Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/1997 COW minutes REVISED 6/'1 '1/97 APPROVED 6/24/97 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 27, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Trustees George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Daniel Nocchi and Irvana Wilks. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Planner Judy Connolly, Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Crime Prevention Officer John Wagner and Village Attorney Everette Hill. II. MINUTES Approval of Minutes of April 8, 1997. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Clowes to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved. Trustee Hoefert abstained. III.CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. RAND ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY-FINAL REVIEW Community Development Director William Cooney provided a general overview of the draft before the Board. He stated this draft is based on discussion the Village Board had on September 24, 1996 and additional input from the Plan Commission. The intent of the Study is to lay the groundwork for development or redevelopment along the Corridor. Changes which have been recommended are highlighted in the attached memo which is enclosed with the draft report. Mr. Cooney reminded the Board that in previous discussions with the Village Board, the Board gave tentative approval for a traffic consultant for the Rand Road Corridor. He is looking for concurrence of the Study in order to move forward for final approval by the Village Board. Trustee Corcoran stated that he still maintains concerns that the tone of the document is slanted toward commercial development and does not necessarily address the residential areas which are a part of Rand Road. He stated that he feels that there is a residential impact from commercial development and redevelopment which should be addressed as part of the Study. The impact upon residential areas also extends beyond just the residences on Rand Road itself and should be addressed. This impact may extend a couple of blocks off of Rand Road. He also felt that the Isabella and Gregory traffic control initiatives should be included in the text and address the impact on residents if additional commercial is developed. Mayor Farley differed with Trustee Corcoran's comments and felt the tone of the report was neutral. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Some Board members felt that Rand Road was a shared corridor and the language should reflect equal importance of both residential and commercial along the road. Comments also included some updated language with reference to the number of businesses which may have changed since the original document was drafted in September of 1996. Some other comments also included the fact that the document does serve as a road map for changes to the corridor. General consensus of the Village Board was to modify the tone of the document so that it reflects the neutral importance of residential and commercial areas. The Corridor is a shared Corridor and any redevelopment should only be undertaken provided there is minimal adverse impact upon the area residents. The issue of tone was discussed the last time the study was reviewed and Some members felt the language was not revised as requested. Board members requested the reference to the Corridor as a commercial corridor interrupted bY residential to be modified in the various text areas throughout the document. Trustee Corcoran was to submit revised language regarding the desired neutral tone between residential and commercial areas along the corridor. The intent of the document was not to be modified beyond the language reflecting a neutral position. V. REVIEW OF INTERIOR APARTMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that this Ordinance has been under review since the last Village Board discussion about a year ago. The staff has been waiting, with concurrence from the Village Board, for a ruling in a Case in Park Forest where a Judge was to rule on an Ordinance very similar to the one drafted for Mount Prospect. However, 'it is unlikely there will be a ruling in the Park Forest case in the near future due to numerous unforeseen circumstances. Recently, a Court ruling on an Ordinance similar in nature to the draft Mount Prospect Ordinance was concluded. This case in Peoria was decided in favor of the City. The Judge ruled that a program with interior inspection was valid as long as the criteria was equitable. Numerous revisions have been made to the original Ordinance based on public input and the recent Court rulings. 2 Village Attorney Everette Hill provided an overview of some recent Court cases which highlight the fact that the Ordinance as presented could sustain a Court ch~allenge. He stated that a 1969 Case of Comorca v. Seattle, in which the Supreme Court held that private property was afforded similar protections relative to Code violations compared to criminal protections. He stated that the probable cause standards are different between criminal related entry and Code violation inspections. If a town has a consistent and regular inspection program and the program itself establishes the probable cause for warrants and the municipal authority does not have to present a probable cause case for a warrant to gain entry. A recant Illinois case of Albiero v. Kankakee ruled that a program of interior inspections does not violate the Constitution, but the inspecting authority must obtain consent or a warrant for entranca and all entrance procedures must be followed for all inspections. The Court case of Tobin v. Peoria, a Federal case, ruled that an Ordinance very similar to the Ordinanca being contemplated by the Village Board could justify inspection procadures based on the age of the buildings. One of the criteria used to define whether a complex would be included in the inspection procadure was the age of the building and the length of time to complete the inspection of all units. The Mount Prospect Ordinanca allows that the Village may obtain a warrant if they cannot obtain access by other means. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that there had been discussions with Visions Committee members and property owners and there was general support for the Ordinance. Various changes recommended by these groups have been incorporated into the Ordinance itself. Staff is not supportive of the concept of waiving inspections if the common areas pass their annual inspection. Staff is concarned that the owners will focus all efforts on the common areas and will not maintain the interior of the units themselves. Staff felt that trying to coordinate interior inspections only during a vacancy period would be quite time sensitive and would be difficult for staff to respond to such inspection requests on a timely basis. Two major changes which this draft incorporates from these discussions include the following: 1. Properties less than 20 years old would be exempt from interior inspections until the building reached the 20 year level. 2. There is a new section that has been added which addresses the occupants' privacy where staff avoids closets, cabinets, etc., unless there is probable cause. Jack Barringer, 1510 River Road, spoke. He wanted to outline a number of the issues which came from the concerned property owners. He feels that good owners should be exempt from this program; if there are no violations, then the building should be exempt from interior inspections. 3 He would recommend language which stated, in part, that if an annual inspection or subsequent inspections of common areas generate one or less violation, then no interior inspections would be scheduled for that property. He felt that the Village should focus its staff efforts on vacant interiors. He also requested that a search warrant be obtained before any inspectors enter individual units. He supports the staff change to protect residents' privacy but would request language be even more restrictive where Inspectors would stay out of bedrooms unless there was probable cause. Mayor Farley stated that he would like to move this item forward to the next Board meeting and feels that considerable accommodation from the various inputs have been incorporated. General comments by the Village Board members included the following items: Some members felt that the 20-year rule was reasonable. Members also felt that the Ordinance also provided reasonable incentives to keep properties up. The members felt that it was important to try to accommodate the tenant in order to gain access whenever possible. Trustee Clowes stated that he remains opposed to the portions of the Ordinance which he considers violates privacy. He would suggest the Ordinance include specific trigger language which would require an interior inspection for buildings ~r' which had excessive Code violations. He stated that the Village already knows where the problems are and the focus should remain on the problems areas. He also is concerned about the opportunity to enter units without probable cause and feels that residents in apartments have the same privacy rights as residents in single-family homes. Village Attorney Hill responded to the comments. He stated that warrants are a protection for both parties. He stated that apartment warrants have been ruled not to be violations of privacy rights. He stated that if the cases were contrary to the wording of the Ordinance, he would inform the Village Board of such decisions. The Courts have supported equal treatment if the distinction is logical and used on a rational basis such as the age of the building. He stated that trying to allot resources to problem areas may not sustain a Court challenge and history has shown that the Village cannot rely on tenants to trigger probable cause for interior inspections. Trustee Clowes stated that the Village Board makes the law and also is responsible for upholding the Constitution. He did not know how difficult it was to get a warrant if the Village had not tried on a regular basis. He suggested that staff try getting warrants for entry under the current Ordinance before this Ordinance is put in place. Village Attomey Hill stated that landlords retain the right and the ability to go into units because it remains their property and stated that staff will not go in without a warrant if they are not allowed in or if the tenant refuses entry. Staff has gotten warrants in the past. Typically, it takes 24-48 hours to get a warrant and there is a requirement to establish cause which requires an intensive time commitment of Village Inspectors and Attorney. General comments of the Village Board members included the following items: f The proposed Ordinance itself would establish cause because the systematic inspection process would allow warrants to be issued without necessarily establishing probable cause. Board members felt it was important to address multi- family issues and asked what the process was for Business License revocation when there are outstanding violations. There was also discussion concerning enforcement fees and how those fees are levied. There was also extensive discussion concerning the notification process to enter a unit. Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels responded to a number of the Village Board member comments. He stated that staff has regularly worked with owners to establish a convenient time to obtain entry and has a good rapport with a majority of the owners. He stated the written notice must be provided by the owner to the tenant and if it is possible to go into an empty unit because that unit has not been inspected within the five-year time frame, then such an inspection would take place. The landlord has the oppodunity to pick which units to go into as long as that unit has not been inspected within the five-year inspection period. He stated that such inspections also benefit owners because the Village Inspectors can identify problems well ahead of time, typically before citations are necessary and cooperation is generally obtained without a warrant. General consensus of the Village Board was to move the Ordinance forward for Village Board consideration, Trustee Clowes inquired why was it necessary to include the warrant option if it was not necessary and cooperation is typically received by staff. Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village is only catching problem areas when they become exacerbated and staff cannot rely on service requests to obtain the necessary entry into the units in order to complete all unit inspections within the five-year time frame. He also stated that it was critical to head off any potential problems as early as possible and these inspections should address that. Trustee Clowes inquired whether the one-year education period as previously proposed the last time the Ordinance was discussed by the Village Board was still under consideration at this time. He also requested some language revisions to the lease rider which is attached to the Ordinance. The language he requested pertains to the fact that the tenant may refuse to permit the inspection. He also is concerned of having to rely on the landlord to provide notification to the tenant for the interior inspection. General consensus of the Village Board was to revise the rider advising the tenant of their rights under the Interior Inspection Program. Such a rider ' would be attached to a lease as described in the Ordinance. VI. CRIME-FREE HOUSING PROGRAM Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels provided a general overview of the program. He stated that the Police have initiated a Crime-Free Housing Seminar program and if landlords attend the seminar, any enforcement fees would be applied to fixing the property up instead of paying it to the Village as an incentive to improve the quality of the properties. He stated that goal of the program is to educate and encourage owners to put money into the property. General comments of the Village Board included a concern about numerous fee waivers and the fee waiver options which must be managed by staff to determine who is eligible for such fee waivers. Officer John Wagner stated that he had copied many of the components of the program from Mesa, Arizona where their focus is on education also. General consensus of the Village Board was to support the Program~as outlined by staff and only offer one waiver for landlords instead of numerous waivers at various levels of enforcement. VII. MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that there would be a Downtown Redevelopment meeting on May 31 from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon. The program is designed for limited attendance and maximum discussion. He stated this workshop would not be on television. Trustee Clowes requested that downtown businesses be notified as a courtesy prior to the meeting. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert wanted to congratulate Public Works Director Glen Andler for the recent loan approval for the See-Gwun/Milburn sewer project. Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village has received loans for three of the five recent sewer projects through the Iow-interest EPA process. 6 Trustee Clowes stated ~that the Village Board has new chairs and would suggest that the Board consider new chairs for the audience also. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc 7