Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1989DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Aid. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee January 9, 1909 Room 2403 - 8:00 P.M. S. Brady, L. Morton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw J. Bleveans and J. Korshak C. Powers, R. Carlson, D. Rasmussen, K. Brenniman and R. Rudd Rick Wendy, Raymond Chou and Nary McWilliams J. Rudy Minutes of December 19, 1988. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Morton seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of December 19, 1988. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes. Communications Chairman Rudy stated that he was contacted by Mary Singh, who requested an expansion of the list itemizing pending action of the ZBA. It appeared that the intent of the request was to try to obtain the earliest notification as possible of various Zoning Board activities. Rudd explained that the zoning analysis report does not necessarily reflect future cases for the ZBA. Actually, only a small portion of zoning analysis cases result in ZBA activity. Rudd further explained that the earliest possible notification about a Zoning Board case is when an application is perfected and the case is scheduled for public hearing. The Council and citizens already have access to those notices. It was suggested that if any item on the zoning analyses report is of interest, the interested party can contact staff to track the status of that matter in case it results in a ZBA hearing. ZBA 88-33-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 2410 Ewing Avenue. The Committee received without comment. Docket 8-1A-89. Approval of Plat of Subdivision and Approval of Easement and Covenant Agreement for 1136-44 Asbury Avenue and 1315 Crain Street. Chairman Rudy shared with the Committee some of his observations regarding the proposed subdivision. Chairman Rudy noted that when the easement square footage area is included in the calculations of the proposed lots, those lots are slightly larger than required in the zoning district. When the subject easement is excluded the lots are slightly smaller than required in the zoning district. Chairman Rudy concluded that there appears to be a slight density increase due to the latter calculation than would normally be permitted. Aid. Warshaw concurred that that may be accurate, but felt that with the use of a P & D Minutes January 9, 1989 private street the lots could be reconfigured to equal the same density in the zoning district. She felt that the private street was an enhancement to the project. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the expense of public improvements, such as sewer construction, would be picked -up by the developer? Rick Wendy, attorney for the developer Raymond Chou, stated that the cost of sewer and water and other public improvements would be borne by the developer. Chairman Rudy questioned Mr. Chou whether he explored the possibility of each lot on Asbury having separate driv•sway access? Both Chou and Wendy responded that in reviewing the project with the Site Plan Review Committee it was the City's requirement to limit the number of curb cuts on Asbury due to the curve in the street and the traffic volume at this location. Rudd concurred with the assessment and stated that the City was concerned with adding additional curb cuts at this location and thus advocated for a single curb cut off of Crain in the form of a private street. Wendy stated that the covenant, easement and restrictions agreed to by the developer go beyond what was required by the zoning ordinance but all parties feel will aid in creating a better project. Mary McWilliams, Chairman of the Preservation Commission, was present and stated that the major concern of the Preservation Commission was that the yards along Asbury, though technically rear yards, be treated as front yards and that restrictions be placed in those areas. Wendy stated that the covenant restrictions preclude various activities and obstructions in the yards along Asbury. He stated that the subject restrictions will be recorded and that the City of Evanston will also advise all owners of these conditions when building permits are issued. In response to a Committee question Wendy stated that at the time of closing all prospective owners would be made aware of the restrictions. Chairman Brady questioned where residents would normally enter the homes if the front yard is along Asbury but the garages are off the private street? Chou stated that homes will be similar to those along Asbury whereby guests often park on the side streets and enter the front doors along Asbury unile the residents park in garages off of alleys or in this case off of a private street. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Cor,_nittee recommend to City Council approval of the easement and covenant agreement. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve. Ald. Horton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the subdivision at 1136-34 Asbury and 1315 Crain Street. The Committee voted 4-0. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, January 23, 2989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: / Robert T. R dd 70(2/3) -2- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee January 23, 1989 Room 2403 - 8:00 P.A. S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw J. Bleveans and L. Morton D. Carter, R. Carlson, and R. Rudd Al Belmonte, Jeanne Breslin, Jack Weiss, Ira Golan and Howard Melton J. Rudy Jlguu4.r 9 Vit" Minutes of , 1-88. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of January 9, 1989. Ald. Brady requested that the next to the last paragraph be corrected to reflect that she was not the chairman at that meeting. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as corrected. Communications None New Business Consider Report of Special Sign Committee re Signs on Public Rights -of -Way. Chairman Rudy and other members of the P & D Committee thanked the members of the Special. Sign Committee for the report. Ald. Brady expressed her pleasure with the strong recommendation made by the Special Sign Committee and hoped that the P & D Committee would accept the report. Ald. Brady also expressed the desire to have the Committee direct staff to develop an implementation plan. Al Belmonte, a member of the Plan Commission, was present and provided the Committee with the background leading up to the development of the Sign Report. He stated that an issue about entrance signs was only a recent matter and that the overall report addresses the culmination of numerous requests over the years regarding signs at the entrances to the City and along the public rights--of-way. Dick Carter, Planning Director, made a brief slide presentation to the P & D Committee. In the course of the slide presentation Carter described the effect of a clustering of signs or in some cases a scattering of signs as the "Burma Shave effect". Jack Weiss, also a member of the Special Sign Committee, stated that the slides attempt to put the Committee's views into a context. Ald. Brady suggested that the Committee concur with the recommendation to have a single type of sign at the various City entrance points. She questioned if a distance requirement between other AM P & D Committee - Minutes January 23, 1989 signs was appropriate? Ald. Brady also stated that a key question is what to do with recognition/honorary signs? Howard Kelton, from Hindscape Gallery and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber arrived independently of the Sign Committee's report with its recommendation and gift to the City of a single entrance sign. He stated that it appears that the question of the Chamber's entrance sign gift to the City has been caught -up in the more global issue of control of recognition/honorary signs. He reminded the Conanittee that the Chamber originally proposed six (6) entrance signs and felt that the design for those signs was accepted unanimously by the City Council last year. He also reminded the Committee that the Chamber had agreed to do routine maintenance on the signs. Melton also stated that the Chamber concurs with many of the observations and suggestions of the Special Sign Committee regarding the clutter of signs on the public rights -of -way, but feels the Chamber's Sign, as a sole entrance sign, is appropriate. Helton stated that he hoped the P & D Committee could separate the Chamber's gift for an entrance sign from the broader issue of signs on the right-of-way. Chairman Rudy stated that City Council expressed appreciation for the Chamber sign and accepted the sign. Rudy questioned the process for developing policy regarding entrance signs and other signs at the time of acceptance of the Chamber sign, and was assured the process had not been abandoned. He stated that the City would advise the Chamber when the process for review of this policy issue was completed. Ald. Korshak stated that he respects the time and effort put forth by the Plan Commission and the Special Sign Committee in developing the subject report. He stated that he agrees that one of the most offensive aspects of entrance -way signs is the clustering effect. He stated that it might be more acceptable if a plan were developed that called for a dispensing of the numerous signs. Ald. Korshak also stated that he personally liked the Chamber of Commerce sign which was presented to the City. Ald. Korshak suggested that somebody explore a suitable location for the honorary signs such as locating those signs in the Civic Center. Ald. Korshak also suggested that any further study needs to determine what is appropriate at various entrances to the City since those entrances oftentimes vary in nature. Ald. Warshaw expressed her recollection that the City had undertaken a review of the proliferation of various rights -of -way signs and, unbeknownst to the City, the Chamber was working on their own sign. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was not criticizing the particular Chamber of Commerce sign but was most impressed with the Special Sign Committee Report with respect to entrance signs. She stated that it is her feeling that a large number of signs create an overwhelming environment and often are illegible. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the City explore creating an area such as a particular "wail" at a location which is highly visible to the public, such as the new transportation center. Ald. Brady seconded the idea and expressed her support for the location of honorary/recognition signs at the proposed transportation center. -2- P & D Committee- Minutes January 23, 1989 In a response to the Committee, Weiss stated that contact with various other municipalities indicates there was no consistent handling of this issue. Breslin stated that contact with both Oak Park and Park Ridge indicates that Park Ridge has hired a graphic -designer to develop a single logo for the municipality and create a consistent image. Sid Orlov, a member of the Evanston Free -Zone Committee, stated that he agrees with Ald. Korshak's earlier comments and suggests that a separate entrance sign be developed and adopt a policy of requiring a distance between the entrance signs and other signs along the rights -of -way. He stated that he concurs that the clustering of signs is not appropriate. Chairman Rudy stated that the Committee should provide direction to staff to develop an appropriate way to address the overall issue. Belmonte stated that both clustering and scattering of signs have basic problems and that neither one is necessarily appropriate in every instance. Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, was present and in response to Ald. Warshaw's earlier comments regarding the Chamber's undertaking the entrance sign. stated that the Chamber started their work two weeks before the P & Development Committee established the Special Sign Committee. Ald. Korshak stated that there may need to be a public hearing to have public input. Ald. Warshaw stated that it would be helpful if a list of non -regulatory signs that are currently posted could be developed with the view to possibly reducing these signs. She also stated that the need of a graphic -design consultant may be called for in developing a plan. Ald. Brady moved that (1) the P & D Committee continue to review the issue of entrance signs, (2) that the proposed new transportation center designers review with an eye -to developing an area for honorary signs, (3) that the Traffic Engineer come back to the Committee with information on the cost to more standardize required regulatory signs (informational signs). Ald. Warshaw seconded the motion and amended the motion to include her earlier request for a list of non -regulatory signs. The amendment was accepted and the Committee voted 4-0 to accept the Special Sign Committee Report and forward the above points on to staff for action. Annual Report of Plan Commission. Chairman Rudy stated that he agrees with the various issues presented in the report and wanted to express his appreciation for the hard work put forth by the Plan Commission members over the past year. Aid. Brady particularly highlighted the hard work of the Plan Commission which resulted in the recently released downtown study. Belmonte stated that the quality of the reports not only reflects the work of Plan Commission members but particularly the Planning Department staff. -3- 1 P & D Committee - Minutes January 23, 1989 The Committee accepted the annual report of the Plan Commission with no further comments. Docket 40-1B-89. One (1) Year Renewal Contract with Criezis Architects for Building Department. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council direction to the City Manager to execute a one (1) year renewal contract with Criezis Architects for Building Department's plan review and field inspections for commercial, industrial and institutional projects costing in excess of $200,000 in construction costs. Ald. Korshak questioned whether field inspections were being conducted by professionals in the various disciplines? Demitri Criezis, principal of the subject firm, was .present and stated that all of the inspectors were professional engineers and/or architects. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend renewal of the one (1) year contract. Under discussion Ald. Warshaw indicated that she received a letter highlighting inconsistences between the BOCA Building Code and the current City Zoning Ordinance. Rudd stated that the subject letter was forwarded to the Zoning Commission for their review in conjunction with developing the new zoning ordinance. Chairman Rudy reviewed with the Committee a copy of a draft policy statement regarding the new zoning ordinance being developed by the Zoning Commission. It was the direction of the Committee to staff that copies of this draft Zoning Commission report be forward to the P & D Committee members and Aldermen as soon as possible. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, February 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: �. Robeft�T.' Rudd 70(2/5) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. HOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 13, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.N. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: L. Morton Staff Present: C. Brenniman, J. Asprooth, D. Rasmussen, C. Powers and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Rudy Minutes of January 23, 1988. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of January 23, 1989. Ald. Korshak moved that the minutes be corrected on page 2, second paragraph to reflect that the word used should be "dispersing" in place of "dispensing". Ald. Brady also moved that the minutes be corrected to reflect that Mr. Howard Melton represents Private Lives business. the Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as corrected. Communications ZBA 88-35-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 913 Madison Street. In response to a question from Ald. Warshaw, Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the decision by the ZBA was consistent with prior decisions with respect to floor area ratios. New Business. Docket 42-2B-89. Approval of Plat of Consolidation at 2220 Greenleaf Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the plat of consolidation for Thermal Laminating Company at the subject address. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the plat. Docket 44-2B-89. Approval of Plat of Consolidation at 2205 Lee Street. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the plat of consolidation for Riley & Geehr Company at 2205 Lee Street. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the plat. Docket 43-2B.-89. Approval of Plat of Consolidation re 2048-56 Green Bay Road for Public Storage Company. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the plat of consolidation for the subject property for Public Storage Company. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the plat. P & D Minutes February 13, 1989 Docket 46-2B-89, Ordinance 21-0-89. ZBA 88-36-V&SU(R). re Variation for 2413 Park Place. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the ZBA recommendation to grant variations to permit the construction of two (2) additions, raising the roof and adding a chimney. Rasmussen explained to the Committee the need for the special use for the expansion of the patio and that that part of the request would be coming to the P & D Committee at a later date. Ald. Brady questioned why the variation • request was being split into two parts? Rasmussen explained that it was in an effort to expedite the process and allow the applicant to begin the majority of the work as early as possible. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variations. Docket 47-2B-89, Ordinance 24-0-89. ZBA 88-34-V&SU(R), re Variation and Special Use for 243 Callan Avenue and 622 Mulford Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the variation and special use. The Committee discussed why the 1960 Zoning Ordinance regulations did not anticipate these Issues and in some cases cause the need for applicants to file for variations. Rasmussen explained that though in this particular case the -- variation may seem insignificant, to allow a wholesale approval of this request could create significant other problems. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variation and special use. Docket 45-2B-89. Ordinance 22-0-89. re Amendment to the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-3-5-1(A). Ald. Brady provided the Committee with a brief history of this reference from Ald. Rainey. She explained that the original reference was to amend the Landlord Tenant Ordinance to require only a one (1) month security deposit. Ald. Brady explained that the Housing Commission's reco,-=endation was a compromise between concerns expressed by landlords and tenants. Ald. Korshak expressed his concern that the calculation of interest, based on the proposed amendment, was unduly complicated for landlords. Ald. Korshak proposed that the ordinance be amended to reflect that interest for the first year be calculated on a one (1) month security deposit and that in future years that it be calculated on one and one-half month's security deposit. Ald. Warshaw stated that it was her opinion that the calculation was not that difficult to make. Linda DeWoskin, a representative of TOE, explained that it is a non -issue since the current ordinance takes this into account. Ald. Brady and Ald. Warshaw recommended amending the proposal to correct a problem that was anticipated after the Housing Commission's recommendation. The amendment was to address the issue whereby a tenant did not pay the last half month's security deposit over a six month period. Ald. Brady moved that the ordinance be amended to reflect that "non-payment of security deposit shall be considered as non-payment of rent". Ald. Warshaw seconded the motion. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the amendment. -2- IM IMP", 1111 III NJ'' 9P11' 9PRF1 PI IImr.71T 4p I q IN Im fly i..ru m INA '. P & D Minutes February 13, 1989 Ald. Bleveans questioned whether the Housing Commission experienced an outpouring of need to amend the Landlord Tenant Ordinance? Ald. Warshaw stated that statistics revealed that 50% of the landlords required one and one-half month's security deposit and that it was a burden on many tenants. Ald. Brady further stated that a review of reports indicates that by far most of the landlord tenant complaints are related to security deposit issues, both from tenants and landlords. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend introduction of the proposed ordinance as amended and that a clean copy be supplied to the City Council at the February 27, 1989 meeting reflecting the amendment. Old Business Multi -Family Inspection Program The Committee reviewed a staff report comparing various multi -family inspection programs. Ald. Brady stated that it would be helpful if the Committee receive the consultants fee report prior to making a final decision on the multi -family inspection proposal. Ald. Korshak questioned whether the P & D Committee was in agreement with the need to charge a fee for multi -family inspections? Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt there was a need to charge for reinspections as a penalty and also as a message to encourage landlords to make corrections as expeditiously as possible. Ald. Korshak stated that he sees two ways to address the issue: (1) to charge nothing for the initial inspection and (2) to charge for the reinspection. He stated that the Committee may wish to look at these as "user fees" which would be related to the cost incurred by the City to supply the service. Catherine Powers, Director of Housing Rehab & Property Maintenance, in response to a question from Ald. Bleveans, stated that the City does charge for dormitory inspections under the Rooming House Licensing Program. Ald. Warshaw expressed concern, since multi -family units in the CD target area are inspected more frequently, that to charge for initial inspections could be viewed as a penalty and result in a financial burden for those landlords. Powers stated that staff's proposal was one of billing annually based on the cost for each inspection. Ald. Korshak expressed concern that to charge the same for both the good and bad landlords or to charge landlords for one inspection when in some cases several reinspections were made seemed inequitable. Joel Asprooth, City ?tanager, was present and stated that similar annual billings are made under the Long Term Care Ordinance. Ald. Brady questioned whether a differentiation could be made for charging more for a six unit building, for example, versus an 80 unit building' Ald. Bleveans stated that he feels that it is a matter of public policy. Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt possibly "volume discounts" for a large number of inspections could be developed. Ald. Korshak expressed his concern for the need to develop a method to recapture the cost for excessive reinspections. Asprooth stated that the City would review the Ann Arbor, Michigan Ordinance -3- P & D Committee February 13, 2989 and determine how they bill and collect their fees. He also stated that the City would review legal issues, if there are any, in developing a different fee schedule for different types of buildings. Ald. Brady also asked the staff to prepare a memo explaining the difference between licensing and an inspection fee program. Ald. Warshaw also requested that the staff develop a program for charging for only reinspections. In response to a question from Powers the Committee directed staff to only address scheduled inspections and not those generated on a complaint basis. Staff indicated that the material would be gathered as soon as possible and brought back to the P & D Committee. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, February 27, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: 4 RoberrT.-' 70(2/5) -A- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED i Ab r DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 27, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.N. J. Bleveans, S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Norton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw None E. Szymanski, T. Clarke, D. Carter, C. Powers and R. Rudd J. Weiss, J. Breslin, Drew Petterson, T. Stafford and Heyward Blake J. Rudy Minutes of February 13, 1988. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of February 13, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Communications Chairmanship Schedule. The Committee received the change in chairmanship schedule setting forth Ald. Warshaw as the new chairman of the P & D Committee starting March 6, 1989. New Business. Docket 57-2C-89. Ordinance 20-0-89 re Amendment to the Housing Commission, Ordinance. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance 20-0-89 extending the sunset provision of the Housing Commission by three (3) years. Ald. Brady provided some background to the Committee regarding the three (3) year renewal process. She stated that since the Housing Commission was founded in the early '80's the three (3) year renewal had been routinely approved. She questioned whether the Ordinance should be amended to eliminate the renewal process and leave the Housing Commission only with the triennial review procedure, which is required of all other boards and commissions? The Committee concurred with the recommendation that after this three (3) year extension is terminated in 1992, the Housing Commission, P & D Committee and City Council should consider eliminating the subject provision from the Housing Commission Ordinance. Ald. Horton suggested that future triennial reviews should contain information regarding staff costs associated with the respective board or commission. The Committee referred the matter to the Rules Committee requesting that the triennial review forms provide a section allowing for staff costs to be identified. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to the City Council introduction of the subject ordinance. 1 P 6 D Minutes February 27, 1989 Docket 56-2C-89, Consider Plat of Consolidation re 607-21 Custer and 612 Linden. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the plat of consolidation for the property at 607-21 Custer and 612 Linden. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket 55-2C-89, Burglary Prevention Compliance Grant Program. Ald. Brady reviewed with the Committee the Housing Commission recommendation to provide for a grant for properties with income eligible tenants. In response to a question from Ald. Korshak, Ald. Brady, a member of Cho Housing Commission, stated that historically federal housing programs have wrestled with the same issue of aiding low income tenants while at the same time providing housing owned by wealthier landlords. She stated that most federal housing programs are based on benefits to low and moderate tenants and do not address the issue of higher income landlords. Ald. Warshaw, also a member of the Housing Commission, stated that the commission thought to not allow for a grant, all costs would be passed directly to tenants. Those tenants may not have the wherewithal to absorb any additional monthly rent increase. She stated that the commission also felt that the procedure would only generate applications from those landlords truly deserving of the grant. Ald. Korshak reviewed with the Committee his experience with numerous federal programs. He stated that the City should take into account the wealth of the landlords. Ald. Korshak questioned whether the proposal before the Committee was in response to Ald. Murton's reference? A1d.Morton stated that the current proposal seemed to be different from what she originally intended with her reference. She stated that her reference was intended to aid the poor• landlords regardless of the financial conditions of the respective tenants. She stated that she meant the program for the little -people owning two or three flats. Ald. Brady suggested that the Committee consider amending the proposal to limit its application to only live-in owners that are income eligible. Ald. Korshak stated that the issue is whether the owner should pay for the required improvements if he or she has the capacity, or should tenants be recipients of the financial aid through the grant to the owners? Ald. Korshak continued stating that the issue was whether or not the City should examine the predicament of the tenant or the owner? Ald. Warshaw stated that her experience finds that in many instances two or three flat owners have fixed income tenants that cannot absorb any additional costs. In many of those instances the owners are also on a fixed income. Ald. Warshaw suggested that Ald. Korshak and Ald. Morton develop a proposal more in line with what they think the reference meant. In response to Ald. Morton's question about the drafting of the proposal, Ald. Brady stated that the Housing Commission extended its proposal beyond the original reference to include tenants because -2- P & D Minutes February 27, 1989 it assumed that explained that to administrative co Chairman Rudy que grant? Ald. Wars financial informs, rent to this matt increases in rent stated that she d recommend owners stated that she w owner. Ald. Kors held -over while t the Committee to was the intent of Ald. Morton`s referenc change the grant to a loan will incre sts in the form of mortgages, filing do stioned what would keep rents from goin haw stated that the cooperation of terra tion would prevent the owners from attr er. Ald. Warshaw stated that this wool s due to taxes, utilities, insurance, e id not originally intend to aid tenants requesting tax forms from tenants to ve as only concerned with the plight of th hak moved and Ald. Morton seconded that hey develop an alternative proposal. I hold -over the matter over until such a e. Ald. Brady ase substantially currents, etc. g-up even with a nts by supplying ibuting an increase d not prevent other tc. Ald. Horton and would not rift' income. She e financially strap the matter be t was the consensus proposal is develop In ped of ed. Special Sign Committee Report. The Committee reviewed a memo from the Special Sign Committee to the P & D Committee dated February 21, 1989. Ald. Brady questioned whether the City could undertake the passage of an ordinance giving the City Manager, or his designee, authority to immediately remove signs from the public right-of-way? Dick Carter, Planning Director, was present and stated that with the approval of the City Council, staff could begin undertaking this activity in the very near future. Ald. Warshaw suggested that though the P & D Committee is well versed on the subject, it might be helpful for the City Council to see the slide show which has been presented to P & D. She stated that the whole City Council needs to be forewarned about which signs would be subject to elimination. Ald. Warshaw also stated that the matter is not only of eliminating signs but of taking better care of the existing landscaping and those signs that will remain. Ald. Morton stated that she agrees With points numbered one and two of the subject memo, with the exception that a greater than six month period should be granted before "non -regulatory or non -essential informational signs" are eliminated. Also, Ald. Morton recommended that a specific location be designated for those signs that would be removed from the public right-of-way and be relocated elsewhere. Ald. Morton further stated that she is opposed to hiring a design consultant to prepare an appropriate le,idscape and sign design for the six major entrances to the City. She stated that she likes the sign presented to the City by the Chamber of Commerce. Ald. Morton also stated that she concurs with item #4 which directs the Traffic Engineer to take immediate steps to reduce the sign clutter at the six major entrances to the City. With respect to item l#5, Ald. Morton stated that she does not want to eliminate banners from the right-of-way but would rather see the City exercise some control over the materials utilized so that banners do not become tattered and worn. Chairman Rudy stated that he agrees with all five points setforth in the Special Sign -3- P & D Minutes February 27, 1989 Committee's recommendation. In response to a question from Ald. Horton, Chairman Rudy stated that at the time the City accepted the Chamber of Commerce sign he questioned fellow Council members as to whether the City would erect the sign at the entrance points? At that Council meeting he was told that the City only accepted the sign and had not agreed to place the sign at the six entrance points. Chairman Rudy stated that the Committee and Council need to be more specific in a response to the Chamber of Commerce regarding the subject sign so that the Chamber knows exactly where the City stands on this issue. In response to a question from Ald. Bleveans regarding the possibility of grouping signs, Jack Weiss, a member of the Special Sign Committee, stated that to his knowledge no other community has confronted the issue as has Evanston. Ald. Warshaw stated that for that reason she believes a design consultant is needed to aid in the design for the collection of signs. She suggested a wall be identified in the transportation center area to display these signs. Ald. Brady stated that she supports the Special Sign Committee's recommendation but feels that the matter must be taken to the City Council for approval. Ald. Brady stated that she believes that there must be cost implications for the removal of the subject signs and feels the Committee and Council needs the input of the Traffic Engineer, Dave Jennings with respect to those costs. Also, the type of signs that would be removed, number of signs to be removed and how the signs identified for removal are determined must be examined. Ald. Brady further stated that she concurs with the report in recommending that the design consultant be employed. Ald. Bleveans stated that he is in favor of the "grouping of signs" idea. Weiss stated that possibly a park setting at the Civic Center could act as an area for grouping the subject signs. Ald. Korshak stated that he would prefer to see the Traffic Engineer's inventory of non -regulatory signs on the public right-of-way before making a decision. The Committee discussed the meaning of "non -regulatory signs". Ald. Morton stated that she agrees with the last sentence of the report in that the City does not need to announce all of its accomplishments by placing signs on the public right-of-way. She stated that she would like to see a listing of all signs that are currently erected on the public right-of-way that were paid for by other organizations. Ald. Bleveans stated that he believes step one should be for the Corrnittee to review the inventory of signs being developed by the Traffic Engineer. Ald. Brady stated that at this point she thinks that staff needs to develop the Special Sign Committee's five points setforth in the outline. She stated that, before the matters goes before the City Council, staff needs to be more specific with a recommendation. Hayward Blake, a member of the Special Sign Committee, stated that the committee was not just talking about aesthetics. He stated that the committee was more concerned with the promotion of traffic safety and the -4- T P & D Minutes February 27, 1989 movement of traffic by lessening the clutter and distraction of unneeded signage on the public right-of-way. Blake stated the reason for hiring a design consultant was mostly for the need to develop a landscape plan at the entrance points. He stated that the committee's concern was for an overall environment. Blake further stated that in his opinion there would not be a great number of signs removed along the right-of-way throughout the City. Rather, a significant number of signs would be removed at the entrance points thus eliminating a significant amount of unneeded right-of-way signs. Blake emphasized to the Committee that the public right-of-way must be used to control traffic and aid in its movement. In response to questions from the Committee, Blake stated that historic preservation signs would remain but that business district direction signs would be removed and only erected if absolutely necessary. He stated the committee's opinion that the public right-of-way should be used to provide information for the direction of traffic and for traffic safety and not to be used to promote business. Ald. Morton stated that she agrees with Blake's comments that the right-of-way should be used to further public safety. Ald. Brady stated that before the Committee could go any further it is necessary to have Dave Jennings, Traffic Engineer at the next meeting, so the Committee can have his input regarding the issues raised tonight. She stated that it was important to have information on cost, and the number and type of signs to be removed. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter over until the March 13, 1989 meeting and invite Dave Jennings to attend this meeting to further discuss this matter. Chairman Rudy distributed to the Committee a packet of information supplied to all variation applicants. Chairman Rudy stated that he had been contacted by Mary Singh, who expressed concern that the information and direction supplied to the applicants was slanted in their favor at the expensive of objectors. Rudd explained to the Committee that the material and the packet contained information regarding the variation standards that must be addressed by the applicant in order to be granted the zoning relief sought and additional information regarding procedures. Rudd further stated that the materials have been approved by the ZBA to aid in the public hearing process. Chairman Rudy suggested that the Committee review the material and discuss at a future date. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, Mar 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robert T: Rudd 70(2/5) -5- DRAFT, HOT APPROVED .. ti DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 13, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw J. Bleveans and L. Morton E. Szymanski, T. Clarke, D. Carter, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Steve Bernstein R. Warshaw Minutes of February 27, 1989. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of February 27, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Korshak absent). Communications ZBA 88-39-V{F) Variation Decision re 1217 Grant Street. The Committee received a final variation decision for 1217 Grant Street from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Warshaw expressed her appreciation for the help supplied the applicant by ZBA member Peters, by leading them through the variation standards. ZBA Public Notice for Wednesday. April S. 1989. The Committee received the notice Without comment. Chicago Tribune Article re Appeals Court Upholds Village's Landlord -Tenant Law. The Committee received the article without comment. Docket 45-2B-89, Ordinance 22-0-89, re Amendment to the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-3-5-1(A}. Chairman Warshaw stated that she had spoken with the sponsor of the subject amendment, Ald. Rainey, who in turn expressed concern that the ordinance, as drafted, was unclear. Ald. Rainey requested that the Committee clarify the ordinance with respect to the issue that some tenants may not be required to have one and one-half month's security deposit, but only a one month security deposit. Ald. Brady asked if there was a consensus of the P & D Committee to go ahead with the overall amendment since this provision may in reality be unenforceable. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct staff to amend the subject proposal and bring back to the Committee and Council at the March 27, 1989 meeting for passage. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded to hold the matter in Committee on this date but to go forward at the next meeting. The Committee approved the motion 4-0. P & D Committee - Minutes March 13, 1989 Docket 55-2C-89. Burxlary Prevention Compliance Grant Proxram. Chairman Warshaw stated that in Ald. Norton's absence the matter would be carried over to the next P & D Committee meeting. However, Chairman Warshaw questioned Ald. Korshak as to what criteria would be utilized in determining that an applicant was economically unable to implement the security requirements? Chairman Warshaw questioned whether an applicants schedule E would be sufficient for income affirmation? Ald. Korshak stated that Ald. Norton's proposal is limited to only two (2) or three (3) flats when the owner is an occupant. Ald. Korshak stated that an additional restriction and protection against the landlord giving false information is a requirement that the rent be frozen for an eighteen (18) month period after the grant is made and that the rents would not have been raised for a ninety (90) day period before the application is made. Chairman Warshaw suggested that twelve (12) months may be more appropriate for freezing the rents and that eighteen (18) appears to be too long. Ald. Brady observed that it is very possible that fewer than one hundred (100) applicants will actually utilize the program as proposed. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter over to the next meeting to allow Ald. Morton an opportunity to present her proposal. Docket 75-3A-89, Ordinance 32-0-89 , ZBA 88-36-V&SU(R) re Special Use for 2413 Park Place. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the special use request for a grade level patio to be located in the required side yard. The Committee voted 3-0 to recommend approval (Ald. Rudy absent). Docket 76-3A-89, Ordinance 33-0-89. ZBA 88-37-SU(R) re Special Use for 1739-43 Benson Avenue. Chairman Warshaw questioned whether an error was made in condition #7 of the subject ordinance. She observed that the transcript stated that litter pick-up would be conducted "every one-half hour" where the ordinance now states every hour. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the ordinance was in error and should state "every one-half hour". Ald. Brady stated that she was impLessed with the voluntary litter plan proposed by the applicant and could support the special use request. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the special use request for a type 2 restaurant and to amend condition #7 as earlier stated. The Committee voted 3-0 (Ald. Rudy absent). Docket 77-3A-89, Ordinance 34-0-89, ZBA 88-38-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1316 Oakton Street. Chairman Warshaw stated that she had been contacted by Ald. Rainey who in turn was disturbed by the fact that she and other aldermen of the ward were not informed of the unique nature of the proposal, i.e. a housing project -2- P 6 D Committee - Minutes March 13, 1989 partially for special. populations. Ald. Rainey stated that she supported the project but wished she had known in advance the various aspects of the proposal. Chairman Warshaw questioned whether the form of ownership (townhouse vs multi -family) impacted the number of parking spaces required? Rasmussen and Steve Bernstein, attorney for the applicant, offered differing opinions but agreed that the form of ownership would not effect the off-street parking requirement. Ald. Brady commended the applicant for the proposal from a land -use standpoint. She stated that she found the proposal both creative and a worthwhile endeavor. Chairman Warshaw questioned the price of the units since two (2) numbers were given in the transcript. Bernstein stated that all but one of the units would be in the range of $130,000 to $150,000, while the remaining unit probably would be approximately $170,000. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend approval to the City Council to grant a variation and a special use to permit the conversion of the subject building into eight (8) dwelling units some of which would be located below the second floor and the installation of seven (7) off-street parking spaces to serve the dwelling units. The Committee voted 3-0 (Ald. Rudy absent). Docket 78-3A-89. Ordinance 35-0-89. ZBA 88-40-SU(R) re Special Use for 607-21 Custer Avenue. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council granting of a special use for dwellings below the second floor. The Committee voted 3-0 (Ald. Rudy absent). Docket 74-3A-89, Mayor's Special Housing Fund re King and Associates. Chairman Warshaw reviewed with the Committee the proposal from King and Associates for a Housing Fund loan to retain three (3) affordable housing units for a minimum of ten (10) years. In response to a statement contained within the memorandum, Ald. Brady stated that she has been made aware that Northwestern did not bid on the property and has not had any interest in acquiring the property. Brian King, developer of the site, stated that he was informed by the broker dealing the property that Northwestern was a bidder. However, he had no evidence that was accurate. Ald. Brady stated that she has faith in the proposal and expects the rents to be kept at a moderate level for ten (10) years. If for any reason the developer should sell the project at an early stage, the City would realize a profit which in turn would be placed in a revolving fund to be used for other housing projects' Chairman Warshaw noted that the developer is a local resident and will be utilizing local contractors for the rehabilitation. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to approve the loan ra;•=ast. The Committee voted 3-0 (Ald. Rudy absent). -3- r .. P & D Committee - Minutes March 13, 1989 Communications Chairman Warshaw stated that she received from Nary Singh a transmittal detailing a proposal from the Southeast Evanston Association zoning Committee regarding a recommended document to be distributed in the notification process for zoning hearings. Ald. Brady questioned whether the information could be placed on the back of the notice that is currently being distributed thus not necessitating additional distribution material? Chairman Warshaw asked that this matter be placed on a future P & D Committee agenda for discussion. Special Sign Committee Report Ald. Brady stated that she now believes she has enough information after reading a memo from David Jennings, Traffic Engineer. Of particular interest and clarification for Ald. Brady was reference to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NUTCD) which placed in context the City's authority to remove or erect signs on the right-of-way. Ald. Brady stated that she now understands where the City will receive direction to address right-of-way signs which are now only 100 signs to be removed from the right-of-way. Chairman Warshaw stated that she believes that the P & D Committee should focus an the entrance signs to the City once the unnecessary signs are removed. Dick Carter, Planning Director, was present and questioned whether the Committee was prepared to frame the issues and forward a memo to the City Council for direction? Chairman Warshaw questioned other members of the Committee whether P & D should recommend: (1) hiring a consultant to help plan the entrance design; (2) to recommend removal of the 100 plus signs; (3) to recommend that the City develop a display area for the honorary signs that would be removed from the parkway and any future awards that would be received? Ald. Brady stated that she was prepared to recommend approval of the points contained in the Special Sign Committee Report, dated February 21, 1989 to the City Council and also direct staff to prepare a slide presentation at the next City Council meeting. Ald. Korshak expressed his reservations regarding the need to hire a design consultant. He felt that the typical reasoning for hiring a consultant may not be warranted in this case. Carter stated that a design consultant is needed since current staff does not necessarily have the skills required to develop a plan. Ald. Rudy stated that he concurred with the recommendations of the Special Sign Committee. Ald. Korshak questioned the issue regarding the Chamber of Commerce sign? He stated that the City Council needs to make a decision on this matter. Ald. Korshak observed that each entrance is unique and any entrance sign may be limited in its presentation from one location to another. Chairman Warshaw stated that the P & D Committee should make a firm recommendation to the City Council. MM P & D Committee - Minutes March 13, 1989 Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Sign Committee Report, dated February 21, 1989 and that a memo be prepared and forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. The Committee also directed staff to prepare a memo for the P & D Committee meeting of March 27, 1989 providing an estimate of the cost for hiring a design consultant. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, March 27, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Ro er T. Rudd 70(2/6) -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT, HOT APPROVED r i Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 27, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 p.m. J. Bleveans, S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Rudy, and R. Warshaw Hone J. Asprooth, R. Carlson, T. Clarke, R. Carter, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, and j. Zendell R. Warshaw Minutes of lurch 13, 1989 Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the min- utes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of March 13, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 6 ayes 0 nay to approve the minutes. Communications ZBA Public Notice for Tuesday, April 18, 1989 The aforementioned public notice was received and reviewed by the Committee without comment. Old Business Docket 55--2C-89. Burnlary Prevention Comvliance Grant Program Ald. Korshak reviewed the past discussion of this item by the Committee. Ald. Brady questioned the "cannot afford" provision as needing to be replaced with some type of definite income guidelines. Ald. Morton stated that in her opin- ion an affidavit of need signed by the applicant along with a rental income statement should suffice for eligibility. Chairman Warshaw agreed that defi- nite income numbers are needed. Ald. Korshak stated that no applicant would agree to keep rent at a stable level for 12 months in order to qualify for this grant program. Ald. Brady repeated her statement that as a public policy definite asset and/or income figures should be required. Ald. Morton ques- tioned what action would be taken if an owner could not afford to comply with the Burglary Prevention Ordinance. Powers stated that normal enforcement would proceed and help from the Rehab. Department would be sought. Ald. Brady noted that health and safety items are first priority in the Rehab. program and would take precedence over Burglary Prevention items. Ald. Korshak sug- gested using rental and/or equity and expense criteria for qualification. Ald. Morton stated that many low income home owners are in dire financial sit- uations and many of those would need assistance under this program. Chairman Warshaw suggested and the Committee agreed informally to hold this item over until criteria of the existing Police Department Lock Program is transmitted to the Committee. Planning and Development Committee - March 27, 1989 Page 2 Docket 86-38-89 Special Sign Committee Report The report of the Special Sign Committee was previously discussed by the Com- mittee on March 13, 1989, with the Committee approving the recommendation of the Special Sign Committee for forwarding to City Council. Carter exhibited several slides showing various major entrances to the City and the sign clut- ter at those entrances. Ald. Korshak stated his disagreement with the Special Sign Committee's recommendation regarding the use of the Chamber of Commerce entrance sign. The Sign Committee's recommendation dated March 22, 1989, was discussed by the Committee. This revised recommendation also contained a March 23rd recommendation that a consultant be hired to prepare concept draw- ings for City entrances based upon a survey of their individual settings, etc. Ald. Morton questioned point #1 in the March 22nd memo, which states that the City should adopt a strong policy which prohibits all but the neces- sary regulatory and directional signs from being posted on the City's right- of-way. Ald. Brady questioned whether the State of Illinois Sign Manual could be used to control right-of-way signs. City Manager Asprooth noted that the sign manual will not control signs such as service clubs, churches, City awards, etc. Ald. Korshak questioned the lack of an appeal process for per- sons or organizations who have been refused the right to erect a sign in the public right-of-way. He suggested that the appeal should be directed to the City Council. City ?tanager Asprooth agreed that an appeal process to the City Council would be proper. Ald. Brady questioned appeal to the Council on in- dividual sign matters as creating many items for Council consideration. Chairman Warshaw stated that staff should have the authority to refuse instal- lation of signs not specifically prohibited in a suggested ordinance. Ald. Morton stated that she did not feel that a consultant was needed to prepare designs and that staff probably have that expertise in-house. Ald. Brady noted that this recommendation of the Special Sign Committee is only prelimi- nary and that further items such as hiring of a consultant and passage of a specific ordinance would follow. Carter noted that design of entranceways and/or award center requires landscape and graphic skills that are not pres- ently on staff. City Manager Asprooth agreed that talent presently not on staff or the part time design students hired by the City from time to time do not have sufficient expertise for this project. There were no additional motions or votes on this item. Docket 45-28-89 Ordinance 22-0-89 Re: Amendment to the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Section 5-3-5-1(A) Chairman Warshaw suggested holding this item over until the nett regular Com- mittee meeting for changes in the text of the ordinance. Suggested text amendment wording was submitted by the Chairman. It was the concensus of the Committee to hold this item over to the next regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee. New Business Docket 85-3B-89, Request for Waiver and Reimbursement of Transcript Cost Inecured Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Case 87-26 for 1414 Pitner Avenue. Ald. Morton stated her reasoning that this request should be approved due to the fact that the applicant had to make more than one (1) appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Warshaw stated that the letter re- questing refund of the fees showed no proof of hardship and that approval of c --z. 4 L. Planning and Development Committee March 27, 1989 Page 3 this request could establish precedent for not showing hardship and anyone who does not receive their variation, special use, or rezoning, would apply for transcript refunds. Ald. Rudy also stated that he sees no hardship mentioned or proven in the letter of request. Ald. Bleveans noted the Zoning ordinance requirements for fee refunds and stated that he did not feel those conditions had been met. Discussion followed regarding the various appearances of this case before the Planning and Development Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Janet Silvestri (attorney for owner) summarized the path of this case and its appearances before the Planning and Development Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Warshaw noted that the City has al- ready paid these fees to the transcript firm. Ald. Rudy noted that the appli- cant attempted to introduce new evidence at the Planning and Development Com- mittee which was not a correct procedure and the applicant was advised that if he wished to introduce new evidence, the case would have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ald. Rudy further stated that it was the applicant's choice to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the new evidence; thus, the fees should not be refunded. Ald. Brady moved to deny the request for the refund, seconded by Ald. Rudy. Ald. Horton moved a substitute motion re- questing staff to furnish copies of previous P & D and ZBA hearings regarding this case. Substitute motion was seconded by Ald. Bleveans and the substitute motion was approved 6 ayes and 0 nay. Provide Additional Information to Neighbors Re: Variation and Special Use Requests in Neighborhoods Chairman Warshaw reviewed a March 13, 1989 memo from resident Mary Singh re- garding information tramsmitted to neighboring property owners when varia- tions, special uses, etc., are to be heard before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Rasmussen reviewed the present practices which notify neighboring residents approximately three (3) weeks before a case is to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He further suggested that any change in notification rules be sent back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their consideration as all aspects of ZBA notices are contained in the Board's Rules. Ald. Brady noted her general approval with the ideas expressed in the memo and stated that additional criteria regarding granting of variations and special uses could be sent along with the legal notice that is furnished to the neighbors. It was the consensus of the Committee to refer this item back to staff for their views on this question. Docket 84-3B-89 Approval of Plat of Easement for M & u Companies at 1450 Sherman Avenue The Committee reviewed a staff memo regarding the need for a plat of ease- ment. Ald. Rudy asked if submitted plans showed the subject concrete footings protruding onto City right-of-way. Carlson replied that the plan submitted for review and upon which foundation permits were issued did not show the pro- trusion of the footings onto City property. Ald. Horton moved to approve the easement plat, seconded by Ald. Rudy. The Committee voted 6 ayes and 0 nay to approve the motion. Docket 87-38-89 Ordinance 49--0-89 Re: Authorizing Negotiation for Sale of Custer Redevelopment Parcel At 607--21 Custer Avenue The Committee reviewed the ordinance which authorizes the City Manager to negotiate the sale of the aforementioned property. City Manager Asprooth Planning and Development Committee March 27, 1989 Page 4 stated that introduction, suspension of the rules, and adoption of this ordinance should take place at the City Council meeting in order that this ordinance would predate passage of the ordinance authorizing sale of the property. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Rudy seconded the motion to approve a request for suspension of the rules, introduction and adoption of the ordinance at the City Council meeting. The motion was approved 6 ayes and 0 nay. Docket 88-3B-89 Ordinance 50-0-89 Re: Sale of the 607-21 Custer Avenue Redevelopment Parcel. The developer representing Spattz & Associates reviewed changes in the origi- nal drawings. He noted reduced brick work on the front elevation which en- ables kitchens to add 5 inches to their length and second floor windows which have been added in order to carry the window theme of the first floor to the second floor. He noted further that final cost estimates of all major trades should be available within two (2) weeks. Ald. Brady noted the lottery pro- posal for sale of the units as unusual and innovative and may tend to keep the price at a more reasonable level. Ald. Rudy questioned the fourth whereas of the ordinance as possibly needing wording that "a two/third or more vote of Council" should be the wording in the ordinance. It was decided that if staff feels this change should be made, a clean copy would be distributed to the Council. Ald. Brady questioned where the dollars gained through the lottery and land sale would be deposited. City Manager Asprooth replied that land purchase and other dollars would go to the Capital Improvement Program to be allocated by the City Council. Ald. Horton moved introduction of Ordinance 50-0-89, seconded by Ald. Bleveans. The Committee voted 6 ayes and 0 nay to approve introduction of the aforementioned ordinance. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Staff: GEC Date: .3/,-7 qAr S (257C/19) DRAIN, HOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee Tuesday, April 11, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Aiello, J. Asprooth, K. Brenniman, D. Carter, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, E. Szymanski and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of March 27. 1989. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of March 27, 2989 as submitted. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Aldermen Bleveans, Rudy and Brady absent). Communications Staff Reply to Planning b Development Committee re Easement Questions at 1450 Sherman Avenue (northwest of Lake and Sherman). The Committee received the staff reply without comment. MBA Public Notice for Wednesday. May 3. 1989. The Committee received the MBA notice without comment. Old Business Docket 55-2C-89. Burglary Prevention Compliance Grant Program. Ald. Morton reviewed material forwarded to the Committee regarding the Police Department's Home Security Lock Program. She questioned whether the program was limited to one and two unit buildings? Staff responded that the program was limited to up to two units in the target area in addition to being based upon income eligibility. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that staff work with the current Police Department Home Security Lock Program and recommended increasing program to allow for up to three units of owner occupied residences to be eligible. Staff recommended that once a program is developed that it be incorporated with the current program during the CDBG budget submittals cycle starting in August of 1989. Staff was directed to bring back to the Committee a modified Home Security Lock Program for review. P 6 D Minutes April 11, 1989 Docket 45-2B-89. Ordinance 22-0-89. re Amendment to the REsidential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-3-S-1(A). Ald. Bleveans questioned what prompted the proposed amendment? Chairman Warshaw indicated that the proposal evolved from a reference from Aid. Rainey who received complaints from tenants regarding the high cost of a one and one-half months security deposit. Ald. Brady reminded the Committee that P & D referred this mr.tter to the Housing Commission which in turn has forwarded the proposed amendment to the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. In response to an observation by Ald. Bleveans, Ald. Horton stated that she has not received any urgent requests by her constituents to approve the proposed amendment. Ald. Brady stated that the Housing Commission found that the rent levels, typically in the range of $600-$700 per month, may result in a one and one-half months security deposit plus first month's rent totaling between $1,700 and $1,800. She stated that the Housing Commission found that this may be exorbitant for low and moderate income tenants and elderly on fixed incomes. Chairman Warshaw noted that in some cases tenants may not have received their security deposit from their previous landlords which would add to the aforementioned financial burden. Ald. Korshak questioned whether interest would be paid on the security deposit as it was paid to the landlord over a six month period? Ald. Korshak proposed that the Committee amend the ordinance to read that no interest would be paid on the security deposit until the full one and one-half months rent was received by the landlord. After a review with Kathleen Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, it was determined that unless Ald. Korshak's amendment was made to the ordinance, interest would start accruing after the first installment was made. Ald. Bleveans questioned what the property owners' position was on this matter? Ald. Rudy, stated that he was also a landlord and it was his understanding that the property owners opposed the proposed amendment. Ald. Rudy, like Ald. Morton, stated that he has not reviewed any material documenting the need for the amendment. In response to a request from Ald. Bleveans, Bob Heiberger and Jim Hatykiewicz, members of the Evanston Property Owners Association, stated that they opposed the ordinance and concur with Aldermen Horton and Rudy that there has been no outcry for the amendment. They stated that it was their understanding the proposed amendment is based on one Alderman's concern generated by a single complaint. Matykiewicz stated that, in his view, if a prospective tenant cannot generate one and one-half month's rent, that tenant may not be able to pay a month's rent on a regular basis. If that should be the case, Hatykiewicz stated that he may not rent to the prospective tenant. Aid. Korshak stated that he was not unsympathetic with the landlord's plight, however, he would like to have representatives of -2- P & D Minutes April 11, 1989 TOE present to offer their point -of -view. Ald. Korshak further stated that if the ordinance should pass, he would request that it be amended to reflect that no interest would accrue until the full one and one-half month's security was paid. Ald. Korshak requested that the matter be held -over to May 8, 1989 to afford representatives of TOE the opportunity to make their stance known to the Committee. The Committee recommended to hold the matter over until that date. New Business Docket 93-4A-89. Ordinance 60-0-89. ZBA 89-1-SU(R), re Special Use for 1330 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of a special use for a church addition at 1330 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Brady stated that she found interesting that, prior to 1960, churches were permitted uses in R1 Districts and thus the subject church would not have needed a special use. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the special use (Ald. Morton absent). Docket 92-4A-89. Ordinance 54-0-89, ZBA-2-V(R) re Variation for 2100 Dempster Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council granting of a variation to permit the establishment of a Child Care Institution at 2100 Dempster Street. Ald. Rudy questioned the Committee as to whether anyone else was concerned with the mixing of a truck use and children in the same area? It was the consensus of the P & D Committee thRt issues such as that were heard by the ZBA and that any concerns were alleviated. Ald. Brady stated that she was present at the subject ZBA hearing and felt that both the ZBA and the school administrators satisfied any concerns and demonstrated that there is a significant need for this facility, which would be one of the largest child care facilities, in Evanston. Chairman Warshaw stated that it would have been helpful in this case, and may be helpful in future cases, if interior drawings were supplied since the use will be contained within an existing building. Steven Bernstein, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant would request that the P & D Committee recommend to the City Council suspension of the rules to allow both introduction and passage of the variation request. Bernstein stated that the applicant is under a time limitation to move from its current location and needs all the time possible to submit for demolition permits and construction permits. Chairman Warshaw questioned whether if the construction was not completed by July 31, 1989 would the Child Care Institution be forced to leave -3- P & D Minutes April 11, 1989 its present location? Bernstein stated that it is very likely the institution will be forced to leave its present location and if the new location is not ready, may need to suspend operation. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council suspension of the rules to pass the ordinance at the April 11, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend suspension (Ald. Morton absent). On the main motion, the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the variation request (Ald. Norton absent). Consider Approval by P & D Committee of Request to Construct a Temporary Wheelchair Ramp at 1035 Madison Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee approve a request for the construction of a temporary wheelchair ramp for a one year period at 1035 Madison, per Section 6-3-10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Consider Approval of Request from Hinasion & Oriental Rug Company - 1244 Chicago Avenue to Construct Temporary Structure for Twenty-four Months. Ald. Horton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a request to construct a temporary structure for twenty-four months for the Minasian & Oriental Rug Company at 1244 Chicago Avenue per Section 6-3-10 of the Zoning Ordinance and with the conditions cited in the staff memo. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the request. Docket 91-4A-89, Consider Report of Plan Commission re Establishment of Tot -Lot at Ashland Avenue and Lake Street. Ald. Brady stated that she feels that the P & D Committee has not received enough information to go forward with the recommendation on this project. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded a motion to request further information (see attached motion). Ald. Rudy stated that he supported in part Ald. Brady's motion but believes that nothing other than a park should be developed on this site. He stated that he would amend the subject motion to eliminate the housing study portion. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would want to avoid problems the City experienced with the Evanston Housing Coalition, i.e. lack of an escrow, insurance issues, on -going maintenance, etc. She stated that the City needs to nail down specifics at the outset prior to committing the site to a neighborhood group for development. Ald. Korshak stated that he is not at all happy with the motion by Ald. Brady and feels that it would kill the momentum developed by the neighborhood group. He stated that he believes the site should be used solely for a park unless Aldermen of the ward feel a need to look at the site to be partially developed with housing. Aid. Korshak stated that Ald. Brady's suggestion to hold for ninety (90) days to allow for further study will severely hinder any momentum the neighborhood group has currently generated. Ald. Korshak stated that it -4- IIT m " I q, ri F,,, P & D Minutes April 11, 1989 is his understanding that the neighborhood group is requesting only whether the City agrees with the concept and will hold the site to allow the neighborhood group to raise funds and develop park drawings. Ald. Korshak urged the Committee to not halt the momentum of the group and asked that the Committee recommend to the Council approval of the site for a children's playground. Ald. Drummer of the second ward, where the site is located, stated that the Aldermen, and the residents of the area, feel there is not a need for any review of proposed housing on the site. He stated that the neighborhood does not want housing and only wants the site to be develop as a park. In response to issues raised by Ald. Brady in her motion, Ald. Drummer stated that he recognizes that all concerns will need to be addressed and ratified by.the City at a later date. Ald. Drummer stated that the neighborhood is not asking for anything more than the currently allocated $50,000, and that the group will raise additional funds for development. Ald. Drummer stated that the City of Evanston prides itself on its diversity and such diversity is reflected in the neighborhood group proposing to develop this park. Ald. Drummer stated that he recognizes the fact that the Parks Department can not continually stretch its budget to pick-up additional parks. Ald. Paden, also of the second ward, stated that the neighborhood group and Aldermen have worked with the Plan Commission to study this matter and have concluded that a park is best for the entire site and the neighborhood. Chairman Warshaw stated that the P b D Committee would benefit if it had more information on the proposal. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the P & D Committee recommend to the City Council that the subject site be reserved for a one (1) year period to allow the neighborhood group to raise funds and develop plans for a children's playground and that no other plans be made for the site during this time -period. Ald. Brady stated that she is not necessarily far -or -against residential development on a portion of the site, but the issue should be thoroughly studied before a decision is made. Ald. Drummer informed the Committee that a 1960 City of Evanston Land Use Study delineated this site for a park. He stated that the City now has the opportunity to develop it as such. The Committee voted 4-2 on Ald. Korshak's substitute motion to recommend to the City Council reserving the site for a one (1) year period to allow the neighborhood group to develop further plans. (Voting Nay: Aldermen Brady and Warshaw.) Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, May 8, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: 74 ARobert'T. Idd 70(2/6) -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -.Aq" I move that we hold in Committee the issue of the Lake/Ashland site for the purpose of establishing a sub -committee comprised of three members of the Planning and Development Committee and three members of the Plan Commission whose task it would be to 1) evaluate the Friends of the Park proposal that states that the entire site would be used as a park, and 2) examine the feasibility of a mixed use residential and park development. General questions to be addressed would be: a. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan b. Tax implications c. Need of community and City Park questions to be addressed would be: a. Appropriateness of Leather.style part: development b. Appropriate square footage of play structure including detailed design and safety requirements c. Intensity of use, including parking, security, and impact on neighborhood d. Detailed budget for development and long term maintenance e. Oversight of park during development and afterwards f. Insurance implications g. Impact of CD funding, including donated labor questions Mixed use questions to be addressed would be: a. Needed playground square footage and appropriate design b. Square footage possible for residential development c. Design options for single family detached, townhouses: # of units d. Construction costs and probable sale or rental prices e. Feasibility of small senior citizen complex, in particular a 202 sponsored development All appropriate city departments shall be utilized in this study, including but not limited to police, recreation, and housing departments. Report to be made back to full PfiD committee within 90 days. DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee April 24, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald, Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: D. Rasmussen, E. Szymanski and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: R. Warshaw ejt Minutes of Kamt 11. 1989. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of April 11, 1989. Chairman Warshaw requested that the minutes be corrected on page 5, paragraph 2, to indicate that Ald. Korshak "recommended a resolution to the City Council ....". The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as corrected (Ald. Bleveans absent). Communications ZBA Public Notice for Tuesday. May 16. 1989. The Committee received the notice without comment. Old Business Docket 85-3B--89, Request for Waiver and Reimbursement of Transcript Costs Incurred in Connection with Zoning Board Case 87-26. for 1414 Pitner Avenue. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council reimbursement of the costs requested. Ald. Rudy stated that he did not feel that it was appropriate to grant the request. Ald. Morton questioned whether it was the P & D Committee's recommendation to refer the matter back to ZBA thus necessitating this cost? Chairman Warshaw recalled that the P & D Committee only directed that the matter be returned to the ZBA if the applicant felt there was new evidence in the case. The Committee reviewed the P & D Committee's minutes of December 21, 1987 when discussion took place regarding the Winfield Rule. This rule addressed the issue that if new evidence was brought -up at the P & D Committee matters would be returned to the original hearing body. Janice Silvestri, attorney for the applicants, explained her feeling why a reimbursement was justified since she felt the matter was directed back to ZBA by the P & D Committee. Ald. Brady explained the P & D Committee rules to Silvestri and observed that it was the Committee's position that if the applicants (Lytles) elected to reapply, it was the P & D Committee's position that they may consider the waiver of the P & D Minutes April 24, 1989 new application and transcript fee. Ald. Korshak questioned whether counsel for the applicant elected to go back to ZBA on her own accord or went back to ZBA at the direction of the P & D Committee? Ald. Rudy stated that the case went back to ZBA because Silvestri took issue with comments made by ZBA Chairman Whitney and felt that there was a need to rebut those comments made during deliberations at the original ZBA hearing. Ald. Brady observed that she has not as yet seen evidence of financial hardship. Ald. Brady recommend that since this matter may generate substantial discussion at the City Council meeting that it should be held over to a later date since tonight's meeting will be abbreviated to allow for the inauguration of the new aldermen. Ald. Warshaw questioned Silvestri why the Lytles moved one month after the P & D Committee gave the applicants six (6) months to relocate the business? Silvestri stated that the applicant purchased additional, and different, equipment and elected to move all of the goods at one-time. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the matter be held over in order to give due consideration to the question. Silvestri requested that the matter be carried over to the Kay 22. 1989 meeting since she would be unable to attend the May 8, 1989 P & D Committee. The Committee voted 6-0 to hold the matter over to May 22, 1989. Docket 108-4B-89, Request for Waiver of the Filing and Transcript Fees in Connection with a Prospective Application for Variation re 1409 Wilder Street. Ald. Brady stated that she felt that the Committee did not have the proper information from staff to make a decision on this matter. She stated that it was unclear to her as to why there was a need for this request for waiver of fees. Ald. Brady also stated that the kind of information supplied by the petitioner should not have been provided to the public and should have been in a confidential manner since it dealt with personal financial issues. Elizabeth Neyman, applicant, was present and stated the issue came about due to a complaint from a neighbor. The Committee discussed what form of additional information would be needed to better understand this matter. In conclusion, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the staff develop a report providing the history of the zoning issue and forward to the Committee at the next meeting on May 8, 1989. The Committee voted 6-0 to hold this matter over to the next meeting. The Committee members wished to express their gratitude for the several years and long hours put in by retiring Ald. Take Bleveans. The Committee wished Ald. Bleveans well in all future endeavors. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, May 8, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: IY'' R Robeft'T. Rudd 70(213) -2- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee May 8, 1989 Room-2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: D. Carter, J. Aiello, D. Rasmussen, K. Brenniman, C. Powers and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Korshak Minutes of April 24. 1989. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of April 24, 1989. Ald. Morton questioned whether the minutes regarding the 1409 Wilder case accurately explained what additional information was requested? Ald. Morton recommended that the minutes be amended to reflect that the Committee asked for additional financial information to justify the hardship of Mrs. Neyman. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. Communications ZBA 89-3 -V(F), re Variation for 1706 Seward Street. Withdrawal of Request. The Committee received a letter advising the applicant of 1706 Seward that the Zoning Board of Appeals had accepted their request for withdrawal. ZBA 89-5-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 831 Madison Street. The Committee received a final decision for 831 Madison Street for a variation. Ald. Warshaw cited the subject case as one that should not have gone to ZBA and hopefully that under the new regulations of the proposed zoning ordinance similar cases will not be subject to the need for zoning variations. ZBA 89-6-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1200-14 Church Street. Ald. Nelson questioned where garbage containers would be located and pick-ups made? He also questioned why the eighteen (18) inch high planters were recommended to be moved by City staff? Staff indicated that obstructions of eighteen (18) inches or greater in the front yard would require zoning relief and therefore it was recommended that they be set -back to eliminate that need. Staff stated that they would respond to Ald. Nelson with respect to the garbage pick-ups. P & D Minutes may 8, 1989 Docket 124-5A-89. Consider Plat of Consolidation re 2702 Green Bay Road. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation for property at 2702 Green Bay Road. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket 123-5A-89, Consider Plat of Consolidation re 912 Custer Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the plat of consolidation for property at 912 Custer. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket 108-4B-89. Request for Waiver of the Filing and Transcript Fees in Connection with a Prospective Application for Variation re 1409 Wilder Street. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether hardship was addressed by the materials submitted to the Committee? Chairman Korshak indicated that he found only minor references addressing the hardship issues in the material supplied the Committee. Ald. Brady stated that she found most of the information more appropriate for arguing the applicant's case before the ZBA, but did not help in determining whether a fee waiver should be approved. Ald. Brady stated that she needed additional information regarding the history of the solar collector and the background on the financing regarding firs. Heyman's trips abroad. Ald. Morton stated that she feels that the P & D Committee should wait until additional materials justifying the hardship are supplied before a decision is made. airs. Heyman stated that she did supply the requested material in the first letter forwarded to the Committee at the previous meeting. Ald. Brady recommended that Mrs. Heyman work with staff and supply an asset statement, an income tax return, or in the alternative, a circuit breaker statement, and additional information regarding the cost of installation of the solar collector, how it was paid for and financial Information regarding Mrs. Neyman's trips abroad. Ald. Nelson suggested that since Mrs. Heyman utilized Neighbors At Work for work on her home, some of this information may be available from them. Chairman Korshak directed Mrs. Heyman to work with staff gathering this information and directed that this matter be continued to the May 22, 1989 meeting. Docket 55-2C-89 re Burglary Prevention Compliance Grant Program. Ald. Nelson questioned whether two and three flats, which would now be the target of this program, experienced a greater burglary rate than other types of residential buildings? Ald. Warshaw reviewed with the Committee the history of the compliance grant program and stated that statistics were supplied at various housing Commission and prior P & D Committee meetings regarding incidence of burglaries. Ald. Norton stated that this was her proposal and that she was gust trying to aid those low or moderate income landlords of two or three flat buildings in bringing their property into compliance. She stated that she felt that many owner occupied two and three -2- P & D Minutes May 8, 1989 flat buildings had as their only source of income the rental income derived from those units. Ald. Nelson questioned whether the Housing Commission or the P & D Committee analyzed whether the Burglary Prevention Ordinance was focused only on those properties most burglarized i.e. single family, larger multi -family apartments, etc.? Ald. Brady stated that the Housing Commission reviewed in depth the issue of financial aid to landlords and had offered a different proposal to the P & D Committee in response to Ald. Morton's reference. Ald. Brady stated that Ald. Morton wanted only to address owner occupied one -three flat apartments. Ald. Brady stated that the proposal does not address low income renters throughout the City directly but provides that financial aid will be determined by the income of owners only. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the proposed expansion of the home security lock program. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Docket 45-2B-89, Ordinance 22-0-89 re Amendment to the Residential Landlord and Tenant ordinance. Section 5-3-5-1(A). Chairman Korshak stated that he had spoken with Linda DeWoskin of TOE who in turn indicated that TOE would not take a strong position in support of this proposal. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was contacted by Ald. Rainey who would like an opportunity to speak before the P & D Committee to argue in favor of the proposal. Since Ald. Rainey would be unable to be in attendance at tonight's meeting the Committee directed that the matter be held -over to May 22, 1989 to allow Ald. Rainey an opportunity to speak to the Committee. Special Sign Committee The Committee reviewed a memo dated May 3, 1989 from the Special Sign Committee to the Chairman and members of the P & D Committee detailing five (5) recommendations. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the P & D Committee recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Special Sign Committee's recommendations. Ald. Nelson proposed that the Sixth Ward be utilized as a pilot program to implement the recommendations of the Special Sign Committee. He stated that his ward has several entrances into Evanston and would be appropriate for the proposed sign regulations. The Committee discussed the five (5) recommendations on a point -by -point basis. Ald. Brady proposed that the Committee concur with the first recommendation of the Special Sign Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend to the City Council concurrence with this item. With respect to recommendation two, the Committee voted 5-1 (voting May, Ald. Nelson) to remove nonessential signs and ask for voluntary removal of existing signage at the entrances. Ald. Morton recommended that if sponsors of existing nonessential signs located at the entrances are willing to relocate their signs, the City should approve relocation of those signs and grandfather those signs into a new location. The intent is to move the non -conforming -3- P & D Minutes May S, 1989 signs from the entrances and to allow them at other locations away from the City's borders. All future nonessential signs would be prohibited unless specifically allowed by a review body such as the Special Sign Committee. This also would require the Special Sign Committee to develop criteria to grant these signs. Ald. Nelson once more offered that the Sixth Ward be used as a limited demonstration project with respect to the five Special Sign Committee recommendations. Ald.Morton stated that she would prefer to go slowly and in a systematic manner to equally apply the recommendations throughout the City. Ald. Nelson stated that the nonessential signs should be eliminated from inside the City and suggested that the Committee recommend a pilot project by outlining a geographical area and utilizing two entrances in order to determine if the program will work. He stated that the Committee should not recommend a citywide rule before it has any idea what will work efficiently. Ald. Warshaw stated that the previous Special Sign Committee report addressed this issue and stated that nonessential signs on interior streets were not a major problem. Ald. Morton stated that she feels that there is no need for a prototype program to be developed in a single ward. Dick Carter, Planning Director, was present and in response to the Committee's proposal stated the Special Sign Committee would bring back a sample of a entrance proposal and would undertake notification to sponsors of nonessential signs currently located at the City entrances and suggested relocating the signs and grandfathering those signs at a different location. Ald. Brady reviewed the May 3, 1989 memo and concurred that the Special Sign group would attempt to design the entrance sign and would limit it to two locations. Chairman Korshak observed that according to the memo, the current Chamber of Commerce sign given to the City may or may not be utilized. Ald. Morton, in speaking to recommendation #4 of the Sign Committee, agreed that various honorary signs should be retained at some permanent location. Hayward Blake, a member of the Special Sign Committee, was present and stated that such honorary or awards signs should be maintained and displayed but at locations other than the entrances to the City. Ald. Brady stated that more work was needed to be done on developing criteria for determining the display of signs such as Sanctuary City and Nuclear Free Zone. Ald. Nelson stated that he does not feel that there is a need to erect signs such as Nuclear Free Zone and Sanctuary City on public rights -of -way. Blake observed that such signs are having less and less value. Ald. Horton stated that she agrees with the Special Sign Committee recommendation #5. Ald. Warshaw stated the Special Sign Committee should coordinate this matter with recommendation #4. Blake stated that the Special Sign Committee felt that the Chamber of Commerce sign could be erected somewhere at the Civic Center if agreed to by the Chamber. Ald. Rudy stated -4- P S D Minutes May 8, 1989 that it was his understanding that the Chamber of Commerce gave the sign to the City for a specific purpose to be located at various entrances and not necessarily to be located anywhere else. Aid. Nelson suggested that the Chamber of Commerce sign be erected during the Fourth of July celebration or for a celebration of the City's 125th anniversary. Aid. Brady recommended that points 1, 2, 3 and 5 be proposed to the City Council and all be in separate resolutions. Aid. Nelson stated that he would like to eliminate all parking restriction signs in the City. Aid. Korshak asked the Legal Department to respond to that proposal. Aid. Morton observed that to eliminate parking restriction signs would not work. Aid. Warshaw suggested that the City explore eliminating as many parking restriction signs as possible and leaving a minimum to allow for enforcement of the City's codes (May 3, 1989 Special Sign Committee recommendation attached to minutes). Docket 125-5A-89, Ordinance 64-0-89 re Amending Sandblasting Regulations. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of the amended sandblasting regulations and also request suspension of the rules for passage of the ordinance. Aid. Warshaw provided some background to the Committee regarding a recent incident where a contractor sandblasted a building leaving debris on nearby autos, sidewalks and streets which led to a pedestrian/auto accident. Aid. Rudy suggested that the Committee consider outlawing sandblasting in any form. Aid. Morton stated that sandblasting is needed in some instances to remove matters such as graffiti. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council introduction and suspension of the rules in the passage of the proposed amendment. Docket 126-5A-89. Ordinance 66-0-89, ZBA 89-4-SU(R) re Special Use for 1336 Chicago Avenue. Aid. Brady stated that since the matter is in her ward and she has discussed the proposal with several constituents and with Ald. Rudy of the neighboring ward, she could support the special use request if various conditions were agreed to by the applicant. Aid. Brady felt that the two significant areas that needed to be addressed were the issues of the ATM's and traffic. Aid. Brady stated that currently the proposal calls for three (3) curb cuts which she would recommend be amended to allow for one (1) full access curb cut on Greenwood and one (1) full access curb cut on Sherman. She also observed that currently only six (6) cars can be stacked at the drive-in facility and by eliminating one (1) curb cut and redesigning, additional stacking may be allowed. Aid. Brady also stated that by allowing only one (1) curb cut on Greenwood and locating that curb cut west of the intersection of Greenwood and Chicago Avenuo would allow the current CTA eastbound bus to stop on Greenwood at Chicago Avenue without obstructing the access. Aid. Rudy stated that he -5- P & D Minutes may 8, 1989 concurred with Ald. Brady and urged the Committee to require the recommended changes to the project. Ald. Rudy also recommended that the ATM's in the building be located on the west -side of the building and eliminated from the east -side. Ald. Rudy also observed that the elevations do not identify the exterior materials. He stated that the City should be requiring a masonry building to keep in character with the area. Mr. Larry Upham, representing Savings of America, the applicant, stated that his organization would review the proposed conditions and also would ask that condition #7 on the bottom of page 2 of proposed Ordinance 66-0-89 be eliminated due to the liability hardship it causes the institution. Mr. Upham felt that to specifically identify in the form of an ordinance that the parking area on the site would be unrestricted when the financial institution was not open for the benefit of neighbors in the area, poses an undue hardship. Mr. Upham recommended eliminating the phrase "for the benefit of neighbors in the area" but stated that the institution would not restrict access to the parking after operating hours. In response to a question from Ald. Warshaw regarding the bank's parking lot at Main and Chicago Avenue, Judy Aiello, Assistant City Manager, stated that the lot is typically open and unrestricted by bank policy but not by ordinance. Ald. Horton recommended that the Committee consider eliminating all of condition #7 from the proposed ordinance. Ald. Brady stated that she would need assurance that the lot would be open for neighborhood use after operating hours. Mr. Upham stated that the institution would voluntarily leave the lot open and would agree not to install gates on the lot as a condition of approval. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Brady seconded a substitute motion. She placed a condition on the special use that the institution would not erect gates so as to restrict use of the parking area. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve this motion. Mr. Upham stated that he would agree to eliminate the ATM walkup on the east -side of the building and only locate the ATM's on the west -side. In response to Ald. Rudy'•s question regarding the type of exterior surface, Mr. Upham stated that the present plan calls for a dryvat surface. Mr. Upham stated that to respond to the traffic issues, the applicant would need to meet with staff to determine the ramifications of such a redesign. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee informally approve the project subject to the ability of the applicant to incorporate the various changes. Ald. Rudy also requested that the Committee hinge final approval on the applicant responding to constructing a masonry building versus what is currently proposed. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend tentative approval of the concept and directed the applicant to meet with staff and return to the next P & D Committee if possible. Ald. Brady stated that she would support a suspension of the rules at the next meeting to expedite the process if the applicant was able to reach an agreement with the City. -6- P & D Minutes May 8, 1989 Ald. Warshaw wished to express her thoughts regarding the ZBA attitude toward residents that spoke at the public hearing. She stated that she felt the ZBA was harsh and nasty to both Mr. Manji and Mrs. Bennett when they addressed the ZBA. Chairman Korshak stated that he agreed and felt that the ZBA's attitude was totally uncalled for. Ald. Rudy observed that on page 25 of the transcript, Mrs. Pigozzi was referred to as Judy and he felt that it was a put-down and also uncalled for since all other speakers were addressed more formally by their last names. Ald. Brady stated that she agrees with the comments made by the members of the P b D Committee. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, May 22, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robe . Rudd 70(2/8) -7- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED CITY OF EVANSTON CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM For Information Only Scheduled For Committee Consideration Committee Scheduled For Council Consideration Introduction Adoption May 3, 1989' TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Committee FROM: Special Sign Committee SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE IN RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 27, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MEETING In spite of having the recommendations referred back to you by the City Council, the Special Sign Committee feels that there is more support for improving some of our public signage than might be apparent. First, we felt we had your Committee's understanding and support of the philosophy behind having both an ordinance and a policy with regard to signs on the public right-of-way. The Committee has been working from the same philosophy as contained in the Illinois Department of Transportation's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices which warns against excessive use of signs. The manual stresses that signs used to an excess loose their effectiveness and that too much Information can cause improper driving and Impair safety. Secondly, the Committee felt they had effectively demonstrated the obvious sign clutter which seriously affected the appearance of many of the entrances to Evanston and that you were supportive of our recommendations to proceed to clean up this problem. There seemed to be two areas of controversy and some general confusion on the part of the Council. Consequently, we wish to make several suggestions for modification to our original recommendations for your consideration. Our recommendations are as follows: (1) That the City Council direct the staff to prepare an ordinance for controlling and limiting signs on the public right-of-way to those necessary for traffic control, safety, parking regulations and other necessary information. (2) If the idea of removing the nonessential information signs such as provided by private clubs and churches is considered too controversial, we would suggest that the present signs be "grandfathered-in" rather than eliminated. While there are not a great many of these signs, the Committee felt it was only fair to be consistent In the application of the policy of keeping nonessential signs off the public right-of-way. Members are willing to ask that some of these signs be voluntarily removed. The Committee also feels very strongly that a policy and regulation Is essential to prevent further proliferation of signs on the public right-of-way. 'Disposition: Adopted Not Adopted Held Over To Chair and Members Planning and Development Committee May 3, 1989 Page Two (3) That the City take action to Improve the appearance of our entranceways by completing two demonstration projects this year at Dempster Street at Sheridan Road and South Boulevard. The projects would Include elimination of present over-signage, and installation of a single distinctive "Evanston" sign in an attractive landscaped setting. These actions could be handled administratively and would not require any ordinances. Incorporating a new prototype sign for the City of Evanston and placed In a landscape setting would be most helpful in showing everyone what an alternative treatment of our entranceways might look like. We have the cooperation and support of the Traffic Engineer for removal of signs, the Parks Department for designing and establishing a landscape setting and members of our Committee are willing to prepare a concept design for the sign. We would like your endorsement to proceed with this approach. While we might be able to clean up some of the sign clutter almost immediately, we could not create the prototype landscape setting and sign until probably this fall. We believe this demonstration project will do more to effectively communicate the kind of difference a more careful attention to public signage can create than all the memos we can write. (4) Place a limit on the time for displaying various signs which represent some form of public award. These signs can now be found at virtually every entrance to the City. We would like to suggest that they be eliminated by the end of 1989 which would give them a two year life -span. We recommend that the practice of posting such signs at the entranceways not be continued in the future. A second controversial question was whether to use the Chamber of Commerce sign for our entranceways. Our Committee wishes to illustrate some alternate formats with our demonstration project which we feel could be more appropriate. (3) It is our recommendation that single chamber sign produced for the City be used to commemorate the 123th anniversary and be placed in front of the Civic Center. Committee member are willing to discuss with the Chamber whether they would be willing to participate In an alternate program for signage at the City entranceways. We look forward to discussing these issues with the Planning and Development Committee so that some recommendations can begin to move forward on this topic which has been on our mutual agendas for so long. cc: Mayor Barr Aldermen 8YI03/104 DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee May 22, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: D. Wirth, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Korshak Minutes of May 8. 1989. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of May 8, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Horton absent). Communications Zoning Board Case 89-6-V(F) re 1200-14 Church Street. The Committee received information on 1200-14 Church Street without comment. Docket 137--5B-89. Request from Evanston Friends of the Parks re Neighborhood Garage Sale at Lake/Ashland. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a temporary use permit for a fund raiser sponsored by the Friends of the Parks to be conducted at a City owned property at Lake/Ashland. Ald. Rudy questioned whether the Applicant was required to have insurance? Rudd stated that currently the applicant did not have insurance. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend as a condition to granting of the temporary use permit the requirement that the applicants obtain insurance acceptable to the City. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the temporary use permit (Ald. Morton absent). ❑ocket 139-5B-69. Tent Permit Request of Kendall College. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request from Kendall College for permission to erect a tent for Bastille Day Celebration July 18 and 19, 1989. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval (Ald. Morton absent). P & D Committee - Minutes May 22, 1989 Docket 85-3B-89. Request for Waiver and Reimbursement of Transcript Costs Insured in Connection with Zoning Board Base 87-26, for 1414 Pitner Avenue. In the absent of the applicants' attorney, the matter was held -over to June 12, 1989 with staff directed to contact the applicant's attorney and indicate that the P & D Committee expected to dispose of the case with or without the applicants' attorney present at the June 12, 1989 meeting. Docket 108-4B-89, Request for Waiver of the Piling and Transcript Fees in Connection with a Prospective Application for Variation re 1409 Wilder Street. Chairman Korshak reviewed with the Committee an additional piece of information supplied from Hs. Heyman. Chairman Korshak stated that he was no closer to making a decision because of the insignificance of the additional Information. Ald. Warshaw stated that she found no factual data submitted. Ks. Neyman, the applicant, circulated to the Committee a copy of the "circuit breaker" form. A review of the form found that the form had not as yet been submitted to the State for approval. Ald. Brady observed that the Committee has a procedure to allow a request for a waiver of fees. However, no standards were ever developed to aid in evaluating hardship requests. Ald. Brady recommended that regardless of the outcome of this particular case she would ask that the P & D Committee make a reference to itself to develop standards for judging future fee waiver requests. She suggested that the standards include requirements for various documents to aid in making a decision. Ald. Brady moved approval of the waiver request of Hs. Heyman with the understanding that the Committee was not taking a position as to the validity of the case when it came before the Zoning Board of Appeal. Ald. Rudy seconded the motion. Chairman Korshak stated that it is the obligation of the applicant to prove hardship and that in this case the applicant has not been able to prove hardship. Chairman Korshak also stated that fellow 4th Ward Alderman Esch also opposed the fee waiver. Ald. Rudy suggested that Ald. Brady amend her initial motion to state that the Committee would approve the fee waiver request subject to proper execution of the circuit breaker. Ald. Warshaw expressed concern in that the Committee did not know if the circuit breaker was meaningful or if Hs. Heyman would ever qualify. Ald. Brady stated that Hs. Heyman is trying to comply and would recommend that if Hs. Heyman is eligible, the waiver be granted. Ald. Brady stated that she would amend her motion to state that it was the sense of the P & D Committee to grant the waiver if all documents were in proper order. After a brief discussion, Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the matter be held in Committee -until the proper circuit breaker documents were completed. Ald. Horton stated that it would be a good procedure for the Committee to review the circuit breaker because that item may help the P & D Committee to establish its future standards for fee waiver requests. The Committee voted 4-2 to hold the matter in Committee. Voting Nay: Aldermen Korshak and Nelson. -2- P & D Committee - Minutes May 22, 1989 Docket 126-5A-89, Ordinance 66-0-89. ZBA 89-4SU(R) re Special Use for 1336 Chicago Avenue. The Committee reviewed letters from Mary Singh and Ashraf Manji expressing their concerns regarding the conduct of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing with respect to this request and also the treatment of objectors by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Korshak questioned whether the Committee wishes to address these letters at this point or hold until a later date so as to not cloud the issue of the applicant's request. Ald. Rudy stated that if any statements in the letters warranted the case being sent back to the ZBA then the Committee should address the letters. If not, the Committee should address the letters in a different forum such as a joint meeting with ZBA. The Committee directed staff to forward the letters from Manji and Singh to the ZBA to be discussed as an agenda item when a joint meeting between ZBA and P & D Committee is established. Aid. Brady reviewed a third letter from the Preservation League of Evanston stating a preference for a brick and mortar facade. Ald. Brady also observed that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the ATM on the east -side of the building in addition to eliminating one (1) curb cut on Greenwood, thus leaving a single curb on Greenwood and one (1) also on Sherman Avenue. Ald. Brady observed that the elimination of one (1) curb cut on Greenwood increases the stacking capacity and protects the current bus stop on Chicago Avenue. Ald. Rudy stated that the revised elevations of the project indicate face brick materials. Mr. Upham, a representative of Savings of America, stated that brick would be utilized on all four (4) sides of the building. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the special use for a three -bay drive-in facility associated with a financial institution at 1336 Chicago Avenue and also recommend to City Council suspension of the rules to allow passage at the May 22, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Judy Pigozzi, a resident of the area, stated that she would recommend the Committee initiate action to develop a zoning review of all properties that are demolished to determine if the current zoning is appropriate or whether it should be changed. Chairman Korshak requested that Mrs. Pigozzi send a letter to Mr. David Mann, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, to review this issue in the course of developing a new zoning ordinance. Docket 138-5B-89, Proposed Not -for -Profit Mortgage Corporation. Representatives from most of the participating lending institutions (First Chicago of Evanston, First Illinois Bank of Evanston, ,Northern Trust and Evanston Bank) were present. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council participation in the proposed corporation. Ald. Rudy questioned whether the $100,000 maximum purchase price of a house was too limiting and whether it could be raised? Ald. Warshaw stated that the amount of funds proposed (1.5 million dollars) would be -3- P & D Committee - Minutes May 22, 1989 used -up very early and that the $100,000 purchase price could be changed at a later date if necessary, depending on the market. Veronica Hensch, a representative of First Illinois Sank of Evanston, stated that the program was based upon income eligibility of applicants and that in developing the program the Committee found that for low to moderate income purchasers, $100,000 was the maximum amount affordable. Sid Ross, a member of the Housing Commission, confirmed that few moderate income households can currently afford more than $100,000. In response to a question from Ald. Morton, Kensch stated that the debt will be limited to 301. of income allocated to housing cost and 38% for overall debt. Ald. Brady, also a member of the Housing Commission, reviewed with the Committee a brief history of the process which took approximately two (2) years to develop. She observed that the program may very well be a model for other communities and wished to thank the participation of the various lending institutions in making the project come about. Ald. Nelson questioned whether the City would be adding additional personnel to staff the program as currently proposed? Rudd stated that it is estimated that the current funds would translate into approximately twenty-five (25) loans and that the City does not anticipate hiring additional personnel. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the program should be submitted to HUD Secretary Kemp as one of an innovative nature. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council City of Evanston participation in the Housing Mortgage Corporation and the allocation of $500,000. Docket 140-58-89, Ordinance 72-0-89, Amending Section 7-11-6. Chairman Korshak questioned whether a current vendor at the lakefront is in violation of the ordinance? Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry, was present and stated that the identified vendor was authorized by the City. Wirth stated that this amendment would reduce the number of feet in which peddlers may vend their wares from 1000 to 500 feet of City beaches and lakefront parks. The change in this ordinance addresses a distance from lakefront parks and beaches versus the old ordinance which just addressed the distance from the beach. Wirth indicated that the Police Department has identified an enforcement problem without this amendment. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendment. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8i30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, June 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Staff: -'Robert T . ' Rudd 70(2/5) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development June 12, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 Committee P.M. S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw None J. Zendell, N. Modaber, D. Rasmussen, D. Wirth, D. Carter, J. Aiello, B. Ahlberg, C. Yonker and R. Rudd Aldermen C. Wollin, M. Collens and B. Davis J. Korshak Art in Public Places Presenting a slide show were Mr. Ron Isaacson and Ms. Beth Hart, an art consultant for the Arts Council. its. Hart presented a ten-minute slide show for the Committee highlighting pieces of public art both in the City of Evanston and numerous other towns and cities throughout the country. The slides depicted streetscapes, transportation centers, sculpture, murals and landscapes. Mr. Isaacson informed the Committee that the Arts Council has conducted forums which resulted in a favorable and enthusiastic support for public art. Ald. Morton stated that she was impressed with the memo froin the Arts Council to the Committee, dated June 7, 1989 and agreed with the position that there is a need for public art in the community. Ald. Morton stated that she appreciated the new dimension brought to the P & A Committee by the slide presentation which highlighted the diversity of art in public places, both within Evanston and other communities. Ald. Brady stated that the slide show was extremely helpful in illustrating both public and private art pieces. Ald. Brady questioned whether the Arts Council was advocating a requirement for a percentage of art for public and private projects? She also questioned what size of a public or private development would initiate the requirement? Isaacson stated that he has been encouraged by private developers in their response to developing art in public places. Isaacson stated that Los Angeles has recently enacted a law requiring 1% of the cost of the project dedicated for art in private developments. Isaacson stated the Arts Council and the proposed new "Public Art Committee" has not as yet formed an opinion as to whether incentives (i.e. zoning) would be recommended. Ald. Nelson questioned why an ordinance would discriminate between the size of a project and whether it is public or private? Ald. Nelson also stated that in his opinion the City Council probably would accept a requirement for public art but recommended that no discrimination based on size of project or whether it was public or private be allowed. Ald. Nelson also suggested that any corenittee be sensitive to added costs to a project for art. Isaacson stated that the money would come from various budgets within a development and would not necessarily add overall cost to the project. r P & D Minutes June 12, 1989 Chairman Korshak questioned the committee as to whether it was the consensus to include public and private projects within a requirement for public art? The Committee agreed that the Council probably would accept a requirement for a percent for public art but that additional details needed to be provided. Ald. Brady asked that the new committee address the question of who will make the decision on selecting the art and whether it would be a recommendation or final decision? Ald. Brady posed a second question, regarding who would appoint.the proposed committee? Isaacson stated that the Arts Council would like to come back to the Committee in August, 1989 with more particulars on the issue. Chairman Korshak suggested that the Arts Council may want to devise a questionnaire to get a better reading of what the City Council members would approve. The Arts Council's presentation concluded at 7:25 p.m. Minutes of Mav 22. 1989. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee approve•the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of May 22, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Communications ZBA 88-31-A or V(F), Final Decision on Appeal and Variation re 1827-31 Emerson Street. In response to a question from Ald. Warshaw, Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, explained that the ZBA had the option to dismiss or deny the application and that they elected to deny the application at this time while allowing the applicant to refile at a later date. ZBA 89-9-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 2603 Simpson Street. Ald. Warshaw requested that in future cases, if possible, it would be helpful if a simple drawing illustrating the site could be submitted with P & D information. Memorandum from the Rules Committee. The Committee received a Rules Committee memorandum stating that it was recommended that chairmen of committees announce at the beginning of the meeting that anyone wishing to speak on an issue should identify themselves at that point. Docket 147-6A-89, Ordinance 74-0--89 re Special Sign Committee Report. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of Ordinance 74-0-89. Ald. Brady recommended that City Council pass the Ordinance as drafted but observed that it didn't answer the questions which were asked at a previous meeting, i.e. whether existing signs -2- 4 P & D Iiinutes rune 12, 1989 should be grandfathered, and what signs will be eliminated? Ald. Brady also questioned whether the Ordinance was only addressing " traffic" signs? She stated that if others are included, the Ordinance needs to provide more definition. Ald. Morton stated that she viewed the Ordinance as the first step in an on -going process in addressing the issue of signage on public rights -of -way. Dick Carter, Planning Director, stated that the Ordinance was drafted to stop adding unneeded signs on the rights -of -way. He stated that the grandfather issue could be decided later. Ald. Warshaw stated that the City Council could mandate a more particular definition than proposed in the subject ordinance. Chairman Korshak suggested that there was a need for a definition of signs that will be prohibited. Hayward Blake, a member of the Special Sign Committee, stated that signs that would be prohibited would be those signs not dealing with traffic direction. Ald. Morton stated that she feels a sense of urgency to pass this ordinance at this time and continue with the process. Chairman Korshak stated that the ordinance should be revised to Indicate that it is in force, and addressing signs, from this date forward. Ald. Brady recommended that other signs such as those for churches, historical markers, etc. should be identified somewhere in this ordinance. In response to the Committee concerns, Carter agreed that the ordinance could be modified and brought back for adoption at the next City Council meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to introduce the subject ordinance and direct staff to provide modifications before it was passed at the next City Council meeting. Carter questioned whether the Committee desired to proceed with the clean-up of entrance signs at Dempster and Sheridan/South Boulevard? The Committee agreed that staff could proceed with those actions. Blake showed the Committee a sketch of proposed new signage at those locations. It was the Committee's understanding that additional information and details will be forthcoming on the entire process. Docket 85-3B-89, Request for Waiver and Reimbursement of Transcript Costs Insured in Connection with Zoning Board Base 87-26. for 1414 Pitner Avenue. Ald. Rudy moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend denial, for the request for waiver of transcript fees. The Committee was notified that the attorney for the applicant has informed the City that she would no longer be representing this matter before the Committee. the Committee voted 5--1 to recommend denial of the reimbursement request. Voting Hay: Ald. Horton. Docket 108-4B-89, Request for Waiver of the Filing and Transcript Fees in Connection with a Prospective Application for Variation re 1409 Milder Street. Ald. Morton questioned why the minutes at the prior Committee meeting indicated that the matter be held pending the receipt of the circuit breaker? During discussion, Ald. Warshaw stated that there was a need to make a decision on the matter to allow the issue to be addressed by ZBA or to be an enforcement issue through the court system. To not act on this matter would -3- r P & D Minutes June 12, 1989 only delay any action by either the City or the applicant. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council denial of the request for waiver of filing and transcript fee costs, Ald. Brady questioned whether the circuit breaker form was sent to the State? The applicant, No. Neyman stated that she had forwarded the application to the State but was informed that it would be two to three months before a decision was rendered. Ald. Brady recommended that if in the future, the applicant was eligible, under the circuit breaker regulations, that the P & D Committee would reconsider a request to reimburse the filing fee only but not transcript cost. The Committee agreed to make that as a part of the recommendation for denial. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council denial of the request for waiver of filing and transcript fees. Docket 143-6A-89, Evanston Hospital re Tent Permit for Infant Special Care Unit Reunion. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a tent permit for Evanston Hospital for the Infant Special Care Unit Reunion on June 25, 1989. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Docket 148-6A-89. Ordinance 78-0-89. ZBA 90-8-V(R). re Variation for 500 Sherman Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council concurrence with the ZBA recommendation to grant a variation to permit expansion of a basement dwelling unit at 500 Sherman Avenue. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket 145-6A-89. Resolution 38-R-89 re Ceding of Federal Tax Credits for Low Income Housing. Aid. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of Resolution 38-R-89 ceding the City's 1989 allocation for federal tax credits totaling $89,463 to I.H.D.A. to be utilized by the Evanston Housing Coalition. The Committee also recommended that the ceding be conditioned that any surplus tax credits not utilized by EHC be utilized by other projects in the City of Evanston. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Docket 142-6A-89. National Lekotek Center re Hot Air Balloon. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend approval to City Council of a permit for the National Lekotek Center to have a tethered hot air balloon at their picnic on June 17, 1989. The Committee voted 6-0 for approval. Docket 144-6A-89 re Lake/Ashland Vacant Lot. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the memorandum of agreement between the City of Evanston and Evanston -4- P & D Kinutes June 12, 1989 Friends of the Parks for construction of a playground on Lake Street, Florence and Ashland Avenues. Ald. Warshaw questioned if the City would assume a greater liability than normal based on the third paragraph of page 2? Ald. Nelson stated that the second paragraph of page 2 would appear to satisfy the issue of liability being any greater than normal. Ald. Brady questioned whether it was the prior action of the P & D Committee and City Council to reserve the land for up to one (1) year? She stated that she was shocked to receive this agreement at this time and expected many more details regarding design, confirmation of funding, size of the park and type of equipment, prior to any such agreement. To alleviate Ald. Brady's concerns, Ald. Nelson suggested that in paragraph 2 on page 2 that the word "council" be inserted after City in the last sentence. The Committee agreed with the amendment. Ald. Brady stated that she did not want the City of Evanston to expend any funds before the Evanston Friends of the Parks (EFOP) had raised sufficient dollars. She observed that the current agreement lacks details regarding cost estimates and feels that this request is premature. Karen Rhodes was present and observed that the last sentence of page 2 indicates that "EFOP shall not contractually commit for construction, materials and professional services for amounts larger than the cash and pledges they have in hand". Ald. Nelson questioned what would be the estimated maintenance cost to the City of Evanston? He stated that City Council will need to review the figures before final approval is granted. Ald. Nelson also observed that there is no timeframe for raising 100% of EFOP's funds. Ald. Nelson suggested adding a last sentence to page 2 to address this issue which would read. "All funds to be raised by EFOP shall be on -hand on or before April 11, 1990". It was the consensus of the Committee to approve this addition. Ald. Rudy observed that the agreement appeared to have all of the necessary controls to protect the City. Ald. Brady questioned what was included in the preliminary site work which the City would be initially funding? Chris Yonker, CD Coordinator, stated that preliminary site work is defined on page 1 of the proposed agreement and cover letter dated June 5, 1989 to the P & D Committee. Yonker stated that it was hoped that low and high priority items would total no more than $50,000. In response to Ald. Brady's question as to whether the four items listed as high priority would be completed when $30,000 was raised, Yonker indicated affirmatively. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the memorandum of agreement as amended. Docket 146-6A-89, ZAC 88-6 re Evanston hospital's Proposed Zoning Amendments. Chairman Korshak read to the Committee his memo to Co=ittee members and Aldermen, dated June 12, 1989 expressing his views on the issue that was before ZAC and now the P & D Committee. At the conclusion of his review, Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the P & D Committee recommend to City Council confirmation of ZAC's recommendation to deny the amendments 511 P & D Minutes June 12, 1989 proposed by Evanston Hospital. Ald. Brady excused herself from the discussion due to a possible conflict of interest because of a family member employed by the Hospital. Ald. Nelson concurred with the motion for denial and proposed additionally that City Council take action to cause removal of the illegal number of doctors in addition to a rescinding of a portion of the special hospital use regulation which permitted other doctors. More specifically, Ald. Nelson proposed that those doctors exceeding the nineteen (19) doctors specifically permitted by ordinance be phased -out starting immediately. During the phase -out period, the City would determine, through analyses and negotiation with the Hospital, the tax liability of those doctors if they were to be currently located in private offices off of the Hospital campus. Those annual costs (possibly in the range of $4,000-5,000 per year) would be paid to the City for each year the doctors remain at the Hospital. Additionally, if the subject doctors remain on the Hospital campus after one (1) year, the payment to the City would double each year thereafter. Ald. Nelson also proposed that the City begin to phase -out the nineteen (19) doctors now permitted by ordinance and provide a one or two year period of compliance. After this period expires, payment to the City, based on the formula applicable to those doctors in excess of the nineteen (19) would be doubled each year thereafter. It was Ald. Nelson's feeling that requiring the elimination of the doctors on the Hospital's campus would place Evanston Hospital's physicians on an equal financial footing with those at 5t. Francis Hospital. Ald. Warshaw accepted Ald. Nelson's amendment to her original motion. Chairman Korshak observed that this was the first that he had heard of this proposal by Ald. Nelson but would support it. Ald. Morton questioned why Ald. Nelson would propose to penalize doctors and not the Evanston Hospital Corporation? Ald. Nelson stated that it was not his intent to penalize the doctors but rather to collect those fees from either party. He stated that the Legal Department could work out the details and that it may very well be that Evanston Hospital is accountable to pay the City in the event the enforcement action is decided by a judge. The Committee voted 5-0 to 1 (Ald. Brady abstaining) to support the ZAC recommendation. In review of Ald. Nelson's first proposal, the Committee voted 5-0-1 (Ald. Brady abstaining) to recommend to City Council that all of those doctors maintaining offices off -campus and in excess of the permitted nineteen (19) be required to be phased -out and pay to the City over a specific time period an amount to be determined. With respect to Ald. Nelson's amendment, the Committee voted 5-0-1 (Ald. Brady abstaining) to recommend the phase -out of the nineteen (19) doctors specifically authorized to practice private medicine by the Zoning Ordinance. -6- P & D !Minutes June 12, 1989 Ald. Nelson recommended that the City begin enforcement action by notifying Evanston Hospital that they are in breach of the Zoning Ordinance provisions regulating the number of doctors and rescind the appropriate section of the Zoning Ordinance. Rasmussen indicated to the Committee that to rescind a provision of the Zoning Ordinance, a hearing would be required before the Zoning Amendment Committee (ZAC). Ald. Nelson requested that the matter be referred to ZAC with the expressed recommendation from the P & D Committee, to develop methods to eliminate the doctors currently permitted by the ordinance. Additionally Ald. Nelson requested that it be made clear that those doctors currently in compliance be given two years to move from the f Hospiial. Dr. Thomas Stafford cited various ordinance sections regarding the definition of off -campus offices. A particular point being made was that off -campus offices must be the principal office and could not be a mailbox address or just an answering service. Ald. Nelson stated that the Committee should make this recommendation to City Council and receive an expression of concurrence by the Council before it makes the final action. The Committee recommended to City Council by a 5-0-1 (Ald. Brady abstaining) to concur with ZAC's denial, recommend a phase -out of the doctors currently beyond the nineteen (19) limitation, and finally, to allow a longer phase -out period, (as detailed above) for those nineteen (19) doctors now permitted. J ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The nest regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, June 26, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Rober T. Rudd 70(2/8) dt DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED ff MINUTES Planning and Development Committee June 26, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.H. Aid. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Aid. Absent: J. Nelson Staff Present: C. Powers, D. Wirth, K. Brenniman, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Korshak Minutes of June 12. 1989. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of June 12, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Aldermen Morton and Rudy absent). COMMUNICATIONS Chairmanship Memo The Committee received a memo indicating that Aid. Nelson would become Chairman of the Committee on July 3, 1989. ZBA Public Notice for Tuesday, July 18, 1989. The Committee received the public notice without comment. Old Business Docket 147-6A-89, Ordinance 74-0-89 re Special Sign Committee Report. Aid. Brady observed that the clean copy of the subject ordinance addressed the issue of grandfathering the existing signs, but did not answer questions regarding new signs such as historical markers. Concern was expressed about detailing an appeal process regarding the regulation of such signs. The Committee discussed the possibility of the Sign Review and Appeals Board hearing variations from the sign ordinance. It was questioned whether signs not permitted in the sign ordinance could be approved by the Sign Review and Appeals Board? Sid Orlov, an advocate for Nuclear Weapon Free Zone signs, questioned whether signs of his interest would be prohibited by this ordinance? Ald. Brady observed that a lurch 22, 1989 memo from the Special Sign Committee to the P & D Committee indicated that signs such as Nuclear Weapon Free Zone signs and Sanctuary City signs have not as yet been addressed. Chairman Korshak observed that the revised ordinance provides for grandfathering existing signs in their current locations. Ald. Morton stated P & D Minutes June 26, 1989 that Section 8 of the proposed ordinance appears to negate the purpose of the ordinance, i.e. to eliminate unwanted signs at the entrances. Ald. Morton proposed that as of August 1, 1989 that non -conforming signs be relocated fifty (50) feet from the entrance to the City. Ald. Warshaw commented that the proliferation of entrance signs have been erected by the City and that 99% of those signs could be eliminated. Ald. Rudy stated that the ordinance, and prior memos indicate that the Special Sign Committee would negotiate with various organizations to seek their voluntary removal of signs at the entrances. The Committee concurred that signs such as the Certified City, Tree City, etc. could be removed even without this ordinance. Due to questions raised about the need for an appeal process, and exactly what form the appeal process would take, staff requested that they be given time to review the matter and bring a proposal back to the Committee. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold the matter until the next meeting or at such time a response regarding the appeal process is provided. Docket 163-68-89, Ordinance 81-0-89, ZBA 89-10-V&SU(R) re (1) Variation and Special Hospital Use for 355 Ridge Avenue and (2) Parking Survey of Area. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to grant variations and a special hospital use to permit the construction of a six -story ancillary building for use by the hospital medical and dental staff, and a two-story addition to the parking structure. Ald. Warshaw offered an amendment to her motion. Ald. Warshaw asked that the motion (1) be conditioned upon delaying occupancy of the professional building until such time an occupancy permit is issued for the garage structure in order to not burden the neighborhood with excess parking due to on -going work at the parking garage, and (2) agreement by the Hospital that if utilization exceeds 95% of the current on -site parking, the Hospital agrees to provide an additional deck an a current surface lot to address the parking need. Ald. Warshaw expressed her concerns that visitors may not have a place to park due to the additional cars generated by the new medical building. James Murray, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Hospital did not have a problem with the first amendment. With respect to the second amendment, Hurray stated that St. Francis currently reports on a quarterly basis to the City regarding parking statistics, it was Murray's recollection that St. Francis Hospital had not exceeded the parking standards over the past several years. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether an annual review could be required once the parking garage addition was constructed? Kathleen Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, reviewed with the Committee the current zoning ordinance which requires that St. Francis (and Evanston Hospital) to report on a quarterly basis parking statistics for their sites. Ald. Rudy questioned the applicant as to how lot coverage was calculated? Ald. Rudy's concern was that it appears that any future expansion might very well cause the maximum floor area ratio to be exceeded. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded the aforementioned first amendment to the motion for approval. The Committee voted 5-0 to concur with the amendment. -2- ' P & D Minutes June 26, 1989 Ald. Brady observed that on page 219 of the subject transcript questions arose regarding the hospital practice of purchasing additional residential property In the area. Kr. James Gizzi stated that the hospital currently owned four or five properties in the area which are used for residential purposes and rented to staff and other people associated with the hospital. In response to a question from the Committee, Gizzi stated that the property is currently on the tax roll. Ald. Brady expressed concern that with the hospital purchasing residential property, additional dwelling units would be lost to the general populace. Rudd questioned the Committee as to the second part of the ZBA recommendation which was to authorize the City Traffic Engineer to conduct a traffic study of the area bounded by Asbury Avenue on the west, Oakton Street on 'the north, the CTA tracks on the east and Howard Street on the south. Rudd stated that such a study could not be undertaken with the current staff in the timeframe expected. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that it was the ZBA intention to have the study conducted prior to construction so as to develop a base study regarding the traffic flows prior to any disruption caused by the construction period. Hurray indicated that Barton and Aschmann had previously conducted a study in an area slightly smaller than that proposed by the ZBA. He questioned whether that study could be expanded upon to include the new boundary. Chairman Korshak directed staff to develop a proposal for cost to conduct a study in-house versus by a consultant in addition to the time needed to conduct the study and to report back to the Committee at the July 10, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of the ordinance for a variation and a special hospital use for St. Francis Hospital. Docket 161-68-89, Carnival Permit for Friends of the Parks. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a request for a carnival permit for Friends of the Parks for July 19 through July 23, 1989 at Evanston Plaza Shopping Center, Dodge Avenue and Dempster. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the permit request. Docket 162-6B-89. Plat of Subdivision re 1705 Lake/1460 Dewey. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approval of a plat of subdivision for the property at 1705 Lake/1460 Dewey. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Docket 160-6B-89, Golf Course re Hatching Grant. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Ca,rnmittee recommend to City Council approval of the request by the Evanston Community Recreation Association for a matching grant. Ald. Morton questioned the current fee -3- P & D Minutes June 26, 1989 M structure and how it compared with other municipally owned golf courses. Dr. Richard Fischl, President of the Evanston Community Recreation Association (ECRA), provided the Committee with various fee structures for community golf courses in the area. A review of the fees indicated that the subject golf course's fees are considerably lower than those in the surrounding areas. Dr. Fischl reviewed with the Committee the history of the golf course indicating that there are seven holes in Wilmette and 11 in Evanston which leads to a board of directors consisting of eighteen members (7 from Wilmette and 11 from Evanston). Dr. Fischl indicated that the ECRA was a private corporation which sublet the land on which the golf course is located from the Village of Wilmette and the City of Evanston. Those entities lease the land from Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD). Dr. Fischl Indicated that the ECRA has received financial support totaling $3,538 from the City of Evanston and the Wilmette Park District for about the past four years. He stated that these funds were utilized to cover the liability insurance. Dr. Fischl indicated that in the past ECRA had traded land where currently the Chandler Center is located for land where the maintenance shed for the golf course is located. Dr. Fischl indicated that for many years there has been close cooperation between the local governmental bodies and ECRA. Ald. Morton questioned what the City of Evanston should expect in return for approving a matching grant of $34,000 to ECRA? Dr. Fischl indicated that the City would receive a beautification to an existing open land area which would coincide with recommendations by the MWRD. He stated that all funds would be used to enhance a significant asset to the community. Dr. Fischl emphasized that the money would be a challenge grant whereby ECRA would match the $84,000 requested from the City of Evanston and also match the $55,000 being requested from Wilmette. Dr. Fischl stated that the funds were necessary to provide for the installation of an irrigation system totaling $280,000 for the golf course. The current process of watering the course was extremely laboring intensive. Ald. Morton expressed concern about diverting much needed recreation funds to a use not traditionally utilized by lower income residents of Evanston. Ald. Morton stated that if the City of Evanston should approve the matching grant, she would only support such a move if a very active program were developed to teach golf to lower income youth, and also seniors, free of charge. Fischl stated that the course has always been intended to be utilized by young people learning the game in addition to seniors continuing their game on a smaller course that can be easily walked. Fischl stated that ECRA currently has a program supporting youth and provides various scholacships. In response to a question from Ald. Warshaw with respect to the source of the funds, it was concluded that the funds would come from the Capital Improvement Program and not the Recreation Department. Ald. Brady stated that the City should support the request because it helps to maintain the open lands and enhance the land which is a significant benefit to the City. She stated that to provide this matching grant would be extremely helpful with an affirmative marketing program for the golf course. Ald. Rudy stated that he supports the proposal and observed that the rates are quite -4- P & D Minutes June 26, 1989 reasonable and thus appear to be addressing lower income population needs of both the youth and seniors. Ald. Morton reiterated her position that if the City of Evanston should agree to the matching grant, lessons should be provided free of charge through the Recreation Department to minority youths and seniors. Ald. Brady observed that the Recreation Department currently offers inexpensive golf lessons to anyone. Chairman Korshak stated that he opposed the proposal based on the fact that no data has been provided explaining what segment of the population utilizes the course and whether those that do use the course can or cannot afford to pay for additional improvements. He also stated that ECRA has provided no information with respect to projections on who will benefit in the future. Chairman Korshak stated that the proposal lacks any detailed plan as to how any affirmative marketing with respect to lower income populations will be implemented. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would accept an amendment to her original motion with respect to requiring a scholarship program through either Evanston Township High School and/or the Recreation Department. Chairman Korshak stated that any approval should be contingent on an acceptable. detailed plan. Chairman Korshak recommended that the matter be held in the P & D Committee until such time ECRA returns with a detailed plan regarding affirmative marketing. The Committee concurred that the matter be held until such time ECRA returned with the requested information. Docket 45-2B-89, Ordinance 22-0-89 re Amendment to the Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-3-5-1(A). Ald. Rainey was present and stated that her original reference was to change the ordinance from allowing a one and one-half month security deposit to a one month security deposit. Ald. Rainey observed that there is little local governments can do to address the development of affordable housing. She stated that controlling the amount of security deposit is one small way to help control the cost of housing for the most needy. Aid. Rainey also stated that to require only a one month security deposit would eliminate from landlords the possibility that the security deposit requirement be used in an unfair way to disqualify certain prospective tenants. Chairman Korshak observed that currently landlords may charge a one month security deposit for one tenant and one and one-half month security deposit for another. Jim Matykiewicz, a representative of the Evanston Property Ourners Association (EPOA) was present and stated that the Housing Commission proposal was not a compromise acceptable to EPOA. Hatykiewicz stated that EPOA feels that it is necessary to have a minimum of one and one-half month security deposit and would prefer a two month security deposit. Experience indicates that tenants many times utilize the security deposit for the last month's rent thus leaving only a half month's rent to cover damages. In response to a question from Chairman Korshak regarding whether EPOA agrees that the lowest amount of security would be applicable to all tenants, Hatykiewicz responded that it is the EPOA's position that the same amount of security deposit be required of everyone. Hatykiewicz stated that EPOA would recommend that any -5- P & D Minutes June 26, 1989 landlords requiring a different amount of security deposit for different tenants be referred to the Human Relations Commission on charges of discrimination. Natykiewicz further observed that there have been no demands for change of the security deposit requirement from tenants or from TOE. He stated that TOE has been contacted and has informed members of the Committee that this is not a high priority issue. Mr. John Spiegler, a landlord, stated that he rents several units to students from out of state and often times finds that they utilize the security deposit as the last month's rent, leaving only the half month remaining for any damages. Due to the length of time remaining. the Committee directed that this matter be held for further discussion at the next P & D Committee meeting of July 10, 1989. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, July 10, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robert T. Ru d 70(217) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED ` DRAFT, NOT APPROVED N MINUTES Planning and Development Committee July 10, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: C. Powers, A. Carter, K. Brenniman, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Nelson Minutes of June 26, 1989. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning S Development Committee meeting of June 26, 1989. Ald. Rudy moved that the last paragraph, on page 2 should be corrected to read "how did they calculate". Ald. Rudy also indicated that the statement in that paragraph addresses the concern that any additional building would require a variation. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as corrected (Ald. Brady absent). COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 89-13-V(F�, Final Variation Decision re 746 `fichiYan Avenue. The Committee received a final decision regarding 746 Fichigan without comment. Z3A 89-14-V(F), Final Variation Decision. re 910-38 Cust.:r Avenue. The Committee received a final decision regarding 910 "uster without comment. Ald. Warshaw noted that she did not receive the transcripts and requested that transcripts be provided on future cases. Old Business Docket 45-28-89, Ordinance 22-0-89 re Amendment to the Fesidential Landlord Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-3-5-1(A). Aid. Brady moved and Ald, 'Warshaw seconded that the U n7 ittee raccmmend to City Council approval of the amendment to the Landlord errant Ordinance and have that amendment reflect Ald. Korshak's concerns rot,: -ring "not computing interest" for the one-half month rent until it is paid Aid. Ruty indicated that he has now come full circle on this i;noo and cao _' supper! t0 amendment. Aid. Rudy expinin q that .n h.o opinion th=_ iskirL :n; seEnent of the citizenry, Evanston rental property a4ners, to so_;: ; i;q; i;? P & D Committee - Minutes July 10, 1989 affordability problem is inappropriate. He stated that the issue should be addressed by the whole community. Chairman Nelson stated that he would support the motion at the P & D Committee in order to move this issue on to City Council but would vote against the proposed amendment at City Council, Ald. Horton observed that the issue of affordability and housing in the City of Evanston is larger than this ordinance. She stated that the proposed amendment is only an attempt to ease the affordability burden. Chairman Nelson observed that this amendment places landlords in a position of being a banker for tenants. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance amendment as amended per Aid. Korshak's concerns. Docket 163-6I3-89, Ordinance 81-0-89, ZBA S9-10-VSSU(n) re Parking Survey of Area for 355 Ridge Avenue. The Committee reviewed a memorandum from Dave Jennings, Traffic Engineer, stating that an estimate from Barton Aschman Associates in the amount of $2500.00 would cover the cost for expanding the exiting traffic study. Ald. Brady questioned whether the Committee was concerned with a baseline study? Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning,, was present and stated that the study should be completed after construction to be able to analyze the conditions created by the new construction. James Murray, attorney for St. Francis, stated that Ordinance 51-0-89 should be corrected to delete in the third line the term "Care". Also, in the second paragraph the same term should be deleted. ,Murray confirmed that it was his understanding that the ZBA wanted the study conducted after the construction. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would be satisfied with the study to be undertaken after construction is completed but was still concern with the procedures %:herpty St. Francis Hospital determined parkin, facilities utilization. All, Warshaw stated that she was concerned since the hospital recently has requir-d a!: employees to park on -site that there may e a 3hortaZo or parkin, for ..:.-sr_,. ,Murray informed the Committee that the hospital reports on a gnirtnrly basis parking, utilization data. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the City was monitoring the reporting procedures. Staff indicated that the City accepted the figures supplied by St. Francis Hospital. In response to a question from Aid. Warshaw, staff indicated that to further monitor or actually wake the daily counts, can outside firm cowed by omployed but at a cost :o the City. Aid. Warshaw str vol that she was not concernel !hit St. Fra...... Y. _ w; nid submit inacsurite information but rather ...at the host. :: =. ._d :how itself, through the data, in a most favorable light that may not ozo rately reflect the parking, situation. Aid. Morton felt tAat to further wcritor tie data would be unnecessary. She stated that per the Zoning 4rinanf_e the City was already receiving quarterly reports in addition to an annual compilation. She was concerned that the City would require an addittonal minitoring preoedure based only on a feeling that there may be a problom. Aid. Morton recommended that the Committwe delay any further considoraKion of tne study. Ald. -2- • P & D Committee - Minutes July 10, 1989 Korshak suggested that the Committee recommend to City Council that St. Francis hospital submit a letter stating that upon a request from the City of Evanston, after occupancy of the parking garage and medical building (90 days later), they would agree to pay for a traffic study. Chairman ,Nelson recommended that the period be increased from 6-9 months after occupancy in order to allow the situation to stabilize. The Committee discussed the possibility of reviewing the current survey instrument regarding parking statistics for St. Francis hospital. Dr. Thomas Stafford, a member of the audience, read from the current Zoning Ordinance regarding hospital parking requirements and reporting procedures. Upon completion the Committee was satisfied that the current reporting methods were adequate. Ald. Brady questioned whether St. Francis would agree to funding the study? Murray stated that in consultation with rrpres4ntatives of St. Francis hospital that they would agree to pay for the study after 9 months from receiving an occupancy permit for the parking gara;e and medical building. After a brief discussion the Committee agreed to require that St. Francis Hospital furnish a traffic study not to excoc-d S2500.00 in cost after 9 months of occupancy of the parking garage and medics, center. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the recommendation. Docket 147-6A-89, Ordinance 74-0-89 re Special Sign Committee ReporL. Ira Golan was present and requested a clarification regarding the definition of right-of-way. Staff indicated to Golan that the right-of-way included the publicly owned property located between the properly lines. Golan reviewed with the Committee a brief history of the Sign Ordinanr:,� and concerns regarding temporary signs. Golan recommended that the Ccsanittee consider an amendment to address events banners, and other temporary suns. He suggested that an amendment allot: temporary event sins to be erected no more than five days prior to the event and be limited to not -for -profit Di.:k Carter, Planning Director, and Drew Petterson, a memt._r t`z- S:Pcial Sign Committee, wort, present and stated that to reguia--% "r )'' :.' PranL si?,ns was not part of the proposed Ordinance 74-0-89. after a brief discussion Ald. Korshak suggested inserting the word "permanent" after the •.rcrd "no" in Section B of the ordinance. Ald. Morton also suuestad inserting the phrase "non -regulatory" at the beginning of the next to last snntenca in Section B. The Committee voted 6-0 to recon',mend to City Council appr>val of Ordinance 74-0-89 AS amended. Aid. Brady requested that the sign issues left open _f D'dinan_o te continued to be addressed by the Special Sign bask to the P & D Committee at a later date. Docket 160-68-39, Golf Course re 'latching Grant. The Committee received a memo from Dr. Fischl from the :he Evanston Cormunity Recreation Association (ECRA) addressing concerns up at the prior P tk D -3- P & D Committee - Minutes ' July 10, 1989 Committee meeting regarding an outreach program for the disadvantaged youths and senior citizens. Ald. Morton questioned who determined the amount of the grant request? Dr. Fischl stated that an architectural consultant was employed by ECRA to develop a cost for installation of the irrigation system. Ald. Korshak stated that he still has questions on who will benefit from this improvement? Ald. Morton stated that she raised the previous question regarding benefit because she wanted to find a way to justify this allocation and to be assured that low income youths and seniors would benefit. In response to a question, Dr. Fischl stated that the program would be phased in and improvements would be made over a three or four year period. He stated that ECRA was looking for the City to commit to $34,000 at which time ECRA would then move to the Wilmette Park District and request a proportional commitment (355,000.). At that time ECRA would proceed to seek additional funding. Dr. Fischl indicated that residents other than golfers utilize the Golf Course for cross country skiing, jogging, dog walking. He stated that some of these activities actually caused problems with the Golf Courso. Ald. Korshak questioned the manner in which the beard of directors are Salocted. Dr. Fischl reviewed with the Committee that same members are appointed by the City Manager while others are appointed by the Wilmette Park District and still others are appointed by the Golf Course Board. Aid. Brady mewed and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Conunittee recommend to the City Council approval of the grant for $84,000 for irrigation purposes and that as a condition the proposal be included in the 1990-91 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and that ECRA worm with City staff to develop an outreach and scholarship plan. This plan would be re•.iQ od and approved prior to any disbursement of funds for the irrigation project. Aid. Brady also recommended that the City approve this on the basis that it is preserving and :enhancing open space. Ald. Rudy observed that ECRA is bAs.cal?v z •la-i-Pub:i _ and that the request is one of the City establishing priorities. Aid. Rudy stated that making an investment in the Golf Course will only increase its usage and enhance its viability. Dr. Fischl stated that he has already discussed with the YMCA their aid in developing an outreach program since they have significant experience in this area. Dr. Fischl further s:atod tha- the high school already has several scholarships ; 3ppraximntely $74.20 per ..": wnc) Ald. KorshaK zca:ad that he wool:! not cbjerr in Oe �rz :is it was conditioned as proposed by Al Aormon Dr dy in! 'mac ...:w A:& Qrshak further racommo nded that a condition of approval ba that oto City of Evanston's dollars by the last money spent and that if the Wilmette par District's portion is reduced that the City of Evanston request be proportionally reduced. Aldermen Brady and WarshaW acceptet Aid. Korshak amendments. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the request of a $84,000 matching grant contingent upon the amendments stated abcve. -4- P & D Committee - Minutes July 10, 1989 Docket 176-7A-89 re F.S.T. Program (Families in Transition). Aid. Brady, a member of the Housing Commission, urged the Committee to review and recommend approval of the F.I.T. Program at tonight's meeting. She stated that it was critical that the program be underway as soon as possible in order to address the fall lease -up period (September, October 1939). Ald. Horton questioned the P & D Committee's housing Commission members ''War:}aw and Brady) regarding the type of sponsors. Ald. Warshaw explained that churches, synagogues, and riot -far -profit agencies could act as sponsors. She stated - that it was necessary to have these sponsors to help transitional families and to provide support and to avoid situations whereby when the program terminates, the families are not left at a dead-end. She cautioned that not every low income family 'within the City of Evanston could be help-i and '_hat the program was limited, due to funds, to approximately forty (40f families. Ald. !torten felt that she needed further information on the people that would be involved in the program. Ald. Korshak stated that he wan~_ed to see in writing firm commitments from sponsors before any approval be rlada for the program. Ald. Brady stated that the request before the Ccrn:tte= and City Council is only asking that the Council approve the conct�p,' And a'low :he Housing Commission to do exactly what Ald. Korshak is re;u•:;ling. The Housing Commission, if approved by City Council, would proceed to ^elicit FFP's for this program. Ald. Brady stated that the City Council approval would be required for any expenditure of funds once sponsors and families are selected. Ald. Brady stated that the Housing Commission had similar concerns expressed by Ald. Korshak regarding General Assistance participat?on (preferably no participation) in addition to tenant stllacr_ion procedures by sponsoring organizations. Ald. Warshaw reiterated that th,� r'qu__t before the P & D Committee and Council is for approval to seek F P's to lee the program will work. Ald. Brady emphasized that no pay,ren. .` r r_r`ead costs to sponsoring agencies is part of the program. Ald. Brady _fated that ttte Housing Corrnission would make no final selection on spcn_s- _ 'wit, �: the P & D Committee's review and approval. Chairman Nelson obs?r'r-A - t any contract with a sponsoring agency would be required to be apprc:�t ty CJry Council. Ald. Korshak stated that he wants to see the proposals any :ormitments are made. It was the consensus of the Committee that any :�5:rac.s or sponsoring agencies would require P & D Committee and Ci's .ounci: approval. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the P & D C:-:7ittce recommend to City Council approval of the Housing Commission req-,a_' soek RFPs For the F.I.T. Program. The Committee voted 6-0. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular me_.:-g of the P & D Committee is Monday, July 24, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: ` Robert' T.'Midd 70(2/6) -5- 7:1AF7, NOT APPROVED ., V. DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: ' Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee July 24, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.M. S. Brady, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw J. Korshak C. Powers, K. Brenniman and R. Rudd None Presiding Official: J. Nelson 10 Minutes of July AA, 1989. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of July 10, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA Public Notice for Tuesday, August 15. 1989. The Committee received the notice without comment. NEW BUSINESS Ald. Rainey Reference re Landlord Tenant Ordinance. One and One -Half Month Security Deposit. Ald. Warshaw moved that the Committee hold this matter to the next meeting since it is probable that a reconsideration of a previously defeated proposal will be made at City Council regarding the one and one-half month security deposit ordinance. Ald. Brady seconded the motion and the Committee voted 5-0 to hold the matter until the next meeting on August 14, 1989. Docket 180-7B-89. Plat of Resubdivision re 1615-19 Lake Street. Ald. Horton moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request from Roger Parris for a plat of resubdivision at 1615-19 Lake Street. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the plat. OLD BUSINESS Multi -Family Inspection Program. Ald. Brady stated that her reading of a memo dated June 15, 1989 from staff indicates a strong preference against charging for reinspections. The staff memo recommends a $14.00 per unit fee. Ald. Warshaw stated that she originally wanted to obtain the names of owners of property through the licensing or inspection program. Since staff has indicated that it already has that information, she at this time would not recommend a fee for reinspection or initial inspection. She stated that owners of multi -family P & D Committee - Minutes July 24, 1989 dwelling units already pay almost twice as much as single family property owners. Staff indicated that the multi -family inspection could be equated with the building permit procedure whereby inspection services are rendered and fees paid for those services. Ald. Warshaw stated that she feels the Property Maintenance inspections are not the same as building inspections in that Property Maintenance inspections are imposed upon multi -family property owners. Ald. Brady cited from the Griffith Fee Study Report that a combined cost for initial inspections and reinspections totals $14.00 per unit. Ald. Warshaw stated that she initially liked the reinspection program, in addition to obtaining the names of property owners, because it directly encouraged compliance with the Existing Structure Code by property owners by imposing a fee upon that owner for letting property to continue to be in non-compliance. Ald. Morton observed th6t in her opinion the program appeared to be one solely to develop revenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee not approve the Multi -Family Inspection Program and that the matter be removed from the P & D Committee agenda. The Committee voted 5-0 to remove the matter from further discussion and from the agenda. Ald. Brady questioned the recommendation regarding elimination of the condominium inspections. Staff indicated that the inspections provided information regarding the maintenance of the individual units and common -areas, but do not provide the information most valuable to a prospective buyer; the present condition and presumed longevity of the major systems such as the roof, boiler, and plumbing. Staff indicated that the Inspections sometimes caused problems between the private parties in scheduling closing dates and establishing costs of cited repairs. The inspections take time which might be more productively used conducting area inspections of multi -family rental units. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Mort'bn seconded that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance to eliminate the condo inspections. It was recommended that the subject ordinance be prepared for introduction at the City Council meeting of August 14, 1989. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend elimination of the condo inspections. There being no further items on the current P & D Committee agenda, Chairman Nelson asked that the Committee address some matters that would be discussed later at the City Council meeting. Ald. Warshaw requested a clarification regarding the Peter Jans Golf Course request for a matching grant. In response to her questions the Committee clarified that the request for the matching grant would be identified in the Capital Improvement Plan for 1990-91 and that it would be changed from "desirable" to "necessary" once the applicant comes back to the P & D Committee and City Council with much more details regarding scholarships and status of request of funds from the Village of Wilmette. Ald. Warshaw also requested that when the applicants return to the City that they supply an audited financial statement for one or two prior years. 1W41 41 _0 P & D Committee - Minutes July 24, 1989 - The Committee also raised questions regarding whether the Golf Course Association will pay for water usage, how will N.U. Dyche Stadium football parking impact on the Golf Course, and more details regarding maintenance costs of equipment as set forth in the Association's budget. With respect to the F.I.T. Program on the City Council agenda, Ald. Morton stated that she still could not support the program. She stated that she would recommend to the City Council that the matter be sent back to the Housing Commission and let all concerns be addressed. She stated that she has tremendous discomfort with asking outside agencies to managed this program and feels that the City should oversee the program. Ald. Horton expressed concern that many people already received various sorts of public aid (Section 8, food stamps, etc.) while another group, above the poverty line, desperately needs help and is not eligible for any support. Ald. Warshaw stated that at the Housing Commission she originally wanted to increase those eligible up to 50% of the median income versus the plans current 40% of median income. She stated that the 40% was e.rrived at as a compromise with other members of the Housing Commission. She stated that she likes the current program because there is not an overlay of City intervention. Ald. Warshaw stated that if the program was too specific, the RFP may not receive any responses from agencies. Ald. Warshaw agreed that there are many unknowns and the only way to develop such a program is to ask for RFP's. Ald. Morton continued to express concerns that the program is not workable. She stated that the program may become workable but modifications would be required and that discussion should take place at the Housing Commission. It was the consensus of the Committee that these issues would be discussed at the upcoming City Council meeting. Ald. Rudy requested that a new agenda item for August 14, 1989 address the issue of Landlord Tenant Ordinance applicability to co-ops. Ald. Rudy stated that he had spoken with Corporation Counsel Herb Hill regarding a legal opinion on this matter. After a brief discussion it was agreed that Corporation Counsel would be contacted on this matter and would determine whether it was appropriate to render a legal opinion at this time. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Monday, August 14, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: rr� �/ Ro er£ Rudd 70(2/4) -3- DRAFT, HOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee August 14, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.H. J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw S. Brady and J.Nelson K. Brenniman, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd None J. Korshak Minutes of July 24, 1989 Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the minutes. Ald. Warshaw corrected paragraph 2 on page 2 reflecting that she opposed the proposal after the staff informed the Committee that the cost of the administration of the proposed program was more than would be collected. Ald. Rudy corrected the last paragraph on page 3 of the minutes to reflect that a concern was expressed as to whether upon receiving a confidential legal opinion, would the matter be discussed in executive session or in open session of the Committee. Upon receipt of the subject legal opinion, the Committee would decide at its next meeting. Committee voted 4 - 0 to approve the minutes as corrected. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 89-16-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 725 Judson Avenue. The Committee received a final variation decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 725 Judson Avenue without comment. ZBA 89-17-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 903 Madison Street. The Committee also received a ZBA final variation decision at 903 Madison Street without comment. Approval of memorandum to City Council re Multi -Family Licensing/Inspection Program. Chairman Korshak questioned whether the issue of multi -family inspection fee charges should be sent to the Housing Commission? Ald. Warshaw stated that the matter has been before the Planning and Development Committee for approxi- mately six (6) months and the Committee at no time in tae past considered for- warding the item to the Housing Commission. Chairman Korshak stated that he feels the matter should be discussed further and not renoved from the agenda simply because of a fear of increasing rents based on a S14 per unit per year inspection charge. He stated that a $14 per year charge would translate into approximately a $1.20 per month rent increase if passed on directly to ten- ants. Chairman Korshak further stated that in many instances landlords do not P 5 D Committee - Minutes August 14, 1989 need a reason to increase rents and will only increase rents if the market al- lows. Ald. Warshaw stated she was against all new taxes because they would hurt the lower income to a much greater extent than they would the higher income. She felt that this additional charge would be passed directly to the tenants and would so harm the lower income tenants. Aid. Warshaw also stated that Linda Dewoskin of TOE and former Ald. Raden, the maker of the reference, never attended any of the numerous meetings before the Planning and Develop- ment Committee to advocate on behalf of the program. Ald. Korshak stated that most members of the Council agreed that property taxes should not be raised, but if the City is to continue to provide services, funds are needed. Chair- man Korshak stated that user taxes, such as the proposed, are an alternative to offset the cost of City services. Ald. Horton stated that she agrees with Ald. Warshaw that no new taxes should be imposed. In response to a statement by Ald. Morton, Rudd stated that under the inspection program no new personnel would be required. Ald. Morton expressed concern that increased taxes are driving the upward mobile from Evanston. She stated that additional taxes and fees hurt the goal of providing affordable housing for the working class. Ald. Warshaw observed that recent action in Springfield allowed the City of Evanston to balance its budget this year and the subject issue of multi -family inspections could be revisited in the future years if needed, but at this time she felt the matter should be removed from the agenda. The Committee voted a - 0 to approve a memo to the Mayor and Aldermen stating that the matter is being removed from the Planning and Development Committee's agenda and that there will be no fur- ther discussion. NEW BUSINESS Docket 203-BA-89. Ordinance 93-0-89, ZBA 89-18-PD(R), re Planned Development, 2500 Crawford Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Horton seconded that the Co=ittee recommend to the City Council approval of a planned development for 123 dwelling units in the area bordered by Harrison, Gross Point Road, and Crawford Avenue. Ald. Warshaw stated that she thinks the developer has proposed an excellent pro- ject, but had several questions. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the proposed pond would be drained in the winter and how deep was the pond? Tim Anderson, a representative of OPTIMA, stated that the pond was engineered to have a safety ledge arnund the perimeter and that the pond would be 5 ft. at its deepest point and would not be drained in the winter. Ald. Warshaw questioned what would happen during the dangerous times of the year when the edge of the pond was frozen and the center was not? Anderson expla'.ned that there was less water in the pond in the winter and therefore the depth would not be as great. Aid. Rudy observed that the pond also had an aerator which kept the water moving. Ald. Warshaw asked whether all of the parking in the basement would be protected from flooding? She also questioned whether trash col- lection would be underground? Tim Anderson stated that the project is engi- neered to provide for good drainage on site and eliminate flooding from the underground parking. Anderson stated that his firm has extensive experience in developing large underground parking areas. Anderson, further stated that compactors will be located in the lower levels and that on pick up days gar- -2- P & D Committee - Minutes August 14, 1989 bage would be brought up to grade for removal. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether right -turn -only from the parking areas should be required? Anderson responded that based upon traffic volume, no regulation was needed. In response to a question from Ald. Rudy, Anderson stated that the facades would be constructed of a limestone aggregate. In further response to questions from Ald. Rudy, Anderson reviewed with the Committee the grade changes and elevations throughout the site. In response to a question from Ald. Morton, Anderson stated that efficiency units would cost approximately $60,000 and one bedroom units about $65,000. The Committee had a brief discussion with respect to the requirement to maintain a single ownership of the open land since the project was in form of a condominium. Mr. Iry Footlik, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was quite pleased with the proposal and had only one suggestion to revise a curb cut on Harrison Street in order to save new curbs recently replaced by the City. The Committee voted 4 - 0 to recommend approval of the planned unit develop- ment to the City Council. Docket 202-8A-89, Ordinance 98-0-89, 89-15-VgSU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1704 Central Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council the ZBA recommendation to grant an off-street parking varia- tion and a special use to permit establishment of a type II restaurant. Chairman Korshak stated that it has been brought to his attention that signs have already been erected on the site. Staff was directed to investigate why the subject sign was constructed prior to any approval for the restaurant. The lessee of the site indicated that North Shore Sign Company had obtained a permit to erect the sign. Staff stated that it would investigate the matter. Ald. Warshaw was surprised by the need of only one additional parking space. She further questioned as to how many Northwestern spaces for nyche Stadium are currently being rented to adjacent businesses and how does the City know that those spaces will be vacant when Northwestern needs all of the spaces for events at Dyche Stadium/McGew Hail? Staff was directed to review this matter and report back to the Committee. Chairman Korshak stated that his discus- sions with Ald. Collens requested that the final Ordinance reflect a consoli- dated litter plan and conditions within the Ordinance and thus avoid various attachments and references back to the transcript. The Committee voted 4 - 0 to recommend introduction of the Ordinance to the City Council and that a clean copy reflecting Ald. Collens comments be supplied at the August 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Docket 201-8A-89, Ordinance 103-0-89 re Elimination of Condo Resale Inspections. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend approv- al of Ordinance 103-0-89 eliminating condo resale inspections. The Committee requested that it should be made clear that this section was not eliminating the need to require various documents submitted by the developer upon initial conversion. The proposed elimination is only for resale of condominium units. The Committee voted 4 - 0 to recommend introduction of the subject Ordinance. -3- P & D Committee - Minutes August 14, 1989 Docket 200-8A-89, Temporary Sign Request. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend approv- al, of a request by the Auxiliary of Evanston/Glenbrook Hospitals to erect two temporary signs advertising and directing patrons to the American Craft Exposition at the Northwestern lakefront facility. Ms. Marge Julian was pre- sent and reviewed with the Committee the location of the two signs. The Com- mittee voted 4 - 0 to recommend approval. Docket 199-BA-89 re Plat of Consolidation for 1200-14 Church Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend approv- al of a plat of consolidation for the subject property. The Committee voted 4 - 0 to recommend approval. Increase in Building Fees. The Committee reviewed a memo from the Budget Policy Committee regarding the City Manager's recommendation that Building and Zoning inspectional services fees not be increased and that inflationary adjustments as needed be made to maintain the current 75% recovery rate. The Committee also was asked to re- view as part of the referral from the Budget Policy Committee, Ald. Nelson's suggestion of raising permit fees for fences and signs and bring those fees closer to the 75% recovery rate. The Committee reviewed Exhibit I from the Griffith User Fee Assessment Study which delineated the percent of subsidies supplied for various building inspection services. The Committee discussed the merits of requiring all fees to be at the 75% recovery level or whether the average of all fees should be at 75% recovery level. The Committee also discussed whether to not increase fees or to maintain the 75% recovery level would lead to additional real estate taxes. Ald. Morton expressed concern about continually raising taxes and fees. The Committee also discussed whether increasing fees significantly would cause more people to avoid getting a permit and thus illegally construct fences, signs, remodeling, etc. Ald. Warshaw stated that she supports the 75% recovery level in addition to an inflationary factor, but would be concerned if fees become burdensome to the citizens. The Committee voted 3 - 1 (Norton voted nay) to report back to the Budget Policy Committee that it accepts the City Manager's recommendation for a 75% overall recovery rate and endorses an inflationary adjustment as needed to maintain a 75% recovery rate. Ad,i ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee is Monday, August 28, 1989. Staff: Rdb T . Rudd -4- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED I DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee August 28, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: J. Nelson Staff Present: E. Szymanski, J. Wolinski, D. Rasmussen, J. Aiello B. Ahlberg, C. Powers and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: J. Korshak Minutes of August 14, 1989. Ald. Warshaw and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of August 14, 1989. Ald. Rudy moved that on page 3, the fifth line should indicate that the facade would be constructed of a "precast concrete with limestone aggregate". The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended. City Manager Joel Asprooth introduced Mr. James Wolinski to the P & D Committee as the new director of Building & Zoning. The members welcomed Mr. Wolinski to his new position. COMMUNICATIONS Chairmanshin Memo The Committee received the memo without comment. New Business Docket 214-8B-89, Ordinance 102-0-89. ZBA 89-19-SU(R) re Special Use. 1B35 Grant Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council granting of a special use for an addition to a nursery school. Ald. Rudy stated that he would abstain from the discussion because his wife is a member of the board of the subject facility. Ald. Warshaw commended Ald. Rudy for abstaining and also for his wife's participation in the project. Ald. Brady questioned whether the applicant had received a letter regarding the preservation issue. After a brief discussion Ald. Brady requested that a letter be received with respect to this issue prior to final adoption of the ordinance. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the applicant would have enough time to apply for CD dollars. Mrs. Rudy stated that the project will be progressing in various stages. Ald. Morton asked whether there was a kitchen r P & D Committee - Minutes August 28, 1989 on the second floor? In response to the question, Mrs. Rudy stated that there was a kitchen on the second floor and that the occupant of the building was not married and in further response to a question from Ald. Morton that the unit was only able to accommodate a maximum of two people. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of the subject special use ordinance and hold final approval until receipt of the letter regarding preservation. Docket 213-8B-89, Ordinance 101-0-89, ZBA 89-20-(R) re Variation, 2733-37 Central Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a variation to permit a third dwelling unit at the subject address. Ald. Rudy stated that his review of the application finds that the request is not significant in term of impact but appears to stretch the limits of the ordinance. He stated that in his opinion there is a difference between an efficiency and the ability to construct a two bedroom apartment. Ald. Warshaw observed that she was troubled with the fact that the applicant apparently made no effort to buy a small piece of land adjacent to the property. She also agreed that the request appears to push Zoning beyond reasonable limits. Ald. Warshaw also noted that she is troubled With the fact that the drawings did not match the request. Ald. Brady stated that she found the transcript to be one of the better ones from the Zoning Board of Appeals and applauded their attempt to gain information from the applicant. Ald. Brady agreed that proper plans must be supplied for this project to go beyond the Committee level. Ald. Brady stated that she could support the request because the variation was minimal and the applicant demonstrated a need for the third unit. Ald. Rudy noted that on page eight of the transcript, Mr. Sebermerhorn, the applicant, stated that residents would not park in the lot but rather would park on the street. Ald. Rudy stated that this should be discouraged and that the residents should be encouraged to park in the parking lot. Ald. Rudy also stated that he would need to see the corrected drawings for this project. Ald. Morton stated that she shares some of the same concerns expressed by fellow committee members. Chairman Korshak expressed his concern that the applicant did not meet or was convincing enough with respect to variation standards addressing the issue of making a profit and second, that the variation was the minimum needed. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the matter be held at the P 6 D Committee until staff reconciles the revised plans with the application. Mr. Richard Fitzgerald, attorney for the applicant, at this point provided corrected plans to staff for review. Fitzgerald stated, in response to a previous statement from Ald. Rudy, that the zoning analysis showed no parking deficiencies and also informed the Committee that the issue of the purchase of a vacant strip of land adjacent to the property was not possible since that property was required by the adjacent -2- P & D Committee - Minutes August 28, 1909 parcel. Mr. Schermerhorn also stated that he was not able to purchase the subject parcel unless he purchased the entire property. In response to a question from Ald. Rudy, Schermerhorn stated that the existing building could support a second story. Schermerhorn further stated, in response to Ald. Rudy, that without the cooperation of the adjacent property owner, the exterior finish of the building could be completed but would be difficult. Chairman Korshak recommended that the Committee amend page 2, section 3 to insert after the word shall "prior to start to construction or demolition" and also add a last phrase to the subject section which would read "which insurance policy shall be acceptable to the indemnified party." Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the amendment proposed by Chairman Korshak and also recommended that the matter be held in Committee until the meeting of September 11, 1989. Legal Opinion re Applicability of Landlord Tenant Ordinance to Co-ops. Ald. Rudy questioned whether the Committee needed to recommend an amendment to the Landlord Tenant Ordinance to specifically exclude co-ops? Mr. Nick Dallas, an attorney representing several co-ops, stated that the Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance specifically exempts co-ops. He stated that though the past history has been that the City of Evanston Landlord Tenant Ordinance has exempted co-ops, a literal reading could load one to believe that co-ops are included. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Legal Department be directed to prepare an amendment to the Landlord Tenant Ordinance to specifically exclude co-ops. Ald. Warshaw stated that she believes that it was the legislative intent to exclude co-ops and that this amendment should help clarify once and for all. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend an ordinance amendment. Docket 215-88-89. Ordinance 107-0-89. ZAC 89-1. Zoning Amendments re Sheltered Care Homes.. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of amendments addressing "sheltered care homes". Ald. Morton questioned whether the proposed change should also include all "skilled intermediate care homes". Ald. Brady observed that sheltered care homes and skilled intermediate care homes address two different levels of care. She stated that skilled intermediate care were previously addressed. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would not want to include skilled intermediate care in more restrictive sheltered care home regulations. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 107-0-89 (Ald. Morton absent). Docket 202-BA-89. Ordinance 98-0-89. 89-IS-V&SU(R) re Variation and Special Use for 1704 Central Street. Chairman Korshak stated that he has been in contact with Ald. Collens with respect to her request to delete from page 2, section 7 of proposed Ordinance -3- r P & D Committee -- Minutes August 28, 1989 98-0-89 the requirement that the applicant obtain permission from Northwestern University to use an off-street parking space. Chairman Korshak stated that Ald. Collens explained that such a requirement is unenforceable and only creates a source of income for Northwestern. After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Committee to not propose any changes at the Committee level but rather have the subject ordinance, which was previously introduced, be amended on the Council floor at the August 28, 1989 meeting. Request for Temporary Acception During Construction. The Committee reviewed a memo from City Manager Joel Asprooth and a letter from Mr. Marc Biagini representing Mr. Randall Homes, the developer for a shopping center on the northeast corner of Ridge and Emerson. Assistant City Manager Judy Aiello, was present and explained that the applicant is requesting a waiver of rules to allow a full building permit to be issued while the applicant is attempting to gain approval for a plat of consolidation. Aiello explained that the plat of consolidation, though usually a simple matter, has been complicated, and not the fault of the developer, due to a past tax issue on the property. After a brief discussion the Committee recommended to waive the requirement for a plat of consolidation prior to issuance of a building permit, but prohibited any certificates of occupancy from being issued prior to the applicant presenting to the City a plat of consolidation. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Brady seconded the motion. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion (Ald. Morton absent). Ald. Rainey's Reference re Landlord Tenant Ordinance, One and One -Half Month Security Deposit. Chairman Korshak reviewed with the Committee Ald. Rainey's reference to the Committee that the Landlord Tenant ordinance section with respect to security deposit be amended to limited security deposits to one month rather than the current one and one-half month deposit. Chairman Korshak observed that the current ordinance provides no specific sanction when landlords may charge more than the one and one-half month security deposit. Ald. Warshaw stated that the City does not enforce any contract between two parties such as landlord and tenant, but provides the Landlord Tenant ordinance as a document that either party can enforce. Ald. Brady stated that she agrees with Ald. Warshaw and feels that the City should not be enforcing the ordinance against either the tenant or landlord with respect to this issue. Ald. Morton stated that she is opposed to any further reduction in the security deposit requirement since many landlords need that one and one-half month security deposit to make repairs after some tenants leave. Ald. Rudy stated that he agrees with comments made by fellow committee members with respect to not changing the ordinance and could not support any further reduction until it is demonstrated to his satisfaction that the landlords can deal with the concerns they have with less than a one and one --half month security deposit. Chairman Korshak polled the Committee with respect to addressing this reference from -4- P & D Committee - Minutes August 26, 1989 Ald. Rainey. Ald. Warshaw stated that she could support reducing the one and one-half month deposit to a one month security deposit. Committee members Rudy, Brady, Horton and Korshak stated that they could not support a further reduction. After a brief discussion as to whether to hold this matter in Committee, the Committee voted 4-1 (Ald. Warshaw voting nay) to not reduce the one and one-half month security to one month and to report this matter out to the City Council and to remove the item from further discussion at the P & D Committee. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P b D Committee is !Monday, September 11, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: / K/t'T. Rudd 70(2/6) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -5- DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee September 11, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: E. Szymanski, J. Zendell, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, J. Aiello, D. Wirth and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: L. Morton Minutes of August 28. 1989. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of August 28, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Ald. Nelson absent). COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 88-29-A or V(F), Final Appeal and Variation Decision re 1557 Ridge Avenue and 1570 Oak Avenue. Ald. Warshaw questioned why the ZBA was the final decision making authority in this case? Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that per the zoning ordinance, ZBA is the final authority on off-street parking and lot area coverage. Ald. Brady questioned the final decision of the ZBA. Ald. Brady felt that there was no practical possibility that the project could go forward. In response to the comment, Rasmussen stated that the project could go forward if the.developer solved the off-street parking problem. In further response to Ald. Warshaw regarding the difference between the developer's calculations of seventy-four (74) spaces and the City staff's requirement of _— -ninety-eight (98), Rasmussen explained the pertinent sections of the zoning ordinance and how those number were developed. Docket 214-8B-89, Ordinance 102-0-89, ZBA 89-19-SU(R) re special Use, 1835 Grant Street. The Committee received this item without comment. Docket 219-9A-89, Ordinance 114-0-89, Amending Landlord Tenant Ordinance re Applicability to Co-ops. The Committee received this item without comment. OLD BUSINESS Docket 213-8B-90, Ordinance 101-0-09. ZBA 89-20-V(R) re 'variation for 2733-37 Central Street. The Committee reviewed drawings submitted in response to concerns expressed at P & D Committee - Minutes September 11, 1989 the August 28, 1989 Committee meeting. In response to a question from the Committee, Rasmussen stated that the drawings now match the project. Ald. Brady stated that she did not need drawings for each case as long as Ald. Rudy had an opportunity to review the drawings. Ald. Rudy stated that he felt that it was appropriate for all members to receive the various drawings and plans for the ZBA cases so that Committee members could better understand the request. Ald. Warshaw agreed with Ald. Rudy and requested that the Committee receive all drawings and plans for further ZBA cases. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 101-0-89 granting a variation to permit a third dwelling unit. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Docket 217-9A-89, Ordinance 89-0-89, Sign Review & Appeals Board re Appeal Renewal. Chairman Morton reviewed with the Committee the various options available: delete the subject provision, leave the appeal provision in the ordinance on a permanent basis, and finally, insert the clause with a one-year sunset provision. Ald. Brady stated that in the last two to three years the Committee has only reviewed one or two cases. She stated that in her opinion this was an indication that an appeal procedure was not necessary. Ald. Warshaw stated that it appears that most applicants agree with the Sign Review & Appeals Board but that an appeal process provides a back-up or a form of last resort for applicants instead of going directly to court. She stated that she favors retaining on a permanent basis the appeal procedure. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee introduce Ordinance 89-0-09 which would insert an appeal procedure on a permanent basis in the Sign Ordinance. Ald. Korshak asked that section 4-12-15(c) be amended to insert the words "if granted" in the last sentence of the subject section between the words "and set". It was the consensus of the Committee to amend the ordinance as proposed by Ald. Korshak. Ald. Rudy stated that he was against the recommendation because he feels the appeal process is not needed based on past practice. He stated that the Sign Review Appeals board members are just as capable as Aldermen in making a good decision. He stated that there is no need for an additional layer of review. The Committee voted 5-1 to introduce Ordinance 89-0-89. Voting Nay: Ald. Rudy. Proposed Ordinance 112-0-89, Authorizing the Allocation of Certain Funds for Art in the Construction of Public Buildings (Public Art Ordinance). Ald. Warshaw asked for clarification with regard to what would be included in the 1% of development cost for public art? Ald. Brady complemented the Art Council for the thorough job done on the subject report but had several questions that needed to be addressed. Ald. Korshak observed that if this proposed ordinance was applicable to the new Library, the cost would be approximately $210,000. He further stated that it was necessary to define when the money would be required to become available and also objected to asking for funding to add staff to administer the proposed program. A1d. Warshaw questioned whether "like kind" contributions could be part of the 11? -2- M P & D Committee - Minutes September 11, 1989 She also questioned how the total could be reached without causing substantial financial hardship on the City in the case of the Library. Ald. Rudy observed that it was his understanding that money for the staff person was coming from the Illinois Arts Council. Mr. Ron Isaacson, Chairman, of the Public Art Committee, was present to review with the Committee proposed Ordinance 112-0-89 authorizing the allocation of certain funds for art in the construction of public buildings. Kr. Isaacson stated that in developing this ordinance with other members of the Arts Council they found genuine support throughout the City of Evanston. He stated that positive feedback was received with respect to integrating art into the day-to-day lives of Evanston residents which in turn would lead to a better environment. He stated that one goal of the ordinance is to help develop an enriching educational experience in the City by adding something lasting. Isaacson cited potential sites for public art such as the commuter transit stations throughout Evanston. Additionally, Isaacson stated that various developments in other cities throughout the country utilized public art in lobbies, plazas and walkways. He stated that the Arts Committee studied various public art programs all over the country and found that they created a wealth of positive municipal identify. Isaacson explained that the 1% out of the development budget for public art would not be in addition to the total development costs. Isaacson gave examples where public art could be substituted for proposed budget items such as furniture, wall coverings, hardware detail, etc. Isaacson stated that it was important at a very early stage to have the artist involved with the architect to create a better atmosphere and drama for the development and to integrate art into the project at an early state and not treat it as an add -on. He further stated that the artist would help create human interactitre scale by helping in a variety of ways to make decisions. doe Zendell, Executive Director of the Arts Council stated that the ordinance and the attached policies attempt to integrate the decision process with the client and the artist. The Committee entered into a discussion wrestling with the concept of when and where would the artist's input be in developing a project. Isaacson stated that the Arts Council proposed a team approach to integrate art at an early stage to avoid situations of "plop and drop" art whereby art is added to a project as an after thought. Ald. Nelson stated that he is concerned by the concept of "design by Committee". Ald. Nelson expressed further concern with the definition of "works of art" in Section 7-16-4(d), and the definition of "recognized artists". Ald. Nelson further felt that "construction projects" was too broad and did not define whether that addressed remodeling, rehab or additions. As an example Ald. Nelson questioned what the Church/Chicago parking garage/apartment complex would be classified. Zendell observed that public buildings only happened every few years and therefore the ordinance would not become a financial or administrative burden. -3- M P & D Committee - Minutes September 11, 1989 He further explained that in his opinion there would not be a significant expense connected with the public art council in the first one or two years. Ald. Rudy asked for a clarification with respect to the responsibilities of the artists and their accountability. He questioned whether the artists would respond to the client or to the Arts Council? Ald. Rudy also stated that before the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Committee needs to consider the appointment procedure and whether it should be by the Mayor or the Public Arts Council. Ald. Warshaw asked that before the Committee is to vote on the ordinance that a breakdown on funds and costs such as what dollars could be expected to be received from the State and Federal Governments be supplied. Ald. Korshak stated that Evanston would be either pioneering or patterning this procedure. Therefore if the City is patterning he would request that the Committee review numerous examples of similar public art programs in addition to responses from the pertinent communities regarding their experiences. Ald. Korshak recommended that the Committee hold this matter until it has received further information on the concept. Chairman Morton requested staff to devise a procedure for discussing this topic at future meetings and to supply the various materials requested. The matter was held for further discussion when information becomes available. Docket 218-9A-89, Ordinance 110-0-89. ZBA 89-12-V(R) re VAriation for 611 South Boulevard. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 110-0-89 to grant a variation to permit a church related use in the existing building at 611 South Boulevard. Ald. Rudy stated that he hopes the new Zoning Ordinance allows something like this to happen without the need for variation. Ald. Warshaw stated that she feels that that discussion should not be tied to this recommendation but should be left to be addressed by the Zoning Commission. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommended introduction of Ordinance 110-0-89. ZBA 89-22-V(F) re 1416-18 Brummel Ald. Brady suggested that possibly the City could look at developing a mechanism for providing a public parking fund to address cases such as this. Ald. Korshak stated that in his discussion with Ald. Lanyon, it was recommended that this matter be held in Committee until such time the Aldermen of the ward had an opportunity to further review the issue. Ald. Rainey, one of the alderman of the ward, questioned whether the concept of statute of _imitations would apply? She stated that the owners are not guilty of anything A-xcept of not knowing that the parking was not constructed thirty (30) years ago. Due the lack of time to discuss this matter further Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the matter be held in Committee for further review. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee iss Monday, September 25, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: I? Robert T. Rudd 70(2/5) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED �,' DRAFT, NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee September 25, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:00 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: L. Morton Staff Present: K. Brenniman, J. Lindwall, G. Sommers-Yant, V. Adamus, D. Rasmussen, D. Carter, J. Wolinski and C. Powers Plan Commission Members Present: A. Belmonte, L. Foster, S. Prout, D. Petterson, J. Curry, A. Darragh, A. Seidman and M. Blue Others Present: D. Galloway, S. Knutson, R. McGaugh and G. Keats Presiding Official: J. Nelson Minutes of September 11. 1989. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of September 11, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA Public Notice for Tuesday, October 17. 1989. The Committee received this item without comment. ZBA 89-21-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 3122 Hartzell Street. The Committee received this item without comment. ZBA 89-24-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 500 Ridge Avenue. The Committee received this item without comment. ZBA 89-25-V(F), Final Variation Decision 2420 Brown Avenue. The Committee received this item without comment. OLD BUSINESS None P & D Committee - Minutes September 25, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Presentation of Downtown Plan Kr. Al Belmonte, Chairman, of the Plan Commission was present to review with the Committee the newly completed Plan -for Downtown Evanston. Mr. Belmonte stated that the inception of this plan took place 2 1/2 years ago when the Plan Commission felt the need to research issues related to downtown development. He stated that the process included visits to various groups involved in downtown, including businesses, Chamber of Commerce, EVKARK, Inventure and interested citizens and requesting feedback from these groups related to downtown issues. The Plan Commission also conducted "man -in -the street" interviews. The investigation reinforced the notion that downtown is different things to different people and that the downtown is resilient. Ald. Nelson requested that the members of the Plan Commission in attendance be introduced. Belmonte asked the member to stand and he introduced each. The presentation continued by Belmonte saying that the downtown was developed in stages over time. These changes are a function of the marketplace demand and public policy. Belmonte then reviewed the Plan Commission recommendations as follows: 1. Economic Growth that increases the Downtown's revenue contribution to the community and competitive edge over other subregional economic centers. 2. Development Context in which new building can occur. 3. Human Scale that retains the strong pedestrian orientation and physical amenities of downtown. 4. Livable environment that attracts shoppers, businesses and residents to the Downtown. 5. Circulation that Works, involving people to get from one destination to another with ease. 6. Downtown as a people place bustling with activity. 7. Cooperative Spirit and Energy that will Enable us to realize our vision. Belmonte concluded the presentation by saying that the Plan Commission will go back to those people and organizations with interest in the plan and wants to be a continuing agenda item at the P & D Committee meetings. -2- P & D Committee - Minutes September 25, 1989 Ald. Nelson thanked the Plan Commission and indicated the need for a schedule to consider this issue. Ald. Nelson then asked if the Aldermen in attendance for this presentation had any questions. Ald. Feldman asked what place design review process would have in future downtown development? Belmonte stated that there is a need for review but this must be measured against the atmosphere for development. Ald. Rainey asked what conflict the Plan Commission saw in developing major outlying shopping centers in the City? Belmonte replied that downtown must be considered differently because it is a center to shop, work and live. Ald. Brady asked how the Plan Commission saw the leadership forming? Belmonte replied that the Commission hopes that leadership is coalition of various groups, possibly a downtown forum. Ald. Warshaw asked if the Commission sees the housing demand in downtown as a threat to the commercial sector? Belmonte indicated that housing isn't a threat because the opportunity for housing arises so seldom and housing is a good addition to downtown activity. Ald. Rudy commented that short term parking for shoppers should be addressed and some method for employer cooperation in using long term parking to free up short term parking should be discussed. Ald. Nelson stated that the effect of downtown parking on surrounding neighborhoods should also be considered. Ald. Nelson asked Belmonte about the time schedule of the Plan Commission. Belmonte replied that the Plan Commission plans to be on the agenda of EVMARK, Chamber of Commerce, and Zoning Commission within the next four -five (4-5) weeks. Ald. Nelson directed staff to schedule two -three (2-3) meetings for the next month or so to begin discussion on the Objectives, Policies and Recommended Actions. Ald. Nelson stated that these meetings should start early to give Aldermen an opportunity to participate in the discussions. Recommendations for Imoroving the Planned Unit Develovment Ordinance. David Galloway, Chairman of the Preservation Commission stated that the Plan Unit Development Ordinance could be improved and the Preservation Commission's suggestions are before the P & D Committee. Ald. Brady indicated the need for clarification. Ald. Warshaw felt the recommendation were severe without a stated rationale. Ald. Korshak suggested that the format be revised to state the problem and give the solution. Ald. Brady requested a survey of the Cove School residents be done to see what changes they might recommend. G. Sommers-Yant stated the hostility evidenced by those residents was a product of the residents not knowing their obligations in the beginning stages of the project. Ald. Brady asked when the Preservation Commission could get back to the P & D Committee with input from Cove School residents, clarification and a revised format. Galloway stated that it would be in the beginning of 1990. -3- P & D Committee - Minutes September 25, 1989 Docket 226-9B-89. Plat of Resubdivision re 1227-35 Dodye Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded the approval of the plat of resubdivision. Ald. Korshak asked what is on the property presently. Raymond McGaugh answered that office space and manufacturing facilities occupy the property. The resubdivision will allow the office portion and manufacturing to be sold separately. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve. ZBA 89-22-V(F) re 1416-18 Brummel. Ald. Brady directed staff to look at specific circumstances when a project becomes impractical to enforce. Ald. Korshak stated there may be other properties in similar circumstance. Ald. Nelson requested a legal opinion for next meeting regarding, civic estoppel. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Tuesday, October 10, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. S t of f: Q ,(art paad'-J i Catherine Powers T 70(2/6) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee Tuesday, October 10, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None ~ Staff Present: D. Wirth, C. Powers, S. Boddie, D. Carter, E. Szymanski, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski and R. Rudd Others Present: A. Belmonte, D. Petterson, A. Seidman and Ald. Lanyon Presiding Official: L. Morton Minutes of September 25, 1989. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of September 25. 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 89-23-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 1705 Thayer Street. Ald. Warshaw questioned why uninhabitable basements are in the FAR calculation? She also questioned whether the ownership of a small piece of property was not included in the calculation. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the parcelling of the property was abnormal, thus leading to the subject small piece of property not being part of the applicant's ownership. Ald. Warshaw expressed hope that the new zoning ordinance would address issues such as this so that applicants with similar situations would not end up at the ZBA and incurring costs and extensive time delays. Aid. Nelson questioned if the subject piece of property was on the tax roll? Staff indicated that the issue would be reviewed. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that a reference be made to staff that on every occasion possible to transfer unimproved City property to the adjacent property owners, free of charge, so that the property may be placed on the tax roll. Ald. Nelson forwarded to staff a memo addressing this issue. The Committee voted 6-0 to make the reference to staff. ZBA 89-27-SU(F) Final Special Use Decision re 1312 Monroe Street.. Ald. Warshaw questioned the issue of fences requiring ZBA action and thus becoming burdensome on applicants. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would like to see issues such as this not go to the ZBA and hopes that the new zoning P & D Committee - Minutes Tuesday, October 10, 1989 ordinance would address situations like this. Ald. Brady questioned what the current stance of the staff and the Zoning Commission was on fences? She suggested that possibly fence issues such as the subject matter be considered for "minor variations". Ald. Warshaw suggested that the new ordinance allow fences in the front yard if they start behind the front of the building, even if the current structure infringes in the required front yard. Ald. Rudy suggested that the P & D Committee ask•the Zoning Commission to consider when one has an adjacent alley to the front yard, a low fence be permitted. OLD BUSINESS ZBA 89-22-V(F). re 1416-18 Brummel. Ald. Brady expressed surprise that so many of the subject properties within the survey were in compliance with the zoning ordinance. She noted that only three out of approximately thirty had some sort of zoning violation. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the City consider some legislative act to address situations that had been in violation for a long time such as thirty (30) years and let them become legally non -conforming. Ald. Korshak stated that he had spoken with First Assistant Corporation Counsel, Herb Hill and had the feeling that the City would not be estopped from enforcing the subject ordinance even if thirty (30) years has lapsed. Ald. Korshak suggested that the City consider legislation that if thirty (30) years has lapsed and there is no known problem, the City would regard the situation as legally non -conforming. Ald. Warshaw suggested that any legislative action by the City Council be as limiting as possible. Ald. Rudy questioned whether such legislation would be prudent without studying the effect on parking as in the current case. He stated that the Committee was assuming that there was no negative effect on parking without any quantitative study. Ald. Rudy also observed that if the subject building were built today, parking would be required. It was the consensus of the Committee to await the legal opinion previously requested before taking any further action. NEW BUSINESS Docket 241-10A-89. Ordinance 121-0-89. ZBA 89-31-SU(R) re Special Use for 1239-47 Pitner Avenue. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council the granting of a special use for a Christmas tree sales lot at the subject address. Ald. Brady questioned why pumpkin sales lots did not require a special use and Christmas tree lots did? Staff indicated that though they may be similar, the zoning ordinance only addressed Christmas tree sales lots and allowed pumpkin sales lots as an open sales lot in the ordinance. -2- t P & D Committee - Minutes Tuesday, October 10, 1989 Chairman Morton stated that she has received a request from the applicant for City Council to suspend the rules to allow introduction and passage of the subject ordinance at the October 10, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend introduction and also to request City Council to suspend the rules to allow passage of Ordinance 121-0-89. Docket 240-10A-89, Approval of Site Plan for Leahy Park. Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry, was present and indicated that approval was needed by City Council per Section 6-14 of the zoning ordinance to allow for a slight movement of the building on the site. In response to the Committee, Wirth stated that the existing building had deteriorated to a point where it could no longer be utilized. Wirth further stated that the Aldermen of the Ward have reviewed and approved the subject project. In response to a question from Aid. Korshak regarding the availability of sanitary facilities at the site, Wirth stated that the restrooms would only be available when there is a scheduled, City planned activity at the park. Wirth stated that facilities would most likely not be utilized during the winter. Aid. Korshak moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the P & D Committee recommend to City Council approval of the site plan for Leahy Park. The Committee voted 6-0. Request for Center for Public Ministry re Extension of Homeless Shelter - 607 Lake Street. The Committee reviewed a staff request to set a meeting for a public hearing on the one year extension of the Homeless Shelter at 607 Lake Street before the P & D Committee at the regular meeting scheduled for Monday, October 23, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Morton questioned whether there was a need to have a yearly public hearing? Aid. Brady stated that it was important to have the annual public hearing since it allowed the Shelter to establish creditability within the neighborhood. Aid. Brady also stated that it was important to provide notification to the neighborhood. Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Committee set the above captioned date and time as a public hearing before the P & D Committee. The Committee voted 6-0. Proposed Joint Meeting with Zoning Board of Appeals. The Committee reviewed various dates for a possible meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff was directed to suggest to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the joint meeting take place on Monday, October 30, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff indicated that it would forward that information on to the zoning Board of Appeals to set-up that date. Staff also requested that if P & D Committee members had any particular item they wished to have placed on the agenda for the subject meeting, to please contact them. Aid. Brady suggested that staff review minutes of past P & D Committee meetings and cull various applicable issues from those minutes to place on the agenda. -3- r P 5 D Committee - Minutes Tuesday, October 10, 1989 Discussion of Downtown Plan Al Belmonte, Amy Seidman, and Drew Petterson of the Plan Commission were present to review with the Committee the previously submitted Downtown Plan. Belmonte stated that Plan Commission members would take any questions from the P & D Committee and/or give an explanation of why the Plan Commission made various recommendations. The Committee began by reviewing page 94-Issue: Economic Growth. Ald. Rudy observed that the Plan Commission has recommended various areas to encourage economic growth. Ald. Rudy questioned whether there were areas that needed to discourage certain economic activities. Belmonte stated that the Commission did not recommend discouraging activities and suggested that housing was a mechanism to promote economic growth in the downtown. Belmonte also suggested that cultural/entertainment activities also indirectly promoted economic growth in the downtown. Drew Petterson stated that the Commission also would want to promote pedestrian oriented development rather than automobile oriented. Ald. Brady questioned the Plan Commission selection of redevelopment sites: how will the redevelopment of these sites be accomplished? Belmonte stated that market place acceptance will be a primary factor and that it was appropriate for the City to identify certain areas. Dick Carter, Planning Director, stated that the intent was not to inject the City of Evanston in the redevelopment process directly, but that the City may or may not have a role at some point in the future. Ald. Brady stated that she understood the plan to suggest that the City should look favorably upon redevelopment opportunities if they should arise. Chairman Morton questioned how this document will actually be translated into action? Ald. Rudy observed that the plan sets forth various actions to be taken by the City. Chairman Morton questioned whether the City of Evanston will conduct all of the actions? Ald. Rudy stated that it was his understanding that the P & D Committee would review and determine whatever groups are needed to help carry -out various actions. Ald. Brady noted that - the conclusion portion of the plan assigned various entities responsibilities. Belmonte stated that there are many decision makers throughout the process. He stated that the City of Evanston needs to be a focus group for all of the various decision makers. Ald. Nelson provided an example of the City's participation in redevelopment by citing the Research Park, and the Church/Chicago Parking Garage/Apartment. Ald. Nelson questioned whether the City would be a driving force for the entire plan? Ald. Nelson further observed that the whole downtown plan is dependent on physical change. Belmonte injected that in addition to physical change, there are also programmatic changes needed such as marketing of the downtown. Ald. Warshaw stated that she thought that the Plan Commission was looking for an oversight committee made-up of representatives of various groups cited in the document. Belmonte felt that maybe such a committee already exists in the form of _ current interest groups and committees. Ald. Nelson stated that it appears the goals of the downtown plan are economically inclined. E -4- w P & D Committee - Minutes Tuesday, October 10, 1989 Ald. Rudy questioned whether the Plan Commission has studied the effect of the transportation system especially that of the automobile? Carter stated that there is little chance to make extensive changes to the circulation system utilized by the auto. Ald. Nelson questioned why the Plan Commission recommended promoting the downtown as an office center? Belmonte stated that the downtown currently operates as such and that appears to be a trend. Both Nelson and Belmonte agreed that there should be a focus on increasing office space but also the City should not lose sight of increasing housing and retail in the downtown. The Committee discussed with the Plan Commission members the desire to eliminate the amount of office space on the first floor and at the same time attempt to fill that vacated space with retail space. The Committee and Plan Commission recognized that retail would be market driven and that efforts should be made to retain and expand retail. Aid. Brady questioned why the Plan Commission recommended that Asbury be the western boundary of the downtown rather than Ridge which has been traditionally accepted as the western boundary. Carter indicated that Asbury reflects the reality of the situation based on the various office uses along the west side of Ridge that extend all the way to Asbury. The Committee discussed further review of the downtown plan and set the meetings of October 23, 1989 and November 6, 1989 as future discussion periods. it was the consensus of the Committee to spend approximately forty-five (45) minutes, if the agenda allowed, at those meetings to finish review of the downtown plan. Ad}ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is Tuesday, October 23, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:��%�%� Robert T. Rudd 70(1I5) -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED 'i DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee October 23, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: J. Asprooth, D. Carter, D. Rasmussen, J. Aiello J. Wolinski, and R. Rudd Others Present: Al Belmonte, Laurie Marston and Bill Nevel Presiding Official: L. Morton Minutes of October 10. 1989. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of October 10, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS Chairmanship Memorandum The Committee received a memorandum regarding change in chairmanship effective November 6, 1989, at which time Ald. Brady will assume chairmanship of the Committee. ZBA 89-28-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 948 Ridge Avenue. The Committee received without comment. Extension of Homeless Shelter - Public Hearing (7:30 P.M.). Carol Moschandreas, Executive Director of the Center for Public Ministry was present and stated that the Center received no complaints regarding the operation of the Homeless Shelter during the past year. She stated that the Shelter provides a needed service to the community and requests that the one (1) year extension be granted. Ald. Nelson questioned what percentage of the shelter residents had ties to Evanston? Moschandreas stated that 15-17% of the population had Evanston ties. She further stated that homeless people served at the shelter has increased 40% over a year ago. She stated that last year approximately 80 shelter residents had Evanston ties compared to a total of 360 people served. This year she estimated that the figure was approximately 120 Evanston residents versus 600-700 total people served. In response to another question from Ald. Nelson, Moschandreas stated that the shelter was not funded by neighboring communities, though it served residents of those communities. She further stated that the Shelter has not solicited P & D Committee - Minutes f October 23, 1989 funding from neighboring communities. Ald. Brady confirmed with Hoschandreas that the shelter was still housing a maximum of 30 residents per night. Hoschandreas stated that the shelter attempts to abide by that regulation. Ald. Brady stated that she lives near the shelter and has not received calls over the past year regarding its operation. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend the one (1) year extension of the shelter. Ald. Rudy stated that the shelter is located in his ward and he also has not received any negative comments: Ald. Korshak recommended that the City should seek to coordinate efforts with neighboring communities to either locate shelters in those towns or request funding from neighboring communities that are served by the shelter. Ald. Brady observed that some years ago the City, with neighboring communities, established a regional housing task force to develop efforts such as this. Ald. Warshaw stated that as a member of the Unified Budgeting Committee she has asked agencies to attempt to receive a fair share from neighboring communities that are served directly or indirectly by a function located in the City of Evanston. Hoschandreas stated that the Center has attempted to have other communities open shelters in their towns. Ald. Nelson stated that though the shelter served a useful purpose, he will vote no on its extension because the City of Evanston should not accept more than its fair share. Ald. Nelson stated that neighboring communities are not providing any funding or making any attempts to aid in solving this problem. He further stated that Evanston residents should not be shouldering the burden Without help from neighboring communities. He further recommended that operations such as the shelter should lobby with neighboring communities to gain funding. The Committee voted 5-1 (Voting nay Ald. Nelson) to recommend an extension of the shelter for a one (1) year period. Downtown Plan - Discussion Al Belmonte, a member of the Plan Commission, reviewed with the Committee prior discussions regarding the proposed Downtown Plan. Belmonte stated that the plan Commission at this time is making four (4) requests: (1) acceptance of the format and recommendations , (2) that the City Council establish a city-wide forum on the Downtown Plan to take place shortly after the first of the year, (3) that the City fund a facilitator for the forum so that there can be a clear end to the discussion and an agreement and (4) that the Plan Commission volunteers to act as a clearinghouse and a focal point to review input from outside interest groups in the Downtown Plan and to provide continuity and to report back to the City Council. Belmonte further stated that if these recommendations are accepted, the Plan Commission will begin to explore the cost and exact format for the forum. In response to a question from the Committee, Belmonte stated that the Plan Commission has not as yet met with other groups mentioned in the Downtown Plan (i.e. Chamber of Commerce, EVHARK etc.). -2- "- P & D Committee - Minutes October 23, 1989 The Committee briefly discussed the various groups recommended to participate in the Downtown Plan review in addition to the functions to be carried out contained on the matrix on pages 102 and 103. Ald. Brady stated that she would be very much interested in evaluating the possibility of establishing a "commercial property maintenance program". Ald. Nelson questioned whether the school district should be part of the Downtown Plan discussion? Bill Nevel, a member of the Plan Commission, stated that the Commission was looking for acceptance of the proposal only in the terms of its structure, concept, and format, and if this was acceptable to the Committee, the Plan Commission would begin to propose a structure for the proposed forum. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the P & D Committee accept the four (4) aforementioned requests of the Plan Commission in concept. In discussion regarding the Committee acceptance, it was the consensus of the Committee that the Plan Commission return to the P & D Committee on November 20, 1989 with a resolution and memorandum, explaining the Downtown Plan, to be passed by the City Council at the November 20, 1989 meeting. Ald. Brady also requested that staff prepare a memo outlining the steps to be taken regarding the implementation of a commercial property maintenance code. The Committee vote 6-0 to direct the Plan Commission to return with a resolution and memo stating the Committee acceptance of the Downtown Plan concept. Reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee re Rezoning in Research Park. Judy Aiello, Assistant City Manager, was present and reviewed with the Committee a memo dated October 19, 1989 proposing a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee to rezone a portion of the Research Park. Aiello stated that currently the Research Park contains three (3) zoning districts: B4, C2 and K3. The C2 and M3 are concentrated on the northern -end of the park on the Emerson Street boundary. The Lesidential structures that have been acquired at the north -end have all been nonconforming uses within this area. As the City has acquired a significant portion of the land west of Maple from University Place north to Emerson, it is believed appropriate to initiate the rezoning of this area from the current C2 and H3 to a B4 district. Aiello stressed that the rezoning is actually a down zoning of the area to allow less commercial and manufacturing uses, and to allow the kind of scale and development that is anticipated in the Research Park master plan. In response to questions from the Committee, Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the B4 rezoning would allow a height of 85 ft. and that the FAR would change to 5 versus the current 2 FAR in the C2 district. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee to rezone portion of the Research Park to B4. Regarding further rezoning requests, Aiello stated that there probably would be one more rezoning request in the future. -3- P & D Committee - Minutes October 23, 1989 .+ Ald. Nelson reminded the Committee that the master plan for the Research Park provides for the developer to gradually step-up the height of the buildings from the north southward so that the highest buildings are located in the center of the Research Park. Ald. Nelson noted that the current building on Emerson and Maple was only three (3) stories and that taller buildings would be located further south. The Committee voted 6-0 to make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee to rezone portion of the Research Park. Docket 261-1OB-89, Plat of Consolidation re 2500-22 Crawford Avenue, 3401-3513 Harrison Street and 2531-75 Gross Point Road. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of a plat of consolidation for 2500-22 Crawford Avenue. The consolidation of the property was required to permit construction of four buildings containing a total of 123 dwelling units pursuant to a previously approved plan development. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation. Docket 262-10B-89, Ordinance 126-0-89, ZBA 89-26-SU(R), re Special Use for 815 Emerson Street. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Brady seconded, for purposes of discussion, to recommend approval of the special use for a type 2 (Little Caesar's) restaurant at the subject address. Ald. Warshaw stated that she is troubled with the cumulative effect of the White Hen, Little Caesar's and other intensive uses in the area coupled with an apparent parking problem. Ald. Warshaw reviewed with the Committee confusing calculations of parking as stated in the transcript of the ZBA hearing. She felt that there was not sufficient parking on the site based on the statements made by the applicant. Chairman Morton observed she felt that by driving by the site that there was more than enough parking for the use and that there is more parking than is required by the ordinance. Ald. Rudy stated that the Committee, before making a decision, needed to resolve the question regarding parking and that it would be helpful to receive a plat of survey detailing and allocating various parking spaces to the numerous spaces on the site. Ald. Rudy also stated that the question of land ownership of parking where parking is located along the CTA right-of-way needed to be clarified. He stated that he could not act on this until additional information and clarification is supplied. Ald. Brady agreed with Ald. Rudy and stated that the allocation of parking weighs heavily on her decision on this matter. She also stated it was important that the problems with the White Hen be resolved as part of this approval. Ald. Brady further observed that the current ordinance does not provide any regulatory means to control convenience stores such as White Hens and suggested that the Zoning Commission, in the new zoning ordinance, develop such regulations. The Committee discussed briefly why a convenience store such as the White Hen is not classified as a type 2 restaurant. Staff indicated that traditionally this type of operation has been classified as a food store though the IE-10 t P & D Committee - Minutes October 23, 1989 evolution of this type of convenience store lends itself to be more of a fast-food restaurant. This matter will be reviewed by the Zoning Commission. Ald. Korshak also stated that he is concerned with the cumulative effect even though the zoning ordinance states that cumulative effect is calculated by measuring the same type of uses such as special use for type 2 restaurant. Even though the White Hen is not a type 2 restaurant the impact nevertheless is the same as a type 2 restaurant. Ald. Korshak stated the owner of the property could control the White Hen and, if done so, would make acting on the Little Caesar's request much easier for the Committee. Mr. Michael Pollack, attorney for Little Caesar's, questioned the Committee as to what was expected of the owner (Mr. ipjian) in his meeting with White Hen representatives? The Committee indicated to Mr. Pollack that the owner should try to resolve the problems associated with the White Hen operation. Mr. Pollack requested that the Committee review the proposed ordinance which set forth 19 conditions for operation. Pollack stated that his client agrees with all of the 19 recommendations with the exception of number 7 which limits the number of times per week for delivery of produce. Mr. Pollack stated that his client feels that this condition is too strict (limited delivery to once a week) and would request the Committee to consider delivery three -times a week to allow for a constant supply of fresh produce. The Committee stated that it would take into consideration this request when this matter is discussed at the next meeting. The Committee voted to hold this matter over to the November 6. 1989 meeting or until such time the requested plats and parking diagrams are supplied. 1416-18 Brummel The Committee recommended to hold this matter over to the next meeting for discussion. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Committee and ZBA will be October meeting of the P & D Committee is Staff Robert T. Rudd 70(1/5) A special joint meeting of the P & D 30, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.. The next regular November 6, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Planning and Development Committee Zoning Board of Appeals October 30, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: L. Horton, and J. Nelson Staff Present: J. Wolinski, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Others Present: ZBA Members: W. Whitney, R. Carey, R. Holumby, S. Timble and S. Peters Presiding Official: J. Korshak The meeting convened with a review of a submittal of five (5) recommendations provided by Ald. Rudy (see attached). The members reviewed point by point the suggestions by Ald. Rudy which were intended to expedite the hearing process of the ZBA. With respect to item #1, ZBA Chairman Whitney stated that he currently sets time limits on various presentations. The P & D Committee observed that the ZBA oftentimes conducts meetings until midnight or later. Chairman Whitney stated that ZBA has only conducted two (2) meetings over the past year which ended prior to midnight. Chairman Whitney further stated that the ZBA is meeting twice a month in order to expedite as many requests as possible. ZBA mer*b-r Caroy observed that there can be problems with limiting cases to specific times. He noted that it is difficult to limit cases when there are many objectors. Carey further stated that an advantage of handling the larger cases and setting some time limitations allows the Board to squeeze in some small, minor zoning relief cases. Ald. Brady questioned whether the new ordinance mould eliminate many of the small cases? Chairman Korshak stated that revisions to the new ordinance are expected to eliminate the need for some cases going to the ZBA in addition to possibly allowing staff to handle very minor cases. ZBA member Molumby questioned whether the P & D Committee or Zoning Commission were considering special variation standards for single family cases? Molumby stated that the current standards are oftentimes not appropriate for single family variations but are more attuned to commercial/business requests. Ald. Warshaw stated that the current ordinance forces applicants to the ZBA due to its handling of uninhabited basements and the calculations for FAR. She expressed hope that the new ordinance would eliminate these problems. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning stated that under the new ordinance the Plan Commission has expressed a willingness to take -on special uses which would cutback on the workload of the ZBA and allow faster handling of variations. P & D Committee Zoning Board of Appeals Special Joint Meeting October 30, 1989 P. Ald. Rudy stated that he recognizes and appreciates the long hours that the ZBA puts in. He stated that the purpose of his recommendations are only to find some way to improve the process. Ald. Rudy stated that he has received complaints from objectors regarding the manner in which they were treated at ZBA. Ald. Rudy further stated that he has observed, by reading the transcripts, that presenters of cases often are not well prepared and thus contribute to the long hearings. Ald. Rudy further stated that it is necessary to stress to the ZBA that everyone should have the same standing and respect before the ZBA. He suggested that the Chairman needs to reinforce this at the hearings. Chairman Whitney stated that in his opinion most applicants are well prepared. He stated that in some cases many applicants have never appeared before the ZBA, (or any other similar body) and are nervous. He stated that as Chairman he feels that it is incumbent upon him to help lead them through the case. Whitney stated that he has a problem with objectors to cases making unsubstantiated grandiose statements that have no basis in fact. Whitney cited the objectors on the Savings of America case addressing property values in the neighborhood. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether it would be helpful if applicants placed in writing before the hearing their justifications for meeting the standards? Whitney stated that the applicants currently respond in writing to those standards which are in turn distributed to the ZBA. Ald. Brady stated that she agrees with 98-99% of the ZBA decisions. However, though she agrees with the ZBA decision regarding the Savings of America project on Greenwood and Chicago, she did not agree with the methods that they used to arrive at that decision. Ald. Brady stated that she felt that the ZBA was not listening to the neighbor's concerns. She further stated that both she and Ald. Rudy gained concessions from the applicant (the elimination of a curb cut) in a few minutes whereby the ZBA spent hours and did not gain that concession. She further stated that in her opinion the ZBA treated the Savings of America applicant to softly and gently and at the same time treated the objectors harshly. Ald. Warshaw stated that different people have different perceptions depending on how close to home the issue is. ZBA member Holumby stated that he personally is annoyed with sophisticated opponents that know the process and rules but act as if they are unaware and are offended when the ZBA doesn't happen to agree with them. ZBA member Carey stated that the Savings of America opponents complained because they lost their case which was weak and not based on fact. Aid. Brady questioned whether the ZBA has the authority to redesign a site plan? Ald. Rudy stated that he feels that the ZBA does not have the prerogative to redesign but that the P & D Committee can as elected officials. He stressed that it is important for the ZBA to treat people equally. Ald. Rudy referred to the issue at the Savings of America hearing whereby Chairman Whitney referred to Judy Pigozzi as "Judy". Chairman Whitney explained his reasoning for such and that it was not done in any -2- F & D Committee Zoning Board of Appeals Special Joint Meeting October 30, 1989 disrespect which he felt was understood by Hs. Pigozzi. Chairman Korshak stated that most of the criticism that the P & D Committee members hear comes from objectors to cases in which they lose. Ald. Brady shared with members present how the P & D Committee currently is exerting pressure on the owner of the property on the Little Caesar's case to also solve a related problem with the White Hen. She noted this case to highlight an example of negotiation in the approval process. Chairman Whitney cited two examples which he felt were unfair attacks at ZBA hearings. The first example Whitney cited was the Reba Project at 611 South Boulevard. He noted that an objecting manufacturing neighbor made various allegations which he, Whitney, took him to task. Whitney further cited another example of Mr. Ashraf Mianji, an unhappy former member of the ZBA, in writing a letter to the Evanston Review attacking the ZBA Chairman's conduct at a hearing. Whitney reminded the Committee of the history of Mir. Hanji with respect to zoning issues. Ald. Brady questioned whether the ZBA could pose limits on speeches of ten to fifteen (10-15) minutes? Chairman Korshak stated that would be very difficult and that running a meeting is not a science but rather an art. Ald. Warshaw stated that she has difficulty with reading transcripts regarding cases when she sees the ZBA not reaching a conclusion quickly enough when the approval is obviously beneficial to the City (i.e. the Reba Fellowship case on on 611 South Boulevard). ZBA member Timble stated that she would have difficulty with a requirement that the applicant's presentations be put in writing. She stated that it would be too cumbersome for the applicant and that she would rather have the applicant make a verbal presentation. ZBA member Carey stated that applicants should be encouraged to attend other ZBA meetings to learn how they are conducted. He observed that the staff recommends this to perspective applicants. Ald. Rudy questioned whether the ZBA should schedule fewer cases so that applicants do not have to sit for several hours to only find out that their case would be continued? Rasmussen noted that it is often difficult to establish time limits on cases in advance since not everyone knows how many objectors will be present. Ald. Warshaw stated that many times neighborhood meetings with applicants and aldermen can alleviate concerns of area residents and thus minimize the number of objectors at a ZBA hearing. The Committee and ZBA members discussed briefly the 1416-18 Brummel case which is held over at the ZBA until December, 1989. The Cornittee was divided as to whether the City Council should adopt legislation to resolve the issue or to wait for the ZBA to make a decision. This matter will continue to be discussed at the P & D Committee. -3 - P & D Committee Zoning Board of Appeals Special Joint Meeting October 30, 1989 The ZBA members questioned the Committee as to the status of the new zoning ordinance? ZBA member Peters, also a member of the Zoning Commission, provided various examples of policy issues that would need to be resolved by the City Council during the hearing process for the new zoning ordinance. Peters cited such sticky issues as the purpose and intent of planned development, and the Zoning Commission recommendations regarding Downtown FAR. Ald. Brady observed that there is so much diversity not only on the Zoning Commission but also on the City Council and throughout the City that these would be significant issues. Chairman Whitney concluded by stating that he feels these annual meetings, which were started approximately three (3) years ago, help the communication flow between the ZBA and P & D Committee and allow the members to meet face-to-face to resolve issues. Chairman Whitney expressed hope that the joint meetings would continue in the future. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of t,4 P & D Committee, November b, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: 'Aol�)5z� 6. Rober Rudd 10(6/9) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED Ir Recommendations to ZBA 1. Decide by 10:00 p.m. whether the scheduled cases will be heard. Dismiss those you determine will not be heard that night. Hear all remaining cases (those not dismissed at 10:00 p.m.) regardless of how long it takes. This would be an attempt to schedule more accurately. It would recognize that citizens' time is as valuable as the Boara's time. It would require a realistic estimate of how many cases can be heard between 10 p.m. and midnight. 2. Presentations will be timed and the scheduled time (determined by the presenter) will be maintained. 3. Initial oral presentations must be in written form (more easily timed during preparation) and will be presented as written. Follow-up question time will be informal. 4. All extra items (photos, blueprints, etc.) will be presented in a neat, clear, and legible form. (Board time is saved, if evidence presented is legible.) S. Gave presenters guidelines for presentations. Indicate what the Board needs to learn during the presentation. Indicate to presenters that it is not necessary to repeat something that has been submitted previously. submitted by Alderman Rudy 10/30/89 �- a • Wit: - -1 DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 6, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. Ald. Present: S. Brady, L. Horton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: J. Korshak Staff Present: E. Szymanski, C. Powers, D. Rasmussen, J. Wolinski, and R. Rudd Others Present: None Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of October 23 (regular meeting) and October 30. 1989 (special moeting - ioint with ZBA). Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning 6 Development Committee regular meeting of October 23 and the joint, special meeting with ZBA of October 30, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA 89-33-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 2630 Crawford Avenue. The Committee received the final variation decision without comment. Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt there was no need to receive various plans for projects when the Zoning Board was the final authority. Ald. Rudy stated that even though the decir.ions are final, he finds the drawings and diagrams helpful in understanding the hearing. It was the consensus of the Committee to continue to receive various drawings, plans and diagrams even when the Zoning Board of Appeals is final authority. Minor Changes for Planned Development at 2500-22 Crawford Avenue. The Committee also received an item not appearing on the agenda which detailed the City Manager's approval of minor changes for the planned development at 2500-22 Crawford (the Optima Project). OLD BUSINESS Docket 262-10-89. Ordinance 126-0-89. ZBA 89-26-SU(R), Re Special Use for 815 Emerson Street. Chairman Brady framed the issues for discussion for the Committee. She stated that the two primary outstanding issues involve the question of parking and the side issue with the White Hen Convenience Store. In response to a question from Ald. Warshaw regarding the parking calculations, Dave Rasmussen, P & D Committee - Minutes November 6, 1989 Assistant. Director of Zoning, stated that a 2,000 sq. ft. allowance provision in the ordinance reduces the parking necessitated by the Little Caesar's Restaurant. Ald. Warshaw asked for a clarification on the parking spaces which are not under the ownership of the shopping center but are owned by the CTA. Rasmussen stated that for over sixty (60) years the area in question has been utilized by Perfecto Cleaners (shopping center owner) for parking. Rasmussen further noted prior ordinances allowed the use of land for parking that was not owned by the use generator. In response to further questions by Aid. Rudy, Rasmussen stated that the current project was an existing nonconforming use with respect to the parking issue. Rasmussen further cited a similar determination in the 1557 Ridge Avenue case. Aid. Morton stated that based on that determination, the issue of inadequate parking is moot. James Murray, attorney for the shopping center owner, stated that there is an unwritten understanding of the usage by the property owner and the CTA. Murray further noted that the revised parking plan with respect to the striping alignment makes the point moot. Hurray emphasized that the shopping center had an excess of parking with respect to the zoning ordinance. Chairman Brady reviewed with the Committee a letter from Michael Pollak, attorney for Little Caesar's, in which a grievance procedure was set forth with respect to possible neighbors' complaints about the Little Caesar's Restaurant. Pollak's letter further stated that the owners of the restaurant would erect signs stating that there would be no excess noise during certain hours. Aid. Warshaw questioned whether the owner of the white Hen could commit to a similar grievance procedure? Hurray stated that his client (the Ipjian's and owners of the property) would try to lead the White Hen management in that direction. Pollak stated that Little Caesar's would also recommend to White Hen to adopt a similar procedure to address neighborhood concerns. Aid. Rudy stated that additional neighborhood concerns were with the lack of landscaping and the need to screen or buffer bright lights on the shopping center. Murray questioned whether adequate size trees could be placed on the site due to the limited turf area for planting. Hurray suggested that the placement of trees may obstruct driveways and create new problems. Murray further stated that the ZBA felt that the lighting of the center was modest and appropriate. Aid. Rudy stated his concerns that the entire face of the building was bright and a reflective surface. He felt that trees would soften the harshness of the light. Aid. Rudy further stated that he would like a legal opinion with respect to the staff's determination on the parking issue and the question of ownership. Aid. Rudy further observed that there appears to be a problem of lack of access to the site if the parking determination is overturned. Murray objected and stated that with or without the parking in question there was still access to the site. -2- P & D Committee - Minutes November 6, 1989 After further discussion, Chairman Brady stated that the outstanding items to be clarified with respect to the project are (1) requested legal opinion, (2) a letter from White Hen detailing a grievance procedure similar to that proposed by Little Caesar's, (3) that the ordinance contain a requirement with respect to signage indicating "no excessive noise" and (4) that the issue of screening of lighting be reviewed. At the previous meeting the attorney for Little Caesar's requested that condition #7 of the proposed ordinance be changed to allow delivery of fresh produce to the site three (3) time a week from the proposed once a week. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Horton seconded that the Committee amend the subject item #7 to allow a delivery three (3) days a week. The Committee voted 5-0 to amend that section. After further discussion the Committee decided to vote introduction of the ordinance at the November 6, 1989 meeting but to hold the matter in Committee until the November 20, 1989 meeting to allow the Committee to review various issues to be worked out between staff and the applicants and to draft an ordinance to reflect the discussion at the November 6, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 3-2 (Voting Aye: Aldermen Brady, Nelson and Horton. Voting Nay: Alderman Rudy and Warshaw) to introduce the subject ordinance at the City Council November 6, 1989 meeting. Special Sign Committee Report. The Committee reviewed the staff memo indicating that further action needed to be taken so that this matter could be reported out to the City Council. After a brief discussion the Committee directed staff to prepare a resolution with respect to item q5 contained in the Special Sign Committee Report of May 3, 1989 and for staff to draft a report from the P & D Committee to the City Council to reflect the P & D Committee's recommendations regarding items #2 and 3 of the aforementioned Special Sign Committee Report. The Committee also asked that the Special Sign Committee report back to the P & D Committee regarding the status of item 114 of the Special Sign Committee Report of May 3, 1989. Ald. Horton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the above mentioned recommendations. The Committee voted 5 -0 . NEW BUSINESS Docket 266-11A-89, ZBA 89-29-V(R) ra Variation for 721 Dodge Avenue. Ald. Rudy moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Co=ittee concur with the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation to deny a variation to permit use of the cellar and first floor for a radio and television service repair shop or for permitted uses in the business district except for those proscribed therefrom in the ZBA report. Ald. Warshaw stated that she could not consider any request as broad as this. Ald. Warshaw noted that this only calls for an -3- P & D Committee - Minutes November 6, 1989 if elimination of the use and not of the building as has been erroneously implied. She stated that she may find acceptable a more narrow list and one of less intensive usage. Ald. Warshaw further stated that this is a question of intensiveness of uses in a residential zoned neighborhood. Ald. Rudy concur that he might be more willing to look at granting variations to convert the property to an entire residential use but it was unclear to him the magnitude of the variations needed at this time. The Committee voted 5-0 to concur with the Zoning Board's recommendation. Docket 264-11A-89, Plat of Consolidation re 1336 Chicago Avenue and 616 Greenwood Street - Savings of America. Ald. Horton moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the Savings of America plat of consolidation at 1336 Chicago and 616 Greenwood Street. The Committee voted 5-0. Docket 265-11A-89, Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a request to enter into an agreement with Fisher Memorial A.H.E. Zion Church in conjunction with the Families In Transition (F.I.T.) Program for the expenditure of a maximum of $12,400 over a twenty-four (24) month period. Ald. Rudy questioned where the family was currently living? Chairman Brady stated that she was uncomfortable with a detailed discussion of family information. She stated that she felt uneasy with the amount of information already supplied in this case and hoped that as much detail with respect to the subject families was not contained in future cases. Ald. Warshaw stated that the church will provide assurances that the families are income eligible which will be verified by staff. The Committee discussed briefly the conditions of the program with respect to fair market rents, maximum allowable rent to be incurred by the City, the church sponsor and the tenant. In response to a question from Ald. Morton, Pastor Lane stated that the Ministerial Alliance stands behind any church that supports the program and entered into an agreement and will help that church make-up any short -fall needed for rent if that situation should arise. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the F.I.T. Program request. Preservation Commission re Preservation of the Butler Building - 1024 Emerson Street. Representatives Dave Galloway and Steve Yas of the Preservation Commission were present and provided the Committee a recommendation that the Butler Building, a designated Evanston Landmark, not be demolished. More specifically, the Preservation Commission recommended the adaptive reuse of the Butler Building at 1024 Emerson and its integration into the Research Park. The Commission observed that the City would be reviewing a demolition contract for the building at the November 20, 1989 City Council meeting. The Commission currently has authority to delay the issuance of the permit for -4- P & D Committee - Hinutes '' November 6, 1989 ninety (90) days (that period expires on December 20, 1989). Representatives of the Preservation Commission stated that in cooperation with the Preservation League of Evanston, they have prepared a design proposal for the adaptive reuse of the Butler Building and the building's economically feasible Integration into the Research Park. Specifically, the proposal from the Preservation Commission and Preservation League states that the adaptive reuse would meet the master plan's square foot requirements of the Park, would also meet the master plan's requirement for building material, generally would meet the master plan's requirement for building configuration and height, and the Butler Building could be adapted for uses as specified in the master plan. After a slide presentation and review of sketches of facade renovation of the subject building, the Preservation Commission urged the P & D Committee to persuade other City Council members not to sign a contract for demolition of the building at the November 20, 1989 meeting. Further, the Preservation Commission urged the Aldermen to convince the Charles Shaw Company to work with the Preservation Commission and Preservation League in saving the Butler building and to adapt its reuse in the Research Park. The Committee thanked the representatives of the Preservation Commission and Preservation League for their many hours of professional time donated to reviewing this project and stated that the matter would probably be further discussed at the November 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Ad,iournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is November 20, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff Robere T. Rddd 70(1/5) -5- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED fx _ 1 DRAFT. NOT APPROVED Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Official: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 20, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.H. S. Brady, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw L. Morton and J. Korshak K. Brenniman, C. Powers, D. Carter, J. Wolinski, and R. Rudd S. Brady Minutes of November 6. 1989. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of November 6, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS Docket 288-11B-89. Resolution 79-R-89 re Downtown Plan. Chairman Brady stated that as part of the review of the Downtown Plan, she requested at a previous P & D Committee meeting that staff develop a proposal regarding a commercial property maintenance code. At this time the Chairman requested that the Committee hold the Commercial Property Maintenance Code until later on in the agenda and only address the subject resolution and accompanying memo. Aid. Nelson moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution 79-R-89 setting forth various a_tions to be taken by the City and coordinated by the Plan Commission. In response to a question from the Committee, Al Belmonte, Plan Commission member, stated that the Plan Commission would act as a coordinating body after the recommended citywide forum and further act as a conduit as the plan progresses. Ald. Rudy informed the Committee that Belmonte, Dick Carter, Planning Director, along with Ald. Rudy had a good meeting with the City's Chamber of Corm-nerce. Belmonte also stated that the Plan Commission representatives have met with the Zoning Commission and the Economic Development Committee since the last P & D Committee meeting. Belmonte stated that the Downtown Plan is expected to be discussed with members of Inventure in the near future. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to the City Council adoption of the subject resolution and the attached memorandum. ZBA 89-22-V(F) re 1416-18 Brummel. The Committee reviewed a staff memo setting forth an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the subject case to become legal. Ald. Warshaw stated that this was not what she was looking for but rather hoped that staff could have found a way to allow the current situation to exist without the P & D Committee - Minutes November 20, 1989 necessity of a Zoning Ordinance amendment. Ald. Lanyon, alderman of the ward where the problem zoning issue has taken place, stated that he too had hoped that a solution could be found but that if this is the only method he would support this amendment. The Committee discussed the dangers of an amendment which, though it would correct the known violations, it could allow other violations that are unknown at this time. Chairman Brady observed that the Zoning Amendment Committee has always been a cautious body in the past and she expected that they would continue to be so as they reviewed this issue and would take into account the P & D Committee's concerns. Ald. Rudy stated that he has difficulty with allowing violators of the Zoning Ordinance to not only continue but to be made legal by an amendment. Ald. Rudy continued that he is troubled with this double standard to allow these violations to be made conforming even if the violation is thirty (30) years old. Ald. Lanyon stated that the current situation at 1416-18 Brummel would have required five (5) parking spaces in the past when by today's ordinance the owner would be required to install seven (7) spaces. He stated that even the installation of five (5) spaces would create engineering or design problems. Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt that the P & D Committee should make it clear that they are asking the Zoning Amendment Committee to make only the most limited amendment necessary to cure the problem at hand. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the P & D Committee make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee per the staff memo of November 10, 1989. The Committee voted 4-0 to make the reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee. Docket 262-10B-89, Ordinance 126-0-89, ZBA 89-26-SU(R) re Special Use for 815 Emerson Street. Chairman Brady asked that the minutes reflect that an article in the most recent Evanston Chamber of Commerce newsletter was incorrect by stating that the P & D Committee Committee was limiting delivery of goods to the subject restaurant to a once -a -week practice. She stated that the once -a -week delivery requirement was imposed by the ZBA and that the P & D Committee changed the delivery to three (3) times a week upon further explanation by the applicant. Ald. Warshaw stated that she agreed with the Chairman's noting of the incorrect Chamber of Commerce statement and further stated that the ZBA was only trying to tailor the special use request to meet the neighborhood needs. Ald. Warshaw stated that at the prior meeting an issue arose regarding 815 Emerson with respect to ownership of property to the west of the Perfecto Cleaner's building. At the prior meeting the attorney for the owners of the shopping center (the Ipjians) stated that though the CTA owned the property the Ipjians utilized the property for sixty (60) years. Ald. Warshaw stated that she contacted representatives of the CTA who in turn informed her that there was no lease on the property and that the property was tax exempt. She further stated that representatives of the CTA informed her that the Ipjians could not be ruled to have adverse possession of the property. Ald. Warshaw stated that both the CTA and the City have been injured since no taxes or lease revenues have been collected from the Ipjians for this sixty year use of the property. -2- P & D Committee - Minutes November 20, 1989 Ald. Rudy stated that it appears clear from the surveys submitted by the applicants that the CTA owns the property. He stated that it is critical to the site plan that it be clarified which party has control of the subject property. Ald. Rudy stated that without the subject property perpetually under control of the Ipjians, the proposed site plan would be deficient in parking spaces in addition to the fact that loading berths and other parking spaces on the Ipjian site would be inaccessible. Ald. Rudy stated that there is a need for a new site plan assuming that Ipjians have no use of the CTA property. Ald. Rudy also stated that there may be a possibility of a lease between the Ipjians and the CTA that could make the site plan work. However, he stated that he was not sure that the Zoning Ordinance would allow such an arrangement. James Murray, attorney for the Ipjians, provided the Committee with an affidavit signed by Suren Ipjian reviewing the history of the subject property. Ald. Warshaw also provided the Committee a copy of a letter from the CTA dated November 20, 1989 from CTA representative Mr. Roger Wood, stating that the CTA did own the property and that there was no lease with the Ipjians. Mr. Pollak, attorney for Little Caesar's Restaurant, commented that even without the CTA property, the project had enough parking on property owned by Mr. Ipjian. Ald. Rudy and attorney Hurray disagreed about the access to parking along the westside of the building and whether there was sufficient parking on the property even without the CTA land. Ald. Nelson stated that he does not understand why this cannot be resolved and that the issue needs to keep coming back to the Committee month after month. Chairman Brady stated that the Ipjians have two (2) options: (1) to obtain a lease from the CTA regarding the subject and (2) to work with City staff to clarify whether even without the CTA property there is sufficient and accessible parking on the site. Chairman Brady stated that this matter will be held over to the next meeting or until such time sufficient clarification was made. Hurray asked the Committee to also discuss a previous issue raised by Ald. Rudy regarding lighting. Hurray provided the Committee three (3) photos showing lighting levels during night time hours. Murray stated that the brightest light in the area was a sodium vapor light owned by the City. Other bright lights along the alley were lights paid for by members of Sherman Garden Apartments who in turn are complaining about the bright lights. Murray stated that Ipjian would agree to turn-off the lights under the canopy under the existing building if that would satisfy Sherman Garden residents. Ald. Rudy stated that he had suggested some planting to soften the lighting since the light reflects off the wall of the new building. The Committee discussed whether the planting was appropriate in view of the City's Forester's comment that planting in this area may have a very limited life time. Ald. Rudy stated that before the next meeting he would set-up a meeting with Sherman Garden residents and attorney Hurray to review the lighting and landscaping issue. Chairman Brady informed members of the Committee that they had received at this meeting a letter from representatives of White Hen who have agreed to a grievance procedure similar to that proposed by Little Caesar's. 511 P & D Committee - Minutes �+ November 20, 1989 The Committee further discussed the suggested "no excessive noise" sign. The Committee recommended that this wording be made in a more positive statement and that a "no loitering" sign be incorporated or installed separately in the parking lot. Chairman Brady, with the consensus of the Committee, directed that this matter be held over to the next meeting until the various issues are resolved. NEW BUSINESS Docket 287-11B-89. Families In Transition Program (F.I.T.) re Reba Place Fellowship. Chairman Brady informed the Committee that the Housing Commission has recommended that a standard application form be developed by staff that would make the review by the City Council of the proposals more uniform. She stated that she expected the new form to be utilized for future F.I.T. proposals. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the agreement with Reba Place Fellowship in conjunction with the F.I.T. program for the expenditure of a maximum of $10,000 over a twenty-four (24) month period. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval. Commercial Property Maintenance Code Chairman Brady stated that she sometimes is embarrassed that the City does not have a Commercial Property Maintenance Code. She stated that she is particularly concerned since the City already has a Residential Property Maintenance Code that could be easily applied to commercial property. The Committee reviewed a staff memo dated November 13, 1989 offering alternative inspection procedures (complaint basis versus systematic inspection). Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the commercial market takes care of itself with respect to commercial maintenance? Ald. Nelson questioned what documented need for this ordinance has been provided? Ald. Nelson further questioned what the rationale for such a program would be? Ald. Rudy stated that it is not uncommon for tenants to make improvements in commercial areas and questioned what would be accomplished with a Commercial Property Maintenance Code. Chairman Brady stated that the City has an obligation to provide safe and sanitary commercial spaces just as they do for residential tenants. After a brief discussion the Committee directed staff to explore other communities with respect to a Commercial Property Maintenance Codes and to solicit comments from the Fire and Health Departments with respect to the procedures utilized for inspections. This matter will be discussed at a future P & D Committee upon receipt of the requested information. Ad,iournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is December 4, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robert T! Rudd 70(1/4) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee December 4, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.K. If Ald. Present: S. Brady, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: J. Korshak Staff Present: K. Brenniman, C. Powers, J. Zendell, D. Wirth, J. Wolinski, D. Rasmussen, D. Carter and R. Rudd Presiding Official: S. Brady Kinutes of November 20, 1989. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of November 20, 1989. Ald. Warshaw stated that the last paragraph of page 2 should indicate that she was contacted by representatives of the CTA with respect to the Ipjian property and not vice versa. Ald. Rudy stated that page I of the subject minutes, paragraph 1 should indicate that the meeting was with "the City/Chamber Committee. Ald. Rudy clarified his meaning of the phrase "double standard" contained in the first paragraph on page 2. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended. COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS Docket 262-1OB-89, Ordinance 126-0-89, ZBA 89-26-SU(R) re Special Use for 815 Emerson Street. Chairman Brady reviewed the subject case with the Committee. The Chairman indicated that at the prior meeting issues arose regarding the CTA property and a revised site plan. Ald. Rudy asked if staff had an opportunity to review the new site plan and whether it complied with the parking regulations? Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that staff had reviewed the plan and that it did comply with the parking regulations. James Murray, Attorney for the property owner, provided the Committee with an exhibit depicting the site plan. The site plan delineated thirty-nine (39) parking spaces whereby the zoning ordinance requires thirty-seven (37). Hurray also stated that he is in receipt of a letter in which White Hen agrees to post a sign addressing the issues of "loitering" and "loud noises". P & D Committee - Minutes December 4, 1989 Ald. Rudy stated that he would like to add conditions to the proposed ordinance. Ald. Rudy stated that in discussions with Kr. Ipjian, owner of the property and Perfecto Cleaners, an agreement was reached in which Perfecto would agree to turn-off the Perfecto Cleaners signs between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. each day. After a brief discussion among Committee members and Mr. Ipjian, Mr. Ipjian and the Committee also agreed that Perfecto Cleaners' signs would be brought into conformance with the City's applicable sign ordinance within three (3) years. Ald. Rudy moved and Ald. Nelson seconded t}at the Committee approve this amendment as a new condition #20 to the proposed Ordinance 126-0-89. The Committee voted 5-0 to approve the amendment. Ald. Norton questioned whether the City had a right to place restrictions on the White Hen and Perfecto Cleaners when the application before the Committee was a request for a special use for a Little Caesar's Restaurant? Ald. Morton requested a legal opinion from staff. After a brief consultation, Kathleen Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, stated that if the parties agreed to such conditions, they could be added to the ordinance. Chairman Brady also stated that since all of the property is owned by the Ipjians and is part of a unified shopping center, the conditions placed on the project were appropriate. Ald. Rudy recommended that an additional condition be made part of the ordinance to address the illegal truck parking problems that neighboring residents have experienced. After further discussion between Committee members and the applicant, a twenty-first condition was added to the subject ordinance which would read as follows "occupants of the property shall provide notice of the parking restrictions hereunder and on immediately adjacent right-of-way property to those who deliver goods and services to occupants of the property." Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Rudy seconded that the Committee add this twenty-first condition. The Committee voted 5-0 to add the condition. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of Ordinance 126-0-89, which was previously introduced, and as amended by the Committee at the December 4, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the subject ordinance by the City Council. Docket 310-12A-89, Resolution 82-R-89, Special Sign Committee Report. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council adoption of Resolution 82-R-89 and the recommendation of the Special Sign Committee contained in a memo dated December 4, 1989 from Richard Carter, Director of Planning, to Chairman and members of the P & D Committee. Chairman Brady asked that the Committee review the subject memo with particular attention to the last paragraph on page 1 which provided an update regarding activities of the Special Sign Committee. Ald. Brady expressed concern that the Committee has not had time to address the issue of where to place various honorarium awards and certificates that the City receives. -2- W P & D Committee - Minutes December 4, 1989 After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that this matter be addressed as soon as possible and that an appropriate mechanism be developed to display the various honorarium and exhibits that depict the philosophies of the City of Evanston. Chairman Brady suggested to the Committee that somewhere between the Public Arts Committee, Special Sign Committee and the P & D Committee, there can be developed a subcommittee to work on this project. It was the consensus of the P & D Committee that this matter be placed back on the agenda in January or February of 1990. Ald. Rudy questioned whether the memo requested professional help in developing this study? Carter indicated that a minor contract in the range of $1,200 would be needed to provide assistance. Chairman Brady suggested that representatives from the aforementioned three groups meet when this item is placed back on the P & D Committee's agenda in early 1990. NEW BUSINESS Sane/Freeze re Peace Pole Ald. Morton questioned whether this request should be part of the Sign Committee's discussion? Ald. Nelson stated that he agrees with the spirit of Ald. Morton's suggestion but moved that the Committee recommend to City Council acceptance of the Peace Pole and that the Peace Pole be kept temporarily inside of City Hall and be dedicated, if possible, at the time of the visit of the Soviet representatives and that the matter of a permanent location be reviewed by the new committee. Ald. Morton seconded the motion. Ms. Bernice Klosterman, a representative of Sane/Freeze, and Mr. Sidney Orlov, Chairman of Evanston Sane/Freeze provided a brief background of the project to the Committee. Orlov suggested that if City Council did not approve the display of the Peace Pole at Fountain Square, that the Council would give consideration of permanently locating the Peace Pole at the lakefront lagoon. The Committee voted 5-0 to accept the Peace Pole and to keep it inside of the Civic Center on a temporary basis. Chairman Brady requested that a resolution be placed on the next City Council agenda to officially accept the Peace Pole. Docket 311-12A-89. ZBA 89-34-V(R) or T(F) re Variation for 1409 Wilder Street. Ald. Morton indicated that she received calls from neighbors of the applicant stating a false rumor in that the City's action would force the applicant to move from her home. Ald. Morton requested that the minutes reflect that this action would in no way displace the applicant from her home but is only an attempt to bring the home into compliance with the zoning ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that in the past that she has offered advice to the applicant in ways to address her plight. It is apparent by the action of the applicant that she has not availed herself any of the solutions. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the Committee concur with the ZBA recommendation on all counts. The Committee voted 5-0 to concur with the ZBA recommendation to deny the variation requests. -3- P & D Committee - Minutes December 4, 1989 Mr. Stokely, attorney for Mrs. Neyman, the applicant, questioned whether the Committee could address a time extension? Chairman Brady stated that the time extension was the prerogative of the Zoning Board of Appeals and after reading the zoning ordinance's standards, and the deliberation of the Zoning Board, she finds that ZBA did follow all procedures particularly with respect to the time extension issue. The matter would be reported out to City Council at the December 4, 1989 meeting. Arts Council Report; Art in the Construction of Public Buildings. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether State funding would be in jeopardy if City Council did not act on the recommendation at tonight's meeting. Joe Zendell, Arts Council Director, stated that the funding would not be in jeopardy as long as the Council made a decision by June or July of 1990, by providing assurance that matching funds would be available. Ald. Morton suggested that the P & D Committee consider establishing a public art fund. Chairman Brady questioned where the gifts for an art fund would go. Ald. Nelson stated that in the past the City has set-up special funds for situations such as this. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee recommended that the Arts Council report back by detailing whatever is necessary to set up a special fund. Also, Chairman Brady stated that in discussion with Ald. Collens, item #6 of the memo to the P & D Committee from the Public Art Committee, dated November 29, 1989, addresses the time -frame for the artist's input in that project. Ald. Brady suggested that the Arts Council provide additional material to Ald. Collens so that this matter could be brought into the Special Library Committee's discussion. Ald. Morton moved and Ald.' Rudy seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council endorsement of a Public Arts Program for the City of Evanston. The Committee voted 5-0 to express their support for such a program. Chairman Brady requested that this matter be placed first on the December 18, 1989 P & D Committee agenda to allow additional discussion. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is December 18, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robert T. Rudd 70(1/4) -4- DRAFT, NOT APPROVED `+ DRAFT. NOT APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Development Committee December 18, 1989 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, J. Korshak, L. Morton, J. Nelson, J. Rudy and R. Warshaw Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: E. Szymanski, C. Powers, J. Zendell, J. Volberding J. Wolinski, D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Others Present: Ron Isaacson and Beth Hart Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of December 4, 1989. Ald. Morton moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of December 4, 1989 as submitted. The Committee voted 4-0 to approved the minutes (Aldermen Korshak and Rudy absent). COMMUNICATIONS Chairmanship Schedule The Committee received without comment. ZBA 89-37-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1000 Grove Street. The Committee received the final variation decision without comment. ZBA 89-38-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1927 Lincoln Street. The Committee received the final variation decision without comment. OLD BUSINESS Arts Council Report; Art in the Construction of Public Buildings. Chairman Brady reviewed with the Committee a previously submitted report dated November 29, 1989, from the Public Art Committee, Arts Council to the Chairman and Members of the Planning & Development Committee. Ald. Rudy questioned why renovated buildings, such as the Civic Center, were being excluded from the ordinance* Joe Zendell, Director of the Noyes Cultural Arts Center, stated that the Arts Council felt a need to go slowly and test the idea of a percent of construction for public art. He further stated that to include all rehabilitation and remodeling would create a significant workload on current staff. Zendell recommended that the Committee consider adding rehab projects P & D Committee - Minutes ~ December 18, 1989 after the City has some experience with the ordinance and possibly limiting rehab projects to those above $500,000. Ald. Warshaw shared Zendell's concern and suggested that only new construction be included but that an example of including rehabilitation projects might be a fire station remodeling. Ald. Nelson stated that he believes the ordinance, at this time, should include only new construction. Ald. Morton questioned whether there was a consensus among the Committee to establish a "Public Art Fund"? Ald. Morton further questioned Ron Isaacson, Chairman of the Public Art Committee, Arts Council as to what was considered a structure? She questioned whether larger or small projects are defined as structures? Isaacson further stated that the committee was initially looking at all public improvements. Ald. Nelson stated that there was a need to define what was a new building. Chairman Brady suggested that the Committee discuss with the representatives of the Arts Council the 13 points contained in the aforementioned memo. Chairman Brady stated that with respect to item #1, cost for maintenance must be included in the 1% for public art. Zendell stated that in some ordinances as much as one quarter or one -eighth of one percent is sometimes allocated for maintenance. Ald. Nelson observed that there is a budget policy guideline with respect to maintenance. In response to a question from Ald. Nelson, Isaacson stated that some design and competition costs may or may not be appropriate depending upon the project. In response to a question from A1d.Korshak with respect to what is defined as the cost of a project (hard cost and/or soft cost), representatives of the Arts Council did not offer a specific recommendation. Both the P & D Committee and the Arts Council representatives discussed the pros and cons of including or not including hard and soft, costs. At the conclusion of the discussion on this point, Zendell suggested that the Arts Committee return to the P & D Committee with a more specific position with respect to what was included in the cost. In response to a question regarding item #3, Zendell stated that new matching local dollars were needed to show a local commitment to public art. With respect to item #4, Chairman Brady suggested that the manner in which excluded items were determined needed to be better defined. During discussion of item #6, Beth hart stated that the administrator would make the decision with consultation of the Arts Council or jury with respect to the artists input. Zendell stated that each project would have a different approval process due to the nature of the project. In response to a question from the Committee, Raymond Chou, local developer, expressed reservation about the proposed decision making process with respect to the working relationship with an artist in the design stage. Chairman Brady stated that this section needs further review and a more specific process with respect to selecting an artist. Chairman Brady suggested that City Council be final authority. -2- P & D Committee - Minutes December 18, 1989 During -review of item #7, Ald. Rudy questioned why architects were excluded from being identified as artists. Isaacson stated that architects were not necessary excluded but by the nature of their relationship most likely would not be acting as an artist. Ald. Korshak suggested that the definition of "recognized" artist be further reviewed and more specifically defined. In the course of review of item #7, the Committee suggested that the Arts Council consider an appointment procedure whereby the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, on the recommendation of the Arts Council would make appointments. The Committee reviewed item #12, which listed numerous cities and a brief description of the applicable public art ordinances. At the conclusion of the meeting it was the consensus of the P & D Committee that the Arts Council return to the Committee at a later date with a draft ordinance addressing the concerns expressed at the December 18, 1989 meeting. The Arts Council staff was also directed, in addition to redrafting the ordinance, to also redraft the program and policies. This matter would be held over to a future P & D Committee meeting. NEW BUSINESS Docket 321-128-89. Ordinance 148-0-89. ZBA 89-35-SU(R) re Special Use for 2516-22 Green Bav Road. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to grant a special use to permit the establishment of a type 2 restaurant. Chairman Brady stated that in consultation with Aldermen of the 7th Ward, it was recommended that the litter plan be specifically detailed as part of the ordinance and not be only a reference. The makers of the motion agreed with the amendment. Ald. Nelson questioned whether the special use should be limited solely to the sale of yogurt? After a brief discussion with the applicants, staff was directed to amend the ordinance to reflect wording to include various non-alcoholic beverages that the applicant intended on selling. Chairman Brady also stated that the 7th Ward Aldermen would like to have the boundaries of the litter plan specifically delineated (i.e. street, alley, etc). The Committee directed staff to have the ordinance reflect this desire. The Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the special use (Ald. Rudy absent). Docket 320-12B-89, Ordinance 147-0-89, ZBA 89-30-SU(R) re Special Use for 2520 Gross Point Road. Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Horton seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of a special use for construction of a sheltered care home. Ald. Warshaw questioned what additional burdens a facility such as this would place on the City? Ald. Warshaw stated that there is a need for this type of care but questioned whether the facility was truly affordable. Ald. Warshaw further questioned what the burden on the City would be if after one &]I F & D Committee - Minutes December 18, 1989 year, for example, residents could no longer afford to live in the project and would be displaced? Ald. Warshaw expressed concerns about the burden that would be placed on public assistance if the aforementioned scenario was realized. Chairman Brady questioned who the developer felt would be eligible to become a resident? She questioned whether "frail and elderly" could be placed in the ordinance without it being discriminatory. In response to the Committee, Quentin Brown, the proposed operator of the facility, define the term "sheltered care". Brown related to the Committee his recent experience with a skilled and intermediate care facility {Oakwood Terrace} he currently operates in Evanston. Jane Volberding, staff to the Commission on Aging, reviewed with the Committee the procedures regarding transfer and care of residents from a facility such as proposed to a skilled and intermediate facility. Volberding highlighted various state requirements. Ald. Nelson stated that he has supported this project and stated to the Committee that Mr. Brown has met two or three times with neighborhood groups and tried to answer every question. However, Ald. Nelson expressed severe reservation that unless stringent restrictions were applied to the special use, the project could turn into another Ridgeview. Ald. Nelson stated that he wants to devise whatever legal covenants are necessary to address this issue and prevent such a happening. Ald. Nelson further stated that whatever restrictions are placed on the project should limit the sheltered care facility as it is currently defined by State Statute and current rules and regulations. Ald. Nelson's concern was that if those regulations should change in the future, the special use would cease and the issue would be brought back to the City. Ald. Nelson also suggested that restrictions be placed on the special use with respect to change in ownership or operation or bankruptcy if that should happen. In response to Ald. Nelson's concerns, Volberding stated that any change in care would need a review at the state level. Ald. Nelson stated that he was not concerned about the state level since those rules could change over time. He stated that he is more concerned with the local level and wanted to take whatever precautions are necessary to avoid a Ridgeview situation. Chairman Brady stated that the issues were of a significant legal nature and that it would be necessary to have City legal staff meet with the applicant and his attorney. Ald. Nelson stated that in his opinion, if the City could not guarantee the neighbors equity and fairness, he could not support this project. Ald. Warshaw further stated that she wanted responses to her concerns which were of a legal nature and not of a social service bent. In response to a question from Ald. Nelson, Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that there were no public streets or alleys on the site that would need to be vacated. In response to the question Raymond Chou, developer of the project, stated that all current streets and alleys platted on the project were of a private nature and would be vacated in the plat approval process. -4- } P & D Committee - Minutes December 18, 1989 It was the consensus of the Committee that this matter be continued until such time staff and the developer were able to address the various issues brought up at this meeting. ZBA Notice Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Morton seconded that the Committee approve the new ZBA notice. Ald. Warshaw asked the Committee to review her recommended changes and approve as amended. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the new ZBA notice and to reflect the proposed changes by Ald. Warshaw. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P & D Committee is January 8, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:d Robert T. Rudd 70(1/5) DRAFT, NOT APPROVED -5-