Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2010/05/12 Minutes Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 1 The City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the May 12, 2010 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Reisenberg, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Michael Adelman, Tim Newman, Elizabeth Miller, Jeff Kuchman and Catherine Waldeck. Commission members absent: None Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff Chairman Reisenberg introduced the members of the Commission and welcomed Commissioners Miller and Kuchman as new members of the Commission. 2. Approval of the minutes from the March 16, 2010 and April 14, 2010 Plan Commission meetings. The minutes of the March 16, 2010 minutes were approved as submitted. The approval of the April 14, 2010 minutes was postponed. 3. Recognition of former Plan Commissioner Robert Franksen and former Plan Commission Chairman, William Avery. Chairman Reisenberg recognized former Plan Commissioner Robert Franksen and former Plan Commission Chairman Avery noting that he served with both of them during his time on the Commission. He stated appreciation for their leadership, professionalism and overall contributions to the community. He noted that Mr. Avery served as Chairman of the Plan Commission for six years and before that, on the Zoning Board of Appeals. He added that Mr. Avery also served on the Laurel and Western Avenues Redevelopment Committee. He stated that Mr. Franksen served on the Plan Commission for six years. He pointed out that both Mr. Avery and Mr. Franksen dealt with a number of complicated and controversial issues including, Costco, Amberley Woods, Willow Lake, Lake Forest Place, Barat Campus, Central Business District, cell towers and affordable housing. He expressed his hope that both would remain involved in the community in the future. Commissioner Adelman stated that it was a privilege to work with both Mr. Avery and Mr. Franksen and agreed that the City would benefit from both continuing to provide service to the community. Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 2 Commissioner Newman thanked both Mr. Franksen and Mr. Avery stating that it was a pleasure to serve with both of them. He noted that both did outstanding work and were a credit to the City. He encouraged both to remain involved in the community noting the value of their opinions. Commissioner Shaw noted that ordinarily he is an advocate for term limits but noted that in the case of Mr. Franksen and Mr. Avery, an exception to the rules would be warranted due to their value and great contributions. Chairman Reisenberg again thanked both for their high level of professional service to the community. He presented each with a plaque in recognition of their contributions to the City through their service on the Plan Commission. Mr. Franksen stated that is was a pleasure and an honor to serve with his fellow Commissioners, former Chairman Avery and City staff. Mr. Avery stated that he tried to add up the number of City meetings he attended during his years on the Zoning Board of Appeals and on the Plan Commission, but stopped counting at 160 meetings over his 11 years. He said that his time on Boards and Commissions was enjoyable noting various challenging matters that came before the groups during his time of service. He stated that the City benefits greatly from the participation and contributions of the various Board and Commission members, the residents and City staff. He stated that the participation of all parties results in good decisions which make the City of Lake Forest a special place. 4. Public Hearing and Discussion: Consideration of amendments to Chapter 38 of the City Code, Subdivisions. This is part of an ongoing effort by the Plan Commission to update and clarify the various sections of the City Code pertaining to development. Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item noting that this item is a continuation of previous Plan Commission discussions on updating and clarifying the Subdivision Chapter of the City Code. He asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts on this agenda item. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from City staff. Ms. Czerniak noted, for the benefit of the new Commissioners, that updating various provisions of the Code on a regular basis helps to keep the Code current and allows areas that are found to cause confusion to be clarified. She explained that important goals of Code amendments are to make the Code more user friendly, to assure that it accurately reflects current processes and to set clear expectations. She noted that in the Commission’s discussion to date, the first half of the Subdivision Chapter has been covered. She noted that the first half of the Chapter was provided in the Commission’s packets with the changes previously directed by the Commission. She stated that proposed revisions to the second half of the Chapter will be brought back to the Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 3 Commission at a future meeting. She reviewed the first half of the Chapter noting that no changes were made to the Purpose Section. She noted that in the Definition Section, the language relating to the applicability of the provisions was relocated to elsewhere in the same Chapter for improved readability. She stated that clarification was added that for terms not specifically defined in this Chapter, the definitions as provided in the Zoning Chapter of the Code apply. She noted that the definition of “buildable area” was clarified to specify that wetlands and conservation areas are also excluded from buildable areas in addition to the other items currently listed. She noted that the definition of “fees” was updated to reflect the City’s current practice of City Council approval of all fees on an annual basis. She pointed out that this approach allows the City Council to modify specific fees without triggering the need for various Code amendments. She stated that the definition of “local street” was clarified to identify that these are pubic versus private streets. She noted that “plat of subdivision” was clarified by adding a reference to “common areas”. She explained that most subdivisions today include one or more outlots or common areas. She discussed the definition of “private road” noting that when the Commission last reviewed this Chapter, questions were raised about whether the City should continue to allow developments with private roads. She stated that she brought the question back for a discussion with staff from various departments and commented that the staff recommendation is to continue to allow developments with private roads so long as the Plan Commission and City Council determine that there is sufficient justification provided by the developer in support of a private road. She explained that private roads allow flexibility in some cases to preserve trees or other sensitive areas through narrow width streets and alternate construction materials. She added that in some cases, private streets are proposed by developers for aesthetic reasons such as a desire for granite curbs or other features. She confirmed that the trade off is that private streets, streets that do not meet City standards, must be maintained and plowed by the Homeowners’ Association and are not the responsibility of the City. She pointed out that no more than five lots are permitted on private streets unless approved, at the sole discretion of the City, through a variance or Special Use Permit process. She asked the Commission for any questions, comments or corrections to the Sections presented so far. Commissioner Adelman noted that once a plat of subdivision is recorded, it is a very important document. He suggested that rather than defining it as only an “official” document, the definition should state an “official legal document”. He asked whether “Fee Schedule” is defined else where in the City Code and suggested that if it is not, it should be. Hearing no further questions, Ms. Czerniak continued noting the new location in the Chapter of the Applicability Section. She discussed Section 38-3 noting that there were no substantive changes in this Section, only clean up and clarification of some of the language. She noted that the language was clarified to state that no construction activity of any kind can proceed until the plat of subdivision is recorded with the County. Commissioner Adelman noted the omission of a word at the end of Section 38-3. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that a Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 4 “yard swap”, or property line shift, is not considered a subdivision and can be administratively approved by the City Engineer. She stated that a property line shift cannot change the number of lots, create a nonconforming situation or increase the nonconformity of existing conditions. Hearing no further questions, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the Section relating to variances from the subdivision criteria. She noted that clarifications were made to better explain the criteria used to consider variances and the process for requesting variances from the subdivision criteria. She noted that historically, the Plan Commission has required standard subdivisions to meet the Code requirements unless unique hardships or extraordinary circumstances existed. She pointed out that the Commission has regularly used the flexibility provided for in the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District to modify lot sizes in order to preserve open spaces and historic structures when considering subdivision of properties located within the overlay district. She stated that the Special Use Permit required for subdivision of properties located within the overlay district provides a mechanism which allows for some variance from some of the standard regulations. She explained that the language that was added with respect to standard subdivisions is intended to set realistic expectations for developers by clarifying that proposed subdivisions are evaluated based on the standards in the Code. She added that if a variance from any provision of the Subdivision Chapter is proposed, the deviation from the standard or standards must be clearly called out in the application materials and a variance from the Code provisions must be specifically requested. She added that in the past, the Plan Commission has considered requests for variances from the provisions of the Subdivision Chapter as opposed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that this practice is intended to eliminate the need for a subdivision to be considered by the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. She explained that language was added to the Chapter to confirm the process that is now in place to clearly authorize the Plan Commission to consider requests for variances associated with a proposed subdivision. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. Czerniak stated that in Section 38-5, the added language is intended to establish a relationship between variances from the subdivision standards and the provision of community amenities as part of the development such as preservation of open space or historic resources similar to the requirements of the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District. She stated that it was staff’s intention that both the uniqueness and hardship criteria, as well as the provision of some amenity, be present to support a variance from the subdivision regulations. Commissioner Miller suggested that the Section could be written to require that the Commission determine that a “triggering” condition is present such as a hardship or unique situation and if so, one of the amenities listed in the second sentence could also be required to be met. Commissioner Newman noted that the language should preserve some flexibility to address unique developments and developments that face particular challenges. He noted Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 5 that in the past, the City has approved variances from regulations in cases where the overall project was found to be consistent with the character of the community and offered a product the community desired. Commissioner Miller noted for example that in the recently considered White Stable Vineyard Subdivision, lots smaller than the minimum lot size were approved due to the unique features of the site. Commissioner Adelman noted that White Stable Vineyard was approved under the Planned Preservation provisions because it is located in the overlay district which provides for flexibility in some of the regulations through a Special Use Permit. Ms. Czerniak summarized that the Commission seems to support retaining an option for the consideration of variances from subdivision regulations if unique circumstances or hardships exist and if the overall project is determined to be of benefit to the community. She reiterated Commissioner Adelman’s comments that this opportunity already exists for subdivision of properties within the overlay district. Commissioner Adelman noted that the proposed language allows for some discretion and does not seem to be too restrictive. He noted that from a practical standpoint, there are not many situations for which the language will be applicable noting that not much developable land remains in the City which is not in the overlay district. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak stated staff interest in Code language that makes it clear that variances should not be expected in situations where a petitioner is trying to squeeze in extra lots to achieve a greater profit or to balance out the cost of acquiring the property. Commissioner Adelman stated that it is important not to foreclose a petitioner from requesting a variance, but noted that the City retains the discretion to determine whether a variance is warranted in any particular situation. Commissioner Newman noted that the Code can never cover all circumstances and stated support for retaining the opportunity to request a variance. Chairman Reisenberg summarized the Commission’s discussion on this item stating that the language should be left open ended to allow for flexibility and consideration of a variance request in the context of a particular petition. He stated support for retaining language that speaks to the City having discretion. In response to a question from Ms. Czerniak, the Commission stated support for adding language to the Code to clarify that variances requested in conjunction with subdivisions are under the purview of the Plan Commission, consistent with past practices. Ms. Czerniak noted that Section 38-6 remains substantially the same with only a few language clarifications. Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 6 In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that the exception that already exists in the Code allows the division of land into two parcels without a full subdivision process in cases where one of the parcels is being transferred to a not for profit corporation and will be maintained in its natural state as open space. She commented that this provision was incorporated into the Code a number of years ago in support of Lake Forest Open Lands’ Association. She confirmed that the developable lot remaining must meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district. Commissioner Adelman questioned whether consideration should be given to amending the provision relating to reduction in lot sizes to include subdivisions of fewer than five lots. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak noted that for subdivisions with fewer than five lots, a request for a variance, as previously discussed by the Commission, could be made if lots smaller than the minimum lot size are desired or, the provision could be amended to allow some reduction in lot sizes as a matter of right. Hearing no requests for modification to the language from the Commission, she continued to the next Section. She noted that the next Section was clarified to add specificity to the existing language which notes that building permits are not issued until certain requirements are completed. She noted that the next Section was removed because it referred to outdated methods of maintaining records. She discussed the next Section regarding fees and explained that the language was changed to reflect that fees are now set by the City Council through adoption of a Fee Schedule, on an annual basis, as part of the City’s budget process. She noted that the timing of when specific fees are due was clarified. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that for some fees, for instance School District fees, payment of the fees is due at the time of issuance of a building permit, rather than prior to the recording of the plat. She noted that the City only collects fees for the School District, but does not establish the timing for payment of fees. She noted that the School District has determined that in some cases the impact is not experienced until after the lot is developed and the house is occupied and in those cases, has agreed to defer payment of fees to the School District until a building permit is issued. She noted that development of the lot could not occur without payment of the fee. Hearing no further questions, she continued noting that the Section on impact fees was eliminated because all impact fees are now addressed in another Section of the City Code. She continued noting that the next Section was recently added by the City Council based on the recommendation of the Plan Commission. She reminded the Commission that this Section establishes minimum requirements that need to be met prior to submitting an application for subdivision of property. She continued reviewing the Section noting the requirement for at least one pre-application conference with City staff prior to submitting an application for subdivision. She noted that in most cases, there are numerous meetings or conversations between City staff and the petitioner and the petitioners’consultants prior to submittal of an application. She noted that experience has shown that petitions that are based on early communication and discussions with staff are Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 7 more likely to be complete when submitted and are able to move through the approval process more quickly. She moved on to Section 38-15 noting that this is the area in which the most changes were made. She explained that similar to Code sections relating to the other Boards and Commissions, the application submittal requirements for subdivisions have been added to this Section of the Code. She noted that by putting the application submittal requirements in the Code, rather than just on the application itself, it is clearer to all parties what information is legally required to constitute a complete application. She noted that the submittal requirements listed in the Code are consistent with those listed on the application form. She reviewed the list of submittal requirements and described each. She asked the Commission for input on whether the list covers all of the materials the Commission expects to see in support of a subdivision petition. Chairman Reisenberg noted for the record that no members of the public were present to testify on this matter. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will make the revisions discussed by the Commission. She added that staff will continue work on developing recommended amendments to the second half of the Subdivision Chapter and bring the full Chapter back to the Commission for continued review and action. 5. Discussion: Consideration of Incentives for Residential Development. The City Council has requested that the Plan Commission consider this item and forward a recommendation to the Council. Chairman Reisenberg noted that the City Council requested that the Plan Commission discuss this item. He asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he invited a brief presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted that a memo on this item was included in the Commission’s packet. She explained that in light of the current economic condition, the City Council had a preliminary discussion on whether the City should consider some types of incentives to encourage residential development and has requested Plan Commission input on whether incentives are a good idea and if so, which incentives would best serve the interests of the community. She noted that working with the City Attorney, three categories of incentives have been identified: “give aways”, deferrals and financial tools. She explained that the City Council provided direction to the Plan Commission to guide this discussion noting that the Council is not interested in incentives that would reduce the quality of the development in the community. She relayed that the Council stated a commitment to not being short sighted and to not move away from the tradition of careful planning that has made Lake Forest a unique community with a distinct character. She stated that the Council stated openness to hearing input from the Commission on the possible use of tools that include the deferral of fees or fee waivers, but expressed the most interest in hearing Plan Commission input on the use of financial tools or mechanisms that the City can play a role in offering to a developer. She noted for example that School District 67 currently works with developers of subdivisions Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 8 throughout the City to establish a Special Service Area (SSA) for new subdivisions. In this case, the SSA benefits the schools by authorizing a special assessment on the property tax bills of the new homes for a certain time period which goes directly to support school facilities. She explained that the SSA approach could be used to spread out the cost of infrastructure through annual assessments on tax bills for a period of time to ease the up front burden on a developer who would normally bear the cost of the infrastructure. She discussed Tax Increment Financing Districts (TIF) noting that most often this tool is used to support new commercial or industrial development and establishment of a TIF affects revenues received by other taxing bodies. She discussed Special Assessments explaining that this tool is similar to an SSA, but involves a Court proceeding and involves some significant administrative responsibilities which would fall to the City. She concluded her comments noting that the Council is looking for input from the Commission on whether the City should do nothing and simply allow market forces to work as has occurred in the past, or attempt to play a role in stimulating residential development by offering some type of incentive. She stated that if the Commission is supportive of some type of incentives, input on what types of incentives and under what conditions they should be offered would be helpful. Commissioner Newman stated that development of any kind is problematic due to the over supply of housing currently available and the imbalance between the supply of existing housing available and the demand. He questioned whether developers are going to be willing to proceed with new projects given the excess currently available. He questioned how the Council would pay for a program if it required funding from the City. In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak, confirmed that several months ago, the City partnered with the real estate agents and banks to offer a home buyer incentive program. She stated that the program was determined to be successful in motivating some buyers. She clarified that the City Council has not identified any funding for direct support for new residential developments, but is only asking for input on the concept of incentives at this point. She noted that there are incentives that could be offered that would not require direct funding from the City. Commissioner Kuchman commented that his assumption is that the incentives would be offered not to encourage the development of more of the same housing product that is already available, but to encourage the development of unique products. He stated that his expectation is that with any incentive program, the type of product that is trying to be achieved would be tied into the program. Commissioner Miller stated that the cost of new homes is already higher than existing homes and by adding a Special Service Area, the cost of new homes would increase further. She noted that she was part of the coalition that developed and supported the real estate incentive package referred to by staff. She noted that this program was designed to better position Lake Forest in relation to other communities being considered by potential home buyers. She questioned whether the City should be incenting developers to add new homes to the community right now and whether that approach would be helpful to the community. Instead, she stated support for reducing or deferring the initial costs Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 9 associated with buying an existing home in Lake Forest. She noted that she has personally experienced some buyers making the choice to buy a home in Lake Bluff because there is not the initial cost of the transfer tax. Commissioner Shaw questioned why the City would want to encourage more residential development rather than let the market dictate when developments move forward. Commissioner Waldeck stated that the City could offer incentives, but developers will not build houses if they do not believe that there is a market. She stated that the question that needs to be answered is who does the City want to help, small business owners, existing residents or developers? In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Council is seeking input on the concept of incentives and has not weighed in on whether such a program would be good or right for the community. She stated that the Council is simply trying to give consideration to a question that has been raised. Commissioner Newman stated that incentives offered to residential developers would be to the detriment of owners of existing single family homes. Commissioner Shaw stated that if there is a need for additional houses in the community, developers will build them. He stated that he could better understand considering incentives in support of commercial development but even questioned why market forces should not be allowed to work in those cases as well. Commissioner Newman stated that he would be more inclined to find ways to support Market Square and surrounding business areas to make them more attractive to new businesses. Commissioner Adelman stated that the question asked by the Council is addressed to the wrong element, developers, rather than existing homeowners. He noted the comments of other Commissioners and agreed that the current market is out of balance in Lake Forest noting that markets are more in balance in some neighboring communities. He stated that in his opinion, Lake Forest has been hurt because the City has continually chipped away at homeowners’ rights. He stated that Lake Forest has the most onerous bulk limitations noting that he opposed changes to the ordinance in recent years. He noted that earlier residents of Lake Forest did not have the bulk ordinance to contend with and built extraordinary homes any way. He stated that Lake Forest has a reputation as being one of the most difficult communities to deal with noting the demolition regulations and the bulk limitations. He noted that Highland Park has a higher transfer tax, but fewer restrictions. He stated that in his opinion, the City’s regulations have hurt the sustainability of property values in the community. He questioned whether acre and a half lots are still the most desirable given today’s market. He suggested reconsideration of lot sizes and bulk to help residents, not developers. He stated that if regulations are relaxed, the market will materialize. He noted that changes to the bulk ordinance foreclosed the possibility of a 1,000 square foot addition to his house that would have Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 10 been permissible before the changes. He noted that as a result of the changes to the ordinance, many homes in Lake Forest were made non-conforming. Commissioner Miller noted that from discussions with the real estate coalition, her understanding is that for most people, it is not a matter of the availability of new houses, but being able to make changes to existing houses. She stated that whether it is accurate or not, the City is perceived as being difficult when it comes to demolitions and changes to existing houses. She noted that in the past, there has been a brisk business in the community for people buying existing houses, tearing them down or making changes, and then re-selling them. She stated that if sales of existing homes are spurred through incentives, the inventory will be reduced and a market for new homes will again be viable. Chairman Reisenberg re-stated the question asked by City Council, should the City offer incentives for residential development noting that the Commission’s discussion has broadened. He stated that based on the discussion so far, maybe the Commission’s recommendation is that in answer to the City Council’s question, the Commission recommends that no incentives be offered in support of new residential development. Commissioner Shaw noted that much of what has been talked about falls under the purview of other Boards and Commissions. He noted that the Plan Commission deals with proposals for new subdivision and new developments. Commissioner Adelman suggested that the Commission answer the City Council’s question by recommending that incentives not be offered to support new development. Commissioner Newman agreed that he is hearing that there is not support on the Commission for creating incentives for developers but maybe an interest is seeing a review in terms of the community’s approach to how existing homes are replaced and changed. Commissioner Kuchman stated that his understanding is that the question is not what are we doing to help developers, but what can or should the City do, if any thing, to encourage unique developments and developments that provide a new or different product than is currently available. He stated that a unique proposal may be worthy of some incentives in the form of fees or changes in restrictions. Commissioner Miller agreed that offering incentives for unique projects is a reasonable approach. Commissioner Kuchman stated that in his opinion, no incentives should be made available for “more of the same” development. Commissioner Newman agreed stating that there may be other products out there that could add to the attractiveness to buyers looking at the community. Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 11 Chairman Reisenberg stated that his understanding is that the Council’s interest in this topic was brought about by substantially reduced revenues and fees as a result of the down turn in development activity. He noted that the Council is asking the question, “do we want to create incentives for new development” as part of their consideration of budget issues. He summarized that the Commission believes that offering incentives for new residential development may compound existing problems by creating more competition for residents who are trying to sell their existing homes. He noted that the Commission has identified a broader issue that could require looking at some of the existing restrictions, not to change them in a way that would diminish the character of Lake Forest, but to make development easier for projects that fit within the character of the community. Commissioner Waldeck cautioned that in relaxing regulations, the community runs the risk of reducing the quality of development or diminishing the character, both of which could potentially affect property values. She acknowledged that the current economy is tough but cautioned against a short term approach that would have lasting negative affects on the community. Chairman Reisenberg commented that looking at the incentive categories reviewed in the memo, he cannot support the “give away” category. He stated that deferrals in some situations and some of the financial tools, particularly the Special Service Area, might be worth consideration depending on the circumstances. Commissioner Kuchman stated that he would support consideration of any and all incentives in cases where the incentives are aimed at supporting a type of development that does not exist or a product that would not likely be developed through normal market forces. He stated that he does not support incentives for developments that are similar to those that already exist in ample supply in the community. Commissioner Waldeck stated that she is not in favor of incentives for new residential development and stated that instead, the City’s focus should be on supporting the Central Business District and existing residents. Commissioner Shaw stated agreement with the comments of Commissioner Waldeck and noted that it may be timely for existing regulations which are under the purview of other Boards and Commissions, to be reconsidered. Commissioner Newman stated that the question posed by the City Council is not appropriate for the Commission to consider at this time. He agreed with considering incentives that support existing housing stock and make the community more attractive. He noted that he may be able to support incentives for projects that offer a unique type of product. Commissioner Miller agreed with the comments of previous Commissioners. She stated support for considering ways to help existing residential development and the Central Business District. Plan Commission Minutes – May 12, 2010 Page 12 Commissioner Adelman stated that in general, he cannot support incentives to help developers. He stated that respect to the categories of incentives, he does not support “give aways” but noted that in some cases, deferral of fees to help ease the burden of up front costs might be appropriate. He agreed that Special Service Areas can provide a benefit in some cases. He noted that many of his concerns deal with regulations that are under the purview of other Boards and Commissions and suggested that the City Council might want to direct questions to those Boards and Commissions and to the community. Chairman Reisenberg stated his agreement with the comments of the Commission. He invited public testimony, hearing none; he concluded the discussion on this item. 6. Public testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items presented to the Commission. 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted some possible upcoming agenda items. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development