Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2005DRAFT Plan ning& De%elopment Committee Minutes of Januan. 10, 2005 Room 2403 — 7:00 P.M. Evanston Ci% is Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. `c%%man. E. Tisdahl. tl. 1L'ynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent St'ff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterwn. A. Huckman. G. Morgan, C. Ruiz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding OffciAl: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORU:M Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. `is. Szymanski introduced the City's new attorney, Mr. Andrew Huckman, who will be working closely with the Community Development Department regarding land use issues and %%ill eventually be Legal staff for the Planning & Development Committee in her place. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 13. ZOOM :MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the December 13th minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved with a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance 123-0-04 — Special Use and Maior Variation for a Multi-Familv Residential use at 702-708 Greenleaf This item was held in Committee at the December 13`h meeting in order for Aid. Bernstein to meet .%ith the applicant and neighbors to discuss possible alternatives for this project. Aid. Bernstein stated that he has not had the opportunity to meet %Kith the applicant yet and it is his understanding that other complications with the real estate deal may have occurred since the last P&D Committee meeting. He requested again to hold this item in Committee until the January 241h meeting. t P31 Ordinance 01-0-05 — Special Use Reauest for a Tvne 2 Restaurant at 2400 Main Street Chairman Tisdahl asked the applicant for a brief presentation. Mr. Rick Lauer, representative from the Starbuck's Coffee Company, said that the proposed new store would be located in the end retail space in the Main Street Marketplace shopping center. MD Comm irate Ile. %Iinules 10-05 Put = the% frlt that this .wuld be an ideal for a Sl rbucl%'s ,tare �%ith the ne,,+ renovation and la4ade �k ithin the mall and inzreased but-iness %%ith the addition of the nc%% food %tore. Aid. Bernstein moved approval, seconded by Aid. NN'ynne. The motion Has approved 4-0. Ald. Bernstein explained the usual a\pectations and conditions required of all type 2 restaurants in Evanston %%ith the litter collection plan and regular garbage pick up schedule. (P2) Ordinance 122-0-04 — Landmark Nomination for 2408 Orrinvion (Kendall Colleee Weslev Hail) Chairman Tisdahl called on Nis. Barbara Janes first up for citizen comment. Nls. lanes said she has two points why she feels the Administration Building Wesley Hall is important to designate as an Evanston Landmark. First of all and foremost because it is important for all the Committee's and Commission's to follow procedures, guideline, and ordinances, it is evident from the transcript deliberations that the Preservation Commission did follow the requirements as stated in their Ordinance point by point to prose that this building does meet the criteria to qualify as an Evanston Landmark. Secondly. as a teacher she finds it ven• important to preserve the history of a community, especially here in Evanston where there is a significant amount o(historical events, people from the past and buildings. She feels it is %m important for children to learn and know of the histon• and historical background of Evanston. It is important to preserve and maintain the physical history as possible. She noted that the Kendall Neighborhood Group has been working close!% with the developer for a plan that would fit into the neighborhood. She said that after the work done by their task force with the developer, the neighbors decided to hire an architect to come up with some plans that would meet the needs of the neighborhood. She said one of the plans was significant because it allowed for the retention of the contributing buildings on the campus property, particularly Wesley Hall. She pointed out their plan would allow options for the developer as well as meeting the needs of the neighborhood. Ms. Mary Brueliera, 1304 %N"cslev and member of the Preservation Commission. explained the difference between a -contributing and a non-contributing building under their Ordinance. She said there are a number of non-contributing buildings on this site that the developer is asking to be demolished which she believes is a likely possibility. The difference between a contributing building and a landmark is there so. She said there are man) preservationists who feel that many of the contributing buildings in our historic districts could well be landmarks and because of the change in view point on contributing buildings over the years: they could easily be designated if someone were to do so. She said the application for demolition of a contributing structure is considered in the same way as for a landmark. The standards are the same with a difference of degree. however it is not a dramatic difference. She said when NEHDA first came to them, they stated right at the outset that their purpose in malting this building a landmark was not to draw a bold line underneath the contributing structure just to make it more contributing, but to _ meet all the qualifications for a unique use. She said the landmark status was the only P&D Committee %ite Minutes of 1-10-05 1'aer ? missing, piece in that it mu,% he in historic district in an R 1 .:i>trict Sher -aid this building is an enabling piece that gi%es moreIlexibilit% in de%elop tnz the site because Presumably a number of condominiums "nuid fit nicel% in a rend %ated Wesle% hall. - Ms. Jeanne Lindwahl. 625 Library Place. Said that she echo -es many of Ms. Brugliera's comments especially about the reasons for the landmark nomination. She noted her part as one of the authors of both the National Register and the Local Historic District Nominations for Northeast Evanston. She stated that it is important to recognize the purpose of those nominations. which tell a story of the development in northeast Evanston. lv%'ith respect to the National Register. it included the Gross Pointe Lighthouse, Wesley Hall. Roycemore School and Orrington School. to name a few of many buildings within a residential neighborhood. The Local District Nomination expanded that story to really address in further detail of the relation of the institutions in combination with the growth of the neighborhood. She noted that within the Lc -cal District Nomination such buildings included the Evanston Water Plant and Seabury Western. She said Wesley Hall is really an important centerpiece of both districts and she strongly feels that once the building is gone, that part of the story of Northeast Evanston will also be gone. She stressed the importance of preserving this building. but more importantly in terms of the planning process. they are sitting with an ordinance recommendation to rezone the Kendall property to RL which the P&D Committee voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the rezoning. She noted that now that recommendation is now sitting while the neighbors and Smithfield try to work on a compromise. She said that the neighbors have taken this a step further by coming up with a plan that has been presented at a well attended community meeting and had numerous discussions over the past two months about preserving the Wesley Hall building. She said this building is an integral part of what is essentially an RI development concept. She said that problem with that is under the City Zoning Ordinance currently you can not have multi -family housing in a Rl zoning district. She noted the only -mechanism for allowing this type of development to go through is by the Unique Use category. Ms. Lindwahl reminded the under the Unique Use category it has to be in a historical district on an institutional lot. which the Kendall property is, and has to be zoned RI and the building has to be an Evanston Landmark. She stated that this is in fact the reason for the Evanston Landmark Nomination for Wesley Hall. She noted the problem with this is until the R I zoning is actually in place. whether or not Wesley Hall is a landmark is kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Therefore. she would suggest that the P&D Committee consider holding vote on the Wesley Hall as a landmark until the actually rezoning of the property is officially recognized. She realizes that part of the problem is that the landmark nomination is preceded the planned development application. As tar as she knows. the planned development hearing has not been scheduled before the Planning Commission. therefore the decisions on either the demolition or the land marking is premature. In conclusion, Ms. Lindwahl supports the landmark nomination of Wesley Hall but realizes the need to proceed with the appropriate procedure to move forward with any decisions for the Kendall property at this point. Pg0 Comm:nee %tie Minutes of 1 • ? :w Page l Ms. Flare Del cido. stated her strong ,upport th.it %\ r>le. Ifill 'should he land marked and remain on this property. She also expressed her concurrcrice with the previous comments made b% Ms B-ucliera and Ms. Lindwahl. Ms. Judti Fiske, noted that when thev wrote the nomin3tion for the Northeast Evanston Historic District with the National Register. she pointed out that their criteria is different than the Local criteria. She distinguished that they talk about architecture and not so much about Evanston history. She stated that the whole point of having the local historic nomination is specifically to talk about Evanston`s historical development, which she feels Wesley Hall qualifies in that capacity. She noted that Wesley Hall is extremely important to the surrounding neighborhood and this was specifically discussed in the nomination both for the history of Kendall College and its community and the role that this building played within the context of other theological seminary's in Evanston. Ms. Fiske stated that this building has always been part of that neighborhood; it was built in 1907 when her house and many of the other surrounding houses were built. She noted that the nomination was certainly accepted b% the Commission as well as City Council. She feels that it is important for all to remember that at that point, they could have submitted a nomination for landmark status of Wesley Hall. but there seemed to be no reason to do that at the time. She pointed out that fact that this is a contributing building in a Local and National Register Historic District. made that seem totally unnecessary. Also, there is no review in the Preservation Ordinance that outlines any difference between contributing building and a landmark building. She said the only reason they want to facilitate this is so that this building; can remain if the underlying; zoning that is currently on the table before this Committee is considered. :11s. Fiske encouraged the P&D Committee not to vote down this nomination, but to let it go for 120 days while they hold off to get a better idea of what the development is actually going to look like. She stated that this is not .just a situation affecting only this neighborhood; however it is important to the entire City of Evanston on the reflection of other similar properties that could be considered for redevelopment in the future. In conclusion, Ms. Fiske acclaimed how important this building is and how much it means to many people in Evanston in its historical prominence on the effect of those who have had any dealings with and for how it has affects the history of this neighborhood and Evanston in general. Mr. Tom Gemmell, stated that he wanted to speak on behalf of the Neighborhood Group and in recognition of the 240+ individual signatures on the petition to rezone the property from U1 to RE He said that if the building is not land marked and it is eventually or ultimately allowed to be taken down for the purpose of redevelopment, that Smithfield not be allowed to then add density to that propert% in contradiction to what the neighborhood desires. lie pointed out that right now that building provides them with options, which has been mentioned b} other neighbors tonight. and he asks that the P&D Committee keep this in mind and do not proceed contrary to their wishes at this time. Especially when there is a need to have the underlying zoning determined first so that specific criteria can be carefully considered or provisions for additional options can be looked at also. P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of I.16-05 Page c Mr. Bill McClure. stated his agreement and concurrence «ith all that has been said by his fellow neighbors previously. Ms. Sue Huehes. 810 Lincoln Street. said that she feels the Wesley Hall building is a historically beautiful building and stands by the majorin view of their neighborhood in that they would like to see this building preserved and nominated as an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Bruce Enenboch, expressed his support and concurrence with the comments of his fellow neighbors stated previously. Ms. Camille Blachowicz, also expressed her support and agreement with the comments made previously by her fellow neighbors. Chairman Tisdahl called on the developer or representatives for any response or comments at this time. P&D Commin a Mu: Minutes of : • 1 O.J.1r Page 6 Mr. Bernie Caron. from the La%% t ttiices of S,.ha-... Burra:.. Ro+sc & C;*,-on. Ltd.. said that he would I:ke clarification at thi• point h"au,t t`te pro%:e-:� does nut seem clear. lie noted that mart~ individuals %%ho spoke talked ahot.t there being an option can the table. He said that the% have an application pending for R4 zoning with s Planned Unit Development for sonic time now. He said they wuu«i like to see this get through the Plan Commission. P&D Committee. and to CitN Council :o decide if this plan is the right thing for the property or if another plan should be considered for whatever underling zoning is decided for the property. Ile said the problem is. the C'ity's processing does not allow a nest point because they have a request for R4 and the PUD together as one proposed project. lie pointed out that in the Preservation Ordinance it specifically requires the Landmark Commission to review a PUD if it is located within a historical district and make recommendations, not decisions. Ile said that the% have applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the buildings on the site. The Commission stopped and said that they really should not review the Planned De% elopment until the issue of the building being land marked is settled. because in fact Cit% Council votes to landmark this building. then the PUD will ultimately change. Therefore. `Ir. Citron said that they are stuck at this point and arc left unclear how, to proceed. He said that because of the concerns raised by the P&D Committee not moving forward. they decided to stop asking for the review of the PUD and Certificates of Appropriateness that are joined together until these decisions were made. They need to know what the underlying zoning for the property is going to be, until then. they could not hear the PUD.. He said that they respectfull% reminded them that their petition that has been on file for some time that they are waiting for a second round of reviews is for R4 zoning and the PUD under one application. He said that it is not uncommon far this City to see this type of joint petition. In conclusion. Mr. Citron said that something needs to give and some conclusion decision made, one way or the other. to proceed. lie said without going into any of the merits of this building. which they did present at the last meeting their view of Wesley Hall. They disagree on a number of ways on both its merits and reasons and that their application came before the request for landmark nomination. Mr. Wolinski responded that as Mr. Citron has so eloquently- stated the issues and little bit of quagmire that they are in on this project with the Planning Commission and the Preservation Commission where each one is waiting for the other to act. in addition there is the application for landmark nomination. He said in the mean time no one is acting. He pointed out the underlying zoning, which %%as talked about in this Committee approximately a year ago. the Plan Commission voted for an "R" district for this property. meaning it could be from RI through R:. The P&D Committee recommended that the property be zoned RL however it was asked to be held by the neighbors. He said his feeline on this was to try and moxe this alone: in some way and for the Council to decide on a piece. as far as the Wesley Building. whether or not it would be land marked. If it was land marked, this would give some direction to the developer as to type of development that they can have on this property. If the building is not land marked then with the underlying zoning that the applicant is requesting which is R4 with the Planned Development, then this could proceed through the Plan Commission process and eventually come back before the P&D Committee. However. he pointed out that there P&D Committee Yle MinuIes of 1-10-0 Per " are man% loose ends that the% can not <eem to tie up %%ith thi• case of %arious restrictions and people not -%antinc to make a positi%e decision, Aid. Nc%%Tnan asked how many days there are into the Preser%ation Commission recommendation. Mr. Wolinski responded approximately 30 da%s. Aid. Newman asked %%hen the underlying zoning issue could be resolved. It appears that the Plan Commission needs to act on this. bilker way it goes. this case Mill come back to Committee for decision. Ms. Lindwahl said that one of the frustrations that they all have with is that the Planned DeNclopment application apparently has not been noticed for a public hearing before the Plan Commission. In her opinion. this seems to be the hang up more than anything else and how quickly this can get through the Plan Commission's review. Once it is through the Plan Commission. the Preservation Commission knows for sure Hhat the proposal and can subsequently review that. Ms. Brugliera stated that as she understands the Planned Development and Preservation Ordinances. the Preset- ation Commission has to make a recommendation to the Plan Commission on issues of landmarks. building. density and other zoning issues. All of these issues the Preservation Commission can make comments on from the purview of preservation. As she recalls. at their last meeting of the Preservation Commission, they %westled with this and decided that there was an updated appearance at SPAARC that would be required. The Preservation Commission would then sit down and go over all of their recommendations on the Planned Development and take into account all of the applications for Certificates of appropriateness. demolitions. etc. They were thinking that they would be meeting on the project sometime in January as soon as that updated appearance review before SPAARC occurred. This is her interpretation of where this case stands at the time. Mr. Citron gave his interpretation of the status clarifying that they in fact no go to SP. ARC until this landmark issue was decided. This was the last understanding that they related because there was still the question of what the underlying zoning and how thev can deal with this not knowing the status of this building either. He informed that they scheduled another meeting with SPAARC and despite what other people may think. they pulled the PUD that had been revised to address some of the issues that were raised on the first zoning analysis for the purpose of allowing some decision to be made by the Cite on this property. Aid. Bernstein said in his opinion. it seems as if thcv are talking about distinction -xithout a difference. In order for them to get the relief that they are looking for they would have to have filed a Certificate of Appropriateness with respect to Wesley Hall and the other contributing buildings. all of which goes to the Preservation Commission to determine the standards for demolition. The case would then come before the P&D Committee. He referred to tits. Bugliera's comments regarding very little distinction between the standards; it is a question of degree to maintain a contributing structure. He said it occurs to him that many people who are trying to have this building land marked. presume that if MD Commmer tilt; Minutes o' 1 • ! (1-0! Page S the% landmark it t:. building ►:;; he iherc in p: 1erpv1w1n: not the case,., far as he de unrstands � 1n ,nclusion.:Je not pure %ch% the% ar4. at this paint Necause it Should be onkoin,: This ca-e diti'erent from the i mqu. 1 -e determination for the 1314 Ridge prop<rt� because a %%as at the request ,.1' :i:e de%cloper and ,:ave an opponunit% to make a utilization of a large structure ti.,n that .ot lie recalls discussion during the 1314 Ridge case, theti %%ere particularl,, at%arc of ,h pending Kendall action and they talked in length about not constructing this so it 6%c,u;'d impact the Kendall case. :did. Bernstein said he finds it amusing that the neighbors are into developing the project because that is not what's going to happen. He said ultimate!}. ;his Committee %trill make a decision on zoning and the applicant will make a decision on what they can do conforming to those zoning regulations. Aid. tiewtnan said if they do what is being requested, «hick is not to vote on the landmark nomination and wait until the Planned Development has been heard. All this needs to be done within the 120 da}s of the Preservation C:ommissiun recommendation. He asked staff r%hen this can be published and what meeting: the% can bring this back on. He said it is important to the de,.eloper and they are entitled to some answer as to whether or not the City is going to accept or reject their plan on the table. He said they need to stay within the 120 da%s. they need to have the notice for the Plan Commission hearing go out, and the Committee should be able to decide this evening what meeting they will be able to bring this back in its entirety. \Jr. Wolinski suggest that a special meeting be scheduled for sometime in February due to the number of items that the Plan Commission is currently considering and is on their agenda. Mr. Alterson agreed but this is still totally dependent on the volume of work that the Plan Commission has before them. He reminded that the Plan Commission has to make findings in order to make a recommendation for approval or denial and,vill have to address all of the standards for a Planned Development. Unfortunately, in their 'Zoning Ordinance these standards are approximately two dozen separate items that the Plan Commission has to review and talk about. He also informed the Committee that because of the strenuous load on their agenda, the Plan Commission has been one of the only boards that has had to schedule numerous extra meetings over the past few• months. Mr. NVolinski %owed that staff will _ try and set up a special meeting date for the end of Februar) . Aid. Wynne stated from her understanding, that the standards for whether you landmark a building or not do not include whether it fits into a better plan presented by the developer versus another plan. Therefore, «hiie she recognizes that there is some strategic value to this, it is not in the standards that the% are supposed to be reNie-,king a landmark for. She said that if they are to folio%% the standards, they do not gi%e the option of taking into consideration a plan with or %%iihout certain buildings being land marked. The same set of standards should be followed regardless of any other issues. She stressed feeling uncomfortable that the legal standards that they are obligated to follow are going to be colored by what the plan is that is being presented. ;did. Newman said that they are hearing both sides to this with one side wanting to have a hearing on their plan and the other side is saying that they have 120 days to decide this. In his opinion, there needs to be a decision and what they are hearing from staff is that they will have trouble scheduling the Plan Commission meeting in short notice with the 120 days time frame as �� P&D Committee Otte. %finutes of 1.10-05 Pave Q a %,.orr%. Ald. %V%nne stawd that although he s%rnrrthct,, .t; h the neighbor's desires fOr this building and proposed development for this prupert.., she paid the chess game that is going on here doesn't come into the calculation that they are permitted to make in her mind. Aid. Bemstein agreed. Ile noted that N%hat is beillre them tonight is to decide N%hether this building is going to he land marked or not. lie eta,.ed that as far as he is concerned. if the building is land marked or not. the next step seems to be the same because the applicant will have to still go forward with the Certificate of :Appropriateness to demolish. He said this entire process at this point seems to be %%acting everyone's time. He also questioned the status of the RI zoning, should this still be considered first? In conclusion. he does not like to see Cit% Ordinances used in a «a% that interrupts the expected flow and process of a proposed development. Mr. Gemmell explained the neighbor's position on the R I % ote. He said that they could short cut this whole thing if they could get City Council to vete in approval of the R1 zoning. He has 240- signatures in favor of this riming for the Kendall property. He reminded that the R I zoning was voted in favor b% a 4-1 % ote back; in January 2004, the ordinance is still tabled. and the neighbors suppor7 this vote and ordinance. He explained the reason why the neighbors asked to hold this ordinance is because they were asked to go ahead and talk to the developer to come up with a compromising plan, but «were unable to do that. The neighborhood group proceeded to hire an architect and had a plan drawn up under the RI zoning because the developer has never presented a plan for that zoning. He insisted that this holdup in the process is not at fault of the neighbors. Ald. Bernstein moved to deny the application for landmark nomination of 2.108 Orrington. He made this motion in an attempt to mo%c along the process possibly in the direction for Council to consider the RI zoning. .old. Wynne asked if the RI Ordinance was tabled here, would they just move it on for Council consideration. Aid. Newman responded that the developer has a plan that he has been putting through for a year now and is entitled to receive an answer on this proposal from the Cit% of Evanston. If Council supports the RI zoning, then they have basically shot do%%m the developer's proposal on the table. His opinion is to review the developers plan that he has presented and if it is decided to deny this plan for the property. and then mo%e onto the next step. The reason he request to do this within the time frame is because it doesn't really seem in his mind to change the necessity of the developer having to get demolition relief from the Preservation Commission. He feels what broke the law is that if they see this plan and reject then they should go forward with the request for R I zoning. but the Committee has not had an opportunity to review the developer's plan on the table. lie also noted that if the property is zoned R1. then it may be preferable to alto« the de�cl«per to demolish all the buildings so that the entire property can be developed with singh:-Tamil% homes. In response to the question raised by Aid. Bemstein. staff informed that if the landmark nomination is not acted upon before the 1 "0 days, the recommendation by the Preservation Commission will automatically be denied. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Ruiz what the termination date is for the Preservation Commission's recommendation and what the property channel is for proceeding at this point. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee that the termination date is April 12. 2005. his. Brugliera added that the P&:a ComniT1ee '+ttr Minutes of f -1 n-Os Pace 10 Preser%auon C'ommisNlon \Nils meet fir-t 1- S:i%e their reconimcnidatlon on the proposed plan that has K-er. prezented b\ the de%eioper onto the Plar. Commission. The Plan Commission can then proceed «ith the re\ ie\\ of the de%elopers plan with the inclusion of the Preservation Commission's recommendation. and make their findings and report for recommendation of appro%al or denial onto the P&D Committee. Discussion followed amongst the Committee members and staff on the stated course of action. Mr. Buono expressed that he had no problem %%ith proceeding as stated. It «as the consensus of the Committee to proceed as stated also. Mr. Wolinski agreed to \%ork out a schedule of meetings to follow the course of action and bring back to P&D. Aid. Newman made a motion is to hold the landmark nomination application on the P&D Committee's agenda and for staff to obtain the plan of the developer's schedule for the January 181h meeting of the Preservation Commission. In addition to this, the publication requirements for planned development process for the developers proposed plan will go fora ard. The direction is for staff to come back before the P&D Committee at the January 24'h meeting %ilb a status report for the property. Ald. Bernstein withdrew his motion and seconded Aid. Newman's motion. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Zoninie Board of Anneals Denial - 1729 Lvons Street Chairman Tisdahl noted that this project is located in .old. Kent's %%ard. She acknowledged the applicant. fir. Lester Blair in attendance. Mr. Blair informed the Committee that he ►vas here this evening to give a quick over%ie%% of %chat has occurred with this property. lie noted that the% submitted a proposed plan to Zoning and proceeded to go back and forth several times over the fe%% months after original submission and amended the plan several times. Ilis real goal for this project was to provide affordable housing. The unit that is in the existing building has been vacated in preparation to develop the property in some way; however they need to get through Zoning with plans that are desirable for that lot and economicall% feasible. Mr. Blair recalled the issue that came up with this property, in working closely %k-ith the Police over the years, is to clean up that comer and the immediate area to rid that neighborhood of drug peddling and prostitution. He said with regards to the process, that there was a 4-3 vote with the Zoning Board with several issues taken into consideration. However, one of the main issues is that the Zoning Board actually liked the plan but it seems there was much concern for the lack of parking and lack of green space preserved. In conclusion, he is here tonight to ask the Committee to really look at this plan and review what came out of Zoning and give him any ad% ice, recommendations or guidance on hoxv to make this plan work or any leeway that can be given. I ie said there is defrnitel� a lack of affordable housing in E►anston and his goal is to help provide that type of homeownership, especialk in this neighborhood. Chairman Tisdahl questioned if it is really necessary to provide ?-parking spaces for affordable housing %%ondering how many - affordable households actually have 2-cars. Mr. Blair introduced Mr. Kenneth Coe who is the new developing counsel for this project. He informed the %fr. Neil Davidson has backed out of this project as the P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of 1-10-05 Page I I de%eloper 8i%en all the conflict he has endured %%ith his last le%% uf?ordable housing projects. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item in Committee for Aid. Kent's input and further discussion at the next P&D meeting. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. ADJOURNMENT With no further business. the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted. \, Q-t t . � - 1 C,FZLv►N1 ice_ Jacquelin E. X%%-nlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of January 24. 2005 Roots 2403 — 7:60 P.M. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein.:. Newman. E. Tisdahl. M. Wtinne Alderman Absent: J. rent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. A. Huckman. G. Morgan. C. Ruiz.. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORU,%I Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10, 2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the January I Oth minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved by a note of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Tisdahl changed the order of the agenda to save the 1228 Emerson Case for last. (P3) Zonine Board of AE)oeals Denial — 1729 Lvons Street Mr. Lester Blair, applicant. addressed the Committee. He understands that this proposal was not right for this site. :according to the ZB a. too many variations were needed for this project. However, he would still like to develop the property and requested to come back with a proposal to build 3 townhomes with 1-car attached garages. His partner, %fr. Kenneth Coe, could not be present this everting, but they have established an arrangement with Cyrus Homes on the proposed townhouse project. Ald. Bernstein recalled past comments by Nfr. Veil Davidson regarding the use of City funds for this project: is that still the case? Mr. Blair responded that they will not be seeking City funds for the townhouse development proposal and plan to sell at market value if they succeed. In conclusion. Mr. Blair motioned to withdraw this plan on the table and to come back with a new proposal for the 3 townhouses. Aid. Newman said that he is glad to see the applicant withdrawing because the present proposal was asking for way too many variations for such a small piece of property. He motioned to accept the applicant's motion to withdraw, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The motion was approved with a 4-0 vote. P&D Committee %fte. Minutes of t -24-04 r Pace 2 rPl ? Ordinance 123-0-0.3 — SDecial i.'se and Maior Variation for a Nlulti-Family Residential use at 702-708 Greenleaf This item was held in Committee at the December 13'h and Janaan I0t!t meetings in order for Aid. Bernstein to meet with the applicant and neighbors to 3iccucs possible alternatives for this project. :did. Bernstein stated that he has talked with the applicant who has expressed her desire to proceed with the project. There were some problems with the purchase contract but the applicant is working those details out. He noted that the applicant has indicated that some amendments wiIl be made to the project and presented at the next meeting. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold in Committee until the FebruarN 14'° meeting, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved 4-0. (P2) Ordinance 10-0-05 — 7-onine Planned Develonment: 1228 Emerson Street Aid. Jean -Baptiste was notified at A&PW that this matter was now being discussed. Aid. Bernstein noted it seems that the Plan Commission passed this on recommending R5 but made no recommendations with respect to the specifics that were brought forward by the applicant. He questioned how they should treat this because it's not really an acknowledgement of the plan up or down. He pointed out that customarily the Plan Commission will have made findings on each of the request of variations. However, in fact, what they did was to go to the map amendment, approve it but had no further discussion; not unless he missed it in the transcript. Mr. Dan Schapiro. Attorney for the applicant, clarified that he believes that the Plan Commission did make specific findings, which is stated in the transcript. The Commission recommended that this project be approved, except for the issue of height. There was no recommendation as to that issue. Mr. Huckman added that this is covered in the second page of the ordinance. Chairman Tisdahl raised a question in connection with the height issue, pointing out that it states on the agenda item sheet, under the Plan Commission's recommendations for the planned development characteristics. that the height is not to exceed 50 feet. However in the letter from Mr. Shapiro, it states that the height of the building Is 63 feet. Mr. Shapiro responded that he has discussed this with Mr. Alterson and pointed out that the Plan Commission had no recommendation to this. His recollection of what happened was a 3- 2 split vote on height but there was no recommendation that followed. He recalled that if there wasn't a specific recommendation, to limit the height to 50 feet. fir. Huckman clarified that the ordinance before the Committee makes no statement with regards to height. He said despite the characterization in the agenda item sheet, it makes no recommendation with regard to height. which he assumes that the normal height rules that govern the district would apply. Aid. Wynne pointed out that in addition. there are developmental allowances that are being sought here. Staff informed that the height allowance under R5 zoning is 50' plus the P1: D allowance addition of 12 feet. Aid. Newman assumed that this is ►►fiat the applicant is still asking for, which Mr. Shapiro confirmed. Aid. Wynne asked staff to clarify what is before the Committee this evening regarding height; is it the R5 recommendation plus the PI:D allowance or are they separate? Mr. Alterson responded that the height request for R5 plus the PC: D allowance is combined for consideration. He stated that there is no exception to the building height. His understanding of the Plan Commission motion was to accept the PUD but for the P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of 1-24-44 Page 3 omission of floors that would exceed the limitation. Aid. Bernstein directed the Committee's attention to pace _ " of the last meeting in the transcript and read the motion specifically "the condition c-_ing that one story be eliminated from the building." Therefore, Aid. Bernstein pointed out that this would bring the height down to 53 feet theoretically. Chairman Tisdahl turned the floor over to the developer for their presentation. Mr. Shapiro began with a chronological summary of what has occurred with this case from the beginning. The applicant displayed a model of the proposed building before the P&D Committee. He said the proposal is for a condominium building with a mix of I and 2 bedroom units. They propose a step -back on the wrest side for a number of reasons including responding to much citizen comment as well as going through this process with SPAARC. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Shapiro what the neighborhood comment was to this building because it is known that the general opinion of SPAARC was that this glass building looks good. I'vtr. Shapiro said in his opinion that the some of the neighbors felt this building took away from the character on Ridge. and some felt the same for Asbury that the design was not compatible. He said what they have tried to do from the direction of SPAARC and the Plan Commission, is to take advantage of the curved site and bring forth a curved building that really was endorsed by both of those bodies. He said both of those bodies encouraged them to eo forward with this design from over a series of 8 meetings in a year's time. He said that they have had several meetings with the neighborhood. 3 over the last 6 months, trying to respond to many of their concerns, one of which is on the south side of the building on Ridge. He stated that the neighbors were concerned, at least on that side, with regards to privacy, that they eliminate the windows on that side. Mr. Shapiro said with regards to height, this Committee might be familiar with the 1800 Ridge proposal that w-as recently recommended by the Plan Commission. He pointed out that building is 65 feet high: the elevation is 10 feet higher than this building. Even the 1834 Ridge building has a higher elevation than their proposed building. Aid. Newman asked what the underlying zoning for 1800 Ridge is, and how were they able to go to 65 feet. The property is in Of zoning district, and Mr. Alterson noted that there was a special use request was for the housing units above. He then asked Mr. Shapiro why they are requesting the Residential zoning, which he answered that they thought it would be more appropriate. because this site was office use but would be changed totally for residential use. He thought that. especially the 01 height would not be as permissive or flexible as an R5 district would. He noted that they originally sought an R6 and reduced and modified to R5. 41r. Alterson informed the Committee that the Plan Commission did discuss whether this property should remain 01 or whether it should be zoned into an R district. He noted that some Plan Commission members felt that this comer specifically would not be a place that would he appropriate to have an office building because of traffic concems with office employees coming in and out_ Nlr. Shapiro said that one of the things that appeared to them at the Plan Commission meeting was that the neighbors all agreed that residential zoning for redevelopment was more desirable. Mr. Steve Lenet, Landscape Architect and Urban Planner. 'Mr. Lenet described the particulars of the site and its unique location. He noted that the block on Ridge from P&D Committee MtP- Minutes of 1.24.04 - Page 4 Church to the subject property has experienced over the last several years. complete redevelopment from %%hat was predo:r. .n anti v office uses that ha%e been convened now to predominantly residential uses, He 4zscribed the surroundings %%ith Hecky's and other businesses to the north (residentiaa funher north►. the embankment for the Chicago/Northwestern Railroad riea-c�f-xvay. and Asbun residential to the west. He noted that this is a curv-ular site that is difficult to work with by having a number of features that are very significant. i ►ne significant feature being a sizeable signalized intersection for the City of Evanston that leads directly into the downto«n. He said that the parcel has been vacant and under -developed for at least the 3- 0- •ears that he has been familiar with the property. \1r. Lenet noted that one of the things that the Plan Commission looked at that generated the request to rezone the property was because under the existing Ol zoning, the height limit was about 17 feet. He said because it abuts a single-family residential district, there is an angle from the residential area inclining at 17 degrees, 5 feet above the alley. Clewly this is not a reasonable restriction in terms of the development of this site. He also noted that the Plan Commission, in the midst of looking at redevelopment potential of the triangular area directly to the north of the subject property, felt that the rezoning to a residential district was more appropriate in terms of the hierarchy of the progression of zoning districts in that immediate area. Mr. Lenet summarized that this was the context within which this plan was developed, in addition to numerous meetings with Committees of the City as well as with the neighborhood groups. Mr. Lenet proceeded % ith a slide presentation that illustrated what the proposed building would look like on the site. The different observations were from an aerial view, several alley views, view from the intersection. and a view looking east from Emerson and Asbury. This last observation showed the sweeping elevation from around Emerson to Green Bay to Ridge conversions. He pointed out the landscaping around the building, especially along the curve side, that will completely improve that part of the public vintage of the Green Bay/Ridge con-ersions. He further pointed out that the back of the building also follows the sweep -around character, providing additional parking of 16 surface spaces. There will be 64 interior parking spaces for a total of 80 parking spaces for 51 units; he noted that 72 spaces is the requirement. He noted that parking was a general concern of the neighborhood and they were pleased to be able to provide 8 parking spaces over and above what is required by the ordinance. He recalled that there was discussion •kith the Plan Commission and their preference to see more landscaping in the rear versus the additional parking. The neighbors petitioned the Plan Commission to express their preference to include the parking, because they felt it would be a better benefit to the neighborhood. He pointed out where they included a patio area in the back that will be heavily landscaped. He said that this plan also awards air and light for the properties to the south as well. In conclusion, Mr. Lenet said that all of these improvements have been provided for this site. In their opinion. they believe that this proposed building works well within the context of the neighborhood. It is a sight that has been an eyesore for a substantial length of time and they believe this building will create an excellent trend for development should the triangular area to the north ultimately be redeveloped. He pointed out that P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of I-24-04 Page S they are 95 feet from basically from the %%esterly edge of the: bui,dinsr to the closest residence and approximately 60 feet to the cic test garage. As far as the fiscal impact on any of the properties alone Asbury. they ccrunue to be improved and are selling and inflating at a rate that probably exceeds other properties in Evanston. based on testimony given at the Plan Commission meetine. Citizen Comment Nis Denise Simmons. 1841 Asburv. said that the proposed style of building does not belong on that site. She appreciates all the work that the developer has done and wanting to develop a building that is fitting in that location. She stated that the current warehouse on this site has not been vacant. there has been a company there by the name of Kingport Limited, and was a distribution point for Spiegel for some time. There has been some activity at this site. Nis. Simmons said that she has lived in her house for the past 14 years, and is located in a historical district that she understands from other Evanstonian's was fought to keep alive. She feels that the design of the building would be more fitting along the lines of brick and mortar. greenery and more family oriented setting. She noted that there are some very grand homes on Asbury that are very upscale and worth a lot of money. West of Asbury are homes that are not as large but are vm residential single- family oriented neighborhood. She said most of the houses are made of stucco or brick and do not look like the new condo buildings in downtown Evanston. She would like to see a continuance of the single-family residential atmosphere extend into the design of this building. AId. Newman agreed with Nis. Simmons view and said that he does not understand what happened with SPAARC. In his opinion, it appears that professional staff are backing this project as presented and he questions why it was not considered to stay consistent with the converted brick and mortar buildings to the south. He pointed out that the developer has gone through many meetings doing what Site Plan told him to do and now the P&D Committee is being asked to sign off on this building, and everyone is going to believe that this is the work of Council. Ile asked for staff to elaborate on SPAARC's philosophy and thought process for this project. Mr. XVolinski responded that he believes the Site Plan Committee in looking at Ferris's original proposal. was not in favor of a brick and mortar building. He said that Site Plan felt that this was a very important corner in Evanston and is a place to make a statement concerning the approach into downtown. He also pointed out that the design of the building was intended to fail in line with the curvature of the corner. He said SPAARC cannot regulate taste. of course, because everyone is going to have a different opinion. however SPA.-kRC felt that this decision was a very strong statement for that corner; just because other buildings are brick does not mean that they have to build a brick building again. there is no design requirement stating that. 4tr. Wolinski stated that he cannot speak for the entire Site PIan Committee, but he can assure the Committee that they were very excited %%ith this design that Ferris brought back. This design to the comer would be an enhancement compared to the dreariness of the viaduct overpass that blights that area currently. He said the idea was for something clear and crisp that would brighten that comer and add to the neighborhood. P&D Committee %fm ,Minutes of 1-24-CA Page 5 Aid. Wyrine agreed %with Aid.Newrnan's thoughts and also questioned why SPA.4RC would approve of an Rb zoning that .was originally requested by the applicant, directly next to RI zoning. She noted that this has been a controversial issue in a number of instances in Evanston. and to allo%v the applicant to move forward to the Plan Commission with R6 -without ew en a hint that this was not an appropriate zoning next to an RI residential district. She noted that it appears that this plan sailed through Site Plan. She stressed that nothing galls her more than when a developer says they have already reduced the height of the building by 1 --;0o because in reality they never had the height. She pointed out that in this case they had 20 feet and were given 50 feet with the rezoning. Aid. Bernstein said that he feels it is important that developers be made aware of what boards or commissions are responsible for. The City has no binding appearance review and many projects are affected by this. He also said this is a difficult building for him to accept, although he appreciates fir. Ferris's work. Fie does feel that residential is right of this site but is concerned with the setbacks and the width of the alley and the ingress and egress off of Emerson Street. Nevertheless, development of that site is needed to take a,%ay from the blight of the viaduct overpass, but he thinks the opposite of SPAARC, that the glass %vill only illuminate that blight. He was very frustrated when he saw that SPAARC changed their mind from the original plan presented by the applicant. He asked Mr. Ferris about his plans. Mr. Ferris responded first that they never assumed anything as for as the height %vas concerned. He said that they looked at the buildings along Ridge and the heights of those buildings and tried to come within the same height. As far as the architecture. they originally started by all over Evanston and the new development and designs and were most impressed with the design of the new library downtown. This is where they took their first design from and SRAARC did not agree with it. He said the third elevation that they came up with and SPAARC kept pushing to go more modem, so this plan was designed in an effort to the historical district in mind and to balance with the other buildings and happenings on Ridge. In the end, the proposal being presented is what resulted. He said that the process is very difficult and there is ndt a lot of time to take the neighborhood into account. Mr. Ferris stated that they do not have a problem wvith changing the architecture and would be glad to look at the elevation of the building. fie expressed his desire to come to back with something that all parties involved can come to an agreement on. Ms. Barbara Stanlev. said that she attended all three meetings of the Plan Commission and her testimony can be read in the transcripts. She is confidant that a plan can be worked out that is fitting for the historical neighborhood to the west, for the buildings to the south. and for the developer. She informed the Committee of the neighborhood's support for the proposed development project for 1800 Ridge which she elaborated on the specific points in the design that vvere agreeable by the neighbors. Nis. Judv Fiske, pointed out that this is an example of development seen throughout Evanston that has been done lately that can completely draw a negative impact on the surrounding properties. She feel that the thought of this site being an approach into the dowrtovm needs to be Just the opposite by looking at the site to being an approach into P&D Committee Sltg. Minutes of 1-24-04 Page 7 to the Asbury Avenue historical neighborhood district. She definitely feels that a plan that is more sympathetic should be ,Designed for this site as it abuts residential properties. Ms. Lori Summers. lives at 1834 Ridge. said that she is disappointed with SPAARC's decision on this proposed building and blames them for the developer's proceedings resulting in this design. Althclugh she sympathizes with the developer's plight, she agrees with her neighbor's that something more fitting with their neighborhood should be designed. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that people have not been satisfied with the consistency that this building has with the historic district. He hopes that the applicant's architect can have an opportunity to go back and try and bring back something that the neighborhood may be satisfied and impressed with. He noted that the neighbors seemed to be very impressed with the 1800 Ridge project. so it is possible to come up with some solvable design that will fit that site. fie said once they reach that stage. they can then begin in earnest to negotiate some of the concessions. He noted that the step down terrace design did come out of some of the past negotiations %%ith the applicant and there was a request to have the step down on both sides. because the neighbors at 1834 Ridge felt that this would eliminate them having to race a major wall. This proposal would allow the 1834 Ridge residents to still have some sunlieht and maintain some value for that side of their building. He recalled that the developer had indicated that this would not be feasible for various reasons such as the loss of units. Aid. Jean -Baptiste felt that the key point here is to be able to negotiate the issues of concern if they are able to come up with a design that is consistent with the neighborhood and what the neighbors believe will maintain the value and quality of their historic district. He said until they can do this, he believes all of the other issues cannot be resolved nor can they more forward. He reiterated that there are serious concerns about the design. Mr. Lenet responded that at this point it seems that if this Committee is going to act as or take.a "Super SPAARC" or "Pre -Plan Commission" position, then they need some direction more than just some broad statements about the architecture. He suggested that they could move the building up or increase the setbacks. but all these technicalities need to be specified. He noted that the all the professional architects on the SPAARC and Plan Commission liked this building. therefore they need to have a better understanding of what the policy is as it relates to this building. because they have been lead in a certain direction and have tried to respond to that. He said that they want to respond to as many people as they can but there needs to be a guideline here to follow. Chairman Tisdahl agreed and apologized on City's behalf. Aid. Bernstein also agreed and said it is regrettable and unfortunate that there is no "design" team in Evanston. Even though they just recently passed an ordinance that which made everything over a given square footage a planned development sA that they would have some method by which they can impact the appearance. He said it is incumbent on the City and developers coming into this town have to know the relative merits of each Board and it is not their fault that they took direction from SPAARC. Aid. Jean -Baptiste still feels that SPAARC is an important step in the development process, P&D Committee .\Itg. Minutes of 1-24-04 Page 8 however in this case, the disapproves of the design that SPAARC approved of. Aid. Bernstein said, hokkeke:.:;:3t in this case the developer came in with a design that was 180 degrees different fror~ ,e present proposal: he does not understand how this could happen after almost a e::: from the onset preservation of this project. He questioned the binding appearance and %%hat «ill happen if it ever is approved because a good design by the "design professionals" may not be a good design to others. fie said it is difficult to legislate .;.:alit,. and taste. He said kith respect to giving the developer direction, he also finds it :card to give design direction. however he does agree with following the required setback_. required height, etc. Similar to the 811 Chicago project when it was before the Coamiittee. he questions whether it is worse to look at a brick wall versus right into someone's windows or balcony. from the viewpoint of the 1830 Ridge building. Aid. Bemstein's opinion is that the Plan Commission's responsibility should address more the determination of height, etc. rather than appearance review. fie also apologized to the developer on behalf of the City and the misdirection that was followed. Aid. Newman expressed his opinion in regards to the statement made previously by Mr. Lenet on the P&D Committee acting as "Super SPAARC or Plan Commission." he noted that the Plan Commission recommends to the P&D Committee. He stated that in the case of 1930 Ridge building, the Plan Commission consensus was in approval of the design and he admitted that he went along kith their recommendation as design professionals. However, he also admits now that he regrets his support of that recommendation because he feels that building is the "poster child" for why people do not trust City Council on the issue of development. He pointed out that in this instance. it is not the Plan Commission, but instead it is all the professionals at Site Plan that steered this developer in the direction that has resulted in the proposed design being presented. He does not know how many members of SPAARC lik a in Evanston. as he recognized that they do the best job that they possibly can, nevertheless the majority of the Committee approved of this building design which is a result of the developer responding to their recommendations. Aid. Newman also believes and regrets that much of the developer's time has been wasted and the City is responsible. However, the developer is asking for a building that is more than what is allowed in R5, there is no actual recommendation from the Plan Commission for R5 zoning, and in conclusion. he would not feel comfortable giving approval on another building that the community does not like. which he can understand their reasons for disapproval. Ald. Wvnne stated that in terms of what she Aould look for and what she believes other Council members would look for would be important to address the curve, which she saw in Site Plan. She helievcs the issues here are %kith context. She feels that there can be an interesting modern building here if it has some contextual relationship to the buildings surrounding it: this proposed design does not. She recalled that someone in the transcript stated that this building belongs in suburbs such as Naperville. Schaumburg, or Arlington Heights. She noted that it is eery important to realize that this site directly abuts an R I neighborhood acrid she made it clear that she kkould not support or approve of anything denser than an R4 immediately next to R1 zoning. She acknowledged that there are already too many other RI neighborhoods immediately adjacent to developable parcels P&D Committee Otte. Minutes of t -_4-04 - Page 4 that can be affected he such a precedent. espcciall;. abint Chicago Avenue. She definitely feels that such a strong contrast in zoning; cannot be allowed in Evanston. She pointed out what ei%es this Cite its charm is the fact that we have all the contrasting areas next to each other and if they don't relate thin it de-%alucs property. which can result for the properties along Asbury. :old. Wynne concluded that she is not interested in R5 zoning for this site at all. Aid. Newman asked what is allowed for R4 zoning. Staff responded 35 feet plus the PUD allowance. Aid. Wynne stated in her opinion. the building, has to be contextual with any architectural design that can be acceptable and fitting for that site and the surrounding neighborhood. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said in regards to the comments on context that he wanted to make note that they not forget that this has been a site that has been under -developed and is very undesirable in appearance. He further noted that the interest that has been attracted to this site has been on the level of nursing homes and similar developments of that nature. He believes that such development for this property is not what the community would like to see for that location. Therefore. while the community has a lot of problems with this design as presented. still his sense is that the community would like to see this project go forward but definitely with specific modifications that address the concerns as stated in this discussion. At this point. Chairman Tisdahl indicated that this item will have to be held over on the Committee's acenda. This &as also the consensus of the other Committee members. Aid. Newman acknowledged that the developer has asked for and needs direction from this Committee. which should be addressed before the next meeting. He asked if the Committee wanted to start with considering the Ra zoning as a recommendation for this site? Chairman Tisdahl expressed that one of her biggest concerns is with height. so she could consider the R-1 zoning as well. After some discussion amongst the Committee members, Aid. Newman suggested that they have a special P&D Committee meeting to address this project onl%.. especially in consideration of the developer's dilemma through the process. In agreement, it was the consensus of the Committee to hold a special meeting for this case on :Monday, January 31", 2005 at 7 p.m. This item was held in Committee. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee of the Preservation Commission's decision on the Kendall College property that was made at their meeting held last week. which was to deny the proposed planned development. At this point. the Preservation Commission's recommendation sill be forwarded to the Plan Commission for their review at the special meeting scheduled for February 230. 1005. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. P&D Committee .Adtg. Minutes of 1-24-04 Page 10 Respectfully submitted. Jacqueline E. Bro«nlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of February 14, 2005 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. `.uman. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson. J. Carroll. A. Huckman, G. Morgan, A. Jackson, D. Spicuzza E. Szymanski. J. BroNTllee Others Present: Aid. Jean -Baptiste. Aid. Rainey Presiding Official: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. She announced that the order of the agenda would be changed to leave the items that will require more time and discussion at the end. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 24. 2005 •MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the January 24th minutes. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes %sere approved by a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION t P3 i Zoning Planned Development Time Extension: 413-421 Howard Staff directed the Committee's attention to the letter enclosed in the packet from Bristol Chicago Development L.L.C., which explains their delay due to securing a financial partner and the necessary financing. Bristol has indicated that they are very optimistic in obtaining the needed financing in the near future, therefore this time extension is being requested. Ald. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein, with the caveat that quarterly status reports be submitted to the City informing of their progress. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-0. (P4) Request for S10,000 in Manor's Special Housing Funds for Homeless Management. Information SN•stem Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Committee %ttc ~Minutes of 2•la•05 Pare'_ W6t Ordinance I — Sneeial use Reauest for a T:ne 2 Restaurant at 1612 .Benson 'Che applicant, Mr `.Iario Valentim. etas ackno%%ledged. A1,3. Ne%%Tnan indicated that he has no problems %k th this request. fir. Valentina -..as informed of the expected responsibilit} of a7' -,ape 2 restaurant establishments in ::,e do«nto%%m area regarding liner collection plan, ga:bage pick up. emplo%ee parking and anticipated deliveries to the site. Aid. Newman mo-. ed approval, seconded by Aid. W nne. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-0. i P I) Ordinance 1= -0-04 — Special Use and. ilaior Variation for a Multi -Family Residential Use at "02-708 Greenleaf Ald. Bernstein announced that the meeting with the applicant will be held at the site on February 21" at 7:00 p.m. and noted that NIs. Debbie Hillman and Penny Miller. who were in attendance. %vill be involved in that meeting also and they will be notifj-ing the neighbors as well. Therefore, Aid. Bernstein requested that this item be held in Committee until the February 28`b meeting. (P7) Ordinance 12-0-05 — Snecial Use Reauest for a T%-ne 2 Restaurant at 2485 Howard Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid, :Newman. Aid. Bernstein asked the applicant if they have discussed this with Aid. Rainey. The representative in attendance. N.Ir. Tom Pikarski. responded that they have talked to Aid. Rainey, who expressed her support and that she would speak on their behalf at this meeting if necessary. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion, Aid. Rainey came in after this item had been voted on and expressed her disappointment with the Committee going forward without her being present. She noted that out of respect for any ward alderman, that they be present during discussion of any special use request for their «ard. She informed the Committee that she did have a special request with regards to this matter but will wait and address it on the Council floor. (P8) Zonine Planned Develonment: 1567 Manle Aid. Newman said it is his understanding that this applicant is trying to get a sense from the P&D Committee if they are heading; in the right direction with their revised plan. Mr. James Murray responded that the position is that an extraordinary majority would be required in order to pass the building in its initial phase. What they have presented is ,hat he refers to as phase II of this design issue, which is a separate and totally different mutually exclusi%e design for the site that would have to be referred back to the Plan Commission for a complete and full hearing on the issue. Nfr. Murray provided to the Committee members a booklet that designates the two vm distinctive styles; one element can not be applied to the other because they are that separate and different. In summary: A) Because an extraordinary majority is required, and B) The basic resistance was in terms of height and numbers of units. The second proposal shows a substantial reduction in height by approximately 45-50' and a substantial reduction in the number of units by 39. Aid. W%mne asked if the applicant is asking for the Committee's opinion on both projects or only on the new alternative plan. Nfr. Murray drew attention to his letter in the packet materials which indicates that they would submit the original proposal for their review. If the Committee does not believe there to be enough votes to obtain an P&D Comm:n=e 1'•.e tit1771ltri Lli : • '.f 1 Nze_ (P6) Ordinance 1 l -O-b5 -Special use Reau.st for a T% re 2 Restaurant at 1612 Benson The apphcyr;t. "-fr Mario Valentini. N%as ackm--,mledLed. Aid. Newman indicated that he ha; no prob,'ems v ith this request. Mr. Valentine t%as informed of the expected re_Nnsibilit•. of all t}pe _ restaurant establis..ments in the downtown area regarding fitter collection plan. za:bage pick up. emplo%ee parking and anticipated deliveries to the site. Aid. Ne%man moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-0. t P 1 i Ordinance 123-0-04 - Special Use and Maim Variation for a ?Multi -Family Residential Use at 702-708 Greenleaf Aid. Bernstein announced that the meeting \with the applicant will be held at the site on February 21" at 7:00 p.m. and noted that tits. Debbie Hillman and Penny Miller. who were in attendance, will be involved in that meeting also and they will be notifi•ing the neighbors as 1-kell. Therefore. Aid. Bernstein requested that this item be held in Committee until the February 28`a meeting. (P7 r Ordinance 12-0-03 - Sneciaf Use Re4uest for a Tvne 2 Restaurant at 2485 Howard Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Newman. Aid. Bernstein asked the applicant if they have discussed this with Aid. Rainey. The representative in attendance. Nfr. Tom Pikarski. responded that they have tallied to Aid. Rainey, who expressed her suppon and that she mould speak on their behalf at this meeting if necessary, The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Rainey came in after this item had been voted on and expressed her disappointment with the Committee going forward without her being present. She noted that out of respect for any ward alderman, that they be present during discussion of any special use request for their ward. She informed the Committee that she did have a special request with regards to this matter but will wait and address it on the Council floor. (P8) Zonine Planned Development: 1567 Mar)le Aid. Ne%kman said it is his understanding that this applicant is thing to get a sense from the P&D Committee if they are heading in the right direction with their revised plan. fir. James Murray responded that the position is that an extraordinary majority would be required in order to pass the building in its initial phase. "'hat they have presented is what he refers to as phase If of this design issue, which is a separate and totally different mutually exclusi-e design for the site that could have to be referred back to the Plan _ Commission for a complete and full hearing on the issue. fir. 'Murray provided to the �= Committee members a booklet that designates the two very distinctive styles; one element can not be applied to the other because they are that separate and different. In summan: A) Because an extraordinan• majority is required, and B) The basic resistance was in terms of height and numbers of units. The second proposal shows a substantial reduction in height by approximately 45-50` and a substantial reduction in the number of units by 39. Aid. Wynne asked if the applicant is asking for the Committee's opinion on bath projects or only on the new alternative plan, fir, hiurrav drew attention to his letter in the packet materials which indicates that they would submit the original proposal for their review. If the Committee does not believe there to be enough votes to obtain an 6 P&D Cnrirm -ice %1-,: N1ins.;cs of - Pa_c extraordinar% majority. then they would ask that . _ Committee valuation of returning the sFplicant to the Plan Commission in order 0-at t:.second proposal can be full% explored. Aid. Ne•.v Hart replied that he can appreciate the applicant has done in this case. because with regards to the first design, in his o:='on. %%ould ne%er be built in Evanston. He stated that proposal %+as «ay out of range. much too large, too high, and way too dense for that site. He said as far as the revised clan at 126 units and 1.15'. is still very questionable with the height variation. but he belie% es is more in the ball park. Aid. Wynne agreed with Aid. Newman on the original proposal but still feels that the second proposal is asking for too much height and still quite dense in consideration of the D3 height allowance of 85' and 96 dwelling units for this site. She would encourage the applicant to consider coming down more in height. 'fir. Murray replied that the actual height of the second proposal is 168'$". therefore coming do%n by approximately 51' from the original design. Aid. Wynne noted that regardless. the second proposal is still asking for almost twice the height as allowed for that zoning district; she could not support such a height request. Aid. Bernstein commented that his opinion has been that if there should be any height allowance granted. then it belongs in the downtown districts. However, in his opinion, he favors the appearance of the first proposal over the second, in total recognition that the height of the first proposal uas much too high. He said that it has been noted that the developer is willing to make some concessions to the City in the nature of atTordabie housing contribution. In his vie«. the height issue is not as high a concern in the downtown districts and near the main transportation hub. Chairman Tisdahl stated that she supports withdrawing the first proposal and sending the revised plan back to before the Plan Commission. however she is also still concerned with the height request with the second proposal and would urge the developer to consider reducing the height. Aid. Newman motioned for the second revised plan to go back before the Plan Commission. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the note was 4-0 in favor. (P2) Ordinance 10-0-05 -- Zonine Planned Development: 1228 Emerson Street Mr. Dregs Ferris, De% eloper, gave a presentation of the revised plan with the revised elevation and design. He noted the previous drawines had a mistake made by their surveyor on building heights. He handed out large scale drawings of the revised plan to the Committee members and staff. He referred to a slide presentation showing the changes and revisions in design since the inception of bringing the proposal to the City and after several meeting with SPA.aRC and the Plan Commission. He showed a slide with a rendering of the current proposal before the Comminee. Aid. Newman interrupted to take the opportunity to explain in further detail to Ms. Carroll (New City Manager) what has happened with this case, and how the developer was mislead by receiving different directions from Site Plan, which is almost entirely made up of staff, and then the Plan Commission. He noted that the developer was strongly encouraged by Site Plan to go to an all -glass building even with this site being located outside of the downtown corridor. The developer then %vent on to the Plan Commission with this plan, and it is not clear of what their opinion was of the glass P&D Comminee Ntte. Minutes of 2-1 4-09 Pane a building. However. the neighbors «ere strc-:•tc:% against the _lass building design for that comer because it fa%ored in stvle to 3 office building and does not lit in architectural]% with the residential direct]% adracent to this site. He noted that %vith some projects. the developer also has to go before the Preservation Commission if it is a landmark building or other histoncall} significant site or structure. Aid. Ne%,.•man said to GIs. Carroll that their problem right now is that the developer is getting 3 or 4 messages and there is a lot of confusion. Therefore, he feels that staff has to come up %vith some ideas and solutions so that the City is not ha%ing people spend a substantial amount of money and time wasted with the %%ay they have to proceed in the process of trying to get their projects approved. He recalled the District =65 property and how the developer received something different from e%en- meeting the\ went to from the City Committee's to neighborhood groups. He informed NIs. Carroll that this has become a real problem that needs to be addressed b} staff. The other Comminee members agreed with Aid. Ne%%man's views. Mr. Ferris continued with his presentation explaining slides that showed an aerial view and site plan exhibit. He went into further detail on the revisions made to the building noting the stepped back, ziggurat design on both sides of the building that face residential properties. He also pointed out that more masonry has been added to the building. He noted that the building sits 30' into the site, %%hich can be seen from the site plan drawing. In response to a question, fir. Ferris stated that the building is 30' from the alley where the requirement for alley side yard in the RS district is V. Aid. Newman asked about the response of the neighbors and if they are more satisfied with this new rendition. AId. Jean -Baptiste responded that with the landscaping_ which the neighbors have been negotiating with the developer, there seems to be a substantial acceptance with this. He informed that the principal concern of the neighbors remains with the height of the building. Discussion on the distance of the building from Green Bay Road,Ridge Avenue followed. Mr. Ferris responded that they have tried to slide the building as far to the east and north as possible, however the limiting factor is the effect on the lower level of parking, which is at the maximum grade currently. He explained the distances of the building from the entire curve from Emerson to Green Bay to Ridge. He drew attention to the exhibit which illustrates the height of the buildings to the south on Ridge Avenue. He pointed out the grade condition from that direction, which slopes downward south to north. Aid. Wynne asked if there is a comparison of the developmental allowances that the applicant is requesting under the new revised plan. fir. Ferris responded that the only change between this plan and the previous is the unit count as gone down from 51 to 49. The imperious surface, the location of the building and the footprint has not changed. With regards to the height, he explained that the error made by surveyor. is %%here 1830 Ridge had originally said that the building was approximately 54' tall, which 'fir. Ferris did not believe was right. The surveyor went back out and upon second review. discovered that indeed the actual height of that building is 66.69' tall from grade. He compared the heights of the other buildings to the south to his building; noting the proposed new development at 1800 Ridge is 64.56', and so forth as shown in the exhibit. He pointed out that when you take the existing grade condition into account, the formula is from the P8b Committee Mte. Minutes of -'-1d-0 Pale c "0" point. add what the foundation height is plus the building height, equals the actual height of the building from grade. lie gat a examples of the actual building heights of the buildings on Ridge using this formula. In conclusion. Mr. Fems reiterated the differences from the previous plan compared to this one. The unit count is down which improves the parking ratio. He stated that the fiscal impact study is the same as presented at the last meeting. He feels that they designed a building that addresses the curvature of that site and is more fitting aesthetically with the residential context of the neighborhood and with the added masonry to the structure. He also feels the building is comparable to the 1830 and 1834 Ridge buildings. Ald. Newman asked what the 1830 Ridge building came in as, how was it approved over the 01 zoning. 14Ir. Wolinski explained that this building came in as a special use in the Ol district where no residential was allowed. City Council changed the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential as a special use. The height came in as a variance. Aid. Newman pointed out that this building was approved and redeveloped only 6-7 years ago. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that putting this project in perspective in terms of the lot, he recalled the kinds of interest in the past in comparison to the Ferris proposal. He reiterated that this lot is currently in a very dirty condition, he is unsure of what types of chemicals may be buried under the site. The lot is improved with an old warehouse that has been in its existing condition and unused for a long period of time. He said this property has not contributed to the surrounding neighborhood in any way. He recalled that the only interest that has come forward for this property has been fornursinghomes and similar type projects. «hich also would be incompatible for this location and non- contributing to the neighborhood. At this point, the neighbors and he have met with the developer at least 5 times since the onset of this project. He said that although there remain some very important issues, the consensus of the neighborhood interest is to see something developed on this site. In all, every entity involved would like to come to some point that would allow the project to move forward, and satisffi- the community and be a doable project for the developer. Citizen Comments Mr. John Macsai, stated that he has practiced architecture for over _50 years and had done a lot of housing, he has also taught architecture at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He has been eery much involved in Evanston and he personally feels that the previous solution with the all -glass building was an exciting, courageous solution for that particular site, which reall% could serve as a gateway from the north and west to downtown Evanston. However, he thinks it is encumberance for the Committee or elected officials to take into consideration all of the neighbors views and opinions on how this building should look: he feels this is not a true form of democracy. He said unfortunately they have a eery poor system in Evanston and he would like to and suggest having a meeting to address this issue. He believes this developer was really mislead because they changed their original design in accordance with SPA.ARC's comments, P&D Committee %tt2 Mimics of 2-1-1.0! - Neeb howe%er SPAARC ne%er a meeting with the neighbors. the developer and his architect. in order .,, worm: He stated that architec%ire is a result of the dialogue and he can not t,�i:e% e tha—.%teliigent people sho.: , not be able to find a solution. even if it takes some tim to Corn- -:r %kith. fir. Nlacsai helietes that the process needs to be changed. His personal opinion is that appearance should be taken out of SP:%-SRC and should be a sepa:»:e Commission of 5-7 independent architects to meet in the esening so everyone would has e the opportunit% to attend. He stated that this Commission of architects should be ad%isor% to the Council %%ho are predominantly attorneys. He strongly belie%es that the P&D Committee would benefit from such a body. He said that these design professionals should come together and dialogue. respect the surrounding neighborhood and community. and come up with solutions for specific sites and locations. lie reiterated that in his opinion as a design professional, he supported the glass building design for that site. %is. Barbara Stanlev, read from a prepared statement from the neighbors to Ferris. In summary. the statement addressed their height concems for the building, which they preferred to have no more than 30' in height. They wanted to limit the windows on the west side and south sides of the property to provide more privacy to the adjacent residents of this building. Also. the neighbors want no more than an R3 zoning next to the Rl districts. She stated that they would also like to see larger units with a higher price than the overall smaller 1-2 bedroom units. She feels the smaller units tend to attract a more transient buyer that is not planning to live any length of time in the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Stein. 1837 Asburv, stated that he shares Ald. Jean -Baptiste views for developing this property and vowed that the neighbors are not anti -development for this site. He too would like to see the height come down. He shared a digital photograph with the Committee showing the view from the back of their home that demonstrates what the proposed building Mould look like from their home. Mr. Grea Summers, 1830 Ridge, stated his opinion of generally being in favor of this revised design and the ziggurat, step down design facing their building on the south. He thanked the developer for going back through the mixed signals that he has received from the beginning from SP.N.ARC. the neighbors. Plan Commission, etc. He believes the developer has worked hard to bring the building down in height to what is allowed for the R5 zoning, and below the height of the 1834 Ridge building, and consistent with the remaining buildings in the block. However, he stated his concerns with the setback along Green Bay Road Ridge Avenue and the curb cut into the driveway for the parking garage. He pointed out that the access to the 1834 and 1830 Ridge buildings are from the rear off the alley. He feels that all the accesses for the buildings within this block should be from the rear and not off of Ridge Avenue, especially around the curve. He feels this can be done by widening the existing width of the alley to provide for more ingress and egress. He is very concerned with potential traffic and pedestrian problems with the proposed location of the driveway for this building. -fr. Summers is also concerned with the current parking for the 1830 and 1834 Ridge buildings, which is very limited now with less parking spaces provided for the number of cars for the tenants in their buildings. He MD Camm:ttre tilt_ Pare - noted that somne perk :heir wars ,tarring at the end of the cane off of Green Bay onto Ridge A%enue. IIC q ,:s:ion> if the curb cut for the drivewwaw will eliminate 1 or 2 of the current parkinq: spa._- :.n that area. Ald. Newman asked staff to forwward these questions and concerns to Da% o c nin4s- and pro% ide Mr. Summer's name to him for response to his questions and col;Ccrn�. Ms. Lori Summers. added comments to her husband's previous concerns regarding parking for the area. Ms. Gwen Stein, thanked Mr. Ferris for his efforts and complimented the new design. She echoes her husband's views stated earlier, and that she feels this building is still at least 2-stories too high in her view. which makes the building too dense. She also has concems for traffic problems and stress for this corner. She believed that this building was included in the West Side Neighborhood Study and the consideration of the Rya district. GIs. Betty Sue Ester corrected Ms. Stein. stating that the 1228 Emerson site was not included in their study %which mainly addressed the 5h Ward :Neighborhood Study. ,Jr. Wolinski also corrected the term Rda as it relates to the 5'h Ward Neighborhood Study. Citizen Comments Concluded Aid. Newman asked Mr. Ferris what would happen if they %%-ere to come down and eliminate 1 floor; is this possible? Mr. Ferris responded that he sees it as an economic hardship because he would lose a lot of revenue in comparison to the cost of building. However, they would be losing over 11.000 square feet and 9-10 units. If it was enough of a reduction to remove one floor of underground parking. it might be worth looking. However, he believes that if they go down to 40 units and remove a Floor, they will not meet the parking requirement. Also. if they were to remove a floor of underground parking with 40 units above, the average cost per unit could be approximately 57- 800,000 for a S200.000 unit. He said the economic market place will not support this. :old. Wynne commented that it is doable just not with this same design. Mr. Richard Cook, Plan Commissioner, was asked to comment on the Plan Commission's position. Ivlr. Cook stated that the Plan Commission had this project before them four times where they have reviewed all the revisions as presented. The Plan Commission feels that USey worked with the developer to go ahead and change the design of this building to prow ide something that they thought could work in the context of the neighborhood. He said that they came away %with a feeling that they had reached a proposition anC a proposal that would work with the neighbors. He realizes that this building as a mass but also has a curve. and as an architect, you see that mass in a different relationship than you would if this building were straight within a block. Therefore this building mass takes on a different perspective in their minds and the site drops as it rolls around the curvature. The Plan Commission truly- believe this developer has responded to the needs for that lot and has made numerous revisions over a period of time and worked with City staff and Committee's conscientiously. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Cook for his opinion on how this building will affect the properties to the west on MD Coalmince %1'z kinulesof_-1s-05 - i'a.c 8 Asbury. \lr. Cook responded that the Plan Commission took- a look at that and they did not feel that there would be any effect when they looked at the distance from the alley and the %way the rear of the building is designed. - At this point, discussion tool; place amongst the Committee members. The main concern being the question of Might and if the developer is able to go lover. Aid. W\mne expressed that she definitely feels the building is too high and will be out of scale with the rest of the building by the time it is fully built. She used the Roszak project on Chicago Avenue. «hick she regrets supporting once she sawn and realized the mass of the building in the end. Mr. Shapiro noted that in actuality, the applicant is asking for 62' in height which is allowable in the R5 district. This is why Aid. Wynne does not agree \with R5 zoning abutting R 1 zoning districts. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that the relative addition of units with this building should not be that harmful for this location with traffic problems because many of the newer building units are east of Ridge Avenue and the building north on Ridge which is a different configuration. He stated that his concern for this location is not necessarily traffic or parking because this configuration tends to slow people down. He does have traffic and pedestrian concerns %kith exiting from the alley onto Emerson considerine the obstructive view from that location. He is not as concerned with the height of the building especially with the sloped grade of the curve. Aid. Nc%-,man said that when you consider this site being totally underutilized and vacant for over 15 years and a blight to the neighborhood, you have to look at the entire package of what is being offered here and weigh the pros against the cons. He said that this site is on the gateway into Evanston on a main thorough way with thousands of cars per day going through that intersection. He stated that there is now a viable project within the context of another proposed project just south of this site coming in at 65', therefore before anyone rejects or disagrees with this building they need to give thought to the facts he just stated. Aid. Newman reiterated that this site has been an eyesore in a location that is highly visible; the question rises why this site has not been developed before now. He commended the developer on his cooperation with the City and effort to appease everyone. Aid. Wy me responded that she is not opposed to development of this site, however since this site is so visible, she would like to see something building that fits within the residential context of the neighborhood. She does not want to see another building come into Evanstonwhere it is obviously aver -developed and people question how it was ever approved by the City. She does not support the proposed development at that height. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that he very much wants to see this particular site developed and he believes time, place, and condition determines everything. He said development along Chicago Avenue has a lot of potential demand, however there has not been a lot of demand for development at this particular site. Therefore on the one hand while they have a particular desire to see development occur, to a certain extent there remains concern for over -development. However, they have to ask themselves, will this site go another 15 years until a viable proposal is made again. He would rather see some further discussion %with this developer to see what, if any. modification can be made to perhaps P&D Co.-m —ec %t:z Minutts _ t : 141.05 - Pas:e o reduce the densit} to a certain ;e%el. Ile realizes that they need to see if there is some kind of credible process to rrJue modifications. A)d. Jean -Baptiste suggested that the developer 'wins: back a model %_ f :he site to Let a better ideal and secs an actual scale of the impact of the proposed building can the surrounding buildings. He said that the neighbors do have some legitimate concerns %kith the issue of height but they need to find some kind of %%a} to radicall% come to an agreement. Iie noted that although preferable, no one has come forward to propose a townhouse de% elopment on that site or an office development of 20 to 30 feet: there appears to be no demand for those types of development at this location. the Cite is not going to take the initiative to develop that site either. Therefore, to the extent that they can find a way to work with this developer and come to a compromise. would be for the benefit of -the community as a whole, Chairman Tisdahl suggested to the developer. in addition to Aid. Jcan-Baptiste's request for a scale model, to have some npe of shadow study or views from the neighbor's level and what the% will see from their homes on Asburs. Avenue. Mr. Nfacsai commented to keep in mind that when it comes to height, it is not necessarily a bad thing always. He gave notable examples in Evanston where lower developments where the architecture was spread out. turned out with an undesirable result. NIs. Stanley only asks that the developer keep in mind the neighborhood's quality of life. Aid. Newman moved to introduce and bring back for further review at the February 28`5 meeting. After Committee discussion, there was a consensus to hold this item in Committee. (P5) Reauest for S600.000 in HOME Funds to Reba Place Develonment Corporation !ifs. Spicuzza. Housing Planner. informed the Committee that there is a time constraint involved with the purchase contract for the acquisition of this building. Ms. Mary Goering from Reba Place Development Corporation (RPDC) summarized the proposed project; to rehab and convert the 12-unit building into affordable condominiums. She ga-,e a brief o%erview of what the project entailed and cost per unit. She noted the cost per condo with 9 units at an affordable price and 3 units selling at market value: all selling prices are compatible with the values for the neighborhood. Ms. Goering stated that RPDC has a loan commitment from a local institution totaling 51,240,000 and the requested HOME funds for S600.000 would be for the 9 HOME assisted units. She noted to be eligible for the HOME -assisted units, the purchaser would have to income qualify \pith less than or equal to 80% of area median income. The assisted units would remain affordable for a period of 20 years in following %kith the HUD guidelines. Aid. Newman questioned if RPDC has notified all the existing tenants of building and if they have been surveyed to determine qualification to purchase one of the units. Ms. Goering stated that they have not officially notified the tenants but they are aware of the owner selling the building. She said that there are currently 11 units still occupied, >xith a PAD Commire: M z Minutes cf �•i=�.� - Pave 10 few of the tenants ha,ing housing %ouchers. Ald. Newman did not like the fact that the current tenants Katie not been sur%e%ed or officially notified especially in light of the fact that most or a:: of them «ill be displaced %pith the %ear. fie wanted to know why the building can not be rehabbed and remain rental. GIs. Goering responded that the building next to this one. and «ith so many condo com ersions in the neighborhood. makes it difficult to acgAre a building and remain rental. This is tishv RPDC felt it would be more beneficial to otter more condominiums at very affordable. rates where it is possible for even low income to seek ownership. Aid. Rainey expressed her support for this condominium conversion project and her continued support for Reba Place and the work they have done in the community. She noted that Reba is putting in S1.3 million dollars out of the S1.9 million dollar project. She commended the RPDC organization and acknowledged their obvious commitment to this community. Ald. Bernstein agreed and also supports the project. Aid. Wynne said that she is also inclined to move for-vard on this project on the reputation of Reba Place and also the confident support of the ward alderman. Ms. Goering informed that RPDC will be offering relocation services to all existing tenants if needed. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 3 in favor of the motion and l voting nay (Newman) who stated that he finds it hard to support this without proper notice and consideration given to the existing tenants. 11191 Ordinance 19-0-05 — Zoning Planned Development: 1800 Ridee Mr. James Murray. Attorney for the applicant made opening remarks and then turned the overview of the project over to the architect, Mr. Brent Norsman. Mr. Norsman gave a slide presentation illustrating the design and different elevations of the building. He shoved %where each unit will have their owri green space and hove they added significant landscaping to the roof top as well. He showed aerial views looking cast toward do- ntowri Evanston and several other views of the proposed building. He noted the parking and ingress and egress locations. There was little discussion that followed. The neighbors all appeared to be in favor of the proposed project as presented. Aid. Wynne said that she would Iike to see a condition in the ordinance regarding the landscaping and that it be maintained. Aid. Newman moved approval to introduce and bring back for review- of the language change to the ordinance. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 (Aid. Bernstein abstaining his vote). (PI0) Ordinance 13-0-05 — Zoning Text Amendment "Build to Lot Line" This item was held in Committee until the February 28, 2005 meeting. P8D Committee .%Im Minutes of 2.1-1-0S Page 11 t P I 1 ) Ordinance 9.0-05 — Zonine fan amendment "Rezone to B I Current 132 .area alone Central bet%%een Marcv & Bennett ( West "lost 132 .Vea j" This item was held in Committee until the February 28, 200.5 meeting. ADdOLIMMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ]acq line)F. Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of March 14. 2005 Room 2.103 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl. Nl. «'ynne Alderman .absent: J. Kent Staff present: J. \Volinski. A. Alterson. J. Carroll. A. Jackson, G. Morgan. E. Sz-,-manski. J. Brownlee Others Present: Ald. Moran. 1- \Vidmeyer Presiding Official. Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 14. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the February 28th minutes. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes %sere approved by a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Ordinance 10-0-05 - Zonine Planned Develooment - 122.8 Emerson Street Mr. Dre%k Ferris came before the Committee and requested a continuance and for the consideration of a special meeting to be held next Monday, March 21" to address this matter conclusively. The P&D Committee members agreed to hold such meeting at 7:00 p.m. Aid. Newman motioned to hold a special meeting on Monday, March 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to address this matter. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor, (1121 Ordinance 9-0-05 - Zonine Sian Amendment "Rezone to B1 Current 132 Area along Central between Mare & Bennett (West Most B2 Area)" Ald. Moran vas called over for participation of this item. Mr. Wolinski recalled that this item was introduced at the February 28'h meeting and vas referred back to Committee for further discussion. Chairman Tisdahl referred to the citizen comment list and called on those %%ho signed up to speak on this matter that did speak at the last meeting. P&D Committee tine_. %t,nuto of 14-05 face Mr. Jim Iluehes. _-4I K Hartreil Sir;.-;::. ,'otj that hi,, fantil has i:%ed in F%ansion for v%er 14 %cars. Ile read t,.►o pans from t"u- C'it% Council Meetim! minutes of April 27. 1998. the speaker «as Nis. Joan C'heM She .poke at that time of development in the B2 district on Central Street and expressed her concerns back then about the traffic congestion on the street that alread% exists. parking spillage onto the side streets. residents foreseeing a threat to the character of their neighborhood with possible developments that Mould negativel% impact. etc. Ile also pointed out her comments regarding canyonization of Central Street at that time. Air. Hughes point proved the long existing concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors of Central Street regarding future development. He stated the man} benefits of rezoning the section of Central from 132 to BI and how proposed development under the BI zoning would be more suitable abutting the residential districts. fir. Hughes pointed out that the BI zoning would be more consistent with the goals and oh ' iectkes of the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the existing B2 zoning is completel\ incopatible with the character of the neighborhood. Air. John Cara, 2620 Hurd A\enue. said that he was born in Evanston and has been a lifetime resident. He noted the initial changes in the earl' 90's \sdth the B2 district that was supposed to make the area more lucrative and marketable to developers. He pointed out that zoning is only one of the tools and not the main tool that should be used to spur development. lie said that market forces are much more important. He said that if you have the proper 'zoning in place and the market conditions are right. profitable development can be done within the constraints of the BI zoning. which would be far more consistent with the nature and character of that Central Street district. Aid. Moran stated that he and his neighbors would very much welcome the P&:D Committee's agreement and approval for the proposal to rezone this particular district from B2 to B1. Ile said they kno%% that during the course of the last Committee meeting there was some discussion about right -sizing the BI parameters for development. However, he feels the ven, significant first step in right -sizing the buildable parameters for Central Street is to go from B2 to BI. lie said the Plan Commission and the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission are currently examining the questions of how exactly BI should be contoured or whether in fact there should be a new zoning classification of a BIa, not unlike some other zoning classifications that have been created in the last few years. Aid. Moran said they are confident that the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission can do this within a reasonable time frame. lie said the urgency at this point is that they are very concerned that unless there is some change implemented at this point, that the "horse still get out of the barn" and certain proposals for development of the se\eral lots along Central will come forth. He said that the} are very concerned the impact on those lots if there is no change in the zoning and that this be done sooner rather than later. Therefore, he %\ould ask the PRD Committee to approve this recommendation by the Plan Commission and to alloy the Zoning Committee to undertake the right -sizing of B1 for this area by way of a B I a zoning district, that could happen within a matter of months and solve this zoning problem for this particular area. Aid. Bernstein asked Aid. Moran for his distinction between B1 and Bla zoning. Aid. Moran responded that in essence. it \could be taking the buildable parameters of B2 and P&D Committee Nttc. Minutes of : • 14-05 Page 3 131 and essentiall% recon.i'.i% than it) the fhe heir":. ,'..:,gay. etc. +could he fashioned in a -%%a+ ti:.it e\Fcrience de;eels -.+ill ++.irk "ell in that area. Ile said it may be that B1 is a bit less: on the other hand B= is assuredly icso much. Ile said his ultimate \ision for Bfa \%ould be a reconciliation or "happy median" of those two criteria. Aid. Wynne recalled at the last meeting she t+clieves the only issue to be left to define was the appropriate square footage per d++ellinc unit. She said it appears now that height. density and size of d►+elling unit is n+)+; \+ithin this possible Bla zoning district. She said in her mind this says that the issue is not nearly finished, and the% are still trying to figure out zoning requirements to be implemented. She also noted that there was no mention of considering a Blazoning district for this area. Ald. Moran responded that the total zoning for this particular area is not finished because there are other zoning criteria under review and consideration to tit this special zoning district. Ile stated that he can not speak for the Zoning Committee, but he can say that all the► ++ere trying to do is reconcile the differences bet++een those mo designations of B I and B2. He said that it may end up that all there is to define between the two is the square footage per unit, however the entire package of height and density ++ill also be considered. He said that clearly the Zoning Committee and the Plan Commission are committed to pursuing the course of conduct to examine those and come back with a recommendation. At this time, he does not want to jump ahead and speculate what the Zoning Committee will review, but he does recommend that the Committee vote on the proposed zoning map amendment before them, because this relief is needed right now. Chairman Tisdahl asked Mr. Widmeyer how long he estimates the revicu on this matter. Mr. Nk'idme+er responded that he would guess it %%ould be approximatel+ 4 months before the+ could bring the matter back before PRD because of their existing schedule. She asked if the Zoning Committee is going to consider changing any of the uses for the B I that are currently under the B2 zoning. Mr. Widmeyer responded that the problem he foresees with changing BI at their last zoning meeting is that it is not appropriate for a main thoroughfare zoning, ho%%ever when you look at something like Greenleaf and Ashland, which is a few small corner retail storefronts, it ++ould be more appropriate. Therefore, to change the uses for the specified area that %%ould impact on the areas like Greenleaf and Ashland, the zoning Committee did not feel ++ould be the right thing to do. He noted that was when the Zoning Committee decided that they are probably going to have to come up with a zoning somewhere in between the BI and B2 to impact areas that are on main thoroughfares and are part of main business districts. N1r. Widme%er said they will be looking at such things like the number of units in a d++elling capacity. the number of units per square foot of ground space. the number of floors +ersus height. and the issue of looking at office developments should the current trend end. Aid. Wynne summed up that essentially this matter is resulting in putting the specified area into a moratorium state because the plan is to come up with some ne++ designation that is somewhere between BI and B2. Mr. Widme+er affirmed. She asked if they have ever done this before where a zoning map amendment was made and then have gone back and edited the zoning district. Mr. Widmeyer responded not to his kno+Nledge and agreed that this would be something different in effort to reacting to some of the concerns made. Aid. Moran told the Committee to keep in mind that ex en in considering the length of time Mr. Widmeyer has stated %%ould take the Plan Commission to do this, that P&D Comminse %tic. !Minutes of : . =-6, Net s it is still :,i : an periOJ lit: 'aid ANIL :tong that this t, Jone -,{Rhin the assumed Orne ,arr.e. if %%hat i; ',cmii .lesc'rihed as a muralorium :fate gi%cs the upportunit% to be protected from further 132 development. then that is %%hat he and the neighbors are requesting at this tirne Ile reiterated that the} do not want to go beyond this evening without a recommendation l,ecause the% feel it %%ould leave them completely exposed for the ver} development the% are tr. ing to get a%%ay from. Aid. Newman asked again what buildings at this time have gone in on Central Street as - of -right under the B2 zoning. W. Wolinski informed the Committee that the building at Central and Hurd "The Strange Building". with a recording studio and another business on the first floor and the buildinc that Cyrus developed at Central Park and Central, which did receive zoning relief for height. and the first floor has a renal care center. Mr. Wolinski handed out a list of four other buildings that have applied for building permits or received building permits that are considered in the pipeline. The building addresses are 2812 Central, 2814 Central. 2834 Central, and 2935 Central. Ile listed the first floor uses and the number of condominiums for each building. Ile pointed out the dates of last activity %%hich are evident that these projects have been sitting in a dormant stage for some time. He noted that from discussion v ith Ms. Sz%•rnanski. to be considered in the pipeline according to fir. Siegel, that there must be a substantial change in position other than just the purchase of the property: there must be substantial architectural and engineering expenditures made. Therefore. it would be premature to sa) that the first three properties are in the actual pipeline and that 2935 at this point could be considered in the pipeline. :old. Wynne felt that the others could also he considered in the pipeline if they are received site plan and zoning approval and applied for building permits. She assumed that e%en if changes were made this evening that those projects %%ould not be altered unless they went for a significant period of time without am progress. Ms. Szymanski said that with respect to a determination of a project in the pipeline. Legal wwiIl not have the specific facts they need to analyze to male the determination unless and until the applicant comes forward and seeks to have a building permit. Based upon when Legal knows now which is anecdotal and haled upon Ms. Brzezinski estimates of possible expenditures. it is quite possible that the first three buildings are in the pipeline but does remain to be seen. She said that one factor that is missing is the acti%ity. if any, in the year between now and last %car. She said, for example. if the applicant has been actively seeking financing then that does tend to establish a pipeline rested position. From what has been discussed thus far and the seemingly change in procedure %%ith this rezoning. .aid. W%nne expressed her concern %with changing the procedure for this particular case and %wh) it should be considered difTerentl% than any other rezoning request done previously. She is veer% concerned %with not ha%ing the final document before them that %%ill become final for that area that could result under a Blazoning classification. Aid. Moran responded that even so, assured) the neighbors do %want to see the rezoning of this area and support the change from 132 to B 1. They are asking for a more specified review for that portion of Central Street with the passage of the amendment to the "build to lot line" requirement. and to re%ie%% the minimum residential lot size for each d%%elling unit further. Aid. Newman also feels a little uncomfortable with approving the rezoning from B2 to BI at this time %%ith the Zoning Committee going P&D Committee '•ttr. Minutes of - Pay hack for further re-. ic%% and po-astl^le cl:an_c, `-_--i r i_! I Borne [orth. Ile suggested that It might be better to Rio the requcsted moratomim at this time instead of voting. on the rezoning matter. He finds it hard to support the request for B1 zoning at this time until the Plan Commission Zoning Committee has had a chance to complete their review for Central Street. This %vas also the consensus of the ether P&D Committee members. Aid. Newman moved to table this matter until the Plan Commission Zoning Committee has completed their review. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P6) Ordinance 43-0-05 -- Fstablishina a Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for 90 Days on That Portion of Central Street between Ntarcv & Bennett AM. Newman moved approval and noted that it he requested on Council Floor that the rules be waived for this case. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the tote was 4-0 in favor. (P5) Resolution 1 3-R-05 — Desianatine the Portion of Chicago Avenue Between Davis Street and Church Street «ith the Honoran• Name. "Fred Austin's Route 21 USPS." Ms. Margaret Gergan. Manager of the North Shore Hotel addressed the P&D Committee on behalf of this requested honorary street sicn fir Fred Austin. She informed the Committee of his unsurpassed service as a postal %%order for all the businesses on Chicago Avenue between Church and Dais Streets and that he was more than just a postal worker but was also their friend and considered as famil% to man'.• that lived in the Worth Shore Hotel. She said the Mr. Austin treated the elderly that lived in the building with respect and dignit% and addressed each one of them by name. Ms. Gergan told a few of the stories. amongst many. that are mentioned in the packet materials. She also pointed out that mangy signed tellers of support for this honorary street naming from residents of the North'Shore that are also included in Council's packet. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. fie gave kind words of support and spoke on behalf of Mr. Austin %%ho he also knew personatl% as well. He feels this honorary street name request is fully warranted and well deserved. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 40-0-05 — Special Use Reo_uest for a Convenience Store at 555 Howard Aid. Rainey «•as called in for participation in discussion of this item. The applicant, Mr. John Peterson. addressed the Committee and informed them that his family has o%%wd the property and operated the automobile ser ice station at this location for almost 50 nears. He noted that the% have stuck it out there for all these nears even when the area was at its worse. The business is in need of modernization b\ adding the average basic convenient store items that every eas station offers in order for him to remain competitive. He is not requesting anything more than to sell cigarettes, snacks, pop, and minor prepackaged foods. Mr. Peterson noted that his service station is one of the last ones that still sell gas and offer automoti\ e ser ice and repair. He asked for the P&D Committee's support and understanding that the sell of these standard convenient store MD Committee %Itc. Minutes of ,-I4-0 Pace 6 item; is needed in , rder : :a-, in bu::nL - %:omrr:iti\r with the other two cas stations within're Aid. Rainey expressed l L-r o Fpos.t:on in appro% ir._ this request at this location because the neighborhood is alread,. a mess %kith convenient stores and fast food restaurants. She said that the garbage and de�ris :s venerated from those businesses on Howard Street. She acknowledged the fact trai Mr. Peterson and h.s family have owned and operated a good business at this location for many years and her opinion has no personal persuasion, however she feels there is a need to stop an}more convenient store operations or fast food restaurants in the Howard Street neichborhood. Aid. Rainey brought to attention all the problems caused by the appro%al of this Committee with the Subway on Howard and the trash and litter problems that business generates including the bad management. She recalled the approval of the expansion of another convenient store on west Howard that has since went out of business and the building is sitting vacant and blighting the surrounding area. She pointed out all the problems currently experienced with the Shell gas station just west of this location. In conclusion. Aid. Rainey would like to put an end to the approval and inclusion of any more fast food restaurants or convenience stores in the Howard Street neighborhood. She complained of P&D's approval of type ? restaurants with the special set of conditions that come with each but there is no follow- up or regulating or enforcement of those conditions. Aid. Newman understands Aid. Rainey's position. however in this case the applicant's point on the need to compete with his competitors in the neighborhood is necessary for him to star in business. fie also supports the fact that this business owner runs a responsible business that has been family owned and operated for over 50 years. He feels the applicant's track record alone should be commended and acknowledged. Ile does not feel the applicant's request is unreasonable. It is not fair to allow the same type of business to sell the requested items and more plus they are a larger operation than the applicant. and not allow him the chance to at least stay somewhat competitive. Aid. Bernstein agreed with Aid. tie:wman's continents but also understands Aid. Rainey's concerns with enforcement of the conditions. Ho«e.er. if she sees and knows of these conditions being violated. then she has the capabilit% of informing and directed staff out to these locations for possible revocation of their special use. lie said that all of the alderman have that responsibility in their wards. :old. Rainey assured that she has complained to staff and that they are aware of her complaints on specific businesses on }Toward. She also noted that she is responsible for the extra clean-up on Howard Street by the Streets Department because of her special request to do so: that is the only way to keep I toward Street decent at that time txcause the businesses are not doing their part in assisting with litter and debris pick-up around their businesses. Aid. Wynne also agreed with Aid. `cw7nan and Aid. Bernstein's comments. however. she does share Aid. Rainey's concerns with the enforcement of conditions set for t}-pe ? establishments. She referred to the Starbuck's on Bain Street that she has similar complaints as Aid. Rainey does about the Subway on Howard. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Raine,. requested that staff review all the: type 2 restaurants P&D Commince Mtg. Minute,. of '-?4-«t Passe and their condition, t;,at h- - .: aPr.-- `-,:J w. cr the pa:.,, N ear, and .tart enforcing the requirements or discontinue 'Le -r ccial use. Ald. Newman said it is ruder ,aid than done for staff to enforce and re�_iJat_ all special conditions because of the lack of manpower with inspectors on dun. fie ;.a;d that this is a budgetary issue that he has al\%a\s tried to point out: there are simpl% nc.t enough inspectors on the job to inspect all the property standard issues and all the busir:esces within Evanston. iP41 Ordinance 33-0-05 - P.a nned Develooment for an :addition to the Retirement Community at 2320 Pioneer Mr. Dan Shapiro. Attome, representing Three Crowns Park, addressed the P&D Committee first. lie •%III address the Committee along with the architect. Mr. Gene Gruszkowski and the Esecuti%r Director. Ms. Susan Morse. to ask for P&:D Committee's recommendation for a Planned De%elopment of 2320 Pioneer. This is a facility seeking expansion to accommodate additional services, lining units. memon-impaired area, etc. lie noted that this was before the flan Commission on February 9, 4005 and there was a lot of discussion at that meeting and prior to that, there were many neighborhood meetings. These meetings entailed several variations to the plan, which resulted with modifications to the original plan to the extent where most were of the neighbors are comfortable with. Mr. Shapiro noted that there was a tint -and -pull of the tension between height and open space. The Preservation Commission felt that the preseration of open space was considered in the plans for expansion and voted unanimously to recommend approval of this proposal. lie said it comes with mo request for variations, one to accommodate height of 12-feet of additional allowance for the center building and the other one setback on McDaniel for parking. lie turned the presentation over to the Executive Director for Three Cro«ns Park at this time. Ms. Susan Morse, Executi%e Director of Three Crowns Park, gave the P&D Committee some background information on the facility itself and what brought about the need for expansion today. She said that they are seeking approval of the proposed Planned Development to alto« the upgrade and expand their services. She said their mission as an organization is to provide high -quality retirement housing and health care options that foster security. dignity. independence, and promotes personal growth. She said that currently there are two buildings on the property that house 30 apartments of independent living, 40 units of assisted lip ine. and a 48 bed nursing home component. Ms. Morse stated that the facility loves this location and benefit from being part of the neighborhood and community and \ ice -a -versa. She said one of the things that have been of value to the Swedish Retirement Association is haying an elementary school directly across the street, so as they are looking at the construction of the new building, safety of those children as well as all the other neighborhood issues are extremely important to them. She assured that the% %%ould «rrk ►► ith their construction company to ensure safety of the site. She informed the Commiaee that 40% of their employees are E%anstonian's with a very low staff turnover. Also. 800 o of their residents are from Evanston or have family that live in the immediate area. Ms. Morse said that their buildings are old, out of date. and arc not meeting the needs of today's senior citizens. She noted that their occupancies are declining: the endowment P&D Committee %It_e Minutes of : -1 ad'' Paze 8 funds hate fallen from 51 . mi.l:on ;n 1 �nl} 5K million currently. She said they require substantial capital irnpro% ear. Ms. Morse K)asted that the Swedish Retirement Home has o%er I I l -.ear, ,n operation and their initiativ a has been to serve elders and %%ill continue to do so. S;-t said the problem they have is in essence is that their business model is upside down. ••%'tat Line should hme to offer successfully is a large number of independent living units that supports a smaller number of assisted living units and small health care center. She said that the% are upside down from this scenario; with a 48 bed health care. 40 assisted livin. and : i independent living units. Therefore. in order for them to continue business. the 5%%cdi:h Retirement must expand its independent living facilities. his. Morse Said their goal is foremost survival and they want to stay in Evanston as a resource for the elderl% here and they also want to offer a true continue of care. Currentiv. they currently do not have a facility dedicated to support memory lost so the% will be adding such a di%ision for that in the proposed plans. She said with the proposed plan their idea is to preset a green space and to maintain the wonderful campus that they currenth• have on this site. The+ ha%e met with the neighbors over 5 meetings and have come up with a plan that the% hope meets most of the neighbors concerns as well as their needs. Nis. Morse turned the presentation over to their architect at this time for further overview of the building design. Mr. Gene Guszkowski walked the Committee through physically how they have solved the issues that his. Morse %vent into to help create a renaissance here for Three Cro%%ms Park so that it continues to be a viable part of the community. He went through a significant number of issues in dealing v%ith this site and where they are able to build. He noted that they vent through the process of obtaining input from the Preservation Commission and the conclusion that %%as reached is that the park -like setting in tlje southeast corridor is a very critical part of the campus that the Commission wanted to have preserved. fir. Guszko►%ski used a :mall scale diagram of the entire Three Cro%%ms Park site to demonstrate the location df the proposed additions and open green space preserved. He pointed out where the new+ ingress and egress driveways are to be located on McDaniel for the surface parkin: and nev% entrance%►a% and to the south, the: new dri%evway into the underground garage. Directl% across from the surface parking lot and entranceway drive is the location %%here school buses drop off and pick up children from the elementary school. as %well as parents Ile acknowledged the concerns expressed by the neighbors on safety issues for the children and is willing to address this further. He pointed out and agreed that the drivevway is vet steep and concerns have been expressed by the neighbors about this. With this said. he noted the many neighborhood meetings that %%•ere held and felt that the dialogue %%as health% and that they did take many of the concerns and issues bw the neighbors into consideration. flo%%ever. it is impossible to please everyone but have made a good faith effort to address as many concerns as possible and find a %%in -win situation for all invol%ed. Mr. Guszkovwski concluded that the%- are creating largely a development to the west, they wanted to create a building that has a series of courtyards. He noted that multi -family buildings similar to this around the E%anston area are very common to find and felt that this style would b appropriate for a building design %%ithin the community. He said the �— issues had to do with setbacks. height and preserving green space. What has evolved UD Committee W2 Minor$ of : 14-05 - Pare 4 from the meetings and .tihs; the applicant %%ould lik: to are here i- a deveiopment of court%ards and setback; that are undulating tack and forth that risei tc the highest point of four stories in the middle of the addition facing McDaniel. fie pointed out the small area in the center is a I • : stor% element that will be the common area and tie everything together. He noted that there ++as concern expressed by some neighbors on the fourth floor of the addition and if this could be eliminated. fie said that the 12 units provided within the fourth floor are needed and this location appeared more appropriate and aesthetically pleasing versus the plan that would spread those units out and reduce the green space. Aid. Nev.-man asked about the tax roll status of this proposed development. Nis. Morse responded that the building addition will be an expansion of the not -for -profit use as it has al%%a%s been, At this point. Chairman 'Tisdahl called on the citizen sign up sheet. She first thanked Ms. Arlo%a Jackson for all her help in taking the time to explain the zoning matters related to this property and planned development to all the neighbors and others %%ho ha%e inquired. Nis. titan• Beth I loffman. Colfax. feels that the plan needs to be refined Her main points of concern were ++ith safety on McDaniel for the children and pedestrians with added traffic from the added points of entr-.. She also had issues with the height of the fourth floor and the setback for that added height. She pointed out the Three Crowns Park is embedded in the larcest RI district area of Evanston, which she pointed out using a zoning map display. She feels this expansion of the building is incompatible ++ith the residential neighborhood surrounding this property. Nis. Hoffman claims that she does not want to see the project denied. but would like further resolution to the neighbors concerns on the issues she mentioned. N-ir. Tom Bun. 2400 block of Colfax. said that he and many of the o Eer neighbors of Three Crowns park do %%ant them to succeed in continued business and do support the organization. He reiterated his concerns are also with safety and height of the building with the fourth floor addition. Mr. Burt presented a signed petition from the neighbors to the P&:D Committee. He read the petition to the Committee and noted that it %%as signed by over 130 neighbors. In his opinion, The Swedish Retirement home can economically survive %%ithout the fourth stop and those units it would provide. Nir. Joe C'anrile., raised safet\ issues with the ingress and egress of the steep dri\ erva\ off of McDaniel. tic ++ould like to see this as an entrance only driveway. He aLrees «ith the R4 zoning for this property: R5 \+ould not ha+e been appropriate. There ►vas a consensus of the Committee that this item be continued due to lark of time for furiher discussion at this meeting. The Committee agreed to include this item on the agenda of the special meeting to be held on Monday, March 21, ZOOS at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Shapiro thanked the P&D Committee for inclusion of this item on the agenda for the special mectinc since his firm ++as Legal Counsel for both issues. 111111111 P&D Committee \ttg. Minutes of 3-14-05 Put 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacq line N Brownlee DRAFT SPECIAL Planning & Development Committee Minutes of .NIarch 21. 2005 7:00 p.m. E% anston G% is Center — Room 2403 Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Nc%%Tnan. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. L. Jean -Baptiste. Aid. E. Moran Presiding Official: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7.07 p.m. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Ordinance 10-0-05 — Zonine Planned Develonment: 1228 Emerson Street Mr. Andrew Ferris of Ferris Homes. the Developer. opened discussion with a presentation and overview of the proposed development to date. He thanked the P&D Committee for having this special meeting. He noted that a meeting with the neighbors was held last WednesdaN. March 18. 2005. The neighbors present lived directly behind the building. some from the west side of Asbury and some residents of the condominium building directly to the south on Ridge. He presented the shadow studies that they had done to those neighbors and discussed some of the issues still remaining and also presented the setback study ,lone along the alley and buildings along Ridge in relationship to the back of the Fumes along Asbury. Mr. Ferris requested to present that same shadow study to the P&D Committee this evening and preclude by answering any questions or concerns after«ards. Mr. Ferris noted that the shadow study is a computerized clean up version that thoroughly demonstrates and illustrates the building elevations. building setbacks. perspective context stud%. and shadow studies for different times of the year and day. The computerized presentation consisted of: 1) Renderings of the building elevations from Ridge Avenue and view from the west as seen by the residents abutting the property on Asbury and views from the south Special P&D Comm►tree 'Vuz Minutes of March 21. _005 Pas:e 2 showing, the Lreene the propert: and relief in the bricks and minimisation of %%indo%%s on that side Ll:' :ae buildinu 21 Renderines of the from dif:zrent le%e!s ofthe building. 3f Comparison of the ^-opc,sal %ersus the present architectural deswn of the building. 4 ) A satellite photo takcn A7-:: i 6. here the% scaled in the shape and position of the building sho%%ir.< th-. setbacks. The distance from the back of the homes on Asbury ranges from ar::; . mated 100— ;eet to 202 feet. 51 The perspective conte\t demonstrating that the floor plans have not changed from what was presented tc the Committee pre%iousl%. The elevations put into the context stud% are also similar to «hat %vas presented. 6) The Shadow Stud%. fr Ferns explained that the% did three shadow studies consisting of the ►%-inter and summer solstice from the furthest most south point. northern most point as;,: mid -point. lie ea%e a full computerized time demonstration beginning %%ith the ►%inter solstice starting on December 21" showing the time span from star rise until late afternoon. The stud%. confirmed that b% 11:00 a.m. all :haJ4o%% from the building %could have no effect on the properties to the west. The summer solstice start!d on June 21" and confirmed that by 9:00 a.m. shade~►_ %ere completeIN off the properties to the %vest. He informed the Committee that these studies %sere done by Howard Kaplan who is a reputable court expert for his shado%% studies. The concluding shadow study for the equinox period from March 20" through September 22", demonstrates a median time of 10:00 a.m for shado%%s from the building off' the houses to the west. .aid. Newman asked the prices of the units. Mr. Ferris informed the Committee that the prices will range from approximate1% S300.000 to over S600.000. With 49 units the average cost is around S370.000. Ald. \e«•man then questioned if affordable housing has been discussed. Mr. Ferns responded that it has been discussed with the Aid. Jean - Baptiste and it was apparent that the% have reached a point %%-here negotiations trying to find a way to Ft an affordable housing element into the development. is financially undoable. In response to a question. Mr. Wolinski noted that approximately I0-15% of the units would be under rule for Inclusionary housing %%hick would result in 5-7 units or making a payment in lieu -of to accommodate that figure. .aid. Jean -Baptiste informed the Committee that this matter has been discussed with the de, -eloper, however they have not yet come to a conclusion or agreement to date. He stated that continued discussion is still forthcoming and they will tr} to figure some %%ay this de%eloper can make some type of contribution towards affordable housing. .aid. \ewman stated that in actuality the agreement or negotiation of the de, -eloper giving back to the community in the way of assistance in affordable housing should be in place with the approval of a planned development. He noted that if it is not economically feasible within the project itself, then it should be sufficed in the «a% of an agreed amount in payment of lieu. He asked how much the 5-7 units would have to sell for to be considered affordable housing. Mr. Ferris responded that he would have to sell those units for approximately S 180.000 and explained further how this could not be feasible considering the cost of the land, construction costs and the addition of underground parking provided. He is also Special P&D Committee Nttg. ?Minutes of March 21. 2005 Page 3 providing additional surface parking spaces Fe} :end %%hat is required by zoning regulations. lie informed the Committee that he ,; Aered and agreed b% the neighbors to pave the allc% from Emerson. add landscapin_ :e the backyards of the houses to the west in addition to eliminating: the utilit% po:e, :n the alley and relocate services underground as well as add additional lighting. 1n addition to all that. Mr. Ferns stated his commitment to payment -in -lieu of af:ordable i ang at an amount agreed upon with the Cit%. He also said that he would be willing :c --olunteer his time with some type of community service as an additional means to grin_ back to the community. Mr. Ferris also noted that at the meeting on March 16 with the neighbors. fir. Martin Stein of U.S. Equities did an independent analysis for the City ar:d concluded that if the project were to go for,6sard with one floor excluded it may be possi^le to proceed with { stories. however the potential rewards may not be sufficient of other n:ks in%olved. In summary. the lose of the top floor would reduce the project by six unit; and reduce projected revenue by $3 million dollars. He stated that he believes Inclusiorar% housing: is very important but also feels that it is a Community problem and not a de,. elopment problem. For that reason, this is «hy he sincerely offers that if there is a rya;- to work with the community to do something to contribute to affordable housing he «%ould be more than willing to do so by volunteering his efforts. Aid. Bernstein commented that First of all there is no Inclusionary housing Ordinance in place at this time, therefore to oblige Mr. Ferris. or for that matter any other developer at this time coming to them with a planned development. should not be binding. Secondly, he is very concerned with the fact in this case of the Cit•'s involvement with the delay of this developer in the process. He recalled that the Cir% had just started the Task Force for Inclusionary Housing at the time this proposed development came forth. Ald. Bernstein stated that in fairness, the Cite can not realls place demands on a development after the fact, this should have been clarified from the beginning to give the developer a chance to look at his options and see if the project is still doable xvith the provision of affordable housing. From his opinion as stated. he believes the thought process on this particular issue is backwards. Aid. tie%kman agreed with Aid. Bernstein on his with the City's invol%ement in the delay of this particular development. However. he disagrees with the fact that even though no official Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is in place, a developer of a planned development should still offer some type of communit% contribution to the City. Aid. lean -Baptiste responded that is %%-hs continued discussion is still in the .vorks with this developer to enter into some type of compromise w give back to the community. He asked the Committee to acknowledge the fact that :his de%eloper has offered costly concessions to the communit} by way of pro%iding for his neighbors and making improvements to the surroundings of property. In addition. he reminded the Committee of the blight on this corner and the only other offers for development on this site have been unacceptable compared to this proposal. Chairman Tisdahl reminded the Committee that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinances are scheduled to be on the agenda for the April 120 meeting. She noted that everything discussed so far in relationship to that matter should all be noted for consideration and Special UD Committee Mte Minutes of March 2 i. '-445 Pace : included in the discussion for those ordinance She ;tressed the importance of this issue «hick is ob,ious from discussion and c oncems presented this e►ening. Aid. Bernstein noted that it also seems apparent that there are ahernati%es that can be considered. His sense is that paymrnt-in-lieu of providing atiardable housing within some planned d<<clopments is what Council %%ill eNentuall% support. Aid. Wynne brought up the realities in fundamental land cost with the actual cost of building development on this site. Mr. Ferris responded that the cost to build at this point is approximately SIO.12 million. He noted that this will be a eery expensive building to build and the land cost is only a portion that actually is not a major cost when looking at the entire project development. Chairman Tisdahl called on Citizen Comment for this item at this time NIs. Ci«-en Stein. 1837 Asbury, said she lives at the fourth house south of Emerson on the east side of Asbury. She was one of the neighbors present at the neighborhood meeting last %%eek. She expressed her opinion that she .kould still like to see the proposed building shorter and smaller but realizes that is not going to happen and not feasible in the current economical climate. Ms, Stein stated that she a her husband want to see this site developed and are for the most part pleased %%it the new design and feel it is an improvement over the total glass design. She noted that the addition of greenery is appreciated and a ven• good addition. Also the shadow studies presented have provided some relief to their concerns that they expressed to the developer. However. she still questions the economics of the City with all the recent planned developments, She concluded with thanking Mr. Ferris on his diligence in working with the neighbors. Ms. Barbara Stanlev, reiterated her comments and opinion on her position regarding this proposed development as stated at numerous meetings previous to this one. She stated her opinion that she is not totally satisfied with this presented proposal and would like to see the parcel developed in consistency with the other conversions on Ridge to the south of this site. She reiterated that she is not opposed to development of this site but is adamant that the architerural design and design and density of the project should stay in fitting wit the surrounding buildings and residential neighborhood. At the least. the project should be consistent with the architectural design of the buildings to the south. Aid. Bernstein had to leave the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Chairman Tisdahl called on staff to address the correspondence added in their pacets and the proposed amendments made to the ordinance in accordance with what concluded at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Alterson responded to the Committee that there are a number of conditions that need to be reviewed in the Ordinance that was included in their packets because staff has not been directed to change the ordinance, which is still based on a earlier iteration of this project. He proceeded to request the Committee to consider looking at the probability of the more you push the building to the north. the more you are putting an impediment to the visibility of traffic coming out of that alley looking going eastward. He noted that plan as presented is better situated because of the wall Special P&D Comm;me 'wtu. Ntinu,es of March : 1. 200f Page directly on the lot lint that i, blinding. %!d Ne•.wman sugge ted that the Committee needs to have Da%id Jenn:ac� r-taff addre,� -hi;, co. --ern and respond back to them before the next regularly scheduied meetins_ so the,, ,an in;.orporate this into the ordinance or condition upon it for tur,-„'i In and out of ,chat a'...'• . The other C'ctmmittee members agreed. %fr. Alterson irf6rm..td the C'nmrnittee uh-a from discussion with fir. Rajeew Dahal. Senior Traffic Engineer. has informed him that mowine the building 5' will not be damaging. howwewer he has nothing: in %%Titine from `.fr. Dahal at this time. fie continued with directing the Committee to the draft ordinance :n their packet. He pointed out the amendments made to Section 3. and Section 4. %fr Wolinski added that the mowing the building issue was one that he %%as to discuss with the Traffic Engineer however there was no agreement to this because they didn't %want to mess with the site lines. What was agreed to was the three issues of pawing, the aile%. eliminating the utility poles in the alley and relocating the services in the ground. also increasing the greenen- and lighting on the west side of the development Aid. Jean -Baptiste added that in addition, there would be discussion with the immediate -t home owners direct!% "vest of the property to negotiate their rear %ard landscaping b% the de%eloper. Mr. Alterson pointed out that in Section 3 the amendment is from 56 units to 49 units. In Section 4.A., wording has been changed to reflect 51% to 4711-o or 17,9fj0 square feet regarding building lot coverage. Section 4A. the square footage has been changed from 3..000 to 29,064 square feet regarding maximum impervious surface coverage. Under Section 4.C.. language was added regarding site development allowance allowing a front }ard along Emerson Street. Under Section 4.F., amendment was made from 50 to 49 dowelling units in addition to language changes to reflect this. In conclusion. under Section a., subsection G. was added for language pertaining to site development allowance for building. height. Aid. Ne%vman asked if all the stated amendments to the ordinance by staff' are agreeable b%- 41r. Ferris. W. Ferris affirmed his acceptance. Chairman Tisdahl asked legal staff if the stated language amendments can be made to the ordinance and ready by the next meeting on Monday !larch 28". .L1s. Szymanski assured the Committee that the amended language to the ordinance would be done and the document ready for the next meeting. Aid. Newman motioned to approve the amended ordinance for introduction by referred back to the Committee for review at the March 28sb meeting. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion with a vote of 3-0 in approval. (P2) Ordinance 33-0-05 — Planned Develooment for a Retirement Communitv at 2320 Pioneer Chairman Tisdahl wished to begin %with citizen comments starting with any residents of the Swedish Retirement Home first. Robert Swwikart said that he is a recent resident of Three Crowns Park. He stated that he is here to support the expansion of the building and is in favor of the requested variances to do so. He lived on Pioneer Road across the street from the Swedish Retirement Association for many years previously and found them to be an excellent neighbor and their presence added value to his house. He interviewwed many retirement facilities and chose the Swedish Retirement Home because it satisfied his needs and his purse and this choice also keeps him close to his long time friends and neighbors. He found out that Special P&D Committee `tte. %Brutes of March 2I. 2005 Pare h rnany of the ether residents chose to ::.' thcr r the Same reason. Mr. Sulkart read from a prepared statement that detailed his for the requested planned development and urged the P&D Committee to ! uuppon... -hc proposal. tic appreciates the Plan Commission`b unanimous support for t;:ts proposal. .fr. Bill Doose said that he and his utF� h\e in Three Crowns Park for the past four years. He is 92 and his wife is 88 ; e.L s old. They both hay e a long family piston in Evanston. His wife's father also lied his last -,cars in the S%%edish Retirement Home and she .isited him regularly during his sta% these and continued to %olunteer her time after his passing. He noted that both he and his •-4ife Isere born and raised here in Evanston with family history beginning back in the late 1800's with his grandfather moving here from Holland and her family from Mr. Doose said that they consider themselves original Evansionians and feel o%erjoyed that they can spend their remaining years in Evanston at Three Crowns Park. He continued to read from a prepared statement expressing their support for the expansion and ureenc_% to the Committee to support and approve the requested planned de%elopment. Mr. Olson Harvev stated that he is the PrZ5fljCnt of the Residents Council and he has talked to the majority of the residents and believes that they are ven- supportive and positive about the new project. lie said that mans of the residents are from Evanston or have family here. lie believes that Three Crowns Park have always been a good neighbor and is confident that they will continue to be a good neighbor and an asset to the community. His predecessors ha% e spoken %bell and he also urges the Committee's support and approval of this project. ,tits. Mvrtie Wanuerin stated that she is a member of the Long Term Care Commission Committee of the Commission on Aline. St:e informed that her Committee studied this issue for quite some time and then made a proposal to the Commission on Aging who then discussed this matter over a series of ;our meetings. She stated this as proof of the length of time committed to this issue and talking about the needs for the Evanston community, in panicular the needs of older citizens. Ms. Wangerin read a resolution from the Evanston Commission on Aging in summary of their review and discussion of the expansion of Three Crowns Park �t hich concluded with the support and recommendation of this proposal. (A cop} of this resolution can be obtained from the Health and Human Services Office.) Ms. Karen Young. 2607 Colfax, said that she lives in the block west of Three Crowns Park across the street from Lincolm%ood Elernentan Schaal. She wished to address two issues of concern that she %%ould like to discuss and offer some alternatives for consideration. The first concern is traffic safet,- on 'McDaniel «ith the proposal of three ingress egress accesses, especially the steep dri%e%ka► for the underground parking to the south of the property on McDaniel. his. N'oung cave an overviev.- of the current traffic pattern and congestion in this block of McDaniel \\ ith school buses and parents picking up and dropping off children. With the addition of added driye%vays and entrances in this area it will only add to the traffic congestion and most importantly effect the safety for the children. Her first suggested alternative for the t►%o entrances located at the northern part of McDaniel would be for 1-way in for the turnaround and I -ova% going out. Also possibly eliminating usage of this entrance during peak school drop-off and pick up times. his. Young was most concerned with the steep driveway for entrance and exit to Special P&D Committee Nttc. Minutes of March = I. 2005 Pace the underground parking garage. This steep climb to exit out tit' that driv e\%a,. is very dangerous for pedestrians because (if the N isuai obstruction until a \chicle reaches the top of that dri%eway. Her suggested alternati%e is that this driveway be unl: a 1-way entrance or relocated all together onto Grant or Pioneer. Aid. NewTnan requested to give the architect for Three Crowns Park an opportunity at this time to respclr.J to Ms. Young's suggested alternatives, which are \ery reasonable and logical in his mind. fir. Gruskowski responded that Ms. Young*t. concerns are legitimate and admits that he has also been concerned with the underground parking driyewa% because of its steep design. He first addressed the issue of the tumaround entrances to the north on McDaniel and assured that Ms. Young's alternative suggestion is doable with the only request that I - way entrance be from the furthest north drivew•av to allow- easier acces4ilit\ for drop off and pick ups from the Vehicular passenger side and egress from the southern entranceway. Mr. Gruskowski continued that when it comes to the underground parking access point, there are a couple of logical options there. As proposed. once they have gone into the engineering issues in\ olyed. they agree that driveway has a .en steep angle to come up. therefore he believes this calls for some additional planning. He stated that one of the alternatives would be to consider eliminating that entranceway all together and only have 1 point er access in from the opposite side. Given the daily traffic pattern in that area, it seems that just haying I -point of access is probably not logical. Therefore the need to find a second point of access is necessary and need to find a reasonable location. Mr. Gruskowski said that he would like to have the ability for two means of exit from the underground parking garage. He noted that one of the alternatives that was suggested earlier was the possibility to exit out onto Grant Street. He pointed out another alternative would be to look at the dimension of the driveway and extend the length to have a more gradual drive and eliminate: the steepness. He stated that from his point of view aesthetically to relocate the dri%ewa\ would result in the lose of court yard area that would be provided. however concessions could be made by the landscape architect to address that matter. In conclusion he feels that it comes down to two logical alternatives that can be considered and they are open to either one. Chairman Tisdahl asked about the consideration of a Colfax Street access. Mr. Gruskowski responded that the problem with Colfax is simply that there is actually no underground parking below that area and functionally they would have to re -design the entire basement area. NIs. Youne stated that from the neighbors perspective they would like to see a traffic safety plan in effect before the development is approved. Aid. Wynne asked if a trip study with generation numbers has been done for the additional 109 underground parking spaces. Nts. Susan Morris responded that they have done a traffic study that anticipated with this new development there would be an additional 20 morning trips a day and in the afternoon an additional 10-15 trips over what they currently have. She noted that these numbers reflect the entire morning and afternoon trips and not just during the peak school hours. Aid. Newman stated that Ms. Young has made a legitimate case and he agrees %tith her arguments and alternatives suggested. His opinion is swayed towards the alternative of considering a Grant Street entrance or egress location. However, he feels it \kould be beneficial to talk to the neighbors on that side and obtain their opinions and concerns for added traffic. Special P&D Cor rninee %lie `.tinuxs of %lamr.:1. '061 Paze 5 Nis. Young stated her second major point of & concern is %%ith the scale Of the project in terms of height with the fourth boor ,addition in comparison to the residential district and maximum heichts of the homes %%ithin the neighbor-cood. She used a full scale diagram of the floor plans for the third and fourth flours ., the proposed plan and presented an alternati%e plan to relocate the section on the luurih fiocor. She pointed out her alternative to stretch those units on the fourth flour length%kisc north and south abo%e the third floor design to eliminate the intrusion and impact of the fourth Boor mass on McDaniel. Her proposed alternative would minimize the negati%e height impact off of McDaniel and still alloss for the inclusion of those units to the proposed development. !pis. Young ackno\%ledged that from an architectural standpoint this alternative design is not as desirable but `>.-iIl help eliminate the height impact that many neighbors find offensive and a negative impact with height on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Mr. GrusWwski responded to \Is. Young's comments stating that the proposed plan as presented with the fourth floor is a «ell thought out plan but does not take into consideration the limited mobility for many of the residents. He noted that one of the major considerations in the architectural design of this building %%as the: convenience for the residents and eliminating the walking distances to the shared common areas of the facilit}-. .also. this accommodation had to be considered in combination with preserving the open and green areas of the site. They also %%anted to design a building that is aesthetically pleasing. acceptable and fitting within the Evanston community. He stated that the intent was to design a building that compares with the multi -family building design and similar structure throughout Evanston «ith the courtyard design and he feels that has been accomplished with this proposal. Mr. Gruskowski also pointed out his desire to design a building especiall% fitting «ithin this particular neighborhood and its close relationship with the Central Street area. Isis opinion is that they have done just that with the design of this building. He further noted that there is no possible way to please and satisfy ever -one especially in a majorit} residential neighborhood. however he feels confident that they have made mane concessions to the majorit% of concerns expressed by the neighbors. Lengthy discussion follo%%ed between tier. Gruskowski, Ms. Young, and the Committee members. his. Young stressed that the Central Street district should not in an% veay be considered in close relationship to their neighborhood and this planned development because that district is over 34 blocks away and the street is recognized as a business district. Another option that was suggested by a member of the audience was to totally eliminate the fourth floor and design the building to fit in with a 3-story plan expanding the design of the building to accommodate those additional units and eliminating a little less green space but taking a« -a% from the height. id. \e;;man asked the architect to address this alternative. 'sir. Gruskowski elaborated on the pros and cons of that alternative design weighing in favor of the cons with a combination of less desirable architectural aesthetics and functional design. He also elaborated on the additional cost in re -designing the building if this plan were considered. He went into detail about the cost per unit and the economical stress to accomplish the 3-story design versus the proposed design as presented. Aid. Wynne asked `.is. Young if she has thought about the impact that her suggested altemative would have on the Grant and Colfax sides of the property. Ms. Special P&D Commsnee MtL Minutes of March _ 1. 2001 Page 4 Young responded that the sugge,te,J4 alternative plan «ill no more effect those sides of the property than they do with the plan presented. She reiterated that this plan does not eliminate an% units on the fourth floor but pushes it hack off of the McDaniel Street front to make it less imtrusi%a in height. Site stressed that this aitematt%e does not result in the expansion of the third floor or the footi+rint of the building design as presented. Aid. Newman asked how much in taxes are am of these new units proposed will be on the tax roll. Mr. Mark Longquist. Chair of the Board of Directors for Three Crown Park, said that he lives at 478 Sheridan Road in h%anston. fie noted to the Committee that the Swedish Retirement Organization has been in Evanston for a very long time and desire to remain here. He acknowledged that they receive services from the Cit% and are willing to sit down and discuss with the appropriate City officials about their fair share and negotiate an acceptable contribution amount. Aid. Newman explained his position is that in consideration of a project where no taxes are being paid and the architect has expressed his concern for the mark, etabilility of the units. he feels if development allowances are being requested, then some type of community contribution needs to be negotiated here. He stated that if that negotiation here may result in preserving a specified amount of green space to appease that then adding a condition to the ordinance to assure this may be a possibility-. .another alternative could be in providing for other residents of Evanston that do not ha%e the financial needs for the entrance fee to live at this facility or the Swedish Retirement Organization could make a payment -in -lieu of paying taxes. All these suggestions could be combined in some way also. Mr. Longquist responded that Three Crowns Park is willing to sit down with the Cite and proceed with some type of negotiation. He did point out that they have always taken care of provided the green space and park -like atmosphere on the grounds and will continue to do so. fie assured at this time there are no plans to take away any additional green space in the future. Aid. Wynne asked the Three Crowns Park representatives their opinion of Ms. Young's alternative of the fourth Door strip lenenhwise across the third floor. Ms. Morris and Mr. Longquist both felt that this alternaM a would result in an unattractive building and would not be very functional for the residents who have mobility problems, as stated earlier by ,fr. Gruskowski. They also elaborated on the disadvantages of having just three floors versus the fourth floor design. In conclusion. the Committee all agreed that Ms. Young's alternatives for the driveways and traffic on McDaniei are very good and doable. There are mixed feelings with the redesigning of the fourth floor suggestion, however the concept of eliminating some of the height impact off of McDaniel is understandable. Aid. Newman stated that it is important to remember the limitations for height on residential structures that was voted on in favor of by this Council not long ago. This restriction effects the tax payers in that neighborhood but in this case a not -for -profit organization is requesting height allowances. He recommended that they need to take caution when considering that matter. Aid. Bernstein returned at 9:35 p.m. Special P&D Commitucc httc. Minutes of March _ 1. 2005 Pal!c 10 Ms. Doroth% \lauid read from a prepared statement. In summar% she prefers the 3-story design beca,:se this site needs to maintain the height emit tnr R-t and in ob,.Lenance of the surrounding residential propenirzr. Ms. Susan Peterson stated that she full% supports Thrrz Crown Part, requested expansion. however she also would like to see their proposal staff %%ithin the R4 zoning requirements. Mr. Steven Duke. ?226 Colfax, said that he lives : houses from the subject property. When discussions first began on the project the original design was for 3 stories. He does not ,want the P&D Committee to got the impression that majority of the neighbors prefers that plan. He supports the proposed plan with the 4-stories. Mr. Kenneth Jandz, 2341 Pioneer. said that he has lived across the street from the Swedish Retirement Home for 35 %ears and has alwa+s found this organization to be a good neighbor and the propert% contributes to the %alue of the surrounding homes. He expressed his support for Three Crowns Park expansion and feels confident that they will remain good neighbors and remain to add to the value of the properties in the neighborhood. Mr. William Levine said that he li%es in the 230U block of Pioneer also. He feels the Project as proposed will be in scale with the neighborhood and he supports this design. Ms. Martha Louan. 2327 Pioneer, spoke on behalf of her and her husband. %%ho grew up in this neighborhood as well. The\ prefer the 4-stor% design and feel that it is much more aesthetically pleasing. She does ha%e concern with relocating the drive -way onto Grant because there is currently parking on both sides of the street. She reminded that comments b%. the neighbors accepted by the applicant have made this a better project and she feels this is as close ad their going to get with to ing to please everyone at%cted by Three Crowns Park. Mr. Dennis Trautyetter, 2329 Pioneer, stated that he favors the 4-story plan and the preserving of as much green space on this site as possible. Ms Vicky Pearlman, 2.128 Grant. pointed out on the diagram that her house is most closely impacted by Three Crowns Park. She said that the 4-story plan is a compromise but seems to have less bulk on the property and does preserve the open space on the propert\ . She supports this design. Aid. Ed Moran. stated that 2 !'z years ago his. Susan :Morris called him and told him that the Swedish Retirement Association of Three Crowns Park was both considerine expanding their facility as well as explaining that this expansion would become critical to - their continuing existence. He noted prior testimony about how they have had to delve into endowment fund, which is now dejected down from $ I I million to 58.5 million. He said that they are borrowing against their future to tr%' and keep their program going_ He stated that senior citizen living facilities are critical to the fabric and diversity of Special P&:D Committee %tiff; % inutes cif ~larch =:. _045 Page : I Evanston and the Swedish Retirement Ilome hay been a facilit► that hay been here for a ►er} long time. lle said that the,, are seeking to position themsel►es within a market ►►here as the► ga:n more independent li►inu units and gain a memor% lost unit. they will be able to compere ►►ith other ,enior citizen Ii►ing facilities ►%ithin the Cit►. But in taking a modest approach to their expansion. he ernpha-,ized that the% have sought to position themselves where the► can reach ►%hat has Keen referred to as a market ►►here senior citizens who ha%e lived in Evanston want to continue living in F%anston as well as tamiiies who want their parents to come and li►e here near them that is affordably obtainable. Aid. Moran belie►cs that the plan that has been put together by Three Cmxvns Park is directly very specificall} to those important points. Ile pointed out that one of the things that make this area special is Three Crowns Park and is a very unusual area in Evanston. He noted that they have three fairl► large contiguous pieces of propen%: on the far east side there is Three Crowns Park with their recognizable exquisiteness on this site. Across the street is Lincolnwood School. which is also exquisite in appearance and to the west is Perkins Woods that is part of the Cook County Forest Preserve and equalh beautiful and unique. He stated that in vie►► of all three of these properties. it makes this particular neighborhood ► ery unique and desirable to live in. Aid. Moran recalled that Ald. Tisdahl has asked staff to project what this area would look like should Three Crowns Park not be able to proceed with their mission and in response to that request. staff responded that there could be an R4 development with the possibility of as many as 122 homes that would be put on this particular piece of propem . He noted that one of the great objections that has been registered by people who are neighbors of Three Crowns Park has been at one point the request that zoning relief would be to go from R4 to R5. He wanted to stress to the Committee that he considers this to be a serious threat to the neighborhood. He said if in fact at some point and time Three Crowns Park is not a viable entity and were to sell this property and rezoned to R5, this would result in a serious threat to the fabric and overall environment of this area. He noted that Three Crowns Park agreed to withdraw their request for a rezoning from R4 to R5 and the petition that has been referred to stated as its primary objection that there was a request for relief from this rezoning and that has now been relieved. Aid. Moran recalled that when GIs. Morse approached him 2 '/z years ago with the contemplation for expansion of Three Crowns Park and the retirement facility. she asked him what he would recommend as the first step and approach to begin this mission. He suggested that she begin by talking with the neighbors for their immediate information and input, which Ms. Morse did. Since then he has been to numerous neighborhood meetings. numerous meetings at Three Crowns Park and numerous Plan Commission meetings. He noted that there ha► a been many neighbors involved in this process and he does believe that a significant majority of the neighbors who have registered objections have been heard and been responded to. Aid. Moran also informed the Committee that he has been a member of the Safety Task Force for Lincolnwood School and affirms Three Crowns Park representatives .being actively involved in their mission to assure safety of the children. Therefore the suggestions made to exclude the usage of the Special P&D Committee I-tti: Minutes of March = I. _ref �5 Page 1= entrances on McDaniel during peak school Jrop-off and pick-up hours is justiflabie and assures «ill be taken into consideration. In cunt;Uiun, :old. Moran affirmed that Ihrec t,rouns Park needs to expand their facilities for all the reasors and objecti%cs stated thus far in support of their mission and goals to staN in competiti%e business and rernaiz here in Evanston. He urges the Committee to support this proposed planned development and to take action tonight to move forward with their plans. Aid. Newman asked the representatives of Three Crowns Park if there is a real urgency at this immediate time if this is not voted on tonight because there still remains the need for more discussion and deliberation in view of the alternatives that have been suggested this evening that are justifiably %%onh consideration. He noted that in the least, this matter can be either held or introduced this evening for further discussion at their regularly scheduled meeting next Monday. The representattves of Three Cro►+ns Park agreed with Aid. tie%%man on that point. Aid. Newman asked the representatives of Three Crowns Park for the cost of entry fee and monthly expense to li\e in their facilit%. Ms. :vlorse responded that for the independent living units the cost ranges from approximately. S2-3,000 per month. If health care is involved the cost could be an additional fee of $6.000 per month depending on the les el of care needed. She explained that the health care fee can cost as much as $200 per day depending on the extent of what is required for the residents needs. She stated that the initial entry fee at this time is approximately SI40,000. In response to the question of projected entry fee and monthly costs alter the proposed expansion development. Nls. Morse stated that the new fees. «hick they expect for the year 2007, would range from $i 50.000 to S225.000 for initial entry fee and an approximate monthly cost of S2,500 to S4,500 per month. Mr. Bill Fisher, stated that his mother lives in Three Crowns Park and that she is from a _ small community in Michiean. He chose 'three Crowns Park because of the community setting and environment and the eery attentii-e scarf that is employed there. He fully supports the planned development. Mr. Wavne Guzv said that he lives 4 blocks away from Three Crowns Park and his mother also resides there. His mother was a resident of this neighborhood for many years previously at Payne and E«ing. He also full} supports the expansion of Three Crowns Park and would like to see their presence remain here in this neighborhood. Mr. George Collins stated that his mother also likes in Three Crowns Park. He interviewed four other retirement facilities and chose the Swedish Retirement Home for their location, cost, services provided and excellent staff. He supports the proposed planned development. Mr. Marty Norkett said that he lives on Ridgeway. which is 6 blocks west of Three Crowns Park. He believes that no one here is actually opposed to keeping the Swedish _— Special P&D Comminer Mu Minutes of March = : Pape I Retirement Organization at this site an 2cnerally surrcn;s :fie expansion. Howe%er. there are concerns by the neighbors as to ho%% this expans:•: n %, -.E affect the character of the neighborhood. His main Point of concern is the irr�_�: -n McDaniel and he strongly urges that a traliic t-tud,- be conducted before going a-ead ,kith the approval to proceed with this planned de% elopment. Mr. Robert Mark. -'400 Grant Street. said that he agree- with Aid. Moran's comments and views and that the representatives of Three Crow-n_ Perk ha\a been yen helpful and diligent in working with the neighbors. He feels the design presented is a very good design and best suited for the expansion of the facilities 07 that site. He noted that Three Crowns Park ha%e been a very Gracious neighbor and he would like to see them stay in the neighborhood and support their planed dc%clopmer.: Ms. Jan Bowens lies at the northwest comer of Colfax and McDanieI. She agrees with all those who spoke previously that the 4-story des:gn is much more aesthetically pleasing. She is opposed to the +-story design. Ms. Patt Plunkett said that she has lived in Evanston for `ears and has a parent that lives in the Swedish Retirement Home. She has spent a lot of time at the Home and is a witness to the excellent services and care provided by he staff. She supports the need to expand their independent living units and additional special care units to continue the quality of services provided and to stay competitive ►ith other senior living facilities within the immediate area. She urged the Committee's support and approval to allow this planned development. Ms. Virginia Paton seconded the comments by 'pis. Plurken. She noted all the time and involvement bv. the Three Crowns Park representatives a , : the neighbors for over the last 2 '/= years and that it is time to move forward with this endeavor. She fully supports the proposed design for expansion of the facility and urges ;he Committee's support. Mr. Mark Collins expressed his opposition to the proposed planned development because any expansion outside of the requirements of the zoning for that particular property should not be sustained. Fle said whatever the footprint is. the requested expansion project does not fit into the surrounding residential nei€hi+orhood. Mr. Collins stated that the ultimate goal with the expansion is for more residents. which ultimately requires the need for more employees. more traffic, and more impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In his opinion. this expansion will compare to the size of the Presbyterian Home, which is an enormous building that they are constantly adding to. Resident of 2406 Pioneer, stated that he would like to Z_" the driveway off of McDaniel for the underground parking to be entrance only if approved by Council at that Iocation. Mr. Phil Maeid,. 2517 Colfax, stated that he is worried about building outside of the zoning requirements. He feels that this expansion is not the end of it and some of the other buildings µtill be requested for expansion in the future. In his opinion, when the City gives approval for height and density allowances. it will set precedence for future Special MD Comminee Site %fin ,ies of %larch 2 t. _00' p3" w expansIon and this situation has been proven o%er Ando%er again %with development in F% xmston. He stressed the urgent% of the Committee it, consider incorporating strong Cord,tions to not allow% the possibility of ant further expansion to this site, if the desire is to arrro%a this planned de%elupment in the end. Citizen comment closed at this point and Chairmen Tisdahl asked for c4l.sing comments frorn he applicant. Mr. Gruskowski stated his frustration at this point with trying to make everyone happy and that he is out of ideas to amend the design any further except for the relocation of the underground parking entrance, which he is willing to talk about further. As for the fourth floor design of the building. he is confident of this proposal being the most aesthetically acceptable as well as the most functional for the needs of the residents who will live there Mr. Longquist added that the concept for expansion of their facilities was in the plan four years ago when he came on board as Chairman of the Board of Directors, He cannot stress enough their need to expand their facility and services to accommodate the current residents but equal%} important. to star competitive vvith other retirement organizations and the needs to provide for senior citizens. He stated that they would also like to remain at their current location. which has been their home for over 100— wears. Chairman Tisdahl closed all comments for Committee discussion only at this point. Aid. Wynne stated that it appears a consensus of the Committee that all three entrances proposed on �4cDaniel is a potential traffic hazard. especially rv-ith the driveway for underground parking, which probably should be eliminated. She said the question is should this driveway be shifted on to Grant so that the ingress and egress is shared with Pioneer. Chairman Tisdahl agreed that this would be a better solution than having it all on Pioneer. She acknowledged the loss of green space on Grant. however the safety factor outweighs that concern. She also concurs with the testimony made previously at the Plan Commission by the traffic experts that there is a need for a plan for construction with traffic and safety concerns. ,Nis. Morse and Mr. Longquist agreed to this suggestion. Aid. Wynne further noted the consensus of the Committee to have a 1-wvay entrance going northbound for the turnaround driveway on McDaniel so that passenger exit is more assessable and 1-way exit continuing northbound out of the driveway. The representatives of Three Crowns Park also agreed upon this suggestion. The Committee then discussed the height issue versus density between the 4-story and 3- story plans and the alternate design suggested by tits. young. Chairman Tisdahl stated that in view of \ts. Young's alternative. she agrees with Mr. Gruskowski in that it will lengthen the walking distance for the residents living in that wing. In her opinion, the proposed design is more aesthetically pleasing and appears less impact on density than the alternate design or the 3-story design. Aid. Wynne stated that she has never been one to support height beyond what is required for the zoning district. However in this case, she would have to agree with Aid. Tisdahl. She stressed her position that she would newer have supported a change to R5 zoning for this site; Chain-nan Tisdahl agreed. Special P&D Com.mmee \1ti k1inu:ta �If r- 1. _U0t Page 1 c Aid. Ne%kman said that he respects the comments made b% citizens who have parents li%ing at the S%kedish Retirement Home as well as the comments of the residents and fully understana: and supports their need for expansion. Ilo%ke%er. what bothers him is the Point that :here was just reeentl% a proposal for a moratonum in the e.`� Ward for all the houses ?: feet. This resulted in changing the zoning allo%%ances for all the residential homes that might want to expand and limiting the height to 35 feet. which effects the tax payers of that neighborhood. Aid. Newman continued that now• ,%%ith this case the% are being asked to consider appro%al for height allowance in the same area for a not -for -profit organization. :although he understands the need here there is still the realit% of tkhat has been limited for expansion to the homeowners. He stated that there is a lack of consistence here that concerns him. lie agrees that the 4-stony plan looks more attracti%e ho%%e,.er this Committee is being asked to approve a height allowance for that plan. He questions the planned development process when it clearly effects or contradicts «hat has been approved b% Council as in limiting to the surrounding zoning, especiall% when it effects residential tax pa%ing property owners. Aid. Newman said in conclusion. that it appears in the planned development process it is not yet clear what the 3-ston plan ma} weigh in favor of the 4-stor% plan if it results in complying with the underling zoning requirements for this site. fie pointed out that if the Council is to consider a planned development going above the under]%ing zoning. then there should be some public benefit offered and considered as a compromise. At this point. he specified that the public benefit in this case has not been clarified. Therefore. Aid. Newman suggested that he would like to see this matter held until the March 28`h meeting for further discussion. lie noted that holding this item over to the next regular meeting would not dela} the matter any further because introduction could be made at that time. fie stated that the Committee's consideration of the 4- versus 3-stony plan should be discussed in further length. Chairman Tisdahl further informed the Committee that she was under the impression from past discussion that Three Crowns Park may be interested in paying some type of tax or payment -in -lieu of to the City if considered necessary. Mr. Longquist responded that the Board of Directors is willing to negotiate with the City on this maner in consideration of the services provided by the City and other benefits. Aid. Newman suggested that public benefits in lieu of payment of taxes can be very beneficial too. A resident in the audience made the suggestion that mane neighbors would like to see a public benefit in the way of placing a condition to limit Three Crowns Park from any further de%elopment on this site to presen-e green space and the park like setting. Mr. Maiark% noted to the Committee that with this requested expansion and planned development. the applicant has maxed out their allowable lot coverage so that further expansion would limit any future building on this site. Someone from the audience stated that this still does not limit them to build up in height in the future. which should be included in the condition for further development. The consensus of the Planning & Development Committee was to hold this item on their agenda for further discussion at the March 28`h meeting. Special P&D Committee MU-z Minutes of March 21. 2005 Page 16 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1 1:25 p.m. RespeetfullY submitted, 1 ti Jacqu ine 9. Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of March 28. 2005 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. A. Berkowsky. C. Brzezinski, J. Carroll. A. Jackson. K. Kelly. G. 'Morgan. E. Szymanski. J. BroAmlce Others Present: Ald. Moran Presiding Official: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OCORU M Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 14.2005 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Wynne moved approval of the March 14th minutes, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance 10-0-05 — Zoning Planned Develonment — 1228 Emerson Street Mr. Wolinski explained that the ordinance received by the Committee on March 24'h has since evolved whereas several issues need to be addressed into the ordinance language before it is acted upon by Council. He stated that the Developer has agreed to make a one time contribution of S25.000 towards the City•'s affordable housing policy. There is also an issue of a vacation of City property- to the Developer which staff will bring a vacation ordinance that will go before A&,PR'. The Developer has also agreed to negotiate individual landscaping for the properties on east side of Asbury for their rear yards. He noted that because the Plan Commission did not make a recommendation on the height of this project. the P&:D Committee needs to approve a singular finding, which Corporation Counsel and himself have put together to read into the record. He also pointed out the list of public benefits proposed by the developer that are included in their packet materials. Ald. Newman asked what became of the concern addressed by a neighbor previously regarding the setback of the building on Emerson because of blocked vision. Mr. Alterson pointed out that a response memo from Mr. Jennings is included in P&D Comminee Mtz Minutes of1.28.0c - Pace = their packet stating that the future situation ►► ill l ha►c a significantly teener line of vision than with the existing building. Aid. Newman moved to introduce and refer hack with amended ordinance. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Aid. Newman asked how many meetings has this matter gone through to date. Mr. Wolinski responded that it was more than 10 meetings between Site Plan, the Plan Commission. and Planning & Development Committee. Mr. Citron noted that there were at least 3 neighborhood meetings. This period of time was a little over 12 months from the beginning of the process. Aid, Neuman said that when you look at the length of time from when these projects are coming in. especially in cases such as this one that does not require the addition of going before the Preservation Commission, the process is entirely too long and drawn out. He said the process needs to be modified to get these projects through in a reasonable amount of time. He reiterated that the length of the process time is way too long with the applicants having to spend a substantial amount of money in order to keep appearing before all the City bodies in addition to holding onto the property. He would like to see the City• work on shortening the process. The other Committee members agreed with Aid. Newman. Mr. Wolinski responded that with regards to the length of time on this particular piece of property because of the various opinions forwarded by professionals and non-professionals on what they would like to see here in view of the site history and unique shape of the property. the time was extensive. Mr. Wolinski read the findings into the record with regards to the height. This is pursuant to Section 6-3-6-3 and 6-3-6-6 of the Evanston Zoning Ordinance. The site has the unique characteristics of a semi -circular frontage and a substantial below -grade level. The combination of a stepped -down elevation facing the RI Residential District frith landscaped balconies and a below -grade site it -ill allow for compatibility' with the RI District. The height of 62 feet. trhich is a 1 2 foot developmental allowance. will be compatible ►with the existing construction in the 01 District. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ordinance 33-0.05 — Planned Development of an .addition to the Retirement Community at 2320 Pioneer Chairman Tisdahl asked in the interest of time that only citizens who have not spoken at any of the previous meeting. speak at this time limiting 2 speakers in opposition and 2 speakers in favor of the project. Mr. Dick Stiilerman, 2330 Park Place, said that he lives 4 blocks from Three Crowns Park. He applauds the services that they provide to seniors and acknowledged that they have been very responsive to the neighborhood. However, this property is surrounded on 3-sides by residential, and 1-side by an elementary school, which in his mind does not conform and is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said that this development should be no more than 2 112 stories in height, but the applicant is asking for 4, which appears to have quite a bit of support. He feels that no more than a 3-story height limit should be allowed in order for this project to blend in ►►-ith the neighborhood. P&D Corar, net We .-fanutef of : •_'S•05 faze Mr. Jim 1'oune. 260" Co�4fax Street. ,peke in opp,-=;tinn to the 4-;-,or• pian because of the height impact and al:o agrees with the altemair.-, for the dri<<,.%-a%s on McDaniel. Mr. Peter Donati.'=19 Psoneer. said that the proNlsal that come out of Plan Commission had lots of support from the community at that time. He feels too much micro -managing is not appropriate. He supports the planned de\ elopment and would like to see it appro\ ed. ibis. Barbara Raklev. 2526 Grant Street. agreed with fir. Donati and supports the 4-stor} plan which is more architecturally pleasing. Aid. 'Moran gave his closing comments urging the P&D Committee's support and approval to mo\ a this proiect along. Aid. Newman said that it appears to be a popularity contrast in the neighborhood because this Ward has a very strong movement against height. if they go with the 4-story plan. he suggest the need to lock this development to limit further building on the site to preserve green space in perpetuity. He also reiterated his thoughts on the potential public benefit to provide the opportunnN for someone who does not own property in Evanston to provide for the entrance fee. a chance to live there also. Aid. Bernstein agrees primarily with Aid. Newman and that he tends to support height over depth. Aid. W%nne said that her view is similar to the other members. except she does not tend to support height over the district zoning requirement. Chairman Tisdahl said that she does not like the ideal of supporting height above the zoning limits as well. but does agree that the 4-story design is more aesthetically pleasing. She would like further deliberation on the provision for public benefit from the applicant. Aid. Wynne said that she would support an agreed upon pilot payment to the affordable housing policy along with some other benefit to preserve the green space. Chairman Tisdahl asked staff if something can be worked out with the applicant and written up within the next rwo weeks. Aid. Newman motioned to introduce and refer back to Committee for the April 12'b meeting. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the Vote was 4-0 in favor. Pl21 Sidewalk Cafes for TN -De I and 'TN•ne 2 Restaurants at Various Locations Aid. Newman made a request to staff that if they are going to combine all the sidewalk cafes under one item on the agenda. then he would suggest having a short paragraph on each restaurant regarding their past operation whether good or bad. The paragraph should note whether there have been an, police reports. litter complaints and staffs overall opinion on the management of the outdoor cafe. Ms. Tmcie Dahlke, owner of Unicorn Cafd presented a litter plan for trash and debris and control and garbage pickup. which she distributed to the Committee. She stated that outdoor cafe's are an asset to Evanston. The Committee commended his. Dahlke's efforts and commitment to her establishment. Aid. %Vyone moved approval of Unicorn Cafe, Oceanique, Cafe Express South and Cafe :Mozart, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. P&DComminee %ftz. Minutes of Page .t Aid. Bernstein moved approval of TommN Nc,. in's. Noodles & Company. Ben & Jerry's, and Taco Bell Express. seconded by .aid. Newman. The note Bras 4-0 in favor of the motions. Mr. Wolinski noted that there has e►een one enforcement addition with a Property Standards Inspector. Ms. Cheryl Jones-Scherhaum. who's regularly scheduled inspection area will be the dow-ntawn area %%ith special attention to the sidewalk cafd's during the operating months. (P13) Ordinance 49-0-05 — Snecial Use and Maim Variation Reouest for an Automobile Service Station at 2450 Main Street Mr. Dave Grobart. Legal representative for Sam's Ciub. gave an overview of the proposed service station to be located in the furthest southwest corner of the Sam's Club parking lot. lie noted that this sen-ice station can only be used by Sams Club members. He gave a description of the landscaping plan and other details of the facility. He noted that this area is primarily Industrial and feels that a service station will not have a negative impact on the immediate area. He has walked the site with Ald. Jean -Baptiste who has been made fully aware of this proposal. Ald. Jean -Baptiste stated that his only concern left was with the proximity of the proposed service station to the existing soccer field to the north. Upon walking the facility with Mr. Grobart he was made aware that the proposed location is the further point south of the soccer field within the parking lot. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. iP3) — (Pl l) Ordinances 3. 2b-31. 4.48. Amendment to Certain Charters of Citv Code & NFPA Life Safety Code Mr. Brzezinski noted that these requested amendments are to adopt the updated editions of the City Code. She informed the Committee that these updates are necessary because the BOCA Codes that the City was using has been incorporated into a larger group called the International Code Council. Mr. Wolinski pointed out that Chapter 34 of the Building Code was recommended to be rem% ed. The effect would be that all condo conversions would have to be sprinklered. Aid. Newman questioned why the condo com-crsions should be singled out since these buildings help the tar base. Conversion followed in response to Aid. Newman's question between the Committee members and staff. Ald. Newman requested Fire Chief Berkow•sky to get back to the Committee with information on the cost for different size buildings and units that would effect the condo conversions. The Committee wished to hold the Building Code amendments for further discussion at the April I Vh meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Nis. Mary Brugliem of the Presemation Commission reminded the P&D Committee that the nomination for Kendall College Wesiey Hali must be decided on by the April 12`h deadline. Several of the Committee members would not be present for the April 12`h meeting so there would not be a quorum. After discussion. Aid. Newman suggested moving the regular meeting that they would have on Tuesday, April 12`h and bold P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of=-28.05 Page 5 regular meeting an Monday, April I I=" at 7:00 p.m. The Committee agreed to this change in date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacq eline . Brownlee Planning & Development Committee Minutes of April 11, 2005 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center .alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. A. Alterson. A. Berkowsky. C. Brzezinski, J. Carroll, A. Jackson. S. Janusz. K. Kelly, D. Marino. G. Morgan. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: Aid. L. Jean -Baptiste Presiding Official: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORC .%i Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 21. 2005 SPECIAL_ MEETING AND 'MARCH 28; 2005 REGULAR NIEftN SUN TES Aid. Newman moved approval of both the March 21 n and March 28 h minutes, seconded b• Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved by a vote of 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Tisdahl changed the order of the agenda. i PI'_1 Sidewalk Cafes for TvDe I and Tvae 2 Restaurants at Various locations Aid. Newman moved appror•al of the sidewalk cafes for Liquid Caf6 and Einstein Brother's Bagels, Mr. Wolinski noted that liquid Cafe could not send a representative this evening and asked the Committee if they would like to hold this one, Aid. Bernstein (Ward Alderman) said that he had not problem with approving this establishment but directed that staff fon%ard the sidewalk cafe conditions and litter plan requirement. The vote was 3-0. (P 1 t Ordinance .10-0-05 — Zonine Planned Deyelonment: 1228 Emerson Street Mr. John Nlalark\. .homey for Ferris Homes. said that they have been working with the neiuhbors and fir. Ferris has reached an agreement from each of the impacted homeowners that will allow for some to build a garage. The ha%e an ordinance that is acceptable with some re\isions and additions. Ald. Jean -Baptiste agreed for the most P$DCommince %ita. St inites of 4-11-0; Page 2 part that e%er}one is however there is still some discussion going on t%hieh he hopes will be resoled eW;. this «eek. He pointed out that there .%as an issue with the neighbors sharing in the zost for a mediator if conflicts arise and an agreeable resolution could not be resolved ben%een the neighbor and the developer. This is not agreeable b% the neighbors. Mr. Wolin>ki stated that the language has already been amended in the ordinance reflecting that. .did. Jean -Baptiste said that there is still some negotiating going on with the duplex homeo%vners on the corner of Asbury and Emerson. Aid. Ne%%Tnan stated that he feels there is no real problem %vith the proposed language in the ordinance presented this evening. fir. Wolinski noted that there is no language in the ordinance that refers specifically to the building of any garages. Mr. Ferris explained that there has been discussion regarding grading enabling the homeo«-ter to build a new garage. Aid. lean -Baptiste directed the Committee to page 7 of the ordinance under "D:' where there is language for providing landscaping or other considerations agreeable. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Bernstein stated that he does not want the record to reflect that but for the neighbors consent. the project would not be going forward. To that extent. he is glad the neighbors and the applicant have reached an approval. Aid. Newman agreed with Aid. Bernstein's comment and it is not a matter of reaching an agreement with individual neighbors in order to support a project. He also asked if any street blockage xvouid be necessary during construction, noting the damage that %vas done to the businesses at Main and &caeo recently. Mr. Ferris affirmed that there will be no crane located in the street during construction, however there will be the normal temporary street blockages for sewer connections, etc. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 33-0-05 — Planned Develooment for an Addition to the Retirement Communitv at 2320 Pioneer Mr. Wolinski pointed out to the Committee that there is an ordinance in their packet that was drafted by staff and the applicant has since made some suggested amendments to the language. Mr. Malarky noted the amendment from 92 units for the new construction to maximum 122 overall units for the entire site. Aid. Bernstein said that it appears that the parking would now be short of the number required. Ms. Jackson explained that the parking required by the previous proposal was only 73 spaces and that was for 120 units. The calculation is based on the number of employees, types of units, i.e. nursing beds requiring less parking spaces need. There were further amendments made to `•E" with the -_— suggested deletion of the last sentence pertaining to open green space. The Committee had no problem with the suggested amendments. Aid. Newman moved approval of the whole ordinance with the amendments, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. .old. Bernstein requested to indicate for purposes of the legislative intent. but for the maintenance of that preen space. he would not be voting in favor of this project. The vote %as 3-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Comminee %im Minutes of 4-11.0- Page 3 I P I3al Ordinance 122.0-114 — Landmark Nomination for 2408 Orrinvion t Kendall Colleue Weslev Hall Mr. Bernie Citron of Schain. Borne,-. Ross & Citron. Ltd.. legal representation for Smithfield Properties, opened comments and noted that various members of the development team were present for am questions or discussion. He recognized that the Committee has been forsarded all the documentation from previous meetings held regarding this matter and are aware of the applicant's rejection to the landmark nomination, therefore he would not repeat any overvie%v of their position on this matter. Mr. Tom Gemmeli. noted the neighbors wishes to have this property nominated for landmark status and urged the Committee's support. Ile also stated that the neighbor's request to not grant the developer permission to build the row of townhouses on this site and to zone this properly to R 1 as originally requested. Mr. Citron objected to Mr. Gemmell's comments because the planned development proposal is not up for consideration this evening. The P&D Committee members agreed. Mr. GemmelI stated that he only wished to clarify the neighbor's position that this is the option that they would like to have open. Ms. Mary Brueliera. Evanston Preser-ation Commissioner. noted that when the P&D Committee passed the ordinance providing for a Planned Development variations, this obviously acknowledged the fact that there were unique characteristics in a development with landmark properties. In her opinion, it seems that landmarking this building, which was not necessary for the Preservation Commission's tradition to consider any of the demolition or construction applications that have been brought to them since the building was already a contributing structure. She said it appears in recent days that her Commission is looked upon as an obstacle in development and this is a case where it really seems to '-ducktail" very nicely where each hand washes the other. Ms. Brugliera noted that there are two instances in the past where good neighborhood planning was thought to be in agreement v0th historic preservation. The first situation was when several aldermen on the previous council pushed very hard for the binding review of the Preservation Ordinance in the opinion that this would be a wonderful tool to protect and have rational scheme for neighborhood change in the Lakeshore Historical District. The second case is when a previous City Manager pushed for and had the City to w ite the nomination for the apartment building landmarking because they wanted to make sure that the owners of these buildings could receive all of the tax advantages and federal dollars that are available for historical buildings upkeep and periodic changes. Nis. Brugliera concluded that in both those cases. coming from City Council and the City Manager that work together for what preservation ought to be. She requested that the P&D Committee consider this ordinance in that light. tics. Judv Fiske. stated that she is one of the nri0nal nominators of the Swedish Theological Seminar- for designation as an Evanston Landmark. She noted that this is definitely an objecti%e of the Comprehensive General Plan to adapt a reuse of historic buildings. She said that the neighbors are overwhelmingly in favor of rezoning the property to RI and retaining this building for any future use. She said that this building is very important. which they have demonstrated through both the nomination and the MD Comminee .\!t_g. Minutes of a- t 1-05 Page a testimony and the vote of the Pre_:: -. Commission. She said in all fairness. all three alderman present at this meeting a:d that the% \would be considering a vote for R1 on the property. \Is. Fiske fur. er rcqursted that this building be retained and allow it to be adaptively reused as affordaHe housing units. She noted to the Committee that it is also rumor out that Smithfield represen€ati%es have suggested several times that they may resell the property so it is imperati•.: that this building be retained and the property rezoned to Rl before such action could be taken. She encouraged the P&D Committee to vote in favor of this nomination. Ms. Jeanne Lindwahl. seconded Mi. Fiske's comments and also encouraged granting the landmark status for Weslev Hall. t 13b) Resolution 24-R-05 - Resolution Reiectine the Aonlication for Landmark Designation of the Building at 2408 Orrinaton. i Kendall Colleee. 'Weslev Hall) The Committee bypassed any further discussion of 13a to vote on 13b first. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Resolution 24-R-05. He indicated to Ms. Brueliera that he does not view the Preservation Commission as an obstacle. He rectified that the commentary that he has made about the use of the Preservation Ordinance as a tool to dissuade against development. which goes against the nomination process and not the Preservation Commission directly. He complimented the Preservation Commission on the work they have done. However. the reality is that the other circumstance for which they fashion this unique use was 1314 Ridge and that particular situation everyone involved came before them and ask-.d for this to be accomplished and the Developer had a plan to adaptively- reuse the property. which he is not seeing with this project. Aid. Bentstein also pointed out that if in fact the developer wants to demolish this property, it will go right back before the Preservation Commission because it is a contributing structure. Therefore a vote not to landmark is not a vote for anything more than not to landmark this building and he further moved to reject Ordinance 122-0-04 (13a) for the Landmark' Nomination for 2408 Orrington. Aid. Newman seconded the motions for both approval of Resolution 24-R-05 and Ordinance 122-0.04. He explained his position that the Wesley Hall building is already considered a contributing structure in a designated historic district, therefore it can not be demolished w%•ithout a hearing. In his opinion the landmarking proposal is basical)y being used as a weapon in the development process and it is very discouraging to developers and for future development. Aid. Ne"-man also expressed that he is very concerned about the inclusion of the Preservation Commission and the length of time allowed for them to react to such proposals. Chairman Tisdahl agreed with Aid. Newman and Aid. Bernstein's comments and that it is crucial at this point for staff to look into the entire building permit/construction/development process. The vote for 13b was 3-0 in favor of approving Resolution 24-R-05. The vote for 13a was 3-0 in favor of denying Ordinance 122-0-04. tP31 Ordinance 5-0-05 - Amendine Certain Sections of Title 4. Chanter 2 of the City Code (P-)t Ordinance 26-0-05 - Amendine Certain Section of Title 4. Chanter 7 of the Cite Code P&:D Committee Nitg. :Minutes of 4-11.05 Page i t P51 Ordinance 27-0-6 - Amendmer.: to the Evanston How,ine Reuulations. Title 5. Chanter 1 of the Cin Cndc tNi Ordinance 28-0-05 - Amendine Cenain Section of Title 4. Chanter 5 of the Citv Cade IP71 Ordinance 29-0-05 - Amendine tAhe International Fire Code &: tiFPA Life Safety Code 101 t P81 Ordinance 30-0-65 - Amendine Certain Sections of Title 4. Chanter 11 of the City Code (P9) Ordinance 3 1 -0-05 - Amendine Cenain Sections of Title 4. Chapter 21 of the Citv Code (P10) Ordinance 41-0-05 - Amendine Certain Sections of Title 4. Chanter 9 of the City Code (PI 1) Ordinance 48-0-05 - Amendine Title 4. Chanter 18 of the Citv Code. "Prop_ ertv Services Board" Regarding the Hearine of Certain Appeals Mr. Wolinski gave an oyervie%k of the amended changes to the City Code. He noted that these requested amendments are to adopt the International Codes. These updates are necessary because the BOCA Cedes that the Civ. was using have been incorporated into the 2003 Intemational Building Code. This code has been adopted by hundreds of municipalities throughout the State of Illinois and across the Z nhes States. He pointed out that staffs memorandum lists some of the amendments that have been carried over from the previous codes. Nlr. Wolinski and NIs. Breezinski pointed out that one notable change is the reduction in the amount of area for a restaurant %%hich %%as in excess of 12,000 square feet, and now has been amended to in excess of 5.000 square feet for automatic fire suppression system. The Building Division staff and the Fire Prevention Bureau staff have worked closely on these amendments. as mans, of the code requirements have happened because of tire related tragedies and incidents. For residential. the requirements ti%ill be for sprinklers in 3-flat construction. including remodeling and condominium conversions of existing residential buildings. Mr, Wolinski explained staffs recommendation of the amendment to eliminate Chapter 34 for Existing Structures. First, there is another code in place to address the requirements for existing construction which are in \FPA 101 Life Safety Code. Secondly this chapter allows for a system of assigning points for existing safety features of a structure. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that there are approximately 300 3-flat buildings in Evanston. Mr. Morgan passed out an addendum to the Committee members on the sprinkler cost information they requested at that last meeting. Lengthy discussion followed between the Committee and staff regarding the costs to install sprinkler systems. especially the higher cost of retrofitting. Chief Kelly stated that the cast can vary depending on the amount of demolition and remodeling being done. GIs. Breezinski also said that an important consideration is even though the cost seems high, the work will be included and done during the construction stage and Mill more than likely be gained back in the purchase price in the end. Ald. Newman questioned ho« many tires ha%a occurred in 3-flats over the past 10 years and if it is e%en necessary. He said it would seem a greater risk in residential rental properties instead of the condominium conversion buildings because of the transitory living arrangement. NIs. Breezinski agreed. however it is easier to install PSD Comm inee Mig. Minutes o(4-I1-0-4 Paste b Rental buildings would. if required. %%ould most likely have to retrofit which is more costly and would be passed on to the tenants to cover the cost. Ald. Bernstein said that he has less of a problem with adding the sprinkler systems in new construction than with the retrofitting primarily because of the cost. Aid. Newman moved approval of the entire package of amendments to the building code adopting the International Building Code, 2003 Edition and associated amendments (P2) -- (P11). Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. f P1-11 Resolution 21-R-05 — Resern-ine Bond Volume Can for 2005 Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8,28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacq�line Brownlee PLANNING AND DEVELOPMEtiT COM3IITTEE MI`UTES Mo►►daV-4prila;, _003 00 p. ►n. - Room_ 403 Evanston Civic Center ALDER.**IEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, A. Newman. E. Tisdahl, M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, Gavin Morgan, E. Szymanski, C. Ruiz, tit. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ald. Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OI;ORCJt Chairman Tisdahl noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL I1. 2005 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of April 11, 2005, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION' (P1) Reauest for Building Permit Fee. Citv Tax Stamns. Interest Charges Waiver Consideration of a reauest from Econ Development for a waiver of the aforementioned fees totaling S20.206 for construction of three affordable to%%mhouses at 1834-38 Darrow Avenue. This item was held at the request of the Applicant. (P2) Ordinance 53-0-05 - Special Use Reauest for a Tvoe 2 Restaurant at 922 Noyes. Consideration of the recommendation of the ZBA to grant a special use for a tvne 2 restaurant to operate a ice cream parlor at 922 Noyes Street. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. )Motion passed unanimously. (P3) Sidewalk Cafes for Type 1 and Tine 2 Restaurants at Various Locations The Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee has recommended approval of The following sidewalk cafes permits: Cold Stone Creamery (tvne 2). Bluestone (tvne 1 with liouor). Chipolte Mexican Grill (tvoe 2). Starbucks (tvDe 2). and Foodstuff s(retail food store). Mr. Wolinski stated that Chipolte Mexican Grill was again cited for not taking care of their dumpsters and their garbage. They have been fined two weeks in a row and the City cannot get any cooperation from Chipolte. Mr. Miko Kostov, the General Manager of the Chipolte Mexican Grill said that he was told as long as he calls in to complain about Waste Management not picking up the garbage and other people throwing trash in their containers, they would not be fined. He said he had not received any Planning and Development Committee Minutes - April 25, 2005 Paee Two written documentation about having another fine a «:ek ago. fir. Wolinski said that the trash containers are supposed to be locked. �,fr. Kostov said that he has told Waste Management on two occasions to replace their locks. He said he is st0! %% asting for them to do that, if he puts his own locks on. there would be no way for the waste management company to empty the containers. Aid. Newman moved to hold the Chipolte Mexican Grill permit until the next P&D meeting so that the Committee can get a report on Chipolte's code compliance. Motion seconded by Aid. Berstein. Mr. Kostov said that this will be his third summer as General Manager of the Chipolte's in Evanston and since he has been the General Manager there have been no complaints regarding trash on the streets. Every summer he hires a full time person whose only duty is to keep the outside area of the store clear of trash. Aid. Newman said he was not denying the permit. he just wanted more information and the permit would be considered in two weeks. Motion proved unanimously. Aid. Bernstein moved to approve permits for Cold Stone Creamery (type 2) Starbucks (type 2), and Foodstufrs(retail food store). Motion seconded by Aid. Wynne. ;Motion passed unanimously. Aid. Wynne moved to approve the permit for Bluestone (type I with liquor), seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Motion approved unanimously. (P5) Planned Development Kendall College, 2408 Cmneton Avenue - PIan Commission Recommendation Consideration of a unanimous recommendation from the Plan Commission to denv the proposed planned development from Smithfield Properties LLC for the Kendall College site. In light of the fact that the attomey for the applicant r Nir. Malarky) just indicated he had a substantial change to propose, the time of transition being between this and subsequent Councils Aid. Bernstein moved to hold this item to a date certain after swearing in the new Council (May 23, 2005). Motion seconded by Aid. Newman. Robert Bono, Smithfield Properties said that they would have materials within the next 24 hours. but did not feel it was in the best interests of his firm or of the City to disseminate the plans without having some additional discussion, not only about some of the ideas about what they are thinking about but he knows that there arc other issues that were not reflected at the Plan Commission. If it is the intention that no matter what is presented short of compliance with R 1 simply for the purpose of delay and sufficient time to organize opposition to it, then this would be the most effect way, without any explanation, and without any previous discussion. Aid. T;`dahl said that Mr. Bono needs to _-- submit his plan to staff, staff will look at it because they have to determine if it is in compliance with all the things that they would look for under any plan. and we also must have the right for the neighbors to have an opportunity to review that plan before it comes back to P&D. Mr. Bono said he completely agreed totally. Judy Fiske said that their expert attended the Plan Commission meeting to make a presentation on the fiscal impact and analysis and was prevented from doing so by the Chairman of the Plan Commission, and she wanted an opportunity to have that presented. She thought it especially appropriate because the historic district designation of the property also was not considered at Planning and De%elopment Committee Minutes -- Anril 25. 2605 Pare Three that time they had the opportunity at the Plan Commission. She thought the public hearing process at the Plan Commission extremely appropmate. There were three pages of people signed up to speak at the Plan Commission that were also prevented from speaking that night. While it is nice to have public and neighborhood meetings. it does not replace the opportunity to question the applicants about the specifics in their plan and to give them a chance to respond. Ald. Tisdahl said that at the May 23, 2005 meeting that everyone who wishes to speak will be able to speak (if she is still Chair of the P&D Committee). It is the Chair of the Plan Commission's decision as to how he conducts those meetings. Mr. Gemmel thought that Smithfield Properties uas trying to escape a decision. Every Commission and Committee which Smithfield Properties has appeared before with whatever plan they have brought has been rejected in almost every case unanimously. He said that they need a rejection of their plan and should not be given multiple opportunities to come back and somehow squeeze something through to the City Council when they have been rejected Mr. Gemmel said that this is where P&D needs to &%%- the line and send them a strong message that this plan is unacceptable. Mr. McClure asked if a new plan has been proposed this evening. Ald. Bernstein replied that there was not. Mr. McClure said he had heard that there was to be a new plan presented and wanted an opportunity to indicate that it was inappropriate. Relative to the earlier comments that any plan would be lesser would necessarily be included. He thought the real distinction was made by City Council when it really depends on what the significance is. Two forthright examples of that are that even a lesser plan that is along the same lines would possibly have significantly different traffic flows and therefore analysis and secondly the fiscal analysis would change significantly. Ald. Tisdahl replied that the City's attorney would study the new plan and make those determinations. (P41 Aooeal of the Preservation Commission Decision — 2408 Orrineton, Kendall Colleee Consideration of an anneal of the Preservation Commission decision by Smithfield Properties LLC concernine the denial of certificates of appropriateness for the construction of 16 sinele- familv homes and 32 townhouses as well as the demolition of 2408 Orrineton. 2344 Orrinaton, 2340 Orrinmon. 725 Colfax, 730 Lincoln, 735 Colfax, and 2351 Sherman at the Kendall Collese site. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold. Ellyn Szymanski said that the body that accepts the appeal is the body that must make the decision. If the P&D Committee accepts it, the decision is here. What has been done in the past is P&D move to recommend to City Council that Council accept the appeal and then if the will of the Council is to send it back here for further consideration then you do that. Aid. Newman moved that Cite Council be the legislative body that hears the appeal. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Ellyn Szymanski said it must be heard within 45 days of accepting the appeal. Carlos Ruiz said that the Preservation Commission made their decision to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition based on standard No. 5 of Section 299b in regard to Standards M Planning and Development Committee Minutes - Avnl 25. 2005 Page Four for Review of Demolitions. "Except in cases where the owner has no plans for a period of up to five (5) years to replace an existing landmark or property. structure or object in a district, no certificate of appropriateness shall be issued until plans For a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by the Commission." He added that one standard was sufficient. Ald. Newman moved that this be heard on May 23, 2005. Seconded by Ald. Bernstein. Motion passed unanimously. Susan Mortel asked when this property would be zoned. Aid. Tisdahl said that it would be zoned shortly aller stay 23, 2005. Ms. Blackwood, said that Mr. Bono said that part of their planning process depends on whether or not this property is going to be zoned RI. If your having a meeting May 23rd to look at anew plan, after which zoning will take place seems unfair to Mr. Bono and to the neighbors as well. She added that this Committee should support this property being zoned before they have to go through any more of this. (P61 Plan Commission Recommendation: BI District Review Consideration of the findines and report of the Plan Commission reeardine regulations of Business Districts. Ald. Wynne moved that P&D agree with the Plan Commission that they close their hearing on B1 %ith the understanding that they have initiated a process to examine all or the B districts in a comprehensive fashion and will keep P&D informed of their process, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Motion passed unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, it adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, IMB7ke Planning Division Planning & Development Committee Minutes of %lay 9.2005 Room 2403 — 6:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center :alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Newman. E. Tisdahl. M. Wynne Alderman absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. %Voiinski. A. Aherson. G. Morean. C. Janes-Scherbaum, E. Szymanski,1. Bro% nlec Others Present: L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Tisdahl DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Tisdahl called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 25. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Wynne moved approval of the April 25th minutes. seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Reauest for Buildine Permit Fee. Ciry Tax Stamo_ s. Interest Charees Waiver Mr. 'Wolinski brought the Committee's attention to the letter staff handed out at this meeting from the applicant, INlr. Neil Davidson. The applicant has requested to hold this item over until the next meeting on Nl:ay 23r4. The P&D Committee accepted the request. Aid. Bernstein moved to hold, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P?) Sidewalk Cafes for Tvne 1 and T%re 2 Restaurants at Various Locations. Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the Italian Coffee Bar sidewalk caff permit. Aid. Wynne seconded and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that Chipotle has been held due to garbage and litter problems. He introduced Ms. Chem I Jones-Scherbaum. the Property Standards Inspector for the downtown area, and asked her to give an update on the status of Chipotle. its. Jones-Scherbaum ga,e a brief history of the occurrences with Chipotle regarding their garbage dumpster. She presented several photos for proof of the non- P&D Committee Hite. Minutes of 5A-05 - Palm 2 compliant situation «ith Chipotle's garbage durnpster overtlo«in_u ar, { no apparent locks in place. She noted that the•. e three .ium1 _t.rs total for their resix..r_nt the pictures "ere taken on different er her u-u .l duw-ntown �«eep it, inspect the dumpster situations in the alless is ever} %Ionda% morr:ing. She said that all Photos %%erc taken since the PAD Committee's last meeting on A ^r:; Mr. Merrill Kassoff. General Manager of Chipotle. asked to respond to 'GIs. Jones- Scherbaum's statements. He informed the Commince that since the last meeltna he has called his waste management company t«ice. He said the first time they came out 3-days later and replaced the locks on the dumpsters. but ended up taking away one of the dumpsters to replace with a new one. He said this morning the %%aste management company delivered the fourth dumpster and picked up two of their locks with the assurance that then would bring all new hocks ti%ithin 7 to 10 da}s for the remaining two dumpsters without locks. Mr. Kassoff feel, that he has appropriate];. followed up with the request of the Committee since the last mectine and that he has given his waste management company an upponunit, to cooperate. Aid. Wynne asked how many pick- ups the restaurant has during a «eek. Nlr. Kas:off responded 3 pickups. Chairman Tisdahl suggested that maybe Chipotle might «ant to consider other refuge companies if this one does not suffice after ci%en several chances. He noted that Chipotle has dealt with the same waste compan} for man years «ith no complaints up until now, therefore he would like to work with them and give them an opportunity to supply service that is acceptable by the Propene Standard's expectations. Aid. Bernstein noted that all the pictures presented by staff have been taken since the last meeting so he questioned if the Chipotle's senior management has been informed and discussed this with the scavenger see. ice. Mr. Kassoff responded that he has talked with the waste management company personally and that the regional management has been satisfied with this company also. He assured his support in his caste company to come through and for ser% ice to improve. Aid. Bernstein stated that response may not be acceptable because it is the responsibility of the business to assure that they conform %%ith the' garbage and litter pickup requirements no matter what extent it takes to keep in compliance. He noted how important it is to understand that there was a serious rat infestation problem in the downtown area and if one business is not doing their share it effects all the businesses in the area. He pointed out that Chipotle's dumpster is the only one out of approximately 12 dumpsters in a row, according to the photo. that seems to be in non-compliance. Ms. Jones-Scherbaum informed the Comminee that most restaurants have a 5-day pickup during the week instead of only 3. which she strongly urges would help this situation. Aid. Bernstein directed staff to forward a copy of the ordinance to the manager of Chipotle. He moved to hold this over ,again until the next meeting with the Committee consensus of not being comfortable with the responses from the applicant. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Mr. Kassoff expressed his dismay with seemingly being the only restaurant being denied a sidewalk permit after years of receiving one. He feels that they have proven their efforts to comply and improve their garbage situation. He noted that there are several other restaurants that he has witnessed with the same problem but were not sited. Aid. P&:D Committee %fig. :Minutes of 5-9-0 Passe 3 Newman recalled that _'-ears ago %%hen Chipotle recei%ed the:- ::rst sidc%kalk permit. he personally %, as picking up trash and blown napkins from the:- restaurant and the same situation occurred Last *. ar as %%ell. He -aid bawd on Ch.-_•:':c's history. this permit should be held at this time. if not denied ail together. Mr. %Voiinski also recalled that Council had expressed their wanting extra in_pections for &,e ao%%nto n area during the sidewalk cafe season and staff will do their best to try ant: cite anv non-compliance. however it is impossible to site eery little thing. He said 'hat Ms. Janes-Scherbaum already had a case with Chipotle and the natural course requires a re -inspection. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 56-0-05 — Extendine Moratorium on Issuance of Buildine Permits on Central from Bennett to Marcy Mr. Wolinski briefed the Committee that there was concern that this is a 90-dav moratorium which will come to an end on June 12`r. There are only two Council meetings prior to that date. He and Legal Counsel discussed this with Aid. Moran and felt that the Plan Commission was going to ha%a the recommendation on the "B" districts and it appears that they may not. therefore an extension •.%ould be more or less a safeguard just to introduce the ordinance tonight and if it is nee: ed act on it in 3-weeks so that there is no need to ask for an suspension of the rules. \1r. Wolinski pointed out that there is a one day window here where technical]%- someone could come in and apply for permits; if the ordinance is introduced tonight it would protect against that happening. Aid. Wynne questioned how is it that at the last meeting th_% agreed that the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission decision to close the B 1 discussion with the understanding that theN were going to reopen the discussion of "B" Districts to analyze them. 4fr. Widmayer responded that the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission has done that and are looking at the ­B­ Districts all together. .mid. Wynne assumed that ever) -thing could be done within the extension period. ylr. \Vidmayer stated that it can be done but he would recommend another 90-days. She said that alterine B1 district was not necessarily a good idea because it might solve this problem but create other problems, therefore the plan no%% is to examine all the ­B­ districts. Mr. Widmayer affirmed and said that they are planning to do is look at some of the real neighborhood corner business areas that are being affected where the change does not make sense. He said the Zoning Committee is now looking at a new zone for B I a. which is prof ably what is needed as a compromise between B1 and 132 that would accommodate tl',e neighborhood business districts. Aid. Winne asked if it could be assumed that if the moratorium is extended this will give enough time to accomplish this part of the ­B­ District analysis. Mr. Widmayer agreed but noted that the Plan Commission %sill still need more time to complete their review of all the "B" districts. Chairman Tisdahl suggested this proposed new zone for the business district further east of the location in this ordinance. Mr. Widmayer agreed. Aid. Ne%%7nan asked about the status of the rc%ickv on the Rya and R4a districts that the Plan Commission %%as working on. Ms. Sz%manski and Mr. Widma%er both assured that item would be ready for Wednesday night's meeting. \ir. Widmayer explained that discussion centered on multi -family zones abutting a hear;. concentration of single- P&:D Committee Nttc. Min-tes of 5-9-05 Pa_• a famiiti- homes. There is a desire to )tlok at making_ the single-family home the only uses b%-riuht but all of the oth r uses in the R4 district %kill still be available as a special use. :old. Ne%%man approved of this concept and pointed out where it would assist in the Northwestern area where people are buying single-family homes and two -flats and convertingL, them without any notice to the neighbor. This concept would require those conversions to be noticed and receive a special use. its. Szymanski noted that there actually is some additional work that is going to be needed on this matter with respect to additional evidence in the record to support the changes. She had prepared a legal opinion that apparently %%as not transmitted in the Council packets. \fr. Widmayer stated that the Plan Commission is going to try and Let this through at their Wednesday night meeting. Aid. Newman requested to the Committee members to stay on top of this matter to make sure that it goes through because it is a very important amendment that needs to be made. He also pointed out the need for consistence as to what is an acceptable height abutting R1 districts because it is obvious that a 4-story building is not appropriate. He said that it is important that this needs to be uniform throughout the City, not just in cenain areas of the Cite. Chairman Tisdahl agreed and added another concern is the canyonization effect that is occurring in many neighborhood business districts that this amendment could also help to alleviate. Aid. Newman moved to introduce Ordinance 56-0-05 with the recommendation to amend to 90-days. The Committee asked Legal if this is acceptable. which Ms. S;%N-manski responded that this can be done. However she would like to remind the Committee that consistent with previous opinions of the Law Department the shorter the time the better on a moratorium. She said that this can be renewed if needed based upon the appropriate findings. Given the nature of the moratorium and the effect that it has on property rights and persons desiring to build. Legal always recommends the shorter period. Ald. Wynne responded that she believes the 90-days is shorter than 180-day request for moratorium. which has been requested in the past. She would like to give the Plan Commission enough time'and opportunity to finish their review. She feels the 90- day extension can be supponed on this fact. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. OTHER BUSINESS Kendall Colleee Protterty Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the two letters that were distributed to the P&D Committee this evening from Schain, Burner. Ross & Citron. Ltd. These letters were received via fax this afternoon. He informed the Committee of the meeting; hosted by the - City Manager conceming the Kendall Development, with Mr. Buono, Mr. Malarky, and several members of staff that w•as held last week. He also noted that Aid, elect Wollin and Aid. Bernstein were also present. Fie said that Smithfield finally brought a model in of what they are proposing to do. Smithfield actuall% presented two different models of basically what then have seen before but in three-dimensional form. Ile said that there were several suggestions made back and forth with the end result of the meeting being that Mr. Buono felt he had enough input from the Alderman -elect and staff' to go back and try and re -work his plan to address some of that feedback. The first letter refers to P&D Comminee Ntm. Minutes of 5-9-05 Nee z the hearing befc-e the Planning and De%elttiFment Committee and that there ha%-c been k�m!oln_a mertlr.:> regarding the chan_es to the de%cic�pment pion and that the revisions %%ill not he reap % b% the 11av ': meeting as the CUmmittee pr_-. ious directed. He said that the de%eloFcr is requesting to came back before the Committee sometime later in June «ith a complete package. The second letter is regarding the appeal by Smithfield of the Preservation Commission's denial of C'eniticate of .appropriateness for the demolitions on the Kendall site. lie said that matter is scheduled for the City Council deliberations on Nlav 23'd and the de%eloper is also asking that these be stayed again to keep the whole process as a package. `fs. Szymanski noted that the appeal is at the City Council level. so that request needs to be addressed as an agenda item. The other request needs to go before the P&:D Committee as an agenda item as «ell. Aid. Bernstein asked with the concurrence of the applicant if they can stay the appeal. which NIs. Szymanski affirmed. Chairman Tisdahl said in her %•ieu this entire case has cone on for a long time and the City has been criticized for aiding in the time constraints and no%% the time is 1-eing lengthened by the developer's request at this point. She asked what the discussion consisted of at this meeting and if there was any real movement. aid. Bernstein responded that he felt the meeting was productive and that there was a great deal of movement. He said that the developer came in with a project that %vas 45 units presenting a very nice rendering model. He and .alderman -elect Wollin both felt this proposal to be too dense but they talked about the ultimate issue of whether or not the City Council is going to ask for an Rl rezoning or whether there is some negotiating room. Nir. Wolinski added that the three-dimensional model really helped in getting a better concept of their proposal and this %%ould have been helpful to see sir to eight months ago probably resulting in better progress than what has occurred. GIs. Szymanski reiterated the process to put these items on the Council and Planning and Development agenda's appropriatcly, Other Future Agenda Items , \fr. Wolinski informed the Committee members that %fr. Jack Siegel will be present at the May 23`d meeting to discuss the legal issues surrounding Inclusionary Housing. He also informed the Committee that the 1603 Orrington project may be ready for the May 23`d meeting. Aid. Ne% r]an's Farewell Aid. Nei; -man gave a special thanks to Mr. Wolinski, Ms. Brov.rlee, and Ms. Szymanski for all their help and assistance throughout his tenure. He wished to thank all staff that has assisted him over the years. He said that it has been a good experience as a member of the Planning and De%-eiopment Committee. He gave a history account of how he came about being on the P&D Committee after A&PW back in the early 1990's. He also thanked his fellow Committee members and how he has appreciated working %Kith all of them. r P&D Committee httg. Minutes of 5-9.05 Page h AWOURNMENT Aid. Newman moved to adjoum at 6:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted. C Jacque ne;�. rownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of Nfay 23, 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainey, E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Aiello. A. Alterson. J. Carroll. V. Jones, G. Morgan, D. Marino. D. Spicuzza. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: J. Siegel Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUOR[.�I Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:43 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the first Planning &: Development Committee meeting as a Committee of the Whole with all nine aldermen as members. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 9. 2005 MEETING **IINL;TES The May 9. 200- minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda because it was noted that item (P3) was requested by the applicant to be held in Committee. (P3) Planned Development Kendall Colleee. 2408 Orrinmon Avenue — Plan Commission Recommendation Chairman Bernstein noted that previous communication was received from the attorney for the applicant who is still in conversation with the Alderman of the Ward with respect to proposed modifications. He said that the applicant has asked that these issues all be continued until the next regularly scheduled P&D Committee meeting. He said the Council now has three new members that are going to be called upon to cast a vote on this issue which has been ongoing over the past year and a half. Those new members have expressed some concern with being up-to-date on the whole issue. Chairman Bernstein stated that it has been their history to accommodate developers who are trying to accommodate the community and the Council. therefore he does not have a problem with holding this matter. This was the majority consensus of the Committee. P&D Commirtet '%ftz Minutes of S -OS - page 3 Ald. Moran moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Jean -Baptiste. Aid. Tisdahl let it be known that she is only in favor of holdinc this item over to accommodate the nexs Council members. Otherwise she %%ould be % illine to vote on this matter this evening. Chairman Bernstein acknowledged those signed up to speak on this matter, however he asked to defier their comments until the end of this meeting or wait until the next meetine %then this item is back on the auenda and he assured that he would consider this item first. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. fPl) Reauest for Buildine Permit Fee. Citv Tax Stamas. Interest Charees Waiver Mr. Neil Davidson. President of Econ Development. introduced himself to the Committee and stated in actuality he is asking for more than the 520.206 as noted in the agenda information forwarded to the Committee. He dres%• attention to his letter dated April 14, 2005 included in the packet materials that states the actual amount he is requesting for refund from the City for cost overruns for this project. He informed the Committee of his development of affordable housing in the City of Evanston for the last two years and that he is here today to ask the Committee for their consideration of some of the cost he incurred for the project over and beyond the anticipated cost. He came up with a total amount of approximately 550.000- of cost overruns and noted that at the time when he discussed this with :fir. Wolinski. it was misunderstood the actual amount of what he was asking for in his letter. fir. Davidson explained further that his letter states that he had to take funds out of his personal bank account in the amount of S33.269 and he had to borrow an additional amount of 515,088 to finish this project. He said that the City gave CDBG funds of 5292.500 that went directly to the buyers benefit to purchase these units and subsequently reduced the price of those units down to 5185.000 to make them affordable. As a result of this, he incurred all the cost overruns of those units. He stated as a private developer it is getting very difficult to develop such housing because of the cost of material and labor to keep these prices down at affordable housing prices. Therefore. he is asking for the City Council to consider a reimbursement for his personal cost overruns in light of his development and provision of affordable housing for the City of Evanston. The Committee members «ere somewhat confused by the additional amount being requested for reimbursement as stated by :fir. Davidson. due to the correspondence they received in their packets. however it was determined and Chairman Bernstein clarified that the amended amount is actually for 550.397 as stated in fir. Davidson's letter dated April 14, 2005. Aid. Holmes asked for clarification on the interest fees for CDBG funds of 3%. Mr. Wolinski responded that is correct on the 3% interest fee for construction funds from CDBG dollars and this was pan of the contract the City signed with Mr. — Davidson subsequent to the approval of the S292.000 approved by the City Council for use of those CDBG funds. Nis. Spicuzza. City Housing Planner. further clarified that HOME funds were used for this project, which entail the requirement of the interest fees charged. Aid. Rainey asked if the 5292.000 are loans. It was clarified that those funds are not a loan but a subsidy for the buyer to keep the purchase amount affordable in the form of a grant per unit. Mr. Davidson added that even though he has paid interest on the $292,500 grant money. as pan of the whole total package as far as the construction cost. he has also paid City fees on those funds. Aid. Tisdahl asked about the size of the units P&:D Committee Hite. ~Minutes of Pace 3 and the occupancy at this point. Mr. Wolinski responded that 5292.500 was the amount of the subside in HOME funds divided equally amongst the three tonnhou,es built. which are all occupied at this time. The units consist of three bedrooms. two and a half baths with full basements. Aid. Wynne recalled that %,fr. Davidson has had several projects where he has received HOME funds from the City and she asked staff to elaborate on the issue of wai drag any fees for cost overruns on any of those previous projects. \Ir. Wolinski responded that on Mr. Davidson's last project of a duplex townhouse for affordable housing. he came back to the Council and asked for reimbursement for some of the cost overruns. which Council did approve at that time for approximately $20.000. Ald. Rainey said that she finds it interesting that there is also an item on P&:D's agenda regarding discussion of inclusionary housing for the purpose of providing affordable housing in Evanston. She noted that this project cost over S785.000 to build for 3-units and she believes that this is a reality check for the Council because it proves the difficulty for private developers to provide affordable housing due to the cost of standard customary construction fees. She noted that this is not an Evanston Housing Coalition or a Reba Place Fellowship type development proposing affordable housing. but on the contrary is a small scale private developer that makes a living from their construction developments. She stated that the City is fortunate. in her opinion. to have somebody who is willing to make a living building affordable housing. In view of this. she strongly feels that the City should support this developer and his efforts. Aid. Rainey noted that the CDBG funds of $292.500. in reality. are not benefited by Mr. Davidson. however he has incurred the cost of construction to provide this type of affordable housing beyond comparison to the affordable housing proposed b% the not -for -profit organizations. Therefore. she assured her support for this applicant's request for reimbursement of cost overruns for this project and that the Cite should feel very fortunate and grateful for the provisions he has provided in the way of affordable housing. She reminded the Committee that a few weeks ago. Council approved over 5500.000 in CDBG funds to Reba Place Fellowship to rehab and multi -unit building to affordable housing condominium conversion for small two bedroom. one bath units. Aid. Rainey feels that the opportunity to purchase affordable housing of the size and capacity of new construction that Mr. Davidson has constructed and provided is a tremendous investment to the fortunate qualif}ling buyer and to the community. Chairman Bernstein questioned the actual reasons for the cost overruns and why it came to such a high amount. He acknowledeed the benefits of providing this type of affordable housing. as stated by Aid. Rainey. however as a private developer such unexpected extra cost incurments for construction are inevidable and beyond control that are normally projected and anticipated by the developer. He asked the applicant if he could elaborate further on some of the construction overruns incurred. Mr. Davidson explained that there were several different unexpected situations that caused costs to exceed beyond expectation. He noted that one of the most expensive construction related cost «:.s the requirement by NICOR resulting in redesigning the gas lines below the townhouses that was uncontrollable and had to be done that was very costly. He further went into other ME) Comminet Site. Minutes of 5- - )5 - Pace a unexpected cost overtures that were unexpected and o% er and beyond the cost of his expected construction fees. fir. Davidson concluded that in the end. he suffered a tremendous loss in profitability. which «-as expected to be in the proximity of 590.000. Aid. Moran asked for input from staff on the balance of CDBG funds and the derivation of those funds expected for the current CDBG budgetary period. Mr. Wolinski responded that the HOME funds. which is the source of funding for projects such as this. has a balance in excess of SI million dollars at this time. Ald. Moran asked for an approximate dollar amount on any projects at this time that the City has pending for usage of those funds? Mr. Wolinski responded that they do not have anything concrete at this time that he could provide an estimated dollar amount other than the project by Reba Place that Aid. Rainey mentioned previously of approximately 5600,000—. He informed the Committee that they can not use HOME funds to pay for City fees. which is part of what Mr. Davidson is asking for in reimbursement. therefore such refund would have to come from the General Fund if allocated. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that because the City does not have a structure or process in place to actually base this case or such a request on. he is inclined to support the applicant's request this time. He believes developers who come into the City and ask for a certain amount of money to create affordable housing. then the City allocates that money and in conclusion such housing is developed and provided, then the City is obligated to fulfill wholeheartedly. He said this obligation includes the terms of expected profits. In his opinion. the City needs to set a process of making it clear to developers of the perimeters that they are dealing with. regardless of the size of the project. Ald. Jean - Baptiste acknowledged Chairman Bemstein's points on expectations of private developers with construction cost overtures and burdens. however this is a unique case ` with a smaller private developer who is providing such housing that is a benefit to the community and should be given consideration on that behalf. as Aid. Rainey has brought attention to. He stated that any incentives to private developers to provide affordable housing is very difficult with the cost of construction in Evanston. Aid. Jean -Baptiste noted. however. that it is quite difficult to determine the request for the additional 530,000— over what is listed on the agenda item data and included in Council's packet materials, which makes it uncleariv justified. Aid. Rainey agreed and stated that she also feels the letter from the applicant included in Council's packet is poorly written. however she does believe the 550.357 is the original amount requested. Aid. Wynne stated that she feels both Aid. Rainey and Aid. Jean -Baptiste have a very good argument in regards to the overall scenario. However. as being a member of the - P&D Committee for the last 4-years and having experienced dealing with Mr. Davidson's previous projects brought before the P&D Committee for approval and his subsequent previous request for reimbursement of City fees and over -cost incurrments. she is inclined to differ in opinion. She informed her fellow Committee members that were not previously on the MD Committee. that Mr. Davidson was approved for reimbursement of City fees and certain cost overruns on his last project and was specifically told at that time that it would be a one-time reimbursement approval and that it was not expected to happen again. Aid. Wynne reiterated her understanding of the previous arguments made - PSD Comm ince Sim. Minutes of 5-:3-05 Pace 5 in support of this request. but it i= important that «hat %a clarified to %1r. Davidson should be noted and sustained. a%en as a Committee of the Whole as it now exists. She said that the unexpected overrun cost incurred by any pri%ate developer has al%va%s been any contractors probability unfor --mately. Aid. Tisdahl echoed everything Aid. Wynne just commented on. If anything. she could only support the S20.206 as stated on the agenda item sheet. Chairman Bernstein agreed „7th Aid. %N'vnne's comments and recalled the P&D Committee's unanimously agreement at that time to Mr. Davidson that the previous reimbursement approved would be a one time deal. He finds it very coincidental that fir. Davidson has asked for this matter to be held over twice from the last two meetings to this meeting with the new Council to proceed with his request. Aid. Holmes asked staff if this is the only not -for -profit developer in Evanston building affordable housing. Mr. Wolinski responded yes. Aid. Rainey followed that in view of the need for efficient subsidy to the buyer and assistance to the developer providing affordable housing. the entire issue of inclusionary housing needs to be assessed. She stated that it is a shame but a reality. to advise Mr. Davidson to stop building affordable housing as a single private developer because the profit reliability is very unreliable. Aid. Moran pointed out that the HOME funds for the City of Evanston has traditionally been under-utilized. He noted the large amounts allocated to not -Far -profit organizations to rehabilitate buildings for affordable housing in comparison to this for -profit private developer and the comparison of the i pe of affordable housing projects that he has provided. He does not feel the amount that Mr. Davidson is requesting for in reimbursement of cost overruns is unreasonable in light of what he has contributed to for affordable housing. He recognized the item for discussion on their agenda for inclusionary housing this evening and the importance of providing such housing. With that in mind. he especially would not want to hold back on reimbursing this individual private developer in his efforts on providing affordable housing. Aid. Moran feels the amount being requested here by Mr. Davidson is in no comparison to the amount allocated to the not -for -profit organizations to provide affordable housing also. He also feels that there is no competition to Mr. Davidson's work as far as providing exceptional affordable housing in Comparison to the larger scale not -for -profit developers. In conclusion of further discussion amongst the Committee members, it was determined that the fair amount for requisition was as total of $30.131. Aid. Moran motioned to approve the amount of 530,131 from the City's HOME fund, in addition of another 55,000, for the total amount of 535.131 out of the General Fund. Aid. Holmes seconded the motion. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that when Mr. Davidson took on this projcct he was required to hire a general contractor. N1r. Davidson had difficulties with the general contractor he hired and subsequently fired him. The general contractor came into Mr. Wolinski's office and threatened to sue and place mechanics liens against the property for Iack of payment. He talked with '*Jr. Davidson at that point and told him that he would not stand for this project to be stopped by any type of a lien placed by the general contractor. Therefore. Mr. Wolinski assumed that a major amount of the reimbursement P&D Commiree Mte. Minutes aft -0r Page 6 request amount is the incurment of :he funds that Mr. Davidson had to pay to the fired general contractor. fir. Wolinski noted that his understanding is that :fir. Davidson may or may not be pursuing legal action to recuperate those funds, Therefore he would suggest that somehow if the Committee is going to fashion a motion to grant the reimbursement of any funds to Mt. Davidson that they take into consideration the situation he just communicated to theca. The vote was 8 in favor of the motion and l voting nay (Chairman Bernstein). (P2) Sidewalk Cafes for Tyne I and T%-De 2 Restaurants at Various Locations Aid. Wynne moved approval of the sidewalk caws for Whole Food Market, JK Sweets, Pick -A -Coffee Club, Cafe Ambrosia, Jacky's Bistro, and Davis Street Fish Market. Aid. Jean -Baptiste seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in approval. Ald. Wynne reminded the representati,. es of the restaurant establishments of the trash and litter removal requirements. She asked Mr. Wolinski if there are any pending property standards issued v►-ith the establishments listed above, which he responded negatively. The ongoing held over case regarding Chipolte Mexican Grill was given approval by staff. Mr. IX'olinski informed that management was advised to order additional garbage pickups, which they have obliged to a 5-day pickup schedule. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI) Discussion with Cornoration Counsel Jack Siegel Ms. Julia Carroll addressed the Committee. She stated that her invitation to Jack Siegel to speak to the P&:D Committee this evening is with regards to his opinion on the legal aspects of Inclusionary Housing. She referred to the copy of his letter included in Council's packet material on the proposed Inclusionary, Housing Ordinances. She said that because there were several concerns expressed in the opinion, she felt it was important to get some direction from the City Council on ,fir. Siegel`s concerns. particularly as it relates to granting height and density bonuses, before staff brings back any kind of an ordinance for introduction. its. Carroll believes there are many ways they can address Inclusionary housing, however she did not want to spend a lot of staff time developing a set of density or other bonuses if Council is not interested in considering them. Therefore. she has asked Ltr. Siegel to speak to the Committee on his concerns expressed in his opinion so that she can receive some direction on how to proceed further with the Inclusionary housing ordinance. Mr. Siegel stated that the opinion he Wrote dated March 15. 2005 was directed to a critique of an ordinance which had been worked on for a couple of years with the Inclusionary Housing Task. Force and the Housing Commission. The ordinance was developed primarily through BPI (Business and Professional People in the Public Interest). He noted that in his opinion, he has two basic problems with the ordinance as proposed. First, his brief understanding of what Inclusionary zoning goes back to the mid-1970's, where there has been efforts throughout the Country to promote affordable P&D Committee %tie. Minutes of {•,:•Q{ Pace " housing. He said largely through legislative acts, either by a State enabling the act or by local ordinances. NIr. Siegel said essentiallti the pattern'is that de, elopers of a certain number or type of housing are required to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing: affordable being defined in each jurisdiction generally in accordance with either their median or average income within the area. He said in order to a%oid the problem of "taking". that is exacting private propertm without compensation. which is prohibited not only by the United States Constitution but by every State Constitution in the Union. The device generally has been to offer incentives to the developer to offset the costs which are inherent in producing units which are either sold or rented at lower than market values. He pointed out that those incentives which he has indicated are either density bonuses, additional units beyond what the Zoning Ordinance would normally provide. expedited permitting processes and frequently cash payments in order to make it economically feasible for the developer to proceed %with affordable housing. Mr. Siegel said that under the ordinance that is proposed by the Task Force and the Housing Commission, it is suggested that a number of potential offsets or benefits be given. These benefits include, as the City Manager has just indicated. such things as density bonuses, setback requirement, height variations and other incentives which make it possible for a developer to provide the additional units that are contemplated. Again. he stated that a percentage of the total number of units is normally provided and there is a sliding scale in the ordinance presented. Mr. Siegel said that in his opinion he has two basic problems. First, he has a constitutional problem because the State Supreme Court in a number of decisions, which he sited in his opinion. has applied what they call directly and uniquely attributable to any burdens which are placed upon a developer beyond what the normal regulatory divisions require. For example, in the last Supreme Court case in Illinois that dealt with this problem. the court threw out a statute involving transportation impact fees because the original statute did not require that the contribution be directly and uniquely attributable to the project itself He said the legislature amended that statute which was also the subject matter the same Supreme Court specifically used the language distinctively and directlyattributable and the Supreme Court of lllinois said that it meets their criteria. He explained that criteria was developed in the Rosen case in the NIt. Prospect case, which he discussed in his opinion. Mr. Siegel stated the leading U.S. Supreme Court decision on the subject is Dolen. and interestingly enough. in that case. pointed to the State of Illinois as being one of the most restrictive States in the Union in applying the uniquely and attributable test. Therefore. conclusively the first constitutional problem they have is to demonstrate that a burden which is placed upon a developer is specifically and uniquely attributable to the project to which the burden is placed. He said in the face of this. there are some counterbailing facts which he feels they have to take into consideration. First of all. the State legislature in the affordable housing statute has set 10%. He said the last housing census that he is familiar with states that as many as 25% of the units in Evanston fall within the affordable perimeters that the State statute has set. Therefore, although the preamble to the ordinance speaks directly to need which is based upon an assessment that was made, if you apply the Slate statute. they not only meet but exceed what the State has determined to be appropriate for affordable housing. Mr. P&D Comminee %Ita. Minutes of : •_: -951 Pace 8 Siegel summed up that this i; a I.a_sible problem which could be raised but nevertheless can be done. Mr. Siegel said that his opini;an points out the constitutional problems which he feels exist because of directly and uniquely attributable. However the way this ordinance is drafted. he finds many problems that he again has tried to indicate in his opinion. He said many of those problems in his mind gives what seems almost unbridled discretion to an administrative officer without standards. He noted that one of the principle requirements is an affordable housing plan and that plan does not go to the City Council into this ordinance: that plan goes to the Director of Community Development. He said that one of the alternatives is if you can`t produce the units on site. then you can find another site in the City and produce the affordable units. He said that decision is again made by the Director of Community Development. Although he has great confidence in Mr. Wolinski. he is not sure that he would want that particular job. fir. Siegel said the problem with this is that in neither instance is there any hind of public hearing or any input on the part of the City Council or the public with respect to the affordable housing plan with the alternative off -site designation. He said aside from the basic problem, this is not a limit to the Zoning Ordinance in fact by substantially changing the requirements for setbacks, side yards, density and height without recourse to public hearings as normally would be the case in a zoning proceeding. He pointed out that there are other problems of setting the affordable standard which again lies primarily with the administrative officer, although it is ultimately subject to approval by the City Council, but there are no standards to determine that realistically. Mr. Siegel stated that its fundamental in a matter of lace in Illinois that you can not delegate what amounts to legislative authority to an administrative officer without standards. Unfortunately, he feels that there are no standards in the proposed ordinance to guide the administrative officer in many areas which he believes more properly belong to at least oversight by the City Council and probable public hearings. He said that there is in another connection with the question of clarin, that he is not going to address in full detail. However the thrust of that case is heavy emphasis on the right of neighbors to be heard and to court due process in the course of these Iand use decisions. fir. Siegel believes that this draft ordinance is very deficient in giving due process particularly to the neighbors and really taking the City Council out of what has historically been fundamentally legislative decision. Chairman Bernstein summed up the two different areas of concern by Mr. Siegel. one being the constitutional ability to implement Inclusionary housing. but he did not say it was impossible to do. Secondly. is the method by which the City chooses if they decided to proceed with this ordinance. He called on the citizen sign up sheet. Ms. Sue Carlson. representing the Evanston's Affordable Housing Future. which is a group that has been advocating for affordable housing, particularly Inclusionary housing. She presented to the P&D Committee a petition signed by 136 individuals who feel very strongly about passing an Inclusionary Housing plan. In addition to this petition. Ms. Carlson has submitted another petition to the City Clerk's Office signed by an additional 374 individuals consisting of Evanstonians and those who worship in Evanston who also P&D Commirtee Mt¢. Minutes of 5-2=-05 - Page 9 are very supponi%e of affordable housing. The combination of both petitions has over 500 signatures. She expressed her strong support along with all the others who are behind the Council in %%orking tcwards the best Inclusionary Housing Ordinances possible for the community. She stated that lnclusionan housing is especially needed at a time when condominium conversions are abundant and rental housing is decreasing and the cost of housing is rising. his. Carlson noted that on April 3_Wh there was an Affordable Housing Forum in Los Angeles sponsored by Freddie Mac. Century Housing and the National Housing Conference. She said it was at that meeting that experts discussed the significance of the findings of a new study that indicates that the number of working families spending more than half of their income when it is ideal for people to be spending one-third, has gro\%m 760o in the six year period from 1997 to 2003. She said that this calls attention to the fact that it is both the private sector that was heard previous with Econ Development and the private sector of the bigger developers that should be involved in issues of affordable housing in the community. Ms. Robin S nvderman -Pratt. Chair of the Housing Commission and the former Chair of the Inclusionary Housing Task Force. She pointed out how opportune it was to have such a precursor to the discussion of Inclusionary Housing than the previous agenda item regarding the affordable housing development on Darrow. She hoped that the issues on both sides of the table are considered in helping to form good public police in the future. In order to update the new Council members. she gave a brief overview of the work done so far on the Inclusionary housing issue. Ms. Pratt informed that the Housing Commission came before the Committee in 2002. just after the conclusion of the 3000 census looking for the Council to embrace a task force process that included some Alderman. a member from the Planning Commission. Housing Commission. and Human Relations Commission. a private developer and non-profit developers. The task force would look at how to tack private -sector activity to advance the City`s affordable housing goals. She agrees that Evanston has a real distinguished history advancing affordable housing goals with many stated commitments from several groups regarding preserving diversity and the City has spent a lot of CDBG and HOME dollars and Mayor's Special Housing Fund dollars over the years. However. as Aid. Moran has pointed out. the City has had trouble spending the dollars recently because of the escalating land costs. Ms. Pratt noted that the 2000 census indicated that half of Evanston households are less than 80% of area median income and that -t0°/o of our rental households were paying more than 30% of their income on rent and that there are increasing numbers of homeowners also burdened by the cost of their morteaee payment. She said that new construction was really not affordable to people that earned less than $150.000 per year. Ms. Pratt said that since the Task Force has finished its work the State has really stepped up its leadership on housing while the Federal Government has been decreasing its commitment. She said the precious resources they valued in the pass are vulnerable at this time. She said with regards to the :affordable Housing. and Planning Appeals Act. that in January. 2005 the Governor released a comprehensive housing plan talking about his theories and how he wants all municipalities to advance with incentives that he would like to make available. Ms. Pratt stated that the Affordable Housing and Planning Appeals Act only applies to the most aggrieved areas. in other words only 49 of the P&D Committee Ntte. Minutes of 5-23-05 Page 10 States 1300— manicipalities were affected. She stated that in our region alone there were over 700.000 households earning up to 8011 o of area median income that are paying more than one-third of their income on housing. She said that if all 49 municipalities in this region developed up to the capacity of 1010 per the plan. that would help about 7000 households. Ms. Pratt stated that she was dis-heartened when she read Corporation Counsel's letter. however she is not totally discouraged. She believes there are several windows of opportunity. She commended BPI on their %work on the proposed ordinances on a pro- bono basis. She noted that many loopholes were left intentionally for further discussion and decisions. Therefore, she -stated that the Task Force is also looking for further comments and directions from this Committee as well. Aid. Moran thanks lMr. Siegel for his extensive opinion, which was very informative. He wished to make comments on some of Mr. Siegel's points he highlighted in his letter and to comment on Ms. Carroll's request for further input in terms of bonuses. First, he agreed that there are some gaps in the ordinances as written related to discretion an the part of staff' and perhaps the constitutional requirement that the City Council speak to some of these situations. He would suspect that ultimately if they do have an Inclusionary Ordinance to consider, which he is in support of. that those gaps and a poise between staff;' and City Council %%ill be ironed out hopefully to everybody's satisfaction including exacting standards. He said as far as State statute which talks about a 10% commitment. in his opinion. he does not believe that their home rule powers would be impinged to the point where if such an ordinance were challenged legally that the challenger could come in and point out that the General Assembly said that the municipalities need to have a 10% criterion. which a municipality would be benchmarked at and could not go any further. Ald. Moran said this strikes him as a political and governmental issue of where they would want to set that standard. He is skeptical that a legal challenge would be successful on the basis because State legislation has set the 10%. He reiterated Mr. Siegel's reference about specifically and uniquely attributable to the proposed development criterion set forth in the Supreme Court precedence. both U.S. and Illinois. However, he can also see a potentially successful rebuttal to that argument on the fact that every bit of real estate is unique in the eyes of the law. He said that when you talk about specifically and uniquely attributable to the proposed development. if the City has an Inciusionary housing ordinance that requires that a percentage of affordable units will be incorporated within that development, he sees this as a fairly powerful rebuttal. Aid. Moran stated that one of the reasons all the City Councilman ►wanted to be a member of the Planning & Development Committee is because land use issues are a coin of the realm at this time in Evanston. These land use issues are critical to where Evanston is right now Aid. Tisdahl stated that one of the main problems that drives people out of the community are the high taxes. She does not support any type of fee waiver as a bonus because of this. P&D Committee Mte. Minutes of5•'_3-05 - Page l I Aid. Wvrine stated that one of the main problems in the 3" Ward are density concerns. She said that Evanston is becoming denser and taller and that many feel the current Zoning Ordinance does not protect the citizens. She also does not support any zoning or fee waiver bonuses. She said this leaves the alternative of payment -in -lieu -of. which is the only option that she could support. She feels there is no clear solution right now to this issues. Chairman Bernstein said that he is a strong proponent for Inclusionary housing and believes that it can be accomplished. He said it is hard to support building waiver bonuses because there are already too many request for variations and special use relief as it is. Ms. Susan Cooney, representing the Barrinctton'North Shore Caldwell Banker. said that she does not believe the ordinance as presented is effective enough and clear on standards that need to be applied. She questions why HOME funds can not be used for rent subsidies when it has been stated that in the past recent years the funds have been underutilized. Mr. Siegel noted that Arlington Heights just passed an ordinance supporting density with 200/4 set aside for affordable housing. Chairman Bernstein said that he would be interested to see similar ordinances from other municipalities that have any type of Inclusionary housing ordinance in place. Aid. Rainey asked fir. Siegel about the obligation were we to have an Inclusionary housing policy requiring new developments to set aside. She questioned how they justif}' that when they have huge developments in this community that were able to bypass those regulations. In other words. this ordinance would only be binding to any new development and there would be no obligation on the part of any large 100— unit building that is already up and occupied. Mr. Siegel responded that the law didn't require those buildings to fulfill any Inclusionary housing requirements at the time they %sere under the building approval process. Aid. Rainey said that if they don't have a provision where new construction has to set aside units in their buildings or they require financial commitments in -lieu of set -aside units. where are those units going to be built or would the financial incentives only be used to subsidize the cost of new properties. Mr. Siegel responded that is one of issues that still needs to be addressed. Aid. Rainey explained that the reason she asks this is because those in this community who feel that they need more affordable rental housing are of concern to her. She stated that certain neighborhoods in this community is where all of the affordable rental units are for the most part, the 81h Ward in particular. She feels that the vast majority of all Section 8 vouchers are being used in the 8'h Ward as well. She said her concern is that if the City starts building affordable housing. it needs to be disbursed throughout the communit%. Aid. Rainey said that when she asked that source of income be included in their Human Relations Commission Discrimination Ordinance. there was a huge cry in this community as to how unfair and discriminatory this would be. It was also accused to be very discriminatory for any landlord to have to bear that burden of having of being accused of P&D Committer SIM. Minutes of t-':,roc - Paae I' discrimination if they did not want to rent to a Section 8 voucher holder. Therefore. her concerns are always the same and ver%- consistent. She supports affordable housing and inclusionary housing new laws for home ownership. however. she does not support any regulations currently for rental housing under any circumstance. (PD2) Items for Future Consideration Chairman Bernstein directed that this item be held over for discussion at the meeting on June 13 h. The Committee members all agreed. Citizen Comment for Kendall Coileee Property All those signed up to speak on this issue. fir. Tom Gemmell. 4is. Laura Nerenberg. Mr. Nick Agnew. and tics. Barbara Janes. agreed to give the floor to Mr. Bill McClure to speak on their behalf. Mr. McClure gave an overview of their "Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis- presented to the Committee. He handed out a copy of this report to the P&D Committee members and staff. COMMUNICATION'S (PD3) Proposed Planned Develot}ment — Kendall Collette Rezoning The Committee accepted this commurticadon %%ithout comment or discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8.28 p.m. Respectfully submitted. r\ r Jacque one E.%j3ro-wnlee &z-,Vlu� DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of June 13. 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainey. E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Aiello. A. Alterson. J. Carroll. G. Morgan. E. Szymanski. J. BroNvnlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE INIAY 23.2005 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Rainey moved approval of the May 23. 2005 minutes, seconded by Ald.Wynne. The minutes were approved with a vote of 9-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda (P5) Sidewalk Cafes for Tvoe 1 and TvDe 2 Restaurants at Various Locations Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the manager of Starbucks at 528 Dempster. Ms. Natalie White. Ms. White stood and introduced herself. The Committee had no questions or concerns regarding this sidem alk cafe request. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Bernstein advised Ms. White of the sidewalk cafd ordinance rules and regulations and the requirements on maintenance and litter and debris pickup. Ms. 'White assured that she was aware of all regulations and litter plan. (Pl) Planned Develonment Kendall Colleee. 2408 Orrinmon Avenue -- Plan Commission Recommendation Chairman Bernstein noted that there has been another request by the applicant via letter for a continuance. He is aware of the on -going discussion between the applicant and the Ward Alderman and that there was a meeting «ith the neighbors over the weekend. He said that the developer has proposed a different process that will require some time before they can bring it back before the P&D Committee. P&:D Committee Nita. Minutes of 6.13.05 Page Aid. Wynne moved approval of the applicant's request for continuance, seconded by Aid. NN.ollin. Ms. Szymanski advised the Committee that it would be preferable to have a date certain that is parallel with the matter at the Council level regarding this same development. :old. WoIlin informed everyone that she is not sure that they can give a date certain at this time and that there has been a very productive discussion and dialogue thus far. However. she realizes that what has been discussed needs to be presented before the larger interested group before the proposal is ready to come before the P&D Committee. Chairman Bernstein asked if it would he sufficient time to hold this item over the next two regularly scheduled meetings. .-old. Wollin. Mr. Malarkey. and the other P&D Committee members agreed. . The motion by Aid. Wynne was amended for approval to hold this item until the July 11, 2005 P&D Committee meeting. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the amended motion. Chairman Bernstein asked the will of the Committee %yith regard to the companion case on the land marking issue at the Council level. Aid. Rainey moved that the Appeal of the Preservation Commission Decision on the land marking case on Council Agenda be recommended for continuance and held over until the July 11, 2005 meeting as well. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor. Chairman Bernstein brought attention to the memorandum received by Council from Corporation Counsel Jack Siegel regarding the Clarin case and he is unsure of what the Committee's posture should be in this case. He requested guidance from Nis. Szymanski at this point. Nis. Szymanski responded that she has discussed this funkier with Mr. Siegel and evidence in the record does not require change in the findings. Although it is preferable to take sworn testimony. that there is some latitude there. it is ahvays a concern that a discussion can lead over to something where a Clarin consideration is needed. Chairman Bernstein clarified his understanding that they don't accept new information other than what was contained in the transcript and they consider the findings given by the Plan Commission. and only those findings that would be in the perimeters of the new case. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that often the discussion on these projects. by the time it gets to the Committee; there is also the presence of residents and neighbors who may bring new information to the table. Therefore. it seems in his mind that a clear and definite guidance from that case has not been obtained or is sufficient. He concluded that his opinion is that the Committee needs to treat each on of these situations on -by -one. With regards to this case. he pointed out that there are no residents and businesses and - some of the testimony will be consistent for what is there. however he would not generalize it. Ms. Szymanski concurred. Chairman Bernstein recalled from the transcript that there were no proponents other than the applicant. therefore this case would be a - good one to start with. (P2) Ordinance 57-0-05 — Planned Development — 1603 Orrineton Avenue Chairman Bernstein called attention to the memorandum from the City Manager and attached correspondence distributed this evening by staff with regards to a request from =- this developer. He realized that the Committee members have not had the opportunity to P&D Committee N1tg. Minutes of 6-13-05 Pace 3 review the information. but informed that it involves the forgiveness and request for some assistance from the City in the amount of5750.000 that was not included in the package presented before the P&:D Comminee this evening. However. it is obvious that this is part and parcel of what is being considered this evening. Chairman Bernstein turned discussion over to the applicant for presentation before the Committee. Mr. Paul Shadle. with the Law Firm of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Can' in Chicago, introduced himself and that he is representing the applicant and owner of 1603-1629 Orrington. CFRVGolub Evanston. L.L.C. Along with him. He introduced Mr. John Ferguson from Golub. the project architect Mr. Steve Yas, and Mr. Tim Doran from KLOA Inc. Traffic Consultants. He stated that the 21-stony building currently located at 1603 Orrington and the 2-stony building currently located at 1629 Orrington were constructed in the late 1960's pursuant to a planned development that was approved in 1969. He said the 1629 building was once the Iocation of a Vvalgreen's Drugstore and a Border's Book store but is now vacant. He said the 1603 building contains in addition to the 21-story tower, a Bank One branch. which fronts on Davis Street. He noted as stated in the transcript from the Plan Commission. that the applicant proposes to amend this planned development to permit an addition of approximately 11.000 square feet of retail space in the plaza area of the 1603 building at the south end and approximately 2600 square feet of retail space in the 1629 building. The applicant is also proposing an enclosed link between those two buildings and also to construct 20 parking spaces on a surface lot located between the two buildings at the east end of the property which would be shielded from Onington by the proposed enclosed link. Mr. Shadle pointed out that the proposal contemplates relocating an existing entrance ramp for the underground parking garage. which serves the property out of the public right-of-way into the 1629 building. He noted that the removal of that ramp would add approximately 12 parking spaces to the street along Orrington. He said the architect. Mr. Yas, will elaborate further on the design of the proposal and its compatibility with existing improvements on the property and the surrounding area. He said they believe this proposal will add no adverse impact on traffic and parking in the dov niown area and %\ill actually enhance the existing condition. Mr. Shadle pointed out some of the project benefits include the 12 parking spaces. the addition of new retail shopping destination in downtown Evanston. and the re -energizing of this prominent corner. He said that the project was approved by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee on July 28, 2004 and the Plan Commission gave their recommendation of approval following a hearing on May 4. 2005. He turned discussion over to the architect. Mr. Steven Yas addressed the P&D Committee. He noted that his architect firm is here in Evanston. actually in the 1603 Orrington building. He gave his background history and involvement in Evanston. He said that there are three topics of discussion that he would like to talk about this evening: 11 Urban design. 21 Context. and 3) Site Design and Architecture. P&D Committee Nttz. Minutes of 6-1:-05 Page 4 Mr. Yas used a slide presentation to give an ovmiew of the current site and the proposal planned development. He used numerous slides showing the existing site and location of the buildings and rend; —rings of the proposed project «ith additions and also the area surrounding the buildir,z. He elaborated in-depth on each slide; however, in general, the slides consisted of: Important Point relating to urban Context. This slide listed Contribution to Fountain Square character, promotes pedestrian retail. double -loaded retail'economic and environmental vitality, unique corner building enclosure. retail strengthens consumer base, sensate scale and massing. all the important factors on Orrington Avenue, and service — access to loading dock and trash pick-up improvement. • Context: Figure — Ground Relationship (footprint of buildings). • Site Design: Plaza known today, proposed retail at south east corner of Davis and Orrington. • Important Points of Site Design. This slide listed intimate, sheltered Iandscaped plazas, listed important points of both the south plaza and north plaza. • Proposed Site Plan: 1) demonstrates footprint of proposed new retail campus, 2) area where widening of Orrington Avenue. • Demonstration of the 1629 building second floor plan • Demonstration of the proposed new ramp east entrance off of Orrington. • Architecture: demonstrating the South Plaza North Plaza. and Signage program. • Birds -eye view sketching of proposed development and several other related renderings. • Elevations from Orrington showing new retail space, lobby. and signage. • Demonstration of parking levels below. • Elevation from Davis Street. • Additional view s using model. Mr. Yas gave closing remarks on his presentation and invited the P&D Committee for questions and concerns they would like to address. Ald. W%mne asked about ownership of the open property. Mr. Yas responded that Bank - One owns the drive-in portion and the management from the Uniyersit% building owns the vacant lot. He said that there are no plans to change those areas at this time. She asked for further explanation of the parking deficiency. Chairman Bemstein extended r that question for a list of all the deficiencies and variations needed for this proposal. Mr. Alterson stated that the deficiencies in the zoning analysis are with the ziggurat setback because they are building one-story straight up at the lot line. %Vith the parking requirement they are required to have is 319 spaces and the perception that there should be 340 spaces required would be if the building were built new today with the project as proposed. He said that if the building as it is today were built today, 303 spaces would be required, however it is legal for the number of spaces that it has under the planned development that it was built under. Mr. Shadle added that it was also court ordered that P&:D Committee Ntte. Minutes of 6-1 _- 5 Nee 5 provided the building should provide 280 parking spaces: the building currently provides 290 parking spaces. With the additional 1=.600 square feet of retail. the applicant would be required to provide a total of 319 parking spaces. They are proposing 305 parking spaces. which results in a shortage of 14 spaces. However. he feels it is worth pointing out that the owner also leases 80 spaces for practical purposes. in the city-o«vned garage and the proposal is to add 12 parking spaces on Orrington. Chairman Bernstein noted that there is also a requirement that the City overturns a decision of the prior Council with respect to the maintenance of open space. which is now purported to be covered. Aid. Tisdahl said that she is concerned with the open space currently that is available to the public. She recalled conversation about a restaurant in that area. which she assumed would take away from that open space. Mr. Yas responded that any open space existing will still be open to the public and if there were a restaurant that were allowed a sidewalk cafd similar to many popular restaurants throughout Evanston. if would not take awti% from the open space either. His business has been in that building since 1996 and from his experience. the primary users of that open space at the corner of Davis and Orrington are the landscape architects from his office. He explained how during the summer months it is very hot in that plaza area and most of the people sit on the walls or the stairs, which is also part of the plan and «ill not actually change. He said in their analysis of the area and according to Teska and Associates. the conclusion was that this space is not being utilized as it was presumed to be. Mr. Yas also pointed out that another important factor why this area is not being utilized is because the plaza is extremely windy and by creating a alcove. it will reduce a substantial amount of the wind and become a more intimate and hospitable area. Chairman Bernstein recalled that there was some discussion analogy to the Wolfgang Puck outdoor area and that that setting would be undesirable for the plaza area. Ald. Tisdahl agreed. Mr. Yas assured that setting is not the intention for the plaza and that it will remain open to the public as it is now. Aid. Moran stated that from the Chandler Building standpoint. he said that one of the things that made the project work: %•w the vision to take the two "L'' building setup and remove the inner ''L" and replace it with an open plaza. He said from his perspective. this setting has added a very positive element to that space and the overall Fountain Square area. R'ith regards to the Fountain Square building. in his opinion. this building is not benefiting the downtown and he foresees that building being redeveloped at some point in the future. He agrees that the area surrounding the Bank Plaza is vapid. however he feels the answer is not to take up more space with additional retail and buildings. He pointed out the current open space between the Chandler plaza and the Bank building plaza and feels this space should be maintained instead of building out closer to Davis and destroying that open space between those two buildings at that comer. Aid. Moran realizes the problem in the area from a commercial standpoint. however he does not feel this particular project is the answer to the problem. He feels there is a need for the applicant to go back and refigure a plan that will maintain the open space on that comer. Aid. Wynne responded to Aid. Moran's comments on the open space. She assured that there is a definite wind tunnel effect that is terrible at all times because of the configuration on that corner and the open space. She said that type of %%ind tunnel effect P&D Committee %fm Minutes of 6-1:-05 Page 6 is ven. undesirable and makes the plaza space virtually impossible to enjoy in an open atmosphere. With that in mind. building blockage is very much needed to lesson the windy atmosphere that surrounds that Bank building and corner. Ald. Wynne asked the applicant who they are contemplating for retail in the added space. She especially was interested in the i -story addition because of the unusual space. Aid. Rainey also questioned what the configuration of the interior retail space is supposed to be because it is not in any diagram in their packet material nor was it covered in the presentation. fir. Yas responded that the 5.000 square foot addition is adding another bay and they are oniy envisioning one tenant on the first floor and one tenant on the second floor. Mr. Ferguson added that the target tenants that they are looking for are those that are going to continue with the quality of Orrington Avenue but will also add some significant tax dollars. For example, some of the tenants that they have talked with are Trader Joe's. who have expressed much interest, and Staples who are also very interested in that location. They feel these types of retail tenants would be supported b}' the residents. the office tenants. and other business owners in downtown Evanston. He said the second floor tenancy of that building will probably be geared towards some t)pe of office/business tenants such as an architect firm, etc., because retail is difficult on a second floor level. Mr. Ferguson further explained that the retail components that will be added on the south portion of the site on Davis Street are again going to be higher caliber type retail and they also envision the addition of a restaurant that they feel will add some level of intrigue with the rotunda. In response to Ald. Raine_y's question, they only anticipate two tenants in the addition portion she was referring to. Ald. Jean -Baptiste commented on the general concept. which he is not sure as a municipality they can dictate that always and he feels this is driven by developers and whether as project is suitable for the area. He said the downtown fountain square area, most would desire to see being utilized as one large vibrant plaza area that would be suitable for mane functions. however the area is not being utilized as such. He questions how the space in the bank plaza area can assist in that vision for the fountain square area. Mr. Yas responded that if you look at the history of great urban spaces around the world such as St. Mark's in Venice. Daley Plaza. etc., even the First Bank Plaza in downtown Evanston where he has an office in that building overlooking the plaza area; all of these spaces are defined by building edges and walls. He said that in no great City are there sort of an amorphous bleeding spaces like they have here in Evanston, which he pointed out from one of the slides as an example. He said their intent is to further define Fountain Square by putting up some sweet walls. It is obvious that too much height for the proposed addition at the corner would be blasphemous next to the rotunda and office - building. but the experience for pedestrians of the height proposed will be much more conducive to the scale of a human than a complete open space. Ald. Moran responded that he has experienced many open plaza areas in Spain and Madrid and they define a space from a public standpoint. within a commercial and architectural built structure standpoint and are really beautiful. He said it strikes him that people are concerned about what they are doing in the downtown area. He does not know where else they can go to find a place for relief in the downtown area other than this Bank Plaza space. He does not like the open space at the bank but he believes that between Fountain Square, this 3 P&D Committee Ntte. Minutes of6.1?-04 - Page " space and other space that might be created north of Fountain Square. that they can do something significant. Aid. Moran recalled that wh n the City was doing the downtown streetscape. some of the things that they lost in :hat conceptual framework were a potential public performance area in the Fountain Sq,.L re plaza. He said perhaps one of the reasons that this conception was not capitalized on was because the area is just not big enough. He said the sense of openness could ultimately promote such a scheme included with the space south of Davis Street across from Fountain Square. In all, he feels that there are other alternatives that they can consider to contextualize both the preservation of open space with the addition of some commercial'retail development for this Bank plaza area. Chairman Bernstein raised a couple of questions. First. he asked if there will be room for Kiosks in the area where the pass -through will be located. Mr. Yas assured that the area will be aide enough. Second]y. he asked if the 20-space parking lot %ill be used for the 1629 building. Mr. Ferguson responded that is their expectation and they do intend to monitor the parking lot as much possible. especially if they have a tenant like Trader Joe's. however it is going to be difficult to make sure that the lot is used only by customers. Mr. Yas said there will be timed parking in this lot. Discussion of the ramp relocation proceeded. Chairman Bernstein compared the location of the proposed parking garage ramp to that of the Great Bank driveway at Main and Chicago Avenue. He finds that exiting out of that driveway onto to Chicago Avenue is very difficult and could visualize this same occurrence with this proposed ramp location. He did compliment the level driveway compared to a ramp -up design that creates visual impairment. However. he is concerned with the proposed tree and island area and pedestrian safety. fir. Ferguson responded that the architectural aspect of what Mr. Yas and his firm are doing here is in reality that one tree mill potentially be relocated or minimized to address safety concerns. Mr. Yas added that the proposed tree canopy will be 9' in the air and above compared to a car that is 6' in height: this is common and ,works functionally. He said it can be moved if their client prefers. He pointed out another difference from the Great Bank exit is that the driveway onto Orrington leads out onto a one-way going north and is located further from the corner than the exit at Great Bank. Chairman Bernstein stated that he is pleased that the applicant is proposing only the two stories at the Border's location and only the one story on the Davis Street front. He asked the applicant if they every considered flipping the project around so that the open space remained on the corner and asked Aid. ?Moran if this would be more aesthetically pleasing to him. Aid. 'Moran agreed that concept would be more acceptable. He compared this alternative with the Chandler Building site and that he feels the owner of the Chandler building contributed to that corner when he opened up the plaza. In his opinion. this planned development proposal seems to take away from the area. Mr. Yas responded that their opinion is just the opposite because they believe this proposed project is giving to the community by promoting utilization of a currently insipid plaza area and creating a blockage to the current wind tunnel effect that makes the area very undesirable in its current state. Aid. Wollin agreed with Mr. Yas's comments and also feels that the proposal is very attractive in terms of economics and aesthetics. Ald. P8© Committee NitQ. ~Minutes of 6-13-05 Page 8 Wynne asked the dimension from the building to the curb. Mr. Yas responded that the dimension varies from 30' to 2'. therefore offering and maintaining plenty of open space. Aid. Wynne brought attention to the memorandum that was handed out this evening from the City 4lanaeer's Office regarding the applicant's request for financial assistance regarding the relocation of the garage access. his. Aiello addressed the Committee. She apologized for this information not being included in Council's packet material. She explained that what the)- are requesting is the opportunity to negotiate this matter further with the developer as it relates to the relocation of the access. As stated in the memorandum. Mr. Jennings and herself believe that it is beneficial to the City for several reasons most of which has been mentioned this evening. The most important being the addition of 12 parking spaces and they believe that in looking at this design that the developer mayhave given themselves -an over -generous drop-off. She said that they would like to take a second look at that issue and maybe pull this back and get even more spaces on the street. Ms. Aiello pointed out that in some original drawings, the possibility of 22 parking spaces was discussed. however. as the developer proceeded further into their design the parking spaces were reduced. She believes there is the opportunity to increase this number of parking spaces. She noted that this has been in the talking stages in early planning and what statT wvould like to do is get the Council's sense that if they could negotiate something with the developer, they %vill bring it back before the Council. Ms. Aiello stated that they believe it is a benefit to the Cit"; maybe not assuming the entire amount requested, nevertheless would like to go back to the negotiating table to obtain a mutual agreement. She believes there is a revenue stream from the TIF that they could but obviousl% not until they have a good revenue stream which they would be looking at and discussing this with the developer. Aid. Wynne stated that moving that parking ramp is essential to the developer's design of the building and to make the retail more alive. She agrees that it is a benefit to the City but is also a huge benefit to the developer. She would be willing to agree to staff discussing this further with the developer but in her view. she feels the relocation of the parking ramp is more crucial to the development. fir. Yas responded that actually this is essential to improving the entire block. He said from a design standpoint, the relocation of the tamp is not crucial because everything that they are doing is on their property. Aid. Moran asked for clarification of Ms..Aiello's perspective that the 57_50.000 is to compensate for the 12 parking spaces as a public benefit. its. Aiello responded that the additional parking spaces are not the only benefit: they also think- that by having the 12 - spaces this will also provide a greater turn -over in spaces. She explained that there is a mathematical formula that they use for every one parking space and the number of turnovers in a day. and they believe that approximately $20.000 per year in revenue is possible. Staff also believes that by having the relocation of the ramp there would be added pedestrian traffic, which promotes retail revenue. Ald. Moran understood Ms. Aiello's perception; however he feels that at 5750.000, the 12 parking spaces are ven expensive. He does not understand why the City should do this anyways because this is a private developer and he is also disturbed that Council just received this information this P&D Committee tine. Minutes of 6-13-0-4 - Page 9 evening. He is also disturbed that the City is being asked for the bener part of 1 million dollars in financine assistance. Chairman Bernstein asked the developer if the City does not support this financing request. %will they still go forward with the project. He too is bothered by the fact that Council just received this information by memorandum this evening. In his opinion. the City should give consideration to the project on its merits as a development, whether or not they are going to give any assistance. is another consideration. Ms. Aiello reiterated that what staff is requesting at this time is for the approval or not to approve going forward with discussions for negotiation and if an agreement is achieved, then bring this back before the A&PR' Committee. if no agreement is made. then at that time the developer can decide whether they want to proceed %%ith their project. Aid. Rainey stated that she is very much in favor of the project: however she is not convinced that the relocation of the ramp is worth S750,000 as a benefit to the City. She noted that the architect stated that the relocation of the ramp has no effect on the design of this project, then she would recommend to forget about moving the ramp. She said that if they can find a wyay to use some TIF revenue, which the City does not have at this time, then she might support that concept. Aid. Jean -Baptiste agreed with Aid. Rainey's view. Chairman Bernstein also concurred wvith Aid. Rainey's view and that he honestly believes that the omission of that ramp given the developer far more marketability for first floor retail space. If he were erecting those retail spaces he would want that parking ramp relocated. Aid. Rainey pointed out that the P&D Committee is also being asked to consider the duration of the construction permit time. Discussion ensued between the Committee and the applicant. Mr. Ferguson explained that the time extension is being requested because they have already missed this year's construction season and elaborated further on the reasons they need the time including the conclusion of the drawings. contractor bids, etc. There was a consensus to an extension of 2 '/., wears instead of the 18 months time period. Ald. Mlynne mowed approval of Ordinance 57-0-05for introduction, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 8 in favor and 1 voting nay (Moran). AId, W,mne moved approval to amend the construction time frame from 18 months to 2 %: years, seconded by Aid. Rainey. The vote was 8 in favor and I voting nay (Moran). (P3) Ordinance 61-0-03 — Special Use Reauest for Three TvDe 2 Restaurants at 2209 Howard Aid. Rainey moved approval, seconded by Ald. Wynne. Ald. Rainey said that she is very supportive of this proposal for a food court with no need for expansion. She feels it will be an improvement over what is currently there now. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. IN) Ordinance 60-0-05 — Special use request for a Tvve 2 Restaurant at 17.10 Sherman Aid. Wollin informed the other Committee members that the application stated the request for beer and %vine to be served is not correct. The applicant is not requesting P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6.13-05 Page 10 Iiquor this time but is considering it in the future. There was a question raised on why this restaurant is considered a type 2. The applicant explained that customers have to come to the counter to order their food and it is delivered by wait service to their table, therefore making this restaurant considered as a type 2. Aid. Wollin moved approval of Ordinance 60-0-05 and requested that the rules by suspended this evening for introduction and action to provide the applicant to proceed with the interior renovation. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor for both the approval of Ordinance 60-0-05 and the request for suspension of the rules. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted. DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of.lune 27. 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Ei anston Ci• is Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainey. E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Aiello. A. Alterson. J. CarroIl. G. !Morgan, V. Jones, C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Others Present: %layor \lonon. L. Widmeyer. D. Galloway Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUOR[;',%1 Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JU`E 27. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the June 13 2005 minutes. seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The minutes were approved unanimousl%. ITEINIS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Plan Commission Recommendation: Federal Historic Districts (Text Amendment) Chairman Bernstein noted that the Plan Commission's recommendation is not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to exclude special uses and variances in federal, but not local. historic districts from review and comment by the Preservation Commission. The original reference for this was made by Aid. Rainey. Aid. Rainey stated that this was a reference she made that grew out of the concern she heard during the Oakton Historic District campaign. This district. which is basically bound by Oak -ton, Asbun•. Ridge, and Howard. is a district that actually brings to light the wonderful bungalows and many other forms of architecture. She said that during that debate, people that live in wonderful homes that spend thousands of dollars maintaining their homes. became absolutely intimidated. terrified, and felt threatened by the Preservation Commission. She pointed out that this %vas just after the campaign took place for the Northeast Historical District. The reason they went to just the National District was because of the fear of the rules and regulations and requirements imposed on local districts, the proponents said that the} so ould only do a federal district. Aid. Rainey stated that under the federal district you are not required to go to the Preservation MD Comminer Mig. Minutes of 06•_'-05 Page '_ Commi»ion per approval for rn,wr alterations to %our home. In tact. if ,-lu are, a federal historic district. the National Park Service, which is the o,-trsi_ht aL.enLStst.5 that you can tear dw.%n tour home. replace wood windows %\tth alu, .Inum. .%hrther %ou are a contributing -�r nun -contributing property in the district. 4�hz paid their role is to deienrnin< %\heiher or not the district qualities b4 %irtue of the number of rroNnies in the district that are contributing. She stated that people ha\ e w ork,-d \ er,: hard on the Oakron I listoric District and is now finally approved as of n%o weeks ago. Aid. Rainey informed the Committee that there was such contention: people that she used to consider her friends, that no longer speak to her now. from the people that did not warts the district because they feared what they called the "Preservation Police". She said that when you are in a federal district with no overlapping local district, if a property ownner wants to make a chanee to their home. whether it is a contributing home or non-contributing home, the City's local ordinance requires you to go to the Preservation Commission for review. She said that in those canes where the changes to your home require you to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variation or special use. the property owner will also have to go before the Preservation Commission. When she attended a Plan Commission meeting she recalled someone from the Zoning Board of :appeals say that ''the Preservation Commission has no control over changes to a home. unless it is a landmark, in a federal district; all they can do is make a recommendation." She then heard the Plan Commission members say xhatewer the Preservation Commission say about the homes in a federal district, they will listen to their recommendation." .after hearing this comment from the Plan Commission. the people in the Oakton Historic District ware very disturbed by this statement. In conclusion. it appears that although the Preservation Commission is only making a recommendation, in reality this recommendation is taken into consideration. Aid. Rainey stated her argument is for people that are required to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, that there is no reason to give such a terrible reputation to a federal district by the ahreat that the people feel for haying to go before the Preservation Commission as well. The property owners in the Oak -ton Historic District are not people who are going to put some outlandish addition on a Chicaeo-stvle bungalow. The people in this district love the style of the bungalow homes and the overall historic architecture of their neighborhood. She said the people in her district do not want to be threatened by potentially haying to do things that they just don't thing they need to do. She said this requirement even includes the non-contributing structures. AId. Rainey noted that it was suggested to just eliminate the non-contributing structures, however this would not be sufficient. She pointed out it was the intention of the federal preservationist to have National Historic Districts without the rigid rules in place to o,.ersee them and control them. This is the reason why they step back and don't do .what local historic districts require because the City of Evanston's Preservation Ordinance is very firm and places many demands on property owners with contributing homes. Ald. Rainey said that she asks simply that a word be changed in our Ordinance to eliminate the Federal Districts from having to go to the Preservation Commission for review. She feels that many, inciudine members of the Council and a large number of preservationist, have not really experienced what ma n%- homeowners have felt regarding PSD Committee %ne %Blames of O6_2-.i,<� Pa.:- prescr.ation re%ic« »r.: ro, fear should be in that process. Instead. any experience with preser. ation re,. ic•,� -h, .'. J ^c embraced .ind %%elcorned b% am %% horneoner. She assured that this is not th_ ", h-- mew.%n%rs 1n he Oakaon• Historic District that are very concemcd %%ith anti thin; :n--oi%ing preser%ation rep;c%ti. She said that it could have been a btautitul effort but to=t the opposite is occurring. She realizes that she is going to hear tonight from some members of the Northeast Historic District that they hated the idea of being in a federal disthi.t and note they love it. howe%er this is not so in south Evanston. She said that man re_ijents in south Evanston have Kiycotted all these meetings and refuse to go to the Plan Commission because they feel it's a put up for the preservationist and that it would on]% be a bit: waste of their time and effort. She noted that she does not see anyone in attendanc: that is in opposition to the Oak -ton District and regrets that. Aid. Rainey informed the Committee that she told those opponents that if they had of gone to the Plan Commission it could have helped the cause and possible there would be more sympathy for this amendment because she feels the Plan Commission did not educate themselves at all in terms of the difference ben%een the local and federal districts. In conclusion, Aid. Raine% begged her fellow Council members to consider a wad• to support this. .did. Tisdahl pointed out that there are several points of discussion that refer to the garage at 705 Milburn in the trans-cript. ►%hich is evident of how well this system has worked. She noted that this garage is still there. %%hich Mr. Wolinski stated is still in litigation. In all. she pointed out that this garage is still there. so the process did not change that outcome at all. Aid. Raine-, responded that whole situation was a huge disaster and she does not want to see people use this as an example of why this process does not work. .old. Tisdahl agreed because that particular case was not resolved by the Preservation Commission. Chairman Bernstein stated that in his opinion. this was more a zoning mistake rather than preservation and will ultimately be determined by the court system. Aid. Rainey stated that somehow that is no relief to the matter at hand. :old. Moran said that this matter calls in to question larger issues pertaining to the City's preservation ordinance. which allows these situations to arise. He noted that in the Northeast Historic District that the City went through many months process suggesting that almost '/4 of the City be included in a historic preservation district that required people to go through the process of administrative procedures to do relatively small things in relationship to their property. He stated that there was nothing democratic about this procedure because if there were several people who noted to put that much the City into regulatory procedure on authority, they could and did. He said that it was only through the efforts of s�lme b- a vote of 600/9. He recalled that Council at that time had deli%eries %%eekly of petitions signed by an ever gro%%ing number of people who said that they had no desire to be pan of this and that they reject this notion. Aid. Moran.said from his own familiarity %%ith people «ho supported this. they had the highest regard for Evanston, their propew. maintenance as a %%hole and their heritage. Those property owners resented the fact that without a single signature on a petition to establish these distncts, they would all be incorporated and subjected to the wishes of few people. He stated that what they ha%e here is an extension of that process of where as opposed to land marking versus s more tightly defined geographical local of properties: huge P&D Commiree Mtz Minutes of 06-2--J:- Pace 4 amounts of the C:t. can be lint thro%kn in under our local preservation ordinance into a district «i:n requircrnen:s He paid that no.. they find themselves in this circumstance 11-.a' Aid. Rainy• is asking for mere% for her constituent. Aid. Moran said that because of _hip he is in Sup. -,,:art of :\Id. Rainey's request. lio..eyer, he feels that there not onl% reds to be somr=igniticant review of the Zoning Ordinance but also of the Presen::tior� Ordinance to fioure out i%here the City is going with preservation. He stressed his opinion that he vie%%s most Evanstonians as preservationist and that most have a strong sense of that . alue. He said that somehow this City has struggled their way into this Century without needing the Cit% to determine the historic value and beauty that exists here and the desire to preserve that reputation. Aid. Rainey responded to Aid. \loran's continents. She pointed out that when the Oakton Historic District was being proposed and discussed. there was a lot of support for it. ]n actuality, this requirement was not known clearly about being considered a federal district and still having -o go before the Preservation Commission for review. She noted that many homeowners in the federal district believed that .with property that was not land marked, that the; would be required to go before the Preservation Commission. Once those property o.tners found out. they ..ere not happy and strongly opposed this position. Having to be required to go before the Zoning Board for any major alterations was enough and should be considered enough without the additional burden of Preservation Commission review. Aid. Rainey said that the professional review and opinion by the Preservation Planner. Carlos Ruiz should be sufficient and she would encourage, anyone that has any preservation issues to go to Nir. Ruiz for advice. Mr. Tom McMahon. 5 Milbum Park. said that he and his wife consider themselves preservationist and agree with Aid. Moran that many homeowners in Evanston also consider themselves true preset ationist. He expressed his agreement and support for Aid. Rainey's reference and disagrees with the Plan Commission's recommendation. Mr. McMahon also read from a prepared statement regarding preservation. Mr. Dave Galloway. 728 Noyes. expressed his disapproval of amending the Preservation Ordinance and explained his view of why the Plan Commission recommended no making any changes. He feels "if it ain't broke — don't fix it." He was disturbed by Aid. Mozart's comments and position since he has supported issues that involved the same issues in the Preservation Ordinance. He is sensitive to the fears expressed, however he is very concerned with the reputation being portrayed here giving the Preservation Commission a "black eye" perception. Aid. Rainey clarified that she does support the Preservation Commission's efforts and position and understands the need for their review for contributing structures in local districts but it is not necessary for non -landmark properties that are in a federal district. Aid. Wynne moved reject the Plan Commission's recommendation to not make a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to exclude special uses and variations in federal, but not local, historic districts from review and comment by the Preservation Commission. :old. Rainey seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. MD Comminee Mte. Minutes of 06•2--0.5 Pace 5 Aid. %V%nne moved to strike the ►►rjrd -federal" from Section 6-15-11 in all places it applies and recommend that staff come hack ►►ith an (ordinance pertaining to this text amendment. Aid. Raine% seconded the motion and the vote ii as 9-I) in favor of the motion. 113211 Maior Variation Reuuest for a Rear and Second-Stor,- Addition at 1044 Elmwood .Mr. John Malarkey. attorney for the applicants. gave opening comments. Fie introduced the applicantsiproperty owners. Kristin and Troy Henikoff. and their architect Foster Dale. Mr. Dale gave a presentation of the proposed addition and rehab and remodeling project to convert an existing church into a single-family residence. He explained the variations requested in order to allow the construction of the addition. 4ir. Henikoff said that he and his wife and their twvo children currently live at 1007 Maple right around the comer from the subject property. He gave a synopsis on the history of the building at 1044 Elmwood lie noted that he has owned the property for over two ►ears now and have been working on this project almost as long. He distributed six photos showing views of the front of the building from Elmwood. He assured that they would be making no changes to the front of the church. He explained the zoning requests, especially the lot coverage and impervious surface area variations. He explained the need to provide the off-street parking because of the scarcity of parking in the area, especially with the close proximity to Nichols School. Also there are several multi -family buildings that provide no off-street parking fir their tenants. He presented a zoning map aerial view of the neighborhood to demonstrate the pattern of the houses in the block and how they are situated on their property. Mr. I lenikoff said that he feels that this renovation of the building is in the best interest of the neighborhood by preserving the 100 year old structure. He further noted that the property has been off the tax roles for over 100 years and would no longer be if it becomes their residents. He handed over a 3-page signed petition supporting their proposed project that was signed by many neighbors living in the areh. ;pis. Rebecca Dudley, 910 Greenleaf. spoke in support of the Zoning Board's decision. She submitted a petition of 40 signatures of residents in the Nichols School Neighborhood, who also do not support the proposed variance on the basis that it is out of character with the open space of their neighborhood. She noted that her property and the Hunter's property, both adjoining the subject property. would be most negatively impacted upon by the proposed addition. She feels the addition is massive for the property and that the structure can still be made into a residential use without the proposed addition. This addition would also come to close to the lot line between their properties. Nis. Lucinda Fox said that she is a 12 \ear resident of Evanston and loves the historic and diverse structures that this City is known for. She currently lives in a historic house and supports the Henikoff's proposal because she feels that it would be the best use and preservation of such an historical and significant building. P&D Commute: Mtz Minutes i'aee 6 tits. Paula Ja..1-:...rs in the nci, . A and has 1, ►.rd w-er the plans and discussed the propw, ed .t with the She fall •uppurts the Ilenikoft's and their prupkucd rem: %»;: n and add:t:o'l . Ubling church 'ru;Iding. tits. Joan Rat:;e ..,: that she . a of the Ilvmkoff, at their present home and K)asted on hc,w +:I] the% ha%e t::t.,n care of their prorcnv now and the detailed renovation to the house to bnr.g it up from what it looked like when they first bought it. She has known the Henikoff s fcir tine %ears now and couldn't think of better people who she is confident will do the utmost and detailed job on the renovation of the existing church building. She fully supports their efforts. Mr. Doug Gamstel. 2038 Hawthorne. said that he would like to see the property added to the tax rolls also. Also. he can not understand why the Zoning Board would vote such a beautiful project down when they should be recruiting someone like Mr. Henikoff for his advice on preser%ing other historic buildings in Evanston. Aid. Moran raised questions on the height of the ,xest elevation to the peak of the roof of the addition, which \fr. Henikoff responded to. Aid. Wollin asked preserving the stained Glass windows of the church. \Ir. Henikoff noted that it is not the original stained glass and is virtually worthless at this point. In addition, he would have to comply with the current regulations for windows on a single-family home. Aid. Hansen informed her fellow Committee members that she was present at the Zoning Board meeting and heard the presentation. She does believe the proposed renovation and addition to the existing church building would be the best use and preservation of the historical building. Mr. Albert Hunter. 1040 Elmwood, feels that the addition to this building is way too much on way too little. He said that there are too many hypotheticals that have been raised because when the property was purchased all the rules were in place as to what can be done and not done on the property. He said that his views will be blocked by the proposed addition and would negatiN ely affect his light and air to his own property and backyard use. Also the proposed condensing unit will be right next to his property- which will deter the use and enjoyment of his backyard as well. He is very much opposed to the proposed addition and granting of the %ariances requested. He urges the P&:D Committee to uphold the Zoning Board's recommendation to deny the major variation request additions to this structure. Mayor Lorraine Morton informed the Committee that she has spoken with Mr. Henikoff several years ago about his plans to move his business to Evanston. which he did into the Rotary Building do,-%nto%vn. She continued that Mr. Henikoff also moved his family to Evanston at that time and have been interested in renovating and preserving the beautiful church building on the subject property Therefore, she is convinced of his willingness to be giving to his community and he has also invested his business into Evanston as well. She pointed out the current coach house on Mr. Hunter's property that is also too close to the lot line. Also the property at 910 Greenleaf is currently nonconforming by being too close to the lot line as well. She recalled the original owners of the house at 910 — Greenleaf and how the property that house is built on once helonged to the Church. So _�_ P&D Corm—atirc Nttg. , Minutes of.A.:-.43 _ Pace - therefore. -he Church i�rt";r3i�; :"stir Up their glx+n pr+periN for that house to t\ist today. it that hct;.: ; n -cries t, F tht subject properth .ire non -conforming ++ith %art.: .,quirernent •,,t cct properi% .%ould also be too. %fa•L�r Morton pointed _ _t that thii, no .:1 rr.., 1'- atiiIn jiob; the re�toratinn of this buildinc t+ifl be enormot.- L-id e\pen,i%c anj 4-c j:� �.,-ritident that Mr. H nikoff will do a most impressive .job %%ith : s:h a project. Chairman Bernstein expressed his ioncern %%ith the condenser unit and asked Mr. iienikoff to explain the proposed ideation of the unit. Mr. flenikotTresponded that the condenser unit will be located under their porch right next to his bedroom ++endow. He has alreadN taken this concern into consideration and will be investing in a special condenser unit that has a I-er. iiuht fan sound when in use. Aid. �Vynna expressed her support for the project and also agrees that it would be the best use and preservation of that building. She feels the renovation "ill be an asset to the community and neighborhood and that the property owner has shown the utmost concern and consideration for the neisrhbors and for the property. She is a bit concerned %%ith the condenser unit and would ljke to see some type of condition in the ordinance to assure that ewer} consideration is gi%en to the location and control over the noise level. Aid. Tisdahl ++ould tend to agree +%ith Mr. Hunter in that the additions are too much on too little. Howe%er. in view of the other options that could occur on that site. she would have to support the proposed project and use of the building. Aid. Moran applauds the applicant"s efforts to presen a this structure and e`en agrees that the plans are done with taste and consideration of the historic building. llo%%ewer. the size of the addition does negati%el% affect the adjoining properties. lie feels the plan is too aggressive and that there are other options that can be considered. therefore he can not support this particular project and .%ould vote to uphold the Zoning Board's decision. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that he would be inclined to supper this project. however he does not see why the need for so much lining space addition. Mr. Henikoff explained the addition will provide for their bbdrooms and added bathroom needed. Aid. Wollin expressed her support for the project and also agrees that it is the best use in preserving this property. She also is in favor of bringing the propert) on to the tax roll. Aid. Wynne moved to reject the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation, seconded bti old. Woliin. The vote %as 8 in favor of the motion and 1 voting nay (Mloran). The Committee directed staff to bring back an ordinance reflecting this major variation request for the July 11'" meeting. (P3) Ordinance 83-0-05 - Planned De,.rlonment. 645 Custer Mr. James Murray. Attorne-, for the applicant. introduced the manager of Clearwater LLC. Mr. Ste%e Lome. and the architect. \lr. James Naele. fir. ,Murrav cave a brief overvie+v of the planned development for 645 Custer that is presently located «ithin the 'AU Transitional Manufacturing district. He said that they are requesting the planned development as a form of special use including such de%elopment allowances or other relief as it ma+ be necessarn to all„•-+ the redevelopment of the subject properv.. 'fhe project is proposing 19 residential units and accessory parking. The exceptions being P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of 06-2 7.05 Page 8 requested are ic, the parking. ; :r:i. building height. %ard obstructions. Ir t si7:. floor area ratio. and open space require:^ L—n-- Ile turned the .lieu> ion o%er to %17. N»_le %•ho can better describe the actual k*,,a; :Ln,; design ni the rroi ct Mr. Nagle gave a presentation cct the proposed project using a :-dimen<ional model and several site diaLrams of the Fr,: p_r.;.. Nis. Sue Carlson. 2679 Ste«art. expressed her concern with the inclusion of affordable housing in this project and if the developer has made an offer to either include in this proposal or some other site or payment consideration. Mr. Murray responded that there has been some discussion between Mr. Lome and the .old. Hansen. Discussions have not concluded to date. ho«eyer it has been suggested that some type of payment -in -lieu of might be considered. :did. Jean -Baptiste asked how much the purchase price per unit is expected. Mr. Lome responded that in keeping with competitive prices. the units till range from S400.000 to S57-.(K_M) per unit. which is the going rate at this time for the area and type of development. Chairman Bernstein asked old. Hansen for an update on the discussion regarding affordable housing. :did. Hansen elaborated on the discussion %%ith Air. Lome and that some type of contribution to be made towards affordable housing funds may be offered by the applicant. She personally would be ven- satisfied with any contribution by %ir. Lome and pointed out that she feels there is sufficient affordable housing in that area that either currently exists or is in the beginning redevelopment stage. Aid. Holmes added that it is vm hard to require a developer to provide Inclusionary housing or to make a specified payment if there is no affordable housing ordinance in place at this time. .old, Hansen agreed. On the other hand. Chairman Bernstein and Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that City Council has a right to request a developer to give something back to the community and providing or contributing to some type of affordable housing. is suffice in that order. For example. the project developer for 1228 Emerson gave back in the %%a% of payment -in -lieu -of for a substantial amount. Aid. Moran moved for introduction of this item and refer back to the P&D Committee to allow the opportunity for further engagement in the discussion between Aid. Hansen and the developer regarding affordable housing or some hype of payment -in -lieu -of. old. Jean -Baptiste seconded the motion. Aid. Wynne recommended that those discussions should include staffs input as -veil. She suggested Air. Wolinski and his. Carroll be included. which was agreed to by .old. Hansen and Mr. Lome. Aid. Rainey added, as a thought. suggesting that a contribution could be made to a specific project. She suggested the upcoming project at 736-38 Dobson for an affordable condominium cornersion be a consideration. The vote %as 9-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Cotntnince ,ite. Minutes of 06-2"-05� Page 9 ADJOURNMENT i he meeting %-.as adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacque 'ne E. ro%%mlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of Jule 11, 2005 Room 2200 -- 6;30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainer. E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. %i. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll. G. Morgan. A. Jackson. V. Jones. C. Ruiz. D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLAPUTION OF OUOR[; NI Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 27. 2005 MEETING ,'MINUTES Ald. Tisdahl moved approval of the June 27. 2005 minutes. seconded by Ald. XV%mne. The minutes %sere approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda to first. eradicate the items that require less time. and second to eo on to the items that now require a court reporter transcript. W61 Temr)orarr Sianaee Reauest for American Craft Exposition Chairman Bernstein recognized Ms. Carol Cyrus. who has represented the Auxiliary of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare for many rears no,.r. The Committee expressed no concerns «ith this matter. Aid. Tisdahl moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote w as 8-0 in favor of the motion (Aid. Jean -Baptiste was not present yet). (P5) Side„alk Cafd at 640 Church Street (Sashimi Sashimi) Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the o"-ner!applicant. Mr. William Na. Mr. Na informed the Committee that his business is going on two years at this location. However. this is his first year applying for a sidewalk cafd due to the scaffolding that existed around the building last summer. With no further discussion. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Na was made aware of the rules on litter and debris pickup, regular garbage disposal. etc. MD Commfnee Mie. Minutes of 7-11-05 - Paee 2 tMi Planned Development Kendall Coll_se.:40S Orrintnon A-,enue —flan Commission Recommendation Chairman Bernstein, a_l;ed Aid. ... an update on her discussions with the developer to date. He noted that there h:;= a request from the applicant to continue this matter because they have presented an%i applied for different project. old. NVollin confirmed that and her understanding is st the project is significantly different. therefore legally she believes the eurre;,t project should be voided. aid. Wollin motioned that the Committee accept the Plan Commission's rejection of the original plan. Ald. Tisdahl seconded the motion. The Committee discussed the process that would occur with the application of the ne•.% plan if they were to approve this motion and having to go back to square one. At any rate. the applicant will have to go back before the Plan Commission. Mr. Wolinski stated that there is a request from Smithfield to go back to the Plan Commission with an amended plan. He brought attention to the legal opinion from lack Siegel included in Council's packet, stating that his recommendation is that the Planning & Development Committee remand this project back to the Plan Commission for open testimony again. The Committee discussed Mr. Siegel's legal opinion further «1th a majority consensus in agreement with the opinion. old. WolIin withdrew her original motion. .aid. Wynne moved that the Committee remand the amended plan back to the Plan Commission, seconded by Ald. Rainey, Mr. Tom Gemmell and \,Jr. Bill McClure were sworn in and spoke in favor of Aid. Wollin's original motion. INV. Chris Carer. Chair of the Preservation Commission, gave his opinion behalf of his Commission. - The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. old. Rainey moved that the action item on Council Floor in regards to this case be held until the Plan Commission has made a recommendation on the amended plan. old. Tisdahl seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION) (M) Ordinance 99-0-05 — Federal Historic Districts (Text Amendment) Aid. Rainey moved approval, seconded by old. Tisdahl. Ms. Szymanski advised the Committee that in order for them to adopt this ordinance, they would have to have some findings in the record. The Committee read through the standard and findings to consider in Zoning Ordinance amendments at Section 6-3-4-5. That standards reads: "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City Council." The Committee members read the suggested findings as stated below. • The Planning and Development Committee have considered and found that Section 6- 1 5-11-5 presently acts as a disincentive to those seeking to initiate preservations districts at the lowest level of participation. The Committee has considered that «bile the National Register is used to "identify... cultural resources," that "listing of private property on the National PgD Committee Nit_e. Minutes of 7.11.05 Pate 3 Register does not prohibit La":- Federal law or regulations any action- -%hich may othcnvi-ce be taken by the owner with re_Fect to the property. The National Re��i�ter ti;as designed it, be i= adrninistered as a planning tool." *rhe Committee has considt-, d that listing of an historic district on the National Register makes property a•xrers therein eligible for federal affirmative incentives structured to encourage o,.%r,ers of properties %%ithin significant areas to voluntary maintain and rehabilitate. and to discourace the destruction of such buildines. The Committee has considered that the City Code provides other levels of preservation protection that entail mandatory Preservation Commission re%iew and other requirements. Mr. Ruiz was sworn in by Chairman Bernstein. To insure that everyone is on the same page, he explained that if you are in a Federal Historic District and the property that is seeking federal incentives, they do need to be contributing structures. He noted that if the structure is contributing, then the property mould be eligible and qualify. Aid. Rainey said that she would like to arrange a meeting with the Preservation Commission in his Ward so that people in the new district could hear about the advantages in greater detail regarding the tax incentive plan. She is certain that the Preservation Commission acts as an educational body as well as their duties in reviewing cases before them. Mr. Ruiz agreed and will work between Ald. Rainey and the Preservation Commission to set up that meeting. The vote ivas 9-0 in favor of Aid. Rainey's motion. (P4) Ordinance 90-0-05 — Nfaior Variation reauest for a Rear and Second -store Addition at 1044 Elmwood Avenue Chairman Bernstein swore in even.one on the citizen sign-up sheet that wished to comment on this project. The follo% ing citizens spoke in opposition: AI Hunter Andy Pigozzi Rebecca Dudley Renee Weber John Mohr The follo%sing citizens spoke in support of the proposed project: Shellie Dixon Michael Tarinen Stephanie Ruder Steve Doroba Tioy & Kristin Henikoff (property o wriers) Paul Glick DRAFT SPECIAL Planning & De%elopment Committee Minutes of Jule 18, 2005 Room 2200 — b:00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center .alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hamen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainey. E. Ti>d ahl. C. Wollin Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll. G. Morgan. A. Alterson. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein swore in Mr. James Murray, attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Steve Lome, Manager of Clearwater LLC and property owner. �tr. Murray proceeded with a brief presentation of the project. He noted that the New Biscuit Lofts dominate this propert} to the south. He presented a map of the area demonstrating the zoning. He described the project in detail using the 3-dimension model as an example. He informed the Committee that there has been in-depth discussion in meetings between the developer and the neighbors and their objections were considered in the revising of the plan. One objection being that the original plan had the building too close to the alley and the Ne�ti Biscuit Lofts that are immediately south across the alley. which the developer'; architect revised the plan and shifted the building so that there is now a distance of =0' between the proposed building the Lofts. lair. Murrav went over the parking garage layout plan and the landscaping plan for the site. He informed the Committee that the R5 zoning across the street from this site allows 20 units for a project of the same size opposed to the 19 units that they are proposing with the project. He concluded his presentation. Aid. Jean -Baptiste expressed his concern %%ith parking that is already an issue in that area. He asked about additional parking needed for guests. Mr. Lome responded that guest parking would have to be on the street. Ald. Jean -Baptiste said that in this area where parking is already scarce and the applicant is requesting a parking Variance. he suggested that the parking garage layout could be revised to accommodate the I extra space needed to comply. Discussion followed regarding reconfiguring the parking layout, however it would be too difficult and tight to fit another parking space within the usable space in the garage. The Committee members. Mr. L. _�me an,`; Nir. Murra% discussed in more detail the Iift and its anticipated usage. also the .:istance from the lit: to the elevator. Further discussion followed regarding the close trOki" :~• to the commuter train. which the architect explained the special attention that has :-•:er given to noise muf:Jinu. Mr. Murray recalled that this matter held at the June 27-' meeting to allow time for a meeting with .alderman Hansen and staff to discuss and come to an agreeable concurrence of an amount in donation tc, the Mayor's Special Housing Fund with regards to contributing to the affordable housing dilemma in Evanston. fie recalled that in the first deliberation there was an amount offered by the developer for S 1,500 per unit. After further discussion with Aid. Hansen- there wvas an agreement for S2,000 per unit or $38,000 for the project as a donation. Chairman Bernstein expressed his remaining concern with the lot coverage and the lack of parking in the area. Aid. Moran said on the other hand. that the lot is also unique and he feels the proposal is a fairI% good presentation for the lot location and the project is fitting for the neighborhood. Ald. Jean -Baptiste reiterated his concem with the available parking in the neighborhood and that a problem already exists. Ald. Hansen stated that parking will always be an issue in that area and it is a benefit with this proposal and she likes the idea that the project does include parking. Aid. Wollin added that the parking allowance is so close to what is being proposed. Ald. Rainey said that she is concerned with the common areas and maintenance of the green space. She questioned how the condominium declaration will be outlined for the responsibility of each townhouse versus the condominium units. Ntr. Lome explained the divider ship of the responsibility of the common areas. Aid. Hansen noted that there v.-as much neighborhood impact in this project and the developer worked well with the neighbors and revised his plan to try and accommodate the most critical concerns. As ward alderman. she supports this proposal for this site. Aid. Wollin moved to accept the introduction with the amendment to include 52,000 per unit in lieu of providing affordable housing. Aid. Moran seconded the motion and the vote was 7 in favor and 1 voting nay (Chairman Bernstein). (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q�\W_�P'x z - ��� V-9-, Jacquelipe 9. Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of Juh. 25, 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainey, E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin. M. Wynne Alderman :absent: A. Hansen Staff Present: J. Wolinskl. J. Carroll, J. Aiello. A. Jackson, D. Slarino, D. Spicuz>a. E. Sn-manski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE DULY 11. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Ald. Tisdahl moved approval of the July 11. 2005 minutes with the amendment noted by !ohs. Brownlee to change the date in the header. Ald. Jean -Baptiste seconded the motion and the minutes were approved unanimous]•. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Ordinance 90-0-05 — Maior Variation Reauest for a Rear and Second -story Addition at 1044 Elmwood Avenue This item was introduced at the July 11`4 meeting and referred back to Committee to review the amended ordinance to include language to provide the most effectively quiet condenser unit and additional language thai all efforts be made to preserve the oak tree on the adjoining property. It was the majority consensus of the Committee to recommend amending the ordinance further by adding additional language "to meet or exceed the code at 55 decibels or if this does not work. add a device to insulate the condenser unit. Aid. Jean -Baptiste motioned to approve Ordinance 90-0-05 with the additional amended language, seconded by Aid. Wvnne. The vote was 7 in favor of the motion and I voting nay (Moran). (PLEASE REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION) (Pa) Ordinance 93-0-05 — Plan Commission Recommendation for Zonins Ordinance Text Amendment: Zonins and Administrative Adiudication P&D Committee %ha. %N-ozics of teh 25. 2005 Ps,-, . Aid. Raine;► moved approval of Ordinance 93-0-05, seconded hw Aid. Tisdahl. The w ote %was 8-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. \%*. •l:nski requested the 'mmittee to consider u=finding the rules for this item because it :apes approximatelw a month to put into effect with the .administrative Adjudication program and there are several zoning .iolation tickets that thew%would like to see go through this process. The Committee concurred with ,Nir, Wolinski's request. (PLEASE REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION) i P= t Housing Commission Recommendation for HOME Funds for ECDA's 736-38 Dobson Proiect Chairman Bernstein acknowledged all those present representing this case from Reba Place Development and ECDA. Aid. Rainey informed the Committee that she has met with both organizations on this matter. She wanted to impose her opinion on this, especially to the housing experts on the Housing Commission that brought forth this recommendation. She noted that they have non -for -profits involved in this case selling a building for $750,000 so that it can then be converted to condominiums at the cost of another S600,000 approximately. She questioned if it would not make more sense, if the real goal is to provide affordable housing, to cut out the middle man in this case to consult "ith the Mennonite Church. Aid. Rainey believes that Nir. Banks and Reba Place could develop this property for Mennonite and they would still get the same $800,000 in sale price for the units and receive the $360,000 from the City. In her opinion, she feels they would have so much more affordability this way than the method being proposed here. She said this process is what causes the high price of housing wvith the addition of S750.000 to the cost of this project to purchase the building. However, Aid. Rainey stated that she will support this but the City need to get a better view on how to go about providing affordable housing. She noted that the way they go about getting affordable housing in Evanston is from the use of City housing funds to support the developer's portion to make the property affordable. She pointed out that %%hat the City is actually doing is increasing the value of this property and this should not be the case. Aid. Rainey stated that more thought should be put into the full scope of these affordable housing projects. Aid. Rainey said secondly, that she has a grave concern about where the extra $146,300 is coming from. All she can account for here is the revenue is going to be $1,160,000 from the sale plus the City's contribution. She noted that the applicant stated that the project cost S1,306,300, therefore leaving a shortage of $146,300. In addition, the applicant is stating that they are going to get this money from contributions from other churches and individual means. She said that this type of situation is not stable and concerns her very much. Aid. Rainey stated that in view of the applicant's status, she believes that those contributions are possible, however she feels that going into a project like this is frightening when funds are short by that amount. Aid. Rainey added that she would request that there be a condition placed that this building must be entirely converted to condominiums and not remain rental in any way. In her opinion, she feels that for the Mennonites, it is %%Tong to sell this building for P&D Committee %Itc Mintiles of Jatti :_. _rx)5 Pace 3 S750.000 when the same amount r-f m,­rc: can he u4t:d t,, %:nn%ate and then sell the units without adding that extra cost and the% still prolli -.he same amount of money. She noted that -,khat causes the price . r7open. to he so C. Mr. David Janzen. Project Manager with Reba Place Development. wished to respond to Aid. Rainey's comments. He informed the Committee that ECDA has hired their development organization to develop and general contract this project. lie noted that this is also a partnership between their organizations to renovate and convert this building to condominiums. He said that the reason the Mennonite Church scant to sell this property, which the sale price has been matched exactly by an appraisal. is because they want to buy another building and relocate. The 'Mennonite Church would Iike to continue its ministry in a different kind of setting above ground and in a more appropriate public and available location, they need to sell this property and use the proceeds for purchasing another building that %%ill fit their needs. Mr. Janzen acknowledged the representatives present from the Mennonite Church who can elaborate further on their plans. Nevertheless, he can not understand a way or means to purchase this building further without the asking purchase price of S750.000. He noted that the Mennonite Church at this point does not wish to continue ownership. He stated that when they first approached the City with their proposal by contacting ills. Donna Spicuzza and Aid. Rainey, they were informed that the Citv is Willing to be a partner in this development, however it was made clear at that time that they sought funds from the Illinois Housing Development Authority. the Federal Home Loan Bank and other Evanston Churches, to come up with an additional amount of S120,000 in contributions. Therefore, he noted that the subsidy funds they need at $80.000 per unit. v ith the City HOME funds of $60.000 per unit, leaving $20.000 per unit. Mr. Janzen brought attention to the pro forma report included in the Committee's packet which clearly defines and explains the cost and expenses of the project. Aid. Rainey pointed out that the pro fonna noted $146.300 short fall. -which is stated to be made up for in contributions. She reiterated her concern «ith the fact that there is'no real commitment in writing or verbally for contributions to the shortfall amount. Mr. Janzen said that he feels certain that upon the purchase commitment that the anticipated contributions will come fonvard. Aid. Rainey clarified that the point she is trying to make is that the ''middle -man" cost needs to be eliminated for affordable housing.—TIwaMitiorrial cost is not 9 swings for the City. nor doe sit aid in supporting" the cost of affordable housing; it only adds to the value of the property in the end. Nis. Robin Snyderman-Pratt. Chair of the Housing Commission. spoke in regards to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. %%hich is also on the agenda this evening for discussion. She pointed out in relation to this very matter how important this ordinance and regulation would be for the City of Evanston to aid in providing affordable housing. She said that this ordinance w711 aid even xhen it relates to the not -for -profit organization projects as well as the larger planned development projects that have overwhelmed the City in the past years. Ms. Pratt recognized that the City has a commitment to providing affordable housing and have federal dollars set aside to contribute to that cause, however in view of the present real estate market and cost of redevelopment and construction, the expense for providing such housing is very expensive and needs to be funded for provision. In her opinion. in the future that they are going to see a whole new pool of P&D Comminee %Ite. Minutes of Jul) 25, ;riu; Pace a opportunities created fvr prt.,.iding a, "�-u:Ir,4 'ind More tools for the ability to help more qualified 'r.;, er_ purchase prt-Nn% :.- _n affordabit amount. Aid. Rainey asked NI;. Spicuzza from th :::formation recei\ed in C'ouncil's packet. about her stating that she would be speaking «ith the Assessor aixiut affordable taxes because she finds the amount stated in the pro forma may be short. tits. Spicum responded that she just had an initial meeting «ith the Assessor's Office and they looked at the documents being used in terms of resale restrictions and the time frame involved. She noted that from this observation, the Assessors Office did not give a definitive answer but there is a special assessment program division and they are looking at inclusion of this program for homeowners «ho purchased affordable housing properly. Mr. Keith Banks, Executive Director of ECDA. stated that they are centering their efforts as a faith -based organization to maintain and preserve affordable housing in the City of Evanston. He noted that it is a tremendous challenge and one of the things they have been unable to do unlike some other similar organizations in the City of Chicago, is to purchase and obtain property lots for one dollar or donated free of cost with the agreement to develop affordable housing on the lot. Mr. Banks noted here in Evanston they are expected to purchase the property or land at full market value and as a result. have to be very creative in order to develop affordable housing. Therefore, they have an advantage to try and galvanize the faith -based community as well as partner with the city. and partner with other not -far -profit organizations. also getting the community involved to succeed in the mission to provide any affordable housing. He stressed the fact that his organization has worked very hard to succeed in this mission along with all the other entities involved and that they are not doing this for the profit but more for the cause and the need. Mr. Banks elaborated on the purchase price of S750.000 to the Mennonite Church and their gift to pay the full down payment and closing costs. fie reiterated Mr. Janzen's statements to the Committee that the tiiennonite Church's desire at this time to sell the building and use the proceeds to purchase another building and relocate their ministry services to a more suitable location. Aid. Rainey repeated her concern with the building being entirely converted to condominiums with no rental and she would like the Committee to support a requirement that in order to receive the HOME funds. the building must be totally converted and sold as affordable units as opposed to any extension of rental use. She explained that there remains some confusion and unsureness from discussion with the applicants as to the continuation of renting units while renovating the building and the time frame for completion. Aid. Rainey stressed that she does not want to see that situation occur and wishes the immediate goal to be the total conversion of all the units. She strongly urges some restriction and time frame clarified for the rental use of this property. Mr. Wolinski responded that the ultimate goal here is that when all is said and done and the final rehab is finished, all the units «•ill be converted and sold as affordable condominiums as slated. Mr. Janzen responded to Aid. Raine}'s concerns informing the Committee that their anticipated time frame for rehabilitation and conversion of the building is for the final plan to be ready within 6 months and then begin renovation and construction thereafter to be done approximately l year following. He assured that they would need at least 19 f &D Cornmit: 1•1tc; Minutes of J4!-. _s. Pave � months and no more than + %ear< in case o1"tjn1(,r-.,ecn ;itu.::i.•ns. fie dial :..norm that there uiil ire a transitional reriud during the constrL:fi(-n �ta_C %where si,me rental will take place ;o that the building will not he totally empt, and means (if income will still be cuminL in. Mr. Janzen pointed out that an. HOME f:.rds «ill not be disbursed unless all guidelines are meat and the: condominium closing taka }lace. 'sir. Wolinski addressed Mr. Janzen and :fir. Banks regardine the Mennonite Church sen•ices being held in the basement of this building and iFthe use Will continue during the renovation of the building. Both gentlemen said the Mennonite Church «ill remain holding their services in the basement until they find and purchase a building and relocate. Mr. Wolinski recalled in the past. the Mennonite Church receiving a special use to allow a church use in that basement and he further recalled %hich Ald. Rainey backed up, the documented calls and complaints on property maintenance issues that have occurred at this address and with the Church use in the basement. He recommended to the Committee. in light of this kno%%Iedge, that he would not like to see some successor have to deal with this Church use at this property as a result of that special use that was granted years ago. He suggested to the Committee that some language should be added with the deed restriction regarding the release of the existing special use. Ms. Szymanski agreed with Ivir. Wolinski and advised the legal language that should be added. Ald. Rainey also agreed that there needs to be some agreement to the use of the basement in this building because the subsequent condominium association should not have to deal i%ith the extended use of Mennonite Church services. 'sir. Janzen responded that in this case, they would request as much but no more than 3 years in which to complete the entire condominium conversion of the building. He informed the Committee that in that time, they have an agreement with the Mennonite Church to allow their right of continuance of worship services for up to 3 years and no longer. He reiterated that the regulations of the HOME funds %Hill not be allocpted until the final disposition of total units is converted to condominiums. Ald. Rainey's strongly urged the Committee to support her request to hold this item on their agenda for further discussion of the issues of concern that were brought out this - - - evening.-- She -questions" the time frame 6f the corhpletion for the renovation to condominitums in this building with only 6-units involved. She would also like staff to investigate the continued use of the basement as a church use o%er the next 3 years while the conversion is taking place. Aid. Rainey motioned to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was "in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 91-0-05 — Extendine Moratorium on Issuance of Buildine Permits on Central from Bennett to Marcy Aid. Rainey moved approval, seconded by Aid. Moran. Aid. Wollin asked staff how long will these extensions be allowed to go on and where does the Plan Commission stand on this issue and the time frame for bringing it before PRD Commiree ` it Minutes of _fib' Pare 6 the P&D t :rnnsittee. yls la,.Ks.,n rcNlx)ndcd that the Plan Cunulti'Z41n -aril meet this week on and thi; iwnt iz, on their a-wrida. She said in contidence on behalf of the Flan C(,mrnksic,n position in light of if this moratorium is extended. that they will review thi_ i,sue and finalize :heir recommendation as soon as passible and present before the Committee %%ithin the next fey meetings. :sir. %Volinski informed the Committee that of the 4 projects that started on West Central Street «ithin the last year, only one of those projects is currently undenway. That project is on the old Brown's Chicken site for a condominium development. He noted that the ether 3 projects, which were proposed but were caught in some phase of the approval stage, have gone dormant and have not proceeded. He stated to the best of his knowledge, there is no one who has approached the City with plans in the West Central Street to build in the moratorium area at this time. Aid. Moran concurred. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1PD1) Inclusionan• Housine Polio• `Ss. Carroll approached the Committee and explained rather than bring forth ordinances at this time, she felt it important to first present this discussion paper first since this is such an important housing topic. She said also that this discussion paper summarizes staff's ideas and what we feel is appropriate for lnclusionary housing in Evanston. She thought it %would be good for the Committee to chew on this information for awhile and give staff their reaction and tell us what direction to proceed. Als. Carroll informed the Committee that she has been haying discussions with Robin Snyderman-Pratt and some of her counterparts, and internal discussions with staff members: James Wolinski, Dennis Marino, and Donna Spicuzza. She directed attention memorandum from the Housing Commission regarding their review and comments of this discussion paper at their July 21, 2005 meeting, which states their support and encouragement after rears of working on this topic. She noted that as it points out under the Housing Characteristics paragraph on page 1, it shows significant inflation in the housing sale prices over the past several years and it is becoming harder and harder for people to be able to afford to live at the median income level % ithin the community. She said that the Housing Commission came up with a series of recommendations. which staff added on to. For example, the Housing Commission recommended a range of 10-20% set -aside for affordable housing depending on the size of the development. Staff is recommending that they only look at planned developments with 25 units or greater, or the smaller development %%hick they are suggesting a set -aside of 10go of which 5% could be donated on -site and _59-o off -site contribution of the developers choice. Ms. Carroll noted that their policy does not address rental housing at this time. onlc w ner-occupied housing. She believes that in discussions with staff that it was felt that the rental market does not increase significantly as the o%vrier-occupied so there is not as great an urgency to include in the Inclusionary housing policy at this time. .also she said a significant percentage of homes or units that were affordable are more in the rental market versus owner -occupied, which Mr. Marino added that approximately 32% of households in the rental market were paying more than 35% of their income per housing and it %%as 20% of owner -occupied were paying more P&D Committec NIte. !Minutes of Jul. _'5.:005 Pace 7 than 35%. Ms. C'arroil c,�n*..nued that %%hat the Housing Cornmi zsion had recommended was workinu v ith 81)� a Of .rea median income: howe%er 5t.11 suggesting 80-100"o of Evanston area median inc��nx. «hick would make it more for the wvorkforce of the community such as firefighters and police officers. etc. i'ne Housing Commission also suggested of a much longer restriction period. which staff ,u��cests a maximum of 15 years and they have not fuIIN developed the formula to go with this concept. She noted that staff did concur with the housing provider continuing to work with not -for -profit organizations in the Cit, to purchase some of the affordable units. Ms. Carroll concluded that basically they are here tonight to see if the Committee first want to have such a policy, if so, secondly does the Committee wish for staff to further explore some concepts with the development community. She said that staff would also like to work with the not -for -profit organizations that have been working %vith the affordable housing market and including their input. Nor. Marino said that Nis. Carroll has covered the major issues, but he would like to point out on page 4. there is a breakdown of qualifying income to affordable housing sale price and the housing expense to income ratio. He noted that at 70% of median, what is being reached at this level at 543.771 is approximately the entry level salary for a teacher at Evanston Township High School and the entry level for firefighters and police officers is approximately 548,000 or around 80% of median. This gives some idea of the range in salaries in the workforce and they would like to look at the salary range of the workforce at the two hospitals as well. He noted that the affordable sales price in this chart is based on new construction and what a household of 4 would be able to afford at 33-34% housing expense to income ratio. He said that this is basically a program concept so there are several different iterations that can be done. Chairman Bernstein said that they still need to determine %Nhat methodology they are going to use to subside to buy those prices down to the affordable sales price. Ms. Carroll suggested that the subsidy could either come from a developer or by means of the developer making a payment -in -lieu -of up to 5%. Aid. Rainey stated that she would like a report from staff regarding the extent to which the banks participate in affordable housing, specifically beginning with the Evanston Mortgage Corporation. She does not really understand how this program works, how it is funded or the process in which to apply for this program. The reason she asks about the role that the banks have in providing funds for affordable housing is because she received a call from the Federal Reserve Bank doing an interview that said they were selecting elected officials to find out what were banks doing in the community reinvestment act. She noted that the City is asking for developers to participate so she feels it is appropriate to have the banks participate as much as possible. Aid. Tisdahl said that she is eery interested in trying to provide housing for Evanston's workforce. She recalled that it was pointed out in this report that there are people throughout the State who would love to have affordable housing. She questions how they can do this just limited to Evanston workforce and how this would be legally written. Ms. Carroll responded that she was told by the City's Legal staff that they can write this up as a preference but can not make an outright limitation from her understanding. Ms. Szymanski added that a preference is far more defensible than an outright limitation. She recalled that the case law from the United States Supreme Court on "Residents Only" P&D Commincr ,\Itg. titmutes of Ju";. 25. 2005 Net 8 legislation and coals. alth�lugh ,he i; %ery %%cll a\%are thsis is housing: and that afflordable housing is a local matter. and the thrust of the matter t; Statc Legislation. She said that the United States Supreme Court case is ail«a%s in the back of her mind and it is very much disfa%vring. iimitine government type benefits v) residents. Therefore. she believes they would be on firm ground if established this as a precedent for Evanston residents. Ms. Carroll added that it is suggested to have certain residency or work time period requirements included such as a 1 year minimum before you can apply for First Time Homebuyers Program. Aid. Tisdahl asked if staff has had the opportunity to talk to the two hospitals about possibly participating and contributing in funding for affordable housing. Ms. Carroll responded that they have not extended out that far yet because staff felt that it would be premature at this time until City Council has the chance to review this discussion paper and give further direction on this concept before reaching out to other organizations. Ms. Spicuzza added that in terms of local preferences. that there has been discussion on the consideration of extending qualification to people who have grown up in Evanston or attended school here. Ms. Robin Snyderman-Pratt, Chair of the Housing Commission, said that the Housing Commission had a chance to review this discussion paper at their July 21" meeting and she would like to share a few overall impressions of this document and related questions that the Committee has brought up. First of all, she said that it is very satisfying for them to see this proposal that has been 3 years in the work. come forward and that the work of the Task Force and the Commission was well summarized in this report and transformed into staffs own words. She feels that this report is very responsive to the recommendations of the Citv*s Corporation Counsel and also to the Committee's request not to see the City giving too much away. She stated that this proposal is only for people whd are asking for something from the City, in terms of a variance or a bonus and in exchange for that, there is this requirement for an affordable housing pro% ision. She noted that this is not necessarily taping any sort of trust fund because certainly City`s uith much more expensive housing markets have even more aggressive set aside policies. Therefore, she pointed out that this proposal does not have the depth of what the Task Force and Housing Commission originally proposed but they do believe this is a good start. She recalled that when they first began this mission 3 years ago, several Council members said they wanted an affordable housing policy but need one that is appropriate and works for Evanston. Ms. Pratt gave her support behind this proposal and that it is worth building on. Although they have not had formal hearings with the development community, the Task Force, which Aid. Bernstein and former Aid. Kent sat on, did include both private sector members of the development community and Nir. Richard Koenig of Housing Opportunity Development Corp. Therefore, this effort was not designed in a vacuum by a bunch of advocates with no input from the development community. Ms. Pratt summarized that their main concerns with this was first, as Ms. Carroll referenced, the restriction period which they feel 15-rears is too short. The — Commission's opinion is in view of the fact of knowing how the market in Evanston is P&D Comrnirt-. %ttc. Minutes of _Z(xj� Pave Q escalating anJ %%hat the oppc%rtunities are and the demand for pro%idint affordable housing. She extended this a«areness ;n1m their research around the country that the Task Force conducted and rc%iewing other policies that have worked in tither areas. For example, in Nlontgomer% County that teas the first area to administer an affordable housing policy. is that the restriction period ends faster than expected and all of sudden they were in a worse predicament in the end. its. Pratt noted that this is an issue that has escalated to the State le%el and Fvanston is not alone in looking at this and there are a number of legal tools that they can explore. which is on the Housing Commission's agenda for their next meeting. , Ms. Pratt pointed out another issue that was referenced was the difference between looking at Evanston's media and the statistical media of the Chicago area. In her opinion, she feels this is very useful to see this crying demand in terms of Evanston, however when it comes down to crafting a policy and you look at the consideration of participation by the banks, whose programs focus on the statistical metropolitan areas, this Cite is different because the Evanston numbers are not calculated by household size as the metropolitan statistics are. She further explained the State's evaluation process, which she pointed out that the numbers are not that different. However they %-,ill receive a "bigger bank for the buck" if they use the broader median. - Ms. Pratt informed the Committee that another topic the Housing Commission discussed that they hear a lot from the non-profit developers. is how hard it is to get any rental housing. Therefore, the Housing Commission would like to see this eventually be extended to the rental market. She suggested one t%ay would be use some of the houses purchased by the non-profit sector for renovation as rental property. Ms. Pratt concluded that the Housing Commission remains available to keep trying to refine this concept and proposed policy at the direction of this Committee. Aid. Wollin agreed that this concept is a positive and good beginning to start with and acknowledged that it has been a priority concern on everyone's agenda for some time. She hopes that this beginning will continue to proceed with the inclusion of condo conversions, rental properties, and even with tear downs. She raised her concern'o ith the 15-year restricted period and the possibility of having multiple owners. She used for example. if someone owned the property for 13-years then sold to another eligible purchaser who owned the property for another 2-years, she questions who the second owner would benefit from this sale or if after 2 years. are they allowed to sell the property for market value" She feels this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and clarified in the policv. Aid. Wollin also asked what the set -aside means for the developer who is not %%illing to give 101/6 of the building for affordable housing. if the developer chose the option of payment -in -lieu -of, will this payment be based on the worth of the entire development or 10% of the selling price per unit? Mr. Marino responded that it would be based on 10% of the number of units and the going rate for price of those units. He clarified that this is only the concept according to what has been discussed and recommended for this discussion paper. He said that this formula can be further defined upon a formal dialogue %%ith the development community. Aid. Wollin agreed and noted P$D Comminee Otte. %finutts of1u1% _t. 200! Passe 10 that the C it} has made z some arrangements Je,t a lopmcnts that hate come before them. ho%kever in con parson to this propoal. th,�se arrangemenT.S seem minuscule, though important ne%ertheless. Aid. Wolliin suggested the consideration of having some special guidelines for the Special Housing Fund;-, and the disbursement of those funds. GIs. Carroll assured that «hen those funds are imol%ed, all guidelines and qualification requirements will ha%e to be met by any applicant before disbursement is made. Aid. Moran expressed his support for this concrpt of Inclusionary housing and the need to proceed on providing affordable housing if the City is to retain its diversity, which is very important for this community. He stressed that one of Evanston's strengths is its diverse population and he .would not «ant to see this advantageous diminish. He elaborated that this diversity applies to seniors and long time residents that have lived in this community for 30, 40, or some even 50— -ears and have run out of the economic ability to afford to stay- here. He is very concerned with the fact that even those who qualify to purchase under the affordable housing guidelines, if they %will be able to afford to contain the cost of housing expenses to remain in Evanston. Aid. Moran further pointed out that the Cin• has to be careful in consideration of the payment -in -lieu -of option provided to developers and their choices in where they request to Allocate those funds or provide for affordable housing units. He says this because the off -site contributions could all end up being requested to be located in certain areas of the City when this should be a City-wide responsibility for affordable housing. He would like to see some control over even distribution towards any such contributions to providing affordable housing. Aid. `loran also ►►anted to express his support for inclusion of the tear down tax proposal in the future. which would be beneficial in this community. Aid. Rainey asked staff, in reference to past discussions, what Highland Park has in place as far as their Inclusionarz• Housing Policy- and providing affordable housing and the options provided to developers for payment -in -lieu -of. She would like to see further information on who these programs are working for in those communities as far as income, workforce or residency requirements are involved.Her opinion is that in looking at the comparison of Highland Park -and even other North Shore - comm unifies, -such as Lake Forest, it would be helpful in considering the needs of the Evanston community, which is clearly more diverse. Her point being that if a program works for such north shore communities, then assuredly there is a definite need and a possible policy that will fit Evanston's uniqueness. It %will just take more creativity. Aid. Rainey also stated that another one of her concerns is the need to consider the effect that the time constraints could have under the affordability regulations for a growing family that may need to move to larger accommodations and if they will be negatively effected in any way by the 1 S-year restriction. She feels this restriction period needs to be reviewed further on how it could affect the homeowner in other ways besides the resale control. Chairman Bernstein reminded that it is also relevant the realization of the benefits that families receive when qualifying for affordable housing and what they are obtaining in the long run. :his. Pratt responded that this particular issue has been a big P&D Committee M%z. Minuics of Jul% _;, _rM Pave t I 1c1pic of discun>ion '%Nh the C mimission and there are a number of situations (out there that allow for families io hcnetit front the equiv, oNer a period of time. II me%er. there is a need to give rack to the City and for the Cite to have some control over this appreciation since }-lousing; funds were used to subsidy the cost. Aid. Jean -Baptiste stated that he feels they need to put in place a policy that concentrates on the existing affordable housing that the City has. He noted that there is a large population of homeowners in Evanston that would not be able to afford the purchase of their homes today. He said that the housing market has gone out of control and he would like to see some assistance pro,.ided for current homeowners if needed for different means. Aid. Tisdahl does not feel Highland Park or Lake Forest ordinance have anything to do with the Evanston community and should not be used as a comparison in her opinion. From experience, she grew up in Lake Forest, and it is a much less diverse community with the majority of its residents living within a similar income group whereas Evanston is much more diverse all everyway such as the people. income levels, economic environment. etc. Aid. Wynne said that she is pleased with this proposal because it practically eliminates the tool box of zoning variance trade-offs that existed when this matter first came about. She was under the impression that the Task Force was incorporating some of this into the policy to work with as a negotiating toot but is very impressed that they worked this out of the policy. his. Carroll responded that she was under the impression that the Council preferred to dram- away from making it available for developers to have that option of using certain zoning variances as a means for trade-off. That is why they have focused the attention on the trade-off for the options under payment -in -lieu -of. The Committee agreed that staff and the Housing Commission could begin to look at including the condominium conversions into this policy. :old. Wollin suggested that more consideration should be given to helping senior citizens such as maybe offering tax incentives or credits. She also suggested offering some type of assistance on living arrangements to any senior citizen who might consider donating their property to the affordable housing cause. Mr. Marino said that he would provide a matrix of current affordable housing activity in Evanston. The Committee members agreed that such a report would be very helpful. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacque`S�ne Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of August 15. 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Beniswin. A. Hansen, D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Raine}. E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin Alderman Absent: M. w erne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll, A. Jackson, D. Marino, G. Morgan, D. Spicum E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OLORUNI Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. As Chair of the A&PW Committee, Ald. Rainey apologized on behalf of her Committee and staff for running over. However, she reminded that there is only one meeting in August and they had a very full agenda to address. Chairman Bernstein added that in view of recent occurrences with heavy agendas and delayed starting times; it appears that this new system may not be working as an advantage in saving time. In fact, it has actually increased time and work involved. He suggests that this system be re -reviewed to see if there is a better system that can be considered APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL MEETING MIN LTES OF JULY 18. 2005 AND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING M. lNUTES OF JULY 25. 2005 Ald. Jean -Baptiste moved approval of both the July 18, 2005 special meeting and the July 25, 2005 meeting minutes. Ald. Moran seconded the motion and both sets of minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda. (P5) Planned Develooment — 1567 Manle Avenue. Plan Commission Negative Recommendation Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the developer's request for a continuance because of the inability to be present this evening. He noted that the developer's attorney, Mr. Murray, has been present since 6:30 p.m. this evening along with a couple that wanted to address this issue. In all fairness, he would like to grant the applicants request for continuance at this time. Aid. Tisdahl mdved approval of the applicant's request for continuance, seconded by Aid. Rainey. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion. P&D Commirt" Nttg. Minutes of August 15. 2W5 Page 2 (PI) Housing Commission Recommendation for HOME Funds for ECDA's 736-738 Dobson Proiect Chairman Bernstein recalled that this matter was held at the last meeting due to questions that were raised by the Committee. He noted that some were answered in the correspondence received in Council's packet but further discussion still remains, He turned to Aid. Rainey to begin dialogue. Ald. Rainey stated that she is going to support this request. However, as they develop a policy on affordable housing, she believes that what they face is a potential for not -for - profit selling to another not -for -profit which has occurred here. She noted several not - for -profit organizations; the Mennonites. Reba Place Fellowship, EHC, ECDA; and how this pattern of exchanging and selling properties amongst them has the possibility of reoccurring. Ald. Rainey said in her opinion, that this incidence feels ATong in her mind. She noted that the effort here is to try and reduce the cost of providing affordable housing and using housing funds to support the purchase and rehabilitation of property between not -far -profit organizations does not seem appropriate somehow. She found staffs assessment of the difference in the cost as to whether the Mennonites were to do this project or ECDA, with Reba's support, totally %%Tong. She elaborated that you can not pay $750,000 for a property without increasing the cost for redevelopment. Therefore, if the Mennonites were to develop this property into affordable condominiums, that additional cost for purchase would not be necessary. Aid. Rainey brought attention to specific wording and statements in staffs report that in her opinion is very exaggerated; she asked if this wording is in made by staff. Mr. Spicuzza responded that particular statements were from the developer and not from staff, but were included in the proposal. Ald. Rainey was relieved that staff did not make these statements because the wording was not impressive in her opinion and came across as blown out of proportion. Ald. Rainey stated that she is also requesting a restriction on the length of time for _ construction period on converting these units into condominiums. She stressed that 3 years is unacceptable. She said her desire is to see this building be converted immediately and for 6-units, that length of time is too long. Aid. Rainey noted that she has always supported the development and conversion of properties in her Ward because it relieves uninhabitable slums and blight of buildings that were on their way to demolition. Sbe said that many of these buildings were Yacant to a great extent or beyond repair for the purpose of rental. This current property is an affordable rental property and has been for many years. She said what is probably going to happen here is that the 6 families that currently live in this building are going to be displaced and 6 new families will move into an affordable home ownership situation. Aid. Rainey stated that she does not find having to displace any family anything to be very proud of, especially when it comes down to another not -far -profit adding to their list of properties for conversions. To sum this all up, in her opinion, it is almost a catch-22 where they are displacing affordable rental to replace with affordable homeownership units; this is hurting the limited supply of affordable rental stock in Evanston. She believes that one answer to the affordable housing problem in this City is to try and keep a balance all around with 'affordable rental, affordable homeownership, mixed in with market value properties as well. AId. Rainey stressed that it is coming to the point and time now where P&D Committee %tt¢ Minutes of August 15. 205 Pap 3 the City is going to have to be very careful in who we support in terms of converting rental housing into affordable condos. She pointed out that if the not -for -profit organizations are starting to take away affordable rental housing, who provide a good portion here in the Cite, then inevitably the City needs to step in and assist families from affordable housing units to help avoid some of the displacement that occurs when these condo conversions are done. Aid. Rainey concluded that supporting the use of HOME funds to finance the purchase of affordable rental -unit housing buildings and further assisting in the redevelopment to convert to affordable home oHnership units, somehow seems to be defeating the purpose of overall assisting in keeping affordable housing for rental as well. She said it appears that she may stand alone on this matter without the support of her fellow Councilmen, but hopes that here comments and opinions will be taken into consideration. Aid. Jean -Baptiste acknowledged that Aid. Rainey has made some very good points; in particular the matter of displacing the rental tenant from affordable rental housing. He feels the developer should give the current tenant the immediate first option to purchase if they meet the criteria. Aid. Rainey responded that she has no doubt that the developer will do this as responsibly as possible, however the majority of those tenants are unable to meet the qualifications to purchase and many are already receiving rental assistance. Ald. Jean -Baptiste requested the opportunity to allow the applicant's to respond to this matter of concern. Aid. Rainey motioned that she would like to amend the agreement from 3-years for completion of the conversion project to no more than 18-months. Completion meaning that all 6-units be renovated and at least marketed by that time. No second was made to this motion. Aid. Tisdahl stated to Aid. Rainey that the point she disagrees with her on at this time is where she feels that none of her fellow Councilmen support her position on this matter. She assured Aid. Rainey that she does share her concerns and that she too does not like to see the displacement of one group of people in order to replace with another group of people, even when that other group is very deserving in qualifying to purchase affordable housing. She also shares the concern for Iowering the supply of affordable rental housing stock and she would like to see more provisions for assisting families living in these units in seeking affordable homeownership. Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the applicants and representatives signed up to speak on behalf of this project and to give them an opportunity to respond to previous comments made by the Committee at this time. Mr. Keith Banks, Executive Director of ECDA, noted that their organization is a faith - bashed organization and are committed to their goal of maintaining and preserving affordable housing in the City of Evanston. He said that they have worked very hard in trying to galvanize the faith -based community, as well as the community at large to make this project affordable, which they strongly believe they can do. Mr. Banks explained P&D Comminee Mtg. Minutes of August 15, 2005 Page 4 that the Evanston Mennonites currently owns the property and it has always been on the tax -roll. He assured that it will remain a tax -based property, they are asking for no tax relief just because the property is faith -based owned. He informed the Committee that the Mennonites have been loosing money by maintaining this property as affordable rental because of the high taxes and other cost associates with rental maintenance. He noted that the Mennonites have a mortgage existing on the property of less than S 100,000 and they are unable to be profitable in their position with the ownership of this building. He stressed the realization of their ability to maintain this property as affordable rental housing even with assistance to rehab the units because it would take a huge subsidy in order to make this property profitable. Mr. Banks continued that if a for -profit developer purchased this property, they would rehab and convert the units into condominiums that would sell at market value of well over S200,000. Therefore, under this point of view, he feels it is a wonderful thing when you can have not -for -profit organizations come together and work together to make it possible to purchase, rehab and convert buildings into affordable housing for homeownership. He assured that current rental tenants always have first offering and option to purchase and not -for -profits will extend assistance to all their tenants in any way possible. He informed that there are 2 existing tenants in the building that have expressed interest and he further reiterated that they will assist those tenants in everyway to make homeownership for them possible. Mr. Banks further informed the Committee that the units will sell for S90,000 - $165,000 for 3- bedroom condominiums in Evanston. He stressed that this is a huge commitment to affordable housing in this community. Furthermore, he noted that it is obvious from these figures that none of the organizations involved are making a tremendous prof -it from this project. Also, the Mennonites have worshiped in the basement of this building for 25 years and they now want to move on and expand their facilities to increase their congregation and grow their Church services, which they deserve and are entitled to. Mr. Banks said that it should be noted and commended on behalf of the Mennonites that they were not just interested in selling the property to anyone who could have easily made a for -profit killing. He concluded that he acknowledges Aid. Rainey's concerns; however, there is a benefit in dealing with not -for -profit between not -far -profit versus the ultimate option of the for -profit involvement. The Committee questioned the applicant's position on Aid. Rainey's motion to amend the 3-year completion time limit to 18 months. Mr. Banks responded that he does not see a problem with agreeing to this, however he would like some type of leeway allowed for time constraints due to unforeseen construction problems that may occur along the way. He stressed their due diligence for construction of the rehabilitation to convert the 6-units to condominiums as soon as possible. They realize the sooner completion will only work in their favor. Ald. Jean -Baptiste noted that he hears the applicant's willingness to move forward but he would like to make sure that they are not subjecting them to sanctions of the normal construction process and unforeseen problems that can occur. He asked for the professional opinion of the contractor for the applicant on the ability to complete this project within an 18-month period. He further questioned at what point to base the 18- month or any specified time of completion; should this time be based upon the time the P&D Committee 'SUg. Minutes of August 15. 2605 0 Page 5 applicant obtains permits? Aid. Rainey explained her position that she was referring to the time that staff approves the permits up to the time occupancy permits are obtained and the units are available for purchase and ready to move into. Ms. Spicuzza informed the Committee that there is one consideration in the time frame and that is for relocation assistance for existing tenants which regulations require at least 90-days from notice of conversion construction or more time if they applicant adheres to the tenant living out their lease. Chairman Bernstein asked the termination of the longest lease currently in the building. fir. David Janzen responded that he was unsure of the exact lease termination dates, however once a change -over in ownership is declared for condominium conversion, if a current tenant want to resist to the extent, they could legally make an extension out to 210 days. He also noted that in the current laws for condo conversions that require the unit to be vacant before any construction can proceed. He further noted that this could possibly take an additional 6 months with the addition of time for going through the permit process. Mr. Janzen did agree that with the total construction time needed, beyond the possible complications mentioned, that it is possible for completion within an 18-month period. He would only stress that those situations be taken into consideration and allowance for extension if needed. He informed the Committee that they make note of the agreement that ECDA and Reba Place have made with the Mennonite Church that they will be able to hold services in the basement of this building for up to 3 years or less if necessary, as explained in the packet material provided to Council. Aid. Rainey stated that is a business transaction and agreement between the seller and purchaser and she does not wish any such agreement be considered by the Committee on that issue. Aid. Holmes stated that she was concerned about this matter and questioned if the continuance of worship by the Mennonites in the basemen will interfere with the selling of the condo units in the long nun. Mr. Janzen and Mr. Banks assured that it would not. fir. Janzen stated as the project manager, that after some thought from what has been discussed thus far, he would feel more comfortable with at least a 24 month or 2 year deadline. Aid. Moran stated that in his opinion, he does not see why there is a problem with honoring the applicants request for 3 years for completion of this project. He feels the applicant is worthy of good faith assurance for this project and that they have no reason to not complete this as expeditiously as possible. However, there are other matters involved, including the Mennonites desire to have the option of worshiping in the basement for 3 years if needed. He strongly feels that all parties involved will move forward as soon as possible because the more length of time extended will only cause a loss for everyone. Aid. Rainey responded that she believes that almost any developer receiving 5360,000 in HOME funds could produce for the City some affordable units and she stressed that this is a very generous amount of subsidy for a 6-unit project. Therefore she feels that this healthy contribution should be considered and she is confident that within at least 24 months the City should be able to expect completion of this project. She reminded that the longer a building sits in an open construction state, it could also add to the blight in an area. She does not feel her request for a time limit condition is unreasonable. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of August 15, 2005 Page 6 Aid. Rainey presented a second motion to amend the 36-months (3-years) to 24- months (2-years) for a time limit on completion of this project. Chairman Bernstein seconded the motion. He agrees that with a subsidy of $360,000 it is possible to produce this conversion within a 24-month period of time. Aid. Jean -Baptiste thanked Mr. Banks for his presentation noting that it gave him a better sense of ECDA's purpose and position. He acknowledged the proposition on ECDA's goal of maintaining and preserving affordable housing and providing homeownership for the income qualified families to purchase these properties. He acknowledged Aid. Rainey's position as well. He noted his realization of the Mennonites position on the distress of continuing affordable rental housing in this building and their desire to sell the property to another not -far -profit and the continuance of providing affordable homeownership. Aid. Jean -Baptiste feels that it is a good thing that the Mennonites are doing overall. However, he would suggest that opposed to mandating a 24-month that the applicant be allowed to come back for an extension -if unforeseen circumstances require this. Aid. Rainey suggested that the Comminee consider doing things differently and that they require applicants to come back after I2 months with a progress report. This way the Council will not be faced at the end of any time period to make a forced decision. The vote was S in favor of the motion and 3 voting nay. Aid. Rainey moved approval of the Housing Commission's recommendation for HOME Funds in the amount of S360,000 to ECDA, seconded by Chairman Bernstein. The vote was 8-0 In favor of the motion. (P4) Reauest for $50.000 in Mavor's Special Housing Funds for Evanston Housing Coalition Ald. Rainey moved approval, seconded by Aid. Holmes. Aid. Rainey recognized Mr. George Gauthier, Director of Evanston Housing Coalition, commending him on all his work that he has done in the past. She noted that he was the first in Evanston to convert a 24-unit building into 12 affordable condominiums units that is in her ward. She also praised the quality of work that he has done even with the use of housing funds and still keeping affordable. She noted that that first building he converted on Clyde, over 80% of the original purchasers are still living there and the building looks even better than when it was finished and this is due to the good screening and choices of families that qualified for purchase of those units. Mr. Gauthier thanks Aid. Rainey for her words of support. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 71.0-05 — Plan Commission Recommendation: Special Multi -Family District, R4a (Text Amendment) Chairman Bernstein noted that Aid. Newman made the original reference. Aid. Wollin asked staff for more background information from when this was originally referenced. She said that she understands from reading the transcript that this is not about social =_ conditions but about density. Therefore, she questioned if the only way to know if density has increased is through building permits or are houses subdivided without the ?&cD Committee Mig. Minutes of August 15, 2005 Page 7 City`s knowledge. Mr. Wolinski responded that the genesis of this new proposed district was from former Aid. Newman who was very concerned about the area directly off - campus from Northwestern University as far as a changing neighborhood. The district is zoned R4 but there were a number of single-family homes in the area that had been torn down and being converted to condominiums. He noted that it was Aid. Newman's concern at that time that they were loosing the single-family characteristics and that in the near future there would be the possibilit% of having no single-family homes being replaced with multi -family instead. Many of Aid. Ne%%man's concerns were generated from some incidents that happened with some Northwestern students that lived in a once single-family home that was converted to multi -family use. Mr. Wolinski recognized several citizens in the audience that have testified in the past regarding several occurrences of this situation within their neighborhood. It is the neighbors concerns that there should be some type of an overview of these single-family homes being tors down and the land being converted to multi -family use. The conclusion Aid. Newman came to with this issue was that he wanted to propose a new zoning district which would not necessarily affect existing properties, but would affect requests for any increase in the number of dwelling units or new construction for more than single-family use. He wanted to see more than just an administrative review for these applications by requiring the need for a special use permit. Mr. Wolinski concluded that where they are with this proposal is than anything beyond a single-family new construction would be a special use in that R4a district and would have to come before the Planning & Development Committee and City Council for approval. He noted that AId. Newman believed that this would be a way to control over -development within that neighborhood. Ald. Wollin assumed that most of this area was in the I' Ward since Aid. Newman made the original reference, however, most of this area appears to be Aid. Holmes 5a' Ward. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said that it appears that this is being aimed at limiting the use of renting rooms to Northwestern University students. Mr. Wolinski agreed. He asked if there is already an ordinance that regulates this under rooming houses. Mr. Wolinski concurred that there is such a regulation and requires no more than 3 unrelated people within a dwelling unit. He noted that the difference here is that in an R4 district, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1500 square feet. Therefore, if you have a 6000 square foot lot, technically you could take a large home and divide it up into 4 dwelling units as of right without any type of Council approval. With this proposal, the homeowner would have to go through the same process as a special use permit. Aid. Holmes, noted as pointed out by Aid. Wollin, that most of this area is in the 5 h Ward. She informed the Committee that she has received phone calls from some of the residents who have been a part of this proposal by Aid. Newman. She said that the residents informed her that they have held many meetings regarding this matter and the majority of their neighborhood are very supportive of this proposed ordinance because it wi11 provide some controls in terms of development in that area. For this reason, she will be supporting this ordinance. Aid. Jean -Baptiste asked if this ordinance is only being limited to this specific area. Ms. Jackson said that it is applicable and can be mapped anywhere throughout Evanston. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of August 15. 2005 Page 8 Aid. Wollin brought up the new construction building in the 800 block of Foster Street that in her opinion looks very nice and has improved the appearance of that block. Her point being that not all construction that would fall under this necessarily has to be undesirable. It was clarified to Ald. Wollin that this is where the special use process would help to control development for the City and neighbors would be able to be included and informed. Chairman Bernstein swore in those in attendance that wished to comment on this matter and explained the Clarin Rules. Ms. Jane Evans, 813 Gafheld, made clear that she is not anti -development or anti - students. She said that neighbors and residents of that area are asking for help in controlling the conversion of existing single-family homes into rooming houses and controlling the rezorting of single-family lots into multi -family. She agreed with Aid. Wollin that the new building in the 800 block of Foster has been an enhancement to that street and if this same development came before Council they also would have approved it. However, she pointed out the new construction on Simpson that has been started, where once 2 single-family homes existed. She said that the building has been in a state of incompletion for approximately 4 years now. Nis. Evans recalled Aid. Rainey's statements on blight of buildings left for long periods of time that are vacant and left in a state of disrepair. She also pointed out the parking issues that come with increasing the number of dwelling units on a property with the addition of vehicles that only multiplies with the accumulation of more properties increasing from single-family to multi -family within the same area. She said that they would like to see the single-family, 2-flats and even 3-flats remain as they are, however it is the properties that are being purchased and then subdivided into multiple units and being used to make a profit on, are the buildings that are a problem for the neighborhood. She stressed that these properties are not maintained at the same quality as the single-family or owner -occupied properties. She concluded that there needs to be a check and balance here to maintain the character of this neighborhood. Aid. Wollin informed that she has sent in aldermanic requests on the unfinished property on Simpson for the fence to be fixed and garbage pickup. When she questioned the status of this project, she was told be staff that enough work is going on for the developer to be complying with the code. Mr. Wolinski explained that the Building Code is fairly specific on this, noting that staff deals with often on projects that take a long period of time for completion. He said that the code states that as long as there is some type of movement on a project within a 6-month period, then the permit is still valid. He said quite frankly if there is no movement within a 6-month period the City can revoke the permit but realistically by revoking the permit doesn't accomplish much unless they are not going to go in and condemn the structure. Aid. Wollin stressed the additional problems that come with lingering construction such as this building is with loitering, portable toilets left on the property for an extended period of time, debris build-up, etc. Mr. Widmayer, Chair of the Plan Commission, had two issues that he wished to share with the Committee. First, he asked that they look at and consider two separate issues, He noted that over the last approximately 4 years the Plan Commission has had the same P&D Committee Mig, Minutes of August 15. 2005 Page 9 question brought before them in different %%a\s. He said the major concerns they heard from the neighbors is where single-farniP.- homes are being converted in a way where the owner makes changes that are not affected b\ the Building Code the same as they would be ifthev were to build a new building. Therefore. they don't meet parking requirements, fire safety requirements or other necessary code requirements that they would have to comply with for new construction. He said there are other properties very specific neighborhoods inhere large single-family homes are being divided up for the sole purpose of rental, causing parking and density problems. fir. Widmayer pointed out that all this ordinance Will exhibit to do is to give Council the opportunity to review each of these projects as they occur and determine if they are acceptable. He said that this can apply any where within the City. The reason for the map amendment is only because that is the area that is being addressed at this time and they were requested to do. Aid. Tisdahl asked Mr. Widmayer to cone,. her thanks to the Plan Commission because she feels this is a wonderful tool to have in place and an excellent solution for aiding in controlling over -development in specific areas. Aid. Moran said that he is concerned Hith the rezoning of specified areas that causes a large geographic area which w•ilI then be subject under numerous conditions to applications for special uses. He believes there are certain uses and certain aspects of their Zoning Ordinance that makes sense in terms of describing special uses as opposed to a permitted use. However, to take a particular area and make special provisions where otherwise allowed as a permitted use in the R4 district. the property owner now has to come before Council to get permission for something that was allowed before. He has a real problem with this. Aid. 'Moran recalled several cases where something is a special use and someone decides they don't like this. The question then becomes how long will it take the City to deal with an application for a special use permit and then the question becomes criteria, which seems unclear here. In his opinion, he feels the Building Code needs to be amended. Aid. Jean -Baptiste said this brings to mind a similarity to the tear down issue. Discussion followed with Aid. Moran disagreeing that it is not related. Aid. Rainey stated that every district has permitted uses and special uses; this area would be no different. Aid. Holmes moved approval Ordinance 7I-0-05 to create the Special Multi -Family District, 114a Text Amendment. Ald. Tisdahi seconded the motion and the vote was 7 in favor of the motion and I voting nay (Moran). (P3) Ordinance 101-0-05 — Plan Commission Recommendation: Special Multi -Family District. R4a (Maa Amendment). Ald. Wallin referred to the area where Noyes Court is located and questioned the correct zoning district. Ms. Jackson responded that it appears to be RI and assured that can be amended. Ms. Szymanski gave a legal opinion on the appropriate procedure. Ald. Wollin moved approval of Ordinance 101-0-05 for introduction and refer back to Committee for further review. Aid. Jean -Baptiste seconded the motion and the vote was 7 in favor of the motion and I voting any (Aid. Moran). P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of August 15. 2005 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:1 S p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacg line . Brownlee • • 0 f DRAFT • Planning & Development Committee Minutes of September 12. 2005 Room 2200 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. Moran. A. Rainey. E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. M. WMne Staff Present: J. Wohnski. J. Aiello. A. Jackson. S. Janusz, V. Jones, G. Morgan, E. Szymanski. J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 15. 2005 }iEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the August 15, 2005 minutes, seconded b►• Aid. Jean - Baptiste. The minutes were approved unanimousl%. - • ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION • (P2) Ordinance 101-0-04 — Plan Commission Recommendation: Snecial Multi-Familv District. R4a i \tan :amendment t Chairman Bernstein recalled that this item was introduced at the last meeting and referred back to Committee for staff to provide additional information requested. fir. Wolinski reported to the Committee that staff has provided a revised Ordinance that shows the specific addresses within the map location of the areas effected by the R4a zo-ing amendment. Aid. Wollin thanked Mr. Wolinski and staff for prop iding this helpful information as requested by the Committee at the last meeting. With no further discussion. Aid. Wollin moved approval of Ordinance 10I-0-05 as amended, seconded by Chairman Bernstein. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Housine Rehabilitation Guidelines Chairman Bernstein noted that there is no representation from the Housing Commission present this evening, however he acknowledged Mr. Stan Janusz, Asst. Director of Community- Development. over the Housing Rehabilitation and Property Standards Division, being present to address any questions or concerns by the P&:D Committee. P&D Committee Nita. Minutes of 9-1=-rJ; Page 2 Aid. Rained moved approval of the Housing Commission's recommendation to increase the loan maximums on single-family and multi -family rehab loans, seconded by Aid. Wynne. She stated that the amount of S7.500 per multi -family unit is currently without doubt economically unfea:ibie. She said the need for this increase has been evident for some time now. She requested staff to provide a summan• of the Housing Commission's discussion on this maner. Mr. Janusz responded and gave the P&D Committee and detailed overview of the Housing Commission's analysis for recommending the increase in maximum loan amounts for single-family homes -and per multi -family units. He noted the most important factors including coming short in the amount of funds required to bring single-famil houses up to code requirements and the cost of reasonable construction to do so. He pointed out that obviously those realistic costs have increased over the years since the current maximum loans amounts were put into place. This same fact includes the reasonable increase in construction and rehab cost for multi-famil% units as well. \ir. Janusz pointed out that with multi -family rehabilitation. there are basic requirements and additions that are currently assumed to be included in an, such multi -family rehab construction project. that were not included when the current maximum loan amounts were established that obviously exceed the amounts in place. - Aid. Rainey totally agreed with what fir. Janusz reported on the Housing Commission's reasoning and analysis of their discussion. She further proposed to increase the recommended amount from S7.500 to S 12.000 per unit for multi -family to $20.000 per unit. She justified her recommendation from experience in view of the current needs and requirements for upgrading multi -family units under rehabilitation construction. She pointed out several specifics required that are very costly, ho«evcr equally considered necessary for a reasonable and adequate rehabilitation project. Therefore, Aid. Rainey motioned to amend the recommended amount of increase from S7,500 to S12,000 to a maximum of S20,000 per multi -family emit. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Janusz how many applications per year the City receives for housing, rehabilitation assistance. Mr. Janusz responded that they receive approximately 20-25 applications for single-family. He said that they have received 3 applications for condominium rehabilitation recently, which such housing was just included recently under the single-family guidelines. He said the City receives approximately 4-5 applications for assistance in removing diseased trees on single-family property over the -_ last year. He continued with additional information on the different programs for assistance the Housing Rehabilitation provides and the varying applications they receive over a period of time. fir. Janusz noted that the Housing Rehabilitation Division puts forth effort to advertise their services provides by several means and the response fluctuates year -to -_year according to individual needs. Aid. NV nne asked if the increased single-family loan amount from $30.000 to $40.000 is sufficient and practicable in view of the current needs and request for housing rehabilitation applications received. Mr. Janusz responded that the S40,000 is sufficient for the majority of the basic single-family rehabilitation projects; however, realistically there have been occasions where additional funds would be needed to fully comply with all code requirements and sufficiently PRD Committee Mfg. Minutes of 9-1 2.0; Pace 3 complete a total rehab job. He noted : �` or.:ae average case currently for a single- family or 2-unit building. the cost can an a%eragc of S25,000. Chairman Bernstein asked for confirmation that the Ci; • is not running out of funds for housing rehabilitation functions. fir. Janusz as:1-e,:- that the City is not short of any funds. currently the a-ailable funds are at an amcurt of approximatel% S-280.000. Aid. %Vollin asked for information on the lencth of time and options in loan repayments. %4r. Janusz elaborated on the different types of rehab Ions available ranging from very low interest loans repayable over a 20-vear period to title -transfer loans according to income qualification levels, In conclusion to the discussion thus far. Aid. Wynne moved to include with Aid. Rainey's amended motion, to increase the maximum single-family loan amount from S30,000 to S40,000 to an increase of a maximum of S50,000. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion. The amended motions combined received a vote of 9-0 in favor of the motion. In regards to the approval of the Housing Commission's recommendation to increase the loan maximums of the Rehabilitation Guidelines, Aid. Rainey moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. fP31 Planned Develonment -- 1567 1%laole A%enue. Plan Commission's Recommendation to Deny THIS ITEM WAS TRANSCRIBED BY A COURT REPORTER IN • ACCORDANCE WITH THE KLAEREI ROLES, THEREFORE DETAILED MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE TR.A\CRIPT. A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE FOLLOWS L1 THE I U UTES PROVIDED. Chairman Bernstein announced that he was directed by the City's Corporation Counsel and City Legal Staff that he is should recluse himself from this case due to his legal relationship .Nith one of the partners involved in this development organization. He further noted that Corporation Counsel and Cite Legal Staff has directed that he excuse himself as Chair of the Planning &: Development Committee during and im•ol%ing any hearings of this matter. Therefore. Chairmanship is handed over to the previous Chair. being Aid. Tisdahl. At this time. everyone in attendance whe wished to make presentation, comment, or respond in any .%-a%• with regards to this case. be swom in accordance to the Klaeren Rules. Before moving fbm%ard. Legal Staff called a brief meeting between staff and the Chair of the Committee to discuss the appropriate way to proceed, In the meantime, Mr. James Murray. Attorney for the applicant, gave opening presentation comments. Upon completion of staff's meeting with the Chair of the P&:D Committee, his. Szymanski noted that it is her understanding from staff is that the building will be reduced by approximately 20 feet. Mr. Murray responded that to be true and there are several considerations that have also altered with the height change which can be discussed in 0 further detail with the architect. He noted that these changes have not been reflected in P8_D Committee Nltg. Minutes of 9-12-05 Pace 4 either of the presentations before the Plan Comm:__:on nor anywhere eis: outer than his • letter to the Ward Alderman regarding the gross h6gh* of the building being reduced as a proposal by which to gain the Committee's appro-. al. Nis. Szymanski then announced to Chairman Tisdahl that threshold Ieaves them wj*h the changes in the PUD are so substantial that it could go back to the Plan Commission to conduct a public hearing with testimony. She has had experience with projects 1efore the Committee which have been less in scope and have not gone back before the Nam Commission provided there are no other changes. She noted that a reduction in height, is one of those changes that can be considered as no so substantial that the project «ouid have to go back. he wever there is nothing that says it can not go back. She added to that Mr. Alurray's remarks about having substantial testimony at this level of the proceedings at the Planning & Development Committee. Ms. Szymanski asked the Committee to then consider whether at this time they want to proceed, with a hearing of that substantial major development Klaeren protection cross examination with direct rebuttal and citizen comments. She noted that there is a court reporter present if this is the Committee's choice. She said, if however the Committee «fishes to remand this back to the Plan Commission for that body to conduct the fact finding and make recommendations based upon the revisions to the plan. this choice can be made at this time also. The Committee members gave their opinions and discussed this matter. Aid. Wollin questioned if it is necessary to go back and notif}. all required that previously received notice of this Planned Development. Ms. Sz.,-manski responded that the last time this matter was noticed was before the P&:D Committee. however she can not say that all persons who would wish to ask questions had the% known of this change are all present this evening. Aid. Jean -Baptiste recommended that the Committee make a decision based on the impact of the changes that have been proposed as opposed to the amount of time the developer may have spent in the process. In this instance, the changes that have been proposed are changes that if an) -thing create a possible positive recommendation from the Plan Commission and it would be appropriate for the P&:D Committee to hold a hearing at this time. After further discussion. Aid. Jean -Baptiste moved that the Committee hear this matter tonight on the basis that the changes that have been proposed address one of the objectives of the project. Ald. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Szymanski explained the Klaeren Rules. The court reporter swore in the applicants first who wished to give presentation. Mr. Bob Horner, Principle with Winthrop Partners and Mr. Pat Fitzgerald, Architect with Fitzgerald Associate Architects. Mr. Horner gave opening comments and Mr. Fitzgerald gave a presentation and overview of the project. An affordable housing,7nclusionary housing discussion followed. Mr. Murray assured that the applicants have pledged to contribute S 1.0.000 to facilitate affordable housing homeownership through one of the existing programs which would be preferable, however they would be willing to consider some combination along %%ith contributing to one of the existing programs. 0 P&D Committee Nftg. Minutes of 9-12-05 Page • The Cour reporter then swore in any citizens within 1000 feet of the subject propert% who wished to cross examine the applicants at this time. The following citizens were ;; om in: William Best. 1640 Maple Avenue Jeannine Martin. 1640'vlaple venue Bennett Johnson. 708 Washington Street Dan Schiff. 1640 Maple Avenue Dr. Rober► Rudley. 1640 Maple Avenue. Due to Iack of sufficient time for discussion to conclude this hearing, Aid. Wynne moved to hold this in Committee and to be the first item of order on the agenda for the September 26, 2005 meeting. Aid. Holmes seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jacque ine B? Bro«vnlee 0 0 • DRAFT Planning S Development Committee Minutes of September 26.2005 Room 2200 — 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen, D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste. E. hSoran, A. Rainey. E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin. M. «Vynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Carroll. D. Gaynor, S. Guderlev, A. Jackson, D. Jennings. V. Jones, D. Marino, C. Ruiz, D. Spicuzza, E. Sz-,Tmanski. J. Bro%,mlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORt M Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2005141EETING MINUTES Aid. Jean -Baptiste mo-ed approval of the September 12. 2005 minutes, seconded by Ald. Moran. The minutes were approved 9-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION THIS ITEM WAS TRANSCRIBED BY A COURT REPORTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KLAEREN RULES, THEREFORE DETAILED MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE «'ITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT, A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE FOLLOWS IN THE MINUTES PROVIDED. i P 1 f Planned Develooment — 1567 Maple Avenue. Plan Commission's Recommendation to Den Aid. Tisdahl took o\er as Chair the discussion and consideration of this item due to Aid. Bernstein having to recuse himself from participation in this project. The court reporter swore in fir. James Murray. Attorney for the applicants, who gave opening comments. The following citizens who «fished to testifi• were sworn in: IMr. William Best, 1640 Maple Avenue; he distributed a nWd statement. Ms. Jeannine Martin, 1640 :Maple Avenue Ms. Susan Jacobson. 1540 Maple Avenue. 4. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 26. 2005 Page Z Mr, Pat Fitzgerald, :architect for the projec►.:;as sworn in and %%ent over the structural changes from the previous plan presented at the last meeting. Mr. Bob Horner. Principal with %Winthrop Partners. was sworn in and addressed some of the comments made by citizens. He also ga,. a additional information and presentation of the project as amended. The hearing proceeded on to Planning & Development Committee questions and concerns addressed by the applicant. The Committee also had several questions of the condo owners at 1640 Maple who testified previously. The consensus of the Committee was that the driveway entrances should be off of Maple Avenue versus Elmwood Avenue. Mr. \Volinski reminded the Committee members that they would have to motion to overrule the Plan Commission's recommendation to deny and move forward to direct staff to draft an ordinance for the planned development. Aid. Jean -Baptiste made motion as recommended by Mr. Wolinski, seconded by Aid. Rainey. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Jean -Baptiste moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance for the planned development, seconded by Aid. Rainey. The vote w as 9-0 in favor of the motion. tP?t «Vest Evanston Neiehhorhood flan: Plan Commission Recommendation Chair Bemstein acknowledged Mr. Al Hunter. Chair of the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan commission, being present for any questions or further information requested by the P&D Committee. Aid. Rainey moved that the P&D Committee accept the recommendation of the Plan Commission to adopt the West Evanston Neighborhood Plan. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 supporting the motion. Nis. Betty Sue Ester stated that many residents in the 5'�' NVard appreciate the approval of this plan and acknowledged all the time And hard work contributed by many people. Hov►ever, she cautioned the Committee that there has been a lot of neighborhood resident - work and input that has been done that she does not want to see overlooked. Ms. Ester =- strongl urged the Committee to make sure that the neighborhood resident's -- recommendation be considered during the entire process. She hopes the City will find a driving force other than just the Plan Commission recommendation to ensure that this plan goes fornkard and that this is given the highest consideration. She noted that requests that %kere of constant concern such as minority contractors being hired, economic and residential gain for the community by incorporating and attracting stores and businesses that gill benefit and be useful for the residents of the NVard. Ms. Ester again urged the Committee and staff to please keep abreast of this revitalization project. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 26. _00= Page Ald. W-.nne stated that she ha-s been a%kare of this plan for Tome time: actually from the beginn:np di_cussions when the \eight--trhood Committee first considered this as their next topic. She recalled this %-ividl% because it was the last Neighborhood Committee meeting regarding the Chicago Avenue Corridor Stud%. She recognizes that any neighborhood plan has different views and from experience, knows the difficulties involved with this job. With that in mind. she commended the Planning Division staff that has worked hard for a %ery long time on this particular neighborhood plan. She has thoroughly read through the plan and feels it is a very good plan a good beginning for the revitalization of this neighborhood area. Aid. Holmes agreed with Ald. Wynne's comments and also commended both the Neighborhood Committee and Planning staff on their diligent work. She further informed her fellow Committee members that Community Development staff. James Wolinski, Susan Guderley. and Dennis Marino, ,were present at her last neighborhood «ard meeting on September 21" to give a detailed presentation of the plan again to the community to allow the opportunity for any further input or questions to be answered before going forward before Council. Chair Bernstein concluded «ith response to Ms. Ester that development is going to happen on the West side inevitably. He noted that with this plan, the City has the opport mitt' to control that development to an extent where they can have input and be involved with the apes of businesses going in. the exterior design and the store frontages and contractors being hired to do the «ork. (P3) Ordinance 117-0-05 — Affordable Housina Demolition Tax AId. Wvane informed the P&D Committee members that she has received numerous emails from many realtors and other residents in her Ward regarding this matter. She also has several questions about this ordinance which she has discussed with other alderman. Specifically. from discussion with Ald. Bernstein, he noted an issue about exempting a homeowner from this tax and Ald. Tisdahl raised the issue of graduating the tax. Aid. Wynne said that she specifically would like to receive information on how many teardo«ns the City has had and an analysis of the benefits this "ill create for the City and ways in which we could incorporate this tax. She elaborated that with regards to incorporating she would like to figure out a sway where this doesn't penalize a property owner. She would also like to see a report on other communities that have incorporated and enforced a similar tax. such as Highland Park and how it has benefits them so far. She stated her position at this point she would be unable to make any concluding vote before having the opportunity to review the information she has requested. However, she does not want to come across that she disagrees with such a tax being enforced in Evanston because she des feel the actual purpose and goal here is justifiable when it come to developers reaping enormous benefits in our community by teardowns. She feels it is a great disruption on every block that is affectedby these teardo%%m redevelopments. Ald. Tisdahl seconded Ald. Wynne's views and her specific concern regarding having a graduated tax. For example. she would support starting the base tax amount of $10.000 is for teardo%%n homes of S300400,000 with a void concept for property.'homeow•ners that P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of Sept. 26.200. Page -f are tearing doer, to rebuild a home to lip a in and graduating the tax amount for teardowns • for replacement homes according the value of the propert%. She does not support a flat tax at this point because it is comes across as aggressive. Aid. Rainer referred to <_taff s report on the usage of the number of teardo%wns for the current year. she would also like to see the sale prices purchase price of the teardown structure so that Council can review the profit comparison or value of the property after redevelopment. She would also like to see this comparison for homeowners who tore down and rebuilt a house to live in. Mr. Wolinski responded that the majority of the teardo«ris that are being replaced by new single-family housing are averaging between S900,000 and $1.000,000. He said that it is important to look at the value of the land, which drives the price higher. He recalled the property next to Ald. Moran's property for example, where the land is in the vicinity of approximately S500,000. Aid. Moran concurred and further explained that the purchaser brought the property wit the house included for approximately S390.000. The purchaser then proceeded to tear the house down and put the vacant lot on the market two weeks ago and listed the sale price at S575,000, which sold within a week. He stated that a pan of supporting this tax is in consideration of making housing affordable, however this phenomena is making housing very non -affordable. He informed the Committee that the house proposed to be built next to his house. he would assume will be listed on the market for approximately $1.7 million dollars. Therefore. Aid. Moran pointed out that extreme difference in a house sold for S390.000 in a year will sell for four times that in profit. He stressed the importance of considering the implications for the Cite of Evanston are to this scenario. Aid. Moran acknowledged all the emails he too received from realtors in his area regarding this matter, as Aid. Wynne did and their concerns for this tax being implemented. He noted that those realtors may have a valid point. however if this trend continues, such a tax has a valid and justified position in Evanston, especiall) under Aid. Tisdahl's recommendation to consider a graduated tax according to value and profit by developers. Aid. Hansen seconded the opinions expressed by the other alderman. She noted that no other alternatives have been presented with this proposal and she would be very interested to see a report from staff on more information regarding how many teardowns the City has had over the recent %ears. the sale price of the property versus the value of the new construction. She is also interested in what other communities are doing and how they are benefiting form this tax. She stressed the importance of a developers profit versus a homeowner's situation and profit level and being %erti different. Therefore, she = strongly would support consideration of other alternatives «here a homeowner is either - not required to pay this tax and the graduating tax suggested b,. Aid. Tisdahl for profit making developers. She urged that these alternatives need to be considered before moving forward with this ordinance. Chair Bernstein recalled that there was some conversation about this topic in the Task Force regarding Inclusionary Housing and those funds being forwarded to the City's Housing Fund. Mr. Wolinski concurred that the Task Force took this as part of the whole lnclusionary Housing policy and this would be a way for single-family housing built for P&D Comminee Mig. Minutes of Sept. 26. 2005 Pace considerable profit amounts. %ould also -a•. a to contribute to the affordable housing dilemma. Aid. Wynne agreed with Aid. Hansen's F.mition that there is a gra%,e difference in a developer's profit for redevelopment of a Single family rebuild -,ersus a property owner who resides in the property and tears down to re -build a home to live in. There is a need for some alternative in this situation to be considered. Aid. Jean -Baptiste motioned the recommendation to hold this item at this point in view of the concerns and request for additional information by the P&D Committee members and for staff to respond back. Aid. Holmes stated her position that she also can not support this flat tax amount as presented and agrees with her fellow Committee members in supporting some type of graduating tax for consideration. She would like to review- the information on purchase prices of teardown properties and the sell price of the new construction and also would like to see what other communities are doing with a similar tax. Aid. Moran brought attention to wording in the proposed ordinance on page 2 regarding affordable housing. He pointed out there is a definition on this topic that pinpoints a certain dollar amount of 5225.000. which may not be the best thing for use to do for a • number of reasons. One of which it looks at median income without reference to a particular dollar amount. He would recommend that this specified amount be further reviewed as well as consideration in amending the wording of this paragraph. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion to hold this item in Committee for further information requested is provided by staff. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion, Ms. Susan Clooney. Realtor, presented a typed presentation that she distributed to the P&D Committee members representing her position on this matter. She is in opposition of this tax. There was also a written statement received from Mr. George Cyrus expressing his opposition of this tax as well. tP41 Ordinance 115-0-05 — Amendment to the Presemation Ordinance Aid. WN-nne stated that she does not see this as being appropriate as presented. She informed the Committee that she originall% made a reference some time ago about changing the voting and quorum requirements of the Preser, anon Commission. In her opinion, she thought that it is very important in regards to time line issue being considered and changing the voting time line requirements as «ell. How -ever, she noted that the original refererce was not made b% her in consideration of the proposed amendment presented. Nevertheless. she saluted staff for having this amendment forwarded at this time. Aid. *Wynne explained. in response to Aid. Wollin's questions, that this reference that the Preservation Commission does not have the same quorum requirements as the Plan Commission or the Zoning Board does. Mr. Ruiz added that the required amount of votes needed b%- the Preservation Commission and the lack of P&:D Committee Nitg. Minutes of Sept. 26, 2005 Page 6 I membership, mare it ► en• difficult to achieve. He agreed that it is a continual problem � for the Commission. Aid. Wurine said that maybe having I I members is not logical and is too much for the Preservation Commission. She suggested that maybe 9 members be considered ►ersus the I l to support a quorum status for vote. Aid. Rainey strongly suggested that this matter be referred to the Rules Committee and put on their agenda for their next meeting. The P&:D Committee members agreed. Mr. Ruiz informed the P&D Committee that the Preservation Commission just received a copy of this ordinance a day after Council received this and has not had a chance to review this. He said that the Commission would like to have an opportunity to review and discuss this more in detail. 'pis. Mary Brugliera, Chair of the Preservation Commission, stated that after briefly revie%%ing this ordinance she immediately contacted Mr. Ruiz to request an extension to give the Preservation Commission an opportunity to review the ordinance further. She also noted that she requested Nor. Ruiz 's assistance to pull together any minutes and past correspondence regarding this matter for further review of the Preservation Commission. Ms. Brugliera urged the P&D Committee to allow the Commission adequate time before considering this ordinance. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the particular reference for this matter was made by former Aid. Newman. 0 Aid. Wynne moved to hold this item in Committee for further review, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquc ne a Brownlee •k DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of October 10, 2005 Room 2200 — 8:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, A. Hansen, D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainev. E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Carroll, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF Oi;ORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 8:22 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 12.2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Tisdahl moved approval of the September 26, 2005 minutes, seconded by Aid. Moran. The minutes were approved unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION' lPll Planned Develooment — 1567 Maple Avenue. Plan Commission's Recommendation to Deny Chairman Bernstein turned over Chair to Aid. Tisdahl for this item. She asked for an staff to explain the status of this case. Mr. Wolinski stated that at the last Planning & Development meeting, the Committee voted to overturn the Plan Commission's recommendation to deny the planned development proposal for 1567 Maple. Therefore an ordinance was drafted for granting a special use for a planned development. However, Legal staff has indicated that the ordinance needs to be reftned in some areas. He pointed out also that there is no court reporter present this evening for any new testimony. He suggested that the Committee could perhaps introduce this item and refer it back for discussion and testimony at the next scheduled P&D Committee meeting. Aid. Jean -Baptiste motioned to introduced Ordinance 118-0-05 and refer back to Committee for deliberation at the October 24, 2005 meeting. Aid. Moran seconded the motion. Ald. Wollin questioned why additional testimony is needed; what further purpose would it serve at this point because it is essentially the same plan as presented with the Plan Commission denial recommendation. Ms. Szymanski clarified why is 0 would be necessary to have the court reporter present and to except additional testimony P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10-10-05 Page 2 • with the case being overturned from the Plan Commission's original recommendation. The vote was 7 in favor of the motion and I abstaining from vote (Aid. Bernstein). ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION' (PDI I Items for Future Consideration The Committee reviewed the list of old P&D references that were made during the previous Council tenure to decide the status of each, whether the item should remain on the list, be scheduled for a definite meeting date, or withdrawn permanently. The items are addressed in the order of the list. The first item, "Affordable Housing Demolition Tax," is scheduled for the October 24, 2005 meeting. Ms. Carroll stated that possibly the second item, regarding the ordinance on "Inclusionary Housing" could also be scheduled for the same meeting. The third item regarding "Amendments to the Condominium Ordinance," is to remain on the list and scheduled for a later date than the first two items. The next two items, "Ordinance 3-0-01 and Ordinance 108-0-00, were not addressed by the Committee. Ordinance 7-0-04, Aid. Tisdahl requested that this item remain on the list at this time. Ordinance 9-0-05, Aid. %loran noted that this item has already be rectified and motioned that it be removed from the list. The vote w-as 8-0 in favor. Ordinance 109-0-03 was not addressed by the Committee. The item regarding length of time scaffolding can remain on public right-of-way and the reference regarding moratorium on type 2 restaurants, there was consensus by the Committee to remove from the list. The reference to develop methods of informing residents when by -right construction has been approved, there was consensus that this matter has been addressed to some extent with Mr. Wolinski's recent memorandum brat is handed out to all residential home builders at the time they come in with the application for permits, requiring the developer to hold a public meeting with the neighboring properties with a flyer distributed to all properties within the same block of the subject property. He further informed that the flyer and an attendance sheet must be presented to the Building Division prior to the issuance of any building permits. The remaining two references regarding consideration of the Plan Commission to review amending the Zoning Ordinance and developing a plat of re -subdivision ordinance, were not addressed by the Committee. 0 P&D Committee yltg. Minutes of l 0-10-05 Page 3 With no further time remaining, the Committee agreed to cover the remaining items at their next regularly scheduled meeting, time permitting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacq �IineVlBrownlee • 0 DRAFT . Planning & Development Committee Minutes of October 2005 Room 2200 — 8:06`p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, A. Hansen, D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainey, E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll, D. Jennings, D. Spicuzza, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: R. Snyderman-Pratt, L. Widmayer Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 24. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Jean -Baptiste moved approval of the October 24, 2005 minutes, seconded by Aid. Moran. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1) Ordinance 118-0-05 - Planned Development — 1567 Nlanle Avenue Chairman Bernstein was asked to explain his reason for recusing himself regarding this item since it was not clarified at the previous meetings. He explained his previous business involvement with the developer which .vould require his recuse of any deliberation in this case due to the Code of Ethics regulations. With that, he passed chairmanship over to Ald. Tisdahl. THIS ITEM WAS TRANSCRIBED BY COURT REPORTER LAURA BERNAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KLAEREN RULES. THEREFORE DETAILED MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT. A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE FOLLOWS IN THE MINUTES PROVIDED. In surnmam. Ald. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 118-0-05 with the acceptance of the revised elevation drawings indicating the reduction in building height in accordance with the correspondence presented this evening dated October 24, 2005. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion. Further discussion followed. There was P&D Committee %Itg. Minutes of 10-10-05 Page 2 lengthy discussion regarding acceptance of additional testimony from repeat citizen . comments. In conclusion of that discussion. Aid. Jean -Baptiste motioned to allow repeat citizen comment if new testimony is presented, seconded by Aid. Horan. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. The P&D Committee allowed Mr. William Best, 1640 Maple Avenue to be sworn in and make additional remarks. The vote on the original motion made by Aid. Wynne for approval of 118-0-05 was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Request for S 110.000 in HOME Funds to Evanston Housina Coalition Chairman Bernstein recognized Mr. George Gauthier. Executive Director of the Evanston Housing Coalition. Mr. Gauthier gave background information on the intentions and objectives of EHC and their ultimate goal to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to income -eligible households or decent affordable rental housing for income -eligible households also %%ith the ultimate intent to make possible future homeownership opportunities to this housing group as well. He gave a brief detailed overview of the proposed use and scope of rehab work for the requested funds as title - transfer loans to rehabilitate two single-family homes EHC has owned since 1993 as part of the Single -Family Rental Program. Both houses have 3-bedrooms and l bath and are both currently vacant and at the expiration of their affordability restriction period. Mr. Gauthier stated EHC's intent is to use the funds to rehab the houses and sell the properties at affordable housing opportunity rates to income -eligible buyers. When sold, these properties «ill cam 20-year deed restrictions in accordance with the federal HOME fund requirements. Mr. Gauthier pointed out and verified that the requested funds %till be paid back within 9- months to I year of the rehabilitation completion and the properties are sold to income - qualified households. He further pointed out the scope of the rehab work for both properties located at 1933 Dodge and 1915 Foster. Aid. Holmes additionally informed the Committee members that this proposal will make a total of 3 houses available for sale under EHC in the 5`s Ward for affordable housing homeownership opportunities. Therefore, she stated her support for this proposal and urged the other members support as well. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Holmes. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 117-0-05 —Affordable Housina Demolition Tax Chairman Bernstein asked staff to bring the Committee up-to-date on the status of this case. Mr. Wolinski recalled that there was a consensus of the P&D Committee at the September 26, 2005 meeting to hold this matter over on their agenda with the direction for staff to obtain additional information and bring back before the Committee for further review. He noted that this additional information included previous demolitions in Evanston which staff has prodded in the Committee's packet illustrating information from property demolition permits, value of the property and sell price at the time if possible versus the sales information in accordance with City Clerk's property transfer , P&D Committee Nitg. Minutes of 10-10-05 Page 3 tax data on the selling prices of the replacement houses. He pointed out that the information provided shows an average sale price in the last 2 years is over Sl million and in general geared and _old in the upper bracket group. Mr. Wolinski further noted the P&D Committee also requested additional information on what other regional communities have similarly- adopted and colleted on demolition fees and taxes. He guided the Committee's attention to their packet and staffs inclusion of this information on demolition fees and taxes from other local municipalities. He pointed out that only one local municipality earmarks their demolition funds and money collected from their demolition tax; specifically Highland Park that has notably colleted over S1 million to date. Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the fact that Highland Park did waive part of their demolition fee on one development that initially included affordable units in their development proposal. Aid. Tisdahl expressed her appreciation for staff s information provided and being very helpful. She especially finds the waiver by Highland Park on the demolition fee to the project that did provide some type of affordable housing implement into their proposal from the initiation. Under that note, she recalled her proposed alternative of providing a gradual tax increment for o«ner-occupied tear -downs and replacement housing that appraises and is sold for under S500.000. She would also like consideration of gradual taxation for projects proposing initial affordable housing inclusion. Aid. Moran respectfully argued Aid. Tisdahl's position on replacement housing valued • for sale under S500,000 claiming the unlikelihood in Evanston due to the current housing value market. He based his analysis on the list provided by staff showing the sale prices of tear down values and replacement housing sales prices. He noted that it is clearly justified that a replacement housing sale price of S500,000 would not even be worth the rebuild cost. The P&D Committee members went back and for the in discussion of this issue. In conclusion, Aid. Tisdahl stood behind her proposal because although from the information provided by staff on the majority resale prices being well over $500,000; it also monopolizes specific areas of Evanston where housing sales prices are well above that range, even at the tear down demolition sale prices. She noted that there are still certain areas in Evanston where tear -down demolition of properties can take place and replacement properties can be built and sold for under S500,000. She reiterated her strong support for having a gradual tax or waiver for such situations. Aid. W%mne agreed with .old. Tisdahl's proposal, as well as several other Committee members. She asked staff if Wilmene has considered looking into incorporating any similar demolition tax or fees in light of the increase in teardowns and replacement housing in their community. his. Spicuzza responded that staff did not specifically do the research for this background information an what other community are doing and commended BPI on their work who did all the research involved in this study. Ms. Kelly Harsch from BPI informed the Committee that Wilmette currently is looking at some is type of demolition tax or fee at this time but do not have any thing in place., She P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10-10-05 Page 4 concurred that the Wilmene community is being affected by teardo%%ms and would like to incorporate some type of taxation, although they have not mentioned if such funds would be attributed to affordable housing funding. The P&D Committee follov.ed %%ith a lengthy discussion specifically regarding the topics of exempting owner -occupied teardo►yns/replacement housing, the length of acceptable time the homeowner occupied the property before teardovm and after replacement, what percentage scale should be considered for gradual taxation, should the value of the replacement house be considered the cost of building or selling price upon completion? There was also lengthy discussion on why they are even considering this demolition tax. Is the tax intended to affect the teardown rate or is it really intended to support the affordable housing funds? The question was also raised as what is exactly considered "affordable" here; where is this clearly defined? Upon discussion, it was recognized that this tax would not impact the teardo%%m issue, but is actually meant to target the single- family teardown/rebuild group in contributing toward the affordably housing funds as well as multi -family construction. Several people signed up to comment on this issue. Ms. Carol Balkcom, Richard Girard, Sue Carlson, Susan Cooney, Robin Snyderman-Pratt, and Betty Sue Ester. Aid. Moran moved to amend the ordinance to include exemption for homeowner demolition, homeowner must own and have lived in the property 3-years prior to demolition and 3-years after rebuild. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion. The vote was 9-0 is favor of the motion. Aid. Tisdahl moved amendment to exempt rebuild housing valued at 5500,000 or less, seconded by Aid. Rainey. The vote was 9-0 in favor of this motion. Ald. Tisdahl moved to introduce Ordinance 117-0-05 as amended and for the amended ordinance to be returned to the Committee for final review. Aid. Rainey seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor. The Committee also requested _ that the Housing Commission define affordability in this case. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:330 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacq el E. Brownlee e ANIE\ DED DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 1.3. 2005 Room 2200 - 6:30 p.m. Evanston Chic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen. D. Holmes. L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainey. E. Tisdahl. C. Wollin. M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll. C. Ruiz. E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Rainey DECLARATION OF OUORUNI Chair Rainey called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 24. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Mr. Wolinski noted the amended minutes distributed this evening with a change to the date of the minutes. The Committee accepted the amended minutes and the vote waS 9-0 in favor of approving the October 24. 2005 minutes. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION THIS FOLLONVING ITEMS (P1 - P4) NVERE TRANSCRIBED BY COURT REPORTER LAURA BERNAR, IN ACCORDANCE NVITH THE KLAEREN RULES. THEREFORE DETAILED MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE NVITHIti THE TRANSCRIPT. A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE FOLLONVS IN THE MINUTES PROVIDED. (P1) Ordinance 120-0-05 - Special Use and Nlaior Variation request for a Type 2 Restaurant at 11 l 1 Chicauo Avenue The Court Reporter swore in the architect for the project. Mr. Paul Machalek with Greenberg Farrow. and Ms. Pamela Pate. Manager for Wild Oats. Aid. Nvynne motioned to amend the ordinance so that this property does not end up with an open-ended approval for a type 2 restaurant. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor of the amended ordinance. (P2) Ordinance 12I-0-05 - Special Use and Maior Variation request for a Dav Care Center Expansion at 2200 Main Street Chair Rainey acknowledged Ms. Megan Kashner, authorized agent for the Infant Welfare Society of Evanston, and architect for the project. Ms. Ellen Gailand. Aid. Moran moved approval of Ordinance 121-0-05, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Chair Rainey stated that she would recommend suspension P&D Committee \ltti Minutes of I I-I.1-05� PaLle 2 of the rules this evening for this c <e :n order .o meet their deadline to receive federal funds. The Committee members supported this recommendation. Ald. Wollin pointed out that this is another example of ww here the applicant is asking: for a suspension of the rules because there were two mee%ngs wvithou, a quorum of the ZBA. She stated that Council needs to be coenizant of tht: Lemma. IP31 Ordinance 125-0-05 - Revision to a Planned Develonment at 1100 Clark Street Chair Rainey acknowledged \lr. Tom Rosz.:k. Developer. and fir. Bruce Huvard, Attorney for the Developer. There ww as some discussion between the applicants. P&D Committee members, and staff regarding revisions to the eligibility requirements for the affordable housing component of the project. In conclusion of that discussion. the applicant proposes to make a contribution to the affordable Housing Fund as an alternative to providing the affordable housing units. The Committee consensus agreed to this alternative. Aid. Bernstein moved to introduce this item this evening and to bring back the amended ordinance with the aforementioned alternative for the affordable housing component. Aid. Jean -Baptiste seconded the motion and the rote was unanimous approval. (P41 Special Use for an Automobile Repair Establishment at 1233 Dodee Avenue Chair Rainey brought attention to the letter from Attorney James Murray, stating his client's direction to withdraw their application for the requested special use. tP51 Maior Variation request for an Ooen Parkine Space in the front vard at 2434 Sherman Avenue The property owners. Jordana and Scott Lipscomb. introduced themselves. Ms. Szvmanski informed the Committee that this is a variation by acceptance; therefore the Council is actin: on this case legislatively. Ms. Lipscomb informed the Committee that they have been asking the City throughout this process why their particular open parking space is a violation of the ordinance ww hen the similar parking space directly next door at 2435 Sherman is not a zoning violation. She notes that throughout this process the City has not officially told them that the lack of violation next door is due to the fact that their parking space pre-existed the Zoning Ordinance enactment. She wants this verified as correct that if the parking space does pre-exist that it is grandfathered in as not violating this particular Zoning Ordinance. his. Lipscomb said that they have requested and recently seen documentation from the City about their parking space and how long it has been in effect and existed. They believe the parking space also existed before the Zoning Ordinance was enacted as well. She stated that they need proof of this in order to support their case and today they did see records in the City Engineer's office. which shows the entire area including their open parking space was payed by the City in 1928 with concrete. She informed the Committee that she put in a Freedom of Information request form today to retrieve this information. unfortunately the City Engineer has not been able to respond to their request before this evening. his. Lipscomb gave further background information on the existing driveway and open parking space. In conclusion, she stated that if in fact the City records show% proof as stated previously. they submit that this P&D Committee \1tu. Minutes of I I - Passe variance is not necessary and that the parking space does not violate the Zoning Ordinance and ,s :n fact pre-existing. Aid. %Vvnne asked if the property to the north has been deemed that their parking space is a non -conforming use and grandfathered in the Zoning gz Ordinance. Ms. Jackson concurred and also confirmed the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in 1993. Aid. Bernstein stated the question here is about the existing use rather than the fact there is a curb cut and that this is a new owner wishing to use of this parking space. He would consider this a legal non -conforming use. which pre-existed the Zoning Ordinance and that this item should be held in Committee until the requested information is obtained from the City Engineer's office. Aid. Wollin stated as Alderman of the Ward that there have been neighbors that have come to her and asked about this case. She said firstly, that one of the criteria is that it creates a hardship. %,6-hich she feels there is no hardship in this case because there is plenty of space to park at the curb in front of their house. Secondly. it was noted that it does not constitute zoning compliance because of the fact that a realtor advertised it as a parking space. She noted that the parking space had previously been covered with one foot of dirt and does not appear from the air that it is a paved area. She said the person that did rehab the house to resell it did apply for permits for interior work and for the fence. part of the fence being a brick wall. but there was never any permit for paving to make this a permanent parking space. She further noted that it is approximately S feet shorter than a legal driveway and the question raised by many neighbors is how in fact this occurred in the first place b% the City. Ms. Lipscomb responded that they feel entitled to this parking space and was under the impression that the space was included in the purchase of their property. Aid. Moran moved to hold this item on the agenda until further information is obtained from the City Engineer's office, seconded by aid. Bernstein. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that %\-hen the previous owner bought the property to rehab it they applied for interior remodeling and fence permit. He admitted that his office received many calls from neighbors about the fact that this fence was encroaching in the public alley. On numerous occasions Community Development staff had to talk with the neighbors that were concerned about this and to shoe them the plat of survey that illustrates this \ ery strange ten foot incursion, which actually belongs to 2434 Sherman and he belie -es for years has been thought of and used as the public alley. Mr. Wolinski noted that the brick paving system was not put in at that time when his department finished their inspections of both the interior of the house and the fence. With this in mind. he questions when it wp_s paved over if in fact it was a public alley or driveway. (P61 2400 Main Street Resubdivision Plat P&D Co:: mittee .\lte. .\Iinu:e- cif Pace Chat: ackno%%icd_ed Mr. owne - Ka;. -Sum Properties. LLC create .:ee lots of record to be currer.::•. %acant and the uses ar Bernstein moved approval. see, favor of the motion. Stephen En�elntan. attonicy on behalf of the property . This re-::bdi� ision is for the Main Street Commons to used for commercial shopping use. Lots I and ? are not %et kno«n but will be commercial uses. Aid. ►nded b� Aid. Jean -Baptiste. The vote was 9-0 In 1P-) 2:1XI Ridge Avenue t\larvwood Academy) - Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places Chair Rainey noted that this application %N as made by Ms. Barbara Gardner. Mr. Ruiz informed the Committee that City Council authorization that the Preservation Commission is requesting. to send its recommendation to IHSAC is due on December 3, 2005. He noted that if this authorization is not granted by City Council. the nomination «•ill 2o forward without the Commission's input. Several Committee members were concemed with acting on this matter at this time due to current activity regarding the Civic Center landmark nomination, etc. Aid. Bernstein moved that Council tape no action with the recommendation for the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for 2100 Ridge Avenue. Aid. Moran seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0 in favor. (P8) 1625 Hinman Avenue (The Homestead) -- Nomination to the National Resister of Historic Places Chair Rainey noted that this application is by the property owner Mr. David Reynolds. Aid. Bernstein questioned whether this action would have any effect on the Mather situation «hich is adjacent to this propert\ and setting a precedent. Mr. Ruiz responded that they are entirely two different subjects of matter and should set no precedent due to the properties being adjacent to one another. He assured that this nomination is only recommended for The Homestead and has no bearing on the case with the Mather. Aid. Wynne moved to accept the nomination of The Homestead, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Tisdahl raised question of the tax credit for this property and its impact if any on the property taxes. Mr. Reynolds responded that once you exceed the basis that you have in the building. capital improvements to the building. over a 5-year period, are eligible for a 0013 UX credit which Goes auainst the owners income taxes. He said there is no effect whats,>e\ er on the property taxes. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Barbara Gardner, former Chair of the Preservation Commission, expressed her disappointment with the P&D Committee giving, a "no action" motion and vote approval for the 2100 Ridge. Marywood Academy nomination. Chair Rainey stood behind the P&D Committee's position..%,hich Ms. Szymanski seconded and agreed with the Chair's position upon reading the guidelines from the ordinance. ITEMS FOR DISCtiSSION P&D Committee Miu. Minutes of 11-14-05 Pace 5 (PDI) Landmark Nomination - 2100 Ridue Avenue Staff recommended that this item would require some leninh of time justif)znu the need for a special meeting to be set to address this item. Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Sz)Tnanski confirmed that the 12_O dabs to either designate for landmark nomination or reject the landmark nomination be_eins tomorrow as day one. In cone:usion. the consensus of the Committee was to hold the special meeting on Tuesday. January 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. (PD2) Items for Future Consideration Mr. Wolinski went through the remaining items left on the list with the P&D Committee. *) Ordinances regarding lnclusionary Housing and :amendments to the Condominium Ordinance. staff will brine recommendations before the Committee either at the November 28`' or December 12" meetine. *) Ordinance 3-0-01 - Aid. Moran motioned to remove this item from the list. So moved and approved by the Committee. *) Ordinance 108-0-00 -- This item is scheduled for the November 28`s P&D Committee meeting. Ms. Carroll noted that she is still reviewing this with the Human Relations Director, therefore the date is still tentative. *) Ordinance 7-0-04 - This item will remain held in Committee on the reference list. Mr. Wolinski explained the latest proposal for this matter. which the Committee agreed to hold. *) Ordinance 109-0-0- - Chair Rainey requested to keep this item on the P&D Committee reference list. agreed by the Committee members. *) The last two items on the list regarding: 1) :amendment to Zoning Ordinance to include use variations. and 2) Consideration of developing a plat of re -subdivision ordinance will be recommended for reviev,- by the Plan Commission. ADJOURN.NIENT With no further business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline F. Brownlee DRAFT Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 28, 2005 Room 2200 - 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, A. Hansen. D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainey, E. TisdahI, C. Wollin, M. Wymte Staff Present: J. Wolinski, C. Brzezinsla, J. Carroll, D. Gaynor, D. Marino, G. Morgan, D. Spicuzza, E. Sz�Tnanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Rainey DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chair Rainey called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 2005 MEETING ;MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November 28, 2005 minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (Pl) Resolution 77-R-05 - Desienatine the Dortion of Emerson Street, between Orrinaton Avenue and Sheridan Road. with the Honorary Name "Waa-Mu War" Ald. Wollin moved approval, seconded by Aid. Moran. Aid. Wollin gave a brief summary of the Waa-Nlu program and annual show. She noted that this is the programs 75`b Anniversary and over the years have provided entertaining performances spotlighting many local talents and bringing numerous visitors from all over to Evanston. The program was founded by Mr. Joe Miller who also directed the show for the first 48 years. The proposed location of the street dedication is for one block on Emerson from Sheridan to Orrington Avenue in front of the Cahn Auditorium building, which is the traditional home of Waa-Mu. Aid. Wollin supports this application. The Committee vote was 9-0 In favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 139-0-05 - Amendine the Affordable Housin¢ Demolition Tax Ordinance Aid. Moran moved approval, seconded by Chair Rainey. Chair Rainer said that she has some concerns with refunding this demolition tax to an Evanston residentlhomeowner after 3 years to insure that they remain living in the property. She feels it is a burden on the homeowner who does Kish to remain in the property to hold the amount of S 10,000 for that length of time. She suggested malting an amendment to shorten the length of time. Aid. Moran argued against Chair Rainey's suggestions. He has heard no complaints regarding this amendment except from one homeowner «ho is P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 2 exempt from this ordinance. He realizes that such homeowners usually borrow a significant amount of money to rebuild their house, however if we change this amendment. what will occur from an administrative standpoint, is make it hard to be able to collect the 510,000 teardown fee. If the City does not collect the fee upfront, he believes that more than likely the City will lose this fee and the homeowner will move on and he also feels there will be no way to collect the fee afterwards. He does not believe this demolition tax will prevent the homeowner from going forward with their project to teardown and build a new house when you take into consideration the teardown value and the value of the rebuilt house is usually over 3-times the teardo«-n cost. He believes that such an exception where someone could not afford to rebuild because of the 510,000 fee practically disappears. Aid. loran's opinion is that Council should stick with this amendment. However, he suggested that they could revise the ordinance to be consistent with the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance in relation to security deposits where at the end of the 3 Fears the City gives back the 510.000 including the statutory interest rate. Aid. Tisdahl agreed with Aid. Rainey's position on the 510,000 fee being a burden to an Evanston resident homeowner that wishes to remain in their property. She would prefer to see this period extend no longer than 1. year at the most. Aid. Bernstein said that he believes the intent here is not to penalize a homeowner that want to enhance the value of their property. He said the intent in part is to obtain a nominal dollar amount for affordable housing trust fund and in another part to preclude demolitions and rebuilding with mansions. He made clear that he has no problem with supporting this amendment but suggested that they consider the lien method where if in fact the homeowner sells the property before the 3 year time period it will show up when the transfer stamps are requested. Aid. Bernstein said that the City should encourage homeowners to improve their property and he would like to discourage developers coming in with just for profit reconstruction. He noted that the acquisition cost is a big part of the fee which a homeowner does not have to pay when rebuilding their own home. Ms. Carroll responded that the City could look into the appropriate software and program so that when the transfer stamps are requested in the City Clerk's office this lien would show up with the remaining time period noted. She said that staff would review this and get back to the Committee. Ms. Szymanski replied that she would draft the ordinance to address Aid. Moran's concerns as well as the other members of the Committee to make sure that if the homeowner does not stay in the house for the required 3 years that the demolition tax would be collected. Aid. Jean -Baptiste asked Legal Staffs opinion on the letter dated December 1, 2005 from Mr. Lee. Ms. Szymanski responded that she has not seen the letter but is aware of the matter and will bring forth her response at the January 9, 2006 meeting as well. Mr. John Flovd. 2221 pioneer, stated some of his concerns that still remain with this amended ordinance. He is the homeowner that Aid. Rainey and Aid. Moran were referring to previously and he just obtained his permits for demolition and construction, exempting him from this ordinance. However, his concern is still with how this could have affected him and for other homeowners in his situation. He feels that the 3 year period is too long to hold over any homeowner to consider their residency in Evanston. 0' P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 3 . He pointed out that he has owned the existing property for over 6 years and questioned if this has any importance in considering the period of time for homeownership. air. Floyd said that 510,000 is a lot of money for most homeowners, but is minimal to most developers. Mr. Wolinski replied that he does understand Mr. Floyd's issues; however he can count on one hand the number of actual homeowners that tear down and rebuild to remain in their home for a period of time afterwards. The majority of teardo%%ms are by developers who rebuild homes for significant profit. Aid. Bernstein added that there have been 11 teardowns in the past two years, so this tart could be beneficial from developers over time. The motion was amended to introduce this evening and bring back the amended ordinance at the January 12, 2006 meeting. The vote wm 9-0 in favor of the motion. (ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI ) Inclusionary Housing Discussion Chair Rainey called on citizen comments first in the order signed up to speak. Ms. Carol Balkcom, referred to the memo from BPI regarding the sale of affordable housing in Evanston has decreased to 17%. She would like to see a set -aside of 5% for planned developments in view of the decreased affordable housing. She feels that the Housing Trust Fund should be a separate new fund to see how the funds are used and to simplify the reporting requirements. She also noted that homeowner association fees should be proportionate to the initial price for affordable condominiums. Aid. Bemstein pointed out that association fees can be based on the percentage of space versus initial price. Ms. Balkcom recommended that the fee -in -lieu -of formula should be readjusted; she suggested the amount of $100,000 be considered in comparison to the 540,000 recommendation which is less than the required subsidy amount needed. She feels the in - lieu fee amount should at least cover the subsidy needed to build the affordable unit. She questioned why the annual calculation of the affordable price does not include an estimated utility cost because these costs could be significant over the year for the affordable income qualified buyer. Lastly. his. Balkcom raised concern over the affordability period noting that the Housing Commission recommended a rolling 15 year period, which she is in support of. Ms. Sue Carlson, supports the use of the HUD income guidelines. She said it is good to include a range or targeting the initial affordable price to be below the maximum affordable amount. In view of the payment -in -lieu -of fee, she would like to see the amount based on the value of the subsidy' for the new construction. Ms. Carlson pointed out that in looking at current new development- large units are not typical in comparison to the amount of space needed for many affordable income qualified families. Therefore, she can see the benefit of the fee -in -lieu -of or the offering of supplying off -site units, as along as the off -site units are not all concentrated in one area. She feels that the burden of offering affordable housing should be placed throughout the City of Evanston as P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 4 evenly as possible. tits. Carlson urged the Committee's support of this policy and their expeditious attention to this matter. Mr. Richard Girard, expressed his concern with the Housing Commission recommendation not being included in this draft that a non-profit group can purchase up to 1/3 of the set -aside units to either sell them or rent them to income eligible persons. He supports this concept and believes it would be advantageous in finding more income qualified households to purchase property and to aid in marketing efforts of affordable units within planned developments. Ms. Bette Sue Ester, expressed her support in having a roiling affordability period and would recommend that the maximum years allowed be considered. Mr. Keith Banks, pointed out that the estimated cost to build affordable housing in approximately S125 per square foot, with the typical house being around 1500 square feet, this would come to a cost of S 190,000. Therefore, the recommended amount of $40,000 for the fee -in -lieu -of is not sufficient and he would recommend at least twice this amount. He agrees with Ms. Balkcom*s amount suggested previously of S100,000 and pointed out to the Committee that this amount would be consistent with Highland Park. He said that with the recommended amount for fee -in -lieu -of, a developer will most often opt to pay this fee instead of ever providing an on -site affordable housing units. Mr. Jonathan Perman said that the Chamber of Commerce is interested providing housing for the local workforce. He informed the Committee that he visited Montgomery County, Maryland where Inclusionary housing policy was started. He went over some of their policy details, noting that they see Inclusionary housing as a shared burden, which he would support for Evanston as well. He shared several opinions and suggestions with the Committee on behalf of the Chamber's views. The Chamber feels there needs to be a market incentive for the developer by offering some guidelines or incentives for planned developments. The Chamber is not in favor of payment -in -lieu -of option and would like to see planned developments with an on -site requirement. The Chamber feels that administrative cost need to be assessed for not -far -profit organizations and social service programs to aid in the administration of screening and monitoring eligible applicants. The Chamber opinion is that since most of the set -asides will be condominiums, it would be important to recognize the cost of monthly assessments and include those costs in the over all debt -to -income ratio. Mr. Perman questioned whether the City has the right to regulate homeowner's association dues; however perhaps there could be a subsidy from the Housing Fund to help eligible homeowners with their monthly assessment fees. This concluded citizen comments and the Committee began discussion at this point. Aid. Moran said that his main concern at this point is with the proposed fee-in-Geu of payment at S40,000 being to low. He agrees with the comments made previously that Us fee needs to be more in relationship with the actual cost of building an affordable housing unit. He suggested that this cost should at least cover half of the building cost P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 5 He acknowledged the hindrance of high taxes and associations fees that would be included with on -site units within the planned developments. With this, he brought attention to the letter from James Houlihan's Office indicating the County's commitment on recognizing property assessments for affordable housing within communities. As far as developer incentives, he feels the planned development guidelines and procedures address this issue. Aid. Moran would like to see in the planted development section of the Zoning Ordinance revised to include affordable/inclusionary housing as a public benefit. He feels that a 10% set -aside is modest in comparison to what other communities are requiring and this percentage would be his preference for Evanston as well. He said in regards to the affordability period, that he would like to see the period extend beyond 15 years, Which is what Montgomery County has done because they were losing units after the time period. In actuality, 15 years does go by quickly and he would like to see the affordable housing surplus in existence as long as possible. Aid. Wynne asked for clarification of public benefits as it relates to planned developments. Aid. tiiomn responded that providing affordable housing units should be listed as one of the public benefits in giving back to the community. Chair Rainey recognizes that with new condo occupancies the rising costs of assessments and taxes and even though she supports providing on -site units, this could prove difficult for the eligible buyer in keeping up with other expenses. She supports Mr. Perman's suggestion of looking into assistance from the Housing Fund to help eligible homeowners with assessment costs. Aid. Wollin supports this suggestion also but questions how long the period should be that the homeowner can receive such assistance because she would not want someone who is no longer in the median income bracket to keep receiving assistance such as the situations that have occurred in New York City with the rent controlled apartments. Chair Rainey suggested that it run with the length of the affordability period with yearly income qualification verified. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee of Corporation Counsel, Jack Siegel's opinion, that if the City proceeds with Inclusionary housing, it should be implemented through the Planned Development process to establish a connection between zoning and affordable housing. He said that in this case it would be by means of a text amendment and would have to go before the Plan Commission initially. :old. Tisdahl said that she is very interested in providing housing for the Evanston workforce and would like to see a preference for public employees. She would like to see this as a means to help attract better qualified teachers and public employees by offering special programs to purchase property here in Evanston. Aid. Moran pointed out that the preference for live or work in Evanston persons is now stated in the policy, therefore this would include any public employee. He is not convinced that this policy should limit to or single out these specific categories. He mentioned other categories such as senior citizens on fixed incomes and other young families that live within the City of Evanston or work in other capacities. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 6 Aid. Wvnne asked staff to explain what is meant by offering incentives to developers. Mr. Marino responded that in his opinion the planned development is the incentive. For example, he noted the previous limits allowed by zoning have increased for the allowance of 4 extra floors, although it still requires approval by Council. Aid. Winne wanted assurance that the optional tools that were suggested during the first discussions, is not included within this policy. Aid. Jean -Baptiste raised his concern with policy goal targets and that he does not think we will be able to keep up with the pace versus need. He reiterated his opinion that they need to focus on conserving what they already have with affordable housing units declining. He noted that there are at least 25% less now that what existed 5 years ago. He said it appears that we can not replenish affordable housing as fast as we are losing it so he suggested that consideration be given to having a policy with regards to this problem or the City will be unsuccessful with this lnclusionary housing policy. Aid. Bernstein responded to :did. lean-Baptiste's concern that the city can stay ahead of the curve if the provision for providing the number of affordable housing units is increased. This could result in requiring more than the 100r, set -aside that is proposed in this draft. It's a question of commitment on behalf of the Council and City to follow and insist on the required percentage for all planned developments. He stated that lnclusionary refers not just to affordable prices, but also including units for people with disabilities, senior citizens and low income workers as well. Ald. Rollin informed the Committee of the discussion regarding affordable housing • stock at the National League of Cities conference that she attended. She said that the presentation and discussion was very informative and also addressed aging housing stocks. She offered to distribute this information to all the Committee members. Ald. Holmes said that she is very much in support of the idea in the preference for public employees and teachers to take advantage of any affordable housing programs provided. She also opposed the amount of 540,000 for the fee -in -lieu -of because it does not make sense to require an amount that doesn't even touch the cost of construction for new housing. She would like to see this amount either doubled but supports the suggested amount of 5100,000. Due to time limitation to conclude discussion of this matter, a special Planning & Development meeting was tentativeh• agreed upon and scheduled for Thursday, January 5, 2006 beginning at 7:00 p.m. COMMU}tiICATIONS (PD2) Consideration of Enacting the 2003 international Ener¢v Conservation Code Anniving to Commercial Buildings This item will be addressed at the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 9, 2006. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12-12-05 Page 7 OA D J 0 U PUNIN f ENT The meeting A -as adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu ine . Brownlee L�J DRAFT • Planning & Development Committee Minutes of November 28, 2005 Room 2200 — 6:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. A. Hansen, D. Holmes, L. Jean -Baptiste, E. Moran, A. Rainey, E. Tisdahl, C. Wollin, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski. J. Carroll, S. Janusz. D. Marino, C. Ruiz, D. Spicuzza, W. Stafford. E. Szymanski, J. Browvnlee Presiding Official: Alderman Rainey DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chair Rainey called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 14. 2005 MEETING MINUTES Aid. Wynne moved approval of the November 14.2005 minutes, seconded by Aid. Jean - Baptiste. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. . ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI ) Ordinance 125-0-05 — Revision to a Planned Development at 1100 Clark THIS ITEM WAS TRA.NtiSCRIBED BY COURT REPORTER LAURA BERNAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KLAEREN RULES. THEREFORE DETAILED MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT. A SUNIMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE FOLLOWS IN THE MINUTES PROVIDED. Chairman Rainey noted that staff has advised that the information Council received and read over the weekend has been changed. Mr. Wolinski gave an overview of the recision proposed by the applicant to the payment in lieu of affordable units. Mr. Bruce Huvard, Attorney for the Developer, followed with a brief summary. Discussion followed between the Committee members and Mr. Huvard. The consensus of the Committee was in disagreement with the counter proposal offered by the applicant. Ms. Carroll and Mr. Stafford made comments in support of the Committees argument and City Staffs opinion that the agreed payment of S395.707 from the developer to the Mayor's Special Housing Fund is fair and appropriate for a payment in lieu of providing the original proposed number of affordable units. The Committee allowed Mr. Huvard to take a break to discuss this with his client. Ms. Robin Snyderman-Pratt made comments in support of providing the affordable housing units and the importance of Evanston's needs at this time due to the constant lose of these units throughout the City. Upon Mr. Huvard's P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1 t-28-05 Page 2 • return, he conveyed that Mr. Roszak has agreed to stay with the agreed payment with no further revisions. The Committee voted 9-0 in favor of accepting the amended Ordinance 125-0-05. (P2) Maior Variation reauest for an Oven Parkine Snace in the Front Yard at 2434 Sherman Chair Rainey recalled that at the last meeting this item was held because the applicant suggested that there was additional information that they would obtain and bring back before the Committee to prove that there was a legitimate parking space. Mr. Sebastian Koziura spoke on behalf of the applicant and as previous owner of the property. He referred to the hand-out this evening to the Committee of a blown -up colored copy of a map illustrating the location of the subject property and alleged parking space. He also brought the surveyed proof from the City Engineer's Office. Mr. Koziura informed the Committee that he rehabbed the propem' before the current owner and admitted that he sold the property with the inclusion of the parking space. In his opinion, this parking space is considered a legal non -conforming use from its existence when the access was created in 1928. Therefore. this shows that the previous owners of the property did not request a curb cut. He pointed out that in comparison to the next door property, which has a similar parking situation, they have two curb cuts that are legally non -conforming and this property does not and that this is the only difference between the two neighboring properties. In this same light, he pointed out that there has been no opposition from the neighbors at any of the previous hearings about this request. He said that there has been a fence there but once he moved the fence into the alley that is when the complaints started. Chair Rainey stated that staff reported that they researched this situation and found that the paved pad had been covered and not used for many years, which resulted in the property owner feeling that this payed area was a parking pad for their property but otherwise by the City. Mr. Wolinski followed up that the City has found no evidence that there was ever a parking space established here at this location. He said even in terms of if there was somehow a non -conforming legal parking space established at some point, the fact that it was abandoned and then reused again has no leverage here. He further explained that under the City's Zoning Ordinance, a non -conforming use once it is abandoned can not be re -instituted. Mr. Koziura argued this point stating that he always used this space as a parking pad when he owned the property. Aid. Bernstein stated that unfortunately the fact that Mr. Koziura used the space for parking all along when he was owner of the property does not necessarily mean he had the authority to use that space for parking. He recalled his statement to the current owner, Mr. Lipscomb at the last meeting that he would be in support of recommending reimbursement of applicant fees paid if in fact it was proved that it was previously a legal -non -conforming parking space. He continued that he made a point to further examine this situation on his own and researched the City microfilm records. He noted P&D Committee \ltg. Minutes of 11-28-05 Page 3 that in looking at the most recent zoning analysts of this property was back in 1975, which shows that there are two parkin¢ spaces required and non existing. Therefore, as of 1975, the City of Evanston has this property down for no legal or legal non- conforming parking space(s). He stressed that anything that has transpired since that time has not been legally or properly documented. therefore leaving no valid proof for this Committee to rely on. He extended his apology to the current owner for this technicality, however the Committee is bound by Cite records as they stand. Ald. Wollin recalled the importance of recognizing all the complaints that she received, as Alderman of the Ward. She noted that many complaints were regarding the number of young children in that area who frequently walk in that area near the alley and the danger of backing out of a parking space in that Iocation. Also, she reiterated the fact that there is sufficient on -street parking in front of this property, which many homeowners in that area have to settle for also. She does not see this as a hardship to the property owner. Mr. Koziura argued his points supporting that this is a hardship to the current property owner who purchased the property believing that it came with a parking space as he believed also when he sold the property. Mr. Lipscomb addressed the Committee with his points of argument agreeing with Mr. Koziura's last statement and taking into consideration the fact that no neighbors actually came out and spoke in opposition at the numerous hearings before this time. In actuality, a letter of support was received in the Zoning Division Office and forwarded to the P&D Committee from staff. Mr. Michael Lee, a property owner in the same neighborhood. spoke in support of Mr. Lipscomb's request and that he is not opposed to the approval of this parking space use. AId. Wollin motioned to accept the recommendation from staff for denial of this major variation request, seconded by Aid. Holmes. his. Szymanski informed the Committee that they are acting legislatively on this matter and there is no need to read into the record the standards for their action. She explained in further detail the reasoning for this being that upon the Zoning Board's review- and hearing process, the concurring amount of votes was not achieved resulting in no forwarding recommendation from the ZBA. Ald. Bernstein reiterated his previous point made that if it was in the City's records that this parking space had been applied for by any previous owner and grandfathered in as a legal non -conforming use, then the Committee would have to support this. Chair Rainey read into the minutes the zoning analysis done by staff and reported to this Committee in their packet materials. so as to relieve this argument on record. She noted there are 3 points stated which support denial by staff according to the zoning analysis. First, the building lot maximum permitted is 30% and this proposal is requesting approximately coverage of 53.5%. Secondly, open parking is not permitted in front yards and must be within rear 30' of the lot. This proposal includes a parking space in the front yard along Sherman Avenue and space is located more than 30' from rear lot line. Thirdly, parking space dimensions as of right allow 90-degree parking spaces that must 40 be at least 8.5' wide and 18' long. This proposal is for off-street parking space at P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11-28-05 Page 4 • approximately 13" long. Chair Rainey summarized the extent of the major variations requested which were subsequently denied by staff in accordance to the zoning analysis governed by the City's Zoning Ordinance. In conclusion, her actual opinion is that this is a minimal request in view of the fact that there is no record of opposition at the hearings and the testified history of being used as a parking space. However, she must abide by the City records on file and staffs recommendation. Ald. Jean -Baptiste agrees with his fellow members' opinion of abiding by City records. He also respects staff's recommendation. however he finds a problem with justice in this case where the circumstance is unique. In this case, he finds no real harm in allowing the use of this space to be continued and extended as a legal non -conforming use and would recommend allowing this as a parking space. Aid. Holmes stated she would be inclined to agree with Aid. Jean-Baptiste's argument, however the evidence presented on behalf of staff and the concluding City records on file would have to outweigh any other arguments. She agreed with the very unusual circumstances and physical configuration associated with this lot. She stressed that the situation is not fair to the current homeowner, however the proof in City records is valid. She also supports the AIderman of the Ward's opinion on hardship and that there is sufficient parking available on the street in front of the property, as many residents of Evanston have to park as well. With no further discussion, the vote was 7 in favor of the motion and 2 voting nay (Alderman's Jean -Baptiste and Hanson). fP31 Ordinance 136.0-05 -- Zonine Ordinance Text Amendment Chair Rainey called on citizen comments first. Mary Sing-h. 1711 Hinman expressed her appreciation of the Plan Commission's work on this matter. She hopes the P&:D Committee will further support the Plan Commission's recommendation as well. She urges the Committee's support on this same issue in consideration of Hinman Avenue future development. David Re«olds. 204 Davis Street seconded Ms. Singh's position and his support of the creation of a B 1 a zoning district and that the Committee keep this in mind for the Hinman Avenue future proposed development. Mr. Richard Wright. 2603 Hartzell expressed his support for this Blazoning district on Central Street and is in strong support of having this zoning district in several other neighborhood shopping districts in Evanston. He offered a suggestion to the Committee to revise 6-9-5.7, Yard Requirements. from 3' to a minimum of 10' from d,e street to make sure of an acceptable sidewalk width for pedestrian shopping in this area He would like to see pedestrian friendly shopping in this neighborhood business district and assumes that is one of the purposes for this text amendment. Also Mr. Wright expressed 0 his concern for first floor frontage space usage in the district for uses such as medical P&D Committee .Mtg. Minutes of 11-28-05 Page 5 office that are not pedestrian shopping uses. For example. he pointed out the Renal Care Facility on Central and that he feels such similar uses should be a special use only because they do not fit into the pedestrian neighborhood shopping category. He stressed that these types of office uses need to be changed from allowable uses to special uses in this district. Mr. Wright also suggested an amendment be made to Section 6-16-14, Exemption of Required Parking Spaces. He pointed out that there is already an existing parking problem on West Central Street going east towards the shopping district close to Green Bay Road. In view of this. he would suggest that the 2000' exemption should not be included in the B I a zoning district. Jeff Smith. 2724 Harrison seconded all of fir. Wright's comments stated previously. He acknowledged that regardless of any zoning text amendments. what is allowed in the Zoning Ordinance will be built or variations will be requested to seek building what a developer wants to do. Nevertheless. he expressed his support in favor of this modest proposal for dower -zoning and efforts to protect the residential abutment to business districts, however the majority of residents would support additional down -zoning. Mr. Smith talked about over -zoning on Central Street which in effect drives out current neighborhood store owners and results in vacancies because of rising rental cost. He pointed out this is what brings developers in to redevelop properties resulting in very expensive rents for first floor store frontages and high prices stores that fail the neighborhood shopping business intention. Mr. Smith pointed out that this proposal will allow 3-story buildings where currently there are only 2-story buildings and could • subsequently result in an increase in development. He reiterated his support for this down -zoning as a beginning but would encourage this Committee to do further modifications to facilitate the continued sustainability of the existing small businesses in the Central Street neighborhood. Aid. Moran moved approval to introduce Ordinance 136-0-05, seconded by Aid. Jean -Baptiste. Chair Rainey reminded the Committee of the moratorium in effect for this area on Central Street that expires on December 9. 2005 and that she will be recommending suspension of the rules to introduce and approve this evening. Aid. Moran requested to make an amendment to page 6 of the Ordinance under 6-9-5-1, Purpose Statement: (A) "The Bla business District is designed to accommodate and encourage the continued viable use of neighborhood business districts...." Add in at this point "as older, pedestrian oriented shopping areas..." Ald. Wynne argued adding the word "older" in the sentence. Mr. Wolinski read the 132 Zoning District definition. which includes the phrase "older pedestrian shopping districts" in the wording. The Committee agreed and voted 9-0 in favor to accept Aid. Moran's amendment excluding the word "older". Aid. Moran made a motion to remove from Section 6-9-5-2: Permitted Uses: the "offices" category and place this under Section 6-9-5-3: Special Uses. His explanation being that such office uses as special medical facilities or any other business office use that does not support neighborhood pedestrian oriented shopping uses, should 0 become a special use in the district. Mr. Wolinski explained how the "office use" P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11-28-05 Page 6 40 definition fits in this district. He said that because we are creating a new zoning district, "offices" are still allowed in the 131, B2 and 133 districts on the first floor. He acknowledged Ald. Moran*s concerns with any new office uses that have come in under the new construction`developments on Central. however they were permitted office uses. He also noted that many of the uses that will come in under new developments will be driven by the high rents and the type of development is also important in this factor. No second was received for this motion. Chair Rainey expressed her concerns for store front churches and similar types of cultural facilities, which is listed under permitted uses. She explained her position on this in further detail and highly recommended consideration of moving this category under Special Uses. Ald. Moran argued against this idea because this category covers such a wide variety of uses and could become very controversial. Chair Rainey asked stall for more clarification on parking regulations for open parking areas and driveways. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Wolinski explained the zoning requirements, upon which the Committee agreed with. Aid. Moran moved approval of Ordinance 136-0-05 as amended, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 137-0-05 Zoning Ordinance Man Amendment Aid. Moran moved approval of Ordinance 137-0-05, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. . The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 115-0-05 — Amendment to the Preservation Ordinance Chair Rainey recognized that several members of the Preservation Commission have signed up to speak on this matter and she requested the Committee's approval to let them speak first before any Committee deliberation. The Committee members all agreed. Mr. Chris Carev. Chairman of the Evanston Preservation Commission, residing at 2739 Gerard Avenue. He drew the Committee's attention to his memorandum included in the P&D Committee packet, which outlines the Preservation's Commissions position. He wished to add to the points stated that in his opinion there are some PR problems that also occurred previously with the review of the North East Evanston Historic District, noting his membership to the Preservation Commission four years ago just after that issue began. From Mr. Carey's experience, he has feelings of resentment and separation from the Citv. He stressed the importance to the Committee to recognize the Preservation Commission members are a group of citizens who are volunteers appointed by the Mayor which include architects, contractors. a lawyer and other property owners. He commended all the Preservation Commission members on their time given and commitment. He said that generally the Preservation Commission reviews over 200 projects per year with approximately 95% approval rate of those cases within the first meeting. However, Mr. Carey noted the exceptional cases that require more time and review that make up the remaining percentage are usually cases that draw more public attention due to their significance. In his opinion. the proposed 60-day review period is P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11-28-05 Page 7 • not enough time when it comes to such projects that require more time as mentioned. for example the District 65 building. The Mather. Nomination of the Georgian. etc. In conclusion, fir. Carrey stated that he can not support this ordinance especially as it relates to specifically the Preservation Commission. He requested the P&D Committee to review the memorandum forwarded to them stating the time lines of cases the Preservation Commission has reviewed. These time frames are an example of the time needed for appropriate review of special cases. Mr. Stan Gerson. 200 Lee Street, said that he is a member of the Preservation Commission and has been a resident of Evanston for over 30 years. He stated that the Preservation Commission is bound by the Preservation Ordinance that established this Commission and their obligation is to allow a make sure that everyone who wants to be heard is given that chance. He seconded Mr. Carev's previous comments that almost 95% of the cases are heard and given approval within the first meeting but there are the remaining exceptional cases, which require more time and review due to the nature and significance of the building involved. Mr. Gerson read from a prepared statement to the P&D Committee relating to his opposition to the 60-day time limit as it relates to specific cases. Ms. Susan Rundle pointed out to the P&D Committee to take into consideration the Georgian case for example. She noted that the Preservation Commission first heard this case where testimony began in December 2003 and she subsequently recalled every date after that first meeting that have occurred. She also noted that the majority of those meetings lasted until at least 11:00 p.m. and many more were set as special meetings outside of the regularly scheduled monthly meetings. 'pis. Rundle stated that most of those meetings were done by court reporter and lengthy transcripts had to be done. In conclusion, she expressed her opposition along with her fellow Preservation Commission members. Ms. Betsv Hohman member of the Preservation Commission said that she is one of the newest members of the Commission. She was not fully aware of the total process involved with the preservation review; as each case is fairly and equally given the same consideration. She concurred with her fellow members that spoke before her that the majority of cases before the Preservation Commission are finalized at their first meeting. However those cases that require more lengthy review. she vowed are given fair and equal review as needed and the Commission is committed to giving full attention to each case. Ms. Hohman is also in opposition to this ordinance. Ms. Mary Bruglierra, member of the Preservation Commission. referred her comments to the memorandum stating the time frames for the exceptional cases that required some length of time beyond 60 days. She is in favor of minimizing any review process if possible; however she questions why council feels this time limit is necessary at this time especially geared towards the Preservation Commission. 'sir. WoIinski explained that this is a staff recommendation at this time to aid in the expedition of the entire 0 development review process. He acknowledged and commended the Preservation P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1 l -28-05 Page 8 • Commission's work and respects their position. However. he reiterated the importance of staff's efforts to reduce the entire development'permit review process and felt that this was one level of review that could be shortened. He noted that staff is requesting 60-days from the first public meeting or hearing. Chair Rainey suggested that this matter should be on the list for the zoning/development consultant to take into consideration as part of their evaluation review that is currently underway with City staff at this time and can be included in their final analysis. The Committee agreed with the Chair. Aid. Wynne motioned to move this item under Future Consideration, seconded by Aid. Jean -Baptiste. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P6f Ordinance 117-0-05 — Affordable Housine Demolition Tax Aid. Moran moved approval, seconded by Aid. Tisdahl. Chair Rainey called on those singed up for citizen comment on this issue. Ms. L%mne Heidt & Mr. Michael Lee expressed their opposition of this tax being specifically geared towards one group of people. Both were in the opinion that affordable housing should be a City-wide effort and equally taxed amongst the resident of Evanston. . With no further discussion, the note was 9-0 in favor of the motion. (P7) Renuest for Mavor's Soecial Housing Funds Mr. Stan Janusz gave an overview of the Employee Assisted Housing Program. IN summary. qualifying City of Evanston employees could receive up to $8,000 in a forgivable loan over a 5--•ear period. The Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) will match funds up to S5.000 in combination with the City. He stated this program is available for single family households as well as long as they are income qualified. Ald. NVollin commended this program and the wonderful presentation that was given at a previous Chamber of Commerce seminar. Chair Rainey requested that staff make sure that information be extended out to City staff in any way possible so that full advantage is taken of this program. Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Jean -Baptiste. Unanimous vote of 9- 0 in favor of the motion was received. (P8) Ordinance 127-0-05 -- Amendment to the Fire Prevention Code Aid. Wynne moved approval, seconded by Aid. Hanson. The vote was 9-0 in favor of the motion. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of l 1-2"5 Page 9 • ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Inclusionary Housina Discussion Chair Rainey stated that this item would be addressed first at the December 12, 2005 meeting and given sufficient time for discussion. ADJOURMET T The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, NJacqlin E. Bro«nlee 0