HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1990 MPDD Survey ResultsVILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPER'"
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE MANAGER
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO. MAYOR GERALD FARLEY
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1990
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN STRATEGY MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1990 - 6:00 P.M.
(DOWNTOWN SURVEY RESULTS)
Our Consultant, Camiros, has completed the analysis of the questionnaire sent on a random
basis to 2500 households regarding downtown shopping/housing usage and preferences.
This will be the focus of the meeting to be held in the Trustees Room of the Village Hall,
Monday, November 19 at 6:00 P.M. Food will be provided at the meeting.
JFD:hg
Enclosures: Summary of Downtown Survey Analysis
Copy of Questionnaire
0
caMWOS 411 S. Wells, Chicago, Illinois 60607 (312) 922-9211
VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT - DOWNTOWN SURVEY ANALYSIS
November 9, 1990
OVERVIEW
The Downtown Survey was distributed to 2500 randomly selected households within the Village of
Mount Prospect. 390 surveys were returned within the specified deadline date, for a survey response
rate of 15.6%. For the 1980 citizens survey, which included a section on the downtown, 20,000
households were surveyed and 2700 responses were received for a comparable response rate of 13.6%.
The purpose of this survey was to determine residents' shopping patterns, use of and concerns about the
downtown area. These results will provide important supplemental background information for a
market study which is being prepared for the downtown.
In general, the number of survey responses received provides for a good indication of the attitudes and
needs of the community as a whole. However, the smaller response for residents in Area A (78
responses, as opposed to 96 for Area C and 193 for area B) requires that the results interpreted by
geographic area, in particular, be considered carefully because those for Area A may not as closely
reflect the whole population for that area as it could have if more surveys had been returned for Area
A. In general, a minimum of 100 survey responses for a particular group are needed to make accurate
generalizations about a sub -group.
In statistical terms, the margin of error for the survey was 4.96 percent (for a 95 percent confidence
level). In other words, there is a 95 out of 100 chance that the total population of the subject area would
respond within 4.96 percent (plus or minus) of the sample response. For example, if 50% of the survey
respondents indicated that they would consider living in downtown if appropriate housing were
available, we can be quite sure that the feelings of the whole population in the survey area lay
between 45.04% and 54.96%. This range is relatively narrow and means we can be relatively sure that
responses from the sample are generally reflective of the whole population.
CROSS TABULATION ANALYSIS
To further understand the needs and desires of subgroups of the survey respondents, cross tabulation
analyses (crosstabs) were conducted. The crosstabs considered responses of groups of particular interest,
(i.e., those who do and do not shop in the downtown, and those who would and would not consider living
in the downtown, if suitable housing were available). These analyses were conducted to better
understand the persons who do shop in the downtown and why they come there. Their responses
were tabulated separately from those who do not shop downtown. The findings of the crosstabs are
described below, following the discussion of the general survey results.
Consultants in Planning, Zoning, Development Economics, and Landscape Architecture
Chicago, Illinois Madison, Wisconsin Indianapolis, Indiana Orlando, Florida
Fax (312) 922-9689
"Mt. Pnoped Downtown Survey Resulb"
Novemba 9,1990
A technique called "weighted averages" was calculated for several questions (i.e., 7, 8, and 12) to give
us some additional information. Applying weighted averages means that responses rated as very
important were given a score of 1; important a score of 2; no opinion a score of 0; unimportant a score of 4
and very unimportant a score of 5. Then an average score for the total response for each part of the
questions were calculated. A weighted average score of 2.2, for example, would mean that the survey
response group as a whole felt that a certain item was important. On the other hand a score of 3.3
would indicate that the group as a whole was neutral about an issue.
Note: When a respondent was given the option to respond to more than one choice in a question, the
percentages will total to more than 100%.
SURVEY RESULTS
Respondents' regions of residence,
which are identified as Areas A, B an
C in the results below, are delineated
on the map shown.
The survey results for all questions (Ql-Q27) are summarized below.
Q1: 44% of respondents shop in downtown Mount Prospect frequently (i.e., daily, 2-3 times a week,
weekly; or 2-3 times a month) and 53% shop in downtown only occasionally or never. The individual
breakdowns were as follows: 2% daily; 13% 2 -3 times a week; 15% weekly; 14% 2 - 3 times a month;
27% occasionally; 26% rarely/never; and 3% no response.
2
"Mt Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
-,� Q2: People patronize downtown establishments as follows:
94% - Post office
92% - Village Hall, Senior Center, and other Government Services
83% - Library
60% - Restaurant/ lounge
53% - Convenience goods (Drug, hardware, etc.)
50% - Convenience food stores (Aldi, White Hen, etc.)
42% - General retail goods (card shop, frame shop, etc.)
41% - Convenience services (cleaners, shoe repair, etc.)
33% - Professional services (doctor, dentist, real estate, etc.)
32% - Financial services
Public facilities are the primary draw to downtown- much more so than downtown retail goods and
services. This is an important reason to maintain public uses in the downtown to maintain activity
while the village works to encourage more retail development.
Q3: People do most of their shopping for convenience goods (i.e., groceries, drugs, dry cleaning, etc.) at
the following centers:
39% - Golf Plaza II
33% - Randhurst Mall
27% - Mount Prospect Plaza
17% - Other
15% - Golf Plaza I
7% - Downtown Mount Prospect
Q4: When asked how much of their shopping for convenience goods (Le, groceries, drugs, dry cleaning,
etc.) respondents do in downtown Mount Prospect, they responded as follows: 619 said almost none (less
than 10%); 23% said some (around 25%); 9% said half (50°6); 4% said most (7596); 2% said almost all
(90% or more); and 1% did not respond.
Q5: People purchase most of their shoppers goods (i.e., clothing, shoes, furniture, appliances) at the
following centers:
72% - Randhurst Mall 9% - Palatine & Rand Road Area
25% - Woodfield Mall 2% - Downtown Mount Prospect
17% - Other
"Mt. Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
Q6: When asked what percent of their shoppers goods (i.e., clothing, shoes, furniture, appliances) they
purchase in downtown Mount Prospect, people responded as follows: 77% almost none (less than 1090);
16% some (about 259'0); 4% half (50%); 1% most (75%); 1% almost all (90% or more), and 1°% did not
respond.
Q7: People were asked to rate the importance of 11 items when they go shopping. They rated these
items as follows (note that weighted averages have been applied):
1 = very important; 2 = important; 3 = no opinion; 4 = unimportant; and 5 = very unimportant
1.3 - Quality goods/services
1.4 - Competitive prices
1.4 - Parking availability
1S - Choice of stores
Important
2.3 - Special events, sales
2.3 - Evening store hours
2.4 - Uniform store hours
2.5 - Pedestrian accessibility
2.6 - Type and variety of restaurants
2.6 - Streetscape improvements
2.8 - Store facade appearance
Q8: People rated the characteristics in downtown Mount Prospect as follows (note that weighted
averages have been applied):
1 = very good; 2 = good; 3 = no opinion; 4 = poor; and 5 = very poor
...
2.2 - Streetscape improvements
2.4 - Pedestrian accessibility
2.5 - Store facade appearance
2.6 - Quality goods and services
2.6 - Parking availability
2.9 - Type and variety of restaurants
3.0 - Special events and sales
3.0 - Competitive prices
3.0 - Uniform store hours
3.2 - Evening store hours
3.3 - Choice of stores
The three features rated most highly for downtown Mount Prospect fall within the four lowest rated (in
terms of importance) general shopping features as seen in Question 7. Respondents generally had no
opinion about most of those other items for shopping in downtown Mount Prospect which were rated as
most important in Question 7.
4
"ML Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
Q9: People use current activities and facilities in downtown Mount Prospect as follows:
50% - Parades
47% - Street fairs
46% - Farmers' market
45% - Movie theater
32% - Parkfest (Lions Park)
32% - Sidewalk sales
14% - Christmas walk (Teddy Bear Walk)
Q10: People would use attend/use new activities and facilities in the downtown as follows:
63% - Art fairs 55% - Concerts
61% - Movie theater (16% more than attend now) 53% - Performing arts
61% - Oktoberfest 27% - Auctions
These kinds of new activities would help add vitality to the downtown and draw more potential
shoppdrs. Five of the six activities listed in Question 10 would be attended by more people than the
most highly attended current activities listed in Question 9, according to survey respondents.
Q11: People indicated that they would use new businesses if added to the -downtown as follows:
69% - Restaurant
50% - Supermarket
48% - Book store
45% - Hardware store
44% - Gift/card shop
41% - Gourmet Food Shop
39% - Women's clothing/ accessories
34% - Drug store
34% - Men's clothing/accessories
32% - Fast Food Restaurant
31% - Sporting goods
29% - Home furnishings
27% - Music/record shop
27% - Office supply store
21% - Children's clothing/ accessories
19% - TV/Stereo/Video store
19% - Professional services
17% - Jewelry store
14% - Computer store
13% - Tavern
The responses to this question indicate an apathy or disinterest in future uses in the downtown. Only
two items: restaurants and a supermarket would be patronized by 50% or more of respondents. And 11 of
the proposed 20 new uses would not even be patronized by a third of the survey respondents. This could
indicate that people's shopping patterns are set and that only special uses like a restaurant or
supermarket would cause them to change patterns.
61
"Mt. Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
_> Q12: People were asked to indicate their opinion on the following statements:
A. More convenience uses (e.g., florist, photo drop off, video tape rental, etc.) should be provided
at the commuter station: Weighted average of 2.9 = no opinion.
B. I would use rush hour bus service to and from the commuter station: Weighted average of 3.4 =
no opinion to disagree.
C. The Village needs a strong downtown area to serve as the town center: Weighted average of 2.2
= agree.
D. New commercial development should be concentrated in the downtown triangle: Weighted
average of 2.5 = agree to no opinion.
E. The downtown needs more convenience retail business: Weighted average of 2.6 = agree to no
opinion.
F. Keeping retail sales tax dollars in Mount Prospect is very important: Weighted average of 1.7
= important.
G. The downtown needs additional office space more than retail development: Weighted average
of 3.3 = no opinion.
Q13: 29% of respondents felt that additional housing in downtown is desirable; 65% said it is
undesirable; and 6% did not respond.
Q14: When asked if they would consider living in downtown Mount Prospect if appropriate housing
were available, 25% said yes; 71% said no; and 4% did not respond. This is most likely due to the fact
that most of the survey respondents are homeowners versus renters and that they don't think the
downtown is the most appropriate area for owner -occupied housing.
Q15: When asked what type of housing is most suitable for their housing needs 65% said single-family
home; 18% said townhouse; 9% said low-rise apartments; 5%n said other type of housing; and 3% did not
respond.
Q16: When asked what three aspects of downtown living would be most important to them people
responded as follows:
51% - Downtown Stores
23% - Work
46% - Public Transportation 21% - Other Activities
36% - Entertainment
26% - Art and Cultural Activities
ri
19% - Proximity to Highway
"Mt Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
Q17: When asked what disadvantages, if any, people saw to living downtown, they responded as
follows:
62% - Traffic 12% - Security
49% - Lack of Yard 12% - None
44% - Parking 9% - Other
Q18: Respondents have the following household sizes: 53% -1 to 2 persons; 35% - 3 to 4 persons;10% - 5
to 6 persons; 2% - more than 6 persons.
Q19: 90% of respondents own their dwelling; 9% rent their dwelling; and 1% did not respond..
Q20: Respondents have lived in their current residences as follows: 61% - over 9 years; 17% - 1 to 3
years; 16% - 4 to 6 years; 5%a - 7 to 9 years; and 1% no answer.
Q21: 20% of respondents live in Area A (bounded by Rand Road on the west, Kensington Road on the
south, River Road on the east, and extending to the Village limits on the north); 50% live in Area B
(bounded. by Busse Road on the west, Golf Road on the south, Wolf Road on the east, and Kensington
Road on the north); and 25% live in Area C (the area south and west of Busse Road and Golf Road); and
5% did not respond.
Q22: No respondents were under 20 years of age; 9% were 20 to 30;18% were 31 to 40; 22% were 41 to 50;
23% were 51 to 60; 18% were 61 to 70; 8% were over 71; and 2% did not respond. The mean age was 50.7
and the median age was 50.
Q23: 47% of respondents were male; 52% were female; and 1% did not respond.
Q24: When asked how long they have lived in Mount Prospect, respondents answered as follows: 42% -
20 or more years; 26% -10 to 20 years;14% - 2 to 5 years;12% - 5 to 10 years; 5% less than 2 years; and 1%
did not respond.
Q25: When asked how many full-time employed persons they had in their household, people
responded as follows: 38% - one person; 34% - two persons; 6% - three or more persons; 2% - none
(unemployed); and 20% - none (retired).
Q26: The heads of households who are employed full-time, work in the following locations: 3% -
Woodfield ,area; 9% - Village of Mount Prospect; 16% - other area; 21 % Chicago; 23% --no answer, and
28% - elsewhere in Cook County.
Q27. Respondents' family incomes were as follows: 21% - over $65,000; 22% - $50,001 - $65,000; 23% -
$35,001 - $50,000;10% - $20,000 - $35,000; 5% - under $20,000; and 19% - no answers
FA
"ML Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
CROSS TABULATION RESULTS
Q1/Q2: People that shop in the downtown frequently are more likely than others to patronize the
following: convenience food stores, convenience goods (drug store, hardware store), convenience services
(cleaners, shoe repair, etc.), general retail goods (card shop, frame shop, etc.), financial services, and
restaurants/lounges. On the other hand, people that rarely come to the downtown, generally come for
the post office, library, and village hall/senior center/other government services.
Q11Q12c: People that shop frequently in the downtown are somewhat more likely to agree that the
Village needs a strong downtown area to serve as the town center and people that rarely shop in the
downtown are much more likely to disagree that the Village needs a strong downtown area to serve as
the town center.
QI/Q12e. The frequency with which a person shops in the downtown had no impact on whether they
thought the downtown does or does not need more convenience retail businesses. One would think
that people that shop infrequently within the downtown do so because of insufficient convenience retail
businesses.
Q1/Q21: People that live in Area B are much more likely to shop frequently in the downtown than
people living in Areas A and C. This is logical because area B includes the downtown and its immediate
vicinity. Area B is the large area including and surrounding the downtown and bounded roughly by
Rand Road and Kensington Road on the north, Wolf Road on the east, Golf Road on the south, and Busse
Road on the west. Area A includes the area north of Rand Road and Kensington Road. Area C includes
everything south and west of Busse Road and Golf Road.
Ql/Q22: Age did not seem to affect the frequency with which a person shops in the downtown.
Q1/Q24: People that have lived in Mount Prospect 20 or more years are slightly more likely to shop
frequently in the downtown and people that have lived in the Village 2 - 5 years are somewhat less
likely to shop frequently in the downtown. The differences however are slight.
Q3/Q7: The importance of various aspects of shopping was compared with where people shop -
downtown versus other shopping centers - and the following results were found: people that shop in
downtown rated store facade appearance and streetscape improvements as important versus people
that shop other centers who. rated this as "no opinion". Downtown shoppers also rated pedestrian
accessibility as somewhat more important than did people who predominantly shop at other centers.
On the other hand, downtown shoppers were more neutral about the importance of evening store hours,
whereas other shoppers rated this as fairly important. The results to this question are very
interesting, because they indicate that the downtown shopper is more sensitive to aesthetics and
pedestrian accessibility and that they probably come to the downtown because it offers a special
environment that They can't find in the other shopping centers in the area. Another interesting finding . .
is that people who shop in all other shopping centers than the downtown rate the importance of the
factors in question 7 almost identically. It is evident that the aesthetic qualities the downtown has to
offer, and its convenient location to residents of Area B are important in drawing people to the
downtown
..Q3/Q8: People thatdo most of their shopping for convenience goods in downtown Mount Prospect and
those people who do most of their shopping for convenience goods in other centers gave good ratings to
the same factors of shopping in downtown Mount Prospect (i.e., streetscape improvements, parking
availability, store facade appearance, pedestrian accessibility and quality goods and services).
However, in each case the people that do most of their shopping in downtown rated each of these items
higher than the people that do most of their shopping in other centers (within a two mile radius of the
downtown).
8
"Mt. Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
The lowest rated items in the downtown of all responses, (which were rated by people who do most of
their shopping for convenience goods outside of the downtown), were: evening store hours, choice of
stores, uniform store hours, special events/sales, and competitive prices. (See the table below). These
are all things that malls are much more equipped to handle better.
WHERE RESPONDENTS DO MOST OF THEIR SHOPPING FOR CONVENIENCE GOODS:
1= Very Good 2 = Good 3 = No Opinion 4 = Poor 5 =Very Poor
Downtown All Other
MWI ,u=pu=en
Streetscape Improvements
1.8
2.3
Parking Availability
2.1
2.6
Pedestrian Accessibility
2.1
2.4
Quality Goods/Services
2.1
2.6
Store Facade Appearance
2.3
2.6
Competitive Prices
2.4
3.0
Special Events, Sales
2.6
3.0
Uniform Store Hours
2.8
3.0
Choice of Stores
3.0
3.2
Evening Store Hours
3.0
3.2
Type and Variety of Restaurants
3.0
2.8
Q91Q21: People living in Area B are more somewhat more likely to attend activities and facilities
(street fairs, parades, farmers' market, Parkfest, and movie theater) in downtown Mount Prospect than
residents living in Areas A and C. This makes sense because these are the people that live in or nearest
to the downtown.
QlOIQ18: The number of persons in a household had little or no impact on their likelihood to attend
new activities or facilities which may be added to downtown.
Q131Q22. A person's age did not affect their opinion as to whether additional housing is desirable in
downtown.
Q131Q24: The number of years a person has lived in Mount Prospect did not affect their opinion as to
whether additional housing is desirable in downtown.
Q14IQ16: Of those respondents that said they would consider living downtown if appropriate housing
were available, 6836 of them said that downtown stores would be the most important aspect of living
downtown, 55% said that public transportation would be the most important aspect of living downtown,
and 48% said that entertainment would be the most important aspect of living downtown. This
substantial interest in downtown shopping would be due primarily to its close proximity to the new
housing.
Q141Q22: However, 19 to 30 year olds and persons having lived in Mount Prospect 2 to 5 years are
somewhat more likely to consider living in downtown if appropriate housing were available. In
contrast, persons 31 to 55 years of age and those having lived in the Village 10 to 20 years are somewhat
less likely to consider living in downtown, even if appropriate housing were available.
"Mt. Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
COMPARISON OF 1990 SURVEY RESULTS TO 1980 SURVEY RESULTS
In the 1980 survey those people who had lived in Mount Prospect the longest and who were in the upper
age groups (45 and older) generally had more interest in the downtown than those who were younger,
newer to the community, or who rent their homes. Many of the younger people had no opinion about the
need for more convenience retail stores downtown, and the need for a strong focal point downtown.
In the 1990 survey age did not seem to affect the frequency with which a person shops in the downtown.
However, people that have lived in Mount Prospect 20 or more years were slightly more likely to shop
frequently in the downtown. People that have lived in the Village only 2-5 years are somewhat less
likely to shop frequently in the downtown. However, the differences were slight. In the 1990 survey
there was generally no difference in opinion between age groups or between shorter and longer term
residents, about whether the village needs a strong downtown area to serve as the town center, one
exception was that people who had lived in downtown twenty or more years were more likely to
strongly disagree that the village needs a strong downtown to serve as the town center.
In the 1980 survey results it was found that nearly 60% of respondents came downtown at least once a
week and over 28% came downtown 3 or more times a week; however, in the 1990 survey only 15% (a
45% decrease since 1980) came once a week and 15% came 2-3 times a week or daily. This indicates that
the frequency with which residents shop downtown has dropped substantially.
In the 1980 survey over 80% of people that had lived in town 20 or more years come to the downtown at
least once,per week. - In the 1990 survey people that have lived in Mount Prospect 20 or more years are
only slightly more likely to shop frequently in the downtown and people that have lived in the
Village 2-5 years are only somewhat less likely to shop frequently in the downtown.
In 1980 42% of respondents used downtown for retail services. In 1990 42% of respondents also used
downtown for general retail goods. However, as in 1980, shoppers do more of their shopping at other
centers such as Randhurst, Woodfield and other local centers than they do in downtown. In 1990 only
7% of respondents do most of their shopping for convenience goods in downtown Mount Prospect and 61 %
of respondents did almost none (less than 10%) of their shopping for convenience goods in downtown.
Only 2% did most or all (90% or more) of their shopping for convenience goods in downtown. So
although people do buy retail services downtown, they generally do only a small percent of there
shopping there and on an infrequent basis.
In the 1990 survey results it was evident that the main draws for coming downtown are by far the post
office (94°x), village hall/senior center/other governmental services (92%) and the library (83°x) as
opposed to general retail goods (42%).
In the 1990 survey it also appears that residents are using the downtown substantially less than they
did in 1980. However, like the 1980 survey responses people indicated that they would use the
downtown more if things they want (more variety of stores, more activities) were added. While in 1980
there was a pretty clear tendency for longer-term residents to use the downtown more frequently, that
difference has become smaller and less substantial in the following 10 years. This may be because the
businesses that had kept longer term residents coming downtown have possibly closed or moved since
then or that longer term residents now find it more convenient to shop elsewhere. These results indicate
that the problems that were present in downtown Mount Prospect in 1980 have persisted and as a result
caused a further reduction in business patronage in the downtown.
However, the crosstabs do indicate that downtown offers a special environment in terms of its
appearance and character, which can't be found at other shopping centers. This positive feature needs
to be played up further to the advantage of the downtown. Another positive fording is that a quarter of
10
"Mt. Prospect Downtown Survey Results"
November 9,1990
the respondents would consider living downtown if appropriate housing were available. Additional
residents would help increase the activity level and 'built-in" market in the area. Younger residents
(19 to. 30 years old) and newer residents (2 to 5 years) are somewhat more likely than other residents to
consider living downtown. Additional downtown housing is an important redevelopment opportunity
which needs to be explored further.
CONCLUSIONS
The survey results affirm the efforts that the village and businesses have made to improve the
appearance of the downtown area. The streetscape improvements, appearance of store fronts, and
pedestrian accessibility were rated positively by both people that shop frequently in the downtown
and those that don't. Also, parking availability was rated as good. On the other hand, the downtown's
weaknesses, as perceived by respondents (i.e., uniform store hours, evening hours, choice of stores and
competitive prices) are those things which malls are very good at. The new businesses that survey
respondents say they would patronize in the downtown if they were offered in the future, are the types
of uses that are already provided and that people already come to the downtown for. This indicates
that people aren't likely to change their shopping patterns of where they shop for certain goods, but if
a larger selection of the goods they want were available, more patrons could be expected based on the
findings of this survey.
The downtown cannot expect to complete with the malls, however it could possibly increase its percent
of the market share through various methods that will be discussed in the market assessment,
including such things as a downtown manager, a downtown strategic business plan and rezoning land in
the downtown to direct the concentration of retail uses into a tighter configuration, more conducive to
multiple -stop shopping trips, and more special events to increase awareness of the downtown.
M143
11
■
um .411 S. Wells, Chicago, Illinois 60607 (312) 922-9211
MEMORANDUM
To: Village of Mount Prospect, Plan Commission
From: Camiros, Ltd.
Subject: Retail Market Overview for Downtown Mount Prospect
Date: July 23, 1990
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents the findings of a market overview for downtown Mount Prospect and its
primary trade area. The reconnaissance considers factors relevant to determining the downtown's
position in the local retail market, and its potential for expanded development. That potential mainly
is influenced by the retail and population characteristics of the downtown district's primary trade
area.
TRADE AREA
A trade area defines a geographic area from which consumers will be drawn to a particular shopping
location and/or for a particular group of goods. Clearly, every shopping area, be it a mall, community
shopping center, or a downtown district, will have a distinct trade area. Similarly, different types of
consumer goods have distinct trade areas. For example, people shop differently for automobiles and
household appliances than they do for groceries or drug store items. Building on these considerations,
trade areas are generally defined by travel times, natural or man-made barriers, and other shopping
opportunities.
Convenience Goods
When purchasing convenience goods, consumers are unlikely to travel more than a mile or two (or about
a five to ten minute drive). Prices do not differ greatly for these items, so there is little reason to travel
beyond the nearest grocery., drug, or hardware store. Convenience goods are those for which consumers
do not necessarily do a great deal of price comparison, but make purchases based on "convenience" of
availability.
Shoppers Goods
Shoppers goods are defined by their cost and the manner in which consumers "shop" for them. These
items are more costly and, therefore, involve varying adegrees of price comparison in order to find
satisfactory savings. Examples of these goods include: clothes, furniture, home furnishings, jewelry,
and cars.
Specialty Goods
Specialty goods have some characteristics of both convenience and shoppers goods. They are items for
which consumers have a "specialized" need_ If available the goods may be purchased close to home,
Consultants in Planning, Zoning, Developm¢nt Economics, and Landscape Architecture
Chicago, Illinois Madison, Wisconsin Indianapolis, Indiana Orlando, Florida
but may lend themselves to greater travel times due to lack of availability or store loyalty. These
items do not have sufficient demand to be as frequently located as convenience goods, but are generally
not as costly as shoppers goods. Examples of stores carrying these products are: hobby shops,
specialized clothing stores, and music stores.
Geographic Trade Areas
When considering the trade area for a particular commercial district — such as downtown Mount
Prospect — the same notions are applied as with product specific trade areas. Commercial areas with
more diverse and costly shoppers goods will have larger trade areas than those containing convenience
goods. Those with, a mix of shoppers and convenience goods will have a trade area somewhere in
between. A simple example makes the distinction clear if one considers how far consumers travel to
Woodfield Mall (from as far away as beyond the metropolitan area) as opposed to a local convenience
store or dry cleaners. In between those distances are community shopping centers such as Golf Plaza I
and II.
Downtown Mount Prospect Trade Areas
The primary trade area -- an area in which most consumers for a given commercial area live — is
defined for this analysis as roughly a two mile circle around the downtown. This area was determined
based on the type of goods available in the downtown (mostly convenience goods and small ticket home
furnishings) and the location of nearby shopping centers. Consumers are unlikely to travel long
distances for the goods available downtown as they do for shoppers and specialty goods. Just beyond
the two mile ring, a wide range of shopping opportunities are available to consumers, thus reducing
their potential to purchase convenience goods in the downtown.
The specialty uses in the downtown, as well as restaurants, the theater, medical facilities, and public
uses will bring some shoppers from beyond the primary trade. This area is known as the secondary
trade area. It provides a limited impact on retailing in the downtown. For the purposes of this study,
the secondary trade area has been defined as the remainder of Mount Prospect and parts of three
neighboring communities -- Arlington Heights, Prospect Heights, and Des Plaines. (See figure 1:
Primary Trade Area for Downtown Mount Prospect).
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Tables 1 through 9 describe the social and economic characteristics of Mt. Prospect residents in
comparison with the neighboring communities of Arlington Heights, Des Plaines and Prospect Heights,
as well as with the entire six -county region (Chicago SMSA). Data for the Downtown Mt. Prospect
Primary Trade Trade, a two mile ring around the downtown, is also provided. The data for the tables is
compiled from the 1980 U.S. Census, reports of the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC),
and analysis provided by Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
Overview
Table 1 summarizes population, household size, age and income characteristics for Mt. Prospect and
comparison areas. The average household size for Mt. Prospect matches that for the SMSA, while
residents in Mt. Prospect are slightly older - a median age of 31A years versus 29.8 years for the SMSA.
The median household income of $27,093 for Mt. Prospect is 35 percent greater than the SMSA median
of only $20,726, and second only to Arlington Heights among neighboring communities.
W
Primary Irade Area
ov, MEN kvj I mo
Table 1
0.1 %
Arlington Heights
0.8%
Des Plaines
1.3%
POPULATION SUMMARY FOR THE MT. PROSPECT AREA
1.4%
Chicago SMSA
3.2%
24.4%
12.9
67.5%
18.5%
12.5
Median
1980
1986 Est.
# of
Average
Median
HH
City Population
Population
Households
HH Size
Age
Income
Mt. Prospect 52,634
54,630
18,769
2.80
31.40
$27,093
Arlington Heights 66,116
70,180
22,180
2.93
32.30
$30,205
Des Plaines 53,568
56,170
18,779
2.80
33.20
$25,470
Prospect Heights 11,808
13,500
4,679
2.52
27.20
$22,841
Chicago SMSA 7,103,625
NA
2,486,724
2.80
29.80
$20,726
Source: 1980 U.S. Census; NIPC Study,'The Components of Population Change in Northeastern Illinois
1980 to 1986"
Education and Occupation
Eighty-three percent of Mt. Prospect residents over 25 years of age are high school ,graduates, and
nearly one-quarter of the residents completed four or more years of college (see Table 2). That high
school graduation rate is 22 percent higher than the rate for the entire SMSA. Higher high school
graduation and college attendance rates in Mt. Prospect, and the other comparison communities are
again reflected in occupational distributions in Mt. Prospect and in the SMSA (see Table 3). Sixty-nine
percent of Mt. prospect workers are in (generally) higher -paying white collar positions, compared to
only 58 percent of SMSA workers. Further, a significantly higher percentage of Mt. Prospect white
collar workers are in manager/ proprietor positions. The preponderance of white collar workers in both
Mt. Prospect and the Chicago region reflects a regional shift away from manufacturing and towards a
service -sector, white-collar economy.
Table 2
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
4 or More
Less than High School Years Median
5 years Graduate College Years
Mt. Prospect
0.1 %
Arlington Heights
0.8%
Des Plaines
1.3%
Prospect Heights
1.4%
Chicago SMSA
3.2%
82.6%
24.3%
12.9
86.6%
32.7%
13.8
75.4%
16.7%
12.6
80.7%
24.4%
12.9
67.5%
18.5%
12.5
Source: Camiros, Ltd.; 1980 U.S. Census
4
Table 3
OCCUPATION OF MT. PROSPECT AND CHICAGO SMSA RESIDENTS
OCCUPATION Mt. Prospect SMSA
% White Collar
68.5%
58.2%
% Prof/Technical
16.0%
15.%
% Mgr/Proprietor
17.0%
11. %
% Clerical
22.2%
20.%
% Sales
13.1 %
10.%
% Blue Collar
31.4%
41.7%
% Craft
11.7%
11.3%
% Operations
6.8%
13.5%
% Service
9.0%
11.6%
% Laborer
3.5%
4.6%
% Farmer
0.2%
0.5%
Source: Camiro, Ltd.; 19801,x.5. Census
Income
Comparison of Mt. Prospect and Chicago SMSA household income levels shows differences which
reflect the contrasts seen, in education and occupation levels (see Tables 4 and 5). Sixty-one percent of
Mt. Prospect households presently have incomes above $35,000 compared to only 51 percent of SMSA
households. Higher education levels correlate to higher incomes; however, the income gap may be
shrinking. Projected 1995 incomes show 66 percent of Mt. Prospect households and 59 percent of SMSA
households surpassing the $35,000 mark. That is a difference of only 8 percent compared to the 10
percent gap in 1990. Meanwhile, estimated household incomes in the Primary Trade Area (see Table 5)
for 1989 showed 65 percent above $35,000 - significantly higher than the 61 percent estimate for all of
Mt. Prospect in 1990.
Ft
Table 4
MT. PROSPECT HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Income
1980 Population
Mt. Prospect SMSA
(percent) (percent)
1990 Estimated
Mt. Prospect SMSA
(percent) (percent)
1995 Projected
Mt. Prospect SMSA
(percent) (percent)
Under $5,000
4.2
1.1.3
3
5.3
2
5.3
$5,000-$9,999
6.3
11.7
5.4
8.3
4.6
8.3
$10,000-$14,999
10.3
12.5
5.6
7.8
6.2
7.8
$15,000-$19,999
12.9
12.5
6
7.5
4.5
7.5
$20,000-$24,999
12.7
12.7
6.1
7.1
5.6
7.1
$25,000-$29,999
13.1
10.8
6.5
6.7
5.4
6.7
$30,000-$34,999
10.4
8.4
6.9
6.7
5.4
6.7
$35,000-$39,999
8.3
6
6.2
6.5
5.8
6.5
$40,000-$49,999
11.3
6.8
12.7
11.9
10.3
11.9
$50,000-$59,999
5.1
3.1
11.4
9.8
10.9
9.8
$60,000-$74,999
3
2.1
12.6
9.7
13.9
9.7
$75,000-$99,999
1.5
1.9
10.4
7.1
13.6
7.1
$100,600+
0.8
.9
7.1
5.7
11.7
5.7
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
Table 5
PRIMARY TRADE AREA PROFILE
Imo; ._ ;FTU Me
1970
1980
1989 (estimated)
1994 (projected)
Average
Household
Size
64,499
61,215
60,083
59,329
2.78
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
B. Est. 1989 HH Income
P
Less than $15,000
2,589
12.1%
$15,000-$24,999
2,328
10.9%
$25,000-$34,999
2,522
11.8%
$35,000-$49,999
4,279
19.9%
$50,000-$74,999
5,780
26.9%
$75,000+
3,947
18.4%
Median
Household
Income
$46,614
P
Household Size
Tables 6 and 7 show Mt. Prospect and the Chicago SMSA following a national trend toward fewer large
households and smaller households in general. The downsizing trend is particularly evident in Mt.
Prospect, where from 1980 to 1995 the number of one person households is expected to increase from 22
percent to 27percent. Predictably,' households are and should continue to be larger in suburbs like Mt.
Prospect than in the Chicago SMSA which includes a large city. On average, households in the
Primary Trade Area are slightly larger - an average of 2.78 persons per household estimated for 1989 -
than found in Mt. Prospect as a whole (2.58 persons per household in 1990).
Table 6
MT. PROSPECT HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
Households
1980
1990 Est.
1995 Proj.
1 Person
21.80%
25.30%
26.90 %
2 Person
30.90%
31.30%
31.40%
3-4 Person
34.00%
33.40%
33.10%
5+ Person
13.30%
10.00%
8.60%
Average HH Size
2.76
2.58
2.49
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
Table 7
CHICAGO SMSA HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
Households
1980
1990 Est.
1995 Proj.
1 Person
24.50%
26.20%
26.900/9
2 Person
28.50%
29.70%
30.20%
3-4 Person
31.80 %
32.60%
33.10%
5+ Person
15.20%
11 SO %
9.80%
Average HH Size
2.80
2.64
2.58
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
Population Trends
Long-range population prprojections show no growth for Mt. Prospect t over the next 20years - m fact, a
slight decline in population is expected (see Table 8). The Primary Trade Area shows a similar
downward population tread. Meanwhile, Arlington Heights and Des Plaines are expected to.
experiepce population growth of 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
7
Table 8
PROJECTED POPULATION
Source: NIPC Study, "Population, Households and Employment in
Northeastern Illinois 1980 to 2010"
DOWNTOWN MT. PROSPECT COMPETITIVE ALIGNMENT
A commercial center's competitive alignment is defined by its relation to those other commercial centers
within the subject's trade area and hence those businesses with which it directly competes for a share
of the retail market.
Downtown Mt. Prospect's competitive alignment is defined as those commercial centers located within
the area bounded by Palatine Road on the north, Des Plaines/River Road on the east, Oakton
Street/Northwest Tollway on the south and Arlington Heights Road on the west (See Figure 2:
Downtown Mt. Prospect Competitive Alignment).
The competitive alignment includes eight major commercial areas as well as five individual centers for
a total of 29 shopping centers. The uses in all of these centers are included in Tables 9 and 10. The eight
largest commercial areas are shown in Figure 2.
Character of Downtown Mount Prospect
Downtown Mt. Prospect contains buildings and businesses of diverse styles, ages and types. This variety
is part of what makes the downtown appealing and different than the surrounding strip malls within
the trade area.
Certain parts of the downtown have been renovated and have a charming, attractive character,
particularly the block of Busse between Northwest Highway and Main Street (Elmhurst Road), where
Ye Olde Town Inn is located. The street runs one-way west from Main Street to Northwest Highway; it
is pedestrian oriented, charming and attractive. This kind of character is not found in the other
commercial centers in the trade area.
On the other hand, the downtown lacks consistent unifying elements to "pull it all together" both
visually and physically. Elements like coordinated signage, landscaping, site furnishings etc. found in
most of the nearby shopping centers are visibly absent in the downtown. The railroad tracks and train
service both help and hurt downtown. The train station is a primary destination point and generator of
people in the downtown, which is good for business. However, the tracks divide the downtown in half,
leaving long linear strips on either side. Limited track crossings make it somewhat difficult for both
Projected
Projected
1980
1986 Est.
2010
2010
Population
Population
Population
Households
Mt. Prospect
52,634
54,630.
53,976
22,163
Arlington Heights
66,116
70,180
78,528
30,929
Des Plaines
53,568
56,170
61,606
24,016
Prospect Heights
11,808
15,058
13,260
6,815
Source: NIPC Study, "Population, Households and Employment in
Northeastern Illinois 1980 to 2010"
DOWNTOWN MT. PROSPECT COMPETITIVE ALIGNMENT
A commercial center's competitive alignment is defined by its relation to those other commercial centers
within the subject's trade area and hence those businesses with which it directly competes for a share
of the retail market.
Downtown Mt. Prospect's competitive alignment is defined as those commercial centers located within
the area bounded by Palatine Road on the north, Des Plaines/River Road on the east, Oakton
Street/Northwest Tollway on the south and Arlington Heights Road on the west (See Figure 2:
Downtown Mt. Prospect Competitive Alignment).
The competitive alignment includes eight major commercial areas as well as five individual centers for
a total of 29 shopping centers. The uses in all of these centers are included in Tables 9 and 10. The eight
largest commercial areas are shown in Figure 2.
Character of Downtown Mount Prospect
Downtown Mt. Prospect contains buildings and businesses of diverse styles, ages and types. This variety
is part of what makes the downtown appealing and different than the surrounding strip malls within
the trade area.
Certain parts of the downtown have been renovated and have a charming, attractive character,
particularly the block of Busse between Northwest Highway and Main Street (Elmhurst Road), where
Ye Olde Town Inn is located. The street runs one-way west from Main Street to Northwest Highway; it
is pedestrian oriented, charming and attractive. This kind of character is not found in the other
commercial centers in the trade area.
On the other hand, the downtown lacks consistent unifying elements to "pull it all together" both
visually and physically. Elements like coordinated signage, landscaping, site furnishings etc. found in
most of the nearby shopping centers are visibly absent in the downtown. The railroad tracks and train
service both help and hurt downtown. The train station is a primary destination point and generator of
people in the downtown, which is good for business. However, the tracks divide the downtown in half,
leaving long linear strips on either side. Limited track crossings make it somewhat difficult for both
vehicles and pedestrians to cross the tracks, and when trains pass through downtown at rush hour, the
congestion makes travel slow.
Character of Commercial Centers within the Primary Trade Area
Strip commercial centers within the trade area tend to have consistent building styles within each
center. The architecture in many of these shopping centers lacks visual interest. The majority of the
centers have only modest or minimal landscaping, with very few landscaped islands to break up the
parking lots. Few buildings are actually oriented on the street. These centers are auto oriented rather
than pedestrian oriented. Patrons will generally drive their car from shops at one end of the mall to
the other end, rather than walk in between, even if the distance if less than a block long.
On the other hand there are no roads or railroad tracks to have to cross within the center. The store you
want is visible from your parking space and the variety of stores is generally good. Most of these
centers have more than enough parking spaces.
Two commercial centers within the study area stand out due to their size and character: Randhurst and
Loehmann's Plaza. Randhurst is a destination center; it provides a large selection of goods, in a very
attractive, climate controlled setting.
Loehmann's Plaza is an unusually attractive and eye catching "strip" center with above average
pedestrian access. It has a U-shaped shopping center layout with a sidewalk running around the entire
center. The buildings are attractive, the site details are well designed, including old-fashioned lamp
posts, benches and signage, and the type and variety of stores is good.
Table 9 and Table 10 provide a break down of the number of various types of commercial businesses found
in the downtown, and trade area, respectively.
Land Use Comparison
Comparison of the land uses in the Central Business District with those in the study area provides
several interesting findings. Downtown has a large number of non -fast food restaurants: 10 in the
downtown versus 29 in the other 29 shopping centers. The downtown has one of only 3 movie theaters
within the study area. The downtown has a large number of medical clinics/offices: 15 versus 12 in the
other 29 commercial centers in the study area. Finally, the downtown is unique, in that it has a
concentration of pubic uses, including the main post office, library, village hall and senior center. These
factors enhance the downtown's attractiveness in comparison to centers in the study area.
Figure 2
Downtown Mt. Prospect
Competitive Alignment
North
Camiros, Ltd.
0 1 2 4
Miles
Key:
1. Downtown Mt. Prospect
2. Palatine -Rand Area
3. Randhurst
4. Arlington Hts. Rd. -Golf Area
5. Busse -Golf Area
S. Elmhurst -Rd.-Golf Area
7. Elmhurst Rd. -Algonquin Area
8. Oakton Rd. -Route 45 Area
Table 9
Land Use Statistics for
Mount Prospect Central Business District
Auto Service Stations
Bakery
Barber Shop
Beauty Salon (Hair/Tanning)
Candy Store
Drug Store
Dry Cleaner/Laundry
Food/Gifts
Fruit Store
Grocery/Food Stores
Hardware
Meat Store
Paint & Wallpaper
Pharmacy
Fast Food/Take Out
Movie Theatre
Restaurants
Taverns/Liquor Stores
Food Outlet
Food/Gifts Shop
Fruit Store
Grocery stores
Meat Store
2
1
5
10
1
1
5
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
Sub -Total 35
Sub -Total 17
1
1
1
2
1
Sub -Total 6
11
Table 9 continued
Land Use Statistics for
Mount Prospect Central Business District
Lpinr y t °�°
Storage Building
1
Sub -Total 1
uc/serni- li uma-tar
Employment Service 1
Library, 1
Post Office 1
Regular Republican Organization 1
Senior Center 1
Village Hall 1
Sub -Total 6
u
Accountants
2
Air Conditioning/Heating Repair
1
Apartment Finders
1
Auto Repair/Maintenance
2
Banks
2
Caterer
1
Family Counseling
1
Funeral Homes
1
Insurance
2
Legal Office
3
Medical Clinics/offices
15
Photo Studio/Lab
1
Printing Shop
5
Real Estate/Notary
3
Sewing Machine Repair
1
Shoe Service
1
Signs
2
Sump Pump Repair
1
Travel Agency
2
Sub -Total 47
12
Table 9 continued
Land Use Statistics for Mount
Prospect Central Business District
Antiques
Auto Parts
Clothes
Flowershop
Gifts/Toys
Hobby Shops
Jewlery
Office Supplies
Windows
Table 9
Music Store
Household Furnishings
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
Sub -Total 20
13
Table 10
Land Use Statistics for
Secondary Trade Area Commercial Centers
Auto Service Stations
Bakery
Barber Shop
Beauty Salon (Hair/Tanning)
Candy/Ice Cream Parlors
Dog Grooming
Dry Cleaner/Laundry
Hardware
Paint & Wallpaper
Pharmacy
Fast Food/Take Out
Movie Theaters
Restaurants
Tavems/Liquor Stores
Video Games
Food/Gifts
Grocery Stores
Meat Store
2
8
6
28
15
3
23
4
3
11
Sub -Total 101
41
2
29
2
Sub -Total 79
1
20
3
Sub -Total 24
14
Table 10 continued
Land Use Statistics for Secondary
Trade Area Commercial Centers
Num -1 r.
Post Office 3
Sub -Total 3
Sub -Total 75
15
Auto Repair/ Maintenance
1
Banks
7
Computer Consultants
1
Electronics Repair
1
Financial Services
8
Health Clubs/ Consultants
8
Insurance
3
Kelly Services
2
Learning Center
1
Mechanical Engineers Society
1
Medical Clinics/offices
12
Mid America Research
1
Photo Studio/Lab
8
Printing Shop
3
Real Estate/Notary
2
Shoe Repair
3
Signs
3
Tailors
2
Travel Agency
- 8
Sub -Total 75
15
Table 10 continued
Land Use Statistics for Secondary
Trade Area Commercial Centers
• � . + « �! O
Auto Parts
Clothes
Department Stores
Electronics/ Appliances
Eye Glasses
Flowershop
Gifts/Toys
Hobby Shops
Household Furnishings
Jewlery
Luggage
Medical Aids
Music Store
Office. Supplies
Shoe Stores
3
73
9
11
6
22
3
37
10
2
2
1
7
24
16
The Village of Mount Prospect is attempting to implement a downtown redevelopment
project in an area of the Downtown Area, between Central Road, Northwest highway and
Main Street. A location map is attached.
Within this triangle area is a key, under-utilized property owned by the municipality.
This is identified as Priority Area 1 on the location map. This 2.2.6 acre site includes a
36,000 square foot masonry building; a former Public Works garage. This structure should
not be included in any development proposal. The Village will provide demolition. It is
the intent of the Village to redevelop the entire site in combination with other adjacent
privately owned properties in the block between Central Road and Northwest highway, Pine
to Wille Street.
The second goal is the Priority Area 2, the north 260' of the block from Main Street
to Wille Street, south of Central Road. The Village will be undertaking property acquisition
in this area, The selected developer may be asked to participate in this acquisition. Area.
2 is part of the Village's Tax increment Finance District, and is an important location within
the Downtown Area.
A coordinated development is expected 'between Priority Areas 1 and 2, to help set.
the tone for further redevelopment within the larger triangle area. It is expected that a
successful initial development will establish a positive momentum for other activities in the
triangle. Because of this expectation, objectives and design guidelines should be reviewed
and used in submitting a development proposal. Any proposal will be evaluated using these
development standards.
A. Development Objective
1. Create an innovative development that encourages a suburban scale mixed use
project that explores all market potentials, is harmonious with the surrounding
residential area and can attract residents of Northwest Cook County area.
2. Create a development that will stimulate other private sector investment in the
triangle and adjoining areas, including new construction, expansion and
rehabilitation.
3. Provide a development that yields the highest possible real estate and sales tax
to the Village consistent with other downtown development objectives.. A
financial analysis shall be submitted so that revenue figures can be examined.
4. Protect and enhance the present retail and service businesses in the Downtown
Area.
5. The development project shall serve to improve the image of the Downtown
Area recognizing its potential as tL focal point for the town center.
B. Land Use
1. A full range of retail and service commercial uses together with select
professional office space and residential should be encouraged in Priority Areas
1 and 2. The concept of mixed commercial and residential and/or office space
should be examined.
2. Residential development shall be multi -family units with a building height not
to exceed 6 stories in height.
3. Commercial development shall focus on retail and service businesses. Specialty
shops and convenience commercial are to be encouraged. An anchor user shall
be encouraged to attract a broad customer base to the redevelopment area.
4. Office space shall be designed for professional office users.
5. A portion of the site should be dedicated to a centrally located public open
space, sufficient for gatherings and community activities. This should serve as
a major focal point in the Downtown Area.
6. A cultural arts facility would be encouraged.
C. Development Character
1. New construction shall be compatible with the existing character in the downtown
area. _
2. Taller buildings shall be located in such fashion as to lessen the impact to
surrounding residential uses.
D. Design Guidelines
1. Provide attractive, well landscaped frontages along all public streets, and
adequate screening and buffering around parking and loading areas.
2. An integrated site plan should reflect no physical barriers between land uses.
3. Brick construction is preferred for all buildings. No exposed block walls will be
allowed on any building elevation.
4. The redevelopment area shall include a unified streetscape elements, including
lighting, benches, graphics and brick paver sidewalks. Signage shall blend with
the development and complement its architectural character.
E. Parking
1. Sufficient off-street parking shall be provided to meet the demand of the
proposed land uses.
-2-
2. Parking shall be located in areas easily accessible from adjoining streets.
3. Parking shall be assembled into unified lots or structures, with adequate
provisions for shot -term customer parking and long-term employee parking.
4. Underground parking for residential units is encouraged.
5. The use of shared parking utilizing off-peak operating hours should be
encouraged.
F. Pedestrian Movement
1. Pedestrian access and movement through the site shall be an important part of
the plan. Public and private pedestrian sidewalks shall be provided, and conflicts
with automobile traffic shall be minimized on-site.
2. Provide direct pedestrian connections from the redevelopment area to adjoining
areas to encourage pedestrian movement to or from other adjacent commercial
areas.
G. Village Participation
1. The Village owns the 2.26 acre site previously described. The municipality is
willing to consider flexible and innovative methods to convey this parcel to the
selected developer.
2. The municipality would consider economic incentives proposed by the selected
developer.
3. The Village will consider appropriate use of condemnation of properties in order
to implement this redevelopment.
4. Vacation of existing public streets and alleys can be considered for the
appropriate plan.
5. The Village will assemble property to the extent feasible.
-3-
m
rr
+ 'AdNw
I