The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2333_001�T.ES COMMITTEE F JANUARY I. ROLL CALL Mayor s called meet- ,.e-.1neeting were: Trustees � A ,lar a Norma s kc. r e n _ Also present at_ the t i n Terrance Burghard, Director lt�;�;- I 101 g a c s Fred Tennysoni, Sandy F -r'''' There were fourteenpersons members the Chamber ofC of and the Downto-�,.Pi Development H. MINUTES , The nMinutes f the Co-dr-,Tiittee January '10, 1984 were acceDt, III. E HEARD to make any p--resentation 'bef Whole, the Mayor moved on to DOWNTO'14N DEVELOPHE4 nf t h e ci . rte s " O ` y �.° sand BUSiness District. Mayor Kr sustailled Vii, a, . „ill ea that e s t a f f wou and public. , f re heir wholel-eal- �xwM q w n „ *b� IwM :imm,p � ry w � i:..n� Kra s memo, Trustees Art the.'L,t- reservat-iLon about the arage on P . no�„n �, emi and,f url y IXIC ate diLs„ n,matter potential for a new facility t W V illage of M��ount Prospect 1,J Mount Prospect, Illinois �19 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TERRANCE L, BURGHARD FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FACADE REBATE PROGRAM a DATE . FEBRUARY 9 r 1984 The COmmuni'ty Development staff has received proposals from three architectural firms for services associated with the downtown Facade Rebate Program, The contract with the selected architect, Planning Resources, Inc., involves two ma3or tasks. First, the architect would prepare design guidelines, with staff review, for the program. These guidelines would be used to identify limits and recommendations on all elements of storefronts, such as signs, display areas, lighting, wall treatments, materials, and color schemes. The guidelines would be used by the applicant in considering improvements as well as by Staff and BDDRC in reviewing and approvl*ng the application. The second task would be the periodic preparation of "conceptual" plans for applicants. The use of the same architect for both tasks ensures a consistency that is essential for the success of the program. The following reflects the costs and time frame of the two tasks as agreed upon by Staff and the Consultant. Task 1 would require six weeks for completion of all guidelines, i 'llustrat 1 ons, and exhibits. The cost would be charged at the hourly rates of: $55.00/hour for Project Manager and Senior Architect $40.00/hour for Project Architect $15.00/hour for support personnel Plus reimbursable costs. The total cost of Task 1 'is not to exceed $6,500.00. TERRANCE L, BURGHARD FEBRUARY 9r 1984 PAGE TWO Task 2 is proposed for three' weeks' maximum delivery time for IM concept" plans. The estimated maximum for each application is: A- $1,20 0.00 per storefront plus $500.00 for each additional elevation or storefront in the same building. Each application would be reviewed by the Staff and the Consultant to establish a maximum cost based upon the 4 complexity, size, and number of applications in each building In this way we can realize cost savings for smaller projects o buildings where all storefronts are to be renovated. I These costs can be compared to those submitted by the other architects as follows: Firm Task 1 Task 2 Brim/Braun $3,500 + Expenses $lf250 La Rocca $9,r00O $2,000 In both cases the fees were lump sum payments. The concept plans were per storefront or elevation. It is the Staf f ' s recommendation that the f irm of Planning Resources, Inc.', be retained for the Facade Rebate Program's architectural services., This firm 'is the best selection when considering its background, experience, and approach to the program. The costs associated with the contract are reasonable. The funding comes from the CDBG Program, account # 23-062-08-8951. We recommend that the Village Board provide authorization for a contract to be made with this firm. Attachment N, J, ("PETE") POINTNERf AIA, AICP PK §"I DENT Education: B. Arch., 1961, Illinois Institute of Technology,, Architecture MoCeR,P. , 1962, Illinois Institute of Technology, City Planning Memberships: American Institute of Architects Member of National Historic * Resources Committee Historic Pullman Foundation, Chicago - Board of Directors Design Guidelines & Facade Improvements: -Prov'1L,dence,, -Boston & Cambridge, Mass, -Elko, Nev. -Tonawanda, NY. -East Chicago, Ind. -Flint, Mich. Other Relevant Work, Town Center Mixed Use ordinance Barrington, Ill. LOCKWOOD MARTLING JRe r AIA Education: B.S. University of Illinois, Architecture Design Studies - Art Institute of Chicago, American Academy of Art Memberships and Awards: American Institute of Architects National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials Illinois Chapter AIA Design Award 1983-84 for Store Renovation 0 Downtown Renovation & Facade Improvements. -HiLnsdale, Naperville, & Clarendon Hills, Ill. -Escanaba, Williamston, & Fremont, Mich, -Evansville, Ind, -Elkhorn, Wisc. 2/9/84 /bdg Fn_rER PECiERISEN RtC>4ARD V HC>UPr GEORGE L_ PLUP45 JAP64ES K. STA"o PE -TEN 0 CONNELL KELLY THOMAS J. KELLY SHELD0N MAVIDSON Chief Ronald W. Pavlocx Department of Police 112 East Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Solicitation Regulations 0 Dear Chief Pavlock. Reference is made to your correspondence of December 14, 1983 and submission of enclosed do'o'cuments pertaining to Solicitation Ordinances in the Villaues, of Hoffman Estates, Des Plaines, and Palatine with letter�s pertaining to the provisions thereof. I have reviewed these enclosures and the present provisions of the Mount Prospect Village Code pertaining to this subject together with additional infor- mation contained in my own files. I am enclosing herein T a copy of the most recent solir,.vitation case in Illinois (Citizens for a Better Envi'ronment v. Vi a e of Oly,Miia Fi,elds, et. al. wh ch case deals w ith, restri cti,ons on the 'time of' solicitation and on the processing of solicitor permit applications, As a result of this review, I am in substantial agree- ment with some of the points raised in your memerandam to the Village Manager on November 1, 1983 with respect to the regulation of solicitation actives in the Village of Mount Prospect. I have three comments to make with respect to this subject matter, to wit: There is confusion and uncertainty in attempting to apply current Mount Prosp%...%.*%.. sc.)licitation regulations as they are separated within three separate Articles of the Village Code (Article 28 +w 11 and Articles 3 and 15 of Chapter 23). These three,Articles need to be amended and clarified so that the Article dealing with JOHN " bqucmk -.-MIN *RTHUR 19 STrPNI9IEWG STEVEN M STONE PATRtCLA J, COONS JAMES K HENEGAN JEFF"REY H, FRANK LINDA 0, PAC)TZ RICHARD DEMAREST YANT LAW OFFICES PEDERSEN & HOUPT GREGORY J. PERWr A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DAVID C NEVVM^N 11 JAMES J. CLA F?WZ M 180 NORTH LASALLE STREET MARiLEE RIDBERG HE RSERT J, LINM PAUL S A&T-MAN SUITE 34(:)0 "AW-_ D JANSER J DAVID SANNER T"OvAAS F bprrr it CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601 ALLAN I NAlro-AAN THEODC>RE Pr CORNELL I" JONATHA&M M GILBERT (312) 641-6888 ARTHUR P4 0-*�TZm^N D'OF"LO J MORAN JOHN P SURKE WRITER,.S DIRECT DIAL NO 781 - Chief Ronald W. Pavlocx Department of Police 112 East Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Solicitation Regulations 0 Dear Chief Pavlock. Reference is made to your correspondence of December 14, 1983 and submission of enclosed do'o'cuments pertaining to Solicitation Ordinances in the Villaues, of Hoffman Estates, Des Plaines, and Palatine with letter�s pertaining to the provisions thereof. I have reviewed these enclosures and the present provisions of the Mount Prospect Village Code pertaining to this subject together with additional infor- mation contained in my own files. I am enclosing herein T a copy of the most recent solir,.vitation case in Illinois (Citizens for a Better Envi'ronment v. Vi a e of Oly,Miia Fi,elds, et. al. wh ch case deals w ith, restri cti,ons on the 'time of' solicitation and on the processing of solicitor permit applications, As a result of this review, I am in substantial agree- ment with some of the points raised in your memerandam to the Village Manager on November 1, 1983 with respect to the regulation of solicitation actives in the Village of Mount Prospect. I have three comments to make with respect to this subject matter, to wit: There is confusion and uncertainty in attempting to apply current Mount Prosp%...%.*%.. sc.)licitation regulations as they are separated within three separate Articles of the Village Code (Article 28 +w 11 and Articles 3 and 15 of Chapter 23). These three,Articles need to be amended and clarified so that the Article dealing with JOHN " bqucmk -.-MIN *RTHUR 19 STrPNI9IEWG STEVEN M STONE PATRtCLA J, COONS JAMES K HENEGAN JEFF"REY H, FRANK LINDA 0, PAC)TZ RICHARD DEMAREST YANT Chief Ronald W. Pavlock January 18, 1984 Page 2 Tag Days will relate to solicitation activities on streets and highways, the Article on Trespass will relate to the offense of lCrespass es (in- cluding solicitor trespasses) and the Article on vendors, solicitors and other business activities will relate to the..:-% definition, regj_4=. tration and regulating of solicitors without including provisions specifically enumerating and prohibiting trespasses. Specifically than, it would be Article 28 of Chap -lCer 11 which,, in my opinion, should contain the basic regulatory requirements for solicitors, 2* Existing Court decisions have regularly upheld First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights governing door to door canvassers and solicitors over municipal regulations or restrictions of such activities. Attempts at licensing, fingerprinting, delaying permit applications for a lenqthy inves- tigc-xtion pc._:.riod, or restricting solicit-'ation. -activities 't -o time periods of less than 9:00 D.m* in the evening on weekdays have been voided by the Courts as an unreasonable infringement upon First Amendment rights. Village Ordinances which go beyond a requirement that solicitation activities conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, that solicitors regislter with the Police Department and obtain an identification badge through a registration process not exceeding 72 hours, and that such registration not be denied except in instances where a solicitor is a con- victed felon or has previously violated the solicitat.-Lon/trespass provisions of the Village Code, would, in my opinion, run the risk of being invalidated if questioned in a Court. 3* The Court cases uniformly hold that proper regulation of solicitation actives can be achieved by the homeowner himself through the placement of no solicitation signs and the use of local trespass proons in the event of a violation. Despite the inconvenience of having a resident take the respons, i it to complain about a "pushy magazine salesman" or other such solicitor, it is nevertheless the only way in which solicitation abuses can be 44 PEDERSEN HOUPT Chief Ronald W. Pavlock January 18, 1984 Page 3 In sho-&&--t, whether solicitors register or not within a Village, it is virtually impossible to control abuses without the resident involved maki -ng a complaint, either by calling the police who respond and issue a ticket to a solicitor who is found on residence property in violation of a posted sign, or by signing a citizen Complaint against the solicitor growing out of a solicitor's refusal to leave the premises in response to an oral request to do so by the owner thereof, In summary, it is my recommendation that the three area of the Village Code which presently deal with the subject of solicitors be amended and clarifiLed as suggested above, that