Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 19910 DRAFT. NQT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee January 14, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. S. Brady, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw J. Korshak D. Rasmussen, C. Powers, C. Brenniman, J. Wolinski, H. Shop and R. Rudd None Ald. Warshaw Minutes of December 10, 1993D. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning A Development Committee meeting of December 10, 1990. The Committee voted 4-0 (Ald. Rudy absent) to approve the minutes as submitted. Communications ZBA 90-42-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 1148 Ashland Avenue. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-44-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 811 Brummel Street. Chairman Warshaw questioned the Zoning Board of Appeals rules regarding abstention. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Building & Zoning stated that the Board did not have any rules regarding abstention. Ald. Brady moved that the issue of Zoning Board of Appeals abstention be referred to the appropriate committee for review. ZBA 90-52-7(F), Final Variation Decision re 1030 Cleveland Street. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-47-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 811 Roslyn Place. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-46-SU(F), Final Special Use Decision re 1620 Asbury Avenue. Ald. Brady stated that this is a very interesting case and questioned whether the material in question in this case was forwarded to the Zoning Commission as requested by the ZBA? Rasmussen stated that the material was provided to the Zoning Commission. r Minutes - E P & D Committee January 14, 2991 Docket 67-38-90. Ordinance 26-0-90. ZBA 89-32-V(R) re Variations for 400-14 Davis Street. Ald. Rudy explained the Georgian Home request to withdraw their original proposal for installation of a parking lot adjacent to the alley in what is now a lawn area. The request has been modified to only retain the current parking immediately adjacent to the alley. Ald. Rudy stated that he supports the amendment and reduced variation request and has spoken with a few of the residents of the area. Ald. Rudy moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the variation request. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval. After a brief discussion, staff was directed to draft a new ordinance with the limited variation request which would be ready for introduction on January 28. 1991. Docket 5-1A-91. Ordinance 2-0-91. ZBA 90-41-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1316 Oakton Street. Aid. Morton moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a variation and special use to permit establishment of dwelling units below the second floor and conversion of the building for a mix of business and/or dwelling unit uses. In response to Aid. Rudy with regards to the ingress and egress to the parking area, the applicant. Arthur Goldberg, described the manner proposed. Chairman Warshaw observed that this was a very complicated case but was well articulated at the hearing. Aid. Brady stated that every conceivable argument was presented at length and that there appeared to be a very thorough airing of all of the issues at the hearing. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the variation and special use. Docket 6-1A-91, Ordinance 3-0-91. ZBA 90-24-V&SU(R) re VAriation and Special Use for 1919-25 Dempster Street. Aid. Brady stated that she was appalled by the lack of communication with respect to the sign issue. She felt that none of the relevant questions were asked by the Zoning Board of McDonald's. Aid. Brady stated that she had difficulty with the condition for approval placed on the proposal that the ex±sting free-standing sign be brought into compliance (removal and replacement with a smaller sign). Ald. Brady moved and Aid. Rudy seconded that the matter be held in Committee and that the sign issue be referred to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for technical assistance. Aid. Morton stated that the requirement to remove the sign was much too harsh since the sign is legal, though non -conforming. Barbara Gosselar, representing McDonald's, stated that the removal of the sign was not feasible. She stated that a sign of this size was necessary due to other signs along Dempster and the set -back of the existing McDonald's building. She also stated it is McDonald's position that the play lot was a significant improvement to the site. Aid. Rudy observed that, as with many franchise type operations, the entire -2- Ll I - Minutes - P & D Committee January 14, 1991 building is often viewed as a sign since it clearly signifies the type of operation. Ald. Nelson stated that it is not fair at this point to change the rules regarding signage and apply them to this request since the existing sign was legally constructed. Ald. Brady stated that she is aware that McDonald's has modified their signage throughout the U.S. to meet local standards. She stated that she does not think they are as rigid as the current petitioners state. Ald. Morton objected and folt that the signage was needed along the highly -traveled Dempster Street. Ald. Nelson questioned McDonald's as to whether they would negotiate in good faith and work with the Sign Review and Appeals Board and attempt to work-out an agreement if the Committee approved the petition without the sign condition? Gosselar stated that it would be too costly to remove the sign in question and that McDonald's probably would not be willing to reduce or remove the existing sign. Ald. Brady stated that if McDonald's and the Sign Review and Appeals Board did meet, she was not expecting the result to be a sign in total conformity, but one that would be in more conformity with the sign ordinance. Ald. Nelson requested that this item be placed as special order of business on the second meeting of the P & D Committee in February to allow this matter to be discussed. After a brief discussion, staff was directed to place the McDonald's sign issue on the Sign Review and Appeals Board meeting of February 21, 1991. It was understood that the result of that meeting may not be forwarded in the P b D Committee packets for the February 25, 1991 meeting and that the matter maybe held -over to the first meeting in March, 1991. The Committee voted 3-2 on the original motion (voting aye: Aldermen Brady, Warshaw and Rudy), (voting nay Aldermen Nelson and Morton). Docket 7-1A-91, Ordinance 4-0-91, ZBA 90-49-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 2126-28 Ashland Avenue. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council the approval of a special use and variation for the construction of a church at 2126-28 Ashland Avenue. The Committee voted 5-0. Docket 4-1A-91. Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) re Tabernacle Baptist Church. Ald. Morton questioned whether an applicant was always a resident of the City of Evanston' Chairman Warshaw stated that a residency in Evanston was a requirement of the program. In response to a question from Ald. Morton, Catherine Powers, Director of Housing Rehab b Property Maintenance stated that the current living conditions were unacceptable due to over -occupancy. Aid. Brady observed that the last paragraph should reflect that this is a three (3) bedroom and not a two (2) bedroom unit. Chairman Warshaw stated that the first paragraph on page 2 should reflect that this is the Tabernacle Baptist Church and not Covenant United Methodist Church. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the City Council approval to enter into an agreement with Tabernacle Baptist Church for $14,500 in conjunction with the F.I.T. Program. The Committee voted 5-0. -3- - minutes - P & D Committee January 14, 1991 Docket 3-lA-91, Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) re Covenant United Methodist Church. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to enter into an agreement with the Covenant United Methodist Church for a $12,400 in conjunction with the F.I.T. Program. Chairman Warshaw stated that she was pleased to see, in this instance, a church go beyond its own membership to aid a family. The Committee voted 5-0. Burglary Prevention Ordinance. Chairman Warshaw complimented the joint committee that developed the proposed changes on the clarity of the revised wording. In response to a question from Ald. Morton regarding questions raised on page 4 with respect to two unit buildings, Powers explained that currently the Property Maintenance Department is experiencing a lack of response from property owners in two (2) unit buildings. She stated that in some instances owners have refused five or six times to allow entry or have not met inspectors at the site. In response to questions from the Committee. Powers stated that there are 1,560 two unit buildings in the City and beat estimates are that 70% are owner -occupied. Ald. Rudy questioned Section 5-7-6-2(1) on page 3 of the report. Ald. Rudy stated that there is a need to develop a chart specifying the number of foot candles or some other manner to measure the lighting rather than as proposed. After a discussion regarding various typos of light bulbs the Committee agreed that a 60 watt, incandescent light source located within a specified distance of the entrance -way should be detailed in the ordinance. In response to a question from Ald. Brady with regards to the proposed amendment to the Appeals Board composition, staff stated that any changes as proposed would necessitate an amendment to the Burglary Prevention Ordinance which would be brought to the P & D Committee and City Council for adoption. In response to questions proposed by Linda Buch, a representative of the Evanston Property Owners Association (EPOA), Ann Graff, a representative of the Residential Crime Prevention Committee (RCPC), stated that the Burglary Prevention Ordinance is primarily directed to provide security for tenants since they may not have the ability on their own to provide protection. To eliminate two and three unit buildings from the program, as proposed by EPOA, would significantly weaken the ordinance and not provide equal protection to tenants in those buildings. Ivan Lippitz, also of RCPC, cautioned the Committee that to allow too many exemptions would significantly weaken the ordinance and its applicability. -4- FO - minutes - • P & D Committee January 14, 1991 The Committee further discussed the possibility of exempting owner -occupied units in either two or three unit buildings, and whether the exemptions should apply to both the Property Maintenance Ordinance and the Burglary Prevention Ordinance. The Committee concluded with a request that staff provide additional data regarding two, three and four unit buildings and the pros and cons of including or eliminating these types of buildings from the Property Maintenance/Burglary Prevention Ordinance. The matter was continued to the January 28, 1991 meeting for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is January 28, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Ro ert fRudd 70(1/5) -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee January 28, 1991 Room 2403 - 8:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: L. Horton Staff Present: R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: Ald. Warshaw Minutes of January 14, 1.991. Aid. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of January 14, 1991. Chairman Warshaw stated that the third paragraph on page 2 should be corrected to read "Alan J. Goldberg". Chairman Warshaw also moved for a correction on page 4, paragraph 3, the firth line to read "60 watt. incandescent or its equivalent". The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended. Communications None Old Business None New Business Preservation Commission re Proposed Budget Cuts, Dave Galloway, Preservation Commission Chairman, was present and reviewed with the Committee his memo of January 18, 1991 which detailed the Preservation Coordinator roles and activities in addition to a Task and Time Analysis. Kr. Galloway stated that the Preservation Commission remained committed to the maximum feasible reduction in the Preservation Coordinator budget that would still allow the employment of a qualified, full-time coordinator. Mr. Galloway provided the Committee with a revised budget that would still achieve the goals of the Commission and also the City of Evanston Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Galloway stressed with the Committee the value of the full-time position since the position is the essential element of the Preservation function in the City. Mr. Galloway highlighted the various types - minutes P S D Committee January 28, 1991 of services provided by the Coordinator and the positions' integral part in working with the volunteer Preservation Commission. Mr. Galloway emphasized that 90% of the tasks performed by the Preservation Coordinator are required by the City's Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Galloway stated that qualified coordinators are professionals in the field, oftentimes having earned a masters.degree in this area. Mr. Galloway reviewed with the Committee a proposed budget with a 20% reduction. Thin proposed budget would reduce the coordinator's annual salary by approximately 25%. In response to a question from Ald. Brady, Mr. Galloway stated that a possible grant associated with the South Boulevard El Station for $2,500 was not in either the proposed or revised budget since the result of the grant application will not be known until August, 1991. In response to questions from Ald. Nelson regarding any techniques for generating revenue, Mr. Galloway reviewed with the Committee a document distributed at the meeting which explored possible revenue sources such as a salary subsidy or various preservation grants in addition to a possible surcharge on building permits to pay for the counseling and technical assistance provided by the coordinator. Ald. Brady stated that she has been informed by Acting City Manager Bruce Zimmerman that a staff memorandum regarding the position and a revised funding level will be provided to the City Council at the meeting of January 28, 1991, Several members of the Committee expressed support for the Preservation Coordinator position and thanked the members of the Preservation Commission for their work in trying to develop additional revenue sources and in highlighting the worth of the position. The Committee agreed to take this presentation into account as it reviewed the Acting City Manager's memo and the 1991-92 City budget. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P S D Committee is February 11, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. r�. Staff : Robert T. Rudd 70(1/2) -2- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED t DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 11, 1991 Room 2403 - 8:30 P.K. Aid. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Aid. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Powers, Don Wright, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski, M. Shop, J. Zendell, K. Brenniman and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Aid. Warshaw Minutes of January 28. 1991. Aid. Korshak moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning Iti Development Committee meeting of January 28. 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve (Aldermen Nelson and Rudy absent). Communications ZBA 90-50-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 2309 Grant Street. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 9-055-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 1003 Wesley Avenue. The Committee received without comment. New Business Docket 51-2B-91. Ordinance 14-0-91, ZBA 90-54-V&SU(R) re 1744 Darrow Avenue. Aid. Korshak moved and A14Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval,of a equest for variations and a special use for the construction of an addition to a church at the subject address. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 14-0-91 (Aid. Nelson absent). Docket 47-2B-91, Renewal of Criexis Architects Contract for the Buildink Department. Aid. Morton moved and Aid. Brady seconded a recommendation for the Acting City Manager to execute a one (1) year renewal contract with Criezis Architects for the Building Department's plan review and field inspection for commercial, E i� k - Minutes - p & D Committee February 11, 1991 industrial and institutional projects. In response to a question from Ald. Brady, staff responded that the proposed contract, though a renewal, was negotiated downward with respect to the percent of permit fee that would be paid to Criezis. In a response to questions from Ald. Rudy, staff explained the plan review fees are in addition to the fees allocated for inspections. Ald. Rudy questioned why this contract was not bid or RFP's requested? Rudd explained that RFP's were solicited five (5) years ago when the program was initiated. For the past four (4) years the City has been pleased with the quality of work from Criezis and has requested the P & D Committee and City Council to renew the contract on an annual basis. Ald. Rudy stressed that it was his opinion that it was appropriate to have a contract such as this bid annually with possible option years for renewal. Ald. Morton questioned why, if the question was not the quality of work by Criezis, would the City bid this contract out annually? Ald. Rudy responded that it was only appropriate that RFP's be solicited since the City Council does not know that a better contract cannot be negotiated without a bidding process. Ald. Brady concurred that the City should not have a non --competitively bid contract, particularly in an amount such as proposed. She acknowledged that this is a situation with somewhat unique qualifications. However, she felt that the contract should be bid and not automatically renewed by the City Council on an annual basis. Ald. Rudy stated that with his limited contact with Criezis, he did not have a problem with the quality of their work. However, he felt that it was inappropriate to annually renew this contract without soliciting bids from equally qualified firms. Ald. Rudy suggested that the Committee continue the contract on a month -to -month basic while an RFP is developed and bids solicited. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the contract for a fifteen (15) month period with a qualification that it could not be renewed without an RFP to other interested firms. As a further condition, the Committee recommended that an RFP be provided by January , 1992. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Docket 50-2B-91. Ordinance 13-0-91, ZBA 90-57-V&SU{R) re Variation and Special. Use for 1600 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council a ZBA recommendation to grant a variation and special use to permit construction of�second driveway on Davis Street, a two story mechanical room, portico and covered walkway. Ald. Rudy recommended that part "a" of condition 2 (signs prohibiting parking in the driveway) be eliminated from the ordinance. He stated that the sign was unnecessary and provided clutter. The Committee briefly discussed the merits of eliminating this condition and possibly part "b" of condition 2. Aid. Rudy moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee eliminate part "a" of condition 2. The Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Korshak voting nay). On the main motion the Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the variation and special use request. -2- - Minutes - P & D Committee February 11, 1991 Docket 49-2B-91, Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) re Fisher Memorial A.X.E. Zion Church. In response to a concern expressed by Ald. Morton with respect to the condition of requiring the child to stay in school in order for the grandmother to receive the rent subsidy, both Chairman Warshaw and Ald. Brady, members of the Housing Commission, explained the reasoning in that this condition was the essence of the request and without the child, the grandmother would not necessarily be eligible for this program. Ald. Morton stated that she disagreed with the concept of using the child as leverage to obtain the F.I.T. money. Ald. Nelson stated that this situation is very similar to the Township General Assistance Program in that the clients are expected to perform certain actions such as searching for a job as a condition of receiving assistance. Aid. Brady moved and Ald, Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the agreement Fisher Memorial A.K.E. Zion Church for $12,400.06. The Committee voted 6-0. Ald. Rudy observed that Fisher A.N.E. has sponsored eight (8) F.I.T. applicants and questioned whether it was appropriate that one church should have so many F.I.T. clients? Ald. Brady stated that the Housing Commission was aware of this situation and that Fisher A.M.E. would not be allowed to have any more than eight (8) clients. Docket 48-28-91, Additional Funds re Camiros, Zoning Consultant. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council a request from Camiros Ltd., Zoning Consultant, for additional funds in a sum not to exceed $13,750 for meeting attendance beyond the amount budgeted in the original contract. In response to a question from Ald. Brady, staff stated that the additional funds were to cover eleven (11) meetings that the consultant feels are necessary to complete the project. In response to a question from Ald. Korshak, staff explained that the scope of the work has not changed, but the original contract was for twenty-four (24) months while the consultant is currently completing the thirty-sixth (36) month of this zoning process. Due to longer than usual meetings, in additional to more meetings than anticipated, the necessity for additional funds has been created. On a subject not directly related to the request before the Committee, Ald. Rudy requested that the legal consultant for the zoning ordinance provide a written report with respect to whether tax relief can be provided to owners of properties that are subject to a proposed over -lay district. Staff indicated that the request will be forwarded to the consultant for their response. The Committee voted 6-0 to reco-imnend City Council approval of the additional funds. Old Business BurKlary Prevention Ordinance. Linda Buch, a representative of EPOA, was in attendance and made a -3- - minutes - P & D Committee February 11, 1991 presentation to the Committee regarding various points that EPOA would like the Committee to discuss. Buch stated the five (5) following issues: 1. Process of proposing 2. Adequate information. 3. Testing materials. 4. Exception process and 5. Legal issues and passing legislation. other administrative issues. After further expanding upon the five (5) points, Ald. Brady moved that in order for this matter to be brought to a closure at an upcoming meeting, that the Committee consider the revisions stated in the January 3, 1991 memo from staff and RCPC in addition to adopting the guidelines set forth in a December 20, 1990 handout. Ald. Brady further recommended that the Committee consider exempting the owner -occupied unit only in one (1) to four (4) unit buildings. Ald. Rudy seconded the motion. Due to a lack of time to further discuss the matter, the Committee continued the matter to the February 25, 1991 meeting. Docket 117-5A-90, Ordinance 112-0-89 re Art in the Construction of Public Buildings. The Committee received a proposed ordinance and memo from the Chairman of the Public Art Committee, Evanston Arts Council dated February 11, 1991. Ald. Rudy recommend that the second whereas clause on page 1 of proposed Ordinance 112-0-89 be amended to insert the words "helps to" between the words "that" and "turn". In response to questions from Aid. Brady, Joe Zendell, Executive Director of the Arts Council, stated that the format utilized with respect to the ordinance and the attachments was provided by the Legal Department. Ald. Brady expressed concerns with this format and recommended that the many conditions and guidelines in the attachments be part of the ordinance. The Committee started an indepth discussion particularly regarding Section 7-16-4, on page 2 and 3 with respect to the percent of art. Due to the lack of time the Committee continued this matter to the February 25. 1991 meeting to allow further discussion. Ad.i ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is February 25, 1991 A 7:30 p.m. Staff: �6ZL �c'7Z /tom Robert T. Rudd/ 70(1/4) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -4- DRAFT. HOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 25, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: Nor+e Staff Present: C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, J. 7.endell, K. Brenniman, D. Wright, D. Wirth, M. Shep and J. Wolinski Presiding Official* Ald. Warshaw Minutes of February 11, 1991. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of February 11, 1991. Ald. Warshaw moved that the minutes be amended to state that the starting time of the meeting was 7:30 p.m. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Aldermen Rudy, Morton and Korshak absent). Communications Chairmanship Schedule. The Committee received without comment. Old Business Docket 6-1A-91, Ordinance 3-0-91, ZBA 90-24-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1919-25 Dempster Street. The Committee received a report and recommendation from the Sign Review and Appeals Board, concerning a Committee reference for technical assistance on a non conforming free standing sign located at the McDonalds. Ald. Warshaw questioned what the expected life of the existing sign was. Mr. Kubiesa, attorney for the McDonald's Corporation, responded that the sign had been up for approximately eight years, and it was difficult to determine if the sign would last another ten, fifteen or twenty years. Ald. Brady asked staff for a clarification, on the sign ordinance regulation concerning repairs and non conformity. Wolinski responded that a sign loses its non conforming status when major maintenance is needed on the sign that will exceed fifty per cent of the replacement value of the sign. Ald. Rudy stated that he favored a ten year time frame when the sign must be brought into conformity. - minutes - F & D Committee February 25, 1991 ` Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of a request to grant a variation and special use to permit the installation of a play lot for the subject type 2 restaurant, and to replace the current condition concerning the free standing sign with thu following language: To permit the existing free standing sign to remain in its present state minus the "drive-thru" sign, until such time that major maintenance is needed on the sign which will exceed fifty per cent (50%) of the replacement value of the sign. At such time, the existing free standing sign will be removed, and any new free standing sign erected will conform to the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the variation and special use request as amended (Ald. Korshak absent). Ald. Brady stated that within the next year she would entertain a reference from the Sign Review and Appeals Board for an amortization schedule for all nori conforming signs, as long as the schedule was fair and equitable. Ald. Morton stated that her greatest difficulty was with signage of businnnses no lCMger located at the location, or vacant. Staff responded that they would inform the Sign Review and Appeals Board of the Aldermen's feelings stated. Burglary Prevention Ordinance. Ald. Brady reiterated her motion at the Committee meeting on February 11. 1991 which was to consider the revisions stated in the January 3, 1991 memo from the special subcommittee in addition to adopting the guidelines set forth in a December 20, 1990 handout, as well as exempting owner occupied units only in one to four unit buildings. Ald. Morton questioned what groups were represented in the making of the Appeals Board? Catherine Powers, Director of Housing Rehabilitation and Property Maintenance, stated that the proposed four member board would have representatives from the Police Department, Housing Department, RCPC, and EPOA. Ald. Horton asked if a citizen at large member could also be appointed to the Board. Ald. Rudy agreed, stating the citizen should have an architectural background. Ald. Nelson moved and was seconded to expand the Board to five members. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the motion (Ald. Korshak absent). -2- Minutes - P & D Committee + February 25, 1991 Discussion then centered around specific areas in the guidelines. Ald. Rudy voiced displeasure with the aesthetics of the materials as they are installed. Powers responded that in the field the installation actually look better than the guidelines show. Brady responded that the Appeals Board would lend support to additional suggestions for materials. Ald. Rudy advised staff to keep working on improving the guidelines and state(] that he is sure thoy will be expanded as new materials are approved. Ald. Brady stated that the proposed amendments to the ordinance was mainly of clarifying language. The Committee voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft an amendment to the Burglary Prevention Ordinance which would include substituting clarifying language, adopt guidelines, established a five member Appeals Board, and exempt owner occupied units only in one to four unit buildings (Ald. Korshak absent). Docket 117-5A-90, Ordinance 112-0-89 re Art in the Construction of Public Buildings. Ald. Brady moved to consider that with any public project with a construction budget over one million dollars, the City would put up $25,000 to be matched by the public act plan up to 112% of the construction budget. Ald. !Morton questioned whether the original concept was to incorporate the art into the building plan as opposed to an art fixture. Joe Zendell, Executive Director of the Arts Council, stated that there are a variety of different ways for art to be incorporated. Art can be included in the architecture, as well as the inclusion of art pieces. Ald. Morton question whether the ordinance could be passed in the form it was in. Kathleen Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Council, responded that certain parts of the policy statement belong in the ordinance and would have to be incorporated into it. Ald. Nelson stated that when a public construction project is proposed, the Arts Council should come forward to put forth a plan for public art on a case -by -case basis, based on the project, economic times, etc. Ald. Brady disagreed with Ald. Nelson, stating that the public art mission was to mandate art in every case. She agreed with this as long as the City contribution is limited. Ald. Nelson stated that the requirement for public art should differ from project to project. A Library's art requirement should be different from a service center or a bridge. Public art should be considered, but not mandated. Ald. Brady responded that the thrust of her motion was to apply to public buildings only, not public structures, such as bridges. Zendell stated that other cities use the percentage basis, 1% being provided as a guide for the preparation of a public art plan. -3- - Minutes - P & D Committee February 25, 1991 Ald. Rudy agreed with a strict percentage basis, stating public involvement is needed for acceptance. Discussion then centered on the selection process and the makeup of the selection committee. Ald. Brady moved for the formation of a subcommittee made up of Aldermen Nelson and Rudy to work with Zendell to reach a consensus on the ordinance. Ald. Horton seconded the motion, and the Committee voted 5-1 for approval (Ald. Nelson voting nay). New Business None Other Business Docket 50-28-91: Ordinance 13-0-91, ZBA 90-51-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1600 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Rudy pointed out that the language in the proposed ordinance stated "two driveways" was incorrect. Ald. Rudy moved and seconded by Ald. Brady, to replace this language with "one driveway, served by two curb cuts." The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Staff responded that if amended and adopted this evening, the revision would be incorporated prior to the Mayor's signature. Comprehensive Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Brady stated that she was informed that the final draft of the Zoning Ordinance would not be presented to the P & D Committee before the aldermanic election. She stated that aldermen that were leaving the Council would not have an opportunity for review and input. Ald. Brady stated that she desired a meeting with the Zoning Consultant and the Committee before the election to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Discussion centered around whether the retiring aldermen desired such a meeting. Staff was directed to poll all the retiring aldermen to see if such a meeting was desired. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next r-igular meeting of the P & D Committee is March 11, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: . _ 5 � James Uolinski 70(1/4) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -4- ` DRAFT. NOT APPROVED k MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 11, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson and J. Rudy Ald. Absent: R. Warshaw Staff Present: C. Powers, C. Borys, T. Clarke, J. Wolinski and R.Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Rudy Minutes of February 25. 1991. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of February 25, 1991. Chairman Rudy moved that the first paragraph on page 4 read as follows, "Ald. Rudy agreed with a strict percentage basis and a permanent organization outlined versus that proposed in the ordinance and stated public involvement The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Aldermen Morton and Korshak absent). Communications ZBA 90-51-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 2639 Eastwood Avenue. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-53-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1313 Dobson Street. The Committee received without comment. Old Business None New Business Docket 65-3A-91, Ordinance 24-0-91, ZBA 90-58-SU(R) re Special Hospital Use for 355 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a special use for 355 Ridge to permit the construction of a one story addition for a magnetic resonance imaging suite. Chairman Rudy recommended that the ordinance be amended to add a condition that designated parking for construction workers would be provided on -site. Ald Brady seconded the motion. In response to a question from the Committee, E - Minutes - Planning % Development Committee Harch 11, 1991 representatives from St. Francis hospital stated that the proposed building addition would total approximately 4100 sq. ft. Hospital representatives stated that they did not have a problem with the additional condition. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve tho condition (Aldermen Morton and Korshak absent). On the main motion the Committee voted 3-0 (Aldermen Morton and Korshak absent) to introduce Ordinance 24-0-91 and directed staff to provide a clean copy of the subject ordinance for adoption at the March 2S. 1991 meeting. Docket 66-3A-91, Ordinance 25-0-91, ZBA 90-48-VbSU(R) re Special Use for 2041-49 Brown Avenue. Aid. Norton moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council a request to grant a special use to permit the construction of a church at the subject address. In response to a question from Aid. Brady, representatives from the church stated that the land was purchased from a private individual and that the property had been off the tax rolls for several years. Aid. Nelson questioned whether the proposed lease of parking spaces west of the canal and utilized by the Ladd Arboretum facility would be paved? He also questioned who would be responsible for plowing the lots during the winter? Aid. Brady questioned whether the City would pave the lot and what was the cost estimate? Could it be included in the capital improvement plan, and could the proposed church utilize The Over the Rainbow parking lot on Brown and Simpson? Chairman Rudy stated that the Ladd Arboretum was developing a landscaping plan for the parking lot and questioned whether that would interfere with the use of the lot or would it need to be changed if the City were to pave the lot? Chairman Rudy further stated his opinion that many of the people will not park west of the canal and walk back, eastward, but will opt to park close to the proposed church. As a follow-up to Chairman Rudy's observation, Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Horton seconded that a condition be added to the ordinance requiring the church to be responsible for providing direction to its congregation with respect to parking at the Ladd Arboretum lot. The Committee voted 4-0 (Aid. Korshak absent) to approve that amendment to the ordinance. In response to some neighborhood opposition to the church, Aid. Morton cited other precedents with respect to churches and parking issues. The Committee voted 4-0 (Aid. Korshak absent) on the main motion to recommend introduction of special use Ordinance 25-0-91, but directed staff to- place the item on the P b D agenda for March 25, 1991 and to provide a report regarding the questions earlier raised with respect to the Ladd Arboretum lot. Ns. Liddel, of 1900 Foster, representing the neighborhood organization, objected to the special use request citing a severe parking problem in the c neighborhood. Ms. Liddel also questioned the length of the proposed lease and - 2 - y - Minutes t Planning & Development Committee March 11, 1991 expressed concern that the lease may not be renewed in the future, but the church, as a parking generator, would remain and the neighborhood would be negatively impacted. The Committee agreed to introduce the matter, but hold further discussion at the next meeting. Ald. Paden's Reference re DoK Sheds. Ald. Paden was present and discussed with the Committee a concern expressed by a constituent, one Its. Yambert, with roapect to the problems with a neighbor and the neighbor's pit bulls and proximity of the "dog sheds" to Ms. Yambert's lot line. Ald. Paden recommended that the Committee consider regulating the size of dog sheds (shelter) and also limiting the size and number of sheds based on the square footage of the yard. Ald. Paden also recommended that the City consider limiting the size of dog pens and the proximity of the subject pens to property lot lines. Staff reviewed with the Committee a memo dated March 4, 1991 citing both zoning ordinance and municipal code regulations with respect to animals and accessory buildings (dog sheds). Staff informed the Committee that the current problem with a single homeowner was not necessarily a zoning issue but more of a social problem and an animal enforcement issue with respect to the number of pit bulls. Ald. Nelson proposed investigating the possibility of requiring an annual permit for animal pens and also to regulate the location of the subject pens as proposed by Ald. Paden. The Committee also directed staff to contact the Northwest Municipal Conference to investigate what other communities are doing to handle similar issues. The Committee directed staff to bring the matter back when the appropriate information compiled. Recommendations for an Appearance DesiKn Review Process. Alex Darragh, Chairman of the Plan Commission was present and presented background with respect to the Plan Commission's response to a reference from the Planning & Development Committee to review the possibility of an appearance design review process. Drew Patterson, Chairman of the Plan Commission Subcommittee reviewing the matter, was present and provided the Committee background with respect to various points of view (pro and con) regarding a design review process (contained in a memo dated February 13, 1991). Petterson emphasized points brought -up at both the subcommittee and Plan Commission level regarding whether the design review process should be binding or non -binding. The recommendation contained in the aforementioned memo proposes that the design review process be non -binding as an initial process and that the matter can be reviewed at a later date if problems develop. Another key element of the proposed process would be utilizing an outside architect(s) to assist the Site Plan Review Committee in reviewing projects. Petterson expressed hope that the outside architectural advice would be on a volunteer basis and thus at no cost to the City. MW - Minutes - Planning & Development Committee March 11, 1991 Ald. Nelson questioned why the design review would exempt single family structures from review? Patterson stated that the Plan Commission felt that for the most part single family structures have not been a problem and that the focus should be primarily on multi -family and commercial/industrial. Ald. Nelson stated that it appears that many single family occupants have been advocates of a design review process but that the same advocates would not be subject to the review. Ald. Nelson suggested that the Committee consider removing the single family exemption from the ordinance and require all buildings to be reviewed. Ald. Morton questioned how the Site Plan Review Committee and an outside architect could agree on "style". The Committee and Plan Commission members discussed how difficult this may be and all agreed that at some point in the foreseeable future specific standards should be developed. Ald. Brady requested staff provide information to the Committee with respect to the number of single family homes constructed annually in the City, in addition to some type of breakdown regarding major modifications to single family homes. The intent of this request is to aid the Committee in determining the number and type of single family buildings that would be added to the review process if the removal of the exemption of single family homes were approved. Ald. Morton expressed her opposition to including single family homes in the process. Dave Galloway, Chairman of the Preservation Commission, recommended that additional information, particularly with respect to obtaining floor plans and other detail be added to the ordinance. Galloway also stated that the Preservation Commission was pleased with the design review process being added to an existing body and not requiring a new commission to be created. Galloway also emphasized the importance of moving ahead on establishing specific written design criteria in order to avoid charges of capriciousness during the review process. The Committee voted to place this matter on a future agenda pending receipt of additional information and also asked that the Plan Commission further discuss the issues raised at the Committee meeting and report back at a later date. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is March 25, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: eRudd Robe 70(1/4) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 4 - DRAFT: NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 25, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Aid. Present: S. Brady, L. Morton, J. Nelson, R. Warshaw and J. Rudy Aid. Absent: J. Korshak Staff Present: K. Brenniman, J. Glus, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski, J. Zendell and C. Powers Presiding Official: Aid. Rudy Minutes of March 11, 1991, Ald. Morton moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of March 11, 1991. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Communications None Old Business Docket 66-3A-91, Ordinance 25-0-91, ZBA 90-48-V&SU(R) re Special Use for 2041-49 Brown Avenue. Ald. Rudy stated that this item is scheduled for adoption on the Council agenda. J. Wolinski asked if it should be on the Council agenda for adoption or no action since there are still outstanding issues with the lease for the use of the Ecology Center parking lot. Aid. Brady stated that the P & D Committee could move for approval of the special use, but without the lease arrangement for parking the special use could not be put into effect since one of the conditions protects the City if the lease for parking is not obtained. D. Rasmussen replied that the statement is correct and also if the Committee is going to move to adopt it will be necessary to mention the fifth condition on the Council floor since it does not appear in the ordinance at the present time. The fifth condition requires the church to notify its congregation that parking in the Ecology Center parking lot. Aid. Warshaw stated that without a lease the church can not move forward and there is no rush to adopt the special use tonight. Ald. Brady replied that should the lease agreement be forthcoming the special use would already be in place. Aid. Morton moved that the special use along with the fifth condition be recommended for adoption. Aid. Brady seconded the motion. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the special use. L - Minutes - P & D Committee March 25, 1991 Docket 85-3B-91. Ordinance 32-0-91 re Burglary Prevention Ordinance Amendment. Ald. Morton began the discussion by giving an example of door scopes required for unit doors even though the front downstair entrance door is locked at all times. Ald. Warshaw stated that she has an identical situation in her ward. Ald. Brady indicated that such a case could go before the Appeals Board but that door scopes are an easy and inexpensive item. Ald. Brady asked if the Mayor was to appoint only the citizen member. Ald. Nelson replied that appointment should be made through the normal process. Ald. Brady suggested clarifying Section 5-7-7, by substituting the wording of the last sentence to state as follows: "All members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. The Committee concurred with the proposed clarification. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the Committee review the remainder of the proposed amendments and began by asking how 18 feet from the ground as accessible opening was decided upon. C. Powers stated that it was a decision of the subcommittee that 18 feet be the measure. Officer Shep continued that police records indicate that 18 feet is accessible for someone using a van, dumpster or other available means to gain entry into a window. Ald. Rudy called upon Linda Bush, Evanston Property Owner's Association (E.P.O.A). Ms. Duch contended that the proposed amendments do not address EPOA concerns. She continued that EPOA is trying to represent 2,000 owners in Evanston who have legal, administrative and technical issues with the Burglary Prevention Ordinance. She further indicated that EPOA did not have an adequate voice on the subcommittee. Ann Graff, Residential Crime Prevention Committee (R.C.P.C,) answered that the subcommittee process was fair and that everyone was heard. Ald. Nelson suggested the following amendment- 5-7-2: Scope: Enforcement (B) Exclusion: (5) Owner occupied units and units occupied by family members as defined by the zoning ordinance and cartifiea by the title holder Ald. Brady stated that there is no way to define family. The present zoning ordinance definition may bp a problem Ald Warshaw concurred that the zoning definition of family is in flux. Ald Brady added that she is not in favor of exempting any units but those occupied by the owner. Ald. Nelson moved that Section 5-7-2(B)-5 include all owner occupied units in multi -unit buildings. Ald. Morton seconded the motion. The Committee voted 5-0. Ald. Nelson then asked K. Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel if she had any opinion on the definition of family. Brenniman stated that she would need to do research into the issue but there have been discrimination cases. - 2 - - Minuteo ,- P & D Committee March 25, 1991 Ald. Rudy asked Ald. Nelson why he wanted to expand the exemptions. Ald. Nelson replied that Ald. Rainey convinced him that there are a number of related people residing in two unit buildings who consider the building family occupied. Ald. Morton concurred with an example of a husband and wife who resided in one unit and their daughter and her son who occupied the other unit. The man felt that this was his family and inspections should not take place. Ald. Morton continued that an affidavit signed by owner stating the non -owner unit is occupied by family members should suffice. Ald. Brady rotated that a great amount of time has been spent on this ordinance and moved to approve the amended ordinance as further amended by the Committee, but hold the question of family occupied units in CommitteQ until legal research is provided at the next meeting. Ald. Warshaw seconded the motion. Ald. Nelson then made a motion to provide a sunset provision for review of the Burglary Prevention Ordinance in four years. Ald. Warshaw commented that she would not want the sunset because some owners would defer compliance until the sunset. Ald. Morton requested that this matter also be held until the next meeting. The Committee concurred. Aid. Morton requested that the record show that she is concerned that any citizen for any reason related to the Burglary Prevention Ordinance enforcement should be able to come before the Burglary Prevention Appeals Board. New Business Docket 84-38-91, Ordinance 28-0-91 re Amendment to the Housing Commission. Ald. Rudy requested that the Committee consider new business first in order to give the Art in Public Places issue time for discussion at the end of the agenda. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Morton seconded the amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance reducing the members to nine (9). The Committee voted 5-0 to approve. Docket 81-3B-91, Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) re Fisher Memorial A.K.E. Zion Church. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Morton seconded the recommendation to City Council for approval of this application. Ald. Warshaw indicated that this application represents significant out reach to other organizations. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of this F.I T. application. Docket 82-38-91, Families In Transition Program Church. Ald. Morton moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded the for approval of this application_ The Committee approval of this F.I.T. application. - 3 - (F.I.T.) re Friendship Baptist recommendation to City Council voted 5-0 to recommend • - Minutea - P D Committee March 25, 1991 Old Business Docket 83-3B-91. Ordinance 112-0-89 re Art in the Construction of Public Buildings. Ald. Rudy indicated that the subcommittee met with staff. Ald. Nelson stated that the subcommittee tried to simplify the ordinance by designing a Public Arts Plan which will be an adjunct to the Capital Improvements Plan. Ald. Brady clarified that no percentage would be mandated for public arts projects. Ald. Nelson replied that there may be five or six art projectn over the next few years which the Arts Plan says should be funded. On those projects, the recommended funding amount for public art, as established in the Arts Plan, will be decided upon at the same time the Council decides on the capital project. Ald. Brady wanted to know how the arts funding gets into the capital budget. Ald. Nelson replied that the Arts Plan will contain projects and recommendations for funding which will be keyed into the Capital Improvements Plan. Ald. Rudy further stated that a lot of preparation went into the library and the same preparation will be needed for the Arts Plan. Ald. Warshaw asked if the Arts Plan would be complete for the library. J. Zendell, Executive Director of Arts Council, answered that the Arts Plan will be developed for the first year and will be submitted with the Capital Improvements Plan. The City Council would decide on those projects. Staff would then have time to prepare the Arts Plan for the next three to four years. Ald. Brady argued that the Arts Council will be at the mercy of budget constraints on each project. She continued that there should have been something mandated and that it is more difficult for the council to remove funding than to add it to a project. J. Zendell stated that Chicago has a strong public arts policy and funding for arts in public places was still reduced. R. Isaacson, member of the Arts Council, stated that the Arts Council is willing to work with this plan as presented. Ald. Rudy asked for the definition of code related fixtures. Zendell gave the example of handicapped accessibility items which are mandated by law. Ald. Brady reiterated that the Arts Council would have a greater chance of funding if the funds Were mandated and had to be taken out of the project rather than be put into the project later. J. Glus, Art Council employee stated that Arts Plan is not just for City use but shows Evanston's philosophical commitment to the arts and is important for other funding sources. Ald. Warshaw made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as amended. The motion was seconded by Alit. Morton. ThF Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P b D Committee is April 9, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. r Staff: Catherine Powers 70(1/4) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 4 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee Tuesday, April 9, 1991 Room 2403 - 8:00 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: E. Szymanski. C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Warshaw Minutes of March 25, 1991. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of March 25, 1991. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Communications ZBA 90-60-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 2904 Hartzell Street. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-61-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1506 Florence Avenue. The Committee received without comment. New Business Docket 99-4B-91, Ordinance 37-0-91, ZBA 90-62-V&SU(R) re Special Use for Variation for 1700 Payne Street, The Committee reviewed a recommendation to grant a special use and variation to permit retention of the subject existing building and use as a child care institution. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the variation and special use. In response to a question from Ald. Brady, Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the applicant would be required to obtain a building permit within the first year to allow for the alterations or, after the and of one year, could ask staff for a one year extension, or as an alternative could request a more lengthy extension from the P & D Committee. Aid. Brady expressed concerns with respect to sufficient financing for the operation. Ald. Brady questioned the applicant as to whether the amount of tuition per student was sufficient to cover operation and debt obligations and whether the - Minutes - , ►`�, P & D Committee Tuesday, April. 9, 1991 applicant had access to Title 20 slots? In a response to the Committee, Rev. Patrick A. Kamara stated that the institution would be charging $60.00 per child per week and that the child care institution was not anticipating Title 20 slots. He also stated that the institution has received a significant amount of donated equipment. Ald. Warshaw stated that the Committee recognizes the need for the service in the community and hopes that there is sufficient financial aid. Ald. Horton stated that she was delighted with the church sponsorship of the institution and pleased that no church was actually located at the site. In a response to a question from Ald. Horton with respect to location of playground equipment, Rev. Kamara stated that if the City approved a variation, playground equipment would be located in the twenty-seven (27) foot yard or possibly in the rear yard of his residence which is adjacent to the property. Ald. Nelson questioned whether the institution has been in contact with Four C's? Rev. Kamara stated that he has knowledge of Four C's but has no working agreement. In further response to Ald. Nelson, Rev. Kamara stated that the property is now tax exempt and that the previous taxes were approximately $2200 per year. There being no further discussion the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variation and special use. Docket 100-4B-91, Municipal Use Zoning Exemption re City Recycling Center at 2222 Oakton Street. In response to a question from Ald. Brady with respect to complete plans, Dave Barber, Director of Public Works, stated that the plan is the same as the site plan presented to and approved by the City Council in January, 1991 with the exception of this particular building. Barber stated that the old Zera building on the site was not adequate and needed to be significantly enlarged. Barber further stated that the only exemption is to allow encroachment into the ten foot set -back on Oakton and also to allow the construction of a fence at the property line per the site plan. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the municipal use zoning exemption. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve. Old Business Docket 85-38-91, Ordinance 32-0-91 re Burglary Prevention Ordinance Amendment. Ald. Nelson stated that he had received a legal opinion per his request of the March 25, 1991 meeting. As an alternative to his earlier suggestion with respect to identifying family members in subject dwelling units, Ald. Nelson proposed to exclude from inspection any unit occupied by an owner or part owner of the property. He stated that the Legal Department has essentially approved this concept and reminded the Committee that part ownership could be as little as 1%, undivided, quit claim deed documentation. Ald. Nelson stated - 2 - t '. -.Minutes - P S D Committee Tuesday, April 9, 1991 that this process would require an owner to Jump through some legal hoops to obtain an exemption from inspection. The Committee felt that in some Instances it would be easier for the owners to submit to inspection than to divide up ownership. However, if ownership is currently documented, as proposed by this amendment, relief could be supplied to the owners without much difficulty. In response to a questions from A1d. Brady with respect to administrative procedures, staff indicated that a clause would be added to the inspection letter indicating what steps would be necessary to obtain an exception. Ald. Korshak questioned why the Committee would recommend the City try to provide exemptions beyond an owner -occupied unit? Members of the Committee stated that owner -occupied units are currently exempted and that this effort is to provide relief for family members or, in a more legal sense, owners and part-owners of properties. Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Morton seconded to direct staff to provide a clean copy of the Burglary Prevention Ordinance for passage at the April 22, 1991 City Council meeting. The Committee also stated that it would introduce the ordinance at the April 9, 1991 meeting. Ann Graff, a member of R.C.P.C., questioned whether it wouldn't be easier to simply put a lock on the door rather than provide this suggested legal documentation? Committee responded that in many instances that would be the case. The Committee voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance 32-0-91 and have staff provide a clean copy :or the next meeting. On an item not on the agenda, Rudd asked whether the Committee would be willing to set special meetings on April 29 and May 13, 1991 to provide for a joint meeting between the P 6 D Committee and the Zoning Commission to begin review of the Zoning Commission's proposed zoning ordinance. The Committee voted 5-0 to set those dates as special joint meetings with the Zoning Commission to begin review of the zoning ordinance. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P 6 D Committee is April 22, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff Aftbert/T;"" udd 70(1/3) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 3 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee April 22, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Brenniman, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Warshaw Minutes of April 9. 1991. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of April 9. 1991. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Communications None Old Business Recommendations for an Appearance Design Review Process. Ald. Warshaw stated that at the request of Ald. Rainey, the Plan Commission's recommendations for an appearance design review process was being held -over to the May b, 1991 P & D Committee meeting. Ald. Brady questioned Ald. Nelson regarding the Plan Commission recommendation not to include single family? Ald. Nelson stated that he concurred with their recommendation and that he is E now convinced that to include single family might be overly intrusive. Chairman Warshaw stated that she expects to hear concerns regarding the legal ramification of enacting an appearance design review process by speakers at the next Committee meeting. Ald. Morton stated that she concurs with the Plan Commission's recommendation. New Business Docket 117-0-91. Tent Permit Request re Kendall College. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee approve tha request from Kendall College for permission to erect a tent for Bastille Day Celebration on July 11, 1991. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval. - minutes P & D Committee April 22, 1991 On an item not on the agenda, Ald. Morton stated her desires to have the Burglary Prevention Ordinance on the City Council agenda for April. 22, 1991 held -over. In response to a question regarding the Burglary Prevention Ordinance, Ald. Nelson stated that it was his understanding that Ald. Lanyon desires the matter to be held -over for further discussion. Ald. Brady recommended to the Committee that the proposed Burglary Prevention Ordinance amendments be passed at this time since the amendments are not a point of dispute between E.P.O.A., R.C.P.C. and the City of Evanston. Ald. Brady stated that she understands that the attorney for E.P.O.A. is scheduled to meet with City of Evanston legal staff to discuss legal issues. Ald. Brady stated that the ordinance amendments should not be held -over since they are of a clarification nature and that it should be expected the legal issues will be back before the P & D Committee at a later date. Ald. Norton stated that she still feels the matter should be held -over and believes that the ordinance does not reflect changes that make it palatable to property owners. Ald. Brady requested that staff prepare for the special joint meeting between P b D Committee and the Zoning Commission an outline detailing future meeting schedules and the procedures for adoption of the ordinance. Adl ournment The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P b D Committee is May b, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff '645efrtRudd 70(1/2) -2- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED DRAFT, NOT APPROVED rr MINUTES Planning and Development Committee May 6, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Aid. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent and R. Warshaw Aid. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Borys. C. Brenniman, C. Powers, J. Wolfensperger. J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Aid. Brady Minutes of April 22, 1991. Ald. Warshaw moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of April 22, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. Communications ZBA 90-56-SU(F), Final Special Use Decision re 2727 Elgin Road. The Committee received the report from ZBA. Aid. Engelman questioned whether the fences referenced in the transcript were found to be legal or illegal? Jim Wolinski, Director of Building & Zoning, stated that the staff was presently investigating the addresses cited in the transcript. Aid. Engelman suggested that if the fences are illegally installed on right-of-way it be investigated to possibly place that area on the tax roll? Docket 130-5A-91, Plat of Subdivision re 2424 Payne Street. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Heydemann seconded that the Committee approve a request for the plat of subdivision at the subject address. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the subdivision request. Recommendations for an Appearance Design Review Process. Chairman Brady provided background information to the new Committee members regarding this issue. Chairman Brady stated that the issue initially came before the Committee approximately three (3) years ago. More recently, in September, 1990, a reference was specifically made to the P b D Committee to discuss design review. At that time the Committee, by consensus, stated that design review should be outside the zoning ordinance but added to the municipal code. After the P b D Committee received comments. the matter was sent to the Plan Commission for further refining. - Minutes - P & D Committee May 6, 1991 Drew Patterson, a member of the Plan Commission, presented background as to the Plan Commission's deliberations on the matter, In addition to reconanending that the design review process be placed in the Site Plan Review procedure, the Plan Commission did not recommend that design review be extended to include single family. Patterson stated that the Plan Commission felt that would appear too threatening and recommended that the City initiate only non -binding design review through the Site Plan Review process at this time. However, Patterson stated that the Plan Commission feels this may be only the first step and that upon further review to determine whether the non -binding process works, the Plan Commission may be willing to look at a binding review process. Patterson further stated that the Plan Commission was concerned about the legality of a binding review process. Ald. Newman, was present and stated that his ward reflected strong support for design review. He stated that he understands that this is the first step in gaining experience with design review but does not wish to close the door on the issue of binding design review. Ald. Newman suggested that the Committee revisit the issue in nine (9) to twelve (12) months. Ald. Lanyon questioned whether a specific review period for this matter was placed in the ordinance? Staff indicated that there was not a specific review process in the ordinance but a specific timeframe could be approved by the Committee. Ald. Warshaw stated that at a zoning and land use subcommittee of the Chicago Bar Association concerns were expressed regarding extending design review to a binding process. She stated that comments at the meeting warned that a municipality should tread carefully when developing a binding design review ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that the one being proposed is an excellent first step in gaining experience with design review. Ald. Heydemann stated that she supports the proposal and recommends that a one (1) year analysis be made to evaluate the spirit of cooperation between developers and the City. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of an ordinance at the May 20, 1991 meeting regarding design review that did not include single family; is non -binding; and that the matter would be reviewed in one (1) year. Ald. Warshaw also asked that within one year that staff provide further information regarding the legal ramifications of a binding review process. In response to a question from Chairman Brady regarding the matter of tear -down single family homes, Patterson stated that the Plan Commission had no strong feeling on this issue at this time and had not experienced that problem in Evanston. Ala. Engelman expressed reservation about regulating single family structures through the Site Plan Review Ordinance and stated that he could not support that aspect of design review. In response to a question from Ald. Lanyon, Wolinski stated that the Building b Zoning Department issues between 2,000 - 2,500 permits per year. Ald. Lanyon questioned whether the inclusion of single family would -2- �1 h Minutes a P D Committee May 6, 1991 overly burden Site Plan Review process? Staff stated that if design review and Site Plan Review included new single family construction, approximately five (5) cases would be added to the workload. Ald. Lanyon moved that single family be included in the design review. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Dave Galloway, Chairman of the Evanston Preservation Commission, was present and stated that the Commission supports design review. Galloway stated that the Preservation Commission has been actively providing technical assistance to landmarks by applying specific criteria for rehabilitation. He stated that without specific design criteria for design review, decisions could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. Galloway further expressed concerns regarding the difficulty in obtaining pro bono architectural services to aid the Site Plan Review Committee. Chairman Brady stated that in order to spread the workload, the ordinance provides for the Mayor to appoint a pool of advisory architects to the Site Plan Review process. Steven Yas, an architect and member of the Preservation Commission, concurred with Galloway and expressed similar concerns with respect to the lack of a detailed process. Yas felt that the lack of continuity of architects would render inconsistent decisions. Yas cited experiences in Park Ridge which included single family structures in the design review process. Yas stated that the City of Evanston was taking a timid approach compared to other nearby communities and recommended a more detailed list of standards in addition to binding review. Chairman Brady asked that staff compile information regarding this issue and provide to both new and old members of the P & D Committee. Ald. Brady further directed that staff prepare an ordinance, per the discussion, for introduction at the May 20, 1991 City Council meeting and also place the matter back on the P b D agenda for that date. The Committee voted 6-0 on the main motion to recommend approval of the design review process. Burglary Prevention Ordinance. Chairman Brady provided background to the new members of the Committee with respect to the ongoing issues involved with the Burglary Prevention Ordinance. Chairman Brady reminded the Committee that the Ordinance was not on the City Council's agenda for repeal; but only to provide clarification amendments. Linda Buch, a representative of EPOA, stated that lawyers from the City and EPOA had agreed to meet and to further attempt to resolve matters. Buch urged the Aldermen not to approve the recommended amendments. Ald. Warshaw stated that the amendments were only clarifications and would help in the implementation of the ordinance. Ald. Lanyon questioned whether the original BPO needed a clearer purpose statement? Kathleen Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, stated that the current ordinance does not -3- - Kinutes - P & D Committee May 6, 1991 contain a specific purpose statement (i.e. to provide protection to non -owner occupied dwelling units) however the idea and intent are clear. Chairman Brady reminded the Committee of a recent amendment proposed by a former P & D Committee member, Ald. Nelson, which defined ownership and provided an exemption for owner -occupied units. In further response to Ald. Lanyon's question regarding the defensibility of the ordinance, Brenniman stated that a better articulated purpose statement may be needed to better the City's ability to defend the ordinance. Chairman Brady concluded the discussion and stated that no vote was necessary at the Committee since the matter would be decided at the City Council Nay 6, 1991 meeting. Zoning Ordinance Adoption Process. Chairman Brady reviewed with the Committee a memo dated May 6, 1991 from her to other P & D Committee members which superseded an earlier memo setting forth the zoning review process. The Committee by consensus adopted the proposed new meeting schedule. Ald. Engelman questioned at what point the zoning map would be reviewed? Rudd Indicated that the map could be discussed during the review of Chapter 7 or at any other point in the process. Rudd stated that the consultant would be advised and appropriate time would be set aside for the map review. Docket 132-5A-91, Evanston Housing Coalition re Mortgage Revision. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to amend the mortgage documents from "recourse" to "non -recourse" to facilitate the creation of a partnership and the sale of tax credits for the Evanston Housing Coalition Project in the 2000 block of Wesley. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 133-5A-91, ZAC 91-1 re Rezoning of 2400-2500 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to concur with the ZAC recommendation to not rezone from R1 to C2. Jim Murray, attorney for the applicants, stated that contrary to information supplied to the public, the applicants only intent was to rezone to allow for the construction of a parking structure which would better accommodate the needs of the neighborhood and the building. The Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Lanyon voting nay). Docket 131-5A-91, Plat of Consolidation re James Park at 2222 Oakton Street. This matter was held over at the request of staff. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Committee is May 20, 1991 at 7:30 Staff Ro ert r4R(u_d_d_ 70(1/4) -4- The next regular meeting of the P & D p.m. DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DR -AM -NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee May 20, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw None C. Borys, C. Brenniman, C. Powers, J. Wolfensperger, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Ald. Brady Minutes of May 6, 1991. Ald. Warshaw moved and hid. Lanyon seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of May 6, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 (Aldermen Engelman and Heydemann absent) to approve the minutes as submitted. Communications Ald.'s Reference to Doq Shed. Chairman Brady reviewed with the new members of the Committee the background regarding this reference. Rudd also provided additional details regarding the various social issues involved with this item. It appeared that this single instance is the only reason for triggering a proposed amendment to regulate dog sheds (dog runs). After review of a memo submitted to the Committee dated May 13, 1991 which set forth information from the Northwest Municipal Conference regarding other communitie's regulations of dog runs, the Committee concluded that the matter was not within the purview of the P & D Committee since any proposed regulations would generally be contained within the Municipal Code and. more specifically, in the animal control ordinances. To try to regulate the location of dog runs via the zoning ordinance would not address the specific situation since most likely the amendment would not be retroactive. Staff stated that though an amendment regulating dog runs in this situation may resolve a problem, it is unknown how many, if any, problems a new regulation would create. Chairman Brady suggested that this issue would more appropriately fall within the Police Services realm since that body dealt with the animal control ordinance. Chairman Brady stated that she would entertain a motion to refer the matter back to the Police Services Committee and that staff be directed to notify Ald. Paden of this referral. Chairman Brady directed that the materials submitted to the P & D Committee be forwarded to the Police Services Committee and that a memo be drafted detailing the problem. Ald. Engelman so moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded. The Committee voted 6-0 to refer the matter to the Police Services Committee. - Minutes - Planning & Development Committee May 20, 1991 Docket 144-SB-91. Ordinance 50-O-91. Recommendations for an Appearance Design Review Process. Chairman Brady provided background to the Committee with respect to proposed Ordinance 50-0-91. Ald. Warshaw moved that the Committee recommend introduction of the subject ordinance with the stipulation that the ordinance would be reviewed within one (1) year to review the new appearance aspect. Ald. Engelman stated that he had problems with the draft in various sections. The first area of note was section 4-17-2(A)1 which stated "or a major modification to the exterior dimensions.....". Ald. Engelman questioned what was the intent of the word "major". Ald. Heydemann seconded Ald. Warshaw's motion but stated that she shared the concern of Ald. Engelman With respect to some of the language in the existing ordinance. She stated that she would recommend more specificity but felt that the current ordinance was better than nothing. Rudd explained to the Committee that in the initial drafting of the Site Plan Review Ordinance there was concern expressed that the ordinance not be binding and that the City would go slowly with respect to the concept. Ald. Heydemann stated that she concurred with Ald. Warshaw's recommendation but objected to the time limit condition. Ald. Warshaw agreed to drop the time frame reference from her original motion. Ald. Engelman continued with his review and stated that section 4-17-4(8)13 left significant discretion to staff with respect to "other materials and data". Rudd explained that this provision was developed to avoid situations whereby unneeded studies or plans were automatically required of the developer. By leaving this matter to the discretion of staff, only needed materials would be asked of the applicants. Chairman Brady observed that the current Site Plan Review Committee takes minutes of their meetings. She stated that she would like to have those minutes distributed to City Council on a regular basis. Ald. Engelman questioned why under section 4-17-2(B)3 an exemption was made for the U6 District? Staff explained that this specific exemption identified only that portion of Northwestern University located east of Sheridan and setback 100 ft. from the Sheridan Road right-of-way. It was explained that at the time of the draft of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, the City would not become involved with the review of Northwestern .elated buildings in this particular area since it would appear that those buildings would not have an impact on the rest of the City. Ald. Engelman questioned whether the ordinance should now apply to any facade change with respect to the aforementioned section 4-17-2(A)1,2 and 3? Staff stated that if the words "major" and "dimensions" were deleted from the respective sections, all facades would now fall within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Process. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the words "major" and "dimensions" be deleted from the aforementioned sections. Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Engelman seconded, that section 4-17-1,08 be amended to read "exterior building design and materials". The -2- Minutes - Planning 6 Development Committee May 20, 1991 Committee discussed briefly whether to place a time limit or a sunset provision within the ordinance to further review the concept of "binding or non -binding" review. Ald. Engelman observed that the ordinance, as presently written, cannot be binding since it lacks specific standards. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that the Committee recommend introduction of Ordinance 50-0-91 with the aforementioned amendmonts. The Committee voted 6-0. New Business Docket 143-SB-91. Evanston Hospital re Request for Tent Permit. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded to recommend approval of a request from Evanston Hospital for permission to erect a tent for a symposium on May 24, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0 for approval. Docket 145-5B-91, Ordinance 51-0-91, ZAC 91-2 re Amendment to the Definition of Building HeiKhts. Chairman Brady introduced Frank Hoover, initiator of the proposed amendment. Mr. Hoover reviewed briefly with the Corrsnittee his original intent which he feels was not necessarily reflected in the ZAC recommendation. Mr. Hoover explained that his intent was to protect residential areas adjacent to commercial or business zones from unduly high buildings which he believes the parking floor exemption provision of the zoning ordinance encourages. Mr. James Wilson, developer of the 1000 Central Street site, stated that he was troubled with both Mr. Hoover's and the ZAC recommendation though it was his belief that neither recommendation could impact his project at 1000 Central Street since foundation permits had already been issued. Kr. Hoover concurred with Kr. Wilson's observation. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was troubled with the entire evolution of this reference and stated that this major change was out of sync at this time. Ald. Heydemann stated that she was unable to Identify what the major intent of the reference was (density control, set -back, height limitation?). In response to that comment, Hoover stated that the goal was to fine tune the location where the parking exemption could be applied. He believed ZAC accomplished this in their minds but the way they did so may not have been his original intent. After a review of the proposed zoning map and the current zoning map, Ald. Warshaw recommended that this matter be referred to the Economic Development Committee for comment in addition to Camiros Ltd. for their comment prior to the matter being discussed in the context of the proposed zoning ordinance by the P b D Committee in August, 1991. Ald. Engelman stated that he had mired feelings on this issue. He stated that he was sensitive to the residents abutting commercial properties but understood that it may be an economic fact of life that exemptions are needed for parking floors in some instances. Richard Stillerman, a local attorney, was present and stated that he was in general agreement with the P & D Committee discussion. He urged that further analysis -3- Minutes - Planning & Development Committee May 20, 1991 be made of this issue. Hoover cautioned that timing -wise, how many more permits would be issued while this matter was being studied? Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the matter be referred to the Economic Development Committee for discussion. Chairman Brady directed that P & D Committee's minutes, and the ZAC transcript also be forwarded to them for their analysis of this issue. The Committee voted 6-0. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is June 10, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: R8berRudd 70(1/4) -4- DRAFT, HOT APPROVED t. DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Aid. Present: Aid. Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee June 10, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.K. S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw None C. Dorys, C. Powers, E. Szymanski. D. Rasmussen, J. Terry and R. Rudd Aid. Brady Minutes of May 20, 1991. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Heydemann seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee tweeting of May 20 and the minutes of P & D Committee and Zoning Commission joint meeting of May 13, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0. Communications Planning & Development Committee Zoning Ordinance Review. Aid. Brady reviewed with the Committee her memo setting forth recommended time frames for discussion at the upcoming special P & D Committee meetings regarding the review of the proposed zoning ordinance. Aid. Warshaw observed that the schedule is fine although she felt that the Committee should recognize that the times must be flexible due to the nature of the topics that will be discussed. Aid. Engelman requested staff, prior to each meeting to explain to the Committee the difference between the proposed ordinance and the current ordinance. Staff stated that at a minimum the consultant would make a brief presentation and if possible provide something in writing. Ald. Lanyon stated that he would not be in attendance at the July 29th or the August 5th Committee meetings. Chairman Brady recommended that the Committee use her recommended schedule as a guide and that it was not intended to establish hard and fast time frames. Old Business Docket 144-58-91, Ordinance 50-0-91 re Appearance Design Review Process. The Committee reviewed a clean copy of Ordinance 50-0-91, the Appearance Design Review Process, with Aid. Warshaw suggesting that if and when the ordinance is revised in the future, item 118 on page 2 should probably be listed as item #1 since it is of most importance. Chairman Brady relayed to the Committee Aid. Newman's requests that some time schedule be placed on the Planning Commission to return to the P & D with performance standards for appearance review. Aid. Lanyon observed that at the last meeting it was his - Minutes - Planning & Development Committee June 10, 1991 understanding that the Site Plan Review Committee would report back to the P b D Committee on a quarterly basis with respect to issuan that arise regarding the to be adopted appearance review portion of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The Committee concurred with Ald. Lanyon's comment and directed staff to report back on a quarterly basis. Charmain Borys, Interim Planning Director, suggested that the Plan Commission provide a status report in six (6) months to the Committee with respect to their progress in developing performance review standards. Chairman Brady, with the consensus of the Committee, directed staff to begin working with the Planning Commission in developing the subject standards but not in developing an overfill ordinance. New Business D-,:ket 151-6A-91, Evanston Hospital re Request for Tent Permit. Ala. Lanyon moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a request from Evanston Hospital to erect a tent for an Infant Special Care Unit Reunion Party. The Committee voted 6-0 for approval. Docket 152-6A-91, 826 Ridge Avenue/1107 Washington Street re Request for Plat of Consolidation. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a request from the Children' Home and Aid Society of Illinois for approval of a plat of consolidation at 826 Ridge/1107 Washington Street. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 153-6A-91, Request from Housing Options for the Mentally Ill (HOME) re Township Funding of $100.000. Ald. Brady reviewed with the Committee a request from HOME for $100,000 from the City as a portion of the acquisition cost of a six unit building located at 2120 Jackson. Chairman Brady stated that the Housing Commission voted unanimously in support of this request. Chairman Brady stated that a disturbing issue with the proposal is that of the potential displacement caused by the HOME purchase of the property. Chairman Brady distributed to the Committee a memo from HOME provided at tonight's meeting addressing the displacement issue. Chairman Brady recommended that the Committee not ask for a motion to vote on the request at the 6/10/91 meeting, but rather talk about the issues and hold the matter over until the 6/24/91 Committee meeting. Ald. Kent clarified both his and Ald. Washington's position on the matter. Ald. Kent stated that they both were contacted by representatives of HOME and were under the impression that the purchase of 2120 Jackson was in motion and that only their thoughts regarding the merits of the project were being requested. Although both Aldermen Kent and Washington were not opposed to the project, Ald. Kent stated that they were deeply concerned with the displacement issue and the lack of immediate neighborhood input. Ald. Kent felt that the community had not as yet had an opportunity to express its concerns or be involved in the decision making process. He stated that aside from a single home, no notice or brochure or other information was distributed to the neighborhood. Ald. Kent further stated that upon additional investigation, the current occupants of 2120 Jackson had no knowledge of what was happening -2- - Minutes - Planning & Development Committee 1 June 10, 1991 and were deeply distressed with the possibility of displacement. Ald. Kent reiterated that though he may support the concept being proposed, he is concerned with the unfair nature of the displacement with respect to the present residents. Chairman Brady suggested that a meeting be held during the next two weeks between the Aldermen of the ward, representatives of HONE and other parties that those two groups think would be helpful. Aid. Kent stated that he would be amenable to a meeting but that he was still deeply concerned with the displacement of the current families at 2120 Jackson. Aid. Warshaw stated that Aid. Rainey called her and also expressed concern with respect to the displacement of the low income families at the subject property. Ald. Warshaw acknowledged that this was a difficult situation since there are few abandoned properties in the City and any proposal similar to HOME's would face a like issue. Aid. Warshaw stated that this was a conflict of two different, needy, low income populations that needed to be served. In a response to a question from Aid. Heydemann with respect to how many properties HONE investigated for purchase, Clare McCarthy Peterson stated that she was unsure although 2120 Jackson seemed the most appropriate because of the price (less than $300,000). that HONE needed between three and six units, few buildings of this size were within the price range, the subject property was close to public transportation and shopping, and located in a safe neighborhood. Aid. Heydemann observed that to displace these families with HOME population would appear to be solving one problem and creating another. Peterson stated that displacement would always be a problem when HOME is looking at three to six unit buildings. Peterson reminded the Committee that HOME is applying to HUD for financing and relocation costs which are often generous. If HONE does not receive the HUD financing and/or relocation dollars. HONE is able to provide a much more modest amount for relocation. The Committee discussed the current status of the property which is under contract by HONE and the security of the current tenants which is limited to their existing leases. In a response to a question from Aid. Engelman, Peterson stated that the leases were for one year and that the rents were fair market. Additionally. Peterson stated that to her knowledge there are at least two Section 8 families in the building. The Committee discussed the legality or merits of meeting with the existing residents. The Committee concluded that it would not be appropriate for the current occupants of 2120 Jackson to be involved in the discussion with the City or HOME at this time. It was the consensus of the Committee that representatives of HONE and Aldermen Kent and Washington meet in an attempt to resolve this matter. The Committee held the matter until the 6/24/91 meeting. Ad_7 ournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is June 24, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:4 4-�n T. Rudd 70(1/3) DRAFT, HOT APPROVED -3- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee June 24, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Powers, K. Brenniman, J. Wolinski, D. Rasmussen, and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Brady Minutes of June 10, 1991. Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of June 10, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0. Communications Chairman Schedule. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 91-4-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 540 Florence Avenue. Ald. Warshaw thanked the staff for its help with this applicant through providing directions so that the citizen was not required to have an attorney at the ZBA hearing thus minimizing the financial strain. ZBA 91-5-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 1202 Hinman Avenue. The Committee received without comment ZBA 90-59-V(F), Final Special Use Decision re 500 Elmwood Avenue. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 90-7-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 2600 Princeton Avenue. The Committee received without comment. - Minutes - P &. D Committee k� ��'� June 24. 1991 Old Business Docket 153-6A-91. R.eauest from Housing Options for the Mentally Ill (HOME) re Townshio Funding of 5100.000. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that a the request of the Aldermen of the ward that this matter be referred back to the Housing Commission for further study. Ald. Kent read a memo to the Committee summarizing a meeting with the Aldermen of the ward and a representative of HONE which took place on Thursday, June 20, 1991. At that time the Aldermen of the ward affirmed their prior position that they could not support the proposal because of the displacement issue. The Aldermen of the ward, however, did support the concept and encouraged HOME to pursue their mission. Ald. Lanyon asked that the Housing Commission also receive attachments to a memo dated June 21, 1991 in which he requested clarification with respect to the intent of the Township funds which were allocated to the City. Chairman Brady also requested that the Housing Commission take a lead role into looking at issues of displacement since that will be a factor in implementing many City housing policies. The Committee voted 6-0 on the reference to the Housing Commission. With respect to Chairman Brady's comment, Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that a reference also be made to the Housing Commission to study the issue of potential displacement when any funds are Involved and that recommendations be made to the P & D Committee with respect to mitigation of the negative effects. The Committee voted 6-0. New Business Docket 174-6B-91, Ordinance 59-0-91, ZBA 91-6-V&SU(R) re Special Use and Variation re 1555 Oak Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council granting a special use and variation to permit the construction of a canopy at 1555 Oak Avenue. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 173-68-91. Ordinance 58-0-91, ZBA 91-2-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 322 Sherman Avenue and 355 Ridge Avenue. Aid. Warshaw moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council the granting of a variation and special use for expansion of the hospital campus and construction of a child care institution. Ald. Warshaw observed that St. Francis has been extremely cooperative in dealing with the neighborhood. She expressed wishes that Evanston Hospital could also exhibit such a cooperative attitude in dealing with its neighborhood and the City. Ald. Warshaw read i"rom minutes of a meeting on May 29. 1991. arnong Aldermen of the 8th and 9th ward and representatives of St. Francis Hospital. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the variation and special use ordinance be amended to reflect the four (4) points contained in the minutes with respect to the availability of slots in the proposed day care -2- ? - Minutes - .�'� P it D Committee June 24, 1991 Institution. Specifically, Ald. Warshaw recommended that the ordinance add as follows; 1. Neighborhood positions to be renurved include 18 full pay positions 10 Title X% positions Additional Title XX positions not used by hospital employees. 2. Employee tuition will be no more than 20% less than the neighborhood tuition except in the instance of special promotions where the service is priced to attract scarce personnel. 3. Neighborhood is defined as Howard Street (south), Washington (north), Tracks (east), and Asbury (west). 4. Neighborhood positions not filled will be available for hospital use. Should a neighbor apply after the position has been filled, the neighbor will be eligible for the next available position. The Committee entered into a lengthy discussion with respect to the boundaries of the neighborhood (Howard, Washington, E1 tracks and Asbury) and also the concern that the subject proposed building would be removed from the tax roll. Ald. Warshaw stated that the matter of the building being requested to be removed from the tax roll was not mentioned during the negotiation for the alley paving and day care slots. Ald. Warshaw expressed concern that under the current request the property is being removed from the tax roll and no payment -in -lieu of taxes is being proposed. Chairman Brady stated that she supports the development being proposed by St. Francis Hospital but questioned why the property is being removed from the tax rolls? In response to a question from Aid. Engelman, Kevin Rielly, attorney for St. Francis Hospital, stated that the property currently pays approximately $4,000.00 a year in real estate taxes. Rielly confirmed that St. Francis will file with the proper authority documents to remove the property from the tax rolls. Ald. Warshaw stated that during the neighborhood's meetings that a trade-off for consideration of expanding the Hospital Campus was the community benefit in the form of the day care slots as mentioned earlier. Removing the property from the tax roll was never a consideration nor expected. Several other committee Aldermen expressed concern about removing the property from the tax roll and questioned why it would be eligible to removed from the tax roil? Chairman Brady suggested that the Committee should give further consideration with respect to this property being removed from the tax roll before recommending on the zoning request. -3- - Minutes - P & D Committee June 24, 1991 Ald. Brady raised the issue of displacement (three families) which will occur if this project is approved. She felt that thld was similar, with respect to displacement, to the HOME proposal. Ald. Kent stated that he did not believe that this was similar to HOKE although he also expressed concern about any displacement. Ald. Warshaw reiterated that the tax issue was never contemplated or discussed and that the proposed expansion may have created neighborhood opposition if not for the day care concessions. Rielly stated that the cost of the day care concessions was approximately $70,000 - 25,000 per year for the Hospital versus the $4,000 in property taxes, He stated that the Hospital was making a substantial contribution to the neighborhood and the City with the day care slots. Chairman Brady suggested that tho Committee consider holding this matter in Committee until such time the Hospital and Aldermen of the ward had an opportunity to further negotiate with respect to the possible removal from the tax roll or payment -in -lieu of taxes. The Committee discussed the merits of introducing the ordinance on June 24, 1991 or waiting until such time the issue of payments-in-lieu/removal from tax roll had been further discussed. Several members of the Committee felt that the Committee setting was not the appropriate form to conduct these negotiations. Chairman Brady suggested that Aid. Warshaw garner the positions or fellow ward Aldermen with respect to issue of payments -in -lieu of taxes. In response to a question from Ald. Kent, Brian Baumbach, a St. Francis Hospital Administrator, stated that the idea of a day care center originated with the Hospital but early neighborhood input proposed the idea of day care concessions (slots) be set aside for the immediate area. Rielly questioned how payments -in -lieu of taxes would be determined and paid? Aid. Heydemann suggested that that matter be taken up during a more appropriate negotiating forum. Chairman Brady suggested that if the Hospital decides to further negotiate, that they contact the City !tanager. In response to a question from Aid. Kent with respect to the operation of the day care facility, Kr. Sturels, of St. Francis Hospital, provided additional information with respect to the curriculum, the ages of children and the day-to-day operation. With respect to the motion to amend the proposed ordinance addressing the four (4) conditions, the Committee voted 6-0 to include the items contained in the minutes of the May 29, 1991 meetipg in the ordinance. Aid. Warshaw moved that a condition be added to the ordinance requiring that the property remain on the tax rolls or that a negotiated payments -in -lieu- taxes be determined. This motion failed for lack of a second. Ald. Engelman moved and Aid. Heydemann seconded that the matter be tabled and held in Committee until the July 8, 1991 meeting to afford the Aldermen of the ward and St. Francis Hospital to further negotiate the issue of payments -in -lieu of taxes or leaving the property on the tax rolls. The Committee voted 6-0 to table the matter. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is July 8, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: R ert T. udd 70(1/4) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -4 -- XINUTES Planning and Development Committee July 8, 1991 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: C. Borys, ff. Hill, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd President Officials Ald. Warshaw {brutes of June 24, 1991 Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of June 24, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Communications ZBA 91-9-y[F), Final variation Decision re 1629 &gbuLy Avenue Ald. Brady questioned whether both final decisions of the ZBA would fall under the minor variation category an proposed in the new Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Rasmussen stated that he was unsure and in a response to Ald. Brady, he stated that staff would attempt to identify what would be minor variations in future ZBA cases. QjJ Business variation and Snecial Use for 322 Sherman Avenue Chairman Warshaw stated that the tax issue with St. Francis Hospital was still unresolved. Ald. Brady suggested that Jay Terry review the vast majority of day care centers in the City and in other areas and determine as co whether the day care facility was tax exempt and whether it was tax exempt if it was utilized for employees of the business and/or in part open to the public. Ald. Brady and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee table the St. Francis special use and variation request until a future date. New Business Ordinance 75-0-91. ZBA 91-1-v(R), re 1830 Ridae Avenue In .response to the question from Ald. Engelman, it was determined that the subject property would be classified as C2 in an overlay district under the proposed Zoning Ordinance and map. Ald. Brady raised the concern with respect to a potential parking problem. Specifically, Ald. Brady stated that a con- dition of the ordinance should be that each unit, if converted to a condomin- ium, would be required to purchase one (I) parking space. In response to the Planning & Development Committee � July 8, 1991 Page 2 Committee's concern, the developer, fir. Frolichstein, concurred with the con- dition and agreed to sell one (1) space With each unit. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that this condition be added to the ordinance. The Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Rent voting nay) to approve the new condition. Ald. Each stated that she objocted to conditions 3, I and 5 as added to the ordi- nance by the ZBA. Ald. Each stated that in her opinion the additional con- ditions were excessive regulations. A particular concern in those conditions was the requirement for a seven foot fence, limitation on the number of un- related persons in a unit and the regulation limiting the dimension of stereo equipment if used on the roof. Ald. Each clarified that though she objects to these conditions, she fully supports the proposed use. Ald. Kent questioned whether the developer looked into uses other than apartment or condo for the site? Mr. Frolichstein stated that his interest was only in multi -family use. Ald. Engelman questioned whether the developer would consider commercial on the ground floor since the site is across the street from the Research Park and in a mixed use area? Mr. Frolichatein stated that he believes that it would have been too difficult to obtain the necessary zoning. Ald. Kent further questioned the proposed use and suggested that the owner develop the site as a home for runaway youths. Ald. Kent stated that the site would be Ideal and that there was a definite need in the area for such a facility. Ald. Brady stated that it was her recollection that the proposed units were affordable ($85,00 - $'125,000) and that she supports the use as a multi -family or a condo development. Ald. Heydemann stated that she agrees that they are afforda.hly and felt that the developer had attempted to address the concerns of the neighbors. Ald. Brady stated that to some extent she agrees with Ald. Esch with respect to regulations, however, since the developer agreed to the conditions, she can accept them. However, she .Mated that she would like to see better wording with respect to the stereo speaker limitations (15) and re- quested staff to attempt to reword that condition. Ald. Kent reiterated his position with respect to a need for a home for runaway youths and expressed disagreement with the aforementioned comments with respect to affordability. Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the variation request to permit the conversion. Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Kent voting nay). &uZLLcLpal Use Zoninq xem tion re Citv Recvc4ing Center at 2222 Oakton Street Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Kent seconded that the Committee recommend the City Council approval of the municipal zoning exemption request for 2222 Oakton Street for the proposed Recycling Center. in response to a question from Ald. Brady, it was determined that the new yards would basically be zero Iot Iines. The Committee voted 6-0. Evanston/Glenbrook Hospital Revuest re Temporary Suns Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of a request by the Auxiliary of the Evanston/ Glenbrook Hospital to erect three (3) signs advertising and directing patrons to the American Craft Exposition at the Henry Crown Sports Pavilion. The Com- mittee voted 6-0. Planning i Development committee July 8, 1991 Page 3 Evanston Housing Coalitlon_re Mortuace.Revision Chairman Warshaw briefly explained to the Committee the complexities Involved in this request and also that the request was not abnormal with respect to utilising low Income housing tax credits. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the re- quest to revise mortgage documents for Evanston Housing Coalition to facili- tate the utilization of low income housing tax credits. The Committee voted 6-0. Over the Rainbow Associat4aW re Financing Restructuring Chairman Warshaw explained that the City previously loaned to Over the Rainbow $100,000 to complete the project. To data, Over the Rainbow has repaid $50,000 per the loan agreement. At this time, Over the Rainbow is requesting that the remaining $50,000 be repaid over a five (5) year period in $10,000 Increments. Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the revised loan repayment. Ald. Kent questioned whether any of the additional staff mentioned in the over the Rainbow requests were GA recipients and if so, how many? Ald. Brady stated that the people hired may have the need to be more qualified than those on General Assistance. Staff was requested to solicit this information from over the Rainbow and provide it to the Committee. fleauest for Moratorium from Preservation Leaaue of Evanston Chairman Warshaw stated that she was offended by the misinformation and mis- leading trash that was contained in an 'Alert' memorandum from the Preservation League of Evanston. She stated that the contents were totally inaccurate with respect to the new Zoning Ordinance and what was being discussed by the Planning and Development Committee. Ald. Brady added that she received numer- ous phone calls (30) over the weekend and totally agrees wit Chairman Warshaw's comments with respect to the *Alert.' In response to quest_ons from Ald. Brady, Herbert Hill, First Assistant Corporation Counsel, reiterated his position in a memo supplied to the Committee dated June 28, 199I, that the City could issue a moratorium on subdivisions if specific factors tiere addressed: What irreversible harm would take place it a moratorium was not imposed, what would be done during the period of the moratorium to address that harm and what length of moratorium would be needed so as to provide the shortest time possible to remedy the problem Identified. With respect to a question from Ald. Brady, Mr. Hill stated that without spe- cific reasons, a moratorium would not be reasonable to be applied to only the residential estate area as proposed in the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hill in- formed the Committee that subdivision approval is a ministerial action and not discretionary if the applicant meets all of the City's standards. In response to the question of estoppel, Hr. Hill stated if the applicants could prove that they had done substantial work in reliance upon City ordinances, a mora- torium at this point may very well not apply to subdivisions currently being reviewed (144 Greenwood and 202 Greenwood). Planning & Development committee. July 8, 199I ti Page 4 Chairman Warshaw stated that upon review of the current Zoning ordinance re- view process, it is possible that a passage date for the new ordinance might not take place until February 1992. in an effort to lend perspective to sub- ject proposed subdivisions, A1d. Brady provided the Committee with the fol- Iowing Information. The 144 Greenwood proposed subdivision would propose one (1) lot as 16,400 sq. ft. and a second lot of 38,000 sq. ft. The 202 Greenwood would have lots of 35,000 sq. ft., 9,000 sq. ft., and 9,000 sq, ft, In an effort to allow the interested audience members a chance to speak, Chairman Warshaw reviewed a sign -in list and identified the speaker. Edmund Pabst, stated that he was against the moratorium since over the last 30 some years, owners have had a similar right and have utilized that opportunity. Mr. Pabst stated that to impose a moratorium would be taking away property rights. Mr. Pabst also commented that in his opinion the proposed zoning re- quirements may be too stringent. Mr. Pabst also concurred with comments made by Committee members that the "Alert' missive contained vast amounts of in- accurate comments. Mr. Pabst stated that he felt there would be no severe harm done to the neighborhood or the City if a moratorium was not imposed. Barbara Buchbinder-Green, a former chairman of the Preservation Commission and a member of the Historical society, warned about the possibility of losing the unique aspects of Evanston if a moratorium is not imposed and subdivisions take place. Phil Scott, president of the Preservation League of Evanston and author of the "Alert• stated that he favors a moratorium on subdivisions and that it should be applied in the proposed residential estate overlay district. Mr. Scott warned the Committee that once the open space is developed along the lake- front, it is gone forever. Mr. Scott emphasized his concerns with over- building and overdensity throughout the City. Mr. Scott warned the Committee to be aware of redevelopment that would replace historic treasures of the City. Mr. Scott stated that he requests the Committee to consider a 90 day moratorium in all of the five (5) areas identified under the proposed overlay districts. Mr. Scott further suggested that the Committee accelerate tho de- bate on chapter 11 (Overlay Districts)of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and conclude it within the 90 day period. Mrs. Meredith Blau, a neighboring property owner of 144 Greenwood, stated that she believes to allow the subdivisions to take place would cause irreversible harm because of the disappearance of open lakefront property. Mrs. Blau crit- icizod staff for its lack of notification to the neighbors with respect to the subdivision since a request for notification was made. Dave Galloway, chairman of the Preservation Commission, stated that the Preservation Commission supports the Zoning Commission's proposed overlay dis- trict. He stated that overlay districts are common elements in modern day Zoning ordinances. Personally, Mr. Galloway stated that he believes a case can be made for i=rnversiblo harm due to less open space, increased density, and that a development may not be in character with the historical signifi- cance of the area. Mr. Galloway also requested that the Planning and Develop- Planning 0 Development CommI ttes July 8, 1991 Page 5 ment Committee expedite Its review of the Zoning ordinance due to the develop- ment climate on the north shore. Roger Berman expressed concern with respect to high taxes along the lakefront and suggested that If taxes are to remain high, property owners should have a right to develop some of their property in order to maintain the existing homes. Stuart Cooke stated that a moratorium was an opportunity for citizens to par- ticipate in the political process. Frank Hoover stated that the moratorium standards could not be met and that the two (2) proposed subdivisions are very modest. Beryl Nelson stated that a moratorium should be imposed and that what the City should be trying to protect is the right of future generations to see the area preserved. Xs. Nelson also requested that any Aldermen close to any one that would make a profit on the subdivisions should refrain from voting. Ald. Engelman stated that he sympathised with the efforts to preserve the open space. He stated he has personal experience with an adjacent subdivision to his home. However, he stated that he believes a moratorium would have devas- tating economic impacts citywide. Ald Engelman further stated that he would not support the carving up of lots into many small lots which is not what is being proposed by the two (2) subject subdivisions. Ald. Engelman further concurred with Hr. Hill's opinion that imposing a moratorium only on the residential estate districts could run into legal problems. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee not recommend to the City Council the imposition of a moratorium. The Committee voted 6-0. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P : D Committee is July 22, I991. Staff: e.,�11 obert T. Rudd 0 DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee July 22, 1991 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: C. Powers, H. Sabin, C. Borys, J. Wolinski, H. Hill and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Warshaw Minutes of July S. 1991. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning b Development Committee meeting of July 8, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0. Communications None Old Business None New Business Ald. Kent Reference re Ingraham Park. Ald. Kent explained to the Committee both his and concerns of neighbors of Ingraham Park that a policy be established that would state that Ingraham Park would always remain as a park. The issue came up since Ingraham Park has been targeted over the years as a potential site for other municipal uses (i.e. Levy Center). Ald. Kent cited from the Evanston General Plan which called for the maintenance of existing park land. Ald. Kent explained that both Aldermen and the neighbors do not want to always have to go to battle to maintain open space at the site and would feel more secure if there was a policy that would prohibit Ingraham Park from being a target for potential development. Ald. Brady requested that Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, comment with respect to the historic use of Ingraham and any other park in the City. It was also requested that a legal opinion be provided with respect to - minutes - Planning & Development Committee July 22, 1991 whether a sitting City Council could bind future councils from taking a action. Ald. Lanyon questioned whether there was any existing written documentation or agreements between the City and the neighborhood, with respect to maintaining Ingraham Park? Staff indicated that that question has been raised in the past and that no formal document has been discovered in the City's archives. Aid. Lanyon also questioned as to what is the specific designation of Ingraham Park? Does it include the entire Civic Center site? It was the consensus of the Committee to place this matter on an upcoming agenda when the reports from the Legal Department and Parks, Recreation and Forestry are received. Docket 197-7A-91, Ordinance 75-0-91, ZBA 91-1-V;R), re 1830 Ridge Avenue. On a matter not on the agenda, Ald. Brady questioned whether other Committee members were satisfied with the rewording of condition 5 of Ordinance 75-0-91 with respect to control of noise. Other Committee members expressed satisfaction that the rewording accomplished the intent. Docket 216-7B-91, Plat of Subdivision re 144 Greenwood. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request for a plat of subdivision at 144 Greenwood. Ald. Engelman ask whether Corporation Counsel has had an opportunity to review a legal opinion provided to the Committee with respect to approval of subdivisions? Herbert Hill, First Assistant Corporation Counsel, stated that he received the opinion on Friday and after a brief review disagrees with the opinion based on case law. Hill recited a 1917 case which found that approval of subdivision requests, when in proper form, is a ministerial action as are the two subdivision requests before the Committee and City Council currently. Ald. Lanyon question Hill as to what would happen if the City refused to take action on the subdivisions? Hill stated that a refusal to act on the request would effectively be a denial. Hill further stated that in that instance, the owner could seek a mandamus to order the ministerial act to be performed. Ald. Lanyon questioned whether there would be any liability to the City if there was a delay from two to three weeks in the City's decision? Hill stated that it depends on whether the applicant is being damaged in any way. Hill stated that it was possible that the City may be open to a charge of damages. Ald. Kent questioned whether the moratorium could be limited to just these properties? Hill stated that that proposition was very questionable. In response from a question from Ald. Brady, Hill stated that if a moratorium was passed tonight it would also be questionable whether it could apply to the subject plat of subdivisions before the Committee and City Council. Ald. Brady stated that she concurred with Counsel's opinion and reminded the audience and Committee the Residential Overlay District was going to be discussed by the P A D Committee at a special meeting on Monday, July 29, -2- minutes - Planning & Development Committee July 22, 1991 1991. She stated that the issue certainly was open for additional discussion. Ald. Brady also asked that the record reflect that there has been much misinformation with respect to homes on the proposed subdivision sites being destroyed. She stated that that is not the case being proposed by the applicants. Ald. Kent questioned whether the Committee was moving too fast on this issue and whether a consensus of the neighbors of the proposed subdivisions should be sought? Chairman Warshaw stated that the owners of the property have a legal right to make this request and have the City act on the request. Ald. Kent expressed a concern that the neighbors of the sites have an opportunity to be heard. Ald. Engelman reiterated Hill's opinion with respect to the ministerial act but expressed sympathy and concern with the issue of increased density in the subject area. Ald. Lanyon observed that this was a frustrating situation for all concerned but that the City Council was bound by State law. Ald. Brady stated that the most recent flyers distributed by the Preservation League of Evanston contained accurate information with one exception: Aldermen cannot abstain from voting unless there is a conflict of interest. Therefore the request for Aldermen to abstain on this issue was inappropriate. In response to a question from Ald. Heydemann with respect to any other applications for subdivisions, Jim Wolinski, Director of Building & Zoning stated that there has been an inquiry regarding 115 Dempster but no application received. Ald. Brady reviewed with the Committee a list of possible subdivisions as compiled by area resident Ed Pabst. On the same issue, Ald. Engelman requested that a map be prepared and submitted to the P & D Committee that would provide details with respect to potential subdivision sites within the Residential Estate Overlay Districts and that the maps provide details regarding lot size. Staff indicated that the material would be submitted to the Committee for the July 29, 1991 meeting. With respect to the special July 29. 1991 meeting, Chairman Warshaw requested a consensus of the Committee to agree to eliminate from that agenda the issue of Off -Street Parking and University Districts. The Committee concurred and directed staff to place those two item on the October 7, 1991 special P & D Committee agenda, On the main motion for approval the Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Kent voting nay). Docket 215-7B-91, Plat of Subdivision re 202 Greenwood. Aid. Lanyon moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the plat of subdivision at 202 Greenwood Street. The Committee voted 5-1 (Ald. Kent voting nay). -3- - Minutes - Planning S Development Committee July 22, 1991 Docket 214-7B-91, Request of Florian Jaworski and Joseph Marco for Extension of Validity of'nrdinance 24-0 -89 re 622 Mulford Street. Ald. Lanyon moved that the Committoe recommend to City Council a request to extend the validity of Ordinance 24-0-89 for a six (6) month period rather than the two (2) year period requested by the owners. Ald. Brady seconded the motion. Ald. Lanyon stated that a six month period would allow the City to encourage the property owners to keep the property maintained With respect to weed cutting and snow removal. The Committee discussed briefly the merits of extending the validity for a six or twelve month period. In response to questions from the Committee, applicant Florian Jaworski stated that family health problems and the building recession over the past two years has stymied his attempt to develop the site. Jaworski accepted the six month extension and acknowledged that if construction was not underway by the end of the six month period, he would need to make another request for extension. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend a six month extension of Ordinance 24-0-89. AdJournment The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. August 5, the next regular meeting Staff: •G[/� R bert . udd 70(1/4) -4- The next special meetings are July 29 and is August 12, 1991 at 1:30 p.m. DRAFT. NOT APPROVED .j MINUTES Planning and development Committee August 12, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, R. Lanyon and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: Aid. Kent Staff Present: J. Siegel, E. Szymanski, C. Borys, D. Wirth, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Aid. Warshaw dinutes of July 22. 1921, Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Lanyon seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of July 22, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0. Communications ZBA 91-11-V(Fj. Final Variation Decision re 34� Custer Avenue. Chairman Warshaw suggested that, though the case has been finalized, it would seem that the applicant could have decked the entire garage and thus resolved some of the issues. .ZBA 91-12-SU(F), Final Special Use Decision re 2341 Lincolnwood Drive. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 91-14-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 818 South Boulevard. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 91-16-V(F). Fina1 Variation Decision re 2636 Asbury Avenue. The Committee received without comment. Letter from Rodica Perciali re 2526 Ridgeway, Romanian Folk Art Museum. The Committee received without comment. Open Issues Schedule Ald. Brady proposed to the Committee that issues dealing with B-1, B-2 and Height be placed on an upcoming special P & D Committee agenda with respect to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The Committee agreed to place those items on Monday, November 18, 1991, in addition to leaving room for open issues at that time. • r - Minutes P & D committee August 12, 1991 Ald. Kent Reference re Ingraham Park. In the absence of Ald. Kent, the matter was requested to be held over until the August 26, 1991 meeting. Ald. Brady requested additional information particularly with respect to the Legal Department reviewing the the conveyance documents of the subject site to the City and also asked that an exact as possible square footage calculation be made of the "park" area west of the Civic Center and north of the south Civic Center parking lot. The intent is that if the subject area is 25,000 feet or greater it could be designated as open space which may resolve concerns expressed by Ald. Kent. NEW BUSINESS Docket 218-BA-91. Peter N. Jans Golf Course rg-_Fencina Recruest g Municipal Exemption, Ald. Warshaw noted for the minutes that a letter in support of the proposed fence has been received from Mr. Kevin Moore of 108 Girard, Wilmette. June Bloom, 2805 Girard, Evanston, stated that several residents of the area had a revised proposal with respect to the request submitted by the golf course. Ms. Bloom stated that a compromise resulting in the removal of the four (4) most southernly posts contained in the proposed fence be approved. Tom Carlson, representing the golf course board, stated that this was an original compromise that in re -review is acceptable. Mr. Art Prowitz, a resident of Girard in Evanston, stated that he concurs with the proposed compromise but suggests that the residents requesting this change pay a prorated share of the landscaping and also for the fence. Mr. Prowitz warned against painting the fence since he believes the paint would not have a lasting effect. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the municipal exemption request and amend the request to accept the compromise proposal. The Committee voted 5-0. e a Opinion re Pending Plats of Subdivision. 144 and 202 Greenwood. Corporation Counsel Jack Siegel was present to review his legal opinion with respect to subdivision plat approval. Siegel extensively reviewed his opinion of August 8, 1991 with the Committee and clarified questions of same. With respect to the procedure for placing an item on the "back of the agenda" of the City council, Siegel recommended against putting an ordinance on the agenda if the Committee actually did not have such a document. -2- L''I 5 - Minutes P & D Committee August 12, 1991 However, Siegel stated the Committee could place an item on the "back of the agenda" but not introduce or pass the ordinance. In response to further questions from the Committee, Siegel stated that by doing so would be giving notice that City Council had an item for future consideration on the agenda. With respect to whether such an action would bolster the City's position if a law suit would ensue from not approving two (2) recently proposed subdivisions, Siegel stated that such an action would not "make or break" a possible law suit defense. Siegel noted that the recently scheduled ZAC reference with respect to amendments to the overlay District which is scheduled for August 28, 1991 was an important factor in demonstrating active pursuit of an amendment. Phil Scott, President of the Preservation League of Evanston requested to speak and stated that the Preservation League supports holding approval of the subdivisions and requests that the two (2) subdivision items be removed from the agenda and that Corporation Counsel be given every chance to defend such an action. In response to an earlier comment made by Siegel, Ald. Brady stated that in her opinion the condominium moratorium was far different from the subject matter and the damage was much greater and more imminent than what is being suggested with respect to the subdivisions. Dave Galloway, Chairman of the Preservation Commission, stated that if the subdivisions were approved as proposed, the area would be irreparably damaged. Galloway stated that the Preservation Commission encourages withholding actions and requests that the P & D Committee give the City Council more powers to stop further subdivisions until such time the new zoning regulations are adopted. Ald. Brady stated that since the City Council is actively considering an amendment, she is predisposed to not supporting any future subdivisions in the Greenwood area since this area was particularly targeted by the ZAC reference. After further clarifying with Siegel the acts to take at the City Council the Committee took no further action on this item or on Docket 220-8A-91. Ordinance 88-0-91. Review of Pronosed Fence Reaulations and Review of Site Plan and $pM_P,�Irance 8&view Ordinance. Ald. Brady recommended that the Committee consider prohibiting by right, all front yard fences. Additionally, front yard fences could not be greater in height than thirty (30) inches and only approved through the minor variation process. Further, since the minor variation process is decided by the zoning administrator, Ald. Brady proposed that a subcommittee of the Preservation Commission be -3- Minutes _! P & D Committee August 12, 1991 required to provide advice to the zoning administrator prior to either approving or denying a front yard fence minor variation. Ald. Brady agreed that if this suggestion were placed in the zoning ordinance, an amendment to the Preservation Commission Ordinance would also be required. Chairman Warshaw suggested that the Committee consider lowering the thirty (30) inches to a maximum height of twenty-four (24) inches if the fence is completely opaque. After further discussion, it was also proposed that fences in height greater than thirty (30) inches be required to go through the special use process before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Aid. Engelman expressed concern of the fact that though fences are regulated, bushes and shrubs may Ear exceed thirty (30) inches and are acceptable. Aid. Engelman requested that the zoning consultant consider "fence districts" which were discussed at an earlier Zoning Commission meeting. Aid. Brady recommended that the zoning consultant try to establish a provision in the proposed zoning ordinance that would provide "permission to establish fence districts" at a future date. Chairman Warshaw stated that the case at 1620 Asbury created much discomfort for the Committee. Particularly since the matter was denied on two (2) occasions by the ZBA. She stated that the former P & D Committee felt somewhat obligated to uphold the ZBA decision. Aid. Lanyon concurred with Aid. Engelman in expressing concern with the apparent inconsistency in regulating fences and not shrubbery though they may have the same effect. Aid. Lanyon further expressed concern with legislating aesthetics with respect to fences. Aid. Engelman observed that in some instances ZBA members have a tendency to amend applicants proposals during the hearing. He suggested that possibly the P & D Committee should address this troubling matter as a policy issue and control the ZBA involvement with respect to changing an applicant's request. Aid. Brady referred to an earlier accepted ZBA final decision with respect to a front yard picket fence at 2341 Lincolnwood and suggested that the zoning consultant review this matter with regards to the So% open area proposed in the picket fence. Galloway, Chairman of the Preservation Commission stated that the Commission supported the Zoning Commission's compromise recommendations in principle and was an advocate of retaining the predominantly open character of the landscape by somewhat stringently controlling front yard fences. Galloway stated that the Preservation Commission continues to support this concept. Ald. Engelman observed that in Aid. Kent's absence, he believes that Aid. Kent would disagree with -4- - Minutes P & D Committee August 12, 1991 the direction to prohibit front yard fences based on aesthetics when Ald. Kent has observed that many of his Fifth Ward constituents are concerned with safety and support front yard fences of a height higher than thirty (30) inches and in many cases of a chain -link construction. The Committee requested that the zoning consultant review this matter and provide additional input at upcoming special meetings of the P & D Committee. Docket 219-8A-91. Resolution 56-R21 re Land and Water Consery_gJJ n Grant Application. At the request of staff, the matter was held in Committee until August 26, 1991 to allow for a related issue to be reviewed by the Administration & Public Works Committee on that date. JNDJOURN = The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next special meetings is August 19 and the next regular meeting is August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff : o ert udd 70(1/5) -5- QRAFT. NOT.APPROVED ��:aM �• :":• • MZNVTES Planning and Development Committee August 26, 1991 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: C. Powers, C. Brenniman, C. Borys, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Warshaw mutes of_Auaust 12. 1991, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of August 12, 1991. Ald. Engelman requested that on the last page of the minutes his comments reflect that "he felt that Ald. Kent would not necessarily be only opposed to limit fence styles and heights based on aesthetics, but also for other reasons". The Committee voted 6-0 to approved the minutes as amended. Communications Chairmanshi.n Schedu l_q, The Committee received without comment. Pronosed Zoning Ordinance - Central Business District At the request of the Plan Commission and the Economic Development Committee the Committee revised the meeting schedule for the hearings with respect to the new zoning ordinance. The Committee changed the items for discussion on September 23, 1991 to November 18, 1991 and those items from November 18, 1991 to September 23, 1991 with the exception that Open Issues remain on the November 18, 1991 agenda. Staff stated that a revised meeting schedule would be transmitted. old Business Docket 219-eA-91. Resolution 56-R-91 re Land and Water Conservation G a nt Application. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee recommend approval of Resolution 56-R-91 for a land and water conservation grant application. This matter was on the last Committee agenda and held pending a related matter which was scheduled for Administration and Public Works on August 26, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the subject Resolution for a grant application. - Minutes - P & D Committee August 26, 1991 Docket 240-SB-91, Families In,Iransition program (F.I.T.)_re New Biblewav pgjitecost Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval to the City Council for a Families In Transition application from the Bibleway Pentecostal Church. Ald. Brady stated that this particular F.I.T. reflected a truly homeless family and also was encouraged by the direction to obtain vocational training for the recipients. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket-239-8B-91. Tent Permit Request of the King Home at 1555 Oak Avenue. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a tent permit for the King Home for a series of tents for a celebration to take place on September 29, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. pocket 241-8B-91. Resolution 73-R-91` re Acquisition of Tax Delinquent VacaDt Parcejg, Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of Resolution 73-R-91 for acquisition of tax delinquent vacant parcels. In a response to a question from Ald. Kent, Rudd stated that over the next several months the Housing Commission and the P & D Committee would be developing proposals that would inpart attempt to define affordable housing. Rudd explained some various options that the Housing Commission and City Council would be reviewing with respect to infill housing. Ald. Brady stated that the City could place various covenants and/or conditions on properties to maintain affordability, appropriate bedroom mix, and limitation on resales. Chairman Warshaw observed that a the very minimum, if the City was not able to acquire the property, taxes would be paid. Ald. Lanyon cited that a recent article in the gUcaco Tribune highlighted some examples of infill housing. Ald. Kent questioned whether the sites would be Section 8? Rudd stated that the sites may or may not be Section S depending on what type of proposal the City accepts. The Committee voted 6-0. Children's Ho me and &jd Societv re Request for TemAorary Excention Durina Construction at 1107 Washington, Ald. Lanyon moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve a consideration to locate two (2) temporary school buildings in the rear yard of 1107 Washington for a twenty-eight (28) month period. Chairman Warshaw stated that based upon the statements made by the owners of the property, she was satisfied that no additional screening would be needed due to the location of the trailers and the time schedule for constructing the new building. Ald. Brady questioned whether the proposal was acceptable to the neighbors? A -2- i Minutes - ' P & D Committee August 26, 1991 representative of the children's Home and Aid Society stated that there was no controversy on this matter. Ald. Heydemann questioned the proposed lengthy twenty-eight (28) month construction period? A representative of the Children's Home and Aid Society stated that the original construction period was phased over twenty --four (24) months and that the twenty-eight (28) month request is an outside date for completion. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the request. p1 Commission Annua 1 ReporL, Alex Darragh, Chairman of the Plan Commission was present and reviewed briefly the Plan Commission Annual Report. Darragh highlighted two (2) major accomplishments of the Plan Commission over the past twelve (12) months: The Downtown Plan and Appearance Review. Darragh stated that the Downtown Plan called for the cooperation and consensus building among numerous interested parties. Darragh invited the P & D Committee members to the Plan Commission meeting of September 11, 1991 to discuss at greater depth the Plan Commission's role. Ald. Brady observed that she and Ald. Lanyon were committed that night to Budget Policy Committee. Chairman Warshaw stated that the Flood and Pollution Control Commission was also schedule for that date. Ald. Brady requested a clarification with respect to the status of the Planning Department. Staff indicated that during the budget process a clarification from the City Manager with respect to staffing levels would be provided. Ald. Brady stated that she believes the Planning Department needs to be fully staffed. The Committee discussed briefly an item on an earlier Committee agenda with respect to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. After the discussion it was the consensus that the subject ordinance should be reviewed in total once the new zoning ordinance is in place. At that time it will be easier to assess the role of the Site Plan Review Committee and expectations for that committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next regular meeting is September 16, 1991 and the next special meeting is September 23, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: obeirt T. Rudd 70(1/3) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -3- DRAFT. HQT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee September 16, 1991 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: C. Borys, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding official: Ald. Lanyon MiWtes of_Auaust 26,1991., Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Kent seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of August 26, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 to approved the minutes (Aldermen Heydemann and Engelman absent). •u01) 10 te&OMIL9i ZBA 82-14-3L(F), Final Decision on Extension of Validity of ZBA Decision re 91.0-38 Custer Avenue. Ald. 3rady questioned what was meant with respect to the comment made by staff that under the proposed zoning ordinance the subject applicant would require a building permit? Jim Wolinski, Director of Building & Zoning, explained that under the proposed zoning ordinance a building permit would be required if the zoning approval had not been executed within a specific timeframe and that only one (1) extension would be granted. With respect to this issue, staff was directed to prepare a memo for the P & D Committee's information during the consideration of the proposed zoning ordinance at an upcoming meeting. ZBA 91-17-V(El. FinAl Variation Decision re 1301-07 Judson Street. The Committee received without comment. e Ald. Warshaw questioned whether this was a major or minor variation? Staff indicated that this would be a major variation due to the percent of encroachment into the required yards. Chairman Lanyon stated that he has requested of staff a memo with respect to this issue dealing with eave overhang in required yards for review during the P & D Committee's consideration of the proposed zoning ordinance. - Minutes - P & D Committee September 16, 1991 Ala, Kent Referangip, to Ingraham park. In response to a question from Chairman Lanyon regarding the process for identifying parks, Rudd explained that the subject park was established by ordinance 125-0-82 and described as an area east of Asbury and bordered by Simpson on the south and Leonard Place on the north, containing approximate 11.64 acres. Rudd explained that by that description, and the acreage amount, it would appear to identify the entire parcel bordered by the aforementioned boundaries in addition to Ridge Avenue on the east. A memo from Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry, indicated that the area suggested by the Committee as Ingraham Park which would be bordered by Leonard Place, Asbury, and the two City parking lots, would comprise approximately four acres. Ald. Engelman observed that under the proposed zoning ordinance, an area of 25,000 sq. ft. or more would be identified as open space. Ald. Engelman questioned whether this would address the concerns previously mentioned by Ald. Kent? Ald. Kent expressed the concerns of neighbors that the current park area never be a site for development such as has recently been discussed for the Levy Center. He stated that the neighbors prefer that the area stay open space and not be changed in any manner. In response to a concern regarding possible construction of a playground or the installation of playground equipment, Ald. Brady stated that the current policy is that without neighborhood involvement and support, playground equipment is not typically installed in a park. Ald. Heydemann agreed that the neighborhood people should be an integral part in determining what meets their needs with respect to parks. Ald. Kent concurred and stated that the neighboring residents should have the final say as to how the park is developed. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Engelman seconded that staff be directed to prepare an amendment to 125-0-82 to change the boundaries of Ingraham Park to be more specific and reflect an area bounded by Asbury on the west, Leonard Place on the north, and the Civic Center parking on the east and south, totaling approximately four acres. The Committee voted 6-0. Pocket 249-9A-91, Temporary Sign re Evanston YsM.C.A. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the request by the Evanston Y.M.C.A. to erect a temporary sign in Fountain Square displaying their fund raising campaign sign. Chairman Lanyon stated that he opposed the subject request because it sets a poor precedent for erecting various displays in Fountain Square. The Committee questioned whether other signs such as the United Way display sign was placed at Fountain Square? Staff indicated that it was brought - 2 - -- Minutes - P & D Committee September 16, 1991 to their attention that the subject United Way sign was not in Fountain Square but nearby in a landscaped triangular parcel owned by the City. After further discussion, Ald. Warshaw withdrew her motion and suggested that the staff have further discussions with the Y.M.C.A. with respect to an alternate site. It was the consensus of the Committee to send this back to staff to meet with the Y.M.C.A. etv_ = Sreenwood Streetu Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a request from the Evanston Historical Society for permission to erect a tent for a flea market to be held September 28, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 248-96-91, Plat of Subdivision -re 2222 Prairie Avenue. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a plat of subdivision at 2332 Prairie Avenue. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 250-9A-91- Ordinance 93-0-91. re Regulation of Contractors' Hours of Operation• Several members of the Committee expressed dissatisfaction and dismay with respect to the proposed ordinance to limit hours of building construction to 7:00 p.m. Cited more specifically was a lengthy discussion that took place at the P & D Committee within the last year with respect to amendments to the hours that contractors may operate within the City. The Committee also expressed concern that the matter was being presented to them in the fora of an ordinance and felt that it was inappropriate without prior discussion. Staff indicated that this matter came through the Administration in the form of an aldermanic request in an attempt to avoid, in the future, a recent incident of extended and extreme noise created by a contractor working until 9:00 p.m. After further discussion with respect to the merits of the request in addition to the appropriate procedure for similar requests, the matter was referred back to staff with a recommendation that wording be added to the current ordinance, without changing the hours of work, that would allow staff to restrict the hours of an operation if neighbors were unduly affected by noise, dust, etc. It was also suggested that a penalty provision be added to aid the enforcement of this provision. - 3 - - Minutes P & A Committee September 16, 1991 ent Pe Ald. Kent movad and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request from the United Faith M.B. Church for permission to erect a tent for a neighborhood crusade to take place on September 27th through September 29, 1991. In response to questions from the Committee with respect to neighborhood concerns, Ald. Kent stated that there would be no problems with noise or the crowds. Staff stated that a separate loudspeaker permit would be required and that there are restrictions, with respect to how far the speaker can project. The request before the P & D Committee was only for the tent permit and the speaker permit was handled administratively. Satisfied that the neighborhood has been informed of the matter, the Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the tent permit request. ADJOOMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next regular meeting is September 30, 1991 and the next special meeting is September 23, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:Z&�)/ Xee� L Robert T. Rudd 70(1f4) NOT APPRDVE_D MINUTES Planning and Development Committee September 30, 1991 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: C. Ruiz, J. Wolfensperger, E. Szymanski, R. Rudd, J. Wolinski and D. Rasmussen Presiding Official: Ald. Lanyon Mutes of September 16, 1991, Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Kent seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of September 16, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approved the minutes. Communica o s OA 91-19-V(F). Final Variation pecisfop_re 917-19_Forest Avenue. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 91-20-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 1405 Leonard Place_. The Committee received without comment. p1d Business pocket 267-9B-91. Ald. Kent Reference re Inqraham Parjj_Amendment to ordinance 125-0--82. The Committee noted receipt of a clean copy of the proposed ordinance requested at the last regular meeting. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance. The Committee voted 6-0. New Business Docket 268-9B-91.. Ordinance 99-0-91. ZAC 91-3. re Re e e ce to Establisli a Minimum Front Lot Line Requirement. Ald. Brady noted that she intends to concur with the Zoning Amendment Committee recommendation on this case. Ald. Warshaw suggested that existing properties already containing a principle building and an accessory building with a dwelling unit contained - Minutes - P & D Committee r September 30, 1991 therein should be exempted from the thirty-five (35) ft. lot width requirement. Ald. Engelman questioned the legal ramifications of such an exemption but said he would look at the exemption language when submitted. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was trying to distinguish between properties already improved as opposed to those that are to be divided to create unimproved lots. Ald. Engelman again noted that he was concerned with the proposed amendment standing challenge if developed properties were exempted and undeveloped properties were not. Following further discussion it was decided to hold this matter in Committee to await receipt of a clean copy of the proposed ordinance. pocket ?66-9B-91. ZAC 91-4. re Reference to Establish Residential Estat- Overlay District. Committee members expressed general concurrence with the Zoning Amendment Committee's recommendation based on the finding of not making piece meal amendments to the ordinance at this point in time. Ald. Heydemann noted that there had been discussion of other properties that might be included in Overlay Districts and would like information on this. Ald. Brady suggested that such a review by staff should be more comprehensive than just those properties mentioned in the Zoning Amendment Committee report. Following further discussion, the Committee requested staff to provide the requested information for their discussion of the comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Warshaw noted that she would again like to revisit the rationale for the creation of the proposed Residential Estate Overlay Districts in order to distinguish why certain properties are to be included. Following further discussion, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded a motion that the Committee recommend that the City Council concur with the Zoning Amendment Committee's recommendation on this case. The Committee voted 6-0. Docket 265-9B-91. Pronosed Easement of Access re 715 Sheridan Poad, Ald. Brady noted that the proposed lots would meet the requirements of the proposed comprehensive amendments to the zoning ordinance with respect to the Residential Estate Overlay District A or B. She said she had two concerns: (1) If a thirty-five (35) ft. front lot line width is to be required, in the proposed Zoning Ordinance, can the applicant amend the plat to take this into account now; (2) although not required by law, can notice be given to the adjacent neighbors prior to action by the Committee. Ald. Brady said the lack of notice with respect - 2 - - Minutes - + P & D Committee September 30, 1991 to the easement of access is a weakness in the current ordinance but feels in this instance, neighbors should be notified prior to action. Ald. Engelman noted that as the easement is presently proposed, he would vote against the proposal. He said the reason for this is that the easement as currently proposed, is less than thirty-five (35) ft. wide. In response to a question from the Committee, Szymanski stated that Corporation Counsel, Jack Siegel, indicated that approval of the easement of access is a discretionary act of the City Council. City Council review of a plat of subdivision without such access easement, is a ministerial act. Ald. Engelman noted that if the action on the easement is discretionary, the Committee should hear from the neighbors and allow the plat to be amended to require a thirty-five (35) ft. easement. Ald. Warshaw offered that the 35 ft. wide easement is not germane at this point and that the easement will only function as a private road. Ald. Heydemann noted that changing an area from a lawn to a drive, would have an impact in the neighborhood and could be considered a profound change. Ald. Lanyon said that technical compliance with the 35 ft. front lot line width should be achieved because it is important. He said notice to the neighbors is also important. Ald. Brady questioned whether or not a condition could be imposed by the City Council to require review of an access easement by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee when development is proposed on one of the proposed vacant lots. Richard Lehner, Preservation Commission member noted that the Commission had met and discussed this matter. Mr. Lehner stated that the Preservation Commission is opposed to the proposed access easement and subdivision since the property in question has landmark status. He said that in the opinion of the Commission, the proposal would impact the landmark structure because of the change in open space, the streetscape, intensity of use, impact on the lakefront, and generally would detract from the community as a whole. He stated that the Committee should carefully weigh the benefits of the community versus the rights of the property owners and these points should be considered in the Committee's decision. In response to a question, Mr. Lehner stated that the minutes of the Preservation Commission meeting on this matter, were not yet available but would be provided to the Committee as soon as possible. Mr. J. Murray, applicant's attorney, noted that the plat and easement of access comply with the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance and even if the proposed overlay districts were imposed, the plat also complies with the area requirements of either the A or B Overlay Districts. Mr. Murray stated that there is presently no requirement in the - 3 - - Minutes P 4 D Committee September 30, 1991 ordinance for notice to neighbors and in his opinion, the proposed easement of access should be acted on this evening. Following further discussion Ald. Brady made a motion to hold this matter in Committee and directed staff to notify the neighbors of this proposal on both sides of Sheridan between Sheridan Square on the south and Kedzie Street on the north. The motion was seconded by Ald. Engelman. The Committee voted 6-0 Docket 264-90_91. plat of Subdivision re 715 Sheridan Road. The Committee noted the previous action on the easement of access and the fact that this proposal could not be approved without first approving the request for the easement of access. By consensus, the Committee decided to hold this matter in Committee. pocket 263-9B-91. Plat of Consolidation re 2101 Greenbav Road. Ald. Engelman noted that he would be abstaining with respect to this matter due to a conflict of interest. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the plat of consolidation. The Committee voted 5-0 (1 abstention). Revised Zoning_ ordinance Review Schedule. Following a brief discussion, the Committee decided to switch the matters for discussion from November 18, to November 4, and to move the matters previously scheduled for November 4, to November 18th. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:41. p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 14, 1991. The next special meeting of P & D Committee is scheduled for October 7, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. S to f f :// •� David Rasmussen 70(1f4) 4 -- ,DRAFT. NO- _APPRO'VU MINUTES Planning and Development Committee October 14, 1991 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. Wolfensperger, K. Brenniman, D. Rasmussen, C. Ruiz, R. Rudd, J. Walinski and C. Powers Presiding Official: Ald. Lanyon Minutes of Sentember 30. 1991, Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of September 30, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approved the minutes. Communications ZBA 91-24-VfF), Final Variation Decision re 824-36 Dobson Street. Ald. Warshaw asked the status of payments -in -lieu of taxes. R. Rudd stated that the payment -in -lieu of taxes is being negotiated by the City Manager's office but that no building permit will be issued until the situation is resolved. Ald. Warshaw continued that she understood the parking variation is due in part to the fact that most residents will not drive but wanted to be sure there will be adequate parking. D. Rasmussen agreed that very few of the residents drive and therefore a variation was granted for the parking requirements. ZBA 91-22-VtF?, Final Variation Decision re 2324 Lincolnwood Dr. Ald. Engelman stated that this case seemed to have taken awhile. Rasmussen volunteered to submit a chronological breakdown of the stages and timing for this case. Temnorary Sian Reauest re Evanston Y,M.C.A.. Ald. Lanyon referred to the memo from the Y.M.C.A. stating that they are seeking alternate options for placement of the United Way sign. Ald. Lanyon indicated that the docket item will be removed from the Council agenda. r - Minutes - P & D Committee October 14, 1991 Dggtet 250-9A-91, Ordinance U -0-91. re Regulation of Contractors' Hours of Ooeratj - Ald. Lanyon noted that the staff should have discretion to allow work before and after normal working hours and to establish noise levels. Rudd stated that staff could draft an ordinance to follow the intent and eliminate too broad of discretion. Aid. Brady stated that she understands the need for objective standards but there is also a need for discretion. K. Brenniman agrees with Aid. Brady but stated that the City could experience legal problems without standards. Ald. Engelmann questioned whether the contractor hours should be addressed as part of overall noise enforcement. Ald. Warshaw asked staff to inform the Committee of when the Environmental Control Board will meet next. Aid. Brady stated that the Noise Ordinance may be currently tabled. Aid. Lanyon countered that it would be better to inform contractors as part of the permit process. Aid. Kent asked how the City would gage different decibels levels and how it would be enforced? Aid. Heydemann replied that enforcement of standards are often complaint based. She continued that standards are better_as part of the permit process. Aid. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded holding the question in Committee pending revision from the Legal Department regarding standards. Docket 258-9B-91. Ordinance 99-0-91. ZAC 91-3, re Reference to Establish a Minimum Front Lot Line Reauirement. Aid. Brady began the discussion by stating that the revision to the 35 foot minimum lot line should not be limited to a public street. D. Rasmussen stated that the current terminology is "a Permanently Reserved Easement of Access". Ald. Brady felt that this situation could be approved by the city Council. Flag lots would require a variance or easement of access but could still be allowed. Rasmussen clarified that it would still be possible to create a flag lot or subdivide if there is public access. Aid. Brady asked if Rasmussen feels that this should be in the ordinance. Rasmussen replied that it does not need to be a part of the ordinance but would be cleaner if reference is made to lot width. Aid. Warshaw stated that she did not want to preclude flag lots from occurring where two separate structures share the same lot. She asked Rasmussen if a permanent easement would make that necessary. Rasmussen replied that existing properties are not foreclosed from either an easement or subdivision. Ald. Engelmann stated that if that situation occurs, there wouldn't be - 2 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 14, 1991 an automatic right to subdivide and sell the coach house. The Committee then discussed the legal opinion advising them that it would not be proper to distinguish between improved and unimproved properties. The Committee then decided to strike the distinguishing language from the Ordinance. Ald. Heydemann stated that a revised copy of the ordinance should contain the language for 35 foot minimum lot width. Ald. Warshaw moved the language for 35 foot minimum lot width be included in the ordinance. Ald. Heydemann seconded the motion. The Committee voted 6-4. Ald. Brady requested that the item be held in Committee pending the amended ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that the item could be introduced on the Council agenda and a revised copy of the ordinance supplied for the next meeting. Ald. Brady reminded the Committee members that the Housing Commission is discussing in -fill housing which may come before the Planning & Development Committee. Docket 265-9B-91, Proposed Easement of Access re 715 Sheridan Ald. Brady stated that the neighborhood had concerns with the easement and that a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the easement and subdivision. Ald. Brady continued that two neighbors were chosen to speak to the Committee and introduced John Levine, 727 Sheridan Road and Gus Cherry, 709 Sheridan Road. Mr. Levine outlined the following neighborhood concerns; the neighbors are concerned about public safety as it relates to fire equipment having adequate access to the proposed lots and turning radius, the density in the area would dictate paving of the easement along the north and some requirement for landscaping, appearance review for the proposed homes to assure compatibility with surrounding homes. Gus Cherry spoke of the concern regarding flooding especially when the lake is at a high level. The neighbors are concerned that additional density would exaggerate the flooding situation. Mr. Cherry asked what kind of drainage system will be in place so that the flood waters will not become a problem in neighborhood basements. Also requested provisions for the wall to be maintained so that high flood waters do not impact on surrounding houses. Ald. Warshaw stated that in approximately 5 years new storm sewers will assist the alleviation of the problem along Sheridan Road. Ald. Brady .indicated that James Murray, attorney for the owner at 715 Sheridan would like to address the Committee. Mr. Murray stated that the neighbors concerns were not unfounded but could be addressed without stopping forward progress on the - 3 - t - Minutes - P & D Committee October 14, 1991 subdivision request. Mr. Murray continued that an engineering study dealing with the drainage issue could be done prior to issuance of the building permit. He further indicated that landscaping would be addressed by placing the drive path of the easement on the north aide of the lot. Emergency vehicles would have adequate space or access and turning radius. Mr. Murray reiterated that all of the issues can be resolved prior to the issuance of building permits and there is no reason for delay. Mr. gill Foote, owner of 715 Sheridan Road addressed the Committee. Mr. Foote stated that the newly created lots will be 16,000 sq. feet and that these lots will still be large compared to some of the surrounding neighborhood lots. He further stated that it was not his intent to harm the ambience of the neighborhood but rather to preserve flexibility in subdividing the lots. Aid. Warshaw asked how quickly we could calculate the effect of the impervious surface on water drainage? Ald. Brady asked if the City had the capability to do a comprehensive study on diversionary water flow? R. Rudd asked what information is needed. Ald. Lanyon requested that the neighbors list the questions to ascertain if the City Engineer can provide answers. Ald. Brady volunteered to coordinate with the neighbors and requested that questions be submitted to her by October 18, 1991. Ald. Brady moved that the item be held in Committee pending engineering information. Ald. Heydemann seconded the motion. The Committee voted 6-0 to hold in Committee. Docket 264-9B-U. Plat of Subdivision re 715 Sheridan Road. The Committee noted the previous action on the easement of access and the fact that this proposal could not be approved without first approving the request for the easement of access. By consensus, the Committee decided to hold this matter in Committee. New Business Docket 277-10A-91. Ordinance 102-0-91, ZBA 91-21-V(R). Ald. Heydemann moved approval of the use variance. Ald. Engelmann seconded the motion. The Committee voted 6-0. Ald. Brady asked the rules be suspended at the Council meeting to allow this ordinance to be approved. She continued that the Committee is delighted. - 4 - - Minutes - P & D Committee October 14, 1991 DAscussion with the Sian Review, ansl_Apeeals Eoard. Mr. O'Meara, Chairman of Sign Review and Appeals Board, introduced the members of the Board and stated that since the inception of the Sign Ordinance the Board has heard over 100 cases. He continued that the Board attempts to be sensitive to the needs of businesses while following the framework of ordinance. However, the Board is becoming frustrated at the attitude that people feel they can do as they please in conflict with the Boards rulings. He further stated that it is essential to establish an amortization schedule for signs and to regulate neon signs. Ald. Brady responded that the Sign Review and Appeals Board does a commendable job, but that at the current time P & D would need more information on the cost of an amortization schedule for signs. Ald. Warshaw stated that this project would need to be deferred until after the passage of the zoning ordinance. Members of the Board expressed the difficulty involved with holding some businesses to standards when others do not have to follow the same standards because their signs are preexisting. An amortizing schedule is important. Ald. Engelmann moved that the sign Ordinance be reviewed by staff and Sign Board members and that staff prepare a cost/benefit analyses. Ald. Warshaw seconded the motion. The Committee voted 6-0. ADJOURNME= The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 28, 1991. The next special meeting of the P & D Committee is scheduled for October 21, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Catherine Powers 70(1/5) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED - 5 - DRAFT .--NOT APP13OVED t MINUTES Planning and Development Committee October 28, 1991 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: E. Szymanski, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski C. Powers and R. Rudd Presiding official: Ald. Lanyon Mutes of October 14, 1.991-, Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of October 14, 1991. Ald. Heydemann stated that the comment made in the minutes regarding the variation decision at 2324 Lincolnwood Drive should be attributed to her and not Ald. Engelman. Ald. Warshaw also asked that the minutes reflect in the discussion of 824-36 Dobson Street that she expressed concern with respect to the parking variation because of the number of two bedroom (2) apartments. The Committee voted 6-0 to approved the minutes as amended. Communications Chairmanship Schedule. The Committee received without comments. Chronological History of City Actions re 2324 Lincolnwood Drive. The Committee received without comments. Site Plan Review and Appearance Review Committee Quarterly Report. Ald. Brady suggested that either the current Chairman or the incoming Committee Chairman request that the Mayor take action as soon as possible to appoint an architect(s) to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Committee. Docket 265-9B-91. Proposed Easement of Access re 715 Sheridan Road. In a response to the Committee, Rudd stated that the Engineering Department has stated that material would be forthcoming with respect to a number of concerns raised by the residents at the last meeting. It is expected that this memorandum will be ready for the November 11, 1991 meeting. - Minutes P & D Committee t October 28, 1991 j James Murry, attorney for the applicants of tho subdivision at 715 Sheridan Road, stated that he also would prepare and submit comments regarding the neighbors concerns. Ald. Warshaw requested a legal opinion as to whether if the City approved the plat of subdivision, is the City obligated or do the owners of the lots have a right to build? The Legal Department indicated that they would prepare an opinion with respect to that question for the November 11, 1991 meeting. Docket 268-9B-91, Or finance 99-0-91, ZAC 91-3. re Reference to Establish a Minimum Front Lot Line Reauirement,. Ald. Engelman questioned whether the draft ordinance accomplished the intent of the Committee since it appeared that there is no relation to a thirty-five (35) ft. frontage on a street? Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, cited definitions from the Zoning ordinance with respect to lot width, plat of subdivision, and definition of easement of access and street. After further discussion it was the consensus of the Committee that the ordinance did accomplish their intent. The ordinance was previously introduced and therefore no action was required at the Committee level. pocket 291-JOB-91. Request of J. P. Schermerhorn for Extension of Validity of ordinance 101-0-89 re 2733-37 Central Street. Ald. Engelman questioned what caused the delay and the need for an extension of Ordinance 101-0-89? Jack Schermerhorn, owner of the property, stated that financial problems over the last two years and market conditions prohibited executing the subject ordinance. Schermerhorn stated that the market has improved slightly and that he expected to proceed within the next six (6) months. Ald. Engelman questioned whether building plans have been submitted for review? Rasmussen stated that both the Site Plan Review and Appearance C-mmlttee and Zoning Department have already signed -off on plans. It was not known at this time whether the Building Department had approved the drawings. Schermerhorn stated that financing has been secured so that there will be no question that the project will proceed. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee grant a six (6) month extension for the validity of the subject ordinance. The Committee voted 6-0 to grant the extension. Docket 292-1OB-91. Ordinance 103-0-91. ZBA 91-13-V&SUfR) re Variation and Special Use for 2650 Ridae Avenue. As a way of introduction, Rasmussen stated that the Committee had two (2) covenants in their packet that were drafted by Legal Department with slightly different wording. Rasmussen clarified that the covenant attached to the ordinance was the covenant to be reviewed. Jeff Hillebrand, Vice President of Evanston Hospital, was present and - 2 - i I� -- Minutes P & D Committee October 28, 1991 presented the Hospital's case to the Committee. In summary, Hillebrand stated that there was a need for additional parking facilities adjacent to the Kellogg Cantor Center. Hillebrand further stated that the Hospital was not supportive of the condition requiring a covenant placed on the ordinance by the ZBA. Hillebrand stated that the covenant was redundant and that already a public hearing before the ZBA and meetings before the P & D Committee and City Council are required. Hillebrand atated that it was his opinion that the covenant actually weakened the protection of the neighborhood since it would eliminate certain requirements for public hearings under the current special use provisions of the zoning ordinance. Hillebrand stated that the covenant does not serve the interests of anyone. Junad Rizki, President of the Evanston Hospital Neighbors Association, stated that his organization did not agree that the covenant changes any special use requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Edward Mertz, another neighbor, stated that the Zoning Board specifically approved the variation subject to the covenant and that the Committee should not take the covenant condition lightly. Mertz further explained that the neighbors are concerned that though living in an R1 area, they abut and aggressive expansion oriented institution such as the hospital. Mertz further stated that setbacks and side yards are the strongest regulations providing the best protection for neighbors. He further stated that expansion must be stopped and that can only be accomplished as long as the R1 buffer exists. Dr. Thomas Stafford stated that the neighbors have been concerned with the activities taking place and being proposed along Ridge Avenue by the hospital. He stated that the City long ago accepted the RI buffer lot concept which has provided a strong protection for the neighbors. Stafford reiterated that in his opinion the covenant in no way negates the special use zoning process. The Committee questioned whether the covenant did weaken or eliminate the zoning hearing process? The Legal Department was requested to review this matter and write an opinion for the next meeting. Other questions arose as to whether the subject lot could be sold and what restrictions, if any, would remain on the lot and would the special use and variation for the parking lot become null and void, as what appears to be stated in condition I of the proposed ordinance? Ald. Brady stated that she feels that the matter should be held in Committee since the construction season has already been lost and no construction would take place until next spring. She stated that to hold it in Committee would allow the Committee to review the arguments on both sides and also receive the legal opinion from the Law Department with respect to condition 11 and the future possible - 3 -- - Minutes P & D Committee October 28, 1991 disposition of the subject buffer lot. Ald. Brady questioned the necessity of the covenant since there are already protections for the R1 neighborhood but understood that the covenant may act as an extra psychological protection to the residents. Aid. Warshaw stated that she supports the covenant since it makes sense and gives additional protection but felt that it did not eliminate the need for hearings that are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Engelman stated that he understood the neighbors concern with respect to Evanston Hospital expansion and further stated that in his limited time as an alderman, the Hospital did cooperate with respect to redrafting the parking lot plan for this particular issue. Ald. Engelman moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the ZBA recommendation as presented. After further discussion as to whether the Committee needed the requested legal opinions, the Committee voted 3-3. Voting ayes: Aldermen Kent, Warshaw and Engelman. Voting nay: Aldermen Brady, Heydemann and Lanyon. The motion failed. The Committee agreed to hold this matter until receipt of the requested legal opinions. Pggket 290-108-91. Comprehensive Housina Affordabilitv Strateav (CHAS)-. Aid. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of. the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) which is required in order to receive CDBG funds. Ald. Warshaw noted that she hoped in the future annual update of the CHAS, numbers would be included with respect to elderly housing, and that the physically disabled issue would be addressed and counts be placed in the update. Aid. Kent questioned the purpose of the Housing Commission with respect to the CHAS and other issues? In response to Aid. Kent's concerns, Rudd indicated that staff would be happy to meet with Aid. Kent to review the history of the Housing Commission and their undertakings and accomplishments. The Committee voted 6-0 on the motion to approved the CHAS. Docket 289-1OB-91. Plat of Consolidation re 519-533 Davis and 1601-29 Chicago Avenue. Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Heydemann seconded that the Committee approve the plat of consolidation for the North Shore Limited Partnership by North Shore Retirement, Inc. In a response to a question from the Committee, Jim Wolinski, Director of Building & Zoning stated that the applicant opted for this method to resolve an issue with respect to receiving building permits. The situation arose since in the particular zoning district, it was necessary to - 4 - - Minutes P & D Committee October 28, 1991 consolidate the land to have openings on one wall of one of the subject buildings. The Committee voted 6--0 to recommend approval of the plat. Docket 288-1oB-91. McGaw YMCA, 10oo Grove street re 'dent Permit Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Kent seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request from the McGaw YMCA for permission to erect a tent for an open house on Sunday, November 3, 1991. The Committee voted 6-0. On an item not on the agenda, Ald. Brady requested that the current Chairman or future Chairman of the Committee draft a memo to the Chairman and members of the Public Works Committee expressing P & D Committee's dismay and outrage that AP & W is taking up discussion of the plan review and inspection program which has always been within the purview of the P & D Committee. Ald. Brady stated that though the questions being posed by AP & W in the past weeks may be valid and should be addressed, she was extremely upset that the AP & w would usurp this authority from the P & D Committee which has always reviewed this program. The Committee voted 6-0 to draft a memo and forward to the AP & W Committee that they desist from further discussion from the matter and refer it to the P & D Committee. Junad Rizki, asked that the minutes reflect that a public hearing regarding Evanston Hospitals needs with respect to 1000 Central is scheduled for November 6, 1991 at 1:30 p.m. in the Civic Center and will be held by a State of Illinois agency. Rizki stated that the neighborhood organization was closely monitoring this issue since it impacted greatly on the area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 11, 1991. The next special meeting of the P & D Committee is scheduled for November 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: obert Cd 70(1/5) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED ' - 5 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 11, 1991 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: K. Brenniman, J. Zendell, J. Wolinski C. Borys and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Engelman d.inutes of October,__28. 192.1-. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Lanyon seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of October 28, 1991. The Committee voted 5-0 to approved the minutes as submitted (Ald. Heydemann absent). Communications ZBA 91-25-V(F), Final Variation Dec�s#.on re 1401, Leonard Place. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the staff recommendation that language be added to the proposed ordinance to provide that any combination of minor variations, which also involve major variations of special uses, other than a special use for a planned development, shall all be considered by the ZBA, in order to avoid two (2) separate hearings. The Committee voted 5-0 to direct staff and the consultant to incorporate that recommendation in the proposed zoning ordinance. Chairman Engelman stated that he would abstain from any discussion on this applicant since it could result in a conflict of interest due to a client -attorney relationship, however he would vote on the motion made by Ald. Brady. The Committee voted 5-0. ZBA 91-26--V(F), Final Variation Decision re 730 Forest Avenue. The Committee received without comment. Docket 250-9A-91, Ordinance 93-0-91, re Regulation of Contractors' Hours of Operation. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether an amendment should incorporate limited noise levels based on the distance from residential - Minutes - P & D Committee November 1.1, 1991 property? Chairman Engelman stated that at this time the reference to the Environmental Control Board was only to develop standards and that the structure of the proposed ordinance and the policy issue would be reviewed by the P & D Committee. Ald. Lanyon stated that he understood that the noise ordinance would not be restricted only to contractors but to all noise which is what the Environmental Control Board has been reviewing for some time. Ald. Brady stated that she concurred with a narrow reference and that she was not anticipating a complete noise ordinance. After further discussion Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee refer the matter to the Environmental Control Board. The Committee voted 6-0. Congregational Park Public Art Protect re Progress Renort. Ald. Brady questioned how the process was working? Joe Zendell, Director of the Evanston Arts Council, stated that so far it has proved a positive experience with over 1400 responses from artists. Zendell stated that earlier concerns have been allayed by the positive response. Bipdina Review of Demolition Permits for Landmark Structure. Ald. Brady stated that it was not her intent to delegate binding review to the "reservation Commission, but rather to amend the appropriate ordinance to allow the City Council to have final or binding review on historic structures (not districts) and to have the hearing process conducted by the Preservation Commission. Ald. Warshaw observed that if the City should enact a binding review ordinance with respect to historic structures, some thought should be given to providing a benefit or incentive to owners. Chairman Engelman suggested that it may be helpful for the Legal Department to relook their opinion and also to have the Preservation Commission consider standards in a binding review ordinance. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Preservation Commission and the Legal Department develop standards and bring the matter back to the P & D Committee. The Committee voted 6-0. Old Business Docket 265-9B-91, Proposed Easement Road and Docket 264-9B-91. Plat of Road. Ald. Warshaw stated that she still answered with respect to the impact surface caused by the driveway and - 2 - of Access re 715 Sheridan Subdivision re 715 Sheridan has questions that were not of additional impervious the lot coverage by the Z - Minutas. - P & D Committee November 11, 1991 proposed single family homes. Ald. Heydemann also expressed disappointment that the material forwarded to the Committee by staff dial not answer questions raised at the previous meeting. She stated that she and the neighbors needed to know in advance the effect of the impervious surface and run-off. Ald. Brady observed that there probably was not a satisfied person on eithor side of the issue. She suggested that between the November 11 and the November 25, 1991 P & D meetings that the various interest groups (neighbors, applicant, staff, and aldermen) meet in an attempt to define the problems and develop answers if possible. Jim Murray, attorney for the subdivision applicant, agreed to meet with the aforementioned groups prior to the November 25, 1991 meeting. Ald. Lanyon observed that a problem in developing specific answers is that there is no specific site plan to review in order to determine answers to many of the questions. Ald. Warshaw stated that by utilizing the by -right development standards that engineering answers could be developed. Ald. Brady suggested that the meeting should attempt to answer and develop proper wording to address issues such as the width of the easement, the amount of impervious surface, the approximate location of proposed houses to neighbor's properties, etc. Attorney Murray stated that he feels the staff engineering report did address the drainage issue, however, it may be helpful to have this meeting. chairman Engelman stated that it has been brought to his attention by Ald. Fiske that the subject area was being proposed as an overlay district in the new zoning ordinance. The point being that the subdivision may meet current day standards but may not meet standards adopted in the new zoning ordinance. Ald. Lanyon asked that staff respond to a letter dated November 8, 1991 from the neighbors for the next meeting. Staff, Committee and neighbors were directed to set a meeting date within the next two weeks and the matter would be held over until the November 25, 1991 meeting. Docket 292-ZOB-91, ordinance 103-0-91, ZBA 91-13-V&SU(R) re Variation and Snecial Use for 2650 Ridae Avenue. Chairman Engelman stated that he has met with the neighborhood association and with representatives of Evanston Hospital in order to resolve the issue with respect to the covenant for the open area. Jeff Hillebrand, Vice President of Evanston Hospital was present and stated that as a result of these meetings, the Hospital was prepared to accept the covenant if the City Council, via a ZAC hearing, would rezone the subject open space from R1 to R6, and that the covenant would be attached to the property stating that the subject area would permanently remain open space - 3 -- Minutes - P & D Committee November 11, 1991 and a buffer. Ald. Warshaw questioned why the Hospital would want to rezone the property to R67 Hillebrand stated that currently the square footage calculation cannot be utilized by the Hospital since it is not possible to transfer the R1 calculation to an R6 district. After further discussion with respect to the reference to ZAC to rezone the property, the Committee directed staff to attempt to develop a covenant that would satisfy both the neighbors and the Hospital by allowing the transfer of the square footage calculation (block coverage area) from the R1 site to the R6 site without necessitating a ZAC hearing and a rezoning. It was the hope of both the neighbors and the Hospital that this could be accomplished through a covenant satisfactory to all parties. Staff was directed to review this matter and prepare the covenant for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1991. The next special meeting of the P & D Committee is scheduled for November 18, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: -'ee 146 R t Rudd 70(1/4) - 4 - DRAFT. NOT APPROVED i MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 25, 1991 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: K. Brenniman, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Engelman mutes of,November 11_._ _1921._ Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of November 11, 1991. Chairman Engelman noted that in the fourth line of the first item under communications the word "of" should read "or". The Committee voted 5-0 to approved the minutes as amended (Ald. Lanyon absent). Communicat o s None Docket_265-9B-91. Proposed Easement of_Access re 715 Sheridan Road and Docket 264-9B-91. Plat, of Subdivision re 715 Sheridan Road, Ald. Brady stated that she has worked hard with staff, neighbors and the applicant and particularly wanted to thank those residents of the 700 block of Sheridan Road for their cooperation. Ald. Brady noted that this process addressed the issues of drainage, flooding and landscaping and appears to have solved those issues to the satisfaction of all parties. The Committee began by reviewing condition 13 of the subject covenant. Differences arose between the applicant's attorney, James Murray and the neighbor's attorney, Robert Best, with respect to how extensive should the landscaping be and for what distance along the south line of the proposed easement. Mr. Levine, a neighborhood resident, expressed concerns of the neighbor to the south with respect to the proximity of the Minutes .. P & D Committee November 25, 1991 driveway to a bay window. Ald. Brady also asked that consideration be given to a concern expressed by a neighbor to the north of subject subdivision in that that neighbor's windows would overlook the proposed paved easement for lot 12 in the rear of the subdivision. Ald. Brady asked that the applicant consider including landscaping at the and of that easement to screen that view. After further discussion with respect to revised wording for condition 03, Chairman Engelman suggested that the applicant and the neighbors step into the hallway and discuss possible rewording while the Committee continued with its agenda. D-gckgt-91. Ordipance 103-0-91, ZBA 91-13-V&SU(R) re Variation and Soec aW Use for 2650 Ridge Avenue. Chairman Engelman expressed his appreciation for the excellent cooperation between the Evanston Neighborhood Association and the Hospital with respect to developing the covenant before the Committee. With some slight changes to the covenant regarding the insertion of a dimension (0.264) in condition 12 in addition to inserting the wording in the same condition in line 4 following the word requirements "relative to gross lot coverage and building lot coverage". Chairman Engelman stated that the covenant was acceptable to all parties. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council introduction of ordinance 103-0-91 for a variation and special use at 2650 Ridge Avenue with the subject covenant. The Committee voted 6-0. New Business e e ence to P & D from Ald, Raj.nev re Pawnbrokers. Members reviewed a reference to the P & D from Ald. Rainey and A P&W with respect to the possibility of making pawnbrokers establishments special uses in the proposed zoning ordinance. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the reference be added to the open issues and that a legal opinion be sought from the zoning consultant with respect to the possibility of making pawnbroker establishments special uses or requiring that other zoning regulations be imposed on this use. In response to a questions from Ald. Heydemann with respect to pawnbrokers licensing, staff stated that the license issue was before the A P&W and was separate from the zoning issue. By consensus, the committee directed that this matter be placed on an open issues agenda. -2- - Minutes - P & D Committee November 25, 1991 Chairman Engelman noted that in review of the reference from Ald. Rainey, the attached minutes from the Administration & Public Works meeting of November 11, 1991 reflected further discussion about the consultant plan examine/inspectional services. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that this issue would be further reviewed when additional information was available with respect to the inspectional services RFP. Ald. Warshaw recommended that staff supply minutes of past P & D Committee meetings regarding this matter to A P&W members and also to new P & D members. Zoning Ordi ance Onen Tpsues. Chairman Engelman suggested that an item be added to open issues titled " Lakefront Protection". Chairman Engelman felt that this matter tied -in Closely with discussion regarding overlay districts along the lakefront and also the recent issues with respect to subdivisions. The Committee reviewed and discussed options for meeting in early 1992 on off -Mondays or other nights of the week to complete the review of the zoning ordinance. The Committee also directed staff to add to the open issues the matters of "definition of family", "care for the aged (group facilities)" and the aforementioned lakefront protection and pawnbroker's establishments. The Committee reviewed the calendar for January, February and March, 1992 and directed staff to set Monday, January 6; Wednesday, January 29; Monday, February 3; Monday 17; Monday, March 2; Monday, March 16; and Monday, March 30, as scheduled special P & D Committee meetings to review the zoning ordinance. Staff was also directed to provide a proposed schedule of topics for those respective dates for the December 9, 1991 Committee review. The Committee also directed staff to attempt to place one open issue item on each regularly scheduled P & D meeting starting December 16, 1991, if the normal agenda allowed. Docket 265-9B-91. Proposed Easement of Access re 715 Sheridan Road and Docket 264--95-91. Play, of Subdivision re 715 Sheridan Road, After a conference among the participants, Ald. Brady reviewed changes agreed to by the applicant and the neighbors with respect to the proposed covenant. Specifically, condition 13 was amended to insert the phrase "to provide screening" after the word easement in the first line and to delete the phrase "where possible" in the second line of condition 13. Additionally, in -3- 4 - Minutes - P & D Committee November 25, 1991 condition 14, the first line was amended to insert the phrase "the installation and maintenance of a system for" after the word for. Further, condition 16 was amended to include the following words at the end of said condition, "including shoreline control measures". Finally, a new condition, 17, was added to read "the landscape and drainage plans as approved shall be installed and maintained by the owners of the properties". With those amendments Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the amended covenant be approved. The Committee voted 6-0. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the proposed easement of access for 715 Sheridan Road be approved with the covenant . The Committee voted 6-0. Further, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the plat of subdivision for 715 Sheridan Road be approved. The Committee voted 6-0. Ald. Heydemann stated that in a short time on the Council, she was impressed by the cooperation and grateful for the efforts made by the aldermen and residents of the Third and Seventh Wards to resolve these two sticky issues with respect to 715 Sheridan Road and 2650 Ridge Avenue. ADJO9R.NMMT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 16, 1991. The next special meeting of the P & D Committee is scheduled for December 9, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:UZ Rudd 70(1/6) -4- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee December 16, 1991 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, S. Engelman, A. Heydemann, J. Kent, and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: R. Lanyon Staff Present: C. Powers,D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Others Present: J. Gourguechon and Brian Blaesser Presiding Official: Ald. Engelman Minutes of November 25, 1991, Ald. Heydemann moved and Ald. Kent seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of November 25, 1991 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 (Ald. Warshaw absent). g2mmunications Chairmanshin Schedule. The Committee received without comment. A 91-27-V( Final variation Decision re 2516 Park Place. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 91-29-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 830 Madison Street. Ald. Brady questioned why the new zoning ordinance, as proposed, would not have prevented this party from appearing before the ZBA? Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, explained that this particular request exceeded the allowances in the proposed ordinance. Open Issues - proposed Zoning Ordinance Approved Schedule. Both Aldermen Brady and Heydemann directed staff that a notation should be made on the proposed zoning ordinance review schedule to indicate that maps will be discussed on the appropriate nights when it is necessary to review particular districts and uses. Therefore, the map review, will be continual and may take place each night there is a meeting. - Minutes - P & D Committee December 16, 1991 103 Vi W 1.1 T73, - None =ket 330-12A-91. Ordinance 118-0-91 re Reinspection Fee for, Rooming House Units. Ald. Brady questioned how this proposal for a reinspection fee was different from earlier proposals for Property Maintenance inspection fees?. Catherine Powers, Director of Housing Rehab b Property Maintenance, explained that a billing mechanism is already in place with respect to rooming houses since they have for years been licensed and inspected. Ald. Kent asked for a clarification with respect to what types of rooming house operators would be most effected by this fee? Ms. Powers stated that by far the great majority of second reinspections are for university operated dormitories and fraternity houses. The nature of the types of violations found are ones that can normally be corrected quickly. Therefore, since the independent operators are low in numbers with respect to this program, there should not be a significant burden placed on them. The Committee had a brief discussion with respect to the Allen Center and as to whether it was covered under the rooming house license program since it was not considered a hotel? After further discussion, and a review of the records by Ms. Powers, the Committee was informed that the Allen Center is currently being licensed under the rooming house program. Chairman Engelman questioned whether the cases that appear in court could be charged a fine or a fee since their apparent reluctance to make corrections requires the City to send staff to court thus tying up staff that could otherwise be conducting inspections? Engelman requested that the Legal Department provide some information with respect to opportunities to recover some of these fees. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 118-0-91 calling for a reinspection fee for rooming house units. The Committee voted 4-0 (Ald. Warshaw absent). Docket 332-X2A-91. Ordinance 124-0-91, ZBA 91-28-V&SU(R). re Varigt on and Soecial Use for 3.80L_J;merson Street. Ald. Kent moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to concur with the ZBA recommendation to grant a variation and special use for an addition to a church at 1801 Emerson Street. The Committee voted 4-0. - 2 - Minutes - P & D Committee December 1.6, 1991 Doc :t IJI-12A-91. Ordinance 123-0-91. ZBA 91-30-V&QQ RL, re Variation and Soecia use for 1714 Hinman Avenue. Ald. Heydemann questioned the issue with respect to the signage on the front of the fraternity headquarters? Ald. Brady stated that in light of the City staff review that no building permit was obtained for such sign, the sign is illegal and she recommended that the committee consider a condition be placed in the ordinance that the sign must be removed prior to approval of the variation and special use being sought for a rear entry addition, exterior stairs and a material lift. The architect representative of the fraternity, Sheldon Hill, introduced himself and stated that in view of the concern expressed by the neighborhood, he has been directed by the applicants to inform the Committee that the sign will be removed by the owner. Ald. Brady moved and Al.d Heydemann seconded that the Committee recommend introduction of Ordinance 123--0-91 subject to a condition in the ordinance that the sign be removed and that City staff receive proper written assurances to allow this enforcement and for the sign to be removed in an expeditious manner prior to the issuance of any building permit. The Committee voted 4-0 (Ald. Warshaw absent). =vrehensive Amendments to the 7oniw Ordinance re Yard Qbstructions, Ald. Brady related discussions she has had with an architect with respect to this issue. The architect indicated that the proposed wording was workable and that she supported the amendment. The Committee continued discussion with B. Blaesser and J. Gourguechon, zoning consultant, regarding to specific wording and clarified the term "reduced" and also inserted the phrase "or more closely match" to better clarify the intent of the amendment. Ald. Brady asked that the consultant provide in writing some ideas she has developed with respect to home occupations and bed and breakfasts for the January 6, 1992 meeting. More specifically, Ald. Brady suggested that the consultant combine the current standard set forth in the draft with respect to major and minor home occupation conditions, in addition to adding a penalty for violations. Regarding bed in breakfasts, Ald. Brady stated that she supported the regulation that allowed for only 50% of the bedrooms in a home to be used for bed and breakfasts operation, but limited to no more than three guests, total. Gourguechon and Blaesser indicated that they would provide a redraft for the January meeting. Gourguechon stated that in - 3 - - Minutes - P & D Committee December 16, 1991 addressing the home occupation matters, the Committee will need to discuss and reach an understanding as to what is meant by "no impact" in the neighborhood. The Committee agreed this matter would be more fully discussed at the aforementioned special P & D meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 13, 1992. The next special meeting of the P & D Committee is ache uled for January 6, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: 40XZIR-u 70(1/4) - 4 - QJ3&FT. NOT APPROVED