Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRESIDING OFFICIAL: SUMMARY OF ACTION I. CALL TO ORDER II. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES January 22, 1986 Aid. Davis, Juliar, Nelson and Thiel; Roger Koester, Wayne McCoy, Jack Wing Aid. Korshak, David Mann Judith Aiello, Stephen Pudloski, Tom Thompson Ron Kysiak, Jackie McGuire, Tom Parkinson, Charlotte Walker Aid. Jon O. Nelson, Chairman 9:00 P.M. The minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1985 were approved unanimously with a correction to the spelling of Grier Davis. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. The Committee acknowledge receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange reports. Ald. Davis commented on the parking related article in the January i st report regarding whether the described 2 hour enforcement system could have application in Evanston. Staff was to refer the article to the Traffic Engineering Department. Davis also commented on the San Antonio project that was mentioned in the December 13th report and suggested that staff check on the funding sources that were used for street and sidewalk improvements in that project. B. The Committee accepted the proposed calendar of 1986 meetings. IV. REPORTS A. Charlotte Walker, Executive Director of the Evanston Community 'Development Corporation (ECDC), was present to report on the progress of the Facade Improvement Programs. Four facades were set to begin work in the Church/Dodge area and three applications have been received for Emerson Street. The Church/Dodge Program was to be completed in the next year. An Increasing number of applicants had shown interest in the revolving loan funds and ECDC was working with the Evanston Business Investment Corporation (EBIC) on several of them. An inventory of all minority owned businesses in Evanston had also been completed. Economic Development Committee MInutes - January 22, 1986 Page Two B. Ron Kysiak, Executive Director of Evanston Inventure, reported that a newsletter had been sent out In December to about 220 businesses In the City and 100 businesses outside of Evanston. Inventure was working with the City on the Varsity Theater Project with regard to the design and retail mix. The Northlight Theater had expressed interested In the building, but a deal could not be worked out between the developer and that organization. The final plans for the old theater call for much of the facade to be retained with an interior gutting for three retail shops. The Northlight Theater may be interested in a new facility as part of a mixed use development at Church and Chicago. Inventure was also working with the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau to promote Evanston for smaller conventions and meetings, and with the State of 1111nols to do a short film on Evanston for marketing purposes. Inventure was working with the City and School District 202 to finalize the application for a zoning variance for an incubator facility at the High School, and had also met with ECDC regarding the increasing use of minority contractors in Evanston. V NEW BUSINESS A. Tom Parkinson was present to discuss the progress of EBIC, which received a formal award of $1 million In January. The EBIC Board had approved one loan, that has later changed to include only bank financing with a 90% SBA guarantee, and one company investment. There was a formal request from Inventure for City funding of $35,000 to help support the operating costs of EBIC for fiscal year 86-87. A grant had been obtained from the State but was contingent on a local funding match. Aid. JulIar moved funding approval of $33,000 to come from the Economic Development Fund. Seconded by Ald. Nelson. Discussion. Davis inquired as to competing interests for the limited resources of the fund. Nelson said there would be manv more in the coming years including various expenses associated with the Research Park and funding of Research Park Inc., the operating entity for the park. Motion carried, unanimously. B. Mr. Stephen Pudloski, Director of Public Works, was present to talk about the projected municipal improvements to Downtown II including water, sewers, streets, traffic, parking, and street lights. Pudloski explained the planning process that had occurred to date, the provisions for infrastructure funding that were included in the tax increment financing (TIF) plan, and the updated estimates of work to be done. Pudloski stated that the external water system for the Research Park was excellent with a 30" main on Benson and a 24" main on Emerson. However, the Internal. system of 6" mains was vastly undersized to serve the needs of new development and a series of 12" and 16" mains would be proposed. The TIF plan had estimated the cost of such water work at $600,000 which was now revised to $400,000. Pudloski said the sewer system was in extremely poor condition and needed total replacement. The new system would separate sanitary flow from rain water; the present system is combined but not large enough to handle any significant rainfall. The original TIF estimate assumed a combined system for about $800,000. The new design with stormwater detention facilities would increase the cost to about $2,500,000. Pudloski explained that the underground storage system is necessary for such a dense development with no capability of typical runoff. He further explained that the low estimate probably assumed private developer funding of detention facilities. Additional funding could come from state grants or the TIF contingency budget. Economic Development Committee Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Three Pudloski also reviewed the street paving plan which should be less than the $2,000,000 budgeted for TIF. Maple Avenue will be the main street of the park, with four lanes and no parking. The viaduct at Clark will be 30' wide and all other streets 44' wide. Service drives will be 26 to 30' feet wide, providing ample clearance for truck traffic. A comprehensive traffic study had been performed taking into account full development of the Research Park, 1800 Sherman Place, and a second development at the Shand Morahan Plaza. Peak hours of traffic volume were analyzed for all the key intersections near the site. The conclusion was that the existing network of streets could handle the projected volume of traffic given certain improvements to signalization, channelization, street parking restrictions, and adding turn lanes. Signalization would be especially important because the present systern does not change for the busier times of the day. The parking study estimated the need for about 2,440 spaces for the Research Park. (The master plan called for about 2,700 spaces) The study used census data and interviews and projected employment of about 4,000. The old multiple circuit lighting was to be replaced using funding allocated in the Capital Improvement Plan. $600,000 had already been obtained from the State for design of the viaduct at Clark Street and sewer replacement in Maple and Clark Streets. Staff had also completed a $2.2 million grant application to the State Capital Development Board for construction funding for the viaduct, service drive improvements, retaining wall, and street paving on Clark Street. Aid. Thiel asked about truck traffic going to the site and Pudloski responded that the removal of viaducts from the Chicago and Northwestern Mayfair spur should help somewhat. VI. CONTINUING ITEMS A. Committee Priurities. The Committee had received a request from Aid. Brady to consider what criteria will be used by the City to select board representatives for TOPCORP and RPI and what issues should be given priority with those boards. Davis suggested Inviting Brady to the next meeting to discuss her reference with the Committee. The Committee concurred to defer the agenda item to the next meeting. Davis reported that the subcommittee on neighborhood revitalization had met with some Main Street merchants and the Southeast Evanston Neighbors Association to discuss various issues of the business area. McCoy commented on the Committee priority regarding the use of industrial revenue bond allocation. He said many communities were concerned about using their allocations and buying additional bonding capacity while Evanston seemed overly concerned with restricting the use of IRB's. He added that the ability to use IRB financing would probably be gone in the near future and strongly recommended a more positive approach by the City to its use as a redevelopment tool in the meantime. There was discussion of the role of IRBs and that they should be viewed as a favor to the city and not a gift to the enterprise. Staff stated that the City does market the bonds to real estate brokers and that Evanston's paper work requirements seem comparable to other communities. Economic Development Committee Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Four Staff reported that demolition was proceeding at Dempster and Dodge for the new shopping plaza and that the City Council would soon receive a request for a vacation of property at that site. The demolition was to be completed In February, construction was to start in March and the center was to be open for business in the fall of 1986. A request for proposal for the Church/Chicago development was being drafted by staff and there was discussion of whether the RFP should be handled by the EDC or the Administration and Public Works Committee. Nelson was to check Into which committee should handle the RFP. VII. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 P.M. Staff: Minutes Approved: cc: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager 3Y9-1 2 0 I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES February 26, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Davis, Juliar, Korshak, Nelson and Thiel; David Mann, Jack Wing, MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Koester, Wayne McCoy STAFF PRESENT: Judith Aiello, Tom Thompson OTHERS PRESENT: Aid. Brady, Drummer; Ron Kysiak, Jackie McGuire and others PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Jon O. Nelson, Chairman SUMMARY OF ACTION: L CALL TO ORDER 7:33 P.M. IL MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1983 were approved unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Excharige Reports. The Committee expressed interest in the February lst feature regarding valet parking for employees of a shopping center and the January 13th feature of the Carley Capital Group's downtown development in Charlotte, North Carolina. B. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the January 7, 1986 sales tax report. C. Mr. Ron Kysiak, Executive Director of Evanston Inventure, was present to report on Inventure's activities. Kysiak stated that the Evanston Business Investment Corporation Board had approved three investments, all of which would offer new employment opportunities to Evanston residents. On the high school incubator project, Kysiak reported that the school district has agreed to make space available but will need funding for business services. Chairman Nelson expressed frustration with the progress of this project. IV. CONTINUING ITEMS A. Criteria/Selection for Research Park Boards - Aid. Brady's reference. Chairman Nelson had drafted a proposed approach including an application form and a draft resolution regarding board member eligibility and qualifications/criteria for selection. The Mayor had already stated that it may not be appropriate for the EDC to attempt to rank applicants. Aid. Brady said the governing board for the Research Park would be different from most boards and commissions and, therefore, the EDC needed to give broad consideration to members. The board will be concerned with economic development and yet there should be other points of view and interests exhibited by the members. Brady said the City would want people with expertise in business, but also a real sensitivity to the community. There was discussion by Aid. Juliar, Davis, Korshak, Mann, and Brady concerning the following: criteria can be too specifiC and board Economic Development Committee Minutes - February 26, 1986 Page 2 members' primary interest should be In the efficient operation of the corporation; qualifications are necessary to set a focus for applicants; the Committee should not attempt to attain concurrence on an applicant; the need to privately inform the Mayor of opinions on candidates; desire for versatility of talents among board members; EDC recommendations should be advisory only and not attempt to rank the candidates; how difficult it is to substantiate an applicant's concern for Evanston or sensitivity to concerns expressed regarding the Research Park; board members need to be aware of Issues facing Evanston and not just have a general concern for the community. Discussion continued among Korshak, Wing, Juliar, Davis, Thiel, and Mann concerning the unique features of the Research Park Board: RPI will be a unique board because of preconceived loyalties to either the City or Northwestern University; corporate directors will not have such a narrow focus; Northwestern University employees should not be allowed to represent the City; members will have obligations to serve the common good of all people; individual recommendations to the Mayor were favored; the Mayor will have the power to appoint in spite of the opinion of EDC members; from the City perspective, there may be concerns over and above what may be common to both parties or particular to NU; NU wants this to succeed as much as the City does and will work toward the common goal; NU could appoint all non -Evanston residents. The Committee concurred that the EDC should serve in an advisory capacity to the Mayor in her deliberations and choice of board members. The EDC would not rate the applicants but would rather convey their thoughts on individual applicants privately to the Mayor. Davis stated that, with regard to Criteria, the list should merely focus on desirable attributes and not be excluding in any way. After much discussion, the Committee agreed that a list of criteria/qualifications were to be organized by the Chairman to reflect awareness of the character of the City, desirable areas of expertise, and commitments to the mixed -use concept as well as the necessary time to devote to achieving the board's goals. Ald. Drummer suggested that there should be no question as to applicants' familiarity with the Statement of Understanding and covenants, and the Committee concurred that applications should state the necessity of reading the entire agreem-nt with particular emphasis on Exhibit C. With regard to the selection process, the Committee concurred to delete Section C, regarding ranking the applicants, and change Section A so the EDC would not be responsible for distribution of applications. Mann suggested that notice of application availability be published in the usual manner. Nelson thought it should also be sent to members of all existing City boards and commissions. The Committee also decided that April 13 should be the cut-off for accepting applications. Each EDC member would be responsible for making his/her comments/recommendations known to the Mayor. The number of interviews by the EDC would depend on the number of applications received. There was further discussion on the three City representatives that would be appointed to TOPCORP and whether that decision should be left entirely to the ,Mayor without EDC input. A straw poll showed the Committee in favor of TOPCORP representatives consisting of the Mayor, the City Manager, and a member of the EDC. Brady reminded the Committee that the second part of her reference to the Committee concerned issues regarding the Research Park Development that should be dealt with in the near future. Nelson assured her that the Committee would take it up as soon board membership questions are settled. Aid. Drummer reminded the Committee of the minority advisory board which would also need to be appointed in the near future. Economic Development Committee Minutes - February 26, 1986 Page 3 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Church/Chicago Development The Administration and Public Works Committee had reviewed the Barton Ashman Parking Study and had decided to request proposals for development of the Church/Chicago parking lot for a parking garage and additional land uses. Responsibility for initiating development had been transferred from A&PW to the EDC. The broad guidelines for development included approximately 600 public parking spaces and a residential component with the possibility of other uses. Discussion ensued among Davis, Nelson, Korshak on the following: R7 zoning does not allow commercial uses; additional parking would be provided for the private development; the market study recommended market rate rental housing; the desirability to combine the developments to hopefully produce a more aesthetically pleasing project. Staff had provided the first few sections of a draft RFP and a revised project objective. In response to a question from Davis, Ms. Aiello stated that North Light Theatre had expressed interest in a downtown location but funding of such a development would present another problem. North Light Theatre would like to see a building shell provided for them so they, in turn, could raise the capital to complete it. Discussion centered on the land uses for the site and the Committee's concurrence with the desirability of live theatre on the edge of downtown. Staff requested that Ald. Juliar attempt to gain a feel for the immediate community's reaction to a possible zoning change for the site. The Committee decided that the objective should state that ground floor amenities are encouraged. Discussion continued by Mann, Davis, Wing on the following: development should be a mix of multi -storied residential with townhouses and attractive landscaping; the financial mechanism should be flexible; the City would have to be able to own or lease the parking to, in turn, lease it to businesses as zoning required parking. The Committee agreed to include Terry Jenkins, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee, as an adjunct member of the EDC during the developer selection process. The recommended process was approved with the change of lengthening the time for developers to submit a proposal from one month to two months. VI. COMMENTS/REPORTS A. Since Chairman Nelson would not be able to attend the scheduled meeting of March 26th, the Committee agreed to reschedule for Thursday, March 20th. B. Mr. Mann informed the Committee that the property of the former Central Motors, across from Evanston Hospital on Central Street, had been acquired by a group that was interested in making a development presentation to the EDC. He added that the property was purchased before Evanston Hospital would have purchased and removed it from the tax roles. It also enabled Central Motors to move to the old Field's Cadillac site on Ridge Avenue. Nelson suggested putting the presentation on the March 20th agenda but wanted to talk to the aldermen of the ward prior to the presentation. VIL ADJOURNMENT 10:30 P.M. Staff: �(, J. 7ZZ,J Minutes Approved: ,'If & cc: Joel M. Asprooth SY S-7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRESIDING OFFICIAL: SUMMARY OF ACTION: 1. CALL TO ORDER If. MINUTES MINUTES March 20, 1986 Aid. Davis, Juliar, Nelson, Thiel; David Mann, Wayne McCoy, Terry Jenkins Aid. Korshak, Roger Koester, Jack Wing, Judith Aiello, Tom Thompson Aid. Collens, Aid. Rudy, Ira Golan, Ron Kysiak, Tom Parkinson, Charlotte Walker, Jackie McGuire, Joe Zendell, George Cyrus, Diana Hunt King, Greg Murphy Aid. Jon O. Nelson, Chairman 7:50 P.M. The minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1986 were approved unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Mann reported that development plans for the Central Motors site were not yet completed and that the developer requested a delay in presenting them. He said he would remain in contact with staff stout rescheduling the presentation. IV. COMMUNICATIONS A. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Economic Development Activities Resort #10. Ald. Thiel stated that Bernards on Orrington was moving to the old Blimpies site. Ald. Davis reported that she, Ron Kysiak and Tom Parkinson had recently met with the owner of the Evanston Bank to discuss issues relative to the Chicago/Main area. Chairman Nelson said the abandoned gas station in card 6 was being converted to retain. Thiel also said that the service station in the 2nd Ward (Elmwood and Lake) had been denied a request for a variance to allow a fast food restaurant. B. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange Reports. V. CONTINUING ITEMS A. Staff reported that construction of the 1800 Sherman building was to have been completed by February 28th by terms of the land lease and the developer had been notified of being in default. Staff said there would be further information for Council and a recommendation soon. Carley hoped to obtain an occupancy permit in April. zconomic-leve.opment t.omm.zLee Minutes -March 20, 1986 Page 2 S 1C B. Charlotte Walker, Executive Director of Evanston Community Development Corporation (ECDC), stated that 15 facade jobs had been approved for the Church/Dodge area, of which 7 were completed and 8 were to be under construction within the next few months. She said the newly completed medical center had received especially positive comments and she hoped that other stores would still become involved in the near future. With respect to the Emerson/Dodge project, 16 facades were slated for rehab in 7 buildings. Four building owners had completed applications, and design plans for capital improvements were to be completed in the next few months. ECDC was moving to organize the minority contractors in Evanston and had held a seminar for minority businesses in February. ECDC was also looking at sites for an incubator for start-up businesses In light manufacturing. (Mr. Mann was excused at this point to attend another meeting.) C. Ron Kysiak, Executive Director of Evanston Inventure, reported that Inventure was concentrating on marketing the Research Park and was working with the University to develop an incubator for software producers and other high-tech ventures at 910 University Place. Inventure was also working to attract an international firm to the Research Park. The State of Illinois had agreed to fund a major portion of the promotional film on Evanston, Tom Parkinson, of Evanston Business Investment Corporation, reported that the Board had approved another investment of $50,000 in seed capital for a software company which would produce 8-10 lobs in the first year and 15-20 thereafter. The firm was likely to be the first tenant in the University incubator building. EBIC was also talking to other possibilities for incubator space and/or EBIC assistance. Parkinson was also working to organize a seminar on franchising opportunities for small business. The EBIC Board was also considering percentage guidelines for allocation of their portfolio. D. Church/Chicago Parking Lot Development Chairman Nelson provided background on the City's desire to sponsor a mixed -use development at the Church/Chicago parking lot. Barton-Aschman had performed a parking study whicn recommended building a public parking garage of 600 spaces with residential development on the balance of the site. Nelson said the Cite objective is to attain attractive development, increased public parking, and get propertN on :tie tax roles. Several developers had already responded to a staff request by stating that residential and parking development should be combined instead of subdividing the site into the two parcels. %is. Aiello stated that staff was working on the draft of the RFP and c�scussinc zoning and amenities issues. Staff would proceed to develop the RFP ;,ommittee and Council input. Terry Jenkins, of the Chamber of Commerce ParKine Lo~�rnEttee. hac joined the EDC as an adjunct member for tnis development project anc aas present to discuss the parking committee's report. The parking committee had cecic7ed t-.at the Barton-Aschman study contained realistic objectives for the next four to five tears. The committee put forth the idea that with changing economic times, a large public parking garage might be built on the west end of the 1800 Sherman site (advantages would include better zoning, special financing opportunities, displacement of fewer existing spaces). The committee was also concerned with the present critica; parking need in light of the probability that it will take 3-4 years to plan and complete a mined -use development at Church/Chicago. Jenkins also stated that the Church/Chicago lot would probably not solve the problems of residential parkin in that area. There was discussion of whether a parking facility at 1800 Sherman could �ie built over part of Benson Avenue without closing that right-of-way. �`)nomic Development Committee finutes - March 20, 1986 a¢e 3 Mr. Golan advocated consideration of parking garage development on air rights of current surface lots such as in the 800 block of Davis Street. He suggested checking out other alternatives for pockets of parking as opposed to one major garage. Aid. Juliar suggested looking at the lot on the west side of Chicago Avenue, north of the Women's Club. Kysiak suggested pursuing a policy of tax incentives to private par*King owners to make spaces available at lesser rates. George Cyrus, Diana Hunt King, and Greg Murphy, of the Northlight Theatre Company were present to discuss the needs of the theatre and the possibility of including a new facility in the Church/Chicago mixed -use development. Cyrus said Evanston would greatly benefitby including the theatre in the RFP. Cyrus went on to say Northlight is a very respected theatre company, it has become part of the fabric of the community and benefits other organizations, and it is a big economic boost to the City. Cyrus also gave some statistics on the theatre company including; $I.I million budget, 70,000 patrons per year, 3 different plays totalling 300 shows a year, and 6,500 paid subscribers. He said Northlight is continually evaluated by arts councils and foundations and gets increased funding when others are being reduced. Cyrus also spoke of the economic benefit of the theatre, stating that it provides 100 jobs per year with an economic multiplier effect producing a community value of about $3 million per year. Ms. King said the theatre has outgrown its facility at Kingsley School and the School Board may hay. to reclaim the building in the near future. Northlight had unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a deal with Plitt Theatres for the Varsity Theatre and the Coronet is not suitable to their needs. King said they had had the assistance of the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre's architects to arrive at physical needs of the theatre and that they had looked at many other successful theatres in other cities. One in particular was a development in Springfield, Massachusetts, which included a theatre with a parking garage. They hoped to develop along the lines of the Springfield theatre which combined federal, state and local funding. King anticipated that a new theatre facility would cost about $3 million. Mr. Murphy spoke of the specific space needs for Northlight. A 30,00r) sq. foot facility would be needed including a 400 seat theater, a 200 seat second performance space and conference facility, production space, rehearsal space, costume shop, general support space, and administrative office space. Cyrus said funding could come from the Illinois Capital Development Board, Illinois Arts Council, Illinois Educational Facilities Authority, and private contributions. North Light would then go after an endowment fund of about $1 'million. i in;t said the ieu faci:it} would also have the effect of adding 35,000 cars to the parking garage each year. There was discussion by Cyrus, Jenkins, Rudy, Nelson, Davis, and McCoy concerning the following: City funding of a theatre was never envisionea: Northlight will work out the financing if the City just make-s sure it is included in the RFP: bonding for the garage could be increased to cover the shell of the theatre with Northlight committed to paying off that portion of the issue; it is a very appropriate goal for the community to do a theatre, but financing will be the final determination; we should ask the developers, through the RFP, to look at proposals with and without Northlight and to be creative on financing; the total property should go on the tax roles; we need to build a strong cultural component into overall economic development efforts; including Northlight is less risky than most cultural development because of its strong financial backing; the theater component should not be mandatory but rather just encouraged; reliance on state agencies is risky because of the unclear future of their tax exempt financing capabilities. Economic Development Committee yinutes - March 20, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Golan said the parking studies of 1981 and this year both concluded a serious shortage of parking in downtown Evanston. He felt an RFP process which would include a theater or commercial on that site when it is not zoned for such may cause major delays in alleviating the parking problem. Saul Klibanow, a local architect and developer, stated that unknowns in the project will compound the selection process and make it more difficult and costly for developers to respond to the RFP. Klibanow suggested selecting a developer as soon as possible and developing a working relationship with all the actors to come up with the best possible project. He suggested a request for qualifications instead of waiting months for a wide variety of projects that would be difficult to compare. Discussion continued by King, Murphy, Klibanow, Davis, Aiello, McCoy, Thiel and Collins on the following: an ordinary parking garage at Church/Chicago with no amenities is not going to be very attractive; a theater would bring 70,000 people per year at times when it would really benefit the commercial base of downtown; Northlight can not raise the dollars until we can show them a development concept; space could be carved out for the theater so that parking could proceed before financing for the theater is finalized; we should put together a development team to start working with Northlight and other support amenities to see if the project can work; the rush to take care of parking should not foreclose opportunities for an attractive and interesting development; we need to consider a zoning change to 83 up front; we need to look at the economics from the developer's standpoint of using 30,000 sq. ft. for a theater versus other uses; we need to look at the process used by other cities to accomplish such a development; the zoning issue needs to be settled before the City can know what kind of developer to solicit. Ald. Rudy spoke of issues of the neighbors living in single-family homes in contiguous blocks. He felt there was a need to prevent an overwhelming development, but also alleviate the parking problems of the area. Residential development is probably preferred but residents might accept a theater or small amount of commercial. Development should be designed to conceal the parking as muc`. as possible. Aid. 3uliar favored a mixed -use with reduced densities that will ameliorate the impact on the R l zone nearby. .Mello stated that at ieast a dozen developers have expressed interest in the site thus far. %elson said his preference was to issue an RFP allowing alternative proposals to include the Northlight complex. Staff said a comparison of R7 and 63 zoning could be prepared for the Council discussion. on .April l4. The Committee concurred to request the Zoning .Amendment Committee to give high priority to rezoning of the site from R7 to B? while simultaneoL;s1'. reauestinw decision on development alternatives. Golan suggested setting a timeframe�for developer selection and stipulating when construction must start. Jenkins suggested that the RFP state that ttie City desires a theater but does not dictate that )ne be included. Nelson also requested that Nortnlight's research be made availaole to developers to r,eip them design their projects. The Committee concurred that a Nrrthlight packet 5e included in the RFP. It was moved and seconded that the project scope oe revieweu and confirmed by Administration and Public )Xorks and the City Council at their meetings on April 14th, prior to issuing a RFP. Motion approved. Six ayes. One abstention. V11. ADJOURNMENT 10:1 S P.M. Staff: 7rL,-_ , Da te: S � ' .�� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES April 30, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Davis, Juliar, Korshak, Nelson; Terry Jenkins, Wayne McCoy MEMBERS ABSENT: Aid. Thiel, Roger Koester, David Mann and Jack Wing STAFF PRESENT: Judith Aiello, Tom Thompson OTHERS PRESENT: Ira Golan, John Kline, Tom Parkinson, Charlotte Walker PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. John Nelson, Chairman SUMMARY OF ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:53 P.M. Il. MINUTES The Minutes of March 20, 1996 were accepted as written. III. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange Report. -B. The Committee received the sales tax report for 1953 and noted an error in the percentage increase over 19E4, Chairman Nelson said there may be upcoming changes in the state reporting techniques. C_ Mr. Tom Parkinson was present to -update the activities of Evanston Inventure and -the Evanston Business Investment Corporation (EBIC). The State of Illinois Department of Tourism had agreed to fund 60% of the cost of a video tape -promoting Evanston. -Mr_ - Parkinson reported that Mr. Kysiak would be serving on a regional board of advisors for vocational education at Oakton Cornrrwrvity Cnl[ege which would include Evanston Township High School in the program. lnventure had held meetings with foreign limes expressing an interest in Research Park Arid - two major developers intem!aed in ?tie site, Beta West and Urban Investment Corporatoru They had also held a meeting with $ -representaxive v7 Utinois Bell to discuss that -company's role in the Research park and potential tenants for space at Bell's building.vn Chicago Avenue. Parkinson stated that there was little progress on the high school incubator project. Nelson said he would attempt to attend a school board meeting and invite one of the board members to attend an Economic Development Committee meeting. There was a written report veceived from EBIC detailing the loans and investrrrents made to date, other activities of EBIC, the board approved investment criteria and portfolio policy, and a list of firms with which EBIC had contact, $200,000 in loanstnvestments had been approved for 3 projects with projected employment of 72 persons. -Parkinson also explained the types of investments EBIC would consider and gave examples -of companies they were currently working with. In response to a question from Aid..Davis regarding the portfolio categories, Parkinson said the percentages were only -targets but "EBIC did not want to invest a majority of funds in any one business category. Economic Development Committee Minutes - April 30, 1996 Page 2 D. Charlotte Walker was present to update the Committee on the activities of the Evanston Community Development Corporation (ECDC). She stated that ECDC had made quite a bit of progress on the Church/Dodge Facade Program lately and that they now expected to get 100% participation by the stores in that area. Four applications had been received from Emerson Street businesses and the architect was working on a design with the owner of 3 of the stores. The capital improvements and contracts for construction were expected to be completed during the present quarter. ECDC was also working to organize minority contractors and qualify them for work on various construction projects. This had involved some union difficulties which may be overcome by having ECDC act as the general contractor on rehab jobs. ECDC was also working to organize various west side businesses into an incubator concept. Walker then presented a slide show depicting the history of the ECDC organization and its function in the community. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Committee Priorities The Committee had received a list of priorities from September of 1983 and Nelson noted the completion of several of the items which could be removed from the list. Subjects to be added would be the Church/Chicago development project, the recommendation from the Zoning Amendment Committee regarding restaurants as special uses, and the proposed revisions to the Planned Unit Development provisions. B. Church/Chicago Development Project The Committee had received the draft request for proposals for review. Ms. Aiello stated that staff intended to provide a clear definition of the public parking alternatives for the project, whether it be privately operated or a turnkey arrangement. She also - .- added that the RFP would allow more flexibility in terms of design and garage operation, and that a pre -bid meeting would be held with prospective developers to attempt to clear up any questions/issues prior to the submission of proposals. Korshak agreed with the idea of an up -front meeting with developers, particularly to gain suggestions which may lead to more creative proposals. He also suggested that the City "will" give consideration to phasing rather than "may". 3uliar stated his desire to reduce the density of development as much as possible. On page 2, Davis suggested that the RFP state that the City Courrc_il has already made a reference to consider a zoning change to B3 and that they had unanimously voted to include Northlight Theatre's materials in the RFP. . Nelson said we should include a statement that the City does not contemplate municipal financial contributions to a -theater development or operation, and Korshak requested that a letter reiterating that position be sent to Northlight. 3uliar thought we should also be =tear that the developer is not expected to pay for it. Staff stated that the RFP would also include .a comparison of zoning restrictions of R7 and B3. McCoy thought the third Paragraph of the first page should be revised to convey that the City "welcomes" cultural amenities rather than "strongly favors". There was Committee discussion of whether a developer should be limited to 2 proposals, staff stating that the maximum was included to limit the number of proposal reviews to be performed and therefore keep the project on schedule. McCoy and Nelson said it might restrict creativity and further options and Korshak thought it should state that one or -more alternatives to the primary proposal may be tendered. Korshak also suggested deleting mention of "numerous" public meetings for the developer to attend. Economic Development Committee Minutes - April 30, 1986 Page 3 _ There was also discussion of scheduling and phasing on the project. Staff said uevelopment of the parking would be encouraged first with operation of the garage during the balance of construction if feasible. Juliar also favored pedestrian access to the parking on Church Street since it would serve both the Methodist Church and the rest of Downtown. Nelson said he was not in favor of mandating points of ingress and egress. Staff said the language would be changed to a recommendation/preference. McCoy said the RFP should also include a statement with regard to safety conditions in the garage. Nelson requested a clarification of sections 5.4, 5.5, and 6.1 if the garage is privately owned and operated. After further discussion the Committee approved the RFP process with the following schedule: send out RFPs by May 15, hold the pre -bid meeting 21 days later, receive proposals by July 15, hear presentations and hold interviews in July and August, and attempt to gain City Council approval by October. C. Research Park, Inc. Board The Committee members had received Copies of the applications for the"Remmrf -Park;.. Inc. Board. Committee members were to make comments to the Mayor on their own by � ='-► May 9th. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Restaurant Reference The EDC had been requested to review the Zoning Amendment Committee (ZAC) report regarding the definitions of restaurants and a recommendation to make all restaurants special uses in business, commercial and manufacturing zones. Nelson said it was up to individual members if they wanted to read the 300. page transcript. Ira Golan was present and stated there had been several restaurant cases, the most recent of which was the Blind Faith relocation on Dempster, that precipitated the reference to ZAC. Golan distributed copies of his own testimony to ZAC at the public hearing, a memo from Corporation Courril Jack Siegel which addressed standards for variations and the importance of structure of ordinances, and the City's procedure for granting special uses. Golan spoke of the major contributions of restaurants to the Evanston economy and his objection that they would not simply be permitted uses if the ZAC recommendation is approved. He felt it would reduce the flexibility of property use since a property owner could not guarantee that a potential restaurant would get at special usc. Further, ter stated his objection to expansions and altera._iuns of present restaurants being su� to special use ,provisions as well.. lie felt -trasb and =am nuisances -could be better regulated by an improved maintenance program as apposed to zoning. He said the ZAC proposed -oridirm nce was in 4firect conflict so the Council meted objectives regarding economic development, and that contrary to the current perception there had actually only been a net increase of 7 restaurants in the last 5 years. There was discussion among Committee members regarding several specific restaurant cases and the impacts that they have- had on neighboring residential areas. -Nelson suggested that other alternatives such as a special use provision for restaurants within a certain distance of residentially zones areas should be considered. He requested that Golan come up with reasonable alternatives to the ZAC recommendation. Mr. John Kline of J.K. Sweets reiterated the problems of dealing with a potential tenant and not being able to state whether a certain land use is legal. He also felt that food stores, delicatessens, bakeries, etc., that are excluded by the ZAC ordinance create the same nuisances as most restaurants and ice cream parlors. Golan said he would talk to several people in the business and return with some thoughts/alternatives at the next EDC meeting. Economic Development Cornmlttee Minutes - April 30, 1986 Page k ~� VL COMMENTS Golan said the Chamber was bury with marketing and promotional efforts including a "Passport to Evanston Dining and Entertainment" which would be issued to 10,000 office employees He said the Chamber was also hopeful of putting together a new brochure for Evanston within the next few months. VIL AD30URNMENT 10:15 P.M. Staff: Minutes Approved: cc: 3oel M. AsprootN City Manager 5Y12-15 r • ' . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES May 28, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Davis, Jullar, Korshak, Nelson, Thiel; David Mann, Wayne McCoy, Jack Wing MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Koester STAFF PRESENT: Robert Ahlberg, Judith Aiello, Tom Thompson OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Bretschneider, Ira Golan, Jackie McGuire, Tom Parkinson L CALL TO ORDER 7:50 P.M. IL MINUTES In response to questions from Aid. Korshak, Chairman Nelson stated that he had not yet written the letter to the School Board inviting them to an EDC meeting to discuss the high school incubator project, and that he had publicly announced at a Chamber luncheon the City's position regarding funding a theater development at Church/Chicago. The minutes of April 30, 1986 were approved as written. IIL REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS A. Chairman Nelson announced that Highland Development Company had contacted the City with a plan to develop property at 1000 Central Street for a medical office building. Nelson read a letter from the developer which indicated that they would be requesting IRB and Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) financing. A UDAG fact sheet was distributed to the Committee and the letter went on to state that public hearings would need to be completed prior to July 31 st, and that a formal presentation on the proposal could be made at the next EDC meeting. Staff had devised a schedule that would meet the deadlines but necessitated a change of the EDC meeting from June 23th to June ISth. The Sixth Ward Aldermen had also scheduled a ward meeting for June I2th on the proposal. Mr. Mann disclosed that the firm with which he is affiliated represents Highland, and therefore, he would excuse himself from any of the deliberations on this project. Mr. Wing felt he also had a conflict of interest that should preclude him from voting on any aspect of this project. In response to a question from Korshak, Nelson said he had no problem with Planning and Development Committee reviewing the project also. Korshak requested that the materials available to date be sent to P&D immediately. In response to a question regarding UDAG eligibility, staff responded that new HUD criteria of population lag or decline and job lag or decline had just made Evanston eligible. However, the upcoming round of applications would probably be one of the last before disbandment of the program. Nelson said the other major consideration would be whether Evanston wants to commit almost all of its IRB capacity for this year to one project. Staff said the zoning analysis was under way and Korshak requested that staff find out how many of the projected jobs could be filled by Evanston residents. Thiel moved to accept the schedule. Seconded by Nelson. Motion approved; S ayes, 2 abstentions (Mann and Wing). Economic Development Committee Minutes - May 29, 1986 Page 2 B. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange Reports. C. A pre -submittal meeting for the Church/Chicago project was scheduled for 11:00 A.M., May 300h4 to respond to any questions potential developers would have. A notice had been published in Crain's Chicago Business. Juliar said he would be hosting a meeting on June l 1 th with residents of the 1739 Chicago Avenue building to discuss the development. D. The Committee acknowledged receipt of a memo from the Mayor regarding appointments to the Research Park boards. TOPCORP and RPI. E. The minutes of the Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Oversight Committee meetings of April 10, May 8, and May 14, 1986 had been distributed to the Committee. Nelson requested that they be sent to the University and Rep. Woods Bowman, and Korshak requested that they be sent to the Park Watch Committee. Staff said the Committee had toured the Northwestern University Technical Institute and would have representatives of the EPA and Abbott Lab present at the next meeting. F. The Committee acknowleged receipt of a memorandum from Chairman Nelson to the Council on the status of the Evanston/University Research Park. G. Tom Parkinson was present to report on the activities of Evanston Inventure and Evanston Business Investment Corp. Parkinson discussed the progress of the Varsity Theater Project and efforts to create a light manufacturing facility on M-zoned property south of Main Street. They had also met with a real estate agent representing the Soiltest facility to discuss the possibility of dividing the building. Parkinson also provided a brief handout on the allocation of EBIC funds to date and explained a project that used convertible debt financing. Mann suggested that a future topic for Zoning Amendment Committee ('_AC) may be zoning changes to allow greater flexibility for locating light manufacturing and research facilities. Nelson requested that it go to P&D to then make a reference to ZAC. IV. CONTINUING ITEMS A. Statement of Understanding Amendment The Committee had received a memo from the City Manager explaining five proposed amendments to the Statement of Understanding between the City and Northwestern University for development of the Research Park. The primary amendment was to change the initial membership of the RPI Board of Directors to 14, 7 each from the City and Northwestern University with provision for 3 additional appointees in the future. In response to a question from Thiel, Nelson said the amendment to have a single value assigned to each square foot in the Research Park would not necessarily affect the sale price to private entities. Nelson added that the portion attributable to the Basic Industry Research Lab would be excised, thus increasing the City's share of potential land profits. Juliar thought the new reappraisal conditions of the second amendment would affect the mortgages on property not conveyed to private entities at this time. There was discussion on the potential affects of the initial appraisal and reappraisals and the liability issues for board members. Juliar moved Committee approval of the amendments and forwarding them to the Council. Seconded by McCoy. Motion approved unanimously. (Korshak was excused from the meeting at this point.) Economic Development Committee Minutes -May 28, 1986 Page 3 B. ZAC Reference - Restuarants Mr. Mann explained the background of the ZAC reference to consider changes to the definitions of restaurants. ZAC had recommended consolidating all restaurants under one definition and only distinguishing drive-thrus, and also making them all special uses with additional safeguards for various nuisances. The majority opinion of ZAC was to place additional restrictions on restaurants before allowing for ZBA consideration for special uses. Thiel said she felt the ZAC action was an extreme overreaction to the problem. Davis agreed that it was an overreaction but thought the problem of restaurants that abut R zones still needs to be addressed. Mann said the ZAC transcript includes a recommendation that restaurants abutting residential uses should be special uses but it could not be agreed upon as to how to limit it to only those. Robert Ahlberg, Zoning Planner, clarified that the ZAC recommendation was to include all restaurants under one definition and make them special uses in all B-zones and make drive-thrus special uses in M and C zones only. Also, additional restrictions to limit the drive-ins within certain distances of other areas were proposed. Ira Golan disputed the staff memo that stated the only structural alterations to existing restaurants that would be subject to special use provisions would be those "that result in land use impact". Golan pointed to the example of Milwaukee Avenue in Wheeling where commercial space is remaining vacant because no one is willing to go through the special use process. He also felt the special use provisions would restrict the small entrepreneur from ever attempting to open a franchise. He said the issues of litter, noise and other nuisances should be addressed outside of zoning law. He added that the success of restaurants has had the effect of making all retail in Evanston more successful. Golan said the Chamber's recommendation is that ZAC make an effort to clarify the distinctions between various types of restaurants, and then determine which types are appropriate for different zones. Mann said the problem with redefining the definitions for restaurants is that every time there is a change in the mode of operation the business falls under a new definition with different requirements. Thiel recommended that the Council send the recommendations back to ZAC for reevaluation and admonition. Mann requested a memo from the EDC to ZAC regarding the issues raised. Nelson requested that the memo be ready for discussion on June lath. Davis thought there was more direction needed and advocated that first priority be given to addressing the impact of restaurants on adjacent residential areas, and secondly to break down the different definitions for restaurants. Thiel felt it should be only for low -density R zones because residents of higher density R zones should expect to find urban attributes such as restaurants. Juliar said the most apparent restaurant problems are ones located in and around downtown and yet right next to residential buildings. McCoy said it seemed that ZAC started with the presumption that Evanston is a residential community and anything that impinges on that has to be justified. The Committee agreed that the memo should connote that it is being sent back for additional consideration because there seems to have been a lack of balance in the approach to the original reference. V. NEW ITEMS A. ZAC Reference - Planned Developments The Committee had been requested to review and comment on the proposed amendments to the Planned Development regulations recommended by ZAC. Mann explained that the present ordinance is such an onerous collection of regulations that it is virtually useless as a development tool. Planned developments are intended to be a flexible zoning technique that allows departures from the underlying zoning in exchange for benefits to the municipality such as increased open space and innovative design. ZAC was charged with recommending amendments to the Planned Development Ordinance to improve its usefulness as a tool for economic development. Economic Development Committee Minutes - May 28, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Ahlberg referred the Committee to the 11/15/85 memo to P&D explaining what planned development is and its various uses. Ahlberg described planned development as a "carrot and stick" approach which should balance the controls placed on the development with the allowances for departure from zoning. He reviewed the possible amendments to the ordinance to increase its flexibility and usefulness, highlighting elimination of several of the limits on site development allowances, relaxing submission and approval requirements, and eliminating the prohibition of concurrent requests for variations. Mann stated that most of what the Planned Development Ordinance now allows could be accomplished through variations anyway. He said a good planned development ordinance should entice developers to use it and without having to prove a hardship for every variation. In response to a question from McCoy, staff responded that minor alterations to planned developments are subject to written approval by the City Manager and major ones would be subject to the process again. Davis asked about the streamlining of the planned development process and Mann responded that the revised ordinance attempted to do so. Mann suggested a reference to ZAC to consider the economic impact of the ordinance and to make sure there is a balance between the controls and benefits of planned developments. There was discussion of the Cove School property and its application to planned development. Nelson suggested drafting a memo to the appropriate committee which would request ZAC reconsideration of this ordinance, balance the interests of economic development, and balance the enticement aspects of the ordinance to increase its usefulness to developers while enhancing appropriate development throughout the community. Nelson further suggested that ZAC consider examples that have been successfully developed and utilized in other communities similar to Evanston. He said the memo should state the types of properties the EDC feels would be impacted are the Cove School property, District 63 headquarters, Church/Chicago site, Research Park, ani possible manufacturing sites for redevelopment. Staff said the memo would be ready for review at the June 1 Sth meeting. Vl. Adjournment 9:55 P.M. Staff: Minutes Approved: cc: Joel M. Asprooth City Manager SY 16-19 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: SUMMARY OF ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER 11. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE %IINUTES June 18, 1986 Aid. Davis, Juliar, Nelson; David Mann, Wayne McCoy, Jack Wing Ald. Korshak, Roger Koester Judith Aiello, Tom Thompson 7:50 A.M. The rninutes, of the meeting, of May 28, 1986 were approved unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange Report. B. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Communitv Development Block Grant Needs Statement. AId. Juliar commented on anticipated further reductions in funding. IV. CONTINUING ITEMS A. Planned Development Staff had prepared a memo in accordance with the Committee's discussions of planned development at the previous meetinfz. Aid. Davis requested that the reference be directed to the Planning and Development Committee. Aid. Juliar said he had been working with the Preservation Commission regarding the use of the Planned Development :ordinance to enhance the viability of retaining larpur residenri,ji structures. k1r. %lann said he felt a revised ordinance should accomplish preservation objectives while also providing bonuses to the developers of those properties. Davis requested the addition of a fourth issue in the merno to. "Bake the Planned Development process a more streamlined. simpler alternative to the multiple variation request." The Committee accepted the addition and the reference to P&D. Mann said he would also distribute to ZAC. B. Restaurants Davis also requested that the reference regarding restaurants be directed to P&D. The Chamber had provided comments with suggested text changes to the memo. Ira Golan was present and commented that the reference needed more specificity concerning the balance of controls and benefits. The Committee accepted the memo for forwarding to P&D with a copy of the Chamber's comments attached. Economic Development Committee Meeting Minutes - June 18, 1986 Page 2 V. REPORTS A. Pam Walker, Deputy Director of Evanston Community Development Corp. (ECDC), provided an update of the organization's purpose and recent progress. Ms. Walker reviewed the Small Business Development Program and the success of attracting three new businesses to the Church/Dodge area. Ms. Walker also reviewed the Technical assistance Program and stated that the goals of the program had been exceeded. A seminar on i-ing creativity in business had recently been conducted. a new newsletter was about to go to print. and a Minority Business Directory had been completed. She spoke of tiie success of the facade program at Churchi'Dodge. the anticipated work on Dncrscn Street commercial facades. and the increased interest in the revolving toan fund. B. Tom Parkinson, Director of Evanston Bisiness investment Corporation (F-BIC.), was present to report on that organization's progress. P,-trkinson distributed new brochures on the program and stated that sic loans had been approved to date. the latest being a manufacturing/assembly facility for airlinr washing; devices. Parkinson reviewed the nature of the other IfiveStril•'nts as well. He also reviewed EHIC:'s investment criteria and portfolio polio. In response to a question from \Id. Juhar, Parkinson stated that company projections showed employment of Ql persons resulting from the EBIC investments to date. V1. NEW BUSINESS A. Acquisition of Downtown 11 Properties The Committee had received a rnernoranc:um from staff which proposed the purchase of six Downtown It properties 5%- the Citv Council. The Committee concurred to forward the memo to the �7otincil with 3 rep omrneneation Io proceea with the purchase. B. North Shore ;`Medical Center `!r. Mann and Mr. %%ing repeated their conflicts of interest on this project and excused themselves from anv further deliberations, fir. Francis Wilson, Chairman of the Hoard of Highland !development Company, introduced the other members of the development team: Mr. John Wilson, CEO. %1r. Greg %latic, President, and Mr. How.ird Mott, Project Manager. Mr, u llson provided background on the firm, areas of specialty, specific devfPlor)-rents of t~e ':11scn r�-Cent dew_le,p-7-iont prutrcts u! Hl},nlanc, and financial institutions with which Highland had worked. Nilson said the firm had worked closely with the City of Evanston to produce an attractive project �A hich would provide substantial tax revenues and services to the community. Mr. 1latic reviewed the purchase of properties on Central Street and itatern th.it several consultants had been used in the planning and design of the project. Tree de' -eloper had met .vith the hospital corn^,unity, rrhvsir.ianti groups, citizen grmi ;s, -n ,sn.J the CTA regarding; the project. 1latic_ revie,�cd plans and architertrir.il hoar-1k in-luding site location, parkin-1 layout, floor plans, renderings and elevations. Nlati(- said the design would reflect the residential character of the ncighborhload and that 50C) parking spaces woulc; be provided to more than ,nee( the needs of the immediate b�iildin)',. Chairman Nelson explained that the financing requests before the Committee were for a $700,000 Urban Development Action grant (UDAG) and a $10 million Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) and added that copies of the applications for both could be obtained from the City Manager's office. r ,tUnomjic -eve.opment +,-ommmee :v.eeting klinutes - June 18, 1986 Page 3 Mr. John Wilson explained the necessity of IRB and UDAG financing to make the project feasible. IR13s are limited to a $10 million project cap unless a UDAG is involved, in which case the project can cost as much as $20 million. UDAGs are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are project specific. The grant is made to the City and in turn loaned to a specific project. The City then keeps loan repayments for use for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) eligible activities. In response to a question from McCoy, Wilson responded that the only involvement of Evanston Hospital in the developer's project is a hope to attract members of the hospital staff to the new medical center. He said the project had been disclosed but there had not been a specific marketing effort yet. McCoy said his reason for asking was that he was a member of the hospital board and was hoping that a conflict of interest had not been created for him. Ald. Bleveans pointed out that the proposed link to the hospital garage may require a special use permit application from Evanston Hospital. McCoy felt that since nothing had passed the talking stages at this point he was comfortable that there was not a conflict of interest. Wilson introduced fir. Donald Kane of Kane McKenna S'. Associates, who served as consultant to the developer on the UDAG and IRB applications. In response to questions from Davis, Kane explained the rating system that HUD uses in reviewing UDAGs. Kane also explained the HUD deferral dilemma which had delayed the request for UDAG funding of this project. %latic said the developer had only anticipated IRB financing until plans were refined and it became apparent that the cast would exceed the eligible IRE financing without a UDAG. McCoy expressed concern for the use of the entire IRB capacity rf jobs were only being redistributed within the community. 1ilson responded that it Auas difficjit to distinguish ne,v einplovment versus redrstributen employment but retail should create all new employment while a significant portion of the office users would come from outside Evanston. Additional medical employment would corne from the overcrowded Cos building next door. %ilson stated that studies performed to date could be provided to the ward aldermen and committee members but added that no marketing study had been performed which would address the impact on the Carlson R gilding. Nelson requested some detail of the findings of the traffic analysis. Niatic said the study's suggestions included parking access at the west end of the project, traffic signal changes at the Girard intersection, drop off at the center of the building, removal of parking meters on Central, and separate entrance from Ridge for employee parking. At this point in the meeting, Chairman Nelson opened the discussion on the proposed medical center to the audience. The following represents a list of speakers. their key comments and questions, and any responses provided by the development team. 41r. Jim DeStefano. submitted a letter from a group of neighbors; favored economic development but opposed to the project as it exists; stated that prn-)je, t is in conflict with zoning in several ways; expressed concerns about traffic, p.irking, pollution, shadows, the amount of retail, and the expertise of the developers. Mr. Jim Murray, submitted a memo on behalf of the owners of the Cos Building; expressed concern regarding traffic, parking, necessary easements for the new development, and the impact on the surrounding area. Dr. Fred Malkinson, questioned the market for the development; expressed concern that the development will create vacancies elsewhere; questioned job projections; inquired as to the principles of Evanston Partners Limited; questioned the developer's experience in commercial ventures; stated that any physicians offices that are 100 p compensated by the hospital �.vould be deleted from the tax roles. zconomuc Jeve.opment Lommittee Meeting Minutes - June 18, 1986 Page 4 f Mr. Wilson responded by stating Evanston Partners was made up of Messrs. Wilson, Wilson, and Matic. Fie said the number of jobs was projected by using government procedures. `lr. Matic added that the Cos building was overcrowded and several tenants had stated a desire for new space. He also said that there was a group of North Shore physicians interested in creating a large clinic. He thought there would be no problem leasing the first floor for retail and that there was a Rood market for a physical therapy facility on another floor. Matic said there were no substantive issues raised thus far in the zoning analysis process and that traffic consultants could be present at a future date to respond to those concerns. Dr. Ed Mertz, expressed desire to review the traffic study; questioned the development's impact and whether the City would need to widen Central Street; commented on potential traffic dangers; thought the 500 space parking garage would be filled by spillover from the other buildings in the area. (Wilson responded that he anticipated a 15% to 18% increase in traffic but there would be little impact on the peak hours.) ,Mr. John Wardheimer, criticized the presentation for lack of intormation; commended the audience on their questions; inquired as to the developers fall track position. N ilson responded that the developer did not presently have a fall back position.) Mr. Carl Volva, asked if the cost of parking had made the project infeasible and why a Zoning variance was not requested. (Wilson responded that they had tried to comply with City regulations rather than circumvent them with variances.) Mr. Nicholson, questioned the impact of the development on the existing sewer system and what steps the City would take to prevent sewer problems for nearbv residences. (Nelson asked staff to provide a response on utilities impact.) Mr. Jeremy `',I i!son, stated that committee members have to be proud of the project; since the EDC controls the financial instruments, thev can negotiate the project size, setbacks, aesthetics, etc. (,Matic responded that the retaii did have a setback from the sidewalk and the developer was entirely responsible for bond repayments.) Unidentified woman. asked if the project was designed in excess of $10 mil€ion in order to use UDAG financing and whether it could be scaled down; expressed concern for parking and traffic and the effect on the neighborhood. (Wilson responded that they wished it did not Cost more than 510 million so they co+jld forgo the complicated procedures. He also stated that they were not sure if a smaller development would make economic sense.) Unidentified woman, stated that she understands the attractiveness of IRB and UDAG financing; reiterated other concerns for the environment, parking, traffic, light. safety, and pollution; asked what would happen if UDAG application deadline of July 31 was missed. (A ilson responded that UDAGs may never be available again and could preclude the use of Ih Bs.) Unidentified woman. asked for clarification of UDAG and IRB limits; inquired as to the feasibility of UDAG financing for downsized project. (Wilson stated that a UDAG would not be necessary on a smaller project but that such a project would not he economically feasible.) Unidentified woman, stated that the 500 parking spaces seemed inadequate for a busy medical center; projected further parking spillover to the neighborhood. %is. T'ammv Speed. asked if the property was purchased subject to development of this particular project. ('Filson responded thf ` h,id not purchased the propertv subject to this development and that they could either develop an alternative project, or sell or lease the property.) -conomtc—leve.opment t.ommtttee Meeting Minutes - June 18, 1986 Page 3 Unidentified woman, stated that the Cos building parking was grossly inadequate and should not be used as a model; the overflow will not be reduced by this project. Unidentified woman, questioned the developer's statements regarding not knowing when the development will turn a profit. (Filson responded that proformas were based on certain rental and occupancy projections.) nr. Fred Malkinson, questioned the market feasibility data and how the developers know that a smaller building would not be economically feasible. (Wilson responded that they had studied the health care market extensively, and arrived a break-even point to design a project which can be profitable in the future.) Unidentified woman, stated that although the EL station at Central was in need of repair it was still an attractive piece of period architecture and should be better appreciated. Unidentified woman, expressed a concern for the safety of the children in the area with the increased traffic. Chairman Nelson announced that the actual public hearings on the project were scheduled for June 23rd and July 14th at the City Council meetings at 9:00 P.M. The earliest possible vote on the project would be on July 14th or it could be delayed until July 28th. Nelson thanked the developers for their patience in subjecting themselves to the many comments and inquiries. V1i. COMMENTS Juliar reported that he and staff had attended a meeting at 1738 Chicago Avenue concerning the Church/Chicago development project. Juliar said people from the neighborhood seemed generally opposed to development of that site and that further opposition was expected. The Committee discussed possible dates for the next EDC meeting. McCoy stated that there should be more information furnished to demonstrate the economic viability of the medical office center project before using the entire annual allocation for IR8 financing on one project. Nelson requested that the developers provide that information prior to the next meeting. The Committee agreed that the next meeting would be July 9th. Vill. ADJOURNMENT 10.50 P.M. Staff: !Minutes Approved: cc: Joel M. Asprooth City ,Manager 5Y20/24 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES July 23, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Davis, Juliar, Korshak, Nelson, Thiel; David Mann, Wayne 'McCoy ,MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Koester, Jack Wing STAFF PRESENT: Judith .Aiello, Torn Thompson OTHERS PRESENT: Aid. Rudy. Saul Klibanow, Bob Brett, Ira Golan, Bess Feiss, Diane Ferdinand, Mabel Getzyf, Jeanette Statland, Charles Happ, James Green, Irene Green, Helen Mullow, Wait Jadsson, Pat Romana, Mr. 3t Mrs. Robert Altmeyer, Helene Miller, Mr. & Mrs. G. Emin, Sydelle Nelson, Betty McCarthy, Diana Hunt King, Susan %iedak, Greg Murphy, Mike Vitucci. Phil Peters, James Celano. SUMMARY OF ACTION: I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:55 P.M. If. MINUTES The minutes of the ineeting of June 18. 1986 were approved unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. Chairman Nelson stated that the developers of the Central Avenue medical office center had decided not to pursue the Urban Development Action Grant and Industrial Revenue Bond. He stated that to his knowledge the developer was redesigning the project to conform to present zoning and would proceed with the development based on private financing. B. Chairman 'Nelson announced that Gov. Thompson had signed the bill that would provide for $2.25 million for the completion of the Clark Street viaduct for the Research Park project. This grant from the state would eliminate the necessity to finance the viaduct project with local bonds. C. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the Downtown Idea Exchange reports. D. The Committee had received a copy of a letter from Mayor Barr to over 200 community leaders explaining the various concepts behind the Research Park. E. The Committee had received a memorandum from staff with the Request for Proposals for engineering and architectural service for the Transportation Center project. Staff explained that the funding level of $5 million for the project had been determined several years ago by the North Shore Council of Mayors. when the crosstown expressway project did not proceed and funds from that project were reallocated to various other transportation related efforts. To date, a formal award of $925,000 had been made to Evanston for design services and land acquisition. In response to a question from Mr. McCoy, staff responded that the City would have to take part in land acquisition at a future date in order to acquire the existing parking lot on the site. There was discussion of relocation of present uses on Church Street and staff explained that the Transportation Center project was meant to proceed with or without redevelopment of the balance of the site. With redevelopment, every effort would be made to relocate those uses within the project and it was decided that a use such as the car rental agency would be very appropriate to a Transportation Center. Economic Development Committee Minutes - July 23, 1986 Page 2 There was discussion by Committee members as to the City's commitment to such a project given recent action on the Research Park. Chairman Nelson requested that copies of the R FP be sent to the Research Park. Inc. Board and Aid. Korshak requested that copies also be sent to the Levy Center, the Pine Yard and Dave's Italian Kitchen Restaurants, and the Hertz Rent-A-Car. Staff stated that a general cover letter would be sent with the R FP to explain the nature of the project. F. The Committee acknowledged receipt of 3 sets of minutes fro=n the Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr. Phil Peters, Chairman of the Plan Commission, was present to discuss a memorandum that had been sent to the Committee from Richard Carter, Planning Director, regarding the Plan Commission's efforts to develop a master plan for the Evanston Central Business District. A questionnaire had been sent with the merorandum and the Committee had been requested to respond to the two questions on the questionnaire and return them to the Plan Commission by ,August 23th. Mr. Peters explained the need for central business district planning and the first step of securing various committees' and community leaders' opinions with regard to prohle,ns and issues facing the downtown before such planning could proceed. Staff added that several other organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce and Evanston Inventure. were also undergoing planning efforts related to the downtown and that a meeting between the City and those agencies was scheduled for Monday. July 28th. at 9.00 A.M. B. The Committee had received a memorandum and draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to negotiate the sale of certain real estate and authorizing the publication of Notice of Intent to Sell Certain Real Estate, such real estate related to the Research Park project. Staff explained :hat this ordinance was the firs: of a two-step process which would merely authorize the City Manager to negotiate the sale of properties to TOPCOR P per uur Statement of Understanding with the University for development of the Research Park. Ordinances regarding any particular conveyance of property would be forthcoming in the future. There was clarification that the ordinance addressed properties currently owned by the City as well as those properties which the City was obligated to purchase per the agreement for the Research Park development. There was discussion of the inclusion of the Senior Citizen Center property in the list of properties to be conveyed. Aid. Korshak questioned whether the Senior Citizen Center had been adequately informed that that property may be conveyed to TOPCOR P. Staff responded that presentations to various groups of the Center and ongoing discussions with the Center's director had included mention that such property would be conveyed to a third party. Juliar moved approved of the ordinance for forwarding to the City Council. Seconded by McCoy. Motion carried, 6 ayes, I nay (Korshak). The Committee scheduled Tuesday, August 3th as a special meeting to discuss the contracts for sale of the properties. Economic Development Committee Minutes - July 23, 1986 Page 3 C. Church/Chicago Development Project Chairman Nelson stated that the City had received 4 proposals for the development of the surface parking lot at the corner of Church Street and Chicago Avenue. Nelson explained that the Committee would be holding interviews with developers at a later date and that a public hearing would also be sche-ioiled for detailed comments from the public. He asked that discussion be limited to the process for review of the proposals and setting a timetable for the interviews and public hearing. At the request from a member of the audience, Chairran Nelson introduced the staff, the members of the Committee, and the aldermen from the I st ward where the project would be located. Staff had prepared a list of the four proposals with the team rnernbers involved in each of them. There were many comments from the citizens in the audience regarding their concerns about the development of the site. They included the retention of open space In the area. the desire to limit development, particularly related to height and bulk, and the possibility of underground parking so as not to impose on the aesthetics of the area. There was also discussion of the need for such a large amount of parking, what such parking would accomplish, pollution and traffic rarnifications and the types of uses envisioned. Chairman Nelson gave a brief description of the Request for Proposal process, stating that the City had requested developers to submit proposals which would take into account tho need to increase parking in the area while also attv;npting to develop the site privately to meet both R 7 and 133 zoning. Nelson explained that the site was currently zoned R7 but that interest in a possible mixed use development which might include a small amount of commercial space and/or a Northlight Theatre complex had induced the City Council to request proposals that would also conform to a B3 zoning classification. "nelson went on to explain that the R FP requested 600 public parking spaces above and beyond whatever the development necessitated per the zoning ordinance. He stated that the City had made a conscious decision not to attempt to split the site in half sn as to construct a parking garage on the south half with a residential component on the north half. He said the City had decided to atternpt to gain a more aesthetically pleasing development by incorporating the parking into a development which would. hopefully, lirnit the necessity for a multi -story free standing parking garage. The Committee then took +jp discussion of how .a atrornpiisfr the interview It was finally determined that they would attempt to do 2 interviews a night r,n 2 successive nights: August 27th and August 28th, starting at 6:30 P.M. There was also discussion of when the public hearing should he and a tentative date was set for September 10th. In response to Questions from the audience, each Committee member gave their opinion as to the necessity to develop additional parking to alleviate both the problems of the business district and the residential area and their desires for econornic development and enhancement of the local tax base. Staff also reviewed a draft of the proposal evaluation form that the City staff would be using in their project review which was to be completed by the 3rd week of August. In reviewing the evaluation form. it was decided that extra categories should be added addressing the issues of garage safety, environmental impact, impact on utilities, and integrity with the neighborhood. The history behind the decision to add a major parking ganige to the downtown and the appropriateness of putting Such a garage on the Church/Chicago site were also reviewed. The Committee discussed previous parking studies that had been performed and the most recent findings of the Barton-Aschman study which again found an cute shortage of parking in the downtown area. in response to questions from the audience, Committee members Stated that parking studies for the past 15 years had found .3 shortage of spaces in the downtown area. Each study had recornrnended the hudding of additional parking to meet the demands of retailers and office users and alleviate the parking spillover into the residential areas to they east of downtown. Economic Development Committee Minutes - July 23, 1986 Page 4 There was additional discussion regarding the economic benefits of such a development. rraffir_ imoac% and the effect on values of surrounding properties if the Church/Chicago site is redeveloped. Chairman Nelson informed the public_ that copies of the proposals would be available in the City Clerk's office and in the public library by Friday, July 25th. He also stated that copies of the Barton Aschman report should be available as well. V. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 P.M. Staff: �1 Minutes Approved: cc: Joel M. Asprooth. City Manager TL T/as 5Y 25-28 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 1986 Members Present: Aldermen Nelson, Thiel, Korshak, Wayne McCoy Members Absent: Aldermen Davis, Juliar, Jack 'Wing, Roger Koester Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager Others Present: Robert Berger, Aldermen Brady, Drummer. Collens Presiding Official: Alderman Nelson, Chairman Summ&" of Action: I. Call to Order — 8:03 P.N. II. Minutes The minutes of the meeting of July 23. 1986, were approved unanimously. III. Communicatons A. Chairman Nelson acknowledged receipt of staff's memo regarding the scheduling of the interviews for the Church/Chicago Redevelopment Project. At the Chairman's request for questions regarding the schedule and/or the project, a discussion was held regarding the Northlight proposal and participation of Northlight in the project. The Committee requested information regarding each developer's expectation for the City's financial participation in the Northlight 'theatre component. There is concern, based upon some of the submissions, that the developers expect City participation in order to incorporate Northlight into the project. Staff clarified that throughout the process the City has been very clear that the City would not be providing financial support for Northlight. Staff indicated that it had been the understanding that representatives of Northlight met with each of the development teams and agreed to clarify that representations were made by Northlight. The Committee asked that staff request that Northlight provide an update as to their funding prospects and a firmer explanation of their capital development program. Staff was also asked to seek some input from neighbors regarding their concerns to date. A question was raised as to the feasibility of incorporating the Byer "luseum into the redevelopment site. City Manager Asprooth responded that the Byer Museum is currently involved in court proceedings and was not sure that it would be resolved in the near future. finally, staff was requested that at the beginning of the interview process a summary of the RFP and the criteria that was stated within the RFP, be presented for the public who are in attendance at the interviews which will be held in the City Council Chambers. Alderman Korshak asked for staff to investigate the feasibility of putting the proceedings on cable. EDC Minutes August 5,1986 Meeting Page 2 IV. Continuing Items A. Evanston/University Research Park Proposed Ordinance 84-0-66 Contract For Sale Chairman Nelson opened the discussion for the proposed Ordinance 84-0-86, which is the contract of sale of the City -owned land and land to be acquired to TOPCORP. City Manager Asprooth began discussion on the contract by introducing Mr. Robert Berger of Mayer, Brown 6 Place, who served as Counsel for the Research Park, Inc. in the drafting of the contract for sale. City Manager Asprooth stated that the presentation of this contract is in compliance with the Evanston/University Statement of Understanding, which required that a contract for sale be presented within a 180 day period from the date of execution of the Statement of Understanding. He highlighted that this agreement for purchase is unique in that we are stating and agreeing to sell land that the City currently owns and land that the City is going to acquire. In addition, the contract assumes a single appraised value per square foot and assumes the development in accordance with Exhibit C. The single value method was established in a manner which Mr. Asprooth felt was most favorable to the City given the current improvements on the City -owned land. A second point that 4r. Asprooth noted was that in this situation the City has agreed to the possible subordination of our mortgages. This is different than previous real estate transactions involving the City where there has been no subordination of the land. In addition, there are the provisions for partial releases of mortgages at either no cost or below the appraised value for 75.000 square feet of City of University owned land. Finally, the contract provides for participation by one party in the other's mortgage if one party is more adversely affected by the partial release. In response to a question raised regarding ;he liability of the City if we do not acquire the remaining land. Mr. Asprooth responded that the City would be in default of the Statement of Understanding with the University, and that legal action could possibly be taken, but that the contract does not specifically state what the remedies would be if we do not acquire the remaining land. the Co=iccee agreed that the contract would be amended to provide the language from the Statement of Understanding regarding the City's obligation to acquire the remaining property. specifically noting that the property must be acquired or condemnation proceedings initiated. The Committee then discussed the definition of property costs and a question was raised as to the relocation cost the City is going co incur. It was the consensus of the Committee that the contract should be amended to include the fact that the relocation cost attributable to the properties to be acquired by the City Would be included as part of the cost of acquisition of those properties. However, any relocation cost for properties already owned by the City or owned by the University would not be included as part of the property cost. A clarification was requested as to the issue of prepayment and the City Manager clarified that it is the intent that neither side be allowed to get out before all the land has been tranferred to TOPCOiiP. In response to further clarification City Manager Asprooth responded that reference to Carley within • EDC Minutes • August 5, 1986 Meeting Page 3 the contract, was due to the fact that at the time the contract was being drafted, Carley still maintained a contractual arrangement with the City. Since this was no longer the case, it was the consensus of the Comszittee that the reference to the Carley Capital Group be removed from the contract. It was further clarified that the subsequent land which is acquired will be reappraised in accordance with the amendment to the Statement of Understanding and the definition of the fair market value. It was understood that the City will receive either the purchase price or the appraised value at the time of the transfer, whichever is higher, so that if the land is reappraised the City would benefit from the reappraisal in the years to come. After additional discussion on technical matters of the contract the motion was made to approve the contract as amended by David Mann, and the motion was seconded. After further discussion the motion was approved: 4 ayes, 1 nay, with Alderman Korshak stating that he wanted his negative vote to distinguish his feelings between the Park and the document. The Chairsum then asked for introduction of proposed Ordinance 84-0-86 to the City Council on Monday evening, August 11, 1986 and the motion was approved 5-0. V. Adjournment With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:13 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: -em A sistant City Manager JAA :1 r cc: Joel W. Asprootb a , Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Public Hearing September 10, 1986 Members Present: Aldermen Nelson, Davis. Karshak and Juliar; Eroslin, McCoy. Jenkins Members Absent: Jack Wing, Roger Koester Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager To* Thompson, Development Analyst Others Present: See attached list Presiding Official: Alderman Nelson, Chairman The Chairman of the Economic Development Committee called the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. and announced that the meeting was a Public Bearing to receive citizen comments regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Church Street/Chicago Avenue site. The Chairman reviewed for the audience the overall objective of the City of Evanston in this redevelopment project which is to develop the full potential of the site at Chicago Avenue and Church Street by the construction of a mixed -use development which increases the supply of downtown parking, places the property on the tax rolls and provides market rate housing. The Chairman also reviewed criteria for the selection of a development proposal which included the inclusion in the project of: (1) 600 public spaces for short and long term parking; (1) superior design integrated into the surroundings; (3) maximum revenue for land lease and sale with minimum cost of development for the City; (4) market rate housing; (5) quality and timely construction by a quality development team capable of completing the project; (6) special attention to ground level activities especially as it relates to design use amenities; (7) traffic patterns which are designed to minimize impact on the adjacent street system; (8) development which meets current zoning; and (9) an experienced team with a record of success on similar projects, with that the Chairman opened tue meeting for citizen comments. A summary of the comments are contained herein. 1. Phil Peters, Chairman of the Evanston Plan Commission - Mr. Peters stated that the Plan Commission had reviewed the four submittals and had attended the presentation by the development teases, and it was their conclusion that two of the submittals, Rescorp and Lakeview, were far superior to the others and that the Committee should concentrate on evaluating these two preferred proposals. A copy of the Plan Commission's comments are attached. 2. Marilyn Price, Chairman of the Evanston Arts Council - Ms. Price endorsed the Lakeview Terrace proposal and felt that it was an exciting proposal for the City of Evanston in that it combined arts and industry, and was in accordance with the City's Comprehensive General Plan. Ms. Price also informed the Committee that Springfield, Massachusetts has a similar project in which they have incorporated a theatrical center into a parking garage. Minutes EDC-Public Hearing Page 2 September 10, 1986 3. Diana Hunt King, Member of the Northlight Board - Ms. King endorsed the Lakeview Terrace proposal and stated that it would provide the new home that Northlight is looking for. Ma. King stated that Northlight brings 73,000 people to Evanston every year, a third from Evanston, a third from Chicago, and a third from the north shore and beyond. They provide 200 jobs for the community and believe that the inclusion of Northlight in the Church/Chicago development is an opportunity to bring economic good to Evanston. 6. Steve Knudsen, Architect and resident - Kr. Knudsen stated that he was enthused about Rescorp and Lakeview's proposal, and felt that they both respected the fabric and built-in environment of the community. He cautioned the Committee on the over importance of open space and stated that undefined under developed open space is not a benefit to the community, 5. Michael Nadowski, member of the Evanston Arts Alliance - Mr. Nadovski stated his support for the Lakeview Terrace proposal. 6. Ira Golan, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce - Mr. Golan reviewed for the Comittes the Chamber's involvement with the parking study and the proposals, and stated the Chamber's support for the Economic Development Committee's stated time line. The Chamber endorses the need for additional parking and hopes the Committee will maintain their schedule and chose a developet no later than October of 1986. He further stated that although the Chamber would like to see a parking structure completed and operational as quickly as possible, they recognise that the expanded economic value to the community of a mixed -use development even though it may delay the availability of additional parking for additional months is beneficial, and therefore request that construction begin no later than October of 1987. A copy of the Chamber's comments are also attached. 7. John Rudy, Alderman of the 1st Ward - Alderman Rudy stated that at this time he was in favor of the Rescorp and Lakeview proposals, but cautioned the Committee not to move too fast because we will be living with this project for a long time. Although he did not state that there was any one proposal that he preferred. he did indicate that he felt a theatre would be good for the community but felt that the Lakeview proposal as submitted was too large for the neighborhood. Ve felt it vas important to keep in aiad that every land owner has the right to develop their property and the City was no exception. Therefore, at a minimum the land should be able to be developed as R7, and stressed that the importance of the project is a good quality development that this community can be proud of. 8. Fury Singh.a resident of the neighborhood - Ks. Singh stated her preference for maintaining the R7 zoning and explained how the neighborhood has continued to work to maintain the R7 and the protection that R7 provides for the residents. . 9. June Lockhart, a resident of 1725 Hinman - Ms. Lockhart stated that she was in opposition to Lakeview's proposal because it was preponderance and oppressive in design, but stated that she was in favor of the Rescorp proposal. 10. Ed Lewis, a resident of the area - Mr. Lewis, endorsed Alderman Rudy's comments and emphasised the need for a quality development. Minutes KDG-Public Bearing _ Page 3 September 10, 1986 11. Lou Kraft, a resident of -the area -- Mr.' Kraft stated that he supported the conssents of Ms. Sing. 12. Sedella Nelson - a resident of the area -Ms. Nelson stated that she also wants to maintain the R7 and that open space is important, 13. Bess Weiss - a resident of the area - Ms. Weiss stated that she favored the Rescorp proposal but is concerned about what the alley view will be for those residents of the 1730 Hinman property. 14. Lois Roewade - Ms. Roewade stated bar support for the Lakeview proposal and felt that it was exciting architecture and would be good for the cossunity. 15. Jim Green - a resident of the area - Mr. Green endorsed the co=ents of Alderman Rudy and Ms. Sing, and stated his support for the Rescorp proposal. With the conclusion of Mr. Green's comments, the Chairman asked if there was any out also wishing to speak. With no further citizens wishing to make comments, the public hearing was adjourned. The Economic Development Committee agreed that their next meeting would be September 24, 1984, at which time they would review the proposals and begin their selection process. With no further business, the ~meting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: g�Usistant City Manager JAA:lr cc: Joel M. Asprooth wQ yitEN/nno�v�� ECONOKIC DEVELOPMENT C.a.."- SEPT. 10 CHURCH STREET/ CHICAGO AVENUE REDEVZLOPMZXT PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN ADDRESS c;+w C a.0 �s - vs /029 -0oBsanJ a4&.� f elMW� 17, ku34pe W ZDZ5 8 rou u E'Cr is 1:73s ch,Cya Do you with to .peak? d(,5 vies f hAD YES .. des N c) t4a 414C aXtx. r--- Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE September 24, 1986 Members Present: Aldermen Nelson, Davis, Collens; Terry Jenkins, Jean Breslin, Wayne McCoy Members Absent: Aldermen Juliar, Korshak; David Mann Staff Present: Joel Asprooth, City *tanager Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager Richard Carter, Planning Director Presiding Official: Alderman Nelson, Chairman Summary of Action: I. Call to Order Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 8:07 P.H. and announced that this was the regular meeting of the Economic Development Committee, and was not a public hearing but that car-:.ents from the audience would be considered at the appropriate time. II. Minutes The minutes of the meetings of August 5, 1986 and September 10, 1986, were approved as submitted. III. Communications The Chairman acknowledged the communications received by the Committee in their packets which included the Economic Development Activities Report. The Chairman highlighted for the audience some of the activities reported including the conversion of the Marshall Field's store in early 1987 to a residential and -etai. gal feria. He further indicated that the Baxter -American Hospital Supply Company has on the market the sale of their Sherman Avenue facilities as well as their 1740-1800 Ridge Avenue complex. As indicated in the report, the Varsity Theatre renovation will begin shorty and the new stores will include the Gap, the Limited Express, and a third store which has not been leased. finally, the Chairman noted that Evanston has been the site of a number of `::m:ng locations of both feature films and commercia:s, and that mangy• of the file companies utilize Evanston businesses. The Chairman acknowledged the other communications which included the Downtown Idea Exchange, a policy position statement from £CDC, and a Phasing Plan for the Research Park. As the Chairman noted, the Phasing Plan is indeed just a concept plan and that as the Park progresses the Phasing and/or the Master Plan may be modified as outlined in the Statement of Understanding. .EDC Minutes September 24, 1986 Meeting Page 2 The Chairman than stated that on the Committee's desk this evening was a copy of a letter from Northlight Theatre in response to the Chairman's letter to Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Chairman of Northlight Theatre, a copy of which was in the packet that the Committee received. Final communication in the Committee's packet was the monthly Sales Tax Collection Report and the Chairman indicated that the Gales tax collection has been below what had been budgeted. IV. Reports The Chairman then called upon Charlotte Walker, Executive Director of ECDC, to make a monthly report. Ms. Talker indicated that the organization was pleased with the progress on the facade program of both Church Street and Emerson, but that the bids had come in above budget and modifications are being made. In addition, ECDC has been working with Gilbane and Associates, with respect to minority participation in the construction of the BIRL Lab. Mr. Kysiak from Evanston Inventure indicated there was no report that he wished to make at this time. V. Community Development Block Grants Staff indicated it was that time of year to review CDBG proposals and that a member of the Economic Development Co=ittee should be designated to attend the CD meetings to hear the economic development proposals discussed and that the Committee would be discussing Chem in greater detail at our October meeting. Ms. Breslin indicated that since she was also a member of the CD Committee she would be willing to represent Che Eccncrsic Development Committee and bring back the information. VI. Church Street/Chicago Avenue Redevelopment The Chairman indicated that the goal for tonight's meeting was to develop a procedure in order to narrow the choices ;;Itimately to one decision for a developer to take to City Council. In additio-, the Committee would begin that procedure this evening and esCablish. a time line. It is the Chairman's hope that a recommendation can be brought to the %itv Council in early Novenber. He informed the Co=--ttee that on October 2, 1956, the Zoning Amendment Committee would hear the request for rezoning of the site, and after considerable discussion it was determined that Terry Jerkins would represent the Economic Development Committee at the Public nearing. In order to begin the process that evening, Alderman Nelson suggested rating the proposals and narraw:ng the proposals down from seven to two. the analysis of the two proposals. Che Chairman suggested that information be received :rem the developers t_ ceter=ine how ".exib:t their proposals were a-d to teen narrow the choice down to one. The Committee's discussion focused iz:tial:v en the issue of the con,-nc and can this Committee support a B3 zoning. �:uerwan Davis staled that she believes the Committee had addressed that issue by the initial reference and that we would be willing to do a B3 proposal with the certain design constraints or modifications, but that an R7 could be acceptable. She indicated that it is difficult to compare the R7 and the B3, and therefore we are almost going to deal with apples and oranges. Aldo —an Nelson Stated that if we looked at all seven proposals, he believed that we could eliminate all but three proposals and recommended to the Committee for further consideration the Church/Chicago EDC Minutes Page 3 September 24, 1986 Meeting Venture under B3, the Rescorp Development under R7 and B3, and the Lakeview proposal of B3. He indicated that for the Church/Chicago B3 proposal he believed there were the following strengths: (1) architectural view point that this development adhered most stringently to the design setbacks as outlined in the RFP; (2) included a Northlight Theatre; and (3) it would put parking below grade. The weaknesses in this proposal however continued to be the- financing; which in Chairman Nelson's opinion is outside the realm of reality. The City has committed $7.5 million to the construction of a parking deck and there just isn't any more financing for the project. For the Rescorp proposals both R7 and B3, the Chairman felt that the strengths were: (1) sensitive to the area in both R7 and B3; (2) the financing was strong enough; and (3) that this project would be built. The weaknesses of the proposals of Rescorp the Chairman indicated was that they did not fully achieve the goal of mixed -use since there was not any retail or culture amenities. The Lakeview Terrace B3 proposal Chairman Nelson felt was the most dynamic. However, the weaknesses included: (1) too massive; and (2) pre sale time. In response to Chairman Nelson's review of the proposals, Alderman Davis affirmed that even with the tax bill unchanged, which would allow for some of the incentives, the City has stated that there is extreme reservation with the proposed financial package. Chairman Nelson then identified Solomon Gutstein, the developer in the Church/Chicago project, who indicated that due to the tax bill the financing would definitely be modified and believes chat standard financing may be acceptable and would be proposing a new financial package. The question was raised as to whether or not the Lakeview Terrace R7 proposal was viable, and the Chairman identified Dan Epstein, the developer, who indicated that the R7 proposal creates too much dead space and he did not believe that it was good planning. He stated that they would scale down their B3 proposal to 180-190 units which would allow for additional terracing and court yard considerations. Jean Breslin indicated that she felt there were only two proposals that the Committee should continue to consider the B3 of both Rescorp and Lakeview Terrace. The Committee had additional discussion and concluded that they would seek additional information from three developers regarding their B3 proposal, There was the recognition that if the zoning is not changed, that there are additional R7 proposals including Rescorp that could be reviewed. Therefore, the Committee will seek more information on the Rescorp B3, the Lakeview Terrace B3, and the Rockwell-Carow B3. The general consensus is :hat the Co=--ttee desires a B3 proposal, with Mr. McCoy stating that a B3 is aesthetically more pleasing and financially desired. Alderman Rudy expressed his concern that the Committee in only addressing the B3 has eliminated the R7 and that there is some neighborhood concerns with the B3 zoning. Again Alderman Davis stated that we had addressed the rezoning upfront and that there is a desire to rezone with certain modifications. Alderman Nelson stated that since the conception of the process and project ideas, the goal has been to get a project that is best for the City and not necessarily having the zoning dictate the project, therefore, we clearly stated in the RFP that a B3 was an alternative and that it would be unfair to the developer if we were unwilling at this point to accept a B3. Chairman Nelson continued that it is his intent that we proceed on this process and that the ZAC recommendations would be concurrent to the Committee's recommendation to the City Council. BDC Minutes Page 4 September 24, 1986 Meeting At that point, staff was directed to contact the various developers and seek the additional information and to prepare for the Committee's use at their next meeting a matrix of criteria. The information to be received from all developers is as follows: (1) more information regarding the parking; (2) if a lease back of land to the City is proposed, determination as to the amount of financing available to amortize the debt service for the garage; (3) additional information as to the participation of Northiight in each proposal; (4) additional information from Northiight regarding the information they provided; (5) how the new tax laws will impact any of the proposals planned. For the specific projects the following information will be requested: Rescorp B3: (1) more details regarding the flexibility of providing retail /Northiight; (2) if air rights to the site are proposed, what type of leasehold arrangements; (3) consideration of acquisition by Rescorp of the land rather than leasing; (4) if retail can be incorporated, how much and where; (5) any alternatives on the parking operation; (6) additional visuals for retail space; (7) the level of equity that Rescorp will be providing in this project. Lakeview Terrace B3 (1) the flexibility on the pre -sale issue and timeframe; (2) the contingency plan if :llartniight is not able to proceed, what will the space be used for and at what point will it kick in; (3) =are information regarding the parking; (4) if the project is scaled back, what is the reduction of units and host does it affect the pre -sale issue and the :money paid to the City; (5) additional visuals for the new reduced program; (6) the level of equity that is being proposed. Church/Chica2c Venture B3 :) revised financial package for the parking and the residential; (2) additional visuals for the changes outlined in the letter received on September , 1966; (3) the level of equity proposed; (4) contingency plan for Northl:ght as to hog: the space would be used if Northiight does not move forward and at what point does that kick its; (5) additicna: costs for providing the parking below grade and additional operating expenses in the future for the City. Next Meetin¢ Date The next meeting of the Committee will be October 22, 1986. Adjournment With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ' Assistant Litt `tanager 3AA:1r NAME is �I o f" d l u 8G r G ttEd �i by ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CCraIITTEE I September 24, 1986 ADDRESS Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMM COMMITTEE Meeting of November 19, 1986 Members Present: Aldermen Collens, Davis, Juliar, Korshak, Nelson; Wayne McCoy, Greg Hummel, Drew Petterson. Members Absent: David Mann Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager Richard Carter, Planning Director Stephen Pudloski, Director of Public Works Presiding Official: Alderman Nelson, Chairman Summary of _Action: I. Call to Order Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. and announced that this was the regular meeting of the Economic Development Committee, and that comments from the audience would be considered at the appropriate time. In addition: Alderman NeIson announced that Drew Petterson was attending this evening for Plan Co -mission member Jeanne Breslin, who was unable to be at this meeting. Alderman Nelson introduced Greg Hummel, the new member of the Economic Development Committee to replace Jack Wing, who had resigned. If. Minutes The minutes of September 24, 1986 Were approved with the following additions recommended by Alderman Davis. Page 2, VI, the eighth sentence should read as follows: Alderman Davis stated that she believes the Committee had addressed that issue by the initial reference and that we would be willing to do a B-3 proposal based upon an acceptable development eLoposal with approved design and other constraints: it is not a_si_tuation where a zoning change is sought_ without the benefit of knowing what kind of _development will proceed from that change. Sentence number nine to be changed as follows: She indicated that it is difficult to compare the R-7 and the B-3 proposals and therefore we are almost going to deal with apples and oranges. Page 3, paragraph four, first sentence: In response to Chairman tielson's review of the proposals, Alderman Davis affirmed that even with the tax bill unchanged, which would allow for sense of the incentives, the City has stated that there is extreme reservation with the proposed financial package incorporated in the Church/Chicago venture. Page 3. paragraph six, sentence seven: Again Alderman Davis stated that we had addressed the rezoning upfront and based upon receiving an acceptable B-3 proposal, that there is a willingness to rezone with certain modifications. With these changes the minutes were approved. EDC Minutes -2- -Meeting of November 19, 1986 III. Communications Alderman Nelson acknowledged receipt of the various communications within the Committee's packet and asked if there were any questions or comments from Committee members regarding the items. Alderman Collens stated that the overview of the Science Parks and Settings for High Technology Activities by Charles Minshall was extremely beneficial and was similar to the comments Dr. Minshall presented at the Inventure Research Park Seminar. IV. Continuing Items A. Church Street/Chicago Avenue Chairman Nelson initiated the discussion regarding the Church Street/Chicago Avenue redevelopment project by stating that at the end of the last meeting the Committee was down to reviewing three proposals submitted by Rescorp, Lakeview Terrace, and Church/Chicago Joint Ventuie. Each of the developers had responded to various issues raised by the Committee and had submitted new proposals addressing those issues and each modifying their B-3 submission. Chairman %elson stated that he would like each of the developers to give a brief overview to the Committee as to their new plans under consideration and status of where they are in their discussions with Northlight. The Chairman also noted a schedule that had been recommended which would culminate construction in the suer. The schedule included a decision by the Economic Development Committee in November; followed by a discussion and decision by the City Council in December; negotiation of the development agreement in January, February and March; City Council consideration of a development agreement in April; plan review in May, June and Julv; and construction initiation in July or August. With that the Chairman called upon Norman Matz from the Rescorp group to begin their presentation. I. Rescorp: Mr. Norman Katz, President of Rescorp Development Corporation and Jahn Macsai, principal of John Macsai Associates, Architects, presented the overview of their revised B-3 proposal. Prior to reviewing the design scheme Mr. Katz highlighted three points that he felt was important for the Committee to keep in mind. (1) The Rescorp proposal paid particular attention to the Committee's desire to have parking as soon as feasible. Under Rescorp's R-7 or B-3 scheme they believed that one-half of the first tower garage would be available for the next Christmas shopping season. (2) At the request of the Committee, Rescorp has had discussions with Northlight and has indicated to them the need to have a commitment by February 1, 1987, which Northlight believes will be difficult to achieve. However, Mr. Katz stated that they have not closed the door on Northlight and that if it was a priority of the City they would continue to work with Northlight, but that it would require a lot of coordination on the part of all parties involved. (3) As Mr. Katz reviewed the various other proposals which have been brought forth, he believes that the Rescorp proposal reflects what the City had asked for and what is appropriate for the community. With that Mr. Katz introduced John Macsai, architect for the project who reviewed the architectural points. (1) Both Rescorp's R-7 and B-3 scheme maintain two separate buildings so as to dimenish the massing of the project on the site. (2) Both maintain the principal focus of the site as residential with the appropriate residential set backs with minor variations. (3) The B-3 EDC Minutes -3- Meeting of November 19, 1986 scheme does include commercial along the frontage at the sidewalk, however, above the single story of commercial the —set back for the residential is maintained. In addition in the center between the two towers there is the accommodation of Northlight Theatre in the B-3 scheme. (4) The residential scheme has been altered to provide additional landscaping in the 27 foot setback in the front and a 20 foot sideyard, which will require a variation from the 26 foot setback which is required. The front yard landscaping is extensive and is terraced back to further hide the parking garage, approximately to the second level. In addition the alley side will also be landscaped to provide a more aesthetically pleasing view for the residents to the east. At the conclusion of the presentation by Mr. Katz and Mr. Macsai, Committee members raised questions. Alderman Davis asked for clarification regarding the approximately 150 to 200 spaces allocated for Northlight Theatre in the center of the project and whether these spaces would be lost. Mr. Katz responded that the 150 spaces would most likely be lost in that area, however the City's decision would have to be whether or not those 150 spaces would be provided in another level above ground or below ground, in order to accommodate Northlight. He further stated that if in fact Northlight was not able to go forward with the project then parking could be provided in that site with an additional 150 spaces exceeding the City's request for the 600 spaces. Obviously ,adding to the City's cost. He estimated that the cost would be approximately $6,500 to $7,000 per space above grade and possibly $8,500 per space below grade. If the project went up one floor the total height would be 94 feet. If it went down one floor the cost to go up to 85 feet per space would raise the estimated cost of the garage. In response to Alderman Nelson's question, Mr. Katz stated that indeed the project could be such that Northlight would be included but that the commercial would be eliminated and in place of the commercial in the front yard would be the terrace as proposed under the R-7 scheme. Mr. Katz stated again that they have concerns as to the viability of quality commercial space at that location on the edge of the central business district. In conclusion Mr. Katz concurred with Chairman Nelson's consensus that the developer's preference would be: 4l. R-7 with housing and parking; #2. A modified R-7 with provisions for Northlight; 03. The B-3 proposal with Northlight and commercial space. In closing Mr. Katz stated that he felt the time table that staff had presented to negotiate an agreement was too long and that he would like to see it accelerated in order to initiate construction this summer and have some parking available for the Christmas season. One final question asked by Alderman Davis was related to the projected rents and whether or not the new tax laws would have an affect on the rent. Mr. Katz responded that as indicated in the proposal the rents would stay approximately the same, and that in the long range investment rental properties would be more detrimental to the individuals than to the institutional investors due to the nature of their portfolios. The size of the units would be as follows: 1 bedroom, 750 sq. €t; I bedroom With den, 900 sq. ft.; 2 bedrooms, 1,000 sq. ft.; and 2 bedrooms with den, 1150 sq. ft. 2. Lakeview Terrace - Mr. Al Nowickas and Mr. James Celano, III., presented the revised project for Lakeview Terrace, and explained that Mr. Dan Epstein had been delayed in t-'ashington. Mr. Nowickas began his presentation by stating that the revisions to the proposals were based upon the comments of the Economic Development Committee, the Plan Commission, and the concerns EDC Minutes -4- Meeting of November 19, 1986 by the neighbors. (1) All the access for the parking is now off of Clark Street or Church Street. (2) The massing of the building had been set back and terraced up. The terraces are on the east and west side of the building and presents a more desirable terraced effect for the adjacent residents. There is also a slight set back from the north and south facades of the site. (3) The project will be phased to allow for an accelerated time frame and to reduce the amount of pre sale time necessary for the project to move forward. (4) There is also a set back on each of the north and south sides of the property of approximately 10 feet. Mr. Nowickas then proceeded to go over the floor plans for the site. In response to a question raised by Alderman Davis Mr. Nowickas indicated that there would be access from the parking garage directly to the theatre. In response to a question raised by Alderman Juliar, Mr. Nowickas stated that there was a 10 foot set back on the north and south elevation but built to the lot line on the east and west. In addition the materials will remain as originally proposed, masonry with precast concrete. In response to Alderman Davis Mr. Nowickas clarified that above the ground level retail the window treatments to disguise the parking would be louvered to give the impression of window space. In a clarifying point Mr. Nowickas stated that there will be one curb -cut on Chicago Avenue to allow for loading and deliveries for the retail and theatre. Mr. Celano stated that they were continuing discussions with various financial institutions regarding the pre sale commitment, but at this time Mr. Epstein had not been able to secure any firm coanitment from a financial institution. Mr. Celano felt that there was a strong retail market and that there would be no problem in leasing up the minimal commercial space that would be in the project. (5) The size of the residential units would be as follows: i bedroom, 900 sq. ft.; 2 bedrooms, 1200 sq. ft.; 3 bedrooms, 1800 sq. ft. In conclusion Alderman Nelson figured that the cost to the City for the Lakeview project would be $4.5 million. In explaining the difference between the projected cost and benefits to the City, it was clarified that figures on the highlight sheet came from the developer and the staff did not verify those. However, there would be a reduction in the taxes based upon the reduction of the project size and the fact that the units are bigger than the Rescorp project. In conclusion Lakeview Terrace Associates stated that the project can accommodate Northlight and that due to the phasing of the project and the pre sale time co=itment required that the project could be well under way before a determination will be required by Northlight whether its a go or no go. In response to a question by Mr. Wayne McCoy, the developer stated that Mr. Epstein would have to answer any questions regarding any type of performanc- bond or guarantee for completion of the project would be included in the proposed deal. 3. Church/Chicago Joint Venture - Mr. Solomon Gutstein of Church/Chicago Venture stated that he would be the principal speaker, but that Mr. J. Carow of Rockwell-Carow 6 Associates would be presenting the architectural highlights. IMr. Gutstein began his remarks by stating that Evanston was a unique co=unity and that the project was an attempt to provide the blend of architectural, cultural and residential characteristics of the City. The focus of Mr. Carow's presentation was that project was a residential and cultural facility including Northlight and Cinemas. The main architectural features are as follows: (1) The residential component has been incorporated EDC Minutes -5- Meeting of November 19, 1986 throughout the whole project as opposed to..the separate building at the north end in the first scheme. The revised plan maintained the required set backs with the planting and also adds the retail at the ground level. (2) Northlight would be the center part of the southern end of the site with the smaller theatre in addition to the main theatre of Northlight and the cinemas on the second floor. (3) in addition at the south end townhouses have been added in an effort to camouflage some of the parking. (4) Since the park is in the center care it can be built without Northlight and does not have to delay the construction. (5) Terracing has also been added to both the residential and the southern cultural center. (6) At the north and the south end on the Chicago Avenue side a park area has been created in the project scheme. In response to the Committee's question regarding the financial package Mr. Gutstein explained that based on preliminary analysis, the project would still qualify under TIF or that it could be taxable bonds. fie further stated that the project was eligible for a UDAG but the alternative would be the pre sale of townhouses. In response to a question by staff regarding the purchase price that Church/Chicago Venture would be offering to the City, Mr. Gutstein stated that they still would be proposing the $2.3 million, however, not from IRB proceeds but other revenue sources undetermined at this time. He stated that again the financing could be negotiated but that the basic is the 6.8% blended financing. Mr. Gutstein believes that the pre sale rime would be adequate to provide them the necessary financing. He stated that the pre sale concept would be if the City was not interested in the TIF or the UDAG. Mr. Gutstein stated that the new. Tax Act is unclear as to what the impact will be and that as we move forward the final details would be worked out. Prior to the Co=ittee's brief recess Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Chairman of Northlight Theatre, made the statement that in their estimation the Lakeview Terrace proposal would be the most beneficial to Northlight due to Lakeview's provision of providing the shell space for Northlight. They anticipated that the savings to Northlight of this provision would be approximately $800,000. After a brief recess Chairman Nelson began the discussion for the Committee by stating the following comments regarding each proposal: Rescorp - On the Rescorp proposal Chairman Nelson determined that the net cost to the City would be approximately $4.5 million with an annual receipt of approximately $275,000 per year. These receipts could be raised by another $50,000 if Northlight and commercial space was included. Under the Lohan proposal Chairman Nelson estimated the net cosy is approximately $4.5 million also and the receipts due to the increased taxes for the condominiums would be approximately $500,000 to $600,000 a year. Finally under the Church/Chicago proposal he felt that although our costs were estimated to be $2.3 million, that these costs would be higher up front due to the various subsidies being requested and that in the long run we might be able to recover more of our money but that the financial package was not clear at this time. In conclusion he felt that there was no overwhelming difference between the proposals as related to the costs and revenues coming into the City, but that looking at the ability to finance the project, Rescorp is indeed the preferred developer. The Lohan project has the problem of the pre sale need as does the Church/Chicago Venture with the need for either public financing or pre sale. Aldermen Juliar and itorshak felt that there was the need to be sensitive to the interest of the neighbors and that in this case maintaining the R~7 project was desirable. EDC Minutes -6- Meeting of November 19, 1986 The majority of the Aldermen felt that it was desirable to have the theatre in the project, but that the financing may present a problem. Alderman Collens stated that she believes that we should choose the project we desire the most and recommend that to the Council and if it is a B-3 then request that the zoning be changed. If the zoning is not changed by'the Council than we can provide an alternative. Alderman Collens does not believe that the neighbor's issues have been adequately presented. Alderman Davis further stated that there was a need to look at the project rather than the zoning due to the fact that the commercial component necessitating the B-3 was very minimal in all of the projects presented. Alderman Davis stated she believes that this location represents the unique opportunity of a gateway to the downtown, and that it is important to keep in mind a commitment to Iorthlight Theatre. Since Northlight is approaching the end of their lease with the School District, the City should make every effort to keep them within Evanston. She stated that because of all these reasons she favored the Lakeview project. Drew Petterson stated that the Plan Commission was in favor of the B-3 alternative but that he was also impressed with the R-7 proposal by Rescorp. Wayne McCoy stated that as he thought about the project, he felt we had to go back to where we had begun and how we analyzed how to structure our Request For Proposal. Mr. McCoy felt that the Committee needed to be responsive to the iu-nediate neighbors, but needed'to be responsible to the entire community and that we look at the project that is going to be in the long range benefit of the community. He stated he was favoring the dynamic B-3 proposal of Lakeview, but that he appreciated the R-7 proposal of Rescorp. The Committee then had some discussion regarding the impact of the tax law on the proposed project. Prior to the Coiittee voting on the desired project, Chairman Nelson thanked each of the developers for participating in the process and their faith in the City of Evanston and their willingness to submit proposals for this project. Alderman Davis added her appreciation for the developers and being responsive to the issues that were raised by the Committee and the neighbors and their willingness to adapt their project to accommodate those interests. Alderman Nelson felt that the original Lakeview Terrace proposal was very dynamic and visionary, but that in the modifications to the project it lost some of its dynamic features in order to respond to the neighbors. With that the Committee members voted as to their preferred project. Rescorp's R-7 with Northlight Theatre received 34 out of a possible 40 points followed by Lakeview's B-3 proposal with 31 points out of 40. The Rescorp B-3 proposal was next with 25 points out of 40 points. Next was the Rescorp P,-7 with 20 points out of a possible 40 points and Church -Chicago received 10 points. Chairman Nelson concluded that the consensus was the Rescorp R-7 with Northlight Theatre to be recommended to the City Council with the Lakeview B-3 as their second choice. After further discussion by the Committee it was also the understanding that among the Council's options would be to choose the Rescorp proposal with Northlight and still rezone the site to B-3 thus negating the need to seek a variation for Northlight. To that, Terry Jenkins stated that he had represented the Economic Development Committee at the Zoning Amendment Committee hearing and that he did not believe the zoning would be changed. However, he added that there was a strong feeling by =his Committee to incorporate Northlight into the project and it was beneficial to both Northlight and Rescorp to negotiate in good faith to achieve that goal. Mr. Jenkins also stated that the neighbor's concerns were beyond this site and if the site was re -zoned to a B-3 there was EDC Minutes -7- Meeting of November 19, 1986 the fear that the change in zoning could affect the properties east of Chicago Avenue. Mr. Jenkins also stated that as -ee was the representative from the Chamber on this project, that parking was an issue which was important and that the Rescorp project allowed the opportunity to move forward as quickly as possible with the parking. However, Mr. Jenkins did not believe that the enlightened members of the business community would want to preclude the opportunity of having Northlight included in the project in favor of a garage at Christmas of '87. After further discussion Alderman Collens moved that the Committee send their first choice of Rescorp's R--7 proposal with Northlight to the Council, and their second choice of Lakeview Terrace's B--3 proposal to the Council for consideration. That motion was seconded and approved unanimously by the Committee members 8 to 0, with Greg Hummel noting an abstention due to the fact that his firm has worked with the parties involved. After the vote the Chairman_ announced that we would be taking this to the City Council on December 8, 1986. B. Community Development Block Grant The Committee discussed briefly the Community Development Block Grant proposals and after consideration determined that they did not have the appropriate information to comment on any of the proposals for the CD public hearing. V. New Business A. Illinois Development Finance Authority The Committee considered proposed Resolution 90--R-86 which would authorise the City to transfer its unallocated bond capacity to [he Illinois Development Finance Authority. Staff had indicated that unlike the previous years where the City had been able to allocate our capacity to a particular community who paid us the issuance fee, the Illinois Development Finance Authority is not in the habit of paying the fee, and if we exceeded our allocation we would not be getting any additional revenue for this. The Committee asked staff to continue seeking a fee from IDFA and also that the City get some type of priority treatment for other State funding and/or priority if the City has projects needs IDFA funding in 1987. With that the Committee approved proposed Resolution 90-R-86 and will be recommending it to the City Council. B. Funding for the Research Park Alderman Nelson acknowledged receipt of the memorandum and stated that this would be an item for the Corraittee's continued consideration. At this time we are awaiting the RFI budget in order to determine the allocation needed to be contributed by the City. Chairman Nelson indicated that he hoped to have this available for the Committee at our next meeting. VI. Reports Due to the lateness of the hour the Committee did not receive reports. VII. Comments There were no comments. EDC Minutes -8- . Meeting of November 19, 1986 VIII. Adjournment With no further business the Committee adjourned at 12:05 A.M. Respectfully Submitted: ssistant City Manager JAA :1 r cc: Joel M. Asprooth 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRESIDING OFFICIAL: SUMMARY L CALL TO ORDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday, December 17, 1986 Room 2403 - 7:45 P.M. CIVIC CENTER Aldermen Davis, Collens, Korshak; Al Belmonte, Gary Hummel Aldermen Nelson, Jullar; Wayne McCoy, David Mann Aiello, Carter, Clarke, and Lindwall Ronald Kysiak, Ira Golan, Phil Peters, Drew Petterson, Bob Helmuth, Jackie McGuire, Bob Drettsheider Alderman Davis, Acting Chair The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. IL MINUTES The minutes were approved as submitted. III. COMMUNICATIONS Alderman Davis acknowledged receipt of various communications included In the Agenda packet. A. Downtown Idea Exchange Aid. Korshak indicated that he found the Article in the November 13, 1986 issue of the Downtown Idea Exchange on "Citizen Bonds Help Build Center" extremely interesting. He proposed that staff look at this concept and its success in other towns as a means of funding future downtown improvements. Members concurred. Aid. Davis indicated that utilizing the League of Cities as a resource in obtaining this information could prove useful. B. 1987 Calendar of Meetings Greg Hummel indicated that he has a difficulty with meeting on Wednesdays. Aid. Davis Indicated that Wednesdays were not always the most convenient day for her either but was selected because of minimal conflict with other committee schedules. She suggested that the Committee reconsider its meeting day for the 1988 calendar year during the summer so as to accommodate the schedules of as many members as possible. Discussion occurred regarding the scheduling of the December meeting. Because of the observance of the winter holidays, it was decided to schedule the December meeting to the second Wednesday, December 9, 1987. with this change, the calendar of meetings, as presented, was accepted. economic Development Committee Minutes - December 17, 1986 Page 2 C. Sales Tax Collections Discussion occurred over the City's collection of sales tax and If there was a means to verify the information supplied by the State. Ira Golan, Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, indicated that only aggregate data was available and any method to verify would be difficult. Mr. Hummel concurred indicating specific data by retailer is not released by the State, apparently to protect the retailers' privacy. Ira Golan advised the Board that he expected a substantial increase in the October collection due to the phenomenal end of the year auto sales and that the Chamber Is expecting a substantial increase in Christmas sales. He indicated that these factors, along with the new Toys-R-Us and Fretters, should allow the City to meet at least the City's budget figure for sales tax collection. Mr. Golan indicated that he is still optimistic about meeting both the City Manager's projection and the Chamber's for sales tax collection. 1V. NEW BUSINESS A. Plan Commission Presentation of the Downtown Plan Chairman Phil Peters, Al Belmonte, and Drew Petterson , of the Plan Commission, introduced the Downtown Plan and provided a slide presentation of past and current scenes of Downtown. It was indicated that the reason for a Downtown Plan was that the Downtown in changing, as evidenced by the slides, and a plan can be a way of assuring that future change will occur in desirable ways. Discussion occurred regarding the process by which the Plan will be formulated and adopted. Plan Commissioners responded that their intention is to solicit response, initially, from groups particularly interested in Downtown Evanston and then to expand this of fort to include shoppers, downtown workers, and Evanston residents. Aid. Korshak indicated he felt it was important to involve the public as early as possible. Bob Helmuth, and Evanston resident, commented that it may be wise to ask retailers what they think makes for a good downtown and that it may also be extremely beneficial to ask outside retailers what they consider to be key components of a good downtown. Aid. Collens suggested that some thought be given to ground level zoning or other techniques to assure retail use on the first floor. She indicated that this is an item that involves both the pedestrian and boundary issues which are discussed in the Plan. Ira Golan indicated that he thought the health of the Downtown is very good and some types of forced zoning may not be well received within the business community. Aid. Davis suggested that the Plan have specific alternatives or questions identified in order to elicit response. Aid. Korshak concurred and stated this would crystalize the issues and elicit a greater response from the public. Ron Kysiak, Director of Evanston Inventure, noted that the Plan, as currently drafted, seemed pre -disposed to a certain philosophy that the ❑owntown is currently big enough and that tall buildings can not be made to fit into a pedestrian environment. He suggested that the size and height of the Downtown remain open issues and that the real issues may be what type and how can high rises be incorporated into the Downtown. Aid. Collens noted that the draft plan indeed seemed to be pre -disposed against a larger and higher ❑owntown but felt this reflected an accurate reading of the citizen opinion. fir. Kysiak suggested that Downtown housing was an important issue to incorporate into the Downtown Plan. Aid. Collens, Ira Golan, and Richard Carter concurred indicating that the housing e;ernent has become an important factor in the renewal of several other downtowns. Economic Development Committee Minutes - December 17, 1986 Page 3 The Chairman complimented and thanked the Plan Commission for their efforts and stated that the Committee looked forward to working with them. V. REPORTS A. Evanston Community Development Corporation (ECDC) A written report from ECDC was handed out for members to read. B. Invent ure/Evanston Business Investment Corporation (EBIC) Ron Kysiak summarized the activities of these groups by stating that Evanston is now being sent many perspective start-up businesses from Loop accounting firms because of the EBIC's venture capital program. He noted that this local program was not, to his knowledge, being duplicated elsewhere in the country. Because of this program, Evanston is now in the position to select the type of firms it wants and those which are healthy and good prospects for success. Mr. Kysiak also noted that his group was working with a private concern on acquiring land on the southwest side for new light manufacturing space. He noted that there is currently a high demand for light manufacturing space In Evanston. Mr. Kysiak also noted that his group was completing plans to market Research Park to 5,300 midwest firms who have connections to the type of manufacturing research undertaken at Northwestern University. VI. CITIZEN COMMENT No additional citizen comments were provided. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Aid. Korshak stated he was very concerned with the method of negotiations between Rescorp, and the City for the Church/Chicago site. He indicated that the City Manager's office, alone, should not be negotiating and suggested that at least two other persons be included in the negotiations for the City. Aid. Davis indicated that the Council has given direction to the City Manager's office and would be giving final approval to the development agreement. She indicated that the negotiations are scheduled to be fast paced and elected officials do not need to be involved in every detail. Aid. Korshak responded that there were important policy decisions to be made regarding the garage and Northlight and that this should not be left to the CityManager's office alone. Mr. Hummel concurred with Aid. Korshak that involvement of elected officials in the early states of negotiations would be beneficial. Aid. Collens indicated that she was willing to give the current process a try. It was noted that the City Manager will report to the City Council on .Monday, December 22, in Executive session, regarding the negotiations at which time these issues can be discussed at greater length. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Aid. Collens made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Aid. Korshak. Motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:43 P.M. Respectfully submitted, K Timothy M. Clarke, Development Planner Date: