The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 1991DRAFT - NOT APPROVED Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of January 23, 1991 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: SUMMARY OF ACTION: I. Call to order Room 2403 7:45 F.M. Alderman Nelson, Chair; Alderman Feldman, Howard Melton, Wayne McCoy Alderman Davis, Alderman Juliar, Alderman Korshak, Alex Darragh, Scott Peters Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. II. Minutes Lacking a quorum, consideration for approval of the minutes of November 28, 1990 was deferred until the next meeting. III. Communications Alderman Nelson acknowledged communication of the Downtown Idea Exchange for November and December, 1990. IV. Downtown Storefront Imorovement Proaram, Given the absence of five members, this presentation was deferred until the next meeting. -2, The members present adjourned into Executive Session at 8:30 P.M. to discuss land acquisition. The public meeting was reconvoned at 9:35 P.M. and immediately adjourned. axt Meetina: Wednesday, February 27, 1991 at 7:45 P.M. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. . -U ❑ennis Marino Economic Development Planner office of the City Manager DM/cw I Members Present: Members Absent: Guest: staff Present: gummary of Action: DRAFT - NOT APPROVED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of February 27, 1991 MINUTES Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Davis, Feldman, Juliar, & Rorshak; Alex Darragh, Wayne McCoy; Howard Melton Scott Peters Alderman Lanyon Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:55 P.M. The minutes of the November 28, 1990 and the January 23, 1991 meetings were approved as drafted by unanimous vote. The receipt of the January, 1991 issue of the Downtown Idea Exchange was acknowledged. Downtown storefront Improvement Program Judith Aiello summarized the City's new Downtown Facade Program which had been approved for 560,600 in funding from the Community Development Block Grant Funding (CDBG) for Fiscal Year 1991-92. The creation of this program was based on three factors: the success of the Neighborhood Storefront program; the potential positive impact of the program on downtown retailing; and a recommendation to establish such a program in the Plan for Downtown Evanston, which was approved by City Council in October, 1990. Tim Clarke, the Coordinator of the Neighborhood Facade Program, is preparing marketing materials for the Downtown Program to be distributed to potential applicants and intermediary organizations such as Evmark. -2- Neiighborhood Storefront Impovement Program The Neighborhood Facade Program, which has been in existence for eight years, was the subject of a detailed presentation by Tim Clarke. To date, the program has improved 80 storefronts at a cost of S226,659 to the City, while leveraging S41.9,782 in private investment by commercial property owners. The program operates in the City's six eligible commercial districts (based on CD$G criteria) by providing a grant to participants equal to 50% of the direct cost of storefront improvements. The maximum grant is currently S10,000 per storefront and $40,000 per building. In addition to financial incentives, the program provides design guidance to ensure that attractive and appropriate improvements are made which are compatible with the surrounding retail district, and that the improvements enhance the image of the property. Proposed improvements are reviewed within the parameters of each project's budget on a case -by -case basis for compliance with design guidelines. In some cases, active design assistance is provided through the City. Questions raised by members included the receptiveness of applicants to design guidelines (Alderman Davis); the level of architectural assistance (Alderman Feldman); the distinction between the facade programs of the City and the Evanston Community Development Corporation (ECDC) (Alderman Korshak); and the extent of consultation with the Preservation Commission (Alderman Feldman). Tim Clarke responded that most applicants were receptive to the design guidelines, although there were occasional conflicts which had generally been resolved satisfactorily. The level of architectural assistance includes referrals to several Evanston architects, and assistance from City staff in interpreting the design guidelines. The ECDC grant program is a 100% grant program up to $7,500; above $7,500 it requires the owner's investment in the EL improvement to match ECDC's grant on a dollar -for --dollar basis. The City's program requires a dollar -for -dollar match for all applicants starting with the first grant dollar. Mr. Clarke explained that a goal of the City's program is to s restore older properties to their original historic elegance. The design standards strongly encourage this outcome which is supported enthusiastically by historic preservationists, including the Preservation Commission. z -3- A slide show was then presented by Mr. Clarke which highlighted the numerous storefronts which had been rehabilitated through the program. Additional comments by members included a suggestion by Alderman Davin that the presentation be more widely shared with local busineu.r. associations. Alderman Nelson suggested that Central Streets area businesses should be encouraged to attend a presentation about facade improvement despite the fact that the area is ineligible for the current program. Ile suggested that other sources of financing might be examined for an initiative on Central Street. A final issue was raised about the high labor cost under the program because it had been interpreted by the City of Evanston to be subject to the Federal Davis -Bacon statute which requires the payment of prevailing wages for all Federally funded projects. Tim Clarke stated that the City of Chicago, unlike Evanston, does not enforce Davis -Bacon wage standards aggressively in its Facade Rebate Program. The Committee adjourned at 8:35 P.M., by unanimous vote, into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. The public meeting was reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Green Bav Road Reconstruction Beginning in September, 1991, the City of Evanston will reconstruct Green Bay Road from Emerson to Livingston. The construction project will include sewers and water improvements as well as reconstructed streets. Howard Melton raised this topic under new business and stated his concern that the project may disrupt the businesses along Green Bay Road. He was especially concerned about access to driveways and customer parking lots. The committee supported Mr. Melton's resolution that the Green Bay Road businesses should not lose customer access to their parking lots during the period of reconstruction. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Dennis Marino Economic Development Planner DM/cw A Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: summary of ,Action: DRAFT - NOT APPROVED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of April. 24, 1991 Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Davis, Engelman, and Newman; Howard Melton, Scott Peters Alderman Feldman, Alex Darragh, Wayne McCoy Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino Chairman Nelson convened the meeting at 7:50 P.M. self introduction of members and staff occurred. The receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange Summary for February and March was acknowledged. Proposed Resolution - Vacation of Allevwav in Research Park Alderman Nelson stated the importance of vacating the public alley north of University Place and south of Emerson Street for three reasons: to increase tax revenue to the city for the Research Park; to increase lease payments from the Shaw Company to the Research Park; and to fulfill the City's obligations under the terms of the Master Plan for the Research Park. In summarizing the historical chronology of previous attempts to vacate the subject alley, Alderman Nelson cited the following actions. 1. In September 1988, a recommendation to vacate the public alley north of University Place and south of Emerson Street was brought to the Administration & Public Works Committee. The Ordinance for the vacation of the alley was defeated, and the Ordinance for the dedication of the new public alley was approved. The latter Ordinance was later vetoed by the Mayor. 2. In June 1989, the Mayor's Special Committee on the Research Park reviewed and recommended the vacation and dedication of this alley and all the other streets and alleys in the Research (park which either must be vacated or dedicated in the future. 3. This matter was introduced to the City Council in June 1989, tabled in August 1989, and finally defeated on March 12, 1990. -2- staff was requested to confirm that a 2/3 Council vote is required for public alley vacation and to seek the cooperation and support of Michael Ward, who is the remaining private property owner affected by the vacation. A resolution was passed unanimously instructing staff to prepare appropriate ordinances for the vacation of the alley to be reviewed at the next committee meeting. Alderman Newman asked for a description of the role of Mayer, Brown and Platt in the Research Park. Alderman Nelson responded that the firm represented Research Park, Inc. (RPI) and was paid, at a reduced rate, by RPI for any services provided. Ideas for 1991 Work Plan Alderman Nelson summarized the procedures used by the EDC to prioritize economic development issues. In 1989, the Committee identified two major areas of concentration for the following two years. These were: the southwest Area from Main to Howard and from Hartrey to McCormick; and the neighborhood business districts and the Downtown area. Judith Aiello highlighted the activities in the following areas: Howard Street, Chicago -Main and Chicago -Dempster. In each area, the facade improvement program (see February 27, 1991 EDC minutes) was the major City initiative to stimulate private investment. In the Howard Street area, the City assisted a small merchants group and is currently conducting a survey of business conditions. Discussions of mutual interest have also occurred between the City of Evanston and the Howard-Paulina Development Corporation which operates on the Chicago side of Howard Street. The City assisted Northlight Theatre with its relocation to Chicago Avenue near Main Street, and plans to continue to assist Northlight, where possible. The Downtown area is the major commercial area focus for 1991, highlighted by a new facade program modeled on the successful neighborhood facade program. The City plans to expose Central Street Merchants to the facade improvement program by working with an architect to prepare a drawing of how the facades of one or more blocks of Central Street could be improved. The Central Street area, unlike the Community Development Block Grant eligible areas cited previously, is not eligible for the financial assistance provided through the City's existing facade program. -3- A suggestion was made that a future meeting of the EDC should start 30 minutes early to provide an opportunity for new Committee members to receive an orientation about the facade program. Members were encouraged by Chairman Nelson to present, at the May meeting of the Committee, their respective economic developent priorities for the next two years. L4otion to Authorize Negotiated Sale of Land A motion was made by Alderman Davis, and seconded by Howard Melton, to recommend to the City Council the approval of a negotiated sale of City -owned vacant land located in the Southwest Tax Increment Financing District. Committee members present approved the resolution unanimously. Other Business Members were encouraged by Scott Peters to attend a joint meeting of the Zoning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee to discuss the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be on May 13, 1991. The next meeting of the Economic Development Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, May 22, 1991 at 7:45 P.M. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Economic Development Planner DM/cw APPROVED MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 22, 1991 Members Present: Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Davis, Engelman, Feldman and Newman; Jim Currie, Wayne McCoy; Howard Melton Members Absent: Scott Peters Guest: Alderman Jonathan Fiske staff Present: Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino Summary of Action: Chairman Nelson convened the meeting at 7:50 P.M. The minutes of the February 27, 1991 and April 24, 1991 meetings were approved as drafted. The receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange summaries for April and May was acknowledged. Proposed Zoni.na Orda.nance Revisions and Design Review A memorandum from the Planning and Development Committee on the Proposed Zoning ordinance Review Process was acknowledged and briefly discussed. Alderman Nelson summarized that the Economic Development Committee had analyzed previous drafts of the proposed zoning revisions and had made numerous suggested changes and additions. Alderman Engelman raised two concerns to be discussed at the next committee meeting: the impact of maintaining the Southwest Area of the City as industrial when most recent development plans have been commercial; and the demand by local residents for more substantial buffer zones between residential and commercial areas. The Proposed zoning ordinance revisions and related issues will be discussed at the June Committee meeting. Members were encouraged to attend the June 3, 1991 public hearing on the proposed revisions. Members also briefly discussed the Proposed Design Review Process. Alderman Nelson explained that the process will not be compulsory and that it will not apply to single-family residential property. The process will involve a non -binding, advisory review by the Site Plan Review Committee. New committee members were referred to previous correspondence between the Economic Development Committee and the Planning and Development Committee regarding the potential economic development impact of Design Review. -2- Alderman Newman asked if Design Review had hurt economic development in other communities. Judith Aiello stated that developers were not adverse to reasonable design review with fifteen day review limitations and appropriate guidelines that do not mandate specific construction materials. Howard Melton stated that he is supportive of the process because it is non- binding. Central Street Facade Improvement Study In response to a presentation on the success of the storefront improvement program made during a previous committee meeting, several members suggested expanding the use of the program. One of the areas suggested for potential storefront improvements was Central street which is not eligible for the Community Development Block Grant funded program which operates on other commercial streets in Evanston. Consequently, Alderman Nelson suggested that the City contract with a local architect to prepare architectural renderings of how a block or two of Central Street might be improved with consistent facade improvements. In response, staff contacted architects who have designed new facades under the existing storefront improvement program. A proposal was received from David Galloway to conduct a facade improvement study for the Central street Business Area between Green Bay Road and Hartrey Street. Mr. Galloway will generate two products for the block of 1900-1915 Central Street: a photographic compilation of the existing state of the facades; and a black line and color drawings at approximately 1/8 the scale of a design for the facades. A list of the proposed work for the facades will accompany each drawing. The completed drawings will be presented to a meeting of Central street merchants to encourage storefront improvements. The Committee unanimously agreed to contract with Mr. Galloway for $1,500 to do the drawings of 1900-1915 Central Street. Research Park Alley vacations, In response to a resolution unanimously approved by the Economic Development Committee during its April meeting, staff presented two proposed ordinances (54-0-91 and 55-0-91) for consideration which would vacate the east -west alleyway located in the Research Park south of Emerson Street and north of University Place. Vacation of this alleyway is necessary to carry out the Research Park Master Plan and to return to the tax rolls unneeded public property. -3- Ordinance 55-0-91 would vacate that portion of the alleyway which is east of oak Avenue and West of Maple Avenue. Vacation of this portion of the alleyway will transfer partial ownership of the alleyway to the 1890 Maple and 1033 University Place development parcels, which upon transfer become taxable property. The remainder of this alleyway will be retained and assembled with adjoining land for later development in accordance with the master plan for the Research Park. Ordinance 54-0-91 would vacate that portion of the alleyway which is west of Oak Avenue and east of East Railroad Avenue. Vacation of this alleyway would transfer some of the ownership to the Enterprise Building and some would be retained by the City for land assembly into development parcels with adjoining City - acquired land. However, since the City has not yet acquired the Ward Manufacturing facility, passage of Ordinance 54-0--91 at this time would transfer a portion of the alleyway to Ward. The alley vacation has been discussed with Mr. Ward. He is willing to quit claim his interest to the City of any alley property and forego compensation. Mr. Ward's attorney is drafting a letter confirming the above agreement. A motion was made by Wayne McCoy and seconded by Howard Melton to recommend Ordinance 54-0-91 for Council approval. Alderman Newman asked if Alderman nelson had knowledge of sufficient support within Council to pass the ordinance as proposed. Alderman Nelson stated that there will be substantial support for the ordinance and that taxpayers are affected negatively by this property continuing to be tax-exempt. Wayne McCoy stated that this ordinance should leave the Committee with the strongest possible endorsement and sense of urgency. This ordinance is primarily an economic development issue and represents the implementation of a development initiative committed to by the City. Alderman Feldman stated that he could not think of any reason why this vacation should not occur given that it represents an economic development priority. Alderman Newman stated that he would vote for recommending the ordinance out of Committee in deference to Chairman Nelson's work on behalf of the Research Park. The vote was unanimous (8--0) without any abstentions. A motion was made by Wayne McCoy to recommend the approval of ordinance 55--0-91. A second to the motion was made by Jim Currie. Alderman Newman stated that he believed the appropriate procedure would be to refer the proposed ordinance to the Administration and Public Works Committee. He recommended that this occur. The motion was approved unanimously (8-0) without any abstentions. - -4- Kconomic Development Priorities - Two Year Work Plan Alderman Nelson made reference to a list of priorities he had drafted for Conunittee consideration and opened the floor for proposals by other Committee members. The following indicates priorities suggested by each Committee member. Alderman Nelson: Sherman Avenue Parking Garage -- explore elimination of front entrance and placement of storefronts on Sherman Avenue; Main Street Parking - mixed use garage; CBD plan; complete development in Southwest TIF; retain Washington National Insurance company in Evanston. Alderman Davis: Complete implementation of the Research Park; Main street Parking and the retention of Northlight Theatre. Alderman Feldman: Northlight Theatre Redevelopment; Southwest Redevelopment area; Howard Street improvements. Wavne McCov: Retention of Northlight Theatre; promotion of economic development linkages with hospitals, especially with the Research Park; conduct outreach effort to the City's ten largest employers and ten largest taxpayers; encourage cooperative staff effort with school Districts 65 and 202. Howard Melton: Central Business District is the greatest problem in town - not enough has been done. Alderman Enoelman: The hospitals, one of the City's greatest assets, are not marketed sufficiently to generate spin-off economic development possibilities. Alderman Newman: Noyes Street; Central Business District. -5- The following subcommittees were appointed_ to address the Committee's priorities. Prioritv Groun I 1. Southwest Area Redevelopment - Jim Currie and Alderman FEldman 2. Central Business District - Alderman Newman, Wayne McCoy, Howard Melton 3. Main Street/Northlight Theatre - Alderman Davis and Alderman Feldman 4. Retention of Washington National -- Alderman Nelson and Alderman Engelman Prioritv GrouD II 5. Research Park - Alderman Nelson, Jim Currie, Wayne McCoy 6. Central Street - Alderman Engelman and Wayne McCoy 7. Noyes Street - Alderman Newman Alderman Nelson agreed to speak with the Mayor about the suggested outreach effort with the ten largest employers and the ten largest taxpayers. Within two months, (July EDC meeting) the subcommittees should have developed work plans for the next two years. r -6- Other Business I. Alderman Feldman requested that the impact of the new sewer plan on commercial users be discussed at the June EDC meeting. 2. Alderman Newman requested that staff investigate the tax status of 824-828 Noyes Street. This is a commercial property which is located on land owned by Northwestern University. 3. Jim Currie described the work of the Plan Commission in neighborhood commercial areas. He invited EDC members to join with Plan Commission members while they are conducting walking tours to determine the conditions of the areas. He agreed to inform the EDC of the Plan Commission's ongoing activities in this area. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Drt/cw Economic Development Planner Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Summary of Action: DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUKE 12, 1991 Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Engelman, Feldman, and Newman; Wayne McCoy, Howard Melton and Scott Peters Alderman Davis, Jim Currie Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino Chairman Nelson convened the meeting at 6:35 P.M. Howard Melton motioned to enter into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. The motion was seconded by Alderman Engelman and approved unanimously (6-0, Scott Peters not present). The public meeting was reconvened at 8:25 P.M. and adjourned at 8:26 P.M. Economic Development Planner DM/cw t � Members Present: Members Absent: Guests: staff: Summary of Action: MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of July 10, 1991 Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Engelman, Feldman and Newman; Howard Melton Jim Currie, Alderman Davis, Wayne McCoy, Scott Peters Donald Kane, Leslie Griffith Murphy Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino The meeting was convened at 7:55 P.M. by Chairman Nelson. The minutes of the May 22, 1991 meeting were approved (5-0) as drafted with the following changes requested by Alderman Neurman in order to reflect accurately comments he had made at the meeting. 1) The clarification that Alderman Newman voted for passing the proposed alley vacation ordinance "out of committee" in deference to Chairman Nelson's work on behalf of the Research Park. 2) Alderman Newman stated that he believed the appropriate procedure would be to refer the proposed ordinance to the Administration and Public Works Committee. He recommended that this occur. At 8:00 P.M., Alderman Engelman motioned for the Committee to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. The motion received a second from Howard Melton and was approved unanimously (6-0). At 9:00 P.M., the public meeting was reconvened. - 2-- Hoover Petition to Amppd Section 6-2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to Modify the Definition" of Building. Height Of In response to a reference from the Planning and Development Committee, members discussed the potential economic impact of the proposed Amendment to the Zoning ordinance to modify the Definition of Building, Height of, by the Zoning Amendment Committee. Currently, the Zoning ordinance excludes from the calculation of building height those floors where 75% are dedicated to the required parking for the development. In addition, the Zoning ordinance does not exempt towers, elevator penthouses, and tanks from the height definition. The purpose as outlined in the staff report for the amendment was to provide a means to create additional off-street parking without increasing the FARs. The Zoning Amendment Committee recommended to the Planning and Development Committee, that Section 6--2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Definition of Building, Height of, be revised to read: The perpendicular distance of the center of a building principal front measured from the established grade to the highpoint of the roof for a flat roof, and to the mean height level of a gable, hip or gamble roof. Chimneys and spires shall not be included in caclulating the building height. The height of any story of a building shall be excluded from the calculation of building height when 75% or more of the gross floor area of said story consists of parking required for the building, except in residential districts B1, C1, and U1 Zoning Districts or on property located within 150 feet exclusive of public rights of way, of properties zoned residential, B1, C1, or U1. Judith Aiello summarized a staff recommendation to the Economic Development Committee that it cannot support the proposed amendment because it would have a negative impact on commercial and residential real estate development. Judith stated that in a community as densely populated and developed as Evanston, the cost of land is very high and parking a very necessary component of a development. If the building height is not exempted to allow for the required parking, many potential development projects would not occur. For example, the development at Church and Chicago would not have been permissible if the exemption had been deleted. -3- Alderman Newman responded by stating that the proposed amendment does address a significant community problem where A-1 areas abut major commercial property. As an example, he cited the problem with reconstruction work at 500 Davis Street where local homeowners have been troubled by noise from jackhammers in the evening when maintenance work occurs on the garage. This has bben occurring for several weeks, five days por. week. This is a legal activity under existing ordinances. Alderman Feldman responded that whale this noise problem should be corrected by amending existing ordinances, it is not related to the height of the building which iG addressed by the Hoover Petition. Alderman Newman responded by stating that larger buildings require more maintenance and more work after business hours. Alderman Nelson stated that the proposed amendment would prohibit potential residential redevelopment along Chicago Avenue if the car dealerships continue to leave Evanston. Alderman Engelman responded that the petition would not prohibit residential development, it would require a height variation, including a public hearing. Judith Aiello responded that if developers are not able to build "as of right" per the ordinance, then uncertainty is created including potential loss of time and money in seeking a variation. Such uncertainty may lead to a firm deciding to develop property outside of Evanston on a competitive basis. Alderman Feldman stated that given that certain corridors of the City are seeking to attract development, that this amendment was not desirable. He felt that the 500 Davis Street problem described earlier is serious, but should be mitigated through appropriate regulatory and legislative action. Alderman Feldman also was concerned that the proposed amendment restricted the range of desirable options available for redeveloping Chicago Avenue. Alderman Engelman commented that he too wanted to encourage development, but the City needed to find a method for minimizing the transition between a single-family home and a seven -story structure. 11 -4- Alderman Nelson, while stating his sympathy for residents affected br the work at 500 Davis, acknowledged that Evanston is a city, part -.of an urban environment where the alley is often the transitional area between land uses. He contended that, in effect, prohibiting development through height restrictions, combined with substantial parking requirements, was not in the best interest of taxpayers. Alderman Newman added that he believed the proposed amendment would not necessarily discourage development. Alderman Nelson asked what other communities had done to address this problem. Judith Aiello observed that other communities in the area have lower parking requirements than Evanston. Alderman Engelman stated that the entire transitional zone issue cannot be addressed prudently on a piecemeal basis. Instead, it needs to be confronted on a comprehensive basis which should begin with the preparation of a transitional area map which would highlight where problems exist or where potential problems might arise. Other members observed that the transition problem is an issue that should have been addressed by the Zoning Commission. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments were viewed as lacking vision or consideration of future development options, especially for Chicago Avenue and key arterial east -west streets. The Committee decided to continue discussion of this issue at a subsequent meeting. Review of Economic Impact of Proposed Zoni,na Ordinance Revisions Judith Aiello began the discussion by highlighting each relevant chapter of the proposed revision of the zoning ordinance. Chanter 4 - General Provisions Given the proposed changes regarding FAR in I-1 Districts, which would make numerous properties non --conforming structures, members were concerned about the language proposed for 4.1.7 (a) -5- 1) General use and Hulk Contxo�s. Control over Use: 111) Except as hereinafter provided, no lot, building, structure, or premises, shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building, structure or premises or part thereof shall be erected, razed, moved, reconstructed, extended or enlarged except in conformity with the regulations and requirements herein specified for the district in which it is located." Members believed that the above language, combined with the proposed minimum F.A.R. would restrict the ability of manufacturers to expand or sell their property, thereby reducing the value of the properties affected. This was observed by Alderman Feldman to be in conflict with the economic development policy of the City and the purpose of this committee. He stated that we should be doing everything possible to expedite development and become more of a user-friendly city to developers and businesses. Judith Aiello also expressed concern about the requirements of 4.1.7 (a) (2 ) which affects the use of two or more adjoining lots held in common ownership. Judith was concerned that requiring a plat of consolidation to be finalized before issuing a building permit would delay development. With regard to 4.1.7 (b) Control over Hulk, members were concerned that the proposed revisions in F.A.R. for I-1 Districts would unwisely restrict and/or complicate the ability of manufacturing uses to expand. Members briefly discussed the need limits for processing variations and Alderman Engelman noted that there was way the time limits for special uses and A hearing for a special use must be application completion while notice of a must be published within 30 days of application. He believed that hearing s Members agreed that there should be a specific and consistent time limit on all hearing procedures. Alderman Newman stated that he would like the processing and approval of building permits to be discussed at a future Committee meeting. ghanter 6: Nonronformina Uses, Buildinas and Structures Regarding proposed changes in the F.A.R. of Industrial Districts,.members expressed concern about restrictions imposed on non -conforming properties occupied by manufacturers. Under the current draft, such properties would lose their non- conforming status if the properties were to be vacant for one year. Members proposed that a non -conforming property be able to receive renewal of its status for at least a second year if the property has been vacant for one year. In addition, 6.3.1 and 6.3.4 prohibit the expansion of non- conforming structures. The restriction was viewed as inconsistent with the City's economic development goals which seek to promote expansion of light industry. Judith Aiello observed that the proposed rezoning of the M-1 District, which includes Dickson Weatherproof Nail Company (located at 1900 Greenwood), to C-2 makes several manufacturers non -conforming users. Reference was made to the letter from Charles Dickson which had been included in the Committee packet, requesting that this proposed rezoning not occur and that the proposed F.A.R. for I-1 Districts is far too low. Members agreed that the area including Dickson Nail Company should not be rezoned to C-2. Instead, it should he an I--1 District. Members also agreed that permissible F.A.R.'s in I-1 Districts should be 1.0, not 0.45. Chanter 9: Business Districts The current draft of proposed zoning revisions with regard to permitted F.A.R.'s now reflects the Committee's previous recommendations regarding the Central Business District. In addition, members agreed with a recommendation made by Judith Aiello that the revisions should not exclude cleaners and tailors from the Central Business District. Members also believed that the current draft inappropriately excludes child care as a permitted use in the Central Business District. Chapter 10: Commercial Districts Alderman Engelman noted that Evanston Paint and Glass was rezoned to C--1 from C--2; it should continue to be zoned in a manner that permits the owners to redevelop their property with dwelling units above the first floor. Alderman Nelson remarked that all C-2 Districts need to encourage pedestrian -type. access. Incentives should be awarded for all ground floor retail uses. i _7_ Members next discussed the redevelopment needs of Chicago Avenue and the impact of the proposed zoning revisions upon potential redevelopment. The likelihood of residential development along Chicago Avenue was discussed and viewed as a positive poNsibility. The current proposed revisions permit residential .,development on the east side of Chicago Avenue, but not on the west side. This should be changed to permit residential development on both sides of the street. Howard Melton contended that the proposed zoning map is too much of a hodgepodge. He suggested that the City needs to be more visionary, especially with regard to Chicago Avenue. He contended that mixed use development with the following characteristics should be considered: auto dealers on the first floor of a mid -rise building which also includes residential and office uses, as well as parking, on upper floors. Alderman Nelson stated that developers should receive credits for doing a good job of redeveloping areas which are in transition from an historic usage pattern to a new set of property uses. These should -include ground floor uses which are _ pedestrian friendly, and extra screening and extra berming should be encouraged where they enhance a given street or neighborhood. Members agreed that the current proposed zoning revisions do not appear to be based on a given vision of what the City wants commercial areas to be, other than what they are now. Alderman Engelman stated that the Economic Development Committee should present alternative scenarios of what selected areas of the City should or could become. Alderman Nelson responded by encouraging members to identify resource people who might help the Committee address alternative and realistic visions of Evanston's future economic base, including downtown, commercial corridors, neighborhood business districts and industrial areas. Alderman Nelson stated that developers need more flexibility to move from commercial to residential uses in commercial and business zones. Chavter 11 - Industrial Districts, An F.A.R. of 0.45 in Industrial Districts is too low. An F.A.R. of 0.95 or 1.0 was viewed as appropriate. Alderman Nelson suggested that the definition of Recycling Centers be re-examined _ to exclude "car recyclers" which are really junkyards. He commented that given the rapid changes in the recycling industry, the definition of recycling must be crafted carefully. VO • Alderman Nelson also proposed that shopping centers should • be permitted. uses in I-2 Districts, not special uses as currently proposed. ' Members agreed to revisit the zoning review at a future meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11.15 P.M. DMjcw Economic Development Planner' - MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Members Present: Members Absent: Guests: Staff : Summary of Action: Meeting of August 21, 1991 Alderman Nelson, chair; Aldermen Feldman and Newman; Wayne McCoy, Howard Melton Jim Currie, Alderman Davis, Alderman Engelman, Scott Peters Donald Kane, Leslie Griffith Murphy Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino The meeting was convened at 7:55 P.M. by Chairman Nelson. The minutes of the July 10, 1991 Economic Development Committee meeting were approved (5-0) as drafted. The notice from the Zoning Amendment Committee concerning an upcoming meeting was acknowledged. Receipt of the Downtown idea Exchange Executive Summary was also recognized. Alderman Nelson introduced representatives of the Plan Commission including Al Belmonte, Chair, Drew Patterson and Charmain Borys, Interim Planning Director. Al Belmonte began the discussion of the proposed zoning revisions impact on downtown by thanking the Committee for the opportunity to present the Plan commission's concerns and alternatives to the current draft of the proposed revisions. The Plan Commission is concerned that the proposed F.A.R. of 7.0 for the downtown area could lead to overbuilding and have a negative impact on downtown. Belmonte stated that if the downtown were to be built out to a 7.0 F.A.R, the existing infrastructure, especially streets and parking, would not be able to service the increased pressure. Mr. Belmonte also expressed concerns about the aesthetic consequences of development built out to a 7.0 F.A.R. Such development was also viewed as negatively affecting residential areas adjacent to downtown. The Plan Commission views an F.A.R. of 5.0 as of right as desirable, with certain sites in need of development capable of supporting more substantial development permitted to have an F.A.R. greater than 5.0. -z- Mr. Belmonte presented a map (Attachment A to minutes) prepared by the Plan Commission which identified target redevelopment parcels where F.A.R. Is greater than 5.0 could be permitted. Each of these sites was reported to possess a locational advantage for higher density development, e.g., nearby public transit, key intersection, adjacent to a public parking garage. It was they contention of the Plan Commission that the map reflects what future downtown zoning should be. Mr. Belmonte cautioned that no one should exclusively focus on whether the F.A.R. should be 5.0 or 7.0. Under current market conditions, he added, it is unlikely that the downtown area would be built out to 7.0 F.A.R. anyway. Mr. Belmonte emphasized that the real issue is how future downtown development can co -exist properly with existing development. He recommended that a variation of the referenced map should be used through an appropriate zoning mechanism to target redevelopment. Alderman Nelson questioned which limited areas of the map would permit more intensive development. Mr. Belmonte responded that the cross hatches represented the target sites for redevelopment. Alderman Nelson stated that he did not agree with the limited areas identified for redevelopment. He believed, for example, that Sherman Avenue Garage, which is not identified as a redevelopment site, should be redeveloped with two additional levels of parking and ground floor uses on Sherman. He also stated that the failure to include the Post Office as a redevelopment site was a mistake. The building had been referred to as character giving on the map. Alderman Nelson contended that it did not make the top 100 character giving buildings in Evanston. He viewed this site as excellent for redevelopment with potential for four or more stories of residential with ground floor retail. Yet the current designation on the map would limit development on this site. Alderman Nelson stated that the Plan Commission recommendation bordered on spot zoning and would inhibit needed and desirable development. Al Belmonte responded that it was awkward, if not impossible, to write the map into the ordinance. Another mechanism, such as an overlay district, would be required. Alderman Nelson responded that an overlay district with incentives such as a higher F.A.R. in exchange for desired development characteristics should be considered. -3_ Howard Melton stated that he agreed with the end objective of the Plan Commission, but he did not like the F.A.R. limit recommended nor the requirement that all development above an F.A.R. of 5.0 be forced into the P.U.D. process. He contended that the P.U.D. process had too much discretion and uncertainty. He stated that he was troubled that the Plan Commission's specific F.A.R. proposals would inhibit change and redevelopment that is needed. He also believed that critical areas were excluded from the identified target redevelopment areas including Washington National and the Holiday Inn Parking Garage. In summary, he stated that the Plan Commission appeared to overemphasize the status quo to the point of insuring that development patterns do not change. Alderman Newman stated that Planning and Development had not discussed the Plan commission's Map in its review of the zoning ordinance. He believed that many people will support the Plan commission's recommended F.A.R. of 5.0, especially in residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. Alderman Newman asked if the Plan commission had discussed building height and the "wedding cake effect" under the current zoning ordinance. Al Belmonte responded that the Commission had discussed height briefly. Drew Patterson added that height is not really important. The real issue, he stated, is the use of F.A.R. regulations to insure the service capacity downtown. Height does not impact service capacity. Alderman Nelson asked what the Plan Commission meant by preserving the character of downtown. He stated that downtown Evanston does not have much character. It was a hodgepodge and had witnessed numerous failed attempts to create character. He observed that Paris had character and appropriate scale. Al Belmonte responded that he believed that although downtown had its problems, it did have a distinctive and desirable character including a pedestrian friendly streetscape and scale. The protection of the scale is important and should be addressed through the zoning ordinance. Drew Patterson reiterated that the map reflects a consensus of the Plan commission and does create a vehicle for creating development at strategic locations. -4- Howard Melton countered that the map it; devoid of a plan. It is a site by site approach. At a minimum, a plan should be block by block. It should state a vision that is desired by the community. Melton added that Evanston should look to Highland Park's downtown for a realistic plan. Al Belmonte responded that the map prauented during this meeting is part of the Downtown Plan which has been adopted by the Plan Comtrd.ssion and City Council. Belmonte stressed that the issue is not really an 5.0 or 7.0 F.A.R., it's how to make the P.U.D. simple and effective in order to enhance the downtown and expedite desired development. Howard Melton stated that years of meetings have not produced the downtown he wants. There have been too many players. He stated that the City is the only entity that has the political power and purse strings to revitalize downtown. Alderman Feldman stated that he viewed the Downtown Area as possessing a distinctive and desirable character in certain areas. He acknowledged that other areas were a hodgepodge of uses and structures, and that this was unfortunate. He observed that the maintenance of attractive facades, the adaptative reuse of older structures, and the maintenance of truly architecturally significant structures were very important. Although he. viewed zoning as important, Alderman Feldman observed that the risk of overdevelopment is so minimal that what we should really be focusing upon is how to stimulate economic development downtown. Once we attract larger development, then we can work out how to accommodate such needed development_ without negatively affecting the desirable aspects of the current downtown. Alderman Nelson added that EVMARR was created to provide leadership downtown to promote development and is the logical governance entity. He applauded the efforts of EVMARR. Judith Aiello observed that the Research Park target - development area is similar to the Highland Park approach referred to earlier in terms of focusing on an area of downtown in need of substantial improvement. In 1983, the City was prepared to designate all of downtown as a redevelopment area, not just the 24 acres of the Research Park. However, the support _ for such an approach was lacking. ' Consequently, the special Service District and EVMARK.were viewed by interested parties as — appropriate mechanisms. -5W Wayne McCoy observed that he has been engaging in a similar discussion about downtown development for the past several years at intervals of about every nine months. He viewed the Plan Commission's recommended F.A.R. maximum of 5.0 as a function of an average of what exists now. The message that one inevitably derives from this recommendation is that one should not change anything downtown; everything is fine. Mr. McCoy disagreed with this view of downtown and contended that the City must change the character and quality of downtown in order to address the financial dilemma Evanston taxpayers and taxing bodies are increasingly confronting. He stated that downtown must generate greater real estate tax revenue to reduce the burden on residents. Alderman Newman countered that he did not agree with Wayne McCoy's assumptions about the Plan Commission's recommendations. Alderman Nelson stated that Downtown II is, in effect, a Planned Unit Development. The remainder of the Central Business District could perhaps benefit from this approach. 0 Alderman Nelson summarized the Plan Commission's major points. 1. An F.A.R. maximum of 5.0. 2. An overall plan for the Central Business District. 3. Streamlined P.U.D. process with incentives. Drew Patterson added that the F.A.R. should be 5.o per the ordinance, 7.0 for target development areas and the P.U.D. process should be used above 7.0. Alderman Newman asked if the Plan Commission was satisfied with the P.U.D. process. Al Belmonte responded that the process required streamlining and simplification. Alderman Newman added that the EDC should review the P.U.D. process. Alderman Nelson responded that the Committee had done so and would make information available concerning its conclusions. Alderman Nelson stated that EDC would not be able to join the Plan Commission on the 5.0 F.A.R. He felt that the two entities had similar values and goals, but differing strategies. -6- Alderman Feldman indicated that the EDC needs to express values that the Plan Commission expresses. There is not much disagreement about goals for downtown. He advised the Commission not to worry about large scale development hurting the downtown. This will, be addressed if market forces reverse and this becomes possible. Alderman Nelson stated that a CBD Master Plan combined with an overlay district would address issues of concern. Alderman Newman urged that this had to be addressed in the next four months. He recommended that a request be made of the Planning and Development committee to defer its scheduled September 23rd discussion of the CBD until the end of the process. Judith Aiello stated that she would make such a request in Thursday's Council Packet. Alderman Nelson summarized the agreement of the EDC and Plan Commission to work on the feasibility of an overlay district for the CBD. Plan Commission members were thanked for their participation. At 9:08 P.M., Alderman Feldman moved to enter Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. Howard Melton provided a second. on a roll call vote, all members voted in favor of entering Executive session (5-0). At 10:08 P.M., the public meeting was reconvened and adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Economic Development Planner DM/cw Att. Members Present: Members Absent: Guests: Staff Present: summaN _of Action: DRAFT - NOT APPROVER MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1991 Alderman nelson, Chair; Aldermen Davis, Engelman, Feldman and Newman; Jim Currie, Wayne McCoy, Howard Melton, Scott Peters. None Kane, McKenna & Associates: Donald Kane, Arista Grimm and Bob Rychlicki Dayton Hudson, Trident Developments, Inc. Tanguay-Burke--Stratton Development Team: Richard Brooks (Dayton Hudson); Bill Crew (Metropolitan Transportation Group); Greg Hummel (Rudnick & Wolfe); James Kartheiser (Tanguay-Burke-Stratton); James McDermott (Trident Developments); Forrest Russell (Target). Youth Job Center: Ann Jennett, John Kennedy, Marsha Meade, Hecky Powell, James Sibley. Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino. The meeting was convened at 7:07 P.M. The minutes of the August 21, 1991 Economic Development Committee Meeting were approved as drafted by unanimous vote. Three communications were acknowledged by Alderman Nelson: the Executive summary from the Downtown Idea Exchange; a reference from the Housing and Community Development Act Committee requesting review of the 1992/93 Economic Development Proposals; and a press release by Washington National Insurance Company announcing the corporation's plans to relocate its headquarters. Alderman Nelson stated that the Committee would discuss a response to the Housing and Community Development Act Committee later in the meeting. At 7:15 P.M., the Committee entered Executive session to discuss land acquisition on the basis of a unanimous vote verified by the Chair polling each Committee member. -2- At 8:40 P.M. the Committee readjourned into public session. Wayne McCoy motioned that the Committee pass Proposed Resolution 88-R-91 Indicating intent to use Tax Increment Financing in the following area of the City of Evanston: Howard street on the south, the City limits on the west, the Skokie swift on the north and Hartrey Street on the east. The Committee approved the proposed Resolution by an unanimous vote (9-0). Wayne McCoy motioned that the Committee approve, in concept, the proposed redevelopment of the Hell and Howell site by the Development Team of Dayton Hudson (Target Greatland), Trident Developments, Inc., and Tanguay-Burke-Stratton. The motion also requested that the City Council review the proposal and approve the development concept at its next meeting on November 11, 1991. The motion received a second from Jim Currie. The Committee approved the motion by unanimous vote (9-0). Alderman Feldman expressed his enthusiasm for the proposed project and thanked the Development Team for the civil and effective manner in which it negotiated with the Committee, staff and the City's consultants. Alderman Davis stated her favorable view of Dayton Hudson as a progressive corporation which she had experienced in Lincoln, Nebraska. She emphasized the importance of this development to Evanston's tax base and retailing climate. Alderman Davis also reminded the Committee of Dayton Hudson's favorable philanthropic record of contributing to not -for -profit organizations located in the communities in which the company operates stores. Alderman Nelson requested that notice of the Committee's action be shared with the media emphasizing the importance of this development to Evanston. Discussion of CDBG Proposals The Economic Development Committee had received from the Housing and Community Development Act requesting review of the 1992-93 Economic Development The proposals received for comment were the following: (1) Neighborhood Storefront Improvement Program (2) Downtown Storefront Improvement Program (3) Small Business Center Admin. - ECDC (4) Commercial Revolving Loan Fund (5) Engineering Dept - Emerson C&NW Bridge Painting (6) Let's Talk - Youth Job Center (7) Alley Extension/land Acquisition: west of Jackson/South of Foster (8) Alley Paving: East of Jackson/South of Foster (9) Alley Paving: East of Jackson/North of Foster a reference Committee Proposals. $60,000 80,000 160,000 125,000 150,000 98,400 10,000 115,000 53,000 --3- The discussion began with a review of the impact of past comments made by the EDC and submitted to the CD Committee. Howard Melton and Alderman Nelson each raised concerns that in previous years, they did not believe the comments of the -EDC had any impact on CD Committee decisions. Alderman Newman stated that he believed the EDC's comments were important and that it should make certain it has an impact. Jim Currie, who is also a member of the CD Committee, stated that the CD Committee has encouraged comment and he will consider comments from the EDC seriously. Several members suggested that perhaps individual comments might be appropriate given that there are nine major proposals to review and that comments must be received shortly. Wayne McCoy objected to this aproach by stating that the CD Committee had asked for comments from the EDC as a Committee of the whole, not via an individual scattershot approach. Alderman Feldman expressed concern that there was a very limited time period in which to act and make comment. Alderman Davis suggested that Committee members could forward individual comments to the staff. She stated that the CD Committee was organized to analyze proposals in detail unlike the EDC. Howard Melton expressed his support of Alderman Davis' approach. Alderman Newman expressed a preference for making recommendations as a Committee. He added that ECDC, for example, receives substantial dollars and that the Committee should not concede to a process that is difficult. He emphasized his concern that CDBG dollars may have been wasted and it was �_� partially the EDC's obligation to do something about this situation. He expressed concern that the Black community in Evanston may not be receiving the maximum benefit from CDBG dollars it could be receiving. Alderman Feldman stated that he was willing to do individual or a full Committee response. However, EDC must accept =_ responsibility to deal with proposals thoroughly and therefore needs documents earlier to enable it to do a thorough job. Alderman Nelson stated that the Committee historically had received four, not nine proposals, and that it had received the proposals earlier in the process. The EDC had supported some proposals and opposed others. He also added that in past years, - groups had made presentations to the EDC about how they planned to use CDBG funds. Despite all these activities, he added, he believed that the Committee's recommendations have not had any impact.LRL - ry -4- Wayne McCoy reiterated his concern that the Committee make comments on the proposals. He underscored the fact that there were nine proposals, but six of them were internal City administration proposals and only three were proposals made by non --City entities. He suggested dividing up the proposals into these two groups. He also stated his concern that the City adhere closely to the intent and regulations of the CDHG Act. tie expressed concern about the potential diversion of funds from a non -performing organization into infrastructure in a target area. He stated it may be more appropriate to help create a new vehicle for delivering the service that should have been delivered by the non -performing group. Howard Melton reminded the Committee that his discussion was similar to the review of proposals last year. He expressed his frustration that the City is confronted with one or more groups that have questionable performance, yet the City needs to stimulate action that is more beneficial than alley repaving. Alderman Feldman stated that as a result of EDC deliberations and comments, the CD Committee formed a special committee to examine ECDC. This helped open the eyes of the CD Committee. He added that with more time for review and comment, the EDC can have an impact. Youth Job Center Alderman Feldman requested that the Committee hear the presentation from representatives of the Youth Job Center. Ann Jennett, the Executive Director of the Center, introduced other representatives present from the organization. She stated that �_ the goals of the "Let's Talk" project are: 1) To assist local Evanston businesses with their task of helping young, new and inexperienced employees adjust to the demands of the work force; 2) To help local businesses lessen the high turnover rate of their entry level employees, thereby saving costs and improving services. Ms. Jennett summarized the success of her agency and the need for its services including Let's Talk. The agency's clients include young people of 14-25 years of age. Seventy-eight percent of the clients are economically disadvantaged. The average placement by the YJC turns over at least four times. This had led to employer complaints about a high turnover rate. The Let's Talk program seeks to address this problem directly. -5- Ms. Jennett also stated that the City Manager had supported the program. Alderman Feldman requested clarification of this comment. He asked if the City Manager's letter endorsed the program for funding or endorsed its classification as an economic development activity should it be funded. Ms. Jennett stated that the letter, which was addressed to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, endorsed the proposal's classification as an economic development proposal. Alderman Feldman commended the group on its performance. Alderman Nelson questioned several details of the budget including marketing expense and salary. Ms. Jennett clarified that the budget had been revised. Alderman Belson asked if there were other programs in the United States that used the methods proposed by this program. Ms. Jennett responded that there was not such a program. In response to another question from Alderman Nelson concerning whether this approach had been used with entry level people, Ms. Jennett stated that the approach had not been used with entry level workers, but it had been used at other levels. Ms. Jennett then cited a list of problems her agency's clients experience including overall adjustments to the workplace, regularity of attendance and punctuality. Hecky Powell stated that this program was critical and that there is a need for it in Evanston. He cited his personal experience with YJC placements. Alex Darragh described the program as,an innovative and necessary approach. He suggested it represented a shift from traditional to non-traditional economic development strategies. He added that an increasing number of communities have been shifting to this type of approach to address the critical needs of young adults. Hecky Powell added that we do not need more studies of the problem, we need to deal with young adults who want jobs but need advice on how to handle new situations. Alderman Davis stated that in her past participation with the Unified Budget there had been emphasis on the need for basic skills training (math, literacy) to improve job retention and promotion. She asked if Let's Talk will help in this area. Ms. Jennette responded that her agency works with other organizations which address literary issues. She added that the people she has been placing are technically qualified for the entry level jobs they have secured. Howard Melton stated that entry level jobs won't exist in �- the future. --6-- John Kennedy of YJC responded that the agency and its employees are willing to invest in enhanced technical skills training if a person is committed to employment. Alderman Feldman expressed his fascination with an innovative proposal which addresses a significant need in Evanston. However, the funding decision is the responsibility of the CD Committee. He added that he might be willing to support the removal of funding from non -performing agencies and instead support YJC's new program. However, he expressed concern that agencies were starting programs that will never end. Alderman Nelson requested statistical documentation that there was a high turnover problem among entry level employees in Evanston. Ms. Jennett stated that she did not have this information available now, but she could extract it from her files. Alderman Nelson expressed concern that the program has been designed on the basis of antidotal information and not statistical justification. Wayne McCoy responded that the need exists. He contended that there was not a need for a sophisticated statistical analysis. He expressed concern that we do more to address unemployment through effective programming. Alderman Nelson expressed concern about a duplication of services. He also stated a preference for a process the City would follow whereby the problem was doctunented, an RFP was issued and a responsible proposal and service provider were selected. He objected to funding the first solution proposed and the difficulty of de -funding a program if it does not work. Wayne McCoy stated the history of Evanston Hospital's and NBD Bank's performance in working for many years with low and moderate income young people as employees who might otherwise be unsalvageable. Alderman Newman stated that CDBG funds should be used to take chances with efforts that will make a difference in poor communities. He agreed with Alderman Feldman's positive comments. Alderman Feldman asked the number of agencies which are requesting money from the Economic Development category. Judith Aiello explained that CDBG funding was not organized by such classifications. All proposals are evaluated together. Wayne McCoy asked if YJC had made additional changes not reflected in the current proposal before the EDC. Ms. Jennett responded that the agency had answered all issues raised. -7- Alderman Nelson asked if other CDBG proposals were current. Judith Aiello responded that they were all current. Alderman Nelson stated that the EDC endorses the concept of job training, and job retention. on behalf of the Committee, he expressed support for CDBG funds to be used for these purposes. However, he was not prepared to endorse specific proposals at this time. Alderman Feldman thanked YJC representatives for participating in the meeting. He encouraged each member to do whatever they believe should be done with regard to this proposal. The Committee next addressed the remaining eight economic development proposals. Alderman Newman began by advising Committee members that although the proposal for Noyes Street banners was not in front of them, the proposal for $3,000 is alive within the CD Committee. Alderman Newman motioned to endorse proposal #27 which included this element. Wayne McCoy asked why staff had recommended against the proposal. Judith Aiello explained that there were more proposals than could be funded with available dollars, and that the Noyes Street banner proposal was not considered to be high impact. Jim Currie clarified that the proposal was not opposed by the City Manager's office, it failed to receive a positive recommendation. Wayne McCoy reminded the Committee that it had stated it would endorse concepts for funding, but not specific proposals. - The Chair called the question and it was approved with five members voting aye, one member opposed and two abstentions. ,ECDC Proposals (#14 and #15) Several members expressed concern with continuing to fund this group. The Committee expressed support for the goals of ECDC as originally chartered and supports continuing use of CD funds to achieve these goals, but it contended that ECDC has not achieved its goals. The committee was not willing to give an endorsement. Alderman Feldman requested that Jim Currie convey the sentiments of the EDC to the CD Committee. He remarked that this Committee is hesitant to act more forceably at this time because of an insufficient process, not because of doubts about the substance of the issue. E .sur•c -a - Wayne McCoy stated that he helped create ECDC and he was not satisfied with its performance. However, he felt that it functionally is charged with doing certain things that need to be done. Alderman Feldman suggested that another mechanism be found for performing the necessary activities. Wayne McCoy suggested ECDC be replaced with something created in the community it serves. He expressed discomfort with the functions being taken over by City agencies as Alderman Nelson had suggested. Alderman Newman suggested that the Committee invite ECDC to attend a future meeting and that the Committee also facilitate a discussion of alternatives to ECDC. Allev Extension Proposals #24 and #25 and Allev Pay.inv #26 Judith Aiello stated that Alderman Kent does not feel that the alley extensions and repaving are what the community wants at this time. Aldermen Nelson and Feldman questioned why alley improvements were classified as economic development. She stated that all land development activity was classified as economic development. The Committee did not act on this proposal. Downtown storefront Improvement Proctram (113) Neiuhborhood Storefront Improvement Program (#12) Alderman Davis moved that the committee strongly endorse these programs. A second was made by Howard Melton. The vote was unanimous (9-0). Emerson C&NW Bridoe Paintina (#16) Alderman Davis moved to endorse the painting project. Wayne McCoy questioned why the C&NW would not do the work. Alderman Nelson stated that the railroad has historically refused to do this work. Wayne McCoy addded that METRA was planning a major bond issue and that the City should raise this with them as soon -_ as possible. The project was endorsed by an 8-1 vote. The minutes of that portion of the meeting concerning the proposed Zoning ordinance are not included in this draft. Dennis Marino Economic Development Planner Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Guests: su mnary of Action: DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1991 Alderman Nelson, Chair; Aldermen Engelman, Feldman and Newman; Jim Currie and Vaughan Jones Alderman Davis, Howard Melton, Scott Peters Judith Aiello, Tim Clarke, Dennis Marino, Robert Shonk Kane, McKenna and Associates: Krista Grimm, Donald Kane and Bob Rychlicki The minutes of the October 29, 1991 meeting were approved unanimously as drafted. Alderman Newman requested that minutes from EDC meetings since July, 1991 be distributed to Aldermen as well as all future minutes. In addition, he requested that all agendas for future meetings be distributed to all City Council members. Jon Nelson stated that he had invited Terry Jenkins of EVMARK to make a,presentation to the EDC in January to summarize the ongoing activities of EVMARK and to present the Downtown Improvement Plan. Alderman Nelson stated that EVMP.RK was a good example of an effective private sector initiated development vehicle which is assisted by local government. He also acknowledged the excellent work of EVMARK in producing a new promotional brochure for Evanston. Judith Aiello added that EVMAIU recently represented Evanston at the International shopping Center convention. The organization had prepared an available real estate inventory of downtown Evanston with assistance from the City's economic development staff (Tim Clarke and Dennis Marino). Ms. Aiello reported that several participants at the conference were interested in Evanston, but were looking for larger space than what was available downtown. me _2_ In 1987, EVMARK was created with a five year charter. The organization expires in 1992 unless membership determines that it should continue. Alderman Nelson and Ms. Aiello each acknowledged the importance of EVMARK's ongoing work downtown. Jim Currie observed that EVMARK was an essential force for the maintenance and development of the downtown area. Judith Aiello stated that a special effort will be made to encourage members of the press to attend the January meeting. Jon Nelson added that the City Council should provide EVMARK with a portion of the public comment period of a future meeting. Alderman Nelson commented that the vacancy rate downtown is approximately 5% excluding the NBD Bank Building. Tim Clarke added that a 5% rate is very favorable compared to the downtowns of Oak Park (30%) and Skokie. Jim Currie observed that Downtown Evanston's retail sales compare favorably with water Tower Place on a per square foot basis. Alderman Newman stated that Crain's Chicaao Business should begin to report such favorable information about Evanston. He added that the mix of stores, however, has not satisfied residents living in the downtown area. Given that the current mix of uses reflects private market trends, he did not believe one could induce new uses that do not have the support of private investors. Jon Nelson stated that the Research Park and the redevelopment of the Washington National site will help downtown. overall, he added, downtown is in better condition than what is often reported. Alderman Nelson referred to the article about Evanston in the November, 1991 issue of North shore Magazine. He added that the article was very positive and that a large number of Evanston merchants had advertised in the issue. Howard/Nartrev Redevelonment The Committee reviewed the Draft Eligibility Report and the Redevelopment Plan for the Proposed Tax Increment Financing District. The committee also discussed in open session the justification for an Executive session to discuss bond financing options for the proposed Howard/Hartrey Redevelopment involving Target Greatland and Trident Development Company. Alderman Newman questioned the need to enter Executive Session to discuss bond financing options. Judith Aiello responded that the bond financing discussion is related to land acquisition. Alderman Engelman added that Executive Session is -3- appropriate because bond financing deals with how much the City is planning to spend for land acquisition. Alderman Nelson stated that there is no agreement between the City and the Developer, consequently Executive session is essential so that the City does not give away its strategy and imperil its ability to negotiate. Alderman Newman agreed to go along with the consensus that Executive session was necessary to discuss bond financing options pertaining to land acquisition. Redevelopment Plan and Eliaibili.ty Report Judith Aiello summarized the documents which are state statutory requirements for TIF Designation. She emphasized that the proposed budget for the TIF is the amount the City could spend, that it did not represent the amount the City is required to spend. Ms. Aiello also noted that boundaries of the proposed TIF only included Bell & Howell and the public right of ways, representing a more restrictive area than the initial study area. Alderman Feldman asked if the line item labeled "construction of public facilities" ($100,000) in the proposed TIF Budget was fixed or could it be increased? Judith Aiello responded that line items could be changed, but the total budget of $8.5 million could not be exceeded. Ms. Aiello added that the traffic patterns and street configurations around the site were under review and improvements could lead to increased cost. Vaughan Jones observed that he had noticed that many residents living east of the site were opposed to the project. He reported that residents had expressed a desire to see housing == development on the site instead of a retail shopping center. Alderman Nelson responded that the issue of alternative uses for the Bell & Ho+aell site had been on the Committee's agenda for years. He noted that the site had been available for five years and that a variety of uses had been proposed at a conceptual - level, but only the current proposal had survived the test of detailed market analysis. Alderman Engelman observed that the cost of acquisition and demolition of the Bell & Howell property is prohibitive. The value of marketable new housing on the site would not be adequate to cover these extraordinary costs nor generate a reasonable return on investment. Alderman Newman added that the development of housing on the site, which would necessitate substantial subsidy, would only generate property taxes, while the proposed retail development would produce property and sales taxes. _4- Donald Kane commented that School Districts generally find commercial development more attractive than residential development because there is not an additional service cost added. Alderman Engelman added that new housing on the site, especially at high density, would increase the City's service costs as well. Alderman Nelson requested that the Draft TIF Eligibility Report be modified to include an appropriate analysis of the feasibility of housing development on the site. Vaughan Jones requested that the Eligibility Report also discuss how the proposed project is more marketable than Main street Commons. Alderman Engelman asked the reason for including the Hartrey right of way up to the Skokie swift. Ms. Aiello responded that this might be an area for public improvements. Alderman Engelman also questioned why Howard Street, slightly east and west of the development site, was not included in the proposed TIF given that there was consideration of widening Howard street. Don Kane responded that the TIF boundaries had to meet a continuity test and that including a narrow right of way was not appropriate unless a corridor 250 feet wide was included which would include part of the residential block to the east. Judith Aiello added that the area to the West of the site was within the Village of Skokie and improvements east of the site on Howard Street could, if necessary, be financed with TIF bond proceeds despite being located outside the TIF. Alderman Newman asked if the budget was sufficient for buffering and landscaping to meet the concerns of neighbors. Judith Aiello responded that the City would make sure that it was sufficient. Ms. Aiello added that the developer will be doing most of 'the improvements with the proposed S7 million in TIF funds. - Alderman Feldman moved that the TIF Eligibility Report and the Redevelopment Flan be approved by the Committee and -_ recommended for approval to the City Council. Jim Currie �- provided a second for the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Judith Aiello summarized the revised site plan and traffic plan for the area. She noted that outlot development would not proceed immediately and that Hartrey Avenue would include a - median strip with a break for auto pazzage avrch of the shopping center's parking lot. Ms. Aiello added that this street plan had been presented by Aldermen during a neighborhood meeting the previous week. IMF— �--- -5- Alderman Newman, who attended the neighborhood meeting, stated that people attending the meeting were not uncomfortable with the' traffic and street plan. He reported that Alderman Bernie stone of Chicago had attended the neighborhood meeting and had threatened .not to permit a left hand turn lane on the south side of Howard street. Alderman Engelman added that he had talked with Alderman Stone the day after the meeting. Alderman Feldman questioned how traffic exiting Shure Brothers would access Howard Street. Judith Aiello responded that the traffic would be restricted to a right turn only on Hartrey and would exit via Howard Street at Hartrey instead of passing through the residential neighborhood to the east via Brummel and Dobson. Alderman Nelson suggested that the break in the proposed Hartrey median be constructed so that it can be closed in the future with a barrier if necessary. Vaughan Jones asked if a liquor license for the grocery store was a deal breaker. Judith Aiello stated that it was and this had been confirmed by Mayor Barr's conversation with the potential grocery stores. In response to a question by Alderman Feldman, Judith Aiello responded that a resolution of intent for a liquor license was on the docket for the City Council meeting on Monday. Alderman Nelson stated that the Council should focus on the Class H liquor license which has appropriate criteria and restrictions. Alderman Newman observed that he was concerned about fairness to all drug and grocery stores which will desire a liquor license to stay competitive with the grocery store in the proposed shopping center if it receives a ligpsor license. He stated that the- Committee and the Council must address this issue. Alderman Nelson agreed that the broader issue of liquor should be addressed by the Administration & Public Works Committee. He summarized the evolution of the current liquor ordinance over the past seven years. TIP Timetable Judith Aiello summarized the proposed timetable for establishing the Howard/Hartrey TIF District. The schedule was moved for approval by Alderman Feldman and Alderman Engelman provided a second. It was approved by unanimous vote. Alderman Nelson asked if a revision of the unit pricing was c needed. Judith Aiello responded that it was essential and would be addressed during a forthcoming Council meeting. v -5- Central street Facade ImvroveMent Plan Judith Aiello introduced David Galloway, an Evanston architect to present his drawings of potential facade improvements on the 1900 block of Central Street (between Green Bay Road and Prairie - north side of Central). Dennis Marino stated that Mr. Galloway was under contract with the City to conduct this work as a result of an initiative of the Economic Development Committee and with funds provided from the Economic Development Fund. David Galloway presented a set of photographs of existing conditions on the block and highlighted problems with the properties. He also provided and summarized a detailed drawing of suggested improvements to the properties and the streetscape. Alderman Nelson asked about the projected costs of the suggested improvements and if the properties would be subjected to the new Federal Disability Act. Judith Aiello stated that the Disability Act was very general in some areas and very specific in others. It is unclear if the law would be applied to a facade improvement. She agreed to investigate this issue. David Galloway provided a ballpark estimate of various improvements and added that he would be willing to provide more precise information. Dennis Marino added that precise cost estimating was not included in the scope of work under Mr. Galloway's current contract. Alderman Engelman commented that Mr. Galloway had done a masterful job. ' He questioned how the City could participate financially to stimulate the desired improvements. He acknowledged that CDBG funds could not be used, but hoped that Economic Development funds would be considered on a matching basis. Jon Nelson suggested a meeting with Central Street property owners and merchants as early as possible in 1992 that would include a presentation by David Galloway. Judith Aiello added that financial institutions should be included in the proposed meeting. He added that after the Central Street meeting, Mr. Galloway should be invited to meet again with the EDC. Steve Engelman asked that property ownership on the target block be confirmed by staff. - -7- At 9:20 P.M., Alderman Feldman moved to enter Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. A second was provided by Alderman Engelman. The motion was approved unanimously. The public meeting was reconvened at 10:25 P.M. and adjourned at 10:27 P.M. Dennis Marino Economic Development Planner DM/cw