HomeMy WebLinkAbout0849_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MARCH 10, 1998
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at'7.35 p.m. Present at th 0 meefinmay, were,
Trustees George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefb,rt,
Richard Lohmtorf6r,
Daniel Nocchi and Irvana, Wilks. Staff present Inciuded Village Manager M'ichael
Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David' Strahl, Community Development Dire,ctox
William Cooney, Environmental Health Coordinator Robert Roels, Fire Lieutenant
Chris Truty and MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton,
00 MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of February 24, 1998. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and
Seconded by Trustee Nocchi to approve the Minutes. Trustee Hoefert noted that
Trustee Nocchi was listed as coming late when, in fact, it was Trustee Hoefert who
came late to the meeting and requested that revision. Minutes were approved with
the revision unanimously,
.01
VF
•Ak
40
He also provided a general overview of the Village of Schaumburg Ordinance
regarding this issue.
Trustee Hoefert stated that he initiated this discussion primarily because the
Village receives about one to three complaints annually and such animals create a
nuisance for neighbors and this issue should be addressed to eliminate the impact
on neighbors. He stated that because Mount Prospect is an urban environment, it
is not appropriate for this type of hobby. He would support the Ordinance change
which prohibits maintaining pigeons and bees by residents.
Laura Eagen, 700 Elmhurst, spoke. She stated that their neighbors have a pigeon
coop on the roof and the droppings are all over her home, cars, driveway, vegetable
garden and have created a general nuisance. She stated that the birds land and
stay on her property and are not confined to the property in which the coop is kept.
The neighbor feeds and raises the birds and this problem has been on-going for the
last two years.
Trustee Hoefert stated that he felt that this situation creates a significant impact on
thequality of life of the resident and even though Inspectors have been out, they
need the proper tools to address this issue.
Village Manager Janonis stated that if Inspectors determine that a nuisance exists,
a ticket is issued. Thep erson cited has the opportunity to resolve the problem and
clean it up if necessary. There is the opportunity for the cycle to start all over again
when animals cannot be restrained and the issue is'not resolved on long-term
basis. While this situation has only been identified through two recent complaints,
meaningful regulation could eliminate the complaints altogether and the staff time
necessary to follow-up on these complaints is cost -prohibitive.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
There was concern raised that neighbors should not impact other neighbors. There
was also discussion concerning the Schaumburg Ordinance whereby it does not
prohibit bees and pigeons; it just regulates and licenses the activity. There was also
some discussion regarding why staff does not already have the existing tools
necessary to resolve this issue. Some Trustees felt that regulation could be
handled through regulating health, noise and the number of animals and regulation
should be used instead of outright prohibition.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney responded to anumber of the
comments. He stated that birds may not reach a safety or health hazard at the time
of an Inspector's visit. He stated that outright prohibition is much easier to enforce
and the probability of prevailing in Court is much improved when the judgment of the
Judge is not a critical element in the case.
2
Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels stated that he has worked with
homeowners to do'cument the damage but it has been very difficult to document the
damage before a Judge because there is always an interpretation as to the level of
damage for which the Judge must rely on to impose a fine. He stated that the
resident sees this as a problem and he would like to resolve this issue on behalf of
the resident.
Consensus of the Village Board was to be more specific with the definition of
prohibition of the typos of animals and consider Including pigeon coops and
beehives as prohibited animal operationss within the Village of Mount
Prospect,
JAZA
Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl provided a general overview of the PC
purchases to date. He stated the Village currently has four LAN servers which are
connected and provide network administration services to the various users. He
stated that a Technical Committee of Departmental advisors was convened to
address the various needs to each Department in terms of technology. He also
stated that a smaller Network Administration group meets regularly to discuss very
technical issues for the entire Village Computer Project. One of the items that has
been completed is a User's Manual for various computer users throughout the
Village which is attached for the Village Board's information. He also stated that a
conversion plan for implementing the new PCs and server upgrades has been
drafted and is currently being utilized as new PCs areput online,
200,Q,p�,bl 9 ,m 111 M. Mr. Strahl stated that the year 2000 problem has been
addressed internally through the purchase of new PCs and various server
upgrades. The proposed Finance Software System will also be year 2000
compliant. PCs which will be retained and reconfigured will be upgraded in an
attempt to be year 2000 compliant. However, it is quite possible that these
upgrades may be unsuccessful and the PCS would have to be replaced altogether.
Therefore, Village staff would need to return to the Board in order to request
additional purchase authority to ensure year 2000 compliance,
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was great concern from Trustees regarding whether major vendors are 2000
compliant and are making the necessary improvements in order to become year
2000 compliant. There was a suggestion that all major vendors which deal with the
Village be notified to determine their progress for year 2000 compliance so that the
impact upon the Village and Village services would be minimized. There was also
some discussion regarding assistance from the Northwest Municipal Conference to
coordinate communications with major vendors,
K
This item was provided for general information purposes only and required
no Village Board action,
f Mr. Strahl provided a general overview of how the current
LAR,,rig,lyer-f- ut),,graad"As.
stable of servers are configured and the status of their capacity at this time and the
plan in place so the servers might reach their projected replacement date.
MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton stated that the Village Hall server is in great
need of memory and hard drive space, Such an upgrade would cost approximately
that
$1',P,00,nowand, "old onlybuyti ethrooghth,eend,,ofthe,�yoar�$hes ted
this upgrade would remove the mirroring capacity of the server, Mirroring capacity
is for redundancy purposes and is critical in case there are problems.
Assistant Village Manager Strahl stated the dilemma for staff at this point is
whether to spend the $1,900 to do some upgrades at this time and place the server
into an accelerated replacement in 1999 or consider replacement during 1998.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
It was suggested that staff consider doing a study in order to review the number of
servers that are currently being utilized and attempt to consolidate server functions
into fewer machines. It was also suggested that the Village look at a strategic plan
providing an overall direction for the use of technology. There was also some
discussion regarding the backup locations and the financial impact of the proposed
solution in relation to the time frame for replacements.
MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton answered a number of the questions by stating
there are some cabling limits which do impact the ability to consolidate servers.
Assistant Village Manager Strahl stated that staff would review current servers
and determine whether some server functions can be combined and the new Village
Hall server, if approved, would be oversized enough to support additional users at
additional locations. He also stated that due to the band width of some of the
connections between servers, there is an impact on the possibility of combining
server functions.
Consensus of the Village Board was to replace the Village Hall server in 1998.
Assistant Village Manager David Strahl stated the Public Works server is in need
of repair and will most likely be recommended for an accelerated replacement in the
year 2000. He stated the Police server situation is dependent upon the digital mug
shot storage location and once that information concerning the digital mug shots is
known, staff will return to the Village Board for additional direction at the time
additional information is known.
4
AssisItant Village Manager Strahl stated that it is critical to
6stablish a high-speed data connection between Public Works and Village Hall
primarily for GISdat'a transmission, He stated the GIS servers have been set up
with one at Public �rks and one at Village Hall.
MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton stated that the Village has been talking to Xorn
and Fujitsu to formulate a solution to not only connect the Village H611 and Public
Works but also the outlying Fire Stations. She provided an overview of the various
options which have been submitted so far and stated that this connection will be
used for finance software traffic, Internet access and E -Mail connection to the
outside world in addition to the data transmission,
Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl stated that the estimated cost of between
$64,000 and $73,000 could, in fact, be includedin the 1999 Budget as previously
projected once additional staff research is completed.
Fire Lieutenant Chris Truty spoke. He stated the Fire operation needs the
connection with the outlying Fire Stations due to the necessary management of
documents and real-time access for all users within the Department,
This information was provided to the Village Board far discussionpurposes
only and required no Village Board action at this time, However, Assistant
Village Manager Strahl stated that there may . be a need for additional
discussion as part of the 1999 Budget process,
Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl stated that there is
a shell of the Village Home Page currently available for viewing. However, the shell
is incomplete and in order to make the information relevant, it is critical that
development be completed for staff to populate the various sections with data. One
of the limitations which has been determined recently is the ability to use Microsoft
Front Page as the Web development tool. The use of this software has created
some issues with the Home Page location at Northstar Net. He is suggesting that
the Village Home Page be moved to a commercial provider which would cost
approximately $1,500 per year and allot $10,000 forprofessional Web Page
development assistance. Northstar Net also has a limitation concerning E -Mail to
Village staff through the Home Page and there is a need to resolve this issue.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
Board members suggested staff investigate the use of volunteers and local
assistance to develop the Home Page,
5
1011&
t;onsensus of the Village Board was to authorize the expenditure of $10,000
for professional Web Page developmentS Village Board also authorized the
Home Page be moved to another location if necessary to improve
communication capabilitiesO
Vim CAE&E TELEVISION FRAN.,.Q,!flSE NEGQTIATION UPDATE
Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl provided a general overview of
negotiations to date and is before the Board this evening in' order to receive some
0
direction as to the priority of items the Village Board is interested in pursuing. He
stated that FCC regulations limit the Village's scope in negotiations. He is
recommending that the Village conclude negotiations with TCI which are the most
favorable as possible to the Village and revise the TCI agreement once competition
comes to Mount Prospect.
4�1
1111lolIqll il-�illiiii�t;l i
There was concern regarding the leverage of the Village in dealing with other
providers including Ameritech. There was general support to complete the
agreement with TC[ as soon as possible and work with other providers as they
become available,
General support from the Village Board members included, the retention of
advertising revenues, the number of PEG channels, the suggested length of the
agreement as recommended from staff and the public access studio,
Trusteo'Clowes stated he is concerned with the retaining the number of PEG
channels and the public access studio as his primary objectives.
Consensus of the Village Board was to proceed with the recommendations
from staff to conclude negotiations with TCI, to obtain an agreement that
would be most favorable to the Village and entertain other franchise
agreements with competitors as those competitors become available,
Village Manager Michael Janonis provided an overview regarding the Village's
response to the snow event of March 9. He stated that power was out in various
areas of the community, but all power has been restored. He stated the Police and
Fire had substantial increases in call volumes and Public Works cleared the streets
in a timely manner.
Trustee Hoefert complimented the Public Works Department and other Village staff
for their handling of the storm event in the community,
X
Trustee lowes stated that he noticed during a power outage, there were
numerous traffic lights which were out and was concerned about the electric feeds
to these lights appear to impacted when surrounding businesses'power are still on.
He recommended that staff investigate this impact and report back to the Board.
LWOW,
A Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Nocchi to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, -
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
DS/rcc
X:1USERS\ROBERTAC\WIN\OFFICE\COWMIN\3100OW-MIN
7
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: WILLIAM COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 1998
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
The Ad Hoc Downtown Redevelopment Committee met on Tuesday, March 17th to review
proposals for the Phase I redevelopment of Downtown Mount Prospect. At the meeting, the
Committee discussed the proposals submitted by Town Centre LLC and Ben -Cor Group. They
found that both proposals reflected certain of the development concepts described in the Strategic
Plan and Request for Proposals. In addition, each proposal raised a number of questions. As a result
of their considerations, the Committee recommended that both teams be invited to make
presentations before the Village Board and Ad Hoc Committee at the March 24th Committee of the
Whole meeting.
To make those presentations most productive, the questions raised by the Committee have been
forwarded to the developer teams, and they have been asked to address them in their presentations.
After reviewing the Committee's letter outlining their questions and concerns, the Ben -Cor Group
has indicated they are unable to answer these questions and will not be making a presentation at the
March 24th meeting (see attached letter). Therefore the Town Centre LLC proposal will be the only
proposal that will be reviewed and considered by the Village.
The March 24th meeting will provide the Village an opportunity to better understand the
development concept presented by the Town Centre LLC team/ clarify the details of their proposal,
and test ideas for adjusting the plan to better reflect the intent of the Downtown Strategic Plan.
Town Center LLC has been notified that they have one-half hour for their presentation, which will
be followed by questions from the Village Board, the Ad Hoc Committee and the public. Given the
time they have spent with the project so far, it would be appropriate to allow the committee members
the opportunity to provide direct input into this aspect of the process. In keeping with our practice
throughout this project, questions and comments should also be taken from the audience. In order
to facilitate even broader public consideration, the proposal will be displayed at an open house on
March 31 st (4:00 to 8:00 pm at the Senior Center).
Presentation of Downtown Development Proposals
March 20, 1998
Page 2
The Ad Hoc Committee will meet immediately after the COW meeting to consider the proposal in
light of the presentation, and make a recommendation to the Village Board. The Village Board
would then consider issue at their April 7, 1998 meeting and take one of the following actions:
1) direct staff to enter into negotiations with Town Centre LLC, or 2) reject the proposal and reopen
the developer selection process.
Regarding the developer selection process to date, we have been looking into why only two
proposals were received. As you know, we sent about seventy proposals (see attached list) to
members of the develUJVMVUL community. It should be noted that a relatively small response to this
qW of RFP is not unusual, although we had hoped to received a greater number. Over the course
of the response period, I spoke to about a dozen interested developers. All noted that this was a very
busy time for them, and most indicated that they would simply not have time to respond to our
request. One issue dud did raise concern was that although the Village has committed to acquiring
the property in Phase 1, there is a potential issue inherent in those efforts. Since the market
is currently very strong, it was difficult to commit si cant effort to a somewhat speculative
project. They indicated that their non -responsiveness did not reflect a lack of development potential
in the downtown.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at their March 24 Committee of the Whole meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee and staff
will be present at this meeting to further discuss these issues.
X:\USERS\COMDEV\PLNG*\BDDRC\TIFIRE DEV\RFPTOBRD. WPD
March 19, 1998
Mr. William Cooney
Director of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Re: Downtown Mount Prospect Redevelopment
Dear Mr. Cooney:
Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 1998,41
Developers Builders
r4 Y L 0 P 9,1
t
AREA
WN,OOl ",
A"="' ED
Frankly, I agree with you and The Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Conunittee that there
are a number of questions that must be answered before the Village of Mount Prospect could decide
whether you wish to work with Ben -Cor Group and before Ben -Cor Group can decide whether we wish
to proceed with the project. Unfortunately, in my opinion, most of these questions cannot be answered
now.
As to our credentials, Ben -Cor Group, Inc. and I have been active in development work throughout the
Chicagoland area since the 1950's. Recently, we have concentrated on several high-quality townhome
projects in Palatine (Willow Glen, Wellington Park, etc.) but, over the years, our experience has
included single-family and commercial/retail development as well.
III our experience has taught us anything, it is that-& project of the scope of Phase 'I cannot be presented
in specific detail at this early date. There would have to be much more discussion and negotiation with
Village staff so that we could understand exactly what the Village is seeking and determine whether
such a plan is possible. Many alternatives will need to be discussed. Also, at this time, we could not
tell with any degree of certainty the commercial users that might have an interest and whether rentals
could be agreeable to both parties. Finally, even though our experience uniquely qualifies us to design,
develop, and build the type of multi -family product that would hopefully be appealing to the Village
and its residents, both our financial advisors and ourselves would need much more information as to the
proposed benefits of the TIF district in order to even hazard a guess as to sales prices.
Therefore, given the above, we do not believe our attendance at the public meeting of March 24, 1998
would be productive.
Very truly, urs,
Kyle G. Benkert
Ben -Corp. Group, Inc. o, P.O. Box 9 o Palatine, Illinois 60078 e Phone (847) 705-1116 * Fax (847) 705-1323
THE VILLAGE
OF
MOUNT PROSPECT'
INVITES YOU
TO REVIEW
PROPOSALS FOR
DOWNTOWN
MOUNT PROSPECT
REDEVELOPMENT
Pra�osal
--enta#ismsi
March 24,1998
7:30 PM at the
Senior Center
Proposal Open House
March 31, 1998
4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
at the
Senior Center
You are invited to hear proposals for
Downtown Mount Prospect redevelopment
projects at the March 24, 1998 Committee
of the Whole meeting,
Proposals will be presented by the Ben -Cor
Group and the Town Centre LLC to the
Village Board and the Mount Prospect
Downtown Redevelopment Strategic Plan
Ad Hoc Committee,
The meeting will be held on Tuesday,
March 24, 1998 at 7:30 PM at the Senior
Center, 50 South Emerson Street,, Mount
Prospect, Illinois.
The proposals also will be available for
be viewin,cr n+ " 111, 1) 11 1 D., CLE �11 .1 111' 1 b:'��111 sheld
March 31, 1998 from 4PM to 8PM, at the
Senior Center.
We look forward to seeing you at these
meetings. If you have any questions about
the meetings or the downtown
redevelopment p please call the
Village Community Development
Department at 818-53286
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE
(THE COMMITTEE)
Minutes
March 17,1998 Meeting
Chairman Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 735 a.m. on Tuesday, March 17, 1998, in the 2nd
Floor Conference Room of Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
mo "[Vill
Present Upon Roll Call: Chairman Michael Hoffman, Plan Commission Chairman
Norm Kurtz, Economic Development Chairman
David Lindgren, Economic Development Member
Richard Lohrstorfer, Trustee
Daniel Nocchi, Trustee
William Reddy, Plan Commission Member
Jean Reibel, Resident
William Tucker, Resident
Keith Youngquist, BDDRC Member
Members Absent: Hat Predovich., BDDRC Chairman
Staff Present: William Cooney, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Blue,, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director
Judy Connolly, Planner
Daniel Ungerleider, AICP, Planning Coordinator
Others Present: See attached sign -in sheet
Chairman Hoffman asked if there were corrections to the November 4, 1997 meeting. As there were none,
the minutes were approved unanimously. Chairman Hoffman asked if there were corrections to the minutes
of the November 11, 1997 meeting. As there were none, the minutes were approved unanimously. Chairman
Hoffinan asked if there were corrections to the November 13, 1997 meeting. Jean Reibel noted that she had
not commented negatively with regards to placing residential units above commercial. Chairman Hoffinan
requested that the minutes be corrected as directed. As there were no other corrections, the minutes were
approved unanimously, subject to the one change requested by Jean Reibel. Chairman Hoffman asked if
there were corrections to the November 19, 1997 meeting. As there were none., those minutes were also
approved unanimously.
Downtown Ad Hoe Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes
Downtown Redevelopment Update
Page 2
Mr. William Cooney, Director of Community Development, explained to the Ad Hoc Committee that he,
the Village Manager, and the Mayor had spoken to all the strategic planning area property owners with the
exception of five. Each of the meetings has been positive and the property owners appreciated the Village
contacting them and discussing the downtown redevelopment plans with them.
Review Committee's Comments
Chairman Michael Hoffman explained that two proposals were submitted to the Village prior to the deadline
in the request for proposal responses. One proposal was submitted to the Village late and would not be
eligible for further Village review. Chairman Hoffman noted that the Ad Hoe Committee would only be
looking at Phase I of the downtown redevelopment plans.
Chairman Hoffinan reported that the Great World concept plan for the downtown had been presented to the
Plan Commission last year. After some consideration, the Plan Commission did not feel it was appropriate
to endorse that plan. The Plan Commission took no further action with the plan since they found it to be
unrealistic. Trustee Nocchi made a motion to recommend that the Ad Hoc Committee not review the Great
World plan as a viable downtown redevelopment project. Mr. William Reddy seconded the motion, the Ad
Hoc Committee approved the motion unanimously.
Chairman :Hoffman described the two proposals submitted and asked the Committee to make comments on
both. Chairman Hoffman noted that, given the comments received thus far, the Committee is leaning
towards the Town Centre proposal submitted by Norwood Builders and Trapani Construction. Chairman
Hoffman opened the floor for discussion. Trustee Nocchi expressed that the Grand Prospect proposal
submitted by Ben -Cor provides more retail as was originally described in the Downtown Strategic Plan. Mr.
William Reddy expressed that, although there is more retail in the Ben -Cor Grand Prospect proposal, it
appears to be designed similar to a strip center and does not meet design standards established by the
Downtown Strategic Plan. Jean Reibel commented that the Grand Prospect proposal does not mix the
residential/commercial uses well. Trustee Nocchi agreed that, although the Grand Prospect proposal shows
a lot of retail, it does not appear to be designed well.
Mr. Kurtz asked if the Committee would be discussing the third proposal submitted late to the Village. He
also asked if the Ad Hoc Committee would be selecting one plan or the other, or if the Committee chose not
to accept either one, could the Village prepare another request for proposal. Mr. Cooney addressed the
questions. He explained that he had contacted many of the developers who had originally received requests
for proposal. Those who were interested but did not submit expressed that they were very busy with other
downtown redevelopment projects in the area, and they were not interested in a project where the land had
not previously been acquired by the Village. Mr. Cooney also explained that many developers do not like
participating in a request for proposal process and would rather participate in a request for qualifications.
He explained that the market continues to be strong, in that the developers are very busy. If the Village
chooses to re-release the RFP, other developers may respond. Mr. Reddy expressed that there were no
guarantees that a second RFP would receive responses.
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes
Cry
Page 3
Mr. Reddy noted that the Grand Prospect proposal appears to turn its back on Busse Avenue retail and
ignores the triangle redevelopment opportunities. He expressed that the plan is very short-sighted and
creates a strip mail in a downtown setting. Chairman Hoffman noted that the amount of retail being
proposed in the Grand Prospect project was good, however, he did not feel it would be viable. Mr. Keith
Youngquist agreed with Chairman Hoffman that the retail spaces proposed would most likely not be viable.
Ms. Jean Reibel noted there was no gateway proposed in the Grand Prospect plan. She also noted that the
parking flow design is poor. Jean Reibel also noted that the proposed plans do not provide for pedestrian
access to and across the site.
Chairman Koffman reviewed the rating system for others in attendance. He explained that the Ad Hoc
Committee had been given a thirteen point questionnaire in which they were to rate the submitted proposals
on a five point system. The Grand Prospect proposal received a score of 2.6 out of 5. The Town Centre
received a score of 4.2 out of 5. (Scores do not include the points given by Trustee Dan Nocchi, Mr. William
Reddy or Mr. William Tucker. Responses from Trustee Nocchi and Mr. Reddy were submitted at this Ad
Hoc Committee meeting.)
Chairman Hoffinan asked that discussion be turned to the Town Centre proposal. Mr. Reddy expressed that
he did not feel this proposal had enough retail. Ms. Reibel noted that the Centrum proposal, which was
submitted late, better addressed the Busse Avenue commercial setting by adding additional retail to the ends
of the existing retail along Busse and tying them into retail uses on the condominium building to the north
of Busse Avenue. Mr. Norm Kurtz noted that the first floor condominiums for the Town Centre proposal
did not include retail. He noted that many communities are developing mixed use buildings in their
downtown. Mr. Cooney stated that, in his discussions with developers, many did not want to place retail
directly under condominiums. He noted the Norwood Builders Skokie project as an example where the retail
had been placed in front rather than under the condominium buildings. Mr. Reddy noted that the Ad Hoc
Committee should request that retail be placed on either end of the southern condominium building so that
the condominium building portion of the development relates better to the Busse Avenue retail area. Trustee
Nocchi expressed that the proposed plan does not address the office space potential as was noted by the
Clarion study. He suggested that the Town Centre developer be asked to include this type of space in future
revisions of the plan.
Mr. Lindgren stated he did not think the Ad Hoc Committee function was to redesign the proposals, but
rather to make recommendations. Mr. Cooney responded by noting that the Ad Hoc Committee could place
conditions or issues to be addressed on each of the proposals. If the developer fails to sufficiently address
these issues, then any future negotiations could be ceased with that developer.
Mr. Kurtz stated that the proposed southernmost condominium building creates a barrier between the condo
portion of the redevelopment and the Busse retail portion. He noted he does not like this design. Mr. Reddy
stated that the developer should consider flipping the three condominium buildings so that the east/west
building was along Central rather than north of Busse Avenue. Mr. Keith Youngquist agreed this would be
a possible way to handle this design consideration, however, he did not want to address these specific types
of details. Chairman Hoffman asked the Committee to develop a list of issues to be forwarded to both of
the developers. These issues could then be presented at their meeting with the Committee of the Whole.
Trustee Nocchi asked what would be the implications of redistributing a new RFP. Chairman Hoffman
responded that the two developers would be discouraged from ever developing in the Village in the future.
�i
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page 4
He said if the Committee were to turn down both of the proposals that specific issues and reasons for doing
so would have to be provided. #
Mr. Reddy expressed that the Town Centre proposal addresses the triangle block in a manner keeping with
the Downtown Strategic Plan. However, the traffic flow in the proposal needed to be refined. Mr. Kurtz
stated that he likes the proposed uses, but finds the proposal to be developing a parking lot with three
buildings rather than an integrated multi -use building on that property. He noted that the Town Centre
proposal does not sufficiently use Wille Street for parking as does the other. He also stated that the proposal
doesn't sufficiently address the profile for the proposed uses of the triangle area. Ms. Reibel said that the
three buildings proposed for the triangle should be integrated into one building. The present parking
configuration on the triangle limits any future expansion of Gail's Carriage House. Ms. Gail Meyers, owner
of Gail's Carriage House, expressed that she would like Gail's Carriage House to be integrated with the other
buildings in this triangle and would like to be given the opportunity to expand. She noted the number of
parking spaces is not a consideration and that there is sufficient parking in the area to support her business.
Tom Reindel, owner of Northwest Electric, expressed that the Town Centre plan does not appear to follow
the existing property lines located north of Busse Avenue. He noted that the documentation explaining the
financials of the proposals were not submitted and, therefore, the proposals should not have been accepted
by the Village. He said that he did not feel that two months was enough time for developers to respond to
the RFP and the Village should re -issue the RFP for other developers. Chairman Hoffman expressed that
he disagreed with Mr. Reindel and that two months was an acceptable time frame in his experience with
proposals. Mr. Tucker asked if the Committee was legally bound to not consider the late proposal. He noted
that he felt the late proposal should be considered by the Committee in the review of these proposals. Mr.
Cooney explained that the Village set a deadline in the issuance of the request for proposals. This deadline
had not been met by the third proposal. The Village is bound by this deadline.
a,
Mr. Kurtz stated that both proposed plans would have a positive impact on the downtown and would be an
improvement.
Mr. Reddy noted that the design concepts illustrated in Phase III of the Town Centre proposal should be
integrated into Phase I's condominium buildings. Trustee Nocchi added that the mixed use concept of Phase
III should also be integrated into Phase I. Tom Neitzke, owner of 22 West Busse Avenue, expressed that the
proposals are not appropriately addressing the opportunities for retail on Wille Street. Such retail would
work well with the existing Clock Tower shopping center and Virginia Court shopping center to the west.
Mr. Nocchi and Mr. Kurtz agreed. Mr. Youngquist expressed that the Town Centre proposal indicates that
the developer spoke with owners. However, the plans do not indicate any integration of Northwest Electric
into the development proposals. Mr. Reindel stated that he had two meetings with the developers, however,
no agreements have been established. Mr. Lindgren expressed that the purchase of the First Chicago
Building makes sense and is possible. Mr. Youngquist was surprised that Northwest Electric had not
undergone further negotiations with the developer. Ms. Reibel noted that Phases II and III of the Town
Centre proposals appear to be a "carrot" in that they look good, however, they are only conceptual. Phase
I is the plan the developer is proposing today.
Chairman Hoffman asked the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee to choose which of the two developers they
want present at the upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting. Mr. Lohrstorfer expressed that he would
like to see both. Both developers should be given the chance to address issues. Mr. Reddy agreed.
Chairman Michael Hoff nan was concerned with the Grand Prospect proposal by Ben -Cor, given Ben-Cor's
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes
Page 5
limited experience and low rankings. Mr. Reddy explained that the Village Board may want to review more
than one proposal and, therefore, both developers should be given the opportunity to present their projects.
Chairman Michael Hoffman then entertained a motion to interview both developers. The Ad Hoc Committee
unanimously approved the motion 9-0.
The Ad Hoc Committee then developed a list of issues to be submitted to both developers so they may
address them during their presentation to the Committee of the Whole. These issues are listed on the
attached exhibit. Mr. Reddy asked that the staff extend an invitation to all the Boards and Commissions for
the presentations before the Committee of the Whole. The Ad Hoc Committee agreed.
Chairman Hoffman reviewed the upcoming schedule of events for the review of the downtown proposals.
He noted that the developers would be presenting their proposals and addressing the issues listed by the Ad
Hoc Committee at the joint meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Committee of the Whole on March
24. Following that meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee would meet to continue discussions and formalize a
recommendation. On March 31, the Ad Hoc Committee will be conducting an Open House at the Senior
Center to provide an additional opportunity for the public to provide input before the Village Board makes
their formal decision. Mr. Cooney noted that the issues discussed at today's Ad Hoc Committee would be
posted at the Open House. Mr. Cooney requested that the Committee be in attendance at the Open House
and said both developers would be invited to answer questions. Chairman Hoffman asked staff to schedule
specific presentation times during the Open House, since it worked well at the last Open House.
Chairman Hoffinan shared a newspaper article regarding townhome development in Mill Creek. (See
attached).
Mr. Tom Reindel expressed his opposition to the elimination of the third proposal. He explained that
eliminating the third proposal reduces the competition in the process. Trustee Nocchi reiterated that
established deadlines were set and that not following these deadlines would leave the Village open for
criticism and would impact the Village's credibility for future development plans.
A motion for adjoununent was made and unanimously approved at 9:04 a.m.
om
Daniel Ungerleider, Planning Coordinator
X:\USERS\COMDEV\PLNMDDRC\TlF\REDEV\3-17-99. NUN
�.o o
"I ac>?
ORR(
100 W � w
/opwppow,h
loom
ZZ civ, Z�,% A, ("IsI,�vIs,)
J
f;. f ylll�A
I
l�ilr�/
�W/Wx �
illNlanpi� i
oiomri Vull
II
pummmum.V. wm 4 p� ppu V �I UI opl IpiINi
IU,. III ��pumimmu ul ��pIl01V �I.III." p III. II II I.. II lumua uim +1J III
"I I
l illlilm mi dor V miml 1plllloau 111 II �ommm �Immu�UVllo tld� Imm»' IIn �im „aplpVlW ��lmmmmtlo
,. .. ..._ ..,.. W ....o I�, .. Mmlmomm�ml0
g
e
r
yr �,
JY I
,
r
X6
00,
ARIA,
Y V C1r
y
....... .....
Omem 2/See-tion 7
w1 u
. . . . . . . . . .
a
ing
mu
er
st
177
QG
ilk
-1k I
fiR all
r JPA 14
m.
wI
NU
M.2 ............
Downtown Ad Hoe Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes Page I
EXHIBIT A
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee Questions and Concerns
To Be Addressed by the Developers of the Town Centre Proposal
I The Strategic Plan calls for commercial/residential mixed use development to be included on the north part of Phase 1,
your proposal shows no retail. Can retail be provided at the east and west ends of the south building (in effect,
"wrapping" the Busse Avenue retail around to the north). Another suggestion is to consider commercial space on the
6
onto either, the east or west condo buildings on, Main Street or Wi'lle Street (as, done with, your Towne Square proj , ect
in Skokie). Commercial s
pace, along Wille Street would, benefitfi-orn on -street, parking, and, might be desirable as offices.
2. The architectural character of the Phase I condominium buildings should be more reflective of the row homes sketched
for Phase II or the mixed use buildings shown for Phase 111. For example, the roofs in the later phases are more attractive
than those shown for Phase I.
3. Is the parking provided for the condos and retail per Village Code.? Will condo parking be provided below grade? Further
detail is necessary regarding the overall parking provided for your proposal.
4. There are several concerns related to the parking lot design and the traffic flow on the triangle parcel (between Busse and
Northwest Highway). It is unlikely that the proposed curb cut located on Route 83 will be permitted.
5. The layout of the triangle parcel creates an undesirable view of a parking lot from Northwest Highway. How can this
situation be corrected?
6. The south condo building turns its back to the rest of the downtown. In addition, several units in this building will be
facing the rear of the existing commercial along Busse Avenue. Please be prepared to discuss how the proposed condos
relate to the remainder of Phase I.
7. What type of retail tenants do you expect for Phase I?
8. The height of the condo buildings appear to be five stories for the south building and eight stories for the east and west
buildings, please confirm this point.
9. The eight story buildings are a harsh edge for the residential areas to the north. How can that situation be improved. For
example, can the buildings be tiered to be lower along Central Road.
10. More financial information is needed for the Village to understand the ramifications of the project on the downtown and
our Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. This includes: projected condo sales prices for units, anticipated sales rate
of the condos, and projected retail rents.
1. The proposal indicates that Northwest Electric's retail component will be integrated into the downtown redevelopment.
However, the location of that space is not shown on the sketch (as are Fannie May and Continental Bakery). Please
clarify the location for Northwest Electric.
12. Aside from those noted above, what other provisions will be made to help keep businesses in the downtown.
13. Can additional retail be provided on the triangle parcel? Also, can the businesses be developed as a single structure
(rather than separate buildings) to create a greater building massing on the block?
14. Is there room on the triangle parcel for expansion of the existing Gail's Carriage House restaurant?
15. Please describe the relationship of the partners in Town Centre LLC. Specifically, what role does each play in the Phase
I development.
16. Your proposal indicates that you will pay the Village "market value" as determined by Kane, McKenna and other
consultants. In addition, you indicate that the necessary public improvements will be paid through a combination of
developer contributions and TIF funds from the Village. Please be prepared to more fully detail your expectations of the
Village and your financial commitment to the project.
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
March 17, 1998 Meeting Minutes
EXEMIT B
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee Questions and Concerns
To Be Addressed by the Developers of the Grand Prospect Proposal
Page 2
1. Please provide an indication as to the economic viability of the Phase I proposal within current and future local markets.
Also, please provide evidences regarding the financial capacity of your team to undertake this project. This should
include a list of similar projects completed over the past ten years, a listing of team credentials, and your experience with
retail and mixed use developments.
2. The traffic circulation within the site is confusing and requires additional explanation.
3. Why is there no development program shown for the triangle parcel (between Busse and Northwest Highway)?
4. More financial *information is needed for the Village to understand the ramifications of the project on the downtown and
our Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. This includes: projected condo sales prices for units, anticipated sales rate
of the condos, and projected retail rents.
5. What provisions will be made to help keep existing businesses in the downtown?
6. The development proposal is not pedestrian friendly in that it shows no connection to the Busse Avenue retail or the
balance of the downtown. How will this issue be addressed?
7. Having an eight story condo/retail building adjacent to a one story retail building creates an unusual "massing" of
structures for the block. Better continuity in the massing would be desirable. Please explain how this aspect of the
proposal fits into the overall development concept of the downtown.
8. What tenants do you expect to have in the retail space?
9. The proposal shows extensive improvements to Main Street (including a boulevard and what appears to be a bridge or
other structure over the road). Please confirm the feasibility of these, and describe the results the Illinois Department
of Transportation's (IDOT) position on these items.
Comment Sheet - Review of Development
Proposals - Summary
March 17, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District
Strategic
Plan
TOWN CENTRE PROPOSAL
F
. . .........
Cr
I0
0
ci
GRAND PROSPECT PROPOSAL
a.
0
0
z
a*
0)
qW0
1. Development Concept
Le
4
5
0
6
5
CL
0
0
4.6
2. Land Use Mix
>
De elopment Concept
4
2 3
2
3
2
4
4
2
2.9. . ....
12. Land Use Mix
4
3 4
2
3
3
3
4
3
3.2
3. Pedestrian Activity
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2.4
4. Revenue
3
2
2
4
-
4
3
-
3.0
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2.0
6. Existing Buildings
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1.9
7. Sense of Place
2
1
2
3
2
4
2
3
2.4
8. Design Elements
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2.3
9. Building Placement
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
2.5
10. Landscape Design
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
4
2.0
11. Building Materials
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
12. Parking
2.0
12. Parking
3
r2
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
3.0
3. Developers Qualifications j
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
204
1"E
TOTAL AVERAGE RATING
285
LN
TOWN CENTRE PROPOSAL
F
0
Cr
I0
0
ci
j
a.
0
0
z
1z
1. Development Concept
4
4
5
5
6
5
4
4 Will ......
.... . . .. ..... .. .. .. ..
5
4.6
2. Land Use Mix
2
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
4
3.8
3. Pedestrian Activity
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
4.3
4. Revenue
3
3
-
4
3
-
2
3
5
3.3
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
4
5
5
5
5
4
3.5
4
3
4.3
6. Existing Buildings
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
2
4.0
7. Sense of Place
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
4.1
8. Design Elements
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4.3
9. Building Placement
3
3
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
3.9
10. Landscape Design
3
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
4
4.1
11. Building Materials
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4.3
12. Parking
3
4
-
5
3
3
3
3
5
3.6
13. Developer's Qualifications
1 4
5
5
5
5
3
3.5
4
5
Wow" 4.4
..... . . . . ..... ......
TOTAL AVERAGE RATING
4.1
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March61998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan .
....... . . . ............... . -
Reviewed By:.PROPOSAL,
T
Objectives
Pts,
Comments 13VAL.LO*V PlIftAP-1 RA06 4$-J
1.
Development Concept
........ ...
2.
Land Use Mix, ......................
...........
Not tWOU" ftQ*6t il JA) ..........
pi" a
I
PedestrianActivity
4.
Revenue
3
5
Existing Downtown, Rustalesses,
-------------- - ----............
6.
Existing Buildings
7.
Sense of Place
wwo,� ronw w-o'r 6kocx��) FAhi;*
HPIe.AL
8.
Design Elements
---- -------
2
3
4 5
Contradicts the Does not meet the
Corn lies with the
co
Contr i butes to the
F'
Strongly supports
objective objective
liiiiiiimmmmmmm� -1 --
objective
b e tive
J c
.,objective
I the objective
4 5
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the Contributes to the Strongly supports
D
obiective objective objective objective the objective.
- ------------------
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab.doc
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, I ggg
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed By: Lit l, tto OINJ
TOWN.CENTRE PROPOSAL
.Objectives
. .............. .
Pts
Comments
1. Development Concept
1"ke
RL � hV lOr ut .� H'1nLo r �t,'y��--� 5{noQn,
�bi-�n,�
Wlk�) io st 6 t vi k L, l S vex..� stsaD�—
2. Land Use Mia
'1
`I
yJp�l d \ �1Le � �► Oy6Uyra
M
�t�' 1, C -&-n6 a 10Uild ►ricJs
3. Pedestrian Activity
.p►��-
a
1 P
4f'vt O � o'`� '�'�R..IG ►� ��Q
4. Revenue
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
��Acr*,-,c�
�a aNn 5 Sln aw s A,
�.
'S�,c`rm� � r � r'� yrs T v 10Y
t�
6. Existing Buildings
4S
Lk
7. Sense of Place
I INE 6 V MAL L �f�-n
5�rvv" t h w n e ¢,V1 �c�1
8. Design Elements
rN m. v�v't W �l A A�,6 u.T '1'im cuv d D
\A-0-
t)o
. . .. . ...... - .... ... ..... .
1 2
3
---- -----
4 5
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the Contributes to the Strongly supports
objective ! objective objective objective the objective
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab.doc
a I d 9TZV LLS LV2:KOHJ G2AI232H TO: G T 86 -60 -So
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6., 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Stmftic Plan
I
.7 -d 8 1 �:V LLS LV2 'Cl -L-1 'Zidl> - I - N HOa -4 HdOO: E 866 L -60-E
m
9TZv LLS LVS:KOHI a2AI239H
TO : 9 T 86-60-90
a
, 0 LQ0.1L It * p 4,
9 1 ZV LLS LV9 'ClL-1 ' Z-LdnA 'I "N HOd -1 NdOO:E 866L -60-E
pq
IN
%11 MAR 11 198 12: 39PM
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals
Phase I of the Downtown TT District Strateve Plan
P - 2/5
March 6, 1998
I
11 : 30 RECEIVED FROM: P-92
An 'r MAR 11 P 9e 12: 3 9P
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals
ph= I of the downtown TIF Distict Strategic Plan
P. 3/5
March 6, 1998
6 CAMy Docunwnts\doWnt0wn\AFP tab,doc
03-11-98 11:31 RECEIVED FROM: P-03
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed By: �� P�-e
..........
TOWN CENTRE PROPOSAL
Objectives
Pts
Comments
I.
Development Concept
........... ..................... .......... .... .......
A"4d . .......
50*
,'Ilk ep /� •�s �
car-r� G h, p r
2.
Land Use Afix ........... .. ....
1/07 e
00�7 deo" ot -
3.
Pedestrian Activity
----- -
4.
Revenue
wko-4— 4-k4.- ko
0 4.i
- -- ---------- --------- -
5.
Existing Downtown Businesses
6.
Existing Buildings
pors 1"Able v 44 4.
7.
Sense of Place
8.
Design Elements
;�, •� Aw-o6� 4
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed BY: �AL
Objectives Pts Comments
9. Butildi*ng''Ptaceme"Itt —9�
10. Landscape Design
Vo 0,0 C—/
1., BufldingMatedu1s
Atxe- C
OR*
rking 01
01
3
... . .... . .... ......
13. Dere„toper")sQua,lifications
��
04 -
/Al”,
I , 100*0-,..�►�-.
got,
. . . . . .......... . .
Additional Comments:
I -A
d'/0- 20 4 /V/J r4p
V
�,� -f rye
1h
r -e
woo
*I ek
In 4A0174
AKIO$ *4,0cl,� �r
hoc. �-�-- - �--,�! �� WLe...- 144 'D 40*
76
Ar A
- - - ------ -
2 3 4 5
I oil
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the the C ntributes to the Strongly supports
I
objective objective objective objective the objective:
P� .
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab.doceltol-'t4140
d*.,e P
o41
IG Ld-ve 4AA, to 4 41 A OJ040
12 el'o 1:2 oeoe'PA%WA�d
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Pwposafs March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Shi"gic Plan
� 'd OZE8 V6E LV8 IS I nOONnOA d3 -T1 i Hnv Hobj Hd8E:L 866L-ZL-E
Comment Shed - Rev -low of Development Proposals March 6, 1999
Phwe I of the Downtown TLF District W*,C Plan I
M
OZE13 V66 LV13 IS I nMNnOA d= I WfIV "OdJ Hd6E:t 866L-ZL-E
0)
3
4
Contrawds the
Does not meet %e
... . . . . ..................
complie$ With the
It, Uks to the
C IVA "0 AW
strongly Supports
obiective
obieWve
objwdve
the aNective.
. ..........
M
OZE13 V66 LV13 IS I nMNnOA d= I WfIV "OdJ Hd6E:t 866L-ZL-E
0)
LOHRSTO FE--LOEWE 1 TEL: 4?' -827-8689
Mar 11 f98 16:2 iia.001 P'.04
Comment Shoot - Rovivw of Development Proposals
March 6, 1998
Phase 1 of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
. Rick L,obrstorfer
Itn*WIc�l By.I
CE
- R ALI
f I
Objectives
Pts
Comments
4
e
2. Land Use Ms
2
..
Does not have t"he retail w i tb the
condos, really needs more
3. Pedestrian Activity
3
4, Revenue
i
Wi tbout the retail, we will not
generate what we need or could gest'
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
3-4
6. Existing Bufldings
A 001000 WON -
7. Sense of Pletee
4
F
f
e.
I NOW -
8. Design Xlements
2
3
-,Ilml,ii"llll WIN
Contradicts the
noes not meet the
Compiies wi the Contributes to the Strvmgly supports
obieetive
objective
objective objeWve the objective,
03-11-98 16:25 RECE I VEIL FROM : 847 827 8689 P-04
LOHR"S"TORFER-LOEWEN TEL: 847-827-8689 Mar 11,98 16:21 No .X001 P 0 -1]3'
Comment Shoot - Review of I)evelopment Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of tho Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
CAMy Tho rumcjitz\dOWnbwm\RfT tab.doc 2
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase 1 of the Downtown 'SIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewtd By10ANCENTREMpOPOSAL
Objectives
Pts Comments
//� /�
1. Development oZept
NIPPON
2. Land Use AIix
I
ro
i
3. Pedestrian Activity
4. Revenue
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
P
i
6. :existing Buildings
r
ry
W
7.a
S ense f Place
1'
8 Design Elements
IMMM
ContradStrongly supports
cts the
Does not meet e I -- Complies with the Contributes to the
objective I objective objective 11 objective the objective.'
CAMP Documents\downtown\RFP—Ob-dIv- 2
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed By. R, moo
-------------
----------
TOWNCENTRE PROP0 AL
Objectives
Pts
Comments
1. Development Concept . .............................
. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .
vxc pa to, eAtj
q0, reta�l I IL4* �Joffti 6UPOI of pkiaa C dome
I.
adc "cassiou.
�I o V I'/*'f. Clown Wr S C WW qud's desCUSS104
2. Land Use Mix
D Zor7f. eb *,n WnJo zosie v5
Af
C.XuLteAl Is -+t,"A dm roOt4
More, work ntkCk..d OVI e4L4
"..-
b0f; rVAA" ort tj. &S,5C i IS P4�*►�► ,�"
3. Pedestrian Activity•
CjrW'es &hnL c Pedz4fn444 zone
b 0W&,tA.� 6uss-c., �JW HwV.
4. Revenue
Cv 4A �n broad b ro-c h
M*A
rJ0011
ucd PC(Afifco nVftbe000ora 1A order
5. Existing Downtown Businesses ........................
C S h4oe' �D CO rn, &* 117,
HajL, i it on' work. as,
0"
tile) 10z"fztnij
6. Existing Buildings
-----------'� AA
DIIJ ve, on tt& of, vreA oat
A, AA �?
2v'on row i►oos c r ,
0,
40'
LJA 0 6VS 6 C.
Ku4 C*A00V( co 11s; dott'q.P'444; ho+t rk
dense of Place
o od do,44 a V i , L 11, Gaoot���
commu C"A -S li�w 440(w "vrk
is,
L, AM COVY) dA is 14#40,
W 4 CAAJ
L It" kt, coirnk** 15 al -&A-00
8. Design Elements
L ikiL -o w et 004 G t00oJ h,aMA4")
Z #% d HCl Chtouo r 5 1 %5 A&V4,0 LW a 10
d "" I Should awPp J 16
A,t fO Uetd 0 6-1
'6VIJ S ktJ -6 q t4tv4A. clown 4-v AZA
IMP WM
IN
. . ..........
2 3
.......... ............
4 5
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the
Contributes to the Strongly supports
objective objective objective
. . . ...... . objective the objective
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab-doc
I
5
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
evi we
Reviewey
GRAND PROSPECT PROPOSAL
Objectives
Objectives
Pts
Comments
1.
Development Concept
Development
2.
Land Use Mx
3.
Pedestrian Activity
•to'Z-t
4.
Revenue
17
5.
Existing Downtown Businesses
ML
6.
Existing Buildings
7.
Sense of Place
T�►► i� ►� � �[x�. �wt� � wv �eN� ��acos
8.
-Design Elements
- - ---------------------- - - - J
3 p
Nor wit I P
NOW—,
2
3
................................ -------
4 5
OWN "NWW�010__
Contradicts the Does not meet the
M I
Complies with the Contributes to the
Strongly supports
r]
objective objective . .....
objective objective
the objective.
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab-doc
Coniment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
MEMEMIiIi
2 3 4 5
ntradicts, the Does not meet the I Complies with the Contributes to the Strongly supports
objective objective objective objective the objective,
1
EW
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
2
Contributes to the Strongly supports
Contradi the Does not meet the Complies with the t
objective objective objective objective the objective,
I WO
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFPtab-doc 2
—
i� G " d LLS LV2:HOHA GRAIHOaH E)G:9T
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals, March 6, 1998
Phast I of the Downtown TIF Distri'd Strategic Plan
relp
Revitwed BY:
GRAND PROSPE CT ]PROPOSAL
Objectives
1.
Development Concept
e3
I
Land Use Mx
I
Pedes n Activity
4.
Revenue
5.
m.
Exist -Ing Downtown 100sillesm
4�0
6.
&IN
Emesting Buflaings
f
7.
Seme of Place
8W
'Design Vements ............
.. ......... . . . . ...... .. .. ....
--------------
I
allAIZDHU TG:91 26-60-90
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals Mmch 6� 1999
Phase I of the Downtown TIF Dlac" id Strategic Plan
LO MM F jTo
of
I
C Ek),=Melit�WgWntown,,doc
es not m the Complies with the
a
objective ONUZve
4
tributes to the strongly supports
objective the objective-.
E -d 9 L X17 LLS LVS - c -L-1 'zidn)i - i - N NOZAA Nd6s:S66 L -60-S
pq
11
03--11--98 11 :31 RECEIVED FROM:
CAMy Doc=entsWoNvnloDwn)RFP tab -400
OP
03-11-9a 11:31 RECEIVED FROM * 4,
P-05
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed By:
Reviewed BY:
01 NONUNION -
GRAND PROSP PR,, SAL
E (:T OPIO
objectives
Pts
Comments
1.
...... . . . . . ...................................... . .
Development Concept
---------
----------
/e.; 4 -i -t 2 nom' C 0-;01 do
3
2.
Land Use Mix/
1..!r 0 6t /-O-C( ,�.�,...
13
3.
Pedestrian Activity
Aul 2
4.
Revenue
1'``t/
Or 70'--
t
5.
Existing Downtown Businesses19-A.0
? Y- ......................
6.
Existing Buildings
. . . ............................. . ..........
A/0
7.
Sense of Place
2-
8.
Design Elements . .................... . . .
. . . .
•
.... ------------- ..........................................
2
3
4 5
Ej --b-
Contradicts the Does not meet the
with the . ......... .
Complies with the Contributes to the
Strongly supports
objective objective
objective objectiveth
e obiective:I:
CAMy Documents\downtown\RFP—tab.doc
r 1.
0
CoAmient Sheet - Review of Development, Proposals March 6, 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strate is Plan
91
III!: ji I I 1 11
;j I
V'd W68 'VGE LV8 isinOONnoo� a3 -11 i v4nv woa--j . ..... . if� ��
L
E
S'd OZE8 V6S LV8 isinOUNnoA d3lli"nv HouA Hd6E: 1 866 L -E L -S
LOHRSTORFER-LOEWEN TEL .847-827-8689 Mar 11P98 16: 21 No . 0G1 P. 02
Commont SO.Alect - Rovi'm of Dovelopmept,,propos"Is
Pliase, I Of"Ole, Downtown, INS F'Distaid Stra"tegie pla"ll, March 619 98
fl
03-11-98 16:24 RECEIVED FROM :847 827 8689 P.&2
w
LOHRSTORFER-LOEWEN TEL:847-827-8689
Commejit Sheet - kcview of Development Proposals
Phasr, I of the Downtown TIF District Strategio PIftn
Mar 11 98 16:20 No .001 P .01
March 6, 1998
2
Complies with the Contributes to the Stron supports
'adicts the t—Do-)e-snot meet the the obiective,
J, objective
iectivo
e bicctive obj
2
CAMy Documcnts\downtowMb.doc
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 6. 1998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
r." 1111111111" ij$ 1 , I . ;: 0
RevliewedBy: ,-�4d floc -e -'L
GRA,DPROSPECT PROPOSAL
Objectives
Pts
7Comments
1.
Development Concept
2.
Land Use AIix
3.
Pedestrian Activity
...........................
4.
...........
Revenue
5.
Existing Downtown Businesses
6110041001� �11
6. . . . . ..........
Existing Buildings
7.
Sense of Place
8.
Design Elements
. . ...... . .... . ... ..
... .............. . . . . . 2�—
3
4
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with tlie-- Contributes to the 1� Strongly supports
...objective objective objective objective the obiective,
. .......... .. . .....................
2 3 4 5
...........
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the Contributes to the Strongly supports
objective objective objective objective the objective,.
CAMY Documents\downtown\RFP—tab.dOC
Comment Sheet - Review of Development Proposals March 611998
Phase I of the Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan
Reviewed BY: '(Jear,
GRAND, PROSPECT PROPOSAL
Objectives Pts
Comments ---------------
1. Development Concept ------ —
----
hof a6&G55 t ri LL
2
oewo#er
-L LINN, Lf o el ts S
2. Land Use Mix
L1' k c. m4 I$( CVA,CI40'/ At*'O��Z 0 A
3
�+ry ptr+� f^� � r 1Itii /' 100
W4 + t010,4,. ".Ss
(b e, CoK(4 V#4AA V MAI I 00�
3. Pedestrian Activity
l�1 ovi& be. nice, -+o "IvAbine.
2
d.r ivy rz-c' +V"Lc au -4,41i o r►�,a�ru �
cy, O's S'
l�tlii�GIV MAI
4. Revenue
(+hv-u rroic�
Not enough info. rovi'd-id
5. Existing Downtown Businesses
Docs n ot 0, d.dress WS Iry 3 inc sse4.
6. Existing Buildings
. ..........
0 IVIL I -CL Z:�ex'rT)be,.i no i/1�
atV r n Is 6cLcA
0il i-
7. Sense of Placeits
. . . . ..... ......... I
Cr,W14, l Wor 10 h
O� li �'t 4r�" �� b lolf'Att)* )AD
I
boss JL -t
Irk Dom` 7� tom' 1
8. Design Elementsp�,+,s
, dQ�C��.y�
0 ad 1(11 0
2
G.cx`o s s 'e rc.s � d.ttic.�5
2
. ............ .............
4 5
........ ... . ......... WN .......... �N@�NNNWW
Contradicts the Does not meet the
-
Complies with the Contributes to the
Complies
Strongly supports
Strongly
objective objective ONWE
......... .... .. N,i objective
objective,,.
theEE]
... ...........
3 4 5
Contradicts the Does not meet the Complies with the Contributes to the Strongly supports
objectiveI objective objective. objective the objective,, . . . ........ 11111- .1 11111-1111� -W� I ii , I
CAMy Documcnts\downtown\RFP—tab.dm
MAYOR
Gerald L. Fartey
TRUSTEES
George A. Clowes
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm- Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Daniel A. Nocchi
Irvana K. Wilks
VILLAGE MANAGER ►Mou Michael E. Janonis Ila, ofnt P r�►s pact
VILLAGE CLERK Community Development Department
Carol A. Fields 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
March 18,, 1998
Mr. Kyle Benkert
Ben -Cor Group
P.O. Box 9
Palatine, IL 60078
I
Phone: (847) 870-5668
Fax: (847) 392-6954
TDO: (847) 392-6064
The Village of Mount Prospect Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee has reviewedyour
proposal for the Phase I of our Downtown. As a follow-up to that review, you and your team are
invited to give a formal presentation of the proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee and Village Board.
The presentation has been scheduled for the March 24, 1998 Village Board Committee of the Whole
meeting. The meeting will be held at the Mount Prospect Senior Center, 50 S. Emerson Street at
7:30 pm. Please be available at that time. You have up to one half hour to make your initial
presentation; questions from the Committee, Village Board, and public will follow.
The Committee's review of your team's submittal resulted in several questions and concerns
regarding the proposal's ability to more fully reflect the development concept outlined in the
Strategic Plan. The Committee has requested that you respond to these issues as part of your
presentation on March 24th.
1) Please provide an indication as to the economic viability of the Phase I proposal within current
and future local markets. Also, please provide evidences regarding the financial capacity of your
team to undertake this project. This should include a list of similar projects completed over the
past ten years., a listing of team credentials, and your experience with retail and mixed use
developments.
2) The traffic circulation within the site is confusing and requires additional explanation.
3) Why is there no development program shown for the triangle parcel (between Busse and
Northwest Highway)?
Mr. Kyle Benkert
March 18, 1998
Page Two
4) More financial information is needed for the Village to understand the ramifications of the
project on the downtown and our Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. This includes:
projected condo sales prices for units, anticipated sales rate of the condos, and projected retail
rents.
5) What provisions will be made to help keep existing businesses in the downtown?
6) The development proposal is not pedestrian friendly in that it shows no connection to the Busse
Avenue retail or the balance of the downtown. How will this issue be addressed?
7) Having an eight story condo/retail building adjacent to a one story retail building creates an
unusual "massing" of structures for the block. Better continuity in the massing would be
desirable. Please explain how this aspect of the proposal fits into the overall development
concept of the downtown.
8) What tenants do you expect to have in the retail space?
9) The proposal shows extensive improvements to Main Street (including a boulevard and what
appears to be a bridge or other structure over the road). Please confirm the feasibility of these,
and describe the results the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) position on these
items.
If you have any questions about the Committee's review of your proposal or the review process in
general, Please feel free to contact me directly. Also, please call me to confu*m your attendance at
the March 24th meeting. We look forward to your team's presentation next Tuesday.
Sincerely,
William Cooney, AICD
Director of Community Development
X:\USERS\COMDEV\PLNG\BDDRC\TWkRMEV\DEVQUES.W'PD
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
TRUSTEES
George A. Clowes
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Daniel A. Nocchi
Irvana K. Wilks
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK Community Development Department
Carol A. Fields 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
March 18, 1998
Mr. Bruce Adreani
Norwood Builders
7458 N. Harlem Avenue
Chicago, IL 60631
Dear Mr. Adreani,
Phone: (847) 870-5668
Fax: (847) 392-6954
TDD: (847) 392-6064
The Village of Mount Prospect Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee has reviewed the
proposal submitted by the Town Centre, LLC. As a follow-up to that review, you and your team are
invited to give a formal presentation of the proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee and Village Board.
The presentation has been scheduled for the March 24, 1998 Village Board Committee of the Whole
meeting. The meeting will be held at the Mount Prospect Senior Center, 50 S. Emerson Street.
Please be available at 8:15 pm. You have up to one half hour to make your initial presentation;
questions from the Committee, Village Board, and public will follow.
The Committee's review of your team's submittal resulted in several questions and concerns
regarding flexibility in the proposal to allow it to more fully reflect the development concept
outlined in the strategic plan. The Committee has requested that you respond to these issues as part
of your presentation on March 24th. In addition, you should note that the Committee's review of
your proposal consisted only of Phase I of the redevelopment plan.
1. The Strategic Plan calls for commercial/residential mixed use development to be included on the
north part of Phase 1, your proposal shows no retail. Can retail be provided at the east and west
ends of the south building (in effect, "wrapping" the Busse Avenue retail around to the north).
Another suggestion is to consider commercial space on the front of either the east or west condo
buildings on Main Street or Wille Street (as done with your Towne Square project in Skokie).
Commercial space along Wille Street would benefit from on -street parking, and might be
desirable as offices.
Mr. Bruce Adreani
March 18, 1998
Page Two
2. The architectural character of the Phase I condominium buildings should be more reflective of
aq IV
the row homes sketched for Phase 11 or the mixed use buildings shown for Phase III. For
example, the roofs in the later phases are more attractive than those shown for Phase I.
3. Is the parking provided for the condos and retail per Village Code? Will condo parking be
0 vided for
pro ided below grade? Further detail is necessary regarding the overall parking, pro
Iv 1,
your proposal
4. 'There are several, concerns related to the parking lot design, and the traffic'flow, on the tn",angle,
parcel, (between, Busse and Northwest, Highway),. It isunli"kely that, the � roposed, curb cut, located
P
onRoute 83 will be, pennitted.
5. The layout of the triangle parcel creates an undesirable view of a parking lot from Northwest
Highway. How can this situation be corrected?
6. The south condo building turns its back to the rest of the downtown. In addition, several units
in this building will be facing the rear of the existing commercial along Busse Avenue. Please
be prepared to discuss how the proposed condos relate to the remainder of Phase I.
7. Whattype of retail tenants do you expect for Phase I?
8. The height of the condo 'buildings appear to, be five stories for the south building and eight
stories for the east and west buildings, please confirm this point.
9. The eight storybw1dings are aharsh edge for the residential, areas to the, northl, How can that
*,� ngs, be tiered to be lower, along Centml-Road,*
situation'be improved. For examp
le, , can the buildi,
ificatio�
of the,
10. More financial 1*,nfGnnat*1Oni*,,s needed, for the'Village tounderstand, the, ramm ns,
F) d'strict. 'This, Im*Cludes.,
project on, the downtown and, our'Tax, Increment Rnancingr (TI d ctedretail
4,
fts antIcipated, sales, rate of the condos,, an, proje
projected condo saJes pfi
I
cesfor ux, 1,
rents.
11. The proposal Indi*cates that Northwest Electric's retail component W 1" 11 'be integrated into the
(as
downtown redevelopment. However, the location, of 'that, space is, notshown. on the sket,6
are Fannie May and Continental Bakery). Please clan"fy the location for Northwest 'Electfic.
12. Aside from those noted above, what other provisions will be made to help keep businesses in the
downtown.
Mr. Bruce Adreani
March 18,1998
Page Three
13. Can additional retail be provided on the triangle parcel? Also, can the businesses be developed
as a single structure (rather than separate buildings) to create a greater building massing on the
block?
14. Is there room on the triangle parcel for expansion of the existing Gail's Carriage House
restaurant?
15. Please describe the relationship of the partners in Town Centre LLC. Specifically, what role
does each play in the Phase I development.
16. Your proposal indicates that you will pay the Village "market value" as determined by Kane,
McKenna and other consultants. In addition, you indicate that the necessary public
improvements will be paid through a combination of developer contributions and TIF funds from
the Village. Please be prepared to more fully detail your expectations of the Village and your
financial commitment to the project.
If you have any questions about the Committee's review of your proposal or the review process in
general, please feel free to contact me directly. Also, please call me to confirm your attendance at
the March 24th meeting. We look forward to your team's presentation next Tuesday.
SIncerely,
William Cooney, AICP
Director of Community Development
X:\USERS\COMDEV\PLNG\BDDROTEF\REDEV\DEVQUES,,WPD
page 1
Developers Who Received
Downtown RFPs
Peter Dellaportas
Mark Anderson
Jonathan Hattis
I st National Development, Ltd.
Principal
American Asset Mgmt.
415 N. LaSalle Dr,
Chicago, IL 60610-4540
A T Investments, Inc.
7 W. Davis St.
4433 Wo Touby Avc,,.,, #500
Lincolnwood, IL 60646-1820
Arlington Hts., IL 60005
Ryan Murphy
Thomas Schaffer
Al Lieberman
Development Mgr.
President
The Balcor Co.
American Heritage Corporation
Baird & Warner, Inc.
2355 Waukegan Rd. #A200
I Pierce PI., #795
200 W. Madison St., #2400
Bannockburn, IL 60015-5500
Itasca, IL 60646-1820
Chicago, IL 60606-3439
Barry Sidel.
Kyle Benkert
William Walsh
Partner
President
Chairman
Banbury Development, Inc.
Ben -Cor Group
BristolChga, Devel,opment Corp.
I IBM Plaza, #2630
Chicago, IL 60611
POB 9
Palatine, IL 60078
193 1 N". Meacham, Rd ,t, Ste, 330
Schaumburg,, IL 60173
Kim Barnes -Staples
John McLinden
Ron Bild
The John Buck Company
Centrum Properties, Inc.
Vice President
190 S. LaSalle, #1750
225 W. Hubbard, #400
C B Commercial
Chicago, IL 60603
Chicago, IL 60610
6133 N. River Rd... #500
Rosemont, IL 60018
Carole Borg
F. Melaniphy
Howard Weiner
C B Commercial
Council-Intril.Restaurant Brokers
Dearbo:rn Development Corp,
1900 E Golf Road, #640
307 N. Derbyshire
1777 N. C'lyboum Ave.
Schaumburg, IL 60173
Arlington Hts., IL 60004-6331
Chicago, EL 60614-5519
Dan Janus
Daniel Mazziro
Tony DiMucci
Simon DeBartolo Group
Vice President
President
314 McHenry Rd., Ste. C
Development Solutions, Inc.
DiMuccii, Development Corp.
Bufto Grove, IL 60089-6749
3 1 st National Plaza, #650
100 W.,Du,ndee R,,d,,,.
Chicago, IL 60602
Palatine, IL 60067-2659
John Donovan
Bill BarTy
Rich Peritz
President
Draper & Kramer
Real Estate Director
Donovan Engineering, Inc.
35 W. Monroe
Fanny May/Fanny Farmer
300 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Chicago,, IL 60603-5486
1137 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60607-2905
Bob Lewandowski
Dennis Harder
Leo Goldschmidt
R. Franczak & Assoc.
Development Mgr.
Principal
701 Lee St.
DesPlaines, IL 60016
Joseph Freed & Assoc.
1400 S. Wolf, Bldg. 100
L. A. Goldschmidt Assoc., Inc.
Wheeling., IL 60090
9 Longwood Pl., #30
Elgin, IL 60123
Roy Gottlieb
Linda Akins
Karen Katy
Principal
VP-Corp.NMg.
The Habitat Co.
Roy D. Gottlieb & Assoc., Ltd.
General Growth Properties, Inc.
350 W. Hubbard St.
707 Skokie Blvd.
55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3 100
Chicago, IL 60610
Northbrook, IL 60062
Chicago, IL 60603-5001
James Sheridan
Bob Block
Mark Bethel
Partner
President
Sr. Vice President
Hamilton Partners
The Hayward Group
Heitman Retail Properties
300 Park Blvd.,, Ste. 201
2739 N. Elston
180 N. LaSalle St., #3700
Itasca, IL 60143-2636
Chicago, IL 60647
Chicago, IL 60601-2800
page 1
Developers Who Received Downtown RFPs page
.97,171
mmwwwmwwwfty�
David Caplan
Broker Associate
Ben Trapani
President
Emmanuel Escalona
Tcrraco, Inc.
Trapani Construction Co.
Trammell Crow Co.
2 Pierce Pl., #700
870711. Skokie Blvd., #303
Skokie, IL 60077
1800 E. Northwest Hwy.
Arlington Its., IL 60004-6944
Itasca, IL 60143-3143
Richard Tucker
Tucker Development Corp.
513 Central Ave., F1r.5
Highland Pk., IL 60035-2660
Paul Russo
Retail Associate
Urban Investment Trust Inc.
41W, Congress Parkway, #300
Chicago, IL 60605
Roban An,drew
Sr. Vice President
'Urban Retail Pro
I perties C3o,.
9,,00 N'. Mich igm Ave.,, #1500
Chicago,, IL 60611-1542
Martin Stern Thomas Samuels Richard Wallach
Sr. Vice President Exec. Vice President Williams & Nichols Co.
U. S. Equities Realty, Inc. Walsh -Higgins & Co. 35 E. Wacker Dr., #1522
20 N. Michigan, #400 101 E. Efie, Ste. 800 Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60602 Chicago, IL 60611
George Efstathiou Monte Strusiner Donald Storino
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Exec.Vice President Attorney at Law
224 S. Michigan Ave., #1000 Craig Steven Develop, went Corp. Storino, Ramello & Durkin
Chicago, IL 60604-2505 401 HuehlRd., Ste. IA 9501 W. Devon Ave.
Northbrook, IL 60062 Rosemont, IL 60018
Deve _lopers Who 'Received
OWN*
Downtown RFPs
OW page 2
Dennis Hiffman
Vice Chairman
Richard Hulina
President/Retail
Paul Robertson
"iffman, Shafer & Assoc.
Hiffman, Shafer & Assoc.
Household Com'I.R.E. Services
2700 Sanders Rd.
180 N. Wacker,, #500
180 N. Wacker, #500
Prospect Hts., IL 60070
Chicago, IL 60606
Chicago, IL 60606
Scott Carr
Edward James
James Kaplan
President
Inland Com'I.Property Mgmt.
Chairman
James Building Corp.
Managing Principal
James Kaplan Companies, Inc.
2901 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, IL 60523-1106
1535 Lake Cook Rd., #302
Northbrook, IL 60062
513 Central Ave,,,#500
Highland Pk., IL 60035-2660
John Andersen
Kerry Levin
David Dresdner
LaSalle Partners
Principal
Vice President
1400 Business Center Dr., # 103
Levin Associates
LR Development Co.
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
1455 Golf Rd., #200
350 W. Hubbard, #301
DesPlaines, IL 60016
Chicago,, IL 60610
James Schmidt
Richard Hansen
Marvin Siegel
Vice President
Managing Director
Metro Area Properties
Matanky Realty Group
Mesirow & Stein Real Estate
1350 W. Greenleaf Ave.
1332 N. Halsted St.
350 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60626-2917
Chicago, IL 60622
Chicago, IL 60610
C. Panovich
Steve Jacobsen
Donald Mitroff
Mid-America Realty
Sr.VP-Development
President
Mid-America Plaza, #330
The Mills Corporation
The Mitroff Companies
Oak Brook, IL 60181
6170 W. Grand Ave., #304
1655 N. Arlington Hts. Rd., #100-E
Gurnee, IL 60031
Arlington Hts., IL 60004
Bruce Kaplan
Bruce Schumacher
James Purinton
Northem Realty Group, Ltd.
Norwood Builders
Deputy President
3 1 st National Plaza, Ste. 5750
7458 N. Harlem Ave.
Orix R.E. Equities, Inc.
Chicago, IL 60602
Chicago, IL 60632
100 N. Riverside Plaza, #1400
Chicago, IL 60606-1502
Michael Chivini
Eric Risinger
Robert DiMucci
V.P.-Development
Senior Associate
Premier Property Mgmt., Inc.
Orix R.E. Equities, Inc.
Otis Associates, Inc.
1077 E. Golf Rd.
100 N. Riverside Plaza, #1400
185 Milwaukee, Ste. 300
Arlington Hts., EL 60005
Chicago, IL 60606-1502
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Donald Faloon
Peter Tremu I Is
Kathy King
Exec.V.P., Develop.
Dir/Land Acquisition
Rauch & Company
The Prime Group, Inc.
Pulte Homes
8725 W. Higgins Rd., #210
77 W. Wacker Dr.,, #3900
2500 W. Higgins Rd.,#770
Chicago,, IL 60631
Chicago, IL 60601
Hoffman Est., IL 60195
Kevin O'Donnell
Todd Fishbein
Dennis Stein
Asst. Vice President
Red Seal Development - 1/26
President
Rauch & Company
425 Huelo, Bldg. #18
The Shaw Company
8725 W. Higgins Rd., #210
Northbrook, IL 60062
233 S. Wacker
Chicago, IL 60631
Chicago, IL 60606
George Efstathiou Monte Strusiner Donald Storino
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Exec.Vice President Attorney at Law
224 S. Michigan Ave., #1000 Craig Steven Develop, went Corp. Storino, Ramello & Durkin
Chicago, IL 60604-2505 401 HuehlRd., Ste. IA 9501 W. Devon Ave.
Northbrook, IL 60062 Rosemont, IL 60018
4'
C
*M
Alf
.20
86`
4
7
C_
co 0
am
10 m
to 0 a
WY14 d
to
L4
p
"Mm
��OVA
MOW
Z 44
it, 10
0
CA
> d�
> c�r u
r
-eta �
-c to a
to
ars '� V
t4f « cd
... Nil
0,4
ro
W co pim c 0N
.�. 4110,
t17 ' �� "�
.+ "ptsCIS �".
C!
.Cj
.o LW
bow
El
..IVqi
to La
'-
*� �.
h, 0,
0
Ate. ,. q�to 44
TJ.d
�/ `_
d
1,/jM�y.�.y�y� �R co I
�M
�I� .� �y �/�y +y/��I� day, y
.0 � IV � +ui ".�r �dTd� WSW
//�+Y�yy
d. 3Y
��IIy�,
F�^ 6 11'
[R 1A.W 10
�lu
44 c
-�n�.y� �.,
0S4
IR Ly 01 M
130 I co
CIO
00
.r.'"co
41 C61
Ii
sLo
QI01 toP
�' , r
u C)
O H .,
- 00 A.
Ci G
CIS W
P. -H ta -all' '$
&n CIO 44
CJ
d,1 a+LIM C4 4
"a dd .� "rJ .0 Qi .0
CdJ
C3 As
ji��.yy�y r�CI�1. CLw ' r of .m<41
Lo
�
44 0
L.
*r
.Ci O "C! �i "4:
40 4 * "a' �� 1
�Ci ...> 44Cl. cis .t� p� C� F U .