Some neighbors who live across the alley from the proposed Trader Joe’s market on Chicago Avenue plan to complain at tonight’s Plan commission meeting that city officials misled them about the project.
Kathy Shaw, of 1224 Hinman Ave., claims officials, including Alderman Melissa Wynne, 3rd Ward, told residents at a public meeting that there would be no access from the store to the alley that separates it from the homes facing Hinman Avenue.
At a public meeting at Chiaravalle School on May 31, Wynne told residents that all traffic to and from the store would enter and leave using Chicago Avenue, rather than driving down the alley.
Plans submitted for review by the Plan Commission at a meeting tonight say all traffic would still use Chicago Avenue, but say that the alley would be used to maneuver trucks into the loading dock, after they’d come in from the street.
The plans say customer access to the alley would be prohibited with signage and a gate.
Shaw says she wants TJ’s to completely fence off and landscape the alley border, in a fashion similar to that used at the Whole Foods market a block to the south.
Shaw claims, in an email message to Evanston Now, that plans presented at the May 31 meeting showed a fence completely blocking the alley from the new parking lot, but a comparison of drawings in the Plan Commisison packet for tonight with ones presented at the May 31 meeting, show little change between the two drawings.
Top: The site plan included in tonight’s Plan Commission packet. Above: Architect Mike Breclaw presenting the plan at the May 31 community meeting.
Related stories
Evanston Trader Joe’s plan draws applause
Evanston aldermen OK Trader Joe’s parking deal
Manager defends Trader Joe’s aid plan
New Trader Joe’s store plan draws praise
Related document
Pave the world
Wow, look at all that pavement. Not a green roof garden or underground parking lot in sight.
Way to think different, Trader Joe's.
Way to encourage something more forward-thinking, Evanston.
Alley access
Refresh my memory – did anyone complain about alley access when Blockbuster was there?
alley access for blockbusters – duh?
The issue is not alley access by cars and customers, but alley access for semi-trailers that will pull in for deliveries and probably sit there while they are being unloaded . Look at their plans…..
Somehow no matter how well the video rental business was doing, there were never semis delivering the videos. At best a small truck brought new movies and took away those that were outdated and were not sold off at a discount.
Conclusion: A grocery store is not a video store and a truck is not a car. Please do not confuse apples and VHS tapes with one another.
The issue is alley access, period.
While their stated concern is truck use in the alley, their solution quite obviously concerns any and all alley use by Trader Joe's, their suppliers and customers. The solution, as the Hinman Neighbors see it, is to wall off the alley from Trader Joe's, limiting not only trucks, but customers in automobiles as well. It doesn't matter if a car is not a truck, the solution eliminates access to the alley for both, so the question isn't irrelevant.
When Blockbuster was open on the site, while I usually visited on foot, there were times I drove. Often as not, I preferred to use the alley (with the golden rule in mind: slowly and cautiously) to exit, since sight-lines, traffic flow and my direction of travel weren't conducive to efficient re-entry onto Chicago. In all those years, I never noticed a problem with using the alley, to the point that I don't recall encountering a single resident coming or going from their garages. Were the option open to me with Trader Joe's, I'd probably prefer to use the alley as an exit. Again, slowly and cautiously.
This seems to be Evanston's version of Park Ridge resident complaints about the airport. Your property abuts a commercial zone and shares an alley. What did you expect?
Comedy
I am laughing at this post. Pure comedy. Pure fantasy.
suburban sprawl, here we come
Joni Mitchell wrote a song, something about paving paradise to put up a parking lot? Well, that's exactly what Evanston is doing. We're going to become Skokie, or Morton Grove, where everybody has to drive to get from A to B because we've destroyed any sense of urban density and walkability. If there's 2 store fronts worth of parking in between every store, Evanston should maybe give up the idea that we're in any way green or urban or walkable.
I understand that some people need parking. But there are options – rooftop parking, underground parking, even having just a few spots instead of an entire lot. It's sad that parking has become such a priority, particularly for a site that is one short block from the train station, along a major bus route, and easily accessible via bike/walking to most of Evanston.
If Evanston continues to push parking (and therefore driving) over other modes of transportation, it's going to lose a lot of young urbanites like me who want a green, walkable city.
Over-reaction and nice yry
Over reaction and a loose attempt at a point to correlate a song to urban sprawl and TJs.
Take a look at your lakefront, your parks and everything else Evanston offers.
TJs is replacing an existing business that already existed on this property.
Blockbuster had a paved parking lot. So will TJs. What is the difference?
No one is building a TJs in a park. Or god forbid an Arts & Cultural Center.
People drive. Always have and always will. That is a fact of life.
Stop pushing your environmental extremism on everyone else at the slightest sign of business growth in Evanston.
Extremism?
Saying that we could put up 2 stores in place of 1, and use rooftop parking instead of putting in a parking lot, isn't extremism.
We could improve the existing layout; instead, we're perpetuating the existing drive/park status quo. We have a chance here to make steps toward a more walkable city. Instead, we're creating a commercial corridor reminiscent of Skokie, Wilmette, et. al.
People drive. But not all people have to drive all the time. There are other options, and Evanston can encourage those other options. That's not extremism. That's just using urban planning policy to encourage density, walkability, and green(er) living.
Rooftop parking is typical for Trader Joes & Aldi
To echo this previous comment, the newest Trader Joes in Chicago n Diversey has 50 rooftop parking spaces and it works fine.
Trader Joe's "sister" company, Aldi, has about the same number of rooftop parking spaces in their new store on California and it also works fine.
There is no reason they couldn't do it in Evanston. The site is especially advantageous for transit-oriented development since it is only 250 meters from a rapid transit stop.
It is less costly for all taxpayers if the city privileges public transit/biking/walking as forms of transport as opposed to automobiles.
By privileging cars the council is being fiscally irresponsible.
what fence?
The alderwoman indicates that there will not be any alley acces but it is clear from the plan in the article that there is only one loading door over at the back corner of the building tucked next to a short fence for "pallet storage". The angled area at the alley makes it clear that trucks would pull in from the south and down the alley and then back in from the north toward that loading door. If they arel ong there will not be alley access because the truck will block it or it will also block the alley for residents or other users of the alley.
While we are at it, take a look at the south-east corner: The trash area is outside the fence of the "pallet storage" and awfully small for what most groceries that sell produce, etc throw out together with their boxes. Where will all the garbage be stored? Inside?
And looking at the storage delivery door at the allely, I doubt that a large delivery truck can unload there without a loading dock which cannot work if at right-angles to the truck anyway. What are they up to? Are deliveries going to be at the front of store through the customer entry?
This all seems odd and not well thought out. Somehow this rmeinds me of the Movie Theater complex proposals that was to be a series of small shops at a scale such as the architects had designed for Palo Alto, California with tables, trees, pedestrian areas and no "big boxes" – just like what they gave us in the end – oops, I guess they did not!
Methinks that the "final" TJ will not look like what you see now, but by then it will be too late.
what fence?
The alderwoman indicates that there will not be any alley acces but it is clear from the plan in the article that there is only one loading door over at the back corner of the building tucked next to a short fence for "pallet storage". The angled area at the alley also makes it clear that trucks would pull in from the south and down the alley and then back in from the north toward that loading door. If they are long there will not be alley access because the truck will block such access or it will also block the alley for residents or other users of the alley.
While we are at it, take a look at the south-east corner: The trash area is outside the fence of the "pallet storage" and awfully small for what most groceries that sell produce, etc throw out together with their boxes. Where will all the garbage be stored? Inside?
And looking at the storage delivery door at the allely, I doubt that a large delivery truck can unload there without a loading dock which cannot work if at right-angles to the truck anyway. What are they up to? Are deliveries going to be at the front of store through the customer entry?
This all seems odd and not well thought out. Somehow this reminds me of the downtown Movie Theater complex proposals that was provide a series of small shops at a scale such as the architects had designed for Palo Alto, California with tables, trees, pedestrian areas, walkways and no "big boxes" – just like what they gave us in the end – oops, I guess they did not!
Methinks that the "final" TJ will not look like what you see now, but by then it will be too late.