Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee January 6, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, R. Warshaw, S. Brady, K. Juliar, J. Korshak and D. Drummer Ald. Absent: pone Staff Present: R. Carlson, Carter, Lindwall and Rudd Presiding official: K. Juliar Other Present: P. Petera, R. Koester, B. Nevill and L. Sill Minutes of December 16, 1985 Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of December 16, 1966. Committee voted 6-0 to approve. COMMUNICATIONS Committee received a communication from Aid. Korshak regarding a recommendation for review of the appraisal process for rehabilitation loans. This matter was previously referred to the Rehabilitation Subcommittee of the Housing Commission for review. Aid. Juliar reviewed a letter from the Ecumenical Action Council requesting that the issue of the homeless be made a high priority for the Zoning Amendment Committee and that said Committee consider the option of allowing homeless shelters in buildings other than churches. The Committee was informed that this matter was made a high priority for the Zoning Amendment Committee and that the reference stated that shelters could be located in buildings other than churches. NEW BUSINESS Revised Proposed Comprehensive Plans Phil Peters, Chairman of the Evanston Plan Commission gave an introduction of the process in which the Plan Commission has conducted numerous public hearings and also solicited comments from most of the City's boards and commissions. He stated that the plan was something to strive for and that it was a document attempting to address future issues. Peters indicated that members of the Plan Commission were present and would speak on various chapters of the plan and review the objectives of each section followed by the policies of that aspect of the plan. peters emphasized that the plan was realistic and that it did not call for a substantial expenditure of funds to implement any aspects of the plan due to the constraints of the current and apparent future budgets of the City. Based on that the Plan Commission felt that the plan was achievable. P 6 D Minutes , Special meeting January 6, 1986 First speaker for the Plan Cosuaission was Bill Nevill. Neighborhoods, Goal: 'Maintain the pattern and enhance the quality of Evanston's well established neighborhoods.' The first objective proposed by the Plan Commission was to 'guide the natural growth, change and renewal of residential neighborhoods.' Aid. Brady questioned whether there was a conflict between Policy 11 and 13. Nevill stated that 11 emphasized preservation while 13 recognizes the need for new techniques to address changing need of the City. kid. Bleveans stated that he sees no conflict since the plan is general and must address a diverse City. The Committee questioned Policy 18 which calls for future high density living areas to be located near the Central Business District. Peters and Nevill stated that this simply confirms the existing pattern and policy of the City to locate high density housing near the CBD. Housinq, Goal: 'Develop, within the means of the community, an adequate housing supply so that every Evanston resident may enjoy housing with a range of geographic choice that is suited to their needs and within their reasonable ability to pay.' Objective tl: 'Sustain the diversity of the housing supply as to types and costs of dwellings." Aid. Brady and Ald. Warshaw were uncomfortable with the term 'only as a last resort' in Policy 11. The Committee suggested that the aforementioned be deleted and that 'in certain circumstances' be added. Ald. Brady expressed her disappointment that there appeared to be very little if any emphasis on the multi -family rental stock of the City in the housing policies. Aid. Warshaw reviewed Objective 12: 'Identify areas of housing deterioration and direct both public and private resources to its upgrading.' Ald. Warshaw questioned Policy 17 with respect to Objective 12 and recommended deleting the term 'exterior.' Policy i7 would read as follows: 'Upgrade building systems and improve the condition of multi -family dwelling units'. Libby Hill reviewed Objective 43: 'Improve the energy efficiency of residential properties.' In Policy 113 - 'Explore state and federal programs which will provide funding for residential energy conservation', Hill recommended 'state and federal' be changed to 'all' to emphasize the need to explore all programs due to the various cutbacks at all levels. Objective 64: 'Help Evanston residents cope with serious housing problems.' The Committee in discussion with members of the Planning Commission recommended adding a new Policy 119 emphasizing the need to participate in efforts to overcome problems of the homeless. At the request of Aid. Drummer the Committee agreed to have further discussion with respect to adding to Examples and Possibilities of the Housing section mention of the need to educate citizens regarding housing issues. Institutions, Goal; 'Integrate Evanston's institutions into the fabric of the community.' Objective 11: •Establish an on -going dialogue and working relationship between the City and Evanston's institutions.' The Committee had. -2- P i D Minutes Special Meeting January 6, 1986 w comment with respect to the seven policies addressing Objective t1. Objective 62: 'Support an outstanding educational system providing a wide range of opportunities." The Committee discussed at length the various terns utilised emphasising that not only should the City establish in sole instances, but where currently discussion is taking place that the City should wake efforts to maintain an on -going dialogue with the various institutions of the City. With respect to Objective 12, Policy 18, the Committee and plan Commission members recommended to delete the word •maintain' and substitute the term *improve*. Business, Commercial and Industrial Areas, Goal: 'Strengthen Evanston's economic position, thus improving the quality of life provided through services and personal prosperity of residents.* Objective 02: 'Expand the revenue generating and employment potential of downtown Evanston...' Ald. Drummer recommended including specific mention of Downtown II research park with respect to the need to provide local job opportunities for low and moderate income residents of Evanston. Ald. Warshaw reviewed Policy Ill and recommended that it be reworded to emphasize Evanston's 'varied' labor pool. Ald. Bleveans suggested adding to Objective #2 'in all areas of Evanston". Ald. Korshak stated that he objected to the term partnership contained in Policy #2 of the Objective 31 of this proposal. The Committee recommended changing the tern -partnership' to •relationship'. Central Business District, Goal: 'Enhance the economic vitality, physical quality and diversity of services of downtown Evanston so that it will remain an attractive center of activity which serves the needs of Evanston residents, businesses and users from surrounding areas'. Objective 13: 'Maintain and enhance the quality of the physical environment of downtown Evanston', Ald. Korshak suggested expanding Policy 412 to include an expression to expand off-street parking with the intent to provide additional on -street packing spaces for shoppers and thus remove all day parkers from street parking. The Committee elected to hold a further meeting regarding the review of the proposed comprehensive plan tentatively scheduled for Monday, January 20, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P G D Committee will be January 13, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Staff: Robert T: fttl d 0300T -3- M INU`TE8 Planninq and Development Committee January 13, 1986 7:00 P.M. Aid. Present: J. dlsneans, R. Varabaw, 8. Brady, Me Juliar, J. Korshak and D. Drwwor Aid. Absents done Staff Present: R. Carlson, J. Siegel, S. Liaeman, and R. Rudd Preaidin4 Official: M. Juliar Minutes of January 6, 1986 Aid. Brady roved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planninq i Development Cofittee special meetina of January 6, 1986. In discussion Aid. Brady questioned whether her reaue st to consider a low and moderate affordable housinq policy was properly reflected in the minutes. It was recommended that the issue be raised at the next seetinq between the P i D Committee and members of the Plan Commission when discussinq the Comtjt thensive Plan. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes (Aldermen Bleveans and Drummer were absent). COMMUNICATIONS The Committee acknowledged receipt of the ZAC public hearing notice for January 16, 1986 and also a Committee chairmanship memorandum detailina the new Chairman for January 20, 1986. With respect to a letter from a member of the Ecumenical Action Council, Chair Juliar questioned the Committee as to their underatandino if it was the recommendation to the Citv Council to broaden the Zoninq Amendment Committee's reference to allow them to discuss whether shelters for the homeless should be allowed in buildings other than churches. It was the consensus of the Committee that that was the Durpose of the reference to ZAC. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the reference to ZAC should be enlarged to allow for discussion of shelters outside of churches. Committee voted 4-0 (Aldermen Bieveans and Drummer were absent). Docket 5-1A-86, ZBA 85-34-V(R), ordinance 3-0-86, 1520-26 Greenleaf Street and 1037-41 Florence Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Aid. Korshak seconded that the Committee concur with the Zoning Board's recommendation to grant variations to allow for a resubdivision and separation of ownership. Ald. Korshak stated that the subject matter being located in his ward, he has found no opposition to the proposal. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 3-0-86, arantinq variations (Aldermen Sleveans and Drummer were absent) . P & D minutes January 13, 1986 Docket B-IA-66, SBA 85-33-v-(R), Ordinance 2-0--86, 1027 Sharman Avenue. AId. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the P i D Committee recommend to City Council concurrence with the Zoninq Board of Appeals recommendation to grant variations for retention of a fourth dwelling unit, a contractor's office and a resale clothing establishment. Aldo Korshak stated that the subject variation would appear to be in character with the on-goinq activities in the area. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee make the recommendation to City Council with the conditions as recommended by the zoninq Board of Appeals. Committee voted 4-0 (Aldermien sleveans and Drumyser were absent). Docket 229-1O5-85, =BA 85-76-V(R), Ordinance 107-0-85, to Variation for 3200 Grant street. Chair Juliar indicated that at previous hearings before the P i D Committee, several questions arose regarding the tax status of the Presbyterian Bone. Jack Sieasl Corporation Council was present and stated that he did not challenge the Presbyterian Home's attorney opinion regardinq their tax status. Siegel stated that he felt that the issue of their protected tax status was one between the Presbyterian Some and the Assessor's office and not the Citv. He also felt that the P i D Committee could view this as a land use matter rather than a tax exempt issue. Peter Mulvey, Executive Director of the Presbyterian Bone was present and gave a background of the various issues and a synopsis of the numerous meetings conducted both with the City and with neighborhood aroups. Mulvey stated that what is most important to the Presbyterian Rome and what would protect against the arqueent that certain doctors would have an advantage is that the Presbyterian Rome can never be in an position of inurement. if that situation would arise, the non-profit status of the Some would be Jeopardized, somethinq that the Presbyterian Rome would never do. Mulvey also felt that mitigating against any special advantage to doctors was the fact that the program would break even. the goal is to charge the elderly only 'medicare rates', therefore, not allowinq any profit. Mulvey stated further that t." oroaram is ver; important to the Presbyterian Boma since the health care industry is constantly changinq and the Presbyterian Some must charge their services to adecuately provide care to their clientele. Ald. Korshak stated that he concurred with Corporation Council Siegel's characterization of the tax question. He felt that the central issue for consideration is whether the establishment of an elderly care home can lead to an enlarged operation. He cuestioned whether this broader operation which would be different from the elderly care home originally approved and would be desirable for the neighborhood and the City at large. Ald. Korshak felt that to allow doctors to overate in such a proposed facility would discourage doctors from the downtown area and thus be detrimental to the central business district of the City. Ald. Korshak also cited the limitations placed on Evanston Hospital through the zoning ordinance which -2- P a D Minutes January 13, 1906 does not allow doctors private practice at the hospital when doctor's patients are not patients of the hospital. In summary, he stated that it was his opinion that the proposal is undesirable, sets a poor Precedent, and is damagir4 to downtown development efforts. Ald. iKorshak also stated that the approval of this Proposal may open the door for allowinq the Georgian, Northshoro Hotel, etc, to request similar proposals. Ald. Brady stated that she was inclined to support it because it is a demonstration project limited to five (5) year. she felt that it should be reflected in the record that the key issue to her is that the limitation as recommended by the xoninq Board is a five (5) years limitation and no more than twenty (20) patients per day. Ald. Brady moved that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of their request of the Presbyterian Bone with the conditions as Proposed by the ioninq Board of Appeals. Motion failed for the lack of a second. Ald. 61eveans spoke against the project in that he felt that a large institution such as the Presbyterian Howe in that neighborhood would not be in concert with its surroundings by or000sinq to develop pilot programs such as this. Ald. Bleveans further felt that the program would only continue to grow, further inflicting harm to the neighborhood and that the proposed payments in lieu of taxes were not equal or did not balance the taxes paid by other similar operations in the City that were not tax exempt. Ald. Sleveana further felt that it was important to Promote the downtown and he noted that a development has been discussed on the southaide of Contcal Street across from Evanston Hospital, which would add a significant number of square feet specifically designed for doctor's offices. Ald. 1Korshak moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council that the ZBA recommendation be reversed and that the Presbyterian Home's reaest be denied. Votinq Aye: Alderson Rorshak, Juliar, Drummer, Bleveans and Warshaw. Votinq Hay: Ald. Brady. Committee voted 5-1 to recomend reversal of the ZBA recommendation to City Council. Consideration of Amendments to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Recardinq Residency at YMCA and Other similar Institutions. Bill wilen, former mem be: of the Bousinq Commission and the Rental Cando Subcommittee of the Housinq Commission was Present. Due to the lateness of the hour Wilen stated that he was willing to answer any questions of the Committee and suggested that the memo from the Chairman and members of the Housing Commission, dated October 20, 1985 properly sumsarized the Commission findings. Ald. Bleveans due to a conflict of interest excused himself from discussion on this matter. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was opposed to the lock -outs and thinks that the Y should be considered under the current wordinq of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Ald. Brady stated that she agreed with most things that Ald. Warshaw stated, but that she had a different conclusion. She felt that they should not be included in the current wording and that they should not be included under any future Proposals. Ald. Warshaw moved that the current ordinance be enforced, thus prohibitinq lock -out provisions by the YMCA. Ald. Korshak seconded. Ald, -3- P i D Minutes January 13, 1986 Juliar stated that he felt that it was inappropriate to include the YMCA since they deal with difficult tanants. Due to the lateness of the hour and the need for further discussion, the Committee recomwend to bold this matter over to the January 27, 1986, Committee meetieq. The Committee voted to hold a special meeting of the P & 0 Comtitte* for January 20, 1906 at 7:30 p.a., to conduct further review of the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMOT Neetinq adjourned at 6:00 p.m, blest regular meetinq January 27, 1906 at 700 p.m. Staff *be 120. Y 116 -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Cosstittee January 27, 1986 7:30 P.K. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, A. Warshaw, M. Juliar, and 0. Drus•er Ald. Absent: J. Rorshek Staff Present: 1. Bannister, R. Carlson, J. Asprooth, J. Siegel, J. Aiello, P. Vitt, S. Eisman and R. Rudd Presiding Official: J. Bleveans N,ggleg or Jannaa 13, 1986 Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning i Development Cosssittee meeting of January 13, 1986. Coamittee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. KEW BUSINESS Docket 24-18-86. Consider Plat of Consolidation for Proverty ct 1317 Liviniston. Ald. Brady moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the subject plat of consolidation. Committee voted 5-0 to recoamend City Council approval. Docket 23-1B-86 re Plat of Consolidation and Docket 22-IB-86 re Alley Vacations on ProvertT at 1424 Dodge/1909-15 Greenwood.. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approving the plat of consolidation. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the plat of consolidation. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to waive the $2,900. appraised value of the proposed alley vacations. Ald. Bleveans commented that earlier similar requests have been denied by the P 6 D Committee and City Council, and that to recommend waiver of the fee for this property would not be consibtent and would set a poor precedent. Ald. Dru=e r stated that developers (Banbury) have not requested tax incentives or other incentives from the City to build a development on the corner of Dempster and Dodge that would be extremely beneficial to the City in the form of increased tax base, additional jobs, and improving the neighborhood. He therefore felt that the waiver of the 52.900. appraisal value would be very beneficial by improving the cooperative image of the City. Mark Kahan. of Banbury Development, Inc., spoke in favor of waiving the fee, citing similar statements made earlier by Ald. Drummer. The Coassittee voted 3-2 to waive the $2.900. fee. Voting Aye: Aldermen Juliar, Drummer and Warshaw. Voting May: Aldermen Brady and Bleveans. Ald. P i 0 Minutes January 27, 1986 Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded to approve the vacation of the alleys. Comaaittee voted S-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the vacation. Docjjt4 - - ' , Oyd#nagce 132-0-8S.,imend City Code Retarding Bandiat an4 o ectrical Contractors. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Julier seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of an ordinance to asmend the City Code to delete the requirement of bonding of electrical contractors and change the registration reEslations for electrical contractors to follow requirements in Illinois state Statutes. Committee voted S-0 to recommend to City Commatil introduction of the proposed code amendment. Consideration otjift.aftents to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Regarding Relidty lLI'MCA and Other similar institutiogs. Sip McMillan, a member of the Executive Committee of the board of Directors of the YMCA was present and stated that the Y's position has been explained In writing and presented to the P i D Committee, Housing Commission. He stated that it continues to be the T's policy that lock -outs are needed due to the type of clientele and the various instances that arise at the YMCA. He stated that if the 7 was required to eliminate the policy of lock -outs that it would have to evaluate its present operation of 177 rental units and consider closing those roosts to the public. McMillan stressed that the loch -outs are utilised only as a last resort after all other efforts have failed in obtaining timely payments or resolving other problems with tenants. Ald. Bleveans at a previous meeting on this issue stated that it was possible that be would have a conflict of interest with respect to this issue. However, at this time Ald. Bleveans stated that upon review of the Issue that he finds that this would not be a conflict of interest on his part and therefore he would participate in the discussion and voting on the 7 issue. Ald. Warshaw reiterated her position from the previous discussion that the Y should currently fall under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance even without amendments. Ald. Warshaw questioned the length of stay of many of the residents (4.5 year average as of 1983) and stated that this length of residency is very similar or maybe even erceeds the average tenant residency in the City of Evanston. Warshaw felt that this should be a factor in the decision making process. McMillan reiterated that because of the type of clients and the physical setting (common areas) that the situation is different than normal tenant arrangements and that the lock -out policy is a necessity. Aid. Brady stated that she dislites the lock -out policy, but founds her position on allowing the Y to continue the policy on strictly pragmatic reasons. Ald. Brady also suggested that the Y may look into collecting a small security deposit over a period of time thus to lessen the burden on the tenant. She also felt that it would not be a good time for the City to tamper with the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and possibly allow time r� - P i D Minutes January 27, 1986 State Legislature to review the ordinance and weaken or dismantle it. Ald. Brady also felt that dw to the typo of clientele and am* of the problems that arise at the T to take an extended period of time, possibly as long as two to three months, to evict someone would not be appropriate. Ald. Brady urged the Y to find alternative moans to plugging the locks. She also stated that the City cannot afford to lose a resource such as the Y's 177 relatively low cost units. Ald. Juliar spoke against including the Y under the current ordinance and cited the fact that strong measures are needed to enforce the social responsibility of some of the tenants of the Y. Ald. Warshaw ask Corporation Counsel Siegel for a definitive opinion with respect to the reason why the YMCA should not be included under the current Landlord/Tenant provisions. After a lengthy discussion, Ald. Warshaw offered to withdraw her original motion of January 13, 1986. which was to include the Y currently under the ordinance. until Corporation Counsel Siegel had an opportunity to provide additional comments on this issue. Ald. Druomer questioned McMillan as to the number of lock -outs the Y does daily. McMillan stated that the Y does plug locks as necessary, but that the Y mould not lock someone out in inclement weather such as the City is currently experiencing. McMillan explained that the Y currently has 20 plus residents on work programs to help work -off past due rent. McMillan emphasized that the Y only utilizes the lock -out procedures as a last resort. McMillan stated that recently a Resident Committee has been formed to explore a whole range of resident's concerns. This Committee may draw up some internal rental regulations with respect to the Y. Ald. Warshaw withdrew ber motion on the condition that this matter would be held -over to provide the Y an opportunity to respond with the findings of their Resident Comittee and also requested that staff provide to all members of the P 6 D Committee copies of the various opinions and historical information that has been distributed to the Housing Commission and City Council over the past several years. Aldermen Warshaw and Drummer emphasized the need to discuss this matter further and possibly reach a comprosmise between the various parties. At the request of the Committee this matter was held -over to the P b D Committee meeting of February 10, 1986. Ald. Rudy Reference re Ownership and Use of University Property outside of University Districts. Richard Stillerman was present and recapped material he had previously submitted to the P 6 D Committee with respect to this issue. 5tillerman referred to his memo to the P 5 D Committee dated November 11, 1985 and the attachments. The purpose of the memo and attachments was to detail the legislative history leading to the 1981 amendment adding the purpose clause to the University Districts section of the Zoning Ordinance, and second to explain how the language and organization of the present zoning ordinance, in Stillerman's opinion, leads to the inescapable conclusion that University -3- P' i D Minutes January 27. 1986 uses are restricted to the University Districts unless they are listed as University permitted or special uses in other districts. Jack Siegel provided a brief history of the University Districts development to the P i D Casmittee. It was Siegel's opinion that in 1963 it was never thought that the toning ordinance would preclude Northwestern from using land properly zoned in districts outside of the University Districts for uses permitted in those districts. Siegel stated that the problem is a constitutional one; sorting is related to the use of land and not to the ownership. Siegel gars a brief recap of the Sasapton Parkway case to substantiate his position. Siegel felt that uses owned by the University are different from University uses. Stillerman stated that he does not object to the University owning property outside of University Districts. He feels that the University can own property anywhere; but cannot use that property for University purposes If it is not in University zoned districts. Stillerman feels that the ass located at 2020 Ridge is for a University use, such as administration and therefore should not be permitted outside of the University zoned districts. Siegel stated it was his opinion, based upon the information supplied to his regarding the use at 2020 Ridge, that the use is one that any user could put their building to and that it was not inherently only being used for University purposes. Siegel felt that the identity of the property owner was absolutely unrelated to the use of the land. Due to the lateness of the meeting the Committee recowaended to continue this discussion to the next regular meeting of the P & D Committee on February 20, 1986, and since the issue is very broad, camplex and needs clarification sc that all parties understand the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. gld. 81eve ans sought the opinion of the Coanittee as to whether they wanted to meet from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. on February 3, 1986 to continue the discussion with Plan Commission members regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Committee voted 5-0 to meet at that time to further that discussion. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Next special meeting is February 3, 1986, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.. and the next regular meeting is February 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff db or t S.'Rud 116 -4- Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: OLD BUSINESS MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee February 3, 1986 7':30 P.M. J. Rle►oans, S. Brady. R. Warshaw and M. Juliar D. Drummer and J. Korshak R. Carlson, D. Carter, J. Lindwall and R. Rudd L. Hill. R, Koester, W. Novel and P. Peters J. Bleveans Proposed Comer abens i ve Plan Public Buildings, Goal: 'Provide and maintain a system of public buildings appropriate to the services and programs being provided to the community." Libby Hill, member of the Plan Commission, was present and reviewed the two objectives and eleven policy statements regarding this subject. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the policy statement include discussion of the use of private and public funds when available for these buildings. Ald. Brady was concerned that the issue of a library does not stand out as a separate section of the comprehensive plan. She suggested that the library be a separate subheading and questioned why the Plan Commission did not propose it in that manner. Peters statod that the Plan Commission felt that City Council did not want the library to be specifically highlighted since the Plan Commission had received a negative recommendation through the Capital Improvements Plan. Ald. Bleveans stated that he agrees with Ald. Brady and that if the Plan Commission feels it should be a separate heading then they should make such a recommendation. It was the consensus of the Committee and members of the Plan Commission to provide for the issue of the library to be in a subsection of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Utilities, Goal: "Insure that utilities are available to serve the varying needs of the Evanston residents and businesses." Hill reviewed the opening statement regarding the community utilities and the three objectives and seven policies presented in the plan. Ald. Warshaw expressed concern regarding page 15 of the text, where the discussion centered on the Metropolitan Sanitary District's Deep Tunnel System. It was her recommendation and concurrence of the Plan Commission members and other Committee members that a more positive ending should be detailed in the Comprehensive Plan rather than indicate the Deep Tunnel System would not reduce basement flooding, but wound only address pollution issues. P 6 G Minutes Special Meeting February 3. 1986 Oven Space. Parks and Recreational Facilities, Goal: "Provide open space resources, recreational facilities and services to Beet the varying needs of Evanston residents." Hill reviewed the two objectives and eighteen policies associated with various parks and recreational facilities. The Committee recomniendod no changes to this facet of the plan. Street S sY tIS, Goal: "Maintain a street system that provides safe, efficient and convenient access to hoses and establishments within this community and between Evanston and the metropolitan aces." Bill Novel presented the Introduction of the text regarding the transportation section and highlighted the two objectives and twelve policies proposed by the Plan Commission. Ald. Warshaw suggested that in Policy #10 the word "consistent" be struck and that the word "compatible" be substituted. Committee members and members of the Plan Commission concurred. Parking Goal: "Provide parking that takes into account demand for space, availability of land, community appearance, neighborhood impact, the need to attract and obtain businesses and economic feasibility." Novel reviewed briefly the three objectives and related fifteen policies with respect to parking. He questioned whether parking problems were actual or perceived. Public Transportation. Goal: "Assure that all members and areas of Evanston have access to a transit system that includes adequate service at a reasonable fare." Novel cited the proposed introduction from the Comprehensive Plan detailing the two objectives and the fourteen policies. Aid. Brady questioned Policy #11, which directed the City to "work towards an improved public conveyance linking Evanston to O'Hare Airport." Peters stated that the Plan Commission felt that the present means of transportation from Evanston to O'Hare was a drawback to the City. He felt as did the other members that if at all possible the City should make efforts to attempt to improve this transportation link. Ald. Warshaw questioned Policy #A and suggested that "sources of labor" be substituted for the term "labor pools". The Committee and members of the Plan Commission concurred. Ald. Brady questioned Policy #14 and suggested that the word "complete" be substituted for the word "pursue". All members concurred with this reconseendation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathways, Goal: "Establish and maintain bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems that encourage their increased and safe use." Peters reviewed the two objectives and related nine policies with respect to pedestrian and bicycle pathways. He felt that both of these items were an integral part to the overall fabric of the Evanston community and thus warrant a specific section. Peters noted that the proposal contained no new recommendations, but stressed the maintenance of the present facilities. She Committee had no comments on this section. t- -2- P i D Winutes Special Meeting February 3, 1986 Community Desian. Goal: "Provide and maintain an attractive community that creates a positive public image and encourages residents and businesses to locate and remain within the community". Peters stated that this section was important is that it recosssended that the City not only work, but it also must be attractive. Aid. Warshaw questioned policy Aa, which stated "encourage the use of more treatise public and private signs inhere possible". She recossmanded and the Committee and ambers of the Plan Commission concurred that the language should be restructured to "encourage more quiet and subdued ■ignage." Ald. Sle►eans suggested that in the goal that the word "residents" be changed to "individuals and families". The Committee concurred with that recossaandation. Aid. Warshaw questioned whether the specific name "industrial revenue bonds" should be deleted from the "moving ahead; examples and possibilities" section, since this financial mechanism may not be available meth longer. Ald. Warshaw suggested wording such as 'public financial support or assistance". The staff indicated that this specific section would be rewritten to take into account the concern expressed by Ald. Warshaw. Preservation. Goal: "Identify, protect and maintain those structures, landscapes, and street settings that especially contribute to the character of Evanston." Peters indicated to the Committee that this section draws heavily upon the work of the Preservation Commission. This section contains three objectives and twelve related policies. The Committee had no comments on this section. The Arts, Goal: "Maintain a supportive climate for artists, community arts and the Evanston arts industry." Roger Koester stated that the arts help slake Evanston an attractive setting. This section recognizes and encourages the arts field. Aid. Brady questioned whether the goal and the objective should be the same. Members of the Plan Comission and Committee agreed that the goal and objective should be reworded. It was recommended that "maintain" be deleted from the wording of the goal and that the word "supportive" be replaced by the word "enhance" in the objective. Peters indicated that the Plan Commission would review the wording of the goal and objective and provide a new statement. Sporty, Goal: "Encourage efficient use of all forms of energy by both private and public users, thus reducing economic hardship caused by rapidly rising energy prices." Libby Hill introduced the subject to the Committee by citing sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Aid. Brady questioned the quantification in the first objective of this section, which calls for a reduction in energy consumption in the year 1990 to SOIL of the amount used in 1980. She felt that specific numbers such as 80% should not be used. Committee concurred that the first objective should be rewritten to read as follows "reduced energy consumption". Is- -3- P i D Minutes Special Resting February 3, 1986 The Committee in review of Objective /2 felt that the ten "insure" was not appropriate as such a service could not be guaranteed by the City. Consensus of the Committee and sombers of the Plan Commission was to reword Objective 02 to read as follows "assist residents in maintaining utility services". With respect to Objective 04, the Committee recommended that the word "average" be deleted. Upon review of Objective 03 the Committee and members of the Plan Cassaission agreed to reword the objective as follows "Improve the energy efficiency of all buildings". Raviroment, Goal: "Provide a safe, pleasant and healthy environment for Yvanston residents and workers." Hill presented this section to the Committee which contains one objective and fourteen policies. Ald. Warshaw suggested with respect to Policy i7 that the term "water" be added so that the policy reads as follows "take an active part in supporting air, noise, and water pollution control in the Chicago Metropolitan area". The Committee members and Plan Commission members having completed the revie.0 of the Comprehensive Plan directed staff to present revised copies at a special meeting of the P i D Comittee scheduled for Monday, February 17, 1966 at 7:30 p.m. to review the changes. Also to be discussed at this meeting will be the Site Plan Review Ordinance. ADJOURNMHNT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Nest regular meeting of the P & D Committee is February 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: A'A0z�!AeJL4 obert T. Mudd 216 -4- _ MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 10, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, R. Warshaw, ff. Juliar and D. Drummer Ald. Absent: J. Korshak Staff Present: R. Carlson, J. Aiello, R. Ahlberg, S. Eiseman, P. Witt, D. Wirth, R. Bannister and R. Rudd Presiding Official: J. Bleveans Minutes of February 3. 1986. Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of January 27 and the minutes of the special meeting of February 3. 1986. Committee voted 3-0 to approve (Aldermen Drummer and Brady absent). COMMUNICATIONS The Committee received Rental Rehab Case 004-85 without comment since the case was within the Rental Rehabilitation Guidelines. OLD BUSINESS Consideration of Amendments to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance ReRardinR Residency at YWCA and Other Similar Institutions. Chairman Bleveans stated that he had received a suggestion from Ald. Warshaw that this matter be held -over to the special meeting of February 17, 1986. Committee concurred that this matter be placed on the subject agenda for further discussion and disposition. Docket 43-2A-86, Resolution 14-R-86 re Grant Apolication for Boat Access Ramp. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the subject resolution for the Boat Access Ramp paving. Ald. Drummer questioned Don Wirth about the estimated management cost. Wirth stated that his department would provide on -site construction management valued at approximately $6,000.-$8,000. Wirth further stated that the Public Works Director would provide the engineering thus providing a saving to the City. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the subject resolution. Docket 44-2A-86, Ordinance 9-0-86, Harper Garden. Ald. Brady moved and Aid. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 9-0-86 changing the name of St. Paul Park North to Harper Garden in honor of Betty and William Harper. The Committee also suggested that staff develop in addition to the ordinance a resolution to be read at the February 24, 1986 meeting and to invite Mrs. Harper. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend introduction of the subject ordinance to City Council. P 6 D Minutes February 10, 1986 Docket 45-2A-86. ZBA 85-40-SU(R). Ordinance 13-0-86 re Special Use for 1501 Central Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of subject ordinance. In a discussion Ald. Warshaw questioned if there would be any cost to the City. Jim Perry, Attorney for Northwestern Was present and stated that as in past cases if there were any cost incurred by the City that Northwestern would reimburse those costs. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend introduction of the special use ordinance. Docket 42-2A-86, Consider Plat of Consolidation for 100-110 South Boulevard. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation. Committee voted 5-0 to approve. Docket 41-2A-86, Ordinance 20-0-86 Consider Plat of Vacation for 1900 Crain Street lying East of Grey Avenue. Ald. Brady stated that at the previous meeting of January 27, 1986 that the developer brought a similar request for vacation and waiver of fee to the Committee. She felt that at that time she voted for the waiver because she did not realize that there would be further requests for waiving of fees. She stated that she could not support the waiver at this time. Ald. Warshaw concurred with Brady and stated that she could not support the request of waiver as presented by the developer. Ald. Drummer stated that as for the previous request he feels that this is a good incentive for the City to provide a developer. Mark Kahan, Attorney for the developer echoed Ald. Drummer's statements stating that the developer is bringing significant benefits to the City in the form of increased sales tax, real estate tax, employment and asked that the City grant this waiver of fee and thus provide a statement of policy of goodwill toward developers. Alan Brody, also a representative of the developer stated that the waiver was requested since the area to be vacated in his opinion, should have been done many years ago by the City and that the developer is placed in a position now of attempting to accomplish that vacation and possibly being charged for something he feels should not be a cost to the developer. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the vacation of the subject property. Committee voted 5-0 to vacate the property. Ald. Drummer moved and Aid. Juliar seconded for the Committee to approve waiver of the fee of $5,670. Voting Aye: Aldermen Drummer, Juliar and Bleveans. Voting May; Aldermen Warshaw and Brady. Motion passed 3-2. Docket 40-2A-86, Ordinance 19-0-86, Consider Plat of Alley Vacation for Crain Street lying West of Dodge Avenue. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council vacation of the requested alley. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the vacation. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council waiver of the $17,457 fee. Voting Aye: Aldermen Bleveans, Juliar and Drummer. Voting Nay: Aldermen Warshaw and Brady. Motion passed 3-2. -2- P A D Minutes February 10, 1986 Docket 46-2A-86. Zoning Variation, ZBA 85-36-A(F)-V(R) - 1244 Forest Avenue. Attorney Callahan was present for the applicant and summarized their position. Chairman Bleveans stated that the recommendation from the Zoning Board was a 3-3 vote, being forwarded to the Committee with no recoms,endation. Ald. Brady stated that she had reviewed the site and upon driving through the alley finds that many houses in the area have dwelling units in the coach houses which are located in the sane neighborhood as the applicant. She feels that the applicant's request for a studio is less intense than the coach houses that are being occupied as dwelling units. and that the studio would not impinge on the neighborhood as a home occupation. Ald. Juliar stated that he has no problems with the studio use as proposed, but is concerned that in the future some other owner may either change the studio into a dwelling unit or request the City to allow the studio to be changed into a dwelling unit. Ald. Warshaw also asked the applicant if they would agree to a covenant restricting the building to be used not as a dwelling, but only as a studio. The applicant so agreed. Ald. Warshaw also asked the applicant if they would agree to a second condition stating that the construction will be in substantial compliance with plans submitted to the City. The applicant agreed to the second condition with respect to the first Attorney Callahan stated that he would agree that the covenant could be recorded and would run with the property. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that Committee recomend to City Council approval of the zoning variation with the two covenants as contained in the staff report, dated October 8. 1985. Coemi ttee voted 11•-0. With respect to a request in the transcripts by the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ald. Brady recommended that the P & D Committee mane clear to the Zoning Board that the Committee concur with the staff original interpretation and feels that the zoning ordinance should be strictly interpreted and that relief can be sought thru the Zoning Board and City Council. The Committee concurred. Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston. 2201 Foster Street Request. Discussion ensued regarding the overall issue which originally arose in 1984. The original request was from Rev. Webb asking that the City amend their lease with the Metropolitan Sanitary District to allow the church to accomplish a combination of various projects on the church's current site adjacent to MSD property. Those original requests dealt with the construction of a home for the elderly, a new church and parking area. Most recently Rev. Webb has requested that the City amend the lease with the Metropolitan Sanitary District to allow the church to construct a new structure on MSD land thus allowing for the current church structure to be demolished and that area to be utilized for a parking lot. Ald. Drummer stated that he felt that the City should agree since the church does noed to expand. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the City should become involved in this issue and whether the City could either amend the lease with MSD or sublet the property to the church to construct a building on MSD property. Staff indicated that the request as currently proposed would be in conflict -3- P b D Minutes February 10. 1986 with the current Comprehensive Plan of the City, the proposed revised Comprehensive Plan of the City and the proposed Greenbelt Zoning District which is presently before the P & D Committee. Ald. Warshaw requested that until a legal opinion is received, this natter should be held -over. Committee concurred that this matter be held -over to the tweeting of February 24. 1996. Ald. Rudy Reference re Ownership and Use of University Property outside of University Districts. Aid. Brady stated that at this time she could not vote one way or the other on the subject, since the issue is so complex and she does not at this time fully grasp all of the issues at hand. Ald. Drummer questioned what the City Council wanted the toning ordinance to say and what did the former City Council want the zoning ordinance to say. Ald. Warshaw expressed her thoughts that the previous City Council did not get what they thought they got with the amendment to the "purpose" clause of the zoning ordinance with respect to University Uses. Ald. Drummer stated that he felt that in some trade-offs that were agreed to many years ago the City did not get their fair share. Ald. Bleveans stated that the statement of purpose reflects what the City Council wanted and it is constitutional. He stated that he does agree with the interpretation provided by Corporation Council Siegel, and is not swayed by the argument presented by Richard Stillerman. After discussion the Committee directed staff to pose the following questions regarding the University Districts to Northwestern University before further discussion at the Committee takes places. Staff was directed to ask the University what the University believes are University Uses and what University uses are permissible outside of university zoned districts. The Committee wanted to make clear that the information being requested is In the spirit of trying to establish a workable zoning ordinance applicable to the University and is not information intended to be utilized against the University in the future. Committee voted 5-0 to make the request to the University. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee ask Northwestern University how 2020 Ridge is currently being utilized. Committee voted 5-0 to make that request to Northwestern. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting will be a special meeting of the P b D Committee, February 17. 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Next regular meeting will be February 24. 1986 at 7:30. Staff Robert T, Rudd' ? 39 -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee Special Meeting February 27, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: J. Blovoans, S. Brady, R. Warshaw, ff. Juliar and J. [orshak Ald. Absent: D. Drvmmor Staff Present: R. Ahlberg, S. Eiseman. D. Carter, J. Aiello, R. Bannister and R. Carlson Presiding Official: J. Bloveans Minutes of February 10. 1986 Ald. Brady requested a change in the minutes in the item Docket 41-2A-86, line 3, the word "she" should be removed and sentence should read "Ald. Warshaw felt that at the time she voted for the waiver because she did not realize there would be further requests for the waiving of fees". Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Committee voted 3-0 to approve. COMMUNICATIONS A staff memo was approved recommending the February 24, 1986 Planning A Development Committee sooting time to be 7:00 p.m., and also suggesting a March 3. 1986, 7:30 p.m. sooting. OLD BUSINESS Docket 265-11A-85. Ordinance 89-0-85. Amend City Code to Establish Site Plan Review. Ald. Brady questioned whether the recent variation case at 1244 Fores.L would have come under the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Carlson replied that the proposed variation was reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee, but absent the variation, the property would not fall under the proposed site plan ordinance because it was a residential use in a residential zone. Ald. Brady also questioned Section 4-17-2(A)-8, whereby any proposed development for which parking is to be located off -site would fall under the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Ahlberg replied that the reason for site plan review in those instances is to confirm compliance with distance regulations, screening, etc. The December 4, 1985 letter from Northwestern University and their request for certain exemptions from the ordinance was discussed. especially item number 3 regarding exempting the U-6 University Lakefront Campus District from the proposed ordinance. Carlson noted the many regulations in the zoning code that applied to the U-6 District. Carter P i D Minutes Special Meeting February 17, 1966 emphasized that the proposed ordinance is concerned only with the placement of buildings and the affect of the development on adjacent property and that the proposed ordinance is not an architectural review of proposed buildings. Ald. Warshaw saved that the U-6 District be added to Section 4-17-20). excepting development in the U-6 District that is more than 100 feet back from any street right-of-way (Sheridan Road and Lincoln Avenue) bordering the 0-6 District. Notion seconded by Ald. Brady. Committee voted 4-1 to approve recommendation of Site Plan Review Ordinance to City Council for introduction on February 24, 1986. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Plan Commission Chairman Peters reviewed a memo from the Commission dated February 17. 1986 in regard to revisions made in the Comprehensive General Plan text and land use definitions. He also reviewed a memo dated February 17, 1986 which explained the revisions wade during the previous two sessions reviewing the Comprehensive General Plan. Carter reviewed changes made in the Comprehensive General Plan nap, noting the highlighting of now shopping centers at 2400 Rain and Dodge/b*mpmter being classified differently than the traditional strip business areas. Ald. Bleveans noted that the revisions captured the essence of all the suggested changes made by the P i D Committee in their two previous discussion sessions. He also requested suggestions from the Committee regarding the planning for presenting the Plan to City Council. Ald. Brady suggested that the Council enter into a Committee -of -the -Whole for discussion of the Plan in order that the members of the Plan Commission and Director of Planning could participate in the discussion after their initial presentation. Carter stated that the revised p16n and map could be ready for presentation to the Council on !larch 24. 1986. Ald. Korshak stated that with the amount of work and the importance of this document to the City, it should receive a thorough discussion by Council prior to adoption. Ald. Warshaw moved for approval of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Map for recomewndation to City Council for adoption, motion was seconded by Ald. Korshak. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the motion. Consideration of Amendments to Landlord/Tenant Ordinance Regarding ResideneX at YMCA and Other Similar Institutions. Kip McMillan, representing the YMCA, reviewed a memo presented to the Committee members dated February 17. 1986. This memo outlined the system followed by Y staff members in cases of non-payment of rent. Ald. Warshaw proposed a compromise position which puts the Y under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance With the ordinance applying to residents only after they had been residents of the Y for a prescribed number of days or months. Ald. Sleveans reviewed his previous decision not to vote on the proposed ordinance and announced his present opinion of not having a conflict of interest and his intent to vote on the Ordinance. Ald. Warshaw questioned the reasoning of -2- P i D Minutes Special Meeting February 17, 1986 Ald. dleveans for his change from a "conflict" position to a "no conflict" position. Aid. Brady stated her desire to have the Committee on Committees consider conflict of interest questions and present their recommendations to City Council. She suggested further that there may be a way to separate Issues in the I case with separate consideration being given to the "no rent and plugging locks" issue and the "behavior case" issues. Attorney Eiseman replied that this may undermine the intent of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and be difficult to defend. Also, she stated that such a separation may be Included in legislation separate from the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Ald. Korshak stated that regardless of whether the issue could be taken care of under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance or independent of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance, the Y should be denied the ability to plug locks. Ald. Hle*sans stated his position that the issue is eithar: should the Y be placed under the ordinance or shall it remain outside of the ordinance. Former Housing Commission member Yilen stated that, subsequent to his review of the YMCA enema of February 17, 1986, he sees nothing nnw or changed in the Y policies as stated in the memo. He stated further that previous compromise positions offerd to the I in 1963 by the housing Commission subcommittee were turned down by the T. He also stated that changes in the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance may be legal which would enable the Y to act quicker on "behavior" cases as opposed to "no rent" cases. Kip KtRillan stated that in the past twelve month period no evictions from the Y have occurred for failure to pay rent. He stated additionally that 3% of residents who have had their locks plugged in the past year have moved without paying the rent owed, thus forcing the Y to absorb this loss of income. Aid. Yrrshaw suggested a policy whereby Y residents could be categorized as long term and short term, with short tetra residents (suggested less than thirty days) being subject to lock plugging and long term residents (in excess of thirty days) being subject to normal eviction proceedings. Kip McMillan stated that any changes in the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance affecting Y residents would prohibit the Y from keeping up with their present 93% occupancy rate and then losing income that is applied to other community programs. Michael Ponsack, representing the Tenants Organization of Evanston, stated his opinion that tenants at the Y currently are covered under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and are entitled to due process of law. He further stated that under the present situation Y tenants have no rights, that rooms are subject to search at anytime and that tenants are brow -beaten by management in almost every controversy. He further stated, that the Y is not a religious institution or a fraternal organization, that they are in fact r rooming house and that there is no basis for the exclusion of the Y from -he Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Vilen stated that April 1981 memorandums were issued regarding the religious Issues related to the Y and the interpretation of occupancy in a motel or hotel. Marilyn Rasza, representing the Cook County Legal Assistance Office stated that she has represented several Y roomers who were locked out of their rooms, and that a change in the ordinance is needed. She stated 5-M P i D Minutes Special Meeting February 17. 2986 further that despite two court cases regarding this problem the judges have maanged to issue opinions that really evaded the question. Ald. Korshak stated that the Y has not met criteria for exclusion from the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and stated his agreement to Ald. Warshaw's compromise plan whereby longer term residents would receive greater consideration in rent payment questions. Wilen reviewed past Housing Commission recommendations whereby Landlord/Tenant Ordinance protection for tenants of thirty -plus days was recommended and not approved. Ald. Warshaw stated that regardless of the Committee vote on this matter this evening, the question should go to City Council for final determination. Ald. Brady stated that she is voting against placing the Y under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance because she can not justify the long eviction process necessary if the Y were placed under the ordinance, the Y serves transient housing needs, the possibility that 177 rooms would disappear from the City housing supply if the Y rooming units were closed, and the fact that any changes in the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance may jeopardize the ordinance by action of the State Legislature. Ald. Korshak moved that the Committee recommend to City Council changes in the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance that would prohibit lock -outs of Y tenants with a occupancy span of thirty -plus days, motion seconded by Ald. Warshaw. By a vote of 2-3 the Committee failed to approve the emotion. Voting Aye: Aldermen Korshak and Warshaw. Voting Nay: Aldermen Bleveans. Juliar and Brady. Ald. Brady suggested that for the City Council meeting of March 10, 1986 the Housing Comsuission memo of October 28, 1985, the Y memo of February 17. 1986 and minutes from the last two P i D Committee meetings be forwarded to City Council for their information. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Korshak made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ald. adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Nest regular meeting of the P b February 24, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Special meeting Monday, 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing the BOCK Existing Staff: W.", Reed Carlson -4- Brady, meeting D Committee, Monday, March 3, 1986 at Structures Code, Ald. Present: Staff Present: Presiding Official: Others Present: MINUTES Planning and Development Committee February 24, 1986 7:00 P.K. U J. Bleveans, S. Brady, R. Warshaw, K. Juliar, J. [orsbak, and D. Drussser R. Ahlberg, R. Bannister, R. Carlson, D. Carter, B. Rill, R. Rudd and P. Witt J. Bleveans Anita Wake, League of Women Voters - Observer Minutes of the S00cial Meeting of the Planning and Develooment Committee February 17. 1986 Ald. torshak saved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the February 17, 1986 special meeting. Chairman Bloveans re- gnested that the presence of the League of Woman Voters' Observer, Anita Wake, be reflected in the minutes. Committee voted 5 - 0 to approve the minutes of February 17, 1986. (Juliar absent) COMMUNICATIONS The committee reviewed numerous communications reflecting final Zoning Board of Appeals decisions without comment. OLD BUSINESS Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston - 2201 Foster Street Ald. Drummer questioned the difference between the request of the Friendship Baptist Church and the issue of the Over The Rainbow proposal to utilize Community Hospital, which is also located on KSD property. It was explained that the latter is a situation where the KSD owns the property and the City Is not party to the agreement between Over The Rainbow and KSD regarding use of the existing building. Also, the existing Community Hospital building predated the lease. Reverend Zollie Webb, minister of the subject Church was present and requested that the City allow his Church to construct a parking lot on the KSD property and that the Church would pay the full cost for the paving and construction of the lot. Webb suggested that the only condition be that no cars be allowed to park more than 24 hours on the lot. Herb Hill, Corporation Counsel, was present and stated that the City has in the past leased parking to Churches. Hill cautioned that there could be P i D Ainutes February 24. 1986 possible limitations on RSD by statue with respect to the use of their pro- perty. Ald. Dleveans stated that the parkin` lot could.be for citizens to park during their use of the open space along the KSD property. Webb stated that he had contacted Commissioner Fuller of the XSD who informed him that the KSD would have no objection to Friendship Baptist Church locating a parking lot on the property. but that the City Council would have to approve an amendment to the current lease between the KSD and the City. However, Webb had not as yet received RSD approval in writing. Ald. Warshaw sug- gested that before further discussion of this matter that a legal opinion be sought from the City's Legal Department with respect to whether the City could build a parking lot for recreational purposes on NSD property and have the parking lot paid for in total by the Friendship Baptist Church as agreed to by Reverend Webb. The scatter will be held over until lurch 10, 1986 pending receipt of the legal opinion. Docket 55-28-86. Ordinance 12-0-86 Amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance Ald. Brady gave a brief introduction stating that essentially the Ordinance being reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee and previously been reviewed by the Housing Commission is one of cleaning up an Ordinance that was established several years ago which contained various functions and boards that no longer exist or have not been utilized. Ald. Korshak upon review of the Ordinance raised several questions with the deletions recom- mended by the Housing Commission. Ald. Korshak felt that Section 5-6-7 re- garding the review and evaluations of staff members by the Housing Commis- sion should be included contrary to the recommendation of the Housing Coca - mission to delete that section of the Ordinance. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that language in Section 5-6-7 regarding the evalu- ation be reinserted in the Ordinance before the Committee. Discussion en- sued among Committee members with respect to the pros and cons of having a lay commission review City staff. Rudd indicated that conflicts could very well arise with respect to the chain of command and organization since the Housing Commission could be reviewing several staff members that only serve part-time and in varying degrees to the Housing Commission. The Committee voted a - 2 to leave out the provision regarding Housing Commission review of staff. With respect to a second issue. Ald. forahak recosssended that the Committee provide specific language detailing the number of renters that should sit on the Housing Commission. Ald. Korshak stated that approximately S0% of the population of the City of Evanston consists of renters. Therefore, he felt that approximately 50% of the ten (10) members of the Housing Commission should be renters rather than owners. He felt that it is unfair to the renters since the current composition of the Housing Commission does not in- clude any renters. Ald. Brady questioned whether the motion should include not only tenants, but that certain members of the Housing Commission should be landlords. Ald. Warshaw stated that she did not feel that there needed P i D Minutes February 24, 1986 to be a numerical figure set forth in the Ordinance. Ald. Ble►eans stated that he would support direction to the Mayor to consider varied appointments to the Mousing Cosssission to include renters, but did not favor a specific number of rooters be part of the Housing Commission. Ald. Korshak stated that he feels that renters need the representation on the Housing Cossmission and that they are not being adequately recognised with the current composi- tion. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that wording be added to the proposed Ordinance stating that 'tenants shall be fairly represented." Further discussion ensued without resolution to the emotion. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Coammittee recommended that this issue be held over to the March 10, 1986 sooting for further discussion. Ordinance 21-0-86 Special Use for 1501 Central Street Ald. Eorshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Commwittee recommend Introduction of the special use for a Home Show at McGaw Hall on March 21 thru March 23, 1986. and also a second show be approved for March or April 1987. Committee toted 6 - 0 to recommend the City Council introduction of the special use. Ald. Brady suggested that since many of the special uses that cone before the Planning and Development Coswittee as requested by Northwestern at ReGaw Hall that some of these could be reviewed to possibly view then as being permitted uses. Staff stated that it would prepare a report for the March 10, 1906 meeting with some suggestions and background regarding several spe- cial uses at McGaw Hall that have proven not to be problems in the past for the Cosmitte*'s consideration. Ordinance 30-0-86 Municipal Uses and Transit and Transportation Facilities Ald. Bradt moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend the to City Council introduction of the subject Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to limit municipal uses permitted in all zoning districts to City of Evanston uses and list "Transit and Transportation Facilities" and spe- cial uses in M-a Districts. Committee voted 6 - 0 to recommend City Council Introduction. ADJOUQNMSNT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Next regular scheduled meeting March 20, 1986, 7:30 p.m. The nest special meeting of the Planning and Development Cos■iittee is scheduled for March 3, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff 1299C MINUTES Special meeting Planning and Development Committee March 3, 1906 7:30 P.M. Aid. Present: J. Bleveans, S. Brady, R. Warshaw, M. Juliar and J. Korsbek Aid. Absent: D. Drummer Staff Present: 9. Carlson, R. Bannister and R. Rudd Presiding Official: J. Bleveans Minutes of !larch 3. 1964 (Special Mestin&I Aid. Juliar moved and lid. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the February 24, 1986 meeting. lid. Bleveans stated that with respect to others present the observer from the League of Women Voters now Is Anita Wait. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS Aid. Brady indicated that she had received word that the metropolitan Sanitary District was concerned with the steps underway by the City (currently at the Planning i Development Cosssittee) to rezone the MSD Canal banks area to a recreational zone from its designation primarily as 1-1. It was the consensus of the Cosmcittee that Chairman Bleveans should draft a letter to be forwarded to Frank Dalton, (Superintendent of nSD) and relate to him past correspondence between Corporation Counsel Siegel and Counsel for the MSD. That correspondence indicated the MSD did not object to the rezoning proposal before the City. This item with respect to rezoning the canal banks was originally scheduled for the P A D Committee meeting of March 10, 1986. was recommended to be held -over to the March 24, 1986 sleeting to allow appropriate time for response from the MSD. Chairs= Bleveans indicated that he had received telephone calls from at least two aldermen, who would not be present at the March 10, 1986 meeting to discuss the YMCA issue. Therefore, he stated that if the Cosssittee concurred that he would recommend that this scatter be held -over to the March 24, 1986. City Council meeting to allow full discussion. The Committee concurred with the comments from Chairman Bleveans. OLD BUSINESS Docket 177-8A-85. Ordinance 70-0-85. Proposed B.O.C.A. EzistinR Structures Code 1984. Chairman Bleveans provided a brief overview at the request of Ald. Korshak with respect to how the Committee got to the stage it has regarding review of various Property Maintenance Codes. Staff also provided input citing minutes of various P i D Committee meetings in July 1902, and also related comments from Housing Commission Minutes in 1980. Ald. Korshak suggested that the City may look at a blending aspect of the BOCA Code into the P i D Minutes March 10, 1986 current City of Evanston's Rousing Code rather than adopting an entirely now code. Chairman Bleveans suggested that the Committee seek broad base community input into the development of the Code prior to making any formal decision. Ald. Brady stated that a review of the documents and memorandums submitted to the Committee indicate that the staff favors the BOCA Existing Structures Code 1934, and requested the specific reasons why staff favors that code over previous proposed codes. Discussion ensued with respect to a doe ameat that was forwarded to the P i D Committee in July 1982, which compared the current Housing Code, a draft 2982 Housing Code and a 1977 Housing Code indicated as drafted by Barbara Zimmer and Ingrid Kistler. Ald. Korshak indicated that be would prefer to hear testimony from people that participated in the ZI mmer-Kistler code drafting. Discussion occurred regarding the various codes that were reviewed by past P i D Committees and the substance of those discussion. Rudd indicated that he would supply the Cawittee copies of past P i D Committee minutes, Housing Commission minutes and working notes. Staff distributed a copy of the analyses of the aforementioned 1977, 1982 and current Housing Code that was originally distributed on July 6, 1982 to a past P i D Committee. Ald. Brady stated that at this point her recommendation that the Committee review the various analyses of the codes that have been presented over the years to P i D Committees and that the matter be held -over until such time the Committee receives the documentation requested and has had an opportunity to review the material already received. No further hearing date was scheduled for this matter. The Committee discussed establishing a special meeting date to review the Planned Unit Development regulations. It was the consensus of the Committee to schedule Monday, !larch 17. 1986 at 7:30 P.M. to begin review of the proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The Committee directed that the Preservation Commission and members of ZAC be notified of the subject hearing date. Rudd indicated that an attempt is being made to schedule a meting between members of the Zoning board of Appeals and the P A D Committee. The Committee agreed that a tentative date of April 21, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. would be workable. That time will be confirmed with the Committee at a later date. Ald. Korshak recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals provide a memo in advance of the tentatively scheduled April 21, 1986 meeting, detailing questions that that Board wishes to discuss with the P 6 D Committee. It was also suggested that if any members of the P & D Committee have items to be discussed that they forward those to staff in order that an agenda could be developed for the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the meeting be adjourned. Committee voted to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Next regular meeting is March 10, 1956 at 7:30 p.m. Staff • ' _ a udd 39 -2- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 10, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: J. Bleveans, R. Warshaw, M. Juliar, S. Brady, D. Dru=*r, and J. torshak Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Bannister, L. Talkington, W. Morin, J. Siegel, R. Carter, J. Aiello and R. Rudd Presiding official: J. Bleveans M a LVs of Itsrcb 3. 1986 Ald. Rorshak moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meetibg of the Planning L Development Committee of March 3, 1986. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS The Committee received numerous communications without comment. Housing Commission Report on Multi -Family Demolition Moratorium Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee accept the Housing Commission Report stating that the Commission does not recommend to the P A D Committee that a moratorium be imposed on the demolition of low and moderate income multi --family units. Ald. Brady provided a brief explanation of the Housing Comsmission position and the progress that the Commission is making on further studies of the issue at hand. Ald. Brady emphasized that the Commission though recommending against a moratorium feels that it is necessary that the issue of possible demolition of low and moderate income housing be studied further. Michael Pensack was present and reminded the Committee that this issue originally arose from the proposed project at Kedzie and Chicago. He stated that the developer could have proceeded if no aid was sought from the City. Pensack stated that the Housing Commission does not reflect the feeling of the community. Ald. Brady reiterated that the Housing Commission is studying the issue in depth and is concerned about possible elimination of affordable housing units in the City. Pensack claimed that the Housing Commission is not dealing with the issue the way the community wants it to be dealt with and insisted that the Housing Commission's opinion does not reflect the feelings of the community. Committee agreed to accept the Housing Commission's report and to wait for further studies from the Housing Commission. Docket 74-3A-86. Dedication of Greenhouse at Lighthouse Park for Marierl Carlson. Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend approval of the request to name the greenhouse at Lighthouse Park in the name of Dr. Margery Carlson. Ken Wenzel of the Ecology Center, Beth Schroeder and Abby Cartwright were present to speak on behalf of the P & D Minutes March 10, 1986 reccoo ndation. The representatives gave a brief background of the work accomplished by Dr. Carlson throughout the state and specifically the City of Evanston. Chairman Ble►eons ask how much of the requirement which states that an individual's name can not be applied to a public place until five tiara after passing. The representatives indicated that almost the entire five year requirement is being requested to be waived since Dr. Carlson died recently. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council the dedication of the greenhouse at Lighthouse Park for Dr. Margery Carlson (Aldermen Korshak and Drummer absent). Docket 76-3A-86. Plat of Consolidation for Property at S.W. Corner Dodge a t RMster for Banbury De►elooment Corporation. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval to City Council, (Aldermen Korshak and Drummer absent). Docket 77-3A-86, Consider Request of Banbury Development Corporation for three (3) Driveways thirty-six (36) ft. in Width on Dodge Avenue and Dempster Street. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the extraordinary driveway width as requested. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the request (Aldermen Korshak and Drummer absent). At a later point in the meeting upon return of Aid. Korshak, the Alderman requested an explanation of reasons for the request. Nark Kahn, Attorney for the developer, stated that the request is in line with the traffic study by Barton-Aschmann Associates which recommended the extra turning bays which necessitate the widening of the driveways. Kahn stated that the proposed configuration of driveways would not cause a traffic problem on Dodge and Dempster. Ald. Korshak questioned Kahn if he would agree that if traffic problems would appear in the future the developer would provide at his own cost sufficient signage to resolve the problem. Kahn stated that he could not agree to that, but he felt that the City always had that authority to require such signage. Attorney Siegel agreed with Kahn. Docket 78-3A-86, Ordinance 29-0-86. Extension of Pole SiRn Moratorium. Aid. Juliar moved and Aid. Brady seconded to recommend to City Council extension of the pole sign moratorium for six months. Upon questioning with respect to this additional time extension, staff indicated that the sign consultant due to a medical problem has been unable to work within the original time frame. The consultant has indicated that the project will soon resume at a normal pace and hoped to be finished in the near future. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council the extension of the pole sign moratorium. The Committee indicated that the minutes should express the concern that this Committee may not look favorably upon another extension if the consultant fail to most this new deadline. -2- P i D Minutes March 10, 1986 Dogket 75-3A-86. Consider Plat of Subdivision for (1) 1923-2001 DengLterA. (21 1917-21 Deseaster and (3) 1908-12 Greenwood. Ald. Warshaw saved and Ald. Brady seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the subject plat of subdivision. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval to City Council (Aldermen Eorshak and Drummer absent during vote). Ordinance 12-0-86. Amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance. Chairman Bleveans reviewed a letter from Sid Ross, Chairman of the Housing Commission to Mayor Barr stating the Housing Commission recommendations with respect to tenant representation on the Housing Commission. The essence of the Ross letter is that the Mayor should consider the overall population of the City of Evanston and particularly that of renters. The Housing Co fission letter via Chairman Ross did not recommend a numerical figure be affixed to tenant sembership on the Housing Commission. Ald. Eorshak stated that he wants something sore explicit with respect to tenants on the Housing Commission and feels that it is necessary to place a numerical figure in the ordinance establishing the Housing Caw•ission so that tenants can be assured that they are better represented on the Housing Commission. Aid. Juliar stated that he agrees that there should be a broad base on the Housing Commission. However, he is troubled with specific numerical designations. Ald. Juliar stated that he feels that there are different populations within the City of Evanston. such as co-ops, roosters, boarders, renters and single family homeowners. He further stated that he doesn't know how to design the proper mix but supports a wider range of backgrounds within the Housing Commission's membership. Aid. Warsbaw stated that she feels it is a disgrace and Insensitive not to presently have any tenants on the Housing Commission. She stated that it is unrepresentative of approximately SO% of the population in Evanston and that tenants need to have a spokesperson on the Housing Commission. Aid. Brady stated that she feels that there is a lack of tenant representation on the Housing Commission, but she can not support a 50/50 make-up of tenants/homeowners on the Housing Commission. Aid. Brady offered to consider a minimum of three (3) tenants. Chairman Bleveans expressed his concern that there are several different housing interests within the City of Evanston and to divide the make-up of the Housing Commission numerically only into owners and renters and to exclude other housing segments of the populatlon would be unfair. Chairman Bleveans stated that he is opposed to the numerical designation. Ald. Brady stated that she feels that in a mature city such as the City of Evanston and with such a high percent (50%) of tenants that tenant's issues and concerns will be growing and that there needs to be tenant appointees to the Housing Commission. Aid. Korshak moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that an amendment be made to Section S-6-2 of the Housing Commission Ordinance stating that a minimum of three (3) tenants be appointed to the Housing Commission. Committee voted 4-2 to approve that amendment. Voting May: Aldermen Bleveans and Juliar. A question arose with -3- P i D Minutes March 10, 1986 respect to placing tenants on the Rousing Commission and whether current members who come up for a renewal for a second term would be precluded from continuing on the Commission if they were not currently tenants. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee recommended that Ordinance 12-0-86 be held -over for further discussion at the special meeting of the P i D Committee scheduled for March 17, 1986, but that the ordinance as drafted be Introduced on March 10. 1986, so as to avoid a sunset provision for dissolution of the Rousing Commission on March 24, 1986. Staff was directed to provide proper wording for further review of that smeadmat to the P i D Committee. Ald. [orshak *owed and Aid. Warshaw seconded that with respect to annual review of staff of the Housing Commission that he would again recommend that the appropriate section be reinserted in the ordinance, recommending that staff be reviewed by the Rousing Commission. The Housing Commission and the P i D Committee had voted at a previous meting that this provision regarding review of staff be eliminated. Aid. Warshaw suggested that possibly the word "shall' could be changed to "way" and leave the review process at the discretion of the housing Commission. Aid. Drummer expressed his concern about reinserting the annual review section. After a brief discussion the Committee voted on the earlier motion. Motion failed 4-2 (Aldermen xorshak and Warshaw voting to include the section.) Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston, 2201 Foster Street Request. The Committee reviewed a legal opinion from the City's Legal Department and a memo from staff regarding parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The Committee felt that the legal opinion precluded the possibility of the City building a parking lot. The zoning ordinance intent would be defeated If the parking lot was built for Church use to satisfy parking requirements. Aid. Drummer stated that in light of this evidence the only alternative for the Church is to petition for a variation to eliminate the requirements to supply off-street parking. Rev. Zolly Webb of the Friendship Baptist Church was present and expressed his concern that even if the variation was granted the problem would still exist in that the Church would have no off-street parking nor anyway to construct said parking without building the parking lot on the RSD open space property. Committee recommended that Rev. Webb meet with staff to discuss the variation alternatives. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Next regularly scheduled meeting March 24, 1986. The next special special meeting of the P 6 D Committee is scheduled for March 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff Robert T. Itu d 39 -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 17, 1986 7:30 F.M. Ald. Present: f. Juliar, S. Brady, R. Warshaw and J. Bleveans. Ald. Absent: J. xorshak and D. Drwsmer Staff Present: G. Sommers -?ant, R. Carlson, L. TsIkington, R. Rudd, and Ahlberg. Others Present- Tom Stafford, Shirley Ellis, Mary McWilliw and Hartle* Roberg Presiding Official: J. Bleveans giantes of Special Meeting of March It. 1986. Ald Juliar moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the P A D Committee Meting of March 10, 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS Docket 55-2B-86. Ordinance 12-0-86 re Amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance. After a brief discussion Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that now language be added to Section 5-6--2 "Establishment of the Board". Ald. Brady moved that a last sentence of the subject paragraph be added indicating that tenants will be placed as members an the Housing Commission within five (5) years of the adoption of the ordinance. The Committee voted 4-0 to add the new language and recommend to City Council adoption at the meeting of March 2*, 1986. NEW BUSINESS Docket 191-10A-74. Ordinance 122-0-85. ZAC 84-6. Comprehensive Amendments to the Planned Development Zoning Regulations. Bob Ahlberg, Zoning Planner was present and gave a brief overview of the history of the Comprehensive Amendments to the Planned Development section. Ahlberg stated that the reference has been under review by ZAC since 1977. He also highlighted that with respect to preservation issues ZAC did not address that since the Preservation Commission was reviewing the matter. Ald. Brady stated that except for R1, R2 and R3 Districts, she felt that the cast of the report Was quite technical in nature and not controversial. ZAC member Stafford stated that he agrees. He stated that the major part of the report dealt with lot size in respect to the R Districts. Ald. Brady asked if someone could explain why developers would want to use the planned P i D Minutes !larch 17, 1986 development in R District. She questioned whether there are enough incentives. ZAC member Ellis stated that if a developer had large R1, R2 or R3 lots, there are sufficient incentives in the proposal to utilised the planned development section. Ellis further stated that ZAC did not anticipate significant development on smaller lots. She stated that that was not the intent of the ZAC proposal. Ald. Brady questioned that if the City wanted to preserve Cove School, are there enough incentives for the developer to save Cove School main building! Ald. Warshaw questioned whether Preservation concerns should be incorporated in the current proposed planned developmest ordinance. Ellis stated that ZAC would have liked to, bet felt it couldn't at this time because the Preservation Commission was reviewing that aspect. McWilliams, Preservation Commission Chairman stated that there presently are strong disincentives to keeping Core School. The land is valuable for single family development. She stated that the Preservation Commission is concerned with maintaining open space at Cove. The question arose with respect to how many single family units could be built on the site. It was estimated by McWilliams that fire (5) to eleven (11) single family hones could be constructed on the site, depending upon whether the current buildings were left intact or removed. Ellis sited the 1800 block of Asbury as an area where large houses were not converted to condominiums or rental units contrary to what many people had speculated would happen throughout the 1970's. Ald. Brady was concerned that the Cove School site as a planned unit development would allow for open space which would be desirable. McWilliams stated that they had applied for two (2) grants to study the open space issues regarding situations like Cove School. Sommers -Pant, Preservation Commission Coordinator said that the Commission is in the amidst of a comprehnnsive zoning amendment review that would address preservation Issues. Somers -?ant stated that the Commission at this time would recommend no changes in the current ZAC proposal until the Preservation Commission has had sufficient time to finalize their report. With respect to the current proposal Somers -Pant stated that the Preservation Commission had problems with the density per lot which was limited to two (2) units at this time. Ellis stated that she thinks that the Preservation Commission will be dealing more with aesthetics and that ZAC did not feel that it had the authority to develop aesthetic controls in the ordinance. Ald. Brady stated that she was less concerned with the density question, but thinks that aesthetics is very important. Ald. Brady questioned whether it would be better to not pass the current ordinance until such time that the Preservation Commission has had an opportunity to recommend changes that Impact on preservation. Aldermen Warshaw and Brady expressed concern about the lack of ability for a developer to gain a variance from any aspect or regulation of the Planned Development section. Stafford stated that if the City were to allow a request for variance it may open up undesirable situations. -2- P i D Minutes March 17, 1986 Ald. Warshaw stated that she has a problem with the numerical designation for density (two units) and would be more comfortable if the number of units were based on a minimum square foots&• per unit for example. Ellis stated that it was Z,AC's intent to preserve the characteristics of the single family district and always have the large hoses appear to be single family in nature seen though they may at some point contain wore than one unit. Stafford stated that another concern of ZAC was to avoid a situation where for example a large twenty (20) room house could be divided into three or four dwelling units. Ald. Warshaw stated that she mess the possibility of having to ascend the Planned Development section in the future when the Preservation Commission wakes a recommendation. Ald. Bleveans stated that upon his review of the materials submitted that he finds most of the proposed changes of ZAC to be of a technical nature but not revolutionary or controversial. He stated that he was prepared to recommend adoption of the report. Ald. Brady requested that the Preservation Commission write a supportive memo and indicate that they slay in the future come before the P i D Comuittee and City Council requesting further amendments to the Planned Development Ordinance with respect to preservation issues. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the Planned Development Districts could be utilized in the U Districts. Staff indicated that in certain U Districts as indicated in the report that Planned Development could be utilized. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Juliar seconded to recommend to City Council adoption of the ZAC recommendation and to introduce the ordinance at the March 24, 1986 meeting. ADJOUiUQHM : Ald. Brady moved and A1d. Warshaw seconded that the meeting adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. i. %Or 39 -3- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee March 26, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Rorsbak and J. Bleveans Ald. Absent: D. Drummer and M. Juliar Staff Present: R. Rill, R. Carlson and R. Rudd Presiding Official: J. Bleveans Minutes of March 17. 1986 Ald. [orsbak nosed and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of March 17, 1986. Committee voted 3-0 to approve (Ald. Brady absent). COMMUNICATIONS Northwestern University Response to Ouestions of University Uses. By consensus of the Committee it was roc oam aded that this matter be held -over to April 14. 1986 to allow a representative of Northwestern University to be present. Ald. Korshak inquired if the Cown itt** was aware of any time frame for the Presbyterian Rowe issue to be acted on by the City Council. Chairman Bleveans stated that several weeks ago he had discussed with Peter Mulvey, Executive Director of the Presbyterian Howe the status of a previous request of Mulvey to hold the matter until he had time to meet with neighborhood members and City officials. Ald. torshak suggested that Chairman Bleveans contact Mulvey and state that Ald. Korshak would recommend that the matter be acted upon at the City Council of April 14, 1986. Chairman Bleveans stated that late afternoon on !larch 24, 1986 that he had received information from the YMCA that its Board members were developing a Board Member/Resident Committee to most and discuss various concerns of the T. Chairman Bleveans stated that representatives of the Y requested that the matter currently before the City Council be held -over to April 14, 1986 for action by the City Council. Ald. Warshaw requested that the Y submit their proposals in writing. With respect to another natter before the City Council on March 24. 1986, Ald. Korshak requested that the Committee reconsider its position regarding the composition of the Housing Commission. Ald. Korshak recommended that the three (3) renter members be appointed immediately by the Mayor and that the Housing Commission be expanded to thirteen (13) members. Ald. Korshak further stated that under his proposal if homeowner members of the Housing Commission left the Commission the overall number would be reduced until the current number of ten (10) was attained consisting of a minimum of three (3) renters. By the consensus of all the Committee members it was recommended that this change be forwarded to City Council as an ordinance amendment. P i D Minutes March 24. 1986 OW ,AUSINga Phil Peters, Chatrmw of the Plan Commission and [fill Naval a sasok r of the Plan Commission asked the Chairman of the Committee for the opportunity to make additional statems sts regarding open -space of the City. in light of the issues involving fire stations, parking lots on the Canal banks and the proposed rezoning of the Canal flanks. Peters explained that the recently reviewed Comprehensive Plan for the City attests to relate short term decisions to long range goals of the City (i.e. parking lots, fire stations). Peters stated that the policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan is one to preserve open space and not consider open space as vacant space to be used at a later date for other purposes. He stated that park land should not be considered as a "reserve" but recognized as long range open space (the written statement of Peters' is attached to the minutes of the P 4 D Committee of March 24, 1986). With respect to the proposed rezoning of the Canal Banks, staff was directed to send a rescinder letter to MSD stating that the Committee would consider this matter at the April 14, 1986 Noting. Quo ket 85-35-86, Conlider An royal of Plat of Subdivision for ProoertL_a 19004)6 and 1908-12 Greommod. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of subdivision. This request for subdivision is the result of the Banbury Development at Dodge/Dempster. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the plat of subdivision. Docket 86-38-86. Waiving Zoning Avolication Fees - 303 Dodge Avenue. Ald. Brady questioned why the synagogue would need a variation and special use to construct the requested signage? Ald. Brady felt that the interpretation requiring the variation and special use may not be in line with the intent of the law. Staff indicated that the matter could be held -over and would allow the synagogue to proceed with filing application without the fee and that staff would report back to the P 6 D Committee on April 14, 1986 explaining the ordinance and the requirement. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the meeting adjourn. The meting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next meeting April 14, 1986. Staff: Robert T. Itudd 39 -2- Cm OF EVANSTON CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM For Information Only h Scheduled For Committee Consideration Committee Scheduled For Council Consideration tntroductlot Adopdon March 23, 1986 TO: Mayor Barr do Aldermen Evanston City Council FROM: Chairman and Members Evanston Plan Commission SUBJECT: Comments to the Evantston Pfannft & Development Committee Reprding the Preserratian of Open Space In recent weeks, the City Council has been confronted with several decision relating to the protection of open space. Among these have been the question of property zoning for the canal lands, the siting of new fire stations and the consideration of a church parking lot on canal lands. Also In recent weeks, the Planning and Development Committee has reviewed an updated Comprehensive General Plan for the City, with an entire section devoted to Open Space, Parks, and Recreation. The Plan attempts to relate individual short -terra decisions to the longer term future of the City. It is the hope of the Plan Commission that the City Council will think of the Comprehensive General Plan as a tool for just these kinds of decisions. The Commission feels that park land and open space are too dear to be traded off for other uses. The City's policy for many years - indeed, written into the 1974 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the recent update, has been to preserve its open space and not to consider it as vacant land for new emerging needs. Evanston does not have a great supply of park land - a little over 3 acres per thousand residents, or about half of the recommended national standard. It has been a struggle to acquire and develop what we do have, and in a land poor community, pressures will constantly grow for other uses of this land. We are more concerned about the setting of precedent than, we are with a particular incident. We feel that when any consideration is given to the use of open space for development, the City staff and City Council must take the position that it is their policy not to use park land for such purposes. The recent proposals are examples in a history of such incidents and it will not be the last time the issue will be faced. [n the late 1960's and early 1970's there was much concern expressed about shortage of housing sites, and parks were offered up for consideration by advocates of that issue. Parks did not go to housing then, and we trust they will not go to fire stations now. At the same time the Council was considering the fire station issues, a church was applying for a piece of the canal lands on which to build parkin;. It is hard to quarrel with needs for housing, for new public facilities, or the needs of the community's institutions. However, park land should not be considered as a possible solution for the problems, and withholding such consideration very early can reduce the public clamor which results when the matter moves to the recommendation stage. DIsposition: Adopted Not Adopted Hold Over TO, Council Memorandum March 23, 1986 Page Two There will always be worthy needs petitioning for a piece of our public open space. The Cook County Forst Preserve District long ago recognized this problem In developing their land policy. This document begins by quoting from half a dozen reasonable letters asking for just a small piece of land to support their worthy cause. By the time the reader has finished the last letter, it is clear what the policy of the Forest Preserve District must be in order to retain its open space. It is the Plan Commission's opinion that the City must take a similar position by saying "NO" up front and telling applicants that we have a policy against doing what they recommence. It Is always hard to turn down someone with a pressing need, but acknowledging that need does not mean the use of park land as an acceptable solution. Council needs a firm policy now to be handed down from Council to Council so that our heritage of park land wH1 be protected. It might appear that the Plan Commission's support for expansion of parking at Noyes Cultural Arts Center was In conflict with what I have just said. We don't believe so. The Noyes Center example illustrates two Important principles: First, the parkin was necessary to enhance the use of the recreation facility Itself. Secondly, a paved surface elsewhere on the site was removed and returned to grass, so as to more than compensate for the expanded parking. The parking lot on the canal lands that was requested by church would not have been appropriate because it was not needed to serve the park land. As it turned out, the legal complications prevented this action from taking place, but the Plan Commission feels that It would have been better to say up front that the City had a policy against using open space for non -recreational purposes. The examples of non -recreational. development that do exist along the canal lands were established prior to the City having strong leases and developing the lands for recreation. With each new exception that Is granted it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the open space. To conclude, the Plan Commission recommends that the Planning and Development Committee reaffirm by resolution the City policy to preserve existing park land. SY15/16 0 MINUTES planning and Development Committee April 14, 1986 7:30 P.M. Aid. Prnsent:' S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Korshak, J. Bleveans, 0. Drummer and M. Juliar Ald. Absent: Non• Staff Present: R. Carlson. J. Aiello, E. Szymanski, R. Ahlberg, R. Bannister, and R. Rudd Presiding Official: J. Bleveans Minutes of March 24. 1?86 Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning i Development Committee seet:ing of March 24, 1986. Ald. Warshaw stated that she wanted the minutes to be clear in that the YMCA lock -out issue would be discussed at the P A D Committee upon receipt of the YMCA proposal prior to being di-scussed on the City Council floor. It was the consensus of the Committee that that was the direction provided at a prior greeting. Comittee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. NEW BUSINESS Docket 13-1B-Bll Aawnd Zoning Ordinance to Create North Shore Channel, Greenbelt District. Chairman Bleveans recognized Thomas Fuller, Metropolitan Sanitary District Commissioner as being present and available to comment upon the City's proposed now zoning district. Fuller stated that the MSD agreed that the rezoning would not impact on the Sanitary District and that it was innaterial to Sanitary District plan. Fuller stated that the District agreed at an April 10, 2986 meeting that the rezoning would not impede any MSD plans and that he would forward minutes of that meeting to the Committee. Fuller further stated that the NSD will proceed with proposals to change the Wilmette Locks if the Army Cors of Engineers will pay for the cost. He further stated that the MSD would discuss with the City of Evanston at any time the Lock/Marina Project. Aid. Brady stated that the issue of the Marina should be an item for an upcoming P b D Committee agenda. Rudd indicated that the City would seek to obtain information regarding the Marina and upon receipt would place this item on a future P b D agenda. With respect to the proposed zoning district Rudd indicated that the Committee received in December 1985 proposed regulations for the District, but that no ordinance for the zoning district had been drafted. The Committee directed staff to prepare an ordinance based upon the above noted regulations to be reviewed at the April 28, 1986 P & D Committee meeting. P i D Minutes April 14, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS Pr000rty Maintenance Code The Committee reviewed the material submitted by staff regarding past P t D Committee and Housing Commission meetings. Ald. Brady stated that it was her opinion that the P i D Committee had now received all of the information available and that at this time the Committee should review the material and set a future date for discussion of the Property Maintenance Code. Rehah litatian Loan Analysis Report. !larch l §. Aid. Brady stated that there would be minor revisions to the report format in the future and that this was the first monthly report as required by the recently adopted Housing Rehabilitation Guidelines. ZBA 86-3-T(F), Final Avoeal for Time !Extension Decision re 500 Dodge Avenue. Ald. Warshaw questioned what will happen when the one (1) year extension granted by a final action of the ZBA ends. Ald. Warshaw expressed concerns about forcing a business to close that was currently a viable business. Ald. Warshaw questioned the process of eliminating business through the zoning ordinance. Ald. Juliar stated that those businesses listed for elimination sometimes are difficult situations to face but that in some instances neighbors have serious concerns and may want the businesses to be eliminated. He belioves the process is an equitable one and that it should be maintained and cited the Yesterday's Restaurant as an example. Ald. Warshaw questioned what the options of the owner were with respect to a covenant required by the Zoning Board's decision. Ald. Warshaw requested a legal opinion as to what steps the owner would take when the one (1) Year extension terminated to allow the business to continue. Staff indicated that they would seek a legal opinion and provide that to the P b D Commaitteo upon receipt of the opinion. Docket 191-10A-74: Ordinance 37-0-86 - ZAC 84-6 - Comprehensive Revision to. Zoning Planned Develo went Regulations. Ald. Juliar stated that he had concerns regarding the Planned [knit Development Ordinance and its application to preserving certain land uses. At the request of Ald. Juliar the scatter was held -over to the April 28, 1986 P L D Committee meeting. OLD BUSINESS Docket 86-38-86. Waiving Zoning Application Fees - 303 Dodge Avenue. The Committee expressed concerns that the request by the Church for a sign may not require a special use and or variation and therefore the issue regarding the waiver of application fee should not be before the Committee. Staff indicated that even though the Church agreed to take down two (2) non -conforming signs, the purpose of the new sign by the definition of the zoning ordinance and sign codes require the requested zoning relief. The Committee directed staff to further review this issue and bring back alternatives to the Committee to review at their next meeting. -2- i P i D Minutes April 16, 1986 Docket 229-205-85. ZBA SS-26-V(R). Ordinance 107-0 4S . re Varriation for 3200 Grant Street. Ald. Eorshak stated that the P 6 D Committee had voted 5-1 to deny the variation request for the Presbyterian Home at a previous meeting several months ago. The Comittee was now in receipt of a letter from Peter Mulvey, Director of the Presbyterian Hone requesting that the ratter be taken off the City Council agenda yet retain its present position in the variation process. Concern was expressed that at any future date the Presbyterian Home stay request that the item be placed back on the City Council agenda to be acted upon and that owl people interested in the scatter would not be aware of the Issue. by consensus of the Comsmittee staff was directed to write a letter to Mulvey stating that the Presbyterian Home had two options to respond to: 1. the Presbyterian Home could request that the matter of the variation application be withdrawn or, 2. If the application was not withdrawn, the Council would vote on the application as submitted at the April 28, 1986 sleeting. Staff will forward this letter to Mulvey in an attempt to obtain his response prior to the neat meeting of the P A D Committee on April 28, 1986. Docket 105-4A-86. Ordinance 38-0-86 Adoptint a Revised Comprehensive General Plan. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 38-0-86 adopting a revised comprehensive plan. Committee voted 6-0 to slake this recommendation. Docket 106-♦A-86. ZBA 86-1-V 6 SU(R). Ordinance 39-0-86 re Variations and Special Use for 2527-2601 Central Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee concur with the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 39-0-86 granting the variation and special use. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Docket 108-4A-86. ZBA 86-4-V(R) re Variation for 1641 Elmwood Avenue. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee affirms the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variation for establishment of a fast-food restaurant. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the variation request to City Council. Docket 87-48-85. Ordinance e0-0-86. ZAC 85-I. Zoning Amendments re Restaurants. Chairman Bleveans stated that after consulting with the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee that it was his recommendation that this matter forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for comment prior to P 6 D Committee action. The P b D Committee recommended that the zoning -3- P i D Minutes April 14. 1986 amendment re restaurants be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for a period of sixty (60) days to allow that Committee to comment. The Committee also directed that the matter be taken off the City Council agenda until much time that the Economic Development Committee and P A D Committee have discussed the issue. Docket 107-eA-86. Ordinance 43-0-86 - Amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance. Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the Housing Commission Ordinance 43-0-86 which provides for the expansion of the Housing Commission to thirteen (13) members (three new appointees which must be renters). Ald. Juliar stated that be objects to the proposal and will vote against it on the City Council floor since he feels that it is not a proper practice to expand commission or committees in this manner. Aid. Warshaw stated that it was her understanding that the City has in the past expanded or contracted committees and more important, the original proposal to appoint tenants within five (5) years was simply not practical and was too long of a tine frame for tenant representation on the Housing Commission. Ald. Juliar stated experience indicates that a significant turnover takes place on commissions and that in a relatively short time the proper six of tenants and homeowners could be attained on the Housing Commission. Committee voted 5-1 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 43-0-86. Voting May: Ald. Juliar. Northwestern University Response to Questions of University Uses. Michael Weston. Attorney for Northwestern University was present and was available to answer questions of the Cots ittee with respect to the issue. Aid. Warshaw open the discussion by reviewing various sections of the zoning ordinance addressing the University Districts. Weston stated that it has been in the past and continues to be Northwestern's position that the use should be regulated and not the user. Ald. Korshak reed from correspondence providing information regarding events in the history of the University uses issues. Ald. Korshak felt that the current zoning ordinance does not reflect what past P 6 D Committee members intended. Ald. Juliar stated that it was apparent and obvious at the beginning of the Research Park project that it was going to be necessary to shift and relocate certain uses (Northwestern) out of the Research Park area. He felt that it was known to all that some of those uses may be placed in non -University District areas. Aid. Warshaw stated that she did not question the right of Northwestern to utilize property outside of the University District. She felt that it was necessary to make the point that, in her opinion. Northwestern should be required to obtain special uses for buildings such as 2020 Ridge. Ald. Brady stated that she has difficulty dealing with what has happened in the past, but feels that the City should take actions to address the future if it is not currently satisfied with what the zoning ordinance states. Aid. Brady questioned whether even if the City of Evanston amended the definition -4- P i D Minutes April 14, 1986 of University uses, could it legally regulate Northwestern University and require University uses outside the U-District to be special uses. Ald. Rleveans observed that in some instances particular uses often become the same as the user. He stated that he feels that the "statement of purpose" of the current ordinance is ambiguous. and that it would be necessary to be referred back to the Zoning Amendment Cmemittee for an amendment if the City is to take any action. Ald. Korshak stated that the U-Districts were established at the suggestion of Northwestern University which now does not utilise that concept. Weston stated that it is his understanding that the U Districts were not the idea of Northwestern University, but one of the Zoning Amendment Cossaittee. Richard Stillerman was present and read from a document authored by a previous representative of Northwestern which stated that U-Districts were an idea of Northwestern University. At this point the discussion concluded with no action taken by the P i D Committee. ADJOURNMENr The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Nest special meeting of the P g D Coaseittee is scheduled for April 21. 1986 at 7:30 p.m. (a joint meeting between ZOA and P i D). Next regular meeting of the P i D Committee is April 28, 1985 at-7:30 p.m. Staff: Aobert?. 'jtudd 52 -5- MINUTES Special Meeting Joint Between Planning A Development Committee and Zoning Board of Appeals April 21, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: Ald. Absent: Staff Present: ZBA Members Present: ZBA Members Absent: Presiding Official: S. Brady, 9. Warshaw, J. Xorshak, D. Drussmer and A. Juliar J. Bleveans D. Rasmussen, B. Szymanski and R. Rudd J. Balch, W. Whitney, B. Paden, A. Manji, D. Claessens and M. Geraghty R. Molumby Mayor Barr Minutes of April 14. 1986. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning A Development Committee meeting of April le, 1986. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Review of operating procedures of each board, and what difficulties does each at of the other board.Mayor Barr suggested that the Board and Committee review the six (6) agenda items developed jointly by members of both bodies. Mayor Barr asked the staff to open the discussion by explaining the operating procedures of the two (2) bodies present. Staff presented a brief synopsis of the procedures of the Zoning Board and the difficulties that develop sometime with respect to the various standards for special uses and variations. Rudd explained that currently the Zoning Board develops their finding of facts via the transcripts which facilitates processing the application. Ald. Korshak stated that he currently is satisfied with the manner of the finding of facts and finds improvement in recent months in those procedures. Ald. Brady questioned whether the P b D Committee needs to develop finding of fact if it finds contrary to the recommendation of the Zoning Board. Ald. Korshak stated that as he understands it Corporation Counsel Siegel's opinion would be yes and the P g D Committee would need to develop finding of fact. A Discussion ensued by Board member Balch regarding the various standards utilized by the Board in variations and special uses. Balch questioned whether the P b D Committee should communicate back to the Zoning Board the reasons for overturning or not affirming a Zoning Board decision. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding why decisions are made (i.e. politics, technical aspects of the project, etc.). Ald. Warshaw stated that the politics often enter at the P 6 D Committee level because the members of the Committee, being elected Joint P & D and ZBA hooting April 21, 1986 officials, take into account various special interest groups, neighborhood concerns, and other non technical or standard related pressure in nuking their decision. Ald. Zorshak stated that the P & D Cosmsittee is not always in agreement with the Zoning Board because the Zoning Board makes decision in a a,- chat 'pmeiso' manner based on the standards. Geraghty stated that he sees the Zoning Board latitude becomes very restricted by the standards that the Board weighs toning board variations and special uses against. Geraghty stated that even if the P & D Committee would reverse a ZBA decision that ZBA may very well make the same decision again due to the standards that an applicant met meet. Kayor Barr stated that the ZBA members should keep in mind that the City Council receives more community input via special interest groups, neighborhood concerns, etc. than does the ZBA members who conduct the initial public hearing. In a response to a question regarding rehearing cases before the P i D Cossmittee, Ald. torshak stated that the P & D Committee does not take any new evidence. Aid. Juliar confirmed that the P & D Committee will not try a case a second time. Concerns was expressed by members of the Zoning Board that some applicants may feel that they can "go through the motion" at the ZBA and then discuss the case differently before the P & D Committee. Ald. Drummer stated that he shared the concern of the Zoning Board in that at tiros it appears that the P & D Committee is rehearing a case. Other members of the Committee felt that the P & D Committee has not reheared cases. but agreed that the Committee has allowed applicants to slake comment during the discussion part of the P & D Committee meeting. Ald. Warshaw stated that she understands the thoughts of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that the P & D Committee has the added advantage of having the entire transcripts to review for approximately a week in advance of the in discussion whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals is hearing a case and making a decision in a matter of a few hours. Board member Kanji questioned the procedures whereby in certain types of ZBA cases the Zoning Board has the final decision making authority and in other cases the ZBA is not final authority and these cases go on to the P L D Committee and City Council for final decision. Manji felt that there may be solve inequity in discriminating between the two types of cases since in those cases that the City Council has final authority the applicant really has two chances to be granted his request. With the conclusion of item number one on the agenda, the Committee and Board posed a question to Corporation Counsel Siegel requesting an opinion on whether the P & D Committee is required to make a decision on a variation case based on the same standards as the ZBA utilized in making their recommendation when the P & D Committee reverses a recommendation of the ZBA. Staff indicated to the groups present that questions for Corporation Siegel would be forwarded to his with the intent of having them answered at a zoning training session scheduled for Monday, May 12, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., in which members of the P & D Committee, ZAC and ZBA are welcomed to attend. Discussion of elimination feature of zoning ordinance, including what constitutes reasonable Rrounds for non -conforming use, structure. or both. Board member Balch opened discussion regarding the elimination feature of the -2- Joint P i D and ZBA fleeting April 21, 19B6 zoning ordinance and questioned what would constitute "reasonable grounds" for retention under the time extension standards for non -conforming uses and structures. Balch questioned whether, based upon a strict interpretation of the standards if any time extensions could ever be granted. Ald. Brady questioned whether the standards for non -conforming uses in buildings should be reviewed since at this point in time the standards are approximately twenty-six (26) years old. Discussion ensued regarding controversies that arose in the discussion of time extensions or variations to allow current non -conforming uses (i.e. beauty shop on Emerson, Yesterday's Restaurant, Gordon's Drug Store and a gas station at 500 Dodge). Ald. Warshaw observed that may times in the course of a hearing regarding time extensions or a request for variation that this becomes the "leading edge" in the formulation of now legislation and that the process is not necessarily detrimental to all parties. ZBA Chairman Whitney questioned the process for changing the zoning ordinance if that was the desire and recommendation of the P L D Committee and ZBA. Whitney observed that in the past it took several months to several years to actually generate a change in the ordinance and in the meantime the ZBA wrestled with the continual problem (i.e. restaurants. time extensions). Ald. Drummer questioned if all of the currently cited uses scheduled for elimination could be grandfathered in as conforming since it appears that the P g D Committee, ZBA and City Council have granted continuances of almost all of these in the past and appear reluctant to terminate viable businesses. Ald. Juliar stated that the current process, though time consuming and cumbersome does allow valuable citizen participation and allows neighbors to expressed their concerns regarding negative aspects of the subject non -conforming use. The Committee directed staff to seek an opinion from Corporation Counsel Siegel with respect to alternative manners to handle those uses on the list of uses scheduled for elimination. Discussion of the revised _standards currently before the Zoning Amendment Committee. Should they be revised or updated further! Claessens read from the proposed revised variation standards that will be discussed by ZAC on May 1, 1986. Mayor Barr stated that it is her understanding that the current variation standards often create difficulty for homeowners when they may, for example, want to install a screened in porch in some manner which creates a violation of some zoning requirement while having no impact on the immediate neighbors. Upon review of the proposed standards to be discussed by ZAC, Ald. Drummer stated that he hopes that the standards can be condensed but would oppose any liberalization. Ald. Drummer stated that he is concerned with granting too many variations and that a more strict stand should be taken. Board member Manji stated that the proposed standards are without teeth and are actually a liberalization of the current standards, lianji expressed concern that the standards did not reflect the "hardship provision". Manji proceeded to state that variations and special uses are granted by both the ZBA and the City Council at an extremely high rate -3- Joint P i D and ZBA Meeting April 21, 1986 M%-95%). Ald. Warshaw stated that it was her understanding that many of the applicants by the time they sleet the ZBA have modified their plan and compromised after meeting with staff and have minimized their request for variations. Therefore, the variations being somewhat nominal may very well be justified. Aid. Brady noted that since Evanston is an older mature cosssunity it will constantly be faced with unique cases. Ald. Brady further stated that many of theme situations were created years ago and are just now coming to light. Discussion emsued with respect to the age of the current zoning ordinance (1960) and items recited by ambers of the ZBA and P i D Committee which highlight the fact that the ordinance, though amended from time to time over the past twenty-six (26) years, may have not kept up with current day zoning techniques and theory. Members of the Committee observed that at this time it say be necessary to give some thought to developing a comprehensive text amendment to replace the current zoning ordinance with an ordinance that would better reflect today's standards, technology and community desires. Rudd explained that a comprehensive amendment to the zoning ordinance would take between two (2) and three (3) years and would need a commitment for funding over that period. Mayor Barr and members of the P A D Committee indicated that staff would be given direction to develop an outline of the steps necessary to undertake a process for comprehensive of amendment and that a reference would be made to City Council to gain concurrence for commitment for a new zoning ordinance. Review difficulty when a board member appears before the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief. Chairman Whitney reviewed this item with respect to problems that arise when ZBA members appear before the Board seeking relief and for personal cases. Whitney cited past problems where zoning members presented their case which immmediately left the Zoning Board short at least one member and if there were current vacancims the Board would be short two or mor© members. In the past this situation has resulted in ties or not enough concurring votes (four required) to mike a recommendation. Ald. Korshak suggested that in the case of the absenteeism of a ZBA member that the Mayor could appoint an experienced former ZBA, ZAC, City Council or P & D member to sit on the Zoning Board for that particular case. It was suggested that the zoning ordinance could be amended to make a zoning board member's case only recommending by the ZBA and that P & D Committee and City Council could be final authority, thus avoiding the need to appoint temporary members. Ald. Drummer questioned whether Ald. Borshak's idea for a temporary member was only for a ZBA member's case or for any absence. Consensus of the Committee's present was that it may become to cumbersome if temporary members were appointed for any absenteeism. Kenji stated that if a list of prospective temporary members was developed, he felt that there should be a provision to protect against favoritism. ZBA member Paden stated that it was her opinion that ZBA members tend to apply higher standards to fellow ZBA members than to other applicants. She stated that she -4- Joint P i D and ZBA Meeting April 21. 1986 does not feel that this is appropriate, but that it tends to happen. Claessens agreed with the previous statement that ZRA can resolve their problem simply by not being final authority on ZBA members cases and that those cases should be passed on the P 6 D Committee and City Council for final disposition. Ald. Drummer felt that possibly Claessens' opinion and also the temporary appointment of members could be combined and that both Trays would be appropriate. The Committee directed Corporation. Counsel to respond as to whether temporary members could be appointed and what procedures could be followed with respect to handling ZBA member cases. Comment of special use reauirements for NU use of McGarr. Staff indicated that a memorandum has been forwarded to the P i D Committee for review. Ald. Drummer stated that he would be reluctant to give up "bargaining chips` in dealing with Northwestern at this time with respect to uses. He believes that a change in the special use requirements for AcGew Hall could be utilised in future discussions with Northwestern. Paden stated that she feels that Northwestern should not receive preferential treatment with respect to special uses. In conclusion. Ald. Xorshak stated that ZBA should be aware that the P i D Committee is quite willing to meet anytime with ZBA to discuss various issues and matters. He said that the material submitted at this meeting by ZBA member Manji should be reviewed by other members of ZBA prior to it being discussed at the P i D Cossuittee. Mayor Barr thanked all of the members present and reiterated Ald. Korshak`s invitation to meet with the ZBA at anytime any issues should arise. Adi ournment The meeting at adjourned at 9:e0 p.m. Staff: aRobe6rt 1. gudd Staff: �e'Ej�t� Dave Rasmussen 52 -5- NINUIBS Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1986 7:30 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Rorshak, J. Bleveans, D. Drummer and N. Juliar Aid. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, if. Hill, R. Ahlberg. and R. Rudd Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of April 21. 1986 Aid. Juliar moved and Aid. Bleveans seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special sleeting of April 21, 1986. Aid. Xorshak noted that page 2, line 1: of the minutes should state that the P A D Committee will review new evidence. Aid. Xorshak also noted that on page a. paragraph 3, line 9 that the reference to "ZAC, City Council or P a D member" should be deleted. Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended. COMMUNICATIONS ZAC Public Notice The Committee received the ZAC public notice of flay 1, 1986 with respect to discussion of possible new variation standards. Review and Prioritize Reference to ZAC The Committee reviewed a new reference to ZAC directing that the northeast corner of Church and Chicago be rezoned from R7 to B3. Upon review of the list of priorities to ZAC, Ald. Ble►eans recommended that number one be deleted from the list and that the Church/Chicago rezoning be made number one. Since item number two will be discussed before ZAC on May 1. 1986 that reference was deleted from the list. Item number four was moved to item number two. Ald. Juliar seconded the motion. Committee voted 6-0 with respect to the new prioritization of the ZAC reference list. Staff indicated that a new copy of the list will be provided in the May 5, 1986 P 6 D packet. ZBA Training Session with Corporation Counsel Siegel. A question arose as to the start of the ZBA training session scheduled for May 12, 1986. Staff indicated that a notice would be sent to P & D members in their flay 5, 1986 packet indicating the starting time. P i D !looting April 28, 1986 OLD BUSIMIISS Doept 16-3B-86. Waiving, jonias Aonljeation lees - 303 Dodgj_Avenge. Chairman Brady reviewed briefly the background of a memo submitted by staff to the Committee for the April 28, 1986 meeting. The memo detailed that even if the proposed sign is called either a "bulletin sign" or "identification sign" due to the proposed location (which the applicants are unable to move) will require either a special as* and/or a variation. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. [orshak seconded that the P i D Committee recommend to City Council to deny their request of waiver of fees, but that a letter be directed to the applicants indicating that they may within the next six (6) months ask for a refund of the fees if a meehanism or policy is developed during the course of the development of a now sign ordinance. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the waiver request and directed that a letter be forwarded to the applicant. Docket 191-10A-74. Ordinance 37-0-86. LC SS-6, Camnrshensive Revisions to Planned Development Regulations. Ald. Juliar indicated that he has recently had discussions with representatives of the Preservation Commission in regards to the present danger to the Cove School site. Ald. Juliar stated that he is recommending that the Planned Development Regulations be forwarded to the Preservation Commission for comment and possible recommendations to amend the regulations to address the Cove School issue. Ald. Brady felt that in light of the Cove School #ale that it is important that the Preservation Commission respond as soon as possible. Ald. Juliar stated that in his discussion with representatives of the Preservation Commission that it was his understanding that they could respond in time for this matter to be placed on the May 19, 1986 P & D agenda for further discussion. The Committee recotemend•d that this issue be referred to the Preservation Commission and that it be taken off the yellow agenda until such time that the P L D Committee has reviewed the Preservation Commission report which is expected to be received for the May 19, 1986 meeting. (Mote: At the City Council meeting of April 78, 1986 it was recommended that the Planned Development Regulations, in addition to being forwarded to the Preservation Commission, also be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for comments.) Landlord/Tenant Concern Update/Just Cause tease Nonrenewal. Ald. Warshaw recommended that complaint monitoring continue for another six (6) months and that the matter be referred to the Housing Commission to comment back to the P b D Committee on the findings of the study of complaint monitoring which has been underway for the past eighteen (18) months. Ald. Juliar stated that he is satisfied, based on the findings of the study, that there is no problem and would be against the motion to continue monitoring of this issue. Ald. Bleveans stated that he concurs with Ald. Juliar and feels -2- P & D Meeting April 28, 1986 that this continues to be a non problem. Ald. Julter stated that he is sure that the City would have heard if there are problems of unjust lease nourenewal. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether there was proper notification to tenants with respect to this issue and whether they mould know to call the City. Ald. Bleveans responded that over the past two (2) years that significant press was provided this issue and that all of the interested parties were quite active in its discussion. Committee voted 4-2 to forward to the Housing Cosssission for review of findings of the study and also directed staff to continue for the next six (6) months to monitor the issue. Voting Aye: Aldermen Korshak. Warshaw, Brady and Drumlmer. Voting May: Aldermen Juliar and Bleveans. Docket 229-200-85. ZDA SS-26-V(R). Ordinance 107-0-85. re Variation for 3200 Grant Street. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee accept the letter frost the Presbyterian Home's Executive Director. Peter Mulvey, requesting that the Presbyterian Home's application for variation be withdrawn at this tine. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend removing this matter from the P & D and City Council agendas. Docket 13-18-81. Ordinance S1-0-86. ZAC S5-2. Zoninjg Amendments to Create the North Shore Channel Greenbelt District. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Drummmer seconded that this matter be held over to a future date to allow further discussion between Evanston. Wilmette, Skokie and the Sanitary District regarding use of the canal banks. Committee also directed that the item be removed from the City Council agenda and that this Issue be scheduled for the June 23, 1986 regular P & D Committee meeting to allow time for various other meetings to take place. Ald. Warshaw asked for a legal opinion as to whether a proposed zoning district could be developed solely for the MSD canal banks, or whether it would be necessary to include other City parks in the district. Chairman Brady directed that the staff seek an opinion from Corporation Counsel with respect to Ald. Warshaw's request and also requested that staff develop a chronology of events leading up to the current state of affairs and provide those to the Committee for their meeting of June 23, 1986. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter until June 23, 1986. Docket 109-0-86, Ordinance 47-0-86, ZAC 86-2, ZoninK Amendments re Revisions to Minimum Off -Street Parking Dimensions. Ald. Xorshak questioned the lessening of the stall width. It was pointed out that the stall width is not changing, but that the aisle will be reduced to reflect changing needs. The intent of the regulations are to come up with a single standard versus multi -standards for parkins dimensions. Mark Kahan, developer for the Banbury Development spoke in favor of the proposal since he -3- P i A Nesting April 28, 1986 was the principal applicant for the recommended change, and stated that the proposed dimensions are more reflective of today'■ needs. Ald. Brady questioned whether this request is part of a larger ZAC reference with respect to various parking changes. Staff indicated that it was end that it was only handled separately at this time since it was an application by an outside petitioner. The remainder of the parking reference will be discussed at ZAC on a later date and forwarded to P i D. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the ZAC recommendation. YlI 4 Lock Out I#sue Chaicmas Brady indicated that she bes met with a representative of the TWA Residency Committee and that a report is forthcoming regarding proposed actions of that Committee. Chairman Brady suggested that this matter be bold over to the Nay 19, 1986 agenda to allow time to receive and review the report. She also indicated that she would be recommending that the matter be removed from. the City Council agenda until such time as the P i D Committee has had ample opportunity to review and comment on the YWCA report. Docket 110-AB-86, Ordinance 49-0-86, ZAC 86-1. Zoning Amendments re Shelters for the Temroorarilr Homeless. Chairman Brady explained that the Special Homeless Committee of which she is chair was not charged to necessarily solve the issue regarding the current shelter, but was responsible'for looking at long range solutions to the homeless issue in the City of Evanston. She indicated that an open forum with respect to the homeless will be conducted on Wednesday. April 30, 1986 in the Civic Center. Ald. Warshaw noted that the current moratorium on enforcement with respect to the present shelter expires on June 1, 1986. She stated her desire to extended the moratorium and not have any enforcement measures taken to close the shelter until such time alternatives or methods for developing shelters are accepted. Ald. Brady indicated that in Committee discussion that she was not aware of any indication that the First Baptist Church shelter would be closing June 1, 1986. Chairman Brady reviewed the various alternatives of the ZAC report, and noted ghat ZAC recommends as one alternative that the First Baptist Church should apply for a special use and that it is the ZAC recommendation not to grand father in the First Baptist Church. Ald, Warshaw stated that it is possible that the Church will not apply for a special use and that the City could become involved in a church -state conflict if the First Baptist decides not to file for a special use and is not grandfathered. Ald. Juliar stated that to not grandfather in the First Baptist Church and to require them to apply for a special use would be a consistent enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Ald. Korshak stated his reluctance to defining the church's role. He questioned whether the Committee had asked ZAC to consider grandfathering in the First Baptist Church or had directed them to develop a mechanism for the First Baptist Church. The reference was read which indicated that the direction to ZAC was to consider -4- P A D Meeting April 28, 19B6 the possibility of grandfathering the First Baptist Church, though the recommeadation was to require then to obtain a special use to continue their existence. Ald. Brady reviewed ZAC alternative number 2 on page 3 of the report which provided for the City Council to conduct a public hearing and granting a special use rather than the ZBA. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was uncomfortable with this alternative. Aldermen Drummer and Bleveens also stated that they could not support alternative number 2. Ald. Korshak felt that ZAC may have been unduly concerned with shelters located in churches and that he was not anxious to open up discussion with respect to church/state conflicts. Aid. Brady asked if it was a consensus of the Committee to eliminate ZAC alternative amber 2. Committee felt that alternative number 2 was not acceptable and that it should not be discussed further. Discussion continue with respect to ZAC alternative number 4 which provided for a grandfather clause. It was the consensus of the Committee, after discussion, to eliminate ZAC alternative 4 from further discussion. It was the consensus of the Committee to eliminate ZAC alternatives numbers 2 and 4 and to discuss alternatives numbers 1 and 3 at the next P L D meeting on May 5, 1986 and also to discuss a possible moratorium with respect to not enforcing certain regulations against the current shelter. Ald. Warshaw felt that a moratorium was a proper method in that during a moratorium, and prior to the activity being renewed, public participation would take place. Ald. Juliar stated that be does not se* why the First Baptist Church does not apply for a special use since that process also would allow ample citizen participation and input. Chairman Brady indicated that as a member of the Homeless Comittee a target for that Committee is slake recommendations by July 1, 1986 and that those recommmendations may very well entail the creation of a new agency established to operate a shelter. Ald. Brady stated that she would discuss further with Rev. Thompson of the First Baptist Church the shelter's questions and provide this information to the Committee at the May 5, 1986 meeting. Aid. Drummer stated his reservation that if the first Baptist is not required to obtain a special use and is grandfathered into the zoning ordinance other churches may not apply for a spacial use and may eery well establish shelters illegally. ADJOURNMM Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the meeting adjourn. Commmittee adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Most regular meeting is May 5, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. Staff: Robert T. WRud 52 -5- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee Way 5, 1986 7:30 P.W. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. xorshak, J. Bleveans, and D . Drummer Ald. Absent: Juliar Staff Present: R. Carlson, H. Hill, R. Ahlberg. J. Asprooth. and R. Rudd Others Present: Rev. Robert Thompson Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of April 28,._1986 Ald. Warshaw roved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Conosittee approve the minutes of April 28, 1986. Ald. Drummer moved that the last sentence under the discussion of the Shelter for the Homeless on page 5 be deleted and that the following sentence be inserted to reflect his comments, "Ald. Drummer stated that as a member of the Homeless Shelter Committee he felt that that Committee led the existing shelter to believe that it would be grandfathered". Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Ald. Bleveans absent). COWWUNICATIONS ZBA 86-2-5 U M . Final Special Use Decision re 1421 Davis Street. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was aware of the problem and familiar with the site and finds that it is unfortunate that the zoning ordinance requires such action. At the suggestion of Chairman Brady staff was directed to prepare a memo on the history of the front yard fence issue in addition to details regarding regulations. Aid. [orshak also requested staff to include in their memo information regarding the City's rationale for requiring special uses for fences to be the final authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Brady suggested that the Committee briefly discuss a revision to the Housing Commission ordinance currently before the City Council since it has now become public information that a current member of the Commission will be resigning effective May 22, 1986. Ald. Brady suggested that Committee recommend on the City Council floor changing the ordinance from thirteen (13) to twelve (12) at this time. Ald. Drummer suggested that this may lead to confusion. It was the consensus of the Committee to not propose an amendment to the ordinance currently on the Council floor, but that it should proceed as is and will automatically be reduced to twelve (12) member Commission upon the effective resignation of the current member. P i D Meeting May 5, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Northwestern University Response to Questions of University Uses. Chairman Brady stated as Chairman of the Cosmittee she used her prerogative to place this items on the agenda only for the purpose of attempting to seek from Corporation Counsel Siegel a response to a question that arose at a previous meeting. Chairman Brady directed staff to seek an opinion as to whether University uses could be legally further restricted to the point that would require all Northwestern uses outside of the University Districts, even though those uses may be permitted uses by other users, be required to obtain a special use from the City. Aid. Drummer stated that he feels the City cannot restrict University uses if similar uses operated by other parties are permitted uses in various districts. Aid. Drummer further stated that he feels that the City of Evanston made a mistake in the past in what was written In the ordinance, but that it is now clear to him that Northwestern has done as the ordinance allows. Ald. Korshak stated that a review of the history of the University District finds that Northwestern wished certain concessions and thus proposed the University District concept. The trade-off was that any other Northwestern uses outside of the U Districts would require a special use approved by the City. Aid. Bleveans stated that the ordinance is not entirely clear as to what Northwestern can and cannot do and cited the "Statement of Purpose" from section 6-6-1 of the zoning ordinance of the University District as evidence of that. Staff was directed to obtain from Corporation Counsel Siegel his opinion on this issue and upon receipt of same bring the items back to the P & D Cosmmittee. Reference for Comprehensive Zoning Text Amendment Ald. Bleveans stated that he was not at the joint meeting between the ZBA and the P b D Committee and was not aware of the background that would indicate the need to develop a comprehensive text amendment. Ald. Warshaw stated that for the past twonty-six (26) years the current ordinance has been "piece -sealed" and that many aspects of said ordinance do not properly work together. She stated that this was the opinion of the ZBA, staff and some members of the P & D Committee. Ald. Bleveans questioned the need to throw open a total and possibly expense review of the zoning ordinance when a review of the ordinances' wear points could be undertaken. Chairman Brady requested that staff develop a memo detailing the rational for the need for comprehensive text amendment. Docket 119-5A-85. Ordinance 55-0-86. Declarinx a Moratorium on Pole Signs and Ground Signs. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of Ordinance 55--0-86 to include the moratorium on ground signs. Aid. Korshak expressed his disappointment that the current moratorium regarding pole signs did not include what is defined as a ground sign since it is the opinion of many people that a ground sign and a pole sign are alike. -2- P i D !Meeting May 5, 1986 Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the moratorium and also to request the City Council to suspend the rules to pass the ordinance tonight in order to avoid situations where additional ground signs would be constructed over the next two (2) ~reeks. Docket 110-48-86. Ordinance 49-0-66. ZAC 86-1. Zoninf Amendments re Shelters for the Teeorarily Homeless. Ald. Drummer questioned whether the First Baptist Church would continue after June 1, 1966. Rev. Thompson, Pastor of the First Baptist Church was present and stated that unless the City of Evanston can provide shelter for the boneless, the Church will not close. He further stated that the Church will stay open as long as the need exists. Chairman Brady suggested that with respect to the current shelter that she would propose to the Committee the following steps be taken to grandfather the existing shelter: 1. That a grandfather clause be developed to provide for the current first year to start from the passage of Ordinance 50-0-85 on October 14, 1985. 2. To amend Ordinance 50-0-85 to allow for preexisting shelters to be grandfathered. 3. Within thirty (30) days of the termination of the first year (October 14. 1986) that a public hearing be held by the P b D Cosssittee with notification to nearby residents and businesses. •. Depending upon the results of the public hearing, if no significant reason to discontinue the shelter arises that the P b D Comittee would recoa wnd to grandfather the existing shelter for an additional one (1) year period. S. To amend Ordinance 50-0-85 to allow for thirty (30) occupants from November 1, 1986 through .tune 1, 1987. 6. That the number of thirty (30) occupants again be reduced to twenty (20) during the summer months and the grandfather hearing process would continue again in October 1987. Ald. Brady further stated that as a member of the Homeless Committee she feels that a grandfather provision for the existing shelter is necessary since it will be at least six to eight months before the Homeless Committee develops a mechanism for addressing homeless shelters. Ald. Drummer stated that it is his understanding basically the Comssittee is recommending to agree with the -3- a P A D Meeting May 5, 1986 ZAC number 3 altarnative on page 3 of the ZAC report which provides for a grandfather provision. Chairman Brady agreed but stated that her proposal has conditions where UC's proposal did not. Rev. Thompson stated that he basically agrees with the proposal as detailed by Chairman Brady and felt that it was necessary to increase during the winter months the occupants number to thirty (30) with the same provisions as in the past year whereby the shelter would notify the City if there is a need to go beyond that number. He further stated that he could accept the limit of twenty (20) in time summer but once acre qualified upon the provision that if the need arose and proper notification to the City the number could increase. Rev. Thompson further stated that socae of the troublesome occupants of the past are no longer at the shelter or to his knowledge in the City. Chairman Brady noted that she had not as yet received a single complaint regarding the shelter this Spring. tev. Thompson stated that it is his understanding that the State of Illinois has allocated dollars for shelters and that thus sommma monies would be available. Ald. Warshaw noted that the existence of the Homeless Committee and the action by the P g D Committee have kept a very positive relationship in dealing with the shelter issue and the existing shelter facility and that this attitude should continue. Ald. Xorshak questioned whether the Homeless Committee had contacted the State of Illinois -regarding funding. Chairman Brady stated that the Committee had not as yet done a, but that would be one step in the long range planning process. Ald. Drummer concurred with the intent to receive State funds and noted that some funds have been allocated to the shelter and to ACORN. Rev. Thompson stated that he has been impressed with the work of the Homeless Committee and the cooperation exhibited by that group. Ald. Warshaw moved for approval of the proposal as developed by Chairman Brady and Ald. Drummer seconded. Chairman Brady elaborated on the need to legalize what is already there and feels that her proposal would do so. The Committee directed staff to develop the proposal in writing and to provide same to the Committee for discussion at a special meeting of P & D Committee at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 1986. With respect to the second part of the reference Chairman Brady questioned the Committee as to whether the ZAC recommendation to allow shelters in various districts as special uses was acceptable. It was the consensus of the Committee that the proposal was acceptable but requested that the first and second part of the reference be provided in writing to the Committee at the aforementioned special meeting. ADJOQRN1tW Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Staff: Zveell Robert T. Rudd 52 -1- MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee Max 12, 1986 7:00 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Korshak, J. Bleveans, and M. Juliar Ald. Absent: D. Drumrmer Staff Present: R. Carlson. J. Siegel, D. Rasmussen R. Ahlber6, S. Eiseman, and R. Rudd Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of May S. 1986. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of May S. 1986. Chairman Brady referred to page 3, item number 2 and stated that it should be preceded with "if significant need can be established". Chairman Brady stated that it was her intent to propose in the ordinance that any increase over twenty occupants of the homeless shelter to a maximum, of thirty would have to be justified. The Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Alderman Korahak and Bleveans absent). COMMUNICATIONS The Committee received a communication from Corporation Counsel Siegel in response to questions posed at the joint P & D and ZBA meeting. Committee also received ZBA public notice for a hearing May 20, 1986. OLD BUSINESS Docket 110-4B-86, Ordinance 49-0-86. ZAC 86-1. Zoning Amendments re Shelters for the Temporarily Homeless. Chairman Brady opened the discussion by explaining her proposed amendments to Ordinance 49-0-86. Brady suggested that the date of October 14, 1985 be changed to October 31, 1985 throughout the Ordinance to indicate the date of Ordinance 51-0-85. Brady also recommended that Section 2, beginning on page 3 and continuing on page 4 should be preceded with the words "if significant need can be established". Ald. Juliar stated that he was concerned with the Increase from twenty to thirty without proper and sufficient documentation of need. Ald. Juliar further stated that he would expect that the increase would accommodate citizens of Evanston. He also stated that it was his opinion that the fact that there was not another shelter would not be sufficient cause for emergency. He also expressed concern that City of Evanston homeless were not defined. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would not be willing to change the P & D Minutes Special fleeting May 12, 1986 proposal with respect to number 2 except for Chairman Brady's proposed change. She stated that numerous agreements with various parties had been reached and that she would not be willing to set aside those previous discussions. Chairman Brady stated that in her discussions with Rev. Thompson it was clear that he is in agreement that the Oversight Committee would continue in existence and monitor the operation of the homeless shelter at First Baptist Church. Ald. Juliar stated that he was in agreement with the continued existence of the Oversight Committee and proposed that it would take a two-thirds vote of the Oversight Committee to allow the increase from twenty to thirty occupants from November 1 to May 31. Brady questioned whether the Oversight Committee could be detailed in proposed Ordinance 49-0-86. Ald. Warshaw stated that it was bar opinion that the number of occupants in the shelter should be Increased automatically and not necessarily by notice, but be limited and controlled by the dates proposed (November 1 through May 31). Ald. Juliar stated that a mechanism for reviewing and determining the need to increase must be established and that he cannot accept automatically increasing the occupants from twenty to thirty. Chairman Brady suggested a further amendment to Ordinance 49-0-86 by adding a new section 5, which would state that the existing shelter would adhere to the current licensing standards set forth in Ordinance 51-0-85. The Committee agreed with this addition to the proposed ordinance. Ald. Juliar questioned why the City would consider exempting the current shelter when it would be establishing a special use mechanism for all other proposed shelters. Chairman Brady replied that the grandfathering of the existing shelter was legalization of what has been existence for some period of time and that this method provided good legal form. Ald. Warshaw noted that the Oversight Committee is not included in the current ordinance and is planned to expire on June 1, 1986, Ald. Bleveans arrived and stated that he was against grandfathering the existing and sees no reasons why they cannot apply for a special use as would other shelters. Ald. Juliar stated that he would be in favor of an extension of the Oversight Committee. Ald. Bleveans stated that be would vote against extending the one year grandfather for the current shelter and would vote for the current shelter to apply under the special use procedure. Ald. Korshat arrived and stated that he is in favor of the grandfather procedures because it allows a less formal method than the special use for the existing shelter. Aldermen Bleveans and Juliar stated that they would vote against grandfathering the existing shelter, and would be in favor of the special use procedure. Ald. Juliar stated that he would accept the Oversight Committee as a body to determine expansion of the shelter from twenty to thirty occupants. Upon questions from the Committee as to procedures dealing with the public hearing, Corporation Counsel Siegel stated that the Oversight Committee or P 5 0 Committee could conduct a public hearing with respect to grandfathering and also the expansion from twenty to thirty occupants. -2- P i D Minutes Spacial Mooting Nay 12, 1986 Chairman Brady suggested that Ordinance 49-0-86 be amended to make clear that the P i D CommIttae would hold a dual public hearing for the extension of the grandfathering aspect of the current shelter in addition to increasing the shelter occupants from twenty to thirty for the months of November through May, since the public hearing would be scheduled during the month of October as proposed in the ordinance. With respect to the P & D Committee holding a dual public hearing for expansion for number of occupants and also continuation of the grandfather clause, the Committee voted 4-1 to approve. Voting Noy: ►ld. Juliar. With respect to allowing the current shelter to be grandfathered, the Committee voted 3-2 to approve. Voting May: Aldermen Bleveans and Juliar. Chairman Brady directed staff to prepare Ordinance 49-0-86 with the amendments to be placed on the City Council agenda for Kay 19, 1966 and also on the P i D agenda that sane night. ADJOURUN NT Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m., Next regular mating of the P g D Committee In May 19, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff : �W��'4� Robert T. Rudd SQ -3- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee May 19, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, K. Warshaw, J. Korshak, J. Blevosas, D. Druser and M. Juliar Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Ahlberg, B. Bannister, W. Martel and B. Budd Presiding Official: S. Brady ffjnutgg of Nat 12. 1906 Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 12, 1986. Corsatttee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Brady reminded the Committee that there would be a special meeting of the P L D Committee scheduled for June 2, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. to continue review of the proposed Property Maintenance Code. Chairman Brady also informed the Committee that there would be another special meeting of the Committee scheduled for June 30, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., to most with the City's sign consultant (Testa Assoc.) to begin review of a proposed comprehensive sign ordinance amendment. OLD BUSINESS Docket 126-SB-36: Consider Plat of Subdivision for Property at 1520-26 Florence Avenue. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of a special use for Northwestern University at McGaw stall for a "Craft Fair". Ald. Warshaw questioned why the City should approve the second year when the City was not as yet informed of the specific dates and also since Northwestern and representatives of the Craft Fair indicated that the site may be moved from KcGaw Hall to another location on the Northwestern Campus that did not require a special use! Representatives of the Craft Fair informed the Committee of the specific dates of the second year (1987) which would be September 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1987. Jim Perry, attorney for Northwestern, stated that if a more suitable and larger site were available (the Aquatic Center) the second year of the special use would not be utilized. Aid. Bleveans stated that he did not object to approving a two year period for the Craft Fair, even though there is the possibility of not P i D Cosmittee Minutes May 19, 1986 utilizing the special use in 1987. Aid. Warshaw recommended that Ordinance 61-0-85 be amended to include the specific dates for 1987. Cossdttee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 61-0-67 as amended to provide for a special use for a Craft Fair in 1986 and 1987. revised copy of the Ordinance will be submitted for the June 9, 1986 City Council packet. pocket 1 L6,-_SD-86. Consider Plat of Subdivision for ProQ_e_rtr at 1520-26 Florence Aveaue. Aid. Bleveans moved and Aid. korshak seconded that the Cos+mittee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of subdivision. Lid. forshak indicated that several Meeks ago this applicant cane to the Committee requesting a variation and was granted sane. The plat of subdivision is a housekeeping natter. Cossaittee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the plat of subdivision. Docket 110-e3-46, Ordinance 49-0-86. ZAC e6-1. Zoning Amendments re Shelters Lr the Temporarily Homeless. Chairman Brady provided a review of the revised ordinance submitted to the Coasmittee for this sleeting. Chairman Brady also stated that she would request as the floor of the City Council, suspension of rules to allow introduction and passage of the ordinance tonight since the current shelter would be required to go out of existence on June 1, 1986 and that there would not be another Council sleeting between tonight and June 1. Ald. Bleveans questioned page 3, section 9 of the ordinance and asked why the current shelter was not specifically i.lentified by name and address. Aid. Blaveans moved to amend the proposed ordinance to delete the word "any" and insert the word "the" and after "existence" in the sane section to insert "First Baptist Church at 607- Lake Street". Ald. Juliar stated that on the Council floor he will move to strike provision number 1 of section 9 in the proposed ordinance (page 3) which would remove the grandfathering aspect for the existing shelter at the first Baptist Church. After a brief discussion Ald. Juliar seconded Ald. Bleveans previous motion to amend section 9 of the proposed ordinance. Cosmaittee voted 6-0 to recoamend to City Council introduction, waiving of rules and adoption of Ordinance 49-0-86 as amended by Aid. Bleveans. Provertr Maintenance Code Aid. Warshaw stated that she did not understand all of the differences as explained in the comparison chart provided by staff detailing the differences in the BOCA Existing Structures Code and the current City Housing Code. Specifically cited were hallway lighting, heating regulations and water temperature standards. Ald. Bleveans questioned whether the BOCA Code sets standards for matters such as painting interior/exterior inspections, etc. Rudd indicated that specifics such as types of inspections and what constitutes a violation (cracked window, peeling paint, etc.) were more specifically addressed in operating standards for the department that were -2- P i D Committee Minutes Key 19, 1986 previously developed by past P i D Committees. Ald. Warshaw felt that the City of Evanston had very unique aspects and thus a national code may not be appropriate. She further felt that there may be many items in the current Housing Code that were developed specifically for the City that would be excluded from the BOCA Code. She warned against the possibility that the BOCA Code would be more lenient than the current City Code or a code developed by the City. Ald. Eorshak cited issues such as the double -cylinder deadbolt locks as an item that should be resolved through some code. Ald. Bleveans stated his opinion that the City cannot legislate the issue regarding locks which could be interpreted as a governmental intrusion, but should rather emphasize education of all citizens regarding the pros and cons of utilizing the various locks. Rudd stated that staff has been working with a Residential Burglary Prevention Committee with respect to a Burglary Prevention Ordinance which addresses, in part, the locking issue. Chairman Brady requested that that Committee's report be forwarded to the P t D Committee as soon as possible so that calm ots could be coordinated with the discussion of the Property Maintenance Code. Ald. Warshaw stated that she agrees in part with Ald. Bleveans with respect to questioning the need of legislation regarding the lock issue. However, she stated she is concerned that many tenants do not have the choice as to what types of locks that they can place on their doors and that in many instances the tenants are prohibited through their lease from changing or adding new locking systems. Ald. Bleveans suggested that copies of the BOCA 1984 Existing Structures Code be supplied to all of the Committee members and that an analysis be done by the Committee on a section by section basis. Ald. Warshaw stated that she fools there are some specific "hard" issues that should be discussed first by the Committee. Chairman Brady and Ald. Bleveans agreed that a number of issues have been outlined in previous memorandums such as rehabilitation guidelines, appeals board, definition of family, automobile abandonment, double -cylinder deadbolt locks. room temperature. cellar-baaenwnt living units, smoke detectors, and common area lighting that seemed to be major issues for discussion. Chairman Brady requested that staff distribute to the Committee a listing of those major issues to the Committee for the June 2, 1986 meeting. ADJOURNMENT !looting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Next meeting June 2, 1986 (spacial meeting), 7:30 p.m; next regular meeting of the P b D Committee June 9, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. 128 -3- RIMM9S Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady. R. Warshaw. J. Rorsbak, J. Bleveans and D. Drummer Aid. Absent: N. Juliar Staff Present: R. Carlson, f. Szymanski, R. Bannister, W. Rorin and R. Rudd Others Present: sichael Pensact Presiding Official: S. Brady Ainutes of Ray 19. 1986. Ald. Rorshak moved and Ald. Wareham seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of May 19. 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as submitted (Ald. Bleveans absent). COiQMMATIOM Planning & De velotmment Committee Rules and Procedures. Upon review of a 1971 Draft of P & D Rules and Procedures, Chairman Brady requested staff to contact other standing committees and see whether those committees also have written rules and procedures. Upon receipt of that Information staff was directed to place this item as an order of new business on a future agenda. Chairman Brady reviewed a letter from Ald. Juliar to her as Chairman of the P & D Committee recosmmending that the P A D Committee make a reference to the Zoning Amendment Committee to review R-Districts and consider changing the zoning of C3-Districts adjacent to R-Districts to accommodate light manufacturing. Rudd indicated that currently the third items on the List of Pending References to ZAC is one to revise 'manufacturing district regulations so that the provisions be better attuned to the needs of the City". Rudd further advised the Committee that a study to comprehensively revise the cosmercial district regulations was previously forwarded to the Plan Commission and is also a pending reference to ZAC. Staff indicated that they would contact the Plan Commission staff members to determine when the final report of the Plan Commission will be available for the P & D Committee's review. Upon receipt of the commercial district report the P & D Committee will discuss disposition of the request of Ald. Juliar. P A D Minutes Special Mooting June 2, 1986 OLD BUSIM- OE V R'Siataeauce Coda Ald. Warshaw submitted to the Committee a brief memo noting several aspects of various codes the Comrmittee has before them. Ald. Warshaw stated that she favored the BOCA Code, with modifications, at this point because it appears to be more comprehensive them other codes and is compatible to the BOCA Basic Cods and related codes. Chairman Brady reviewed the May 20, 1986 staff msso and the previously submitted comparison chart detailing the 1984 BOCA Existing Structures Code and the current City of Evanston Rousing Code. 1pmeals Board Upon discussion of the Appeals Board, Rudd indicated that the major difference between the existing Housing Code and the BOCA Code is that under the current system the Housing Compliance Review Board can only grant time extensions for correction of violations whereby under the proposed BOCA Code the Appeals Board can grant permanent variations. The Committee discussed the proposed composition of the Appeals Board which consists of seven (7) --t rs; Two licensed, professional engineers or architects; a builder or a superintendent of building construction, Director of Public Health, Director of Building i Zoning, Fire Chief and the Director of Housing i Property Services as as voting s>bberm. Ald. Rorshak indicated that appeals from the inspectors decisions would be before a board composed of a majority of staff members which consist of four (a) of the seven (7) recoasmended members of the Appeals Board. Ald. Warshaw suggested extending the appeal process to beyond the Appeals Board and including P L D Coimimittee and/or City Council. Chairman Brady stated that while she appreciates the staff expertise on the Appeals Board, possibly the composition could be changed to four (4) citizens and three (3) staff members. Ald. torshak proposed that the composition of the Appeals Board stay as recosmaended, but that decisions of the Board would be reviewed by the P i D Committee for final determination. Chairman Brady stated that to bring these matter before the P b D Cosmmittee would be the opposite of what has recently been done by the Committee with respect to rehabilitation cases, whereby an Appeals Board has been established as final authority. Chairman Brady suggested that possibly a summary report could be forwarded to the P & D Committee indicating the outcomes of the final decisions of the Appeals Board. Ald. Warshaw stated that she did not feel that there was a strong need for technical expertise on the Appeals Board. Ald. Brady suggested that allowing the Appeals Board to have final decision making authority and that a P A D member be appointed as one of the seven (7) members. Ald. Eorshak moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Appeals Board consist of the seven (7) members proposed and that the decisions of the Appeals Board -2- P i D minutes Special Meeting June 2, 1986 would become binding only after review by the P i D Committee upon review of a summary report. Committee voted 5-0 to accept that recommendation. knit on of "Pemily". Mudd reviewed the basic difference between the BOCA Code recommendation allowing five (5) unrelated occupants and the current City of Evanston Zoning Ordinance definition allowing a maximum of three (3) unrelated occupants. Rudd indicated that it was the Mousing Commission recommendation to leave the definition of family as it is currently written. Committee discussed various other combinations of residential occupancy, such as two single parents with children living together which may currently be prohibited if there are more than three (3) unrelated people. Chairman Brady suggested that as a further mans of control, a limitation be placed of a Maximum of two (2) persons per bedroom. ►ld. Bleveens objected to changing the current definition allowing a maxisam of three (3) because it is his opinion that to increase that number is not conducive to maintenance of single family residential areas and is a further erosion of the City of Evanston's single family character. Ald. Blevean■ further noted that increasing the complexity of defining of family would further add to the difficulty of enforpemeat and not solve any problems. Ald. torshak suggested a reference to ZAC to allow a maximum of two families per home, with a maximum of two (2) person per bedroom. Chairman Brady directed staff to develop in writing for the P 6 D Committee's review a possible new definition of family to allow two families to live in a single family hone under a definition of family. Ald. Brady questioned whether the number of unrelated occupants should be raised to four (4) or five (5). Ald. Bleveans objected that this would be a further erosion of the single family character of the City and he would not support moving from three (3) to either four (4) or five (5) occupants. It was the consensus of the Committee to leave that number as it is currently contained in the zoning ordinance and to review the memo requested of staff redefining family. Abandoned Vehicles Rudd reviewed the current regulations contained not only in the zoning ordinance, but also in the current Housing Cade, noting that under both the current regulations and the proposed BOCA Code those rules apply only to private property and not public right-of-way. It was the consensus of the Committee after review to accept the BOCA regulations as proposed since they appear to be more stringent than the current regulations. Double Cylinder Locks Rudd reviewed the regulations presented that were previously discussed by the P & D Committee in the sussaer and fall of 1985. Briefly, the current BOCA -3- P i D Minutes Special Keeting June 2, 1956 Basic Building Code prohibits the installation of double cylinder deadbolt locks except for a double cylinder deadbolt lock where the key operation is permitted from inside a dwelling unit providing that the key cannot be removed when the door is locked from the side which egress is to be made. Rudd further informed the Caummittee that the Residential Burglary Prevention Committee to reviewing in part the use of various locking devices which will be proposed to the Committee and City Council in the form of an ordinance. Judd indicated that if it was the Committee's desire to grandfather existing double cylinder deadbolt lochs in single family and/or multi -family that it would be very difficult to determine which locks were in existence at the time of the passing of the ordinance since inspections of multi -family residential gaits are made over a several year period. Chairman Brady suggested that the Committee consider a five (5) year replacement period for any locks that say be made nonconforming by Legislation if it was the Committee and City Council desire to prohibit double cylinder deadbolt locks. Ald. Bleveans stated that It was his opinion that the City should have no legislation prohibiting double cylinder deadbolt locks, but rather should allow all types of locks and develop an education process for the citizens informing them of the pros and cons of deadbolt locks. Ald. Bleveans saved that the Committee recoessend to Council legislation that would allow the installation of double cylinder deadbolts by striking from current and proposed codes any clauses that would prohibit the installation of double cylinder deadbolt locks. Ald. Korshak suggested amending the motion by adding a clause that would prohibit the Installation of double cylinder deadbolt locks when there is only one means of Ingress and egress in a dwelling unit. Ald. Drummer supported Ald. Korshak's proposed amendment. Michael Pensack, President of TOE was present and stated that TOR constituents feels that not only should double cylinder deadbolt locks be allowed, but that they should be required to be installed by the property owners. Ald. Bleveans accepted Ald. Korshak's amendment and the Committee voted 5-0 to develop legislation that would strike the prohibition of double cylinder deadbolt locks, thus allowing the installation, except in dwelling units with a single means of egress and ingress. Smoke Detectors Mudd indicated that the proposed BOCA Code would require smoke detectors in all residential occupancies (single and multi -family). The staff report indicates that currently this requirement is enforced in condominium units and in new construction. Committee requested staff to prepare a memo indicating the regulations requiring the location and number of smoke detectors as detailed in other BOCA Building Code. Staff indicated that this information would be forwarded to the Committee at its next discussion of this issue. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend that smoke detectors be required in all residential occupancies. -4- P i D Minutes Special meeting June 2, 1986 lesidential Tas?eratures Staff reviews the current regulations, the BOCA regulations and the recosm adation supported by staff and the Housing Commission to essentially adopt the current City regulations with the change from a required 700 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. to 680 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Further. the staff recommended that a heating season be established between the period of October 1 and May 15. Pensack stated that if there is to be a beating season it should be expanded to be as strict as the City of Chicago which is September 15 to June 1. Ald. Warshaw stated that requirestents for such temperature should be year round and that a heating season was not necessary. Staff indicated that problems arise when there is a cold snap as we recently experienced in the spring and summer seasons, such as Nay and June. Staff indicated that at those times of the year the boilers are not operating bad though the room temperatures say drop below the minimum requirsments it is not possible to have the landlords supply beat for such a short period of inclement weather. Chairman Brady and Ald. Drummer stated their agreement with the proposed beating season dates October 1 to May 1S, but that the current temperature between the hours of 8:00 .a.m. and 10:30 p.■ of 700 be Maintained. It was the consensus of the Committee that the currant Housing Code temperatures be maintained in the proposed code and that no "beating season" be established. Chairman Brady reviewed the work completad by the Committee and suggested that a special meeting of the P A D Committee be conducted at 7:30 p.m on July 7, 1986 to finish review of the May 20, 1986 memo and to continue review of the comparison chart of the BOCA Existing Structures Code and the Housing Code which was previously distributed. Chairman Brady further suggested that any Committee members that have questions on the comparison chart forward those questions to staff prior to the July 7 meeting so that they could be reviewed and answered by staff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P A D Committee will be June 9, 1986. Staff: "4&r� Robert T. u d 9 -S- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee June 9, 1986 1:30 P.M. Aid. Present: Aid. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Presiding Official: Minutes of June 2, 1986 J. Dleveans, S. Brady, R. Warshaw, R. Juliar. and J. xorshak D. Drummer R. Carlson, D. Rasmussen. R. Rudd. K. Szymanski, L. Talkington. and R. Rudd Michael Pansack S. Brady Ald. Rorshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of the P A D Committee of June 2, 1986 as submitted. The Committee voted a - 0 to approve the minutes as submitted (Ald. Juliar absent). COMMUNICATION History and ReSulations of Front Yard Fences The Committee reviewed the report submitted by Staff detailing the back- ground regarding zoning r*gulations for front yard fences. After a brief discussion. the Committee directed Staff to place this on a future agenda as an item of Old Business in either late July or early August 1986. Chairman Brady informed the Committee that the previously scheduled special meeting of the P & D Co=ittae on July 7, 1986 to review the BOCA Code is in conflict with another committee meeting. It was the consensus of the P L D Committee to reschedule the special meeting regarding the BOCA Code to July 21, 1986 for further discussion. OLD BUSINESS University Uses Outside of University Districts The Committee reviewed an opinion rendered by Corporation Counsel Siegel dated May 21, 1986, further explaining the previous opinion on whether the zoning ordinance regulates uses or users. Ald. Brady began the discussion by stating that although she understands Siegel's opinion, his memo has raised more questions that she feels need to be answered. Ald. Warshaw questioned ghat is the definition of a University use. She questioned if P A D Committee Minutes June 9, 1986 Page 2 all classrooms being operated by Northwestern, Kendall, the high school or grade school districts are the sawn use! Ald. Brady questioned what is lim- ited in University uses. Ald. Korshak stated that what he feels is unique to Northwestern is the aspect of tax exemption whereby Kendall and National College of Education are not tax exempt. Ald. Brady was troubled with that unique difference because tax exemption is determined by ownership and ownership is an issue that Corporation Counsel Siegel had stated is not a legitimate means for regulating use. Ald. Korshak stated that he is very opposed to Northwestern's acquiring any additional property and removing it from the tax rolls and if Northwestern continues to do so he would move to reopen the discussion regarding University Districts. Ald. Bleveans stated that Northwestern's acquisition of property outside of the U Districts has steadily gone downward in recent years. Chairman Brady suggested that the P g D Committee begin to draft their own definition of University uses. Ald. Bleveans stated that he feels it is important to bet the input from repre- sentatives of National College of Education, Kendall and Northwestern during this process. Ald. Brady suggested that a meeting be scheduled in July with representatives from the aforementioned schools and also with Jack Siegel present to discuss this matter further. Following the discussion by the Committee, Staff was directed to write a letter to representatives of National College of Education, Kendall College and Northwestern seeming their views regarding the definition of University uses and to set this issue for further discussion at a future P 6 D Com- mittee meeting on July 28, 1986. Municipal Use Zoning Exemption for City Parking Lot #3 Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend that the City Council approve of the request for a Muncipal use zoning ex- emption to allow the construction of eight (8) additional parking spaces and screening at City Parking Lot #3. City Traffic Engineer David Jennings was present and reviewed the proposed site plan. The Committee voted 5-0 to re- commend to tha City Council approval of the exemption. YMCA Lock/Out Issue Kip McMillan and Dennis Johnson, representatives of the YMCA, were present to review the proposed Y "Residential Members Program Policy." Ald. Warshaw stated that she was disappointed in the scope of the memo, particularly with respect to the procedure for payment of rent (late payments). McMillan re- viewed the memo (page 2 YIII) with respect to the lock/out or removal due to lack of payment of rent. Ald. Korshak and Ald. Warshaw stated that they feel there should be a differentiation between short and long term tenants and that the proposed policies of the Y do not provide this distinction. McMillan indicated that a review of Y records indicates that long term resi- dents tend to have a greater frequency of failure to pay rent in a timely P 4 D Conmittee Minutes June 9, 1986 Patio 3 Manor than do short term residents. Chairman Brady stated that al- though she was not on the P 6 D Comittse or City Council during the adop- tion of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance, she did follow the issue closely. It is her recollection and belief that the goal of the Landlord/Tenant Ordi- nance was never to suet every living situation in the City and does not be- lieve that it was intended at the time of its adoption to cover the YMCA. Chairman Brady further stated that she believes it should not cover the YMCA and is pleased with the effort at developing resident policies by the YMCA. Michael Pensack, representative of TOR, was present and stated that he does not agree with Aid. Brady's position. He stated that he sees no reason why the YMCA, which is a profitable organization, should not be covered under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance particularly in light of the tact that the TWA. on a per square foot basis, charges more than most private rental rooming units. Aid. Bleveans stated that he fools the YMCA cannot be equated with a rooming house primarily bocauso the YMCA is a fraternal, membership facility, and supplies additional facilities which slakes it different from rooming houses. It in also unique in that it attracts a wide diversity of tenants. Aid. Blevoans further stated that it is his opinion that the YMCA is not a profitable institution and that the timely payment of rent is crucial to the operation of the YMCA. Aid. Bleveans further stated that he is aware that the YMCA has discussed converting the 177 living units to a smaller number of higher grade rental units. Therefore, it is Ald. Bleveans opinion that the YMCA should not be included under the Landlord/Tenant Ordi- nance. Aid. Warshaw stated that regardless of non-payment of rent that human rights and human dignity should be assured in the YMCA setting. A brief discussion ensued with respect to forwarding this issue on to the City Council or further discussion at the Committee. Ald. Korshak and Ald. Warshaw stated that the issue should not leave the Comittee because there may be further conciliation of the issue possible. Chairman Brady stated that the issue would be held over to the June 23, 1986 P A D Consmittee meeting to allow further review of the matter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Veit regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be hold on June 23, 2986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:Zio obert . Rudd MINUTBS Planning and Developrint Committee June 23, 1986 7:30 P.K. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans and D. Drummer Ald. Absent: J. Rorshak and M. Juliar Staff Present: R. Carlson, J. Aiello, R. Ahlberg, H. Hill, D. Rasmussen, G. Soamers-Yant and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. Brady Minutes of June 9. 1986. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Dresser seconded that the Cowittee approve the minutes of the P A D Committee sleeting of June 9, 1986 as submitted. Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Bleveans absent). COMMICATIONS The Committee received the May 1986 Rehab Report detailing expenditures for single and multi -family rehabilitation. ZBA 86-7-V-(F), Final Variation Decision re 2331 Orrington Avenue. Ald. Warshaw questioned as to whether the curb would be replaced and the parkway restored. Dave Rasmussen was present and indicated that the curb cut will be closed and the parkway would be grassed over. Docket 148-68-86: ZBA 86-8-V&SU(R). O_r_dinance 71-0-86, re Special Use for 821-27 Washington Street. The Committee reviewed a recommendation from the Zoning Board to grant a variation and a special use to School District 65 for a parking lot south of the former Central School on !lain Street Ald. Warshaw stated that in the past six months that she has been inundated with calls expressing concern that the basketball court located on the current paved playground will be eliminated. Ald. Warshaw indicated that she met in the afternoon of 6/23/86 with Ald. Radon, Rudd and Superintendent Campbell of School District 65 to review a compromise plan. Ald. Warshaw indicated that representatives of the concerns for the basketball court would go before the District 65 meeting on 6/30/86 to recommend that the planting area presently proposed between the south edge of the parking lot and the City's right-of-way be eliminated and that a basketball court be constructed. Ald. Warshaw requested this matter be hold over to the July 14, 1986 P 6 D Committee and City Council meeting to allow discussion to take place with District 65. Representatives of the School District were present and expressed concerns that a delay could create complications in the contract the School District has with their parking lot contractor. Ald. Brady stated that if this matter could be resolved it is the intention of the Committee to request that City P & D Minutes June 23, 1986 Council suspend on the rules on 7/1 4/86 so that no time would actually be lost since that was the expected date of the passing of the ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would like District 65 to commit to go forward with the basketball court at the School District sleeting of 6/30/86. The attorney for the School District questioned if District 65 does not put in the basketball court what would be the City's position? Ald. Warshaw stated that the City may elect not to approve the special use for the parking lot. School District representatives questioned whether the City would pay for the basketball courts if that cost exceeded the cost for the presently planned landscaped area. Aid. Warshaw stated that the community has needs such as the basketball court and feels that the School District can construct the court in lieu of the landscaping. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter over to July la. 1986 to allow the discussion with the School District at their meeting, of June 30. 1986. Docket 191-10A-76: Ordinance 37-0-86 - ZAC 85-6 - Comprehensive Revisions to Zonios Planned Development Regulations. Chairman Brady reviewed the issue before the Committee. Ald. Brady stated that when the City revises the overall zoning ordinance. the City should par particular attention to the Planned Development Ordinance at that time. Due to the urgency of dealing with the Planned Development Ordinance at this time because of the Cove School, Aid. Brady feels that incorporating ■ome of the changes discussed by various committees will create an adequate ordinance for the interim until the new zoning ordinance. Gwen Somers-Yant, Preservation Coordinator, was present and reviewed several recommended changes in the Planned Development Ordinance as detailed in a June 19, 1986 memorandum from the Preservation Commission to the P 6 D Committee. Sommers -Pant recommended that the P b D Committee incorporate all of the Preservation Commission changes thus allowing an ordinance that would be more compatible with the Cove School. Aid. Warshaw moved to incorporate the Preservation Commission's recoam ndations as stated in the aforessentioned memo. Aid. Brady questioned their recommendation to eliminate the required two-thirds City Council vote for approval of a Planned Development and adopt a simple majority. Ald. Brady indicated that the two-thirds vote is required under the current ordinance and also under the ZAC proposal. Aldermen Warshaw and Drummer stated that they had no problem with the proposed simple majority vote and felt that was more appropriate. Aid. Drummer questioned whether the recommended Preservation's goals and policies would be detailed in the Planned Development Regulations. Sosssers-Pant indicated that the Preservation Commission's goals and policies will only be referred to in the Planned Development Regulations, but will remain in the Preservation Commission overall plan. Aid. Drummer questioned whether the Preservation Commission has enough "teeth" to allow appropriate review. The chairman of the Preservation Commission was present and stated that Preservation Commission does not feel that they have strongly worded authority to do review. She stated that the amendments as proposed will help In that area. Chairman Brady introduced Raymond Chou. the apparent successful bidder for the Cove School. Chou stated that he feels the Planned -2- P i D Minutes June 23, 1986 Development Ordinance proposal and amendments are streamline and will make for a better development mechanism. Chairman Brady reviewed various issues of items of Preservation interest that she feels this ordinance will allow developers to retain. The Committee voted 3-0 to incorporate the Preservation Commission's recommendations (Ald. Bleveans absent). Ald. Brady reviewed two additional staff suggestions addressing the prohibition of a request for variation to various standards of the underlying districts and to the issue of ownership of the property. Aid. Warshaw questioned if removing the ownership requirements, would common areas be preserved and the openness of those areas assured. Bob Ahlberg cited provisions in the proposed ordinance establishing covenants to preserve the open space and regulate the comiaon areas. Staff recommended amending Section 6-12-8-5(8)2 so as to permit Planned Development to consist of more than one lot. Ald. Warshaw sowed and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee roeo= nd the change as proposed. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. The second staff recommendation was to delete Sections 8 and 9 from Ordinance 122-0-85 which prohibit a variation in conjunction with the Planned Development. Ahlberg stated it was felt that if a developer can demonstrate compliance with the variation standards, he is entitled to relief whether or not a Planned Development is also proposed. Aid. Bleveans moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded to recommend amending the ordinance to allow a request for variations. Cossaittee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. Chairman Brady reviewed the Economic Development Committee memorandum of June 19, 1986. Aid. Warshaw recommended that it may be more appropriate to address issues brought up by the Economic Development Committee when the entire zoning ordinance is addressed. Aid. Bleveans moved and Aid. Warshaw seconded to Introduce the ordinance as recommendod for amendment by the P b D Committee at the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to introduce the ordinance as amended at the June 23, 1986 tweeting. Chairman Brady requested that in addition to the clean copy of the ordinance that the attachments and a cover memo be forwarded to the City Council for the July 14, 1986 meeting, detailing the various recommended changes by the P b D Committee. Docket 13-18-81. Ordinance 51-0-86, ZAC 85-2, Zonin$ Amendments to Create the North Shore Channel Greenbelt District. The Committee reviewed a memo from the City Manager dated June 12, 1986 detailing a meeting between the Metropolitan Sanitary District, Village of Wilmette. Village of Skokie and the City of Evanston. After a brief discussion of the memo, Aid. Drummer moved and Aid. Bleveans seconded to recommend to the City Council rezoning of the canal banks to Recreational/Open Space District. Aid. Warshaw questioned whether there is an opinion from Corporation Counsel stating that it was constitutional to create a zoning district for only one owner. Staff indicated to the Committee that Ordinance -3- P & D Minutes • June 23, 1986 51-0-86 was previously forwarded to the Committee and City Council which details only a proposed zoning district for the canal banks and does not Include City's parks. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Drusssar seconded to recommiaad to City Council to suspend the rules to introduce on June 23, 1986 an ordinance to rezone the canal banks to a Recreational/Open Space District (the suspension of the rules is necessary since the maLLsr was not on the City Council agenda on June 23. 1986). Committee voted 4-0 to reconvoond to City Council the above action. Rudd indicated that when City Council adopts Ordinance 51-0-86 that that action only establishes in the toning ordinance the subject zoning district. It will be necessary at a later date to come back to the P & D Committee to have that body describe the exact area to be rezoned. After that action is taken a public hearing will be held before the Zoning Amendment Committee to rezone the legally described canal banks. Ald. Brady suggested that the P & D Committee slake a reference to the Plan Commission to follow-up on the issue of the Marina with MSD, Villages of Wilmette and Skokie. It was the consensus of the Committee to recosssand on the City Council floor this reference to the Plan Commission. Docket 1 47-6B-86: Consider Plat of Consolidation for Property at 2527-2601 Central. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Cm ittee recosmrend to the City Council approval of the plat of consolidated of the aforementioned property. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the motion. Docket 87-48-85, Ordinance 40-0-86. ZAC 85-4. Zoning Amendments re Restaurant. Ald. Brady presented a summary of the various issues at hand and suggested that the Committee be prepared to review this matter at greater length at the July 14. 1986 meeting. Ald. Warshaw stated that she feels that a special use for restaurants is too restrictive in all cases and would vote against an amendment to require that all restaurants be established by special uses. Ald. Drummer stated that possibly special uses for restaurants should be required only when restaurants abutted a residential district and impact negatively in the area. Aid. Bleveans raised a question as to whether a 'conditional use" mechanism could be utilized when reviewing restaurants and thus negating the need for a special use process. Staff indicated that they would provide some further information regarding the "conditional use" concept for the July 14, 1986 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P & D Committee will be held on July 14, 1986; a special sleeting of the P & D Committee is June 30, 1986. Staff • obert Y. Rudd 39 -4- MINUTES Special !meeting Planning and Development Committee June 30, 1986 7:30 P.M. Aid. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: J. Blevsans. D. Drumine r and M. Juliar Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Carter, R. Ablberg, J. Zendeli and R. Rudd Others Present: Aid. Collens Presiding official: S. Brady Minutes of Jun• 23. 1986. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Cosaeittee approve the minutes. Ald. Warshaw moved that regarding the special use for 821-27 Washington that the minutes be amended wberevor the term "basketball court" is used and substitute with "basketball goal". Ald. Warshaw also rocommendod that with respect to her statement that she had boon "inundated with calls expressing concern that the basketball court located on the playground would be eliminated" should reflect that she had received numerous calls regarding the overuse of other neighborhood basketball facilities. The elimina:ion of the basketball facility on Washington Street would cause further over use of the neighborhood facilities. Finally, Ald. Warshaw stated that the minutes should reflect, on the same subject, that it appeared at the June 23, 1986 meeting that representatives of School District 65 did not know that ZSA was not final authority and that the issue was required to be approved by the P i D Coaimitcee and City Council. Discussion of Proposed Comprehensive Amendment to Sian Ordinance. Dick Carter, Planning Director, provided introductory remarks regarding the process to date with respect to developing a sign ordinance. Carter indicated that numerous groups have participated (Plan Commission, Preservation Comission, Chamber, consultants, Design Evanston and staff). Carter stated that the proposed ordinance was not a controversial one, but rather a practical, realistic sign ordinance. Carter stated that evidence of the goals of the new ordinance can presently be observed in the quality of design at various locations throughout the City such as the Carlson Kitchen Store on Central Street and the new Scandinavian Design store on Sherman Avenue. Carter further stated that developers are now aware that their tenants want an aesthetically pleasant center and the developers are thus requiring higher standards of design, particularly with respect to signage. Bruce Heckman and Lee Brown of ?eaka Associates, were introduced. Heckman exhibited a slide presentation detailing the theory that went into the proposed new sign ordinance. Heckman detailed three (3) levels of regulations; (1) exempt signage; (2) staff permitting process and (3) Sign Review Appeals Board. Other highlights in the slide presentation were detailed explanations of how the proposed sign ordinance would determine sign height, area, and definitions of wall signs, window signs, free standing signs, sign lighting. and off -site advertising (billboards). P i D Minutes June 30, 1906 Hackman also explained the composition of and process proposed for the Sign Review Appeals Board in dealing with interpretation, appeals and variations. A draft of the proposed sign ordinance was distributed to the Committee members and Chamber representative Ira Golan for review at a future date. Ald. Brady raised questions about oxisting signs that would become non -conforming and how they would be addressed. Heckman indicated that the proposed ordinance provided an amortization period for the Committee to review and an alternative for Committee review would be an attrition method. Ald. Brady questioned whether additional personnel would be required to provide a survey for the amortization period. Staff indicated that if the Council elected the amortization for addressing non -conforming signs that some additional personnel for a limited period of time would be required so that a comprehensive surrey of all existing signage could be developed. Aldermen Brady and Rorshak expressed their pleasure with the professionalism and the content of the presentation by the sign consultant. Further questions centered on bow real estate signs, free speech signs and aft -premise signs would be addressed. Heckman stated that all of those issues are contained in the proposed ordinance and will be discussed at greater length at a future meeting. Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce was present and expressed concerns with respect to the composition of the Sign Review Appeals Board and procedures for appeals. Joe Zendell, Director of the Noyes Cultural Art Center was present and suggested that in addition to hearing appeals, variations, and interpretations that the Sign Review Appeals Board should contain "marketing" expertise as part of its role in aiding applicants before the Board. Ald. Brady stated that she understands the composition of the Appeals Board is very technical in nature. She questioned whether the element of common sense would be lost since the Board would be of a technical composition. Aldermen forshak and Brady felt that the Board should not be final authority and that the P b D Committee and or City Council should have the ability to review any decision made by the Sign Review Appeals Board. Heckman stated that communities that he is familiar with have opted for both methods; Sign Review Appeals Board, as final authority or as a recommending body. It was the consensus of the Committee that further review of this issue would be placed on the July 28. 1986 regular P & D Agenda for approximately a twenty to thirty minute discussion. A special meeting of the P & D Committee has boon scheduled for August 4, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. to allow a more in depth discussion and another slide presentation if necessary by the consultant since only two P b D Committee members were present for the June 30, 1986 meeting. With respect to the special meeting of the Committee on July 21, 1986, Chairman Brady suggested that the meeting begin at 7:00 p.m. to allow ample time for review of the BOCA Existing Structures Code. It was the consensus of the Committee to begin that meeting at 7:00 p.m. on July 21, 1986. Adiournment The next regular meeting of the P b D Committee will be July 14, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. 117 Staff:AQ'8�'C-W� Robert T. Rudd 39(4/5 ) -2- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee July 14, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans, D.Drummer, M. Juliar and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, W. Morin, L. Talkington, R. Bannister, D. Rasmussen. G. Sommers -cant, D. Wirth and R. Rudd Otbers Present: Ald. Rudy Presiding Official: S. Brady Minutes of Special Meeting of June 30. 1986. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committes approve the minutes as submitted of the special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of June 30, 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to approve (Aldermen Bleveans and Orummor absent). Docket 173-7A-86. Lakefront Rehabilitation Consultant Contract. Ald. Rudy was present and questioned what the City's policy was with respect to awarding professional contracts to local firms versus outside firms. Ald. Brady stated that contracts usually are given to the lowest bidder for professional services. She felt that the difference of approximately S10,000 was too great to consider awarding to the local firm, but that the City Council would make the final decision on that policy. Ald. Korehak questioned whether the proposals were similar. Don Wirth, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry was present and stated that the time from Oak Pack, which the selection committee was recommending for award of the contract received a slight edge. However, Wirth stated that the selection committee felt that the fee factor would be a significant issue, therefore, recommended the low bidder which the selection committee also felt was the most qualified. Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt that the fee difference was too great not to award the contract to the outside firm. Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee award the consultant contract to Heitzman b Thorpe. Committee voted 4-0 to award the contract (Aldermen Bleveans and Drummer absent). ZBA 86-9-V(F). Urinal Variation Decision re 1507 Colfax Street and Future Special Meetings of the Planninx & Develooment Committee. The Committee received communication of a final variation decision by the Zoning Board for 1507 Colfax Street. Also received was a schedule of future meetings of the P & D Committee which all members present indicated that they could be in attendance. P L D minutes July 14, 1986 Docket 191-10A-74. Ordinance 37-0-86, ZAC 84-6. Comprehensive Revisions to Zonin Planned Develowent Regulations. With respect to the clean copy of the comprehensive revisions to Zoning Planned Developed Regulations Ald. Juliar stated that he would request on the Council floor that this matter be held over to July 28. 1986. Aid. Juliar stated that the main objections expressed to him of the current regulations are the sections of the regulations that would allow more than two (2) dwelling units on a lot in an R-1 District. Ald. Brady ask, that if by holding this issue over for two (2) more weeks whether the proposed developer of the Cogs School would be harmed. Gwen Sommers -?ant, Preservation Coordinator for the City was present and stated that she had talked with the developer and that he had been acting on the premise that the ordinance would be approved on July 14, 1986. Ald. Brady stated that the issue would be held over on the City Council floor until the July 28, 1986 meeting, to allow clarification and discussion of the concern expressed by Ald. Juliar. YMCA Lock/Out Issue Both Alderson Warshaw and Rorshak stated that they think that they have successfully negotiated an agreement with the YACA that answers many of the issues raised. Both Alderson stated that they would expect to have this issue resolved by the next meeting of the P & D Committee. The matter was requested to be held over to the July 28, 1986 P & D meeting for further update. Docket 148-68-86: ZBA 86-8-V&SU(R), Ordinance 71-0-86. re Special Use for 821-27 Washington Street. Aid. Warshaw moved and Aid. Rorshak seconded that the Committee recommend introduction of Ordinance 71-0-86 with the revised site plan detailing a single basketball hoop. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council Introduction of the subject ordinance (Ald. Bleveans absent). Docket 175-7A-86, Resolution 58-R-86, Rental Rehab Application. Aid. Rorshak questioned what has been the success of the program. Ald. Brady Indicated that the City has received $150,000 over the past two (2) years and would be a recipient of an additional $36,000 if the City made application in the current year. Aid. Brady stated that currently one (1) building of 17 units is under rental rehabilitation by this program. Laurel Talkington, Housing Planner stated that recently the City has had two to three prospective applicants that may be qualified in the near future. Aid. Brady stated that a change in the current application should allow more flexibility for the program by expanding the area beyond the current two census tract to a city-wide program. Aid. Korshak questioned the feasibility of the program since only one (1) building has been rehabbed in over two years. Aid. Brady stated that it is her opinion that the program is not a good one because it is so limited by federal regulations and standards. Ald. Drummer stated that it was his understanding from discussions with realtors that problems arise because of the Davis -Bacon Act requirement that is triggered when there are more than twelve (12) units in a building. Aid. Warshaw stated that her -2- P & D minutes July 14, 1986 experience with the program finds that due to the Davis -Bacon Act and other provisions that increased costs often eliminate the 501 Brant aspect. Ald. Drummer moved and Aid. Juliar seconded that the Cossiltt** recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution 56-R-66. Ald. Korshak requested that the minutes reflect his opinion that marketing should not be done solely through flyer mail -outs, but more face-to-face contact should be made. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the Resolution. Docket 178-7A-86. Ordinance 72-0-86. Amendment to preservation Ordinance Designating Nw landmarks. Aid. Juliar moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of Ordinance 72-0-86 designating several new landmarks. Cosmmitto* voted 6-0 to recomsmend to City Council introduction of the ordinance. Docket 174-7A-86. Avenue of the Righteous Aid. Drummer moved that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the agreement before the Committee. Ald. Korshak stated that he was against signing the agreement because enough information had not been received about the people to be honored in addition to details on the financing of the project. He further stated that more information is necessary before he could support signing an agreement though he supported the overall project. Joan Goldner of the Avenue of the Righteous was present and stated the group began two (2) years ago to bring this project to fruition and to follow whatever directions the City has requested. She felt that it was first necessary to secure the property and then research on those to be honored. Ald. Korshak stated that the City of Evanston has already given unqualified approval Kith respect to use of the property and that this would not be reversed, but was still against the agreement until he had received further information regarding those to be honored. Ruth Gold, a representative of the Avenue of the Righteous distributed a brochure to the Committee and detailed to the Committee members some of the requirements necessary for a thorough validation of those to be honored by the project. She further stated that it was the hope of the committee to select people from the midwest since there is a similar project located on the east coast. Ald. Korshak stated that he still needed further information as to how the stoney was raised and when it would be available, what assurance would be given, and documentation of those to he honored. Ald. Brady stated that she would not like a divided vote as this is passed from the Committee to City Council and questioned as to whether it is really the City of Evanston's business as to who would be honored by the Avenue of the Righteous. Ald. Warshaw asked whether Ald. Korshak's questions could be answered before this matter goes on to the City Council. Ald. Drummer stated that he is less concerned with who would be honored by the project and feels that the Avenue of the Righteous group has significant credibility. He further stated that he does not wish to delay this matter and Is prepared to move it from Committee. Aid. Bleveans stated that he agrees with Ald. Drummer in wishing to move this on and is impressed with the Avenue of the Righteous people and does not want to delay the vote. Ald. Juliar -3- P A 0 minutes July 14, 1986 stated that he would support holding the natter over for two (2) weeks if within that time frame the questions expressed by Ald. Korshak could be answered. Bob Romain, an ez-alderman and former member of the P i D Committee stated that though he is not a member of the Avenue of the Righteous Committee, he has followed their work closely. He questioned who better than the those named by the Avenue of the righteous to do this selection would be score qualified. He further felt that anybody selected by the committee to be honored would be truly verified and qualified to be honored. Ald. Brady Questioned whether within the next two (2) weeks Ald. Korshak could has* his questions answered. Ald. Korshak stated that that may not be possible, but he would attempt to work with the Avenue of the Righteous people to have his questions answered. Ald. Warshaw moved to hold this matter over to the July 28, 1986 P A D Committee meeting, Ald. Juliar seconded. Committee voted 6-0 to bold this meeting over to July 28, 1986. Docket 177-7A-86. ZBA 86-10-SU(R). Ordinance 76-0-86. re Special Use for 2650 Ridge Avenue. Ald. Brady noted that according to the transcripts there were no objectors present at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Ald. Bleveans stated that he supports the request and has been satisfied at the explanation of the protection of the neighborhood residents supplied by Evanston Hospital. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve introduction of the subject ordinance. Coesaittee voted 6-0 to recommendation Introduction. Docket 176-7A-86. ZBA 86-11-Y&SU(R), Ordinance 77-0-86. re Variation and Special Use for 2650 RidK* Avenue. Representatives of Evanston Hospital were present and made a brief presentation. Upon questioning by the Committee, a representative stated that no increase in existing building height is planned by this proposal. Ald. Bleveans stated that he has been assured that there will be no increase in traffic or parking problems and is pleased with how the Hospital has been doing a much better job of informing the neighborhood of their proposals. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of Ordinance 77-0-86 for a variation and special use for additions to two mechanical equipment rooms and enclosure of a roof top patio. The Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval. Docket 87-4B-85, Ordinance 40-0-86. ZAC 85-4. Zoning Amendments re Restaurants. Ald. Brady ask the Committee as to what direction the Committee would like to take with this issue. Ald. Korshak questioned why the problem has arisen. He questioned whether the requirements to make all restaurants a special use was too great a change to answer problems created only by a few restaurants. He stated that he is not persuaded that it is necessary to add a new impediment to the restaurant industry by making all restaurants special uses. Ald. Korshak questioned what were the narrowest terms to assure the protection of neighbors and allow restaurants with the least anount of requirements. -4- P i D Minutes July 14, 1986 Discussion revolved around carry -ants, fast-food, sit-down, etc. Ald. Juliar stated that dealing with restaurants is a classic issue of conflict in zoning of abutting land uses. He felt that special uses were not appropriate. However, where there is a land use conflict, there is a need for public hearing. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Cossaittes directed the new chairman to attempt to schedule a special meeting night to further discussed this issue. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Next regular meeting July 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; next special meeting of the P i D Cones ittee is July 21, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff Robert dd 39I4/S? -2- MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. alevesus, D.Drusimer, M. Juliar and J. Xorshak Ald. Absent: done Staff Present: R. Carlson, W. Morin, R. Bannister, and R. Radd Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of JuIF 14. 1"G. Ald. Rorsbak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Comittee approve the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of July 14, 1986 as submitted. Committee voted 4-0 to approve (,Aldermen Bleveans and Juliar absent) . Portion of Transcripts for ZBA 85-38-V(R), re Variations for 1850-54 Sherman Avenue. The C1- ittee received transcripts from numerous public meetings regarding the subject. Staff indicated to the Committee that the deliberations of approximately one hundred pages (100) would be forwarded at a later date. Posed Sign Ordinance. The Committee received a communication from staff requesting any questions regarding the earlier distributed proposed sign ordinance so that these questions could be forwarded on to the consultant. Ald. Brady expressed a concern that she has heard mentioned with raspuct to the number of words per sign face. Ald. Rorshak questioned whether Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Chamber of Comtaerce has told all of his members in the business community about the proposed sign ordinance and whether the business community is familiar with the content. Ald. Drummer stated that the proposed sign ordinance does not mention anything about the positive aspects of the business community and that signs are necessary to promote businesses. He felt that this might be added to the introduction. Ald. Bleveans stated that his recollection of any comments from Ira Golan in the past was that if there should be an amortization program that possibly the City should consider participation in the cost of removal of the signs. The Committee directed staff to forward a letter to Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce urging him to notify all of his members of the special P 6 D Committee meeting scheduled for August 4, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., to discuss the sign ordinance in addition to the tentatively scheduled public hearing on the proposed sign ordinance for August 18, 1986. P i D Minutes aulsl 21, 1986 Properv Maintenance Coed The Committe* continued their review of a m mom from staff to the Committee dated May 20, 1986 with respect to a review of differences between the 1984 BOCA Existing Structures Code and the current City of Evanston Housing Code: Occu anew of Cellars in Res smats - the Committee reviewed the BOCA Existing Structures Code that allows the occupancy of basements as dwelling units if certain conditions. such as light, ventilation, impervious surfaces of wells and floors to prevent 1*ak*ge and dampness, and other requirements are mt. The proposed BOLA Code does not differentiate between cellars and basements. but identifies all areas more than SOIL *bows or below grade as basements. She Committe* recommended acceptance of the wording of the BOCA Existing Structures Code to allow dwelling units in basements It the numerous requirements set forth to the code to provide for health, safety and welfare war* met. Smoke Detectors - the Committee reviewed the BOCA Code provisions that would require smoke detectors in all residential occupancies (single and multi -family). Ald. Drummer endorsed mandatory awoke detectors in all living units and sought a way to sake this a requiremmment and to provide a strict enforcement on inspection of this requirement. Ald. Korshak suggested that the Eire Department conduct an inspection or in some other manner provide owners of all single family hoses a document in which the owner would sign and thereby affirm that they had the required number of smoke detectors and where they were located. Ald. Brady questioned the history of why the City no longer performs single family inspections. Ald. Korshak explained that in the past when there wora single family inspections, the inspectors would cite numerous violations, since they were obligated to do so since they observed those violations. Alderson Korshak and Bleveans related that there were several issues raised in the early 80's with respect to problems with the program and that the City at that point elected to eliminate the single family program. There was consensus among the Committee to adopt the smoke detector regulations as provided in the 1984 BOCA Existing Structures Code. Pavin and loading Areas - The BOCA Code provides that all loading areas for fast-food restaurants and automobile gas stations and other commercial areas would be required to have a paved drive and impervious surface. The Committee discussed the application of this code not only pertaining to paving and loading, also to other aspects of commercial establishments. It was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the BOCA requirements regarding paving of loading areas. Direction was given to staff to develop in detail a proposed commercial establishment inspec�ions programs that would be reviewed by the Committee at a later date so as not to stall the review and possible adoption of the Existing Structures Code as its pertain to residential units. Ald. Korshak suggested that if the City adopts a commercial inspections program fees should be charged in some manner to offset the cost of this service provided by the City. -2- P i D Kinutes July 21, 1986 Finally the Comittee requested staff to develop a memo detailing all types of inspections conducted by City departments and agencies with respect to all properties. Ceiling, Heights - The BOCA Code proposes that a ceiling height of seen feet, four inches be the minimma ceiling height in all buildings. Currently the Rvanston Housing Code requires that the ceiling height be six feet, eight inches. After a lengthy discussion regarding the probable nonconforming issues that would arise by adopting a seven feet four existing structures height it was the consensus of the Committee to make all existing structures legally nonconforming if they do not meet the seven foot four inch proposed 0OC► Code ceiling height. This nonconformity would apply to all aspects of the residential unit (including attic and basement). It was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the BOCA requirement of seven feet four inches, but with the caveat that all existing structures would become legally nonconforming and not need to seek variations before the Appeals Board. Contamination of Water Inlets - The Committee reviewed a BOCA requirement that all water fixtures and spigots be located above the water line and that all fixtures be equipped so as to prevent back flow due to loss of pressure is the water system. The Committee considered that there are some multi -family and saws single family residences that currently would not be in compliance with the BOCA requiresmnt. It was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the BOCA requirement. but to allow variations by the Appeals Board and set reasonable time periods to allow the various dwelling units to come into conformity with the code. Storm Drainage Requirements - The Committee reviewed a BOCA requirement, which is currently not contained in any City code, that would require an "approved drainage system" by the building official of the City so as to prevent dater run-off from one lot to another thus causing damage to neighboring property. It was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the BOCA requirement as presented. Electrical Outlets - The BOCA Code requires that each room contain two (2) electrical outlets. The current City Housing Code allows that one of those two electrical outlets may be an electrical fixture. It was the consensus of the Committee that the BOCA Code requirement was more realistic and necessary due to the numerous electrical appliances and uses in today's household. It was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the BOCA Code. Gaamwav Lighting - Aldermen Brady and Drummer stated that they both had received numerous calls and that this was an important safety item. Though the BOCA Code does not address gangway lighting. proposed Ordinance 70-0-85 contains wording that would require all exterior means of agrees and ingress to have lighting. -3- P i D Minutes July 21, 1966 Ald. Dammam. questioned what the City's policy was regarding alley lighting. Staff indicated that in many instances residents pay for installation and operation of alley lighting. The Committee requested that staff write a mono to the Committee detailing what the City's policy is on alleyway lighting. Chairman Warshaw suggested that the Property Maintenance Code item be placed on the agenda of the P i D Committee scheduled for 7:30 p.m., August 11, 1986. During part of that meeting the Committee would have an opportunity to review a can par teas that Ald. Warshaw distributed at the July 21,1986 special meeting between the DOCA 1xisting Structures Code and the recommended dinimam Housing Standards 1986 published by the American Public Health Association (APRA). Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Nest regular meeting of the P i D Committee July 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; next special meeting of the P : D Committee is August, +, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff obert T. qudd 39(4/7 ) -4- HINUT$S Planning and Development Committee July 28. 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans, D.Drummer, If. Juliar and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: B. Carlson, D. Rasmussen, J. Siegel, H. Hill, and R. Rudd Others Present: N. Weston (N.M. A. Hansen (Garrett) and N. Sisk (Seabury) Presiding Official: K. Warshaw minutes of Julv 21. 1986. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special Planning and Development Committee sooting of July 21, 1986 as submitted. Committee voted 5-0 to approve (Ald. Juliar absent). Docket 174-7A-66. Avenue of the Riahteous Ald. Korshak indicated that he had met with representatives of the Avenue of the Righteous and the concerns expressed by him at the previous meeting had been answered satisfactorily. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the agreement between the City and the Avenue of the Righteous. Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the agreement (Ald. Juliar absent). Transcripts for ZBA 85-38-V(R), re Variations for 1850-54 Sherman Avenue._ The Committee received the final portion of transcripts for 1850-54 Sherman Avenue (Yesterday's Restaurant). Rudd indicated that he has recently been notified by the applicant's attorney that the attorney may not be able to be present for the August 25, 1986 scheduled P & D Committee meeting on this issue. Staff has requested the applicant's attorney to forward a letter to the P & D Committee requesting an eitension and in order to set a future date for a hearing. Docket 148-68-86: Z8A 86-8-V&SU(R), Ordinance 71-0-86, re Special Use for 821-27 Washiniton Street. Chairman Warshaw indicated that the previously introduced ordinance providing an amendment to the site plan to indicate a basketball hoop was not found to be acceptable by School District 65. Mr. Gene Mulcahey. Superintendent of School District 65 was present and explained that the school district finds the amended site plan unacceptable based on a letter submitted by the School District's architect which finds that the proposed basketball play area as too small and unsafe for use. Kr. Mulcahey stated that he is aware that the City P & D Minutes July 28, 1986 on this date placed a stop work order since construction work for the parking lot had begun without proper City Council approval of the special use. Mr. Mulcahey stated that he had rectified this situation and no work will proceed until the City Council had made a decision. Mr. Mulcahey stated that at this time he would request the P b D Committee and City Council to approve the special use for a parking lot without the basketball hoop, but with assurance that he will make every effort to meet with his staff and the City's staff to try to have a basketball hoop constructed that would be both economically feasible to construct and not be a hazard to children. Chairman Warshaw questioned Mulcahey as to whether he could assure the Committee that the basketball hoop would be constructed on that site. Mulcahey stated that at this time be could not provide that assurance to the Committee since he is not familiar with the overall design of the site and was not qualified to decide whether the site would be a non hazard to children. Ald. Brady recommended that the ordinance be passed based on the original site plan recosmmended for approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that the Minutes indicate that the School District would sake a sincere effort to try to construct a basketball hoop. Ald. Bleveans seconded the motion. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council adoption of the original ordinance and the attached site plan as approved by the Zoning Board that did not provide for a basketball hoop, but with a clear understanding that School District 65 would stake every effort to have a basketball hoop constructed on the site. Committee voted 6-0 to approve. Planned Development Amendments Ald. Brady requested that the Committee address an issue that is not on the P A D Committee agenda, but is on the City Council agenda with respect to regulations regarding the Planned Development Ordinance. Ald. Brady recommended that the ordinance presently before the City Council be amended as followed: 1. Existing structures in R1. R2 and R3 Districts shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) dwelling units. 2. Bach proposed building in the R1, R2 and R3 Districts shall be limited to a detached single family dwelling or a two (2) family dwelling. 3. Bach proposed dwelling unit shall have a minimum ground floor area of 1200 square feet for a one (1) story building and 900 square feet for a two (2) story building. -2- P i D Minutes July 28, 1986 Chairman Warshaw recognized Jacques Gourguechon as being present to comment on the proposed amendments. Gourguechon recommended to the Committee that the second proposed amendment be changed to allow three (3) units versus the proposed amendment limit of two (2) units with respect to new construction. Gourguechon stated that the Committee and City Council should be aware that the Planned Development Ordinance requires that numerous bodies review any project and that assurances of an acceptable site plan are thus provided. Gourguechon further stated that any limitations of the number of units limits the versatility and the alternatives available to any developer. Ald. Juliar questioned that amending from two (2) to three (3) adjacent units on the Cove School site may be ok. but what about other sites in the City's R1 Districts! Ald. Juliar indicated to the Committee and also to the members of the audience the discussion before the P t D Committee at this time was a response to a letter submitted by Rd Pabst. a member of the Zoning Amendment Committee which indicated a strong desire to have more restrictive conditions with respect to lot area, building area and number of dwelling units in the R1 District. Gourguechon made the point that the number of units currently are limited by square footage required of the underlying zoning (7200 square feet per dwelling unit in RI District). Chairman Warshaw Questioned whether any of the amendments would be too restrictive and thus prohibitive to a developer. Ald. Bleveans stated that he does not want to see the larger houses in the City be turned into essentially rooming houses. Jack Siegel was present and stated that the City should be aware that even though a developer meets all regulations and standards of the Planned Development Ordinance, that does not necessarily mean that the City must approve the proposal. The Committee directed staff to provide the Committee and City Council at their meeting of August 11 a revised Planned Development Ordinance incorporating the three (3) recommendations as spelled out by Ald. Brady with the exception that Jacques Gourguechon amendment with respect to three (3) units versus two (2) units be incorporated TRCA Lock/Out Issue Chairman Warshaw stated that at this point she is ready to proceed with the YMCA locklout issue and take same before the City Council. Aldermen Warshaw and Korshak both stated that they were offended at the position taken in the letter from John Donohue, a representative of the YMCA. Ald. Korshak stated that at no time did Kip McMillen. also a representative of the YMCA, mislead the Aldermen and always stated that whatever was discussed would have to be approved at some point by the Board of the YMCA. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. dleveans seconded that the P & D Committee recommend to the City Council to affirm the position recommended by the Housing Commission which was to not include the YMCA under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance, and to not amend the ordinance to include the YMCA. Committee voted 4-2 (Aldermen Korshak and Warshaw voting nay). -3- P & D Minutes July 28, 1986 This item will appear on the City Council agenda of August 11, 1986. History and Regulations re Front Yard fences. Ald. Jultar expressed his concern that eighteen (18) inch high front yard fences may be dangerous to children and even adults. After a brief discussion with respect to possible permitted heights of front yard fences and whether they should be special or permitted uses, the Committee agreed to hold this natter over for an undesignated future meeting to allow a more in depth discussion of the fence issue. gniversitt Uses Jack Siegel provided a background for the benefit of representatives of Barrett, Northwestern and Seabury Western Colleges the former two being present for the first time. Siegel reiterated his position as contained in numerous opinions over several years where he has stated that zoning is directed to land use regulations and not to regulating the user or owner of the property. Siegel reviewed the "purpose provision" of the zoning ordinance which set forth the intent of the U-District section. Siegel stated that it is still his position as indicated in the past that the use can be regulated through zoning, but not the user. Richard Stillerman questioned Siegel whether in Siegel's opinion could buildings owned by a private user be built in U-Districts. It was Siegel's opinion that the answer would be yes, once more stating that zoning regulates the use and not the user. Ald. Korshak questioned Siegel as to suggestions regarding alternate means of stopping universities from acquiring and using property outside of U-Districts. Ald. Xorshak stated that he feels it is necessary for the City to develop an affirmative plan to guarantee that some restraint is placed on universities to prohibit land acquisition outside of the current U-Districts. Mike Weston, vice president for Legal Affairs for Northwestern was present and stated that in recent years the University has sold almost all of its commercial property outside of the U-Districts. Due to the lateness of the hour the Committee ended discussion at this time on this issue to be resumed at a presently undesignated future meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P & D Committee will be August 11, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. Next special meeting of the P 6 D Committee will be August +, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. for consideration of the proposed sign ordinance. Staff: *obertT. Rudd 39(4/7) -4- MT'nTTRS Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee August +, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, D. Drummer, M. Juliar and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: J. Blevans Staff Present: R. Carlson, D. Carter and R. Rudd Others Present: Haywood slake, Jean Breslin, Lee Brown, Brace Heckman, Susan Connor, Ira Golan, Drew Patterson and Ronald Johnson Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of July 28. 1986. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes as submitted. Ald. Korshak recosssonded that on page a of the minutes that his remarks regarding University expansions with respect to University Districts was solely directed at Northwestern University and not at other universities or colleges within the City and U-Districts. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as amended. Staff informed the Committee that the City has recently boon informed by the attorney for Iesterday's Restaurant that the attorney and his applicant will be able to proceed at the P & D Committee meeting scheduled for August 25, 1986. The Committee was remiided that the meeting is scheduled to be held in the City Council Chambers on hot4st 25, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Staff was directed to send a letter to the applicant's attorney and also to the objector's attorney stating the Comittee's rules regarding hearing new evidence. Review of Proposed Comprehensive AAendment to Sign Ordinance. Bruce Heckman, Principal of Testa Associates was present and provided the Committee with a second presentation of the slide shorn that was previously offered at the special meeting of the P & D Committee on June 30, 1986. Upon completion of the slide presentation Ald. Korshak questioned whether the "statement of purpose" could be reworded to reflect in the first sentence "that it is hereby determined that the primary purpose of commercial and governmental signage...... be inserted. After a brief discussion as to the meaning to the "statement of purpose" the Committee moved on to other aspects of the ordinance. Bruce Heckman stated that the theme throughout the proposed ordinance is that "snore is less" with respect to signage and that signage can be more effective with less size if it follows the ordinance. Susan Connor, an attorney working with the sign consultant stated that it should be kept in mind that signage cannot be reflective of the full advertising message. Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce stated that he P i D Minutes Special meeting August 4, 1986 was concerned that the next special meeting of the P i D Committee scheduled for August 1S, 1986 to review the sign ordinance was not sufficient time to have the proper interested parties have input. It was explained to Golan that the August 18 data was set on June 30 and that it is was not anticipated to be a date where the Committee would vote for passing of the ordinance. Golan stated that in the course of his review of the ordinance that he has suggested simplifying the "purpose statement" to essentially state "to prevent as overload of graphic messages in the environment". Golan added that his concern that the ordinance did not address the matter of handbills being posted on control boxes, signs, lamp poles, stop lights, viaducts, ete. Heckman stated that he would review the ordinance and address this issue in the final draft. Haywood slake, a member of Design Evanston and a local graphic designer stated that the Committee has an opportunity to sake significant improvements in the aesthetics of the City similar to a prior Committee and City Council that amortized and eliminated projecting signs several years ago. In response to concerns that a strict sign ordinance would damage businesses with respect to attracting customers and business. Blake stated that signage is only one manner of promoting a business and other focus of advertising are also major factors. Aid. Brady stated that she was inclined to agree with the percentage of sign coverages proposed to the ordinance, but was concerned with the limit on the number of words or items of information in the content of a sign. She was also concerned with type of background and the detail that was required by the ordinance with respect to some signs. Golan stated that he felt that the ordinance should not be enacted by the City Council until all of the graphic supplements and visual displays are a part of the ordinance. Heckman stated that a graphic supplement was not part of their current contract, but some visual descriptions would be supplied with the ordinance. Ald. Juliar stated that he basically shared Ald. Brady's concerns but has observed in other countries too often a sameness of the signage which does not provide a vitality to the community. Heckman stated that the proposed ordinance tries to walk the fine lines between vitality, color, size and freedom of design, but also keeping the displays within the context of the community. In response to Ald. Brady's concerns about the seven items of information, Heckman explained in detail the scientific background with respect to a commonly accepted determination that seven items of information is the most acceptable number. Heckman also stated that there is a difference between signage for vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Jean Breslin, a member of the Plan Commission was present and suggested that some additional slides displaying various other types of signs may be of assistance to the Comittee in making decisions. Cathy Skobel, the owner of "Sign Here" was present and offered observations on various aspects of the ordinance. She felt that the ordinance as a whole is overwhelmingly for sign experts and would be difficult for expected applicants (non -experts and lay -businessmen). She -2- P 6 D !minutes Special !Meeting August 4, 1986 expressed her hope that it wouldn't be too complex so that it would intimidate perspective applicants. Skobel questioned page 3, number 11 required too such documentation for many of the small signs that she is familiar with and that she designed for businesses. Skobel also felt that "vinyl graphics" should not be prohibited since it is a major aspect of the sign industry today and a very vital material and farm to be used in signs. Skobel also expressed concern with respect to the thirty day limit on temporary signs, limitations on banners, and the time period for amortization of non -conforming signs. Golan expressed his concern with respect to the limitation of banners and temporary signs and stressed his strong concern for the "review board" with respect to its composition, process, and the necessity for public notice. The sign consultant indicated that he has reviewed some alternatives with staff with respect to streamlining the review process as such as possible and would supply some proposals to the committee for review. Ald. Warshaw stated as did other members of the Committee that there should be a further appeal review open to the applicant after the "sign review board" other than the circuit court. Ald. Drummer suggested that before he would consider passing a final sign ordinance that he would only feel comfortable if a "graphics packet" as discussed earlier in the meting was supplied. The Committee would need to give direction to the consultant to offer a proposal for this part of the ordinance since a "graphics packet" was not part of the original contract. Heckman stated that at the next meeting he would supply the Committee with various "graphics packets" that his firm has used in other sign ordinances to help the Committee decide on what type of packet they would request his to. Chairman Warshaw stated that the next special meeting of the P b D Committee to discuss the sign ordinance was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on August 18. 1986 and that the form of the meeting would be to solicit as much information as possible from the public in attendance in addition to reviewing the draft ordinance on a page by page basis. Staff indicated that a public notice would be placed in the local newspaper to provide as much notification as possible to the public. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P & D Committee will be !Monday, August 11, at 7:30 p.m. Next special meeting of the Committee will be August 18, 1986 at 7.30 p.m. S t of f :*d7_ obert T. Rudd 39i//6? -3- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee August 11, 1906 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, D. Drummer, and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: H. Juliar and J. Bleveans Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Bannister, G. Sommers -Rant, W. Morin, H. Hill, R. Ahlberg and R. Rudd Presiding official: R. Warshaw Minutes of August 4. 1986. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of August 4, 1986. Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Korshak absent). Docket 190-SA-86, ZBA 86-13-SU(R), re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Ald. Drummer stated that he concurs with the opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals which recommends that the Planning & Development Committee and City Council deny the requested special use. Ald. Drummer finds that the number of objectors in the neighborhood are a serious concern and should be taken into consideration. Ald. Brady stated that she also has Serious reservations about the proposed basement use of the proposed church and believes that it could be a potential for generating additional people and cars in the neighborhood and create problems as expressed by the neighboring residents. Aid. Warshaw stated that she agrees with both Aldermen Drummer and Brady that there are too few parking spaces and that a further waiver of parking would create additional problems in the area. Ald. Warshaw also questioned the use of the unpaved alley for access to the parking lot and felt that there would be little hope in the future of having the alley paved. Ald. Drummer stated that the special use provisions in the zoning ordinance are a mechanism to address problem uses such as churches in dense neighborhoods and is needed to protect the surrounding areas. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Korshak seconded to affirm the Zoning Board's recommendation to deny the special use and recommend denial to the City Council. The Committee voted 4-0 to deny the request. Rev. Wilson of the church was present and presented a petition of area residents stating support for the special use. Another person spoke on behalf of the church and felt that it would serve the neighborhood and was needed. Ald. Warshaw stated that the Committee and the Zoning Board was not questioning the good works of the church, but rather addressing the special use request and the land use impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Tarvin, a resident of the neighborhood stated that she testified at the hearing against the petition and was concerned with the impact of traffic and the additional people in the area. Mrs. Tarvin stated that the Committee should review the petition submitted tonight with respect to the proximity of the location of the petitioners to the proposed site. P b D Minutes August 11, 1986 Docket 193-BA-86. ZBA 86-15-V&SU(R), Ordinance 95-0-86. re Variation and Special Use for 3200 Grant Street (24 unit building) and Docket 192-BA-86. ZBA 86-16-V&SU(R). Ordinance 94-0-86, re Variation and Special Use for 3200 Grant Street (Cottage Addition). The Committee received the transcripts and background regarding the two proposed special uses and variations for cottage additions and a 24 unit building. Ald. Brady questioned whether there were any objectors present at the P S D meeting. None being present, Ald. Brady stated that she concurred with ZBA to grant the requested special uses and variations and move the introduction of Ordinances 94-0-86 and 95-0-86, Ald. Drummer seconded. Comittee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council introduction of the requested special u3e3 and variations. ZBA 86-12-V(F), Final Variation Decision re 921 Ridge Avenue. The Committee received without comment the final variation decision for 921 Ridge Avenue. Alley Lighting The Committee received a staff memorandum and pamphlet detailing the alley lighting policy of the City. Ald. Korshak questioned whether this was the only method of lighting and was this procedures as detailed in the pamphlet applicable to commercial districts. Staff indicated that there may be situations with respect to commercial areas that different alley lighting policies are followed. June 1986 Rehab Report Ald. Drummer asked the staff about the number of pending cases and was concerned about the amount of dollars that have been expended to date. Robert Bannister, Director of Housing Rehab 6 Property Maintenance was present and explained that there were approximately twelve (12) cases pending and stated that a marketing plan, in conjunction with ECDC, has recently been approved by the Housing Cor= ission and is currently underway. He stated that it would take some time to develop the fruits of such a plan, but expects an increase in activity this fall. Ald. Korshak questioned whether there was door to door marketing or just mass mailings. Ald. Korshak stated that his opinion is that programs such as this must be marketed door to door and face to face and not through mass mailings. Ald. Brady stated that as a member of the Rehab Subcommittee of the Housing Commission, that body had worked closely with the City and ECDC to develop a joint marketing program and she would expect increased activity. Docket 191-10A-74, Ordinance 37-0-86, ZAC 84-6, Revisions to Proposed Planned Development Zoning Amendments. Ald. Brady reviewed some suggested technical amendments to the zoning ordinance that were distributed to the Committee and City Council with respect to amending the planned development regulations. Ald. Brady suggested that Section 6-12-8-3 (E)1.3.4. should read .......... also apply when residential uses are proposed". -2- P & D !Minutes August 11, 1986 With respect to number 3 the sentence should start "in the R1 District only". and insert after dwelling unit "in a new one story building". With respect to item number 4 the sentence should read "in the residence district only." and after the word dwelling unit "in a new building". Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Korshak seconded that these technical amendments be approved by the Committee. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the technical amendments. With respect to an issue brought up in Ed Pabst's various letters, Aid. Brady proposed three (3) dwelling units and two (2) common walls as a reasonable requirement in the residence district. Aid. Korshak sated that he would propuse to change to no more than two (2) dwelling units and one (1) common wall as recommended by Pabst. Ald. Brady stated that she was against such an amendment since she does not feel a single family equates with four (4) walls and that the ordinance needs to give flexibility to the developers to entice a developer to use the Planned Development Ordinance. Steve Knutson, a member of the Preservation Commission, was present and stated that the Preservation Commission supports the three (3) dwelling units and two (2) common walls as currently proposed in the ordinance. Aid. Korshak stated that Pabst snakes a strong case not only for his concern for the lakefront, but for all of the City. Ald. Korshak stated that he would like to see the developer be put on notice at this point that they would not be allowed more than two (2) units and then change it to three if necessary and justified at a later date. !Mary McWilliams. Chairman of the Preservation Commission was present and stated that she urges the Committee not to hold this over but rather act upon it tonight and in doing so approve the three (3) units and two (2) common walls. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the ordinance be amended to coincide with the Pabst recommendation for no more than two (2) units and one (1) common wall. Motion failed. Voting aye: Aldermen Drummer and Korshak. Voting nay: Aldermen Brady and Warshaw. Motion failed. There was consensus that the Committee would recommended the technical amendments on the Council floor and further agreed to discuss the number of units at the Council level. Proposed Comprehensive Amendment to SiRn Ordinance. Aid. Korshak requested that staff provide a memorandum to the Committee indicating what the practice with respect to sign ordinances, review board, etc. are followed by other communities. Staff indicated that a report would be provided to the Committee at a later date. ZSA Public Notice for August 19.•1986 Hearing. The Committee received the public notice without comment. -3- P & D Minutes August 11, 1986 YMCA Issue Chairman Warshaw asked that though the item was not on the P & D Committee agenda that she would be requesting on the Council floor at the August 11, 1986 meeting that the YMCA issue be tabled until the City Council meeting of September 8, 1986 since several members of the Council would not be present at the August 11 and possibly the August 25, 1986 meetings. Committee voted 4-0 to support the recommendation by Ald. Warshaw. History and Regulations re Front Yard Fences. Chairman Warshaw suggested that this matter be held over to a future date to afford the Community ample time to discuss the issue. Ald. Drummer questioned whether any actions with respect to enforcing front yard fences could be held in abeyance until the Committee has had an opportunity to discuss the report. Ald. Drummer indicated that he was aware of a case at 1421 Eldridge and that a court date was pending. Staff indicated that a report summarizing the various pending cases or litigation would be provided to the Committee. The Committee suggested that this matter be made a special -item on the agenda for the special meeting of the P & D Committee on }Sunday, August 18 if it was warranted to address pending cases. Planning & Development Committee Rules and Procedures The Committee discussed rules and procedures previously forwarded. Ald. Warshaw recommended that a reference be made to the Committee on Committees with respect to established written rules and procedures for all standing committees. Ald. Korshak suggested that the reference also include a request that the Committee on Committees review procedures of the Mayor appointing special ad -hoc committees. Ald. Brady stated that she believes that there are currently procedures for the appointment of ad --hoc committees. The Committee agreed that this matter be held over until the P & D Committee meeting of September 8, 1986 to afford Ald. Brady an opportunity to provide further information prior to this matter being referred to Committee on Committees. Docket 191-BA-86, Ordinance 82-0-86. AmendinK Electrical Code. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of the subject electrical code ordinance amendment. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend introduction. Docket 194-8A-86, Ordinance 96-0-86 re 1986 1 & 2 Family Code. Aid. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council introduction of the Ordinance 96-0-86 adoption of the 1986 additions of the I & 2 Family Dwelling Code. Committee voted 4-0 to recommend introduction and passing. Consider and Prioritize Additional References to ZAC With respect to rezoning an area east of Ridge Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, south of Crain Street and north of Greenleaf Street from R6 to R1 that the matter be referred to ZAC and prioritized as number 2 on the priority list. CZL P 5 D Minutes August 11, 1986 Regarding the second reference from Ald. Raden with respect to making auto repair shops special uses, staff recommended that this matter be addressed within the current pending reference in regard to manufacturing and c^maercial use districts. Committee concurred with these recommendations and forwarded the subject references to ZAC. Clarification of Reference to Plan Commission re MSD Property jcanal banks). Beth Brady, Administration Assistant to Joann Alter, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Sanitary District was present and stated that the Northshore Marina may be getting close to being appropriated dollars for a preliminary study. It was suggested by Beth Brady that the P & D Committee direct the Plan Commission to not only monitor as they have done in the past but also to gather information and comment possibly as early as October 1986 regarding the possible Marina. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that directions be forwarded to the Planning Commission to not only monitor but to develop a policy statement and comment on the proposal. Reference to ZAC to Rezone Canal Banks. The Committee reviewed a report and map submitted by staff proposing the areas to be rezoned to Greenbelt District. With respect to Butler Park, the Committee directed that all Butler Park be included in an open space rezoning description. The Committee directed staff to forward the reference to ZAC to conduct a public hearing to rezone the canal banks to open space and that this matter be made priority number 3 on the revised list. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P S D Committee is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers on August 25, 1986. Next special meeting of the P b D Committee scheduled for 7:30 p.m., August 18. 1986 to review the Proposed Sign Ordinance. Staff:442kI Robert T. Rudd 39(3/7) -5- MINUTES Special meeting Planning and De►elopment Committee August 18, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, D. Dru=er, M. Juliar and J. Bleveans and J. Korshak Ald. Absent: none Staff Present: 1. Carlson, D. Carter and R. Rudd Others Present: S. Connor and B. Heckman, Ieska Assoc. Presiding Official: R. Warshaw pinutes of August 11. 1986. ■ld. Brady moved and ■ld. Bleveans seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of August 12, 1986. Ald. Brady indicated that the minutes should reflect on page 3 that Ald. Korshak's notion was with respect to 91 District only. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended (Ald. Juliar absent). Review of Proposed Comprehensive Amendment to Sion Ordinance. Chairman Warshaw indicated that the Committee would first attempt to deal with the issue of free standing (pole signs) signs since the current moratorium on said signs ends on September 25, 1986. Chairman Warshaw suggested that the Committee review Section ♦.12.9 of the proposed ordinance. Bruce Heckman of Testa Assoc., the City's sign consultant was present and provided an overview of the section addressing free standing signs with respect to the setbacks requirement (30'), and the proposed maximum height of sign (15.5'). Ira Golan, Executive Director of Evanston Chamber of Co=QrcQ was present and questioned Heckman as to whether it was correct to state that to have a 15 1/2' high sign that the building must be setback at least 31' from the property line. Heckman confirmed that that was an accurate understanding of the proposed ordinance. Joe Hagee, a Realtor/Developer was present and stated that he did not feel the proposed ordinance was appropriate for Evanston since most of the business buildings are old and would not be in conformance with the new standards with respect to free standing signs. Hagee cited as an example his company, Mitchell Brothers. which has a free standing sign in the parking lot and could not place a wall sign on the front of the building since it is all windows and there is no room for a wall sign on the front facade. Heckman responded that if the building is within 30' or on the property line there would be no need for a free standing sign since the facade would offer ample signage area. Biff Ruttenburg, Developer of Southpoint Plaza. stated that he feels that he had made a mistake by agreaing with the City to amend the toning ordinance prohibiting free standing signs when he was attempting to develop the Southpoint Plaza Shopping Center with parking in the front yard. Ruttenburg stated that the center is suffering significantly due to the lack P i D minutes Special Keating August la, 1986 of a free standing sign. Ruttenburg submitted to the Committee a brochure illustrating Southpoint Plaza without a free standing sign and another shopping center developed by Ruttenburg which had a free standing sign. Jame Johnson of Chandlers was present and cited problems that he had encountered with the sign ordinance in the Villa&e of Wheeling. Hockmaa reviewed briefly with the Coswittee the uniform business center sign section of the proposed ordinance which addresses many of the questions rait.id by Ruttenburg with respect to Southpoint. Al Brody, Developer of the Dodge/Dempster Center stated that he agrees with Ruttenburg and feels that every major tenant wants their name on a free standing sign identifying the center. Hoebm once more explained that the proposed ordinance provides such for a uniform business center sign plan and it addresses questions posed by centers such as Southpoint and the Dodge/Dempster Shopping Center. Aid. Bleveans questioned the members of the audience as to Whether they were aware if the Old Orchard Shopping Center had all of the tenant names on a free standing sign. It was understood that Old Orchard did not provide tenant name on a free standing identification sign. Ruttenburg stated that Old Orchard was not similar to Dodge/Dempster or Southpoint in that it was a regional stall and people expect that they would need to go into the mall area to identify the smaller stores.. Hagee cited the definition of signs In the proposed ordinance and that he felt it was not appropriate, particularly with respect to setbacks in the Evanston Ordinance. Hagee recommended that the City of Evanston adopt the method utilized in Winnetka, which calls for every sign to be reviewed by an Architectural Review Board. Hagee states that he has utilized this process in Vinnetka and finds it very good. Heckman stated that almost all Morthshore communities have an appeal or review board or architectural/design review board with respect to all permanent signs. Ald. Brady stated that she was intrigued with the archit©ctural review board aspect and finds it appealing. Hagee stated that under the proposed ordinance the City of Evanston will become less attractive for businessmen with respect to signage and feels that the architectural review board is a much better srmthod. Aldermen Korshak and Juliar stated that they disagreed with Aid. Brady with respect to the architectural review board. Ald. Korshak stated that he would prefer an architect to provide advice to the businessmen, but that the businessmen would decide if he mould take the advice or not. Chairman Warshaw expressed her concerns that under the proposed ordinance there would be a significant number of variations needed. She felt that if the ordinance was less specific. possibly, the number of variation requests would be diminished. Ruttenburg suggested that the City review different sign standards for "large" and "small" projects. Golan suggested that the Committee should develop interim sign standards to address unified shopping centers and pole and ground signs until a new ordinance can be written. Ald. -2- P : D minutes Special Heating August 18, 1986 xorshak suggested that the Committee limit their discussion to two areas: existing signs and new signs. by doing so the Committee would be able to address the issue of the upending termination of the moratorium on pole and ground signs and at a later date address the question of existing signs (amortization). Heckman stated that many of the issues being discussed with the Committee are of policy. He further explained that the presence of an architectural review board would not solve the issue of a standardized setback (301). He explained that in most communities an architectural review board or appearance commission reviews color, shape. type of letters, etc. Hackman further explained that the ordinance as drafted will not create a great number of variances, rather the ordinance is designed to discourage variances and allows signage within the parameters set forth. He further stated that it is not possible to draft a sign ordinance to address all conditions thus necessitating the mechanism to allow variations. Brody stated that he would favor an appearance or architectural review board with respect to signs and felt that other developers would also favor such a review. Ruttenburg expressed his concern that the rational set forth in the proposed ordinance with respect to free standing signs and the allowed square footage (.01% or 120 sq. ft.) did not differentiate enough between small centers and large centers. Heckman further explained to the Committee in greater depth the workings of the propose unified business center signage section. Ald. Juliar expressed his misgivings with respect to architectural or design review boards. He stated that he would like to see some controls but was concerned with too many controls embodied in such a review board. Ald. Rorshak stated that he would like to see guidelines not in an ordinance, but rather standards to guide a review board and also provide for a right of appeal to an elected body. Heckman reviewed the unified business center section responding to concerns expressed by Brody and Ruttenburg and indicated that at the last P & D Committee meeting it was agreed that appeals from the decision of the review board would go directly to the P & D Committee. He further stated that it was agreed to supplement the proposed ordinance with illustrated guidelines which he is currently preparing. Ruttenburg suggested that the Cosssittee consider letting unified business centers comply only with the unified business center section and not with the rest of the ordinance, and that the guidelines be general in nature. Ald. Bleveans stated that in hearing the testimony at tonight's meeting that he is becoming convinced by the developers and businessmen present that the architectural review board is ok. He stated that some years ago there was great concern that review bodies such as an architectural review board hindered economic development. It is his understanding now that businessmen and developers are saying that such a body helps economic development and is not an encumbrance. Golan stated that he endorses the concept of a architectural review board with respect to unified business centers. -3- P i D Minutes Special Meeting August 18, 1986 Susan Connor, Consultant Attorney for the sign ordinance stated that the Committee should be aware that if there is a review body that standards must be placed in the ordinance. Connor further stated that in regard to previous questions with respect to amortization that the City was on first legal grounds by setting up an amortization schedule. Bruce Ihoobald, a realtor with Ran= claimed that the amortization schedule would open up the City to a class action suit. No stated that if the schedule passed as presented he would watch who voted for it and would start a one man campaign against supporters of such a schedule. John Ipjian, owner of Perfecto Cleaners was present and stated that their business has sore wall signs than any other business within the City of Rvanston. He further stated that his least expensive sign is valued at $5,000. He felt that the amortization schedule and the restriction on wall signs was not needed. Leonard Krish questioned what the regulations would be on paper window signs. He also stated that he was disturbed that the City was allowing people to post handbills on street lights, traffic signals and vehicle regulatory signs. The Committee responded that such posting of signs were currently illegal and would be under the future ordinance, but that It was difficult to enforce. Mr. Springer of the Hain Currency Exchange questioned whether his business would fall under the unified business center. Hackman explained that he would since the building where he is located consisted of more than four (4) businesses. Golan stated that he was concerned with possible additional administrative cost, the appeal board, proper notification to interested parties, notices affixed to public property, and design items (items of information). He was also critical of the "purpose statement" of the proposed ordinance and felt that it was inappropriate. Finally, he felt that such an ordinance would be a reversal of the attitude to promote economic development within the City and would hinder future development. Ald. Brady suggested that the Committee focus on what mechanisms the Committee wants to see in the ordinance and how to address free standing sign rather than the content of the ordinance. Ald. Brady suggested that in the interim during the review of the sign ordinance that the Council establish a short term board such as ZAC/ZBA which would deal with all nonconforming signs prior to the creation of a new permanent board/commission. Golan stated that the City of Evanston should undertake an economic impact study to determine the ramifications of any new sign ordinance. Ald. Korshak suggested that the Committee narrow their focus at this meeting to develop the mechanism to address the moratorium on free standing signs and that other types of signs need additional, extended discussion. Chairman Warshaw suggested that an interim body be established to review uniform businessou center signs and free standing signs in the interim period prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. Ald. Brady suggested that the -4- P i D minutes Special Meeting August 18, 1986 P i 0 Committee act as that interim appeal board for a period of ninety (90) days. Chairman Warshaw stated that the current proposed ordinance provides sufficient guidelines for the interim appeals board to operate for only the suggested ninety (90) period. With respect to the P i D Committee reviewing sign appeals. Connor indicated that a public notice of the P i D meeting would not be required, but rather that the Committee must keep a record of findings of their decisions. Ald. forshak moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the P i D Committee act as the temporary hearing body for a ninety (90) day period. Com•ittee voted 5-0 (Ald. Drummer absent) to direct staff to develop the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the P A 0 Committee at the meeting of September 8, 1986 for introduction to the City Council on that night. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be August 25, 1986. at 7:00 p.m. Staff: Robert T. Rudd 39(3/7) -5- Minutes Planning and Development Committee August 25, 1986 7:00 P.M. Aid. Present: S. Brady. R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans, J. Korshak and M. Juliar Ald. Absent: D. Drummer Staff Present: R. Carlson. D. Rasmussen and R. Rudd Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of August la. 1986 Ald. Brady scored and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special sleeting of August 18. 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Bleveans absent). Revised List of Pending References to ZAC and Expansion of Plan Commission Reference on Canal Books. The Committee receive a revised list of pending references to ZAC in addition to a memorandum forwarded to the Chairman of the Plan Commission expanding a previous reference to that body from the P b D Committee regarding the canal banks. Rehab Report - July 1986 The Committee receive the Rehab report of July 1986. Docket 199-QB-86. ZBif 85-38-V(R). Ordinance 93-0-86. re Variations for 1SSO-54 Sherman Avenue (Yesterday's Restaurant). Chairman Warshaw reviewed the rules and procedures for conducting P i D Committee meetings. pave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning provided a staff summary of the variation request to permit retention of the existing building and uses at 1850-54 Sherman Avenue. Aid. Korshak referred to his memo to the Committee dated August 20, 1986 in which he stated that it is his opinion that the appellant for the variation had failed to meet the various zoning ordinance standards. Aid. Korshak moved and Aid. Juliar seconded that the P 6 D Committee not concur with the Zoning Board's recommendation to recommend approval of the variation, but rather reverse the ZBA recommendation and direct that the City enforce against Yesterday's the provision calling for the elimination of the use and conversion of the structure to a use permitted in the zoning district. Aid. Xorshak reviewed his comments in the aforementioned memo stating that there are two (2) types of variations: Use and other types of variations. Ald. Korshak stated that the ZBA had to apply the regulation regarding variation standards to a use request even though those standards may be more attuned to bulk regulation variations (i.e. side yard, floor area ratio; P & D !Minutes August 25, 1956 etc.). Ald. korshak stated that a use variation was a very serious policy issue which was net by the City Council when the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1960. Ald. korshak stated that Yesterday's was a commercial use in a residential designated area and that a policy decision was made by a previous City Council that such a use would terminate after a twenty -fire (25) year period. Ald. Xorshak further stated that in 1960 the owner van advised that the use of the property would be terminated in twenty-five (25) years and that the owner had a substantial period of time to wake adjustments. Aid. Juliar stated that he feels that this is a key issue for the P & 0 Committee. Ald. Juliar further stated that he had discussed with a member of the 1960 P & D Committee who stated that the Committee and Council debated at great length the issue of non -confirming uses. Ald. Juliar further stated that the Yesterday's case is not a unique case. He felt that there would be just as difficult and unique cases in the upcoming months and years with respect to the twenty -Live (25) year elimination provision. Ald. Juliar questioned whether the P & D Committss would confirm the twenty -tire (2S) year old City Council policy (elimination provision) with respect to all cases. He questioned whether it was appropriate that after fifty (50) years of continuance business operation that a business should be closed just to attain uniform zoning districts. He felt that today the City had not been conforming to a uniform zoning district policy. Ald. Brady briefly discussed the list of future elimination cases that would be cowing before the P L D Committee. She stated that it is important for the Committee to hear the concerns of the neighbors, however, it is also important to look at the use and its benefits to the City and neighborhood. Ald. Brady stated that in the future the Committee would be reviewing 319 Dempster in which she felt the neighbors would want to terminate, and the City may feel it is necessary to continue due to the need for single room occupancy and low Income housing units. She questioned whether the P & D Committee would deny that variation request on the basis that the neighbors objected? Ald. Brady felt that the Cosmxittee and City Council must balance the desires of the neighbors and also the needs of the Community and the property owners. Ald. Brady felt that many of the faults of the restaurant are correctable. Chairman Warshaw reminded the Committee that with regard to previous elimination variation requests such as the beauty shop on Emerson, Gordon Drug and a nursing home that the neighbors supported those cases whereas in the current request for Yesterday's the neighbors are opposing the continuation of the use. Ald. Warshaw further stated that her review of the case finds that economics was the sole reason cited for continuing the operation and that she does not feel that is an acceptable argument since the owner had a twenty-five (25) year period to make adjustments. She further stated that she feels to grant such a variation would be contrary to the City`s zoning ordinance and -2- P i D Minutes August 25, 1986 the policy adopted by the City Council in 1960 that provided the elimination after a twenty-five (25) year usage. Ald. Warshaw stated that she had completed a feasibility analysis based on the facts in the transcript and finds that it is feasible to convert to residential use. Ald. Juliar stated that his recollection of the nursing home issue was that it was also an economic situation and that future requests will be economic hardship situations. Ald. Juliar questioned whether the City of Evanston rants to enforce the twenty-five US) year ordinance or not. He feels that it Is important that the City take a first stand one way or the other on this Issue with respect to all variation requests and that consistency and uniformity be attained. Aid. Warshaw stated that the could not equate the nursing how issue with Yesterday's and that they were totally different cases. Ald. Korshak stated that if the zoning ordinance elimination provision is out of date then City Council should change the ordinance. Aid. Korshak reiterated that the other cases recently before the Committee were not opposed by the neighbors as in the current case. Ald. Korshak proceeded to review the various standards set forth in the zoning ordinance with respect to the applicant request for extension. He stated that he finds that economics to be the sole reason for keeping the operation. Aid. Brady stated that the P A D Committee must use common sense in addition to weighing the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance whereby the ironing Board is limited to standards given to them in the zoning ordinance. Ald. Brady questioned the Committee as to what their vote would be if the best reitaurEnt in town, with no problems, were located at the site. but was subject to elimination. Ald. Korshak indicated that he would still rote to eliminate the use if it was subject to an elimination provision of the zoning ordinance. Aid. Juliar stated that there were no objectors in the past with respect to the beauty shop, but a review of the transcript finds that the vote of the Zoning Board was such narrower in that case than in the current case which had objectors. Aid. Korshak stated that he can not explain past ZBA votes, but can only act on the facts submitted in the current case. Ald. Korshak continued review of the various standards of the zoning ordinance compared to the request of the applicant for Yesterday's. It was Aid. Korshak's opinion that at no time did the applicant prove that he not the standards. He also felt that the Zoning Board incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the elimination at the hands of the neighbors which opposed the continuation of the restaurant, where the burden of proof should be upon the applicant. He further found that a review of the transcript proved beyond a doubt that the sole reason for continuing the use as explained by the applicant was economic hardship and that the applicant did not meet all of the standards, which is necessary, to continue the use. Aid. Juliar stated that he is comfortable with upholding the zoning ordinance with respect to -3- P A D Minutes August 25, 1986 elimination if that is going to be the P i D Committee and City Council decision. Hoverer. he noted that past applicants have also failed to pass at least one standard in the zoning ordinance. Ald. Warshaw stated that she finds that the most glaring fault of the transcript lieu with the Zoning Board of Appeals in that they placed the burden of proof on the objectors where it should have been placed on the applicant for the variation request. Ald. Warshaw further stated that for twenty-five (25) years the residents have relied upon the zoning ordinance and the City Council which stated that the use would terminate at this tine. Ald. bleveans questioned whether residents to the area knew when they purchased that the restaurant was non -conforming! He also questioned how many residents moved in after it was a restaurant, and at the time of moving in. knew that it was subject to elimination? Ald. Korshak stated that it was his opinion that there has been an increase in the intensity of Yesterday's over the years. He also felt that Yesterday's had the opportunity to move in to the former Colorado Company when that operation closed recently. Ald. Korshak cited instances where through the cooperation of the owners of the Colorado Company, the City and the neighbors, vent stacks, dumpsters and other problems were addressed through joint cooperation. He feels that evidence in the transcript finds that the operators of Yesterday's Restaurant have been bad neighbors and have been insensitive to the neighborhood concerns. Ald. Warshaw stated that Yesterday's has expanded over the years and intensified with the issuance of the liquor licenses thus creating the problems. Ald. Brady felt that the problems at Yesterday's can be addressed through restrictions in the ordinance. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the conditions recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals could actually be enforced by the City! It was the consensus of the Committee that many of the conditions would be difficult to enforce. Ald. Korshak questioned why Sherman Garden's residents and neighbors should be subject to noise, odors, etc. caused by a restaurant which is a commercial use located in a residential district. He stated that he doesn't think that it is appropriate for those residents to have to face those nuisances when the zoning ordinance should provide them protection. He concurs that the conditions proposed by the ZBA recommendations are unenforceable. In response to Ald. Juliar's comments regarding uniformity and zoning, Ald. Korshak felt that the test is not "uniformity", but rather "consistency." Ald. Brady stated that she does not agree with Ald. Korshak. She stated that she agrees that the transcript indicates that Yesterday's has been a bad neighbor, but that she is not in favor of such rigid zoning that would cause the elimination of this use. She stated that she feels that the problems are of a management nature and that they can be eliminated through better management. She stated that she feels that there is no financially feasible alternative such as proposed by Ald. Warshaw. Ald. Brady stated that she concurs with the Zoning Board's recommendation and the conditions recommended. -4- P i D Minutes August 25, 1986 Ald. Zorshak stated that the issue is one of citizens counting on the Integrity of the City and the toning, ordinance, which states that such a use would be eliminated after a period of time. He stated once more that the burden of proof should be on the applicant and not an the neighbors and that It is clear that the applicant did not met the standards in the zoning ordinance. Ald. [orshak further stated that the managerial problem is not solvable and that the nuisance would continue. Alderman Brady and Juliar stated that the City mist have consistency in its application in the elimination provision of the toning ordinance and may decide differently on future cases. Ald. Warshaw stated that there is a basic incompatibility with the current use in its present zoning district and the surrounding uses, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals proposed recommendation and conditions are unenforceable. Chairman Warshaw called for a rote on the motion on the floor as presented by Ald. 8orshak and seconded by Ald. Juliar. Voting aye: Aldermen forshak, Bleveans. Warshaw and Juliar. Voting nay: Ald. Brady. The Committee voted to reconseend to the City Council that the variation request for by the applicant for Yesterday's Restaurant be denied and that the elimination provision of the zoning ordinance be enforced. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be September 8, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff : OberrTndd 39(6/10) -5- Minutes Planning and Development Committee September 8. 1986 7:30 P.M. Aid.. Present: J. Bleveass, S. Brady, D. Dru masr, M. Juliar, J. [orshak and R. Warshaw Staff Present: R. Bannister, R. Carlson, R. Carter, B. !fill, W. Morin, David Rassnssen, Robert Rudd Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes August 25. 1956 Ald. Rarshat moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Comitte* approve the min- utes of the Planning and Drvolopm*nt Committee meeting of August 25, 1946. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as submitted (Ald. Juliar absent). Communication Th* Committo* received a report on Sign Ordinance from other co■muniti*s as previously requested by the Planning and Development Committee. The Committeo requested that a transcript of the joint sooting between ZAC and ZBA scheduled for September 11, 1986 be made available to the Committee mem- bers who are unable to attend that meeting. The Commmittee received a ZBA Public Notice for September 16, 1986 hearing. Consideration of Ald. Rudy's Two References to ZAC Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Planning and Development Commmittee refer to ZAC both of Ald. Rudy's references addressing parking and building height definitions and include those in the existing reference before ZAC regarding parking issues. The Committee asked that it be made clear that the references were without any endorsement with respect to a position or feeling of the Cosseittee. The Committee voted 6-0 to refer to ZAC. Ordinance 98-0-86 Amending Existing Sign Regulations After a brief discussion of the proposed "interim" ordinance Ald. Brady sug- gested that any references to the 120 day period for existence of the Planning and Development Committee to act as a Sign Review Board be deleted from the ordinance. Ald. Brady also nov*d that Section 4-12-15-4 ba changed from a sixty (60) day period to a thirty (30) day period with respect to the hearing time frame for the Planning and Development Committee. Ald. Drummer seconded the notion and the Committee voted 6-0 to introduce Ordinance 98-0-86 as ameaded by the Committee. Chairman Warshaw noted to the Committee that the Planning and Development Com- mittee would hold a special meeting at 7:30 p.m. Monday, September 15, 1986 to continue further review of the proposed sign ordinance. P A D Ninutos September a, 1986 Waiver of Zoning fees for Svecial Use ADolication of Suburban Bus Division of M Ald. Bleveaus moved and Ald. xorshak seconded that the Comnittse approve the request for waiver of the zonins fees. Ald. Sleroaas stated that his recol- lection is that the history of the Planning and Development Comstittee is to waive such foes upon govern- ntal request. Ald. Brady stated that she dis- agrees with waiting fees since, the City of Evanston opposes the use, and does not feel it would be in Moping with the City's position to also waive the re - guested zoning foe,. Ald. Juliar stated that be agrees with Ald. Bleveans be- cause it has been the past practice of the Coewittee to rocomnend waiver of such fees, although he does not agree with the request from RTA. Ald. Xorshak and Ald. Warshaw both stated that they oppose the request for wirer since there has been no hardship demonstrated. The Cosmittee voted 4-2 to deny the request of the ETA for the waiver of fees. Notion was to approve the waiver which failed by 6-2 vote (Ald. Bleveans, Ald. Juliar voting aye,; Ald. Dramsor, Ald. Sorshak, Ald. Brady and Ald. Warshaw voting nay). Ordinance 101-0-86 Re,: Extension of Parking Standard Zoning Provision Ald. Drummer moved and Aid. Brady seconded that the Cosmittoe rocosmnd to the City Council introduction of the subject ordinance to extend for a period of one year with respect to parkin& standards. Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, was present and questioned whether it would be score appropriate to extend this provision for a two year period to be sure to allow the Zoning Amondment Cosmittee ample time to review the current parking references before that group. The Committes felt that the one year period should provide enough time and that the matter could be continued at a later date if necessary. Cosrsittee voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council the Introduction of Ordinance 101-0-86 providing an extension of the zoning pro- vision. 1850-54 Sherman Avenue (Yesterday's Restaurant) Ald. Bleveans began the discussion by stating that at the previous meeting the lour, list of conditions placed on the request by the Zoning Board led his to vote 'no` on the issue because he felt the conditions were unenforceable. Aid. Blevsans questioned First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill as to what remedy the City of Evanston would have if Yesterday's was approved with the conditions and in turn violated the conditions. Hill explained that if the conditions were via a covenant that it would be necessary to go to court to enforce the conditions and then there would be no guarantee as to whether the severity of the violation would lead to a termination order by the court. Ald. Bleveans stated that he is still troubled with the enforcement problem tied to any conditions that would be placed on an approval. Ald. Brady ques- tioned whether the City could grant a one or two year extension and then eval- uate the situation. Ald. Eorshak stated that the City would then be giving Yesterday's Restaurant 27 years instead of 25 years to go out of business. Ald. Korshak felt that an additional two years would not provide a solution to the problems of noise, odor, rodents and other periodic disorders. He felt that the owner had plenty of time to relocate over the past 25 years and an additional two years would only continue the negative impact and nuisance to -2- P i D minutes September a, 1986 the neighbors. Ald. Warshaw stated that she felt that there is a basic zoning conflict between the restaurant and the surrounding residential uses. She stated that the City would make every e:fort to relocate Yesterday's within the City and that it was not the intent of the elmination provision to drive the business outside of the City, but to remove its non-conformancy from the area. Ald. alevean■ stated that to close down the restaurant is a very dras- tic step. No Questioned whether the restaurant would rake up to the fact that the City is serious about taking such a drastic act and tape steps to remedy the various issues brought forward by the neighbors. Ald. aleveans further ou"osted either a nine mouth or one year period to evaluate the situation to allow the restaurant to cast into conformancy with respect to the problems raised. Ald. Drummer expressed his opinion that any conditions imposed must be agreeable to all the neighbors and that they should have their input. Jim Murray, attorney for Yesterday's Restaurant, stated that he had submitted a letter to members of the Committee which provided for the opportunity for alternatives to be reviewed with the neighbors, City and restaurant owners. Ald. Rorsbak stated that 8urray`s letter did not provide in his opinion any now evidence and that the Committee should not entertain further presentation from Attorney Murray. Ald. bleveans stated that in the past the Cossaittee has allowed all citizens to speak at the Comsaittse with respect to the issues at hand. Mr. Steve Weil, operator of the restaurant, was present and stated that he feels that the Committee's decision on August 25, 1956 was based on inaccu- rate information and not an appropriate decision. Ald. arummer stated that he would like to see some type of compromise reached, but that the smatter should go back to the neighbors of the restaurant to work out this compromise. Ald. Dleveans suggested that the issue be held over for a period of time to allow a sleeting between the owners of the restaurant and building and the neighbors to see if anything can be worked out. Chairman Warshaw and Ald. Juliar stated that past attempts to do just that have failed and the sane :may come of this latest attempt. Chairman Warshaw questioned Hill as to whether a one year variation with conditions could be granted. Hill advised against such a limited conditional approval. Ald. Juliar questioned whether an executive session could be held at the and of the City Council meeting since there were legal issues involved. Attorney Hill indicated that the subject would be appropriate for executive session due to imminent litigation on this issue. Ald. [orshak noted that there would be a substantial cost to the City to enforce the conditions proposed by the Zoning Board. He stated that the owner has had 25 years to either be a good neighbor or to relocate and has done neither. Ald. torshok noted further that the restaurant has not only expanded its operation, but has intensified its use through a liquor license. Ald. Bleveans questioned that if a law suit evolves from this issue and an agreement was reached in court whether that would be easier to enforce. Attorney Hill stated that an agreement reached in court would be enforceable through the court and a violation of such an agreement could lead to a termination of the operation. -3- P i D minutes September a, 1986 At this point, the Committee discussod the meaning of two Committee rules (Winfield and Weinstein Rules) with respect to the opportunity for hearing or to present now evidence. It was the consensus of the Committee that Ald. bleveans at the request of Ald. torshak would submit to the Committee some new warding to rwrite and clarify the meaning and intent of the rules. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. sleveaas seconded to table this issue until the October 20, 1986 regular Planning and Development Committee meeting which would allow Ald. torshak to be present and to request an executive session at the end of the September a, 1986 City Council meeting. The Cosmittee voted 6-0 on the above motion. Ald. torshak moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the applicant and objectors submit any new evidence in writing in advance of the October 20. 1966 Meting. The Committee toted 6-0 to approve the action. Adiournmwnt The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Next special meeting will be hold on Monday. September 15, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. The next regular Meting will be held on Monday, September 22. 1986. Staff:46 eOttlA T. id4g -4- Minutes Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee September 15, 1986 7:30 P.K. ►ld. Present: S. Brady, M. Julisr, J. Korshak and R. Warshaw ►ld. ►bsent: J. Bleveans and D. Drummer Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Carter, Robert Rudd and K. Szymanski Others Present: Drew Patterson, Ira Golan, Hayward slake, Brut• Heckman, and Dick Fitzgerald Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of September 8, 1986 Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the min- utes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of September 8, 1986. Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. Proposed Sign Ordinance Chairman Warshaw began the meeting with the statement suggesting that the Com- mittee review the over all policy considerations dealing with the proposed sign ordinance. The policy considerations should center on whether existing signs should be grandfathered under the proposed ordinance or amortized and if amortized what length of tile. Chairman Warshaw also suggested that the Com- mittee focus on the business hardships that have been expressed by ►arious parties before the Planning and Development Committee at past hearings. Chairman Warshaw proposed to the Committee that all existing signs be grand - fathered. Ald. Korshak stated that he agrees with Ald. Warshaw's proposal to grandfather signs such as Fanny's, Holiday Inn, etc., that are legally in existence. Ald. Juliar stated that he agrees with the grandfathering proposal but is concerned with other signs such as the billboards along GreenBay Road and Chicago Avenue. He stated that if it is the intent to separate billboards from the business nonconforming signs, that he has difficulty with that dis- tinction. Chairman Warshaw suggested that the grandfathering be only for off - site directional signs (i.e. Fanny's) and not advertising (i.e. billboards). Ald. Korshak stated that the Committee should identify signs that should not be removed and in doing so utilize various standards or criteria such as the permanency of the signs, one a kind, that the sign be constructed of a durable substance, etc. Ald. Korshak also stated that the Committee should approach this issue by first identifying the problem and also determining whether the problem, when identified, is City-wide. Ald. Korshak also stated that the terms of the ordinance should be drafted in the narrowest sense as to avoid spilling over into areas that were not intended to be addressed by the sign ordinance. Chairman Warshaw stated that she feels the goal of the new sign ordinance has merits, but doesn't warrant an ordinance perceived as prohibitive to various P i D Minutes September 15, 1986 types of signs and to businesses. dld. Brady suggested that the Committee de- velop criteria for grandfatboring signs. She suggested that if there are a number of violations on signs at an existing store possibly only one sign be retained. Drw Patterson, a representative of the Planning Commission, was present and stated that the Planning Commission supports the consultant's pro- posals. Patterson stated that the proposed sign ordinance has provisions for most of the concerns raised in the tours* of the past hearings. He stated that the Committee needs to move on with the ordinance and make a decision as to whether to advertise existing signs or grandfather them in and have reswval thru attrition. Patterson stated that if the Committee's desire is to provide for amortisation that possibly the Committee might want to consider extending the amortization period to seen to ten rears. Ire Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commrerce was present and po .S the question to the Committee as to what actually is the problem with present signs and whose pro- blem is it* He stated that the Committee must make distinctions between some existing signs which identify a shop and those signs which advertise products within the shop. Golan cited the Muffler Shop along GreenBay goad near Emerson Street as a location which has numerous signs identifying the type of business in addition'to signs advertising numerous products sold on site. Chairman Warshaw suggested that a grandfathering procedure may allow one sign for an establishment advertising the business, but prohibit signs which ad- vertise the products or services. Bruce Heckman of Testa Associates was pre- sent and stated that the Committee must keep in mind that the law requires that sign ordinances be "content neutral." The ordinance cannot differentiate between business advertising and product services. He felt that the multiple amortization process was intriguing and could be explored. Heckman stated that if the Committee's desire was to allow directional signs such as Fanny's that the Committee would have to determine the difference between that type of sign and a billboard. He also felt that it was possible to determine the dif- ference where a sign was in proper context of the community. dld. Juliar stated that it was his desire to eliminate billboards. He felt that in the current situation we may have a single owner of most or all of the billboards in the City gad that to eliminate all of those billboards owned by a single party may cause legal problems. Heckman stated that the proposed or- dinance sets forth a procedural format for advertising signs and that Wilmette has a similar procedure and has had very good success advertising the various signs in that municipality. Heckman cited the recent City of Chicago action to cause removal of various signs that were placed on OV tracks in the City. Golan suggested that the Committee drop the whole issue of amortization at this point and move ahead on the rest of the ordinance. Ald. Warshaw asked the Committee as to whether it was their desire to address the amortization or grandfather issue at this point and make a decision or to proceed with further discussion. Dick Fitzgerald, attorney for Fanny's, stated that his review of the proposed ordinance finds that no one could meet the variation standards suggested. He -2- P 6 D Cosmittea !Minutes September 15. 1986 recommended that standards be enacted similar to zoning special use standards in the current sign ordinance rather than zoning variation standards. Heckman stated that the proposed standards for sign variations are very similar to those standards in the zoning ordinance. Golan stated that the issue raised by Fitzgerald is only one of the very many he intends to raise in the review of the sign ordinance. Chairman 'Warshaw asked once more if the Committee was ready to decide amortization versus grandfathering and if amortization was de- sired as to whether a longer schedule would be appropriate. A1d. Korshak re- commended that the Committee start a review of the proposed ordinance as if there wort no current signs in the City. This would allow the Committee to have a clearer view of how the proposed ordinance would operate. Heckman stated that he would recommend that the Cammittee decide to grandfather all t=isting signs at this point and then go on with the review of the proposed ordinance. He felt that the high Zurnover rate of signs within the City would take care of many of the existing nonconforming signs in a reasonable amount of time. Heckman proposed that the Committee explore grandfathering in on - premise signs and possibly amortizing off -premise signs. An alternative would be to amortize off -premise signs above a certain size. Hayward slake, a local designer was present and questioned why the Committee would state that they would approve a variation for signs such. as Fanny's! Ald. Korsbak stated be felt that it could meet the standards as it would be a on* of a kind sign and that it would be impossible to find Fanny's Restaurant without the directional sign in existence. It was the consensus of the Committee to start a review of the proposed sign ordinance on a line by line basis. The Committee started a review of the draft sign ordinance dated June 30, 1986 with the revisions dated August 19, 1986. Golan objected to the purpose statement as presented. Herrman explained that the purpose statement is a fundamental legal basis for establishing the or- dinance and is quite common in almost all ordinances. Upon further review of the purpose statement. Golan asked when logality would drop out of the issue and reality begin particularly with respect to public welfare provision. He further stated that he was concerned with arbitrary administrative decisions. Heckman explained that the purpose statement has nothing to do with ads<inis- trative decisions and is simply a statement setting forth the purpose of the ordinance. Petterson stated that the languaEe as proposed is quite standard and that Golan's concerns are not well founded with respect to the structure of the purpose statement. It was also explained that if any aggrieved party felt that they had received an arbitrary decision there was always an appeal available to that party before the Sign Appeals Board. The following is a listing of the various thru 12 of the draft ordinance dated June visions under a August 19, 1986 revision. noted below, the Committee approved pages 30th draft ordinance and revisions on page -3- Items that were discussed on pages 1 30, 1986 in addition to the re - With the exception of the items 1 thru 12 of the aforementioned June 1 and 2 of August 19th meAo. P & D Committee Minutes September 15. 1986 1. Section 4-12-4 PERMIT MUIRBD B. No assigmeat or transfer. The Comittee requested a clarification from the consultant with re- spect to this item. 2. Section 4-12-5 KIzAPT SIGHS I. Government Sins, The Committee directed that the minutes reflect that signs such as those delineating historic districts be classified as government signs and thus would fall into this category. 3. Section 4-12-5 EXEMPT SIGNS R. Political or Camvaian signs The Cossrittee directed that the ordinance be changed from 30 days to 45 days. 4. Section 4-12-5 KKUPT SIGNS S. Real Estate SiM Th• Committee directed the words "permanently" at the bottom of page 11 be removed from this Section. S. Section 4-12-5 EUX SIGNS I Temporary Window SiM The Committee directed the consultant to reword this Section so that the 25% window sign area limitation not be part of the overall 15% of facade area sign allowance for all signs. The Com■ittee ended their discussion after completing Section 4-12-5. The Committeo stated that a special meeting would be conducted on September 29, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. to continue review of the proposed ordinance starting with Section 4-12-6. W ournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. Next regular sleeting of the Planning and Development Comittee will be September 22, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: go r T. Rudd 328(1) -4- Minutes Planning and Development Committee September 22, 1986 7:30 P.M. Aid. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans, and D. Drummr Ald. Absent: M. Juliar and J. Korshak Staff Present: R. Carlson, S. Eiseman, D. Rasmussen, L. Talkington, W. Morin, D. Carter and R. Rudd Others Present: P. Peters, Plan Co ission Chairman Presiding Official: R. Warshaw Minutes of Special HoetinB of September 15. 1986 Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Drew r seconded that the Cosssittee approve the minutes of the special sleeting of September 15, 1986 as submitted. Coessittee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Aid. Bleveans absent). COPMUNICATIONS ZBA 86-20-V(F) Final Variation Decision re 806 Ridge Avenue, Revised List of Pending References to ZAC and August 1986 Rehab Report. The Committee received the above without comment. Comeercial Districts Report Ald. Brady stated that she was quite pleased with the approach undertaken by the Plan Commission in its comprehensive review of the commercial districts. She felt that the report was excellent in its content and format. Phil Peters, Chairman of the Plan Commission was present and briefly stated that the report reviewed the commercial districts and some business districts (B1 and 2). Peters stated that the report provides recommendations that would make pedestrian oriented businesses remain pedestrian oriented in nature. Peters stated that since this report is being referred to the Zoning Amendment Committee for public hearing that further discussion on the matter could take place at ZAC in addition to a future meeting before the P b D Committee after the ZAC hearing. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the cosssercial districts report be made a reference to ZAC and that the minutes indicated that the P & D Committee expressed conceptual approval of the report. Committee voted 3-0 to refer the item to ZAC (Aid. Bleveans absent). Docket 190-8A-86, ZBA 86-13-SU(R) re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Ald. Drummer moved to table the mutter at P & D to allow for meetings to be scheduled between the neighbors and church representatives in an attempt to P i D Minutes September 22, 1966 work out the differences. There was no second to the motion in order to allow discussion of the matter. Ald. Grady felt that it was proper to bare neighbors at the meeting to discuss, in addition to issues already brought up, the other possible uses that would be placed in the church. Chairman Warshaw recosmmended that in the course of these meetings that any agreement have a provision for the alley to be paved by the church since it will be utilised extensively for parking needs. Ald. Drummer stated that he will include the above items in addition to those previously brought up by neighbors and the church at earlier bearings. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the natter be tabled at the P i D Committee until further notice. Pocket 210-93-86: Consider Plat of Consolidation for Immanuel Lutheran Church Property at 616 Lake Street, Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation. Ald. Bleveans questioned why he received a letter from an attorney representing the church. The Committee acknowledged that all members had received a similar letter. Upon review of the matter Chairman Warshaw recommended that a reference be forwarded to the Housing Commission to discuss the issue of demolition of multi -family units and possible methods of replacement. Ald. Brady stated that a similar reference was already at the Housing Commission and under discussion at the Rental Condo Subcommittee. The Committee was informed that the reference currently before the Rental Condo Subcommittee addressed only buildings of three or more units. Chairman Warshaw recommended that the reference be expanded to include two or more units. The Committee voted 4-0 to approve the plat of consolidation and also to direct the Housing Commission's Rental Condo Subcommittee to expand the current reference from three or more to two or more units. Docket 211-90-86: Resolution 66-R-86. Annual Update to the Housing Assistance Plan. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of the above captioned resolution to update the City's H.A.P. Ald. Drummer expressed his concern with various guidelines contained within the Single-family and Multi -family City Housing Rehab Program. He questioned whether the guidelines could be made more flexible to allow more residents to be eligible. He felt that it was imperative to stimulate the upgrading of housing in the City. Ald. Brady indicated that various revisions of the Single-family Guidelines have taken place and the Rehab Subcommittee of the Housing Commission will soon be undertaking revisions to the Multi -family Guidelines. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council approval of the update to the Housing Assistance Plan. Docket 212-9B-86. ZBA 86-21-V(R) Ordinance 99-0-86, re Variation for 3325-33 Simpson Street. Chairman Warshaw indicated that in a discussion with Ald. Vold of the ward -2- P 5 D Minutes September 22, 1986 where the subject restaurant would be located Ald. Vold asked the P i D Cosmitteo to hold the matter over until October 6, 1986 to allow the neighbors and representatives of Domino's Pizza to work out an agreement that would determine the hours of operation. John Reese, a representative of Domino's, was present and stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has offered two alternatives for hours of operation, and that Domino's finds either one acceptable. However, Reese stated that the neighbors did not find the alternatives acceptable. Chairman Warshaw stated that the Committee would hold the natter for two weeks to allow time for the neighbors and Domino's to met and work out an agreement. She stated that if an agreement could be worked out within that time the Committee would ask introduction and suspension of the rules of the City Council on October 6. 1986. If this were to happen there would be no delay to Domino's pizza. Ald. Bleveans stated that he agrees with holding the matter over and prefers to have the neighbors and Domino's agree on the hours of operation. Br. Reese stated that he feels that he is being held up by the neighbors since the Zoning Board has recommended approval and offered two alternatives for hours of operation, both of which he finds acceptable. He questioned at what point if no agreement could be reached with the neighbors would this matter procede to discussion at the P i D Committee. Ald. Bleveans stated that the City of Evanston has a history of involving the neighbors in making zoning decisions in their neighborhood and feels that the matter should be worked out between the neighbors and Dominos. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the matter be tabled with the P 6 D Committee until October 6, 1986. Under the discussion of Domino's Pizza Ald. Brady requested that the Committee allow time at a future date to discuss the issue of "Convenient Food Marts" and what the definition of that use actually is and why they are able to be open 2a-hours. Staff indicated that they would prepare a report on this issue and present it at a future meeting. History and Regulations re Front Yard Fences and Status of Active Cases. Ald. Brady stated that she thinks that it is important that the Committee discuss this issue. Aid. Brady found that upon reviewing the list of front yard fences that was supplied to the Committee on June 9, 1986 that she finds that many on the list are not offensive. She felt that maybe the City is trying to get involved with aesthetics by regulating the fences. Ald. Brady expressed her concern that fences lower than four feet should not be a zoning concern. After a brief discussion the Committee directed that the matter of front yard fences and fences in general be made a reference to the Plan Commission and that the Plan Commission provide a creative approach to the issue of front yard fences. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee make this reference to the Plan Commission. Committee voted 3-0 to approve a reference to the Plan Commission (Ald. Drummer absent). -3- P 6 D Minutes September 22, 1986 Provossd BOCA Existing Structures Code. Chairman Warshaw reviewed her memo to the Committee dated September 18, 1986 with respect to numerous additions to proposed BOCA Code. With respect to the recommended amendments Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee accept Chairman Warshaw's proposed amendments with the exception of deleting the item requiring handrails where there are two risers, the requirements to have child proof medicine cabinets, and to change the requirements for hot water temperature at the outlet from the proposed BOCA requirement of 1100 to 1150. The Committee voted 4-0 to recossmend to City Council adoption of the BOCA Existing Structures Code 1984 Edition with the amendments discussed at numerous P i D Committee meetings over the past several months. Staff indicated that an ordinance will be prepared to incorporate the various changes proposed by the Committee and will attempt to present the ordinance to City Council for introduction at the meeting of October 20, 1986. ADJOURNMIXT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Next regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be October 6, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robe t T. Rudd 39(4/7 ) -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee October 6, 1986 T:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Bleveans, D. Drummer and M. Jul i ar Ald. Absent: J. Korshak Staff Present: R. Carlson, D. Rasmussen , D. Carter, R. Bannister, S. Ssymanski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: R. Warshaw 9.. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Juliar seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the Planning i Development Committee meeting of September 22, 1986. Cosenittee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes. (Alderson Drummer and Bleveans absent.) Cossmunications Ald. Radon's Reference re Boarded Up Structures The Committee received a staff report regarding boarded up structures. The Committee requested that staff provide information regarding the number of units contained within the several boarded up buildings. Robert Bannister, Director of Housing Rehab 6 Property Maintenance was present and presented the Committee with the number of units involved within the structures. Brady requested that the information provided the P & D Committee also be provided to the Rehab Subcommittee for their meeting of October 9, 1986. Chairman Warshaw also requested that staff provide rehabilitation program information to the owners of the boarded up structures. September 1986 Rehab Report and Transcript of Joint Meeting Between ZBA and ZAC She Committee also received the September 1986 Rehab Report and Transcript of Joint fleeting Between ZBA and ZAC. Docket 212-9B-86. ZBA 86-21-V(R), Ordinance 99-0-86, re Variation for 3325-33 Slaoson Street (Domino's Pizza). Chairman Warshaw stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended approval of the Domino's restaurant, but left the hours of operation open and provided two (2) alternatives to the P 6 D Committee. Ald. Brady stated that she met with Ald. nelson who indicated that he would support 11:00 p.m closing hour Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. for Friday and Saturday nights. Ald. Brady further stated that she understands that the neighbors are requesting 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Ald. Drummer stated that he was in favor of the 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 P i D Minutes October 6, 1966 a.m. closings and made a motion for the Committee to recommend those hours. Ald. Juliar seconded the motion. Kevin Riloy, attorney for the applicant stated that it is very important that Domino's have extended hours. He cited that there have been no problems with the present Domino's located on Chicago Avenue in southeast Evanston. He stated that he felt that his client had been too generous in agreeing to the 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. closings and his client felt that they actually needed a 1:00 a.m. from Sunday through Thursday and a 2:00 a.m. closing on Friday and Saturday. These longer hours are what are normally utilised by Domino's Pizza on a corporation -wide basis. Zarilyn Franzen. a representative of the neighborhood and a neighbor stated that the neighborhood opposed longer hours of operation. but is willing to accept 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. She stated that Domino's stated in the transcript of the Zoning Board hearing that very little business is conducted after 11:00 p.m. and therefore questioned why Domino's would want to stay open later. She stated that the neighborhood does not want to have the noise of traffic at 1:00 a.m. during the weeknights. She felt that it the Committee would recommend the 1:00 a.m. closing instead of midnight, that once that is established there would be very little chance of the neighbors to have the hours reduced. John Reece owner of the current Domino's on Chicago Avenue and prospective owner of the subject Domino's stated that he has a contractual agreement with the Domino's Corporation to stay open until 12:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. He stated that they have had no problems with those hours at the Chicago Avenue's Domino's which is 1:00 a.m. en weekdays and 2:00 a.m. on weekends. With respect to the earlier motion of 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m, closing on Friday and Saturday, Ald. Drummer suggested an amended motion to include a sir (6) month review by staff. Committee voted +-0 (Ald. Hleveans absent) to recomwend to City Council approval of the variation for the Domino's Pizza and add an additional condition to those already recommended by the Zoning Board stating that the hours of operation will be Sunday through Thursday 11:00 p.m. closing and Friday and Saturday 1:00 a.m. closing with a six (6) month review regarding hours by staff to be presented to the P S D Committee. Docket 228-10A-86, Ordinance 111-0-86 re Extension of Shelters for the Temvorarily Homeless zoning Provisions. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Drummer seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council passage of the subject ordinance to extend the definition of special use standards for shelters for the homeless and delete the sunset provision. Chairman Warshaw stated that it would be necessary to introduce and to request suspension of the rules since the current sunset provision terminates on October 14. 1986. The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to City Council introduction. suspension of the rules and passage of the subject ordinance. Committee voted 4-0 (Ald. Bleveane absent). -2- P i D Minutes October 6, 1986 Docket 226-10A-86. Consider Plat of Subdivision for Property at 150 Dewey Avenue/1710 Brummmal Street. Ald. Drummer moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the subject plat of subdivision. Committee voted +-0 to recosmmend approval (Ald. Bleveans absent). Docket 227-10A-86. ZBA 86-19-V(R). ordinance 107-0-86 re Variation for 1900-80 DjWater Street. Ald. Brady stated that it was her opinion that a weakness of the zoning ordinance has led to the necessity for Pizza Nut to seek a variation. She also feels that it is difficult the way the zoning ordinance is drafted with respect to restaurants to evaluate all of the restaurants in the area and in the proposed shopping center at the same time. She feels that it is almost impossible to determine fairly the cumulative effect since the restaurants are coming before the Committee and City Council one at a time. She feels that Pizza Hut basically is a sit-down restaurant and is probably ok in that it does not necessarily litter as more fast-food oriented establishments night. Ald. Brady questioned the applicant represented by Mark Kahan as to whether the go ahead for the restaurant was contingent upon Pizza Hut obtaining a liquor license from, the City! Kahan stated that that decision would have to be reached by corporate headquarters of Pizza Hut when a decision was made on the liquor license request before the City. Kahan stated that the developer could not initially present to the City a full package of all the restaurants since when the center was being planned the developer did not know what restaurants or how many would be located in the shopping center. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the P & D Committee attempt to address the issue of restaurants that is on the pending list as soon as possible after the sign ordinance. Ald. Druxner stated that he is surprised that the neighbors who haw: been vocal opponents to the restaurant are not present. He stated that it is his understanding the Dewey Community Conference is very much determined not to accept another carry -out restaurant on Dempster Street. Upon questioning by Committee members. Ald. Drummer stated that it is his understanding the Dewey Conference is concerned with the growing amount of trash and litter within the neighborhood which they feel is generated by existing restaurants and will be Increased with additional restaurants. He stated that he has received numerous phone calls regarding complaints about restaurants and their proximity to the high school. Kahan stated that he is aware of the concerns and he does not feel that the Pizza Hut or the other restaurants proposed for the center are litter generators. He also stated that the developer has been very cooperative with. the City with respect to landscaping, street improvements, ate. Ald. Warshaw -3- P i D Minutes October 6. 1986 questioned whether a limit on carry -outs could be placed in the ordinance thus limiting no more than 30% of the sales to be carry -out in nature. She questioned whether this would be acceptable to the Dewey Coewunity Conference. Ald. Druser stated that it was his opinion that Dewey Cosssunity Conference would not accept any carry -out restaurant. Ald. Brady stated that she feels that this type of restaurant and a development such as this large shopping center is quite different than the issue involved with the Blind faith in a more residential and pedestrian shopping area. She felt that these restaurants may be necessary for the shopping center to be competitive with other similar shopping centers in other cities. (Ald. Bleveans arrived). Ald. Brady suggested that the ordinance be ascended to require that no more than 30% of the sales be in the fors of carry -outs and that an additional condition be added to prohibit "single serving purchases". the Comittee discussed briefly the manner in which documentation could be provided the City regarding what was a carry -out and what was not. Representatives of Domino's stated that this documentation could be provided through their current accounting procedures. Ald. Bleveans stated that he is familiar with the Pizza Hut operation and feels that it is more of a sit-down restaurant than what is generally known as a fast food restaurant. He feels that it is not a litter generator as are some other restaurants. Upon review of the proposed ordinance it was the consensus of the Comittee to accept the provision that no more than 501 of the sales could be in the form of carry -out. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveans seconded that the Committee accept the report of the Zoning Board of Appeals and add an additional section for limiting hours of operation to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday and that after twelve months a review be conducted with said review to contain neighborhood comments. Committee voted 4-1. Voting Nay: Alderman Drummer. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be October 20, 1986; the next special meeting of the Comittee will be October 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. to review the sign ordinance. 39(32/35) -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Comittee October 20, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Korshak, J. Bleveans, D. Drumer and M. Jolter Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, S. Eiseman, D. Rasswssen, B. Morin and R. Rudd Presiding Official: Ald. D. Drummer Minutes of October 6, 19a6 Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Comsittee approve the minutes of October 6. 1986. Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as submitted. Comunications Chairman Priorities the Ca ittee received without ccvvesnts the chairman's priorities for this tern. Ald. Brady requested that a susvaary memo be supplied the City Council prior to the November 24, 1986 meeting, providing background on the proposed 1984 BOCA Existing Structures Cnde which will be adopted to replace the current City of Evanston Housing Code. Staff indicated that the requested memo will be provided to the Council. Ald. Drwmer requested that the ordinance introduced on October 6, 1986. at City Council providing for a use variation for Pizza Hut be amended to require that instead of the City erecting signs addressing the litter problems that the developer provide those signs with wording approved by the City of Evanston and an addit:unal condition be added to the ordinance requiring the owner to pick up litter within a 150 ft. radius of the Pizza Hut restaurant. Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the amendments be made. Cosvvittee voted 6-0 to amend the the ordinance previously submitted to the City Council. Docket 199-88-86. ZBA 85-38-V(R). Ordinance 39-0-86, re Variations for 1850-54 Sherman Avenue. (Yesterday's Restaurant Chairman Drummer provided a summary of actions previously taken by the P & D Comittee with respect to this matter. Ald. Drummer indicated that [he Committee had voted 4-1 to recommend to City Council to deny the variation P i D Minutes October 20, 1986 request and to cause the current restaurant to cease operation and to have the existing building either converted to a residential use or removed. The Cosmittee had received on a late date information from both the applicants and objectors to the application. Ald. Dleveans stated that he questioned the value of the materials submitted and that what he has had an opportunity to review provides no new evidence and does not change his view. Ald. Drummer questioned whether there had been any apparent reconciliation between the petitioner and the objectors. Ald. Juliar stated that to his knowledge there ban been no discussion and no resolution of the points of conflict. Cbairom flrts>,er indicated that the Committee has hold this matter over for approximately four (4) weeks to allow ample time for discussion between the objectors and the applicants to resolve the matter. It was the consensus of the Committee to move this matter from the Committee to the City Council on October 20, 1986 for discussion and vote. Docket 241-108-86. Ordinance 49-0-86. re Extension of Homeless Shelter Overation. Ordinance 49-0-86 provides for the P & D Committee to recommend to the City Council and with the concurrence of the City Council a one (1) year extension of the shelter located at 607 Lake Street. Rev. Ted Copeland of St. Matthews Church was present and provided statements in support of the extension since the shelter provides a needed service to the homeless. Carol Moschandreas, a social worker and volunteer with the shelter was present and also stated that a one (1) year extension should be granted to the shelter so that this service could be provided. Hilda Harper also spoke in favor of the extension and stated that the shelter is vary needed and provides a very beneficial service to homeless people in Evanston. Aid. Brady stated that in support of the shelter she has not received any negative comments expressed by citizens over the past twelve month period with respect to the subject shelter. Aid. Juliar questioned why the shelter, though it was allowed to take in only twenty Inhabitants during the summer months averaged approximately twenty to twenty-five during that period. He stated that he is opposed to the shelter and would vote that way. Rudd reviewed a letter from Robert Thompson, Chairman of the Center for Public Ministry which requested that the Committee and City Council approve the extension of the homeless shelter and also adopt sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance 49-0-86 which allow the shelter between November 1, 1986 and May 31, 1987 to have a maximum of thirty inhabitants. This section also provides that the shelter will not exceed twenty inhabitants between June 1, 1987 and October 31, 1987. Aid. Brady moved and Aid. Korshak seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the one (1) year extension as requested by the Center for Public Ministry. Committee voted 5-1 to recommend to City Council approval of the one (1) year extension. Voting nay: Ald. Juliar. -2- P i D Minutes October 20, 1986 Docket 245-103-86. ZRA 86-18-VLSU(R). Ordinance 109-0-86. re Variations and Special Use for 2044 Sheridan Road. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Rorshak seconded that the Committee concur with the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend to the City Council to grant the variations for front yard parking and the special use for two -curb cuts on Sheridan Road. Ald. Juliar stated that his original concerns regarding design and safety appear to have been addressed. He further stated that he is not comfortable with this situation. but finds no alternative. Ald. Brady stated that she wan concerned with the negative staff report with respect to safety issues and the requested curb cuts on Sheridan Road. Ald. Warshaw stated that she was satisfied with the redesign work and that it appeared that staff is also satisfied. Ald. Drummer felt that staff concerns were apparently stet by the redesign and that the single couple in the single family home could not cause a significant traffic hazard. Rosemary O'Neil, applicant and resident at 2044 Sheridan Road was present and stated that the need for the curb -cuts and the circular drive are necessary since the area is so congested with illegal parking, NU traffic, heavy student usage and the extensive use of the alley by scavenger trucks. Ald. Bleveans stated that he is uncomfortable voting for the requested variation and special use since he has not as Yet had an opportunity to view the sita. He stated that he would vote no until such time as he has had an opportunity to view the situation. Committee voted 4-2 to recommend to City Council to concur with the Zoning Board and grant variation for front yard parking and a special use for a two curb -cuts on Sheridan Road. Voting Nay: Aldermen Brady and Bleveans. Docket 244-10B-86, ZBA 86-14-V(R). Ordinance 108-0-86. re Variations for 931-33 Sherman Avenue. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council concurrence with the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variation for retention of a non -conforming use in a non -conforming building for a sound studio. The Committee questioned whether the request was supported by the Aldermen of the fourth hard. Ald. Korshak stated that both Alderman of the ward do support this request. Ald. Warshaw stated that she sees no negative impact by granting the requested variations for the non -conforming uses. Ald. Juliar stated that he would vote no since he viewed this situation as being not dissimilar from the Yesterday's Restaurant which is also a case of non -conforming use in a non -conforming building. He stated that the City must have consistency in its application of the zoning ordinance and policies. Ald. Juliar further stated that the decision of the P A D Committee and City Council should not be swayed solely by the neighbors, since neighbors change over time and their opinions change over time. Ald. Bleveans stated that he agrees with Aid. Juliar that the City should be consistent, however he feels that the City must examine each case on its merits when it is presented. He also noted that the zoning ordinance provides for granting a -3- P i D Minutes October 20, 1986 request for continuance of the non -conforming use if proper evidence is submitted. The Committee voted 5-1 to recommend to City Council introduction of Ordinance 108-0-86 to grant variation for permission to retain a non -conforming use in a non -conforming building. Voting May: Ald. Juliar. Docket 243-105-86. ZBA 86-17-V(R) or T(E). re Variation for 1723 Sherman Avenue. Dave Rassmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning was present and explained that two mutters were before the Zoning Board of Appeals in this case. The first setter was the request from the applicant seeking a variation to permit retention of the tanning parlor on the ground floor within twenty-five feet of the lot line. The second request was if the Zoning Board and The City Council failed to grant the variation request that a time extension be permitted. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended to deny the variation request and with conditions approved the time extension based on the current ownership of the business. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. seconded that the Committee vote to affirm the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation to deny the variation request thus allowing the time extension be granted which was a final determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Committee voted 6-0 to recoswend to City Council to deny the request for the zoning variation. Ald. Brady requested a legal opinion from Corpuration Counsel as to whether variation standards could be applied to the owner or a tenant of property. Docket 239-1O8-86. Consideration of Ordinance 113-0-86, Plat of Vacation,. Do je Avenue and Demmpster. Ald. Brady moved and Aid. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance 113-0-86, granting a plat of vacation. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval to City Council. Docket 240-10B-86, Banbury Dovolopment 2nd Consolidation, Southwest Corner of Dodaa Avenue and Dempster Street. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council approval of the plat of consolidation for the subject property. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval to City Council. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P 5 D Committee will be November 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; the next special meeting of the Committee will be October 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. (Proposed Sign Ordinance) and November 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. (Proposed Sign Ordinance). Staff: obert T. Rudd 22(1/4) -4- Minutes Special Meeting Planning 6 Development Committee October 27, 2986 Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Xorshak, J. Bleveans, D. Druser and M. Juliar Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, D. Carter, S. Eiseman, and R. Rudd Other Present: Bruce Beckman, Ira Golan, Drew Petterson and Breslin Presiding Official: Ald. Drummer Joan Minutes of October 20. 1986 Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of October 20, 1986. Committee voted S-0 to approve the minutes (Ald. Bleveans absent). Proposed SiRn Ordinance Chairman Drussaer asked if other Committee members had a chance to review a letter submitted to the Chairman and ambers of the Cosuittee by George Cyrus, dated October 6, 1986. The letter from Cyrus raised questions particularly with the duration of "for sale" signs that would be placed on private property. After a brief discussion with Bruce Heckman of Tesk.a Associates, Inc. it was indicated that Heckman had not as yet seen the letter and would respond to the concerns expressed at the next meeting. Chairman Drunser stated that the Committee would begin their discussion of the proposed code on pate 12, starting with Section 4-12-6: Prohibited Signs. Questions arose as to whether Section 4-12-7E addressed City uses of trees to place signs and whether this soction addressed the posting of handbill, elections campaign posters, etc. on trees. Sharon Eiseman, Assistant Corporation Counsel was present and stated that Title 3 of the City's Municipal Code addresses this issue. The Comittee addressed staff and the consultant to review Title 3 and determine whether that should be incorporated in the proposed sign ordinance or referenced. Staff indicated that would respond at a later date regarding this question. Ald. Bleveana questioned whether it would be possible to hold those that benefit from the various signs accountable for their actions (i.e. illegally constructed signs or leaving the signs up beyond the permitted time). Bruce Heckman stated that he would review this matter and respond at the nest meeting. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the proposed sign ordinance should address the issue of graffiti. Staff indicated that a separate graffiti ordinance is being reviowed and would most likely be placed in relation to the housing code for the City of Evanston. P i D minutes Special meeting October 27, 1986 Section 4-12-7L: Illminatod SI - Discussion arose regarding issue of brightness and internal illumination. Heckman indicated that the revision contained in a memo dated August 19, 1906 clarified the issue of brightness which was raised at a prior Co■mItteo meeting. Ira Golan was present and stated that he objected to the regulation regarding the brightness of signs and internal Illumination and felt that it was too restrictive. The Committee at this point accepted the revision for the section as proposed by the consultant. Heckman further explained the reasons for such limitations with respect to brightness and illumination were accepted standards by the sign industry based on studies regarding legibility and objections to spill -over of light created by a larger and brighter sign. Jean Breslin a member of the Plan Cammission was present and stated that she knows of several examples of signs that support this type of regulation and feels that only good will come out of such a regulation. Breslin emphasised that the City should adopt a grandfather clause that owners of existing signs will not be damaged by this regulation which would only affect now signs. Drew Petterson a member of the Plan Commission stated that an ordinance regulating signs expresses what a cosmanity wants to say about itself and he feels that Evanston wants a more controlled sign ordinance. Section 4-12-7-m: - !lovable Sign Parts - Golan questioned whether this regulation pertains to signs located inside the premises. Heckman stated that at this point it was unclear as to how far inside the window the ordinance would regulate. He felt that there were certain limitations with respect to that and mould address it later on in the ordinance. Section 4-12-8: - Area and measurement Standards - Heckman stated that the revision document dated August 19, 1986 contained three (3) significantly new sections lettered a, b and c. These new sections addressed the issues raised by the P & D Committee at an earlier meeting. The Committee accepted the new sections which would be added to the existing Section 4-12-8. Section +-12-9-A-7: - Installation Considerations - Ald. Brady questioned whether it would be possible to construct signs without interrupting certain architectural elements of sosw buildings. Heckman stated that most older buildings with some architectural integrity provided a location for a sign band on the facade. He felt that this section would cause very little problem, it any, for installing signs on buildings. Ald. Warshaw felt that this was a key preservation standard and that it was worth keeping in the ordinance. The Committee completed Section 4-12-9-A-7 with respect to wall signs. Chairman Drummer indicated that the Committee would continue to review the ordinance starting with Section A-12-9-B - Free Standing Signs at the next meeting scheduled for November 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P 6 D Committee is November 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; next special meeting (Sign Ordinance Review) is November 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff: Robert f. Rudd 4a(1/2) MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 10, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. torshak. T. Blevoans. D. Oro =sr and M. Juliar Ald. ►bsent: Kong Staff Present: R. Carlson, J. ►iello, R. Ahlberg, D. Rasmussen, D. Carter. R. Szymanski and R. Rudd Others Present: Jeanne Breslin Presiding Official: D. Druswer Minutes of October 27. 1966 ►ld. Bloveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of October 27, 1986. Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS ZAC Public Notice The Committee receive ZAC public notice for November 20, 1986 publicizing the rezoning of the canal banks. ZAC 86-25-V(F). Final Variation Decision re 1907 Noyes Street. The Committee received without comment. ZBA 86-26-V(F), final variation Decision re 1531 Dempster Street The Committee directed staff to send a letter to the residents detailing the manner in which the neighbors could pursue having the alley paved. ZBb 86-30-V(F), Final Decision re 2237 Sherman Avenue. The Committee received without consent. Docket 239-1OB-86, Staff memo re Ordinance 113-0-86. approving a Plat of Vacation for a portion of Dodge Avenue r.o.w. South of Dempster Street for Banbury Development Corporation. The Committee received Ordinance 113-0-86 which was recommended to be introduced to the City Council and requested tLAt the rules be suspended to allow passage. This Ordinance was inadvertently passed instead of introduced at the October 20. 1986 City Council meeting. Docket 190-8A-96, ZBA 86-13-SU(ii) re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Chairman Drummer indicated that the various interested groups had not mot recently and that he would attempt to have a meeting and a final resolution of this matter for the November 24, 1986 P A D Committee and City Council meeting. P i D Minutes November 10, 1986 Docket 2SI-11A-86. ordinance 118-0-86. Consider Proposed Moratorium on Fast-food and Drive -In Restaurants. Ald. Brady questioned when the matter of the overall issue of restaurants would be undertaken. She felt that to slake all restaurants special uses may be the best way of handling the various issues involved with restaurants. Rudd explained that the Committee had received several months ago a report from the Zoning Amendment Committee with various recoawendations. At such time the P i D Committee has time to open this issue for discussion all aspects of restaurants (fast-food and drive-in) could be discussed. Ald. xorshak stated that be feels that it would be best to define "carry -out" restaurants and to differentiate those from sit-down restaurants. Ald. Bleveans stated that he previously expressed a form of administrative approval which would allow the City !tanager to approve, with the concurrence of the City Council, a specific typo of restaurant such as a formal, sit-down restaurant. With respect to the moratorium before the P A D Committee. Ald. Bleveans questioned whether if passed what the cut-off date for applications for fast-food restaurants would be. Staff indicated that upon passage of the ordinance no further applications for fast-food and drive-in restaurants would be accepted. Aid. Korshak moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee introduce Ordinance 118-0-86 to the City Council imposing a moratorium on fast-food and drive-in restaurants. Ald. Juliar stated that he was concerned with the negative economic development atmosphere that this six (6) month moratorium would create. He feels that if restaurants are interested in costing into the City that to have to wait until June 1. 1987 would be an undue burden. He felt that most restaurants would want to start construction earlier in the spring. Ald. Drummer stated that he felt that "carry -outs" were not the stain problem, but that "drive-ins" were. Several of the Committee members felt that both "drive-in" and "carry -out" were equal problems. Ald. Xorahak stated that he did not agree with statements that the City's policies and ordinances provided economic development obstacles. In response to Ald. Juliar's concern about the six (6) month moratorium, Ald. Brady questioned whether the Committee could agree with a two (2) or three (3) month moratorium and thus encourage the P S D Committee to address the issue quickly and provide the necessary amendments to the ordinance within that time period. The Committee voted on the original motion. Voting aye: Aldermen Drummer. Warshaw. Brady and Xorshak. Voting nay: Aldermen Bleveans and Juliar. The Committee voted 4-2 to introduce the moratorium ordinance at the November 10, 1986 City Council meeting. -2- P i D Minutes Movmeber 10, 1986 ConsIdegation of a Recos■aendgtion from the Plan Cosssission to maim a Reference to the Zoning Awndment Comittee for the Rezonint of Segments of Custer Avenue. South of Rain Street from M3 to an aDDroDriate Residential Zone. Jeanne Breslin, a member of the Plan Commaission, was present and provided Illustrations of the proposed rezoning as recommended by the Plan Commission. Ald. Brady questioned whether the Committee should wake a reference to ZAC for only residential rezoning or to allow ZAC the option of possibly rezoning to residential and business zones in certain areas. Breslin stated that she agrees with that flexibility and also that the Plan Comesission wants to study in greater detail the possible rezonings. Breslin felt that there could be some transitional business uses and zones at cross streets in the area of the elevated. Breslin emphasized that some uses are not problems in the area, such as Evanston Lumber, which has been a good neighbor throughout its existence. She stated that some type of rezoning should take into account the Evanston Lumber situation and not amortize that use out of existence. Warshaw stated that concerns and problems expressed by residents have been with respect to the Appetizer Company property. Dane Rasmussen. ,Assistant Director of Zoning was present and stated that with respect to making various uses non -conforming, the Committee should be aware that in doing so, sections of the zoning ordinance would be triggered which would cause amortization. This matter should be discussed in alternatives provided in the Plan Commission's study and/or ZAC hearing. Ald. Eorshak suggested that the request for a reference to ZAC be held and that the Plan Commission conduct further study and return to the P S D Committee for review and then reference to ZAC. It was the consensus of the Committee to proceed in the aforementioned manner. Docket 252-11A-86, ZAC 86-4, Ordinance 120-0-86, re Rezoning of Property South of Elevated Water Tank and (Jest of Gross Point Road. Ald. Brady moved and Aid. Bleveans seconded that the Committee recommend to the City Council introduction of Ordinance 120-0-86, concurring with the ZAC recommendation to rezone from R2 to 81 property located west of Gross Point Road and south of the City's water tourer. Ald. Brady questioned whether the three items mentioned in the ZAC report could be made part of the ordinance. Staff indicated that ZAC recommended those three items be incorporated in the site plan review process. Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning introduction of Ordinance 120-0-86. Staff Report on Zoning Regulations for Convenience food Stores. Ald. Brady stated that upon her review of the report which was developed at her request, she finds various alternatives to what she felt was a problem not -3- P 6 D Minutes November 10, 1986 to be totally acceptable. She noted that for *very recommendation there were advantages and disadvantages. She stated that it is her feeling that possibly there are no problems with convenient food stores and that no amendment should take place at this time or until such time a specific problem is brought to light. it was the consensus of the Committee to remove this item from the P i D Committee agenda. Docket 250-11A-86. Consideration of Authorization to City !tanager to enter Into an Agreement for Extension of Contract for Consulting_ Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to authorize the City !tanager to enter into an agreement for a one (1) year extension of the contract for consulting inspections services with the Low nberg/Fitch Partnership from a period of December 17. 1986 through December 16. 1987. Upon questioning. staff indicated that there has not been a problem with the procedures of using an outside consulting firm and that the City has realized a saving of over $6,000 the first six (6) months of the current contract. Committee voted 6-0 to recoam* nd to City Council approval of this request. Weinstein Rule At a previous P & D Committee meeting, Ald. Bleveans was requested to draft for the Committee's review the existing Weinstein Rule. which addressed issues of hearing evidence at the P S D Committee. Chairman Drummer stated that the rule as drafted by Ald. Bleveans applies only when the P b D Committee reverses a ZBA position favorable to an appellant. The proposed rule as drafted by Ald. Bleveans provides for written notice to the appellant. an opportunity for the appellant to provide in writing to the City Manager and Committee various reasons for contesting a reversal, and sets forth time frames for reasonable notice to the Committee. Ald. Korshak suggested that Paragraph C of the proposed rule should indicate that "notice of availability of such submission should be given in a timely manner to all witnesses who testified at the ZBA hearing on tho matter". Ald. Warshaw noted that formalizing this process would not necessarily fit well with opposing groups who may not have a single spokesperson and are not as organized as the appellant when attempting to make their case. Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Eorshak seconded that the "Bleveans rule" be adopted as part of the P & D Committee Rules and Procedures in place of the Weinstein Rule. Committee voted 6-0 to approve the rules as amended. Staff indicated that a clean copy of the revised P 6 D Committee Rules and Procedures would be forwarded to the Committee. -4- P i D Minutes November 10. 1986 C,go ,�idor Meting Schedule for Hearings for variation Requests from Sign. Ordinance. Co■mittee received a memo from staff requesting some direction as to when the Cossaittee would like to review variation requests regarding the sign ordinance. Staff currently has four (4) applications that bare been requested for variation. Once the applications are returned the P & D Comittee must hear the variation requests within thirty (30) days. It was the consensus of the Committee to schedule for an "off Monday night" hearings on variation requests from the sign ordinance. 1dj ournment The Meting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The nett regular meeting of the P i D Committee is November 24. 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; next special meeting (Sign Ordinance Review) is November 17. 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Staff:Ooll OberWixtudd 17(6/10) -5- MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee November 17, 2986 7:30 P.M. /ld. Present: S. Brady, It. Warshaw, J. Eorshak, J. Ble►eans, D. Dr�ummmsr and X. Juliar Ald. Absent: None Staff Present: t. Carlson, D. Carter, S. Risom m, and M. Mudd Others Present: Cathy Skobel, Ira Golan, Joanna Breslin, Drew Petterson. Bruce Heckman. Lae Brown and Pete Fowler Presiding Official: D. Drummer 1l;qutes of November 10. 1986. Ild. [orshak moved and ,ld. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the P i D Cammittee meeting of November 10, 1986. Committee toted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Communications Revised Rules and Procedures The Committee received revised rules and procedures reflecting the recest Bloveans Rule. Old Business Proposed Sign Ordinance Cbairmw Drummer reviewed the minutes of the last P & D Committee sleeting addressing the proposed sign ordinance. With respect to questions raised by ►ld. Bleveans at the prior meeting regarding holding those liable for the signs that are erected, Heckman indicated that those issues would be cross -roforenced with the Municipal Code and that his firm is still reviewing a legal response. With respect to another question raised at a prior meeting, Heckman provided the Committee with a definition of foot candle and suggested that the beat manner to measure such a measurement was to do so with a light meter. Regarding the issue discussed at the prior meeting regarding signs located inside of a building, Heckman explained that the ordinance was drafted so that If the sign was proposed to be viewed from outside of the building, the subject sign would be controlled by the proposed ordinance. Heckman also stated another qualification for such a sign inside a building would be that if the sign was pedestrian oriented that it would not fall under the proposed ordinance. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the Quarter Copying Canter P A D minutes Special Fleeting November 17, 2986 at the 1800 Sherman building, in which a large background sign inside of the building is displayed. Ira Golan stated that he was opposed to any regulations regarding such sign&&* which is located solely within a building. Cathy Skobol, a local sign maker was present and echoed Golan's concern. Jeanne Breslin suggested that the consultant develop a table to be provided in the ordinance to help provide the proper measurements for regulation of such signs that are located totally within a building. Ald. Korshak stated that be is still troubled with the control of interior signs&*, and it may be that control of interior signage goes beyond the original purpose of the sign ordinance. Heckman stated that the proposed ordinance is not to discourage Interior signage, but rather regulate it if it is vehicular oriented. Free Standing Sian - The Committee discussed at length a request made by developers of South Point Plaza at an earlier meeting in which they indicated that it was their desire to have the proposed ordinance allow that plaza and similar shopping areas to construct an identification sign. Heckman informed the Committee that previously submitted revisions to the proposed ordinance with respect to free standing signs. particularly paragraph 14, would allow free standing signs on centers, such as South Point Plaza. However, he noted that since South Point Plaza has some building frontage within 30 ft. of the right-of-way, some further amendments would be needed in the proposed ordinance to either allow South Point Plaza to construct an identification sign or to leave the ordinance as is in which case South Point Plaza may very well have a good case for a variation request. rho Committee acc*pt*d the free standing sign provision as amended by the earlier mentioned revisions. Permanent Window Signs - Pete Fowler stated that he was concerned about the 201L limitation and also the awning issue. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the restrictions on the amount of window coverage. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the Committee and consultant explore amending the ordinance to allow situations where the ordinance provides flexibility to the occupant. Ald. Warshaw suggested that 35% of the window area be allowed for coverage when the facade of the building, due to architectural or other constraints, is precluded from being used. The Committee directed the consultant to develop a proposed amendment. Commercial Variable Kess&Ko SIxns (CM) - The Committee reviewed the CVKS section of the proposed code and approved sag►* without changes. Marquee Signs - With respect to this section, Golan questioned whether marquee signs needed to have interchangeable letters. Heckman stated that that was correct. She Committee accepted the marquee section without further changes. -2- .. . P & A Minutes Special Meeting November 17, 1986 QAUv and Awning Slue - Skobel suggested that Itft F-1 an page 19 be eliminated and that more than one tenant be allowed to have a sign on a canopy or arcing. After discussion the Committee concurred with that proposal and directed the consultant to amend the proposed ordinance in line with that thought. Pete Fowler, a local businessman was present and objected to the fact that the proposed ordinance was regulating various types of signsges. Fowler stated that the business community had not been made aware of the sign ordinance meetings and did not have input. Ald. Bleveans informed Mr. Fowler that the City had been working on the proposed ordinance for approximately eighteen (18) months and that numerous notifications have been made to businessmen. Golan stated that the Chamber of Commerce in the past had taken out a full page ad in the avanston Review to publicize such meetings and that they rare well known though not necessarily well attended by businessmen. Bolan further discussed the Issue of canopies and awnings and stated that he opposed the prohibition of signag* on the sides of awnings. Heckman stated that that prohibition was placed in the proposed ordinance for the sole reason so as to not conflict with current and proposed ordinances that prohibit projecting signs. Heckman expressed concern that to allow signs&* on the sides of awnings could possibly invalidate other aspects of the ordinance. The P i D Committee directed the consultant to amend the ordinance to allow the name of businesses on the sides of awnings with no larger then four inch letters if it could be found that allowing same would not jeopardize other aspects of the ordinance. Scoreboards - The Committee briefly reviewed the scoreboard section and recognized that though the Dyce Stadium scoreboard may most the subject ordinance, the Evanston High School football scoreboard mould not and would become non -conforming. Exempt Sixns - A discussion ensued twit; respect to regulation of exempt signs. Heckman explained that though exempt signs do not need permits they must comply with other aspects of the sign ordinance, as do other listed exempt signs. With respect to materials and mounting limitations concern was expressed by Skobel and some members of the Committe* that Items 5-B and 5-C of the subject section addressing combustible materials and rigid materials could be very burdensome and unnecessary. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee direct the consultant to eliminate the subject sections. Committee voted 5-0 to eliminate Items 5-B and 5-C (Ald. Warshaw absent). -3- P i 0 Minutes Special !Meeting November 17, 1986 e ed 8usintss center SlAn - Beckman informed the Committee that at a previous meeting the Committee amended the subject section and added a new section 2-C which is number 14 on the revision sheet. She Committee accepted the section regarding unified business signs as previously amended. The Committee decided that the issue of the sign ordinance would be continued to the next regular meeting of the P : D Committee meeting scheduled for November 24, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. The November 24, 1986 review of the proposed sign ordinance will begin on page 22. Section 4-12-10, Administration. 609wamgnt The meting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Starr: Robert T. `it dd 39(40/43) -4- MINUTES Planning and Development Committee November 24, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady. R. Warshaw. J. xorshak. J. Bleveans. D. Drummer and M. Juliar Ald. ,Absent: None Staff Present: R. Carlson, R. Bannister, Sharon Eiseman. D. Carter and R. Rudd Others Present: Lee Brown, Ira Golan, Rev. Wilson, and Kathy Skobel Presiding Official: D. Drummer Minutes of Special Meeting of November 17. 1986. Ald. Juliar moved and Ald. Rorshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of the Planning 6 Development Committee of November 17, 1986. Committee voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Communications October 1986 Rehab Report The Committee received the subject report with no comments. Docket 190-8A-86, ZBA 86-13-SU(R) re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Chairman Drummer provided the background to the Committee updating what action has taken place since August. 1986 when the Committee last reviewed the subject issue. Ald. Drummer indicated that as late as Sunday. November 23, 1986 he had spoken with representatives of the church and of the neighborhood and at that time he was informed that no compromise could be reached between those two parties. Ald. Rorshak questioned whether the nearby neighbors opposed the project and whether those supporting the project were congregation members not living in the area. Ald. Drummer confirmed that for the most part that was the situation. Ald. Warshaw reminded the Committee that at the August meeting, the P A D Committee had voted unanimously against recommending the special use. Rev. Wilson was present and stated that he was unable to reach an agreement with Mrs. Tarvin, the representative of the neighborhood. Rev. Nilson indicated that he had spoken with the Aldermen of the ward, Summers and Morton and made attempts to contact various aldermen to explain his position and garner support. Rev. Wilson explained that it is his understanding that the neighbors are concerned that the congregation will be unable to complete the construction of the church due to funds. Rev. Wilson stated that the congregation has funds enough on hand to build a debt free P L D Minutes November 24, 1986 church. Ald. Warshaw questioned whether the church will be willing to pave the alley since that was a point of contention of the neighbors and a concern of the Committee. Rev. Wilson stated that he would discuss that issue with the neighbors as well as the other issues. Rev. Wilson further stated that he would speak with his board within the nest week about this natter. Chairman Drummer asked Rev. Wilson if he would like 0 tave this matter hold- over until the Committee and City Council meeting of December 8, 1986 to allow an additional two weeks to try and reach some compromise with the neighbors. Rev. Wilson agreed that that might be helpful. Ald. Blevoans moved that the matter be held -over to the December S, 1966 P & D and City Council meeting. Extension of Special Use Permit - Food Co-op. 620 Madison Street. Ald. Warshaw moved and Aid. Juliar seconded that the Committee recommend extension of the special use permit for the Harvest Food Co-op at 62D Madison Street operated by Reba Place Church to last for the time of occupancy by the church as a food co-op. The Committee voted 6-0 to extend the special use for the requested period of time. Proposed SiRn Ordinance The Committee continued review of the subject sign ordinance on page 22. Section 4-12-10: Administration - Ira Golan was present and questioned the regulations requiring various points of information to be supplied by the tenant and/oi owner to the City in order to review a sign application. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee recommended dropping the phrase "Illumination characteristics" from number 11 of C Permit Application. The Committee also recommended dropping "nearby buildings" from number 3 of C Permit Application. Section 4-12-11: Maintenance and Operation - Questions arose regarding 4-12-11A-4 Notification regarding the type of sticker or label identifying the date the sign was erected. Lee Brown of Teska. Associates was present and recommended that the City supply as part of their application some form of a paste -on label that would provide such indication. Section 4-12-12: Non -Conforming Signs - Ald. Brady questioned how the City would go about documenting all of the existings signs. She questioned whether a survey mould be necessary. The Committee was informed that the entire section as proposed is centered on the fact that the ordinance calls for an amortization period. However, if the City elects to make existing signs non -conforming and requires all new signs to be constructed in conformance with the proposed ordinance, this section would be significantly modified primarily resulting in the elimination of the amortization schedule on page 28. The staff, Committee and consultant discussed at length the need for a -2- P i D Minutes November 24, 1986 survey of existing signs and what form that would take. Staff indicated to the Committee that staff and consultant would prepare at a later date a response as to the scanner to identifying existing signs and the cost associated with such a program. It was the consensus of the Committee to drop the sections D and 8 of 4-12-11 and direct the consultant to revamp the subject section to allow for grandfathering in of all existing signs. Ald. nleveans questioned whether the property owner and/or sign installer could be held liable for sign installation conformance. It was the consensus of the Committee if at all possible to place some of the burden on the sign installer with respect to penalties if the sign is Installed improperly or without a permit. Sharon Eiseman of the Legal Department was present and stated that there were some problems in that approach. Staff and consultant were directed to explore ways to allow both the sign installer and the owner of the property to held accountable for the sign. The Committee concluded review of the sign ordinance at the end of Section 4-12-12. The Committee will continue review of the sign ordinance beginning on page 29, with Section 4-12-13: gign Review and Appeal Board at a special Meting on December 1. 1986 at 7:30 p.m, at which time a sign variation request will also be heard by the Committee as it sits as a Sign Review and Apperls Board. Adj ourmaent The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Staff: 14(1/3) -3- MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee December 1, 1986 7:30 P.M. Members Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Korshak, D. Drummer and N. Juliar Members Absent: J. Bleveans Staff Present: R. Carlson, E. Szymanski. D. Carter and R. Rudd Others Present: Ira Golan, Kathy Skobel, and Drew Patterson Presiding Official: D. Drumer Minutes of November 24, 1986 Ald. Warshaw moved and Ald. Korshak seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the P & D Committee meeting of November 24, 1986 as submitted. Committee voted 3-0 to approve the minutes (Aldermen Juliar and Brady absent). Public Hearing - Sign Review and Appeals Board. At this point the P b D Committee adjourned into the Sign Review and Appeals Board to conduct a hearing on a variation request for Spirit Design Shop at 618 Davis Street. The minutes of that hearing and findings are attached. Proposed Sign Ordinance The Committee continued review of the draft of the proposed ordinance on page 29, Section 4-12-13: Board Creation - Ira Golan was present and submitted to the Committee written comments with respect to several sections of the remaining aspects of the draft ordinance. Regarding the Board Creation section, after a discussion with Golan, the Committee revised 4-12-13-A Board Creation as follows: "Board Composition - The Board shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council. In making appointment to the Board the Mayor shall seek to appoint as members persons who are recognized as experienced in matters of aesthetics, judgment and perception by virtue of training, education and experience, (such as architects, landscape architects, land planners, graphic designers or persons specifically qualified for reasons of education, training or experience in the area of graphic or design art), and possessing qualities of impartiality in broad judgment. Two members of the Board shall be experienced or actually engaged in graphic design arts. One member shall be engaged in the field of advertising and two additional members shall be principals engaged in businesses in Evanston, which are not involved in graphic or design art or advertising." P S D Minutes Special Meeting Proposed Sign Ordinance December 1, 1986 Section 4-12-13-A3: Terms and Officers - The Committee recommended to revise the subject section as follows: "Each member shall serve for a period of two (2) years, at which time he or she may either be reappointed for a maximum of two additional two year terms or replaced by new members by the Mayor, subject to the majority consent of the City Council. One member of the Board shall be designated as Chairperson by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council. The members of the Board shall elect from among themselves another member to serve as vice chairman." Regarding final authority and decision -making by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, it was the consensus of the Planning & Development Committee that all decisions would be communicated to the City Council and stand as decided by the Sign Review and Appeals Board unless reversed by the City Council at the next regular meeting following the transmittal of the findings. Section •-1.2-1a: Appeal - Golan submitted a proposal for extensive revision to the subject section. After a discussion, the Committee directed that Section 4-12-14-A: Petition for Appeal be revised as follows: The first paragraph would remain as proposed. However, a new #1 titled Notification to Grieved Party would read as follows: "It shall be the responsibility of the administrative officer to notify the aggrieved party of the action denying the permit if voluntary compliance can not be achieved. Said notice shall include the following: - Date and specific reason for denial - All forms and information required for appeal" The remaining Sections of +-12-14-A should be renumbered to 2, 3 and a. Section A-12-14-D: Action of Board - The Committee expressed concern about the lengthy time frame established for the public hearing. it was indicated to the Committee that the proposed public hearing standards were those followed for zoning requests. The Committee was informed that at prior meetings the consultant was directed to review the matter and attempt to develop a tighter time frame and procedure which would not require a public notice and a fifteen (15) to thirty (30) day waiting period. The Committee expressed their desire that the action of the Board and the public hearing would be conducted within a thirty (30) day period. The Committee requested that this be conveyed to the consultant during their review of this issue. -2- P 6 D Minutes Special !meeting Proposed Sign Ordinance December 1, 1986 Also. the Comisittee directed that with respect to subsection D-2 Decision that the thirty (30) day period be reduced to fifteen (15) working days. The Cosssittee also questioned whether the terse -findings of fact" could be eliminated and another term be used. Staff indicated that this information would be passed on the the consultant for their review and recommendation. Section 4--12-15: Variations - B Actions of Board - The Committee recommended that the same suggestions as set forth regarding appeals and the public hearing time period be applied to this section and that the consultant review same. Section 4-12-15-C: Standards - The Committee recommended that the consultant be informed that items 2 and 3 Reasonable Return and Not Self Created be deleted or changed. Staff indicated that since the consultant was not present It is recommended that the Committee at this time hold off further discussion of the standards so that the consultant may have input as to the reasons why they recommended the six (6) standards. The Committee agreed and determined that this matter would be discussed when the consultant submitted the next draft of the ordinance. Ald. Brady suggested Lhat the criteria: sot forth for developing a comprehensive sign plan for unified business center contained in Section 4-12-16-C. be similar to the criteria developed for judging variation requests. Staff indicated that this would be conveyed to the consultant. Section 4-12-16: Unified Business Center A Comprehensive Sign Approval - Staff requested that the Site Plan Review Committee be indicated in the subject ordinance as part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval prior to action by the Sign Review and Appeals Board. The Committee concurred with the recommendation and so directed that the ordinance be amended. The Committee reviewed a request from Read Carlson, Director of Building Zoning recommending that lighted awnings be permitted under the proposed ordinance with various conditions. The conditions would be as follows: 1. Both interior type strip lighting and exterior type goose neck lighting be allowed with the maximum light level prescribed. 2. Awnings allowed to be lighted whether or not advertising is to be on the awning. -3- P 5 D Minutes Special Meeting Proposed Sian Ordinance December 1, 1986 3. Advertising to be limited to now of business and address 4. The bottom portion of awning with interior lighting shall be enclosed with egg crate panel or materials identical to the awning material. S. Projection be limited to twenty-four inches. 6. Only the size of the lettering shall be considered in determining the square footage of the signage area. The Committee voted a-0 (Ald. Korshak absent) to direct the consultant to amend the proposed ordinance to allow for the lighted awnings with the conditions cited above. Staff indicated that a meeting would be established with the consultant in the dear future to provide a redrafting of the ordinance taking into account the various changes that have been made over the past months. Staff indicated to the Committee that there may be as many as three additional sign variation requests in the near future. The Committee agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. on December 15, 1986 to hear the requests if the applications were perfected. Ad.i ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the P 6 D Committee will be December 8, 1986. Staff: Robert T. Mudd Z4(12/15) -4- MINUTES Special Meeting Planning and Development Committee S 1rn Review and Anneals Board December 1, 1986 7:30 P.K. Members Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw. J. Korshak. D. Drumer and M. Juliar Mes" s Absent: J. Bleveans Staff Present: R. Carlson, D. Carter, E. Szymanski, and R. Rudd Others Present: David Manger (owner of Spirit Stores - Petitioner) Presiding Official: D. Drunose r Public hearing - Sign Review and Appeals Board The Sign Review and Appeals Board was present to review an application for variation from the sign ordinance for installation of a lighted awning. The application was from Spirit Design Apparel Shop at 618 Davis Street. Staff began the hearing by reviewing Ordinance 98-0-86, which established on an interim basis the P b D Committee as a Sign Review and Appeals Board. The Committee reviewed the standards set forth in Section 4-12-16-3 of the above captioned ordinance. detailing six (6) standards that the applicant would be required to meet to be granted a variation. Petitioner David Manger was present and stated that the purpose for requesting a variation to allow the construction of a lighted fabric awning was for store designation, to add charm and warmth to the block, and since there is a significant distance between the street lights on the subject block, that the additional sidewalk lighting would be advantageous to pedestrians. Wenger further stated that the proposed awning was largely opaque with store name the only translucent aspect of the awning. Wenger further stated that the awning was of a permanent nature and colored red. winger felt that he had a unique situation since the entrance to his store was set back several feet from the main thoroughfare of the sidewalk, due to the type of construction of the building. He further stated that the great majority of his customers were women and children who are concerned with safety and light levels in the evening hours. Ald. Korshak stated that if the proposed ordinance would allow such an awning that the Appeals Board should take a liberal view of this request. Staff indicated that under the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance that the subject awnings would be prohibited. It teas noted that under the proposed ordinance that lighted awnings are allowed, however, since the entire awning is counted toward square footage of signage, that in most instances lighted awnings would be prohibited because of the excess square footage. Ald. P & D Minutes Special meeting Sixn Review and Aopeals Board December 1, 1966 Warshaw questioned why the applicant has requested a lighting level similar to Pier I. Ald. Warshaw noted that the Pier I lighting level has been a source of complaint due to its excess brightness. Ald. Warshaw asked the applicant whether he would consider reducing his lighting level to something more acceptable. Wanger stated that he would consider that request and that he desires to have a lighting level less intense than Pier I. Chairman Drummer suggested that the Board review the six (6) standards set forth in Ordinance 98-0-86 and determine if the applicant has net the standards. A. unique Hardship - The Board felt that strict at adherence to the ordinance which would prohibit all lighting and thus prohibit this type of lighted awning is evidence that there is a demonstrable hardship present. B. Reasonable Return - The Board determined that if the requested lighted awning was prohibited that other types of signs would not be graphically representative of the type of store and goods sold on the premise thus effecting a reasonable return. C. Not Self Created - The Board found that the spacing of the street lights and the deep entry to the storefront due to the unique construction of the building were not self created hardships. D. Not Haag Public welfare - The Board cited the fact that there were no objectors present and no evidence was presented that would indicate a public harm and to the contrary the petitioner indicated that additional lighting on the sidewalk was needed and would be provided, thus aiding the safety of the public. B. Graphic Effectiveness Demonstrated - The Board found that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable effort to restrain lighting, color and letter size in the proposal. F. Consistence With Intent - The Board found that through various efforts such as public welfare, graphic effectiveness and unique hardship that the petitioner proposed a variation request that was in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. Ald. Rorshak recommended that a condition be applied to the variation request that would require the current applicant to have a lighting level no greater than seventy -fire percent of the lighting level currently at the Pier I store and that a fifteen percent leeway for reduction be allowed, thus providing -2- P 6 D Minutes Special Meeting Sign Review and Avowals Board December 1, 1986 some flexibility to staff in determining along with the applicant the proper lighting level. The applicant agreed to said conditions as did the Board. Ald. Korshak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the variation be approved with the aforementioned condition. Committee voted 5-0 to approve the variation with condition. AdJournment The meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board adjourned at 8:30 p.m. r Staff Robert T! Rud3 24(9/11) -3- MINU`TSS Planning and Development Committee December 8, 1986 7:30 P.M. Ald. Present: S. Brady, R. Warshaw, J. Korshak, J. Bleveans sad D. Drummer Ald. Absent: W. Juliar Staff Present: R. Carlson, B. !Morin, R. Ahlberg, R. Bannister, 9. Szymanski and R. Rudd Presiding Official: D. Drummer Minutes of Special Meeting and Sign Review and Appeals Board. Ald. Bleveans moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the minutes of the special meeting of the Planning L Development Committee and the minutes of the Sign Review and Appeals Board of December 1. 1986. Regarding the minutes of the special meeting of the P i D Committee, Ald. Brady questioned whether on page 2, paragraph 2 that it was the Cosmmittee's understanding that the Sian Review and Appeals Board decision would be communicated to the City Council and stand as approved or denied unless reversed by the City Council. Ald. Brady stated that. it was her understanding that the Sign Review and Appeals Board would be final authority and that the findings would be communicated to City Council. but not with the intent to seek their approval or overturning of the decision. It was the consensus of the P i D Committee that the Sign Review and Appeals Board would be final authority and that the only way to reverse a decision would be for an aldermen to specifically request same at the City Council. Regarding another matter discussed at the previous special meeting, the issue of terms on various committees was clarified. The Committee on Committees has found that the maximum amount of time a person can serve on any Committee is a total of two 3 year terms. It was the direction of the P & D Committee to have the time period for membership on the Sign Review and Appeals Board to reflect those guidelines. Docket 190-BA-86. ZBA 86-14-SU(R) re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Chairman Drummer stated that neither the applicants nor objectors were not present at tonights meeting and that he has received no communication from any person since the last P 6 D Committee meeting. Ald. Bleveans stated that he was willing to hold this matter over for an additional two weeks. Ald. Brady questioned whether Ald. Drummer has met with Aldermen Morton and Summsers of the subject Ward or was he aware of Rev. Filson meeting with the Aldermen. Ald. Drummer stated that he had not met with the Aldermen nor was he aware of any other meeting. Ald. Brady stated that she concurred with Ald. Bleveans and that she would be willing to hold the matter over. Ald. Korshak stated that it appears that there is no change from the previous meeting nor from meetings as far back as August. 1986. He further stated that everyone knew of this meeting and was aware of the past meetings, and the situation continues to be unchanged. Ald. Korshak stated that he was prepared to take the matter P i D Minutes December 8, 1986 to City Council for a vote tonight. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter over for an additional two week period to the next regular Meting of the P i D Committee and City Council on December 22, 1986. Docket 277-12A-86. Housing Rehabilitation Single -Family Program Streamlined Construction Guidelines. Ald. Bleveans opened the discussion by questioning the pay -out procedure regarding checks required to be signed by the City and the property owner. Staff indicated that this was a normal procedure and would facilitate the matter. Aid. Warshaw questioned number 10 on page 42, with respect to the accuracy of the City of 9vanston estimates for construction. Director of Housing Rehabilitation i Property Maintenance, Robert Bannister was present and stated that the City is using the National Home Tech Manual. Bannister further explained that three (3) bids oftentimes delays the process and that It is difficult to obtain three (3) bids since contractors realize that they are only being asked to bid to round out the number of bids required. Bannister further explained that a homeowner is not prohibited from getting more than one bid. but is allowed to obtain one bid. Aid. Warshaw suggested that since the recent Rehabilitation Guidelines allow grants under certain conditions that in such cases more than one bid be required. Aid. Korshek explained to the Committee with respect to the City's rehabilitation projects that for the most part the projects were of a small time rehab, since relatively since few dollars are expended. Aid. Korshak questioned number 6 on page 42. since all applicants may not be qualified to select contractors. Aid. Korshak also questioned number 12 on page 42. expressing concern about change orders. Staff indicated that some applicants may not be qualified and are therefore not required to select contractors. The staff will be involved in those particular cases to avoid problems for the homeowner. Aid. Brady explained to the Committee that much discussion took place at the Rehabilitation Subcommittee and the Housing Commission expressing concern that elderly may not want to take advantage of the one bid process. Ald. Brady concurred with Ald. Warshaw in that if a grant is utilized that sure than two bids should be required. Brady questioned number 12 on page 42 and suggested that the words "without the presence of a Rehabilitation Department staff member' be deleted. The Commmittee agreed with the recommendation. Aid. Brady continued to explain that HUD had provided streamlining regulations and recommandations in 1981. She felt that possibly the City's lack of streamline regulations since 1981 has hindered the success of the program. Aid. Brady felt as did the Housing Commission and the Rehabilitation Subcommittee that these revisions will aid in increasing the productivity of the City's Rehab Program. Aid. Warshaw questioned number 10 on page 42, regarding whether a bid should be rejected if it is 101L below City's estimate. Bannister briefly explained -2- P i D !minutes December a, 1986 the difficulty in waiving parameters. He expressed concern that if there were so parameters regarding 10% above the City's estinites or 10% below that severe fluctuations in bids could take place. Ald. Korshak suggested that number 10 on page e2 read as follows: "the contractor's bid met include every item and not wary more than 10% above or below the Rehabilitation Department original or revised estimates". The Committee concurred with Ald. Korshak's amendment. Ald. Brady moved and Ald. Bleveane seconded that the Cosraittoe recommend to City Council approval or the Single Family Streamlined Construction Guidelines as amended. Committee voted 5-0. Docket 270-.12A-86, ZAC 86-5 re RezoninK of the Church/Chicago Parkins Got. Aid. Warshaw moved and Ald. Brady seconded that the Committee recommend to City Council to accept the ZAC recommendation to not rezone the property to B3, and to leave the property as it is currently zoned as R7, General Residence District. Ald. Bleveans recommended that the Committee consider holding this matter at Planning i Development Committee until the City Council decides which proposal to accept that will be discussed at the City Council meeting or December S. 1986. Ald. Warshaw suggested that the matter be tabled In the P i D Cosmittee. Ald. Brady recommended that the rezoning be addressed at the time the project is discussed at City Council. Ald. Korshak concurred that the rezoning issue should be held until a specific project was decided upon. Ald. Brady suggested that it may be proper to vote out of the P i D Committee as R7 and table the item on the Council floor until the Church/Chicago matter is discussed and decided upon. Ald. Brady continued to explain that she is in favor of the 97 and that the neighborhood is strongly against the 53. because of past history of commercial development in that area. Ald. Brady concurred with the neighbors thoughts that B3 would infringe on the neighborhood. Ald. Warshaw stated that she would lime to see the R7 continued and possibly grant a variation for the Northlight Theater proposal. Ald. Drummer concurred with Alderson Brady and Warshaw in support of the R7 zoning. The Committee voted 5-0 on the original motion to accept the ZAC Report to leave the property zoned 97 and to table the matter on the City Council floor. Consider Reference to ZAC to Consider Amending Zoning Code to Remove all Si& Regulations from said Code. Due to the progress recently wade on the Proposed Sign Ordinance and since there will be several conflicting sign regulations in the zoning ordinance, it was recommended that a reference to ZAC be given the highest priority to amend the zoning ordinance to remove all sign regulations as soon as possible. Staff was directed to prepare a reference to ZAC to accomplish this and. -3- P i D Minutes December 8, 1986 Start indicated to the committee that the Amvets proposal on Noyes street which was continued to December 22, 1986, at the request of the applicant's attorney has now been requested to be continued to January, 1987 at the request of the attorney for the neighborhood. Said attorney notified staff that they Mould not be able to attend the December 22, 1986 sleeting and possibly the January 12 meeting. Since January 19 is a National holiday (Martin Luther King's birthday), the Committee roved this matter over to January 26, 1987. Staff indicated that the attorneys for the respective parties would be notified. Ald. Korshak discussed with the Cones ittee a mesa that was circulated to the Camsittee last week. In the subject memo Ald. Korshak presented several alternatives for addressing the issue of carry -out restaurants and associated problems. Ald. Korshak highlighted five (5) basic Issues that he believes the Cosssittee should address at the meeting of December 22, 1986. lie suggested that carry -outs be determined by a percent of the carry -out business done. He further stated that to police such a natter that the owners will be required to sign an oath and swear to the proper amount of carry -out service that they complete. Ald. Korshak further suggested that some regulations be developed regarding restaurants that may impinge on residential areas and that drive-in restaurants be considered special uses. The Committee continued to discuss the issue and addressed items such as percent of carry -out, proximity to residential zones, licensing regulations, and the need for a forum for adjoining residents to express their concerns, etc. It wa■ the consensus of the Committee to set a special meeting of the P i D Committee scheduled for January 5, 1987 at 7:10 p.m. to discuss only the restaurant issue. Staff indicated that the tentative meeting for the P g D Committee to sit as the Sign Review and Appeals Board scheduled for December 15, 1986 has been cancelled, since the three applicants, upon being advised that the proposed sign ordinance would allow their request, have withdrawn their variation applications. Therefore, the meeting of December 15, 1986 has been cancelled. ldj ournnment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Cones ittee will be December 22, 1986; Committee will be January S. 1987. Staff : Robert T: Rudd ' 34(9t12) -4- The nest regular meeting of the P i D next special meeting of the P S D 1' NIM[itS Planning and Development Committee Deeembar 22, 1956 7:30 P.N. Ald. Present: B. Brady, 1. Warshaw, J. torshak, D. Drummer and R. Jul iar Ald. Absent: J. Bleveass Staff Presast: It. Carlson, J. Aiello, It. Ahiberg. D. Rasmussen, I. 3mmister. it. Saymanski and I. Rudd Presiding Official: D. Drummer Blast of Does "r 12�1211 Ald. [orsbak moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the Committee approve the nismtes of December i, 1996. Ald. Brady saved that the **coed paragraph on Me 2 be amended to read that the Committee required "sore than one bid where grants were being utilised* Committee voted S-0 to approve the minutes as amended. Communications Nap Devictio 0 nents to Church/Chicago RezonioL.- The Committee received without comment. Revised List of Pending References to ZAC. The Committee received without coWMGat. ZAC Public Notice for January B. 1987 HeariaL. The Committee received without comment. November 1986 Rehab Report. The Committee received without comment. Zoning Board of ADDeals Report on ZRA 86-23-SU R re .5oeeial Use for 831 Moves Street (Asvets). The Committee received Zoning Board of Appeals Report and transcript regarding special use for 821 Mores (Anvets), which is scheduled for the P A D Committee seating on January 26, 1987. Old Business Docket 190-8A-86. ZBA 86-13-SU(R). re Special Use for 1615 Lake Street. Chairman Drummer indicated that he had stet with Rev. Wilson's wife who Indicated to him that Rev. Wilson could not be is attendance at the December 22, 1986 P x D Committee meeting. She indicated that Rev. Wilson did have certain points to clarify. Drummer also stated that Ald. Morton would be unable to attend the Council meeting on December 22 and had requested that this matter be held over. f P i D Minutes Dscamber 22, 1986 It Was the consensus of the CONE ittes to bold the matter regarding the special use for 1615 Lake Street until the January 22, 1986 meeting. Pocket 223-125-66. ZU 86-29-SD(R). re Special Use for 2900-80 Demister Street Ltd. Juliar sowed and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the CoMittee concur with the toting board of Appeals' recommendation to deny a special use for a drive-in restaurant. Ald. Brady stated that she concurs with the notion, however, she wants to clarify her position in that she has nothing against three (3) restaurants at the Dodge/Dempater shopping center, particularly since the shopping center is of such a large size. However, she stated that she is apposed to this type of fast-food carry -oat restaurant at that particular location. Ald. Korshak stated that he was concerned with the contiguity of the three (3) restaurants on the shopping center site. He felt that the cumulative effect of the proposed three (3) restaurants and the already existing restaurants was persuasive is denying this request. Be stated that he supports the ZBA recommendation to deny the request. Bark Kahn, representing for the developer was present and mated to reiterate that the developer was not unaware of the problems associated with restaurants and particularly restaurants in the shopping center area. Saba stated that the proposal did not create traffic hazards because all of the points of ingress and egress to the restaurants were internal to the shopping center and that no now additional ingress or egress points were being added to accommodate the restaurants. Kahn reminded the Committee that the developer earlier agreed during the Pizza But hearing process to various conditions on hours of operation, litter, etc. Be informed the Committee that the developer and neighbors have begun discussion about the creation of the business service district to address litter and other business/residential conflicts. Kahn stated that the developer has continually worked with the City of Evanston to solve a number of problems associated with the development. Kahn showed an illustration to the Committee detailing the traffic flow into and out of the shopping center. Kahn further stated that he feels that only one fast-food restaurant in the area causes a problem. 6cDonalds. Aid. Brady stated that she thinks the new standards may be more restrictive and therefore the current application by the developer nay brave an advantage over what future applicants may face with expected new guidelines. Ald. Juliar stated that he agrees that the developer has worked closely with the City and has done a very good job so far with the shopping center; however. be is still opposed to an additional restaurant. Ald. Warshaw stated that she concurs with Ald. duliar in that the developer has been responsible, but that the Committee and City Council must still wrestle with the cumulative effect of a large number of restaurants concentrated in this area. She feels that the existing problem must first be solved (with existing restaurants) before additional restaurants are located in the area. -2- P i D Liinutes December 22, 2986 Gerald Gordon of 2228 Lake Street was present and stated that the question for the Cas,ittee is whetbw there are too many fast-food restaurants at the intersection of Dodge/Dwpster! No questioned the Committee u to where the City draws the lies on cumalative effect. Gordon further stated that the SOIL carry -out restriction on the Pizza But is realistically unenforceable. Gordon further stated that Brown's Chicks, which we a special use several years ago and was conditioned that the restaurant Mould go out of business if the operation changed hands, was currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking an smendwat to the special age to allow it to continue even though it has changed bands. Bennett Johnson a resident of the area was also present and stated that he has already received trash from a Taco Bell and he doesn't know bow close the nearest Taco bell is. Mark Zahn stated that is view of the current moratorium, the opposition to the present proposal, and the ez"cted revision@ to the restaurant ordinance, that at this time he was withdrwang the request for a special use for Taco bell. Gordon stated that he was opposed to the withdrawal because of the substantial time that was spent by the neighbors and City during the hearing process. Chairman Drummer indicated that the applicant has every right to withdraw and that the Cown ittee would accept the withdrawal of the application at this point. It was the consensus of the P i D Comaittee to accept the withdrawal of the applicant's petition with notice that if the applicant desires to come back at a later date, be would be required to start the process from the very beginning (zoning analyses, ZU, etc.). The Committee also moved that the Item be removed from the City Council agenda of December 22, 1986. Docket 87-48-85. Ordinance 40-8-86. ZAC S5-4. Zoning Amendments re Restaurant. The Committee received a ZAC report regarding a special use treatment for restaurants dated December 22. 1986. Rudd provided an explanation of the background on the report and the staff position that the special use process was the best method for addressing various problems and conflicts that have been raised over the Tears regarding restaurants and their locations and to provide equal treatment for all restaurants. The staff referred the Committee to pages 2 and 3 of the subject now detailing that the special use process allows for equity, compensates for evolution of restaurant uses, provides an opportunity for public input. allows the City Council to apply various reasonable conditions where necessary, and that the special use process is not as lengthy as it is sometime perceived. bid. xorshak stated that the Committee should begin with attempting to develop amendments to allow the minimum amount of time necessary to decide on the Issue of restaurants and also within this time to provide the various safeguards to address problems such as litter, hours of operation, noise and -3- P i D Ainutes December 22, 1986 traffic. Lid. Xorshak suuested that the Corittee may want to consider licensing as one method of attempting to control the problems associated with certain type of restaurants. Ald. Zorshak further stated that the type of restaurants that caused the greatest concern to his personally are drive -Ins and carry -outs. lie reconmesded that the Committee be most careful about these types of restaurants and how they are addressed through regulations. Bob Ahlberg, Zoning Planner was present and stated that the problems with developing "precise defisitioss' are that as indicated in the aforemeatiosed memo, restaurants change over a period of time, and what mat have been permitted uses evolve into operations that create neighborhood problems and operate without controls. Ahlbert further stated that several restaurants such as Leslee's will sot take a lot of time since for the most part they are not controversial. Ahlberg stated that applying standards such as percent of carry -out are difficult and impossible to enforce. He further suggested that the special use allows the City to review land use impact of the various restaurants which Is the purpose of the zoning ordinance. No further stated that since restaurants have so many variables (traffic, odor, noise, hours of operation) that it is necessary to review each individual restaurant separately through the special use process to allow various conditions to be placed on said operation since so two restaurants or locations are the tam. Ald. Brady questioned the issue of parking. Dave Rasmussen, Assistant Director of Zoning was present and stated that with respect to parking applicants will be guided by our current conditions, however, if due to the circumstances of the particular restaurant request additional parking was deemed necessary. that parking could be a required condition of the special Use. Zra Golan, Executive Director of the Swanston Chamber of Commerce was present and read from a report that he supplied at an earlier date to members of his board. the report as read by Golan highlighted the importance of the food Indust" in Rvanston. Galan went on to explain that it is his position that there is 90-day minimum process for hearing a special use request. Golan cited various drawbacks to spacial uses such as timing. arbitrary decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals, P i D Committee and/or City Council and hindrance to economic development. Gerald Gordon was present and stated that he was opposed to the special use process for fear of citizens not being aware of the public meeting and thus not having any input. Mark ]Cahn stated that be feels that there are problems with the special use process because of its lack of predictability and that since every situation is different for a restaurant, every City decision could be different. Bennett Johnson stated that the neighbors were concerned with the predictability of a special use and that they had no idea how the City Council or Zoning Board or P A D Committee would respond to a request. -4- P i D Minutes December 21, 1966 Bolan suggested that since the City of Evanston is partially funding a Keep Evanston Beautiful Programs, that the Council direct that program to emphasize the litter probls and other problem associated with restaurants. •ld. torshat stated that as he reviewed the special use process more he would smumariss the staff position that special use process would allow ZdA. P i D Committee and City Council to tailor various conditions to address and control the negative impact of various types of restaurants. He feels that the special am* process may allow the City to handcraft various ordinances to add'Yss sae types of restaurant. The C mmittee will continue this discussion to a special meeting Monday, January S. 1987. The rest regular meeting of the P i D Committee will be January 12. 1987. m4l M The usstiag adjosrrsd at 9:00 p.s1. staff: 4*rt T.�� ' dd 2B(1-S) -5-