Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0822_001VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE ALL Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP Due to ongoing discussions regarding property acquisition, there has been little new to ,report regarding the Triangle Redevelopment Project. However, the Village Board has indicated a strong desire to move this project to the forefront in an effort to regain some of our past momentum. Staff heartily, agrees with this direction and, to that end, has dedicated substantial time and effort toward putting together what is hoped to be a substantive Workshop at which critical issues may be fully discussed, lingering questions and concerns can be addressed and concrete direction for future action can be established. Much ground has been covered in the past and it is quite likely that individual Board members have accumulated a "mountain" of memos, reports and studies regarding this subject. Instead of burying you with additional written material, it is staffs feeling and recommendation that additional information be kept to a minimum. The meeting has been formatted so as to maximize discussion regarding critical issues and minimize the tendency to get bogged down in detail. To that end, the material for the Workshop will consist of: 1. Manager's Cover Memo 2. Issue Outline 3. Decision Table Individual Board members are free to bring any supporting materials they feel may, help them in discussion. However, the goal of this meeting should be to discuss the big picture and determine both the level of commitment to the project and the direction required to carry out that commitment. Once this has been established, we as a Village will be in a position to discuss in greater detail some of the more salient points that will play a critical role in the ultimate success of the project. As you will note, the information package includes a rather detailed Issue Outline which has been developed in an effort to facilitate full discussion and to ensure that all critical issues are addressed. Other than for the introduction, the Outline is laid out in what staff feels is the appropriate sequence for discussion. If consensus is reached at each level, it will provide momentum and a level of comfort with the plan that can be built upon as we move to a final decision on whether or not to proceed with the Broadacre project. If, on the other hand, consensus is not reached or a decision not to proceed with the Broadacre project is made, then a decision regarding a scaled-back or alternate redevelopment plan will become necessary. The Decision Table included in your package is designed to be a visual reference with regard to the steps which must be taken and their most logical or required sequence. While the desire at this meeting is not to bury you with additional paper, it is important that you have critical reference material to both refresh your recollection and provide necessary facts and figures to facilitate the discussion and decision-making process. Therefore, staff has developed a series of fact sheets and other visuals which will be posted around the room. The Village Manager, along with Dave Clements, Dave Jepson and Ken Fritz, will provide different various oral briefing.% that should help facilitate discussion. Except for a brief introductory overview, staffs goal is to minimize presentations and maximize discussion. Representatives from Broadacre have been asked to attend for the purpose of providing input as necessary or to respond to specific questions. Members of the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission have also been invited to attend including Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Janet Hansen who serves in an Ex -Officio capacity. Please note that the meeting is being held in the Executive Dining Room, Third Floor, of the First Chicago Bank, 111 East Busse Avenue. We have done this in an effort to provide for a little' bit more elbow room and to provide a�}new//({ venue thatwill hopefully fa%ciflita Le the rellewed d10 001Vn of this.most critical project. l��ir• Chris LJJarld< lg has been gracious enough to allow us to use the facility until approximately 10:30 p.m. Staff is confident that this provides a sufficient amount of time to fully discuss all of the critical issues and establish a clear sense of direction from which to move forward. If additional meetings are required, they can be arranged as soon as and as frequently as individual schedules allow. Staff looks forward to this Workshop and is excited about the prospects for moving forward. MEJ/rcc c: Director of Planning David Clements Director of Finance David Jepson Economic Development Director Kenneth Fritz M im TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ISSUE OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION A. History of QQwntownw (Target Areas A, C, E & F) B. 1. Gild Public Works Property 2. Extension of 'IF to include Main/Wille 3. Development, Discussions, Options 4. Selection of Preferred Developer C. 1. Marketing Plan 2. Development Concept a. Main/Wille Block b. Pine/Wille Block 3. Financing Requirements II. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED (See Decision Table) A. B. C. Extension of the I[F nisjrigj 1. Pine/Wille Block 2. Entire Triangle Area 3. Timetable D. lny..almcnt 1. Funding Public Benefits from TIF Funds 2. Funding Public Benefits and Land Acquisition from TIF Funds 3. Funding for Parking Garage E. =IQ. III. PROPERTY ACQUISITION IV. EXTENSION OF TIF DISTRICT 1. Extension of Development Projects 2. Future Public Benefits t D. Timetable V. VILLAGE'S INVESTMENT A. B. Funding Mic Doefits and Land Acquisition from TIE Eunda C. Funding Wr Wyatt Purposea 1. Not Allowable from TIF Funds 2. Maximum of 5% of Tax -Exempt Bond Issue 3. Allowable from General Funds VI. DEVELOPER AGREEMENT A. Fusibility Qf thg Ergygsed Dey&IQ2ment 1. Property Acquisition Restrictions 2. Contribution Restrictions 3. Payment for Land Acquisition 4. Financial Projections B. Yillage Conditions Finalize C. Deveh2mr VII. PROJECT TIMETABLE II A VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Village Property Owners Broadacre Alternate Issues Decisions Decisions rinions Plans Property Acquisition Use All Available Willing Powers —NO Seller NO YES Private Development N W Electric /Project NO YES Extension of TIF Pine/Wille Block— NO I Entire Triangle D. Project Investment Public Improvements— NO I Public Improvements NO-- Contribute L NO Land Costs NO I Parking Contribution— NO Parking Costs —NO �-- — E. Developer Agreement Acceptable Terms NO YES - ---�-_ _ Acceptable Terms NO �-- YES Project Approval MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SIGN REVIEW BOARD September 14, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: "0' 0 ' CLERK'S I0,Q i SEP '4 F1992 The regular meeting of the Sign Review Board (SRB) was officially called to order by Chairperson Adelaide Thulin at 7:35 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 1992 at the Village Mall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.. ROLL CALL: Members of the SRB present: Richard Rogers, Warren Kostak, Elizabeth Luxem, Hal Predovich and Chairperson Adelaide Thulin. Also present were Nick Gianaris; President of Triangle Sign Company; Gregory Dose, Attorney for Charles Vavrus; Donald Anderson, Park National Bank; Attorney for Park National Bank and Kenneth Fritz, Economic Develop- ment Coordinator. VA K4J .. t This case was referred back to the Sign Review Board by the Village Board of Trustees. The petitioner seeks a text amendment of the Sign Ordinance, Section 7.330 and Section 7.701 to create a special use for off -premise signs. This case was continued from August 31 at the request of the petitioner. The Sign Review Board had earlier heard the request to amend the text of the Ordinance on April 20 and May 4. The action taken by the Sign Review Board at the May 4 meeting was to recommend denial of the text amendment for off -premise signs as a special use to the Village Board. The motion passed 4 ayes, 1 nay, Adelaide Thulin voting nay. amortizationThe awrequired interpretedconforming Charlie Club sign'to be corrected as of January 1, 1992. The ordina�nce wl off -premise and therefore n permiti ted to be placed on another property. Erroneous information was presented at the May 4 public hearing which indicated that Mr. Vavrus at one time owned the parcel of land subsequently purchased by Park National Bank. Mr. Vavrus indicated that he, at no time owned the Park National Bank parcel. He did, however, indicate that a sign easement was conveyed to him by the previous land owner at the time the Health Club was built on his property to the west. Mr. Vavrus also indicated that he paid for the improvements of Midway Drive and the deceleration lane on Elmhurst Road, in front of the Park National Bank. At the July 21 Village Board meeting, it was the general consensus of the Mayor and Village Board that staff, together with the private parties involved, namely, Park National Bank and Charlie dub work together toward a solution that would result in Park National Bank and Charlie Club having freestanding signs adjacent to Elmhurst Road. It was recognized, the first step toward such a resolution was to amend the text of the ordinance to permit off - premise business identification signs as a special use. Thereafter, a separate request would Sign Review Board Minutes Page 2 be made to the Sign Review Board to seek a special use permit for an off -premise business identification sign. In the afternoon of September 14, Mr. Charles Vavrus, owner of Charlie Club, Greg Dose, attorney for Charlie Club, and Donald Anderson, Senior Vice President of the Park National Bank met with Messrs. Fritz and Clements to discuss a possible solution to signage issues regarding Charlie Club and Park National Bank. The following conclusions resulted from this meeting: 1. Park National Bank suggested a separate sign for Charlie Club and Park National Bank. The Bank's suggestion was to install a Park National Bank sign 'adjacent to Elmhurst Road, centered on their building, and for Charlie Club" to install a sign on the south parkway of Midway Drive on public right-of-way. 2. Neither party desired to share a sign because of the need for separate identification. 3. Mr. Vavrus ,wished to place a new sign meeting the new criteria for area height and setback on the recorded sign easement granted to him earlier in 1980. 4. Staff worked on a.proposed text amendment which offered a potential solution which: a. Makes a distinction between business identification signs and outdoor advertising or billboard signs, b. Properly addresses the unusual nature and circumstances of a sign on contiguous property not having direct access to a major roadway. c. Permits signage adjacent to Elmhurst Road for Park National Bank. As a result of this meeting, staff together with the attorney for Charlie Club, Mr. Dose, proposed a text amendment to be added to the special use section of the Sign` Ordinance that would permit off -premise business identification signs when contiguous to a parcel having major street frontage, provided there is no increase in the number' of freestanding signs on the property allowed by the ordinance. After carefully taking into consideration the facts in the case as updated by Mr. Vavrus, Mr. Dose and Mr. Anderson, as well as the staff recommendation for a solution, a motion was made by Hal Predovich, seconded by Elizabeth Luxem that stated Section 7.701 be modified by adding the phrase, "and off -premise business identification signs," and adding 'a new paragraph e. to Section 7.330 entitled "Off -Premises Business Identification Signa" spelling out conditions that would provide that; a. the sign directs attention to a business located on the lot adjacent to the lot on which the sign is located. Sign Review Board Minutes Page 3 b. the sign may contain changeable copy directing attention to products, services, and promotions of the identified business provided the standards of Section 7.325.E are met; c. the sign must be on a lot which is adjacent to a major arterial street; d. an easement or a license must have been granted allowing erection of the sign; and the number of freestanding signs allowed by this Chapter on a lot on which the sign is located shall not be increased. The vote on the motion was 5 ayes, 0 nays. 1 Mr. Nicholas Gianaris, construction manager for Lunan Family Restaurant, owners of the Shoney's franchise in Mount Prospect, presented his case for increasing the number of lines of changeable copy, from two to five on the new freestanding sign. The sign is located at the southwest corner of Golf and Elmhurst Roads. This request was earlier denied by the Sign Review Board at the special meeting on August 31. Through a mis-comm, unication between business owner and sign company, no one was present to make the presentation. in Shoney's behalf. They therefore asked the Board at the next regular meeting to reconsider their action and open up the meeting for public testimony from the petitioner. The motion to reconsider was made by Mr. Predovich, seconded by Mr. Rogers to open the discussion. Mr. Gianarls .indicated in his presentation that the existing reader board contains five lines of copy, is a vital factor in the marketing of Shoney's menu to the customer. He stated that Shoney's offers three distinct meal periods during the day to three very different audiences. Each meal period has the ability to offer special promotions to entice people to visit Shoney's at that specific period. He indicated they use the reader board to advertise the specials during all these meal periods. He vent on to say that Shoney's traffic is impulse motivated and the reader board provides the necessary opportunity to communicate on this level. He also stated that to lose the customers attracted by the reader board, they would be unable to maximize their sales potential projected for this location. They have spent an estimated over $325,000 for equipment and training costs of employees; and at the same time retaining 35 original WAG employees. He said that any less than 5 lines of changeable copy makes it difficult to communicate any message. It was pointed out in the staff report that they were seeking relief through a special use equity Caption on the basis of trading -Gaff lines of permanent items of information for additional lines of changeable copy. The existing sign has only one word, "Shoney's" instead of the maximum of six permanent items of information together with two lines of changeable copy. Mr. Fritz passed a copy of photographs showing the passing traffic at this location. He suggested that three lines of changeable copy seemed appropriate given the trade-off, but that the two lower lines of copy were sometimes obscured by standing and moving traffic pass the sign. Sign Review Board Minutes Page 4 Motion A motion was made by Mr. Rogers, seconded by Mr. Predovich, to approve increasing the lines of changeable copy to three on the basis of the trade-off of permanent items of information. It was also noted that there is but one wall sign instead of the potential of three as permitted by ordinance. It was then on the basis of these notations that a vote was taken on the motion. The motion was 5 ayes and 0 nays. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Kenneth H. Fritz, Ecodomic D' v16p ent Coordinator