Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 06/14/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesda~June14,2005 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee John Korn Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF: MARCH 22, 2005 APRIL 26, 2005 MAY 24, 2005 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. TIF SUB AREA #1 REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS With the June 14, 2005 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Village Board will begin a focused and earnest review of redevelopment opportunities in TIF Sub Area #1. This area is bounded by the Residences Condominium Development on the north, Route 83 on the east, Northwest Highway on the south and Wille Street on the west. This is the last of the target areas identified in the original TIF redevelopment study. DLK Civic Design was retained to develop various redevelopment scenarios for the area with an er:nphasis on saving buildings of historic or architectural significance to Mount Prospect. A series of options progressing from smaller scale redevelopment to more comprehensive efforts were identified. In the interim, Mayor Wilks and staff met with many of the property and business owners in the Sub Area to begin discussions regarding the Village's plans and to solicit their input. It is anticipated that the Village Board will make final decisions regarding the nature and scope of redevelopment in this Area over the next three to six months in consultation with property and business owners. DLK and staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. The property and business owners, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, have been invited to attend the meeting. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTlCIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 22, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zade!. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director David Erb and Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2005. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Zade!. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He wanted to encourage people to turn out and vote on April 5. IV. DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS Finance Director David Erb provided general information about the three options for payment of water bills via the Internet: 1) E-Pay Service through the State of Illinois; 2) E-Pay through a financial institution and 3) E-Pay through a third party vendor. He provided information on the pros and cons of each option, which included significant limitations on the information capability. While the third party option is more expensive, it does provide significantly more information to customers on line as part of their bill paying opportunities. Lance Leader, Third Millennium Associates, spoke. He stated his company currently provides water-billing services for the Village and they have created an E-Pay option, which would utilize the existing information the Village currently provides. He stated the E-Pay system would link directly to the Mount Prospect site and would be seamless for the typical user. He provided an overview of the security measures and the interaction of Village staff on viewing and monitoring information on the site. He also commented that the system could accommodate virtually any type of computer the user may utilize. He stated one of the components that makes their system more attractive is that there are no banner ads. He also stated that there are significant customer control options available and Third Millennium already has 18 months worth of history of water bill information already on line and ready to go. He also stated the system could expand into other E-Pay options in the future for the Village including tickets and vehicle stickers, etc. 1 General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern raised regarding the cost of maintaining an E-Pay system and how the cost of maintaining such a system would be impacted on overall water rates. There was also concern regarding maintaining appropriate security. There was a discussion regarding the minimum fee and the cost per user. There was discussion regarding the percentage of participation that is utilizing the option in other communities. There was also discussion regarding consolidation of bill payment options and a concern regarding the participation rate and the associated cost to offer such a convenience. It was suggested that if such an investment were to be made, a corresponding labor process comparison would have to be made in order to determine if staff time could be saved from bill processing and what percentage of participation would allow a return or break-even point. Village Manager Janonis stated that staff would undertake additional research and review options for possible expansion as a comprehensive system and bring this back for further discussion as part of budget discussions later in the year. V. BANKING SERVICES UPDATE Finance Director David Erb stated the RFP process started in October 2004. He stated the current bank that the Village uses is Bank One and has been using them since 1988. He stated the RFP process was undertaken in order to look for different options or improvements of banking services. He stated the initial contract was set for four years with an option to renew for an additional four-year period and could separate services from the various providers. Based on the response and analysis by staff, he is recommending the Village enter into a contract depository and lock box services with Bank One, which net the Village an annual savings of 18%. He is further recommending that LaSalle Bank provide the safe keeping services, which relate to pension and Village investments. He also recommended Fifth Third Bank as the provider of merchant services relating to accepting and processing debit and credit cards. Consensus of the Village Board was to authorize staff to proceed with the necessary documents for official approval at an upcoming Board meeting. VI. AUDIT SERVICES Currently, the Village has a contract for audit services through December 31, 2007 and staff is suggesting that audit services should be offered to another firm periodically as part of the standard policy procedure. However, such a policy should be made with the understanding that there is a significant learning curve and there would be significant staff time impact on audit processing at the time of each change. Finance Director Dave Erb stated that GFOA has recommended that municipalities change, or at least put an RFP out, every five years which would be a four-year period with an option to extend for a one-year period with special circumstances. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: 2 It was suggested that the Village Board be actively involved in the audit process and a relationship between the Village Board and the Auditor be considered so that a partner from such a firm is the key contact with an audit committee option consisting of elected officials. It was suggested that quality is obviously the most important component which may not necessarily be reflected in the lowest price. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an Audit Policy based on GFOA guidelines. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated there will not be a meeting next week due to a fifth Tuesday and the next Board meeting will be April 6, a day later than usual due to the municipal election. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert requested a staff report on the shed that was ordered to be reduced in size and moved on the south side of the Village last year. CLOSED SESSION There was no need for a Closed Session, therefore the Closed Session was cancelled. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, :z:>=:J 5LlJ DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc 3 MINUTES SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/SAFETY COMMISSION WORKSHOP APRIL 26, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Deputy Police Chief John Dahlberg, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Village Engineer Jeffrey Wulbecker, Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie and Streets/Building Superintendent Paul Bures. Safety Commission members present included: Carol Tortorello, Chuck Bencic and John Keane. II. WORKSHOP WITH SAFETY COMMISSION Village Manager Janonis provided a general overview regarding the materials that are presented for discussion this evening. He also stated that there would be a need for regular and comprehensive input and discussion from residents. .. He stated ultimately this is a discussion to change driver behavior which obviously is no easy task. He also stated in order for any components of any traffic program to be successful, there needs to be some type of standard procedures to establish the policy and then a measurement of those policies to determine success. Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie spoke. He stated there are three components that are presented this evening: Residential Speed Limit Program, Residential Traffic Control Program and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Residential Saeed Limit Program This Program is based on dividing the community into 18 zones and gathering speed data on sample streets within each zone. He stated that five of the 18 zones have been completed. While he expects similar results from other sites, he is recommending that data collection continue throughout this coming summer so that there will be data in place for all 18 zones even though he is reasonably confident that the findings will be virtually the same in every zone. He stated the speed limit is typically established using the 85th percentile, which means that 85% of the drivers are at or below the posted speed limit. This percentile represents the level drivers are comfortable with the street and are able to utilize the street at or near the speed limit. 1 He also stated there are some streets within each zone which would not be considered residential per se and could be categorized as higher traffic volume streets whereby these streets would have possible higher speed limits posted but the 85th percentile parameter would still hold. Staff's question regarding this part of the study is querying the Board as to determine whether it is acceptable to raise the speed limit if criteria of the program is overlaid on the streets in a specific zone. Approximately 16% would be raised from 20 to 25 miles per hour. Village Board consensus was to consider such criteria to determine speeds on residential streets utilizing the zone approach. Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program This Program consists of collecting data and applying the uniform traffic control manual. He stated the study necessary for intersections is extremely time-consuming and would be ripe for assistance from consultants. He stated that all intersections would need engineering studies. He also stated that from the initial analysis, there would be a need to deemphasize the use of "Yield" signs due to the lack of understanding of what a "Yield" sign means to the driver. There would also need to be a review of intersections which are currently posted with "Stop" signs. There are likely several intersections which would not meet warrants for a "Stop" sign. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider consultant assistance for the intersection review. Neighborhood Traffic Calmina Proqram This Program discussion was postponed until the next joint meeting scheduled for May 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Board Room. III. ADJOURNMENT The Workshop adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DSlrcc 2 MINUTES SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/SAFETY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MAY 24,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7: 11 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, John Korn, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zade!. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Village Engineer Jeffrey Wulbecker, Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie and Safety Commission members: Carol Tortorello, Chuck Bencic, Susan Arndt and John Keane. II. WORKSHOP WITH SAFETY COMMISSION Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie provided a general overview regarding the available traffic calming devices. He suggested a possible test location be considered whereby the comprehensive traffic control measures could be undertaken initially with the culmination of a physical traffic calming device based on the outcome of the previous steps. He also stated there is a need for some consultant assistance due to the amount of work necessary and burden it would put upon the staff. Kevin Bolger, 510 North Prospect Manor spoke. He recommended the Village Board only use traffic calming improvements once the other components are implemented and evaluated. David Schein, 512 NaWaTa spoke. He suggested the Village Board consider using ShaBonee as a test street for the traffic calming. Village Manager Janonis stated that much of the information that would be provided to residents regarding traffic may just re-route traffic to another location whereby the problem could be pushed elsewhere, therefore, a specific zone should be addressed as previously identified by the Traffic Engineer. He also stated that enforcement would be an issue and the cost for a traffic unit in terms of personnel is estimated at $430,000 and vehicles at $150,000. 1 Consensus of the Village Board was to consider a test area in Zone 8 which is bounded by Northwest Highway/Elmhurst/Kensington Road and Central. III. ADJOURNMENT DS/rcc The Workshop adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ~ Respectfully submitted, {J \ ~~..~ ~/ ~ . - ~ DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 2 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 9, 2005 SUB-AREA #1 REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS DATE: SUBJECT: Attached to this memorandum are the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations and several redevelopment options that DLK Civic Design has completed for Sub-area #1. The scenarios (labeled options A through F) are in order by the scope of the proposed redevelopment, from least to most intensive. DLK has provided notations for each of these options that provide details that are unique to each. All 6 options maintain the Ye aide Town Inn and Ruffini's structures but vary significantly in how the west half of the north block and the small triangle are redeveloped. The most significant difference between all of the options is how the small triangle is redeveloped. Option A and F maintain the Carrriage House and Submarine Express structures while the remaining options completely redevelop this area. In addition, the scope of redevelopment proposed on the triangle increases with each subsequent option. These more intensive options (B through E) rely primarily on underground parking for the proposed retail space, an aspect that staff is not confident will work in this location. Staff and DLK representatives will present these options to the Village Board at their June 14th Committee of the Whole meeting. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and discussion at the June 14th meeting. Uil ~. SUB-AREA 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The various properties located within Sub-Area 1 are outlined below. Existing Conditions: Busse Ave. Location & Existing Use: 1) 32 W. Busse - Law Offices 2) 30 W. Busse - Hair Salon 3) 22 W. Busse - Dugout Militaria Ltd. 4) 18 - 6 W. Busse - Ye aIde Town fun, etc. 5) 2 W. Busse - Rufini's Restaurant 6) 20 W. Northwest Hwy. - Old Carriage Restaurant 7) 19 W. Busse - Barber Shop 8) 15 W. Busse - Hobbyffoy Store 9) 108 S. Main St. - Hair Salon & fufinite Wireless 10) 2 W. Northwest Hwy. - Submarine Express 11) 6 & 12 W. Northwest Hwy. - Vacant 12) 16 W. Northwest Hwy. - Law Offices . ..... CfJ ~ - :E t N ~ CfJ r"-"-'.-"-"; = "~" I IJ ! ~ ~ ~" IIf.l~ Grl.q :S" 11 . Jp.e:S. . 'St"'b.... . 10 ~4"". :--... ~ fu addition to the buildings outlined above, Sub-Area 1 also contains a private parking lot at the northeast comer of Busse Avenue & Wille Street. It should be noted that the Village of Mount Prospect currently owns several parcels within Sub-Area 1. These parcels include the vacant property located on the north side of Busse Avenue (between Ye aIde Town fun and the Military Shop), the two vacant commercial buildings located at 6 & 12 W. Northwest Highway (directly west of Submarine Express), and the parking lot located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and Main Street. SUMMARY OF CONCEPT PLAN It should be noted that the Downtown Strategic Plan identified this area as "Phase I", which included all of the properties bounded by Wille Street, Central Road, Main Street and Northwest Highway. Seeing that the northern portion of the "Phase 1" Concept Plan has been addressed by the nearly complete Residences at Village Centre project, the Ad Hoc Committee focused only on those properties included within the newly created Sub-Area 1. The following is an excerpt from the Village's 1998 Downtown Strategic Plan as it relates to the properties included within Sub-Area 1. Development Issues - Busse Avenue Businesses The buildings and businesses on the north side of Busse Avenue combine to create an area that enhances the downtown, and supports the vision of this plan. Its pedestrian scale, historic character, and unique businesses should be maintained. However, many of the buildings do not meet building code standards. They will require significant fayade and interior improvements to keep them viable in the long term. The buildings have been included in this larger development site so that their improvement can be considered as part of the larger development, and so that surrounding development can be designed to protect and support the properties. ~~. ~.. k.. '., '~. . 'fl. ~~.. ~ Ii:, ". . ...~.~. Development Details - The development depicted for Phase 1 included: 1998 Concept Plan (Phase 1) . 12,500 sq. ft. of existing retail space along Busse . 13,500 sq. ft. of commercial space in new 2-story building along Busse . Approximately 7,500 sq. ft. of commercial space between Northwest Highway and Busse, with sufficient parking. As outlined above, the Concept Plan for this portion of the downtown included a combination of preservation and redevelopment. The Concept Plan recommended the entire redevelopment of the "Triangle" area (with 2-story commercial/office uses) and combination of new and existing buildings along the north side of Busse Avenue DEVELOPMENT ISSUES TO CONSIDER In reviewing Sub-Area 1 there are several issues and questions that must be addressed. In doing so the Committee considered the following issues: ./ Multiple Owners - Although the total area of Sub-Area 1 is generally small, it is made up of several parcels under separate ownership. The Village; however, is in a strong position given its current ownership of three parcels within the "Triangle", the existing vacant lot on the north side of Busse Avenue, as well as the Busse Avenue right-of-way. To pursue a larger redevelopment project within Sub-Area 1 a prospective developer would be required to complete several property acquisitions. ./ Physical Limitations - As noted previously, the total land area of Sub-Area 1 is fairly small (approximately 2 acres including the Busse Avenue right-of-way), thus redevelopment opportunities are limited. This area also has an odd triangular shape and is bisected by Busse Avenue. In addition, the area's frontage on two major streets (Northwest Highway and Route 83) and its close proximity to both the railroad tracks and the Northwest Highway/Route 83 signalized intersection make vehicular site access difficult. ./ Existing Buildings - As identified in the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, the majority of the existing buildings within Sub-Area 1 do not meet today's building regulations and would require significant improvements/updating to make them viable. In addition, the size and configuration of the existing buildings also limit their potential reuse by new commercial uses/tenants. ./ Pedestrian Access - Another issue to consider is the need to improve pedestrian access to Sub-Area 1 from the uses on the east side of Main Street (including the library, Village Hall, parking deck and existing businesses). The heavy traffic on Main Street often limits the amount of pedestrian movements across Main Street. ./ Fiscal Issues - Although the total land area of Sub-Area 1 is somewhat small, the cost of acquiring the various parcels could be potentially high. Given the high cost of property acquisition it is likely that a developer would pursue a fairly dense development of the site. ./ Business Relocation - Every effort should be made to relocate any existing business that is impacted by the redevelopment efforts into another location in the Village. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT DETAILS The recommended development for Sub-Area 1 includes: . A complete unified redevelopment of the existing parcels located within "The Triangle". · Vacate the existing Busse Avenue right-of-way (between Route 83 and Wille Street) to provide a greater area for redevelopment while also creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. · A new 3-story mixed use building running north/south along Route 83, with approximately 10,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor with two floors of residential units above. The building should include a pedestrian pass through to maintain the existing connection between the uses within Sub-Area I and those on the east side of Route 83. · Conversion of the remaining area within "The Triangle" to surface parking that will serve both the new building along Route 83 and the existing businesses located on the north side of Busse Avenue. The new parking area should include landscape design features while also providing increased visibility for the existing buildings on the north side of Busse Road. I Sub-Area 1 .....:; IJl ID ~ Pedestrian Pass- Thrcug.. - .J....J IJl C '11J :E . Redevelopment of the existing parking lot, law office and hair salon properties located at the northeast comer of Busse Avenue and Wille Street as a two or three-story mixed use building. . Architecture for all new buildings should maintain the pedestrian scale and historic character of the existing buildings within Sub-Area 1, while also providing a transitional area to the adj acent commercial and residential uses. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect TO: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 10, 2005 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SIGN REGULATIONS The Downtown Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce have requested that the Village allow downtown businesses the use of freestanding sidewalk signs. Representatives from both organizations plan to attend the June 14th COW meeting and would be available to discuss with you the benefits of using sidewalk signs and their experiences with them. Recognizing that businesses in the B5 and B5C zoning classifications (downtown) do not always have the same opportunity for signage as businesses in other zoning classes, Staff felt the request merited research and consideration by the Village Board. Outlined here are several items for the Committee's consideration: 1. Use of pedestrian oriented sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C zoning districts 2. Expanded use of projecting signs downtown 3. Kiosk signage at the Train Station Justification for Consideration Businesses located in the B5 and B5C districts have less opportunity for signage than is found elsewhere in the Village. Unlike commercial properties in an auto-oriented shopping center where buildings are set back from the road, downtown stores are close to the street and the development scale caters to pedestrians. In downtown Mount Prospect, there is not always room for a freestanding ground sign as the code requires placement of these to be at least 5 feet from the property line. Wall signs are allowed downtown but such signage is not always visible from a traveling car or by a pedestrian standing directly underneath the sign. Hanging perpendicular signs, which could help remedy the situation, are allowed downtown, but only in a small area (Village Code 7.335: SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL, Exhibit 1). Both the Village's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan support the use of special signage in the downtown district. Planning guidelines in both documents recognize that signage can help: · Provide a strong and positive Village image · Improve the character and appearance of the commercial environment · Emphasize the role of downtown as a vibrant social and visual focal point for the community · Create an attractive and comfortable downtown for pedestrians . Enhance identity and way-finding clarity Rather than focusing solely on the request for sidewalk signs, staff believes it would be prudent to take a more comprehensive look and to ensure the most effective downtown signage is available to our businesses. As noted above, this would include: 1) Expanding the area within which projecting signs may be used to include all B5 and B5 C zoned properties. (Exhibit 7 of this memorandum) 2) Construction of an information kiosk at the train station to be used to identify downtown businesses and upcoming events. The issue of permitting sidewalk signs in the B5 and B5C Districts is more complex than it may seem at first blush. First, few communities allow these signs so little knowledge exists in the Chicago area as to liability and effectiveness. Second, the request from the business community includes the caveat that sidewalk signs be permitted away from the building, which contradicts the planning philosophy that sidewalk signs communicate best with pedestrians. Staff presents to the Board the following research and considerations to be used in weighing the use of sidewalk signs. Planning Goals In considering any change to the current Sign Code, the purpose of sign control as outlined in the Sign Code (Exhibit 2) should be considered, as well as these planning goals: · Ensure pedestrian safety - Signs should not be so large to obstruct view of the sidewalk from a wheelchair, or allow a person to hide behind. Signs should be placed within 12 inches of the building; this will help identify the door of the establishment and limit risk of injury from someone entering a parked automobile at curbside. · Meet Federal ADA Requirements - The Federal ADA requirements state that a minimum of 36 inches clear is needed to accommodate 1 wheelchair passage and 60 inches for 2 wheelchairs to pass. Also, 60 inches is needed for 1 wheelchair to make a 180 degree turn. The maximum height for a service counter is 36 inches because 34 inches is approximately chest level for most wheelchair bound individuals. Dimensions of an adult wheel chair are 26 x 48 inches. · Create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere - Signs would assist business owners in appealing to the pedestrian and inviting them in to the store. Sidewalk signs are not effective in communicating to a person within a traveling automobile. · Limit liability - The Village should be indemnified from all liability from signs on public property; use of the signs on private property is at the risk ofthe property owner. · Maintain integrity of the downtown architecture and streetscape - Signs should be of a high quality, durable material, and must be professionally fabricated. Hand written messages would only be allowed on a chalkboard, such as to advertise a daily special. Only 1 sign would be allowed per door per building so as to avoid clutter. · Maintain a healthy business climate - Additional signage, used effectively, will assist business owners in growing their clientele. Research The attached table (Exhibit 3) summarizes research on the use of sidewalk signs. Staff researched sidewalk sign regulations in the communities surrounding the Village, calling each and reading their sign codes. Staff also contacted other communities in the Chicago area and out-of-state known to allow such signs, and studied various Village Plans and Ordinances to determine if the documents would support the use of sidewalk signs. The research identified several key findings: . Few municipalities in the area allow businesses to use sidewalk signs, although several do allow them as temporary signs. . Most communities do not have specific regulations for sidewalk signs in their ordinances. . Some communities in the metro area, such as Geneva, St. Charles, Naperville and Aurora do successfully allow businesses to use sidewalk signs in their downtown. . Slightly more than half of those ordinances allowing the signs require a permit. Sign Criteria Staff considered several components of sidewalk signs needing regulation to ensure pedestrian safety and meet the Planning Goals outlined above. These are outlined in exhibit 6 and include: 1. Placement Sidewalk signs would be allowed in the B5 and B5C Zoning Districts as these properties have less opportunity for signage. Only 1 sign should be allowed per street side door to eliminate clutter. The sight triangle and pedestrian clearance must be maintained. Signs should be placed adjacent to the building (not be more than 12 inches from the building) not curbside. At least 5 feet of unobstructed sidewalk must be maintained around each SIgn. Sidewalk signage can enhance a pedestrian oriented shopping district, but is ineffective for use in communicating to a moving vehicle: research shows at a speed of 35 mph or greater, letters on a sign would need to be 6 inches or higher to be legible (U.S. Department of the Interior). For safety reasons, Staff recommends a maximum size of2' x 3' sign. This would allow 3 lines of copy with a maximum of 8 characters on each. 2. Times of Use Signs are only to be displayed during business hours, and would not be allowed at times of high wind, snow events, or when they could be a hazard, as outlined in the sample ordinance. 3. Permitting Sign regulations will be applied to all sidewalk signs; however, permits will only be required for those on public property. 4. Aesthetics It is important that these signs be of high quality and be professionally constructed of durable material. The Village will reserve the right to deny the use of a sign not meeting these minimal design criteria or that is not properly maintained as provided for in Section 7.405. If the Village Board supports the use of sidewalk signage, please direct staff to take this topic for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please also provide direction to Staff regarding 1) the expansion of projecting signs throughout the B5 and B5C Districts, and 2) construction of an information kiosk at the Metra Station. ~Jll;l1ibb / Exhibit 1 7.335: SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL: The Village Board may designate geographic areas within the Village as a "special area of control" for purposes of these regulations. A special area of control is an area in which special standards are drafted in order to incorporate a wider variety of sign design. A. The Director shall prepare a map showing all designated areas of special control. B. Areas of special control shall include the following: Central Business District: In the Central Business District Special Area of Control (Exhibit 1). Signs permitted under these regulations may extend over the public right of way as follows: Projecting Signs: Four feet (4') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line, whichever is less (see subsection 7.305C of this Article). Canopies Or Awnings: The lesser offive feet (5') or to within two feet (2') of the curb line; provided no supporting posts, columns, or braces extend beyond the property line. .... ~.'~.J .or : 'l.l$.1t "'ole ..0.. '" '" " ... .. ~ ~ i 1."11;1< .....l<... .. ... ~. ii.. ... Oi ; NZ. ~ 0 o~. i ! ~ OevtLO""'C"T ~ ",1""0""'" s1', CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 101 ~ .. .( s: ~ ..I III ..I o I) 1: ~ .. 0( " o 1. EXHIBIT I. SPECIAL AREA OF CONTROL 'UNa ".4 OlI'AA't"M."T.' COM"""""'lT't VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT (Ord. 4519,1-19-1993) Exhibit 2 From the Village Sign Code 7.101: PURPOSE: The regulations of this Chapter are intended to coordinate the use, placement, physical dimensions, and design of all signs within the Village. The purpose of these regulations is to promote the public health, safety and welfare, and develop a satisfactory visual appearance with the Village by: A. Promoting the objectives, principles and standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial and industrial development; and B. Protecting the public from damage or injury caused by signs which are poorly designed or maintained and from distractions or hazards to pedestrians or motorists caused by the indiscriminate placement or use of signs; and C. Maintaining property values by eliminating signs that are incompatible with the surrounding land uses; and D. Encouraging a viable economic environment through uniform control of signs; and E. Facilitating effective communication between the public and the environment through signs which are appropriate for the type of street on which they are located; and F. Encouraging quality sign design to promote a better visual environment; and G. Enhancing the physical appearance of the Village through a program which ensures the removal of inadequately maintained, illegal and nonconforming signs within a reasonable time period. (Ord. 4519, 1-19-1993) Exhibit 3 A-Frames I Sandwich I Sidewalk Signs in Other Communities Municipality Name Permitted I Zoning Height Size Time Limitation Other Permit Insurance Reference Prohibited Arlington Heights Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Temporary Signs Permitted up to 32 sq ft cannot obstruct right-of- way or be a hazard to oedestrians Buffalo Grove "A" Frame Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Des Plaines Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Ul Temporary Signs Permitted not permitted not greater only allowed as temp. cannot extend more than 4 Permit & CI) ;:; in Res. than 64 sq. ft. signs up to 30 days then in. into public thoroughfare refundable $200 'c Districts not for 60 days - 4 per yr. deposit required ::J E Elk Grove Portable Signs Prohibited - E - - - - - - 0 Village 0 Glenview - Prohibited - - - - - - - C) Hoffman Estates Portable Signs Prohibited c - - - - - - - " Northbrook Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - C ::J Temporary Signs Permitted not permitted up to 30 days per year Permit not e in Res. required ~ ::J Districts rn Palatine Temporary Signs Permitted up to 7 days then not for Permit required 14 days - 3 per yr. Prospect Heights Temporary Signs Permitted Permit required $25,000 bond from sign company I installer required Schaumburg A Frame Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Wheeling A Frame Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Aurora Sandwich Boards Permitted up to 4 ft up to 2 ft wide can only be displayed must not obstruct Permit not Ul Ul during business hours pedestrian I wheelchair required .- CI) access - must keep 5 ft of 0'- clear sidewalk c:!::: .- c Barrington Portable Signs Prohibited are permitted as :::J - - - - - - ~ E (sandwich signs) (see "other") "Temporary Promotional CI) E Signs" - short-term only =0 00 Crystal Lake Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - (menu or sandwich board signs) East Dundee Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Geneva Sandwich Boards Permitted only in Comm. up to 5 ft max 2 sign not closer to street than Permit required Districts faces - up to ROW line 10 sq ft per panel Portable Signs Prohibited - - - - - - - Lake Forest Temporary Signs Permitted - a-frames not written into must not obstruct sidewalk their code Naperville A-Framed Signs Permitted up to 5 ft up to 6 sq ft must be taken inside at cannot be placed in public Permit not night (2 am - 6 am) right-of-way required St. Charles Sidewalk Signs Yearly one (1) permitted per Permit required Worker's Comp and Permitted req. business - must keep 5 ft Comprehensive on public of clear sidewalk General Liability property required West Dundee Daily Temporary Permitted only in Comm. 18 in x 36 in - must be taken inside Permit not Sign (sandwich Districts up to 9 sq ft. nightly required board) total - max 2 sian faces Woodstock* Sidewalk Signs Permitted Pedestrian- 3 to 4 ft up to 6 sq ft can only be displayed must keep 5 ft of clear Annual Permit Liability Insurance Oriented per sign face during business hours sidewalk - cannot be required required Businesses displayed during high onlv winds or snow * Note: Woodstock Ordinance is currently in draft form Gilbert, AZ A-Frame Signs Permitted for up to 3 ft up to 2 ft in can only be displayed one (1) permitted per Permit not commercial width during business hours business or apartment required and downtown complex districts Renton, WA A-frame Signs Permitted not permitted up to 3 ft up to 32 in can only be displayed special placement Permit required Insurance required in Res. Dist. wide during business hours regulations for downtown businesses San Rafael, CA A-Frame Signs Permitted only in up to 3 ft up to 24 in can only be displayed must be placed adjacent to Permit required Insurance required downtown wide during business hours building & cannot obstruct pedestrian traffic Exhibit 4 Sample Ordinance 7.325: SPECIAL SIGNS: J. Sidewalk Signs The Director is authorized to issue permits for the use of public places for signs for the purpose of advertising businesses on adjoining property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Permits: A Sidewalk Sign Permit shall be required prior to placing any sign on public property. Signs placed on private property do not require a permit. Permits issued hereunder shall be valid from January 1st or the date of the permit issuance, whichever is later, throughout December 31st of the same year. Refer to Appendix A for permit fees. Applicant must provide proof of insurance as specified in Section 7 below prior to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit. The Village may suspend or revoke the Sidewalk Sign Permit placed on public property, or request the removal of a sign placed on private property, for any reason including but not limited to violations of any provision of the Mount Prospect Village Code after providing three (3) days written notice, except in an emergency, to the permittee. 2. Number of Signs: Only one sign shall be permitted per business establishment, except that public service signs (i.e., signs indicating the curb location of valet parking) may be permitted in addition to the one sign per business. 3. Use of Signs: Sidewalk signs may only be displayed during business hours and must be removed at the close of each business day. Sidewalk signs may not be displayed during times of high winds, snow, or when sidewalks are congested and the placement of a sign may impede the movement of people. 4. Location: Sidewalk signs will only be permitted in the B5 (Central Commercial) and B5C (Core Central Commercial) zoning districts. The sign shall not unreasonably interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or with access to parked vehicles, and shall not reduce the open portion of any sidewalk to less than five feet (5') in width. The sign shall be placed a maximum of one foot (1') from the wall of the building, unless the Director approves another location based upon other obstructions in the right of way. The sign shall not be attached or affixed to the sidewalk, parkway, poles or any other public facilities. Sight triangle regulations as defined in Section 7.801 shall be followed. Permit applicants shall submit a plat of surveyor a site plan with their application indicating the location of the proposed sign. 5. Size: A sidewalk sign shall be a maximum of four feet (4') in height and the maximum sign area shall not exceed six square feet (6 sq. ft.) per sign face. A maximum of two (2) sign faces are permitted. 6. Illumination: Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated. 7. Insurance: Signs placed on private property are placed at the risk of the owner and subject to their individual insurance policies. The applicant for a Sidewalk Sign Permit placed on public property shall provide at its sole cost and expense and shall maintain in effect during the entire period of the permit, insurance in the following manner: a. Worker's Compensation Insurance in at least the required statutory limits; 1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including owner's protective liability insurance and contractual liability insurance covering claims for personal injury and property damage with limits of at least one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars per occurrence, and one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars for any single injury; and 2. Prior to issuance of a Sidewalk Sign Permit, the permittee shall provide the Village with copies of the certificates of insurance for the required policies for each type of insurance naming the Village as an additional insured party. 3. The required insurance policies shall each provide that they shall not be changed or cancelled during the life of the Sidewalk Sign Permit . until 30 days after written notice of such change has been delivered to the Village, attention Director of Community Development. 4. The permittee shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the Village from and against any and all injuries, deaths, losses, damages, claims, suits, liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses, consequential or otherwise, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may in any way arise out of or be connected with the granting of a Sidewalk Sign Permit which may in any way result therefrom, or from any act or failure to act by the permittee, its agents or employees. Exhibit 5 SIDEWALK SIGN DISPLAY REGULATIONS NUMBER PERMITTED: One (1) per business. PERMITTED LOCATION: Sidewalk signs are only permitted in the B5 (Central Commercial) and B5C (Core Central Commercial) zoning districts and shall be placed no more than one foot (1') from the building. PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE: A minimum oftive feet (5') of unobstructed sidewalk is required. CLEAR VISION AREA: Sight triangle regulations as outlined in the Sign Code must be followed (see Section 7.801). SIZE: Sidewalk signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and each sign face shall not be greater than six square feet (6 sq. ft.). Only two (2) sign faces are permitted. DISPLAY TIMES: Sidewalk signs shall not be displayed during non- business hours. Signs shall also not be displayed during times of high winds, snow, or when it will impede pedestrian movement. ILLUMINATION: Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated. PERMIT: A permit is required for all sidewalk signs placed on public property. Permit applicants shall provide a plat of surveyor site plan showing the location of the sign. Sidewalk signs placed on private property do not require a permit. INSURANCE: All applicants for sidewalk sign permits shall provide proof of insurance at the time of application. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence and one million ($1,000,000) for any single injury is required. The applicant must also name the Village as an additional insured party and indemnify the Village. U) c C) .- tJ) C) c +:i (.) Q) .() a.. a. a.. 0 .... U) Q) 'i: cu "C C ~ 0 aJ ~ Z ..... "C Q) ~ U) .c 0 .- c. .c 0 >< a.. W a. /;:..__1 'J~ II, !~ II ~. 11..__" 0 iiTl:rll ~__OIffiJrnW~I/)! I[~ _.HIS[j~11111 'fllJ- .. 1 ._:d ~~!.I ......... ~ ...._...>..... ..... .................i..... ' II I'I i III ......'.'....... .... I 'rY...,..........1 JJ:'f1 f, Uti .'1' Ii_.....................'.. .... ......,..,.1 _ l'~~~ IIVJ ._ ~:I ,1 1i~. .U_.) 1 . > _ _ _; " " ".)i ,:,""'~"" ;::', ".,' _ '., ;,,:: -,. _ _ ,",' - ., _-"':;~'-.': _.";'__ "-:::',__' ~i> ~',_ .',', ': ',"',' ' ~~Tr'Ie1Jl -~ ri:ll_.~.jll, I: 1111 j '"""T '. .... .......,t-,.. .......... '. '.' .... ~"'~~""'~'!!'.'.' .. .... ......... I 111111.... I ~ 'III .BO.' !!~~~.~. ___- J rmwmn.OO~7. U m._'_'.~'lJ: ~!~/ tmmr..~._........:............8?~\ _vlllr'~.~,,=,,~..~..... .~~ /.4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JUNE 9, 2005 SUBJECT: ENTRANCE ENHANCEMENTS - VILLAGE HALL The Village Board had previously discussed several architect recommended enhancements to the Village Hall entrance to highlight the entrance for patrons and reduce confusion as to where the main entrance is located. Among the recommendations were exterior enhancements around the Emerson Street doorway and east wall facing Emerson. There was also a recommendation to place a banner above the west entrance door to draw attention to the entrance, assuming the banner option is acceptable. The interior recommendations consisted of dressing up the main stairwell with wood paneling below the handrail and adding wood paneling on the wall with the fire alarm panel to camouflage the panel. Exterior Enhancements: The exterior enhancements consist of two main options. One option is the installation of banners above the main entrance door and along the east wall in addition to a banner above the west entrance door. A graphic illustration showing the banner mock up is enclosed for informational purposes. Previous discussions also explored an updated Village seal for possible inclusion on the banners or a glass panel option directly above the main entrance door. The second option consists of a lighted glass panel abovE3 the main entrance door. Both concepts suggest flag installation on the pillars of the overhead porch feature, but the flag installation is purely to draw attention to the entrance and is not integral to any of the overall design options. The Village is already exploring the installation of an enclosed bulletin board for community announcements in the porch area which is necessary regardless of what enhancements are approved. Design fees have been quoted at $13,200 which includes up to three complete design options for the Village seal. The cost can be reduced if there are fewer than three design options. The creation and installation of the banners or glass panel have yet to be quoted and have only been estimated at this time. The glass panel option would be more expensive than the banner option. The banner option allows for change out of banner graphics depending on the event or season. The banner creation and installation cost are estimated at approximately $18,000. The banner installation on the east wall of the building is estimated at approximately $6000, installed. The glass creation and installation would be ENTRANCE ENHANCEMENTS - VILLAGE HALL June 9, 2005 Page 2 approximately $25,000. Of course, the two options could be combined with the glass above the door entrance and the banners along the east wall if that is the Board's desire. The Board had previously authorized painting the exterior doors at the east and west entrance to appear as wood grain doors. Unfortunately this work was not completed last year due to weather constraints, but is scheduled to start on June 13, assuming cooperative weather conditions. Decisions Requested: 1. Village Board direction to staff as to preferred exterior enhancement: a) Banner option; b) Glass panel option: c) combination of glass panel with banners on the east wall. 2. Village Board direction to staff whether to include the flags as part of the exterior enhancement improvements. A discussion focusing on the redesign/modernization of the seal will need to occur at a future date as part of the graphic design process for either the banners o\and/or the glass panel. Interior Enhancements: The interior enhancements consist of wood paneling in the main stairwell between the hand rail and stairs in addition to stairwell painting and wood paneling intended to conceal the fire alarm panel wall. A draft design concept is included for informational purposes. The design cost for this enhancement has been quoted at $4800. The construction cost of the enhancements has been quoted at $31,044. If the Board authorizes this work to proceed the main stairwell will likely be closed to staff and the general public for several weeks. Decisions Requested: 1. Village Board authorization to proceed with the design and construction of the main stairwell enhancements and wood paneling installation on the fire alarm panel wall. If you have any other questions, please contact me. ~a~:d.if David Strahl H:\VILM\Village HallWB Exterior Enhancement Memo.doc "..,..-...,+."'.."""".;"'"."'"",:.......'--""."-'--'",;""'.-,,~......;,,-',..-:i--;.:_.,,.;c-" i".Lc2.C""l!1~J~C.C.~J~~~~.~..c~,~.~~f:€!1:JE~~L~..... f"$l~ Ii! ..to /;~/:"t:~.) ~\ j . t.,' -_,-f ~/~/! (a/,~~/ ...1 /...,' "It' 1 '~-{j i? ~" ....L .~ ,~ ..-~ ('?p !l>~ ....-.-..-j V -J~~- It,- ~-~ "~I ~ tT~''-- I.~ '. ----.~-d;,t::=-~~~-:J[' Ii ,--;;::'::::;;: ~'-:"rr-""-':::;=-~ i '.114./ ',J\, . ,,":;_i)(,'.~.9.' I. I' U I ' /.r----Ft~...I. · fl. \.ji,'~ /' I ~1'}==-1.! 11J~b(~j 11......11 l i7t~.-r- ~!i~) -Jll~JJ ~}r--t.~ \. i",lt-' ,''''- ' . i .f/-:~ i ! '>" / '1 ''y,/ 'i . I'"~ ---;,1 r-l=" j ~!fi)\JJ\JAXi II~! >, }f]'<::-----~' .---LJJr~ ~ ~ ..' ", ''-~~. /",-:::r-f ' ""1' I 1 ~"-,~'fl.'-J---"-- lJU \.. I I __,_.?"- ~'- I I ~ r t I, _,~-.---- '~-, '- I I . "" I !_:--~.- .'J::---.--~ -,~~- I: .' rll'~ -- -.l j \, I I I ,I /'",/ I' J '., ,7,-~---~----2-"j I' ~ " 11/ "r.,,~ ,< ,. . \ ,""""__.=1 '<::::=4:tJ'-ll! >J 1;/ :! LLj} \ \/ \'1' j\ !Hj~., ./ --~\LJ I ~-(-\.---l-+.---.~ q (i ~~-= ~-t~, =-__~h __---LLm..'-. -L:TI ~-____L.LL "-< '-> "G" ~.~ ~.~ ......."!-..:; -~~ i: ;-- '''- ~ .~ ""'........ ,~~'; 'L...... \. "-'--.............-... ~;:;.. " """ ~~. . " ~. ~r.-~-;.-..:.. ~ ~. \~~, '" 'I.J' ~~y.~~. -., ~,~.:~ ~> '\.::" '--" -" "'-':,:, ~.;; '-= .'"",,---'~ ~.~ ''-~~_ C:j c::. <t-'!" '" ~ .~~ " ~...., ....~~ J 't~1 '-~. ~',~ ...""~ '~ ~l. __J -.~ l t[ ~( i I \~--l ". I . ~-. ~'l c"': I' -.. ........ ~'"\. .." ~,:i.'~: l~~<...~ !~~ -I .~. ,~/....'-...,. ( ~.) "-./ r....,.... ~.. .'--. ,.~~~,~ '..' ~~ '~ ,,,..:,< ~ ~,.....-. ,~ -. '^ \. -*... ..;.\~ 1. ,.r;;" ::r~ i.., ,; :7" ~ ~ ....<~t. ~~i ~! ....~-~l .;1 .~ ' ~,- [ ~~ r '-) t -.:' . "'-'. I ...~ t ----~ I ~ [,< _::~, \ '~:- ;' 1 ~ ~. ll.....~ "'~ L-" (' "'. ,; '<1(- r \.....~""'/ ~~ ......., ~~ ! I i ) - ) -'. I w; ~ ~l :..' I <'.[ ,~ -t: i::~'~~ , "-, -~~ ''':1 .~ ";~ >..J.. 'f';r..:j~' I 9 # I ( I I f f ! , , I i t l 1',.... ,~{ i'l, ,~.<7......., ~ ~..~ f.j if "r":> ,:''1: . of I ~t i', . I -:1 ~.' ~;'} 1,f (~:Ct;J~"~{) -----,,---_....'"..~~.-.......'"'-'------...---..,........--<--,..,;.;..;- I } 1 f ! J _.____...."':".__o.-,.~.,_'_,'_'_,~." I I i I I I -,~"~~-----,-- --~.4.c "I ,./"'k../l'(,' ~~-i.V'~ '(111: r:; Im::'tgenot to Scale M1Jhvork Dcu,dls Specification Sc-ctiou 06402 Mount Prospect\liIlage Hall Village of Mount Prospect Detail #1 R~R .' .....v, ,RINN-SCOTI,INC. RAYNER 0: PANELM'OULDING 510,8 ., r 4 · X 1-5/1S' Vol 5201 ~5!1(;",x 2-1l16" 5203 -3/4" X Z' 511f0 11(16" X 1-3/8' ~~\~ ~ ______--1 (II," :~,_, __~" "i \1 '( \ I j I l ) fl l' I ( l' ..' J I , 'I I, !\ ! 1\ 1", \,,'Y / ,', " " 1 " ' " '.",\'[ ,f,/ I,V;; --1,' , , I r t (' II ' t1 I, 511S 9/1 S' Xl-,3l1S" --~" ---- " !)\~~, . ) 1. 1 f/',,) I (Ii ill I !, , I ( i 'j' ~, " !/,.I ",:1),' ... ... {) \, ,,\ I ') I 5115 11/16" X 1-9/1 6 5101' A ~4' Xi-3M g -.;). . FULL SCAt.t I , - -----~ I rffTc=, ", , -- -----'..' ' '.. ..,........- .... ../ i}i ___ ) , , . J j (, J~ ""'j IK."" 11'1, , I i \ t, ~ \, \ \ .. ...., ... \ ' " I d,l li/ J, I )) ~/ ., .. }tJ.iJ...~.. I'll' '~"" 001 " a ,', - 'i"" 11/16'x'" v I I ~ iil~ I i,l, '~~ "\. / /.l / I.... r Iii' \ I \ I, ' / ,\) "\\1\') '} )}) ',/' .. y '[' '. /, I '~/.:" i "i J..,'~ t'J,>--r,,)' ')', \ " " \ , 1\) I I t,l /' , i,l, J I ~~C)1. I :l/4'x; 1-1/2 . I 8 PI (l~(~lt , \ \, '" <. . l'l)))}) I', ! , 1 l ," I 11 5131 llZ'xi' MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michae]e Skowron Michae] A. Zade] VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone: 847/8] 8-5328 Fax: 847/8]8-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION ORDER OF BUSINESS SPECIAL MEETING Meeting Location: Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: June 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. DISCUSSION At the June 2, 2005 Regular Meeting the Commission agreed to partner with John Jay School, School District #59 and any other interested Mount Prospect in a Make A Difference Day Project to collect unwanted but usable musical instruments. In her presentation, Ms. Hernandez, Principal of John Jay School, shared the many benefits of music programs especially for at-risk-students. Unfortunately, many of these students are unable to bear the financial cost for instruments. The intent of the Make Difference Day Project is to encourage the community to donate unwanted, usable instruments, and organize the collection of the instruments for John Jay and other participating schools. Mount Prospect Sister Cities Commission 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 (847) 392-6000 AGENDA SISTER CITIES COMMISSION June 16,2005 Village Hall Community Center, 50 S. Emerson Street 5:30 p.m. I. Call to Order II. Old Business A. Wrap up of Savres visit to Mount Prospect - March 29 - April 2 B. 4th of July Parade C. Thanksgiving in October 2005 III. New Business A. Sister Cities International Conference Spokane, W A July 27-31, 2005 Place - Doubletree Hotel, Spokane City Center Theme - Connecting Global Villages B. Sister Cities International 50th Conference Washington, DC July 13-15, 2006 Place - Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill C. Joint Project - 2006 Hoffman Estates - Angouleme, France Palatine - Fontenay, France Mount Prospect - Sevres, France IV. Adjournment Upcomina Meetinas: · September 15 · December 15 Sister Cities web site: www.sister-cities.org - if you are interested you can subscribe to their email newsletter. MOUNT PROSPECT SISTER CITIES COMMISSION Minutes March 17, 2005 Members Present: Tokiko Blaine Carole Bloomquist Janice Farley Skip Farley Lil Floros Melanie Karsen Cindy Kiel Dorothy Kucera Paul Seils Mary Ann Sibrava John Sibrava Judy Thome Rachel Toeppen Irvana Wilks Members Absent: Adelaide Thulin Staff Liaison: Maura El Metennani The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Sevres Visit to Mount Prospect Reviewed Schedule for upcoming visit Welcome Reception - Busse Flowers is donating flowers for table decorations Checked Commission member RSVPs for various events 4th of Julv Parade Carole Bloomquist is making arrangements for float with Public Works Director Glen Andler. Staff will prepare flyers to be distributed along the parade route. Thanksg:ivine: in October Banquet A subcommittee has been meeting to plan the banquet which will take place Thursday, October 27 at the Avalon Banquet Hall. The deposit has been paid. Arrangements are being made to possibly have someone from Sevres in attendance. Other Business Judy Thome reported that there would be a reception at Prospect High School to welcome exchange students from Sevres on Thursday, April 28. Dorothy Kucera shared information from the Sister Cities Association in Schaumburg - they are set up as a fundraising body and cart accept donations. She suggested the Commission consider doing something similar. Rachel Toeppen requested that at the next meeting, a discussion take place about doing a joint event with Hoffman Estates and Palatine, who both have Sister Cities in France. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for June 16,2005.