Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1993MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 11, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, E. Anderson, C. Borys, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski and J. Wolinski Presiding Official: Ald. Heydemann MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14 AND NOVF.MBER 23 AND DECEKBER 16, 1992, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Engelman seconded the approval of the minutes of November 23, 1992 and special minutes of November 23 and December 16, 1992. On page 1, second paragraph under fences, Ald. Warshaw requested that the word "front yard chain link fences be added." The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. rIONH NICATION Petition re Building Heights in New Zon na Ordinance. The Committee received without comments. private Citi,.zens Rat to Abate Local Zonina Violations. The Committee received without comments. amiros Memorandum re Proposed 01 Office District. Jacque Gourguechon stated that he was in attendance to answer any questions pertaining to his memo and to give some background on the proposed office zone 01. The proposed 01 is a solution that Camiros and staff developed to resolve a number of different problems. The problems included the issues of set back and transition of the COS property, the split zoning on the former Rotary International building and the United Methodist Pension Fund building, and the Shand Morahan parking lot. There are two things unique to the proposed district: (1) A highly tailored office. (2) A transitional landscape buffer. Aiello asked, how the Ridge and Central medical building (ground level) with its retail be allowed? Gourguechon answered they would have the necessary zoning becoming a special use. Ald. Engelman asked if retail on the first floor would be allowed, �ifl ii�loi� iJ i . I , . - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 although the spaces would not be occupied until the activation of the ordinance? Gourguechon stated prior permits for the building had been pulled. Ald. Engelman asked for clarification regarding the buffer transitional landscape strip of 27 ft. and transitional landscape strips. Gourguechon said with 27 ft., if you do a good job of screening and landscaping on this particular property on Ridge, certainly an average screen could be added. Ald. Engelman stated that it was not so much the appearance, but the bulk. Gourguechon said that was an issue of the number of stories. In this particular case the further it was set back on the lot the more acceptable the bulk could be. Ald. Heydemann stated that it does say the maximum building height was 52 ft. (5 stories). Ald. Brady commented that the district concept was a good one, and she supported it. She questioned how the 01 Overlay District would be mapped and would it be mandatory? Gourguechon answered that it was mapped in two locations, on the southwest corner of Ridge and Simpson, and also on the property on the east side of Ridge and Clark. Ald. Warshaw asked Gourguechon if he thought by having two mandatory small areas that are spot only. He answered no. Plan _ Commission Memorandum re Downtown Mandatory Planned Development, C. Borys introduced Drew Patterson, an associate member of the Plan commission. The Plan Commission, staff and the consultants met several times to develop the latest zoning plan for downtown. Mr. Patterson stated that the proposed map reflects all of the input provided over the last several years. The proposed map represents the implementation of the downtown plan; addressing the charcter- giving aspects of downtown. The overlay district provides protection for those areas and yet represents the areas which should be rebuilt to give the City the tax base that its desires. Brady asked was there a cap allowed on the parking in D3 and D4? Gourguechon answered there was an exclusion, and the historic exclusion for parking remains in effect for B3, CIA, D3 and D4. Ald. Brady stated that the Committee decided on 20 ft. in D1 and 2, nothing in D3 and 40 ft. in D4 and requested clarification. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 Gourguechon stated that the cap on the height would be 200 and 270 (includes all parking). Ald. Warshaw questioned how this differed from what the Committee has already finalized? Gourguechon stated the other major change was that the FAR's had been eliminated entirely from D1 and D2, and the height was the controlling factor. Ald. Engelman questioned why there was no process available to go above 42 ft? Gourguechon responded there should be some consistency between character and design. Ald. Engelman commented that it seemed to him that the Plan Commission would want the flexibility to ensure the character given if the right plan proposed happened to be higher than 42 ft. C. Borys stated that under the new ordinance the Plan Commission would review the planned development text and map amendment. If a parcel was large enough, or if a group of parcels needed to be rezoned through a planned development process an application could seek a text or map amendment. Jonathan Perman stated that everything in D2 is much higher than 42 ft. Gourguechon stated that was not true but that some buildings did exceed 42 ft. Ald. Engelman stated he supported the Plan Commission because they would be an integral part of the process. However, he wanted to make sure that the Plan Commission and City Council understood that the proposal restricted the Plan Commission. Mr. Petterson stated that was certainly a policy decision. Ald. Warshaw stated that she preferred to see a change more similar to what was agreed on last time. Ald. Kent questioned if we were losing anything on the south end (parking lot) of Clark and Ridge if we go with the 01 instead of the D3 that they had discussed as far as potential development. Aiello stated yes, but we are gaining; by having that setback, the impact for the development would not be as great on the adjacent Asbury residents. Ald. Brady stated that it was her understanding that the public hearing draft had gone to the printer. There is nothing formally that can be done to amend the public hearing draft at this point. - 3 - - Minutes -- P & D Committee January 25, 1993 Ald. Engleman clarified that Committee has designated the corner of Clark and east of Ridge as C2. Mr. Perman asked for clarification that, if the Foundation Square Building were to be redeveloped, if it was structurally unsound; under the new proposal what could or could not be done. More specifically, if a development was proposed beyond the limitations, how would it be accomplished. Aiello stated that it would require map and/or text change. If the Plan Commission chose to rezone, it would most likely be a Planned Development. If it was a multi - parcel site , the Plan Commission and Council would probably not consider remapping without knowing the nature of the redevelopment. Gourguechon stated that an administrative mechanism would allow multi -applications to go through at the same time. The Committee directed Gourguechon to put that administrative mechanism in a memo. Mr. Perman asked if a text change has to be approve by Council? Aiello confirmed that a map or text changes must be approved by the Council. Ald. Brady requested a reply on the administrative mechanism before the public hearing. Mr. Hoover urged the Committee not to rely on either a map change or the amendment for evaluating the downtown or anywhere. He felt if the Committee were going to allow something different, than by right, they should state what variations they are willing to allow. Docket 7-1A-93. Architectural Plan Review aLnd Field inspection Contract. Ald. Brady requested that this item be held in Committee until Ald. Esch could be present. The Committee discussed several meeting dates. It was the consensus of the Committee to meet at 7:00 p.m., January 25, 1993. If that time doesn't work out, they will meet on Saturday, January 30 after the budget meeting. Docket 271-12A--92.gap Financing for tt_e U6 Dobson Street Proiect - Center fQr__the Rehabilitatiol] and Training of Persons with Ald. Warshaw commented as a member of the Housing Commission that the Commission believed that this was a proper request, the project was worthy and the commission was in favor of the project moving - 4 - -- Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 forward. The City of Evanston had created greater expenses for the project, although they have willingly complied to make it more attractive, HUD would not finance the extra amenities. The Housing Commission voted unanimously to approve a grant of $19,000. Chairman Heydemann questioned how they reach the amount of $19,000 and if they were deleting the architectural masonry as a suggestion from Corrigan Construction? Ald. Warshaw answered that $19,000 was the requested amount for the fee waiver. Aiello stated that they were not deleting the masonry. Ald. Brady stated that Ald. Rainey was present at the Housing Commission meeting and it was obvious that this project had undergone thorough review by the neighborhood and Aldermen. The Committee voted unanimously to approve. Docket 266-11E-92. Ordinance 105-0-92 re Sign Ordinance Ald. Brady'a understanding was that the City would do the inventory this year and expend the $36,000. At the completion of the inventory, the City would sent out notices for license fees that was owed, and payable before March 1, 1994. The City would recapture the $36,000 that was expended during the same fiscal year. If this was correct then the City would need to add to the budget an expense and income line item. Eric Anderson stated that was correct. If the actions were taken by the Council prior to the time the budget was adopted. If it was done afterward, it would be an amendment at the time the action was taken subsequent to the budget adoption. Ald. Warshaw felt it had to be done this way because the City did not have an adequate inventory. The City could not collect fees that have been on the book for years until we had an inventory. She agreed that since amortization was being included, a public hearing was needed. Aid. Engelman questioned the need for an inventory if we were including amortization. Ald. Brady answered to received the fees. Ald. Warshaw questioned how notice would be gi•:en? Ald. Engelman answered that the normal notice process could be provided. He questioned the need to inventory the existing licenses currently in effect. Mr. Anderson stated some of our signs are very expensive and we would need to give notice as early as possible. In order to do that we would need to know where the signs are, identify them - 5 - - Minutes -- P & D Committee January 25, 1993 and that requires an inventory. it is not suggested that an inventory be done without raising the fees. Ald. Engleman stated that if an inventory was done, he was not convinced that amortization was needed, because the problem would take care of itself through attrition. Chairman Heydemann clarified that signs could be replaced and amortization is the only enforcement mechanism. Ald. Warshaw stated that she believed that the City desperately needed the inventory more than anything else because illegal signs would keep popping up and that this would be the only way to stop them. She thought a 10 year amortization period would provide sufficient time. Jim Wolinski stated that the majority of the problem signs for the Board are the nonconforming signs and ones which were permitted at prior to the 1988 ordinance. Jonathan Perman asked if the sign permit fee will be levied on businesses who would not be part of the inventory? Ald. Warshaw answered everyone pays a fee. Chairman Heydemann asked if this was a one time inventory? Wolinski answered that it would be an inventory done at this point to capture everything not on file, and then it would be an on -going process. Ald. Engleman clarified the need of $43,500 for salary and benefits for a sign inspector. Ald. Brady requested a memo regarding variations either requested during the 9th year or later. What would happen if in year 11, a sign owner were cited, and they requested relief. Could the City say you have no right to request a variation? Szymanski stated her main concern was the length of the amortization period and whether it would be reasonable and legitimate. The City would be providing approximately 10 years for owners to amortize their signs and would allow approximately 1 year prior to the effective amortization date to file their application. Ald. Brady clarified that her inquiry related to someone who ignored the notice and 12 years from the passing of the ordinance they were cited, and instead of removing the sign; they applied for a variation. Szymanski stated that the ordinance as written was legal and reasonable. Wolinski stated that the Sign Review and Appeals Board wanted to - Minutes P & D Committee January 25, 1993 utilize the eight months period prior to the final compliance date as the period for people to seek variations. They did not want a flood of variation requests coming in after the City have sent out notices for compliance. Ald. Engelman requested before the public hearing examples of stores, sizes of signage and how much it would cost to comply be provided. Ald. Brady asked how much time would be needed to provide notice for a public hearing? Aiello stated a formal notice with no less than 15 day notice and as much as 30 day notice. Ald. Lanyon asked if we were bound by 15 days? Aiello stated no, but it would give us two weeks for notice in the Evanston Review. Ald. Brady suggested February 15, 1993 at 7:30 p.m., for a public hearing on the sign ordinance. The Committee voted unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 1993 at 7:00. Staff: 7 DRAFT, NOT APPROVED I Ili I6 I1,I111h1I111II 1 11 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 25, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 Aid. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Aid. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, E. Anderson, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, J. Wolinski and D. Wirth Others Present: Aid. Esch and Aid. Newman Presiding Official: Aid. Heydemann MINUTES -OF JUTUARY 11, 1 9L Aid. Engelman moved and Aid. Brady seconded the approval of the minutes of January 11, 1993. Aid. Brady stated on page 4, first paragraph, "Mr. Perman asked for clarification that, if the Fgu twin Square Building..." Aid. Warshaw stated on page 2, fourth paragraph, "Aid. Warshaw asked....... areas that are potentially spot Zoning only." The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. NEW BUSINESS o DOCKET 7-1A-93 ARCHITECTURAL PLAN REVIEW AND FIELD INSPECTION == CONTRACT. Aid. Esch wanted the Committee to know that, while she was pvz expressing some misgivings about the methods that the City had been a using, it did not come from an unfamiliarly with the Buildings Department. For a period of ten years she was the permit clerk in the Building Department and, consequently, had a understanding of both the building trades and City procedures. She stated that =Y privatization was not bad and felt that privatization was something all communities should look at. The question was whether or not it should start in the Building Department. She then pointed out the areas where she differed from the analyses - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 f of the staff memo to the Committee. Option I: Consultant Contract for Elan Reviews and Inspections. "The advantages are it provides highly qualified technical expertise in the areas of both plan review and inspection with licensed architects, structural engineers, and licensed professional engineers performing the plan reviews and field inspections." Ald. Esch questioned that statement. She checked with a number of other communities, and not one of them used an architectural plan review out -of -house as well as inspectional services; many used consultants for plan reviews. The trades' portion of the plan is generally reviewed by trade inspectors, who were in-house personnel. It was very questionable whether a licensed architect or a licensed professional engineer was able to really analyze the actual, installation. Very frequently, when out on the job, they found it could not be done as planned. The architect or engineer usually had to consult with the trades people in order to revise plans. Many times the decision was made at the job site. Ald. Esch stated that the advantage was that our inspectors had long histories within the trades they were inspecting. The education of an architect, on the other hand, did not include code enforcement. She stated that she spoke with a number of architects, and except for one man who happened to specialize in codes, they did not have experience with code. Ald. Esch stated that originally she had spoken with the Committee and Council and had suggested the City hire BOCA for inspections because they were the code administrators. Everyone she spoke with had indicated that BOCA was very good and they had all the staff to do the work. However, it did cost more money compared to using a structural engineer or someone else to do the work. She stated that her concern was not primarily the plan review itself; but rather her concern was the inspection. The City had to be aware of the fact that the City's liability did not disappear when we went outside and someone else did the work. Another important fact she stated was that the plan reviews that we did ourselves resulted in additional revenue for the City. Most cities farm -out the plan reviews but not their inspectional - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 services. The inspectors were City employees; trained within the City and under the direction of the City. If issues arise, we have the opportunity to know about them and to take whatever actions that is necessary. She stated that there were a number of inspectors that are needed but if the work load decreases the City could lay-off staff. OO]RtJoD U. Consultant Plan Review with Additional City,.,_ Staff Inspectors, Ald. Esch thought this would be the most reasonable avenue to take. Some of the architects had mentioned that when architects reviewed plans, their real specialty was design. She did not think that would happen with structural engineers; they would just go by what was on the plans and not address design issues. However, she had a concern with licensed professional engineers, structural engineers and architectural engineers in terms of inspections who are not familiar with the codes. She stated that one of the things that sold privatization to the Council was the statement that Evanston did not have inspectors that were educated enough to inspect the buildings. The Holiday Inn, NBD building, St. Francis Hospital, Evanston Hospital, one American Plaza, etc. were all built using the City's plan reviewers and inspectors. Back in those years part of training was in codes and code enforcement. some time ago training practically disappeared. There was no longer sufficient amount of money to send the inspectors to the various schools. She stated that in the building trades (both in procedure and practice, and in materials) there have been many changes; so it was important that the training procedures continue. Many cities have inspectors that are BOCA certified; these folks keep going to the various classes (some are held at Harper, the South side and in Madison). She stated that she had spoken with the Manager and the Director and they had assured her that the training would be continued. Ald. Esch stated that she wanted to see the inspectional services come back into the city. She sees one big change this year the memo only projects over $1,000,000 for plan review to go outside. That was quite a change - 3 - - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 from the $200,000 that was prevalent before. other communities do not necessarily use a dollar amount to determine what goes out and what stays in --house. Sometimes it was determined by whether or not the plans examiner had time available do a big job; sometimes it was a matter of a complicated design. She felt that with the present arrangement with someone else doing our inspections no matter how capable it was unhealthy for the City. She had spoken with one community that was doing a survey but that survey was not available yet. She would share the information with the Committee when she received it. Ald. Esch asked the Committee to seriously consider advising the City Manager to go back to having in-house inspectional services. Ald. Newman stated that he had two concerns: (1) one job where $288,000 in building fees and $144,000 of that went to Criezis. He could not tell whether or not this was a windfall to Criezis. (2) The time to review and issue smaller permits with one less inspector. Aid. Newman had to leave for another meeting, but stated on the Greenwood/Dempster Lakefront Pathway Proposal, he did not received any calls, and he assumed notices went out to the neighbors. if rRi there were any changes, he would want the matter to be held in Committee because he had not heard any objections. Ald. Warshaw stated that the Committee did what they did to save money. Using Criezis, as opposed to our prior in-house inspector was shown to be a large savings. If they are not saving money, she would rather see the expertise in-house where we can do additional inspections; but that as yet has not been shown to the Committee. Chairman Heydemann questioned whether someone trained in the building trades is a more appropriate inspector than an architectural review. she stated that she saw no reason why Ald. Esch's comment wouldn't be true; why do we need an architect to review something that's being done by the building trades when they do not know code? - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 Ald. Each stated the memo listed the number of projects for 1986-87 and their costs. Those inspectional fees are hourly rates. When the inspectors go out, you do not know whether or not they work 1/2 hour then charge you for one hour. When you hire an inspector in- house, you are hiring him for 37.5 hours and you have all of his time. She stated that when she first went into the Building Department, there were two electrical inspectors: one for commercial and one for residential. The City entered into the contractual arrangements when the commercial inspector left. Ald. Engelman stated that he would like to hear from Jim Wolinski, or staff in the Building Department, who might enlighten the Committee on their viewpoints before the Committee asks questions. Eric Anderson, City Manager, stated that the idea behind doing services this way is to establish a core group of qualified inspectors internally and then use the consultant, Criezis. The consultant must be knowledgeable, they must be available, and they must be on site. Thus, we did not take on a very large cost of expanding our core of permanent employees. Construction on major projects goes up and down. The city needed the flexibility with sufficient expertise and availability when there was a lot of construction, but not to carry all the overhead cost that would be required if we maintained the expanded staff all the time. The costs were carried essentially by the people who would be requiring inspections; they are not billed to the City. Mr. Anderson stated that it was a matter of keeping the flexibility. He stated we could hire people and lay them off when we have a low year, but that was a bad policy. Ald. Brady asked the City Manager to respond to Ald. Each's comments regarding plan review and inspectional services being handled by the same entity, and to staffing; are these inspector a part of Criezis or are they subcontracted out. Mr. Anderson stated he believes it is important to have some consistency between the plan reviewer and the inspection in the field. If there were any conflicts, they were exasperated very quickly. If you have one organization► doing the plan reviews and a different one doing the inspections, your opportunity for - 5 - - Minutes -- P & D Committee January 25r 1993 misunderstanding, miscommunication and conflict were increased. He stated that was an issue that the City had to address internally. Jim Wolinski stated that the City has retained Criezis for the last several years, and he feels confident that they are very code oriented. Their two plan reviewers are architects and BOCA certified, the person that does mechanical and electrical inspections were licensed in those areas. They contract with a plumber on large projects and a structural engineer for structural reviews. When additional expertise was needed, such as HVAC, it was Criezis' responsibility to bring them in. Mr. Wolinski stated that when the City first contracted Criezis, the fee was based on what the City was getting. If the permit fee was over $10,000,the consultant got 50% of the City permit fee. If the permit fee was less than $10,000, the consultant got 55%. The consultant was also getting $95.00/hr. for re -review fees. He stated that last year, when the City went out for RFPs, the City put in some stipulations, such as payment schedule, no re -review fees and no fire suppression review fees. Criezis had the lowest bid and changed their schedule to be more Evanston oriented (as far as what the City was going to pay) , resulting in a 15% reduction in cost compared to what the City was paying before. Criezis took a certain percentage of the construction cost both for plan reviews and field inspections. Ald. Engelman asked if regarding this year, are we only going to Criezis for proposed contract for projects over $1 million or $200,000? Wolinski stated that in last year's contract it was stipulated that Criezis would take the projects over $1 million dollars in construction value (institutional, commercial and industrial) and the City would have the option between $200,000 and $1 million to determine whether or not we would send them to Criezis. Prior to last year, anything over $200,000 automatically went to Criezis. Aid. Engelman asked Wolinski if there was a substantial difference in the qualifications of an inspector who inspected a $200,000 to $1 million project. He stated that for inspections like the one for the Material Science Building (a $40,000,000 technically - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 advanced building), Criezis had to bring in consultants. Wolinski stated that the majority of these projects are remodeling in hospitals, or remodeling in universities, etc. He stated that when we send a project to Criezis in that range, we should also give them the inspections. Ald. Engelman asked how much discretion or leeway is given in terms of interpreting the code, such that it requires continuity between the plan reviewer and the inspector. Wolinski stated that the Building codes have a lot of grey areas, and the way the Building Department approaches that problem is to look at the impact on safety. Ald. Brady stated that this is a one year contract with an option of a second year. She moved approval of the year of the option with the caveat that there will be another RFP next year. An analyses of the two years performance of Criezis' work should be broken down and analyzed prior to the RFP. The Committee would authorize an RFP at that time if they felt the analyses justified it. Ald. Lanyon seconded the motion. Ald. Lanyon stated he agrees with Ald. Brady. He thinks we should also get an understanding of how much, if any, savings we had over the past five years and what was anticipated in terms of savings in the future. Ald. Kent questioned what our inspectors are doing to stay current. Mr. Wolinski stated the inspectors are going to the University of Wisconsin, extension at Madison for through training. Building inspectors were receiving a week-long update on the code. Ald. Heydemann requested an analyses with the next RFP on who did the inspections and the cost per project. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Memorandum re Coordinated Review of Text Amendment and in Draft zonina Ordinance. Ald. Brady moved approval of the staff recommendation require a joint meeting of the two entities to receive presentation and a time frame of 60 days. - 7 - Special Use which would the initial - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 Ald. Engelman agrees with Ald. Brady. What concerned him was a number of issues which were given to the consultants to deal with. The consultants took one of them to the Plan Commission and brought it back. By the time it came back to Committee the public hearing draft was already at the printer. The Committee did not have a chance to review the draft before it was out for public hearing. In the legislature, a statute may often contain a comprehensive list of technical amendments, i.e., one bill that addressed a lot of technical aspects. He stated there were a number of items such as Dr. Stafford's memo. He would like to see the Committee take the entire public hearing draft after the public hearing and before it was introduced on the Council floor. The idea was to obtain a consensus out of the Committee with a list of changes that they would be recommended, so that individual changes on the Council floor would be minimal. The Committee thanked Dr. Stafford for his contribution to the City. Ald. Brady stated that we would add the two words and unassigned to Section 15.9--8. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. pocket 21-1H-93. GreenwoodLpemuster Lakefront Pathwav Eonosal. Don Wirth explained the history of the project, the process, the memo and map. He stated that they were applying for a state grant but if they did not receive the grant, they would have to cut back the scope of the project. He stated that the primary purpose of the project was to provide the second pathway. Mr. Wirth stated that the Plan Commission and the City's Site Plan and Review Committee had endorsed this project. He noted currently we had one single pathway that ran at the east end of the parking facility. They discussed moving both pathways onto the beach so they would link up at the north and south of the existing pathway but would move only one for ecological reasons. Ald. Brady asked if this project would be completed this summer? Mr. Wirth answered that whether or not we get the grant, we would not be able to start until the fall. Ald. Warshaw wanted clarification regarding the grants referred to in the memo and in - 8 - - Minutes - P & D Committee January 25, 1993 the minutes of the Plan Commission. Mr. Wirth stated they were one of the same. He stated that it would be unlikely that the City would get - the grant because the grant is for bicycle pathway installation, i.e. asphalt. The City will not be using asphalt, but they will be making application for the grant for the work. Ald. Lanyon asked Mr. Wirth would the bike path now be on what is concrete? Mr. Wirth answered that the bike pathway would be asphalt and the pedestrian pathway will be limestone. Ald. Brady moved approval of the project as recommended, seconded by Ald. Warshaw. Jim Peterson, a member of the Sailing Club, stated that he had attended project meetings and stated that this plan solved a number of safety issues and met their approval. Ald. Brady commented that it was a shame that this project could not be done prior to the summer. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Site Plan Revision Ald. Brady stated that she would like to deal with this issue before she went off the Council. Ms. Aiello stated that she would look into this. Wilmette Ordinance re the JJq her Home Foundation, Ald. Warshaw commented on this item. Ms. Aiello stated that we have the ordinance but we are waiting for information from other communities and it might be ready for Committee on the first or second meeting of February. Ald. Warshaw stated that if staff would keep the Committee apprised of the status. ApJOURNM dT The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 8, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. Staff • ,� 9 .. DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee February B, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.K. Aid. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Rent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, C. Borys, J. Speyer, D. Wirth J. Wolfensperger, J. Wolinski and J. Zendell Presiding Official: Ald. Heydemann MINUTES OF DECEMRER 10, 1992 AND JANUARYY 25 1993, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded the approval of the minutes of December 10, 3992 (special meeting) and January 25, 1993 (regular meeting). Ald. Warshaw stated in the minutes of January 25, on page 9, fifth paragraph, last sentence, "Ald. Warshaw stated that if staff would keep the Committee apprised of the status, then they could schedule a time to discuss before this Committee leaves. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. rV Revised Site Plan and Appearance Review Ordinance. Ald. Warshaw made changes to the existing ordinance. on page 2, five lines from the bottom, "resultant design, bit, should also," the word bL jr- should be removed. The third line from the bottom, insert the word and; "appearance review should help reduce adverse impact And promote". On page 2, under (A) she did not like the wording of sentences 1, 2, and 3. She stated it would read better if the sentences began with "construction of a new building or structure modification to the exterior of an existing building or structure" and end 1 and 2 with "for all non-residential uses in residence districts". Number 3 should end with "for all multi- family uses in any zoning district". she stated under 11, (B) that those were exceptions not waivers, and they were exceptions to required site plan or review. she stated that number 2 should read - Minutes - P & D Committee February S. 1993 f "Permitted temporary uses". on page 4, "said Mayoral appointments shall be for terms no longer than two (2) years." Ald. Warshaw stated these would be difficult to fill, and, with qualified people, she would hate to see a term no longer than two years; she would be tempted to think of it in terms of three (3) years. on page 6, 4-17-5, first paragraph, "within fifteen (15) working days following....." she wanted to know what was going to happen after the fifteen (15) days; would they automatically get permission? Second paragraph, was there a time line for the City to act between the preliminary approval and the conclusion if they brought in everything? At some time, if the applicant did not gully satisfy what the Committee asked for, did the application the or could they get a time extension? If it was going to be mandatory, the details should be spelled out. Chairman Heydemann stated that the wording at the bottom of page 6 was to insure that the City responds in a timely manner. C. Borys stated that it rarely tool; fifteen (15 ) days to respond, it was usually two to three days. she stated that in the past, if more information is needed, they contacted, the applicants, and that they had not as yet had a problem. J. Aiello stated that the Site Plan Review Committee meetings are scheduled for every Wednesday afternoon. If someone contacts the city by Monday morning, they would be scheduled that week. Ald. Engelman stated that he did read the Site Plan Review and Appearance Review minutes every week. sometimes preliminary and final approval are granted right away, and sometimes a decision would be deferred while awaiting more documents, etc. They would come back for final approval when they got the additional information. Ald. Brady stated that she agrees with Ald. Warshaw on the term issues. The Committee voted unanimously to amend the term to three (3) years. Ald. Brady stated that she found two (2) conflicts: One was in the zoning ordinance which states that appeals from Site Plan would be handled by the City Council. It should be changed to the Planning & Development. The other one was in the definition section of the zoning ordinance. It referred to the ordinance as 1986. This one - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee February 8, 1993 reads 58-0-91. Aiello stated that she thinks that the original Ordinance was in 1986. There was a sunset provision in 1991. Ald. Brady stated that they should be the same. She stated on page 3, section 4-17-2(B), number 3, she thought we no longer had a U6 District and asked do we really mean a U3? Aiello stated staff would check it, and, in 4-17-2A, the 01 District should be added. Ald. Brady requested several modifications: (a) the definition of membership/designate; (b) a statement that the minutes of those meetings would be sent to the City Council members and included in the proceedings. She questioned if the word develgpment should be defined (who does this ordinance apply to)? In the beginning there could be a statement of who it applies to. Ald. Brady wanted to know why staff decided to include subdivisions and plans of consolidation. C. Borys stated that they are included because once a week all the necessary departments are in the same room (as opposed to routing them from department to department). Ald. Brady asked if this would be a part of the comprehensive amendment to the zoning ordinance. Aiello stated yes. Docket 25--2A-93. Lakefront Bicycle Path Grant. The Committee voted unanimously on the recommendation for approval of Resolution 18-R-93. Docket 24-2A-93: LibgAa Public Art Plan, Ald. Brady stated that she was confused regarding the funding. Is it 1/2 of 1 percent? Is that out of the construction budget? Does the "up to 1 percent" include private donations? Is this an addition to the construction budget? If so, where is it? Ald. Lanyon suggested deferring this matter because it has nothing to do with funding. Staff should do some homework and come back with a memo. Joe Zendell stated that the funding for the public art component is a large project and is separate. Ald. Brady stated that, when the Committee approved the Public Art Plan, she thought the 1 percent was part of the construction budget and she thinks the ordinance reads that way. Zendell stated that what he was saying was that, in the capital improvement program, it is separated out, as a separate line, called the "Public Art for the Library." In calculating how much would be spent for public art in the whole project, the ordinance reads up to 1 percent of the total cost of construction. It identifies what can and what can not be - 3 -- - Minutes - P & D Committee February 8, 1993 considered in the calculation. He stated that, this year, when the capital improvement program was reviewed and developed, dollars. were set aside within the capital improvements program for public - art to be allocated to the Library. That is how its been developed in the past. Aiello stated that staff would go back and pull old memos and the ordinance and clarify it for this Committee and Council. Ald. Lanyon moved approval of the plan, seconded by Ald. Warshaw. Ald. Brady stated that Phase I was only going to be for art work. It was not incorporated into the construction of the. building. Zendell stated there would be major sculptures on the west side of the of the property. Ald. Brady asked if there were: meetings going on discussing the incorporation of different - artistic elements into the ordinary construction? Zendell stated that had already happened. The consultant would work with the architect to develop a plan that will be incorporated into Phase II. Because that had not been completed yet, they divided the proposal into two phases. The first phase was external art, and the second phase was internal art. They would be coming back to the P & D Committee with the second phase within the next two months. Zendell stated that the problem was that there was not a significant amount of money to do the kind of things that they originally anticipated. Regarding the sculpture, Mr. Knoll envisions the sculptures actually growing out of the pillars. One of the reasons for moving at this point is that they need to know what to do with the pillars so that the sculptors can be planned. The Committee voted unanimously on the Art Plan, Phase I. Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Brady commented that there were new standards called Family Necessity Variations in the ordinance. She stated she was delighted to see them there and they were just what Scott Peters recommended. Aiello stated that they were not highlighted at the public hearing because it was what the Committee had asked for. Aiello stated that extra copies of the public comments that had been received, copies of the transcript of the public hearing, and a letter regarding the Rust-Oleum property were placed on their desk tonight. she stated that the redevelopment of Rust-Oleum may be moving forward as indicated in this letter and will be given further consideration at the next P & D meeting. They initially - 4 - - Minutes - P D Committee February 8, 1993 submitted their plan in August, 1992, based on the existing ordinance, and what they are requesting is that they be grandfathered for consideration under the existing ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that she had no problem since they had already began the process. ,Aiello stated that the Economic Development Committee had preliminary considered the project and would be considering a resolution of intent at their next meeting. The resolution would be forwarded to the City Council. Ald. Brady asked if the consultant would be present on Saturday. Borys stated Jeff or Jacque would be present. Ald. Brady stated that she felt a chart on the downtown should be placed as an appendix in the ordinance. Docket 27-12A-92. Building Permit Fee WAivpr RegMg t re 1501-19 Darrow Avenue. Jim Wolinski stated that he had met with Ms. Butler and the other property owners. They took application forms for the Rehabilitation Program but that they are also proceeding to obtain permits. Aiello explained that, if something has been held in Committee, instead of leaving it on the council's agenda with no action, it will be brought back to the Committee's agenda. The only things that are on the back of the agenda are things that have been tabled. BIM9 The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 22, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. Staff: - Juan T. Speyer - 5 - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 1 u1, 1 Ili y It MINUTES Planning & Development Committee February 22, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: Ald. Lanyon Staff Present: J. Aiello, N. Ney, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, J. Wolfensperger and J. Wolinski Presiding Official: Ald. Heydemann MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8. 1993, Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Brady seconded the approval of the minutes of February 8, 1993. Ald. Heydemann stated that on page 4, first paragraph, it should read "Regarding the sculDtor". The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. 9JUVN I CATIONS Chairmanship Schedule The Committee received without comment. Fire Damaced and Boarded UA Buildinas - Siz.Nonth UDdate. Ald. Brady referred this item to the Housing commission for discussion. Ald. Engelman questioned the cases that were pending in court or on hold due to bankruptcy proceedings, and if any health or safety issues were involved? E. Szymanski stated that she asked the Inspectors if there were any dangerous situations for the community. She further stated that the presiding Judge will ask if there are any dangerous situations. Ald. Engelman asked if the bankruptcy courts were backed up, because some of these cases are a number of years old? Szymanski stated yes. She stated that she had spoken with a couple of the creditors and attorneys and they felt the proceedings would be coming to an end in the next 60 days. Ald. Engelman stated that the city working in conjunction with the mortgage holders might be able to get more help in pushing these on. Szymanski agreed with Ald. Engelman. 0 - Minutes - P & D Committee February 22, 1993 Qh Ald. Rent commented on board ups and asked if there were any way the City could make the process move faster. Ald. Warshaw stated that the Housing Commission has worked actively with other court cases and felt it had been time well spent. Ald. Heydemann requested more information on 1811 Emerson street which had been boarded up since 1987. J. Wolinski stated that the building had been sold at least once during that period and that the Building Department was working with the third contractor but that permit work was near completion. Ald. Warshaw commented that 605 Oakton had a `for sale' sign on it. She stated it looked like it would fall down if it was not demolished. She thought it would be wise to reevaluate the health and safety issues of this building. Wolinski stated that the owners submitted an application for permits to do a complete interior renovation. The City went out and found the foundation to be in deplorable condition and the owner was informed of this condition. Wolinski stated that the building can be saved. Ald. Dent stated that the City of Chicago had an Abandon House Prevention Program. Where block clubs, etc. were active in doing things with the homes, instead of just boarding up. He thought that would be worth looking into, at least in how it worked. ffW BUSINESS Bequest by the Matter, dome for Extension of a TeMporary Excention During Construction to Permit Off -Street Parkina on the Prises at 1617 Hinman Avenue. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the extension. =posed ShODDina jZ@nter - Rust-Oleum Prooertv at Oakton & Hartrev. Ald. Heydemann asked what was the status? Was there an application for the TIF District? Aiello stated that on February 24, 1993, the Economic Development Committee would be considering a Resolution of Intent. Ald. Brady moved to affirm this particular owner in his development procedure to be considered under the existing zoning ordinance, seconded by Ald. Warshaw. The Committee voted unanimously on this motion. Ald. Heydemann stated that she had no objections to having him proceed under the old ordinance, but she had some objections to Home Depot. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee February 22, 1993 Site Plan and Agvearance Review ordinance. Ald. Brady questioned on page 4, under membership, if we should have degignee in all the memberships? What constituted a quorum? How many votes were needed for approval? Ald. Warshaw stated there had to be a way to not require a quorum if certain people are not involved in the projects. Ald. Engelman asked what was currently done when people were not there to sign -off. Aiello stated that it depends on the nature of the project. It could be held -over to the next week or they might condition an approval with the consent of those not in attendance, etc. Ald. Brady stated that she wanted to be comforted that all the proper people have looked at it and signed off. Staff indicated that modifications would be made to reflect the Committee's thoughts. Public Art Ald. Brady stated that up to 1%, not 1% of the construction budget was her understanding from the beginning. The construction budget being 99% and the public art being 1%. She stated what the memos are saying and what the Committee approved was 101% construction budget. Aiello stated that if we did the 99%, something that needed to be done would not get done. Ald. Brady stated that the whole idea in discussion was that part of the public art would be incorporated in mosaic, tiles, etc. Ald. Warshaw pointed out that artistic items usually cost more, and that was the need for extra revenue. Aiello stated that every project would come before the Council and the capital Improvement Plan, and adjustments could be made. Ald. Brady requested that the minutes reflect that the construction budget is really 101%. Ald. Heydemann disagreed with Ald. Brady, and explained that the public art is a separate line item in the Capital Improvement Budget. She stated that the construction cost was 100%. There was another item which was 100% of itself. She stated that the figure was reached by taking 1% of the construction cost. They are two separate line items. Ald. Brady stated that she understood, but she was not sure all the Aldermen understood this from the discussion that went on several years ago. Prouosed Zon�a ordinance. Ald. Warshaw referred to page 3, number 6, that Ridgeville Park and -- 3 - ii W. A, a W{ -w dW . illl - Minutes - P & D Committee February 22, 1993 Lighthouse Park should be added. Aiello stated that Dennis Ceplecha, Superintendent of Park & Forestry, was reviewing all of the parks. Ald. Brady stated that we have not compiled the information that was needed nor the procedures that would be best for the Council's review. She would like to see the Planning & Development Committee put the Public Hearing Draft plus a comprehensive amendment on the floor for discussion. The comprehensive amendment would be every item listed that we have approved since the draft went to the printers. This would include items that were approved at the two meetings, plus the wording, or the substance of the wording, of every modification that Brian Blaesser recommended be changed. on Saturday, the Council would then have before them for consideration a public hearing draft, a memo (that states every subject matter with appropriate wording), including Brian's requested revisions. Ald. Engelman stated Saturday's meeting should start as a meeting of the Council., and then move into a committee as 'a whole. He stated before we moved into the committee as a whole, the Chairman should first moved to substitute the public hearing draft, as amended by this committee. Then we coultl dissolve into a committee of the whole to have discussion. When the Chairman makes that motion it could be stated that the exact wording may not be here, because the consultant have not been able do it, but the substance was there. Aiello stated that she had put together what was a draft of the agenda and will amend it based upon Ald. Engelman's comments. Ald. Heydemann asked if the Committee wanted to convened into executive session to clear up additional items. Ald. Engelman stated he felt it was a step that should be taken, but was not sure since the Committee knew what they are talking about. Ald. Brady stated that she recommend very few revisions. she thought that the purpose of discussion was to make a motion in committee to accept Brian's revisions as amended, and then incorporate them into the amended public hearing draft. Ald. Warshaw moved that we incorporate the recommendations of our attorney and put into the Committee's amended draft, second by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted unanimously to convened into executive session. - 4 - V - Minutes - P & D Committee February 22, 1993 The Committee reconvened into regular session. Ald. Engelman moved that we add to amend the draft to include all of the suggested recommendations of Mr. Blaesser with the exception of the one, on page 27, second paragraph down, regarding Section 3.5-16. He further moved that the Residential Estate overlay not be mapped, but that it be left in the text, and that a reference to the Plan Commission be made to investigate whether or not it should be mapped in some area. The motion was seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted unanimously on the motion. Ald. Brady stated that when they get the agenda for Saturday, it should be chapter by chapter. Ald. Brady stated that there should be limited discussion before a straw vote was taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 8, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. Staff: n T. Speyer - 5 - • DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Ali .' DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning 6 Development Committee March 8, 1993 Room 2403- 8:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, R. Lanyon, and. R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: A. Heydemann Staff Present: J. Aiello, C. Borys, D. Rasmussen, S.Janus, E. Szymanski Presiding Official: Ald. Kent I. DECLARATION OF QUORUM II. MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1993 Ald. Brady moved and Ald Engelman seconded the approval of the minutes of February 22, 1993. Ald. Warshaw stated that page 21 fifth paragraph, should be expanded to indicate that she and Ald. Feldman met with the developers regarding the proposed project. She also indicated that in reviewing the proposed ordinance for open space staff should review all of Ridgeville Parks. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. Families in Transition Quarterly Report: Ald. Brady informed the Committee that the Housing Commission created a sub -committee to review the guidelines for the FIT program. The sub -committee would determine if the current guidelines are appropriate or if amendments should be recommended to the Commission and City Council. . S. Housing Options for the Mentally --III: Ald. Engelman asked if the Committee was comfortable with all the changes which had been incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance pursuant to the various communications from HOME. It was clarified that the definition of DISABLED had been modified to eliminate the word substantially. Staff was requested to clarify with the consultant that this definition would be consistent with the definitions of the Federal Fair Housing Act and the ADA. C. Memorandum from the Preservation Commission: The Committee reviewed a memorandum from the Preservation Commission which U., P4D Committee March 8, 1993 Page 2 responded to the comments raised by the Preservation Leagpm-' regarding the proposed zoning ordinance. Staff was requested tsz- clarify the timetable for the RFP regarding binding review whim. was included in the 1993-94 budget. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Planned Development Procedures: Lyle Foster, Chairman of tit,, Plan Commission and members Anderson and Stafford were present ta., review with the Committee the proposed PUD process. Ald Engelma3ni initiated discussion by asking the Plan Commission representatives their thoughts regarding the proposed process. Mr. Foster`; indicated that the Plan Commission had been preparing for their nano,► and changed role in the PUD process. Under the current ordinance= the Plan Commission came into the process after the project ws well defined. Under the proposed ordinance the Commission would b_ involved from the very beginning. The Commission believed that they would be able to provide adequate opportunities for citizen inpud but would not support subpeona powers in the process. Ald. Warshaw indicated that the language in the ordinance and tke Plan Commission's procedures should reflect a less adversarial and more negotiated process. Citizens should be able to questi®n but not cross examine. Ald. Warshaw indicated that she believed that notification of citizens within 250 ft. was adequate except for the downtown where 500' might be more appropriate. Mr. Foster indicated that the Plan Commission notice in the Plan Commission's procedures but be practical City-wide. would like the 2504 that 500' might not Ms. Anderson indicated that a minority opinion of was that 500' should be standard in order to insure for property owners to participate in the process. the Commission the opportunity Plan Commission member Dr. Stafford indicate that section 6--12--8-3- (f) of the current ordinance allowed any provision to be altered by the Council even if the standards had not been met in the negotiating process. Ald. Engelman indicated that this was a procedural issue and that he would like to defer to the Plan Commission. He expressed concern regarding the impact of a 500' radius and the City's desire to streamline and encourage the use of the PUD process. A process was needed which was simple, direct, and open. D. Rasmussen indicated that the problems which had arisen in the PUD process resulted from the developers not giving enough benefits to the community. He clarified that any citizen in the community could participate in the process and make comments. only those PAD Committee March 8, 1993 Page 3 property owners within 250' could cross examine the witnesses of the applicant but that had not diminished participation by the public in PUD's. The opportunity to subpoena was language from the state statute but that it had only been utilized four or five times in his tenure. The problem that the issue raised was the potential time delays due to motions to squash a subpeona. Ald. Brady and Warshaw discussed various issues in the process and indicated that due to the potential height and bulk nature of many PUD's, the Plan Commission's notification procedure should be in the ordinance. Mr. Hoover indicated that 500' was reasonable but he believed that the CBD was so unique and impacts many neighborhoods that specific groups should be identified who would participate in the process. Ald. Brady indicated that the proposed PUD process was very new and provided opportunities for the City to negotiate the best project. She believed that the Plan Commission should develop their rules and procedures. The procedures should be reviewed after they had the experience of processing a few cases. Ald. Warshaw disagreed and indicated that due process rights should be delineated in the new ordinance but not procedures. Ald. Brady stated that the new Council will coincide with the new ordinance and P&D may come to act as more of a quasi-judicial body but that the Plan Commission should not act in that manner. Ald. Engelman concluded the discussion by restating that the PUD process was not quasi-judicial and evidentiary like the ZSA but rather a process of discussion, negotiation, and deliberation. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 22, 1993. STAFF: GAG 0 DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 61 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee March 22, 1993 Room 2403 - 8:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, and J. Wolinski Presiding official: Ald. Kent MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 1993,_ Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. minutes of March 8, 1993. The minutes as submitted. Brady seconded the approval of the Committee voted 6-0 to approve the ZBA 92-39-VfFI: Final Variation Decj&ion re 2315 Parc_Place. Ald. Warshaw asked if open porches with roofs and basements that were only six feet tall were still being counted in the FART Rasmussen stated that in Residential Districts FAR's no longer applied. ZBA 92-40-VfFI. Final Variation DecisigD re 2323 Marcv Avenue. Ald. Brady commented that she appreciated the way Chair Timble guided the person through the standards. It was helpful for someone who didn't have a lawyer with them. Memorandum on Ch4paes to Pr000sed Zoning Ordinance, Ald. Warshaw stated that Chapter Seven, #5, should be Ridaevi.11e and not Ridaeview. Ald. Engelman stated that in Chapter Fifteen, #7, that this was not a 30' required front yard, but a set back of an additional 30' from the required front yard. Ald. Brady asked if there were any other parks in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. Aiello stated that Dennis Ceplecha checked all the parks and open spaces within each district of the City, and had added them all. Ald. Brady asked if the Committee would get a copy of the map. Aiello stated that there were changes to the map and copies would be - Minutes - P & D Committee March 22, 1993 FA provided. Aid. Engelman commented that in the mapping the open space, Ingleside Park should not be included. He stated that Ingleside was not a city -owned park, but a private park. He stated that when the Committee was dealing with the open -space issues, Ingleside Park was zoned open space and the Committee specifically voted to remove the designation. Ald. Lanyon referred to a letter from Diane Corling which identified inconsistencies and clarifications. He requested that Ms. Corling's letter be sent to the consultant. Aiello stated that copies would be made available to staff and the consultants. Dr. Stafford stated that before the ordinance was passed that on page 15-17, at the top of page, line 2, it read section 15.7-8 (there is no section 8); the number on line 2 should read j.5.9-7. Ald. Engelman stated that would be an addition to the memo. . D, Docket 75-3B-93, ordinance 38-0-93t " 92-41-V_i$_)f Variation re 635 Chicago Avenue._ Mr. Robert Silverman spoke regarding the conditions that the Zoning Board & Appeals recommended to the P & D Committee restricting the drive -up window to prescriptions only. He stated that the drive -up window was in the pharmacy department for the convenience of the customer. He stated that studies had shown that there was a need for the handicapped, elderly, parents, etc. to have prescriptions called in and a drive -up available. He also stated that it would be hard to turn down a handicapped person or a mother with a sick child who needed things that were needed with a prescription, cough medicine, aspirin, etc. However, anyone who came to the window would have to have a prescription. He asked that this recommendation be considered and the restriction not be placed against them. Ald. Warshaw stated that maybe the restriction could be worded as health related pharmaceutical items. Mr. Silverman stated that he though that was a good suggestion because the window is in the pharmacy and that would eliminate shopping throughout the store. Ald. Lanyon stated that he agrees with Ald. Warshaw. Ald. Brady stated that as the alderperson that represents the area, the neighbors were delighted to have Walgreen's since the store has been vacant. She stated that she was, however, very concerned about the adjacent residential areas and the space available for - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee March 22, 1993 cars to be lined up at the drive -up window. She stated that she saw no harm if a person wanted a bottle of Tylenol along with a prescription, but was concerned about the scope of the additional items. Ald. Warshaw stated that the limit could be for health - related needs. Ald. Engelman stated that he had no problem limiting it to prescription or non-prescription drugs. Ald. Heydemann asked if there was a conventional category of pharmaceutical products that covers insulin and instruments to measure temperature and blood pressure. Ellen Szymanski stated that the term was medical devices and it was used by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. she stated that if the Committee wanted she would take the definition from the food and drug act. She stated that it would cover such things as cotton balls, thermometer, gauze, etc. Ald. Rent asked if anyone would be able to drive up to the window or was a prescription needed?. Ald. Brady stated that the sundries had to be supplementary to the prescription that was being picked up. Ald. Warshaw asked how would the deliveries be made to the video Store now that the truck parking had been reduced? Rick Strussner stated that the situation had been resolved. The cooler would be removed, the driveway would be moved away from the door (the door is usable) dnd the garbage area has been defined. Ald. Warshaw stated that she realized that it had been resolved but could not figure out where the trucks were going to go. Mr. strussner stated that they still had a truck loading zone. Ald. Warshaw asked if the room for one truck would be sufficient for both Walgreen's and the video store. Mr. Strussner stated yes for the amount of the video store' deliveries. Walgreen's deliveries came once or twice a week. Ald. Brady stated that she had spoken with the video store owner and he had stated that he had not received the agreement. Mr. Strussner stated that it was in the hands of their attorney. Ald. Brady stated that it was important that it was agreed to, clarified and in writing before this passes City Council. Ald. Brady clarified that deliveries would be turning onto Keeney and going into the parking lot. They would be coming out south and going back to Chicago Avenue. Aid. Brady moved approval with the one condition that the supplementary to picking up and dispensing a prescription including medical devices be allowed, with the appropriate definition of what that meant. She stated it should read "dispensing of prescription and nonprescription drugs and accompanying medical devices" and in parenthesis the definition of what that incurs. E. Szymanski asked Ald. Brady, regarding accompanying medical devices, if she meant that medical devices which could be dispensed from the drive -up window if they were - 3 -- - Minutes - P & D Committee March 22, 1993 somewhat related to pharmaceutical products. Ald. Brady stated that if you did not have a prescription, you would not be able to pick-up cottonballs. Szymanski stated that if she understood what Ald. Brady was saying the mere fact of having a prescription would entitle the customer to pick-up any type of medical device that could be put through the window. The Committee agreed. The motion was second by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted unanimously on the motion. Docket 73-3B-93, R%West for Tent Permit, pone John XXIII school at 1120 Washinaton Street. Ald. Warshaw moved approval and seconded by Ald. Lanyon. The Committee voted unanimously on the motion. 202 Greenwood Ald. Lanyon commented on 202 Greenwood plat of resubdivision and the litigation between the property owner and the City. He stated that this should be removed from the table and voted down. Ald. Lanyon stated that because it was tabled it had to be brought back and voted down. He also stated that it does not comply with our current zoning ordinance, which requires a 35 ft. street frontage. Ald. Brady stated that under the present or future zoning ordinance the Biegs could have two lots, both with 35 ft. or greater street frontage, build a house next to the one they have, and still be incompliance. If they would ask for an easement to go with the back lot, they would build a second house in the rear of the lot. If they wanted three lots, they could go for a planned development. Ald. Lanyon commented that the Council agenda read that the plat was in proper form, and, if that was true, it could not be denied. Ald. Warshaw commented that before it was taken off the council agenda she thought P & D should revisit it. Ald. Brady stated that the applicants were asking for three lots. It was in proper order before the Committee passed the 35 ft. frontage. Dave Rasmussen stated that an attorney had contacted him inquiring into the status of the tabled item. J. Aiello stated that it would be brought back to P & D on April 13, 1993. M7 urn ent The Committee adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 13, 1993. Staff : Jean T. Speyer - 4 - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED , u iIJAI16 IIIIIA al 1111 ,, , . W1. , u , 1 , u o u , I I„ idld } MINUTES Planning & Development Committee April 13, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, C. Borys, S. Janusz, N. Ney, D. Rasmussen, M. Rubin, J. Speyer and E. Szymanski Presiding Official: Ald. Kent MINUTES QE MARCH 22, 1993, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded the approval of the minutes of March 22, 1993. Ald. Brady stated that there was a typo on page 1, third paragraph, final variation re 2323 Marcy should read Ald. Wagshaw ommented... The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. ONS S utngast b3tansLon A sops Lion. The Committee received without comments. Dr inance 24-0--69 re 622 Mulford. Aiello stated that a letter was sent to the applicants but that no response was received. ZBA 92-42-V(F). Final Varig1jon Decision re 2710 Highland. The Committee received Without comments. chairman Kent noted that the Committee received the following communications on their desk: 1. Charles Remen re Washington National Site. 2. McDermott, Will & Emery re Proposed Zoning ordinance re 2530 Ridge. 3. Memorandum from Jack Siegel re Approval of Planned Unit Development. - Agenda - P & D Committee April 13, 1993 4. Daniel Wilson re Washington National site. S. The John Buck Company re 1660 Chicago Avenue. 6. Communication - Richard Carter re Zoning Irregulations Applicable to the Library Project. 7. Dave Rasmussen re Walgreens Ald. Brady commented on the memo from Jack Siegel which differ from what he had stated in his earlier legal opinion; thus. I press in error in holding that a two-thirds vote wAr not r%Mired if a variation from a planned unit development had not received ttip approval of four members of the , gnin,g Board. Thgrqf!2re. !Any variations from the olapned unit development maxi two-thirds vote__ot__the_ City Council. She thought that it was important for the audience to know. 22!JCet 97-4A-93. Plat of Consoli,dati.on_Xe 2306 Ridge &vgaue. Ald. Engelman moved to approve the plat of consolidation and Ald. Brady seconded. Ald. Warshaw commented that she was curious as to their intent. Diane Levinson stated that three years ago it was consolidated through Cook County for tax purposes. she stated that now they were putting on an addition. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Chairman Rent informed Ms. Levinson that it would be on the consent agenda and voted on tonight. Docket 96-AA--23 . Recniest for fro sa] s re Development of Vacs Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Engelman seconded to approve the request for proposal. Ald. Heydemann stated that the concept was a good idea. Ald. Brady wanted to say thank you since this has been a significant project for the Housing commission. Ald. Kent was also pleased because the parcels were in the Fifth Ward. Ald. Rent wanted clarification regarding the concept "larger families". He wanted to know if the families would be coming to us or would we find the families? Ald. Warshaw stated that the purpose for designating "larger families" was to provide that three or four bedrooms would be built. She stated that if the developer obtained the lots for free, a subsidy should be sufficient to create the affordability for ten year. A covenant should run with the land for ten years. - 2 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 13, 1993 Ald. Brady stated that when Council selected the developer there mould be negotiations between the Housing Commission and the developer. she stated that the process might be similar to the Townhouse Project on Custer. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Docket 95-4A-93. Municival ExeM2tion re Publig Library Devel02ment. Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Engelman seconded to approve the municipal exemption. Ald. Brady commented that she respected all the people who had been working on the project. She stated however, that some exemptions(variations) were rather substantial and requested Mr. Rubin to explain. Max Rubin stated that early on it became apparent that the necessary floor plan to accommodate the desired program statement would require a municipal exemption and so informed the Committee last year. He went through the plan, which showed that the previous library was also in violation based on the current code. He identified the various departments that would be on the first floor. Rubin stated that the meeting room is on the first floor so that it could be open when the library was closed. He also stated that the two entrances and the garages would have access to this room. The square footage for the library is 109,000 and the garage is another 38,000. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve this exemption. Ald. Brady asked that the minutes reflect the reasons the Committee granted the exemption. She indicated that the zoning ordinance provided the opportunity for a municipal exemption when certain projects needed variations from the code. Docket 215-7B-01, Plat of Subdivision re 202 GreeOwood. Ald. Warshaw wanted to keep this item on the table so that the attorney and client could address the issues. Ald. Lanyon agreed with Ald. Warshaw and stated that the owners were going to modify their request and comeback with a subdivision. Ald. Engelman stated that he felt very uncomfortable discussing this issue in public because of litigation. Steve Bernstein, attorney for the Biegs, stated that his client would like to determine what would be necessary and would return to the Committee in the future. Ald. Brady questioned why not deleting this item and resubmitting? Bernstein stated that the question became part of his clients' consideration. - 3 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 Docket 98-4A-93, Ordnance 51-P-9.3 (105-92) re sign Ordinance. Ald. Brady made a motion to approve and Ald. Lanyon seconded. Ald. Brady requested that legal counsel explain YAriances - Anglications to retain existing non --conforming signage mupt be filed by Margh 1. 2002. because this amortization will be fully amortized by January 1, 2003. Her question was what was going to happen when a business came in, whether it was April 1, 2002 or April 1, 2003 and requested a variance? Would the City be on sound legal grounds telling them that they had no right to seek a variance? Ellen Szymanski stated that her opirion was that the City was giving adequate advance notice(approximately 9 years). Adequate advance notice would have been provided and the City could deny the people the right to file thereafter. Ald. Engelman ask if we budgeted for someone to do inventory? Aiello stated it was budgeted from fees. Ald. Engelman stated that he would be voting against the issue because he does not like amortization. He stated that if the City was raising the fees in order to hire someone to do an inventory, then we could do the same thing without amortization. He stated that it was originally intended to get an inventory of what was out there and that through natural attrition we could get rid of non -conforming signs. He also stated that he thought it was a less burdensome imposition on existing businesses that have already invested in signage. He stated that he had no problem with the ordinance except the amortization. The Committee voted 5-1 to approve. Voting Nay, Ald. Engelman. Aiello stated that they would be meeting with the Sign Review & Appeals Board to go over the recommendations regarding auto dealerships which the Economic Development Committee - had approved. She stated that on April 26, 1993 they would come back with modifications. However, the Sign Review and Appeals Board had requested that the sign Ordinance be introduced tonight. Docket 75-38-93, Ordinance 38--0-93. ZBA 92-41-V(R), Variation re 635 Chicago Avenue. Ald. Brady stated on page 2, condition 2 of the ordinance, Service $t the nronosed drive -through window shall be limited to the dismensina of DrescriDtion drugs, non-grgscription drugs. alld medical devices. She thought what the Committee had agreed to was that any non-prescription drugs and medical devices would be supplementary to the prescription drugs. She stated that you could not go through the window and get cottonballs or a thermometer. However, you could get the cottonballs and thermometer if you were picking up a prescription. she felt it was not worded correctly to - 4 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 reflect that. Ald. Engelman stated that it could read when accomvan;ed by prescription drugs_, Ald. Brady stated that this item should be taken from the consent agenda and make this a Committee amended. ZBA 92-38-PD&V(R). Planned DeyMjgymgnt -and- Variation re 1660 Chicago Avenue, Greg Merdinger touched on the discussion and presentation of the Committee's meeting of March 29, 1993. He highlighted some of the constraints that determined the location of the proposed towers on the site. He concluded by discussing briefly the recommendation of the ZBA which would allow 221 ft. tower. He stated it was their interpretation that 221 ft. tower be placed on the parking facility. What they proposed was to pursue a Phase I configuration with the garage off of Chicago Avenue and a tower of 250 ft. Ald. Brady asked how many units are in the proposed tower? Mr. Merdinger referred to their memo and model. He stated that one of the issues that had caused a great deal of confusion at this point was the proposed rights that they requested in the Phase II development. He stated that they requested three different magnitudes of development for Phase II since they could not yet determine the precise program for Phase II. Merdinger stated that in the memo distributed tonight, they were requesting to divide the site into the two phrases. Phrase I is approximately 53,300 sq. ft., and Phase II is approximately 30,200 sq. ft. He stated that what they would do in Phrase I is to develop the parking garage back off the alley, a 250 ft. tower, and a small commercial element. The small commercial element could be as high as four floors and 35,000 ft., and could be as small as a single level of 7,000 - 8,000 ft. of retail. This would be the Phase Z development. In order to do this they were requesting an FAR of 7.00. The recommendation from both the Plan Commission and ZBA was for a total of 7.9 FAR on the total site. Merdinger stated that they have requested dwelling units perhaps up to 330 units. He stated that prior they requested 304 units. Merdinger also stated that they still had to do some architectural work to determine how many units that would fit into that building. They are not requesting significant changes in the floor area of the building and believed that they may be able to provide an increased number of units within that same density. He referred to the memo regarding the 250 ft. height, which mentioned a + or - 2%. In the ordinance they would have a definite number, but a part of the - 5 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 architectural study would be to determine the exact height. They were providing as much as one space per dwelling unit. Merdinger stated that was what they were requesting for Phase I. Merdinger stated for Phrase II they were requesting a change to simply maintain the rights they would have to develop that parcel by right. As they preceded to develop the second site, it might be possible to develop it by right and they mould not need to come back to the City for any zoning relief. However, if they decided to achieve a greater density on that site; they would have to go through the procedures as they existed at that time. He illustrated the range of density for Phrase II. He stated that what they would expect as a minimum 25,000 sq. ft. retail development. However, if it was possible to do greater density on that site, perhaps in the range of 150,000 sq. ft. or more then increased taxes would be generated. over a ten year period, the low density development of 25,000 ft. of retail would probably generate in the range of $2 -2 1/2 million of real estate and sales taxes to the local taxing bodies. If they developed 150 rental apartments and converted them to condominiums after 5 years of operation, the potential revenue to the community would be as much as 10 million. Merdinger stated that there would be great benefits with additional density. He stated that they can not yet determine what the development program should be for Phase II. Ald. Brady stated that the Committee had nothing to approve or disapprove regarding Phase II, because that was not before them. She stated that Phase II would be developed under the new zoning ordinance. Ald. Brady asked about the square Footage per unit. Merdinger stated that the magnitude of the building on a gross area basis would be 1,000 gross sq. ft. per apartment with apartments ranging in size from 500 to 1500 square feet. Ald. Heydemann asked how many apartments of each size. Mr. Merdinger stated that on the original application it was 30-35% each of studio/efficiency, one bedrooms and two bedroom, and 3-5% for three bedrooms. Ald. Heydemann stated that one of the concerns with the development was whether or not these are going to be quality apartments that will maintain a quality neighborhood. Mr. Merdinger stated that their apartments in Chicago and these apartments would be of the highest quality. He went through some of the materials which included finished oak molding, doors with full brass hardware, cabinetry with high density laminate versus low laminate. The two bedroom units would have washers and dryers - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 located within the units, etc. He invited the members to visit the building they had built in Chicago. He stated it was very well received from the marketplace and was 96% occupied. Ald. Brady commented that the vacancy rates in Evanston had gone up from .25% to about 5% over the last few years. She wondered if the residential units would cannibalize other residential units within town. She asked if they could demonstrate that new people would be those moving into Evanston rather than cannibalizing existing units and causing an increase in the vacancy rate. Mr. Iberle stated that one of the main markets would be the empty nesters and they would be developing a product type that did not exist in Evanston today. He stated that there might be people who would like to live in Evanston but that the housing stock wasn't available. Ald. Brady asked about the materials for the first 42 ft. of the tower. Mr Merdinger stated that his initial reaction to make it brick and limestone but that he did not know how far up it would go. Ald. Brady asked what would be contained within that base as a use. Mr. Merdinger stated that the base would contain the entrance and common areas. Ald. Brady asked what is the frontage of the redesigned the residential tower? Mr. Merdinger stated that it was about 130-150 ft. Ald. Brady asked if there would be a circular driveway. Mr. Merdinger answered yes. Ald. Engelman asked what kind of height differentiation was being requested by the developer and what was allowed? Also what differentiation was there between what was being requested and what the ZBA had already turned down, and what was approved? Dave Rasmussen stated that in respect to height; the ZBA approved a plan development of 221 ft. He stated that the basic request was for 250 ft. (a different of 29 ft.) He stated that the Board recommended denial of the height variation. Ald. Brady asked if that would take a 2/3 vote of the City Council. Mr. Rasmussen stated yes. He also stated that the planned development allowances was less than what they requested and the Board recommended approval of that. Ald. Engelman asked if the 7.0 was less than the maximum allowed by the planned development process? Rasmussen stated that the planned development process has no limit on the FAR passport allowance. Ald. Engelman asked what about the dwelling unit density? There is no current limitation. Ald. Engelman asked if ZBA address the density issue? Rasmussen stated yes. Ald. Engelman stated that the only differentiation that the developer was asking this Committee to approve that was not allowed nor approved by the ZBA was an additional 29 ft. - 7 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 , ,Yl n, i u, Ald. Heydemann wanted to know if the applicant wanted the 221 ft. on top of the parking, was that an option within the zoning ordinance. Rasmussen stated if they were doing that as of right, any floor of 75% of more dedicated to required parking was excluded from the building height calculation. He stated that the planned development which the Board considered had a tower and parking behind it. Ald. Heydemann asked, if they choose not to use the planned development process, would they have to go back to ZBA? Rasmussen stated no, if they developed as of right. Ald. Heydemann asked how high of a building could they build? Rasmussen answered 85 ft. with a tower up to 170 ft. Ald. Engelman asked the developer if they were committed in Phase I of the retail area (in blue of diagram)? Mr. Merdinger stated that it would be developed but not certain that it would be developed concurrently with the apartment/tower. He stated that they were not able to make that guarantee today. Ald. Engelman stated that pertaining to zoning only, the developers were asking the City to vary from what our zoning ordinance required and some even some things that the Plan Commission and/or ZBA had not agreed to do. He stated that they as Council members, they must take all that into consideration when they look at what public benefits (zoning benefits, the land use and the planning benefits) the project would provide their community. He stated that for himself it was very important and a very desirable public benefit that our downtown and the pedestrian's core of our downtown be maintained as a pedestrian's core and utilized for commercial purposes, not for residential purposes. He stated that if the developer was asking the Committee to modify their allowances, the Committee needs to be able to identify the public benefits. Ald Engelman asked if they were committed to Phase I, and II and building out to the lot line and doing it as a commercial development? He stated that the area of Church street did not need to be set back, it did not need to residential, it needed to be commercial. He stated that it was a cornerstone of our commercial downtown. In summary, he stated that the developers were asking the Committee to approve a building in which they couldn't really tell them what were the public benefits nor what it might look like. Mr. Iberle stated that the dilemma they face was that even if they told the City that they were going to build retail, they would not be able to get the commitment for financing. Mr. Merdinger stated - 8 - - Agenda - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 that this site was the edge of the retail center. The amount of retail fabric to the north and east of here is limited. He pointed that on one of the charts, the economic benefits of this site would be determined by how dense the site was developed. If it is going to be a retial solution it will be a very low density development. He stated that they are trying to concentrate on Phase I. Ald. Brady stated that she agreed with what Ald. Engelman and that whatever was going to be developed on Phase II would require parking. Mr. Merdinger indicated that if a low density development was planned for Phase II then the Phase I parking might be overbuilt. He stated that if there is greater density in Phase II then they will have to make that garage expandable. Ald. Brady commented on the material they are,planning to use on the garage. She asked if the exterior could be something other than concrete? The Developer stated that the east elevation and possibly the north elevation would most likely be treated differently. Ald. Brady stated that we needed to get something based on the discussion tonight in an ordinance form and it could be modified later. She stated that we needed a written document that is at least based on what their redesign was. Ald. Brady stated that a legal opinion was going to be necessary. She stated that there almost had to be two ordinances; one was for the majority vote ordinance and the other the extraordinary vote ordinance. Ald. Engelman stated that he does not think we need two different ordinances. He stated we need to ask the developer if we do not give them the extra 29 ft., what happens? Mr. Merdinger stated that their application was a request for 295 ft. and that was done based on certain constraints that they were dealing with in an attempt to push the densities away from the corners as much as possible. Ald. Engelman asked what did we need to do to move this forward. Aiello suggested that staff draft an ordinance for the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to start the meeting of April 26, 1993, early and with citizens comments. Adi ourneDtt The Committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 26, 1993 at 6:30 P.M. Staff:/'� n T. Speyer - 9 - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED i rrsE C,F MINUTES Planning & Development Committee April 26, 1993 Room 2403 - 6:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, C. Borys, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer and E . Szymanski Others Present: Ald. Esch, Ald: Fiske, Ald. Newman, Ald. Rainey and Ald. Wollin Presiding official: Ald. Kent MINUTES OF APRIL 12,1992. Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Brady seconded the approval of the minutes of April 13, 1993. Ald. Warshaw stated that on page 7, first paragraph, it should read Ald. Warshaw coated that the yacancv.... The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kent announced that we would have citizen comments regarding 1660 Chicago Avenue Project. Ed Pabst Mr. Pabst read from a prepared speech (attached). He also added that the ZBA approved an extension of thirty (30) months within which construction of the building should start. He had a concern with that much time to obtain financing and st.3rt construction. Penny Mille - 1.310 Hinman, spoke on behalf of the Dempster area neighbors east. Read from a prepared speech op behalf of Mr, Ray Pie rghumbert (attached). Paul JaELicki,. vice President of the Preservation Leaaue of ,Evanston and also speaking on behalf of the southeast Evanston Association He stated that the Preservation League had some concerns regarding the increase in height to 2501. They also had concerns about materials, storefronts, and the compatibility with the Downtown Plan. NEW BUSINESS - Minutes - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 Ald. Heydemann moved to approve and Ald. Lanyon seconded a to revise the site Plan Review & Appearance Review ordinance Brady commented that she was pleased that this item was passed. The committee voted 6-0 to approve this motion. ZBA 2-38-PD7V(R).- Ordinance 59-0-93 motion Ald. being Ald. Engelman asked the developers if they had a presentation. Mr. Iberle stated that they did not have any presentation at this time. He stated that the ordinance that had been drafted reflected some of the discussions of past meetings. He questioned the legal description of the site which included the entire site. Their intent was to request P & D approval for the Phase I portion of the site's development and questioned whether the entire site should be included in the legal description. He stated that the Phase II portion would be developed by right. Mr. Iberle stated that he was not sure if the legal description should be revised to reflect Phase I. Aiello stated that it reflected what had been analyzed for the PUD and believed that the whole site should be included. Mr. Merdinger stated a concern for the total unit count (304 dwelling units). Ald. Engelman asked if they could approve a planned development that talks about height, density, and the number of dwelling units in one of the buildings and leave Phase II open. Aiello stated that the ordinance would have to reflect that we are denying Phase II. Any future development would have to be done in accordance with the applicable zoning ordinance at the time of development. Ald. Brady asked how many units were being requested if the height of 250 ft. were granted? Mr. Iberle stated that they maintained 304 as requested on the application for Phase I. Ald. Brady stated that she had nine (9) conditions for a planned unit development. She stated that if needed they would be modified later but presented them for discussion. 1. Provision for parking for Phase II (at least structural) in the Phase I development. - 2 .. - Minutes - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 2. The first 42 ft. of the buildings in Phase I should be of a certain material. 3. A minimum square footage for retiil incorporated into the Phase I development. 4. The facade for the garage on the east and north sides should be of a certain compatible material. 5. If Phase II was to be developed, there should be retail on the first story and up to the lot line. 6. The undeveloped retail in Phase I should be landscaped since it might not be developed at the same time as the residential. 7. The thirty (30) months for construction should be discussed. 8. The appropriate consolidation of lots. 9. If there was condo conversion, then there should be an impact fee or a contribution to the Housing Fund for affordable housing. she was not sure if this should go in with the zoning relief or with the EDC's recommendation. She stated that the committee could discussed whether that should be 1/2 of 1% or a set amount of money. She stated that it was important to have the public benefits clearly stated. Ald. Lanyon question #5, if it was on the entire street. Ald. Brady stated yes. She commented as to the legality of placing a condition on Phase II if the City was not approving it at this time. If appropriate, then one of the conditions would be that there be retail on the first floor at the lot line on Church Street. Ald. Heydemann asked if it was appropriate to talk about both phases since this was a Phase I. She stated that she was uncomfortable without having detailed plans. She was happy to see the two phases separated so that they could concentrate on Phase I. She stated that she would prefer to have as much specificity as possible in term of Phase I and to leave Phase II completely open. Ald. Engelman questioned Ald. Brady regarding her nine (9) conditions. He asked if she was talking about a planned development in conformity with what the developer had asked for (250 ft. and 304 units), or was she talking about a project in compliance with the ZBA recommendation. Ald. Brady stated that if - 3 - - Minutes - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 the developers would agree to the conditions that would include some contribution to the Housing Fund, she would feel very comfortable with 250 ft. and 304 units. She stated that she would be able to justify to herself and the citizenry that there was a public benefit. Ald. Brady stated that she was not to get into the TIP area, because the two should be separated. She stated that she would feel comfortable as a member of the P & D Committee that the public benefit warranted the additional 29 ft. Ald. Lanyon stated that he would like to hear what the developer had to say, however, he had two considerations. (I) The economic contribution is something that the Committee should not deal with but only with the questions of land use and planning. (2) He requested a modification of Ald. Brady's provision #1; that in addition to parking for Phase I on a one -for -one for residential units, and the required parking for Phase I retail; that the parking structure be developed so that structurally it could be expanded to include whatever was developed in Phase II. That would be another public benefit, particularly in the downtown area. The Developer stated that Washington National was currently leasing 300 cars parking spaces in the garage (Evanston Place) that will terminate within the next two months. He stated that regardless of what they do in terms of addressing the retail component there would be a surplus of parking spaces. Ald. Engelman stated that if the intent was to convert the units to condominiums, the market would require at least one parking space per unit. Ald. Brady stated that she felt it was very important that their development met the parking requirements. She stated that Evanston has such a parking problem and being optimistic, something else would occur within the next five years that would utilized that already built garage. Dave Rasmussen stated that parking requirement would be one space for each 800 sq. ft. of retail, but they could take off the first 2,000 sq. ft. Ald. Heydemann stated that she would still like to hear the developer's definition of public benefits. She also questioned how combining two units equals a 20% reduction for parking. Ald. Lanyon questioned the benefit of an additional 29 ft. which is going to be here for a long time versus the contribution to Housing Fund? He stated that some perceived retail as a public benefit, though he did not. He stated that a public benefit was not someone making a profit. - 4 - w l' , . Ji.AL, - Minutes - P 6 D Committee April 26, 1993 After Engelman commented on the public benefit of retail and he addressed Ald. Heydemann question regarding separating Phase I and Phase 11. He stated that it was important to get a commitment from the Developer. Ald. Engelman stated that he did not want the blue area (referring to the map) on the side to be open parking for the next ten -fifteen years. He wanted a commitment that it would be built up to the lot lines on Church Street and Chicago Avenue within a reasonable period of time. He stated that he had no problem in waiting five or six years or when they converted. Ald. Engelman stated that there was a public benefit for retail, it was maintaining the pedestrian retail nature of our downtown that was a cornerstone of downtown district. Ald. Lanyon asked what was the mix? He stated that the Committee could not make these decision on the spur of the moment. Ald. Brady stated that the first time they met with the Developers it was said there was the necessity of retail on the ground floor area. The Committee voted unanimously to convened into executive session at 7:45 P.M. The Committee reconvened at 7:55 P.M. into regular session. The Developer responded to the conditions based upon a 250 height limitation, dwelling unit density, etc. Parking for Phase I should accommodate the essential retail use in Phase II, or be constructed so that it would accommodate additional parking without problems. 1. Pertaining to Ald. Engelman concern's regarding one -for -one plus the retail accommodations outlined in Phase I and II. The Developer recommended that the Committee consider the following. Parking would be provided at 80% of the number of units and the parking per code requirement for the commercial of Phase I and II. He stated that would be a premium of 30% over what was required for Phase I.. 2. The second condition was to provide 42 ft. of brick and limestone finish at the base of the tower. He stated that the concern was that the pedestrian level be articulated. They agreed to the first four levels and suggested brick and limestone or materials of equal quality. He stated that the interpretation of equal quality would go through the City staff. 3. Retail in Phase I, they committed to the entire frontage, south of the tower, not inclusive of the tower, to be retail. - 5 - - Minutes -- P & D Committee April 26, 1993 4. Materials on the north and east phases where it was exposed to public view would be of materials that are compatible to that at the front elevation. S. Phase II retail - They stated that they have had discussions with the Limited expressing interest for 20,000-30,000 sq. ft. on Phase II. He stated that they would make best interest to provide that, but for failing of efforts, they would need the ability to develop by right. 6. Landscape solution for Phase I. The Developer agreed and would be bound by strict maintenance/covenant on that parcel and would submit a plan if requested. 7. Thirty months for construction. He stated that they do not see twenty-four (24) as hardship and suggested 24 months. a. Appropriate consolidation of lots. The developer agreed. 9. The Developer stated that they were not adverse at making concessions that would provide some economic gain from the project returning to the community. They needed to think that through in greater detail and that was most appropriately addressed in Economic Development, and will be prepared to discuss it. Ald. Brady stated that without the fine tuning and the thrust of comments she would move adoption of the ordinance of 250 ft. and a maximum of 304 units, including the nine (9) conditions. She stated that the idea was to introduce tonight and have a clean copy for mondey (with fine tuning and modifications). The motion was seconded by Ald. Engelman. A.ld. Warshaw spoke against the height and would he willing to approve the height approved by ZBA. She stated that she believed that the ZBA thought out the height and FAR and what they approved would be adequate. Ald. Lanyon and Ald. Kent agreed with Ald. Warshaw regarding the height. The developer stated that in the minutes of the ZBA hearing which they voted on this issue, (last pages)...Mr. WingeKberagr made the point that if certain conditions (lot line retail) had been provided on_ their g]AD. two of the votes on greater heia t would have aone in their favor. The Developer thought that was important consideration since references are being made to the position of ZBA. The Committee voted 3-3. Voting Nay: Aldermen Warshaw, Kent and Lanyon. Ald. Heydemann stated that it seem appropriate to her to go to the Council floor because they are entitle to vote. - 6 - r f - Minutes - P & D Committee April 26, 1993 Ald. Brady moved to approve the ZBA recommendation with the nine (9) conditions, seconded by Ald. Lanyon. Dave Rasmussen asked for clarification; if the that the ZBA recommendation was just on planned development? The committee answered yes. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the motion. W ournment The Committee adjourned at 8:15 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 10, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. Staff : Jean T. Speyer - 7 - DRAFT,' NOT APPROVED DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING % DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE May 10, 1993 Room 2403 7:15 p.m. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydamann, J. Kent R. Lanyon, R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: none Staff Present: J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, E. Szymanski, J. Wolinski Presiding official: Aid. Kent QUORUM: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Ald. Kent at 7:15 p.m. MINUTES The minutes of April 26, 1993 were approved as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 93-1-V(F): 1004 Weslev The Committee accepted the communication regarding the ZBA's final variation decision at 1004 Wesley. Comprehensive Amendment to the Zoninq Ordinance The Committee discussed the communication regarding the comprehensive amendment to zoning ordinance. Ald. Warshaw questioned staff's role in modifying section 3.6.6. Staff indicated that the draft which was approved by the City Council included the provision that the City Council could by a 3/4 vote allow development allowances exceeding those included in the zoning ordinance. Staff further indicated that there had been a scribner's error in that the City Council had never authorized a change in the ordinance from a 2/3 vote to exceed development allowances. Ald. Warshaw indicated that she believe that staff did not have that authority and requested a legal opinion. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ZBA 92-38-PD7V(R) Ordinance 59-0-93: Planned Development 1660 Chicago Avenue Ald Engelman indicated that he requested that this item be added to the Committee's agenda. He informed the Committee that he would like this matter reconsidered so that he could abstain from voting. Ald. Engelman indicated that he has done a small amount of work ( $ 5,000- 10,000) each year for NDB. He just learned that NBD Minutes -May 10, 1993 Page 2 owns NBD stock. Therefore, a conflict of interest may exist. Aid. Engelman indicated that he has requested a legal opinion from the Corporation Counsel. Therefore he would like the Committee to reconsider this matter so that he could abstain from voting. The motion to move reconsideration by Aid. Brady was unanimously approved. Aid. Heydamann moved to approve the ZBAIs recommendation for Phase I and to deny the variations. The motion further included the danial of the Phase II A, B, C. and necessary variations. The Committee voted 5-0-1. ITEMS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED None ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for May 17, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Judith Aiello DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee May 17, 1993 Room 2403 -- 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, E. Anderson, C. Borys, D. Rasmussen, C. Ruiz, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski and J. Wolinski Others Present: J. Fiske, Carol Qualkinbush and Derek Cottier, Evanston Preservation Commission Presiding Official: Ald. Engelman Chairman Engelman welcomed Ald. Newman to the Committee. Planning & Devglgr)Ment Committee Rules. Aiello stated that the Committee Rules had not been changed since 1986 and if the Committee had any revisions they could be made. RFP re Preservation Ms. Qualkinbush highlighted the memo and reiterated the Commission's recommendation to utilize Clarion, the consultant as a sole source purchase. Ald. Newman questioned if the RFP approach was approved, when would the draft ordinance be ready for P & D? Aiello stated that according to the memo if the sole source was used it would take approximately 10-16 weeks to get a draft for the Commission to review. After that, the P & D Committee would receive a draft. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that with the RFP approach the time frame would be determined by the contractor. Part of the reason they considered Clarion was the favorable reactions they had received on the report prepared by Clarion on standards for demolition. Ald. Kent commented that he was very impressed with - Minutes - P & D Committee May 17, 1993 that report. Ald. Rent further stated that he was particularly pleased with the Clarion's proposal work plan to have public meetings to work with the neighborhood residents. He asked for clarification regarding the involvement of minority women, MBE or WB firms on the project. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that if Clarion was approved there would not be minority involvement of women, MBE or WB firms on the project. She stated that because there are only two people responsible for the project, the president and vice-president, and that they are not minority. Aiello stated that it was in the City's purchasing procedure that request for proposals include this statement. She stated that if the proposal did go out for bid we would seek M/WBE firms to whom we could send the RFP. Ald. Kent commented that although it is there, it appeared to him to be deceptive. He further stated that when we say we want to utilize minority contractors, we find contractors are often out there, but they do not have the manpower, bond money or what they need to get the project going. Ald. Kent stated that it seemed like the City should have something to offer contractors that are interested in doing the job. Eric Anderson stated that it was not intended to be deceptive it was a starting point. He stated that the interests Ald. Rent suggested are indeed necessary and that was part of the M/WBE Committee's role to identify the gaps for services for M/WBE's. Mr. Anderson stated that if the Committee concurred with the Preservation commission's recommendation, the City would declare this to be a sole source and would proceed to A&PW to conclude the purchasing. Ald. Heydemann asked, who would be doing the majority of the work? Mr. Ruiz replied Brad White, Vice President of Clarion Assoc., Inc. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Anderson, assuming the Committee approved this concept, what would be the turn -around --time before we actually get this firm started on the ordinance? Mr. Anderson replied that it was dependent on how fast Clarion could bring the proposal back to us in the form of request in the RFP. We would hope for the A&PW meeting of June 14th. Ald. Newman stated that the Preservation Commission should keep that date as a target. Ald. Newman questioned if this ordinance was going to address the issue of subdivisions? Ms. Qualkinbush stated that this is one of the issues they discussed. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that the subdivision of lands especially on landmark properties and also in an historic district, were matters affecting the landmark itself and the character of the district. in those areas, she felt the - 2 - Minutes - p & D Committee May 17, 1993 a art of the subdivision process Aid. in the Commission should be commission to include subdivisionsshe had a encouraged th elmin asked Ms. Qualkinbush if Newman Chairman Eng h or low since we ordinance- whether it was high that she felt feel for the dollar figure' Ms• Qualkinbush stated to do this etitive bids. Brad White wanted don't have comp She though'ordinance would be used as a the figure was low. that since Heydemann commented would be an ordinance because he knows that�d is model for other commi terest in this ordinance much Ms. Qualkinbush stated that there was so it out for bid. he National ar ent for sending RFP, Mr• Ruiz sent letters to Preservations In reparation of the and the of the best qualified Historic Preservation names organizations Trust for requesting the job. Both Council of Illinois at Could do consulting firms provided Clarion's name' rove the use of Clarion that the Committee aPP The Committee voted Aid. Heydemann moved seconded by Aid. Newman• as a sole source, 4-0. ssion's .,..h f,rQP_nW09� Chairman ted that he would like akehe P aeservation reference ommi Chairman Aid. Newman sta would ma il comment on this matter and e would make a reference on e stated that references would hhave to come from reservation Engelman clarif ied that the P floor- Aid, Newmanand they would refer it to Council floor to P & D, item could be Commission. Anderson whether the Bieg 1 this was a Aid. Newman asked 14r, & D Committee . He stated Cow ttee to brought back to the P would be helpful for the that he had and thought it ors, He stated ward issue hbors and that there the views from the neighb 3= to meet with the neig hear some et ems• Bie9 Engelman stated that the appropriate tried to 9 Chairman from " to moVe to rem°Ve the elman stated was some resistance. committee. Chairman Eng procedure at the Council ck to ears ago, but if Aid. the table and refer it ba hbors two y matter again he had no -_ that the Committee heardfrom to discuss this ma Newman wanted the Commi problem with that. P - Huck Pro'�ct ro ect pertaining to plan on this p j Warshaw 1660 ChicaQ° �uwhat was the P Engelman stated that Ald . Newman asked the ZBA srt,_Aid . Chairman Eng concur with the nine conditions. to her motion to Aiello stated il the nine conditions Phase iI } attached the variations and deny aVe the nine deny Engelman Chairman Eng for Phase I ordinance that was introduced di no 3 that the amended for the 24th . =� conditions and would be oast of the applicant it was held over at f summarized that at the request 3 - Minutes - P & D Committee May 17, 1993 the meeting of May loth, but was scheduled for adoption on the 24th. Ald. Newman asked if the committee was in any time constraint in regard to when we approved it? Ald. Newman stated that some of these conditions are new to the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors did not have a chance to react to whatever the site plan was going to be in term of landscaping, other conditions, etc. Ald. Newman stated that if we had a current site plan he would like to setup a meeting with the neighbors to go over their concerns. Adigurnment The Committee adjourned at 8:15 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 7, 7:30 P.M. Staf f .Zan T . yew/ - 4 - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Of, Planning & D ve�'Es Dent Une ROpm 2403 $� P 993 Co7:30 p, M•�ttee Ald, present. S. EA9 Aid- Absent: and ANeroA• Heydej" Staff present. None nn' J- Rent, E. Anderson Others Ares J' WOlIns. J. Spe ennin9s, B en t . S • Be k.� and B. Y Zile SZ�n k.� l a , D Presiding and rnstein rman xdin9 pffzCial. Al Hplly and �yzdGuthrie. J d• Engelman Reynold zberle, Al as d • subs t�nn moved unanIftusly t' apecond0aPbrove the c Prove the �n�tes • Kent. t minutes T �y 10 a =�"—s'.4PO", he ConIttee 7, 1993 voted mOved Nton sta t t ton to -refer th� that 7-at he w 0Gnwo fer eP womotion °d to the rtz-, che pres D meetin S e AI`°ecificwe s seoond servat - 8 Jett er vation C f May I7 ! d• Newma sue did by Ai C°amiss and the rm ission,� 1s93, he Proposed n stet Ald, Ned• Rent, ton for t entire iss He moved desiJnat subdivisd that he wn�an wa Aid. hear co Issue of djstric ed Ian zon, Ai wanted the the Co H H. emannmments• zoz CO fss Ald.dmark? AZd. Heyde he cQ�.isfission to con what Prese'r to do Heydemannd• Newtrranann asked si°n's c0 consid the res�tiOn Co this Ald asked if z�tated i� f this presents on the long residential �rzssion Newman was C° was in Perty w that would it estate had aZre stated moron Prof the histas a withi if she w ake, becauseOVet Y di t comment Ye-- He stedure for he agreed thirty dted to adds tzme wasriCt• Aid °n thisaisd that the he unanimouSlydonthatsst$ to had t ° Pr tilere ference rn . Aid em$nn asked d on The the Motion. t to thoebre fe wi th that , the NQ Pan stated re Y rean red Corr ttee rec Wore, The cold• Heydemack Qived withoutttee vOann t d cpmments.k �, - - II- J. Planning MINUTES & Development June S, 1993 Room 2403 - I:30 Committee P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: E. Anderson, D. Jennings,SB. povkila, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, J. Wolinski and B. Zimmerman others Present: S. Bernstein, Ald. Guthrie, J. lberle, and Holly and David Reynold Presiding official: Aid. Engelman ..Twtrm+r. e p A4 10 AND 17 • 19� 10 and 17 , 1993 Ald. Heydemann moved to approve the minutes of May as submitted, seconded by Ald. Rent. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes. rnRM1 TlM )A,) r_rpAnwood street re SubdiyiSioii.. 17, 1993, he Ald. Newman stated that at the P & D meeting of May moved to refer this item to the e Preservation letter and the enti.reoissuen. eofo202 tonight to refer Mr. Cherto Greenwood to the Preservation Commission for their comments asked what motion was seconded by Aid. Rent. Ald. Hey demannspecific issue did Aid. Newman want he Commission's commentsion to nondthe Aid. Newman stated that he wanted proposed d landmark? subdivision. Aid. Newman stated itnn asked fwasl in the historic was a designated landma district. Aid. Heydema Ald asked Newman stated yes �n proc stated that the for the Commission to do this? Preservation Commission verlalydistrict�.enAld. Heydemannissue askedand how the residential estate overlay long would it take, because rthat�theyerw porttback that if she wanted to add to the reference within thirty days, he had no problem with that. Aid. Heydemann agreed to add that statement to the reference. The Committee voted unanimously on the motion. The Committee received without cowmen - Minutes - P & D Committee June S. 1993 ZHA 93-2-V(F), Final Variation Decision_ The Committee received eithout comments. Chairman Engelman explained that this concerned a one story building that housed a number of commercial developments. He stated that one side of the street is commercial and the other side is residential. Bernstein stated that hie client, Mr. Joe Miercowicz, present owner, renovated the property as a residence. Mr. Bernstein stated that the owner put up a for sale sign and the only offer generated was for commercial purposes. In Mr. Miercowicz had contacted the City, prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and was continuously advised of the "transitional" period between the old and the new zoning ordinances. Mr. Bernstein stated that he was informed of the City's "policy" with respect to the inability to change a new ordinance within one year of its enactment. He stated he would like to address concerns on behalf of his client. Ald Newman questioned if it was a City policy or some State law regarding modifying for one year. The Law Department was directed to prepare a legal opinion regarding the matter for the meeting of June 21, 1993. Ordinance 64-0-93, ZHA 93-5-SU(R)_, Variation re 1813-19 Broom Avenue, Ald. Kent made a motion to hold this item in Committee, and not separate the lots, and not construct single family dwellings. The motion was seconded by Ald. Newman. Ald. Kent read from a violation letter dated May, 1991, in existing violations were cited. He stated that debris was buried 6-8 ft. deep; and that the area was deteriorated and dangerous. Ald. Kent also indicated that illegal dumping had been done by American Jam Landscaping. He believed that they are were on the City of Evanston MBE list. He recommended that before the City talk about houses, those lots should be cleared. Mr. Chou stated that he purchased the property in April and received the violation letter just days after he had closed. Since notified the grass was cut and clean up has begun. However he misunderstood and he thought that the fence was to be put up during construction. Mr. Chou stated that two houses were already under contract, and they would like to start soon. He stated that American ,lam Landscaping had admitted to illegal dumping and had agreed to clean up their part. Chairman Engelman reminded Mr. Chou 4, 1993, Dave Rasmussen suggested clean-up be done before the P & D Chairman Engelman also reminded Mr. stated that he had just learned of -2- that at the ZBA meeting of May to him very strongly that the Committee addressed this item. Chou that at the ZBA hearing he the problem, but, in fact, he - minutes - P & D Committee June 8, 1993 Engelman stated that he appreciated the outreach that he had made to the neighborhood. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the request. Chairman Engelman reminded the applicant that this matter would be before Council on June 14, 1993. Ald. Heydemann moved, seconded by Ald. Newman. Ald. Dent inquired about the project. Peter Mulvey stated that there were several components to the projects. The first component was the fitness center, another part was the garage with additional parking spaces. Mr. Mulvey spoke briefly on each unit and explained the services of the Presbyterian Home. He stated that the construction of the center and garages would result in forty-four (44) additional parking spaces. Ald. Heydemann asked who would use the facility. Mr. Mulvey stated, residents and their immediately family. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the recommendation of ZBA granting the variation and special use of 3200 Grant. Chairman Engelman reminded the applicant that this matter would be before Council on June 14, 1993. Resolution 74-R-93. Rejgctina the Continuation gee Cook County HCMF. Investment Partnership Consortium Agreea_nt for Fiscal Years 1g94-1�6, Ald. Heydemann moved, seconded by Ald. Kent to accept staff's recommendation rejecting the continuation of the Cook County HOME Investment Partnership Consortium Agreement. Ald. Heydemann asked how are this would impact on the City receiving federal money. J. Wolinski stated that we would be working directly with the State of Illinois as a municipality. He stated that as of today four of the eleven municipalities have declined to renew with the Consortiums. The Committee voted unanimously to concur with the staff recommendation to reject the Consortium. Resolution 75-R_ 3, Authorizing the Ci y Manaaer to Apply or matching Grant re Baker Park, Ald. Newman moved, seconded by Ald. Kent to approve the request. The Committee voted 4-1 to approve the request. =M PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED Building Rermit Eee Wg ver Reauest With!1rayal re 01-19 Darrow avenue Ald. Kent moved to withdraw from the table and to delete from the agenda, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 on the request. -4- II. WI.W I1I I{ 11. .Ii , , II II . 1 YII I LII I IIiii 111. Al I I, II I I Ii II I,. YI III I II 4111 - Minutes - P & D Committee June 8, 1993 Ordinance 59-0--93.Planned Development - 1660 Chlcaao Avenue, Chairman Engelman stated that Ald. Newman requested that this matter be brought back to the P & D Committee. Ald. Newman referred to the Church/Chicago Project. He stated that also the sole reason that Evanston Place was built originally was to increase the amount of parking downtown. At that time there were 360 spaces in a surface lot. He stated that on a recommendation from the Chamber, the Council put out a request for proposal and the original intent was to increase the number from 360 spaces to 600 spaces. It was decided over a three year process that there would be a mixed- use development: the 600 parking garage space built with a residential development including 192 apartments with matching spaces with each apartment. Ald. Newman stated that historically the downtown area has had an extreme parking problem and parking for the Buck Project should be reconsidered. According to Ald. Newman under the 1960 zoning ordinance the Buck Project would require 237 spaces for the residential and commercial (70,000 sq. ft.). Ald. Newman stated that the P & D recommendation would include 243 spaces of residential parking and 85 for commercial spaces (70,000 sq. ft.), which would total 328. Ald. Newman stated that under the new zoning ordinance the amount of parking that is needed in the downtown for this project is 464. He stated that amount would decrease assuming that they did not build 70 sq. ft. Ald. Newman stated that from our experience with Evanston Place, it is clear that at least one space per unit is needed. Ald. Newman moved that we require that parking for this development be in compliance with the 1993 zoning ordinance. The motion was seconded by Ald. Kent.d that we require the amount of parking for this development at the 1993 zoning ordinance level. The motion was seconded by Ald. Kent. He stated that simply expecting the developer to comply with the stated policy with the City of Evanston (1993) for parking requirements in the downtown was not unreasonable. Ald. Newman stated that the neighborhood felt strongly about having sufficient parking for any new development. He stated that additional parking would benefit the developer and that it was reasonable to require 464 spaces. Ald. Heydemann referred to the D. Jennings memo in terms of the survey regarding the usage. She stated that the City Traffic Engineer felt that the proposed parking ratio was adequate for the development. she also stated that there were more parking spaces available in the Church/Chicago now that Washington National has moved. -5- - Minutes - P & D Committee June 8, 1993 Ald. Newman stated that he disagreed with Jennings on several items. He stated that now that we have the empty spaces in the garages, he planned to address cars parking at the lakefront. He stated that the 200 cars that park at the lakefront should be parked in the garage, paying money as opposed to getting free parking in a residential neighborhood. D. Jennings stated that he had been asked if the project was going to provide enough parking. He stated that Council's policy in the past has been to allow the lakefront to absorb parking from downtown. He stated that residential parking zones had been added (2 hours parking), and two letter parking districts. David Reynold - 204 Davis St=eet� Mr. Reynold read from a prepared speech (attached) Chuck Remen - 1316 Judson Mr. Remen stated that with the residential blocks east of downtown restricted during the day the spill -over parking has moved south. The neighbors need to know that parking generated by the Project won't spill into the neighborhood. Ald. Heydemann asked D. Rasmussen if this was not a planned development and if the developer was doing a one space, per apartment, how many parking spaces would be required to be provided for commercial? Mr. Rasmussen replied 85 spaces for commercial and .5 spaces per unit for residential. Ald. Heydemann stated that 237 spaces would be the amount for the developer by -right. Chairman Engelman stated that he had consulted with Corporation Counsel and he would speak on this issue. He stated that the Committee discussed parking at length at the April 26, 1993 meeting. He stated that the one- for -one parking ration was eliminated at the April 26, 1993 meeting. chairman Engelman wanted to make sure that everyone understood that was done at that meeting. He stated that the comment implied that the Committee reduced the number of parking spaces that they were requiring at the April 26, 1993 meeting. From its inception the proposal by the developer was for one space per unit. He stated that would have been a total of 304 parking spaces. What was done at that meeting was to demand exactly what Ald. Newman has asked for, public benefit, for the increase height over 170. He stated that the Committee has not just been giving and giving. Chairman Engelman stated that tonight the Committee asked for public benefit for giving more than 170 ft. There was a list of eight (8) conditions presented. chairman Engelman stated that because he was sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood and about the amount of parking. He stated that he was aware of the problem with parking downtown and suggested that in addition to the one--for-one -6- - Minutes - P & D Committee June 8, 1993 residential 304 parking spaces that was being proposed, that the Committee should asked for whatever the commercial development was going to be on that site should we get the required parking under the old zoning ordinance. He stated that the first things that Council did when the developer came to them was that they agreed that this project was going to be reviewed under the old zoning ordinance. Chairman Engelman stated that he had commented that one -for -one was not enough and that we needed to address the commercial issue. There was a discussion with the developer and they went to discuss it among themselves. The Developer returned and stated that they would agree to provide whatever the required parking for commercial was under the old ordinance. Instead of one-to-one they wanted to reduce it to eight. He stated that their reason was that upon conversion they would reduce the number of dwelling units by 20% because they were going to combine units. Chairman Engelman stated that P & D passed 6-0 to approve with .8 parking spaces for residential, and the required commercial spaces, which he believes, was one for every 800 sq. ft. above 2000. He stated that he would love to see the developer offer one -for -one residential, and one for every 800 sq. ft. of commercial, over and above 2000. He stated that to ask them to go to what is required of 237 spaces to almost double that is unreasonable, and to go from 238 to 464 is unreasonable. Chairman Engelman also stated that the consultant said to them was when you are talking about residential in the downtown, you had to consider the fact that many residential owners downtown would use public transportation. Ald. Rent stated that the spaces that are being used are the wrong spaces. Ald. Newman stated that he did not read in the minutes any motion by anyone to incorporate the position of the developer into the nine conditions. He stated that he had spoken with Ald. Warshaw regarding this point. She stated that when she voted she thought she was voting for one parking space per residential unit. John Iberle passed out a memo regarding parking and stated that the formula in the ordinance referred to the memo. He suggested that as an acceptable resolution is to provide that the formula in the ordinance would remain but be adjusted in column fashion. He stated that in no event would the minimum parking provided be less than one per residential unit. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Iberle when this project goes condo are the owners going to have their own parking spaces. Mr. Iberle stated yes. -7- - Minutes - P & D Committee June 8, 1993 Aid. Newman asked Rasmussen what we were requiring on Phase II? Rasmussen stated that it would to meet the then current requirements. Mr. Iberle stated that their understanding was that Phase II parking would be part of condition #2. Chairman Engelman stated that under the proposed ordinance the only thing that do not meet the 1960 code requirements is the residential. He stated it is exceeding the code requirements. The requirement of 1960 states that one-half space, per dwelling, and we are making them to eight - tenth of a space, per dwelling unit. Ald. Guthrie stated that on the chronology cover it spoke of 407 spaces, what happen to that. Mr. Iberle stated that the 407 was comprised of 304 structured spaces, another 49 or 50 for the retail, and an at -grade surface lot, on the Phase II site of another 53, which had been eliminated. Ald. Heydemann asked Mr. Iberle if he was making a different kind of suggestion of having the one-to-one and having how much for commercial. Mr. Iberle stated that he was suggesting adding another condition. They would do the .8 for the residential, one for 800 on the commercial, if that sum is less than one--for-one on the residential, then they must do the one -for -one on residential. Mr. Reynold stated that the reason citizen did not appear before regarding parking was that they were assured there would be a one - for -one parking. He asked if ZAC passed an ordinance eliminating bonuses. Rasmussen stated that he did not recall. Mr. Reynold stated that he hope that the Committee would consider what the zoning ordinance requires. A citizen commented of two building in the downtown area where they have no extra parking. Aid. Newman stated that he would take this motion to the Council and that it would not pass the Committee tonight with the majority. The Committee voted 3-1 on the motion. The Committee adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 21, 7:30 P.M. Staff: 'Jean T. Speyer -B- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MIN[JTES Planning & Development Committee June 21, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Rent, and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Borys, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, D. Wirth, J. Wolinski and J. Zendell Others Present: A. Rodd, T. Stafford, Lee Sims and R. Paddor Presiding official: Ald. Engelman MINUT S OF JUNK 1, 1993. Ald. Kent moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Aid. Heydemann. Ald. Heydemann, Kent and Newman identified corrections: page 8, the vote was 2-2; page 7 - eight should be .8; and page 1 June 7 not 8th. The Committee voted 4-0 to approved the minutes as corrected. rM0.01 " f, 7UAl93-4-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 2410-12 Wade Street. Ald. Kent stated that one of the objectors objected because of the setback requirement of no closer them 30 ft. He stated that the minutes indicated a 30.5 ft. setback. Ald. Kent asked if 30.5 ft. would make a difference if the setback is 30 ft? D. Rasmussen stated that 30.5 feet will match the adjacent building. The Committee received this item. D _93-8-V(E). Final Variation pecisiQn re 1822 Kirk Street, The Committee received without comment. Article re Po igina a Chic&ao Enclave, The Committee received. P & D Committee Meeting, It was the consensus of the Committee to cancel the first meeting in July due to the holiday. - Minutes - P & D Committee June 21, 1993 ;tams for Consideration Public Art reLibrary Ald. Heydemann commented that the writing in the proposal was very easy to read and understand. She asked how did the evolution take place from a commanding work to a monumental work? Joe Zendell stated that the intention of the wording was to allow an evolution of the art work from the point of submission to when it is actually installed. Chairman Engelman pointed out that the Committee did discuss some of this in library finance. He also clarified that public art although part of the capital improvement program was a separate line item funding source. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve the Library Public Art Plan, seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the plan. plan Commission =ual Report - 1992 Ald. Newman moved to accept the annual report, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Ald. Heydemann requested a list of Plan Commission members. Ald. Newman referred to the Plan Commission's minutes regarding Jack Siegel's concern about some of the due process issues. Chairman Engelman stated that he also noticed it in the minutes, but would not characterize it the same way as Ald. Newman. He stated that he thought someone else raised the issue, and Siegel said just to leave it the way it was. Ald. Newman requested Mr. Siegel's comments on the due process issues. Chairman Engelman recognized Mr. Lyle Foster, Plan Commission Chairman, who commented. The Chairman and Committee wished the Plan Commission well as they began new endeavors. Mr. Foster thanked the Committee and stated that the transition would go smoothly. The Committee voted 4-0 to accept the plan. ordinance 70-0-93. ZDA 93-4-V(R). Variation re 1111 Washington Street. Chairman Engelman noted that the zoning violation came about as a complaint. once the violation was cited, the applicant sought a variation as a way to alleviate the violation. Ald. Heydemann stated that considering the information being passed on, and since the next buyer would not be in the same position as the current owner, she moved to concur with the ZBA recommendation; seconded by Ald. Rent. After considerable discussion the motion was withdrawn. Chairman Engelman pointed out that P & D generally did not grant variations or special uses in order to bring someone into compliance once a complaint was cited. Ald. Newman stated that once a case was in court and the variation granted, the case was dismissed. He stated that the unfortunate part is the time staff had spent. Attorney Szymanski stated that there were two outstanding electrical code violations. She stated that the violations were cited at the time the complaint was filed. Chairman Engelman asked why they were not corrected and if our - 2 - i Ii .. i. II 1 11, ii ii 11 ,II 11 III JII II. - Minutes - P & D Committee June 21, 1993 inspector had gone out to check. Szymanski stated that the Judge wanted to adjudicate the entire case. Jim Wolinski stated that our inspector had not been called to inspect. Chairman Engelman asked if anyone was present regarding the property. No one was in attendance. Chairman Engelman stated that the Committee's policy was not to grant variations if there were outstanding violations. He stated that he would like to see the housing violations corrected before the Committee granted zoning relief. Ald. Newman stated that since the City might grant the applicant a third dwelling unit that City's cost should be recouped. He stated that the City should notify the owner that code violations must be corrected and City costs paid before the Committee acted. Ald. Heydemann asked if there was precedent for billing applicants for staff's time. Szymanski stated not to her knowledge. Ald. Heydemann stated that the Committee would be making policy. she stated that she felt uncomfortable in the absence of policy. J. Aiello stated that if the Committee felt uncomfortable attaching a fee due to a lack of policy, staff could come back with a recommended policy at a subsequent meeting. Ald. Heydemann stated that if the violations are not corrected, she would not grant the variance. Chairman Engelman stated that he would like to see a staff report on the time spent by inspectors. Ald. Heydemann moved to hold the matter in Committee. she also requested staff to send a letter to the owner stating that the matter was being held because code violations had not been corrected, and that the Committee was in agreement that the City's cost should be paid by the owner. Szymanski stated that she would evaluate whether or not it was proper to access court costs in connection with granting a variation. she stated that if she concluded that they were not proper, she would suggest coming up with an alternatives. The motion was seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 4-0 to hold this in Committee. Amendment to New Zoning Ordinance re Leaal Opinion. Ald. Kent stated that at the last Council meeting he referenced making specialty stores, whose major sales items were beepers, a special use in business distracts, commercial districts, etc. He wanted to know if this should be put in writing and given to the Plan Commission. C. Borys stated yes. Ald. Kent asked if there was anything that could be done now to keep small shops from popping -up in different locations throughout Evanston. Chairman Engelman requested that staff come back with a recommendation as to possible alternatives. Amendment to New Zoning ordinance re Lecal Opinion, Chairman Engelman stated that this was originally raised as a result of a letter from Steve Bernstein regarding his client. The Committee discussed the policy of amendments and the fact that now the ordinance doesn't clearly prohibit amendment. Ald. Heydemann moved that the City adopt a policy that there would not be any text or map amendment for 1 year. - 3 - - Minutes - P & D committee June 21, 1993 Chairman Engelman stated that staff should have some time to understand how the new ordinance worked before we started to make revisions. Ald. Heydemann made a motion to make no changes for a period of six month in text or map. Ald. Kent commented that could present a problems, even at six months, and the City really wouldn't know. Ald. Heydemann commented that what staff had asked for was a chance to collect and review the requested changes to avoid a piecemeal approach. Chairman Engelman asked if the Committee would be able to deny a request (such as Mr. Bernstein's request)? C. Borys stated it would come to the Plan Commission first for review, public hearing, etc. and a recommendation made to the P & D Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to take no action on this matter. vision to Ordinance 78-0-90 which establishes Fees for Zoning geauests and Related Matters. Ald. Heydemann moved to accept the revision to ordinance 78-0-90, Ald. Kent seconded the motion. Chairman Engelman asked if the fees were computed to cover administrative cost. D. Rasmussen stated yes. The Committee voted 3-1 to accept the revision. Appearance Review and Guidelines Ald. Heydemann requested additional explanations of the photos. she stated that she did not see how the narrative information reflected the photos. C. Borys stated that the number under the photos related to the numbers in the text. she stated that the Commission discussed if the pictures depicted good or bad examples. Borys stated that the Plan Commission did not want to identify existing building as bad examples. Chairman Engelman agreed with Ald. Heydemann on the confusion of the photos. Ald. Heydemann requested a more narrative review pointing out the use of horizontal and vertical of the use of hidden parking. C. Borys stated that they would put a narrative under each picture. This item will be back before the Committee in two months. Ald. Newman stated that he would like a report as to what the impact of the non -binding process had been. Chairman Engelman stated that the Committee was due for a report on that issue. Temporary Sian_Reauest. Auxiliary of Evanston/Glenbrook Hogpitals, Ald. Newman moved to approve the sign request, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve. Proposed Amendments to the Sian ordinance re Automobile Aealerships. A. Rodd stated that they had two car dealer representatives present, but one had to leave. Chairman Engelman apologized and - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee June 21, 1993 stated he wished he had known this item could have been heard earlier. Ald. Newman moved to approve the proposed amendments, seconded by Ald. Kent. Chairman Engelman asked if anyone had discussed this with the sign Review & Appeals Board. Ald. Newman stated yes and that they oppot:ed it. Ald. Engelman stated that the P & D Committee had mentioned their concerns regarding automobile dealerships to the Sign Review & Appeals Board. He stated that one of the suggestions were modifying sign requirements based upon different zoning districts. Aiello stated that it was brought up at the Sign Review & Appeals Board to make the area a sign district. She expressed concern that by doing so all businesses in the district might be eligible to have larger signs than really needed or wanted. Ald. Newman stated that refacing a sign to reflect the new ownership was a given. The Committee voted 4--0 to approve the proposed amendments. Ald. Newman referred to the parking proposal and suggested that it be referred to the Parking Committee. Mr. Sims spoke on parking enforcement on Chicago Avenue. Ald. Newman stated that the City could not relax enforcement for one group or businesses. He stated that they would have to decide whether to have parking restrictions, meters, or some type of alternative that would be more compatible with their businesses. He stated that he would like to work with dealers and find out what would work better for them. Chairman Engelman stated that the sign amendments would be introduced to Council on July 12, and it should be voted an July 26, 1993. ITEM PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ordinance 64-0-93. ZBA 93-3-V(U. Variation re 1813-19 Brown Avenue. Ald. Kent moved that this item be held in Committee indefinitely. He stated that he was still trying to work with Mr. Chou. Ald. Kent stated that suggestions had been given regarding items which could be done quickly which would help the neighbors. Ald. Rent asked if the City had this property in court? E. Szymanski stated that she had just received the complaint from the Building Department and that July 23, would be the earliest court date. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday July 19, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. Staf f : - 5 - MINUTES Planning & Development Committee July 19, 1993 Room 2403 -- 7;30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman and A. Newman Ald. Absent: A. Heydemann and J. Kent Staff Present: J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski and J. Wolinski Others Present: A. Rodd, T. Stafford, B. Sidenberg and S. Timble Presiding Official: Ald. Engelman LiTES OF JULY 19 -1993. There being no quorum the minutes were not approved. Chairman Engelman announced that the Planning & Development Committee would meet on July 26, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. to vote on matters on the July 19 agenda. Ald. Newman commented that the reference regarding parking for auto dealers had been made to the Parking Committee. COMMU_NICATIONS 202 Greenwood re Subdivision. The Committee received the communication. Plat of Consolidation Howard/Hatrev. This item will be addressed at the P & D meeting of July 26, 1993. ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION Ordinance 55-0--93 re Sian Ordinance Amendment. This item will be considered on July 26, 1993. Resolution 82-R-93. Authorizina the Citv Manager to Sian the Historic Preservation Aareement. This item will be voted on at the P & D meeting of July 26, 1993. Zoni.na Board of ADoeals Applications for Hearinas. Ald. Newman indicated that he would like to receive information on 6-10 cases showing the chronology from the day the application was - �re - .�.� - . _ 'r�:i�r;_ _-- •. tea-. _ -. ,.. _- � .,._-�`"_. Z .._ _ ;� r.�- `v;-r-�`,_-��s,- . ,< < � ., - -� - - - Minutes - P & D Committee July 19, 1993 filed until it was approved by Council. His purpose was to shorten the time for processing a ZBA case. Chairman Engelman recognized the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Susan Timble. Ms. Timble stated that ZBA had not heard any cases under the new ordinance. Chairman Engelman stated that if Ald. Newman was looking for historical data then staff could prepare a chronology. However, if the interest was the new ordinance then it would be more appropriate to hold this item until ZBA had a cxiange to hear cases. ITEM PREVIOi1SLY CONSIDERED Ordinance 64-0-93, ZBA 93-3-V(R). Variation re 1813-19 Browq Avenue, E. Szymanski stated that this case was scheduled for court on July 23, 1993. D. Rasmussen stated that Mr. Chou had contacted him and stated that the grass was scheduled to be cut. KDA 9 3-9-•V (R) . Variation re 1 U 1 Wa.shinaton Street. E. Szymanski stated that the judge had posed a fine of $1,000.00 and stated that if compliance was achieved all or part of the fine could be vacated. The owner was present and stated that the 3rd floor unit was created over 20 years ago. He stated that all he was doing was to try and keep the third floor unit which he had purchased. Ald. Newman stated that the concern was the time it took staff to gain compliance. Ald. Newman suggested that the owner and legal staff try and come to some agreement and report back at the meeting of August 2, 1993. ADJauf RNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. for Monday, July 26, 1993 at 6:30 Staff: Jean T. Speyer The next meeting is scheduled p.m. - 2 - RUF'T. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee July 26, 1993 Room 2403 - 6:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, C. Ruiz, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski and J. Wolinski Others Present: C. Abrams, J. Stricker--Gay, A. Rodd, T. Stafford, Lee Sims and S. Sims Presiding official: Ald. Heydemann MINUTES OF JUNE 21 and Julv 19. 1993. Ald. Engelman moved to approve the minutes of June 21 and July 19, 1993, seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS 202 Greenwood re Subdivision. The Committee received without comment. Chairmanship Scbedule The Committee received without comment. JTEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Ordinance 55-C-93 re Sian Ordinance Amendment, Ald. Engelman moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Newman. Mr. Cliff Abrams and Jim Stricker--Gay, members of the Sign Review and Appeals Board were present. Mr. Abrams and Mr. Stricker-Gay were not in favor of changing the ordinance. Mr. Abrams stated that a strong enough case had not been presented to convince the Board that allowances should be made to auto dealers. ,,yy r A edl I 111 11111 Ji��i IIAIAJl - Minutes - P & D Committee July 26, 1993 Ald. Newman stated that the seven ( 7 ) auto dealers left in Evanston provided a sul-stantial portion of the City's total sales revenue. He stated that sign allowances was a way the City could assist the dealers. Ald. Kent agreed with Ald. Newman's comments. Ald. Heydemann stated that one assumption of the Sign Review and Appeals Hoard was that you could minimize the commercialization of an area. She was persuaded that the nature of the business of auto sales warranted a different set of standards. Mr. Steven Sims stated that other communities were having the same problems as Evanston. Libertyville and Buffalo Grove have considered special ordinances for car dealers. Ald. Engelman stated that he hoped the members of the Sign Review and Appeals Board would look at the current sign ordinance and determined ways in which modifications could be made for other businesses. He stated that the Committee and Council has to balance between the needs of the business and residential community. Terry Upton, owner of Chrysler/Toyota, commented that Toyota was moving to Chicago Avenue. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. Chairman Heydemann thanked the Sign Review and Appeals Board members and tY.e auto dealers for coming. Resolution 82-R-93,__Authorizina the Citv Manaaer to Sian the Historic Preservationareement. Ald. Newman moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. Plat of Consolidation Howard/Hartrev. Ms. Aiello stated that the plat had not been received and the matter would be considered August 9, 1993. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. (tent seconded to cancel the P & D meeting on August 2, 1993. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion. Ordinance 64-0-93, ZBA 93-3-V(R), Variation re 1813-19 Brown Avenue, E. Szymanski stated that the case was heard in Housing Court on July 23, 1993. Szymanski stated that Mr. Chou had planned to have a contractor at the site on July 24, 1993 but nothing had been done as of July 26. Szymanski stated that the next court date was scheduled for August 27, 1993 for compliance or trial. -2-- I - Minutes - P & D Committee July 26, 1993 J. Aiello stated that Mr. Chou's ZHA case fee and transcript deposit checks had been .returned marked NSF. Ald. Newman stated that there be no further consideration on the matter until the fees are paid. E. Szymanski stated that regarding the NSF checks Mr. Chou could be fined. Ald. Kent commented on photos that were taken of the Chou property. Ald. Newman asked how much was the City asking in fines. Szymanski stated that the City would ask for up to $500.00 a day per violation. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Property Maintenance and the Legal department to send a letter advising Mr. Chou that if the parkway was not mowed within seven (7) days, the City would do it and ask the court to impose a fine for the cost. C?rdinance 70-0-93, Z&h 93-9-V(R). Variation re 11 U Washinaton Street. E. Szymanski stated that she would be meeting with the owner on July 29, 1993 to hear his offer and respond. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Staf f n T, Speyer 3 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED 11. 1 ,. 1 1„ , 16 , a u, , , . 11 nAl �I , i. � ail DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee August 9, 1993 Room 2403 - 6:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: J. Rent Staff Present: J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski and J. Wolinski Others Present: S. Cleave, P. McTague and T. Stafford Presiding Official: Ald. Heydemann MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1993, Ald. Engelman moved to approve the minutes of July 26, 1993, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS Families In Transition Quarterly Report - December - February and March - May. Ald. Newman stated that it would be helpful to the Committee if the reports detailed what the transitions were. He requested information regrading the original representation of the need for obtaining the funds. Ald. Heydemann asked why they were receiving two quarterly reports at the same time. J. Wolinski stated that for several months the Housing Commission did not have a quorum for a meeting. The Committee accepted the Quarterly Reports. ZBA 93-10-V(F)_,_Final Variation Decision re 2421 Pavne Street. The Committee received without comment. - Minutes - P & D Committee August 9, 1993 P404:41VRJIWM�1 *% Letter of Commitment from the Mavor's special Housing Fund for the ByAnston Housing gQalitions HOME Single Family Rentgl Program, Ald. Engelman questioned if the City would own these properties and if the Housing Coalition would serve as manager? Scott Cleave, Chairman of the Housing Commission, stated that the Housing Coalition would own and manage the properties. Ald. Newman requested a report on the Wesley Project and a pro forma on the HOME single Family Rental Project. Ald. Newman questioned the location of the single family homes. Jim Wolinski stated that two or three of these properties were from the City's board -up list. Mr. Cleave stated that the funds were coming from HUD, Lasalle Northwest Sank, a Federal Home Loan Bank and the City. He stated that the City's portion would be returned to the City. Ald. Newman moved to approve with the condition that the $51,540 be returned to the Housing Fund upon sale or refinancing, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the motion. Plat of Consolidatiop Howard/Hatrev. Ald. Engelman moved to approve the plat, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the motion. Ordinance 64-0-93. ZBA 93-3-V($L. Varjation re 1813-19 Brown Avenue. J. Aiello stated that the City had not received a respond to their letter. J. Wolinski passed out photos and stated that a substantial amount of work had been done. Ordinance 70-0-93, ZHA 93-9-V(R). Variat,ton re 1111 Washinaton Street. E. Szymanski stated that she had spoken with Mr. McTague and he offered the City a $100.00 settlement. She stated that she had estimated that staff had spent 28 hours, which included Zoning and Property Standards inspectors and Legal staff's times. Szymanski stated that based on information received from Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Rasmussen she estimated $948.00 was the City's cost. Mr. McTague, the owner, was present and stated that when he found out that the property was in violation he responded to the city. He stated that because of his work he had to cancelled the early mornings inspections. He stated that when he purchased the property he was not aware that the third floor unit was illegal.. Mr. McTague stated that he had spent $1,400.00 and a substantial amount of time bringing the property into compliance. - 2 - 1A. Minutes - P & D Committee August 9, 1993 After a discussion Ald. Engelman move to concur with the recommendation of the ZBA conditioned upon a payment of $500.00 to help compensate the City for its time and effort, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the motion. The applicant agreed to pay the $500.00 payment. 202 Greenwood rg Subdivision J. Aiello informed the Committee that Mr. Bieg, Jr. had requested a meeting with the chairman of the Preservation Commission. She stated that this was the only item for the August 16, 1993 meeting and therefore there was not a need to meet. It was the consensus of the Committee to meet on August 23, 1993. Ald. Heydemann noted that she would not be present at that meeting. Ald. Newman requested a confidential memo regarding the interpretation of the plat on file as opposed to the plat covered under the new zoning ordinance. AP7OURNMEBI The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Staff: n T. Speyer - 3 - MINUTES Planning & Development Committee August 30, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: V. Adamus, J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, C. Ruiz, J. Speyer and E. Szymanski Others Present: R. Chou, D. Cottier, M. McWilliams and C. Qualkinbush; Preservation Commission members, P. McTague and T. Stafford Presiding Official: Ald. Heydemann MIMU S OF AUGUST 9. 1993, Ald. Engelman moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 1993, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. Ald. Newman commented on the scheduling of P & D meetings. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 93-12-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 747 Forest Avenue. The Committee received without comments. Ordinance 93-0-93, ZBA 93-11-SU(R). Special Use re 1571 Sherman Avenue. Ald. Engelman moved to approve with the recommendation of the ZBA to grant a special use, seconded by Ald. Newman. There being no representative of the project present it was suggested that the applicant contact Ald. Newman regarding employee's parking. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the motion. ,202 Greenwood re ,Ald. Newman Reauest Pertainina to Subdivision_. Carol Qualkinbush, Derrick Cottier and Mary McWilliams of the Preservation Commission were in attendance. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that 202 Greenwood was located in the heart of lakeshore historic district. She stated that the other homes on that street are also Evanston landmarks. She further stated that the Commission felt that the estates were very important and contributed to the way Evanston looks. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that the Commission felt that the subdivision would have an adverse affect on the immediate Minutes - P & D Committee August 30, 1993 area as well as the whole historic district. She stated that the coach -house was a significant piece of architecture and would be separated from the main house if the subdivision was granted. The Commission recommended removing this item from the P & ❑ agenda. Ald. Engelman ask if the house and coach -house had architectural significance. Ms. Qualkinbush stated yes and referred to the statement of significance in their memo. He also ask if we have binding review of historical structures. J. Aiello stated not in the ordinance now. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that they have a consultant that would begin the process of rewriting the Preservation Ordinance. Ald. Engelman asked if the position of the Commission was that the landscaping obeyance and open space of the area had particular historical significance to the community. Ms. McWilliams stated that when you create a historic district the building is what was addressed. Ald. Engelman asked if the City had regulations on landscaping in historic areas. Aiello stated no. Ald. Newman asked if the subdivision was granted would there be a house built between two houses. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that a house would be built directly in front of the coach -house. Aid. Newman asked how many neighbors were present and in opposition to the subdivision. The following neighbors were in attendance: Sheldon Chertow, 147 Dempster; Marsha Niazmond, 408 Greenwood; Kathryn Stallcup, 144 Greenwood; Linda and Robert Brooks, 1110 Forest and Mary Singh, 1711 Hinman. Ald. Engelman wanted clarification whether or not 202 Greenwood was up for action. Aiello stated that it was informational. She stated that they were awaiting a legal opinion regarding which zoning ordinance it was under. Ald. Engelman stated that he did not want to act on 202 Greenwood until he had the legal opinion. Ald. Newman questioned why the legal opinion was not ready. Ald. Newman requested that items not be put on the agenda unless they are going to be acted on. Mr. Sheldon Chertow spoke in favor of maintaining the status of the area. He stated that they had maintained their property with the idea of preserving, not changing. Mr. Chertow asked the Committee to consider maintaining something that is architecturally and nationally significant. Chairman Heydemann stated that she would like to have the legal opinion and then the Committee could take action. She stated that it was not appropriate to leave the item sit and not take action either way. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee August 30, 1993 ordnance 83-0-93. Chanae in Disorderly Houses and Disturbina the peace Restrictions. Ald. Newman moved to approve the Ald. Engelman stated that he had ordinance but was concerned w interpreted. Ald. Newman q% ordinance that was changed? Vin discussion the Committee voted change, seconded by Ald. Engelman. no problem with the purpose of the lth the way the draft could be estioned if 11 was part of the :e Adamus stated no. After further -0 to approve the change. Ordinance 70-0-93, ZBA 93-9-V(R). Variation re 1111 Washinaton Street. E. Szymanski stated that Mr. McTague was in court last Friday and pleaded guilty. She stated that the Judge accepted the City's plea bargaining of $500.00. Ald. Engelman moved to concur with the recommendation of the ZBA to grant variations to permit retention of a third dwelling unit, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the variations. Ordinance 64-0-93. ZBA 93-3-V(R). Variation re 1813-19 Brown Avenue. E. Szymanski stated that the tickets were dismissed for compliance pertaining to bushes, debris etc. She stated that the Judge imposed a fine under $100.00 for court cost and those have not been paid. Mr. Chou was present and stated that he would pay the fines the next day. Dave Rasmussen stated that all other fees had been paid. Ald. Engelman stated that he hesitated to do anything revokable without Ald. Kent being present. He asked if the Committee could pose as a condition of the granting of the variation that the additional grading issue be dealt with. Aiello stated yes that it would be a part of the building permit process. It was the consensus of the Committee to introduce the matter at the September 13th Council meeting and then review it with Ald. Kent on September 20th. If it was acceptable with Aid. Kent, the matter would be voted upon on September 27, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Staff: L- Jean T. Speyer - 3 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED d it ld +III 1L iiY iY 2MFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee September 20, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, Ald. Feldman, Ald. Moran, D. Rasmussen, C. Ruiz, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, J. Wolfensberger and J. Wolinski Others Present: S. Bernstein, S. Cleave, J. Mierkiewicz and D. Raffensperger Presiding official: Ald. Kent MINUTES OF AUGUST 30, 1993. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve the minutes of August 30, 1993, seconded by Ald. Engelman. Ald. Heydemann corrected page 2, last sentence to read She stated that it was not appropriate to leave the item on the agenda without anv action one wav or the other. Ald. Engelman commented that on page 2, second paragraph, sixth sentence should read Ald. Engelman asked if the position of the Commission was that the landscaping abeyance and open space..... The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as amended. COMMUNICATIONS Chairmanship Schedule The Committee received without comment. 202 Greenwood Street Ald. Engelman suggested putting this item on the P & D agenda for action. Ald. Newman stated that he received a letter from the attorney for the Bieg's indicating that they would like to have a neighborhood meeting. Ald. Engelman withdrew his suggestion. Ordinance 111-0-93. Plan Commission ZPC 93-1-(M), Rezone 2734 Central Street. Chairman Kent indicated that people had signed up to speak on this item. fir. Nelson Soltman spoke in opposition to the rezoning and read from a prepared speech (attached). - Minutes - P & D Committee September 20, 1993 Steve Bernstein, attorney for the applicant, was present and spoke. Mr. Bernstein stated that there was no business zoned property on the alley. He stated that the two residential units on the corner of the alley were presently zoned B2 but are used for residential purposes. Mr. Bernstein stated that 2734 Central would be better used for office purposes. He stated that although Mr. Mierkiewicz's renovation had resulted in a wonderful restored single family resident the area was not single family. He stated that Mr. Mierkiewicz didn't understand. Unlike Mr. Soltman's neighborhood, which is a beautifully landscaped, single family, R1 district, this is a business street. He stated that they were asking not to uproot the entire neighborhood but rather to extend a business zone by 50 ft. in one direction. Mr. Bernstein stated that in the Comprehensive General Plan the City had indicated this was a shopping area. Mr. Bernstein stated that if needed he and Mr. Mierkiewicz would be willing to meet with residents. He further stated that he thought the Plan Commission's hearing was fair. Ald. Moran stated that he had offered to arrange a meeting between the various parties to work something out. He stated that after talking with various people there were strong feelings on both sides of this issue, but hoped that there might be some middle ground. Ald. Moran stated that Mr. Mierkiewicz had put together a very nice looking building. Ald. Heydemann questioned Ald. Moran as to his suggestion of a timetable. He stated that in two to three weeks they should be - able to find out if there was common ground or not. Ald. Newman questioned the number of employees and hours for Hospice. Mr. Bernstein stated they would employ six or seven employees, and their hours would be principally 9:00 A.M. -5:00 P.M., Monday thru Friday. Mr. Mierkiewicz stated that being caught between the old and new zoning ordinance had made this a very long process for him. Ald. Engelman asked Dennis Raffensperger, Plan Commission member, why he voted no. Mr. Raffensperger responded that because of the way the ordinance is written, the B2 District is designated as a district to maintain existing neighborhood business uses primarily upon a location. He stated that he did not see the necessity of bringing the B2 further down the block. Ald. Newman moved to send this item to Council without a recommendation because the applicant has waited so long. He also stated that the next Council meeting was not for three weeks which would give Ald. Moran time to have a meeting with the owner and - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee September 20, 1993 neighbors. Ald. Newman stated that he did not want to see a restaurant at this site. He suggested that as part of the negotiation that a covenant be placed on the land to prohibit a restaurant. Ald. Engelman agreed with Ald. Newman. Ald. Engelman seconded the motion. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ald. Newman commented to the Plan Commission that at the end of the transcript it was one sided in favor of the applicant. He stated that when witnesses participated in the deliberation from one side, there should have been participation by neighbors on the other side. Mr. Raffensperger stated that since this hearing, rules and procedures have been considered by the Plan Commission. Anpearance Review Guidelines. Ald. Engelman commented that staff did a good job and moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve. Zonina Board of Apneals Anolications for Hearinas. Ald. Engelman asked that this item be held until the end of the meeting and, if time did not permit, that it be placed on the agenda of October 4. Ordinance 106-0-93. ZBA 93-13-SU(r), Special Use re 2212-16 Green DgY Road. Chairman Kent read from the sign-up list. Bob Jacobsen of 1441_Noves Street. Mr. Jacobson stated that he had viewed the plans and they looked good. He stated that Noyes Street had become a major thoroughfare with traffic going and coming from Northwestern University. Mr. Jacobson stated that a fast food restaurant would generate more traffic, litter and loitering. He stated that at the ZBA hearing the neighbors were told that they could not participate because they were not within 250 ft. of the project. He stated that he measured, and they were within 250 ft. Ald. Newman commented on who could participate at hearings. He stated that the rule should be increased to from 250 ft. to 500 ft. Ald. Engelman stated that living outside the 250 ft. radius had the right to address the issue, but they did not have the same rights to inspect documents or examine witnesses. Ald. Engelman stated that the 250 ft. rule reads that 11250 ft. in either direction of subject property exclusive of public roads, streets and alleys and other public ways." He stated he went out and after excludirig public streets and alleys it appears that Mr. Jacobsen would be within 250 ft. Dave Rasmussen stated that it was discovered that -- 3 - , u , , ,, • H 11, ii I I IJ 11 II I Lll I I h I u i I OIA41,1i�H - Minutes P & D Committee September 20, 1993 the Zoning Ordinance states that the applicant is required to supply a list of property owners within 250 ft. He stated that it excluded the words "exclusive of public streets or alleys." Ald. Newman questioned Rasmussen on how the neighbors were notified. Rasmussen responded that the list was prepared by the applicant and the notices were based on that list. It was the consensus of the Committee to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Engelman recommended that staff start checking the ordinance for other inconsistencies. Ald. Newman requested a legal opinion on the 250 ft. Jane Jacobsen of 1441 Noyes Street stated that no one on Noyes Street was notified. She stated that she received a call the day of the hearing. Guy Carpenter, the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions and to cooperate with the neighbors and the City. Michael Summers stated that no notice had come to his home. He further stated that he had no problem with the idea of a restaurant. He stated that it would offer employment and taxes to the City. However, he stated that there should not be an exit in either direction on Green Bay Road because traffic was already a major problem. He stated that if the neighborhood had known about the hearing they could have met with Mr. Carpenter and maybe something could have been worked out. Mr. Summers suggested a smaller configuration, a change of hours and a traffic study. He stated that 36 seats creates such a large area and the opportunity for a hang-out. He further stated that there should be no exiting going north on Green Bay Road; turn signals should be provided at the corner, stop signs should be put along Noyes Street. Valeria Summers stated that her concerns were seating capacity with schools nearby. Ald. Newman stated that the Summers were not opposed to the project, but they wanted some changes. He asked if that was a consensus of the other neighbors. Mr. Jacobson stated that several neighbors were out of town but were in opposition of the project. Mayor Marton commented that the City was going to have to take a look at public telephones on the outside of establishments. She stated that the phones were being used for drugs, etc. - 4 - ' - Minutes - P & d Committee , September 20, 1993 Mr. Eric Erickson, the architect for the project, stated that the design had gone through seven studies and had 4 site Plan Review meetings. He stated that traffic, children, litter, etc. were all considered. Ald. Engelman questioned why they went through 4 or 5 plans and decided on the first plan. J. Aiello stated the first plan was the best if the site was to be developed. Ald. Heydemann stated that when discussing a special use the Committee had to decide if the advantages to the community of Evanston outweighed the total number of negatives. She stated that so far she was not satisfied with the analyses that had been done. Ald. Newman stated that the applicant had to meet certain standards and the Committee had to decide whether or not those standards had been met before a recommendation for special use could be granted. He also stated that he wanted all the neighbors on Noyes Street to address this item. Ald. Newman recommended holding this item on the agenda and inviting Dave Jennings, Traffic Engineer, to the October 4 meeting, Ald. Engelman agreed. Ald. Engelman agreed to notify the neighbors. Ald. Kent stated that he had worked with Guy Carpenter in the community and that he is a good person. Ordinance 107-0-93. Renumbering and Makina Changes in Title 4. Chapter 16 re Reaulatina Development in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve. Disbursal of Funds from the Mavor's Special Housing Fund for the Evanston Housina Coalition's HOME Sinqle Familv Rental Proaram. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve. Ordinance 64-0-93. ZBA 93-3-V(R), Variation re 1813-19 Brown Avenue. Ald. Kent stated that the project would be monitored very carefully. He commented to Mr. Chou that one of the neighbors had complained of a tree hanging over her garage and wondered if it could be removed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Staff: J n T. Speyer - 5 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED 9 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee October 4, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: E. Anderson, J. Holsman, D. Jennings, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, and J. Wolinski Others Present: S. Bernstein, G., Carpenter, D. Delman, E. Erickson, G. Salzman and B. Sidenberg Presiding Official: Ald. Kent Chairman Kent announced that Eric Anderson, City Manager had an announcement to make. Mr. Anderson announced that Mr. Gerald Cooper had been appointed as Police Chief. He stated that Mr. Cooper was a thirty year veteran of the Chicago Police Department and an attorney. Mr. Cooper is currently on leave from the police department and is legal counsel for the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Cooper was one of three candidates considered to head the Chicago Police Department when Matt Rodriques was hired as chief of Police. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1993. Ald. Engelman moved to approve the minutes of September 20, 1993, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Ald. Engelman stated that the correct word from the August 20 minutes should be ambience. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as amended. Ald. Newman questioned if the Taco Bell on Sherman went in as a special use, type 1 or type 2. Dave Rasmussen stated that Jim's Charbroil had been in that location and had the status of a special use. He stated that Taco Bell came in before the ordinance was changed and took over the special use. Rasmussen also stated that the special use existed without any conditions. Ald. Newman requested information regarding the establishment of the Burger King Restaurant. - Minutes - P & D Committee October 4, 1993 ., Ordinance 106-0-93, ZBA 93-13-SU(R), Special Use re 223,7-16 Green Bav Road. Chairman Kent gave a brief synopsis of the previous meeting. He stated that the Committee had heard from citizens and that the majority of Noyes Street was not notified of the hearing. Chairman Kent also stated that some of the concerns discussed were seating capacity, additional traffic, litter and loitering, and speeding on Noyes. He also noted Mayor Morton's concern regarding public phones on the outside of the establishment. Chairman Kent indicated that people had signed up to speak concerning this project. Robert Jacobson stated that he was opposed to the project. He stated that maybe the Traffic Engineer could work out the traffic situation, but how does that apply to the community? Does it meet the needs of the people, and is it good for the general welfare of everyone in the area? Jane Jacobson stated that one of her concerns was the traffic study. She stated that there was no monitoring of traffic when schools were in session. She also noted her concerns of safety for children and a hang-out. Janet McCarron stated her concerns were traffic and a possible hang-out. Zita Havward stated traffic and loitering were her concerns. Alma Wood thanked the Committee for the opportunity of allowing neighbors to be heard. She stated that her concerns were odor, traffic on Noyes, loitering and the safety of children. Frank Wheby spoke in support of the restaurant. He stated some of the reasons he and his family moved to Evanston. Mr. Wheby stated that he sees another problem in Evanston and that is unemployment. He stated that commercial development is what we need and this project will bring in more revenue to the City. Mr. Wheby stated that he believes that, like the storage company and walgreen's on Green Say Road, the restaurant will be an asset to Evanston. Jeff spoke in opposition of the restaurant. His concerns were traffic, decreasing property values and loitering. Dick Locke spoke in favor of the restaurant. He stated that he saw no reason to oppose this property. He also stated that he was not concerned with traffic. Mr. Locke stated that he would rather have Guy Carpenter run the project than someone that he does not know. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 4, 1993 An unidentified speaker stated that she agreed with the neighbors. She also stated that Evanston had enough restaurants. Guv Caroenter stated that the traffic impact study indicated that during peak hours traffic would increase 4% in all directions. He compared his project with the restaurants in the area relating to parking. Mr. Delman, attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Erickson, architect, were in attendance and spoke in favor of the project. Ald. Engelman questioned the traffic study. Mr. Salzman, Traffic Engineer, stated that the proposed use did not have a greater impact than the existing permitted use. A traffic study was not done because the City had done one in May 1993. He also stated that the timing for crossing Green Bay Road was more than adequate. Ald. Heydemann asked Dave Jennings, City Traffic Engineer, if anyone had done a study since Walgreen's went in. Jennings stated that a study was done in May 1993. Ald. Engelman asked Mr. Jennings to explain the City's traffic study on Noyes, and to address a stop sign at Asbury and Noyes. He asked if there would be an increase in traffic on Noyes. Mr. Jennings gave a background of the City's street system. He stated that Noyes was a collector street, a street that carries more traffic than other residential streets. A collector street usually carries between 2,000 - 8,000 cars a day. Presently Noyes carries about 3,500 ears daily. The average speed on Noyes is about 28 miles per hour. He also stated that he had requested a speed report from the Police Dept. In reference to a stop sign, based 6n previous reports Noyes does not warrant a stop sign. A four-way stop sign would work if you had equal traffic on all approaches. This intersection has over 90% of the traffic on the main street. If a four-way sign was installed, each car you let out from Asbury, you would stop nine cars on Noyes. Mr. Jennings stated that if this was done, accidents would increase rather than decrease because of rear -end collisions. He stated that the accident experience on Noyes now is very low. Ald. Newman referred the stop sign issue, or other solutions to addressing the speed issue to the A&PW Committee. Ald. Heydemann asked how many blocks are there between stop signs on Noyes, and how many blocks are recommended. Ald. Newman answered there are no stop signs between Ridge and Green Bay. Mr. Jennings stated that stops signs are not for speed control, they are there to regulate the cross traffic. Chairman Kent agreed with Ald. Newman and Engelman in referring the stop sign issue to A&PW. - 3 - Is - Minutes - P & D Committee October 4, 1993 Ald. Newman commented on some of the problems that Burger King had presented downtown. Chairman Kent stated that Burger King's problems had a lot to do with their late hours. Ald. Heydemann asked Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Delman why was this project good for the community? Mr. Delman stated that part of zoning and part of the theory of zoning was the natural redevelopment of an area. He stated that to the north and south of the site there has been a concerted effort to build new types of commercial. He stated that their plans are to build a structure that would be compatible with the other redevelopment in the area. Mr. Delman stated that it would serve the community to have a place like this. He noted that there was no drive-thru restaurant on Green Bay Road; this would be the first. He stated that this is a commercial area and that this project would be able to provide a service and provide jobs in the community. Mr. Delman stated that nothing in any of the traffic studies has indicated a real problem. He stated that there are always potential problems. He stated other uses such as a convenient store or an indoor recreational area could go on this site. Mr. Carpenter stated that most of the neighbors were speaking from their emotions rather than studies. He stated that the City Traffic Engineer had provided traffic light counts, etc. He stated that they were trying to work with the neighbors and the City. Chairman Kent stated that the positives that he sees have been mentioned. He stated that at one time the Green Bay area looked like a dump. He stated that the redevelopment in that area has been great. Chairman Kent stated that the MUE District, on the other side of Ashland, will eventually be developed. Ald. Newman stated that a type 1 restaurant could go there without a special use. Ald. Engelman asked if the Committee voted 3-1 in favor of denying the special use, does it end in Committee or does it go to Council? Szymanski stated that it would have to go to Council. Ald. Kent moved to approve. He stated that he wanted the neighbors on Noyes to feel relatively safe and comfortable. Ald. Newman stated that before this goes to Council he would like to hear what conditions are acceptable to the owner. He asked Chairman Kent if he wanted to propose an 11:00 p.m. closing. Chairman Kent stated no, he would go with 10:00 p.m. Ald. Newman states] that Chairman Kent's motion was with the conditions that are in the ZBA report and closing at 10:00; he seconded the motion. - 5 -- - Minutes - P & D Committee October 4, 1993 An unidentified speaker stated that she agreed with the neighbors. She also stated that Evanston had enough restaurants. Guv Carnenter stated that the traffic impact study indicated that during peak hours traffic would increase 4% in all directions. He compared his project with the restaurants in the area relating to parking. Mr. Delman, attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Erickson, architect, were in attendance and spoke in favor of the project. Ald. Engelman questioned the traffic study. Mr. Salzman, Traffic Engineer, stated that the proposed use did not have a greater impact than the existing permitted use. A traffic study was not done because the City had done one in May 1993. He also stated that the timing for crossing Green Bay Road was more than adequate. Ald. Heydemann asked Dave Jennings, City Traffic Engineer, if anyone had done a study since Walgreen's went in. Jennings stated that a study was done in May 1993. Ald. Engelman asked Mr. Jennings to explain the City's traffic study on Noyes, and to address a stop sign at Asbury and Noyes. He asked if there would be an increase in traffic on Noyes. Mr. Jennings gave a background of the City's street system. He stated that Noyes was a collector street, a street that carries more traffic than other residential streets. A collector street usually carries between 2,000 - 8,000 cars a day. Presently Noyes carries about 3,500 cars daily. The average speed on Noyes is about 28 miles per hour. He also stated that he had requested a speed report from the Police Dept. In reference to a stop sign, based do previous reports Noyes does not warrant a stop sign. A four-way stop sign would work if you had equal traffic on all approaches. This intersection has over 90% of the traffic on the main street, If a four-way sign was installed, each car you let out from Asbury, you would stop nine cars on Noyes. Mr. Jennings stated that if this was done, accidents would increase rather than decrease because of rear -end collisions. He stated that the accident experience on Noyes now is very low. Ald. Newman referred the stop sign issue, or other solutions to addressing the speed issue to the A&PW Committee. Ald. Heydemann asked how many blocks are there between stop signs on Noyes, and how many blocks are recommended. Ald. Newman answered there are no stop signs between Ridge and Green Bay. Mr. Jennings stated that stops signs are not for speed control, they are there to regulate the cross traffic. Chairman Kent agreed with Ald. Newman and Engelman in referring the stop sign issue to A&PW. - 3 - w,, u , r ICI . ili. I ii . 11 Yi, . u i �1�IiN - Minutes P & D Committee October 4, 1993 Ald. Newman spoke briefly regarding the high turn -over of restaurants and commented on the special use terminating if the ownership changes or the land was sold. Steve Bernstein stated that placing restrictions on the owners or anyone who came after was not a good idea. Ald. Engelman commented on the children going to and from school in the morning, crossing Green Bay, and traffic using the cut-off existing from Green Bay. Mr. Jennings stated that he did the traffic count in the morning and afternoon and it was fine. He stated in October, 1992, he did a pedestrian count and found that for the afternoon school peak there were 17 people that cross Green Bay on the north side of Noyes. He stated that one-half were students. Mr. Jennings stated that in May, 1993, he did the vehicle count and he did not see any more students than before. He stated that although he did not see a problem, they added five seconds to the light. Ald. Newman requested a traffic diagram of the accidents at Noyes and Green Bay. Chairman Kent suggested that crossings not marked should have a crossing guard, because the children need safety. The Committee discussed crossing guards. Ald. Engelman commented on an impact fee for the granting of a special use. He stated that the impact fee could help fund the commitment. He asked Ms. Szymanski if that was possible. she stated "yes": The general rule about conditions is that they are acceptable if they promote the purposes of the City's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. She quoted one of the purposes of the zoning ordinance, "to promote the public health, safety and convenience." All of the purposes would be served by a crossing guard used to help children cross a street made busier because of a zoning change. Ald. Newman asked the cost of a crossing guard. Mr. Jennings stated approximately $6,000 a year. Chairman Kent stated that he does not think a seating capacity of 36 is going to contribute to loitering. He stated that it is up to the management and how far they will let it go. He stated that Walgreen's closes at 10:00 p.m. and there is no loitering there, nor was there any behind the storage company because he has worked with the Police and Walgreen's. Art Carnev stated that the cut-off existing at Green Bay is necessary for the school buses that are southbound. He stated the existing signs should be enforced. He volunteered to do a traffic count if needed. - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 4, 1993 Ald. Newman commented on some of the problems that Burger King had presented downtown. Chairman Kent stated that Burger King's problems had a lot to do with their late hours. Ald. Heydemann asked Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Delman why was this project good for the community? Mr. Delman stated that part of zoning and part of the theory of zoning was the natural redevelopment of an area. He stated that to the north and south of the site there has been a concerted effort to build new types of commercial. He stated that their plans are to build a structure that would be compatible with the other redevelopment in the area. Mr. Delman stated that it would serve the community to have a place like this. He noted that there was no drive-thru restaurant on Green Bay Road; this would be the first. He stated that this is a commercial area and that this project would be able to provide a service and provide jobs in the community. Mr. Delman stated that nothing in any of the traffic studies has indicated a real problem. He stated that there are always potential problems. He stated other uses such as a convenient store or an indoor recreational area could go on this site. Mr. Carpenter stated that most of the neighbors were speaking from their emotions rather than studies. He stated that the City Traffic Engineer had provided traffic light counts, etc. He stated that they were trying to work with the neighbors and the City. Chairman Kent stated that the positives that he sees have been mentioned. He stated that at one time the Green Bay area looked like a dump. He stated that the redevelopment in that area has been great. Chairman Kent stated that the MUE District, on the other side of Ashland, will eventually be developed. Ald. Newman stated that a type 1 restaurant could go there without a special use. Ald. Engelman asked if the Committee voted 3-1 in favor of denying the special use, does it end in Committee or does it go to Council? Szymanski stated that it would have to go to Council. Ald. Kent moved to approve. He stated that he wanted the neighbors on Noyes to feel relatively safe and comfortable. Ald. Newman stated that before this goes to Council he would like to hear what conditions are acceptable to the owner. He asked Chairman Kent if he wanted to propose an 11:00 p.m. closing. Chairman Kent stated no, he would go with 10:00 p.m. Ald. Newman stated that Chairman Kent's motion was with the conditions that are in the ZBA report and closing at 10:00; he seconded the motion. - 5 - r - Minutes- P & D Committee October a, 1993 Ald. Engelman opposed the motion. He stated that he would like to hear what conditions are acceptable to Mr. Carpenter and would like to investigate Further the idea of a crossing guard, traffic problems, a stop sign or other ways of regulating speed on Noyes. Ald. Newman asked Ald. Kent if part of his motion was no left turn coming out of the Green Bay exit? Chairman Kent withdrew his motion. He stated that he would not agree to something that he did not know was acceptable to the applicant. He stated that he wanted the applicant to make his own decision and come back to the Committee. Ald. Heydemann stated that if Ald. Kent made his motion with a closing time of 10:00 P.M., and no other conditions, he would have a better chance of seeing what would be necessary to obtain approval. Chairman Kent stated that he felt comfortable withdrawing his motion because he did not want to be put in the position of making decisions for the applicant. He wanted the applicant to make his own decision and come back, and then the Committee could *Hake changes or vote it up or down. Ald. Engelman asked if the applicant would meet with Ald. Kent, representatives of the neighborhood and himself to see if there was an acceptable solution to the problem. Mr. Carpenter agreed. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item in Committee until after the meeting. Other Business Ald. Engelman referred to Ald. Holsman's reference and questioned when would staff have the information ready. Ald. Newman wanted clarification of the reference. Ald. Holsman stated that the quality of housing stock is very important and that it may be diminishing in this community. He stated that there are some communities that have programs to insure and increase the quality of housing. He thought the City should investigate those programs to see if they would be appropriate for Evanston. Ald. Engelman stated that he was familiar with a program, that prior to buying your transfer stamps, the property would be inspected for code violations, etc. He stated that as a lawyer this was not a good idea; it slows down the process because lawyers may not know the program existed prior to closing. He stated however, it does solve a lot of problems. Ald. Holsman stated his understanding of the programs in Oak Park and Park Forest are that they were geared toward rental units in addition to single families. Ald. Holsman stated that it was to isolate code violations. In reference to rental properties when the owners turn over a lease they had to pay a fee for the City to inspect to make sure it was free of code violations. - 6 - - Minutes- P & D Committee October 4, 1993 Ald. Heydemann stated that she would like to consider inspections of property, particular rental, as a public policy to prevent the deterioration of neighborhoods. Ald. Newman commented that the City already had a program for rental units, inspecting them once every three years. He stated that after speaking to the City Manager today, there are some special plans for the 8th Ward. Jim Wolinski, Director of Building & Property Services, stated that he had contacted the three communities and received information from Park Forest. He hoped to receive information from the others soon and will forward a memorandum for the Committee's next meeting. He stated that �n Park Forest when there is a vacant rental unit, or a condo, or a single family is sold, the City inspects the property. If the unit has code violations, the reoccupancy by the new owner/tenant can not take place until the code violations have been corrected. He stated that there was a $50.00 fee to the owner for this inspection. Chairman Kent stated that he has a constituent at 2209 Maple who wants to remove an existing, non -conforming stockade fence, and replace it with a board -on -board fence. He stated that the materials are the same and that the only change was in the design. Chairman Kent stated that according to the present ordinance they would have to pay $240.00 for a minor variation. Ald. Engelman asked why was there a $240.00 fee for a minor variation? Mr. Rasmussen stated that in the new Zoning Ordinance the fence fee schedule was not changed. It was the consensus of the Committee to' direct staff to review the fence fee schedule and bring it back to the Committee at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Staff• Jean T. Speyer DRAFT. NOT APPROVED - 7 - F MRq V TES Planning & Development Committee October 18, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Holsman, D. Jennings, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, and J. Wolinski Others Present: G. Carpenter, D. Delman, E. Erickson and B. Sidenberg Presiding Official: Ald. Kent MMIES OF OCTQBER 4-1993- Ald. Engelman moved to approve the minutes of October 4, 1993, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. Establishment of Buraer Kina Restaurant, 17 0 Orrin ton Avenue. Ald. Newman questioned the sign that states that food can not be bagged because of the Evanston ordinance. Ald. Engelman stated that Burger King applied for a special use and withdrew their application and that was why they were not allowed to bag. J. Aiello stated that the reason Burger King withdrew their application because P & D was going to recommend limiting the hours of operation. Ald. Newman directed staff to request that Burger King remove the signs. Letter from Mr. R. M. Buren re Statement Concerning Pronosed ghAnaes at Noves and Green Bav Road. Chairman Kent acknowledge receipt of Mr. Buren's letter supporting the 2212-16 Green Bay special use. Fee Schedule re Fence variation Ald. Engelman asked Mr. Rasmussen if we could have one alternative that combined the two outlined in the memo. Mr. Rasmussen stated that we could and stated the reasons for the alternatives. Ald. Engelman moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance 78-0-90, amending the fees, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve as amended. - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 Homeless Shelter Extension Ald. Engelman moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Ald. Newman requested that notices of the public hearing go to the following buildings: 425 Grove Street, 525 Grove Street, 531 Grove Street, 1500 Hinman, 1501 Hinman and 1508 Hinman. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the date of the public hearing for November 1, 1993. Plat of Subdivision re 20Q1-2013 Maple AvenuM. Ald. Engelman removed himself from voting because he has a client involved in litigation with the applicant. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee approved: 3 ayes and one abstention. e e ence to plan Commission re Public Notice for Zoning Issues. Ald. Engelman moved to recommend to City Council that a reference be made to the Plan Commission to investigate the context of the notice provisions. Ald. Newman stated that he would like the Plan Commission to consider amendment of the zoning ordinance to provide for mail notification within 500 ft. for special uses, variations, planned unit developments and amendments. Staff indicated that the minutes of P & D would be forward to the Plan Commission. 0rdinance 106-0-93,__ZBA 93-13-SU(R). necial Use re 2212-16 Green Bav Road. Ald. Engelman stated that at the conclusion of the last P & D meeting he had a discussion with Ald. Kent about meeting with the residents who lived along Noyes Street, the applicant, and the residents of the Fifth Ward (near the property) to try to find a compromise. He stated that one of the residents had indicated that they had spoken with a number of other residents and that the majority of the residents on Noyes Street did not want the project. They felt that since they did not want the project that the application not be changed and, therefore, they felt that the meeting at this time would not be productive. Ald. Heydemann stated that she regretted the neighbors' position since the owner of the property was willing to negotiate and consider conditions. She stated that she would be willing to vote for a restaurant without a drive-thru facility. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Rasmussen if the drive-thru was taken out, would it still be a type 2 restaurant? Mr. Rasmussen stated that there were two actions before the Committee. He stated that the drive-thru facility was a special use, and the type 2 restaurant was also a special use. Chairman Kent stated that he would like Mr. Carpenter to comment about the drive-thru. He didn't think the subject came up in the first discussion whether it was possible to have the restaurant without the drive-thru. Mr. Carpenter stated that he would like to have the drive-thru. He stated that he planned to close the dining room at 7:00 p.m. and the drive-thru around 9:00 p.m. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 Ald. Engelman stated that he was also disappointed that the majority of the resident on Noyes street felt it was not appropriate to try to discuss their concerns. He stated that in looking at development of any parcel at any location you had to balance the positive effects of development and the potential neighborhood impact. He stated that the residents on Noyes Street had legitimate concerns. He stated that loitering and late night noise could be positively addressed by closing the dining facility at 7:00 p.m. and the drive-thru at 9:00 p.m. Ald. Engelman stated that the concerns of traffic safety crossing the street in the morning hours had not been addressed. Ald. Newman stated that he wanted a condition on the project. He stated that the drive-thru was going to make a tough corner worse. The left -hand -turn situation has to be dealt with, and the hours should not be later than 9:00 p.m. Ald. Newman stated that he would move to amend whatever goes to Council along with Mr. Carpenter's changes. Mr. Robert Jacobson, a neighbor, stated that they were not interesting in going to a meeting to negotiate how the restaurant would run because they do not want a restaurant on the site. He stated that the neighbors had sat through two meetings and stated they did not want a restaurant. Mr. Jacobson stated that they came back to tonight's meeting and they were told "they did not want to talk" when the situation for talking was how they were going to make this restaurant work. He stated that they do not want this restaurant to work. They do want to deal with litter, noise and people up and down the alley. Chairman Kent stated that at the Committee's meeting everyone had an opportunity to speak and voice their opinions. Chairman Kent further stated that every aldermen had agreed with the neighbors to some extent, whether it was related to noise, traffic, loitering, garbage, etc. He stated that the Committee had to consider both sides and make a decision. Mr. Jacobson stated that what he was hearing was that because they did not want to negotiate it was being interpreted as a negative statement on their part. Ald. Heydemann stated that specific conditions which would caused grief to the neighborhood could be addressed with specific -` language. She stated that if there was no way any type of �R restaurant could be agreeable to the neighborhood no matter what M� the language was; then that was a clear position and the Committee_' understood it. Ald. Heydemann stated that the needs of the property owner and the right to be able to change the use of the r-*- was important. She stated each of the specific concerns property P p _. - 3 - i . 11 li6, ■I I I l it - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 that she heard and Mr. Carpenter responded as to what he felt he could address. Ald. Heydemann stated that one of her reasons for opposing a drive-thru was of her fear that Mr. Carpenter might not continue to operate the restaurant and would sell to a fast food chain. She stated that she would not be able to support the drive- thru, but she would support the other conditions. Ald. Engelman stated that he appreciated the statements by the Noyes Street neighbors that under no circumstances did they want a restaurant at that location. He stated that the message was made very plain by the fact that a majority of the people on the blocks did not want to discuss it further. Ald. Newman clarified that what was being requested was a type 2 restaurant and what a private landowner could do with his property. He stated that this was not a permitted use. The reasons we had zoning and the options to place conditions on special uses were to address potential impact of a project. Ald. Heydemann stated that she did not realize at the end of the last meeting that the neighbors' were not in favor of a restaurant under any circumstances. Ald. Heydemann stated she heard specific objections, noise, litter, people congregating late at night and creating a nuisance. However, it was her understanding that if those specific objections could be addressed then the project could proceed. She stated that she could not vote for a drive-thru restaurant, but could support a type 2 restaurant with the limitation of the hours and policing of litter. Ald. Kent spoke regarding the litter and loitering. He stated that the litter had to be policed. It was not just the responsibility of the store owners but also the responsibility of the neighborhood. Ald. Engelman questioned D. Jennings, City Traffic Engineer, regarding the traffic study. Mr. Jennings stated that his office had done two pedestrian count. He stated that during the morning peak hours they counted 21 crossing on the north cross -walk (Green Bay, north side of Noyes). Mr. Jennings discussed the collision diagram. Ald. Newman asked the neighbors if there were conditions, other than hours of operations, parking , traffic, etc. that they would like placed on the project assuming it was approved. Ald. Newman stated that he would be voting against the special use. Ald. Engelman stated that he would not support this project unless all of his concerns were met. - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 Zela Haywood questioned if the proposed conditions would be binding on future owners. Ald. Engelman answered yes. Chairman Kent clarified for the audience that what Ald. Newman was saying was that when this gets to Council it might pass. He stated that they have discussed conditions such as litter, loitering, traffic, safety, and he asked if there was anything else they wanted to address. One of the neighbors stated that all of their concerns had been heard. Alma Woods of 1437 Noyes Street, questioned the process to determine the rights and privileges of those representing households. Chairman Kent stated citizen could comment through letters, speak during citizen comment at City Council, etc. Ald. Engelman stated that if this item leaves the P & D Committee with no recommendation or with a favorable recommendation, it would be introduced on Council floor October 25, 1993, and brought to a vote on November 8, 1993. Ald. Newman explained to the neighbors that at the Council all nine aldermen would be present. He stated that any aldermen could move to amend the ordinance, add or remove conditions. Mr. Carpenter stated that he was a life long resident of Evanston. He stated that he would be willing to hire a crossing guard, reduce the hours and seating. He stated that this project would create jobs and revenue for the City. He also referred to the traffic count and the recommendation of ZBA. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Carpenter how many employees were currently working at the Muffler Shop and how many would be employed at the restaurant. Mr. Carpenter stated 5 (4 full time and 1 part-time) are employed at the Muffler Shop and between 15 and 40 (full and part-time) would be employed at the restaurant. Ald. Newman asked staff if the drive-thru was eliminated, would that change the site plan in such a way that the project would have to be redone. Mr. Rasmussen stated that it would require some redesign. Ald. Newman stated that if a motion to eliminate the drive-thru was granted, would a redesign be returned to P & D. J. Aiello stated that it would be similar to what was done for the Buck Company where the planned development was approved for 221 ft. even though the design showed 250 ft. or 295 ft. She stated in this case the building permit application would have to reflect what had been approved by Council and would be strictly administrative when it came to Mr. Wolinski for review for the building permit. - 5 - - Minutes P & D Committee October 18, 1993 Ald. Heydemann asked Mr. Carpenter if he wanted a motion for a restaurant without a drive-thru? Mr. Carpenter responded that he wanted the items voted on separately. Mr. Rasmussen stated that what the Committee had before them were two special uses: the drive-thru facility and the type two restaurant. He stated that the Committee would have to grant or deny the drive-thru facility or- recommend granting or denying the type two restaurant. Ald. Heydemann asked if the drive-thru could be passed to council without a recommendation? Mr. Rasmussen stated yes. Ald. Heydemann moved to recommend a type 2 restaurant. The motion failed for a -lack of a second. Ald. Engelman asked, what would be the maximum number of employees working at one time and whether or not they would be parking on site? Mr. Carpenter stated seven or eight, and they would be parking off -site on Ashland Avenue. Ald. Engelman wanted E. Szymanski to clarify if the chair could make a motion. Ms. Szymanski stated that there was no statue which says the chair can not, and she could not find it in City Council or Planning and Development Rules. She stated that the chair could either make a motion or second a motion. She stated it seemed to her that they had to do what is practical to keep the Committee running. She stated that Robert's Rules of Order provides a strict rule when it was speaking about how things should be done in an ideal situation. Ald. Newman moved to approve the type 2 and drive-thru without recommendations and attached conditions from the ZBA report. Ald. Newman made the following amendments: (1) No public phones on the outside, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. (2) The hours of operation in the dining room be 7.00 p.m. and the drive- thru 9:00 p.m., seconded by Ald. Engelman. the Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. (3) If there was a drive-thru, there would be no left turn onto Green Bay Road, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. (4) That the owner would monitor and direct employees during their working hours not to park in the residential neighborhoods that were adjacent to the type 2 restaurant, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve this motion. J. Aiello asked are these conditions in addition to what was in the ZBA report? Ald. Newman stated yes. Ald. Engelman asked if the ZBA report addressed a litter plan. J. Aiello stated yes: it reads "the operator of a type 2 restaurant shall arrange for the collection of litter of all types within a 250 ft. radius of the subject's property, a minimum of three times daily every day the subject restaurant is open, with said collections occurring in the morning, afternoon and prior to closing." Ald. Engelman asked if that 250 ft. extended east on Noyes at least to the rear alley by r- 6 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 the golf course or the second house east. J. Aiello stated that staff would check. If it is not the --ase, then when the ordinance is done, change the distance to extend across Green Bay Road to the east to include the alley behind the second house. Ald. Engelman added an addition to the special use that the owner of the facility be required to contribute the sum of $4,000 annually, if the City provided a crossing guard, seconded by Aid. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the addition. Ald. Newman stated that he planned to vote against this item at City Council. He stated that he put the conditions in because he felt they were necessary to get whatever protection that was possible to the neighbors if there was a positive vote to allow the special use. He stated that his voting against this item does not mean that he is not in favor of economic development. What it did mean was that fast food restaurants might be operated by five different restaurant owners down the line, in addition to this one. He stated that fast food restaurants had a tendency to become rundown, generate litter, become poorly managed, and become hang- outs. He also stated that he thought it diminished property values. Chairman Kent stated that Ordinance 106-0-93, special use for 2212- 16 Green Bay Road was moved without recommendation as amended to City Council. The Committee voted 4--0 to move to Council. Ms. Wood, a Noyes Street neighbor, spoke regarding employees parking on Ashland Avenue. Mr. T Erickson stated that a solution for the alley would be to petitijn the golf course to remove the parking spaces from the golf course. Reference from Ald. Holsman to Investigate Housinq Ouality Proqrams i,p Oak Park. Park Forest. and Mattson. Ald. Holsman joined the Committee and stated that he appreciated the staff memo. The memo stated that Evanston currently did not license apartments, nor did we conduct reoccupancy inspections due to the large amount of turn -over. Ald. Holsman wanted to know why was it so impossible and how many actually turn --over on a yearly basis. J. Wolinski, Director of Building & Property Standard, stated that it was probably in the hundreds or thousands in May and October. He stated that it was not impossible, but additional inspectors would have to he added on a periodic basis (May and October). Ald. Holsman asked if he felt the other communities had such a high turn -over rate. Mr. wolinski stated that Oak Park was always compared to Evanston and were somewhat similar regarding the number of rental units and rental buildings. He stated that Oak Park did not conduct a reoccupancy inspection because of the - 7 - ILIY � YI i i �i - Minutes- P & D Committee October 18, 1993 numbers. In talking to the directors of the housing of Mattson and Park Forest, they did conduct reoccupancy inspections. Mr. Wolinski stated that Oak Park inspects the common area of every building every year and target certain apartments in every building. He stated that Evanston does basically the same thing only we are not going in every building every year. We went in to one building in a four-year cycle and inspected the whole building; we also revisited the same building in three years (CDBG) and five years (multi -family). Ald. Heydemann asked would it change the cost if only a portion of each building was done each year. fir. Wolinski stated that it would slow the procedure down. Ald. Newman asked if the housing fees was to recoup our cost of inspecting. Mr. Wolinski stated yes. Ald. Heydemann asked what would be the disadvantage of charging a licensing fee of apartment owners to pay for added expenses. Mr. Wolinski asked was it for raising revenue or to fund inspections. Ald. Heydemann answered to raise property standards. Mr. Wolinski stated the City would have to inspect the building as well as charge a fee. Ald. Heydemann stated the fee would be to pay for the inspection. The goal was to accomplish the inspection; the fee was part of the means. Ald. Newman stated property owners. H a fee of $10 to $20 Ald. Newman thought to Ald. Heydemann's that have to be an Mr. Wolinski stated you would do an i a disadvantage that he thought would be the stated if they owned a 100 unit building and was charge, that was another cost of operating. the property owners would object. He referred comment regarding inspection for a fee; would annual inspection or on a 3 to 4 year cycle. that if you are charging an annual. Pee, usually .nnual inspection. The Committee discussed inspecting the common areas. Ald. Holsman stated some tenants do not complain because they are afraid of being kicked -out. Ald. Newman stated that he would like staff to take some of the ideas that had been discussed without penalizing the owners that are doing a good job, and get to the problem areas on a more regular basis. Chairman Kent agreed with Ald. Newman. Ald. Heydemann asked how many complaints were received regarding over occupancy or low standards? Mr. Wolinski stated that 20-25 were received a year. Ald. Engelman stated that he gets a lot of complaints from landlords that tenants brought in more people. Mr. Wolinski stated that when complaints are received, inspectors check to see if the square footage has been met; if not then it become a zoning matter. - 8 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 18, 1993 He stated that the Landlord -Tenant Ordinance was there to protect the tenants as well as the landlords. Jim Matykiewicz, President of Property Owners Associations, stated that the landlord does not like tenants moving in other people. He asked could the City impose a fine on the tenants for over occupancy? Ms. Szymanski stated she thought the City could cite the people contributing to over crowding. Ald. Newman stated that he would like to see greater inspection cycles and directed staff to return with a system to address the problem areas. Ald. Newman referred to the Housing Commission and the CD Committee whether or not we had an adequate number of inspectors to meet our needs. Ald. Heydemann asked if we needed more staff what would it cost. Ald. Holsman stated that our goal was to increase the quality of the housing stock and not penalize the good landlords. He stated there were other property maintenance problems. Sheridan Road. Ald. Engelman referred to the Preservation Commission minutes that there was work done at 1225 Sheridan Road without permits. He asked for a report on this project. Ms. Szymanski stated that this case was in court. Ald. Newman request a report on the court case. ADJOUR ENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Staff can T. DRAFT. NOT APPROVED - iL - 16 MEWTES Planning & Development Committee November 1, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: G. Feldman, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, and J. Wolinski Others Present: R. Heiberger, C. Moschandreas, B. Sidenberg and T. Stafford Presiding Official: Ald. Kent Homeless She a Extension re Public Hearing. Chairman Kent announced that we would begin with the public hearing regarding the extension of the Homeless Shelter. Bob Hiei2eraer of 1732 orrington read from a prepared speech (attached). Scott Althaus. of 531 Grove Street stated that he lives in one of Mr. Hieberger's building. He stated that he has had to step over homeless people or use the back entrance, but he thought the Shelter was doing a good job in the community. He stated that, the program doesn't just house people, but tries to get them to be more productive. Rgby Elsea of 919 Washington spoke in favor of the Shelter. He stated that he works at the shelter and had seen the people that the program had helped. He stated that the program was designed to take people in who really wanted to make a change in their lives. People come to the Shelter and are given two weeks to find a job or prove to the Shelter that they are actively seeking employment. He stated that he was not aware of programs available in other cities that has this type of intensive work. He stated that the Shelter connected the people with social workers, doctors, provided food and a healthy diet. The Center for Public Ministry was there to help people change their lives. Robert Hoover of 530 Michigan Avenue, stated that he recently moved to Evanston, and works as a volunteer at the shelter. He stated that the P & D Committee should consider the good that the Shelter was doing when making their decision. - Minutes P & D Committee November 1, 1993 Andrea Hoffman of 714 Main Street, a social worker intern at the shelter, read from a prepared speech (attached). Lida Scott of 1400 Chicago Avenue, lives and runs a business near the shelter. She stated that the shelter was very well regulated. Ms. Scott stated that this community has a renowned spirit of compassion and generosity. Ms. Scott asked the Committee to consider what if anything would change if the shelter was closed, would conditions improve or worsen. She stated that the humane consideration had to take precedent over economic factors. Carol Moschandreas of the Center for Public Ministry, stated that she was asking for renewal of the special use exemption. She stated that they were concerned about the neighbors and the neighborhood, and they are willing to meet and work with the neighbors. Ms. Moschandreas stated that homelessness was here before the shelter existed; there were people sleeping in doorways and in churches. She stated that the people who were sleeping in doorways did not want to come into the shelter because of the Shelter's structure. She stated that because the shelter was here, Evanston can keep its homeless people in our own community and help them to restore themselves. Ald. Heydemann commented on an article in The Tribune, regarding a program on Channel 11, Tjie Hotel of Hone, which would appear Thursday. Ald. Engelman moved to recommend to Council to extend the exemption from special use requirements of the zoning ordinance for an additional one year period, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Ald. Newman stated that this was the toughest vote that he had on the Council, because many of his constituents in the First Ward were not as supportive of the shelter as he might be. He stated that it was good that the City was providing services, but he wished the Council had a greater commitment to deal with the concerns of people who live in the neighborhood. Ald. Newman stated that he thought people had a right to live in our City and not be subjected to certain types of problems. He also stated that he was concerned about the large centralization of the soup kitchens and the shelter in the downtown area. He stated that he supports the shelter balancing the overall concerns because he saw it as a wonderful community effort by people who were dedicated to dealing with a tremendous problem. Ald. Newman stated that he was voting for the renewal because he wants to be supportive of that effort. Ald. Newman stated that he would like to see some of the soup kitchens on Central and Howard Streets. -z- - Minutes - P & D Committee November 1, 1993 Ald. Engelman applauded Ald. Newman's courage in taking the position that he did in light of the concerns of many people in his Ward. He stated that the synagogues, churches, and social service agencies of this community did a lot of outreach regarding soup kitchens, the homeless and many other disadvantaged people. He stated that there is not always a legislative solution to every social problem. Ald. Engelman stated that we do not want to outlaw a person's right to speak and to say "I am hungry, can you spare some change?" Nor does he think we should pass a law that penalizes a person because of their station in life; being homeless or without funds. He stated that certainly no one likes to step over people sleeping in vestibules, but that the problem could not be traced to the shelter. He stated that the testimony showed that this facility tried to help people get back on their feet, help them find a productive means to go on with their lives. He supported the Shelter and thought that the entire community should support, the excellent work that the Center for Public Ministry was doing. Chairman Kent referred to Mr. Matykiewicz's letter and stated, that he understood Mr. Matykiewicz's frustration, but he did not find his choice of words to be acceptable.. J. Aiello stated that she received a call from Erna Thompson, who could not be present, stating that she was opposed to the renewal. Ald. Newman agreed with Chairman Kent that he did not like some of the phrases in the letter, but he feels that if someone calls the police and wants to follow through on a trespassing complaint he would support that. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a one year extension. MEUIES OF O TOBER 18. 19a Ald. Heydemann moved to approve seconded by Ald. Engelman. The the minutes as submitted. the minutes of October 18, 1993, Committee voted 4-0 to approve Ordinance 124-0-93. ZBA 93-16-V a). Variation re 601 Linden Place. Ald. Engelman moved to recommend to City Council to concur with the ZBA recommendations to grant the variation to permit conversion of the existing building into a 63 unit multiple - family dwelling, aisle and modular width, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Ald. Newman moved to strike the condition "the public alley immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property shall be paved and drained in accordance with City standards," seconded - 3 - �IY II 1V 1� .16 I I Ili J - Minutes - P & D Committee November 1, 1993 by Ald. Engelman. Ald. Newman stated that he felt it was an anti -economic development posture for the City to insist that this alley be paved. He stated it makes no sense to place this condition on the developer when they are bringing such an important investment to the community. He stated that the City was considering a program where they will pick-up potentially 30- 50% of the cost of paving the alleys. Why was this applicant being asked to do something that other people already living here did not have to do? Ald. Newman stated that if this developer wanted to pave the alley he could do so. He stated that he Felt that this was terrible public policy because he wanted this developer to feel that he was welcome in Evanston. Ald. Heydemann stated it was a wonderful development and that she was voting for what the ZBA recommended. She stated that the only mention of paving the alley was on page 45 of the transcript. She stated that the condition was there when the recommendation went before the ZBA. Steven Bernstein, attorney for the applicant, stated that historically ZBA had not become involved in things of this nature. He stated that at the Site Plan Review meetings, the developer had objected to the paving of this alley as a condition. The code was silent as regard to anyone being compelled to pave an alley in exchange for a variation. Mr. Bernstein stated that no one on staff had ever told them that the alley was not in a position to accommodate their needs. He stated that his client was taking a risk. What was the City doing to say that they wanted the development? He stated in reference to the a pro forma that they do not know what the projections were going to be. Ald. Engelman stated that he also wanted the project here; because he thought it was a great development for the community and the neighbcrhood. He stated that what he did not want was to have something sprung on him at the last minute. He stated that one of the conditions on their variation application was the paving of the alley. it was not a condition that ZBA came up with; it was there to begin with. He stated that he never received a call saying that they did not want to pave the alley. Ald. Engelman stated that to do this at the last minute and to not prepare them, has nothing to do with whether or not they want this project here or not. Ald. Engelman stated that no member is opposed to economic development; but they like it measured and with all due deliberation. He stated he had no problem discussing whether or not this alley should be paved, who should pave it, or whether or -not the City should provide some economic incentives to this project. He stated that he would not do it in a vacuum, and he would not do it just because he was asked. Ald. - 4 - . i I ILII 1.L Lu - Minutes P & D Committee November 1, 1993 Engelman asked J. Aiello why was the City suggesting that the alley be paved? J. Aiello stated that at the Site Plan Review meeting they spent a lot of time talking about the paving and the vacation. It was the feeling of the Site Plan Review Committee that the benefit of having that alley paved was going to benefit the developer of the property because it would make their units much more desirable to have the vacation and have the alley paved. Ald. Engelman asked what was it about this development, in this alley, that makes it necessary for the alley to be paved. Ms. Aiello stated that there were 31 space, that are included, and therefore, the condition of the existing alley needed to be improved. Eric Anderson, City Manager, stated that the alley was the only access to the parking for this project which was an underground parking garage. Ald. Feldman stated that six or eight months ago he met with Mr. Rittenberg who described the development to him. Ald. Feldman stated that he told Mr. Rittenberg that we would do whatever we could to support it and to help him go through the kinds of permits and forms that one has to fill out. He stated he never expected conditions to be placed on the variance, which had nothing to do with the development. He stated that what seemed clear to him was that the public benefit that came from this proposal did not come a paving of an alley, and did not come from charging someone a lot of money for certain considerations that were given. Ald. Feldman stated that the request for the pro forma, as expressed in the Administration and Public Works Committee was very clear, and he did not object to that. He stated that we were not giving them anything when it comes to the alley. He stated that developer objected to the paving from the beginning; it is in the Site Plan Review records. Ald. Feldman stated that it was clear to him that the public benefit was greatly served by the development itself. He stated that it was not a policy of the City to try and get what we can possibly get. He stated that he was interested in eliminating that policy which brought the Committee to this kind of discussion. Ald. Heydemann stated that every time someone comes to P & D for zoning relief of some kind they try to establish a benefit to the City in return for that zoning relief. She asked how much did Evanston Hospital pay for the bridge? Ald. Engelman answered that they paid $20,000 plus per year, plus a covenant never to apply for tax exemption status to all property they acquire south of Central Street (for that one building alone was several hundred thousand dollars). She stated that was a condition that was attached to zoning. She stated a more recent case of a drive-thru restaurant and Ald. Engelman suggested a payment of - 5 - - Minutes P & D Committee November 1, 1993 $4,000 a year for a crossing guard. Ald. Heydemann stated that for a restaurant downtown, Ald. Newman suggested something added so that employee parking would be regulated. She stated that conditions could be attached from zoning. She stated that it was appropriate for the staff to take a position to benefit the City. Ald. Heydemann stated that it was appropriate for a developer to come in with one set of desires for negotiations to take place. Ald. Newman stated that the City does not want staff, with developers who have choices and places to go, taking the most extreme positions. He stated that he wanted staff to cooperate to get the project done. Ald. Engelman stated that he was sympathetic with the idea that was being expressed by the developer with regard to the paving of the alley , i.e. non -necessity, non public purpose for paving the alley. He asked if it was the developer's desire that this condition be taken off the zoning relief, and, at the same time for the City to consider the developer's request that the vacation of the alley be for a nominal sum of money? Mr. Rittenberg stated yes that this was a package deal. Ald. Engelman stated that when the City sells land for less than market value, we need to see what economics are driving this decision and especially where we are going to make a profit out of what was done. He stated that he was not concerned with what staff did, but he was concerned with the question of whether or not this should be a condition for the zoning relief in light of the impact, the relief that you are seeking has upon the community. Ald. Newman stated that what he sees the Committee doing was a double standard. He stated that the taxes are going to grow to $250,000 a year and that was plenty of benefit for him. Ald. Heydemann asked Mr. Anderson and the developer if their negotiation was finished. Mr. Anderson stated that they had not come to a final conclusion and that, there were a number of options that they were considering. She stated that her position at this time was made more difficult by the fact that there was not a consensus opinion among members of City Council about how to get to agreement. She stated that she really wanted them to come and she wanted the City to protect the best interest of all its citizens. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Rittenberg and Mr. Fitzsimmon met for a brief meeting. - 6 - - Minutes P & D Committee November 1, 1993 Ms. Leuber, owner of the property stated that she was not a resident of Evanston and has been paying taxes for ten years. She stated that the paving issue has been around for six months. Ald. Newman stated that he think that Ald. Engelman was missing the issue. He stated that the issue to him was not whether or not this developer could justify whether or not he has the money to pave the alley. The important issue was the requirements that were placed on the developers. He stated that he does not want the staff putting hoops, blockades in front of developers unless what we were asking them to do what was asked of other property owners. Ald. Heydemann recommended we removed condition 14 from the ZBA recommendations. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. The Committee voted 4-0 on the main question. plat of Consolidation re 2410-12 Wade Street. Ald. Engelman moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the plat of consolidation. ,Flat of Consolidation re 2201 Oakton Street. Ald. Engelman moved to approve, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the plat of consolidation. Zonina Board of Apoeals Applications for Hearings. Ald. Newman stated that he would like to have this item on the next agenda. He would like to have the time table done on the 601 Linden project. Ald. Heydemann also requested that the personnel involve at various steps be included. Fee Schedule re Fence Variations. The Committee received. Chairmanshio Schedule The Committee received without comment. ZBA 93-14-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 2111 Orrinaton. The Committee received without comment. Item Previously Considered Ald. Engelman stated that directions from the Committee as to whether they wanted to continue this heading on the agenda. He moved that we no longer have Item Previously Considered on the agenda unless it was something that is coming back to the Committee for a reason, seconded by Ald. Newman. The Committee voted 4-0 to removed this heading from the agenda. - 7 -- - Minutes - P & D Committee November 1, 1993 Plat of Subd v's on re 2001 Maple Avenue Ald. Newman questioned Mr. Wolinski regarding the empty lot on Maple and Foster (northeast corner). Mr. Wolinski stated that this lot was up for a subdivision. He stated that the plan was to sell these properties. He stated that there were no current violations. Ald. Newman inquired about the two building on Foster. Mr. Wolinski stated that both properties were being repaired and were up for sale. Chairman Kent asked what were the plans after the subdivision? Mr. Rasmussen stated that if bought, it could be developed as five unit townhouses, as of right. Ald. Newman thanked staff for the follow-up and stated that this property owner had caused a lot of problems in the neighborhood. 1225 Sheridan Road The Committee voted 4-0 to convened into Executive closed session. The Committee adjourned into executive session at 9:50 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:05 F.M. Staff: DRAFT. NOT APPROVED - 8 - i, rltl NI S PREIENTEQ TO THE 00ANNING $ 0jQnl:0wN1 WOMMI UEE OF THE f' i TY OF E VANSTON NOYMBOR 1. i a4.5 _RaEfR T F IMBERGER -_ -_ -_ _. _ Ei, E WHIM E J: AYE'D . P 7 0 TIsEIA 117 ,a Z ATE -_ . HELEAVE, TEND TO RE[ AlN rj iS 7"E ✓ IM E' NA -_ w 70 S WPE `o; 0 _ 1 %65 A VET AL . LL!_. &EXLE t'rAEAr ,NG A TO UUc 1. j ` h; T? - _ __ LEN W % ,.4n `" % ENS ►i.1N _ {• ,ir. _ ;`� ti_i drr; I•?i-"I - i.�•Ir-_ �...,'il�rl� .fir;.._. _l i � •I .. _ '_ ..' _i 7i�• - - - EEDIi• G APEA5 .+i�Ll _L_I r�lli• 6 _ ',. ., 17EO LE 0- --I '..; _�-�� •1h r 1t /-IJ ''iI� 1••',,D Tr Yw LSD r!, ESE 4}'_JPEW _ -L_ JG',YrJ T~[ ARMr 'T kL �j i ''t. - -- - J J WALITY OF 74 BUILDING I HAv, Two VOLE -EMALE TENANTS ;4'10 APE 4 _ _' ' . SE yr= 15ACS S T A PS 7 7 - - - u , u u u din Illlh mi N k . u 1 u. 1 JI +VII W1 u i Idiil� IIV1 JI Iu'1�;Iihi��h4 e iS. A, aU 741_ a IS WIT 1 THE t_.:Ct—:5 TI'{t !,: i AID r'LtjE OF +ji"lOWNi 1 LE +tL .! T r: , 5EMOUSLY COMIDS ALOC AT AP,, T M REDPHE1,47 GNLY A Stye, T L, S T 0 `E �05 .;AWA',i AM45 f gip. V q,a Tw jC PEOPLE It,- 7EJ ,';j V ajE O;EA -yE DHMEZ_A— TH!i .. -- _EE - . - - _ 0 _,..__ i'. i - -� `,iAL OR T It..I_ SLEEP �1 +� THE THE T :SLY f`'.(JFtE :.'1�CLr ,.,�` .�I- - wL rJNz, APE Dp4wtj rU TN!;, `a{.,:i l I Y IT I5I 1Y UNDERL,-T ANLING THAT ANY PARTY REQtjE$TINt; THE RIGHT TG A NEW EUSINE75 V: TACILITY IN ANY LVaH,iSTG11 Lf)CATIC,N r-!1jST G:vE -,!44 E5 -1H T HEA AQL;TY 70 CO OL TmEiR CLILNTA? ANC, QDEPATHDtl ',it)7 Lt4 AL; 55E EFFECT C11 THE 50rU= ^--- -NCE- 71-11,3 ; ^'L -i T e .HAS -+-.,') A %t -r+— 'It Arm_ "E - 09 ExTK504 AND T6 I=,L�-IAIN OPP-4 C- i -'Thc7S g rn7� S ;+t'f _ -may ,ti,�51� f5 v-e-e-k cLj- `(ti.a -svic li-€-+' - - � _ �.., o�.rl - - C � Z. �--� �•L-�, ci.� �.,�_�"t, �sv _ �-..4..I cam. � m c+...�1P t.�-�.-t- -- A,Y a- IJ I ;Ln klpl�, Io •�� �-¢.+-� r+-v�M U•, �'k-c� S 4�¢.Q�-�'-tom w h..� ~ AID 1 1.trt7m :in cl r a:t ca-CA , J Scr� a-c.-e r�cv v, �, a.►� ,�-o� �� A- L .�1 -- - L7tj'- � � a.•�� I�a,�-e � �'�--`-'�'�e�.P--ram- �� .'�"'- �-ec� cx--•� � - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning &. Development Committee November 15, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: A. Heydemann, J. Kent and A. Newman Ald. Absent: S. Engelman Staff Present: J. Holsman, D. Rasmussen, J. Speyer, E. Szymanski, and Jim Wolinski Others Present: Scott Cleave, Frank Hoover and Bob Sidenberg Presiding Official: Ald. Newman MINUTES OFNOV-EMBER 1. 1993. Ald. Kent moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 1993, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. Chairman Newman stated that he had concerns about the minutes regarding the 601 Linden discussion, which started on page 3. He stated that he asked several questions pertaining to what the Buck company would be paying for in terms of sidewalks, street paving, etc. He stated that the responses given by the City Manager and Assistant City Manager were that the Buck Company was going to be paying for these street improvements, and that does not appear in the minutes. Chairman Newman requested that the minutes be held for approval and the tape reviewed so that the discussion comparing the Buck Project with 601 Linden could be included. The Committee voted 3--0 to hold the minutes over. TICLE RE HOMELESS Ald. Heydemann stated that the High School had made a tape, and, if needed, it was available. Ald. Kent stated that he had previously mentioned a program that Chicago called the Abandoned House Prevention Program. He questioned if we had any information about what they were doing? He stated that he felt it would be helpful if something like that could be established in Evanston. Jim Wolinski stated that he would follow-up on this and report back. - Minutes - P & D Committee November 15, 1993 ZBA_93-15-A(F). FINAL DECISION ON APREAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION RE 2764 PRAIRIE AVENUE. Ald. Newman questioned the reference that staff wanted the Committee to consider. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the language for the proposed reference was contained on page 2 of the ZBA report. Ald. Heydemann moved to make the reference to the Plan Commission, seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 3-0 to make the reference. ZQNING BO D OF APPEALS APPLICATIONS FOR HEARINGS ' EART GS. Chairman Newman was concerned about the situation at 601 Linden Place. It seemed that there were four steps in getting through the zoning process. Chairman Newman stated that you have to get your zoning analyses in, Site Plan Review, ZBA meeting and then City Council. He questioned if it was possible after the zoning analyses was approved (particularly in this case), that there was a delay in waiting for the Site Plan Committee to come -up with some type of plan for approval. Chairman Newman asked if it was the policy of the City not to schedule ZBA hearings until the Site Plan Review Committee completes its analyses of the application? Mr. Rasmussen stated that usually the zoning analyses will not be released until after Site Plan Review Committee's deliberation. Chairman Newman asked if the ZBA needed to have the Site Plan approval before they consider the case? Mr. Rasmussen stated that it would normally be rendered before they would consider. Chairman Newman asked if they could go back to the beginning of this project and talk about Site Plan before a zoning analyses; he questioned how often Site Plan met and what was the turn -around time at Site Plan. Mr. Wolinski stated that Site Plan meets once a week, and they go through three stages. the concept, preliminary, and the final. He stated that by right it could be as short as two meetings from concept to final on a simple project. He stated that the 601 Linden plan took longer because there were public improvements involved. Chairman Newman stated that he was sure this project was complicated. His concern was that no one voted against or objected to this project, but it still took the City 144 business days. He stated that he was interested in knowing the process of other cities. Mr. Wolinski stated that they try to move through the process as quickly as possible. Mr. Rasmussen stated that some materials were submitted without landscaping, etc. and it has to be held until the missing material are submitted. Ald. Heydemann asked if the applicants get a list of needed items. Mr. Rasmussen stated yes, they have a check -off list that is given to each applicant. Chairman requested staff to check the mechanisms of other communities and report back to the Committee. Ald. Heydemann stated that the 601 Linden project was complicated. She also would be interested in knowing what other communities do. 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee November 15, 1993 UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY (CHAS), Ald. Heydemann moved to accept the CHAS, seconded by Ald. Kent. Ald. Heydemann stated that the CHAS was a helpful document. Ald. Kent asked if the Housing Commission could be a advocate for the Section a clients to monitor how they were treated by landlords. Scott Cleave, Chairman of the Housing Commission, was present and stated that the Commission had talked about this in a broader sense. He stated that they would look into it. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the updated CHAS. Chairman Newman requested a report from staff on the vacancy of the Housing Planner's position. PLA OF SUBDIVISION RE 2703-66 HAMPTON PARKWAY. Ald. Heydemann moved to approve the subdivision, seconded by Ald. Kent. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the subdivision. REFER NCE FROM ALD. HOLSMAN TO INVESTIGATE HOUSING QUALITY OPR GRAMS IN OAK PARK BARK FOREST,__AND MATTESON. Ald. Heydemann asked if there was any downside. Mr. Wolinski stated that the apartment licenses fee to recover the cost of the additional inspectors needed could be viewed as a downside. He stated that anytime you add cost you are going to get some opposition from the property owners. The Committee discussed one additional inspector. Mr. Wolinski stated that the City was divided into three inspection areas with one CDBG inspector for the target area. He stated that if we get one additional inspector, the City would be divided into four sections. Ald. Newman stated that after looking at a past CD proposal, there was one inspector. This year there was one inspector funded from CD, and 30% of three inspectors were funded from the general fund. He would like to have a second inspector funded from the CD fund and the other three from the general fund. Ald. Heydemann asked if there could be a system whereby if a building was inspected over a period of time and found free of violations, that the inspections of that building would be at a greater length. Mr. Wolinski stated that Ald. Heydemann's idea has merit, but there may be legal ramifications. Ellen Szymanski of the Legal Department stated that you may have a hard time getting back into a building if it was exempt. Chairman Newman stated that if we inspect a vestibule and it is bad, then we have to inspect the entire building. Ald. Kent reminded the Committee that what he and Ald. Holsman were saying that there were not a lot of tenants calling to report violations. - 3 - - Minutes - P & D Committee November 15, 1993 Chairman Newman requested staff to come back with alternatives with and without a fee. Ald. Heydemann asked if it was legal to cite other violations such as over occupancy during a routine inspection? Ms. Szymanski stated yes. The Committee discussed the inspection of the common area, interior and individual units. It was asked if gross violations were found in the common area exterior would that lead to an interior inspection? Mr. Wolinski stated if there were life safety issues or a rodent problem, yes they would inspect the interior. Chairman Newman asked if there was a set of standards that would have to be developed. He stated that there wouldn't necessarily have to be gross violations to trigger looking at the other units. Ms. Szymanski stated that she thought a gross violation in the common area would present a probable cause, but she would investigate it further and get back to the Committee. Chairman Newman asked what would be the value of going to the building if we could not get into the units, and how bad did the situation have to be in order to be justifiable? Mr. Wolinski stated that we could inspect a two flat, the common area and the rental unit, but not the owner -occupied unit. Ald. Holsman asked if the property changed ownership would we be able to inspect prior to the sale? Mr. Wolinski stated we did not have the staff. Ald. Heydemann questioned when did single family inspections stop and why? Mr. Wolinski stated that he would check and get back to the Committee. Ald. Holsman stated that the CHAS report contained very good information. He stated that some of the areas that he was having problems with happen to have an extremely high vacancy rate, namely 4.1%. The citywide rate is only 2.51. He stated that possibly this was a related item. Ald. Holsman stated that he thought it deserved a lot more attention than it has gotten in the past. Chairman Newman stated that staff would come back with more recommendations. Mr. Frank Hoover stated that he would like to encourage everyone to listen to Ald. Holsman and his problem. He challenged staff to rethink the program and take into account a couple of other parameters. Residents were our chief priority, and we had ignored the single family and owner occupied residences. Mr. Hoover stated that we should make use of the fact that owners were most sensitive and responsive to complying with our quality standards of housing, zoning, etc. He stated that the building might be vacant if they did not pass inspection. This would suggest that when a building was changing ownership or tenancy, - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee November 15, 1993 then an applicable part of the building would receive an inspection. Mr. Hoover stated that rather than getting hung -up on delays that might occur because of staff shortage in an area or non uniform change -over like rental lease period, the wise building owners would learn to anticipate and would request inspections so they would be ready to buy or rent. He stated that some real estate agents, wise buyers, renters and attorneys were requesting this type of inspection for their clients before closing on sales and in some cases on leases. Mr. Hoover stated that vestibule inspections were not always reliable. He stated that people would keep the common area free of violations and think that their interiors would never be inspected. He thought that if fees were to be charged, they should be based on square footage so that larger places would pay more. He stated that he was suggesting inspecting the interior units simultaneously or not accepting them. In reference to owner occupied units and single family units, he would be happy to see them inspected only on changing of ownership, unless there were some probable cause visible from the outside. His conclusion was related to Section 3.2, Certificate of Zoning Compliance. He recommend to adopt the full recommendation of our zoning professionals. He quoted them, saying "all properties should file a request or application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance immediately." He stated that the City could use that application for whatever information we needed to know about a particular piece of property. Chairman Newman thanked Mr. Hoover and Ald. Holsman for their comments. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Sta f f : ..%J - 5 - DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Development Committee December 6, 1993 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Engelman, A. Heydemann and A. Newman Ald. Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Aiello, S. Janusz, D. Rasmussen, C. Ruiz, J. Speyer and E. Szymanski Others Present: Carol Qualkinbush and Mary McWilliam, Preservation Commission Members; B. Sidenberg and T. Stafford Presiding official: Ald. Newman Proposed Time Table for Review of QmUrehensive Rgvisions to thg Preservation Comma sign ordinance. Ms. Qualkinbush, the Chairman of the Preservation Commission introduced staff and Ms. McWilliam, a Preservation Commission member. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that the reason the Committee did not have the ordinance was that it had not been approved by the Commission. She stated that the Commission would discuss the second draft at a special meeting on December 7, and hoped to approve it. Ms. Qualkinbush reiterated the Commission's position that they would like to see a moratorium during the review period, one that would deal with anything that might conflict with issues in the new ordinances. At this time Ald. Engelman joined the meeting. Chairman Newman stated that since the issue of a moratorium will be in the newspaper, people will try and act before the moratorium was considered. He asked the Committee and staff if this ordinance, in its current form, could be introduced on Monday night, and placed on the back of the Council's agenda during the review process. Ms. Aiello stated yes, but she assumed that having a binding moratorium might be more receptive than having the ordinance introduced. She stated that if there was interest, staff would prepare a draft of a moratorium ordinance for the packets on Thursday. E. Szymanski stated that a moratorium was stronger. Ald. Heydemann asked if anything was being processed now that would be affected? C. Ruiz stated no. -- Minutes - P & ❑ Committee December 6, 1993 Chairman Newman asked if approximately ninety days (90) was the time frame of this whole process? Ms. Qualkinbush stated that they would hope to conclude during that time. Ald. Engelman moved that staff prepare a moratorium ordinance for introduction on Monday, December 13, 1993, to impose a ninety day (90) moratorium consistent with the recommendations of the Preservation Commission, seconded by Ald. Heydemann. The Committee voted 3-0 on the motion. Chairman Newman stated that there should be good coordination between the Commission and staff as to the availability of the consultant at future meetings. Ms. Qualkinbush stated that Mr. Bradford White of Clarion Associates, Inc. would be coming in at least twice and would be available for the workshops. Chairman Newman stated that it was important to have the consultant present for the January 3, 1993 P & D meeting. Ald. Heydemann moved that a seventy-two (72) hour notice be given if a member was unable to attend a meeting unless they were sick, seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 3-0 on the motion. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 AND 15. 1993. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes of November 1, as amended and November 15, 1993 as submitted. Zoning Board of Appeals ARDlicationsKor Hearings, Chairman Newman referred to the memo of August 11, and asked if those cases were uncontested? Dave Rasmussen stated that we had some problems with design at 835 Chicago Avenue (Walgreen's). He asked were the approximations that came from Glenview, Skokie and Wilmette based on contested cases? Mr. Rasmussen stated that they were basically similar cases, with the exception of Skokie, which included planned development. Mr. Rasmussen stated that he initiated a new step to speed up the process. Every Monday he and the zoning officers review the status report, and identify cases that have to go to Site Plan and give them priority. Chairman Newman asked if these cases could be prioritized when they were submitted? Mr. Rasmussen stated that it was the order they were filed in, and they are reviewed in that same order. He stated that when they go out and come back perfected then they get a case number for the ZBA. Mr. Rasmussen thought that a preference could be given to commercial over residential. Ald. Heydemann thought that was not a good idea and that they should be handled by the filing date. - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee December 6, 1993 Mr. Rasmussen stated that the ZBA workload had dropped. The workload of staff increased because of minor variations. Mr. Rasmussen stated that it was too soon to have a feel of how it was working under the new ordinance. Chairman Newman asked if the larger commercial projects that require Site Plan could be red flagged to get them going right away? Mr. Rasmussen stated that the commercial projects could be identified. Ald. Engelman stated that he disagrees with red flagging certain projects. He stated it was essential that we have clarification and speed whether it was commercial or residential. Chairman Newman asked the Committee if they were satisfied with the zoning process. Ald. Engelman stated that he i was not satisfied, but it was not based upon the time frame. Ald. Heydemann stated she was not satisfied but that she needed a longer time period to see how well the new ordinance was working. She would need to know how much more customer satisfaction there was with the minor variations staying in the staff office and not having to go to the ZBA. Ald. Heydemann asked if there were months when applications came in much greater frequency. Mr. Rasmussen stated that applications pick-up in March and continues through the Mall. Ald. Heydemann asked if there were staff available that could move from job to job. Mr. Rasmussdn stated no. He stated that the zoning officers have three priorities that they try to identify every Monday morning: (1) cases that go to ZBA; (2) cases that go to Site Plan, and (3) cases that are resubmitted (plans previously analyzed). Z&A 93-17-V( 1. Final Variation_I_eciRi.on r 1122 Florence Avenue. Ald. Heydemann stated that this was a good use on a small piece of property. She was also pleased with what was happening in the neighborhood. Moort on City Rehab Program re Single FamilyCInd Multi -Family. Chairman Newman asked what kind of marketing was being done on this program? Stan Janusz, Assistant Director of Rehab and Property Maintenance, stated that for the last two to three years we have been advertising in the Hiahlights quarterly. He stated since the last issue they have received three or four applications. Chairman Newman asked if there had been changes in the marketing in the last several years? Ald. Engelman asked if we didn't give notices to everyone who received a code violation letter? Mr. Janusz stated no, that the information given was regarding permits. Ald. Engelman suggested that if we are going to cite homeowners for code violations, we should let them know, if needed, that we have assistance available. Chairman Newman asked if we had a big turnover in money coming back to the City. - 3 - - Minutes - P & D Committee December 6, 1993 Mr. Janusz stated that we were getting approximately $250,000 to $300,000 a year in repayments. Chairman Newman asked what was the balance in the multi -family. Mr. Janusz stated that the balance in the entire Rehab Program was over $600,000. Ms. Aiello stated that with the current staffing level we are handling a good number. She stated that we only have one Rehab Specialist and that maybe we could handle a little more without looking at additional staff. Ald. Newman asked if the staffing level had changed in the past years. J. Aiello stated yes, we use to have at least two. Mr. Janusz stated that back in 1987 there was at least three. He stated that today we are averaging 30 to 40 applications a year in single families. Ald. Newman asked if the $600,000 was a typical level, and if consider to be high or low? J. Aiello stated that it was a little high and there was some concern by HUD. She stated that we do not have $600,000 in the bank, but on paper. It was the amount allocated by HUD over the years and we have not drawn -down on it. She further stated that there had been some discussion with the CD Committee of ways in which they and Council could modifying the balance. Ms. Aiello stated that we wanted to keep enough money to maintain a certain level of activities. She stated that for several years we did not ask for money because we had this balance on the book. Chairman Newman asked if we would lose money because we are not rising it fast enough? Ms. Aiello stated that we will not lose money and that the money might be used for other projects. Chairman Newman requested a report from 1987 to the present on the number of cases the City had processed each year for single and multi -family. Ms. Aiello stated that the City had not turned people away because we didn't have money, or because we don't have the staff to process. She thought that the demand was not as great. She stated that it was found that the best advertising was the Highlights because it goes to every households. Ald. Heydemann asked if the demand had been consistent due to no greater need for rehabilitation, or because our marketing had been at the same level, and whether with increased marketing and information, if the demand would go up? Ms. Aiello stated that during the next six months we would have a good idea of the level of demand by sending out information with the violation letters. Ald. Engelman stated that another marketing tool would be the use of our Home Builder Retailer Supplies. j&DJOW MENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Staff: - 4 -