there is still a toolbox of development off- sets, which she could never accept. She felt it %%as made very clear by P&D Committee members that such benefits to developers are not viewed as acceptable by the Council. It clearly appears in this correspondence that still remains an option. Discussion followed Chairman W-vane's comments between the Committee, Mr. Brunick and Ms. Pratt. The consensus of the Committee was if Evanston is so desirable to build in then why do they have to trade anything as an incentive to the developer. It was also the consensus opinion of the Committee that the payment -in -lieu fee be mandatory if a developer does not want to supply the required number of units for affordable housing. Chairman Wynne said that it would be more helpful at this point to have legal finalize their review of the proposed ordinances and bring them before the Committee to have the actual document for analysis. Mr. Janid R.idzki made comments in support of the Committee's opinion but added that with the amount of available rental units currenth• existing in Evanston, he does not understand why there is a problem to begin with. Mr. Wolinski recalled that back in April Aid. Kent was chairing the Committee at that time and his direction to staff was that the consensus of the Committee was for an ordinance brought back to the Committee dealing ►vith condominium conversions and affordable units. He believes this has been provided here. He said in further discussion with the Housing Commission and staff they have elected to come forward with the new construction. This has been a change since the Task Force first starting talking about this over a year ago. He pointed out that there is now something for planned developments. He said the planned development ordinance was a tool for a developer to come forward to try and gain more than he could under the Zoning Ordinance. However they have turned this around totally and now have a threshold level for planned developments with some many units, height or footage where Council if they so choose, could require that affordable housing be a component of a planned development. He said that if there was an issue with the developer claiming that he can not afford to provide that type of affordable housing then there would be the possibility that HOME Funds could be kicked in on those units to assist the developer. Ms. Sue Carlson, 2629 Stewart, said that she is here to represent the Evanston Affordable Housing Future Group. She assured that there is much community support of the proposed inclusionary housing ordinances and increasing affordable housing in the North Shore area. After discussion, it was agreed that the next step would be to bring the actual ordinances �_ before the P&D Committee after Legal Staff has completed their review. OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Rainey made a reference to a matter having to do with National Historic District. W These are districts in their community which are not governed by the Council but by the P&D Committee tittg. Minutes of l 1 08 04 Page b recalled was a big topic of discussion in April with the Committee. She said that they looked at a few different options of ways to off -set what this might cost for the developers and the highest comfort level seemed to come both at the staff level and City Council level was to provide a subsidy. Therefore, what is seen here in this current version is an automatic subsidy based on available funds for anybody who is complying with this. She said the other cost off -set are subject to City review and they outlined which ones would require City Council review and which would be discretionary by City stag. Ms. Pratt said that while funding for the subsidies could come from CDBG, HOME, or tiiayors Special Housing Fund dollars, they have heard from staff how there have been points over the last couple of years where they are underutilizing HUD dollars because the housing market was so expensive it was hard to find units that could actually be within that price range. She pointed out that one relatively major detail that has emerged since they last met with the Committee is identifying potential source for covering some of those subsidy dollars and that is with a tear down tax. She said basically that would kick in for the demolition of any single-family detached home with the exception of homes where the City has ordered a teardown or there is an agreement with the developer to provide some affordable housing. She said the proposed fee would be 510.000 for single-family or 53,000 per unit for multi -family housing site, which ever is greater. She said that all the remaining elements, #4 Price Control Period, #5 Resale of Affordable Homes, .=b "In -Lieu" Alternatives, and 47 Housing Provider, have not been changed. Ms. Pratt concluded her update on the proposed affordable inclusionary housing ordinances. She said on behalf of the Housing Commission to the P&D Committee that time is of the essence with all the new development activity going on with very little going towards affordable housing. Aid. Tisdahl asked how this will affect new rental buildings — for example a building with 100 units. Ms. Pratt said they are hoping that 20% of those new apartments will be affordable and set -aside for families less than the median income. Aid. Tisdahl expressed her concern with the lack of rental apartments getting built, therefore she would want to hold oft' on that until the rental market improved instead of discouraging this type of development. Ms. Pratt said that from her experience, when rules are set clear up front and expected playing field is, that people are still willing to do business, especially in Evanston. Mr. Brunick informed that the ordinance does contain significant cost offsets for developments that are doing rental. Much would depend on how the City reviewed it so the market situation for the developer doesn't really change. He said the second point to keep in mind is what is discouraging developers from doing rental apartments, not just in Evanston but all over the State. has mostly to do with federal tax policy that"s not likely to change any time in the near future. One of the best things that could be done locally would be to require that some rental be affordable and to have incentives for cost off -sets included in this ordinance. Chairman Wynne's opinion to the ordinances that have been proposed is that they are not responsive enough to the main concerns made by the Committee back in April. She said in reading this, she looked for some response to Aid Tisdahl's, Newman and her concern P&D COmminee SUg. Minutes of 1 ! 08 04 Page 8 Preservation Commission. She noted that there is a campaign in her Ward for the designation of the Oakton Historic District recommending nomination as a place on the National Register. She said this is very important and would bring an excellent reputable and Very positive baggage to that area. However. lately over the past year or more there has been a tremendous controversy surrounding action of the Preservation Commission. This Commission really has no control or oversight over homes that are either contributing or non-contributing in a National Historical District. Aid. Rainey said that she received from Mr. Ruiz at her request the list of all the applications for zoning approvals in the Northeast Historical District: there were b cases in the fast 2 years. She said the Zoning Ordinance currently says that if you have a matter that requires Zoning Board approval either final or advisory a National Historical District project must go to the Preservation Commission for review even though they really can't do anything with it. She said that Mr. Wolinski has assured her that what happens on the night that those people have to go beforL the ZBA is that they try and schedule their case for the Preservation Commission that night. She stated that this is a huge waste of time of the Preservation Commission's time. She said it seems that there has become an unexplained and unjustified fear of the Preservation Commission. Aid. Rainey's proposal is to simply change one word in the Zoning Ordinance that sends these projects to the Preservation Commission; that word being "Federal Historic Districts and Local Historic District." She suggested that this be crossed out to amend that section of the Zoning Ordinance will not require National Historic homes in the District to go to Preservation. She said the Preservation can not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for a demolition just because the property is simply, in a National Historic District. Chairman Wynne asked for clarification. As she understands. Aid. Rainey's reference request is that if you are in a federally historic district that is not also a local where Evanston already has one section and may potentially have another, if you need to have something that requires Zoning Board approval. the ordinance states that you must also walk through the Preservation Commission advisory opinion. Therefore, Aid. Rainey's proposal is to delete the language that requires people to make a pass through the Preservation Commission for what is only an advisory measure. Aid. Rainey concurred with Aid. Rainey's interpretation. %1r. Wolinski stated that he and MT. Ruiz have discussed this and the issue of the tax freeze status would not be affected if they were to take the word "Federal" out of the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Rainey stated that this proposed amendment comes with the support of the Preservationist. Chairman Wynne asked what the status of the Consent Decree is." tics. Szymanski responded that there is no issue. She explained that the information that she was given from staff, not Aid. Rainey, she was told that there was an overlap and that is why she wanted to consult the Consent Decree. She said in areas that are exclusively Federal, she does not see a problem. Chairman Wynne on behalf of the Committee, directed staff to forward this reference on to the Plan Commission. Aid. Rainey requested that this reference be red -flagged for the Plan Commission's urgent attention. Chairman Wynne directed staff to send a copy of P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of 11 08 04 Page 9 these minutes along %ith the reference as well as verbal request on behalf of the Committee. COMMUNICATIONS (PD2) Update on Vacant Buildin¢ Ordinance. Stan' informed the Committee that this program is working very well at this point with the demolition of S properties to date since the programs commencement. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline E. Brownlee a DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 8, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston CiAc Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. bent, A. Newman Staff Present: J. "A'olinski, A. Berkowsky, A. Aiterson, S. Janusz, G. Morgan, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OIJORUM Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11. 2004 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the October 25th minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Wynne changed the order of the agenda to save the items in Aid. Jean- Baptiste's ward last so that he could be present. JP41 Ordinance] 13-0-04 — Sperial 1l�e reauest for a Retirement Communitv at 3200 Grant Air. Wolinski brought attention to the letter distributed to the Committee this evening from the Presbyterian Home requesting that their issue be held because they could not send a representative tonight. Aid. Bernstein said that the letter is actually asking that this item be introduced and held until they can be present. Aid. Tisdahl pointed out that the case is pretty innocuous. Chairman Wynne said that they can do this by acclamation. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that they will not have a representative to send at all in November, requesting to hold this over until the December meeting. The Committee asked if there were any objectors; there were none. Since the Presbyterian Home representative can not be present until December, it was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item in Committee until the December 13`h mietting. a P&D Comminet %t.s Minutes of 11 08 Page'_' (P3) Ordinance 168-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Cite Code with 10odiftcations to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Wynne noted that the Committee decided to hold this item in Committee because of Aid. Bernstein's concerns with the appeal language, which has been changed by Legal Staff. Ald. Bernstein reiterated his concerns that the language as written previously sets up a protective class. which in his opinion creates a problem with enforcement. He appreciated the fact that Legal has taken this out, however his concern now is what standards will the Chief use in the appeal. He said the language is still very vague. Ms. Szymanski responded that this is the section that she obtained the language from is that which is already in the City Code. This language is on page 5 of the ordinance, underlined in section "B" regarding the granting of the appeal. She said that in the City Code section of the Fire Prevention portion that is Title 4. Chapter 5 where there is an appeal provision whereby any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Fire Official under the fire provisions of this City Code may appeal to the Fire Chief. This is the standard that the Code follows. Aid. Bernstein questioned the entire standard; it has nothing to stand on. which the other Committee members agreed. Ms. Szymanski suggested that she can make another attempt to modify the language. She addressed the language that was in the ordinance previously that she has discussed with Aid, Bernstein. This language came from several appellate court cases wherein the Appellate Court's were asked to consider whether or not particular buildings had to be retrofitted with either sprinkler systems or in other cases had to comply with the building codes of the City of Chicago. She said in all cases, the Appellate Courts held that retrofitting was permissible and in one of the cases there was a challenge the court laid down the items that it would consider. Among those were the value of the building. the amount of encumbrances, the availability of the financing, cost of the system, and net worth of the owner. She said all of that was in those cases where retrofitting was appealed before the Appellate Court. Aid. Bernstein noted that new construction is not a problem because the BOCA Code comes into effect requiring compliance. He pointed out the issue is with people owning older buildings, all of which are very difficult and costly to retrofit. His concern is if they are going to have a statute, noting that the State now has a statute that they are now in situation where they are following rather than leading. He said that they have always valued health and safety. which is why the Chief has been pushing for this ordinance. however there has to also be financial considerations. He believes this is what gave rise to the fact of the appeal but the issue of fairness and equality between people who are financial capable versus those who may be considered not financial capable and the effect on both their tenants is what is a question here. Ms. Szymanski responded that with the language in the ordinance as it %vas originally, the person would not be able to meet the remainder of the standards to avoid retrofitting entirely. The appeal process in the current draft is very broad; it encompasses a person's ability to appeal throughout the installation process of orders that the Fire Official has given. Aid. Bernstein still questioned what grounds or basis for the appeal? He said in order for them to have a statute there needs to be some standards so that if the Chief is _ not present, the Fire Official on duty will have these standards to go by. He said also without some standards, what will Council review the appeal of the Fire Chief? 1 P&:D Committer Nttg Minutes of 1 l 08 04 Page 3 Chairman Wynne asked for an example. questioning if someone can actually come in and say that they can't afford it. Would this be an appropriate reason? Chief Berkowsky responded there are alternative means that could be an option. For example the building may not have the proper ratings, so in lieu of that they may be able to put a fire detection system for early warning. Another example is a building that may not have the proper lot line separation; instead of protective glass they could put sprinklers on the outside of their windows. He assured that not being able to afford the retrofit or other alternative means definitely can not be a reason used. He said the alternative for financial difficulty is to grant more time to complete the retrofit. He said that with these types of occupancies that he is suggesting the requirement of retrofitting, there is no other alternative for having a sprinkler system. Aid. Bernstein reiterated his argument on what is there to appeal if this sprinkler system is suggested as a requirement for the listed occupancies to be retrofitted by the Fire Chief whose main concern is for health and safety to all residents? What will Council use as standards to review the appeal of the Fire Chief? He feels there is no basis for them to overturn the decision of the Fire Chief. The Committee asked what the State is doing with an appeal process. Ms. Szymanski responded that subsequent in preparation of this ordinance and the reason that the appeal process to come through the City Council was presented in the way, is that the Chief and she sensed that from previous discussions before, the City Council did want some input in this. She continued that subsequent to preparing this ordinance, the Chief obtained a copy of the City of Chicago's Sprinkler Ordinance. In this ordinance there is no appeal from the decision of the Fire Chief, any person aggrieved goes to Circuit Court to make sure due process is done. Aid. Tisdahl stated that she does not want there to be an appeal to Council if they have no grounds on which to grant the appeal. Chairman NV nne agreed also and suggested that they foIlow the City of Chicago's system. Aid. Tisdahl informed that she has spoken with a representative from Northwestern University today to inquire about the position of the Greek Housing and what would happen if this ordinance were to be approved. She said that the representative assured that the Greek system would survive, but he did say as they went over the I0-year lease problem that they might need some flexibility. It does appear from the Chiefs stated alternatives, that there will be some flexibility, whether it be with time extension or other option. Chief Berkowsky confirmed that he does have the authority to grant an extension if situations are presented. Ald. Bernstein said that he wants the Fire Chief to make health and safety decisions and also agrees that any appeals should not come back before Council and should go to Circuit Court. He stressed that this is a life safety issue and not a zoning issue that is more appropriate for the Council to hear on an appeal basis. Ms. Szymanski said that she %till prepare the amended language to the ordinance to bring back before the Committee for their review and approval. Chief Berkowsky clarified a typo in the ordinance on page 3-4 in Section F503.7.2 regarding the installation schedule. He noted that the schedule is actually a 4-year plan instead of 5 years; the 5-year time schedule would be at his discretion and approval. P&D Comrnmee Mtg. Minutes of 1 1 08 0; Page 5 correspondence in the Committee's packet noting there are 3 one -pager's attached to her memorandum. One is a very brief summary of facts on assessment of Evanston housing needs that BPI assisted with. This summary also outlines some of the opportunities available with housing in Evanston. The second one -pager gives a summary of how the Housing Commission came upon the whole inclusionary housing proposal and the process of the Task Force. She reminded that Ald.'s Bernstein and Kent were members of this group as well. its. Pratt noted that one thing Its. Spicuzza (Housing Planner) asked her to stress is that they talked about what motivated them to do this work. It was mentioned how they were guided by some of the activity happening at the State level and what she wanted to be clear about was that they were not talking about that affordable housing and planning program that has received a lot of press lately for the 49 communities out of approximately 1300 in the State of Illinois that are required to comply and come up with an affordable housing plan in April. She assured that this was not an issue in Evanston where they have over 20% of their housing stock is considered affordable. She noted that they were guided more by the executive order that the Governor signed last September that the Task Force has been working on to offer incentives to municipalities that are advancing in specific ways. Ms. Pratt said that the third handout is the one that really outlines the key proposals advanced through three different documents or ordinances that are now being reviewed by the City's legal department. She described each document the first adding a new "Inclusionary" section to the City Code which outlines how private sector activity and new construction or major rehab can and should advance the City's affordable housing goal. The second document is a new section of the condo conversion regulations which outlines the same goals of the many developers and owners transforming rental buildings in Evanston into homeownership buildings. The third document is a new ordinance that can serve as a new resource to support these proposals and advancing a preservation tool by adding a new tear down tax. (This correspondence is available in the Community Development Administrative Office.) Ms. Pratt then acknowledged the four members of BPI that were present as well as her colleague from the Housing Commission, Judith Hurwich. She introduced the members from BPI: Mr. Nick Brunick, who has been the lead attorney through this project, Mr. Hoy McConnelI, the Executive Director of BPI and an Evanston resident, and %.Is. Kelli Harsch and Jessica Webster who have also put in a lot of work on this project. She mentioned that before she gives an overview of the third document that the BPI residents and her colleague are also available for input, questions and comments on these documents. She noted that the Policy Assumptions are the same. She went on to the 7 Basic Elements. Under #1 "Threshold, Applicability and Set -Aside Requirements", there was a change made in the set -aside percentage for 6-24 homes up to 10%. This change was a reflection on a reality check especially from staff input on condo conversions and what is currently happening in the market. She said for the sake of simplicity, they thought this threshold should be the same for both condo conversions and new activity. Under #2 "Income Targeting", this is the same except for one exception where they added some language where existing families who are living in buildings that are being converted can benefit from this new ordinance by capping the income at a higher level at 90%. This was a staff recommendation. Under #3 "Developer Cost Offsets". she P&D Comminee 1-ttg. Minutes of 1108 Oa Page 6 recalled was a big topic of discussion in April with the Committee. She said that they looked at a few different options of ways to off -set what this might cost for the developers and the highest comfort level seemed to come both at the staff level and City Council level was to provide a subsidy. Therefore. what is seen here in this current version is an automatic subsidy based on available funds for anybody who is complying with this. She said the other cost off -set are subject to City review and they outlined which ones would require City Council review and which would be discretionary by City staff. Ms. Pratt said that while funding for the subsidies could come from CDBG, HOME, or Nlayors Special Housing Fund dollars, they have heard from staff how there have been points over the last couple of years where they are underutilizing HUD dollars because the housing market was so expensive it was hard to find units that could actually be within that price range. She pointed out that one relatively major detail that has emerged since they last met with the Committee is identifying potential source for covering some of those subsidy dollars and that is with a tear down tax. She said basically that would kick in for the demolition of any single-family detached home with the exception of homes where the City has ordered a teardown or there is an agreement with the developer to provide some affordable housing. She said the proposed fee would be 510,000 for single-family or 53.040 per unit for multi -family housing site, which ever is greater. She said that all the remaining elements, #4 Price Control Period, 45 Resale of Affordable Homes, #6 "in -Lieu" Alternatives, and #7 Housing Provider, have not been changed. Ads. Pratt concluded her update on the proposed affordable inclusionary housing ordinances. She said on behalf of the Housing Commission to the P&D Committee that time is of the essence with all the new development acti%ity going on with very little going towards affordable housing. Aid. Tisdahl asked how this will affect new rental buildings — for example a building with 100 units. Ms. Pratt said they are hoping that 20% of those new apartments will be affordable and set -aside for families less than the median income. Aid. Tisdahl expressed her concern with the lack of rental apartments getting built, therefore she would want to hold off on that until the rental market improved instead of discouraging this type of development. Ms. Pratt said that from her experience, when rules are set clear up front and expected playing field is, that people are still willing to do business, especially in Evanston. Mr. Brunick informed that the ordinance does contain significant cost off sets for developments that are doing rental. Much would depend on how the City reviewed it so the market situation for the developer doesn't really change. He said the second point to keep in mind is what is discouraging developers from doing rental apartments, not just in Evanston but all over the State, has mostly to do with federal tax policy that's not likely to change any time in the near future. One of the best things that could be done locally would be to require that some rental be affordable and to have incentives for cost offsets included in this ordinance. Chairman Wynne's opinion to the ordinances that have been proposed is that they are not responsive enough to the main concerns made by the Committee back in April. She said in reading this, she looked for some response to Aid. Tisdahl's, Newman and her concern P&D Comminee SUg. Minutes of 1108 04 Page 7 about wanting to require or make mandatory payment -in -lieu. She noted that element #6 regarding in -lieu alternatives is very vague and there is still a toolbox of development off- sets, which she could never accept. She felt it was made very clear by P&D Committee members that such benefits to developers are not viewed as acceptable by the Council. It clearly appears in this correspondence that still remains an option. Discussion followed Chairman Wynne's comments between the Committee, W. Brunick and Ms. Pratt. The consensus of the Committee was if Evanston is so desirable to build in then why do they have to trade anything as an incentive to the developer. It was also the consensus opinion of the Committee that the payment -in -lieu fee be mandatory if a developer does not want to supply the required number of units for affordable housing. Chairman Wynne said that it would be more helpful at this point to have legal finalize their review of the proposed ordinances and bring them before the Committee to have the actual document for analysis. Mr. Janid Ridzki made comments in support of the Committee's opinion but added that with the amount of available rental units currently existing in Evanston, he does not understand why there is a problem to begin with. Mr. Wolinski recalled that back in April Ald. Kent was chairing the Committee at that time and his direction to staff was that the consensus of the Committee was for an ordinance brought back to the Committee dealing with condominium conversions and affordable units. He believes this has been provided here. He said in further discussion with the Housing Commission and staff they have elected to come forward with the new construction. This has been a change since the Task Force first starting talking about this over a year ago. He pointed out that there is now something for planned developments. He said the planned development ordinance was a tool for a developer to come forward to try and gain more than he could under the Zoning Ordinance. However they have turned this around totally and now have a threshold level for planned developments with some many units, height or footage where Council if they so choose, could require that affordable housing be a component of a planned development. He said that if there was an issue with the developer claiming that he can not afford to provide that type of affordable housing then there would be the possibility that HOME Funds could be kicked in on those units to assist the developer. Ms. Sue Carlson, 2629 Stewart, said that she is here to represent the Evanston Affordable — Housing Future Group. She assured that there is much community support of the proposed inclusionary housing ordinances and increasing affordable housing in the North Shore area. After discussion, it was agreed that the next step would be to bring the actual ordinances before the P&D Committee after Legal Staff has completed their review. OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Rainey made a reference to a matter having to do with National Historic District. �_ These are districts in their community which are not governed by the Council but by the P&D Committee Sttz. Minutes of 11 OB W� Page 8 Preservation Commission. She noted that there is a campaign in her Ward for the designation of the Oak -ton Historic District recommending nomination as a place on the National Register. She said this is very important and would bring an excellent reputable and very positive baggage to that area. However. lately over the past year or more there has been a tremendous controversy surrounding action of the Preservation Commission. This Commission really has no control or oversight over homes that are either contributing or non-contributing in a National Historical District. Aid. Rainey said that she received from %Ir. Ruiz at her request the list of all the applications for zoning approvals in the Northeast Historical District, there were 6 cases in the last 2 years. She said the Zoning Ordinance currently says that if you have a matter that requires Zoning Board approval either final or advisory, a National Historical District project must go to the Preservation Commission for review even though they really can't do anything with it. She said that Mr. Wolinski has assured her that what happens on the night that those people have to go before the ZBA is that they try and schedule their case for the Preservation Commission that night. She stated that this is a huge waste of time of the Preservation Commission's time. She said it seems that there has become an unexplained and unjustified fear of the Preservation Commission. aid. Rainey's proposal is to simply change one word in the Zoning Ordinance that sends these projects to the Preservation Commission; that word being "Federal Historic Districts and Local Historic District" She suggested that this be crossed out to amend that section of the Zoning Ordinance will not require National Historic homes in the District to go to Preservation. She said the Presem-ation can not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for a demolition just because the property is simply in a National Historic District. Chairman Wynne asked for clarification. As she understands. Aid. Rainey's reference request is that if you are in a federally historic district that is not also a local where Evanston already has one section and may potentially have another, if you need to have something that requires Zoning Board approval, the ordinance states that you must also walk through the Preservation Commission advisory opinion. Therefore, Aid. Rainey's proposal is to delete the language that requires people to make a pass through the Preservation Commission for what is only an advisory measure. Aid. Rainey concurred with Aid. Rainey's interpretation. Mr. Wolinski stated that he and Mr. Ruiz have discussed this and the issue of the tax freeze status would not be affected if they were to take the word "Federal" out of the Zoning Ordinance. ?+ld. Rainey stated that this proposed amendment comes with the support of the Preservationist. Chairman Wynne asked what the status of the Consent Decree is." Ms. Szymanski responded that there is no issue. She explained that the information that she was given from staff, not Aid. Rainey, she was told that there was an overlap and that is why she wanted to consult the Consent Decree. She said in areas that are exclusively Federal, she does not see a problem. Chairman Wynne on behalf of the Committee, directed staff to forward this reference on to the Plan Commission. Aid. Rainey requested that this reference be red -flagged for the Plan Commission's urgent attention. Chairman Wynne directed staff to send a copy of P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1 ! 08 04 Page 9 these minutes along with the reference as well as verbal request on behalf of the Committee. COMMUNICATIONS (PD2) Update on Vacant Buildinrr Ordinance. Staff informed the Committee that this program is working very well at this point with the demolition of 5 properties to date since the programs commencement. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . _1\ r Jacque 'ne E%Brownlee DRAFT Planning S i)CNeiopmtnt Committee �Iinutes of November 22. 2004 Room 2403 — 1:00 p.m. ENanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. Newman. E. I isdahI, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wo'.inski. A. Berkow•sky. A. Alterson. G. Morgan. C. Ruiz. E. Sz%nn ,ski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: .alderman WNnne DECLARATION OF Oi: ORUNI Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at '7724 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVE-NiBER 8, 2004 .NIEETING .MINUTES Ald. Tisdahl moved appro%a] of the No%ember 8'h minutes. Seconded by Ald. Bernstein. Mr. Wolinski brought attent:on to page 4 of the minutes. which \%ere missing from the packet and has been distributed to the Committee this evening. The minutes were approved «ith a vote of 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Anneal of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avenue Chairman Wyrnne noted that at the request of Aid. Jean -Baptiste. that this item be held in Committee again because he has not yet had a chance to meet with the applicant. The Committee members consented. This item was held in Committee until the December 13'h meeting. f P2) Ordinance 108-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the EN anston Cite Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Wynne recalled that at the last meeting the%. discussed the appeals section of the ordinance and Aid. Bernstein had concerns with the process. Aid. Bernstein stated that he is satisfied with the amendment to the appeals section by eliminating the appeal to Cite Council and go directh to the Circuit Court. With that, he motioned approval of Ordinance 108-0-04, seconded by Ald. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. %in..,sr'.. Pacc _ 09') nan:: I I Rea,_,rs::, r j Retirement C'o mniunity at 1200 [ i rant Aid. M07an %was called 0%." :-OM A&PW ftr convent or any concerns he would like to address. Chairman %V%nr.e rr: Mlle 3 -h---, thi, rr=.atter -kas heldatthe last meeting because there was no representati%e from the Presb%terian Home able; to attend at that time. She ackno«Iedged that represe:itati%es are in attendance: this evening and asked them to introduce themselves. its. Nancy 7nlan and Mr. Luis Cruz introduced themselves. Chairman Wynne asked for clarification as this appears a re -adjustment of the original plan to build a 2-car garage for one unit. its. Tolan explained that they were previously approved to install enough garages to provide one garage for each Trinity Court To%rnhome. She stated that this is still their request. however in one of the locations instead of installing a -car ca:ave. the:% would like to install 2 1-car garages. "this will allow them to a%oid disturbinc the existing plantings that are eery important to one of their residents. She verified that this is the extent of their modification to the original plan. 7'here was no discussion at the Committee level, Chairman Wynne asked for Ald. Moran's input. Ile expressed his appro%al and support of the project as amended. With that, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 113-0-04, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 5-0 is favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 115-0-04 - lonine Text Amendment. imnervious Surface Site Develooment Allowance & Other .%codifications Chairman «`ynne said that she has read through the report received from the Plan Commission three times and still could not quite understand what transpired in their findings. %what the actual problem %was and how they solved it. She asked 41r. Alterson for clarification. Mr. .person explained that currently as far as site development allowance for planned developments, the impervious surface coverage requirement limitations, which was appro%ed earlier this year by Council; there is no analogy for site development allowance to aflo%w for someone to ask for an exception to the impervious surface maximum. This is one of the issues in this ordinance and the language amendment clarifies that you can apply for a site development allowance for a planned development to address the impervious surface coverage. IIe noted with the variances, he believes that it was alread% co%ered, ho%%c%•er what they are doing is making it explicit that impervious surface is something that someone can appl% for a variance to. Ile said the third issue that they are attempting to correct on this matter is that the Plan Commission did not recommend to C'it% Council because it was not realized at that time. that there %was no impenious surface ratio set for the oil. Hospital Overlay District and that the effect that their building lot coverage on the imperious surface ratio %wound up being the same amount. Therefore. %%hat they have done is applied the same 15% of the building lot co%erage to the oft. hospital Overlay District to allow an impenious surface maximum of 70° o. Aid. llsdahl asked staff if F%an,trm 1ospital and St. Francis Hospital were notilied of these proposed modifications. Mr. Alterson replied that the hospitals have not yet been Corir),•:cc Minutc., of i'•__ . i'ap: - notified. thcti ar:..: ... Al . , :f .+tell, .t tl i. arttr..: .. t and +kill beret:t the increase. Chairman W ne �r:d that :t �cc:: - that if . tc ho!•pitals asked for an ailo++ance for building lot c0+tr::Le. 1.7 ++OUld ha%c no imper.:ous surface around them. Mr. .person clarified that lot ca+erage and tatir imperious surface maximum %%ithout the amendrrent ::.c bath -4-115, He noted that the% are putting in an allowance with respect to imperti ious ; orfacc for planned de+elopments and mailing it explicit for variances so that it is cohered. Therefore an authorized t)pe of variance would be to impervious surface but more crucially that someone could come in under a planned development and ask for relief from the imper ious surface coverage maximum. He noted that right now the% ha,.a nothing to go on and some one seeking relief for impervious surface. the Zoning Ordinance list certain site development allowances with ratios for height. location and placement of buildings. parking, number of dwelling units and building lot coverage. Ho%%ever. no ratio for imperious surface coverage because such a regulation categon did not exist when the language of the ordinance was actually written. Chairman Wynne asked for a -worse case scenario if they increase the imperious surface to 701 o. Mr. Alterson responded that there are two separate incidences here. First, the 'U° o only applies to the of I districts. Ile said the impervious surface coverage for all of the residential districts were set at the number 15% plus whatever the building lot coverage islie noted that currentl+ if someone is coming in for a planned development v+ithin an "R" District and they want to seek relief to the impenvious surface coverage, there actually is not a site developmental allowance that covers that. Without this proposed language. right now the Cit% Council could not grant an exception to that through the planned development proposal. He said that regulating impervious surface coverage has been a problem in man\- communities. Aid. Kent piggy -backed to Chairman Wynne's comments. pointing out that he still has questions with the findings on page I of the Plan Commission's report under "Goals." Ile read from the report \%here it states: "Help to Enhance the Existing Assets of Neighborhoods While Recognizing That Each Neighborhood Contributes to the Overall Social and Economic Quality of Evanston." Ile asked if the example given is supposed to give the guideline for a tool in case of a planned development happening. Mr. .person responded that all this does is alloy the Cite Council to grant a site development allowance for someone that has an imperious surface that is greater tan what is allowed as -of -right. Aid. Kent followed up by further questioning the matter of quality of life and enhancing the existing assets of a neighborhood. Specifically he questions what +%ill this do and how these effects his neighborhood in any ++ay "ith impery ious surface allowance in the " R" districts. Mr. Altersnn responded that in the Ra and R{ districts the allowance is 150,o above whatever the building lot coverage is alltmed. Ile noted that this does not set the impervious surface maximum for amof those districts because that was already done in the amendment approved earlier this +car. \lr. Wolinski added that it was dependant on the sire of the project, however they ha+e put in a threshold no%% that a project has to be a planned development if it is over 75 units, certain height limitations, etc. He stated what this amendment does is address the omission by staff when they went through the changes of hove building height %%as calculated and also the imperious surface issue was brought up the Plan Commission. Ile noted that they did not have this type of relief in the planned development section and all they are lying to achieve .%ith ....._. -mc:a t,; to In n He �-tatvd that :ne% are nct mint to :t•. ;rn�:• :ha: arnendinw the ailov-ant. :h :t th.; %1 ;ef ,.ill he gi,.en yr nat. Ilo►%ever. the,. are att;.:ipting to clarif% in the language and c:%e :he applicant the opportunity to request ;his relief before Council. Ile verified :hat currently a proiect that has an impervious Nurface problem could not he 1 uilt %kithoLi the request by the applicant for relief. Ile reiterated the importance of toing to preset.e green Space, ho%ke%er in some planned development cases considering the lot site and configuration. the impen•ious surface coverace allowance may need to be re,. ie%%ed. With no further comments or discussion. Aid. Bernstein moved approved, seconded by Aid. Tisdabl. The motion Aas approved with a unanimous vote of 5-0. i P5) Consideration of Recommendation to Include Proposed Oakton Historic District in National Register of Historic Places Aid. Rainey was called over from A&:PNV for in,.oi%ement in discussion on this matter. Aid. Newman moved approval of the recommendation to include the proposed Oaitton Historic District in the National Register of historic Places. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Chairman Wynne acknowledged those signed up to speak on this matter. Mr. lack Feiss of 813 Forest Street. said that he just recently moved to the address on Forest 3-days ago, ho,.\e%er his pre,.ions residence %%as still in the neighborhood. He informed the Committee that he is a member of the Oak -ton historic District Committee and %\ould be happy to address an\ questions or concerns of the Committee might have on this matter. Aid. Rainer stated that she is aware that none of the P&D Committee members were present at the Preservation Commission meeting on this mater when it was presented. She informed that the presentation was very impressi%a and in all of its glory, the nomination is extremely beautiful and fitting for this neighborhood. She expressed her approval and 100% support for National Register nomination of the Oakton Historic District. She noted that this is much different from a local nomination. She also noted the rumor that she might have gone back on her ti.ord that she insist that the City conduce a validating of the Citv*s process on considering and including districts for nomination to the historic National. Register. She assured that rumor is untrue and she has told the opponents this numerous times. Aid. Raine% clarified that she stated if there were a local district nomination, which she did not support. that she ,.,.ould insist an a vote of the local residents of those included. The reason she has ne%er said that for National district is = because she believes this position is %en• benign in terms of demands places upon homeowners. She also believes this nomination %%ill only increase the status and reputation of that already outstanding and unique community that exist in its current state. Aid. Rainey stated that she is extremely proud and appreciates all of Mr. Carlos Ruiz �- work and the Prescr,. ation Commission as well and eten all of the proponents who were ttr­ involved %%ith this nomination. She recalled here reference made at the previous meeting of 1 Nat.L,:'al nomina:ion-;..:'3: ln. - al-plications going to the Z13A is gC':nL to ..�►r some placed c,n them that the Zoning Ordinance all-t►%S. She stressed her or.,inicin that the Presen at:t,n C,7mmission making comments on the specific matter in am -.►a} pro►ides an►thing positke or negative %%hen it comes to the ?'oaring Ordinance. She said that this backs up the entire process with the inclusion of the applicant having to go before the Preser►a:ion Commission. who can not in reality do an►thing binding ►►hen it comes to what is binding in the Zoning Ordinance. Aid. Rainey encouraged the P&D Committee support this nomination and recommend approval. Chairman Wynne acknowledged those left on the citizen comments sheet. Mr. R►an Kettelkamp said that he supports Aid. Rainey's comments and has no further remarks. Ms. Barbara Gardner also had no further comment to add in support of Ald. Raine\'s statements for nomination of the Oak -ton Historic District. She also encouraged the Committee's support of this nomination. With no further discussion. the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOUPUN IE\T The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted. r Jacquelt c E.Vo►►nlee DRAFT Planning & Dc%elnpment Committee Minutes of .Noi ember 22, 2n(14 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Ci%is Center :Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. J. Kent. A. 1e%%man. E. 7 isdahl, .I. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Berko«skv. A.:Alterson. G. Morgan. C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee . Presiding Official: :Alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORU.'%f Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at 7.24 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 8. 2004 MEETING MIN TES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the November 8" minutes. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Mr. Wolinski brought attention to page 4 of the minutes. %%hick «ere missing from the packet and has been distributed to the Committee this evening. The minutes were approved Nvith a vote of 5-0. ITEMS FOR COtiSIDERATION IP1) Anneal of the Site Plan and appearance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avenue Chairman Wynne noted that at the request of Aid. Jean -Baptiste. that this item be held in Committee again because he has not yet had a chance to meet with the applicant. The Committee members consented. This item was held in Committee until the December 13"' meeting. (P21 Ordinance 108-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Wynne recalled that at the last meeting they discussed the appeals section of the ordinance and Aid. Bernstein had concerns %with the process. Aid. Bernstein stated that he is satisfied with the amendment to the appeals section by eliminating the appeal to City Council and go directly to the Circuit Court. With that. he motioned approval of Ordinance 108-0-04. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The rote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. i ? l l-71 '47V. "a. '_ w r s Retirement C omniunit% at :'00 c", rant %ld. Nforan .k:-s o%vr r A&PW :or corrr;ent or any concerns he %%ould like to addres>. C h3: .—' an `•k %nne re...Ne.'. that thi= rnatter %%as heldatthe last meeting because .here %kas no represertati%c from the Presbyierian !lame able to attend at that time. She ackno«ledged that representati%es are inattendancethis e%ening and asked them to introduce t'zemsel%es. his. Nanc% 7olan and Mr. Luis Cruz introduced themselves. Chairman NVynne asked for clarification as this appears a re -adjustment of the original Flan to build a ?-car garage for one unit. his. Tola.n explained that they %%ere previously approved to install enough garages to pro% ide one garage for each Trinity Court To%%mhome. She stated that this is still their request. however in one of the locations instead of installing a 2-car garage. the% v-ould like to install 2 1-car garages. This will allow them to asoid disturbing the existing plantings that are very important to one of their residents. She %crified that this is the extent of their modification to the original plan. There vvas no discussion at the Committee level. Chairman Wynne asked for Aid. Moran's input. lie expressed his approval and support of the project as amended. With that, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 113-0-04, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The note was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P-3) Ordinance 115-0-0.1 - lonine Text Amendment. lmnervious Surface Site Develonment Allowance & Other Modifications Chairman Wynne said that she has read through the report received from the Plan Commission three times and still could not quite understand what transpired in their findings. what the actual problem %tias and ho%% thev solved it. She asked Mr. Alterson for clarification. Mr. Alterson explained that currently as far as site development allowance for planned developments. the impm-ious surface coverage requirement limitations, which was approved earlier this year b% Council; there is no analogy for site de% elopment allowance to allow for someone to ask for an exception to the impervious surface maximum. This is one of the issues in this ordinance and the language amendment clarifies that you can apply for a site development allowance for a planned development to address the impervious surface coverage. He noted with the variances, he believes that it was already covered. ho%--ever what then are doing is making it explicit that impervious surface is something that someone can apply for a variance to. lie said =_ the third issue that they arc attempting, to correct on this matter is that the Plan Commission did not recommend to City Council because it was not realized at that time. that there %%as no impervious surface ratio set for the oH, Hospital Overlay District and that the effect that their building lut coverage on the imperious surface ratio «ound up being the same amount. Therefore, %%hat they have done is applied the same Mlo of the building lot coverage to the (111. llospital O;erlay District to allow an impervious surface maximum of 709 b. Aid. Tisdahl asked staff if E%an�ton Hospital and St. Francis Hospital were notified of these proposed modifications. � Ir. A terson replied that the hospitals have not yet been P&h Cc— -. ,cc \tiz. Minutes of': 1-:2.0-3 I'Aae notilied. ro%ke%er they . aner.Jn]ent and gill ber.etit from the Sncr:ate. t'hairrnan « -.c _ .e-.:��nvd Lhat :: :c :> that if the hospital; asked liar an allowance tier building to: tne% %kk)ul.i ha--c no imper%iuus surface around them. Mr. Alterson clarified that the:r ; u:ldinL 1,.: .o--crage and their imptr%ious surface maximum m ithout the amend...en: are both 5 4 ° ,. 'le noted that they are putting in an allowance with respect to impen ious surface for planned developments and making it explicit for variances so that it is co%ered. Therefore an authorized t%pe of variance would be to impervious surface �ut more crucially that someone could c,Ime in under a planned development and ask: for relief from the irnper ious surface coverage maximum. He noted that right now they ha%a nothing to go on and some one seeking relief for impervious surface. the Zoning Ordinance list certain site development allo,tances with ratios for height, location and placement of buildings. parking, number of dwelling units and building lot coverage. Ho%%ever. no ratio for impervious surface coverage because such a regulation category did not exist .%hen the language of the ordinance was actually written. Chairman Wynne asked for a %%orse case scenario if they increase the impervious surface to 7011r.. Mr. Aherson responded that there are two separate incidences here. First, the 7C10o only applies to the oil districts. Ile said the impervious surface coverage for all of the residential districts were set at the number 15% plus whatever the building lot co%eraee is. Ile noted ;hat currently if someone is coming in for a planned development %%ith�in an "R" District and they want to seek relief to the impervious surface coverage. there actually is not a site developmental allowance that covers that. \Vithout this proposed language. right no\% the City Council could not grant an exception to that through the planned development proposal. He said that regulating impervious surface coverace has been a problem in man%- communities. Aid. Kent piggy -backed to Chairman Wynne's comments, pointing out that he still has questions with the findings on pane ; of the Plan Cotnmission's report under "Goals." He read from the report �%hcre it states: "help to Enhance the Existing Assets of Neighborhoods While Recognizing That Each Neighborhood Contributes to the Overall Social and Economic Quality of Evanston.- lie asked if the example given is supposed to give the guideline for a tool in case of a planned development happening. Mr. Alterson responded that all this does is allow the City Council to grant a site development allowance for someone that has an impervious surface that is greater tan %%hat is allowed as -of -right. Aid. Kent followed up by further questioning the matter of quality of life and enhancing the existing assets of a neighborhood. Specifically he questions , hat will this do and how these effects his neighborhood in any okay with impervious surface allowance in the " R" districts. \fr. Ahersin responded that in the R4 and R5 districts the allowance is 15% above whatever the building lit coverage is allo-%ed. Ile noted that this does not set the imperious surface maximum for an\ of those districts because that was already done in the amendment appro\ cd earlier this .car. fir. «'olinski added that it was dependant on the sire of the project. hog;�e\er the% ha%a put in a threshold now that a project has to be a planned development if it is o%er 25 units, certain height Iimitations, etc. He stated what this amendment does is address the omission by staff when they went through the changes of how building height "as calculated and also the impervious surface issue was brought up the Plan Commission. Ile noted that they did not have this type of relief in the planned development section and all they are to ing to achieve with Pitt) Co ':'NC ` z %i mi I `s C� +- Vai!N 4 this :irttr.,..:,r t to and . :-r... n Ho Mated that t7%:% are not tr%iru to impik that amen_lini: the he gi%en yr nut. lloue%er. the} are attempting W clartf" in the langLZIIX t:•-e applicant the: Opporiunity to request this relief before Council. Ile %erined :h::.:.-rer.:I% a project that has an impervious surface problem could not he 1 uilt request b% the applicant for relief. Ile reiterated the importance of trn ink: to pre-er•. e green space. houe%cr in some planned development cases considering the lot sit: and contisturation. the imperious surface coverage alloxvance may need to be res With no further comments or discussion. Aid. Bernstein moved approved, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved %ith a unanimous vote or S-o. (P5) Consideration of Recommendation to inc..ide Proposed Oakton Historic District in National Register of Historic Places Aid. Rainey was called over from A&PW for in%ol%cment in discussion on this matter. Aid. Newman moved approval of the recommendation to include the proposed Oakton Historic District in the National Register of historic Places. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Chairman'Xynne acknowledged those signed up to speak on this matter. Mr. Jack Weiss of 813 Forest Street. said that he ;List recently moved to the address on Forest 3-days ago. however his previous residence uas still in the neighborhood. He informed the Committee that he is a member of :he Oakton Historic District Committee and unuld be happy to address any questions or concerns of the Committee might have on this matter. Aid. Rainey stated that she is aware that none of the P&D Committee members were present at the Preservation Commission meeting on this mater when it was presented. She informed that the presentation was %ern impressive and in all of its glory, the nomination is extremely beautiful and fitting for this neighborhood. She expressed her approval and 100% support for National Register nomination of the Oakton Historic District. She noted that this is much different from a local nomination. She also noted the rumor that she might have gone back on her k%ord that she insist that the City conduce a validating of the City's process on considering ar.,::ncluding districts for nomination to the Historic ?national Register. She assured that minor is untrue and she has told the opponents this numerous times. Aid. Raine% clarified that she stated if there were a local district nomination, which she did not support, that 5 e' .%ould insist on a vote of the local residents of those included. The reason she has ne•.er said that for National district is because she believes this position is %cry benign in terms of demands places upon homeowners. She also believes this nomination %kill only increase the status and reputation of that already outstanding and unique community that exist in its current state. Aid. Raincy stated that she is extremely proud and appreciates all of Mr. Carlos Ruiz work and the Preservation Commission as ►%ell and e%en all of the proponents who were involved with this nomination. She recalled here reference made at the previous meeting in ....'.< Of fiat;cnal District nominxion,..-:at art% applications cuing to the Z13A is ptnc to n�` ` some reyuiremems placed can :hlcm t+eti,Nnd %%hat the Zoning Ordinance allo%%s. She stressed her opinion that the Prescr•, anon Commission malting comments on the ;rec:nc matter in any .%av pro%ides an%ihing positi%e or necative «hen it comes to the Zoning Ordinance. She said that this bachs up the entire process with the inclusion of the appi:cant having to go before the Preser%ation Commission. who can not in reality do anyChing binding when it comes to %%hat is binding in the Zoning Ordinance. Aid. Rainey encouraged the P&D Committee support this nomination and recommend appr0%al. Chairman Wynne acknowledged those left on the citizen comments sheet. Mr. Rvan Kettelkamn said that he supports Aid. Rainey's comments and has no further remarks. GIs. Barbara Gardner also had no further comment to add in support of Aid. Rainey's statements for nomination of the Oak -ton Historic District. She also encouraged the Committee's support of this nomination. With no further discussion, the vote ii as 5-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �titiX1V,: �?.titi •,� Jacqueli a E.3roxvniee DRAFT Planning g Dc%clopment Committee Minutes of December 13, 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Ne«r an. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kant Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Altersion. C;. Morgan. C. Ruiz. D. Spieuzza. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: :alderman Wynne DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Wynne called the meeting to order at i : + 1 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVENIBER 22. 2004 NIEETING MINUTES .aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the \ox ember 22nd minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The minutes were approved %%ith a \ote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION i P 1) Anneal of the Site Plan and Aonearance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avenue Chairman Wynne noted that this item was held in Committee at the November 22"d meeting at the request of Ald. Jean -Baptiste in order to allow him the opportunity to meet %%ith the applicant and %-]sit the site. He was able to do both and has no objections to their request. There «ere also no reported objections from the immediate neighbors of this site. Aid. Bernstein asked the Sprint PCS representative present if Ms. Kelly Drew had an opportunity to talk with Facilities Management at the High School. ;his. Drew did speak with representatives of the High School again who remain objective to having any additional antennas installed on the smoke stack. With no further discussion. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. TisdahL The vote was 4-0 in f2vor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 108-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman Wynne recalled at the request of Aid. Jean -Baptiste that this item was held in Committee at the late meeting to give him a chance to meet wit the applicant and visit the PSD Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12.13-04 fare' site. She spoke on A;J. jean -Baptiste heha. -e:a•. ins; that he has no objections as a result of that meeting. 1I -er. %kere no noted from the neighbors either. Ald. Hem4tein asked the representali %e preset:: ::,gym Sprint PCS if Ms. Drew had an opplmunity to meet with Facilities at the Iligh School 6or another attempt iL, request the antennae lc,catiun on their stnr,e ::ask The representati%e was una%%are of v6hat exactl% occurred to the discussion but -.he did touch for Ms. Drew that attempt was made but there was no chance in decision h-- from the High School. With that. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 108-0-04, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. t P? I Ordinance 121-O-04 — Snecial Use request for a Tvr+e 2 Restaurant at 1571 Sherman Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. Peter L. z. \fr. Lutz spoke giving a brief history of his existing restaurant currently on campus o: Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. He would like to duplicate the operation of that :tare here in Evanston and helicves it will be just as successful with the campus affil:at:on of Nonhwestem. He described the operation of the DeKalb restaurant and the q :af:t} of products used such as the Lebanese pita bread used and the all fresh ingredient= used. He noted that he plans to use other local business with quality products such as cookies from Great Harvest for example. He informed that he lives in Glencoe and will spend most of his time at the store in Evanston by hiring a manager for the DeKalb location minimizing his need to commute every day of the week. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. Ile belieses this is not your typical fast food operation from what Mr. Lutz has portrayed. Fie discussed the normal responsibility expectations for every type 2, fast food restaurant regarding litter collection plan, proper number of garbage pickup during the week and emplo�,ze parking. Mr. Lutz was fully aware of all his responsibilities. Chairman \Kynne asked about deliveries. :fir. Lutz responded that there are a few parking spaces in the rear of the building and all deliveries will be made from the alley in the rear also. Chairman Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P3) Ordinance 117-0-04 — Special Use reouest for a T�•r>e 2 Restaurant at 1620 Orrint3mon Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicant. Mr. lkfichael Remollet informed the Committee that he is in partnership with his brother. They own a store in Ann Arbor where his brother will remain and manage while he manages the one in Evanston if approved. He described the store in Ann Arbor, noting the similarity to Starbucks operation and quality of their products. A!.f Tisdahl asked his intentions on hiring coilege students and if he has thought about :s:nng any local kids from the student job center here in Evanston. Mr. Remollet admitt.d that he had not considered local kids for hire but would be glad to call the job center for any possibilities. aid. Newman expressed his concem for the number of coffee establishments in downtown Evanston and the need for some type of limitation control when any businesses promoting the same type of product reach a certain number all in the same area or close proximity. The Committee and staff' discussed this matter which apparently was of some concern to all PAD Commince Sttg. Minutes of t :-I ..(L4 Nee 3 the members. :lid. Ncwman requested staff to develop a map pointing out all the locations o: all the existing houses and establishments. The% pointed out ho%% mam- Starbiek locations there are alone in the hsanston area. With no further discussion. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote %as 4-0 in favor of the motion. The applicant \%as also aware of the responsibilities and expectations of type 2 restaurants regarding litter control plan. garbage pickup and employee parking. (P4) Ordinance 123-0-0.3 — Snecial Use and Nfaior Variation for a Mul i-Family Residential Use at 702-708 Greenleaf Chairman WMute acknowledged the applicant. Nis. Lana Berkovich and asked her to begin with a brief summary of the proposed project to the Committee. Ms. Berkovich distributed to the Committee additional photos of the current site and immediate surrounding structures, an enlarged coPy of the plat of survey, and additional renderings of the proposed project. She informed the Committee that she and her partner are the contract purchasers of this propeny. She described the property in its current status and details of the proposed reno\ation. Chairman Wynne asked if changes have been made since the ZBA approval. his. Berkovich responded that they have not made changes as far as the zoning relief requested. However they have worked on some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and changes have been made to address some of those concerns. Ald. Bernstein noted that he has discussed this case with ;its. Berkovich and he does have concerns with the bulk of this project in view of the small sire of this lot. He said the issue was raised at the Zoning hearing about flipping and putting the garage spaces entrances eastbound rather than westbound off Custer into the alley. Ile asked if this was a possibility. tics. Berkovich responded that they can not do that because unfortunately the building that they are actually retaining is on the west side of the property and in order for the project to be economically doable they have already dow-nsized the project from 5 units to 3-units. She noted that they originally had a curb cut on Greenleaf for garage entrances but they had to take that out resulting in all the garage entrances being located off Custer which maintains Greenleaf as a pedestrian street. She said that was an important consideration since there has always been a lot of pedestrian traffic on Greenleaf in this location and will probably remain with the close proximity to the school and Chicago Avenue. Aid. Bernstein said that he appreciates the maintenance of the pedestrian walkway; however what he does not approve of is the fact that they are invading the frontages of the people on Custer and treating the street as though it were an alleyway to provide garage entrances. Ile is concerned with the lack of consideration for the few properties that front on Custer south of Greenleaf. Nts. Berkovich explained that what they have done is pull the garages back where the second and third flours overhang the entrances to make them as im isible from the Street as possible. In her opinion, this was the onl% way to provide adequate parking that would be less intrusive to all the surrounding properties. She said if it were up to them. they would provide less parking. however the City requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. She feels that they have come up with a suitable compromise solution to the requirement for this unique location. P&D Committee Ntte. Minutes of 12-1:•r�-t� Page a She said the rrasn ai%arttaze of this pr+�iect is that it is i r.t;: nem residential Construction In the \11. R zv.-J:rs: 6:1WICt. sn: NIic%es ii better tr.:-'1 k at could go in there as -of - right. In r,,�p r,c Ald que>tion. Mr. Alter,. in responded that Nil•E allows as permitted uses buil.::r.L matenai• estahlishments. c, mnicrcial parking garage, commercial parking lot, educat:onal institution -- public & private. industrial service establishment. mart`facturing. oftice. public transp+mat;on center. public utility, trade contractor, business storaee establishment. warehouse establishment, and wholesale - goods establishment. Al . Bernstein noted that automoti%e establishments were not mentioned considering all the car dealerships on Chicago Avenue. Ile recognized that with the geometr% of this Iot and its size mould probably exclude most of those uses. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 123-0-04 for introduction but would like to keep this item here in P&D to allow him the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood. Ile also questions the design of this proposed project and would also like to meet %ith the applicant to discuss further options and possibilities including input from the neighbors, Aid. Nev.-man asked staff chat was the discussion by the architects on the Site Plan Committee on this cased. ,Mr. Wolinski recalled that there were concerns that Aid. Bernstein pointed out, ho«ever the architects expressed approval overall from what currently exists on that site. Aid. Newman questioned if the proposed plans before the Committee right nov. are %%hat the S1 AARC reviewed ad ti%hat the ZBA approved. his. Berkovieh responded that the current plan before the Committee has been altered slightly but reiterated that no zoning relief requested has been effected by these alterations. Chairman Wynne noted that she has read through the transcript of the ZBA and she is still concerned that there are man} %ariables that were still left up in the air. She said even though the applicant claims that the zoning relief requested has not changed, it seems that it is not clear «-hat the P&D Committee is expected of approving in combination with the zoning relief requested and the amendments made to the original design. Mr. Wolinski suggested in response to Aid. Newman's concerns expressed about Site Plan, if the Committee desires, between now and the next meeting staff can have the design professionals on Site Plan come up with a synopsis of their opinions on this project. Aid. Ncwman agreed that this would not delay the process any further if staff ;were to obtain this information to present to the Committee by the next meeting. However, he did note that NIs. Scary Koberstein of the ZBA did have serious concerns abut whether the Variation should be granted in the first place. Even though she was out- voted, he feels her concerns are valid and should be taken into consideration. Chairman Wynne ackno�% iedged that several people have signed up to speak on this case and should be heard a%en though this item will be held in Committee. Ms. Debbie Hillman — noted that she did speak at the ZBA hearing but emphasized that she is not aware of how her comments went across. She stated that her comments were very preliminary because she «as unaware of the details of the project. She said when she went into the ZBA meeting under the impression that there was going to be some real discussion, but in fact, this project seems to be approved without really knowing ~hat the P&D Comm inre Nt;z Minutes of l -'-I* Page S final outcome : r actual design ;%ould be. Ile► ;— ct%nd concern. e.en tl:- Uzh she appreciatez a ,r-::i: re;idential development in th- a:; a. she still thinks that ?-u ttt> is two much for that .,:nICLlsr propert.. she rointc9 i' ai in looking at the JcstLn. she would assurne :hat ,he middle unit ;.ould be •er. --idesirable with very little iutdoor access. She reminded that man% citizens worked . _r, hard on amending the Zoning Ordinance ;v .ha-. the% establish principles so that ::,e. do not have to do %ariances so often and set unnecessary precedence by accommodating something that is too tight and dense for a particular location. Ms. Penn,. Miller informed the Committee that she owns one of the two properties on Custer Avenue lust south of this location. She was also present that the ZBa meeting when this case was heard and seconds Nis. Hillman's comments and she is equally concerned with :he lack of discussion or surety of the final design. She also would like to see less bulk and preservation of green space because the proposed project is overpowering. She does recall that 2 members of the ZBA brought up the possibility of 2-units instead of units, however there was n, real discussion whether this was economically feasible or not. Ms. Berkovich responded that when this option was brought up she .owed that a 2-unit project would not be economically possible with the cost of renovation and given the property value in Evanston. Chairman Wynne noted that the propert% values here in Evanston are driven by the zoning and to do anything •.here variances are required can affect the surrounding properties. She also noted that almost anything done on this particular property would probably require some zoning relief, however to minimize as much as possible would be preferable. Mr. Ashraf Manii commented on the argument by the applicant that 2 units %%ould not work. Ho•-e%er. it ..as never researched or determined how much each unit would be worth especiall% if.ou considered the square footage of each unit. lie said without these determinations. there has been no sound case for economic hardship and this "as not proven during the Zoning hearing. He feels the proposed project is threatening to the surrounding properties and will negatively impact their value and current enjoyment of their homes. He strongly urges that the 2 unit development needs to be explored further and the preser•ation of same open green space on this property as well. Nir. Nfa iji piggy -backed on t}:e previous suggestion made earlier b-* Aid. Ne..-nan regarding a map be done of all the r pe 2 restaurants showing the locations of the same restaurants with multiple stores throughout Evanston. He suggested that a similar map be done showing all the instances where the City has given major variations and comparing these sites with what could be built under the Zoning Ordinance without such variations. He also commented on Ald. Bernstein's past statement on not haying any architectural taste or expertise because such expertise is not necessary when looking at obvious bulk of a proposed project ;n comparison Icy the size of the lot and the location and hoa it affects the surrounding properties and neighborhood. He said that it .could be obvious from a color -coded map sho.%ing the properties granted maior variations the evidence that there is an accumulated effect on the neighborhoods and how they have charged the character of mane. PRD Committee Ott¢ Minutes of t2-1.-os Pace 6 Aid. Ne,+man rem, Onded to Mr. \lanii's sugLc>tion on Joing such a map. first. he does not i elie%e they hj%e granted inany %ariances hecauae the,. do not Let mane variance ipplicabons tier similar to this. Mv-nt %ariances are for off-street parking generally. Ile said the% happened to get this one be ausr there i] a special use involved. He said %ariances in residential neighborhoods generall, go to the ZBA. Nevertheless, in terms of a map being done showing major %ahance cases in residential districts. he believes they will Find %er% little that were granted b% Council and the question becomes whether the Council shouid Let involved in major %variations in residential Toned districts. Aid. Newman asked staff. for clarification, of the standards to grant major variations. Mr. Alterson read from the Zoning Ordinance. = 1 - The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment, or property value of the adjoining properties. �2 - The requested variation is in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. »3 - The alleged hardship of practical difficulties peculiar to the property. #4 - The property owner would separate particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished for the mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. 05 - The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon desire to extract additional income from the property or granting of the variation will result in additional income to the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals or the City Council. depending on the bound jurisdiction under Section 6.3.8.2 of this Chapter, has found that public benefits surrounding neighborhood and the City as a %%hole, would be derived from approval of the variation that include but are not limited to any of the standards of the Chapter that refers to the public benefits of a planned development. Nir. Alterson continued that Standard =6 regarding alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person who has an interest in the property. -7 - The requested variation is limited to the minimum change necessary to alleviate a particular hardship of practical difficulty which affects the property. - Aid. Bernstein stated that although he admits to not having any architectural taste expertise, he backs his opinion of not being pleased with the rendering presented. He does feel there is too much bulk proposed for this site and that options should be explored or considered before moving forward. He also noted that it is possible with properties such as this, in its uniqueness, could be rehabbed from what is existing. With no further discussion at this point, Aid. Bernstein amended his original motion to approve for introduction to bold this item in Committee for the same allowance of the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood and applicant to discuss further options. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the rote was 4-0 in favor. fP6t Request for $80.000 in HOME Funds Chairman Wvnne acknowledged the representative of the Evanston Community Development Association (EDCA) in attendance beginning %%ith Mr. Keith Banks. Mr. Banks informed that he is the Executive Director of the ECDA and gave a brief surnmary of their organization and program objective which is to provide affordable housing in Evanston to qualifying low -to -moderate income family households and enable them to purchase a home. He said essentially they are a faith based organization and their goal is to maintain and preserve affordable housing in the City of Evanston. He noted that their MD Commitice kite. Minutes of 12-11-64 t'ace L,oal is to fi-cus on the %%est side communit%. srecitically in the 5`h Ward. targeting on distresNed propenic., either in t'ureclosure or ahandoned and bearded and turn these properties around to become a%ailahle for purcha.w of home ownership to qualifying families. Mr. Bank, acl.no-.%!edged the partnership and imc6ement of the Reba Place Fellowship leadership %ho are the prt�ject manager for this property. fie noted their 01130 status and that the} are "orking hand -in -hand on this project to succeed. He acknowledged Mr. Da%id )anzen and Julius Belser associated with Reba Place Fellowship. Pastor Lane as the President of ECDA. and the voluntary assistance of Ms. Delores Holmes. He gave a brief summary of the economic involvement in this project as stated in the agenda item summary. In conclusion. he requested the Committee's support of EDCA's first affordable housing project. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Horow-ich spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission noting their full support of this proposal. (P7) Reauest for S202.000 in HOME Funds Chairman Wynne acknowledged fir. George Gauthier representing the Evanston I lousing Coalition. *vIr. Gauthier gave a brief summary of the proposed rehab project for 1817 Foster as described in the packet materials. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0 in favor. Ms. Horowich again spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission and their support for this proposal as well. (P5) Ordinance 122-0-04 — Landmark Nomination for 2.109 Orrineton (Kendall Colleee Weslev Halll Chairman Wynne stated the order of presentations first beginning with the Preservation Commission, secondly the representatives for Smithfield, and thirdly would be citizen comments. Mr. Chris Carey. Chair of the Preservation Commission, went through the criteria relating to the landmark nomination status of the building in question. He noted that this nomination was brought forward to the Preservation Commission on June 11. 2004 by Ms. Judy Fiske representing the Northeast Evanston Historic District Association. He informed that they had a total of 6 meetings, 4 of which were open for public comment by all. He noted that in their review of the standards, first of all is the fact that this building is located in a historic district, both local and federal. The building was cited as a contributing structure to this district. therefore. playing an important role to the character of the district. %1r. Carey went through the criteria relating this building to meeting the standards of qualifying to be acknowledged as an historical structure as presented and stated in the transcript forwarded to the P&D Committee. Mr. Dan Shapiro spoke on behalf of the legal firm representing Smithfield Properties, along with INlr. John tilalarkey. He also introduced Mr. Buono representing Smithfield Properties. He summarized chronologically what has happened since Smithfield P&D Committee Mie, Minutes of I2-Hs (L: Page S purchased the Kendall College propert%. lie ga•c ^.:ticant supporting facts in opposition of •+h; this building should not he considi:re. ­c^arately at this time as an Banston LanJmark and ho%% it should not be considere� �.rarately torn the entire re- de%elopment of this site. Chairman W:-nne moved onto the citizen comment list ne),t. Ms. Judy Fiske stated that she is representing the Northeast Evanston historic District Association ++ho are in support of National Register Hisionc and the Local Historic District nomination for the building at 2408 Orrington. She acknowledged the comments made by the anome% on behalf of the applicant and :+fished to respond to those comments. She gave a hision• of the public discussion cin uhis building and noted that the neighborhood organization never had any intent to hold up the development process in anv regards to this site. However. their intent was to addre_s the particular benefit to the neighborhood historic district. the de+eloper. and the Cit. (m that basis, they followed closely the %%ork of the communit% in tr%ing to %%ork .pith both the City and the developer. She recalled that in January 2004 the neighborhood came before his Committee requesting that the rezone the Kendall property to R 1. She further recalled at that time 4 members of the P&:D Committee were in favor. less Aid. Kent's vote against. Therefore the neighborhood committee uas under the impression that there was a great likelihood that this property was going to be rezoned R 1. subsequently this matter Was held at this point back as far as the ;larch 8'" 2004 meenne. She recalled at that time there was discussion of the District =65 building on Ridge. •+•hick seemed to overseer the Kendall property rezoning and leaving it an hold at that time. its. Fiske stated that it was never their intention. even back in 1997 when the % v ere .+orking on the Northeast Evanston Historic District, to landmark: this building. even though the building should have been iandmarked at that time. She noted that there .%ere -' theological seminaries in Evanston, 3 of which were already landmarked. but this building in question +vas not included in the stud%- area at that time. Therefore, then decided on the basis of the RI decision at P&D and the obvious input of the neighbonccxA in working with the RI rezoning, that they would try to put together a nomination that would address the concerns of the neighborhood and unique use potential of the building. Therefore, in March 2004 they decided to write a landmark nomination application for the administrative building of Kendall College upon detailed research to obtain and support that status. Ms. Fiske concluded with her opinion that the main objecti• a and original request made for this property was the request of the neighborhood committee representing the majority of the residential property owners around Kendall College, to rezone the property to R I. She noted that this same organization still stands positive and supportive of the RI zoning in combination with the nomination of the buildings at 2408 Orrington to be designated for landmark status. Mr. Tom Gemmel] of 720 Colfax, stated that he is Chair Person for the Kendall Task Force and Director of the Kendall Neighbors Association. He first requested to respond to Mr. Shapiro's claim of 44 plans presented in total to the City. According to his P&D Committee Nice_ Minutes of 12-13-4a Pate 9 recollection. the ne.,L:hnorhood group has not seen an< «here :scar 44 renderings but is positi%e or%ie%%m, a- :;apt &% Jtiferent rendcrin,!s and approximate!,. 9-10 plans shorn in total. \Ir. Gemmel :»:J f,,r the record tha: this is a more true and accurate account of \%hat plans the neigh'-- ncc�cd :r.up has re%ic%%ed. Secondl\. he stressed that the process done so far is nece,-anti and an% claims of the neighborhoodJ group postponing or dcla%ing the process not accurate. l it said there is an expected due process of any case involving such landmark k status or nomination to a specific building. Ile also stressed the umbrella issue of this entire care and the further development of this site, lie noted the original request of the neighbors was to rezone the property to RI. R-is. Laura Nerenberg ga\ a an intimate summary of her personal knowledge of the neighborhood since she grew up from childhood in the immediate area. She has lived in close proximity and currentl% owns property directly across from the Kendall College property. She stressed that she has al%va%s assumed that the Kendall College use would he there. Furthermore. under the circumstances. she could assume that the administrative buildine %ould he considered an historical landmark since the neighborhood has been landmarked historical. Ms. Nerenbere read from a prepared statement documenting childhood memories in relationship to the Kendall College propene and neighborhood. Aid. Newman questioned the entire status of this project «ith regards to the Plan Commission's position on their opinion of this case. I le asked that staff provide a written summarization of the Plan Commission*s discussion or have some of the members present for discussion and comment. Chairman Wynne stated on behalf of the Committee that they will not be able to conclude any decision or %ote on this matter tonight due to limited time at this point. She acknowledged GIs. Barbara Janes as the next person signed up to speak and asked if she would hold her comments to begin with at the next meeting. tits. Janes agreed. Mr. Buono made concluding comments addressing some of the statements made by citizens. He referred to the umbrella issue in looking at the entire site as a whole. That is why he feels it is inappropriate to deal with the administrative building separately. He noted that there are real practical issues with converting this building to condominiums. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee to be continued at the January 10, 2005 meeting. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion, vote being 4-0 in favor. Aid. Wynne reminded that Aid. Tisdahl %\ould take o\er chairmanship beginning with the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. P&D Comminte Mig. Minutes of 12.1:-04 Page 10 Respectfuii_ bubmitted. r� Jacqu ine . Brownlee �- DRAFT Planning & I)c%clopment Committee Minute% tof December 13. 2004 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. E%an%tun Civic Center Alderman Present: S Bernstein. A \ewnian. L. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J Kent Staff Present: J. W'olinski. A. .alterson, G. Morgan. C. Ruiz. D. Spicum, E. Szymanski. J. Rrox.mlee Presiding Official: Alderman W,�nn DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman W%nne called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 22. 2004 MEETING MINUTES AM. Tisdahl mo%ed approval of the November 22nd minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were appro.ed %%ith a vote of4-0. ITEIIS FOR CONSIDERATION (P I) Anneal of the Site Plan and Avvearance Review Committee — 1235 Hartrev Avcnue Chairman W'vnne noted that this item was held in Committee at the November 22'd meeting at the request of Ald. Jean -Baptiste in order to allow him the opportunity to meet with the applicant and visit the site. He was able to do both and has no objections to their request. There were also no reported objections from the immediate neighbors of this site. Aid. Bernstein asked the Sprint PCS representative present if Ms. Kelly Drew had an opportunity to talk with Facilities Management at the High School. Ms. Drew did speak with representatives of the High School again who remain objective to having any additional antennas installed on the smoke stack. With no further discussion, Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 108-0-04 — Amendment to Section 4-5-2 of the Evanston Citv Code with Modifications to Section F-502 and F-503 of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code Chairman W°}nne recalled at the request of Aid. Jean -Baptiste that this item was held in Committee at the late meeting to give him a chance to meet wit the applicant and visit the P&D Committee Nitz. minutes or 12-i ,-( t Page 2 site. She spoke on A:d Jea ,,-Bapti:te behalf rela% imz that he has no objection, as a result of that meetin_ i -ere «:.. ro rn,t:d obiectionr the neighh,,rs either Aid. Bernstein aikei he present tree-: S nr.t PCS if NN. I1re%% had an opportunity to meet .pith Fac;:itte, Management at *,he 11:gh School lm another attempt to request the antennae ;ocatior. on their smoke stack Tin: representative was una%%are of what exactly occa;r:.' to the discussion but she did %ouch for its. Drew that attempt was made but there was no chan_e in decision by from the Hich School. 1Vith that, aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 108-0-04. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 121-0-04 - Special Use request for a Tvne 2 Restaurant at 1571 Sherman Chairman Wynne acknow]edged Mr. Peter Lutz. Mr. Lutz spoke giving a brief history of his existing restaurant currently on campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. He would like to duplicate the operation of that store here in E\ anston and believes it will be just as successful with the campus affiliation of Northwestern. He described the operation of the DeKalb restaurant and the quality of products used such as the Lebanese pita bread used and the all fresh ingredients used. fie noted that he plans to use other local business with quality products such as cookies from Great Harvest for example. He informed that he fifes in Glencoe and %%ill spend most of his time at the store in Evanston by hiring a manager for the DeKalb location minimizing his need to commute every day of the week. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. He believes this is not sour typical fast food operation from what Mr. Lutz has portrayed, lie discussed the normal responsibility expectations for every type 2. fast food restaurant regarding litter collection plan, proper number of garbage pickup during the week and employee parking. Mr. Lutz was fully aware of all his responsibilities. Chairman \Wynne asked about deliveries. :sir. Lutz responded that there are a few parking spaces in the rear of the building and all deliveries will be made from the alley in the rear also. Chairman Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P3) Ordinance 117-0-0.3 - Special Use request for a Tvoe 2 Restaurant at 1620 Orrineton Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicant. '%1r. ,Michael Remollet informed the Committee that he is in partnership with his brother. They own a store in Ann Arbor where his brother will remain and manage while he manages the one in Evanston if approved. He described the store in .inn arbor, noting the similarity to Starbucks operation and quality of their products. Aid. Tisdahl asked his intentions on hiring college students and if he has thought about hiring an% local kids from the student job center here in Evanston. Mr. Remollet admitted that he had not considered local kids for hire but would be glad to call the job center for any possibilities. Aid. Newman expressed his concern for the number of coffee establishments in downtown Evanston and the need for some type of limitation control when any businesses promoting the same type of product reach a certain number all in the same area or close proximity. The Committee and staff discussed this matter which apparently was of some concern to all P&D Committee Ntte. \1inutes of t _• I.43 Nee the members. Aid. Newman requc�,ted staff' to ►ic.elop a map pointirg out all the locations of all the e\ising coffee house: and establi;hmtnt. The• Pom,Ld out hoi% many 5tarhuck locauons there are alone In the l'%anston an.a. With no further .Iiscussion. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval, seconded by :old. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in fai or of the motion. The applicant was also aware of the responsibilities and expectations of type ? restaurants regarding litter control plan, garbage pickup and employee parking. f P•tl Ordinance 12 3-0-0.1 — Svecial Use and Maior Variation for a Multi -Family Residential Use at 702-708 Greenleaf Chairman Wynne acknowledged the applicant. Ms. Lana Berkovich and asked her to begin with a •brief summary of the proposed project to the Committee. Ms. Berkovich distributed to the Committee additional photos of the current site and immediate surrounding structures, an enlarged copy of the plat of survey. and additional renderings of the proposed project. She informed the Committee that she and her partner are the contract purchasers of this propert}. She described the property in its current status and details of the proposed reno.ation. Chairman Wynne asked if changes have been made since the ZBA approval. INIs. Berko.ich responded that they have not made changes as far as the zoning relief requested. However they have worked on some of the concems expressed by the neighbors and changes have been made to address some of those concerns. :old. Bernstein noted that he has diuussed this case .with Nis. Berkovich and he does have concerns with the bulk of this project in view of the small size of this lot. He said the issue was raised at the Zoning hearing about flipping and putting the garage spaces entrances eastbound rather than •%estbound off Custer into the alley. Fie asked if this %%w a possibility. his. Berkovich responded that they can not do that because unfortunately the building that they are actually retaining is on the .pest side of the property and in order for the project to be economically doable they have already do%vnsized the project from 5 units to 3-units. She noted that they originally had a curb cut on Greenleaf for garage entrances but they had to take that out resulting in all the garage entrances being located off Custer which maintains Greenleaf as a pedestrian street. She said that •vas an important consideration since there has always been a lot of pedestrian traffic on Greenleaf in this location and will probably remain with the close proximity to the school and Chicago Avenue. Aid. Bernstein said that he appreciates the maintenance of the pedestrian .%alkway, however %&hat he does not approve of is the fact that they are invading the frontages of the people on Custer and treating the street as thought it •,.ere an allevwav to pro% ide garage entrances. I le is concerned %%ith the lack of consideration for the few properties that front on Custer south of Greenleaf. GIs. Berkovich explained that what they have done is pull the garages back .here the second and third floors overhang the entrances to make them as invisible from the Street as possible. In her opinion. this was the only ..ay to provide adequate parking that .+ould be less intrusive to all the surrounding propenies. She said if it were up to them. they would provide less parking, however the City requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. She feels that they have come up with a suitable compromise solution to the requirement for this unique location. P&D Committee Mte- Minutes of 12-1: •Oa - NE: s She said the main ad%aatag,e this proitct is that it is pretty ne" re'sidential construction in the MIT lcininc diat: t:t. «n.�h ,he behe% s is better than %%hat could eo in there as-of- rwht. In response :did i. ern:: tcln'a question. Mr. Alterion responded that MUE allows as permitted user 1,uild.m: matcrial� comUn rcial parkin* garage. commercial parking lot, cJu;.st:onal institution -- public & private. industrial service establishment, manufacturing. office. public transportation center. public utility, trade contractor, business storaee establishment. %%arehouse establishment, and wholesale - goods establishment. Ali. f3:rnstein noted that automoti%e establishments were not mentioned considering all the -ar dealerships on Chicago Avenue. lie recognized that %kith the geometry of this lot and its size %could probably exclude most of those uses. :lid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance I23-0-04 for introduction but would like to keep this item here in P&D to allow him the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood. He also questions the design of this proposed project and would also like to meet with the applicant to discuss further options and possibilities including input from the neighbors. Aid. Nc wman asked staff what was the discussion by the architects on the Site Plan Committee on this cased. Mr. Woiinski recalled that there were concems that Aid. Bernstein pointed out, ho«ever the architects expressed approval overall from what currently exists on that site. :old. Newman questioned if the proposed plans before the Committee right no%% are %%hat the SPAARC re%iewed ad %hat the ZBA approved. tits. Berkovich responded that the current plan before the Committee has been altered slightly but reiterated that no zoning relief requested has been effected by these alterations. Chairman Wynne noted that she has read through the transcript of the ZBA and she is still concerned that there are many variables that were still left up in the air. She said even thought the applicant claims that the zoning relief requested has not changed, it seems that it is not clear %%-hat the P&D Committee is expected of approving in combination with the zoning relief requested and the amendments made to the original design. Mr. Wolinski suggested in response to Aid. Newman's concerns expressed about Site Plan, if the Committee desires, between no%v and the next meeting staff can have the design professionals on Site Plan come up with a synopsis of their opinions on this project. Aid. Newman agreed that this would not delay the process any further if staff were to obtain this information to present to the Committee by the next meeting. However, he did note that Nis. Mary Koberstein of the ZBA did have serious concerns abut whether the variation should be granted in the first place. Even though she was out- voted, he feels her concerns are valid and should be taken into consideration. Chairman Wynne ackno« !edged that several people have signed up to speak on this case and should be heard eN en though this item sill he held in Committee. 'its. Debbie flillman — noted that she did speak at the ZBA hearing but emphasized that she is not aware of ho+A her comments went across. She stated that her comments were eery preliminary because she was unaware of the details of the project. She said when she went into the ZBA meeting under the impression that there was going to be some real discussion, but in fact, this project seems to be approved without really knowing what the P&D Committee Mtc. Minutes of 12-1:-04 Page c final outcome or actual u.-ten %toul,i he. Her second concern. oxen though she appreciates a small re,:.irntis: -1.%.,tiptrnent in the: arvi. >l:e still think-, that ?-unit:: is too much for that pamcular the pk+tned out that in looking at the design, she %wuld assume that the middie u;t;t -,ould he %ery undesirable %kith %ery little outdoor access. She reminded that rnan% ::tw ns worked %er% hard on amendink the Zoning Ordinance so that the% estanir,;t p -tn:rples ;o that the-, deg not have to do %ariances so often and set unnecessan precedence b% accommodating something that is too tight and dense for a particular location Ms. Penny Miller informed the Committee that she o+%its one of the t%%o properties on Custer Avenue just south of this location. She was also present that the ZBA meeting %%hen this case was heard and seconds ifs. Hillman's comments and she is equally concerned with the lack of discussion or surety of the final design. She also -,would like to see less bulk and preservation of green space because the proposed project is oyerpo%%ering. She does recall that 2 members of the 7.8A brought up the possibility of 2-units instead of 3-units, ho%%eyer there was no real discussion %%hether this was economically feasible or not. Ms. Berkovich responded that when this option was brought up she vowed that a 2-unit project would not he economically possible with the cost of renovation and given the property value in Evanston. Chairman Wynne noted that the property values here in E%anston are driven by the zoning and to do anything where variances are required can affect the surrounding propertiec. She also noted that almost anything done on this particular properly would probably require some Zoning relief, ho+%ever to minimize as much as passible would be preferable. Mr. Ashraf Manii commented on the argument by the applicant that ? units -,would not work. However. it %►•as never researched or determined how much each unit would be worth especially if you considered the square footage of each unit. Ile said without these determinations, there has been no sound case for economic hardship and this %was not proven during the Zoning, hewing. He feels the proposed project is threatening to the surrounding properties and %will negatively impact their value and current enjoyment of their homes. He strongly urges that the ? unit development needs to be explored further and the preservation of some open green space on this property as well. fir. hianji piggy -backed on the previous suggestion made earlier b% .old. Newman regarding a map be done of all the type 2 restaurants showing the locations of the same restaurants with multiple stores throughout E%anston. He suggested that a similar map be done showing all the instances where the City has given major variations and comparing these sites with what could be built under the Zoning Ordinance -,without such variations. He also commented on Aid. Bernstein 's past statement on not having any architectural taste or expertise because such expertise i> not necessar% when looking at obvious bulk of a proposed project in comparison to the size of the lot and the location and ho%% it affects the surrounding properties and neighborhood. lie said that it would be obvious from a color -coded map showing the properties granted major variations the evidence that there is an accumulated effect on the neighborhoods and ho%% they have charged the character of mane. P&D Committee 19te. Minutes of 12-1 1-U.t- Pace h Ald. Newman responded to \tr. \lanjt's su_.!e+tion on doin; iu,h a ma}. first, he does not helic\ e they ha\c granted many : arian.:e-s hecautie the% do not i:et many variance applications 10u cases-irn:iar .Ll this. Nivst variances are f'ar oft` -,:reef parking generally. Ile said they happened to _et this one bt,.au5e there is a special u.se involved. He said variances in residential nei6borhuods aenerall% go to the ZBA. Nevertheless, in terms of a map being done showing major variance cases in residential districts. he believes they will find very little that %%ere stranted by Council and the question becomes whether the Council should get involved in major variations in residential Toned districts. Ald. Newman asked staff, for clarification, of the standards to grant maio r variations. Mr. :person read from the Zoning Ordinance. -1 - The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment, or property value of the adjoining properties. Z2 _ The requested variation is in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. x3 - The alleged hardship of practical difficulties peculiar to the property. IN - The property owner would separate particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished for the mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. _-j - The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon desire to extract additional income from the property or granting of the variation mill result in additional income to the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals or the City Council, depending on the bound jurisdiction under Section 6.3.8.2 of this Chapter. has found that public benefits surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole. would be derived from approval of the variation that include but are not limited it) any of the standards of the Chapter that refers to the public benefits of a planned development. fir. Alterson continued that Standard =6 regarding alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person who has an interest in the property. =7 - The requested variation is limited to the minimum change necessary to alleviate a particular hardship of practical difficulty which affects the property. Aid. Bernstein stated that although he admits to not having any architectural taste expertise, he backs his opinion of not being pleased with the rendering presented. He does feel there is too much bulk proposed for this site and that options should be explored or considered before moving forvtiard. He also noted that it is possible Aith properties such as this, in its uniqueness, could be rehabbed from what is existing. With no further discussion at this point, Aid. Bernstein amended his original motion to approve for introduction to hold this item in Committee for the same allowance of the opportunity to meet with the neighborhood and applicant to discuss further options. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P6) Reauest for 580.000 in HUME Funds Chairman W%-nne acknowledged the representative of the Evanston Community Development Association (EDCA ) in attendance beginning with Mr. Keith Banks, Mr. Banks informed that he is the Executive Director of the ECDA and gave a brief summary of their organization and program objective which is to provide affordable housing in Evanston to qualifying love -to -moderate income family households and enable them to purchase a home. He said essentially they are a faith based organization and their goal is to maintain and preserve affordable housing in the City of Evanston. He noted that their PRD Committee .Mig.- Minutes of t2•1;.G4� Page goal is to focus on the %lest side ;ornmunit%. ipeciticaliy in the ;'h Ward. targeting on di%tres�ed pri,perties either in foreclt—ure ;ir ahandoned and boarded and turn these properties around to become a\aiiaHe for purchase tFf home o% nership to qualifying lamilies. \1r Banks ackno-.0edged the partnership and involvement of the Reba Place I-eliuwship leadership «ho are the prtJect manager for this propert%. lie noted their CHDO status and that tl:e} are %lurking hand -in -hand on this project to succeed. lie ackno%fledged Mr. Da%id Janzen and Julius Belser associated %%ith Reba Place Fellowship. Pastor Lane as the President of ECDA, and the voluntary assistance of Ms. Delores Holmes. Ile gave a brief summary of the economic involvement in this project as Stated in the agenda item summary. In conclusion, he requested the Committee's support of EDCA's first affordable housing project. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Nis. Horowich spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission noting their full support of this proposal. (P7) Reauest for 5202.000 in HOME Funds Chairman Wynne acknowledged Mr. George Gauthier representing the Evanston I lousing Coalition. 4ir. Gauthier gave a brief summary of the proposed rehab project for 1817 roster as described in the packet materials. Aid. Bernstein moved approval. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0 in favor. Ms. Horo%%ich again spoke on behalf of the Housing Commission and their support for this proposal as well. (P5) Ordinance 122-0-04 — Landmark Nomination for 2408 Orrinaton (Kendall Colleee Weslev Hall) Chairman Nk.ynne stated the order of presentations first beginning with the Preservation Commission, secondly the representatives for Smithfield, and thirdly would be citizen comments. Mr. Chris Carey. Chair of the Preservation Commission, went through the criteria relating to the landmark nomination status of the building in question. He noted that this nomination was brought forward to the Preservation Commission on June 11, 2004 by Ms. Judy Fiske representing the Northeast Evanston Historic District Association. He informed that they had a total of 6 meetings. 4 of which were open for public continent by all. He noted that in their review of the standards, first of all is the fact that this building is located in a historic district, both local and federal. The building was cited as a contributing structure to this district. therefore, playing an important role to the character of the district. Mr. Carey went through the criteria relating this building to meeting the standards of qualifying to be acknowledged as an historical structure as presented and stated in the transcript forwarded to the P&D Committee. Mr. Dan Shapiro spoke on behalf of the legal firm representing Smithfield Properties, along with Mr. John Malarkey. He also introduced Mr. Buono representing Smithfield Properties. lie summarized chronologically what has happened since Smithfield P&D Committee %tt2. Minutes of 12-1=-{u Page 8 purchased the Kendall Cc.::rL: pror rt% Ile ga%e significant supporting facts in opposition of %%hy thi> hu::-.:tni .,houid not be considered separatel% at this time as an Evanston Landmark and h, -.� it should not be considered separately tom the entire re- development of this site. Chairman Wynne armed onto the citizen comment list next. Ms. Judy Fiske stated that she is representing the Northeast Evanston historic District :association who are in support of National Register Historic and the local Historic District nomination for the building at 2408 Orrington. She acknowledged the comments made by the anorney on -ehalf of the applicant and %%fished to respond to those comments. She gave a histo,; of the public discussion on this building and noted that the neighborhood organization n:%er had any intent to hold up the development process in any regards to this site. Ho -..ever. their intent was to address the particular benefit to the neighborhood historic distn.:. the developer, and the C'itn . On that basis. they followed closely the work of the cornmunit% in tr%ing to cork with both the City and the developer. She recalled :hat in Januar} 2004 the neighborhood came before his Committee requesting that the rezone the Kendall property to R 1. She ftirther recalled at that time 4 members of the P&D Committee were in favor, less Aid. Kent's vote against. Therefore the neighborhood committee %Nas under the impression that there was a great likelihood that this propert, %%as going to be rezoned R I. Subsequently this matter was held at this point back as far as the March 8`s 2004 meeting. She recalled at that time there was discussion of the District =65 building on Ridge, which seemed to overseer the Kendall property rezoning and leaving it on hold at that time. Ms. Fiske stated that it was never their intention, even back in 1997 when they were working on the 'northeast Evanston historic District, to landmark this building. even though the building should have been landmarked at that time. She noted that there were 4 theological seminaries in Evanston, 3 of which were alreadv landmarked, but this building in question was not included in the study area at that time. Therefore. they decided on the basis of the R1 decision at P&D and the ob-ious input of the neighborhood in working %%ith the R1 rezoning, that they would to to put together a nomination that would address the concerns of the neighborhood and unique use potential of the building. Therefore, in March 2004 they decided to write a landmark nomination application for the administrative building of Kendall College upon detailed research to obtain and support that status. Ms. Fiske concluded with her opinion that the main objective and original request made for this property was the request of the neighborhood committee representing the majority of the residential propem owners around Kendall College, to rezone the property to R1. She noted that this same organization still stands positive and supportive of the R1 zoning in combination with the nomination of the building at 2408 Orrington to be designated for landmark status. Mr. Tom Gemmell of 720 Colfax, stated that he is Chair Person for the Kendall Task Force and Director of the Kendall Neighbors Association. He first requested to respond to Mr. Shapiro's claim of 44 plans presented in total to the City. According to his P&D Committee Mitt. Minutes of t_-t:-Oa- Page 4 recollection. the neighhorh,lod vroup ha• r.. t •e:n %%> ere near -ta renderings but is positi%e of %ie%%ina at least {, ..iift'eren: rendenn--, ar.0 apprommaie1% 9-10 plans shown in total. Mr. Gemmell said :,.r the ree, rd tha: this _ mere true and accurate account of %%hat plans the ncighhorho,:-d Lroup has re% iev L-J Sacondl, . he stressed that the process done so far is necessary and any Maim: of :he netchhorhoud group postpiminb or dela}ins; the process is not accurate. lie said there is an expected due process of any case involving such landmark status or nominatiun to a specific building. Ile also stressed the umbrella issue of this entire case and the further Je-,elopment of this site. Ile noted the original request of the neighK-ors \%as to rezone the prop+em to R1. Ms. Laura Nerenberg gave an intimate summary of her personal knowledge of the neighborhood since she gre%% up from childhood in the immediate area. She has lived in close proximity and currently owns property directly across from the Kendall College property. She stressed that she has always assumed that the Kendall College use would be there. Furthermore. under the circumstances. she would assume that the administrative building "ould be considered an historical landmark since the neighborhood has been landmarked historical. Ms. Nerenberg read from a prepared statement documenting childhood memories in relationship to the Kendall College property and neighborhood. Aid. Newman questioned the entire status of this project with regards to the Plan Commission's position on their opinion of this case. He asked that staff provide a written summarization of the Plan Commission's discussion or have some of the members present for discussion and comment. Chairman Wynne stated on behalf of the Committee that they %vill not he able to conclude any decision or vote on this matter tonight due to limited time at this point. She acknowledged ifs. Barbara Janes as the next person signed up to speak and asked if she would hold her comments to begin with at the next meeting. NIs. Janes agreed. Mr. Buono made concluding comments addressing some of the statements made by citizens. He referred to the umbrella issue in lookinc at the entire site as a «hole. That is why he feels it is inappropriate to deal with the administrative building separately. He noted that there are real practical issues with converting this building to condominiurns. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee to be continued at the January 10, 2005 meeting. Aid. Tisdahl seconded the motion, note being 4-0 in favor. Aid. Wynne reminded that Aid. Tisdahl "ould take oser chairmanship beginning with the next meetinta. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. PRD Commitiec tittg. Minutes of 12-13-04 Pace 10 Respectfully submitted. 4Jacqune . Brownlee