Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-2007-06-11-2007OF EV CITY COUNCIL * * O �kcot June 11, 2007 ROLL CALL — PRESENT: Alderman Jean -Baptiste Alderman Tisdahl Alderman Bernstein Alderman Rainey A Quorum was present. Alderman Holmes Alderman Hansen Alderman Wollin ABSENT: Aldermen Wynne and Moran PRESIDING: Mayor Lorraine H. Morton The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton on Monday, June 11, 2007, at 9:05 p.m. in the Council Chamber. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS: Public Works Director David Jennings recognized Transportation Director John Burke who has achieved a Certificate of Public Parking Administration from a four-year program administered by the University of Virginia and the International Parking Institute. John is only one of 95 persons in the nation to have achieved this level. Mr. Jennings announced that the City of Evanston had received an award (the only one given in the state) from the U.S.- EPA involving the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for performance and innovation in creating environmental success. This relates to the Long Range Sewer Plan. Evanston had problems with combined sewers, overflow problems and the need to access the MWRD north side water reclamation plant. This $200 million project required 25 state revolving loans since 1991 and involved an innovative partnership with MWRD. The City saved millions of dollars in additional expense. Illinois EPA nominated Evanston for this award. CITIZEN COMMENT: Jeanne Lindwall. 625 Library PI., encouraged Council to adopt the downtown development moratorium including the twin towers proposed for the Fountain Square block and all other proposed developments where the applicant has not provided a complete planned development application and has not been scheduled for a public hearing. In staff presentations, concerning the need for a new downtown plan, an argument was made that Evanston should use a wedding cake model for zoning with the tallest building in the middle of downtown with lower and less intense development toward the edges as the downtown transitions into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This was the zoning scheme in place before the 1993 Zoning Ordinance was adopted, with B5 zoning surrounded by B4, then B3 zoning along Davis St. west of Oak, and east of Chicago Ave. before the multi -family districts began. Then as now, the B3 height limit was 125 feet. The 1989 Downtown Plan identified a number of areas that were considered "character giving," where redevelopment should not be encouraged. Among these areas was the Fountain Square block. When the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1993, these "character giving" blocks were zoned B2 with a base height limit of 42 feet in furtherance of the adopted Downtown Plan. This includes the Fountain Square block. In essence, the wedding cake approach to the development of downtown Evanston was rejected 20 years ago. The current Zoning Ordinance recognized that to achieve the urban design and character objectives that had evolved through the Plan Commission's downtown planning process, a more sophisticated zoning approach was required. The much maligned Ziggurat setbacks are the type of regulation that the new form -based codes build into their graphic elements that the current downtown zoning and planning effort is intended to address. The argument has also been made that the tallest building should be on the Fountain Square block because this is the center of downtown. It is not the geographic center. The Sherman Plaza block has that distinction. While the Fountain Square block may be the historic center of downtown, that only further reinforces the notion that the scale of buildings that are allowed should be lower reflecting the traditional character of the downtown. This Council will spend $236,000 to establish what types of development should be encouraged at what location with a focus on heights and development intensity. It would be a mistake for the City to encourage developers to move forward with planned development applications when what will ultimately be allowed in specific parcels is still unknown. Similarly, the Council should not entertain having a development partner by agreeing to sell City land or yay 2 June 11, 2007 buying buildings to create an expanded Fountain Square until the Downtown Plan is completed. It is within Council's power to tell developers "no" or at least that they adhere to the zoning that is in place if they choose to move ahead with their plan before the new Downtown Plan is complete. The moratorium will have no damaging effect on developers. Citizens have a voice in the plan that will affect all. Ordinances are not ends in themselves but implement public policy which, with respect to the downtown, is currently under review and appropriately so after 15 years after adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance and nearly 20 years since the Downtown Plan was developed. Robert Atkins,, 2005 Orrington Ave., 31-year resident, made statements in support of Ordinance 57-0-07: the City has engaged a consultant to come up with a plan for the downtown area including: 1. "A revised Downtown Plan, zoning recommendations, market study and a parking study eventually producing a report to the City by October 31,"which addresses land use and appropriate development planning issues for consideration by the Plan Commission. 2. "A moratorium during the City's review of possible rezoning in moratorium areas is necessary to prevent construction that may be inconsistent with any revised zoning regulations." In response to these statements, the proposed ordinance creates a moratorium on all development proposals for 180 days with one giant exception: the proposed twin skyscrapers are exempt from the moratorium. Under the proposed ordinance, any developers who have made an application for a zoning analysis prior to the adoption of the ordinance under Section 4B are exempt from the ordinance. There is no basis in law to support this exemption. To support it and to pass the ordinance, as written, makes the ordinance basically meaningless and a cruel joke. If, however, there is a legal basis that the Law Department has come up with they should share with the community as well as the Council. To suggest that it is simply a preliminary analysis in this case, a preliminary application for a zoning analysis is sufficient to grant them an exemption from this moratorium makes little sense, unless there is clear law, supporting it or the Council, particularly if they were in executive session unknown to this community, made any representations to the developer that they are unaware of. 1st Ward residents are very concerned about this issue because this is their backyard. All are interested in how it will look eventually. He called upon the 1st Ward alderman to show leadership on this issue and move to amend the ordinance by removing Section 4B so that these outrageous skyscrapers are included in the moratorium. Certainly hiring a consultant to formalize a downtown plan while at the same time moving ahead with developments that will stand the current Zoning Ordinance on its ear makes no sense. Judv Fiske. 2319 Sherman Ave., stated the justification for excluding three new planned developments (two on the Fountain Square block and one at 1515 Chicago Avenue) from the moratorium is troubling. The reason, citizens are told, for excluding these projects is that they are in the "pipeline." This sounds silly, considering that these applications are at the earliest stages of the approval process. At a recent meeting of Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee (SPARC), staff acknowledged the project before them for concept review was too incomplete for any meaningful discussion. Yet, it is mentioned as being in the pipeline. There is no official pipeline in Evanston. There is no reference to a pipeline in the Evanston City Code and no policy has been established by this or previous City Councils, even when Council was urged to do so following the Flannigan lawsuit at Main/Chicago. The City seems to be basing its decisions on the concept of vested rights and real property. However, according to land use attorneys, expert in the field, the vested rights doctrine in Illinois does not entitle developers with planned development projects to presume approval as they might with a "by right project," that conforms to the zoning code. A zoning analysis itself does not confer a vested right and it is even questionable whether a decision by the Plan Commission confers a vested right. It would be appropriate for Council to explain to Evanston citizens its justification for excluding these three developments from the downtown planning process. A process that includes the first comprehensive study of the downtown area to be conducted in more than 20 years; a study that will cost several hundred thousand dollars and provide the framework for downtown development for decades. There is no question that the law gives Council the power and authority to include the entire downtown area in the study area in the moratorium. To do otherwise is to undermine the study's effectiveness, waste taxpayers' dollars and erode the public's confidence in the results and, ultimately, in the Council itself. Diane Leauar. 1516 Hinman Ave., said the moratorium is a sensible and efficient way of managing Evanston's downtown development. She had opposed the proposed Optima Development for 1515 Chicago Avenue after attending most ofthe Downtown Plan Committee meetings. As Council members know from their meeting with the Plan Commission last week, that commission in cooperation with consultants, Council, staff and the public will work intensively on a revised plan that can address many of the stumbling blocks that have created so much friction for everyone around downtown development for the past several years. A 180-day moratorium while the downtown plan is developed will allow reasonable breathing room for a much needed public discussion of the nature of downtown development without allowing VzS 3 June 11, 2007 unreasonable projects into the pipeline (whatever that may be). Only a shortsighted decision would risk sacrificing Evanston's most sensitive sites and areas to developers' desires for profit and the City's desires for revenue. A coherent downtown plan can identify sensitive areas and issues up front and provide a framework for the City to resolve them, rather than wasting resources and community good will on a series of battles over more high rises. She hoped they would vote for the moratorium. She asked Council to figure out which of the sketchy proposals are in any kind of pipeline and direct the Downtown Plan Committee to explicitly address issues that constituents find vital to Evanston in the new plan. Barbara Janes, 802 Colfax St., hoped Council would support the moratorium with no exclusions. If they are serious about obtaining citizen input, it is imperative that notices be sent to every household in Evanston about the downtown planning meetings. While it would be nice to believe that everybody reads the City's website, the RoundTable and the Review, the reality is they don't. Universal notification should be done. Every citizen in Evanston will contribute to the consultant's fee. Every citizen should be notified about these meetings so that he/she can make his/her views known. It is everybody's downtown. All should be notified at their residence or place of business. Siamata Blanas, 1720 Maple Ave., said if they prepared to extend the time for 1881 Oak and looked at 1881 Oak and 1890 Maple in combination, she felt that citizens should be allowed to bring up the issue with the motion they presented. Bring everything to the table and in the open so a clear decision could be made about what is happening with the two developments. She knows some aldermen favor building rental buildings. A dentist, she noted there are three dentists at 708 Church St. who have been displaced plus another 40 health professionals. Professional office space in downtown Evanston cannot be lost. There are four professional buildings: 708 Church, 500 Davis, 636 Church and the Rotary building (the only modern office building downtown). The other buildings lack modern amenities and are hard to function in. She could understand saving 636 Church, which is a historic building, but if they let go of 807 Church, where will health professionals go. How will all the people downtown get their health care needs met? 1890 Maple is a new building. She suggested they reconsider demolishing 1890 Maple and build a residential rental building. Joe Hill, 2647 Broadway Ave., supported the downtown moratorium. The City proposes to spend a large amount for consultants and letting things happen downtown seems to defeat the purpose. The moratorium should include every square inch of downtown land. They keep hearing about things in the pipeline whatever the legal definition is. He thought there is no pipeline until there is a hole in the ground and a foundation poured. They just went through a similar process on Central St., which was extended. He urged the downtown moratorium and not to exclude any property. Peeav Schatz, 1515 Chicago Ave., asked that the moratorium not be put on that area; believed it would be detrimental to development of Evanston overall. The individual building permits should be considered as they are applied for and not put a blanket tie down on the rest of the property downtown. Alderman Rainey had asked the City Manager that day that the City Attorney provide a written statement as to why they have told people that those projects in the pipeline were exempt from the moratorium. First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill stated that the first question to look at is about a pipeline. There is no such thing as a pipeline. It is not a defined term in the court cases. The word "pipeline" came about as a shorthand term with respect to Chicago/Main. The Chicago/Main development was a very particular land use issue. That was a permanent down zoning of a property and the challenge of the property owner that he or his company had a vested right because of his good faith reliance on the underlying zoning and expenditures he made on that zoning to proceed. That matter was litigated and the court ruled based on particular facts of that case, such as when the developer spent the money, the amount of money expended and when he was aware of the probability of a zoning change --how that impacted his vested rights to build. The court ruled on the facts that he had a vested right because he had expended millions of dollars in a good faith reliance on the probability of the zoning remaining intact. That case was generated approximately six or seven years ago. That is where pipeline came up in a shorthand presentation within a memo with respect to vested rights. What City Council has before it is a temporary limitation on the usage of property, a moratorium for a definite, limited, short duration. It's not a down zoning. It is not a permanent change in the property. It is a temporary review pending an analysis. So those are two factual differences between pipeline and vested rights. In this particular situation, it's within the discretion of the City Council, provided they have a limited moratorium, with a definite purpose, definite benchmarks as to what will be accomplished during that time for the City to oppose a limitation on the property rights of the 4 June 11, 2007 individuals. Again because it is a limited period of time, he did not believe they will have the issue of a taking, or a monetary loss to the property owner. City Council can determine what its ground rules are for the moratorium. It is totally discretionary provided they meet the broad framework he stated earlier. Alderman Rainey said they were advised and told others that those in the "pipeline" are exempt. She asked would it not be a "bait and switch" at this point to include them. Mr. Hill answered, not at all. Mayor Morton asked about extension of the moratorium; can it be extended any number of times. Mr. Hill stated the case law varies on the facts. The Law Department has always recommended that the moratorium be as brief as possible with definite goals and benchmarks. Moratoriums have been extended for a shorter period of time. The issue is the adverse effect on property rights. But a limited moratorium occurring in time with a definite scope, a definite purpose, definite target ranges and the expectation that these target ranges are reasonable and will be met so a decision can be made so property owners are not adversely affected can be adopted by the City Council. They need to consider the scope with respect to the geographic area, with respect to exactly what is going to be under the moratorium. Is it building permits? Is it Plan Commission hearings? What scope the moratorium should be and then realistically set goals with respect to time frame for a study or studies and what that study will accomplish. With the Fountain Square proposed development, there are potential issues with respect to the infrastructure, to traffic, to density and congestion and he was certain that Mr. Wolinski could give more suggestions. The basic summary in the ordinance itself sets forth concerns that could be addressed, but he urged that it be definite that there is a very limited time frame. City Manager Carroll stated they have discussed internally whether to do the moratorium and include everything or whether to exclude the three proposals that Mr. Wolinski had indicated would be in the pipeline. It would come down to what the City Council wants to do with that block and what is the vision in particular for Fountain Square? How will they process that development if they don't enact a moratorium? Depending on what the Council's vote is that evening, they will have some additional perspective from staff that they wish to share with Council. Alderman Wollin suggested that this needed to be debated when they get to the moratorium ordinance. She appreciated the clarification from Mr. Hill. It helps all understand their options better. Alderman Jean -Baptiste wanted clarification. He stated as long as the moratorium does not impact the rights of the property owners, the moratorium is for the purpose of downtown planning and may impact developers' rights as to height and zoning limitations. It seemed to him they could not look at the moratorium in abstraction because it is tied to a particular action being carried out by the City. Mr. Hill's only caveat is if they go back to the vested right concept and what can be constructed as of right on that site, he believed each project submitted asks for way beyond the confines of the Zoning Ordinance. So there's not a vested right for the City Council. Is there a probability that the City Council will issue a building permit to either of these projects as submitted? What is the reasonable expectation of the property owner to rely on the building permit issue? Each property owner in the current situation realizes that a planned development is required; that there is a process for that planned development and that process must occur. The question is do they have a vested right in that process and, perhaps, how would this affect the process? They definitely do not have a vested right in either of the proposals in the zoning analysis because they have asked for a planned development with considerable changes in height, bulk and density from the Zoning Ordinance. Alderman Bernstein asked, if that is the statement of the law, why then do they have Section 4 in the ordinance. Mr. Hill stated to the best of his knowledge, Section 4 is consistent with traditional language that has been in past ordinances and consistent with their understanding to proceed forward. It's basically grounds for the City Council to debate and modify as it chooses. Alderman Bernstein knew with the Flanagan lawsuit there was no definitive set of facts, it is all case by case. His question is, are they then opening themselves up to some claim? He understands they (developers) are asking for things to which they may not be entitled. If, in fact this is what they (City) has been doing, we've defined. Mr. Hill said the definition is on a case -by -case basis. The City Council has the discretion to tailor the moratorium to the needs before it at the time. Because the moratorium is a temporary measure for a legitimate public purpose, exercising the police power to analyze an existing condition as long as the time is not abused, he believed the City would be successful in any litigation against it. If there were litigation and the City was not successful, the answer is to amend the ordinance. The only danger is a short time moratorium could be viewed as a "taking" and he did not believe the court would say a limited duration moratorium is a taking of a property. It's within the discretion of the City Council on a sound reasonable basis to proceed. The City Council can impose a moratorium as it so chooses if they are within the broad confines of the diameters he has set. One also could consider the process and the amount of time it would take with respect to either of 5 June 11, 2007 the two Fountain Square developments to proceed through the Plan Commission process. Arguably the Plan Commission can process these two proposals within 180 days. And perhaps on that basis the moratorium would not be needed and the desire of the City Council not to set back any developer the 180 days and what that potential economic impact may be. To minimize that, the moratorium could be back ended just with respect to the ultimate issuance of a building permit and allow the process to go through the mechanism for the Plan Commission. The flip side to that is one would argue how can the Plan Commission make a decision if it is not aware of where the consultant's studies will be. So there is a timing mechanism or a balancing for the Council to consider. That's policy. With respect to the legal basis there is the authority to issue a moratorium on a broader basis than is before it. Those that are exempted could be included in the moratorium. They certainly would argue that it is a Home Rule power and for a limited time, for a legitimate purpose and certainly have the likelihood of success on the merits. That's a general overview. Community Development Director James Wolinski explained that each of the moratoriums have been site specific in the past for certain sections of the community and certain exclusions were specific to those areas. For instance, the Central Street moratorium, which runs from Eastwood to the 2200 block of Harney, when Council passed that moratorium there was specific language in the ordinance that excluded a number of projects that were either at the Plan Commission or under zoning review at that time. During the West Side moratorium, the Church Street project was excluded from that moratorium because it was being discussed at the Plan Commission. In this moratorium, when the Law Department and Community Development worked on this, the concern was not to get involved with the issue of the pipeline. Because that issue is always a problem. They would designate specifically what was considered the moratorium and what would be excluded. When Mr. Cox and he discussed this, they talked about things in for a zoning analysis (that seemed to be in the past) were excluded based on prior moratoriums and also if they were in for a building permit. Alderman Tisdahl stated that Mr. Hill was telling them that they had discretion that she never knew they had. Most of them didn't know that they have it. Perhaps he would like to come to the P&D Committee meeting so that they would be more aware of the discretion that they have. Some of their past decisions would have been different had they known that they did not have to abide by what they thought the pipeline entails. They could use a lesson at P&D as to what their new discretions are. She invited him to Lome and wanted to have a clear understanding tonight and before she voted on any extension of a moratorium, if it passes, on what the time frame he feels is acceptable. Mr. Hill said a time frame under general case law always leads to the conclusion that the moratorium must be as time limited as possible, very much specific to the needs addressed with the studies and whatever is the basis for it realistically set out to be accomplished. There is a guideline for the public as to what will be occurring. City moratoriums have done that. In this situation, he believed there is uniqueness to the Fountain Square block and with respect to a development center that has really sprung forth in the last three to four months. In the moratorium and the study with respect to the downtown may have been considered before these projects sprung forth and it all just coalesced. Going back to the power of the City Council, a moratorium is a Police Power. The City Council as Home Rule can act and enact a moratorium. It has to be addressed with the needs. In this situation, the balancing point is the impact upon the area, the time for the City to complete a study, the impact of the delay so to speak during that study and whether or not a moratorium is required. As he said, there could be the proposition that it would take such a period of time to go through the process no matter what, that the moratorium would be viewed as not necessary at this point because the study would be completed within that time frame. He could not make that argument with certainty. That is just one argument. The moratorium definitely holds the City's feet to the fire and in this situation, because of the extreme scrutiny with respect to the project, the City Council should adopt a moratorium that it believes can be accomplished and the directive would be the Community Development, the Law Department and the City Manager's Office to get the Public Works Department to get those studies underway and back so the City Council can make an informed decision. Because if that should result in amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, there still is the zoning amendment process to go through, which would further impact these projects. CONSENT AGENDA (Any item marked with an Asterisk*) Alderman Rainey moved Council approval of the Consent Agenda with these exceptions: Contract for Organizational Development, Leadership Training and Teambuilding Services; 2007 CIP Street Resurfacing Project —Bid from A. Lamp Concrete Contractors; Ordinance 45-0-07 — Planned Development for 1890 Maple Ave.; Ordinance 60-0-07 —Amends Subsection 2-9-3(G) City Code "Powers and Duties" of Preservation Commission; 2526 Jackson Ave. -Parking Variation Request; Request for $180,000 in HOME Funds for the Evanston Housing Coalition; Request for $15,000 in HOME 6 June 11, 2007 CHDO Operating Funds for Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust; Request for a Reservation of $99,500 in HOME Funds for Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust; Ordinance 57-0-07 —Moratorium on New Construction in the Downtown Area for 180 Days; Resolution 28-R-07 — Seeks Comprehensive School Reform; and Ordinance 41-0- 07 — Annual Township Budget. Seconded by Alderman Jean -Baptiste. Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —none. Motion carried (7-0). ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES: * Approval of Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of May 7 and the Regular City Council Meeting of May 29, 2007. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Approval, as recommended, of City of Evanston payroll for the period May 31, 2007 and City of Evanston bills through June 12, 2007, authorized and charged to the proper accounts: City of Evanston payroll (through 05/31/07) $2,257,939.09 City of Evanston bills (through 06/12/07) $1,934,862.26 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the 2007 block curb and sidewalk program from Schroeder & Schroeder Inc. (7307 Central Park Ave., Skokie) in the amount of $220,666. Funding provided by CIP funds ($134,463) and CDBG funds ($86,203). * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the 2007 Parking Lot Improvement Project to Chicago land Paving Company (225 Tesler Rd., Lake Zurich, IL) in the amount of $235,056. Funding provided by Parking Bond funds. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the Chicago Avenue signal upgrades from Grove to Greenwood streets to Lyons Electric Company, Ltd. (650 E. Elm Ave., LaGrange, IL) in the amount of $489,700. Funding provided by CIP funds. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of construction engineering services with Christopher Burke Engineering, Ltd. (9675 W. Higgins Rd., Rosemont) for the Chicago Avenue Signal project in the amount of $40,591.48. Funding provided by CIP funds. APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of the final list of projects to be included in the 2008 Street Resurfacing Program Funded by the Motor Fuel Tax, CIP funds and state and federal funds. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval to purchase three replacement trucks for Parks/Forestry & Recreation through the state bid process. They are a 2008 International 7400 4X2 with a 70-foot aerial ($148,154), a 2008 International 7400 4X2 with chipper box ($76,312) and a 2008 Ford 4X2 with a utility service body ($38,924) for a total amount of $263,390.. Funding provided by the Fleet Services Fund. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Consideration of a proposal to adjust Day Sweeping Schedules to provide more daytime parking for business areas and other places with high daytime parking demand. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) 7 June 11, 2007 * Approval of Change Order #1 to decrease the contract amount by $797,586 from $2,167,622 to $1,370,036 for the 2006 additional Capital Improvement Program Funds Street Resurfacing Program to A. Lamp Concrete Contractors (800 W. Irving Park Rd., Schaumburg). Funding provided by 2006-07 CIP funds. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Resolution 26-R-07 — Authorizes the Citv Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Evanston and School District 65 for Foster Field — Consideration of Resolution 26-R-07, which authorizes the City Manager to execute a lease agreement between the City of Evanston and School District 65 for Foster Field. The lease refers to the area of land north and east of the Fleetwood- Jourdain Community Center (1655 Foster St.). The lease is a 15-year agreement that includes the use, maintenance and any potential improvements to the field, tennis courts, basketball courts and/or fields and open space. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Resolution 30-R-07 — Authorizes the Citv Manager to Sign a Lease Agreement with the League of Women Voters of Evanston — Consideration of Resolution 30-R-07, which authorizes the City Manager to sign a lease agreement with the League of Women Voters for Room 1030, Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Ave. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 58-0-07 — Neiehborhood Traffic Management Plan: Three-Wav Stop at Elmwood Ave. and Seward St. — Consideration of proposed Ordinance 58-0-07, which amends Section 10-11-5, Schedule V(C ) of the City Code to establish a three-way stop at Elmwood Ave. and Seward St. MARKED INTRODUCED — CONSENT AGENDA Alderman Wollin moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt an ordinance at the same meeting at which it was introduced. The motion was seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Alderman W011in moved approval of Ordinance 58-0-07. The motion was seconded. Roll call. Voting aye -- Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —none. Motion carried (7-0). * Ordinance 61-0-07 — No Parkine Anv Time on Michigan Ave. between Hamilton St. and Burnham Pl. — Consideration of proposed Ordinance 61-0-07, which amends Section 10-11-8, Schedule VIII(A) of the City Code to prohibit parking on the west side of Michigan Ave. (east leg) and the east side of Michigan Ave. (west leg) between Hamilton St. and Burnham Pl. * MARKED INTRODUCED — CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: * Temvorary Sienaee Reauest for the American Craft Exposition — Consideration of the request ofthe Auxiliary of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare to erect temporary signs and banners advertising and directing patrons to the American Craft Exposition to be held August 24-26, 2007, at the Henry Crown Sports Pavilion. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 62-0-07 — Extends the Moratorium for New Construction on Central St. from Ashland to 2200 Central for 95 Days — Consideration of proposed Ordinance 62-0-07, which would extend the moratorium for an additional 95 days, for an expiration date of October 12, 2007. The current Ordinance 31-0-07 extended the moratorium for new construction on Central St. for 120 days and will expire on July 8, 2007. The Plan Commission will begin review of the Central Street Plan on June 13, 2007. * MARKED INTRODUCED — CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 63-0-07 - Extends the Moratorium for New Construction on Green Bav Rd. from Isabella to Lincoln for 94 Days - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 63-0-07, which would extend the 8 June 11, 2007 moratorium for an additional 94 days, for an expiration date of October 12, 2007. The current moratorium for new construction on Green Bay Rd. expires on July 9, 2007. The Plan Commission will begin review of the Central Street Plan on June 13, 2007. * MARKED INTRODUCED — CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 50-0-07 — Amends Citv Code to Enact in Title 9, a New Chanter 16. "Carbon Monoxide Alarm Ordinance" — Consideration of a staff recommendation, introduced May 29, 2007, that every dwelling unit shall be equipped with a least one approved carbon monoxide alarm in an operating condition within 15 feet for every room used for sleeping purposes. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: * ADnroval of Mav 2007 Township Monthly Bills — Consideration of a recommendation to approve the Township bills, payroll and medical payments for the month of May 2007 in the amount of $85,783.45. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Emergencv Assistance Intergovernmental Agreement between the Citv of Evanston and Evanston Township — Consideration of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Evanston and Evanston Township for the provision of Emergency Assistance services for the FY 2007-08 in an amount not to exceed $65,000. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) APPOINTMENTS: * Mayor Morton asked that the following appointment be introduced: Robin Schuldenfrei Plan Commission 1002 Hinman Ave. * Mayor Morton asked that the following appointments be confirmed: Linda Stockton Human Relations Commission 319 Custer Ave. For term ending June 15, 2010 Johanna Nyden Plan Commission 1309 Ashland Ave. For term ending June 15, 2010 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Approval of a contract for Organizational Development, Leadership Training and Teambuilding services with AZ Consultants and Alea Associates (708 Leonard St., Madison, WI) in an amount no to exceed $30,000. Funding provided by the Citywide Training Budget. Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid,for the 2007 Capital Improvement Program Street Resurfacing Project from A. Lamp Concrete Contractors (800 W. Irving Park Rd., Schaumburg) in the amount of $3,353,624; contingent upon approval of Change Order #1 to the 2006 Additional Capital Improvement Program Fund Street Resurfacing Program. V31 9 June 11, 2007 Alderman Wollin reported that these two items were held in committee Alderman Wollin reported a lengthy committee discussion about the condition of Fountain Square. Many who attended the Memorial Day service saw that the flag was not flying and the square was in disrepair and not clean. Staff was asked to look into using some TIF funds to make minimal repairs to the lighting and fountain and to get it into shape. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: Ordinance 45-0-07 — Planned Develovment Request for 1890 Maple Ave. — Consideration of a Plan Commission recommendation, introduced May 29, 2007, to approve a planned development request for the property at 1890 Maple Ave. as a mixed -use commercial and multi -family residential project. Alderman Tisdahl reported that this item was held in committee and would be voted on in two weeks. Ordinance 60-0-07 — Amends Subsection 2-9-3(G) of the Citv Code. "Powers and Duties" of the Preservation Commission — Consideration of the Preservation Commission's recommendation to amend the City Code to allow joint meetings with the Plan Commission forplanned developments and joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals for major variances and special uses when Evanston Landmarks or local Historic Districts are affected. Alderman Tisdahl reported that this item was held and referred to the Rules Committee. 2526 Jackson Ave. — Parkine Variation Request — Consideration of a no recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals request for a major variation to make six open parking spaces in the rear lot. Request for $180.000 in HOME Funds from the Evanston Housine Coalition — Consideration of a staff recommendation to approve the request for $180,000 in HOME Funds for an exterior rehab on Wesley Apartments at 2014, 2018 and 2024 Wesley Avenue, for a total of 24 units. Request for $15.000 in HOME CHDO Operatins Funds for the Citizen's Lighthouse Communitv Land Trust — Consideration of a staff recommendation to approve a request for $15,000 in HOME CHDO Operating Funds for the Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust. Request for a Reservation of $99.500 in HOME Funds for the Citizen's Lighthouse Connnunity Land Trust — Consideration of a staff recommendation to reserve $99,500 in HOME CHDO funds for the Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust. Reservation of funds is through the HOME CHDO reserve provision, for commitment at a later date. Citizen's Lighthouse Community Land Trust desires to purchase a property being sold in lieu of foreclosure prevention to rehab it and sell to an eligible buyer through a community land trust. Alderman Tisdahl reported that the above four items were held in committee. Ordinance 57-0-07 — Moratorium on New Buildine Construction in the Downtown Area for 180 Days — Consideration of a request from Alderman Holmes, introduced May 29, 2007, to impose a moratorium on new construction in the downtown area for 180 days, expiring November 25, 2007. Alderman Tisdahl moved approval of Ordinance 57-0-07. The motion was seconded. Alderman Wollin appreciated Mr. Hill's clarification on the options they can consider and explanation of vested rights. Because of the consulting fees and energy going into the downtown planning process, they should look at the entire downtown area and not carve out any area that would be protected from investigation, approval and planning. In looking at Section 4, it seemed if there was a building permit application that would need to be in the ordinance. Alderman Wollin moved to remove Section 4, which refers to application for zoning analysis. The motion was seconded. 10 June 11, 2007 Alderman Jean -Baptiste asked the City manager about what is going on with the two proposals for Fountain Square. Ms. Carroll said they think they are in the pipeline, and both had a zoning analysis. One has been before SPARC twice and the other one once. Ms. Carroll stated that staff thought if these were excluded from the moratorium, there is a need for a separate process to occur in order to evaluate these projects in terms of financial feasibility and impact to the infrastructure. If everything in downtown is excluded in the downtown moratorium, then the study wouldn't be done now but as part of the overall study. The City needs to be fair, whatever is done. The City has to make sure if they allow them to continue in the process that they have this analysis piece done by an outside real estate consultant who can give them some thoughts on the feasibility of one or both projects going forward. Alderman Tisdahl asked Finance Director Matt Grady the impact of this moratorium on Moody's rating since Moody's is visiting Evanston on Monday. Mr. Brady said the immediate impact would be little on the rating or none at all. Alderman Rainey stated the moratorium is being requested so they can have a calm period in which to discuss what they want the downtown to look like. Given a 180-day moratorium, when that moratorium ends, all they will have is a plan. They won't have new rules or regulations. It took more than two years to pass the last Zoning Ordinance. If they are going to include the properties discussed, they need a statement in the ordinance that the developers can count on that the moratorium will end. What is the point of including them if they won't have new rules by the time the moratorium expires? All they are doing with the planning is setting the stage for new legislation for downtown with new zoning text and map. They won't be ready to change the rules at that time. She asked how would this work. The West side moratorium lasted more than a year. That was the reason she feared the moratorium because of extending other moratoriums; thought it was unfair. If they are going to include the pending proposals, they need to provide an escape route. She noted a $50 million project on Howard St. Alderman Hansen clarified Section 4a would remain. They could have a PUD, but had not gotten a perfected building application then they would be encompassed within this moratorium. Mr. Hill said there were no properties that met that definition. Mr. Wolinski said there are none downtown. If they go through the planned development process, which the two towers and 1515 Chicago Avenue would have to do, that takes three to four months. If one or all of them were approved, construction drawings are prepared for several months after that, so around the end of the year they could get a perfected building permit application with everything required. Alderman Hansen favored the amendment. Alderman Wollin was not contacted by the developer at 1515 Chicago Avenue and was unaware of their plan. Alderman Hansen thought that these developers could continue on with the process even though a moratorium exists. Mr. Hill said Council could craft an ordinance that would allow any developer to proceed to the Plan Commission and just put the moratorium on the issuance of an order from the Plan Commission. A moratorium could be put on building permits but allow the process to go through the Plan Commission. Mr. Hill stated he misled Council in that 1881 Oak is the scenario that Alderman Hansen suggested. It does have a planned development but no building permit; was advised a building permit was applied for. If 1881 Oak was to proceed, the suggestion would be to modify the language in 4a to exempt situations where.a building permit has been applied for. Are there any other properties in that situation? Mr. Wolinski stated that 1603 Orrington's planned development was approved more than a year ago but has not been followed up. Alderman Bernstein stated if they pass the moratorium it will be a bad law and subject them to a cry from the development community that they don't honor their commitments. He knows the practice has been to declare people in the pipeline when they get a zoning analysis. Now, to the extent that they are telling people they were wrong, he thought they subject themselves to litigation and it is bad faith. His vision is to keep construction downtown and out of the neighborhoods. He stated Evanston is a semi -urban community, not a suburb and not the same Evanston that it once was. Evanston was changed to the extent that they thought they had to change in order to generate revenue and still has to do that. When Moody's comes out and hears about pensions that need funding and buildings that need resurrection, they will ask why the City is telling anybody they cannot come in. There seems to be a foregone conclusion that when a picture of a development appears in the paper it will be built. He noted they shot down the Optima development because it wasn't right for Evanston and one or both of the Fountain Square proposals could be shot down or maybe both will be accepted. Having citizens be involved in every project and continue to be involved is something Council has prided themselves on. His concern was that they would start a moratorium process and continue it over and over. He voted for a consultant to tell them whether the infrastructure can handle more and if traffic has to be re-routed. Evanston is a progressive Y3_3 11 June 11, 2007 community. The last Council made the decision that downtown was the priority. They have hired a consultant to work with them. He was against this moratorium and voted for all other moratoriums and extensions. This is the downtown that belongs to all. It has funded everything done in the City for the past nine years. No one takes anything for granted. All projects are subjected to incredible scrutiny. They don't have to rush to judgment on these projects. They will continue the vibrancy of the downtown. He may not vote for another high rise in downtown Evanston. Alderman Jean-Baptiste's position was a moratorium would sap the kind of dynamism that is creating the new downtown Evanston. Since being on the Council every discussion of a moratorium addressed being in the pipeline. Tonight to introduce the notion that they can start anew creates more confusion. He will vote to keep the pipeline. They have two proposals for Fountain Square that cannot co -exist. They will have to negotiate and work things out. They will engage in the process they have and determine what is feasible. Citizens will weigh in on the process. He did not think they get away with something by being excluded from the moratorium. The City has an open process and everyone can address the issues. He was against the amendment. Alderman Wollin acknowledged this would not be a fast process for anyone. There are huge numbers of citizens waiting to testify. How can the Plan Commission know what to approve or not approve when they don't have a plan for downtown or what the consultants will come up with. She thought they were putting them in a difficult position. She agreed they can begin the process, but there are no standards or criteria. How can the Plan Commission legitimately decide whether to move something forward when the consultants work is not done? 180 days is a relatively brief amount of time. People wanted to know if the plan is approved for Central Street, could the moratorium be killed right then. Everybody said yes. There was a desire not to keep extending moratoriums but to try to make them end legitimately. The West side moratorium ended May 18. She thought it unfair to the Plan Commission to be asked to make decisions when they aren't sure what the downtown plan is. Roll call on amendment to eliminate Section 4b. Voting aye — Tisdahl, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay — Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Rainey. Motion failed (3-4). Alderman Rainey said the Plan Commission, when it gets a case, is to consider the current law. They are getting ready to pass or defeat a bad law. She felt like a fool responding to citizens with the advice she got from the City Manager's office; suggested Council put a hold on this for two weeks to direct staff to come back and involve Jack Siegel and get some hard core advice and direction. Give them something they can unite behind. She thought she could rely on staffbut they did not have all the facts and she moved to hold this over. Alderman Holmes hoped that Council would pass the moratorium because it is important. That was why she did not vote to exclude Section 4b; did not want to see other plans coming before them. She supported the moratorium with the exclusion of the two projects. Alderman Bernstein said with the defeat of the amendment, there was no reason for a moratorium. The people who want a moratorium want to preclude Council from talking about the two towers. The Plan Commission will follow the law when they hear anything; will meet with planners and give their impression and receive impressions. The development community will be here with the planning team and will take their lead from what is happening. He thought it exciting that they will have a planning team to help them with anything that comes through. If they talk about the two Fountain Square projects, that would be helpful to Council members. 1515 Chicago is also there as they have applied for a zoning analysis. Their biggest construction projects are already in the pipeline and they won't vote on these projects in the next two weeks; will listen to all the facts and what the analysis shows. He will vote against the moratorium. Alderman Jean -Baptiste said at this time the right thing is to support the moratorium, move forward and give all peace of mind. The moratorium makes a difference to many people. The City has invested in consultants and they have past . practice to rely upon. He thought it important to move in concert as the planning is being done. The City has always had a moratorium when they do planning. Alderman Tisdahl said this evening was a perfect example of why she needs the moratorium because she needed some planning. She did not need to hear that a pipeline, in which she always believed was an illusion, except that now they 43'1 12 June 11, 2007 have voted it in and it is back again. She was always told that if a project was in the pipeline it was not covered by the moratorium. She needs a planning process so that she has some idea of what is going on. This meeting was a clear example that Council needed help. Alderman Rainey was going to vote for the moratorium; asked the City Manager to come back with an analysis of this ordinance with recommendations from Jack Siegel about what they have done. Let them know if any parts of this ordinance need to be repaired. This evening was an embarrassment to her and to her colleagues. Alderman Bernstein said the object of a moratorium is to preclude anyone from coming into the pipeline even for projects that are as of right. He did not know if anyone would object to someone building a four-story building downtown. He asked how long would it take to get through these processes. He did not think they would ask the Plan Commission to meet with planners and to quadruple their meetings to accelerate the process. So the moratorium will only preclude projects as of right from going forward because everybody else is asking for more than they are entitled to. The moratorium stops everything. They would have time and highly paid consultants to help them He thought the moratorium sends a mixed message. Ms. Carroll stated they would speak to Jack Siegel; was under the same impression as Council about the pipeline so that was a revelation to her. It was a distinction in law that she did not necessarily understand. She advised them to change their standard; did not think having a zoning analysis was sufficient to consider that a project was in the pipeline. She thought the right thing is either a PUD application or an approved project from the Plan Commission. She pointed out that anybody can come in for a zoning analysis. Because that was what had been used, she let it go on the agenda. She saw this as an opportunity that Council needed to change the standard and was important to be done. Alderman Wollin said when Council met last Thursday with the Plan Commission and talked with the consultants about what they wanted to see downtown, they talked about form -based zoning, green space, setbacks and pedestrian friendly. It does not mean that as of right that they would get the kind of buildings they want. They would rather have better architecture, greater setbacks, things that make the downtown friendly. She wants to stop projects even though they are of right because there may be a better way. There is a reason for a moratorium and that is to meet certain standards. Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen,W ollin. Voting nay — Bernstein. Motion carried Alderman -Rainey asked what would happen if a developer came in with a project. Mr. Wolinski explained that staff does not accept applications if there is a moratorium. Alderman Jean -Baptiste suggested the City publish notice of a moratorium and to accept applications but not go forward until the moratorium ends. HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: Resolution 28-R-07 — Seeks Comprehensive School Reform. — Consideration of Resolution 28-R-07, which requests that Evanston's representatives to the Illinois General Assembly pursue comprehensive Illinois public school finance reform. Alderman Tisdahl reported the Human Services Committee had made changes to Resolution 28-R-07 prepared by the school districts. She asked that on Page 3 paragraph E to remove "including adjustments to State Income Tax and Sales Tax" so the City's resolution is the same as Districts' 65 and 202. She remarked that the sales tax is particularly regressive. Part of the point of this is to have funds for youth living in poverty and asking poor people to pay a share of that seemed ridiculous. Alderman Jean -Baptiste said that Alderman Moran advocated that change and asked to hold it over. Seconded by Alderman Bernstein. Alderman Bernstein withdrew his second due to the need to get this resolution to the legislature while it is in session. Alderman Tisdahl moved approval of Resolution 28-R-07. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried, no nays. Ordinance 41-0-07 — Annual Township Budget — Consideration of proposed Ordinance 41-0-07, introduced May 14, 2007, whereby the City Council; acting as Township Trustees, approve the annual y35 13 June 11, 2007 budget of Evanston Township for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008, in the amount of $1,329,912. At this time Mayor Morton declared that the Council was meeting as Evanston Township Trustees. Trustee Holmes moved approval of Ordinance 41-0-07. Seconded by Trustee Jean -Baptiste. Trustee Bernstein addressed Township Assessor Eckersall regarding responses to his questions on the assessor's budget. She answered his questions; pointed out that trustees cannot carve out line items. Trustees Bernstein and Jean -Baptiste discussed various expenses with the assessor. Trustee Rainey moved to reduce the Township Assessor's office budget by $54,800 and deduct that amount from the Town Fund, reducing that fund to $307,903. Seconded by Trustee Bernstein. Trustee Rainey noted trustees had received a letter from the assessor stating that the deputy assessor was not getting things done; urged retention of the part-time assistant; stated this office needs to be reformed and saw no huge demands coming. Trustee Rainey clarified that this reduction was not to eliminate the deputy assessor position because there is $112, 447 in funds for the assessor's office. Voice vote on the reduction to the Assessor's Office, motion carried. no nays. Roll call on the Township Assessor's Budget of $112,447. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay — none. Motion carried (7-0). Roll call on the Township Budget. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay — none. Motion carried (7-0). CALL OF THE WARDS: 2"d Ward. Alderman Jean -Baptiste reported meeting with management of the movie theater, Wolfgang Puck restaurant, police, Optima Views' condominium association president and security personnel at the garage to discuss summer and the need to maintain civility in the theater district. The City took the initiative to develop some colorful brochures by Sheila McCorkle, Youth Engagement Coordinator, that were distributed at schools to try to get youth to accept codes of behavior that are safe and positive for them. If they see young people acting up, he urged them to intervene. Alternative activities are planned for youth. 41h Ward. Alderman Bernstein invited all to the upcoming Custer Street Fair. 5`h Ward. Alderman Holmes announced a public meeting Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. at Fleetwood-Jourdain to discuss redevelopment of the area. She noted Tuesday, June 19 there would be a special Human Services Committee meeting to discuss the possibility of a Citizen Review Board for the Police Department. There will be a 5`h Ward meeting on Thursday, June 14. On June 24, at 4:00 p.m. Unity Scholarships will be celebrated at the Second Baptist Church 7`h Ward. Alderman Tisdahl reminded 6`h and 7`h ward residents in particular, that the Plan Commission will discuss the Central Street Plan on Wednesday evening. 15` Ward. Alderman Wollin pointed out a June 21 meeting on downtown planning in the Civic Center's Parasol Room. At 11:33 p.m. Alderman Bernstein moved that Council convene into a Executive Session to discuss matters of litigation and closed session minutes pursuant to 5 Illinois Compiled Statutes 120/2 ( c) (1), (2), (11) and (2 1) as follows: 2. All meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings except for the following: (1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. (2) Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. q3b 14 June 11, 2007 (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (2 1 ) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section2.06. Seconded by Alderman Hansen. Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Bernstein, Holmes, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —none. Motion carried (7-0). There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Morton asked for a motion to adjourn and the Council so moved at 12:10 a.m. Mary P. Morris, City Clerk A videotape recording of this meeting has been made part of the permanent record and is available in the City Clerk's office. 1