Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 8, 1996 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Hill, Saag, Peters, Nevel, Breslin, Seidman, Petterson, Belmonte and Yas MEMBERS ABSENT: Hartgering, Koester, and Perkins STAFF: Carter OTHERS ATTENDING: Laurie Marston, League Observer and Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry PR E51DING OFFICIAL: Peters, Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Petterson indicated that he was not listed as present at the December meeting. With this correction, Mr. Nevel moved approval of minutes for both the November 13, 1995 and the December 11, 1985 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Hill. Motion passed. No nays. PRESENTATION ON THE NEXT PHASE OF THE LAKEFRONT PLAN Don lt'irth, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, was present to discuss with Commission members the next phase of the lakefront plan. His purpose was to update Commission members on work done so far, and share the details of what was proposed in the year ahead. He stated that he was there to both inform Commission members and seek their input. He announced that this particular phase of the lakefront project had been hurt by the City's application receiving a Iow priority from the State of Illinois for 50150 funding. The City had hoped to use this funding to stretch the dollars available for lakefront improvements. Since there would not be money sufficient to do all of the work initially planned, he asked the Plan Commission to offer their priorities on the cork remaining to be done. He went on to describe the project in four major segments: 1) improvement of the lakefront pathway system; 2) improvement to the shelter building at Dempster Street; 3) rehabilitation of the lagoon building in keeping with its historic integrity; and 4) paving and improving the Dempster Street parking area. He described, in detail, just what would be done under each of these areas of improvement. In reviewing the total cost of making all the improvements, the budget estimates came to $394,000 while the amount of money remaining available to lakefront work was something less than $200,000. Commisssion members discussed the relative merits of the four separate projects and determined that they should give the highest priority to both maintenance and safety. Mr. Wirth pointed out that there were two options for them to consider: 1) put off any project work and conserve the avaialble funds in hopes to find another grant with which we could match our funds in the future or; 2) simply do the best with the money available at the present time. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 8, 1983 Page 2 In discussing the issue of the parking lot, Commission members felt that there might be other funding options for paving such as Motor Fuel Tax or the Parking Fund. They also felt it would be desirable to complete the pathway improvements through that area as a separate project. In reviewing the budget for all improvements, it was found that the park shelters and the pathway system, including the link through the Dempster/Greenwood Parking area, could be accomplished with available funds. It was felt it would be desirable to include the landscaping for the pathway segement through the parking lot as well If funds are avalble. Mr. Yas moved that the Plan Commission recommend priority in the next phase of the lakefront improvement program be established in the following order. 1) rehabilitation and landscaping of the two lakefront shelter buildings; 2) pathway improvements; 3) pathway improvements and landscaping adjacent to the Dempster/Greenwood parking area; and 4) parking area paving and drainage. The Plan Commission further recommends that available monies be spent now rather than put aside in hopes for future supplemental funds. Seconded by Mr. Petterson. The motion was further modified to stress that the Plan Commission had given priority to maintenance and safety in making their choices. They further asked that both Motor Fuel Tax Funds and the parking system be considered as alternative funds for the parking area. Motion passed. No nays. APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Chairman Peters announced that the Commission needed to elect officers for 1996 and asked for volunteers for a Nominating Committee. Commission members felt there was no special need to form a Nominating Committee and that both nominations and elections could be handled as part of the regular Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Saag moved that the floor be opened for nominations. Seconded by Mr. Nevel. Motion passed. No nays. Mr. Saag moved that Mr. Peters be nominated for Plan Commission Chairman for 1996. Seconded by Mr. Petterson. Chairman Peters called for other nominations from the floor and there were none. Ms. Hill moved to close nominations. Seconded by Mr. Nevel. Motion passed. No nays. Chairman Peters was elected to serve as the 1936 Chairman for the Plan Commission. Mr. Nevel Moved that leis. Hill be nominated for Vice -Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Saag. Chairman Peters called for any other nominations from the floor. There were none. Mr. Petterson moved to close nominations. Seconded by Mr. Yas. Motion passed. No nays. his. Hill was elected Vice -Chairman for the 1986 Plan Commission. PLAN COMMISSION GOALS FOR 1996 Chairman Peters reviewed the list of goals compiled by the Secretary following last month's meeting. Since not all members were present, he asked for any additions or suggestions. There were some requests for clarification but no new suggestions added. Commission members first discussed what might be included in a Central Business District Plan. They then proceeded to organize the goals by committee structure and each Commission member was asked to select two goals which were particularly important to them. The principal committee were established as follows: Green Bay Road: Central Business District Plan Comprehensive General Plan Citizen Involvement Custer Street Project Nevel, Koester and Yas Peters, Seidman, Yas, Belmonte, Petterson and Saag Peters, Hill, Koester and Nevel Peters and Hill Breslin, Nevel, Yas and Belmonte Legislative Commmittee Petterson and Koester Evanston Plan Commission • Minutes - January 8, 1985 Page 3 Commission members thought that a number of the priorities could be grouped together within the committee structure. Commission members agreed upon this committee structure for 1986. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plan Committee Chairman Peters reported on the Committee's meeting with the Planning and Development Committee in their review of the Comprehensive General Plan. He and all the Committee members felt that excellent progress had been made and that a good dialogue had been established between the Planning and Development Committee and Commission members. In their first meeting they got through the first five sections of the Plan and are scheduled to meet again on January 20, 1986. Commission members were very pleased with the reception they had received from members of the Planning and Development Committee. Chairman Peters thought that the work might be completed in two more sessions. Green Bay Road Project Committee Mr. Carter reported on behalf of the Committee that he and Jeanne Lindwall had been through two more drafts of the report and that they would be meeting with the Committee in the next week to get their comments. It was agreed to meet on Thursday, January 16th at 7:30. Custer Street Project Jeanne Breslin reported on behalf of the Committee that negotiations were proceeding with property owners and that the City Manager intended to go before the City Council in January to get authorization to make offers. Legislative Committee Mr. Carter reported on behalf of the Legislative Committee. He stated that the Committee on Signs had met with the consultant working on a revised sign ordinance. Represen:.;tives of Design Evanston and the Chamber of Commerce also attended this meeting. Mr. Carter indicated that the consultant was making progress and reported on some of the techniques being considered. Among these were limiting each property to "items of information" on their signs and another was looking at the location and size requirements for signs depending upon the speed of passing motorists. He indicated that the group would meet again before the next Plan Commission meeting and proceed with some more substantive work on actual legislation. At that meeting, Mr. Golan emphasized that more advisory services for store owners considering putting up signs was preferable to more legislation. Air. Carter also reported that site plan review was still on the Planning and Development Committee's agenda and he felt that there was a reasonably good chance of getting it passed at their next regular meeting. Mr. Carter stated that the Committee would also be working on a study of the commercial districts in the month ahead. Energy Committee Libby Hill reported that all of Planning's energy staff positions were being cut from the budget and that there would be no staff available after March 1, 1996. This included the full-time energy planner, the part-time energy outreach coordinator and the coordinator for the GEEE program. There will be a part-time person working at the Ecology Center to handle some energy items. She felt, in Iight of this, that the Plan Commission should re-examine the implications of this action for the energy policies. There will be a question of just how these policies will get carried out without staff. In response to questions, Mr. Carter indicated that there was no one on staff who could take over Dave Birr's present function. Some mainterian-c people were more energy orEenFeo. But, when ,Mr. Brrr left, the energy program mould be large!, over. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 8, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Belmonte asked whether anyone had looked at the amount of money Mr. Blrr had been able to save the City in his capacity of energy planner. Mr. Carter responded, yes they had and that these savings were substantial, but the administration felt the work had been largely done on the public buildings. Mr. Carter felt that if the energy program was coining to an end that It would be appropriate for the Commission to write a summary of what this program had accomplished in the years it was in affect because it was an important program and it shouldn't be simply quietly forgotten. Mr. Yas felt it was inappropriate to change the goals and objectives of the Energy Plan because of staffing problems. These goals should be examined to see if there are other ways in which they can be accomplished. Questions came up as to how the Commission could be certain that appropriate energy conservation measures were followed in the Research Park development. The specific example discussed was the idea of co -generation which makes a great deal of sense for Research Park. How does active consideration of that idea become ensured? The only person on staff with the expertise and the understanding to follow -•through on this would no longer be here. Mr. Carter suggested that if a full-time staff member was not going to be available, perhaps some method of getting a consultant's review could be established as a substitute. Ms. Hill moved that the Plan Commission communicate to the City Council and City Manager on the implications of the cut -back in the energy staff and consider how the energy goals will be met without staff. Seconded by Mr. Yas. Motion passed. No nays. Community Development Committee Mr. Carter reported that the City had just received news that their entitlement amount had been reduced by nearly $250,000 and that the CD Committee would have to reexamine their allocations for the 1986/87 program. This news was totally unexpected and will create some very difficult problems in reallocating funds. It was suggested that both Energy and Community Development be retained as Plan Commission Committee even though they will not be active throughout the year. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Carter reported that he had had a call from Cynthia Vance of the LENS organization asking whether or not the Plan Commission wished to complete the remaining two steps in the process already begun with them. In the discussion that followed, it was generally conceeded that the Plan Commission themselves did not need to complete the process, but that it would be valuable for either the City Council or whatever group is being formed to prepare a Human Services Plan. Mr. Carter felt that the Council would probably not be ready to do a goal setting and consensus building program until after the budget has been adopted. He was not sure there was sufficient support on the Council, but that some members were interested. Mr. Belmonte, who had been through the LEIS process with another organization, commented that the Plan Commission had largely completed the process by dealing with the Committee assignments and priorities this evening. Mr. Carter commented that the one thing the Commission hadn't done was deal with the barriers to achieving the identified goals and wondered whether Mr. Belmonte could lead the Plan Commission through that part of the process. It was suggested that the Plan Commission meet as a whole and work through this part of the process after taking the Comprehensive General Plan through the Planning and Development Committee. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 8, 1983 Page 5 fir. ' Nevel brought up the question of additional associate members and indicated there were two potential candidates interested in serving. Mr. Carter requested that he forward the names and addresses so that he could mail them application forms. It was suggested that the Plan Commission officially act on all associate members for the forthcoming year at their February meeting. He announced that Amy Seidman's name had been submitted to the Council for approval as a full member of the Plan Commission and that Mr. Saag had requested not to be reappointed but would like to serve as an associate member. He said that all associate members should be appointed for a full year's membership to expire on December 31, 1986 and the question of attendance requirements for associate members decided. Meeting adjourned 9:53 P.M. 11 Staff: L ! .;� +.�1 �- C 1�r� V Date: 7 Y7-1 I EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHER ATTENDING: PRESIDING OFFICIAL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES Wednesday, February 12, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Breslin, Hill, Koester, Peters, Petterson, Seidman and Nevel Belmonte, Hartgering, Perkins, and Yas Carter Laurie Marston, League Observer Peters, Chairman !Mr. Koester moved approval of the Plan Commission minutes for their January S, 1986 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Nevel. Motion passed. No nays. INTRODUCTION TO COMMERCIAL ZONES REFERENCE Mr. Carter briefed Commission members on the background of this reference and the nature of the changes the Commercial Zones were undergoing. He explained that there had been some concern over proliferation of strip commercial centers, drive-ins, and fast-food restaurants within the Commercial Zones. There was a question as to whether or not the present zoning was adequate to handle some of the new development. He went on to explore the history of business and commercial zones within Evanston, their original purposes, and how they evolved. Initial work began with a complete survey of all the land use within the Business and Commercial Zones. In reviewing present zoning, he noted there were eight categories of Business Districts and Commercial Districts and no real statement of purpose for any of these districts. Their purpose must be interpreted from the list of permitted uses. In the 23 years since the present ordinance was drafted, many changes have taken place in these districts. Staff's initial review indicates that, with a redefinition of these zones, their number could be reduced and their purpose made more clear. He pointed out that the clearest distinction implied by the ordinance between the business and commercial districts was that the business districts were the primary shopping areas while the commercial districts appeared to have the miscellaneous business and all of the auto and auto -service related establishments. This pattern has served its purpose, but a different type of shopping is occurring within the commercial zones and it is more difficult to distinguish them from similar uses in business zones. He explained that Evanston's shopping market had been rather slow to be exploited, but now there are two small, contemporary shopping centers, one complete and one under construction. A number of mini or small strip centers have developed as well. The physical form of these centers is quite different from that of a Main Street or a Central Street. Staff felt that the zoning ordinance ought to reflect the two physical forms of shopping districts: the traditional neighborhood one, and the more contemporary small center. It is the apparent community desire to retain the character of the established centers, while at the same time there is opportunity to create some more contemporary shopping facilities within some of the declining commercial or manufacturing zones. Zoning should spell out the differences and establish appropriate locations for both. Staff is developing recommendations which would create such distinctions and overhaul the present regulations to more closely reflect the new reality. Accordingly, the present commercial zones would be reclassified into three groups: shopping areas which would permit redevelopment into the more contemporary physical form; those which would maintain the status quo; and those which would be essentially auto -related or Evanston Plan Commission Minutes February 12, 1986 Page 2 service related. At the same time, staff is reexamining the business districts to see if some consolidation is possible there. The final proposal which would be brought before the Plan Commission would be a resorting of all of these districts which would lead to a better match between present and intended future use and the districts themselves. He thought that the report would create clear distinctions between the functions of the districts that) now exist. One of the greatest difficulties in such a resorting is that the existing land uses don't always arrange themselves in neat enough geographic divisions to always allow for clear distinctions. Much of the business and commercial development actually took place before there was a zoning ordinance and has undergone considerable evolution. Chairman Peters observed that it might be helpful to take a cumulative effect view of some of these districts to see how they might ultimately develop. Mr. Nevel inquired as to whether or not dwelling units were permitted in both B and C districts and whether there was any concern about this. Mr. Carter added that one of the principal concerns on new commercial development was that of the drive -through restaurant and that it would be staff's intent to seriously limit the areas where such establishments could go, primarily keeping them as far away as possible from the residential districts. Ms. Breslin raised the question of proximity of drive -through restaurants to one another and Mr. Carter responded that the Zoning Amendment Committee was attempting to deal with this by imposing a distance requirement. The issue of their being close to one another seemed to be one of both appearance problems as well as traffic. Ms. Breslin pointed out a situation in another city with which she was familiar where the proliferation took place before the Zoning Board could do much about it. Mr. Carter observed Evanston established them as special uses and that there are not as many opportunities or good sites available for Chicago Avenue to suddenly turn into fast-food row. Mr. Carter indicated that he and Ms. Lindwall would be getting together a draft of this report to take to the Legislative Committee before the next Plan Commission meeting. Commission members felt that the approach being used to distinguish the commercial from the business zones would be helpful in creating a sharper definition. Ms. Breslin asked how other suburbs were handling the same trends. Mr. Carter commented that many of them seemed to be discouraging the strip style development in the older established shopping areas and allowing it on the heavier traveled streets or outline areas. He commented that strip shopping had acquired a bad reputation from earlier styles of development, but many of the developers now realize that the shoppers appreciate amenities. Consequently, many developers are putting greater emphasis upon good design, controlled signage and substantial landscaping. In response to a question from Mr. Nevel, fir. Carter commented that while staff did not have precise landscape standards, they did have a plant list and some general criteria which they were working with which may need to be eventually finalized into standards. Commission members suggested that once the site plan review process is established that this could serve as a way to enforce higher standards. Mr. Carter commented that the Site Plan Review Ordinance was going to be voted on by the Planning and Development Committee on February 17th, the same night Commission members would be present to review suggested changes to the Comprehensive General Plan. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive General Plan Chairman Peters reviewed the staff memorandum sent to Commission members summarizing the results of the changes suggested by the Planning and Development Committee. He reported that the Planning and Development Committee had completed their review of the Comprehensive General Plan. He stated that Commission members were pleased with the types of comments they had received and felt they had improved the document. He reported that the Plan Commission's committee was somewhat surprised at the request for greater emphasis upon _vans .on an ,.ommns&on ,o_unu.es February 12, 1986 Page 3 the new library and the requests for greater coverage on this facility in the Plan. He reviewed the new objective and policies drafted in response. Ms. Seidman commented on the housing policy dealing with the homeless and suggested the reference to residency be changed. Any policy would now read, "Participate in efforts to provide assistance to Evanston's homeless." Drew Petterson brought up a question on a policy under the Energy section dealing with assistance to residents in maintaining utility service. Commission members decided to further qualify this policy so that it read, "Assist low income residents in maintaining their utility service." Chairman Peters pointed out that the new language had not been included under the Public Buildings section for policy 08 which talked about a "percent for the Arts" program for all new or substantially renovated public buildings. It was felt that clearer language was needed and Chairman Peters suggested the following, "Establish a program to set aside funding for art for all new or substantially renovated public buildings." Chairman Peters also had a comment on the section on environment pointing out that "water" was to be included among the list of pollution problems under policy 07. Following the Plan Commission's review of the suggested changes, Mr. Petterson moved approval to be forward these changes to the Planning and Development Committee. Seconded by Mr. Koester. Motion passed. No nays. Mr. Nevel asked about the format for presentation to the Planning and Development Committee and to the full Council. Mr. Carter responded that they would get revisions noted on the policy sections the Committee is now working with and then decide whether or not these changes represented their thoughts. If the Planning and Development Committee concurred, then they would take a vote to forward the Comprehensive General Plan to the full City Council for its approval. He assumed that the Planning and Development Committee would then represent the Plan to the City Council with Plan Commission assistance if it was desired. He commented that the City Council already had the first draft of the Plan and that they would also receive a clean copy of the revised policies along with the Man Commission's report on the public hearing. It was suggested that Plan Commission members might want to contact the individual aldermen to whom they distributed plans, remind them that the Plan is coming before the full Council and ask ii itiere are any questions they might have. Commission members discussed how the Council might review the Plan, whether they would require a special meeting or whether it might be covered during the normal course of their business. It was not possible to tell in advance how long such a review would take because it would take entirely upon the number of issues raised. Central Business District Committee Chairman Peters reported on behalf of the Central Business District Committee stating that It had had its first meeting, which was devoted largely to a brainstorming session on what the content of a Central Business District Plan ought to be. The results of the meeting were summarized in a few major points and a questionnaire subsequently sent to Committee members to further explore opinions on the content and purpose of a Central Business District Plan. Committee members had also been asked to individually define the Central Business District on a mail -out map. Commission members felt that it was a good beginning and that the questions posed were thought provoking. The Committee will meet again on February 20th to continue defining their purpose and the content of the Plan. In commenting on the length of time required to prepare a Central Business District Plan, Chairman Peters raised a question about other things going on in the community which won't be waiting on a plan. He felt it might be necessary to take positions on a number of topics which were relevant to the downtown even though the Plan was not yet completed and drew a parallel between what was being done on the Green Bay Road report. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes February 12, 1986 Page 4 Energy Committee Libby Hill commented on behalf of the Energy Subcommittee beginning with a brief review of the statement she made at the budget hearing before the City Council. She expressed disappointment to find that the minutes did not correctly reflect their statement since they talked about the Plan Commission's work being able to go forward without an "additional" staff person when, in fact, the work would have to go forward with NO staff person. She explained the strategy that she and staff had put together to sustain a City commitment to energy conservation in the absence of staff to implement a program. This called for having an independent technical energy review of all City -sponsored project built-in as part of the cost of those projects. An energy consultant could perform such a review and monitoring at a cost which would be easily recaptured in the energy savings realized by the project. The Committee is to return to the City Council with more details at a future date. The so-called shared savings program now being carried out by the private sector was another possibility for Evanston and one likely to be used at Crown Center. Chairman Peters commented that he had seen Ms. HilI's presentation on local cable TV and thought it was an excellent job. He thought the examples of what ought to be done in the future were very practical and could be carried out. In response to Chairman Peter's question about the current budget problems and the City's ability to hire an energy review, Mr. Carter responded that the intent was to incorporate funds as part of each project's cost and since most project would be likely to be carried out with bonds would not have such a direct impact on the budget itself. Mr. Carter commented that the City was very likely to enter into a shared savings program on the Crown Center and that Mr. Birr would serve as a consultant on the implementation on that program and be paid through a grant. This would allow for a very smooth transition in the loss of the energy planner position. He also commented that Mr. Birr met with the development team to explore how an energy review might be made part of that team's normal review of development projects. Mr. Petterson asked whether or not review costs couldn't somehow be charged to the developer. Green Bay Road Committee Mr. Carter reported on behalf of the Committee stating that staff had met with them and received a number of helpful comments on the report draft. These comments were incorporated into a new draft and a copy was sent to all Plan Commission members. He asked for any further comment from Commission members. %Is. Breslin raised the question on some of the unsightly back yards which face onto Green Bay Road and what services might be made available to assist in making improvements. Mr. Carter responded that at the moment there was not a specific plan, but staff would be looking at it. They might investigate the eligibility of CD funds to assist low-income homeowners if they could find a way to make the program eligible. Ms. Seidman raised the question of whether or not planting easements might be considered. Mr. Koester suggested that a recommendation to rezone the manufacturing segment of Green Bay Road to commercial be included in the recommendation section of the report. Under the implementation section, in the paragraph that deals with funding, Mr. Koester also recommended that a concluding statement be added on which said, "With the 1985/86 Community Development cutbacks and expected future cuts in CDBG funding, the City will have to rely more heavily on other sources in the future". Chairman Peters commented that thought ought to be given to experimenting with vines to cover some of the retaining wall. Mr. Carter Commented that the major problem was that there was no place to anchor vines along the base of the wall. He said they could look into the possibility of planting on top instead. Ms. Breslin suggested that staff look into the use of espalier plants. It was suggested that it might be appropriate to took into such plantings along the barren wall of the Dominicks. Mr. Petterson brought up the question of whether anything could be done to get rid of the pigeons which roost in great numbers under the Emerson Street viaduct. Evanston Plan Commission MInutes February 12, 1986 Page 3 Chairman Peters asked Committee members just how the report should be brought forward and publicized. Mr. Carter commented that it might be helpful if the Committee gave a general presentation on the report to the full Plan Commission as a prelude to going before the City in general. He didn't feel that the Plan would necessarily be adopted because there were so many specific recommendations within it, but it would be helpful to present it to the City Council and to the City staff. He thought it could be very helpful in raising everyone's awareness of the various problems along Green Bay Road. Chairman Peters thought that there ought to be any number of audiences that might like to have a presentation. He felt that a brief, personal presentation of the report to various groups would be far more effective than distributing it through the interoffice mail. Mr. Nevel wanted to see the report contain a single page of all the recommendations which are now spread throughout the report. Chairman Peters felt that It would be helpful to get some coverage in the Evanston Review as part of the presentation to Council. Custer Street Committee Ms. Breslin reported on behalf of the Custer Street Committee stating that the Council had authorized offers to be made and negotiations were under way. In response to a question from Chairman Peters on the sequence of events to be followed, she replied that once negotiations were completed, tFe properties would be acquired and the building demolished. An RFP will be issued for a development proposal, a developer selected and the project initiated. The Committee members felt strongly, based upon their conversations with developers, that the only real market for the property was housing. Legislative Committee Mr. Carter reported that the Legislative Committee had not met since there was no business for them during the past month. The work of the sign consultant had gone much slower than anticipated, but he expected to meet with the Committee next month. The Committee will also have a draft report of the Commercial Land Study to review. He announced that the Site Plan Review Ordinance would be up for a vote within the Planning and Development Committee on February 17th, and that the new canal lands zoning would be up on the 24th along with a petition from a church to use some of the sanitary district land for their expansion. Report on the Human Services Plan Ms. Hill reported that she had met with Jeanne Fox on the techniques of preparing such a plan. She also reported that the CD Committee had agreed to work with unified budgeting in arriving at recommendations for next year's program. She felt it would make for a much smoother process and more carefully derived priorities for next year's program. Report on Community Development Committee Actions Chairman Peters reported that he had met with the CD Committee on a number of occasions and expressed the priorities of the Plan Commission. These priorities held up well until the final stage when there was an unexpected, large reduction in the City's allocation. There was some trimming of some of the basic capital improvements such as curbs and catchbasins, which were cut in half. He did feel that the Committee was generally adhering to the Plan Commission's recommendations. Chairman Peters, in addressing City Council, stressed the fact that they ought to make a commitment to capital improvements and pointed out that this was about the third year in a row that the funds requested for capital improvements were cut almost in half. He felt that the Commission had been well received at all meetings. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes February 12, 1986 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS Mr. Nevel commented on the Site Plan Report distributed on new fire stations and requested additional background. He stated his concerns about using parkland for fire stations. He raised the question of at what point does the Commission get Involved in an item such as this. Mr. Carter responded that the Commission was only involved in the very early work of the Capital Improvement Program and not in the site selection phase. The Site Report was sent at the request of the aldermen conducting public hearings on the new fire station sites. He anticipated that the Plan Commission may be asked to comment and if they ae, they will need a great deal of more information than just the Site Report. In response to Mr. Nevel's question on the status, Mr. Carter replied that the Council had voted to undertake a plan calling for three new stations and that a committee of the Council was conducting hearings on the proposed sites. Ms. Breslin brought up the question of reuse of existing fire stations. It was suggested that the Plan Commission send a delegate to the committee hearings in order to become education on the issues. Mr. Nevel agreed to serve in that capacity. Mr. Carter agreed to furnish Mr. Nevel with further background material on the issue. Chairman Peters announced that in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Place Names Committee, he is calling a meeting to consider naming the greenhouse at the Arts Center after Marjorie Carlson. Mr. Carter announced that the Plan Commission may get a reference on the proposed new parking garage at Church and Chicago on design criteria. Meeting adjourned approximately 10:00 P.M. Staff: r U-��j�; L,l•! Date: R EClas 7Y6-12 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHERS ATTENDING: APPROVAL OF MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 12, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Hlll, Koester, Nevel, Peters, Petterson, Seidman, Belmonte, and Yas Breslin, Hartgering, Perkins, and Saag Carter Laurie Marston, League Observer and Sally Lufkin With two minor corrections, Mr. Nevel moved approval of the February 12, 1996 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Peters. Motion passed. No nays. DISCUSSION OF CANAL LANDS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE ISSUES Chairman Peters asked Mr. Carter to brief Commission members on the open space issues contained in his memo to the Commission. He indicated that there were two principal issues, one dealing with a proposal to located a fire station in a park and the other a church parking lot on the canal lands. He cited an aldermanic reference from Aid. Raden requesting a comment from the Plan Commission on the fire station question. Although both issues may be moot by the next Council meeting, he felt the Plan Commission should consider whether they want to make a statement. Mr. Carter's main point was that the question of using park space for other uses is likely to come up repeatedly in the future because Evanston is such a land-poor community. He felt that this was a policy issue worthy of the Plan Commission's comment at a City Council meeting. He suggested the Commission members either make their statement at the time for public comments just before the Council meeting or submit something in writing. Mr. Nevel commented on the violent reaction against using park land for fire stations from the neighborhood affected and how that demonstrated a very strong community value for parks and open space. Mr. Yas also commented that a large part of Evanston's identity is tied into its parks and trees and suggested the Plan Commission make a statement to the Council stating that they were strongly in favor of retaining all our parks and open space. He felt Evanston's redevelopment should not be at the expense of its open land. He emphasized the Plan Commission's mission in retaining a long-range vision which would preclude the use of park land for short-range solutions_ Ms. Hill commented that any policy developed be followed by both the Council and staff. fir. Koester commented that too often the broad policies get lost in the focus on day-to-day operations and suggested it was the Plan Commission's job to remind Council and staff of the importance of these policies in a timely manner. He felt this was a good opportunity to use the specific examples cited. There followed a general discussion over whether there should be a statement that declared absolutely no park land would ever be given up, versus remaining somewhat flexible depending on how parkland might be compensated or otherwise enhanced. Commission members discussed, at length, ways to make Council members more aware of the various policies contained in the Plan prior to taking various forms of public action Mr. Petterson moved that a subcommittee of the Commission develop a statement on open space to forward to the Council. Seconded by Mr. Yas. Motion passed. No nays. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - .March 12, 1986 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHICAGO/CHURCH MIXED -USE PARKING FACILITY Mr. Carter brought Commission members up to date on the staff efforts to prepare a Request for Proposal for development of the Chicago/Church parking lot. He sought their ideas on the content for such a document. In particular, he wished to get comments on the design guidelines and site considerations. Ms. Hill commented on the need for a criteria dealing with energy efficiency. Mr. Carter responded that such a guideline was being included in the RFP. Mr. Petterson raised questions about traffic and access to the site. Mr. Yas brought up the question of treating the project as a planned unit development and working some trade-off In zoning to achieve a better design. Mr. Carter commented that developers are going to be asked to submit something that could be designed within zoning and an alternative if by making some zoning changes a superior design could result. He noted that going the route of a planned development, zoning changes or variations would add a significant amount of time to the development of the project. Ms. Seidman raised the question of whether there would be an identity problem for the parking In such a project and whether the general public would know it was really available for them. Mr. Yas brought up the question of desirable limits on density. Mr. Carter responded that the general cap on density would be from the zoning ordinance and the capacity of the site. Mr. Carter observed that one of the concerns of the Commission would likely be just how this project would look and how it would fit on this particular site in this location. Issues of how to break-up the facade of a parking structure and breaking up the mass of the building might be important. The purpose of the design guidelines would be to alert the developer to some of these concerns. Mr. Yas suggested that some sketch of the contextual considerations accompany the RPF. Some concem was expressed at the amount of traffic which might be suddenly dumped onto Hinman Avenue via the Church Street exit of the lot. There were suggestions for possible staggered hours at Washington National as well as different entrances and exits to spread the load. In summing up, Chairman Peters outlined the potential concerns of the Plan Commission being. - density, design, traffic impact, and possible rearrangements of entrances and exits. Commission members expressed the desire to see and comment upon proposals before they become formalized. They would like to have the opportunity to forward their comments to the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Nevel inquired as to whether or not the City would be developing a short list of qualified proposers or go directly to Requests for Proposals. Other members asked about the timing_ for receiving proposals and developing the project. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plan Mr. Carter announced that the tentative date for scheduling the review of the Comprehensive General Plan before the City Council was April 14, 1986. He also announced that it would be necessary to hold a brief public hearing before the Council on that date because 90 days had expired since the last public hearing without official action being taken on the Plan. He felt that this hearing would largely be perfunctory and should be brief. Ms. Hill suggested that Plan Commission members contact aldermen in advance of this meeting to ask if they had any additional questions on the Plan. Chairman Peters announced he would coordinate the Plan Commission's role with the Chairman of the Planning and Development Committer, Aid. Blevens. Commission members raised questions as to whether they should conduct the public hearing or whether the Council should. Some members favored conducting the second hearing at a different time and by the Plan Commission. Mr. Carter reminded Commission members that there were certain time constraints on publication dates and advance notice of public hearings. It was agreed to let the final decision rest with the Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee as to which alternative would be the most expeditious. The Comprehensive Plan Committee agreed to meet prior to the night of the public hearing to coordinate procedure Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 3 Legislative Committee Mr. Carter briefed Commission members on the draft statement on Commercial Zones which was before them. The Legislative Committee had reviewed the draft and made a number of comments. Staff is continuing to work on a subsequent draft and were seeking comments from other Commission members on this study. Ms. Seidman did not feel that there was adequate defense for the front yard parking developed in the report. She would like to see stronger landscaping standards. Mr. Petterson expressed similar feelings but also pointed out that many of the redevelopments are on such small lots that generous landscaping is very difficult to provide, unlike some of the other newer suburban areas. He said the Committee would be open to additional suggestions for strengthening the landscaping, however. Mr. Yas suggested Possible reduction of parking requirements if more landscaping were included. Mr. Carter commented that most of the commercial developments were seeking greater pa6dng than the zoning ordinance required because they felt it was critical to their business and would not be motivated by such an incentive. Questions were raised about how site plan review might be used to enhance landscaping. incorporation of standards for such things as so many trees per square feet of area or number of cars was suggested. Chairman Peters expressed concern that situations not develop where, because of parking and site constraints the landscaping would be foresaken. He felt an evaluation of potential sites which might present such difficulty be evaluation before the final map is drawn. Mr. Nevel requested that the report contain a listing of permitted uses in business and commercial zones as well as a map which shows the results of the charge in the ordinance. Mr. Yas asked that sections of the report be reduced to one -page summaries or that the main points of the report be especially highlighted in a cover letter. Chairman Peters had some concern about the spacing of fast food establishments and wondered whether or not a few concentrations would be better than having them spread throughout the business and commercial zones. He expressed a strong preference for concentrating them in appropriate locations. Mr. Carter announced that the Site Plan Review Ordinance had been unanimously adopted by the City Council at their last meeting. He also reported that staff had received a first rough draft of sign regulations from the consultant and were in the process of reviewing it. Green Bay !toad Committee Mr. Koester reported that the work of the Committee was almost complete and that final editing had been done. He felt that the Plan had an attractive layout and thought Commission members would be impressed with the final presentation. Chairman Peters asked if the final Plan would be ready by the next Plan Commission meeting and Mr. Carter felt that it might be. All that remained were a few photographs plus the printing. He thought that the Commission would want to make a brief presentation to the City Council when they sent the report to them. He suggested they might take a few minutes at the public input session held before each of the regular Council meetings. Mr. Koester suggested the use of a few slides at this presentation. Ms. Hill raised the question of what happens to the abutments on the viaducts removed and pointed out the need for some treatment of these areas as well. She also expressed concern about the effects of redesigning the intersection at McCormick and Green Bay Road with the elimination of the short diagonal segment. Commission members discussed techniques for expediting the left turn off of McCormick and eliminating traffic back-ups. Central Business District Chairman Peters reported on behalf of the Committee and stated that they had worked on definitions of the downtown as well as on a number of questions dealing with the purpose of the Committee and the content of the Plan. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - March 12, 1986 Page 4 Custer Avenue Project Mr. Carter reported that the Committee had not met during the last month but that negotiations are proceeding for acquisition of the properties. Energy Chairman Peters acknowledged receipt of Ms. Hill's statement before the City Council on the future of energy planning in Evanston and felt It was an excellent report. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Nevel reported on his following of the fire station issue. He quickly summarized the present distribution of fire stations and the recommendation of the new plan. He explained the rationale of shifting to three stations at new locations, citing the high cost of rehabilitation for all five stations as compared to building three new ones. An additional objective was providing better coverage for the section of the community which had the largest number of fires. He explained the new concept of providing fire service through a task force which is thought to be more effective than the present system. While the redistribution of stations would, in some cases, increase response time, having two engines on the fire site at one time would provide more effective fire fighting. The recommendation to put the south location in a park drew a violent reaction which seems to have subsequently divided the community along north/south lines. He reported that after much debate, the Council agreed to have staff come back with a revised plan by September 30th. This plan would reevaluate the entire situation once again. Any alternatives for the south side would be developed within the next two months so that people who had been monitoring all the meetings will finally know where things stand. Mr. Nevel felt that the Commission should become involved in the fire station issues because it is a major public expense involving substantial public facilities with planning implications. Mr. Yas raised questions about alternative sites and whether demolition of old stations and building on the new sites is a reasonable option. It was pointed out that a major problem with the sites would be that they would not allow for a drive -through station. Mr. Nevel felt that one of the difficulties was that the concept of the task force approach to fire fighting was not effectively presented and is not really understood by the general public. Mr. Koester observed, that with the concentration of parks in the location under consideration, that it should not be such a terrible loss to use some land for a station. Mr. Nevel responded that the community's strong emotional attachment to the park lands was overriding. In discussion of possible future options for fire service, the possibility of rehabilitating the two south stations and building two new ones in the north were discussed. It remains to be seen whether or not such a plan would yield adequate fire service. The next study will examine this and other issues. Mr. Nevel pointed out that the fire service would be working in a city-wide context not just a neighborhood one. Mr. Koester raised the question of how the Plan Commission might be effective in this issue. In discussing whether the Commission was irrevocably opposed to any recommendation which might use park land for other public facilities, it was suggested that adequate compensation of open space might be considered acceptable. Ms. Hill felt that the Plan Commission should not become embroiled in the issue unless they truly had some light to shed on It. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Carter to keep the Commission advised of events connected with this Issue. . Evanston Plan Commission • Minutes - March 12, 1986 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Mr. Carter distributed announcements from the Preservation Commission concerning a forum to be Feld on Saturday, March 22nd. The forum will be devoted to examining means of strengthening the present Preservation Commission Ordinance by looking at what some other communities are doing in this area. Preservation Commission is developing the rationale for establishing binding review and has invited the Plan Commission as well as others to attend. Chairman Peter adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. to go into executive session on membership. Date: 7Y12-16 EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES is — Wednesday, May 14, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Koester, Seidman, Hill, Perkins, Nevel, Belmonte, Breslin, Yas, and Petterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Peters and Saag STAFF: Lindwall OTHERS ATTENDING: Laurie Marston, League Observer PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Hill, Vice -Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 1986 Plan Commission meeting were unanimously approved as written. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN Amy Seidman reported that the Evanston City Council had approved the Comprehensive General Plan by a vote of 17-1. Following discussion, June 17th was set as the date of the Plan Commission party to celebrate completion of the Comprehensive General Plan. Lindwall and Hill agreed to settle the remaining party details. Libby Hill noted that the City Manager had raised the question of how the Plan could be made effective and kept before the City Council. Breslin suggested that we keep abreast of Council and Committee agendas, possibly by appointing one or two people to monitor the agendas and make statements before the Council Committees when appropriate. Nevel suggested that the Commission consider taking a more proactive stance and go to other groups to explain the Plan and how those groups could help carry the Plan's recommendations forward. There was additional discussion concerning how we have already begun to refer to links between the Plan and other Commission projects and statements. The Commercial Area Study, Green Bay Road Report, Custer Avenue Project and statement on the Canal Land greenbelt were cited as examples. Larry Perkins pointed out that a number of projects including the Ridge -Emerson viaduct and Ladd Arboretum had been initiated by the Plan Commission in previous decades Hill stated that it was essential that the Comprehensive General Plan be kept before City staff as well as the City Council. This is especially important since staff is responsible for many of the recommendations that are considered by the City Council. There was discussion concerning the possibility of dividing the Plan into smaller sections that could be presented to the groups most involved with these issues. It was the consensus of the Commission that the CGP Committee should meet to develop a strategy for presenting and explaining the Plan to key staff members, possibly at one of the department heads breakfasts. Evanston flan Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page 2 LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE 1. Sign Ordinance Status Jeanne Breslin reported that Teska Associates is presently in the process of drafting a new sign ordinance. Breslin noted that there had been several recent test cases on sign control legislation which have held that sign control must be for the public good. There was discussion concerning the important of getting the business community to support the proposed ordinance and to recognize that good signage can actually help business. Belmonte stated that one of the major efforts of the drafting process was to reorganize the Current regulations concerning signs and to attempt to catalogue signs as either informational, directional or advertising. In response to a question from Ms. Hill, Breslin stated that while Plan Commission support for the new sign ordinance will be important, it is not necessary for the Plan Commission to make a statement at this stage in the development process. 2. Commercial District Study Roger Koester reported that the Committee and staff had worked to develop a recommendation that involved consolidation of the present B1, B2, Cl, C2, and C3 zoning districts into three new classifications: Neighborhood Shopping, Commercial Shopping, and Commercial Services, which is detailed in the draft report. Nevel asked to what extent the assumptions and recommendations contained in the report had been tested against reality. Lindwall responded that building heights had been plotted, parking arrangements in the new strip convenience centers surveyed, and the square footage of ground floor uses studied in an effort to determine the potential impact of the suggested zoning changes. Yas requested that a map be prepared that would outline the suggested boundaries for the proposed districts. Yas pointed out that such an exercise might point to areas in the text which should be clarified or amplified. Lindwall reported that Phil Peters had suggested that the report contain a more complete explanation of why the Commission feels that the zoning classifications can be consolidated. He also had suggested amplification of the Statement of Purpose for the Commercial Service District so that it would be better able to stand alone. It was agreed that the Committee would meet to develop a proposed zoning district map and complete the final edit on the draft report and report back to the full Commission at the June meeting. GREEN BAY ROAD PLAN Lindwall reviewed the draft report with the Commission and reported that Phil Peters had expressed concern over the appearance of the retaining wall that had been left following removal of the viaduct. Yas suggested several changes in format including keying the photos to the map and changing the location of the title headings. Several Commissioners felt that a more subtle cover design would be more effective than the present version. Staff will try to incorporate as many of the suggested format changes in the final report as are practical. Nevel stated that he felt that a narrative summary of the recommendations contained in the report was needed. He expressed concern that it would be difficult for the City Council to grasp all aspects of the Report without such a summary. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that this issue could be resolved by developing a cover memo for tht report that incluaed the improvement schedule contained at the end of the report. Evanston Plan Commission • Minutes - May 14, 1986 Page 3 Yas moved approval of the Green Bay Read report text. Seconded by Nevel. Motion carried. No nays. Discussion then ensued as to the best way of presenting the Green Bay Road Improvement Plan to the City Council and other interested groups. In addition to the City Council, the following City departments and groups were identified as appropriate audiences: Traffic Engineering, Parks, Forestry, Building and Zoning, the Evanston Environmental Association, Design Evanston, Chicago & North Western Railroad and major property owners. It was agreed that the first step should be to meet with the aldermen whose wards include Green Bay Road to enlist their support. The Green Bay Road Committee (Yas, Koester, Nevel and Belmonte) agreed to develop a strategy for presenting the report to the City Council, key staff and other affected groups and to report back to the Commission. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Al Belmonte reported on progress the CBD Committee is making in developing a CBD Plan. Petterson noted that the major emphasis thus far has been to organize the Committee's thoughts and ideas so that they can be discussed with other groups. There was discussion concerning definition of the CBD and the need to emphasize areas outside the CBD that generate traffic into the CBD. CUSTER PROJECT Breslin reported that two properties had been purchased and that the Committee had begun to develop the R FP for the project. Yas suggested that the Committee use the Church/Chicago RFP as a reference. OTHER BUSINESS Following discussion, Petterson moved that the Plan Commission suggest to the Mayor that Jeanne Breslin be appointed as the Plan Commission's representative on the CD Committee. Seconded by Yas. Motion carried. No nays. There being nor further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Staf f: Date: l•�,r�. r` �`Y 7 Y l 8-20 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHERS ATTENDING: PRESIDING OFFICIAL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, June 11, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Peters, Petterson, Nevel, Breslin, and Seidman Koester, Perkins, Saag, Hill, Belmonte, and Yas Carter Laurie Marston, League Observer Peters, Chairman Mr. Nevei moved approval of the May 14, 1986 Plan Commission minutes as written. Seconded by Ms. Breslin. Motion passed. No nays. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive General Plan Mr. Nevel reported on behalf of the Comprehensive Plan Committee that they were looking into ways to keep the Plan in front of both the staff and the City Council. The Committee will actively follow the City Council through their agenda to look for opportunities to advance the Plan, taking special sections of the Plan and going out to meet with groups who had a particular Interest in those subjects, and meeting with City staff. The Committee felt that the Commission's special studies were being wrapped into the Plan. Mr. Carter observed it would be helpful if the Committee developed a strategy statement along these lines with a little more detail and scheduling. He stated that the Plan would be going to the printer within the month. By the end of summer, the document could be complete so that there will be time to develop strategies on presentations. Mr. Peters raised the question of distribution of the document. Mr. Carter responded that copies would probably go to participating agencies, but that the balance of the supply would have to be sold to help make up the cost of printing. Chairman Peters suggested that when the Plan is distributed to agencies who might have an opportunity to implement certain parts of it, that this opportunity be pointed out in any cover letter to the agency as a means of following up on the Plan. It was agreed that the Comprehensive Plan Committee should meet prior to the next regular Plan Commission meeting to come up with a strategy on implementing the Plan's recommendations. Legislative Committee Jeanne Breslin reported on the status of the drafting of a new sign ordinance. She announced that the draft ordinance would be brought before the Planning and Development Committee on June 30. 1986. She reported on attending the last meeting of the ad hoc Sign Committee at which the consultant presented basic concepts on how the new ordinance would aff ct existing signs. Also discussed was the need for a brochure of illustrations on how to do ebetter sign work. It was felt that this would be especially helpful to many of the small shopkeepers who are otherwise dependent upon the sign companies for guidance. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 11, 198j$ Page 2 Asked when a copy of the new sign ordinance might be available for Commission review, Mr. Carter responded that a draft ordinance would not be available until after it went to the Planning and Development Committee. He felt that there would be ample opportunity to discuss the content of the ordinance with the Planning and Development Committee as they reviewed it in the months ahead. The consultant has presented the general concepts that will be put into ordinance form with the ad hoc Sign Committee, so they already have some idea of the basic content. Chairman Peters felt it was appropriate for the Plan Commission's Legislative Committee to appear and make a statement on behalf of the effort to revise the sign ordinance and to follow the course of its revisions. Commercial District Study At the last Plan Commission meeting, the Commercial District Report was thoroughly studied and reviewed. There was a request to map the proposed combinations of districts so that they could be compared with the present zoning and examined for their fit with the new definitions. Mr. Carter presented a map which included the neighborhood shopping district% the commercial shopping district% the commercial service districts, and the manufacturing districts. The present zoning was shown on a clear overlay. Mr. Carter described the character, uses, height and bulk typical of each of the zones. Chairman Peters stated that the report was not quite specific enough on why we felt that we could get by with fewer zoning districts than we presently have. He felt it would be helpful to point out that in merging the Bl and B2 little physical change would actually result and why. Mr. Nevel commented that there was a great deal of logic in the map and that there was an apparent rational reason for combining a number of the districts, particularly in the Hain Street area. Mr. Carter observed that in combining districts, it did not appear that much would be lost and that the map would be substantially cleaned up. Also, the potential for some very high density redevelopment, not on the scale of the present development, would be removed. He felt that in many cases a zoning map did not match either the present reality or the desired future development of the area. He stated that he did not know the exact number of nonconforming uses which might be created through a combination of districts in rezoning, but he felt that they were relatively few. He felt the first thing to do would be to present the logical case for combining some districts and then get into more detail on where to draw specific lines, the treatment of nonconforming uses, etc. He felt in many places there was not strong logic for the current zoning, particularly the C3 district which allowed an 85' height limit and a floor area ratio of 61. He reviewed some of the boundary questions between different districts and described their general character. Mr. Nevel asked Mr. Petterson if the categories developed by the staff were similar to some of the new work being done in other communities. He responded that the categories seemed to be a good match for Evanston. Mr. Carter elaborated that the categories were based upon a much clearer statement of purpose than existed before. Mr. Nevel felt that the zoning map would be much cleaner and that the definitions were considerably clearer. Mr. Carter commented he wasn't sure how the recommendations would be received by the Planning and Development Committee. A few weeks ago, there was considerable interest in revising the entire ordinance, and, if this interest continued, the work done by the Commission could be helpful in that direction. Chairman Peters asked when the Commission might be ready to return with a recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Carter responded that perhaps they could get on the agenda by late July. . Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 11, 1981< Page 3 In reporting to the Planning and Development Committee, Mr. Carter felt that the Commission should first deal with the concepts and with the new definitions and wait before going Into further detail subsequently. For the moment, the Plan Commission Is responding to a reference and not developing a full-blown zoning revision. He did not feel there was a great sense of urgency in changing the map in order to either encourage certain things to happen or prevent others from happening. It was more a matter of cleaning up the map and addressing some potential long-range problems which could be built into the present districts. Commission members went on to raise questions and discuss the character of specific areas on the map. Mr. Petterson recommended that a series of examples be used to demonstrate that the present zoning is more than adequate for the present use as a means of communicating the recommendations of the Commission. Photographs of buildings and site plans could be useful. In the discussion of how difficult it might be to undertake a major rezoning such as this study would suggest, Mr. Carter pointed out that the Commission has merely followed the reference to its logical conclusion and that the Planning and Development Committee may or may not agree with the need to rezone based upon the report. He felt the Commission was doing their job in simply pointing out the conclusions that the reference led to. Mr. Petterson pointed out that both Waukegan and Elgin were undertaking some similar rezoning studies at the present time. Mr. Petterson moved to endorse the concept developed in the report and for the Plan Commission to make a presentation to the Planning and Development Committee. Seconded by Mr. Nevel. Motion passed. No nays, Mr. Petterson felt that the report was logical and that the map was clear, but would like to see some more specifics such as examples of buildings on lots that fall within the new requirements and are typical of the zones. Green Bay Road Plan Chairman Peters felt that the next step for the Green Bay Road Committee was to take the Plan just completed to the aldermen of the ward and then make a presentation to the City Council. It was suggested that the Green Bay Plan Committee meet to discuss the strategy and a time schedule for the distribution of the Plan. Chairman Peters urged the Committee to expedite their work since committees like the Community Development Committee have been expecting the document for some time. Downtown Plan Committee Chairman Peters reported on behalf of the Committee on the brain storming process Committee members had gone through to arrive at statements concerning the purpose of the Plan, the role of the Plan Commission, the strengths and assets, and issues. These statements represented the synthesis of a long list of statements and questions which had been posed as part of the process. He stressed that the present draft merely represented the Committee's work, to date, and that they really wanted to get the opinions of a wide range of other interest groups before going further. It was a plan of the Committee to take the present material out to a number of organizations in order to begin a dialogue about the downtown. Subsequent to developing some kind of consensus, the Committee would then move into a more substantial study process. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 11, 198� Page 4 Mr. Nevel commented that it would be more helpful to have a list of questions organized around some of the issues and assets as a means of responding rather than just the narrative Itself. He ! felt the agencies and individuals being asked to respond to questions about issues on the downtown should go through the same kind of process the Committee did rather than being handed the Committee's synthesized results of their efforts. Mr. Carter suggested a list of assets and liabilities as part of the questionnaire and that respondents be asked to agree or disagree and add any additional items they felt were left out. Chairman Peters suggested that the Committee meet and draw up some discussion questions. It was felt that questions could be abstracted from the Committee's draft and generally agreed that the Committee should meet again the perform this task and develop a questionnaire to be sent out. it was also suggested that the previous materials the Plan Commission worked with be attached as an appendix. Mr. Nevel took exception to the statement under the second issue that read, "For the most part, the mixes of uses will be determined by the market forces and not by public policy." He did not want to see a statement used as an excuse to say that the market would dominate all the decisions on the downtown. There followed general discussion as to whether the Plan Commission favored a more aggressive approach to rebuilding the downtown such as followed by Highland Park, versus a more conservative approach. Mr. Carter suggested that language be changed to read, "A combination of market forces and public policy." Chairman Peters suggested that a statement be added the relative emphasis on marketplace versus public policy is yet to be determined. Chairman Peters asked for any further comments on the issues identified in the report. Mr. Nevel asked whether or not there was a missing issue on implementation. Mr. Carter felt that "Hour to get things done in the Downtown" might be a good generic heading. .Added to that could be a few simple statements about basic techniques Mr. Petterson commented that in 'Northbrook, the Chamber had sent out a map with an open-ended question as to what the citizens wanted to see done in the downtown. In reviewing the groups to be notified and involved in responses, the Commission members suggested added the Economic Development Committee, the Board of Directors for Research Park, and the Preservation Commission. in response to a question from Chairman Peters about inviting other organizations to participate, Mr. Carter felt that the most effective way would be for the Downtown Planning Committee to get on the agenda at one of their meetings. Mr. Nevel moved to approve the document as revised and to have the Committee begin contacting other groups. Seconded by Seidman. Motion passed. No nays. Chairman Peters suggested that the Committee meeting one more time to establish their questionnaire forum and arrive at a schedule for meeting with other committees. Custer Committee Report Ms. Breslin reported that the City was in active negotiation for the properties and close to closing on two of them. The Committee is also refining the request for proposals on the project. Status on the Capital Improvement Program Chairman Peters reported on his meeting with the Community Development Committee on projected community needs. He felt that capital improvements would be under pressure again this year, for further cutbacks and that they have been cut back for the last 3 years in a row. He also reported that at the staff level there had been an agreement to move to an annual process of adding a year, each year, to the capital improvement program and dropping the old year so that it would be more current and updated on an annual cycle rather then every 3 years. He commented that the Plan Commission's ordinance names the Capital Improvement Program as one of the things the Plan Commission does. He felt that for the Commission to comment on the CD Program, they needed to keep their eye on the capital improvement MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHERS ATTENDING: APPROVAL OF MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, August 13, 1986 Room 2403 - 7.30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Breslin, Hill, Petterson, Peters, Seidman, Yas, Belmonte, and Saag Koester, Nevel and Perkins Lindwall and Thompson Laurie Marston, Scott Shepherd, Mary Camarda, Rich $ Judy Moylan, Estelle & Bill Sisson, Anne do Phil Freedman, Herb do Karla Comess, and John Robinson Mr. Petterson moved approval of the June 11, 1986 Plan Commission minutes as written. Seconded by Ms. Hill. 'Notion carried. No nays. FORMER APPETIZERS INC., PLANT ON CUSTER AVENUE Several residents living near the former Appetizers Inc., plant at Custer and South Blvd., were present to express their concerns as to the possible reuse of the site which is presently zoned M3, for a similar or more intensive industrial use. Ms. Breslin explained that the group had been referred to the Plan Commission by Aid.. Warshaw as a way of bringing the land use conflicts which have resulted from the proximity of this manufacturing use and residential uses in this area to the attention of the City. Mr. Freedman, Mr. Comess, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Sisson and Mr. Robinson spoke of the nuisances which the Appetizers Inc., operation had brought to the neighborhood as it had expanded over the years. These nuisances included large trucks that blocked streets, damaged the parkway, and were kept running throughout the night, smell, debris, and noise. They reported that Appetizers Inc., had moved out of the building, and that their understanding was that the company was trying to sublet the building. The residents expressed their concern that Appetizers might be replaced by a use that was of the same or higher intensity, thus continuing the level of nuisances experienced by the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Breslin stated that the problems are typical of those which accompany manufacturing uses. Ms. Breslin asked if previous manufacturing had created similar problems in the area. Residents responded that the original use had been an ice house and that a printer had occupied the building prior to Appetizers, Inc. The consensus was that the previous uses had not had as much impact on the adjacent residential areas. Mr. Robinson spoke concerning the fragile character of this residential area and the large number of historic homes. He stated his feeling that the residential character of the area should be protected. Other residents agreed that housing would be the most desirable alternative to continued use of the property for manufacturing. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Yas stated that he felt that this site would be suitable for housing and suggested that this was a zoning question which deserved further attention. Ms. Lindwall explained the process by which proposed zoning changes were considered and the Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Map designation for the area. Mr. Peters suggested that the Special Projects Committee study the particulars of the case in order to develop a position that could be forwarded to the Zoning Amendment Committee for consideration. his. Hill asked if there was some other action which could be initiated which would address the more immediate concern over who might next occupy the building and how intensively it would be used. Ms. Breslin suggested that Judy Aiello be contacted in the hope that she could help residents deal with the situation. ,tits. Hill asked what power the City really had in a situation like this. Staff noted that while there were some noise and property maintenance regulations that might be applicable, the only real regulatory control over the property was through zoning. The consensus was that: 1) Judy Aiello should be contacted to advise her of the residents concern and to see what, if any, administrative remedies to the situation were possible and 2) that the Commission study the longer range land use implications in greater detail. Ms. Breslin offered to contact Ms. Aiello and to draft a follow-up letter to Ms. Aiello and Ald. Warshaw summarizing the issues involved. CHURCH/CHICAGO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Mr. Peters reviewed the Economic Development Committee's timetable for consideration of the four development proposals that had been received for the Church/Chicago site. Mr. Peters suggested that the Commission attempt to identify questions that should be explored during the upcoming public meetings. He asked whether Commissioners wished to appoint a committee to develop a Commission position or whether the September 10th Plan Commission meeting should be rescheduled so that the full Commission could prepare a statement prior to the September 10th Economic Development Committee meeting. Mr. Yas stated that he would not participate in the Commission's consideration of this issue due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Thompson stated that 83 feet is the maximum height for both the R7 and B3 zoning districts and that retail uses, including a theater, were only allowed under B3 zoning. There was discussion concerning ownership and management of the parking garage and the net cost to the City under the various proposals. Nis. Hill asked what would happen if the City decided that none of the proposals were acceptable. Mr. Peters responded that his understanding was that the City would then proceed with construction of a conventional parking structure on the north end of the site. There was also discussion concerning the developers' responses concerning the inclusion of a theater in the complex. Mr. Saag then summarized his review of the proposals for the Commission. He stated, that he believed that access to the garage from Chicago Avenue should be discouraged, that separating access to tenant and public parking was desirable, and questioned whether the proposed parking rates would be sufficient to cover operating costs. Mr. Saag noted that the RESCORP proposal did not include retail uses even under the B3 zoning, but had attempted to conceal the parking. The Forest City proposal consisted of a parking structure on the south portion of the site with a residential tower to the north. There was discussion concerning whether sufficient parking was being provided to meet the requirements for the residential component of the project. Mr. Peters noted that no effort had been made to integrate the parking into the development design. It was also noted that the developer had chosen not to submit a proposal under the B3 zoning option. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 Page 3 The Lakeview Terrace Associates B3 proposal did address the issue of separating tenant and public parking. Mr. Saag noted that the parking was fully integrated into the design and that the proposal included both a theater and an interior park. Mr. Peters stated that this development proposal appeared to be the most intensive. Mr. Belmonte noted that this project is by far the most costly and questioned whether the developer had the capability to carry through on the project. There was also discussion concerning the market for condominiums and the proposed preleasing period and the possible threat to implementation if the condominiums could not be pre -sold. Mr. Saag stated that the Church/Chicago Joint Venture proposal called for the tallest parking structure and noted that the parking is not screened. There was discussion concerning the theater complex included in this proposal. During the discussion which followed, Commissioners agreed that higher intensity development was appropriate to the site and that allowing the mix of uses permitted under B3 zoning appeared to be an effective tool in accomplishing the objective of screening the parking garage. Mr. Saag stated his belief that access to the parking garage should be from Church and Clark rather than from Chicago Avenue. Commissioners also concluded that while a theater is desirable in terms of bringing people into the downtown at night, more detailed economic information is needed to assess the long term viability of including a theater in the project. The following questions were raised for a response from developers: 1. Do you consider a theater an asset to the project or is it something you would refer not to include? 2. (For Lakeview Terrace Associates) Would you consider an alternate timetable and the development of rental housing rather than condominiums. Mr. Thompson requested that the Plan Commission designate a member to sit in on the interviews if, for some reason Roger Koester, the Commission's representative on the Economic Development Committee, was unable to attend. 14s. Breslin agreed to serve as the alternate. Mr. Peters encouraged other Commissioners to plan to attend the developer interviews. Concerning the procedure for developing a Commission position statement, it was agreed that the full Commission should be involved and that the best way to accomplish this would be to reschedule the September Plan Commission meeting. It will be moved up one week to Wednesday, September 3rd. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT STUDY Ms. Lindwall reported that the Commercial District Study was ready to be sent to the Planning and Development Committee as soon as the Committee's agenda permitted consideration. GREEN BAY ROAD REPORT Mr. Yas reported that the Green Bay Road Committee had met to develop a strategy for transmitting the Green Bay Road Improvement Plan to the City Council. The Committee's suggested approach was to recommend that the capital improvement projects be included in the City's Long Range Capital Improvements Program. Approval of the memo transmitting the report was then requested. Ms. Hill stated that she felt that it was important to hold a public meeting concerning the Plan Commission's recommendations in addition to transmitting the report to the City Council. Following discussion, it was agreed that the transmittal memo should include the recommendation that such a meeting be held and offering Plan Commission sponsorship of such a meeting. With this addition, %is. Hill made a motion that the Green Bay Road Improvement Plan be transmitted to the City Council and CD Committee. Seconded by Ms. Breslin. Motion carried. No nays. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 Page 4 Downtown Survey Mr. Peters reported that questionnaires on the downtown had been sent to the groups Identified at the last Plan Commission meeting and that responses are being received. Staff hopes to have the responses tabulated by the September meeting. Marina Reference Mr. Peters reported that the Plan Commission has been asked to monitor progress on the planning for development of a marina along the MSD sanitary canal. He stated that this project was being actively pursued by the MSD and suggested that the Plan Commission invite MSD representatives to a Plan Commission meeting to discuss the proposal. During discussion it was agreed that such a presentation would be useful, and that others including Wilmette, Skokie, the Environmental Control Board and the Evanston Environmental Association might also be interested in attending this meeting. The consensus was that it would take some time to set up such a meeting, but that a progress report be made at the next Plan Commission meeting. Other Business Mr. Peters distributed a draft letter to the City manager concerning developing background information for use in capital improvements programming. Following discussion, it was agreed that the letter should be sent to the City Manager. Ms. Lindwall reported that a P.U.D. request concerning the Cove School property was expected. The Legislative Committee was assigned this matter when it is submitted to the Plan Commission for review. Mr. Petterson reported that the Planning and Development Committee is in the process of considering the new sign ordinance, and that the ordinance appears to be moving toward approval. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. �► / ri Ili.. �i J k: A MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: OTHERS ATTENDING: APPROVAL OF MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 3, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Breslin. Hill, Nevel, Perkins, Peters, Petterson, Saag, Seidman, and Yas Belmonte and Koester Carter Laurie Marston, Gwen Sommers Yant, Mary McWilliams, and Raymond Chou Mr. Petterson moved approval of the August 13, 1986 minutes. Seconded by Ms. Seidman. Motion passed. No nays. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE COVE SCHOOL PROPERTY Mr. Carter introduced the subject be describing the planned development process ar�d indicating that. this evening, the Plan Commission would be conducting a preliminary review of the proposal. familiarizing themselves with the concept, and preparing to make formal comment at the future Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He then introduced Gwen Sommers Yant. Preservation Coordinator, to provide some background on the issue before them and the procedures. She went on the explain the Preservation Commission's long interest in finding ways to more sensitively handle the redevelopment of large lots from a preservation perspective. They felt that they best approach in the absence of a strong preservation ordinance was the use of planned development and had offered amendments to the ordinance which were subsequently adopted. She explained that this case was typical of some of the large old homes on large lots inhere changing tirnes and economic conditiuns have made it not feasible to maintain the home, as is, on the lot. Present zoning is more likely to encourage the developer to demolish these homes and redevelop the site with smaller, rectangular lots which often do not fit in with the picturesque siting of some of the blocks. She explained that straight line zoning could result in the development of I l homes on this site with the demolition of the main and secondary buildings. The Preservation Commission was looking for a compromise solution which would result in retaining the main buildings as well as resubdividing the estate in a more harmonious way with its surroundings. They feel that planned development, is a good tool for more imaginative resubdivisions of the lot. She also emphasized that the redevelopment would have to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation which would encourage redevelopment with styles and materials compatible with the surroundings. The Preservation Commission felt that the use of qualitative standards used to evaluate the project would be more helpful than the traditional quantitative standards imposed by zoning. Mr. Chou pointed out that going the variation route would require a number of variations and, if they failed on any one of them. the whole development plan would collapse. He emphasized that the main thrust of his development was to utilize the existing buildings and to preserve as much open land as possible. Doing this creates some special circumstances which would require a host of variations to correct. He stressed that the PUD allowed them to develop an economically feasible project while adhering to good design standards. Mr. Chou explained the structure and background of his organization stating that they were both architects and Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3, 1986 Page 2 contractors and that they do all the carpentry and fine detailing in their projects themselves. Most of their work had been done on the North Shore and that most of it was involving restoration. He presented his site plan to Commission members indicating that both the mansion and the coach house would remain. A total of 10 single-family units would be created: two in the main home, two in the coach house and then building six separate single-family homes. The basic scheme for the site plan was to maintain the streetscape and relating the homes to the surroundings rather than turning them inward to the estate. He explained that the design of the homes and their clustering was to reflect the massing and style of the main mansion. In response to questions about ownership, Mr. Chou responded that the units were all individually owned through fee simple title upon individual lots. He further clarified that there were restrictions in the covenants against putting up fences so that the interior space would not appear to be physically divided. He explained that the density was below that required of the district and that the new homes had approximately 3,000 sq. ft. It would take approximately 1 year of construction time once they began. Commission members asked Mr. Chou a number of questions for clarification concerning specific details of the proposed site plan and project. Mr. Petterson inquired as to the economic feasibility of the various earlier preliminary proposals shown in the Preservation Newsletter and questioned whether the project would still be viable with one less unit. Mr. Yas asked what the adjacent lot sizes were north of the project on Judson and how the project related to these. Mr. Yas commented that the scheme being presented that evening was a stronger one than a number of the earlier concepts. Mr. Petterson inquired as to what the process was for handling the project under Planned Unit Development. Jkir. Carter responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals was the hearing body and that both the Plan Commission and the Preservation Commission would review the project and present their comments at that j hearing. In response to a question from Chairman Peters, Avis. Yant replied that the Preservation Commission's feasibility study did develop guidelines which have been used in developing the current scheme. It was also pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards served as a basis for these guidelines. It was further clarified in a question from Mr. Carter that the Preservation Commission would review the present proposal in terms of both the guidelines developed by their feasibility study and the Standards of the Department of the Interior. Chairman Peters asked about the timetable for the hearing process. .Mr. Carter responded that, upon submittal of the developer's formal application and proposal, the Commission would review that proposal for any final comments and then present these comments at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. If the application is developed within the next month, the Plan Commission can review the proposal at their next regular meeting. Mr. Chou anticipated going before the Zoning Board of Appeals in late October. Mr. Carter suggested that a member of the Plan Commission be selected to follow the proposal through the hearing process. Mr. Chou commented that he would be interested in any preliminary comments that the Commission members might have so that they could possibly incorporate this into their final proposal. Chairman Peters commented that some of the Plan Commission's position could be implied by the questions asked earlier in the evening and asked for additional suggestions or thoughts. Mr. Carter commented that, in his opinion, the developer had done a good job considering both the financial and physical constraints of the site. The schemes have become progressively less cluttered with more of the open space preserved given the conditions of where the existing buildings were located and the need to subdivide. He observed that there was a limit to the number of ways in which the site could be developed to meet both the economic objectives as well as deliver a project that fit the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Yas concurred and further stated that the groupings of the buildings to make two appear as one was quite successful. but suggested a different grouping of the buildings on Judson to strengthen the site. He felt that space between the groups of two buildings should be larger, but he understood the constraints. 1vir. Perkins supported .fir. Yas comments and took it a step further suggesting that the pairs of buildings be joined together. He felt the spaces between the Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3. 1986 Page 3 buildings were really worthless and that a much stronger elevation would result from joining the two. Mr. Yas felt that there would be an advantage in achieving an appearance of three additional buildings instead of six additional buildings even though they were larger. This would result in having more space between them and result in structures that looked more like the main mansion. The greater space between the buildings would allow a better view into the interior open space. Mr. Chou replied that it would present a marketing problem for him because people looking for homes such as these wanted the single-family detached arrangement. Chairman Peters thanked Mr. Chou for his presentation stating that he had done a good job upon a difficult task. The Plan Commission will look forward to taking up their final review of this project at their next meeting. He also thanked the members of the Preservation Commission and staff for all the work they had done on this project up to this point. REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR THE MIXED -USE PARKING GARAGE DEVELOPMENT AT CHURCH AND CHICAGO Chairman Peters introduced the topic by telling Commission members that Jeanne Breslin had sat in on behalf of the Plan Commission at the meetings of the Economic Development Committee at which the 4 proposals were presented. He announced a public hearing on the subject to be held September 10th. Jeanne Breslin reported on the 4 proposals stating that they could be broken into two categories: one in which the developers proposed a physical separation of the housing and the parking; and one in which the developers attempted to integrate the two into a mixed -use structure. She felt there was a clear winner in each category. The RESCORP group presented the more simple solution, nicely done with two apartment towers separated by a garage partially contained in the building. She felt this was a safer solution. Chairman Peters felt the size of the apartment structures in the RESCORP development was similar to those buildings around. Mr. Yas observed that the RESCORP development did not disguise the garage, but rather tied it in with the residential development with the use of common materials for both. In the second category, she felt that the Epstein/Lowhan was clearly the better of the two. She saw this as a very exciting proposal but one that was perhaps a bit over scaled. She felt that the Chicago Avenue frontage was particularly massive. Commission members discussed their impression of the massiveness of the structure and whether or not it was felt to be in scale. It was pointed out that the height would be essentially the same as the apartment building to the south of the site, but that the facade would be continuous for an entire block. Commission members discussed the difference of opinion among the proposers as to whether the market was best for rentals or condominiums. Mr. Petterson asked if the project could be evaluated in terms of some of the objectives that the Downtown Committee of the Plan Commission is developing. Chairman Peters reviewed some of the statements prepared by the Committee that might apply to the development. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Carter stated that it would be helpful it the Commission could narrow the range of choice by selecting one or two developments that they preferred and then forwarding a list of considerations that the Commission would like to see followed in the final selection. Mr. Saag raised some questions about the Lakeview project with regard to traffic access. Commission members who attended the presentation stated that the developers where willing to include access off of Church Street by scaling down the North Light Theater. 1+1r. Saag also raised questions about the high cost of mechanical ventilation which would be incurred in the Lakeview project. The response was that the portion needing mechanical ventilation would be in the private part of the structure and the cost would not be borne by the City. Mr. Perkins observed that while it is not possible to legislate for good architecture and appearance, the selection of highly qualified architects to do the work was the next best guarantee to getting something the Community would be proud of. Commission inernbers discussed the advantages and the character of the retail development suggested in one of the proposals. Commission members also discussed the various advantages of rental housing versus Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3, 1986 Page 4 condominiums. Also covered was whether the proposals represented good boundary buildings for the demarcation of the central business district, whether they provided the right transition to the residential areas. Mr. Carter responded that the line on high rise has been successfully defended in the Supreme Court and that property east of the alley had wanted to go to R7 but were prevented from doing so. With the line drawn and the battle won, Mr. Perkins observed that a residential face on the east side of the proposed building would be effective. Mr. Nevel raised a question of whether B3 zoning for the proposals was necessary ore merely desirable. In response, it was stated that the Lakeview project could not be developed under R7 and the other project could. Chairman Peters. in summarizing the Commission's comments for a statement to be made before the Economic Development Committee listed the points as follows: 1. We recommend narrowing the field of proposals down to 2 including the RESCORP project and the Lakeview project as superior to the other two and doing a better job of integrating the parking and the housing. These represented quality design that the Commission could support; 2. The Commission favors seeing retail included as a means of masking the garage and including activity on the street; 3. inclusion of the theater in the Lakeview project supported the Commission's interest in introducing more cultural night-time activity in the downtown. 4. The Commission expresses its preference for access on Church Street; 3. The Commission wishes to raise questions about the cost of ventilation 6. The Commission expresses its concern about the scale of the Lakeview project with some preference for scaling it down and possibly greater articulation on the Chicago Avenue frontage; 7. The Commission prefers larger, residential units; & The Commission wishes to see figures on return to the City of the individual project; 9. The treatment of the wall along the east side of the alley should be discussed; Mr. Petterson presented a draft memo summarizing the Plan Commission's position which Chairman Peters read. He then offered to integrate the point of the Commission's discussion this evening with the memorandum drafted by Mr. Petterson. It was agreed that Chairman Peters would make the presentation to the Economic Development Committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Comprehensive Plan Ms. Hill reported on a meeting with the staff on the preparation of an approach to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Six items were developed including: 1) prepare a history of the Commission's involvement in the development of Downtown 11 and the Research Park; 2) review the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan and look for areas that suggest the need for zoning changes; 3) send a letter of introduction along with a copy of the Plan to various boards and Commissions and alert them to areas of their interest that the Plan covers; 4) compile a list of all the strategic activities identified in the Plan and send letters to specific agencies that might be responsible for implementing one of these activities; Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3, 1986 Page 3 3) review the long City Council agenda which comes out periodically for references which would dovetail with the Comprehensive Plan; 6) revive the Comprehensive General Plan annual report which was formerly done but suspended in the last two or three years. She did not feel all of these could be accomplished in one year and that the Committee should prioritize the list. Commission members discussed the audience for the Research Park history. It was felt that the Plan Commission ought to take a more aggressive role in defending the Research Park and that developing a factual background would be helpful. S. Legislative Committee Drew Petterson reported on the progress in reviewing the Sign Ordinance which is before the P&D Committee. He stated that in the discussions being held with the public attending the meeting, it was apparent there were some major misunderstandings about the intent of the ordinance. It was clear some had not read the ordinance and he felt that there had been a stirring up of people to be against it as opposed to constructively thinking about it. He felt that the questions were reasonable enough; however. the ordinance as drafted really addressed most of them. He felt the Commission was passed supporting a concept and now needed to play a more assertive role in getting the ordinance passed. Ms. Breslin brought up the question of whether more graphics would be included to better illustrate the ordinance, whether a booklet dealing with effective signage would be prepared and suggested additional slide of signs to demonstrate that the ordinance would still allow for lively creativity not sterility as had been suggested. Mr. Petterson suggested that some of the slides used in the presentation would lend themselves to direct incorporation into the ordinance and that additional graphic work probably wou;dn't be required. Mr. Carter commented that the application form for a sign permit needs to be prepared so as to graphically illustrate the requirements and that that would be done. He saw the booklet on signage as a separate project. Mr. Carter also commented that the Committee was hearing principally objections at this point and needed to be reminded that there was a positive interest in seeing the new sign ordinance adopted. He felt the largest issue was that of amortizing non -conforming signs. He thought the Committee might decide to allow the non -conforming signs to be removed by attrition rather than amortization. Ms. Breslin asked whether the consultant' could tell the Committee how successful other communities have been in using the attrition method versus amortization. Mr. Carter reported that the Sign Ordinance would be amended to substitute the new regulations for free standing signs the subsequent Monday evening because the moratorium on pole signs was expiring. He announced that on September 13th. the Planning and Development Committee would devote the evening to further discussion of the Sign Ordinance. C. Green Bay Road Chairman Peters reported on behalf of the Committee stating that he had appeared before the Administration and Public Works Committee and introduced the report to them and urged them to incorporate it into their :apital Improvements program. He had also asked for time on a future agenda to make a visual presentation and this was scheduled for the September 22nd meeting. In reporting on the Committee's comments, the Chairman indicated that the schedule for incorporation into the Capital Improvement Program was conservative. It was also suggested that the Plan Commission study the other rights -of -way within the community and come up with recommendations for their improvement. In particular, the space between the North Western and the CTA was cited as an eyesore. Chairman Peters felt that the Committee was very receptive to the report. Mr. Carter observed that the A&PW Committee had raised some questions about a planting plan for certain segments of Green Bay Road in the week following the Commission's report. Chairman Peters agreed to attend the subsequent meeting on behalf of the Landscaping Plan. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3, 1986 Page 6 D. Downtown Plan 1 Mr. Carter commented that the questionnaires on the Downtown were coming In and that Amy Seidman would be processing them. Ms. Seidman stated that only a dozen Interviews had come back representing seven different organizations and while there was little new beyond what the Committee had already covered, the responses were generally supportive of the thrust of the Committee's work. Mr. Carter suggested the Committee meet again to decide whether they want to pursue additional responses or take a different approach. E. Custer Project Ms. Breslin reported that the Committee had met to consider the rezoning question along Custer and Mr. Petterson presented the Committee's thoughts on the recommendation. The Committee thought it was appropriate to look at the V!3 zones which were along the Chicago $ North Western right-of-way between Oakton and Dempster. He characterized them as vestiges of older industrial developments from about 1920. Most of these industrial uses are adjacent to residential areas which creates negative impacts on the residential environment. He felt that the timing was right to reexamine the zoning of these areas given the recent work of the Commission in encouraging some redevelopment of commercial areas to residential in the same area. He also cited that the reevaluation of the older commercial areas just completed by the Commission and the Comprehensive General Plan which sees this area having more of a future for residential than industrial. The Committee was seeking a recommendation from the Plan Commission recommending that the Planning and Development Committee make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee before rezoning. Mr. Yas illustrated the various pockets of industrial and residential areas in this corridor on the map. Appetizers was used as an example of the problems created for adjacent residences to the types of uses permitted in an M3 zone. The Appetizers building is not vacant and it was thought this might present an opportunity to make changes. Mr. Yas reviewed the character of the land uses within this strip and stressed the desirability of creating a continuous residential area. Ms. Breslin stressed that the existing uses would be grandfathered in, but future redevelopment should be residential. The Committee was concerned about the potential for an industrial use which might currently be a good neighbor being replaced by one which would create many nuisances. Chairman Peters called for comments and reactions. Mr. Carter commented that it was a reasonable reference, but that it would be necessary to take a lock at the nonconforming status of the industrial properties and its implication. Mr. Nevel moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Planning and Development Committee that they make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee recommending a rezoning of the Custer area to an appropriate residential classification. Seconded by Mr. Perkins. Motion passed No nays. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Carter announced that the Commercial District Study, prepared by the Commission, would be before Planning and Development Committee on September 22nd. Mr. Carter reminded Commission members of their desire to host a meeting with the Metropolitan Sanitary District and other interested organizations on the proposed marina to be developed on the canal In Skokie. It was decided that there was not enough time to prepare this agenda item for the October meeting and it was agreed to try for the November meeting. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Carter announced that Roger Koester had resigned from the flan Commission and the Economic Development Committee due to the press of business. Commission members expressed their regret at losing this valuable member and asked the Chairman to write Mr. Koester a letter thanking him for his fine service. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September 3, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Carter announced that the City had received several proposals from consultants on preparing the final design and engineering for the Transportation Center and would begin reviewing these proposals in the following week. He responded to Plan Commission questions about the nature of the proposal. Meeting adjourned approximately 10:20 P.M. Staff: Date: 7Y7-13 EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 8, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Beimonte, Breslin, Hill, Perkins, Peters, Seidman MEMBERS ABSENT: Nevel Petterson, Saag and Yas STAFF: Carter and Modaber APPROVAL OF MINUTES With one minor correction noted by Chairman Peters, Mr. Perkins moved approval of the September A 1986 Plan Commission minutes as written. Seconded by Ms. Seidman. Motion carried. No nays. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Chairman Peters introduced the topic stating that the Plan Commission had again been asked to review the neighborhood revitalization proposals submitted for next year's community development block grant funding and report their recommendations to the Community Development Committee by November 12th. He reminded Commission members that in the past they had formed a subcommittee to develop recommendations to bring before the full Commission: however, Commission members felt that in view of the light agenda and the tight time schedule. that the full Commission could review all the proposals at this time. It was pointed out that there was approximately $1.2 million which would have to be cut from the total program considering the requests and the dollars available. Commission members discussed the cutting strategies that had been previously used by the CD Committee and the desire to not partially fund projects or so under fund them that the set-up costs would be excessively high compared to the amount of work actually done. Chairman Peters, who had been at the presentation by proposers before the CD Committee, commented on some positive responses to issues raised by the Commission in previous years. For example, proposals for Fleetwood-]ourdain came in as part of a 5-year program demonstrating better long-range planning. Also, the Street Tree Planting Program demonstrated that this would be the last year if that program were fully funded. He compared the completeness of this program, knowing what had been done and what remained to be done, to other capital improvements, such as catch basins, where such information is not yet available. Chairman Peters indicated that he was communicating with the City Manager on the need to establish more life cycle information for capital improvement program planning. Commission members felt that they could prioritize the projects according to three categories, but had no reasonable basis to put them in numerical rank order within those categories. Commission members expressed concern over the notations of large percentage increases in requests for certain capital improvements when, in fact, the request were for the same amounts of money requested last year and that these requests had been severely cut back. They pointed out that the need was likely to be greater this year because of last year's funding cut back and that these were maintenance items which would only grow worse. Commission members then reviewed each of the revitalization programs, one by one. Their recommendations are as follows: Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 8, 1986 Page 2 017. Catch Basins Replacement, $75,000, High Priority Chairman Peters noted that the Long Range Capital Improvement Program called for $73,000 per year in catch basin replacement. It was noted that requests had been cut 35-40% in the past two years. Commission members recommended that catch basins be Riven a full $75,000 in funding citing the inclusion of this program in the Capital Improvement Program, the extent of the problem, and the inadequate replacement schedule. Commission members suggested that the project form be revised to reflect the funds requested in the previous year for comparison purposes. OIL Curb Replacement, $100,000, High Priority The Commission noted that this was also the same level requested last year, which had also been drastically cut back. It was noted that approximately 50% of the curbs in the target area were in need of replacement. It was felt that it might be helpful to use slides to Illustrate conditions of curbs as they relate to target area properties and describe the impact of the program as it affects the appearance of neighborhoods and can stir other improvements. Commission members gave curb replacement at the requested funding level a high priority because it was in the Capital Improvement Program, had a positive visual impact on the target area, and noted that the rate of replacement fell well behind the need. Commission members expressed their concern at failing behind in the replacement of a number of capital improvements. They also felt that any obviously deteriorated public facility was a deterrent to private investment. 019. Viaduct Pavement Replacement - Greenwood Street, $30,000, High Priority Mr. Carter pointed out that this was among the last in a series of viaducts to have their pavement replaced. Mr. Belmonte noted that the Madison viaduct pavement replacement was one of a series of improvements in its immediate neighborhood which, combined, made a large difference in the visual appearance of that area. Commission members gave the viaduct replacement a high priority at the funding level requested because it was included in the Capital Improvement Program, was part of an ongoing replacement program. and had positive visual effects. #20. Alley Resurfacing, $20,000, Medium Priority Commission members gave this program a medium priority noting that it was in the Capital Improvement Program but also that there was less direct impact on low/moderate income persons at these specific locations. 021. Street Paving, $I10,000, HIgh Priority This proposal called for the paving of a segment of Brown Street and Wade Street. Commission members gave this proposal a high priority because of the policy and the Comprehensive General Plan calling for the paving of all unpaved streets by the year 1990 and because of the obvious direct benefit to low and moderate income persons. #22. Public Parking Lot Rehabilitation, $20,000, High Priority Commission members gave this project a high priority at the funding level requested because of the needed work and already deferred maintenance which had occurred due to last year's denial of funding. Commission members felt that resurfacing would be good preventive maintenance. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 8, 1996 Page 3 023. Emerson Street Bridge Ferree, # 15,000, Low Priority Commission members agreed that the safety standards set by the Illinois Department of Transportation had been met and were sufficient, that there was no demonstrated safety hazard requiring a solution of this kind. Commission members further felt that putting a fence on the bridge railing would seriously detract from the appearance of a major entrance to the City. They would rather see the $13,000 spent on more landscaping at this location to improve the appearance of this entryway to the City than to have it spent on a fence. It was noted that previous requests for fencing for other bridges had come from Aldermanic Requests and were not based on safety findings. Commission members felt that if there is a perceived safety problem with the heighth of the bridge railings that as these bridges are replaced, greater height be added through railings which are incorporated as part of the structure of the bridge and not fences which seriously detract from the community's appearance. #24. Elks Paris Redeveloprnent, 523,000, High Priority Commission members agreed to make this project a high priority at the funding level requested because it is such a heavily used park in a high density neighborhood with good direct benefit to low/moderate income families. 023. Tree Planting, $30,730, High Priority Commission members agreed to give this project a high priority at the funding level requested and urged that this project not be spread over future years. Commission members felt that the tree planting was an excellent investment in the quality of an area and that trees make a large difference in the quality of a neighborhood. The sooner planted. the earlier trees have a chance to mature and have an effect. Commission members liked the idea that this year's planting, at the recommended funding level, would complete the Tree Planting Program for the target area. #26. Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center Rehabilitation, $18,000, High Priority Commission members agreed to rank this project with a high priority for the funding level requested. They expressed gratitude to see the attempts at longer range planning for this facility which they felt was missing in previous proposals. The reason for a high priority ranking was the direct benefit to low/moderate income persons. #27. Foster Auditorium Rehabilitation, $6,000, High Priority Commission members agreed to give this project a high priority at the funding requested because it was in an area of high need and would have strong direct benefit for low/moderate income persons. They also noted that it was a relatively small amount of money. #28. Playground Safety Modifications, $30,000, High Priority After reviewing the need to incorporate new safety standards and the issues of both design and liability, Commission members agreed to give this item a high priority classification. They further urged, however, that the Parks Department use experienced professional landscape architects to review future park designs. Commission members debated the merits of hiring a professional on staff versus of having some sort of professional review of design proposed and felt, at the very least, there was a need to have such a review. Among the suggestions brought forth was a review board, hiring a professional designer to review, or seeking the advice of an organization like Design Evanston. Commission members also felt that a specific listing of the improvements to be made under this program should be identified. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 8, 1986 Page 4 Commission members agreed to draft a letter to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry urging that professional design assistance become part of any future Park Improvement program. #29. Foster Tat Lot Renovation, $18,000, High Priority Commission members agreed to give this project a high priority rating at the funding level requested and cited the same rationale as that for Fleetwood -Jourdain improvements, namely, good direct benefit to low/moderate income families and an obvious need. The project was also listed in the Capital Improvement Program. Commission members wished to emphasize their desire to have any plans for the development of the park reviewed by an experienced, outside parks consultant. #31. Handicapped Accessibility, $30.000, Medium Priority Commission members felt that the cost for what would be accomplished at this facility were high and agreed to give this project only a medium priority. ACORN Project, Low Priority Commission members were uncertain as to why this project had not -:ome to them since in previous years it had been classified as a Neighborhood Revitalization Project. Their comments were to give this project a low priority in view of substantial funding received in prior years. There was further comment that the proposal had been structured as a public/private partnership but that the only private investment had come in the first year and since that time the project has received only federal funding. Commission members acknowledged that there was little reduction resulting from their prioritization, however, they also expressed concern at the deep cuts made in the previous year to a number of ongoing Neighborhood Revitalization programs and urged the CD Committee to restore the level of funding rather than make further reductions. Ms. Breslin moved to approve and forward the priorities set by the Plan Commission to the Housing and Community Development Act Committee. Seconded by Ms. Hill. Motion passed. No nays. The Secretary was directed to write a report to share with Commission members summarizing the Commission's position and forwarding to the CD Committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS Downtown Committee Ms. Seidman reported on behalf of the Downtown Committee stating that members had reviewed the results of the survey, item by item, and found a number of points which could be incorporated into the Commission's original statement. The Committee had further discussed the idea of expanding the survey, through the use of volunteers, to survey individuals actually using the Downtown and possibly doing some video tape interviews to get reactions from people on the street. They had also considered distributing a survey form to households. Mr. Carter said that the Committee's intent was to revise the original statement according to the comments received and then return to the organizations having submitted survey responses and ask if there was concurrence with the Plan Commission's revised statement. He felt that this would be a more satisfactory way of getting the particular organizations' points of view on the downtown as opposed to merely those of one or two individuals within the organizations. • Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 8, 1996 Page S Ms. Seidman reported that the League of 'Women Voters Is updating their 10-year old statement on the Downtown and that this might be of Interest to Commission members. Sign Ordinance Mr. Carter reported on the progress towards creating a new sign ordinance and stated that the Planning and Development Committee had been meeting on Monday evenings when there wasn't a Council meeting and reviewing the ordinance. The Committee is about 1/3 through the ordinance and will meeting again on October 27th. He reported that it had been necessary to get an extension of the consultant's contract to cover the extra work required by lengthy reviews of the ordinance. He felt the Committee might finish their work in two or three more special meetings. In response to a question, he discussed the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating non -conforming signs through amortization versus attrition. Green Bay Road Project Chairman Peters reported that Mr. Yas had made an attractive presentation of the Green Bay Road Study and Proposals through a slide show before the A&PW Committee. He reported that it had been well received and that the recommendations of the Plan will be incorporated into the Capital Improvements Program. There did remain the question of responsibility for the non -capital improvements requiring negotiations with the railroad and the supermarkets. He suggested that the Commission address these strategies at a future meeting. Commercial Districts Study Chairman Peters reported that the Commercial District Study. prepared by the Plan Commission. had been submitted to the Planning and Development Committee, The study was enthusiastically received and forwarded to the Zoning Amendment Committee with a special note that the Planning and Development Committee supported the recommendations of the Commission. Comprehensive General Plan Mr. Carter reported that all the corrections have been made to the Comprehensive General Plan and it was now at the printer. He anticipated both the map and the Plan would be available by the next Plan Commission meeting. Custer Avenue Project Mr. Carter reported that a third property had been purchased In the Custer Avenue project area and that progress was looking much better. Commission members discussed the status of the remaining properties to be acquired. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Mr. Peters announced that a replacement for the Economic Development Committee Plan Commission Representative was needed and that the Commission should recommend someone to the Mayor for her to consider as an appointment. Libby Hill moved that Al Belmonte be nominated as the Commission's recommendation for consideration of appointment. Seconded by Ms. Breslin. Motion passed. No nays. Evanston Plan Commission , Minutes - October 8. 1986 Page 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Carter announced that Design Evanston would be hosting a presentation on the design aspects of Research Park in the near future. Meeting adjourned approximately 10:55 P.M. i Staff: �} � C 0 Orate: 7Y 1 S-20 EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, November 12, 1996 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Belmonte, Breslin, Hill, Nevel, Peters, Petterson, Seidman, and Yas MEMBERS ABSENT: Saag and Perkins STAFF: Carter, Sommers Yant, Rasmussen, and Wirth OTHERS PRESENT: David Schmidt, Northwestern University; Dave Handwerker, Corps of Engineers; John Variakojis, Sanitary District; Bob Molumby, Village of Skokie; Beth Brady, Sanitary District; Dave Leech, Village of Winnetka; Terrance Porter, Wilmette Park District; Rick Wendy, Penny Marvikis, and Sheila Richardson, News Voice APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Hill moved approval of the October 8, 1986 Plan Commission minutes as written. Seconded by Mr. Yas. .Motion passed. No nays. BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF THE PROPOSED MARINA ON THE NORTH SHORE CHANNEL Chairman Peters welcomed the guests from other communities and introduced Mr. Sohn Variakojis from the Sanitary District and Mr. David Handwerker of the army Corps of Engineers who were in attendance to brief Commission members on the proposed marina. Chairman Peters reminded the Commission members of their assignment to monitor this project and make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Variakojis explained the background on the project and commented it had begun when the Village of Skokie had requested the Corps. of Engineers to prepare an initial report on the feasibility of the marina. This report was prepared in March of 1984 and studied a site of unleased Sanitary District property adjacent to the Main Street Commons Shopping Center. The report stated that there was a demand for at least 450 slips. However, the report concluded that the study should be terminated because the cost benefit ratio did not warrant the development. The report had also recommended the rehabilitation of the locks at Wilmette. Mr. Variakojis explained the need for a second lock which would prevent any effluent from the treatment plant going back to Lake .Michigan. With the use of two locks along that stretch of the canal, it could become available for a marina. The Sanitary District requested the Corps. of Engineers to prepare a second report taking into account this approach and concentrating on the upgrading of the vacant Sanitary District land. This second report was prepared February 4, 1986 and took into consideration a marina development on the initial site as well as another in Evanston and one in Wilmette. This report called for a controlled structure to be placed at Oakton Street. In this study, the cost benefit ratio was well above 1. It was recommended that the project should be pursued through the next phase reconnaissance study funded under the Federal Continuing Resolution with $63,000 set aside for it. This study would go into more detail by selecting one specific location, pinpoint the exact number of slips and deal with a number of specific physical questions. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 12, 1986 Page 2 Mr. David Handwerker indicated that there was uncertainty as to the funding under the Continuing Resolution and that they may or may not have funds available to do the work on the reconnaissance study. He felt that this question would be resolved in the near future. He stressed that the initial report was highly preliminary. None of the sites considered were in Evanston. He indicated that during the first few weeks of the reconnaissance study, the Corps. of Engineers would be talking with individual communities to determine their interest or opposition. The starting date of the study is uncertain and it is estimated that the study would take a full year. Completion of the report would provide more detail on the rehabilitation of the lock at Wilmette, the type of control structure to be installed at Oakton and more specific information on the number of slips and a specific site selected. In response to a question from Chairman Peters, Mr. Handwerker indicated there would be three phases to the study portion of the project: the first preliminary study just completed; the reconnaissance study about to begin; and the final detail project study which would do all of the engineering. Assuming approval of all this, the next stage would be the preparation of contract documents for bidding. All of this would take from 3-3 years to complete. He saw an additional obstacle in a recent policy of the Corps. of Engineers which is directed against funding recreational projects. At the conclusion of Mr. Handwerker's comments, Chairman Peters asked for questions from Commission members and guests. A representative from Wilmette raised the question of impact on the Wilmette Harbor and expressed concern over the possible elimination of slips there. He stated that weekend traffic could not be handled now and that the additional traffic would create even more serious congestion. Mr. Handwerker responded that the Corps. of Engineers would have to study this question as part of the next phase. The question of the pollution of the canal making it unusable for boating was also brought up. Mr. Variakojis responded that the major pollution was in the deposits at the bottom of the canal and in the past from sewer system overflow. However, with the construction of Phase I of TARP, that source of pollution would be eliminated and the water will be much cleaner in the future. The deposits at the bottom of the canal will eventually oxidize. Mr. Yas asked if eventually there might be a free flow of water from Lake Michigan through the Canal to the control structure at Oakton based upon the assumptions for the completion of Phase 11 for TARP and the recommendations contained in the Corps. of Engineers' study for the marina. The answer was affirmative. He also asked if this would raise the level in the canal to the current high levcls in Lake Michigan. :Ngain, t ,e answer was affirmative. He asked if the width and the depth of the channel would require a turning basin. He asked who would operate the facility and the response was M513 would probably lease it out to either one of the municipalities or to a private developer. Mr. Yas asked about additional development around the marina such as restaurants and other associated activities along the banks of the channel. Mr. Variakojis did not foresee such associated development and indicated that it would be controlled by local Zoning in any case. He also stressed the point that the Sanitary District is not going to do anything with which the municipality is not in favor. Mr. Yas asked about the possibility of a continuous marina development from Wilmette to Oakton, but Mr. Handwerker felt that such a development was possible but not likely due to the limit to the demand and the difficulty of accommodating sailboats because of bridge heights. He also responded that there would be an environmental impact statement handling such issues as any pollution from the power boats. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 12, 1986 Page 3 Ms. Hill asked about the people who now like to use the Arboretum as a quiet recreational resource for bird watching and the like and whether that would still be possible with the level of boat traffic likely on the canal. Mr. Handwerker replied that this would also be studied as part of the environmental impact statement. When trying to balance various recreational needs, the desires of a municipality would likely govern. U there is a large public outcry, a project such as this probably would not get built. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Handwerker to describe the process ahead and how Evanston would become involved. Mr. Handwerker responded that during the first few weeks of the reconnaissance study, he would meet with all interested and involved parties, such as plan commissions and recreation departments, from all three communities and get an assessment of their interest as well as any problems to understand what they are for or against. At these meetings, he would attempt to develop solutions to these problems. This would be the first part of the public involvement. At the end of the reconnaissance report, there would be a further opportunity for public comment. In the detail project phase which would follow, there would be an environmental impact statement. After thirty days, the Corps. of Engineers would review any testimony received and make a final decision as to whether to proceed. Chairman Peters further clarified the review process by pointing out that the Sanitary District would have to conduct their own review process as a local sponsor of the project. Mr. Petterson asked what other recreational opportunities might be available besides boating. Mr. Handwerker replied that canoeing and fishing might be possible but these were not sufficient to justify the costs if these would be the only activities, they would have to be part of the total rather than an alternative. Mr. Wirth asked for clarification on one of the alternative sites between Dempster and Emerson and whether construction of a marina would physically cut into the park system. The response was probably that would be required for the wet storage. Mr. Handwerker reaffirmed that the federal government would want to know early on whether any of these sites had an irresolvable problem so that they did not spend money looking at sites that were not acceptable. In response to Ms. Hill's question about who makes the final decision on the project, he responded that the District Engineer at the Corps. of Engineers ultimately made the decision presuming there is a local sponsor such as the MSD. The Wilmette representative brought up the question of going through zoning and cited a recent court decision determining that the municipalities had zoning power over special districts. Mr. Molumby, from the Village of Skokie, asked at what tirne the sponsoring communities would know what the project would cost them. The response was the currently the estimate if $4.2 million. The federal government picks up half of the cost of the general navigation features which would include the rehab of the Wilmette lock, the control structure at Oakton, and they may pick up the cost of any dredging needed. This does not include the marina construction. Such items as the slips, storage, parking lot, etc., are 100% locally funded and a rough estimate is $2-3 million. Mr. Molumby asked at what point in the process would the potential local community sponsor have to make a commitment. The response was that at the end of each phase, a draft report is sent to the sponsors and they are asked for a letter indicating their willingness to continue to go ahead with the project based upon the estimates at that time. The money would have to be committed before the project was bid. Mr. Handwerker was asked what the future of the channel would be if this project did not go forward. His response that the Corps. of Engineers would have little basis for further involvement. i Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 12, 19$6 Page 4 Mr. Carter asked, in view of the high maintenance costs on the locks, would new construction be required regardless of whether there was a marina? The response was the locks would only be used to allow traffic through and that diversion of water was handled through gates so that the locks would not have to be reconstructed. Mr. Carter observed that the prospect of cleaning up the water in the canal was exciting; however, the idea of a great deal of power boat traffic in the channel was not an inviting prospect and raised questions about the erosion from the wake which would take place on the steep slopes of the canal banks. The response was they would try to control the erosion by putting in a no -wake zone. Chairman Peters said that there was some concern that the development of a marina would stimulate other development and put pressure on the existing open space. He also asked the district what their main purpose was. Mr. Variakojis responded that the District would like to make productive use of the vacant site. Mr. Peters thanked Mr. Variakojis and Mr. Handwerker for coming to the Plan Commission meeting and sharing their information. He suggested that the Commission discuss these recommendations at their next regular meeting in preparation for making a recommendation back to the City Council. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR COVE SCHOOL Mr. Carter introduced the topic by reminding Commission members of their preliminary review of this proposal at an earlier meeting. The Commission, at that meeting, was favorably disposed towards the plan. The developer, Mr. Chou, was before the Commission with his final plans having filed a formal application for the Planned Development hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Plan Commission's purpose was to review and comment upon the .proposed planned development and its relationship to the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan. He indicated that Mr. Chou was before them this evening to present this plan and explain any changes. Mr. Wendy, Legal Counsel for Mr. Chou, summarized the considerable efforts Mr. Chou had made to accommodate the various concerns of the City and Preservation Commission and noted several site allowances and changes in the design. He felt that the end result was a very good design which preserved the landmark structures on the site and allowed for new development. He outlined how this particular project met the standards of the ordinance by preserving and maintaining open space through the type of subdivision suggested, by preserving architecturally significant buildings, and providing additional housing. Mr. Chou explained the relationship of the design to the existing mansion and the coach house. The overall philosophy of the design was to keep the new homes compatible in scale and architecture with the coach house since the mansion was too large in scale to successfully match. He reviewed such things as window treatment, keeping vistas open into the property, and using the simple geometry of the coach house. Mr. Petterson asked him how he would define the individual yards. tie responded, through the use of landscaping, low shrubs, trees, etc., that there would be no fences so that the area would look more like a commons. He explained that they would be able to keep nearly all of the existing trees which are on the perimeter of the site, retain the fence around the perimeter, and minimize the number of curb cuts. He explained the advantages of shifting two of the structures to the Greenleaf frontage from the Judson frontage to open up the view into the grounds. He also noted that he had eliminated one dwelling unit from the plan since its previous presentation. In response to Mr. Petterson's question as to specifically what the Commission was to review, Mr. Carter commented that the ordinance was very broad and called for the proposal to be evaluated for the way that it advances the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan. Evanston Plan Commission • Minutes - November 12, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Yas raised an aesthetic objection to the narrow space between buildings and the Commission's comments at the last meeting and that with so many homes now on Greenleaf, it appears almost as a single building. He felt the close spacing did not reflect the character of the immediate neighborhood. He felt the closer spacing would have worked better on Judson than on Greenleaf. He felt the architecture was quite good and far above the norm but felt that placement was inappropriate. Mr. Chou explained his rationale for the spacing and massing of the particular buildings and relationship to the coach house, the mansion. Ms. Seidman commented that although a unit had been eliminated from the previous plan, it almost appeared as though there was less open space than before. Mr. Chou commented that the open space was actually In excess of the design guidelines suggested by the Preservation Commission. The ratio of first -floor space to open space is 24%. Ms. Breslin commented that there had been quite a bit of work on the project since the last presentation, in her opinion the plan Is a lot more successful. She felt that the architect had done a very good job with a difficult project. Mr. Petterson asked for comments from Gwen Sommers Yant on the position of the Preservation Commission and any points she felt the Plan Commission should keep in mind in their evaluation. Ms. Sommers Yant reinforced the comments of Mr. Wendy and felt that the developer had made outstanding efforts to meet the concerns of the Preservation Commission and the neighbors. The Preservation Commission is very positive about the proposal. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Carter for his comments on behalf of staff. Mr. Carter commented that the developer had done an outstanding job of meeting the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance and that this case served as an excellent example as the first test of the new ordinance, a perfect example of what we want that legislation to do. He commended the developer for his patience and willingness in working with the Preservation Commission, the neighborhood and the Plan Commission. Ms. Hill moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of this planned development to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Seconded by Mr. Petterson. Motion passed. No nays. COMMITTEE REPORTS Downtown Committee Chairman Peters reported on behalf of the Downtown Committee summarizing their recent meeting where they had reviewed the text on the initial phase of the plan which was, in turn, forwarded to the Commission for their review. Once there is agreement on the content and language, the Committee would forward this paper to a number of organizations interested in the Downtown and request an opportunity to appear before that group for discussing the ideas contained in the paper. It was the hope of the Committee that they then could draw representatives of these organizations into the process of preparing a Downtown Plan. They wished to look at the possibility of putting together a task force made up of representatives from these groups as well as the membership of the Downtown Plan Committee. It was thought that they might subdivide this task force into areas of particular interest and assign them sections of the Plan. The next step is for the Downtown Committee to get on the agendas of these groups and prepare a presentation for them. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November l Z 1986 Page 6 Mr. Carter commented that, the process of involvement and dialogue among the divergent groups with some interest in the Downtown might be far more important than creating a document might be. To provide such a forum would be creating a unique opportunity for better communication and coordination of various programs and projects advanced by different parties. He thought the challenge would be in creating sufficient interest In the general plan for the Downtown on the part of a number of rather specialized interest groups. The commitment and the interest to come together periodically on Downtown issues has yet to be tested. Most groups tend to have a single perspective and an interest In a particular project without seeing it as part of a greater whole. The role of synthesizer is a good one for the Plan Commission In any forum developed, but the key is getting the other players into the game. He felt the initial presentation to these groups could make the difference In their interest. Ms. Hill commented that the draft document needed further proofing and editing and offered some suggestions for correction Ms. Hill asked about possible overlap or competition with the activities of the Chamber in the Downtown and Mr. Carter responded that they would be Included and that the activities could be complementary rather than competitive. He felt there might be differences on particulars, but that the Chamber was likely to be willing and interested in working on the project. Ms. Hill also brought up the need for a Downtown directory. She felt that with the loss of Marshall Fields, the last department store, a concept of the entire Downtown as one large department store should be advanced. Mr. Nevel raised questions about the document and when the Commission would get to the more specific content of a typical Downtown Plan. Mr. Carter commented that the first task was to get some Common agreement on what the major issues are and what the vision of the future of the Downtown is. A second phase of the Plan would get down to the issues of land use, zoning, economic development, parking, traffic, etc. Mr. Petterson pointed out that the title of the Document suggests that it was a plan for the Downtown and Commission members agreed to rephrase it. In looking at specific parts of the document, Mr. Nevel wondered whether there was sufficient retail base to be considered "fragmented" and characterized most of it as convenient shopping. Commission members felt otherwise and saw the retail as fairly strong except for the absence of department stores and that the retail was not a typical pattern of concentration along one major street. Mr. Nevel questioned whether the Commission's policy was to hold Downtown development near present levels. The response was that the Commission did want to look at limits on Downtown development outside of the Research Perk area. Part of the rationale was that there is a physical limit in how much traffic and parking the whole Downtown can handle given the full potential of Research Park and the potential for redevelopment, under present zoning, within the Downtown proper. Both carried to their ultimate potential would create an impossible situation. Mr. Carter pointed out that projections on Research Park would call for a doubling of the present square footage found within the Downtown and present Research Park area. W. Nevel felt there was some conflict between the policy statement on limiting physical growth and making the Downtown a strong marketplace. In order to do that, he felt it was necessary to go with the type of development which is marketable and he saw that as a continuation of the B4 and B5 type of redevelopment. Chairman Peters clarified that the Commission did not necessarily see high rise as strengthening the marketplace, but that it might also be accomplished through better use of the existing space. Mr. Carter commented that there did not seem to be any current market for additional high rise. Mr. Carter observed that the Commission had been standing pat on wanting a bigger and better Downtown for tax base purposes, but that it was a largely unexamined policy as far as impacts were concerned. This question becomes particularly germane with the emergence of Research Park and its potential. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 12, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Petterson felt that the text needed to clarify this issue better for the reader. Mr. Nevel questioned whether you could have economic growth in the Downtown without Increased density and, without that density, you would have a static Downtown. Other Commission members felt that the change in use was already making the Downtown stronger and that it was far from static. Chairman Peters did not feel the tone of the document intended to indicate that there would be no new redevelopment but it would be quite limited. Mr. Carter acknowledged Mr. Nevel for his critical comments and how helpful they would be in clarifying not only some of the suggested policies, but how they might be received by others. Mr. Petterson moved that the Downtown Committee move forward with their efforts to involve others in the Downtown planning process with the document reviewed this evening. Seconded by Ms. Seidman. Motion passed. No nays. Sign Ordinance Mr. Carter reported that the Sign Ordinance was moving forward through its review by the Planning and Development Committee and anticipated it would take two more sessions of the Committee to complete their work. There seems to be general support for the ordinance and even though a number of changes may be made, most of the major recommendations will remain intact. He felt that the provisions on amortization would be dropped and non -conforming signs gradually eliminated through attrition. Custer Street Mr. Carter reported on the behalf of the Custer Street Committee that the report for rezoning several segments of Custer Street had been well received by the Planning and Development Committee; however, the Committee referred it back to us for clarification on how to grandfather in sorne of the existing businesses which would otherwise become non -conforming and subject to elimination. The Commission is also to take a look at whether or not there would be other zones they would recommend in addition to residential. The Planning and Development Committee was understanding of a number of the problems created by some of the present uses and potential future ones. They did appear willing to send a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee once the recommendations were further refined. Appointment of Nominating Committee Chairman Peters reminded Commission members that the time for appointment of new officers was coming up and asked Ms. Breslin, Ms. Seidman, and Mr. Perkins to serve on a Nominating Committee. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Carter distributed copies of the final printed edition of the Comprehensive General Plan. He announced that they would be on sale for $5 at the City Clerk's Office and copies would be distributed to a number of �azrds and commissions through their staff. Ms. Hill commented that the Comprehensive Plan Committee would assist in the distribution and would also do an annual report on the accomplishments of the Plan. The Committee will be writing to various groups responsible for Implementing certain sections of the Plan and discuss with them actions to do so. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Carter was requested to get information on the upcoming architectural competition for the expansion of the library. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 12, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Carter announced that he had invited Amanda Jones of Keep Evanston Beautiful to appear before the Plan Commission at their December meeting. Meeting Adjourned approximately 10:10 P.M. Staff: ' Date: 7Y23-32 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: OTHERS ATTENDING: APPROVAL OF MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 10, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Belmonte, Breslin, Hill, Nevel, Perkins, Peters, Petterson, Seidman, and Yas Carter Lynn Needham, Amanda Jones, and Neil Laatsch Mr. Nevel moved approval of the November Plan Commission minutes as written. Seconded by Mr. Belmonte. Motion passed. No nays. INTRODUCTION TO KEEP EVANSTON BEAUTIFUL Mr. Carter introduced Amanda Jones, Coordinator of the Keep Evanston Beautiful Program, whom he had heard make a presentation to Design Evanston. He thought there were a number of things in the program that might be of interest to the Plan Commission and asked Ms. Jones to describe that program. She explained to origin of the program as beginning with the Environmental Control Board's examination of a number of growing problem including graffiti, litter, and solid waste disposal. Their conclusion was there did not seem to be any way for government to solve these problems without expending substantial dollars. As part of their investigation, the Environmental Control Board took a look at communities which were part of the Keep American Beautiful program and their Clean Community System which did not involve federal money. The Clean Community System is a network of local communities who have been developing ways of dealing with these problems. They appear to have achieved significance success, particularly in the area of litter reduction. As a result of their investigations, the Environmental Control Board recommended that Evanston l~ecomA part of the system in September of 1996. Some of the principal thrusts of the clean community system approach are education, behavior modification, and heightened awareness, of what the individual problems are combined with an attempt to restore civic pride. Subsequently to joining the Clean Community System, a coordinator for Keep Evanston Beautiful has been appointed and an all volunteer board has been put into place. They are now an established not -far -profit organization based in the Civic Center. Ms. Jones felt one of the important functions of the program was to provide a single repository for members of the community to dump their complaints on the issues of graffiti, litter, etc., and get results. Ms. Jones wanted the program to be a clearinghouse for information on what to do. She pointed to an increasing trend toward littering and graffiti and cited the community's general attractiveness and ease of access as helping to contribute to the problem. Further, a decline in attitude about Evanston being a "special place" worth taking care of also contributes. She cited a number of problems that other communities have that are not present in Evanston, however. She cited a phrase from the opening part of the Comprehensive General Plan that said, "quality is infectious" and noted that one of the missions of Keep Evanston Beautiful was to work with the different geographic areas of the community and sponsor neighborhood awareness to turn around attitudes that helped contribute to the litter and appearance problems. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December 10, 1986 Page 2 She described the Keep Evanston Beautiful organization as consisting of a number of standing sub -committees including ones on business and industry, awards, fund raising, and education. She stressed that it was not a program of confrontation and such tactics would only be used where there is a definite lack of cooperation. They intend to spend a great deal of time working with the junior high population on issues of litter and graffiti. There would also be a big push to encourage recycling in order to slow up the rate of use of the landfill. She felt that alerting the community to the landfill crisis was one of the most important missions of the program and that they would be looking at increasing voluntary recycling or perhaps even going to mandatory recycling. She also felt there was a need for a stronger anti -litter ordinance. A small test area for a mandatory recycling program would be recommended. One of the first tasks undertaken by one of the committees was a survey of the ordinances on litter and waste disposal. While there are a number of strong ordinances on the books, there Is very little enforcement. The committee wants to look at means of stronger enforcement. Ms. Jones said it would be very helpful to the Keep Evanston Beautiful program if the Plan Commission forward their point of view on what some of the biggest problems are and where they occur. Where are the eyesores, the aesthetic problems, the serious ones. She noted that there was a great range in the level of cleanliness among businesses from ones which do an excellent job to those who really don't care. She cited the work of the Community Awareness Committee as the heart of the program and noted that they would have a .massive outreach program to the community. She described the Chicago and North Western Railway, Chicago Transit Authority and Commonwealth Edison as three of the biggest offenders in litter and the need for a concentrated, cleanup program for their rights -of -way. They have been notorious in ignoring the requests of the City and others to clean up their property. She wanted to see a wildflower program introduced as one means of helping to improve some of these areas. She felt it important to make it uncomfortable for any organization or individuals who habitually trash the community. In describing the budget for the organization, she indicated that there was an operating budget of $30,000, $15,000 of which is coming from Illinois Clean and Beautiful with matching local contributions from corporations, families and individuals. An additional $5,000 will come from the City of Evanston. In summing up the relationship between Keep Evanston Beautiful and the Plan Commission, Ms. Jones felt the Plan Commission had an important role in helping to preserve a certain "envirnnrnem" in Evanston which gave the Community its character. That environment did not have to be created, it was already here and is in need of care. Preserving what is here, improving that which is needed, and eliminating those things which don't fall within the objectives of the Plan is something that the Plan Commission and Keep Evanston Beautiful have in common. The emphasis in Keep Evanston Beautiful is going to be more on eliminating those things which are unattractive and unhealthful. In response to %is. Jones' request for questions, fir. Carter asked what the thrust of Keep Evanston Beautiful's program on solid waste was going to be. She responded that they would first sit down with the City to make sure they understood what the problems were and she indicated that their organization would like more information from the Plan Commission and others. Mr. Carter felt there was a need for the community to be more brnadly aware of what the crisis was on the landfill situation so that they could be supportive of long-term solutions. Ms. Jones felt that a stronger emphasis on recycling was needed. In its present form, it is not convenient enough and some satellite locations are needed. Phil Peters asked questions about the leaf mulch program and the demonstration mandatory ~ , recycling program. Ms. Jones explained her experience with a leaf mulching program in another community and indicated that it could be easily done here and that she would be happy to meet with City officials on the program. Evanston Plan Commission ,Minutes - December 1% 1986 Page 3 Mr. Carter asked whether the Committee would be looking Into a recommendations of separating recyclable items for alley or curbside pickup. Ms. Jones responded that they would be very interested in such a program, however, there were serious considerations of costs and cooperation. She thought that they would have a better idea of its chance of success after they tried the mandatory recycling in a small test area. Mr. Carter asked Ms. Jones if there was any way in which she saw the Commission being helpful to her organization. She responded that the support of the Commission for their work and any individual support in the way of volunteer assistance on their several projects would be welcome. Also important is information such as where the problems are or organizations looking for assistance on such things as clean-up or planting programs. She wanted her office to operate as a resource so all kinds of information with regard to litter problems. Ms. Hill Inquired as to whether or not the organization had the resources to attack all of the problems mentioned this evening all at once. Ms. Jones responded that she could not do it all nor could her board, and that they were just now getting their committee structure together but her big push would be for 1987 when she expected a great deal of volunteer help. She felt her organization could best work as a catalyst rather than attempting to do it all. She stated that it was obvious that there would be a great deal of community support needed and that without that support the program would fail. Support would have to come in the form of individual willing to serve, brains, talent, supplies, and money. It was not the size of the undertaking that concerned her, it was the urgency of some of the problems such as the landfill and community complacency. The natural beauty and the architectural beauty make it easy for people not to see any problems. Chairman Peters thanked Ms. Jones for her appearance before the Commission and urged her to call upon them if they could be of service. t ENERGY EDUCATION BUDGET Mr. Peters introduced Neil Laatsch of the Arboretum Committee who was present to request support from the Plan Commission for the budget for an energy educator at the arboretum. Mr. Laatsch reviewed the history of the budget option which called for eliminating the Energy Education program at a savings of $7,000. He distributed materials on the number of persons who had attended energy classes and participated, in some way, in the energy education program. He pointed out that there had been a substantial amount of non -City revenue, $79,000, which had come from other sources to build the energy program. Over S100,000, in total, had gone to buil� the full energy program. He stressed that the $7,000 was only a part of a total program for the Arboretum and Ecology Center of approximately $120,000, half of which comes from private donations. What makes the City's share or the $7,000 important, is that it serves as a catalyst for getting private donors. If the City is unwilling to support the program at the level of a mere $7,000, he raised the question as to whether there wouldn't be a significant drop off in private donors as a result. A reduction in City funding would seriously hurt their efforts to increase the level of private giving. Mr. Nevel asked whether or not the City Council was aware of the interrelationships of the public and private funding when they made their decision. Mr. Laatsch did not believe that they were aware. Lynn Needham raised objections to the approach requiring a percentage cut of the entire budget regardless of its source. This represented nearly double the cut which would otherwise result. She pointed out that if the Energy Education program is totally cancelled, there would be very little reason for anyone to go to the Ecology Center anymore. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December 10, 1986 Page 4 Libby Hill commented that when we look at the Comprehensive General Plan and the goals and objectives for energy, there is only one way to accomplish these and that is through education. The program at the Ecology Center is the last remaining educational program, the others having been eliminated in previous years. An action to eliminate the educational program would be counter to the adopted policies of the Comprehensive General Plan. She felt that to cut $7,000, $3,500 of which comes from other sources, was not only a drop in the bucket on budget savings, it was unfair to take away dollars from members who have joined a program they have supported. She also pointed out that the Energy Program was a money maker for the City since it has brought in people from outside the community as well. Mr. Laatsch pointed out that with this budget reduction, there would be a number of energy capital items, such as the windmill and solar greenhouse, which would go unmanaged and possibly deteriorate. Ms. Hill moved that the Plan Commission go on record as supporting the continuation of this program as being the only program left to advance the goals and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan regarding energy. Seconded by Mr. Yas. Motion passed. No nays. When asked how the Plan Commission might further support the Ladd Arboretum Committee, Mr. Laatsch suggested Commission members appear at the December 22nd meeting of the Human Services Committee and make their opinions known at that time. DOWNTOWN PRESENTATION Chairman Peters introduced the presentation by telling Commission members that the Committee on Downtown had drafted a statement of issues and was planning to make a series of presentations to interested parties in order to get their response and participation. The Committee wished to preview this presentation with the Commission and get their reaction prior to going out to other organizations. Committee members made the slide presentation to the whole Commission. Following the presentation, Committee members asked for responses and questions from the rest of the Commission. Mr Nevel, asking as a citizen or board member hearing the presentation, what the presentors wanted from him. The response was that the Committee members wanted to know his reaction to the presentation and whether he would be interested in working with them to further develop some parts of the plan. This would probably be done in the form of a working task force with each one tackling one of the six major issues. Mr. Perkins commented that he would like to see an even stronger statement about the need to plan for an already developed city than had already been made. Each decade, for some considerable number of decades, the statement could have been made "Why plan when everything that is Evanston is already here?" He felt that the question should be raised as to whether there ought to be some guidance for the change that is bound to come in the next ten years. Ms. Hill raised the question of how much planning was involved in where the downtown is today with the changes that have occurred over the last ten years and .Mr. Carter responded that there was intense planning work involved In many of the changes. Mr. Nevel questioned whether or not some form of physical plan should not ultimately come out of this process as opposed to merely consensus on the future of the Downtown. He would like to see the statement that called for no physical plan to be dampened and merely state that it was not the principal purpose. He would not want to see any form of physical planning discouraged. He felt such a plan should be a part of an outgrowth of this activity. Mr. Perkins observed that a physical plan, in some respects, is self defeating; however, a series of unargueable physical projects fitted into a general plan creates a solid basis for a plan. Mr. Carter agreed that it would be fruitless to attempt to design a Downtown without control of ownership, but planning shouldn't be left to mere policy statements. Bounddries would need to be defined, identifiable projects included, zoning issues included, and other ideas will require some sort of physical 1 framework of streets, land use, etc. Mr. Perkins pointed out that, historically, the Plan Commission had achieved a number of successes in defining the boundaries of the Downtown and .1r. Carter noted how the redevelopment arels for Research Park had been identified in the 1974 Plan, long before the Research Park idea had been articulated. Evanston Plan Commission -Minutes - December 10, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Nevel suggested that the preliminary draft include a few additional items such as an t existing land use map, traffic map, parking, etc. He also took issue with the statement that the Plan Commission believed it was more important to increase sales volume per square foot rather than adding additional floor area through the development of more highrise buildings in the Downtown. He went on to comment that the Downtown was the one remaining major asset where we would have the opportunity to increase our tax base through additional development. He preferred to see the statement changed to read, "The Plan Commission feels it is important to emphasize growth through increased sales volume per square foot and carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of adding more highrise buildings." Mr. Perkins reminded Commission members of the substantial contribution the Downtown made in keeping the homeowners' tax bill lower than it would otherwise be. Ms. Hill observed that a few controversial statements in the draft would prove helpful in getting the debate and response the Committee members wanted. Mr. Petterson commented that he could support Mr. Nevel's statement; however, he would be very selective about which sites could be used and protective of those buildings which helped define the character of the Downtown. Mr. Carter explained some of the philosophy behind the policy statement under question. He agreed that the larger Downtown was the primary resource for new development and support of the tax base; however, a distinction was being made between the area involving Research Park which had substantial potential for new development, and the balance of the Downtown where a much more cautious development process ought to be followed. He stressed that there was a finite limit as to how much the area could absorb in the way of new floor area and the resultant traffic and parking demands. The capacity for both Research Park and the Downtown, as presently zoned, is considerable and its full build up would fully change the character of the area. The purpose of the policy statement is to raise this issue so that these limits get explored and the question: of how many more highrise can the Downtown accommodate be raised. He did not feel that we could accommodate the full buildup of Research Park and substantial redevelopment in the Downtown. The idea behind the policy statement was that the Downtown would prosper substantially from the 3,000 + employees generated at Research Park and would not have to expand greatly physically in order to be more successful. Mr. Nevel raised the question as to what the statement means with regard to present zoning and whether zoning changes are anticipated such as doing away with ;Manned development or going back from a BS to a B3. Mr. Carter responded that the City may merely want to take another look at its present parking allowances and make modifications in those. Mr. Nevel expressed his concern that the statement implies that the City wants no more growth in the Downtown. Chairman Peters felt it -;as an important part of the Downtown Committee to focus on this particular issue and draw in as many opinions as possible in order to reach some understanding and resolution. DISCUSSION OF PLAN COMMISSION'S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED MARINA Chairman Peters announced that the reconnaissance study by the Corps. of Engineers had been funded. He reminded Commission members that they had been asked by the Planning and Development Committee to monitor this project and to develop a position. He felt an interim response at this point would be appropriate. He asked the secretary to draft a memorandum to the Planning and development Committee outlining the Plan Commission's reaction to the project and asking that the Plan Commission be designated as the contact group with the Carps. of Engineers. his. Hill raised the question as to whether or not Evanston had anything whatsoever to gain from the project. Chairman Peters raised the question as to whether there would be some advantage to at least a selected group of voters is a careful site were chosen. Ms. Hill commented that she saw no positive advantages to Evanston and a number of negative i factors in the project. These included the noise, volume of boat traffic, congestion in the canal and erosion of the shore. There was concern about the loss of peace and quiet at the Arboretum and the possibility of more park land going; to parking lots to accommodate boaters. Some pointed out that the water quality would be likely to decline from pollution from the motor boats. Plan Commissioners questioned the desirability of such a long trip from the moorings to Lake Michigan. They also expressed some concern at the possibility of adjacent development with any successful marina which might expand into restaurants and condominiums. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December 10, 1986 Page 6 REPORT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Mr. Perkins reported, on behalf of the Nominating Committee, recommending that the present � Chair Mr. Phillip Peters, and Vice -Chair Ms. Libby Hill continue their service. Mr. Nevel moved acceptance of the report of the Nominating Committee. Seconded by Mr. Belmonte. Motion passed. No nays. Chairman Peters felt that the success of the Plan Commission's work program during the past year had to do with some of the goal setting that they had done in advance and urged members to be thinking about such goals for the 1987 work program. He suggested this be an agenda item at the January meeting. OLD BUSINESS Ms. ' Hill reported that the Comprehensive General Plan Committee would be meeting the following Monday to develop an outline of strategies for implementing the Comprehensive General Plan. Once these strategies have been listed and a responsible agency identified. the Committee would be approaching these agencies with ideas from the Comprehensive General Plan for them to implement. She reported that she had put on the data base of her computer all of the items mentioned In the "Moving Ahead" section of the Comprehensive General Plan. Chairman Peters reported that he had received a letter of congratulations on a good job on the Comprehensive Plan from former Chairman, Barry Lundberg. He also repotted that Glynnis Lundberg had written the Commission a letter on behalf of the Library Board expressing their appreciation for having the library's needs mentioned in the Comprehensive General Plan. Ms. Breslin thanked Chairman Peters for his statement on behalf of capital improvements made before the Community Development Committee and mentioned that the Plan Commission's recommendations had remained intact. Mr. Carter mentioned that the Sign Ordinance is nearing completion under the Planning and Development Committee and that one more meeting should see it finalized and forwarded to the Council. He thanked members of the Plan Commission who had attended the meetings and given their support. Chairman Peters reported that he had talked to one potential associate member, Lyle Foster, and requested that an application be forwarded to him. Mr. Carter indicated that he would also be sending an application to the Commission's former League observer, Laurie Marston. Mr. Carter pniritrd n,jt :hat th-are are no more ussocilite members and that by the end of !987, two Commissioners would be going off. He felt it was important to have a new pool of associate members to draw from in the future. Mr. Perkins thought that the Commission ought to look for an appropriate member representing Northwestern University. Commission members welcomed Al Belmonte as their newest full member and their new representative to the Economic Development Committee. Meeting adjourned approximately 10:00 P.M. Staff: Date: 7Y34-39