HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/22/2008MAYOR
Irvana K. Wilks
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Arlene A. Juracek
A. John Kom
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michael A. Zadel
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Meeting Location:
Mount Prospect Village Hall
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Irvana K.
Trustee Timothy Corcoran
Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Arlene Juracek
III. CLOSED SESSION
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
M. Lisa Angell
Phone: 847/392.6000
Fax 847/392-6022
uww.mountprosnect.orr
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday
April 22, 2008
6:00 P.M.
Wilks
Trustee A. John Korn
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer
Trustee Michael Zadel
LITIGATION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (11) - Litigation, when an action against,
affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is
pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body
finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for
the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed
meeting.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING
SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON
STREET, 847/392-6000, TDD 847/392-6064.
m 1i
�Wgr ofAn nl'$rarlprrl _TTT
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Village Board Room, Mount Prospect Village Hall
50 South Emerson Street
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Irvana Wilks
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee John Korn
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michael Zadel
Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer
II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2008
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. RETAIL CONSULTANT REPORT
As part of the development of a Village -wide marketing plan, it was determined that a
Retail Market Analysis would be useful in providing a framework and strategic direction to
move forward in marketing the Village to prospective retailers and businesses. In
December 2007, Business Districts Inc. (BDI) was hired to perform the study. BDI was
tasked with the following:
■ Understand and evaluate Mount Prospect's existing retail and restaurant
development at Mount Prospect's Downtown, Randhurst Shopping Center
North Sector), and South Sector retail districts;
• Identify and provide a comprehensive demographic analysis of target markets
for each retail district;
■ Determine the investor opportunities for retail and restaurant uses in each
Mount Prospect district;
■ Incorporate, those identified investor opportunities and target markets into a
comprehensive Retail Development Strategy;
At the core of the report is the situation audit; a "where -do -we -go -from -here" diagnosis of
the community's economic and physical conditions as well as market demographics and
retail mix. From this analysis, a strategic plan was developed highlighting specific,
actionable steps.
Updates on the report were given to the Village Board of Trustees at the Retail 1-2-3
workshop held on December 11, 2007 and at the Branding Workshop on February 26. The
consultant will present the Executive Summary of the report at tonight's meeting. Once
input and feedback is received from the Village Board of Trustees, the final report will be
issued.
Appropriate staff and the consultant will be present to answer questions and facilitate
discussion.
V. VILLAGE PHONE SYSTEM
The Village's current phone system (Fujitsu9600) was purchased in 1993 and has reached
the end of its useful life due to new replacement parts no longer being available and the
system management complexities that can be eliminated with new technology. As part of
the 2008 Budget and a Village Board objective, staff undertook the process to replace the
Village phone system. Staff obtained significant assistance from an independent
telecommunications consultant, David Wilson, Wilson Consulting. With assistance from
Wilson Consulting staff undertook departmental user focus group discussions that were
formulated into a RFP for a replacement system.
Once the RFP's were received, staff and Wilson Consulting evaluated the responses and
ranked the submittals prior to personal on-site visits to the final four vendors. After an
additional round of evaluation of the final four vendors, staff and Wilson Consulting are
recommending replacing the current Village phone system with a Voice Over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) system.
Staff will be presenting its findings and recommendation to the Village Board. David
Wilson, Wilson Consulting and appropriate staff will be present to make a presentation and
answer any questions.
VI. MANAGER'S REPORT
VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION:
PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1) - The appointment, employment, compensation,
discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including
hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity.
PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (2) - Collective negotiating matters between the public body and
its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or
more classes or employees.
LAND ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5) - The purchase or lease of real property for the use
of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular
parcel should be acquired.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,8471392-6000
EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES
March 25, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village
Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Arlene Juracek, John Korn, Richard
Lohrstorfer, and Michael Zadel. Staff present were Village Manager Michael Janonis,
Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Finance Director David
Erb, Community Development Director William Cooney, Village Engineer Jeff
Wulbecker, Village Attorney Everette Hill, and Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas.
11. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of February 12, 2008, was made by Trustee Korn and
seconded by Trustee Juracek. Minutes were approved. Trustees Lorhstorfer and Zadel
abstained.
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
IV. FIRE STATION 14 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
Fire Chief Michael Figolah provided a brief overview of the Phase I Facility
Improvements (Fire Station 14, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and Public Works
construction) project. First, he stated that the Village continues to meet with the River
Trails School District 26 and River Trails Park District to negotiate a land agreement. He
noted that he is confident that a land agreement can be reached. Second, he
recommended that Village staff issue a request for proposals (RFP) to select a
construction manager for the project. He noted that SRBL Architects will help draft the
RFP and manage the selection process. Finally, he recommended that the Village
negotiate a design services contract with SRBL Architects to conduct the design
services for the Phase 1 facility improvements. In support of his recommendation, he
claimed that SRBL Architects designed Fire Station 12 under budget and on-time, and is
satisfied with their performance thus far. He stated that the design services potentially
provided by SRBL would include the schematic design, design development, and
construction documents. He indicated that the Village would be free to halt or abandon
the project at any time. As further support for his recommendation, he opined that the
Village could save money on construction costs if they adopted his recommendation.
General comments or concerns from the Village Board members included the following:
• SRBL is not the only company that can provide design services for fire stations.
■ In general, the Village receives a better work product when it uses the RFP
process.
• In the past, the Village has used the RFP process to hire a design firm for
municipal building projects.
• Postponing the project by 3-4 months in order to use the RFP process will not
jeopardize the community's public safety.
• Others suggest that the 3-4 months necessary for a RFP process is an
unnecessary delay.
• Admittedly, the fire department has a good working relationship with SRBL.
■ There are other reasons to hire a firm to conduct services, other than low prices,
including the firm's experience and existing relationships with the Village.
■ The construction of the EOC as well as the replacement of Fire Station 14 are
very high priorities and should be considered when making this decision.
• There is a desire to have more public meetings between staff and the Board
regarding this project.
• There is also a desire to hire a design firm with EOC design or construction
experience.
Gene Quirini, 2003 East Hopi Lane, was concerned that the public was not being
included in the discussion of the Phase I Facility Improvement process.
Mike Brown 2005 East Hopi Lane, was worried that the size of the proposed fire
station was too large and too expensive.
Village Manager Michael Janonis briefly summarized the reasons why Fire Station 14
is being replaced with a new fire station and the public process that has occurred thus
far. He noted that SRBL originally went through a RFP process in order to conduct the
space needs analysis for the project. He acknowledged that the fall 2008 project
construction start date articulated by staff is an aggressive goal. He stated that if the
Board chooses to use a RFP process in selecting a design firm, that a single RFP
should be drafted to select both the design firm (architect) and construction manager.
There was no majority consensus in favor of staff's recommendation to negotiate a
design services contract with SRBL Architects. As such, the decision to negotiate with
SRBL or use the RFP process to hire a design firm was postponed until the next Board
meeting, on April 1, 2008.
V. IDOT JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER DISCUSSION
Prior to his discussion on jurisdictional transfers, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker
briefly identified two road projects, Busse Road (Golf to Higgens) and the west portion of
Kensington Road (Route 83 and Forest), that IDOT has agreed to patch and resurface
during 2008. As part of the agreement to resurface the west portion of Kensington, he
acknowledged that the Village must add the section of roadway into the Village IDOT
Maintenance Agreement for snow removal. After his discussion regarding (DOT's 2008
construction plans, he began his presentation on jurisdictional transfers. He described
three separate sections of Kensington Road, currently owned and maintained by IDOT,
that require significant improvements. He explained that state funding constraints and
the streets priority within IDOT's inventory would limit future improvements to
resurfacing. To address this issue, he recommended that the Village Board consider
jurisdictional transfers of these sections of Kensington Road in exchange for Village
preferred improvements. In support of his recommendation, he identified issues
associated with each of the road sections, explained proposed improvements, and noted
2
the localized benefits. He stated that obtaining the Village's preferred road
improvements (including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm sewers, street lights, and
traffic signals) are the primary benefit to a jurisdictional transfer, whereas accepting the
road's future ownership and maintenance responsibility is the primary weakness.
General comments or concerns from the Village Board members included the following:
• Would like staff to identify future maintenance expense estimates and design life
associated with road sections.
■ Concern that state funding may not be available to match federal funding.
• As a part of any jurisdictional transfer, want to design any proposed road
improvements so that road will last.
■ Is the Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funded according to the number of miles a
municipality maintains?
■ Curious if business owners could be included as a possible funding source.
■ Jurisdictional transfer is an excellent opportunity to improve roads to Village
standards.
• Concern about future maintenance costs and lack of state accountability.
Public Works Director Glen Andler acknowledged as a part of IDOT's agreement to
patch and resurface the west portion of Kensington Road (between Route 83 and
Forest) that the Village would have to conduct minor patch and repair work in the future,
in addition to the snow removal.
Village Manager Michael Janonis briefly described the road improvement selection
process through the Northwest Municipal Conference and what happens to federal
funds if there is no state or local funding available. In response to a question about the
MFT, he stated that it is a flat tax based on consumption and not based on the miles of
road the Village maintains. To address the Board's funding concerns, he stated that the
Village may have to consider funding some portion of the improvements depending on
what level of sustainability the Board desires.
There was Board consensus to further explore jurisdictional transfer discussions with
IDOT.
VI. NOISE REGULATIONS
Village Manager Michael Janonis highlighted the changes made to the noise
regulations.
General comments or concerns from the Village Board members included the following:
• Need language to exempt a school bus.
• Need language to permit exceptions for emergency situations (no time to provide
12 hour notice) and define what an emergency is.
■ Concern that events at park district locations would be limited by noise
regulations.
• Desire to change language from "his or her" to more gender neutral.
■ Need to ensure that snow removal, street sweeping, and other municipal
operations are unaffected by these regulations.
• Clarify what is meant by a "device."
3
Village Attorney Everette Hill addressed the Board's concerns and agreed to revise the
regulations accordingly.
The Noise Regulations ordinance is scheduled for a first reading on April 15, 2008.
VII. MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that the Village Hall will be open on
Saturdays, from 9 am — 12 pm, through the entire month of April so that residents can
purchase their vehicle stickers. He stated that stickers must be purchased and
displayed by May 1 to avoid penalties. He noted that stickers could still be purchased
by mail.
VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. Trustee Arlene Juracek stated that the Earth Hour campaign is scheduled to take
place on Saturday, March 29, from 8-9 pm. To participate in the campaign, she
explained that individuals must turn off all non-essential lighting.
B. Trustee Paul Hoefert sought the support and approval from the Village Board to
stop the Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation proposal (redevelopment plan
for Sub -Area #1) from continuing forward to the Planning and Zoning Committee.
Additionally, he requested that the Board direct staff to conduct a RFP process for
Sub -Area #1. He addressed his concern regarding a staff memo in support of the
development.
Community Development Director William Community responded to concerns
regarding the staff memo.
Mayor Irvana Wilks briefly addressed Trustee Hoefert's comments and sought a
motion to adjourn the meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to move into closed session was made by Trustee Hoefert and seconded
by Trustee Zadel at 9:58 p.m. to discuss Litigation and Land Acquisition.
A motion was made to adjourn the Committee of the Whole meeting by Trustee
Zadel and seconded by Trustee Korn at 11:17 p.m.
4
Mount
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
DATE: APRIL 17, 2008
SUBJECT: RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS REPORT
Background
At the August 14, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Village Board discussed
pursuing the development of a marketing plan. One component of the proposal was to
conduct a retail market analysis. There was consensus from the Village Board to move
forward with this initiative. An RFP was issued, and Business Districts Inc. (BDI) was
hired to conduct the study.
Discussion
BDI was retained to provide a report detailing the following:
• Understand and evaluate Mount Prospect's existing retail and restaurant
development at Mount Prospect's Downtown, Randhurst Shopping Center North
Sector), and South Sector retail districts;
• Identify and provide a comprehensive demographic analysis of target markets for
each retail district;
• Determine the investor opportunities for retail and restaurant uses in each Mount
Prospect district;
• Incorporate, those identified investor opportunities and target markets into a
comprehensive Retail Development Strategy;
Updates on the report were given to the Village Board of Trustees at the Retail 1-2-3
workshop held on December 11, 2007 and at the Branding Workshop on February 26.
At the core of the report is the situation audit; a "where -do -we -go -from -here" diagnosis
of our community's economic and physical conditions as well as market demographics
and retail mix. From this analysis, a strategic plan was developed highlighting specific,
actionable steps.
Retail Market Analysis Report
April 17, 2008
Page 2
Conclusion
This preliminary report focuses on the Executive Summary of the larger, final report.
Once input and feedback is received from the Village Board of Trustees and interested
citizens, the final report will be issued.
Retail Market Analysis:
Preliminary Report
March 2008
Prepared for.
Village of Mount Prospect
Prepared by:
Business Districts, Inc.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................
Background......................................................
Methodology.....................................................
V'II AMA M k t Re 'ew
.................................................... 3
.................................................... 6
iage- i e ar a vi ..................................................
CoreConcepts......................................................................
Existing Village -Wide Conditions ..........................................
MarketContext......................................................................
Village -Wide Market Review Summary ................................
Retail Opportunity Analysis ..................................................
SituationAudit.......................................................................
Retail Opportunity Analysis Summary ..................................
.................................... 7
.................................... 8
.................................... 9
..................................15
..................................16
..................................19
.................................. 20
.................................. 21
.................................. 23
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 2
Executive Summary
Business Districts, Inc. (BDI) was asked to provide a Retail Market Analysis to the Village of
Mount Prospect. The goals of that effort included:
• Evaluating Mount Prospect's existing retail and restaurant development in Downtown,
Randhurst Shopping Center (North Sector), and South Sector retail districts;
• Identifying and providing a comprehensive demographic analysis of target markets
for each retail district;
• Determining the investor opportunities for retail and restaurant uses in each Mount
Prospect district;
• Incorporating those identified investor opportunities and target markets into a
comprehensive Retail Development Strategy.
The report that follows presents the results of that analysis. Key findings of this report include:
1. Mount Prospect's primary opportunity to attract high volume retailers is new market
entrants because it no longer has the large vacant land parcels that bring new
residential subdivisions and significant additional spending.
2. Each cluster has access to a market sufficient to attract successful convenience
tenants. Randhurst also has the opportunity to attract from the larger region.
3. Retail businesses find Mount Prospect locations attractive because their market size
and minimum traffic criteria are met.
4. Many Mount Prospect locations suffer from poor access due to IDOT access
restrictions.
5. Mount Prospect is fortunate to have anchors in its primary clusters. The challenge is
protecting those anchors as high volume tenants seek to modernize their appeal to
this market.
6. Mount Prospect can leverage public incentives to ensure that developers bring quality
ground floor tenants to projects.
7. As vacancies occur in Mount Prospect, lowering rents is not likely to fill the space.
The key to filling vacancies is the much more difficult task of strengthening anchors
and attracting co -tenants that enhance the center's sales' potential.
8. It is important that the community determine how staff time should be prioritized
because restaurants and unique boutiques desired by residents often take as long to
recruit as the high volume retailers that bring significant sales tax.
9. Although Mount Prospect's sales tax revenue increased 11.2% from 2000 to 2006,
that increase is significantly less than the 3% annual inflation rate that increased
prices 21 % during this time.
10. With sales and purchasing power in relative balance, Mount Prospect is competing
well with surrounding communities. A successful redevelopment at Randhurst should
make Mount Prospect more competitive and bring increased sales tax revenue.
11. Mount Prospect's North Sector is producing three times more sales tax revenue than
the other sectors and must be protected from sales erosion to preserve the
community's significant sales tax revenue.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
Retail Development Highlights by Sector
As this Retail Market Analysis reports, Mount Prospect has a diverse and vital retail
environment. It faces the challenge of developing policies that improve some aging and
declining centers, provide support for well -anchored properties seeking to follow the latest in
shopping center development trends, and continue its progress revitalizing Downtown Mount
Prospect. Based on market information, the staff and consultants propose this goal to frame
Retail Development recommendations:
Mount Prospect should be a place where:
• Sales tax revenue contributes at least 15% of total Village revenue;
• High quality shopping clusters create a favorable image for residents, visitors, and
investors;
Property and business owners believe that reasonable returns on investments are likely.
The full report provides detailed implementation action plans to capitalize on these
opportunities.
Village -Wide Opportunities
1. Capitalize on branding
2. Prioritize Village financial incentives to maximize return on investment
3. Continue collaborating with property owners
4. Investigate creating a community development corporation (CDC)
South Sector Opportunities
Golf/Busse
1. Golf Plaza I: Enhance ethnic connectivity
2. Mount Prospect Commons: Support food and entertainment focus
Algonquin/Busse/Dempster (ABD)
1. Improve tenant quality
2. Foster a mutually beneficial collaboration with center ownership
Elmhurst Corridor
1. Enhance a regional ethnic appeal
2. Develop supportive ethnic event(s)
3. Attract additional ethnic tenants—retail and office
KIMCO Property
1. Gain KIMCO's interest in improving this center
2. Co-ordinate with RecPlex
Golf Plaza II
1. Foster a mutually beneficial collaboration with center ownership
2. Coordinate with Des Plaines
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 4
North Sector Opportunities
Randhurst
1. Keep approval process focused on the facts
2. Work to mitigate any potential construction issues
Mount Prospect Plaza
1. Foster a mutually beneficial collaboration with center ownership
2. Maximize revenue potential of combined property for Village
3. Improve image of center
Randhurst Area
1. Develop comprehensive approach to the area
2. Seek redevelopment over remodeling
3. Anchored Centers: Retain major revenue contributors in area
4. Unanchored Centers: Improve image of centers
Downtown Opportunities
1. Increase downtown's employment base by adding office uses
2. Add rental residential development within downtown
3. Enable sustainable tenanting for Downtown's ground floor space
4. Differentiate Downtown's experience from Randhurst and neighboring communities
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
Background
The Village of Mount Prospect asked Business Districts, Inc. (BDI) to:
• Evaluate Mount Prospect's existing retail and restaurant development in the South
retail sector, the North Sector surrounding Randhurst Shopping Center, and
Downtown;
• Identify and provide a comprehensive demographic analysis of target markets for
each retail district;
• Compare Mount Prospects' programs to successfully maximize retail development to
the programs in comparison communities that have similar markets;
• Determine the investor opportunities for retail and restaurant uses in each Mount
Prospect district;
• Incorporate, those identified investor opportunities and target markets into a
comprehensive Retail Development Strategy;
• Qualify leads for retail recruitment to Mount Prospect.
This report summarizes these project elements and documents information assembled and
exchanged at interim meetings with staff and presentations to the business community. It
provides an overview of national and regional development trends and Village sales tax
revenue. For each cluster, it profiles existing property conditions, projects sales potential,
examines the available market, and offers an improvement strategy.
Mount Prospect is a prosperous northwest suburban community where residents value their
family oriented lifestyles, the excellence of the schools, and a long history of quality retail
development. With the increasing interest in mixing uses on properties throughout the United
States, Downtown Mount Prospect is undergoing a transformation as its density increases to
conform to current, mixed-use trends. At the same time, investors are considering
redeveloping Mount Prospect's largest sales tax producer, Randhurst, and aging shopping
centers in the Mount Prospect's southern sector are challenged to retain their tenants. This
Retail Market Analysis seeks to support the Village's continuous improvement efforts by
identifying the market demand for retail growth that would be both appropriate and financially
feasible for Mount Prospect. It recognizes that economic development in complete
communities connects homes, jobs, shopping, recreation, and entertainment. It also
highlights the need for the market, property owner resources, and municipal entitlement to
align for projects to happen.
Figure 1: Economic Development
Market
Project
Resources IE
Figure 2: Project Development
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
Methodology
Because retail location decisions by the high volume businesses that bring significant sales
tax are based on standard models and national databases, those sources were used for this
report. The consultant team interviewed property owners and applied the same principles that
site selection specialists use to create a profile of each center. This outsider perspective
ignores the history and focuses on preparing to make the best impression on future decision
makers.
A Village of Mount Prospect business list was field verified by the consultants. Appendix 1
reflects that verification in a comprehensive and updated business list as well as a more
detailed review of each center's retail tenant mix and vacancies. Tenant spaces within each
cluster were categorized as Anchors, Stores, Restaurants, Services, or Vacant. Each
category was assigned a point value representing its potential to attract customer visits and
therefore contribute to the center's viability. The "Big 5 retailers," warehouse stores, mass
merchandisers, grocery stores, home centers, and auto dealerships were assigned 30 points.
Smaller anchors, such as drug stores and hardware stores, were assigned 10 points. All
other businesses were assigned 1 point each. The overall score allowed a ranking that
highlights the centers with the strongest draw based on tenanting. Applying national averages
and BDI local market adjustments, Table 1 was used to assign sales potential by tenant type
and estimate total sales for each cluster.
Table 1: Sales Potential Estimates by Use
Category
Use
Sales Estimate
Big 5
Warehouse
$120,000,000
Mass Merchandiser
$50,000,000
Grocery Store
$20,000,000
Home Center
$30,000,000
Other Anchor
Large
$10,000,000
Small
$5,000,000
Restaurant
National
$2,000,000
Local Table Service
$800,000
Local or Sandwich Franchise
$400,000
Fast Food
Store
National
$2,000,000
Local
$400,000
As the analysis of Mount Prospect's shopping clusters continues, this table's category volume
estimates can project future sales.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
Village -Wide Market Review
Throughout the country, retail centers seek to attract a specific type of shopping and visit
frequency. The International Council of Shopping Centers tracks the evolution of shopping
center development and establishes categories to help developers and stores understand the
optimum size and offering to accommodate each type of shopping. Table 2 below explains
the categories of retail centers that have evolved to offer clusters of stores tailored to specific
customer needs.
Table 2: Shopping Center Types
ICSC SHOPPING CENTER DEFINITIONS -U.S.
TYPE OF SHOPPING CENTER
CONCEPT
SQUARE FEET
(INCLUDING ANCHORS)
ACREAGE
TYPICALANCHOR(S)
ANCHOR
RATIO
PRIMARY
TRADE AREA'
NUMBER
TYPE
Regional (enter
General merchandise;
400,000-800,000
40-100
2 or more
Full -line department
50-70%
5-15 miles
fashion (mall,
store; jr. department
typically enclosed)
store; mass merchant;
discount department
store; fashion apparel
Superregional Center
Similar to regional
800,000
60-120
3 or more
Full -line department
50-7030
5-25 miles
center but has more
store, jr. department
variety and
store; mass merchant:
assortment
fashion apparel
OPEN-AIR
Neighborhood Center
Convenience
30,000-150,000
3-15
1 or more
Supermarket
30-5030
3 miles
Community (enter
General merchandise,
IK000-350,000
10-40
2 or more
Discount department
40-6030
3-6 miles
convenience
store; supermarket;
drug; home improve-
ment; large specialty/
discount apparel
Lifestyle Center
Upscale national
Typically 150;000-500,000
10.40
0-2
Not usually anchored
0-500
8-12 miles
chain specialty
but can he smaller
in the traditional
stores; (lining and
or larger
sense but may include
entertainment in
book store; other
outdoor setting,
large -format specialty
retailers; multi-plex
cinema; small
department store.
Power Center
(ategory-dominant
250,000-600,000
25-80
3 or more
Category killer; home
75-90%
5-10 miles
anchors; few small
improvement; discount
tenants
department store;
warehouse dub;
off-price
Theme, Festival Center
Leisure; tourist-orieni-
80.000-250,000
5-20
N/A
Restaurants,
N/A
N/A
ed: retail and service
entertainment
Outlet Center
Manufacturer,'
50,000-400,000
10-50
N/A
Manufacturers'
N/A
25-75 miles
outlet stores
outlet stores
The share of a center's total square footage that is altribuk+blo to its anchors: " The area from which 6o.80of the canter's safes originala.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
When a community's residents are within the primary trade area of these shopping options,
developers view the trade area as adequately served by stores, and consequently, it is
unlikely to be chosen for new shopping center development. Investors successfully create
new centers as the population grows and when new competitors enter the market. The
added population increases the buying power, and therefore, increases the amount of retail
space supported. New retail space for new competitors is built not to improve the overall
delivery of service, but to capture market share from weaker operations. If executives of the
new market entrant believe that consumers will choose their product over the existing
competitor's offering, they develop a new store and go to battle. If the new competitor was
correct, the result is a vacant anchor in an aging center. Nationwide, there are vacant K -Marts
and thriving Targets; vacant Builder's Squares and thriving Home Depots. The planning
challenge for communities is to determine how best to use their resources to keep existing
centers vital in the face of this competitive business practice.
Implications for Mount Prospect: Mount Prospect's primary opportunity to attract high
volume retailers is new market entrants, because it has few opportunities to add significantly
to its population. As large format national chains adjust their regional strategies, it is important
to monitor the implications for Mount Prospect stores. If there is an existing Mount Prospect
national chain that announces a strategy or ownership change, the Village needs to make its
willingness to collaborate to achieve that strategy's success known. For example, Wal-Mart
recently announced initiatives to remodel stores and create smaller food markets. They
continually evaluate location potential and close stores. With an aging Wal-Mart at Mount
Prospect Plaza, the Village should carefully monitor the status of that store. Early and
frequent contact with the property owner and local Wal-Mart executives shows interest in the
company's investment and provides an opportunity to prove that public private partnerships
can enhance store performance.
At the same time, it is important to stay abreast of new market entrants. In the grocery
category, Woodman's has entered the market; an English grocer, Tesco, has announced
plans to have 1,000 stores in the United States within three years. In a later section of this
report examining specific centers, how such stores might view specific Mount Prospect
locations is considered. Again, strong relationships with site owners who potentially could
attract large format businesses prepare Mount Prospect for new businesses better than other
communities without those relationships. Knowing Mount Prospect's interest in public-private
partnerships to develop different sites is a strong incentive to attract the best retail
businesses.
The owner of Randhurst recently announced a major redevelopment designed to revitalize
the center. That also is an important opportunity to create modern space designed to capture
top performing stores and restaurants.
Core Concepts
Regardless of whether the decision to develop a shopping center is to satisfy an underserved
market or to gain a competitive foothold, there are core concepts that underlie the choice of a
retail development site. While all core concepts are rarely in perfect alignment for any given
retail development site, the more that are present, obviously contribute to the likely success of
a particular site.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008
Retail Follows Residential. There must be a large enough, close enough residential
base before the market will support construction of a shopping center. Although office
workers are another important market that can convert a marginally successful retail
district into a very successful one, local residents are the backbone of each
community's commercial areas. The significance of office is its importance to a strong
food and beverage offering. A significant concentration of offices adds a lunch seating
and "cocktail hour" that can increase restaurant business by up to 1/3. The
importance of this add-on market becomes apparent when one considers how
negatively any business would be impacted by a 10% to 20% decline in sales.
Although the residents are the rationale for the stores, the sales to office workers add
profits that allow businesses to grow and owners to prosper.
Implications for Mount Prospect. With the charge of determining supportable retail
development, it is important to understand the customer populations surrounding
Mount Prospects' commercial clusters. Table 3 documents the three-mile specialty
market and 5 -minute drive time convenience market associated with Mount
Prospect's primary commercial clusters.
Table 3: Mount Prospect Market Characteristics
3 Miles
Randhurst Downtown
Basic Variables 2007
5 Minutes
Dempster Dempster
& 83 Randhurst Downtown &83
Population
118,967
125,413
93,951
34,313
32,379
30,656
Average Household Size
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Total Population Median Age
40.6
39.9
37.9
42.2
41.5
36.1
% College Educated
68.6%
66.6%
60.9%
67.8%
69.0%
55.3%
% In Current Residence 5 Plus Years
44.1
41.0
36.2
47.8
50.9
26.4
Median Household Income
$75,855
$70,764
$64,241
$77,122
$78,325
$55,911
Income $ 75,000 Plus
23,155
22,699
14,524
6,796
6,549
3,891
Total Employees
58,891
81,815
116,535
20,470
18,245
57,780
Consumer Expenditure 2007
Total Retail Expenditure
$1,162,706,191
$1,176,617,377
$787,066,101
$341,589,803
$317,459,780
$233,908,222
Eating & Drinking
$142,221,208
$143,579,522
$95,745,426
$41,767,041
$38,841,787
$28,296,885
Grocery Stores
$202,547,542
$206,504,690
$140,670,491
$59,417,982
$55,386,041
$42,452,973
Pharmacy and Drug Stores
$31,563,239
$32,015,933
$21,544,343
$9,257,109
$8,619,242
$6,428,820
With grocery stores needing approximately 25,000 people within a quick drive to
support their sales, each cluster has access to a market sufficient to attract successful
convenience tenants. The 100,000 residents within the 3 -mile radius are sufficient to
support community level shopping. The restaurant supporting employment is
especially strong in South Sector.
2. Visibility is critical. Stores must be visible to a large enough pedestrian and/or
vehicular population. Although repeat customers are the lifeblood of any business,
there also must be a steady flow of new customers. Those customers are much
easier to attract when a large population sees the business every day. Studies by
national restaurateurs and retailers suggest that about 20,000 vehicles and/or
pedestrians per day pass the most vital retail businesses.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 10
Woo
-
I 11i�11 111rI� � = �
r
I rI
as P lain -3
Thacker St T
- o li, -1
oCD
CD—
WrT
$Oe�cton St
x 28110 f
��' � � �,'+J �akt0[t St
Qakter� St r {1
0 E i G sn • Qs ; I llina is OOT sNAVTEQ 28o� •
Figure 3: Average Daily Traffic
Implications for Mount Prospect. Retail site selection specialists are attracted by
the multiple Mount Prospect locations where their minimum traffic criteria are met.
3. Visual and physical access must be easy. Signalized intersections allow traffic to
easily enter and exit parking lots. They also stop pedestrians and automobiles,
causing people to see signs and advertising. For those reasons, properties at
signalized intersections are the most desired locations for high traffic retail centers. At
sites with the best access, customers see the business or its signage and then have
sufficient time to safely maneuver through traffic to a full access signalized entrance.
This usually requires at least two entrances along each major road, one entrance for
those who planned to enter and an `bops" entrance for those making a quick
decision, perhaps after seeing the first entrance.
Implications for Mount Prospect: Because access points slow traffic and are the
cause of accidents, Illinois Department of Transportation policy restricts access on
strategic regional arterials like Rand, Golf, and Elmhurst Roads. As the later site -by -
site analysis will discuss, many Mount Prospect locations suffer from poor access due
to these restrictions. The complicated intersection of Rand, Elmhurst, and Kensington
makes it difficult for businesses to capitalize on Randhurst's strong customer draw.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/1812008 11
4. Anchors hold the position. The concept of modern shopping centers is that
consumers are attracted by a high volume business, the anchor, and then notice and
purchase the offering of adjacent smaller stores. Today that pattern has been
modified by the concept of Lifestyle Centers where a cluster of well-known smaller
stores combines to fulfill the anchor function. Each type of shopping center fits a
specific anchor:
Table 4: Shopping Center Anchors
Convenience Center Gas Station or Convenience Store
Neighborhood Center National Drug Store or Small Grocer
Community Center Multiple Grocers or Mass Merchandiser
Regional Center 2 or more Department Stores
Lifestyle/Fashion Center Apparel Cluster
When centers are anchorless, often due to the closing of a business, the property is
less stable, because tenants are constantly seeking anchored locations where they
can achieve higher volume from numerous customers at adjacent anchors. Anchors
require concessions because they are so important to a developer's success. In the
absence of a public private partnership, the developer concession is lower rent,
generally no more than $11 per square foot. The tenants who rely on the anchor's
draw pay double or triple the anchor's rate, and the shopping center owner makes an
acceptable return from the average of anchor and non -anchor rent. Developers have
difficulty financially justifying retrofitting for a new or replacement anchor for two
reasons --because there can be substantial construction costs, and because the
surrounding rents often are too low to create the average necessary for a reasonable
investment return. Rather than take the risk of adding an anchor, property owners
lower rents and accept tenants that add little to a center's drawing power.
Implications for Mount Prospect. With anchorless clusters a nation-wide problem
for aging centers like those studied for this report, Mount Prospect is fortunate to have
anchors in its primary clusters. The challenge is protecting those anchors as high
volume tenants seek to modernize their appeal to this market.
5. Development is Tenant Driven. The best retail and restaurant concepts have
achieved their exemplary results by tightly controlling execution of a well -crafted
concept. That concept usually requires a building specifically designed to meet the
retailer's needs; and therefore, it is critical that top tenants be consulted before a site
development concept is created. They often have location options, but cannot
compromise on the design of their structure. This need for design control leads to the
development process depicted in Figure 4.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 12
Retail Development Process
4 a, a Iqn e[ t�T
vn
w
S gkti C
n -o.
Rro �C
F�.� w
a
Figure 4: Development Process
Every municipality must balance community design standards and retailers' demand
for structures and signs that match a "brand concept" that may deviate from those
standards. The key to achieving a successful balance is flexibility from the developer,
the retailer, and the community. Unfortunately, that flexibility is pressured by the
"speed to market" demands of retailers. A concept that appeals to the existing market
must be executed before that market changes. Fear that negotiated approvals will
delay building can make one site less desirable than one where approval is expected
to be routine. The dotted lines in figure 4 show how communication between a
community's staff and a developer can minimize time delays and encourage the
development of strong, anchored centers.
Although understanding and enforcing the connection between high quality
commercial appearance and community image is important, it cannot be forgotten
that there is a similar connection between custom design and top quality
retail/restaurant tenants. Mixed-use development adds another layer of design
complexity when upper -story uses need a specific configuration to succeed. Although
tenant driven design and high quality appearance are not necessarily incompatible,
they must be carefully balanced before new commercial space is constructed. This
complex balancing often delays projects and leads communities to sacrifice the
needs of ground floor commercial in favor of the financial boost from allowing
expensive upper stories to fund a project
Implications for Mount Prospect. Mount Prospect can leverage public incentives to
ensure that developers bring quality ground floor tenants to projects.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 13
6. Co -tenancy drives long-term success. There must be enough similar tenants to
allow consumers to comparison shop. In the abstract, it makes sense that the ideal
retail development is a broad mix of businesses satisfying the "cradle to grave" needs
of local residents. But that concept defies the very term "shopping" because there
never could be enough space for enough business of all types for all residents to feel
that they had visited sufficient stores to be confident in their selection. Today's auto -
oriented retailing assumes that customers will travel for selection. Consequently,
while today all successful shopping districts offer convenience shopping, for example
a drug store, different shopping districts have evolved to satisfy varying niches for
other items. Strong retailers like to cluster near complementary and competitive
businesses. The trade calls these "co -tenants," because they know that an area with
that mix gets a reputation as "the place to go to shop for...."
Implications for Mount Prospect: Centers in Mount Prospect's Southern Sector
have appropriately begun to cluster around a specific ethnicity or a category like
restaurants. Health and fitness focuses and home improvement are concentrations
that might be appropriate as aging centers seek greater focus.
7. Operating results trump development costs. With rents, the ongoing
measurement of a location's development cost, typically targeted to be at most 10%
of sales, it is apparent that other operating costs have more impact on a store's or
restaurant's success. As table 5 below reveals, the profit of a retail business is much
more sensitive to higher sales than higher rent.
Table 5: Operating Results Projection
350.000
$50.000
Actual
$75,000
Actual
High Rent
Weak
Expected
Strong
Location
Sales $400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$600,000
Merchandise Cost $200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$300,000
Gross Margin $200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$300,000
Rent
350.000
$50.000
1 $50.000
$75,000
Salaries
$100,000
3100.000
$100;000
$100.000
Supplies
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$30,000
Reserve for repair
$12.500
$12,500
$12,500
$12,500
Advertising
5251000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
R01, Taxes & Profit
-$7,500
$37,500
$82,500
$57,500
A 20% decline in business, the impact that can occur from the closing of an anchor or
a bad buying decision, results in a loss. A 20% sales increase, often the result of
better co -tenants joining a center or smart buying, causes the return to more than
double. The high rent location column shows that, if that sales increase comes from
moving the business to a location that charges 50% higher rent—representing a
better development—there is a significant improvement in profitability. This analysis
reveals the rationale for "moving boxes" when new development occurs. It also
illustrates why it is so important for retail development to occur at superior locations.
Implications for Mount Prospect. As vacancies occur in Mount Prospect, lowering
rents is not likely to fill the space. The key to filling those vacancies is the much more
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/1812008 14
difficult task of attracting an anchor and attractive co -tenants that enhance the
opportunity for sales.
8. A few retailers provide the majority of sales taxes. With successful auto
dealerships, large format grocery stores, mass merchandisers, and home centers
each producing over $50 million in sales and $500,000 in sales taxes, it is important
to recognize their fiscal significance compared to convenience centers, fashion
centers, downtown, or drug store anchored centers where sales are $10 million to
$20 million for the whole center.
Implications for Mount Prospect: Mount Prospect has limited staff time. It is
important that the community determine how that time should be prioritized because
restaurants and unique boutiques desired by residents often take as long to recruit as
the high volume retailers that bring significant sales tax.
In the review that follows, these concepts are applied to Mount Prospect centers to identify
opportunities to strengthen various sites.
Existing Village -Wide Conditions
The best measure of Village -wide retail conditions is municipal sales tax revenue trends. The
Illinois Department of Revenue reports sales taxes in ten categories: General Merchandise,
Food (Groceries), Eating and Drinking Places (Restaurants), Apparel, Automotive & Filling
Stations, Furniture, Hardware, Drugs & Miscellaneous Retail, Agriculture & All Others, and
Manufacturing. Since 2000, Mount Prospect's revenue from sales tax has increased by
$887,000. Figure 5 documents changes in the consumer categories.
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 5: Municipal Sales Tax by Category
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 15
As Figure 5 illustrates, the consumer goods sales tax revenue has been relatively flat other
than the increase in Drugs and Miscellaneous retail associated with Costco and Caremark.
Table 6 reports the percentage change in all categories.
Table 6: Sales Tax Change by Category
Change
2000 to
2006
General Merchandise
9.1%
Food
-4.9%
Drinking and Eating Places
-36.4%
Lumber, Bldg, Hardware
7.0%
Furniture & H.H. & Radio
-16.9%
Apparel
-34.1%
Automotive & Filling Stations
84.3%
Drugs & Misc. Retail
212.7%
Agriculture & All Others
-49.0%
Manufacturers
-78.1%
Totals
11.2%
Implications for Mount Prospect: Although Costco brought significant sales to Randhurst, it
is important to note that Mount Prospect lost Apparel and Drinking and Eating Places
revenue associated with the decline of Randhurst inline stores. The 11.2% total revenue
increase is about half the increase expected from the 3% annual inflation that occurred during
this time.
Market Context
Commercial site selection specialists view Mount Prospect within the Chicago Northwest
Suburban Market. This Map, prepared by CBRE Research, illustrates the extent of that
market.
k
forth
� 6�r
iburbs ;
Figure 6: Northwest Suburban Market
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 411812008 16
Current market conditions as monitored by CBRE are noted on Table 7:
Table 7: Northwest Suburban Market Conditions
Avg. Net Asking Lease Range
($/PSF/Year)
Market Gross Vacancy Under Low High
Building SF Rate Construction
N W Riihurhs 14.387222 6.17% 820.000 $14.27 $18.28
All Chicago Suburbs 118,720,373 7.89% 9,783,809 $15.74 $19.95
Although this report suggests a continuing healthy market with vacancies at an acceptable
rate, a declining economy led CBRE to caution its customers with this comment, "Economic
jitters may prompt tighter competition between retailers trying to woo consumers."
The analysis that follows considers the comparative strength of a segment of the Northwest
Suburban market by comparing Mount Prospect to its surrounding communities:
• Arlington Heights
• Des Plaines
• Elk Grove Village
• Glenview
• Prospect Heights
• Rolling Meadows
Table 8 compares key demographic characteristics of these communities:
Table 8: Surrounding Communities Comparison
Population
Average Household Size
Total Population Median Age
% In Current Residence 5 Plus Years
% College
Household Average Income
Median Household Income
Total Employees
Jobs per Household
Total Retail Expenditure (Millions)
Arlington Des
Heights Plaines
72,532 58,508
2.5 2.6
41.0 40.6
43.4 41.8
73.37% 58.90%
$85,177 $64,046
$80,804 $64,795
48,980 41,611
1.7 1.9
$782 $489
Elk Grove
Village
33,058
2.6
39.1
42.8
65.05%
$74,385
$75,531
50,024
4.0
$304
Glenview
43,265
2.7
40.7
44.3
78.23%
$129,636
$91,415
32,468
2.0
$565
Prospect
Heights
16,832
2.7
37.5
29.6
63.08%
$71,822
$64,309
9,237
1.5
$147
Rolling
Meadows
23,455
2.8
36.5
38.3
64.06%
$75,313
$71,889
15,864
1.9
$204
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 17
The balance within this market becomes apparent in these graphics comparing the
communities' population, retail sales, and employment.
Figure 7: Population Comparison
Rolling Meadows
Prospect Heights
Glenview
Mount Prospect
Elk Grove Village
Des Plaines
Figure 8: Retail Sales Comparison
Glenview
Rolling
Meadows
Prospect
Arlington Heights
Mount Prospect
Elk Grove Des Plaines
Village
Figure 9: Employment Comparison
Rolling
Meadows
Prospect
Heights
Glenview
Elk Grove
Village
Arlington
Heights
Mount Prospect
Arlington
Heights
Des Plaines
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 18
Prospect Heights and Des Plaines attract slightly less than their share of the spending and
Glenview slightly more. The other communities including Mount Prospect are attracting
approximately the same percentage of the region's sales as their population represents.
Interestingly, the capture rates calculated in Table 9 that exceed 100% indicate that these
communities in total have sales significantly higher than the spending power of their
residents.
Table 9: Capture Rate Comparison
Mount
Arlington
Elk Grove
Prospect
Rolling
Prospect
Heights
Des Plaines
Village
Glenview
Heights
Meadows
Total Retail Expenditure $494,521,444
$782,820,960
$489,978,300
$304,422,690
$565,676,398
$147,421,137
$204,606,151
Sales Tax 2006 $6,631,673
$9,178,569
$6,118,985
$4,704,950
$12,600,700
$706,219
$2,875,294
Consumer Taxable Sales $663,167,271
$917,856,853
$611,898,493
$470,494,980
$1,260,069,966
$70,621,884
$287,529,385
Capture Rate 134.1%
117.2%
124.9%
154.6%
222.8%
47.9%
140.5%
One explanation for this result is the number of residents living in unincorporated areas.
Businesses with significant regional draw like Costco are another reason for this result.
Implications for Mount Prospect: With sales and purchasing power in relative balance,
Mount Prospect is competing well with surrounding communities. The exception is Glenview
where new development has attracted spending. A successful redevelopment at Randhurst
should be similarly attractive and bring increased sales tax revenue.
Village -Wide Market Review Summary
Although Mount Prospect competes in the very strong northwest suburban retail market, it
has a history of success and benefits from collaborating with its property owners to capitalize
on retail development trends. Recent examples of successful partnerships include the
emerging downtown and the continuing growth of Randhurst. This market analysis verified
that the underlying market conditions continue to offer good returns on municipal investments
to enhance Mount Prospect's retail environment; but Mount Prospect's goals for its
commercial centers have always been more than just financial. It has sought to optimize
service to residents and enhance the community image. Using that longstanding strategic
framework, this project summarized that goal as:
Mount Prospect should be a place where:
• Sales tax revenue contributes at least 15% of the Village budget;
• High quality shopping clusters create a favorable image for residents, visitors, and
investors;
• Property and business owners believe that reasonable returns on investments are
likely.
The balance of this report documents the conditions underlying the strengths, weaknesses
opportunities, and threats facing the Village as a whole and each sector. It then creates
strategies for maximizing the value of each sector both as an image booster and as municipal
revenue producer.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 19
Retail Opportunity Analysis
As Figure 10 reveals, Mount Prospect's retail development can be organized into three
sectors: the southern area, the northern Randhurst dominated area, and downtown.
Figure 10: Mount Prospect Retail Sectors
Before examining the differing strengths and challenges of each sector's stores and
restaurants, it is helpful to consider the current revenue contribution and drawing power by
sector. Using the previously explained methodology sales by sector were estimated and are
reported on Table 10.
Table 10: Sector Comparison
Cluster
Sales Potential
North Sector
Can M.D .Id R.
Downtown
$20,800,000
South Sector
$130,200,000
Wild.
N
��
[erRnl Paad
�°%
No Scde
e
Meme ho
ReellRead
Shappinq torten
1.
fdryCwi
Y
1.
Meluni5bppiyLata
i33�....
s.
''.�•.
6,aie Ma
,_.\ !.,
).
6eiddPav�('dIZSA31 Eucf�
N
'�
8.
Mm Ye t—t ttJ
fie{dd 0.ev (AL5-ID9 Euciq
iN si%Ne 6Gnty
. \'
1
2
1.
a Sep 7IT
ifmapsai Rlom
� \. ,.•�
.fin'
�, i5
adi Cart
rgiaa
�
i%
a
�p�.nia�slea%n9cw.
irwpncommaa
tR
20
%azoI
&1 %amII
1 xt
xx
fanMus Gri
KINm Ropnry
x3.
Ntri dYpq.in0.oae Rini (mic
21
2R
Ftrame lhm
Oyfal Cart
xd
21
RamUry W
Gbry Sgwe
December 2005
Figure 10: Mount Prospect Retail Sectors
Before examining the differing strengths and challenges of each sector's stores and
restaurants, it is helpful to consider the current revenue contribution and drawing power by
sector. Using the previously explained methodology sales by sector were estimated and are
reported on Table 10.
Table 10: Sector Comparison
Cluster
Sales Potential
North Sector
$457,200,000
Downtown
$20,800,000
South Sector
$130,200,000
Table 10 and Figure 11 highlight the importance of Mount Prospect's North Sector revenue.
Because that sector is producing three times more revenue than the other sectors, protecting
it from sales erosion is key to preserving Mount Prospect's significant sales tax revenue. The
drawing power, calculated by assigning "points" based on customer attraction as described in
this report's Methodology section, confirms the strength of the north sector and suggests
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 411812008 20
opportunities to improve Downtown and the south sector's attraction power in the surrounding
Northwest suburban market.
Situation Audit
An examination of the community -wide strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
facing Mount Prospect builds on the Market Conditions to create a solid basis for planning.
These characteristics provide a snapshot of the current situation and identify factors that must
be considered in revitalizing all sectors.
Mount Prospect exhibits these strengths that reinforce its potential for successful retail
development:
Strengths
• A population with significant spending power. As the comparative communities
analysis documents, the population of Mount Prospect spends nearly $500 million.
• Numerous high traffic streets. Six streets crossing Mount Prospect have average
daily traffic counts over 20,000, and two, Rand Road and Golf Road, have average
daily traffic counts exceeding 30,000.
• A substantial daytime population. Although slightly short of the national average of
1.4 jobs per household, Mount Prospect's nearly 27,000 employees are an important
daytime market for restaurants and convenience businesses.
• A history of retail development. Shoppers are creatures of habit, and
consequently, it is difficult to establish new retail areas. Mount Prospect's retail
centers developed concurrently with its residential development, and therefore,
connections are well established.
The impetus for this study was the challenge presented by dissatisfying aspects of Mount
Prospect's commercial clusters. These challenges can be divided into:
■ Weaknesses, factors that are difficult to change and often must be accepted into the
plan;
■ Threats, factors that will become weaknesses if action is not taken;
■ Opportunities, changes that will quickly improve the area.
Weaknesses
• High cost of redevelopment. The costs associated with redevelopment, including a
year of lost income, demolition, and construction, can lead risk adverse property
owners to accept declining rents because that decision preserves an income stream
that would be put at risk by redevelopment.
• IDOT access control on streets adjacent to shopping clusters. The Illinois
Department of Transportation's goal is to move traffic as quickly and safely as
possible. That goal limits curb cuts and signalized intersections in conflict with
shopping center's needs to provide easy access via curb cuts and traffic signals.
• Fully built community. Although a few commercial parcels remain, Mount Prospect
is not expected to experience spending growth from significant new housing
development. Under these conditions, retailers and restaurateurs often must choose
an existing space rather than build to suit, and sales growth does not come naturally
from population growth.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 21
Threats
• Limited resources. Since not all development partnerships can be funded, Mount
Prospect must seek to find the best projects despite pressures from competing areas
and interest groups in the community.
• Satisfied, risk adverse property owners. Aging shopping centers often fall under
the ownership of risk adverse investors seeking to make the minimum investment as
they pursue returns just better than a bank savings account. That approach makes it
difficult to assume risk and make the substantial investment necessary to fully
revitalize a tired center.
• Competition from nearby communities. Des Plaines, Glenview, and Arlington
Heights all recently undertook significant partnerships to revitalize their shopping.
Mount Prospect must continually improve to remain competitive.
Village -Wide Implementation Opportunities
The Action Plan that follows identifies Mount Prospect enhancement opportunities and
recommends tasks to capitalize on those opportunities
Goal. Improve Village -wide support for retail development
Task Who Cost
Opportunity: Ca italize on branding
1. Create web site & brochure promotional information by categories
a. Dining in Mount Prospect
b. Ethnic events in Mount Prospect
c. Activities for Children
d. Other categories that occur with new tenants and new
development
2. Encourage businesses to use tag line
3. Work with shopping centers to add events that match brand image
4. Use Village -wide banner program
a. Advertise merchants
b. Share costs with businesses
c. Celebrate key business anniversaries
Opportunity: Prioritize Village financial incentives to maximize return on investment
1. Invest to attract new tenants paying higher rent
2. Create capacity, landscaping, signage, and facade plans for each
cluster
a. Invest to increase capacity of clusters
b. Invest to create improvements recommended in capacity
assessment plans
c. Turn down all other partnership requests
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 22
Opportunity: Continue collaborating with property owners
1. Regularly communicate tenant leads
2. Schedule at least semi-annual meetings to discuss plans and seek
feedback on mutually beneficial center improvements
a. Ask for thoughts to improve center profitability
b. Seek programming suggestions
c. Invite participation in Community's ICSC initiatives
3. Use short computerized community survey for feedback
a. Where do you shop?
b. Rate key success factors
c. Suggest tenants
Opportunity: Investi ate creating community development cor oration CDC
1. Obtain sample program information from other suburban communities
2. Hold meeting with local banks
3. Develop programming
Retail Opportunity Analysis Summary
As this Retail Market Analysis reports, Mount Prospect has a diverse and vital retail
environment. It does however face the challenges of developing policies that improve some
aging and declining centers, provide support for well -anchored properties seeking to follow
the latest in shopping center development trends, and continue its progress in revitalizing
Downtown Mount Prospect. The previous sections set goals and objects to guide Village
policy. The sector analysis that follows examines each major center and suggests specific
strategies to improve key retail centers.
This analysis by Business Districts, Inc., has been guided by the present and near term
market for stores, restaurants and office, the documented behavior of retailers, the existing
conditions, and the overriding desire for quality development that enhances the owner's
return on investment.
Based on commentary received during the presentation of this preliminary report, BDI and
Village Staff will finalize the report by verifying field data, adding detailed analysis by sector
(South, Randhurst/North and Downtown) and offer a comprehensive retail development
strategy.
Mount Prospect Retail Market Analysis: Preliminary Report 4/18/2008 23
Retail Market Analysis:
Appendix 1
Business Inventory
Busse Golf
Drawing
Power
Business Name Sales Potential Score
Anchors
CVS 10,000,000 10
Wally's Market 10,000,000 10
Ace Hardware 10,000,000 10
Family Dollar 5,000,000 10
Food & Restaurants
Papa John's Pizza
400,000 1
Retro Bistro
800,000 1
Nina's
400,000 1
Vita Mia Restorante
800,000 1
Artemis Restaurant
800,000 1
Sesame Grill
400,000 1
Subway
400,000 1
Fellini's Restaurant (Italian)
800,000 1
Dae Jang Kuhn Korean Rest
400,000 1
Dunkin Donuts
400,000 1
Stores
Rocucie Nashi - Korean Business 400,000 1
Sweetgrass 400,000 1
Dollar and More 400,000 1
Mount Prospect Flowers 400,000 1
Gold Eagle Liquors 400,000 1
UPS Store 400,000 1
Services
Chiropractor 1
State Farm 1
Travel 1
Scissor City II, Inc. 1
T&M Cleaners 1
South Beach Tan 1
Instant Results (tanning) 1
Coin Laundry 1
Suk Imagination Hair Design 1
The Eye Site (eye care) 1
Auto Zone 1
New Dental Associates 1
Shell Gas Station 1
Barbershop 1
Salon 1
Shoe Repair 1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Drawing
Power
Business Name
Sales Potential
Score
Restaurant
Mi Mexico grocery
400,000 1
Bravo Bakery
400,000
1
Popeyes
400,000
1
Jamesons Restaurant
800,000
1
Torta's Locas
400,000
1
Juana's Market & Taqueria
400,000
1
Los Trigales Bakery
400,000
1
Kim's Korean Restaurant
400,000
1
La Rosita Taqueria and Carnicerias
400,000
1
Los Compadres Restaurant, Inc
400,000
1
Los Arcos Mexican Food
400,000
1
Cho Dang Tofu
400,000
1
Wu Sung Restaurant
400,000
1
China Garden
400,000
1
Rosatti Pizza
400,000
1
Chung Ki Wa Restaurant
400,000
1
Saded Thai Restaurant
400,000
1
Yummys Flamingo's / Los Arcos
800,000
1
Gee Hoy Chop Suey
400,000
1
Maido Deli
400,000
1
Torishin Japanese Food
400,000
1
Stores
Western Wear
400,000 1
Dollar Store
400,000 1
Mi Mexico grocery
400,000 1
Pimera Wireless
400,000 1
American Mail & Parcels
400,000 1
Linda Floreria Limited
400,000 1
EI Rayo Western Wear
400,000 1
Cash solutions (pawn shop)
400,000 1
US Cellular
400,000 1
Musimaz (money gram, dish, stereo)
400,000 1
Joyeria Elgin Qewelry)
400,000 1
Econo Imports
400,000 1
Dulce Mundo
400,000 1
Discoteca Los Paisanos
400,000 1
Dollar Buster
400,000 1
Dollar Discount
400,000 1
Pramukh Indo -Pak Grocery
400,000 1
La Familia Discount
400,000 1
Jay's Liquors
400,000 1
NSG, Inc Circle G Food Store
400,000 1
Services
Order Express (Currency)
Men's Hair Salon
Corner Laundry
Veronica's Family Hair Salon
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Business Name
U & Us Nails
Community Family Health Center
Fantastic Beauty and Hair Salon
Currency Exchange
Elite Staffing
Jackson Hewitt (Active Taxes ll)
Exercise Spa
Crystal 1 Hour Cleaners
Tania's Hair Design
Mt. Prospect Dental Care
Coin Laundry
D'Agostinos Auto Shop
Maytag Laundromat
Paris 2000 (Nail salon)
Labor Ready
Aries Hair Salon
Safari Daycare
Laundromat
Gem Cleaners
Sales Potential
Drawing
Power
Score
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20082
Elmhurst Corridor
Business Name
Anchors
Dominicks
Walgreens (24 hour)
Kohls
The Great Escape
Hobby Lobby
Fiesta Market
Food & Restaurant
Drawing
Power
Retail Sales Potei Score
20,000,000
30
10,000,000
10
20,000,000
30
5,000,000
10
5,000,000
10
10,000,000
10
Boston Market
400,000 1
Tasty Donuts
400,000 1
Little Ceasars Pizza
400,000 1
Quiznos
400,000 1
EI Sombrero Mexican Restaurant
800,000 1
Korean Restaurant
400,000 1
Sankey Sushi
400,000 1
Wing Ho Chop Suey
400,000 1
Jimmy Johns
400,000 1
Kentucky Fried Chicken
400,000 1
Burger King
400,000 1
Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins
400,000 1
Pizza Asiago
400,000 1
Paps Restaurant and Bar
800,000 1
Deli Restaurant (sub shop)
400,000 1
Cuisine of India Restaurant
400,000 1
Kampai Japanese Restaurant
800,000 1
Istanbul Market
400,000 1
Pad thai Restaurant
400,000 1
Avanti Cafe
400,000 1
Stores
Payless
400,000 1
GNC
400,000 1
Millie's Hallmark
400,000 1
Game Stop
400,000 1
?? Store (Korean)
400,000 1
Enagic Water
400,000 1
Kellen's Country Florist
400,000 1
Foremost Liquors
400,000 1
Beauty of Flowers
400,000 1
Dollar Plus
400,000 1
Raj Grocery
400,000 1
Soni time Jewelry
400,000 1
Balzano Liquors
400,000 1
Video and Tobacco Corner
400,000 1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Randhurst*
Business Name
Anchors
Jewel
Carsons
Costco
Home Depot
Borders
Steve & Barry's
Bed Bath & Beyond
AMC Theater
Food & Restaurants
restaurant d
restaurant f
restaurant s
restaurant b
restaurant m
restaurant I
restaurant j
restaurant p
egg factory
Steak & Shake
Buffalo Wild Wings
Stores
building c
building e
building a
building h
building g
building q
Drawing
Power
Sales Score
20000000
50000000
120000000
30000000
5000000
5000000
5000000
5000000
240000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
2000000
22000000
* Estimates Based on Early Development Concepts
30
30
30
30
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Mount Prospect Plaza
Services
Armed Forces Recruiting 1
Batteries Plus 1
Beauty Salon 1
Jenny Craig 1
Optometrist 1
Regal Nails 1
Service 1
tax 1
WaMu 1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Drawing Power
Business Name
Sales Potential
Score
Anchors
Dress Barn
2000000
10
Garden Fresh
10000000
10
Marshalls
10000000
10
Michaels
5000000
10
Petco
5000000
10
Sears Parts
5000000
10
Staples
5000000
10
Walmart
50000000
30
Food & Restaurants
Panda Express
2000000
1
Subway
400000
1
EI Famous Burrito
400000
1
Stores
Famous Footwear
2000000
1
Services
Armed Forces Recruiting 1
Batteries Plus 1
Beauty Salon 1
Jenny Craig 1
Optometrist 1
Regal Nails 1
Service 1
tax 1
WaMu 1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Randhurst Area
Food & Restaurants
Boston Market
2000000 1
Drawing
Business Name
Sales Potential
Power
Quiznos
400000 1
Score
Anchors
Subway
400000 1
Aldi's
10000000
10
Menards
30000000
30
Office Max
5000000
10
Sports Authority
10000000
10
Food & Restaurants
Boston Market
2000000 1
Monica's Pancakes
800000 1
Pizza Hut
2000000 1
Quiznos
400000 1
Starbucks
800000 1
Subway
400000 1
Stores
Back to Bed
2000000 1
Floors 4 U
400000 1
Kalinowski European Style Sausage
2000000 1
Mexican Meat Store
400000 1
Mini Mart (Veer Dada Inc)
400000 1
Murray's Discount Tires
2000000 1
Sprint Wireless
400000 1
Take Herbs, Inc
400000 1
Verizon
400000 1
Services
5th 3rd Bank
AAA
Amici Hair Studio
Amici Nails
Bally's Fitness
Chiropractic
Cleaner
Currency exchange
Dentist
FedEx Kinkos
H&R Block
Hair Cuttery
Hertz
Laundromat
Northwest Suburban Driving
Palm Beach Tan
Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo Financial
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Downtown
Drawing
Business Name
Sales Potential
Power
400000 1
Busse's Flowers
Score
Food & Restaurants
400000 1
Fanny May Candies #277
Blues Bar
800000
1
Boulevard Cafe (under construct)
800000
1
Capannaris Ice Cream
400000
1
Caribou Coffee
2000000
1
Dave's Specialty Foods
400000
1
House of Szechwan
800000
1
Jakes Pizza
800000
1
LePeep Cafe
800000
1
Little America
400000
1
Michael's Italian Steak & Food
800000
1
Mrs. P's Restaurant
800000
1
Oberweis Dairy
400000
1
Sakura Restaurant
800000
1
Sam's Restaurant
400000
1
Starbucks
2000000
1
Submarine Express
400000
1
Subway
400000
1
Tuccio's Fresh Italian Kitchen
400000
1
Stores
A Perfect Petal
400000 1
Artisan 133
400000 1
Busse's Flowers
400000 1
European Jeweler
400000 1
Fanny May Candies #277
2000000 1
Foto Direct, Inc.
400000 1
Keefer's Pharmacy
400000 1
Liquor Store
400000 1
Mt Prospect Paint dba JCLicht
400000 1
Norway Cycles, Inc
400000 1
Norway General Store
400000 1
Sahara Windows
400000 1
United Carpet, Inc
400000 1
Vino 100 - Mt. Prospect
400000 1
20,800,000
Services
Ace's T & C Style 1
Allstate Insurance 1
AI's Shoe Service 1
Busse Automotive & car wash 1
Chiripractic 1
Cleaners 1
Cleaners 1
Cleaners 1
Cleaners 1
Cleaners 1
Colonial Dental Associates, LTD 1
DD Hair Design 1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20081
Downtown
Business Name
Dance by Tamara Zach
Dental
Diane's Dog Grooming
Edward Jones
Elements Diet & Fitness
Games Plus
General Building Service Corp
Hair 10
Hair Light
Homes R Us Realty
MB Financial
Midwest Bank
Midwest Painters, Inc
Mt Prospect Vacations
Norwood sales office
Parker House Hair Care
Ravenswood Bank
Private Limousine Service
Sew Tech
Stay Fit Physical Therapy
TCF Bank
Timothy J. Brouder, DDS
Sales Potential
Drawing
Power
Score
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mount Prospect Business List 4/18/20082
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: MICHAEL DALLAS, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
DATE: APRIL 17, 2008
SUBJECT: TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION
PURPOSE
To obtain the Village Board's approval to accept Sound Incorporated's"best and final offer" for their Cisco Call
Manager (VoIP) telecommunications system.
BACKGROUND
The Village's current telephone system, a Fujitsu 9600, was installed in 1993. As a result of the technological
advancements in the last fifteen years, the fact that the current telephone system is no longer supported by
the manufacturer, and only refurbished parts are available for repairs, it is clear that the current
telecommunications system is at the end of its useful life.
In order to select, acquire, and install a new system, Village staff sought the services of a telecommunications
consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process. Dave Wilson, from Wilson Consulting, was selected
from amongst seven other consultants due to his outstanding references, local government experience,
system objectivity, and reasonable fees.
To begin the process, Mr. Wilson conducted an audit of all the Village telephone bills. As a result of a very
thorough audit, Mr. Wilson recommended some telephone line/circuit disconnections and AT&T service
changes that could potentially save the Village approximately $25,000 annually.
He then met with staff from all the departments to determine the Village's communication needs. These
needs were used to identify a basic set of features for the new system. This feature set, along with the
system's configuration requirements, was then used to develop a RFP for the new telecommunications
system.
The RFP for the new system was issued on December 3, 2007, with proposals due to the Village on January
9, 2008. The Village received proposals from the following telecommunications vendors:
Vendor
Advanced Telecommunications of IL
Altura Communications Solutions
CCC Technologies
Maron Structure Technologies
Midco
Pentegra Systems
Sentinel Technologies
Sound Incorporated
Sound Incorporated
Telcom Innovations Group
Proposed System
Initial Proposal'
ShoreTel (VoIP)
$436,300
Avaya (Hybrid)
$334,758
Avaya (IP)
$329,500
Cisco Call Manager (VoIP)
$364,895
Mitel 3300 (VoIP)
$348,632
3Com (VoIP)
$364,101
Cisco Call Manager (VoIP)
$374,101
Cisco Call Manager (VoIP)
$382,750
NEC (TDM)
$228,363
Mitel 3300 (VoIP)
$306,402
' Includes installation, training, and five-year parts and labor warranty on all system components.
H:WlLM\MDal las\Telephone Equipment Upgrade\Project Installation\Phase 2\Board Recommendation\Telecommunications System
Recommendation.doc
Telecommunications System Recommendation
April 17, 2008
Page 2
Mr. Wilson used a weighted point system and evaluated all of the proposals based on the following criteria:
■ Vendor strength ■ Telephone instruments
■ Manufacturer support ■ System administration
■ System configuration ■ System Cost
■ System features
Based on the outcome of his initial evaluation, Village staff eliminated six of the vendors from the selection
process.
To more closely examine the remaining vendors' (Sentinel, Sound, and TIG) solutions, staff and Mr. Wilson
met with each vendor. During each meeting, vendors presented to staff the proposed system's network
configuration and addressed staff's concerns regarding system survivability, highlighting redundant system
components and potential weaknesses. They also briefly described the manufacturers' and vendors'
strengths. The remainder of the presentation, as well as the phone demonstration, was focused primarily on
system features.
After all of the vendor meetings, staff met with Mr. Wilson to convey their assessment and general
recommendations. In consideration of their comments, Mr. Wilson issued a letter to all three vendors on
March 14, 2008, requesting their "best and final offer." Their offers addressed some system configuration
changes and additional features, including unified messaging, call accounting, and panic buttons. Due to the
recommendation by staff to keep the existing AVST voicemail system since it is only a couple of years old and
is superior in some respects to Cisco's voice mail system, Mr. Wilson contacted Sentinel to revise their offer.
Sentinel's original "best and final offer" of $289,483 included Cisco's voice mail system.
The following table represents the vendors' "best and final offers" for the base system:
Vendor
System
System Cose
Addt'I Maint (4 Years)
5 Year Cost
Sentinel
Cisco Call Mgr (VoIP)
$272,976
$119,413
$392,389
Sound
Cisco Call Mgr (VoIP)
$295,767
$87,918
$383,685
Sound
NEC (TDM)
$192,235
$36,128
$228,363
TIG
Mitel 3300 (VoIP)
$245,305
$64,748
$310,053
DISCUSSION
The majority of the telecommunication systems proposed by the vendors is a Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) telephone system. Unlike a traditional digital system which has a central call processor at each facility
and operates independently of the Village's data network, the Cisco's VoIP system only needs one call
processor3 and operates over the Village's data network. In simpler terms, voice signals that used to run over
the old telephone lines can now be run over the same communication lines that send and receive data from a
personal computer.
As indicated by Mr. Wilson's report (see Exhibit A), traditional digital systems and Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) systems are similar. Both have many of the same calling features (call -forwarding, caller -ID), both can
now be administered on-line using a graphical user interface, and both can be configured to ensure system
reliability in response to an AT&T service related issue. On the other hand, there are some significant
advantages a VoIP system has over a traditional digital system, such as system administration, reliability,
future development, and contingency planning.
1. System Administration: Village staff can add or move a telephone instruments in a similar
manner to adding or moving a personal computer on the network, avoiding time delays and
unnecessary complication. Moreover, since the system operates over the data network, IT staff
2 See Exhibit A, p.8 (includes installation, training, and one-year parts and labor warranty on all system components).
3 Sound's system configuration actually requires two call processors to meet staffs reliability requirements.
Telecommunications System Recommendation
April 17, 2008
Page 3
can troubleshoot minor issues related to the system infrastructure (i.e. switches, servers).
2. Reliability: While both systems are equally reliable, in a VoIP system, call processors can be
located at different facilities to help ensure system redundancy. If one call processor fails, the
other processor can instantaneously provide service for the entire Village. In a TDM system, if a
call processor fails, the location loses all telecommunication service.
3. Future Development: As Mr. Wilson indicated, the telecommunications industry is no longer
focusing their research and development into traditional digital telecommunication systems. As
such, there is an inherent risk in dedicating long-term capital towards a new communications
system that will no longer be supported as the industry standard.
4. Contingency Planning: VoIP phones can be moved from one location to another without any
significant administrator intervention necessary to activate phones. Thus, if there is ever a need
to quickly establish a community call center or a temporary command center, phones can be
moved with little to no intervention as long as access to the data network exists.
In order to make the transition from a traditional telephone system to a VoIP system at the Village, switches
will have to be replaced, uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) will have to be acquired, and some new wiring
will have to be installed. Admittedly, all of this increases the total acquisition costs of the new system.
Nonetheless, these upgrades will be necessary in the near future to replace obsolete data infrastructure
equipment which is nearly at the end of its useful life, as well as to address future technology demands, such
as video conferencing and monitoring.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on Mr. Wilson's evaluations and recommendation (see Exhibit A), staff recommends accepting Sound
Incorporated's "best and final offer" of $332,803 for their Cisco Call Manager (VoIP) telecommunications
system and allocate an additional $7,000 for contingency expenses. Sound has addressed the objective of
the project and identified each of the tasks and deliverables necessary to make this project a success. Mr.
Wilson has expressed confidence in Sound's past experience with installing systems similar in size and scope
for the Village. Their system design meets the Village's reliability expectations, feature set requirements,
administration concerns, and future technology demands. Unlike some other vendors, Sound can provide
continuing support for the Village's existing voice mail system. Finally, after meeting with each vendor, staff
feels confident that Sound can competently execute the project.
In addition to the base system cost as noted on page two, Village staff recommends adopting the following
options. These optional features are more thoroughly explained in Mr. Wilson's recommendation.
• Call Accounting: The Cisco system proposed by Sound provides some basic call accounting
features (tracking phone calls made to and from phone). This option provides management a
more comprehensive tool to track calls and manage monthly costs.
Panic Button: In light of the recent tragic events that have occurred in communities across the
nation, Village staff firmly believes that panic buttons should be installed at locations throughout
Village facilities. Seven (7) hard -wired buttons will be installed at potentially higher risk locations.
A panic button type calling feature could be deployed on phones throughout the Village. This
feature is not a true silent alarm, though, because the speakerphone is activated when the button
is pushed. For an increased cost, an automatic software feature could also be integrated with the
phone system to create a true silent alarm function. This upgrade is recommended.
■ Unified Messaging: Unified messaging permits users to access both email messages and voice
mail messages from their personal computer. The Village already has 50 software licenses
under its current voicemail system that it can begin using. As noted by Mr. Wilson, there is a cost
associated with configuring it with the Village's Microsoft Exchange service and installing it onto
Telecommunications System Recommendation
April 17, 2008
Page 4
desktops in the Village.
■ Fiber Connectivity: In order to improve the telephone system's redundancy and call processing
survivability, as well as significantly upgrade the data infrastructure's survivability, staff
recommends installing an additional fiber connection to create a fiber connectivity ring between all
three major facilities (Village Hall, Public Works, and Public Safety).
The following table represents the additional costs for each option:
System Options
Option Cost
Addt'I Maint (4 Years)
5 Year Cost
1.
Call Accounting
$5,895
$5,462
$11,357
2.a.
Panic Button (hard -wired button)
$8,400
$0
$8,400
2.b.
Panic Button (phone)
--------------------Included in base system
--------------------
2. c.
Panic Button (software)
$21,741
$16,692
$38,433
3.
Unified Messaging (50 licenses)
$1,000
$0
$1,000
4.
Fiber Line*
TBD*
TBD*
TBD*
TOTAL COST $37,036 $22,154 $59,190
* Since pricing is incomplete, a formal request to purchase and install a new fiber line will be brought
to the Board at a later date.
In summary, staff is requesting Village Board approval for the following:
1. Purchase a new telecommunications system from Sound Incorporated in the amount of $295,767.
2. Purchase the additional telephone system options outlined above for $37,036.
3. Due to nature of the project, allocate an additional $7,000 for contingency expenses that may arise
during the course of the project.
The first-year project total for all three recommendations is $339,803.
c: Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager
Joan Middleton, Information Technology Director
EXHIBIT A
April 17, 2008
Mr. Dave Strahl
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Dave,
Wilson Consulting has completed an examination of the proposals for a new telephone system based upon the
specifications developed for the Village of Mount Prospect. After analyzing the information provided by the
vendors and gathering additional information to clarify the proposals, it is our recommendation to award a
contract to Sound Incorporated ("Sound") of Naperville, IL. The Cisco telephone system proposed by Sound
will fulfill the Village's current and future telecommunications requirements. The requirements were
established jointly with input from Village staff and incorporated into the Request for Proposal -2007
Telecommunications Equipment Project.
The following key factors led to this recommendation:
The Cisco system provides the strongest solution to address the Village's concern regarding
survivability and resiliency. It effectively addresses processor failure, telephone company circuit
failure, failure of data connections between buildings and electrical failure.
2. Sound's proposal meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal. Sound
received the highest number of points based on our evaluation matrix. The matrix evaluated each
proposal according to the following areas:
• Vendor strength
• Manufacturer support
• System configuration
• System features
• Telephone instruments
• System administration
• System cost
The Cisco telephone system is a VoIP PBX. It will operate over the Village's data network. Wilson
Consulting recommends deploying a VoIP PBX for the following reasons:
Easy to Maintain and Support: Both VoIP PBXs and new digital/TDM PBXs include programming
interfaces that will greatly improve the ability of Village staff to administer the telephone system over
the Village's current system. The interfaces of both types of systems are now browser based with a
GUI interface. However, Village staff would find a VoIP PBX easier to support than a digital/TDM
PBX. Principally, the underlying construction of a VoIP telephone system is similar to that of the
Village's data network. Adding a telephone instrument to the network would be similar to adding a
PC to it. This is not the case with a digital/TDM PBX. With this technology it is likely that the
Village would require the services of an authorized dealer to perform the work necessary to add a
telephone.
This distinction is useful when considering contingency planning. A VoIP PBX would facilitate
establishing a remote command center or relocating key call -taking positions should the need arise.
2. Provides Additional Reliability: A VoIP PBX will include a UPS to support the main processor and
UPSs in satellite data closets to provide power to the VoIP telephones in the event of a power outage.
A VoIP PBX system provides the advantage of placing redundant processors at separate sites (one at
Public Safety and one at Public Works) on the data network. This is not possible with a TDM system.
A VoIP PPX system also permits users to move their telephones to a completely different site
(different desk, different office or different building) without any administrator intervention. This
feature is valuable if staff from various departments need to centrally locate in response to an
emergency. This would not be possible with a TDM system.
3. Extended Life Cycle: Most telephone system purchases are made with the expectation that it will
provide service for a period of between 7 and 10 years. Both VoIP and digital/PBX systems will meet
that expectation. However, it is clear that VoIP PBX technology is today's industry standard. All
telephone system research and development is now focused on VoIP telephony. While there will be
relatively little new software development for digital/TDM systems, new applications and
enhancements will be forthcoming for IP PBXs.
A "Best and Final" price submitted of $312,963 was submitted by Sound. After examining the supporting
documentation the price was adjusted to reflect the following:
I . Hardware and software for the "Presence" option (see below) had been included in the base system
cost. $9,933 was deducted from the price.
2. Fiber connectors that link the data switches together (within the same building) were included. These
were not specified and not provided by the other vendors. $4,519 was deducted.
3. Extra modules on two of the proposed data switches were included. These were not specified nor
provided by other vendors. $1,410 was deducted.
4. The cost for a Cisco 1 S` year software upgrade program was included. This was not specified nor
provided by others. $1,339 was deducted.
After making these adjustments total base cost for the new telephone system will be $295,767. This includes a
Village -wide telephone system to serve the Public Safety Building, Village Hall, Public Works Building and
Fire Stations 12 and 14. The cost includes installation of the phone system, staff training and a 12- month parts
and labor warranty. The cost to provide a parts and labor warranty for the base system for the second, third,
fourth and fifth year will be $87,918. Therefore, the five (5) year system cost would be $383,685.
The cost noted above includes upgrades to the Village's data network ($60,394). These upgrades will permit
the Village to use its data network for transmitting telephone calls and improve the efficiency of the network
for the Village's current and future data applications (i.e. video monitoring, video conferencing). Importantly,
the majority of the cost associated with the data network upgrade for the new telephone system would be
incurred in the near future because much of the Village's data equipment is at or near the "end -of -life" and will
no longer be supported by the manufacturer.
Five (5) optional features were considered during the evaluation. They were:
1. Presence: This feature ties information from a users Outlook's calendar (in a meeting, out for the day,
etc.) with the status of the user's telephone (on the phone, in "do -not -disturb, idle). It permits other
users to see, at a glance, the person's availability. It can also couple other contact information (cell
phone, home phone, email address) with their status so that others know alternate means of contacting
them. This feature requires an additional server and costs approximately $9,933 for 10 users.
2
Additional users can be added for approximately $21 /user. The cost for a post -warranty maintenance
contract for this feature would be $10,625 for four (4) years.
Unified Messaging: Unified messaging merges email and voice mail. It permits users to access both
email messages and voice mail messages from their desktop or remotely utilizing Microsoft Outlook.
Users get a visual indication of voice mail messages listed with their email messages. Date, time and
caller ID are provided. Users can listen to a message by "clicking" on the message they wish to hear
and pick up their telephone handset. This permits the user to select the messages they wish to hear
first without having to listen to all those left ahead of it. Voice mail messages can be stored
indefinitely as .wav files and can be attached to an email message to be sent to another party. The
Village's current voice mail system (AVST) has Unified Messaging licenses for 50 users. The cost to
deploy this for 50 users would be $1,000. This is the labor required to program it with the Village's
Microsoft Exchange server and install the client software on the user's desktop. Because the
recommended proposal includes maintaining the AVST system, the Village could implement this for
selected staff and determine the features overall value before acquiring additional licenses. Once
installed, there would be no additional maintenance costs for this feature.
3. Local Notification of 911 calls: This optional feature provides notification to any Village telephone(s)
that 911 was dialed. This could be used to help emergency responders when they arrive. Village staff
could be ready to direct them when they arrive. The cost of this option is $6,230. After warranty (1
year) maintenance cost would be $5,845 for years 2 through 5.
4. Panic Button: In order to be able to react to potentially dangerous incidents, the Village is interested
in expanding the deployment of panic buttons (silent alarms) to selected work locations at the Village
Hall. Currently, a panic button is installed at the Public Works Department, Fire Station 12 and at 10
South Pine Street. The Village currently pays the alarm company $1,764/year to monitor these
devices. Village staff and Wilson Consulting considered three alternatives to this approach for use at
Village facilities.
a. Install a hard -wired panic button under counters at specific locations in the Village Hall to
automatically dial specific destination telephones. The cost to utilize this approach would be
approximately $8,400 for seven (7) under desk buttons. This cost does not include monitoring
services by a third -party. No additional annual maintenance cost would be incurred for this
option.
b. Program a "speed dial" button on desk telephones to automatically dial specific destination
telephones. These telephones would ring and a designated button would light to indicate the panic
button had been pressed. The telephone's display would indicate the source location (extension
number/name) of the call. This could be programmed using the new telephone system's standard
software. However, anyone depressing this button on a telephone would, in essence, be placing a
hands-free telephone call. By doing so, the telephones speaker would be activated and the user
would hear dial tone from that speaker and the tone of the digits dialed. Programming this
function on the telephone instruments would be included in the base system cost and in the post
warranty base system maintenance cost.
c. Procure software that would integrate with the telephone system. It would allow traditional under
desk buttons or a button on a telephone to initiate a silent alarm and stream audio to designated
destination phones. It would provide information about the source of the call. In this case, the
sending telephone would not exhibit any signals that might alert someone that the button was
activated. In addition to alerting a telephone, the system could send an E-mail or text message
with additional preprogrammed information. The system is programmable. The function could be
added or deleted from any telephone on the system and the alerts could be modified to respond to
changing or new procedures. The cost of this software was quoted from Sound to be $21,741.
This included connecting the system to under desk buttons and programming any desired
telephone instrument with this capability. The cost for maintenance of this system for years 2
through 5 would be $16,692.
Call Accounting: A call accounting system (server and software) would permit the Village to generate
reports that identify the details of telephone calls received to and placed from the Village's telephone
system. The details provided would be the source of the call (extension number for outgoing calls and
caller ID of incoming calls), the number dialed (in the case of outgoing calls), the date and time of the
call, the duration of the call and the cost of the call. The software would allow calling data to be
retrieved using various parameters. Calling activity could be reported by individual users, departments
or for the entire organization. Specific activity could also be reported. For example, calls exceeding
specified duration or cost could be identified. Information about calls received or made at a specified
time could also be identified. The cost of this optional software including the required server,
installation and training on its use would be $5,895. After the first year the cost for software and
system support for an additional 4 years will be $5,462.
Discussions with Village staff led to recommending that:
• Unified messaging be implemented for 50 users at a cost of $1,000;
• Call Accounting be acquired for $5,895;
• 7 "Panic Buttons" be installed at selected locations for a cost of $8,400; and
• Software panic button feature be installed for a cost of $21,741.
The cost of these options would add $37,036 to the system purchase price and $22,154 for four (4) more
additional years of maintenance. The total purchase price of the system including these options will be
$332,803. The five (5) year system cost including maintenance will be $442,875. In addition, Wilson
Consulting recommends that an amount of $7,000 be allocated for unexpected expenses that are likely to arise
during the course of the project.
Wilson Consulting would encourage the Village to continue to pursue procuring a fiber optic cable link
between Public Safety and Public Works. This would complete a fiber ring connecting the Village Hall, Public
Safety and Public Works buildings. There is currently fiber connecting Village Hall to Public Works and the
Village Hall to Public Safety. A fiber ring would allow the Village to protect against a failure of a network
segment. Voice and data traffic could be rerouted in the other direction; away from the failed link.
A brief summary of our analysis and recommendations are enclosed for your review. Please contact me if you
have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
WILSON CONSULTING
David L.F. Wilson
encl.
4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TELEPHONE SYSTEM PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Proposals for a new telephone system for the Village of Mount Prospect were solicited and received from
several vendors. The specifications for the new telephone system include:
• Warrantee provisions.
• Terms of system acceptance.
• Guidelines for installation.
• Standards for Material and Workmanship
• Description of Department requirements.
• Training requirements.
• Vendor experience and references.
• System requirements.
• Feature requirements.
• System management requirements.
• Service and maintenance requirements.
• System configuration.
Proposals were received from the following nine (9) vendors:
Vendor
Manufacturer
System Bid
ATI
ShoreTel
ShoreTel
Altura
Avaya
58500
CCC
Avaya
S8500
Maron Structure
Cisco
Call Manager
Midco, Inc.
Mitel
3300
Pentegra
3Com
VCX IP
Sentinel
Cisco
Call Manager
Sound, Inc.
NEC
Version 3300
Sound, Inc.
Cisco
Call Manager
Telcom Innovations Group
Mitel
3300
Evaluation Criteria
Several criteria were established to determine the relative strengths of each of the compliant bidders. They
were:
1. Manufacturer Strength
a. Number of years in business
b. Number of similar systems installed
c. Market acceptance of system
d. Financial strength/Business organization
2. Vendor Support
a. Manufacturer support of the system proposed
b. Number of trained technicians (on the proposed system)
c. Service support structure
d. Provisions for disaster recovery
e. References
5
3. System Configuration: The system design, including:
a. Survivability
b. Underlying technology
c. System Growth: The ability to economically accommodate the Village of Mount Prospect's
potential requirements for additional telephone instruments in the future.
4. System Features: The system's ability to provide the following capabilities were examined and
evaluated.
a. Flexible Programming: The ability to select appropriate call coverage for each facility and,
within the facility, each telephone instrument.
b. The ability to selectively use voice mail to answer calls or to require users to answer calls
before a call can be put into voice mail.
c. Ability to provide a unified system across multiple locations.
Suitability of Telephone Instruments: Do the telephone instruments provide:
a. Ease of use
b. Flexibility of button programming
c. Variety of instruments (speakerphone, display, additional buttons, etc.)
d. Reasonable cost
6. System Administration: The ease with which Village staff can effectively manage the system
7. System Cost: The system cost components are:
a. System Acquisition Cost: The purchase price of all system hardware, its installation and
programming. This cost also includes user training and minimum of one-year system
warranty.
b. System Maintenance: The annual cost of a standard maintenance contract is shown for the
second year; after the expiration of the system warranty.
VENDOR ANALYSIS
Points were awarded to each vendor in each category. The points awarded in the cost column reflect each
vendor's price (system acquisition and maintenance) in relationship to all other vendors. The points awarded in
the other categories reflect the merits of the bid against a fixed standard.
1. Manufacturer Strength
Each of the systems proposed are manufactured and ultimately supported by substantial companies (Avaya,
Cisco and Mitel). Each company stated that they will provide parts and support for the systems for a period
from 5 to 10 years after the system is manufacturer discontinued. Each vendor is an authorized distributor of
the system proposed. Each company is financially stable. However, the market share enjoyed by Avaya, Cisco
and Mitel is far greater than that of 3Com and ShoreTel (proposed by Pentegra and ATI respectively). The
points in this category reflect this fact. NEC will be introducing a new system to replace the system proposed
by Sound. This is reflected in the score.
2. Vendor Support
The scores awarded to each vendor reflect Wilson Consulting's confidence in their ability to install and
maintain the Village of Mount Prospect's system. The points reflect the number of proposed systems, the
number of certified technicians employed by each vendor and each vendors experience with projects similar in
scope to that of the Village of Mount Prospect's project. Where the vendor's system design calls for adding
the telephone system as an application to the Village's data network (VoIP), each vendor's experience and
expertise in data network design was considered in this category as well.
3. System Configuration
The proposed systems were examined in light of their ability to provide continuous service in the event of
several possible contingencies. They were:
• Failure of the system's call processor
• Failure of AT&T's primary services to the system
• Failure of the connections between two Village facilities
A variety of system configurations were proposed. The Cisco system proposed by Maron Structure, Sound,
and Sentinel offered the most resilient design. Each included two mirrored processors installed at separate
locations (Public Safety and Pubic Works). Each would be served by AT&T services that can be shared
between both sites. Should one processor fail, the remaining processor would automatically assume all call
processing tasks.
The Avaya, Mitel, ShoreTel and 3Com systems are designed with separate call processors for each site. To
provide processor redundancy, the data for a site is programmed into the processor of another site. This
provides the survivability required for a processor failure, but adds to the complexity of the system and requires
substantial effort to maintain the system database(s).
The NEC system is designed with separate processors at each site. While a processor failure at one site would
not affect any other site, there is no means for the processor at another site to assume call processing functions
at the failed site.
All the proposed systems provide resiliency from AT&T service failures and failures of the links between sites.
Should AT&T's service to one location fail, outgoing calls would automatically be directed to go out on
facilities at another location. If a link between sites failed, software at the stranded site would be able to
process incoming and outgoing calls on facilities (AT&T) at that site.
Wilson Consulting believes that the Cisco system design proposed by Maron Structure, Sound, and Sentinel
provides the best solution for the Village of Mount Prospect. It offers protection against critical system
component failures and will be the easiest to maintain.
Sentinel's proposal took "exception" to the required configuration at Public Safety and Public Works. The
system design included installation of sixteen AT&T business lines at each location as back-up to the digital
circuits installed at each site. Sentinel's proposal included connections for only four (4) of these lines at each
site. Their score reflects this "exception."
4. System Features
For the most part, each of the systems support the applications specified in the RFP. Some significant
distinctions are:
• The Village's existing voice mail system (AVST) offers several advantages over others proposed. It
provides true unified messaging, the ability to re -direct callers to an alternate destination and remote
access of both voice mail and email in addition to the more common voice mail system features.
Midco, Sound, and Telcom Innovations Group proposed maintaining this system.
• The Cisco system permits paging through any and all telephone speakers regardless of the site. The
other systems limit the number of telephones that can paged simultaneously.
All the systems proposed have substantial (100%) growth potential. The system configuration specified
includes the software and hardware to add outside lines and telephones with no expense except labor to
connect the desired add-on. The common equipment and software will support the additional station and
service requirements.
5. Telephone Instruments
The Cisco telephones proposed by Sentinel and Sound were far superior to any of the other telephones
proposed. They have a full color display that is used to illustrate call status of multiple telephones, list recent
call history (missed, answered and placed calls) and display a built-in user guide's instructions. All features
and call appearance keys are labeled on the display. There are no paper labels. As a result, the telephones will
always illustrate the current features that are programmed on it and relieve Village staff from having to print a
new label and "visit" the phone after it has been reprogrammed.
Sound and Sentinel proposed the same model telephones for staff and coverage positions. Each proposed a
different model for those that the Village designated as "convenience" telephones. These are instruments
placed in common areas, conference rooms, etc. They require a speaker (for paging) and several
programmable keys for features. Sound proposes a Cisco 7911 G and Sentinel proposed a Cisco 3911. The
7911 G is a fully supported Cisco phone while the 3911 supports most, but not all Cisco Call Manager features.
The 3911 is less expensive. Wilson Consulting believes the Village would be better served utilizing the
7911 G. These will guarantee the Village will be able to program the convenience telephones to perform any
and all functions demanded by the areas served by these instruments.
6. System Administration
All the systems proposed will permit the Village of Mount Prospect to perform all reasonable programming
changes. The administrative interface to each proposed system is a Web based application. This makes it
accessible from any PC. The VoIP systems will allow Village staff to more easily accommodate user requests
for moving telephones and/or installing new telephones. A VoIP telephone can be easily moved from one
location to another and adding a telephone is similar to adding a new workstation. TDM systems require
factory certified technicians to perform these tasks.
Training for Village of Mount Prospect staff to perform routine programming functions is included in each
proposal.
Sound proposed to include the Village's existing AVST system as part of the new telephone system. They are
an authorized AVST dealer. Should a problem arise that involves the voicemail system, the Village would be
able to rely on Sound as a single source of support for both the telephone system and the voice mail system.
This coupled with the relative ease of administering the Cisco system accounts for the higher score awarded to
Sound in this category.
7. Cost
Table 1 — System Costs
The prices for the proposed systems include installation,
training and a one-year parts and labor warranty on all
system components. Sound's proposal for the NEC
system was the least expensive. It is a TDM (traditional
digital system) and therefore utilizes the same
infrastructure as the Village's current Fujitsu system.
Each of the proposals except those from Sound (NEC)
and Altura were for VoIP systems. Therefore, they
include upgrades to the Village's data infrastructure that
are required to support this new application on the
Village's data network. This includes new data switches
and installation of new data wiring at selected locations.
The cost of these upgrades from the vendors averaged
about $70,000. The upgrades would likely be part of
future Village budgets because the equipment proposed
is replacing current equipment that is at or near the "end -
of -life" status. Implementing anticipated applications
such as video conferencing and video monitoring will
require this upgraded infrastructure.
0
Vendor
Purchase Cost
Points
Sound (NEC)
$192,235
10.0
Altura
$241,432
8.0
TIG
$245,305
7.8
Sentinel
$272,976
7.0
CCC
$285,896
6.7
Pentegra
$289,393
6.6
Sound (Cisco)
$295,767
6.5
Maron Structure
$321,291
6.0
Midco
$348,632
5.5
ATI
$385,750
5.0
Projected
Vendor
5 Year Cost
Points
Sound (NEC)
$228,363
10.0
TIG
$310,053
7.4
CCC
$329,500
6.9
Altura
$334,758
6.8
Pentegra
$364,101
6.3
Sound (Cisco)
$383,685
6.0
Sentinel
$392,389
5.8
Maron Structure
$421,291
5.4
Midco
$422,416
5.4
ATI
$436,300
5.2
RECOMMENDATION
Our recommendation is based on the total points awarded to each proposal. Points were awarded to each
proposal based on the criteria below (also described under the Vendor Analysis section). Each evaluation
criteria was assigned a weight. The weights assigned reflect the relative importance of the criteria to the
evaluation. The criteria used and their weights were:
Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Weight
Vendor strength
200
Manufacturer support
200
System configuration
100
System features
100
Telephone instruments
100
System administration
100
System Cost (Acquisition)
100
System Cost (5 year)
100
Total Points
1,000
The results of the evaluation' are as follows:
Vendor(Manufacturer)
Points
Sound Incorporated (Cisco)
855
Sound Incorporated (NEC)
840
Altura (Avaya)
818
CCC (Avaya)
806
Sentinel (Cisco)
798
Telcom Innovations Group (Mitel)
792
Maron Structure (Cisco)
784
Midco (Mitel)
759
Pentegra (3Com)
729
ATI (ShoreTel)
712
Wilson Consulting recommends that the Village of Mount Prospect enter an agreement with Sound
Incorporated ("Sound") for a new telecommunications system. The proposal from Sound provides the
following advantages to the Village:
1. Sound proposed the most robust system design in accordance with the Village's desire to have the
most reliable system possible.
2. Sound has the experience and expertise necessary to implement and support the proposed system.
Sound has extensive experience installing systems similar in scope to that proposed for the Village
of Mount Prospect.
3. Sound will provide single vendor support for all system components. This includes the Village's
existing AVST voice mail system. Having a single vendor support structure will facilitate
correcting problems when the source of the problem (i.e. voice mail system or telephone system)
may not be apparent.
4. While not the least expensive proposal, Wilson Consulting believes that the system will provide
the best value to the Village as illustrated by the total evaluation score including system price.
' See Appendix #2 for the evaluation.
10
m
m
c
2 m tact N
c m 0 E o
NC L m
r C Q O y U>
O U O U m N J O C > U)
N N N N �o^o aUi v umiocc:,'
w -j C) m am) >'�'�°CDCD
m m o a E o c N o o
c }}>} E N O CUA oa��Sao
U L > a C7 U S
y c (D U
} m CO
c u') Y
O
U
N
C
O N
Y C �
C � N
m C
d N m 3
O C a
O O O C O N �
C) ui N .o a N L E m (D U E
P- _ N r O
c N N N N a)O >1 j. O O a)O > T7a m
L a) a) a) a) m N C m m O C) m N 2) p > >. ,Fa), 'O V O (� L U �`
O }}}} m m m > > O O O m O N O N m
F @ Q Q O a) J O Ur` N .> U C E d)
irM
U Q w a w6 N y
E o a
Q a m
o
U
a) x
co
0
N OC) 2 N
0 0 d C O J a) C7 C J
0 00 r- X N O n-j
N _` L E Y= 3
7 N N N N N O j. : O— n �l 0 m O T (D C N O W= m
E -L
a) a) N a) N C m m 00 O m N O O a) 10 N 0 Z
W Q > Y}} CU �� Q moo w -jo Ems" >J m ° m�
CL d Q a w d m m
00 Q >>>
a AR
E a>)
Z :: d
0 T_
O y @
r2N
d O
CL
LL
O O
L
w as y
O
d m
c U
T O)
> a > m '�
Q vE aw
n U a J L a) CD U m m o m
a m� a) mai �o —O a) LEa)c maU
Q }}} o t o 0 o m o O N E L Z >, a) o r w N 2 CO .0 a Co
C (n a) N (n (n C 'A y u) O. N j a N ~ U fa j
> > > m E Q o y o
m
C N O
N O m
N
Q)
y
m d aN Uam y C Nc N3 ¢a) ay) add N T N pOCrn
T_tNN
(cD
C 0 m - N 0) —@ U
Oi vm> am waTmm w c VC)
SmoLo
E w J�onmcd WdaW mofO d m 0 m -o E 43
ao OaUo 0 o mmLo ' p o m
LU A aN w a sLL D A u YYc}
omQw a
c E E E
O m >Z O a)U U o
•� E C LL N T N a
d O
m O c U Z c o a
Q m
p c D o
=01
v E a
O� z m
w
Q U
O
N
E
Z
c
O
N
CL
O7
O
UO
C7
� N c
N
O
_0 a) V
y
C
O
a)
_ y
"J L w "O
ay ay a) aoi
O
Cl)Cl)oo
` (a 0
« a@ w�
rL
E O .N
c@i�un2 7-o Eo�Lo¢
N
N>
C}}}}
N
Q
D O
N
N )
(0 L O)
E
M
O a) >
C°1
� N
J
H
@
S
@
"O O C N
'>
J a) 0
O m
G1
C
V) y y y
ii 01 r
~
O
N y 0 m y
U a) O ._ @ O
( N L E H Y N L p
—_ @ O T 7 (n O @—>> O
U' >
V
a) a) a) d
}}}}
(JJ M Op
;
W ry >` Oo m J Oa>
C)
O O U
a)¢ O O0
Z CN
Z O �+O
a)C, (a O
V1
o� >z
E @m@�
a > »
0
0
m
a`>
a)
m
U)
a Y 3
:2 c a)
@
¢ O
J V ° m> m
c
m
a)
oU y.cc 0,
C7 a)
ti r EF m�.E
v
N N co co
-C)
(n
ai @o= W @
y yom -jC).Z
N2-0
- @ a
TO T?(�%oU d
C
}}} }
@O N
UO
Q
U� i{ - C) 0 i>-' C>
OOO (a @Qom j 0 2
NM >
(p
NN � N >
U �C
z a
_N@
U
}
Ln
�@o
d 3
O
0
a
C
O
m
(n
J y a) O U
@
¢ O @
N C� C _N
U
C
y y y y
I�
C
O a) @ O =_ w @ O
J
@ @ w Y
a U
C
}}} }
fa(OO
N
O
U
y O T00o E O
U O 2' O
cu
y >'OM.2 @ U) V O(n O a
@ J
N d
d
U
V O
c CN
In
U O_'
O
3
U
C
U i >
3 a U Y
FE
U
}
0 (7 >m U)
h wo
n
>
O �' m
V) y
Ld
U V U
C
LL c a
O° o`
o
a
'-
N n
w a a
a
a
3
-j d o O o
(7°)
X
X
wy —_�
LES $oo
a) O
�~
a) N N N
>
>
O a) O @ @ O
U >o T E3
@ O _7 @ L L
rT"ti a UUU
>
aci
}}}}
E
E
o
Cl) o� n �o
Ew >g� U) (f)
a
O
U
U
o
W d @
C
M
C @
Y »> m
s
`m y
Y a v
(0
v
d
IL
y
n
r
a
J m c a)
@lA
d
4)
N N N y
U
0
=
O Uco @ O 0
vL
U 0 >. 7 O S d
°
N a) N m
} } } }
0�
m 00
Cl)
)a
U
N m
TO O
@ J
0 L 0
MO ��._ 10N Ow �._
N @ ° ,
N
a)
N
O O
NM T
_
@ V
>2a _ U Q7
g
>
m o
m a ° u cc w
U a)
Y
@ a
a
y
m
=
E a) -O
E
C y N N (D O a)
A
C°
°
•O
a) y
>fa
C7
�' N@
a+
O@ C >. C L C
'N l0 tl)
O@
C >. U
'N O C
E
y�
a)
tum
m
?w
Z
w
i. N
w m
9y.
m
G U O> O
0 7 a a) `m a �'@
a
a
U
o 7 n rncL
V
d y
@�L
C ��
•@
C W 0)
U)
°) E.N.
CJ
V @'O
Cwa a.
LL
�(n
v•
o-° w
a
d
@ c a E
O
@ �' i E
cam
o
w�"in
c
>�¢ N«
z
yn m -j
r
m
U
DD
y
>
7c 15O
°
a v
Z =
Z ate)
o r
Q
LL
m i
@ y
ani oa
y
Z O
0
O C
@
Q
@ O
d
C
C
O
o
O_0
C
Z
�
�
¢
a)
U
O
a)
E
7
z
c
O
N
a
6
T
C
p tf
@
w
y N a.0 0
a) T a)
=O
(D a`) 22
.n .0 @ @
w. w
o
O ..�
OD`
O N
C
_C U m a) N 2
L j M V}}} U
a a a� L L
0) 0) 01
y W 7
U 0`
N 0) O O
00
U C N N
O
V L N C O
C
_00
16 1�
Ul N V)
d
X
a
X X X
O (n
(O
@
Z
a) a) (D
O
@
N
0
O
T
1a 7
'O
L1O
N > 0
.@c
_d a)O @ @
w6
VwC
-
L
N
O 0)a) O
_
�Co
CL a1
C
U
rC 100
'X 'X 'X
C
U
Z
a) o a
U
E2 a
0
17 a o @ @
v
C
@
C u.
aE
N m O�a
L
L L@@
q a)
'X
O
O O@ 7 a) N a)
1] d H '0 'D
S- O O N N 0) C)
@
U @
W
Q
N V N co
.N .N
.N
N
D O
j
a
U
c
a m m
a
CL m
H E m
t
-
Zm a a
3
0, a
r2N
0 O
LL 0 0 O
O
LU ca
c7 d
E2
J F
O
J_
L
@ N
c
"O N
3
)
1O r
@
QI
'o ani aNi a)�
L } E}} n,
d
an a �
@ @ rn0)
N to C C
yco E
UoU)
�E
UUfn
w
X X
M Q
Q
Z c0i
@
o a
m
N
C
C N 0) �O C N U V N
j N- C -
L 7-0 0
m j -00 N= Y D.
°�'�
U)
W c�aoi o�LL�
w
m� a
c
�� rn� o o a
E
o
ac)OOU
c'��
¢ooZv°e
ptcacao00
3�
cn
w
um��a�o
U
G
'@.�o�CD
H
�
fQ
C
o 05 �--
V)
�@
C
�
C L=_ U) U)
a >>� Q)
o civ
H
E 0 oa
0�
G�
d
a aiiii
c
o o E o N
00
m
�'z o 0 to
a)
N N d) E M
>
U)
Z
CL CL o a
ocnCLa
(o
a
N N
��
p ,U
of
as
0
a
0
c
M
@
a
6
a
3
O
a
@
O
� m
N N U j
°
U
W
c
T
cu
CL 0
N.O
d
L o' 'C }}
N dN °
N'O O
D
@ fA
a
C) a
0 N N U 7
N w m m
O
N n
l0 @ N
@ o C�.o aa) a)L
0 L j m O_
aaaF-LL'@O"@O
v°Uiv
(� w0
Q N E
C}}
C N -Dc� 0 @
C
-
minp
a
Z -
ain�o
N
@
L
m d
Z
E
O z
O
N N N
co
J
d
F-
T
a) N N
N17 17m
_J
L
'O "O
a w w U 'O
@
@ E
O O .0 C N a1
p
ON Lp O 'N }}
0 O) @ @
~ O wp co OI OJ
C
C V)
N
E
V N N
7
_7
L cc) m U C >- )-N
w N S @
N NmO
@
a
N
C N @ 7
C }} L
M d O
O N m
CD
N a
CO U U N
1O '°�mm cats) 3omd>
o
00< 'E �v
U Coog0o
Nc•~
@ AD)
@
2 o y a n
0 0 E co N -°
cu n E M
a) N N N a) 0
Z a C ° a
N N N n 7
N
O
C
O)
0
O
a
@
� m
N N U j
°
U
W
c
°
-0,
7 C 0 n N N L
CL 0
N.O
d
L o' 'C }}
N dN °
C d mani
co
@ fA
a
CL E >
O (n
z
aaa�-�'c��
z N
O)
a,
co ccoomm
� N
d O
c m@ c c
U w C
0
0 0 a
N N N N
@
.N y N
TD
Wca
0 d
N
X X X
d
T
a) N N
m70
_J
a
O _
N N N 'O N 7
7@
o
O
v_
7 -Up
O ° 'O C a) CD
D F- F-
_7
L cc) m U C >- )-N
w N S @
N NmO
@
a
CO U U N
1O '°�mm cats) 3omd>
o
00< 'E �v
U Coog0o
Nc•~
@ AD)
@
2 o y a n
0 0 E co N -°
cu n E M
a) N N N a) 0
Z a C ° a
N N N n 7
N
O
C
O)
0
Z
J O
7 iO
2 J
O x
U c
V
O
a
O
a) 17
O C
° E
m
@ @
E
r
@
O (n
O
aaa�-�'c��
n x
a,
co ccoomm
to
c m@ c c
U w C
U
N N N N
@
.N y N
TD
N
X X X
@
T
a) N N
m70
U U)
o
D F- F-
or
c
N NmO
@
Ir- w
ooZcE
o
app
E
aaa�=
N w
N
a0 p OD OD
co
@ .(�0
Cl
U o C
U
N N NN
@@ c c
N in iq
O C
T
N N N
M
w
J N N@@
O
Lo
N
N N
C
r L L m m
O
aA) F a w w O
rnrn
N X m
Uw
p C @ @ C C
� U1 fn
n
@
N N N
@
U
0
o
N a) @ m
c
O
cp
Q1
c
o E
�
rn �vv
E
as-aHw--
— c@ @ Dnrn
0U)Mn
Ua
C)
c ooDm
c
v)
cmm c c
.N O N N
c3 'o
co
x
a)
m
�.
Z too N^^
ayi d o
a�DmY
p
u°
a
N a°i Q a U° LL�
>
>°
m
N° o g
G 0 0
3
U
Q
.� m@@
U
` ci
Q L)
(A
c
@
c
@
a—mN(A
7i
W �.) >�
F-
a�
a
EIL
fq N '-• 65 w .2 !O V)Z
0
co
U) T z U .0
U)
7
U co CL Q.
Q
a
Z
J O
7 iO
2 J
O x
U c
V
O
a
F
U
W
CL d
N .
O 0 3
IL d
a E .�
Z r a)
Z
> > -
p N a
y
N O
a
LLO o 0
w d CL
J F
J_
a
m
a) d K
O (a
y Q
O N (n J
O O U U U
O
g H
7 Nm
QI C7 amiC�UU n. mQ
N N m —
0
02000 0 L EL
. y.
E
L L U_. 3
o cn cn
U) U N O N
(D>}
U
O
a)
C13
CL
U)
yN 04 7 N N N
w m C 7 m
a •— m = >O C C
E c O> O O 49IN 70
O= U N U@ O
U Z a N a a
7 7> 7 m y a)
w a a r o z
w LL LL O p
a` cn
a) N N Q) a) a) N N N N N N N
} } } } } } } } } } } } }
U Ol V) N N O)y J C N N E d
«m+ .0 rm-. y U a) 7 d y
o y L
CL N a) O` N m y m a U y Cu)
N N a) aa)2) ` _m N N m O) N
(Cp V 4 7 U F 7 p d d 'C p
v a ) E o) a A -o m o a_ m
w v E'c d CD r_ dy
O (6 LL m C 0' C a
U U O 7 U E C" N E C O
m O L 0 N E
J �)mma)3 w a)E�waa)it
O
> O N p fn p :L-
.m
O a) L
a En m
H LL a a) E o o y a:
m L O N
U U) y m - `t n.
ac a)my
a @ m c U
p a
m
3
c
U
a)
p
i2
a)
C.
N
m N N m N N N N N N N N N N
L a) a) w N N N N N a) a) N a) N
(UO } } N } } } } } } } } } }
3
a)
}
V) N O)Y ^- Y C N 0)^ d
ao) C C U m O N C 7
f Y@@ a . o '5
�)E U m a3� vTECy
E o> C)M 0UaL- gy m
U N C y 'z .o m a) C Z m E U
C 'C C a) E a) C O N U N
O m L) L
O.L. U 7 o N>. ` �- C N U
U
U 0 7 m 7 U) 7
pQ O-OQ U1] N� y�
a`) o` o o m a d
U7 C C C Y
O
U 3 O U U
.Q
U
>CU
> v LL m o U
O E m - m
m o U >
o m Q
B a
QU)
0
N
N
�
y
N
y
l0 N
a>
` a
O LL U U
>>
d U d
O
tv C) o a a
o o
XN
V C)(DIn�N
� >
Ca
) m
L)
O -O O
` m
m
M S F
m U U
215 E
)n N N N N N N N N .0 C N N
N N N N N N N N y N N d N N
Fu a LU
��Cf)
=om
m
}}}}}}} }}��}}
N N
m
O (6
(a
- N
7 7
U
a U
U
>>�
O C)
c
U
>
a)a)
d
Z
c
U)
a
m
a) d K
O (a
y Q
O N (n J
O O U U U
O
g H
7 Nm
QI C7 amiC�UU n. mQ
N N m —
0
02000 0 L EL
. y.
E
L L U_. 3
o cn cn
U) U N O N
(D>}
U
O
a)
C13
CL
U)
yN 04 7 N N N
w m C 7 m
a •— m = >O C C
E c O> O O 49IN 70
O= U N U@ O
U Z a N a a
7 7> 7 m y a)
w a a r o z
w LL LL O p
a` cn
a) N N Q) a) a) N N N N N N N
} } } } } } } } } } } } }
U Ol V) N N O)y J C N N E d
«m+ .0 rm-. y U a) 7 d y
o y L
CL N a) O` N m y m a U y Cu)
N N a) aa)2) ` _m N N m O) N
(Cp V 4 7 U F 7 p d d 'C p
v a ) E o) a A -o m o a_ m
w v E'c d CD r_ dy
O (6 LL m C 0' C a
U U O 7 U E C" N E C O
m O L 0 N E
J �)mma)3 w a)E�waa)it
O
> O N p fn p :L-
.m
O a) L
a En m
H LL a a) E o o y a:
m L O N
U U) y m - `t n.
ac a)my
a @ m c U
p a
m
3
c
U
a)
p
i2
a)
C.
N
m N N m N N N N N N N N N N
L a) a) w N N N N N a) a) N a) N
(UO } } N } } } } } } } } } }
3
a)
}
V) N O)Y ^- Y C N 0)^ d
ao) C C U m O N C 7
f Y@@ a . o '5
�)E U m a3� vTECy
E o> C)M 0UaL- gy m
U N C y 'z .o m a) C Z m E U
C 'C C a) E a) C O N U N
O m L) L
O.L. U 7 o N>. ` �- C N U
U
U 0 7 m 7 U) 7
pQ O-OQ U1] N� y�
a`) o` o o m a d
U7 C C C Y
O
U 3 O U U
.Q
U
>CU
> v LL m o U
O E m - m
m o U >
o m Q
B a
QU)
0
N
N
`
y
O
l0 N
a>
N
O LL U U
>>
d U d
O
tv C) o a a
O d 0
O N N
V C)(DIn�N
� >
N N N N aaz aaN a
}N }N }N }N } } } }N }N }N }N }N }N } } } }N }N }N }N } } } } } }
I- M m
O -O O
0 CD CD
L c.
} } } } > } } } } } } } } } } } } } } > } } } } } }
L)
Fu a LU
= a -
U- -
wo,o
U
0U
C
a
m
a) d K
O (a
y Q
O N (n J
O O U U U
O
g H
7 Nm
QI C7 amiC�UU n. mQ
N N m —
0
02000 0 L EL
. y.
E
L L U_. 3
o cn cn
U) U N O N
(D>}
U
O
a)
C13
CL
U)
yN 04 7 N N N
w m C 7 m
a •— m = >O C C
E c O> O O 49IN 70
O= U N U@ O
U Z a N a a
7 7> 7 m y a)
w a a r o z
w LL LL O p
a` cn
a) N N Q) a) a) N N N N N N N
} } } } } } } } } } } } }
U Ol V) N N O)y J C N N E d
«m+ .0 rm-. y U a) 7 d y
o y L
CL N a) O` N m y m a U y Cu)
N N a) aa)2) ` _m N N m O) N
(Cp V 4 7 U F 7 p d d 'C p
v a ) E o) a A -o m o a_ m
w v E'c d CD r_ dy
O (6 LL m C 0' C a
U U O 7 U E C" N E C O
m O L 0 N E
J �)mma)3 w a)E�waa)it
O
> O N p fn p :L-
.m
O a) L
a En m
H LL a a) E o o y a:
m L O N
U U) y m - `t n.
ac a)my
a @ m c U
p a
m
3
c
U
a)
p
i2
a)
C.
N
m N N m N N N N N N N N N N
L a) a) w N N N N N a) a) N a) N
(UO } } N } } } } } } } } } }
3
a)
}
V) N O)Y ^- Y C N 0)^ d
ao) C C U m O N C 7
f Y@@ a . o '5
�)E U m a3� vTECy
E o> C)M 0UaL- gy m
U N C y 'z .o m a) C Z m E U
C 'C C a) E a) C O N U N
O m L) L
O.L. U 7 o N>. ` �- C N U
U
U 0 7 m 7 U) 7
pQ O-OQ U1] N� y�
a`) o` o o m a d
U7 C C C Y
O
U 3 O U U
.Q
U
>CU
> v LL m o U
O E m - m
m o U >
o m Q
B a
QU)
0
N
m
m
`
m
l0 N
(o
«I m
LO 0 C7
c�aa
- d
y y y y N N N N N N N N N N N N y V) N N (A N N N y y
m moa a a)m ��oma a)a Oa
z
Q c)
a)
UU) U)
o 0
} } } } > } } } } } } } } } } } } } } > } } } } } }
U
= a -
o
wo,o
mmm
mLL
U)
8CDC7
C
c
U
a
m
a) d K
O (a
y Q
O N (n J
O O U U U
O
g H
7 Nm
QI C7 amiC�UU n. mQ
N N m —
0
02000 0 L EL
. y.
E
L L U_. 3
o cn cn
U) U N O N
(D>}
U
O
a)
C13
CL
U)
yN 04 7 N N N
w m C 7 m
a •— m = >O C C
E c O> O O 49IN 70
O= U N U@ O
U Z a N a a
7 7> 7 m y a)
w a a r o z
w LL LL O p
a` cn
a) N N Q) a) a) N N N N N N N
} } } } } } } } } } } } }
U Ol V) N N O)y J C N N E d
«m+ .0 rm-. y U a) 7 d y
o y L
CL N a) O` N m y m a U y Cu)
N N a) aa)2) ` _m N N m O) N
(Cp V 4 7 U F 7 p d d 'C p
v a ) E o) a A -o m o a_ m
w v E'c d CD r_ dy
O (6 LL m C 0' C a
U U O 7 U E C" N E C O
m O L 0 N E
J �)mma)3 w a)E�waa)it
O
> O N p fn p :L-
.m
O a) L
a En m
H LL a a) E o o y a:
m L O N
U U) y m - `t n.
ac a)my
a @ m c U
p a
m
3
c
U
a)
p
i2
a)
C.
N
m N N m N N N N N N N N N N
L a) a) w N N N N N a) a) N a) N
(UO } } N } } } } } } } } } }
3
a)
}
V) N O)Y ^- Y C N 0)^ d
ao) C C U m O N C 7
f Y@@ a . o '5
�)E U m a3� vTECy
E o> C)M 0UaL- gy m
U N C y 'z .o m a) C Z m E U
C 'C C a) E a) C O N U N
O m L) L
O.L. U 7 o N>. ` �- C N U
U
U 0 7 m 7 U) 7
pQ O-OQ U1] N� y�
a`) o` o o m a d
U7 C C C Y
O
U 3 O U U
.Q
U
>CU
> v LL m o U
O E m - m
m o U >
o m Q
B a
QU)
0
N
z r
O
)o
CL
�
0
� a
0
N 0)
U U)
N
N
7
y
_
— a) x
C
m
m
wwwwwwo
m N m 0 0 N N
7
U}a
CDC)
C) M
C
OO @
C CCCC
}a) }a)
} } }0 }0 }0 }m }N }N }N
}NCM
C
M M M M
M
m2
C
m
E
v `�°
(D
}
L
a 7
H
U
LL
m a
Z
rn
c
N d C
0 0 0 0 0
m
°�
00000
N N N N N
°��
m y
N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
-O U -O -DD -00 -OD
7 7 7 7 7 7
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N n. a) m m m m m
C
•, •, Q
0 0
} } } } } } }
U U U U U U
} } } } } } } } } } } } }
Cw
W w W W
N m
C C C C C C
N
Z Z Z Z Z
N
U m
O >
(M
CD
N N
N
a) U
N
m
•D
I
Ll N
N N N N N N
"O -j 7 7 7
m mmm N N N N N N
C
m mr_
LY LY
>,
C C}
N
} } } } } }
ZS"
aa)) aN) a) L` N N N c
>- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- }
U) U)
m U m
U U U U
C C C
0
U U
c >
7 > m
o
N >
� Z
J
N
�
ii
N d
O 0)
m m
NC
10'C
a) a -
.cu
F
U
CI
cm m
_
O O E
av_0'o-D'o
-U0 -00 -m0 -OD -00 -OD
N N N N N N N N N
W
a
c
C C~~
m m (n
2 2 of T
Ll >, N
C .
N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N
>- } } } } } }
7 7 7 7 7 7
U
N N N N N
a) m m a) m Q) a) a) a) a) a) m a) m
} } } } } } } Y } } } } } }
U)
4)
- -� 0
m O m
c c c c c c
O o
N
m m
s
U U
D>
IL
Z a) d
Z
p T a
U
N N
LL m O
LL CL
o o 0
as
w
J
F
d
J_
C
�
d
a
N a
`o
rn
N
a`� m
c
m c
m
m m
0a
m
vv
C01I
V
c c��
m m
d m
T 2
N N N N
N a) a) a)
-0 -0
7 7
N N N N N N N N N N
N 0 N N N 0 0 a) N N
2 g
oc m
} } } }
} } } } } } } } } }
_ _ U U
f0 m
m O
-0 m
C c
U U
> > m
N >
a Z
7
N Y
�' rn
T 0) N N N 0, N
U E a; a; °) c d
U
C %) N Y
o a E
Fn
N N 0) Y c N 0) ^ O_
w 0.� c U�- m o o d E_ � 7
a7
@= O C C
c j'
N m .y .N fN N
a7
- C Y O N L
U d
O O E m@ y6 O J Y
pa
U a) o .2
>_ N
�° LL 'o
m a c c a) Q c
m
y �° a1)) > U
,�
0) U a) - m a) - N E 3 `)
CO 0.0 a �.
U
U U
0 Z
N N N n= N
`
m N N N D) N
C
C T U N O U A t C1
7> 7 N N
Q LL
Ia "O 7 U
r
Q a C m 0) p
U m C J '0 m a) C . Lm m E U
NLl IL
O�Z
E �-D
a)
mta aN
N Z
E N m m m C� m V a)
o
Q
C�M.0
o u) u) E'o -
P 0
LL
m C a c m
c_ m m c 0
cm) E L D,
° N 0 y N a U
m°
U U w D
E
7
7
U N O L
J
y
j j a) E
Q Q O Q U .0 a) y
w�m�';
N
a�oiEYwy-
dojo om 0)
j N O
U)
Q C L C w .�
m a` C — c c D Y
~ a °)
3
U U m m U a
a
m: -cm)
E o 0 d
�Laum
V
J'N LY� U
U N
CL s+ m m
mmmm7-
,m
J 7 V LL -0 C. U
N
m
E F a)
c U
Cy m— m
m m m
a
m m
c m o U m
>
D a
U m 7
CL Q
3
C in
c
U
a)
Q
z r
O
)o
U
Z
d
N
`
Q
U
N N
O
C
O
p
C N
O a) C
O
U
U
U N
N
W N N N a) @ a'@
O
C VU) N
a)
C N N N N E N aa)i aa)i N N N N aa)i aa)i N aa)i
C d c- C U
ccc Q O a) Z .2 C
} } } N
G i..)
U } } } } O } } } } } } } } } } }
U w a O
C
� ° a
`m (DU) 00
U
—
O a)
E }
E0
2
'E
y
}
o
:D z
w
O
U
U
U
Z
d
V
`
Q
U
O
O
N N N N N N
N w w m m a)
O
C N N N N
>.
N
N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
@ N N N N N N
L a) a) N a)
} } } }
a) (�
Q0
C a) a) a) a) () a) N a) a) a) a) a) N N a) a)
U } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }
-O a) N N () a) a)
>- } >- >- >- }
U
a)
w a`
N
H
Q
—
Q
U
—
N
O
U
U
Z
V
`
Q
Q
N N N O N
a) a) a)o z a)
} } } z Q } Z
d N N N N N N N
O_U) N N N N N N N N N
X E a) a) m(D N a) (L)() a) Q) a) a) m m N
N N N N N N
N w w m m a)
LU
Um
CL
N .�
U
U
w a`
M 2D
E >
H
N
O y
N
N O
0 p O
O
WO. a
a
J H
O
J_
N 0
UO
Q U N 2
N E
N N U N E N
N
~~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
co
O N N C C N N
QI
} } } d V)
L L C C } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }
} } a a } }
U V)
00
a) o
C
O
L L N
a N(D`O
L
N
d U)
}
C
C N U �U�p O p 0
'tL O @
E E N r N (D C aa) c) a O N O) O a)�� N j y O N
+�" w� O J v OY i E X cu O)@ C O)0)=).�.
E O) O� y (6
O C Z(D N C
E
E
m
M
a r@~ U
> U C Q L d o @ O U d N a) N A N 0 C y a7 0
N L N co U N
3
a"�'i '.U'• �--.. m
C
N .4 : v D a3i rn« 'm E E (D W'a M := m E L))
a x 2 m y o
E C C r-
^N.
al )p x CD N U m N 'io c c w L -O a) E N T
Q
c E N
2 N x0
C a) a7 O_ C a) C C U j
a7 O m
N N O `) YO
NVQ o
e @ Nn mm E tea; E E O a�n> IM -0>
H
aa))0 o Nin
yr
c m Y
r 2 a') j N E c N TQ o m a n�
N N .0
t m v E
-D c O
N
inE `o
_
a° O >S? E Q�> Oy
)�u.,aw
u
O C
-o a) H v o
O O. N C7 C
c a) m E N r
= l0 "O o o
>75
= a)
0 N d
O
E (/7
—@U
a
O
a) C)
E
E .o
w
N
a)
U N
N
C
p
> U
H
Q
a
0
C
0
�a
N X o Ia
m
N
O
N N M 2 U
N
MON
N N N
XD
W N d N
%
> (L) (D
N)O
XQ
-
}}}}}}}}}}} }N }N }N }N
.ca7
a.ca3
p 44a
>- LJ 2 a }
Q
c n m
a
=
Y 0 0
E
U
o
E c °D
0 W
O
O
d
H
m
N �
C
a7
c
c C
N �
c m
c
a) T N a3
N
V Z
NN
N N
C
C
T
V Z c a3
N X o Ia
N
Nn O p
o
Naani
N
n CO N
NN N N N N N N N N N N N
W
O_
}N }N }N
o a) o a
vNCc
�E
mA< Q
U Q U
.aa_ .aa }Na�
Qom
o
Y 00
i'm
U
o
o
N E
Q)
O
O
C
'E @ O
N
N N
`n
N X o Ia
O
C
N N N N
N N N Y @
} } } 6 @ n p
N N N N N N N (N N N N N N N N N N N
C N (, a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) m a) a) a) a)
X > a) >-} } } } } } } } } } } } } }
C W N d p p N
a) y ._ ._ a)
V p >-lL
N
U Q U
00
m U
c o
N E
a)
O
m
N �
C
a7
c
c C
fa
F-
W
d
C
a) O a) co Im C
N N N a) Co 0
N N a7
c a N u07 C N N N N N N N N N a) N N N aa)i N
O Q Q (a '�
c Q O N° U
CL
m
}}} m n�
.0
UU �v }}}}}}}}}>-}} Q}}}
(jam In no
O.0
N
no°a
� — O
�W OQ)i
m
}
as
F E >a)
�� ED
z
W Q
c
OR
N y
2 N O
U. a
0o 0
w as
m
J H
a)
J_
C
>
d
n.
m
0
O
C.)
v
N a3
N N N
a) a) a) �
F- a) N a7
n CO N E N N N N N N N N N j j N .0 N N N
U a7 a7
O C N N .0 .O N
a)
} } } N
X > } } } } } } } } } U U } p_ T} }
r .N. } } d Q}
a s
c c 0
U
y 00
O O
N C
a
O
1p
W
c
a
C �N 0 w o 0 c,
d N m m p
E E d c� �� m r a'i c a o am) m o aNi � o a)� ayi 0 T
; $? p p C o Y �_ E x o d 0) r m m�
€ rn°� N m °'
p c Z y o c
E
E E° F V
d Im
3
j T U c n L a n N J U 0 0 (a N F N 0. C y c0 p
N u)moE no>3 w dENo n- Eco
N L tl U U
U oa3
O
U
N C C .O. N
c c
O� 7 a) O) :. c0 E N N U 7 .. U
In E
c
a
d x D p
�
m 3 d c
Q
m m X a) N U y cuo,> c w r m E y E>
'2 O .3 c
Q
�
d E
m T @ a7 .�
E c
C m N O C .O+ N (a N
u C N> m o T � m
cc O N
coN
yS N°
N T� Q
,a3 a) N o
o �� 2 E 0. E E a v'
o @ N 'm F- m m o o Q o n> m> U
o cn
a) O w N o
a 0) E
oma �c
> r >2� o
��m�cLiE
N U)E o
�EcNa
a O >°� EE QO> >�
°)33Lnn
N
U
C
y F Q O
a) o_ N (7 cO`
c y (a E N r
0 n
N
2 N O)
N
N n
O
O
5 m
m
N E U%
O
E o
E °
0
N
a) >
U N
C
> CD
U
H
Q
N
a1
m
oLU
O
awi awi awi
M
a w
N
aw)
aa))
O
O
N
rrr
aorrrrrrC)
`
C
O Q a) a) N N a)
� d
E ° a
awi o awi
U)awi
U)
c 0 0 0 0 aw) aw) B
awi : m a aa))
@
� a 0)
awi awi awi
} O }
O } } } } } } N
} } } }
U U U } }
CL d
U)
or
,`
�a o
E
c c c
y
`°
C
r
O
n
Z
Q
N
a1
w
O
O
awi awi awi
U
3 E
o > aw awi aw aw awi aw v
aw aw aw aw awi
-0-0 '0
> j
aw)
aa))
w 0 0 0 a 0
V
a
rrr
aorrrrrrC)
rrrrr
C
O Q a) a) N N a)
a) a) N N a)
}}}}}}
N
a)
m N N N a) N
L m a) a)
a)
C C C
7 7 7
CL d
U)
F
o
.0
0
w
O
awi awi awi
U
3 E
o > aw awi aw aw awi aw v
aw aw aw aw awi
-0-0 '0
> j
aw)
aa))
w 0 0 0 a 0
V
a
rrr
aorrrrrrC)
rrrrr
L)0
r
r
}}}}}}
W
O U C)
C C C
CL d
U)
o
C
o
CL ` m
a E .>
F
Z r a)
7 N
O
N N
a) O
LLO CL
o 0
W Ga
t7 d
w
m
�
J ~
J
0
O
>
w
O w
C
O
C U w w w w w w m
w w w w w
w
w
C -
w w w O w°
F' a) a) N
QI } } }
O O a) a) a) jn
N N N
a U } } } } } } O
O p
O
N m a) N N
} } } } }
7 7 7
U U U
C C C
N
a)
w a) (� 0-0 a) O
} } } C } N
U N
m
m
O
C
m
a) ❑ C
C V— O
E w w w w 'O ,�,+
C m w 7
C N« C N r
O v C .� 7 C
O) O) 0)
C C C C
a) .w+
V C
C C
O O
N
C
N a) C
N C ,O O- N C m°
RRoi0E
U 7
awi
w° oa°mm
T ° o a
0) a)
a
m am
Z c o E
c.�'c'c
Ea 'm 'm
yap
E
!° 6
Zm E oU
w m m_ r
O_
m
UO E Z
0
m - m- m
(n C C m Q'
'E
m o c r
w al a) U
0
c
C a)
m _
d N—
U
E 0° C
O C'
c�
0
O U m Z h0
O H U a E
aa+
a
C
o E E w
U O 7 C 0'
F- y c a
w .O 7
c)
C1 CT
m E
E 7
7 o w E d E m
O- C d
U o o
m 3
Q
o
~ ami 3 E C L
c
U
O m
�'
La�'
°' c
`ca
0 d
0 mS o
w O
m 0 W
m=
.= y 0>
a E,
LL
: E
3
o>
W� m
Z n y c c❑
o
H H
D
'R m 7
m a
.N
m
- a
; E
y
2» a�
a
E
in
�'S Er
c
OE
00
.�
a�ao� m
Mb
_
m Er m'
c N a) 3
a)
w
o V
N
m
'->
W E-N U
m �-ui
-o
O ma o
c
2
J
-5 m>
~ tm c
°
;
m a o
m
U
C
0
CL
C)I
C
0
a
C)
N N N> N N N N N N
> 3 E r r
N
N
O
0: a d
@ N N N
IL
F- E m
—000000
N
-J a)
C
O
C
E
N N
ai O
0
c}
0
C@@
d
H
as
c� m
Er���> )
C
7 �
O
f/1
ci
C �a
C
3 O
o O
N
F
U
C)I
C
cu a)
a
-o'Dv
a) N a)
N N N> N N N N N N
> 3 E r r
O o
N
m U
0: a d
IL
F- E m
N
-J a)
O
T A
O
C C C
N N
ai O
c}
CL
O o 0
C@@
E N N N
N to: O O O
0 0 0 0p_ 0-@
as
0) O) O)
C C C
c c
0«
V C
N
w
O m
N C ,Oc@ O
Z@ U E M O 0 V5
g�
0
> 0) 0) a) Om LL 0_
@
is
d
les
>
d
:9 C
w 0@ 0- m
@— d 2
a
0 ._ Z
C
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
d a 0 0 0 N N N N N 0 N N N N N 0
} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N a) () a) a) a) @ 0 0 a) 0 a) a)
} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }
N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N
00000 (Da) a) a) a) N N NZN d d
rrrrr rrr r r rrrrrr
01
m
-o'Dv
a) N a)
0
N
� Woo
m m a)
rrr
C
.0J
p_
J J
N
-J a)
O
C C C
c}
a) Q c
C V O
@ 5
C@@
E N N N
N to: O O O
0 0 0 0p_ 0-@
O v C .� c
N a a)
0) O) O)
C C C
c c
0«
V C
N
C c
O O
(a
N C ,Oc@ O
Z@ U E M O 0 V5
E
v
@!E
0
> 0) 0) a) Om LL 0_
@
is
2 c 0 E
a) O C L
les
.c
c'la'w
E
M
:9 C
w 0@ 0- m
@— d 2
O-
0
0 ._ Z
C
0
O
!n C c O Q' —
r
N d a) U
y
V
C N
� a) a) O) @ ? c
O
J C
a)
V
01 O f- U a~ E
C
0 0 7 C Q
�, U�,�
N O 7
@ 3
O"
E 7
g
O' C` d
o° 3
2a
c 0
U
��z�
S?
a
O
m
rn�� c a
v _o
C D) 0
c
G
N �a
? N m> d
LU
O 0
� �° ��
m m °? y
c .3 0 a) 0
0. LL
E
a'
0 3
0
o
w m y m
~~ �x
N SE
0--a`)
o—>'
C
Z.a2NEc�
2 -5la 0
m
E
in
5 E L_
c@
O E
u E
of o
0)-
CL a a) m
a
Mn
o 0
C NU N 3
a)
N
aU
N
(D
2
E a) y
w @ aO)>U
v
J
EO) ° E
c
ao
c U
CD i 0
U
C
N
e
0
0
d
cr) C) (D
N 0 N m
COD rn
0) O N m
C
P-
0 O
A
y
d
O
o a a a
V O LO p N CD O N
F
U
U
U
O O U0
m c') F
Q a N a N a O)
z
N
JO
z
O Y
U Q
O m
y Y
O
O O N
N O
` V V V
= N N N Co
H
W N (aN (0h
W r
Q m m rn
Ir a m
IL
F E .>
7 N w
R
00,
O O
a
LLO o 0
W ma
C7 _
J F
J_
O O U0
m c') F
Q a N a N a O)
z
N
JO
z
O Y
U Q
O m
y Y
O
Q
0
H
C
3 a a a
a V V N 0 N
L N � NZ
C
C
E
0
m
f -
d
c co c c
0 0
C N p, N p CO
� a �
(n
ci
c C7
M v v CO
C m N T N m
O
N
N Ln N r u7
N N N N O>
u) Lo N Zo
C
N p N p^
6 "O N V Q 'O m
A.O p.; p N 0
E2 a>'2tr L y'
U rnmm.c�m
W CY °DC7
0 m �C
> c0i
�°oa0i
o
U >
c
0
U
c
�M
yVj
a V
C
V W)
m N I N to
a
y �
of
n n
a E .
F
m�
z
H d
z
_
OT �
N
Y
v c
o
d 0
0
O.
Q L
x
J m
o
LU as
� m
J H
at
J_
C
>
N
a
N Ln N r u7
N N N N O>
u) Lo N Zo
C
N p N p^
6 "O N V Q 'O m
A.O p.; p N 0
E2 a>'2tr L y'
U rnmm.c�m
W CY °DC7
0 m �C
> c0i
�°oa0i
o
U >
c
0
U
I= w a> a>
'C 'C
C c
Z) :)
? N
J C
m
U) J
2 -
s
d
v
a�
U
N
d
O a c
E o
C
d T
a T
@
w
d y
N C V
Q0
7
C) O
O O N M 10 (O 7 0 � N O m
lqr
U
N
O O O O O
O
a)
O 'U
N
N
@
r N C
O O LO O U O n O v co O N
M LO O@ OD O O m l0
C OD m O
m y
O
- N
> N
V}
O O O O
p
O
O @
O U
N O C
O
O (Pr
_m
E9 EA E9 (A � (A Ul 64
N
>
C
U> EA (A (A fA
@ O
fA @
W
U
T
> o nU
caooa
w m
N .0
a@im
�m
@
E
o
a
T
o c c
c
I= w a> a>
'C 'C
C c
Z) :)
? N
J C
m
U) J
2 -
s
d
a�
U
N
d
U
N
O
a T
@
O
O ID U') O
O N M O - O
C N @ @ 000 @a 000N 0�_O OO
U D
U N
Co N
N
O O
O
pip
V O C C Vi ca Ui c s EH (A (A —1 N M- fA U)
E C_
M N
co
6F'
7
U
N N N
Q
c v) NN V
� (H Lo
E»i»(»
E o
C
}
c
-u4 u4u-4Cli
M Co
C-4C-4N(A NfA OM
W
U
T
EA
I= w a> a>
'C 'C
C c
Z) :)
? N
J C
m
U) J
2 -
s
a�
U
C
@
_
co
O. >
N @
U 'O
�
� M
r
U � v) �
@
'j N
N N N
Q
c v) NN V
� (H Lo
E»i»(»
E o
C
}
c
-u4 u4u-4Cli
M Co
C-4C-4N(A NfA OM
W
�� U O C
�
�.�
EA
w m
N .0
�m
@
o
a
T
m
IL E .>
N
Z adr
0
p a
w N
ryO
LLCL
O O
w as
C7 d
J F
J_
>
F-
O N N O O
O (O O M L
O@@ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 1 0 v O O ^
@ N
N I A
N
m
0 0 0 0 0 O
LO Lo Lo LO LO O
0 0 O �?
Q
m Lj C C (A (A fH (A (A fH (fl (A (A (O O NEA U
OD
} O
O}
O O O O O o
M
m
C
H O
E U o C Y 0 'O fN W Ul Q) C o U c 'L' c
V%
N 'O — 7@ N N N N ._ _. .c c.
O O
C N O
N—
C@@@@@ N
d N N N N o O
E
.@.
U >. 0) @
a a
@
d
L L@
O
L~
(n C (0 L U U U U 0@
=' N N —___ U N V c (n
O
Z:
.0 @
O
C` A
N M V l0 N 01
U
N .0 N@_ N
`° E Q
U
O .d-�
E
}
Q
o O vo o x E
}n~c�aUornrn�.�m.c�Y
Lo
n
ai N— O Q C C O O U c O ET
m
O
O LL mm mm o.5i
N N N@@ U
¢ N N co N Q 2 L
>
V
d
C
@ 41 w
rn m Q) '0 U
I= w a> a>
'C 'C
C c
Z) :)
? N
J C
m
U) J
2 -
s
Q
0 0 C) 0 117
to u7 0
M f07
O
m
n
l0 y
3
O
10 O N
N V O
m N fA
N
(D 3 (\j
N
}
O
_ _
C NM- Vi u!
r C
'y
(n
c
69 Ui EA
f
�
p 'IT 'o -D v U 'p'o
m N N N N N
v
O a) @ 0 0 0 0
O
0 0 a) a) O
Ch
l0 y
R O a V-0 U "0
O 'O a 1[) O O
N N l0 t` m
'0 -D� '0 '0
N y
> m >> D 7 7
O N
7 7
('7 N M
7 D 0 7 7 10
O
} N
C
U U U U U
U U
6" V,
U U D U
c c c 04
'?
C
.c
E
o 0
as
m
O
w
d
'a
O
N n M
J H
d
0
m
O O O O 0 0 c CO O M
J
C
L-
pOj
69 69 69 69 69 69 10 CD 60i amp
>
a
CO 17 w w "O
0 0 C) 0 117
to u7 0
M f07
O
m
n
l0 y
m
O
9 r c) 7 7 7 7 @
C
10 O N
N V O
m N fA
N
(D 3 (\j
N
}
C C C C
_ _
C NM- Vi u!
r C
'y
69
O
69 Ui EA
f
CL E .�
m
U
C
m
V
C 0 0
In E, -DU -p
O O O O NO N
O In O LL7 to O O
(r.0 -@ N
n O O >> 7
C
CD M
N L V N V O O
N
NM c4
to O N
}
(D M m co 75
69 fA C C C
N to O ER N
vi Ui 69 to X69
m C
(N y
O �fA
U
M- M-
7
m
U
C
V U
LO O� CD
O
U M 10-1
W
m '0p 'D 'o N '00 -00 cc�D CC1
C � V m M L-
CL
N
m'oatt
a@i
7 > > 3 � > > > C\
co C C C C 64 C C C
(/I
0
(n
C
M- M-
a` d
CL E .�
E�m
c
m d
C
M
U
Q
1+�
O
m d O
LLO a
o 0
as
w
d
'a
O C',
N n M
J H
d
m
O la @ O O O
m
O O O O 0 0 c CO O M
J
C
CC) nj C C 69 M69
pOj
69 69 69 69 69 69 10 CD 60i amp
>
a
11 �
VT � 69 NM
O 1 j C M O O 'at (D m V ^M
O �000OOM (OD (p M� Mm O(D'O OO
�'oNEA 69 6, (Q V O n O (D E»� _ vy <p
� (1) (A 69 Vi fA 69 � C
C N E .. aC Y 0 3 ) N N N N _'m O U 0) c0) .@.
O O y O o N 0 @ p) C C C C C C N co d H
E Urp c0 mLL a� v v v o�a� >r
o w 0) aa)i m U u1 V ya c>U
U NL yam E m1otoc`�, mm E y
>- CL -c C U 30 0) m .�....r... IO C C .j }
(p d 0 rn o Q o c c ur mU O �..
F N O LL @@ a m o ,n W
F y y @ @ U
@ NW ¢ ; N N N N Q w
M e Q a O
2 2 @
m N N 'O -D U
K N (D
C C
C C
N
} x
r W
U
a) y
C
M
117 VM V 00
N 117 O r
V 17 (D O V
m M
Cc)
m04 (D
CCN72 M - M
OOO co
m m m m M N
64 69 69 64 EA Ui
M O
O
O 0 O -
M
N N N N CO O
69 (A 69 69 (A M
vi
M M M M M 0)
O O
CO <b 1n co 'cY M
oioioim°' rn
N N N N M
N 69 Vi 69 Vi
r L` )` r 0 p
L` r- r- n O
O O (D co r-
06
0 O O V 'It
M
u�u>«>vF» �
M� V O
oc ON) � V
U1 L- <c7 N
N
el
O
C y O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
°
IL >
M' !E'
m'oatt
a@i
Z' U o
C
:? o
0 c
ami
Im
Q }
`
E €
n a
3
E�m
c
0 N
>
C
M
U
Q
C
2
a
0
a
a
C� p,
C�
oD
F
L
w
E v
0
U
r
T
0
U
e
0
E
9
d
u �
C �
O
~
N L
F C
F
E L
W
~
CL
CL d c
W
°
a°
0
CL a c
F E °
o
ad+
D T
E a
LL
O ° 1O
U) c
W c 0
0
V
O d a
R o
F0
J a
o0
0
0
0
10
0
w�D
o
o0 10
O
O\ oo
o
rn oo
0
r 7
C N O
> y
r O
oo 10
oo �O
oo �O
oo
L
W
L
W t
u
of
O
N N
O
r v
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r V
O
O
O
O
O
r v
O
O
7 y
C y
3a
v .0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Am
U 'm
3
a
H m
mR
a,
V R
>.
m d
oo
u o
R
and
c
ay
c
-0 L)
c W
0.0
0 o
G
Q`
w>
U>
u
M
d V
R
o M
p Z
O` �
w
p
y
y
t7
—
c
� U
V
U
10
O
N
N
N
C
C
V
U
U
E
0
u
m
m
H
MAYORMount
Prosect
VILLAGE MANAGER
Irvana K. Wilks
Michael E. Janonis
TRUSTEES
VILLAGE CLERK
Timothy J. Corcoran
\ v
M. Lisa Angell
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Arlene A. Juracek
Phone: 847/392-6000
A. John Korn
Fax: 847/392-6022
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
www.mountprrospect.orQ
Michael A. Zadel
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
CANCELLATION NOTICE
THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY APRIL 24, 2008
HAVE BEEN CANCELLED
Moura Prospect
MAYOR
Irvana K. Wilks
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert Village of Mount Prospect
Arlene Juracek
A. John Korn Community Development Department
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michael A. Zadel 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
M. Lisa Angell
Phone: 847/818-5328
Fax: 847/818-5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME:
Mount Prospect Village Hall Thursday
50 S. Emerson Street April 24, 2008
Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV
V.
LTA
A. January 24, 2008 P&Z MEETING
a. PZ -01-08 / 3401 S. Busse Road / Arrow Road Construction.
b. PZ -02-08 / 2020 Camp McDonald Road / St. Dominick Childcare.
c. PZ -03-08 / 1040 W. Northwest Highway / Mount Prospect Development Group
d. PZ -04-08 / 1042 S. Elmhurst Road (Dominick's Grocery Store) / Doyle Signs on behalf of
US Bank
e. PZ -05-08 / 1750 Azalea Place / Schrambeck Residence / Variation (second driveway)
B. March 27, 2008 P&Z MEETING
a. PZ -38-07 / 309-313 W. Prospect Ave,/ Paul Swanson
PZ -14-07 / Lake Center Plaza (Algonquin Road & Wall Street) / The Alter Group
PZ -37-07 / Northwest Corner of Main Street and Northwest Highway / Heimbaugh Capital
Development Corporation
NEW BUSINESS
A. PZ -09-08 / 1920 Carboy Road / The Athletic Barn / Conditional Use (Vocational School). This case
is Village Board Final.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation
to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect,
IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -01-08
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: January 24, 2008
3401 S. Busse Road
Arrow Road Construction Company
January 9, 2008
08-23-300-036-0000
Amend Planned Unit Development Approval (maximum
structure height)
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Andrew Skic, Building Inspector
Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant
Kelly Cahill, John Healy
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved
3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ -38-07 to the
February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case Number PZ -01-08, a request to amend original Conditional Use
approval and Variations at 3401 S. Busse Road, at 7:35 p.m.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations
and annexed into Mount Prospect in 1982. It is located on the east side of Busse Road, north of the Northwest
Tollway, south of Addison Court, and consists of a construction storage yard with related improvements,
including multiple silos measuring 80 -feet in height. The Subject Property is zoned I1 Limited Industrial Planned
Unit Development (PUD) and is bordered by the I1 District to the north and east, RX Single Family District
across Busse Road to the west, and an unincorporated area to the south.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted plans to install two (2) asphalt silos that would not exceed 80 -feet in
height. The silos allow for the storage of completed manufactured asphalt material that will be dispensed into
trucks and trucked off-site. There are existing similar silos on-site that are used in the same manner, and also
measure 80 -feet in height. Ms. Connolly referenced a picture showing four silos.
Ms. Connolly stated when the site was annexed into Mount Prospect, the Village granted specific Variations for
existing site conditions that would allow the Petitioner to maintain the existing asphalt manufacturing/refining
operation. The Village Attorney reviewed the 1982 annexation agreement and ordinances granting zoning relief
and found that, although there are existing 80 -foot asphalt silos that received zoning relief, the proposed new silos
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -01-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 2
were not included in the original zoning relief. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking to amend the original PUD
approval to allow for two (2) new asphalt silos that measure no more than 80 -feet from grade.
Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property does not meet the Village's current bulk regulations because there are
multiple structures that exceed the maximum 30 -foot height limitation for the I1 District. Also, it appears several
of the material storage areas encroach into the required setbacks. However, as the site was developed under Cook
County regulations, and later annexed into the Village, the existing conditions were granted zoning relief and are
allowed to remain in their current state.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's request is considered a major change to the original PUD approval due to
the silos' height. As such, Staff reviewed the ordinance granting original PUD approval and the standards for a
PUD as listed in Sec. 14.504 of the Village Code. In order for the Village to consider the proposed major change
to the PUD, the request is required to continue complying with the PUD standards and the change has to meet
specific findings. Ms. Connolly summarized the following:
I . Except as modified by and approved in the final development plan, the proposed development complies
with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located.
2. The principal use in the proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan of the Village for the area containing the subject site.
3. That the proposed Planned Unit Development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes
of this zoning ordinance.
4. That the streets have been designed to avoid:
a. Inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development;
b. Traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin the planned unit development;
c. An excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve
or are proposed to serve the Planned Unit Development.
Ms. Connolly said Staff found that the request is consistent with the original PUD approval because the operation
of the business and the physical on-site conditions will be in keeping with the original approval. The height of the
silos will not change the intent of the original PUD approval or increase the intensity of business operations.
Ms. Connolly stated that Staff conducted further analysis of the request because Conditional Use approval is
required for a PUD. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning
Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She
summarized these findings:
• The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or
general welfare;
• The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the
vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties;
• Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on
Village streets; and
• Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and
other Village Ordinances.
Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property is zoned Limited Industrial and an asphalt operation is a Conditional
Use in this district. The Petitioner received Planned Unit Development approval in 1982 to continue operating the
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -01-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 3
existing asphalt operation. However, the additional silos requires the amending the original approval as the height
of the proposed silos was not granted code relief as part of the original zoning approval.
Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner's application, visited the site, and contacted the Illinois
Environmental Agency (IEPA) to clarify their approval process and understand the possible impacts of the
proposed silos. The IEPA confirmed the most recent inspection was done in May 2007 with no `flags' noted. In
talking with the IEPA liaison, Staff learned that the Petitioner's proposal is not considered to be a large source of
air emissions: the tanks are designed to contain the product so there will be minimal impact on the adjacent
properties. Also, smaller scale projects such as the Petitioner's are inspected every two to three years unless the
agency receives complaints. However, there is recourse through the IEPA if anyone wishes to file a complaint.
Ms. Connolly stated that based on this information and the fact that the Petitioner is replicating existing
conditions; Staff found that the request would meet the Conditional Use Standards noted because the silos are
allowed under an existing EPA permit. The site is inspected on a regular basis and the Petitioner's request is not
considered a large source of air emissions. Therefore, the request would have minimal impact on the adjacent
properties. Also, the IEPA has a recourse system in place should residents find otherwise.
Ms. Connolly stated that the request to amend the original zoning approval to allow the construction of two new
80 -foot tall asphalt silos meets the standards for a Conditional Use contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion:
"To amend Ord. 3289 granting Planned Unit Development approval and allow two additional 80 -foot silos, as
shown in the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by SEC Group, Inc., dated November 4, 2007, for the business located
at 3401 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ -01-08."
Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Chairman Rogers stated that there would be two new silos creating a total bank of six (6) next to the toll road
overpass on Busse Road in an industrial area.
Chairman Rogers swore in Kelly Cahill, Attorney for Arrow Road Construction, 50 Virginia Street, Crystal Lake,
IL and John Healy, President of Arrow Road Construction, 1726 Kay, Wheaton, IL. Chairman Rogers questioned
what the Petitioners would be doing with the silos. Mr. Healy gave a brief history of the company. He stated that
Arrow Road bought the 3401 S. Busse location in 1962. The property line originally extended to Oakton Street,
but the south half was sold when the property line was divided during the building of the tollway. Mr. Healy
described his positive relationship with the Village and contributions that Arrow Road has made to the Village.
Mr. Healy continued by saying that the original annexation agreement stated that Arrow Road would enhance and
promote the general welfare of the Village. He believes that the request tonight would do the same as the original
annexation agreement.
Mr. Healy referenced a handout provided to the commission in regards to the dimensions of the silos. These silos
are a quarter -inch roll steel cylinder measuring 65 feet in height from the deck to the top of the legs. They contain
a complete asphalt manufactured product (95% aggregate and 5% liquid asphalt). The silos sit over truck scales
and dispense the asphalt directly into the trucks.
Mr. Healy stated the purpose of adding two silos to create a total of six allows for operational flexibility and a
control over the final product inventory. Mr. Healy added that the addition of silos would not increase the
intensity of his operation. He also said that over the years, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has
requested changes of asphalt mixtures. There are different recipes or mixture designs. Each silo would contain a
different mixture. This is a seasonal business and different mixtures fill IDOT's needs and requirements.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -01-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4
Mr. Healy said that they are helping with the green initiative. The company is a member of the National Asphalt
Pavement Association and the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association. Through these agencies, they are a
promoter of new mixes: pourer asphalts, polymer modified asphalts, warm mixture asphalts, stone matrix
asphalts, polymer sand mixes, and advances in recycling. Their plant is used by IDOT to test these mixes.
Mr. Healy feels that the addition of silos would not create harm for the neighbors. Their current EPA permit
allows for construction up to eight silos. They are only requesting two to bring the total to six. The silos are to be
installed within the existing footprint of the plan. The two silos would be adjacent the two silos that are currently
in the middle. As the silos contain the product, there is not risk of dust, smoke, or anything hazardous.
Mr. Healy stated that the development of the silos complies with the regulations of the zoning district. The silos
are consistent with the principle use when the property was annexed in 1982. He stressed once again that the silos
would not increase intensity of the approved use. The silos would only help with the finished product inventory,
create operational flexibility, and would decrease waiting time.
Mr. Healy said that the petition seeks to replicate the silos currently on the property that measure 80 feet in height.
He referred to a letter that was provided by the National Asphalt Pavement Association. The letter stated that the
Association recognizes the plant as showing good practices.
Mr. Healy concluded by requesting the Commission's support be consistent with the Staff's recommendation.
Chairman Rogers stated that Arrow Road is a good neighbor and well represented in the community. He thanked
Mr. Healy for what they have done in the community. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any questions for the
Petitioner.
Joseph Donnelly asked if there would be a logo or other adverting placed on the silos. Mr. Healy advised that a
company logo would be placed on the silos. Mr. Donnelly clarified that no additional advertising would be placed
on the silos; Mr. Healy confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at
7:50 p.m.
Ronald Roberts made a motion to approve Case Number PZ -01-08, a request to amend original Conditional Use
approval and Variations at 3401 S. Busse Road. Richard Donnelly seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 4-0.
After hearing four additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald
Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
C\Documents and SettingsAdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6BTZ-01-08 3401 S Busse Rd (Arrow Rd). doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -02-08
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: January 24, 2008
2020 Camp McDonald Road
Gregory Szeszko, St. Dominick Day Care
January 9, 2008
03-34-416-027-0000
Conditional Use — Daycare Center
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Andrew Skic, Building Inspector
Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant
Greg Szeszko
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved
3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ -38-07 to the
February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ -02-08, a request for a
Conditional Use to operate a Daycare Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road at 7:50 p.m.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Camp McDonald Road,
between River Road and Park Drive, and contains the Alexander Graham Bell Montessori School with related
improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the
east and west, the R4 Multifamily District to the north, and B4 Commercial Corridor and R1 Single Family
Residence District to the south.
Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to operate a day care facility. The
proposed day care facility would be located in the B3 Zoning District, which requires Conditional Use Approval.
Also, a parking Variation is needed because they will be deficient one parking space and exceed lot coverage
limits. Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's application:
• St. Dominick Day Care is an independently owned and operated child care facility;
• The facility would occupy the soon-to-be former Alexander Graham Bell Montessori School building (the
Montessori School is relocating because they outgrew the site);
• The day care facility has a maximum capacity of 72 clients, which requires 10 staff members;
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008
PZ -02-08
Page 2
• The facility would be open from 6:30 am to 6 pm Monday — Friday;
• The Petitioner anticipates most children would arrive between Sam to l Oam and leave between 3:30pm
and 5:30pm;
• The Petitioner estimates the drop-off and pick-up time to be 10 minutes; and
• Anticipated ages of the children range from 2-5 years old.
Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's bulk regulations as the existing
structure encroaches into the required side and rear setbacks. Also, some of the existing parking spaces are
located in the 10 -foot setback and the site exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation. The area was annexed into the
Village in 1971, most likely after the building had been built as Staff could not locate a building permit for the
original development of the Subject Property or document that code relief had been granted for its development.
She said the existing conditions are considered legal nonconforming and are allowed to remain in its existing
condition.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property requires relief to meet the Village's requirements. The available
on-site parking would be 16 spaces once the garage is converted from storage back to a garage and one surface
space is created. She said based on the proposed use, the Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space per
employee plus 1 space per 10 children. Based on a maximum enrollment of 72 children (7 spaces) and a staff of
10 employees, the daycare facility would require a total of 17 parking spaces.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted information on the drop-off / pick-up process. They do not anticipate
needing all 16 spaces provided on-site at one time and estimate the peak usage to fall between 8 am to 10 am and
3:30 pm to 5:30 pm. Therefore, they feel the proposed 16 spaces will meet the facilities needs.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Village's Zoning Ordinance does not have operational requirements for daycare uses.
However, the Petitioner is required to meet specific DCFS regulations, which the Petitioner is aware of and has
worked with in other day care facilities. It is important to note that the Petitioner is required to follow State
regulations, which will be enforced by the appropriate State agency. The DCFS requirements include regulations
pertaining to play areas, providing food service, and program content. These regulations are based on the length
of the child's stay at the facility.
Ms. Connolly summarized other department comments. The interior of the building has to be modified to comply
with the National Life Safety Code and the International Building Code for daycare centers which entails
installing a fire detection system and a fire sprinkler system. While this is a Building Permit issue, it is important
to note in the Staff report to eliminate the potential for confusion during another review process. Also, a complete
egress evaluation will be required and must be prepared by a design professional.
Ms. Connolly stated that Engineering noted that they support the proposed sliding gate to secure the play area.
However, the handicapped space shown on the plan would be located in the fenced in area. As this space must be
accessible at all times, the space needs to be re -striped outside the fenced area.
Ms. Connolly advised that the Petitioner has already addressed this comment and the handicap space has been
relocated outside the fenced area. She said a revised site plan was placed by each Commissioner's seat.
Ms. Connolly mentioned that in order to approve the request, it has to meet the standards for a Variation because
the Petitioner will be short one parking space. Ms. Connolly said the standards for a Variation are listed in
Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in
order to approve a Variation. She summarized these findings:
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008
PZ -02-08
Page 3
A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not
generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person
presently having an interest in the property;
• Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
• Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner met with Staff prior to applying for the Conditional Use permit. Based on
the information obtained from this meeting, the Petitioner worked with a design professional to modify the site to
comply with the Village's parking regulations. It was the Petitioner's intention to comply with the Village's
parking regulations, but still maintain an adequate play area for the children. Therefore, they submitted a site plan
that indicates one new parking space will be provided, which increases the existing non -conforming amount of lot
coverage from 77% to 78%. Because this is an increase in the amount of the non -conformity (lot coverage), a
Variation is needed for the proposed amount of pavement.
Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner noted in the application that the anticipated amount of parking needed for
the drop-off / pick-up process would not require using more than 15 spaces, although 16 spaces would be
provided on-site. They prepared a chart documenting parking usage throughout the day, noting that even during
the peak drop-off / pick-up times, the site would be able to accommodate the anticipated parking demand.
Ms. Connolly stated the site was developed under Cook County regulation and currently contains a significant
amount of pavement. The site will be modified to accommodate one additional space, which brings the lot
coverage from 77% to 78%, with the opportunity to expand the parking lot further by removing a landscape
island. However, there is a mature tree located in a landscape island and paving over the island would further
increase the amount of lot coverage. In this case, should the facility experience an actual parking shortage, the
Petitioner is in a position to control the drop-off / pick-up process by working with parents to stagger the drop-off
/pick-up times to minimize parking shortages.
Ms. Connolly said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning
Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She
summarized the findings:
• The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or
general welfare;
• The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the
vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties;
• Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on
Village streets; and
• Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and
other Village Ordinances.
Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed use would not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety or
general welfare. The use would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, or utility
provision and it would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner's drop-off / pick-up analysis indicates that vehicles entering/exiting the Subject
Property will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed use meets the Variation and Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the
following motion:
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4
"To approve:
A) a Variation to allow 16 parking spaces,
B) 78% lot coverage, and
C) A Conditional Use permit for a daycare facility at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The St. Dominick Day Care facility will be designed and developed in general accordance with the
site plan prepared by Studio 3 Design, revision date January 22, 2008;
2) The facility shall meet all Building Code & Fire Code requirements, which include but are not limited
to the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems and having a design professional prepare an
egress analysis as part of the Building Permit submittal;
3) The Village reserves the right to review any traffic related matters created by the use and require any
necessary measures needed to address them; and
4) Prior to the Village issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall obtain the necessary
permits and authorizations from the appropriate agencies (DCFS, etc.).
Ms. Connolly stated the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if this was the same building when it was a Montessori school and the
Commission previously approved a circular driveway; Ms. Connolly confirmed that it was. She clarified that the
Montessori school never installed the circular driveway and eventually outgrew the site. Mr. Rogers questioned if
the Conditional Use was approved tonight, what would happen to the circular driveway that was previously
approved. Ms. Connolly said that the circular driveway approval would no longer be valid as the approval period
already lapsed.
Chairman Rogers swore in Greg Szeszko, 4148 N. Pontiac, Chicago, IL. Mr. Szeszko said he and his wife are the
owners and operators of St. Dominick Day Care. They have been operating this business out of their home since
1999. They are licensed by DCFS and follow all state regulations, they are also licensed by the City of Chicago.
They were incorporated as a corporation in 2003.
Mr. Szeszko said that they provide day care from 15 months to 5 years. They provide typical day care services
including: programs that develop language skills, cognitive development, music appreciation, small and large
motor skills, social interactions. They tend to be rooted in Catholic tradition.
Mr. Szeszko mentioned that the business is successful with its customers. They like the program and the day
care's approach towards education. He has never advertised and strictly relies on word-of-mouth. They are fully
booked with a waiting list. They have outgrown their current facility and would like to expand.
Mr. Szeszko stated that they have come to an agreement with the current owners of the property at 2020 Camp
McDonald Road. It is a one story masonry brick building that contains sprinklers and is connected to a fire alarm.
There is an existing playground along with 15 parking spaces.
Mr. Szeszko said that his proposal included daily operations from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
with a shortened Saturday schedule if needed. The maximum capacity for the day care would be 72 children and
10 employees.
Mr. Szeszko presented a modified site plan per the Staff's comments. He said there would be 16 parking spaces
for cars. He would convert a spot in the garage for a space and would also set aside a space for the handicapped
area. The floor plan includes four classrooms with one common area for indoor activities. Parents and their
children would utilize an access card to gain entry to the building. This access card would automatically register
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 5
the child. An additional station would allow registration if a few clients walked in at the same time. After
registering, the parent would walk their child to the assigned classroom.
Mr. Szeszko explained the daily use of parking. He restated the peak times of 8:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
to 5:30 p.m. He advised the Commission that he has to maintain a specific child to teacher ratio. Since this ratio
has to be maintained, a pick-up and drop-off schedule can be drafted. He does not believe that he will over-
extend the proposed 16 spaces.
Mr. Szeszko concluded by requesting that the Commission accept his proposal.
Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he understood the requirements in order to obtain building permits and
what is needed for the approval of the zoning. The Petitioner stated that he understood and agreed to the
conditions. Mr. Szeszko advised that he and his architects have been working with Staff to make sure the plans
are acceptable and that they are following the guidelines set.
Chairman Rogers said the site is tight and overbuilt, but he understands the need for a child care center.
He called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
Chairman Rogers asked if the Commission had any questions for the Petitioner or Staff. Mr. Donnelly asked Ms.
Connolly when the Commission reviewed the circular driveway case if they had 15 spaces and did not use the
garage. Ms. Connolly advised that was correct as the previous owner did not use the garage for parking. Mr.
Donnelly asked if the previous owner was within zoning at that point or if the use of the property did not need
parking, just a drop-off point. Ms. Connolly explained that she did not know previous enrollment at that time.
She explained that the present case is based on maximum numbers. She continued by stating that it may be
initially over parked depending on enrollment numbers in the beginning and code requires that information is
provided for the most intense use.
Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve Case Number PZ -02-08, a request for 1) Variation approval for 16
parking spaces when 17 are required; 2) Variation approval for 78% lot coverage when 75% is the limit; and 3)
Conditional Use approval to operate a Day Care Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road. Ronald Roberts
seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 4-0.
After hearing three additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by
Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
CAD—mcros and Settings\kdcwis\Local Settings\Temporary Inicmet Filcs\0LK6B\PZ-02-0R 2020 Camp M,Donanld (St Dominicks).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -03-08
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Hearing Date: January 24, 2008
1040 W. Northwest Highway
Victor Dziekiewicz, Design Bridge, Ltd
January 9, 2008
03-33-407-025-0000
1) Rezone from B1 to R2 Attached Single Family
2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Andrew Skic, Building Inspector
Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant
INTERESTED PARTIES: Victor Dziekiewicz, Jacob Swindler, Tim Fulk, Barbara Glombowski,
Paul Glombowski, Mark Kaitchuck, Jan Ramion, , Lou Sbarboro, Mary
Simon, Jean Spejcher
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved
3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ -38-07 to the
February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ -03-08, a request to
Rezone from B1 to R2 attached Single Family and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 1040 W.
Northwest Highway, at 8:12 p.m.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the developer arranged a meeting with interested parties on Monday,
January 21, 2008. Therefore, some of the information presented may be adjusted due to this meeting, however
the general concepts and the number of units remain the same. She said that the Subject Property is located on the
north side of Northwest Highway, between Dale and Forest Avenues. The site currently contains the vacant State
Farm office building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned BI Business Office and is
bordered by the RX Single Family District to the north and east, railroad tracks to the south, and by an R2
Attached Single Family Planned Unit Development to the west, the Villas of Sevres. The Villas development has
6.4 units/acre density and received zoning approval in 2002.
Ms. Connolly said the Property Owner previously employed another design firm, who appeared before the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board, seeking approval of a 17 -unit townhome development.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 2
After making numerous modifications to the project and retaining the services of a different design firm, the
Property Owner has submitted plans for a 14 -unit townhome development.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is currently zoned B1 Business Office. The Petitioner is requesting
approval to rezone the Subject Property to R2 Attached Single Family. The R2 district allows a maximum density
of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi -family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 6.7
units per acre (14 units/2.08 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District.
Deducting the drive aisle as it is similar to a street, the site measures 1.77 acres, which is 7.9 units per acre.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit
Development for the townhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or
more multi -family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire
development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed
in the future. Ms. Connolly clarified that if the Petitioner wanted to increase the amount of units or change the
design, they would need to go before the Village Board for review and approval.
Ms. Connolly stated that the site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 14 -unit townhome development. The
development would consist of. (2) 4 -unit buildings and (2) 3 -unit buildings. The Development will be accessed
from Northwest Highway and have one means of ingress/egress. The access aisle/driveway that loops throughout
the development measures 24 -feet wide and allows for 2 -way traffic throughout the development. The cul-de-sac
designs and required fire lane have been reviewed by the Fire Department and found to comply with the Village
Code requirements.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot
coverage, which is below the 50% limitation.
Ms. Connolly said the elevations indicate each building will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-
loading 2 -car garage. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stucco, two types of brick,
and Renaissance stone. Also, wood decks will be included on the rear elevation of all units.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be multiple types of floor plans for the
townhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms, with some floor plans including a loft. The Village
Code requires 2 '/Z parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple -family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or
more). The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2 -car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition,
the Petitioner proposes 14 guest parking spaces to be shared by the development; currently on -street parking is not
allowed on Northwest Highway. She said Village's Engineering Division reviewed the feasibility of creating on -
street parking along Northwest Highway and found it could be done, subject to IDOT approval and designing the
on -street parking in a manner that provides an unobstructed view for a motorist exiting the site. Ms. Connolly
said that the Petitioner did not include this in their proposal, but she wanted to clarify that this could be done per
IDOT's approval.
Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be
planted throughout the development. She mentioned that changes were made due to comments and feedback by
the neighbors at the meeting. The Petitioner will review the plan in greater detail during his presentation.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the
Village Engineer to document that the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is will be
submitted as part of the Building Permit process, and the minor comments noted in the Staff report can be
addressed at that time as well.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 3
Ms. Connolly stressed that the proposed development will be subject to all development requirements, as detailed
in Section 15.402 of the Village Code.
Ms. Connolly addressed comments from a meeting with neighbors. She contacted Public Works and learned that
this area is not a known problem area with respect to the sanitary sewer infrastructure. In fact, the area is rated
average or better. Also, the Village has been replacing pipes in poor condition. By the end of 2008, all pipes in
Mount Prospect will have a rating of 3 -2 -or -1, with 5 being the worst. Ms. Connolly confirmed with the Project
Engineer that the new development is creating less impervious surface, which will put less water in the storm
system. The Petitioner can go into more detail if need be, but basically the new storm water detention will
improve current conditions.
Ms. Connolly stated that the property is located along a state highway, on a commercial corridor. It is adjacent to
a townhome development (Villas of Sevres), and single family residences. The Comprehensive Land Use Map
designates the Subject Property as Single Family Residential, and the development is consistent with a townhome
development approved by the Village Board in 2002.
Ms. Connolly said the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning
Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings
based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following
matters:
• The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general
area of the property in question;
• The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed
zoning classification;
• The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed
zoning classifications; and
• Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the
objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development and single-family
residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an
appropriate use for the Subject Property. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is
compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property.
Ms. Connolly said the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the
Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a
Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to:
• The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be
located;
• The principal use in the proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan of the Village for the area containing the subject site;
• That the proposed Planned Unit Development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes
of this Zoning Ordinance.
• That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the Planned Unit
Development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an
excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are
proposed to serve the Planned Unit Development.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4
Ms. Connolly stated that the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map.
Also, the townhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in this area of the Village.
The development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each
request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning
Commission approve the following motion:
"To approve:
1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from B1 Business Office to R2 Attached Single Family Residence;
2) a Conditional Use permit for a 14 -unit townhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following:
A. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by Design
Bridge, revision date to be confirmed;
B. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by Design Bridge,
revision date January 14, 2008;
C. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Design Bridge,
revision date January 14, 2008;
D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with
the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development;
E. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's
association documents for Staff review and approval; and
F. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but
not limited to: the installation of fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and
constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards."
Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case
No. PZ -03-08.
Chairman Rogers requested that the building elevation be displayed as it did not match the elevation in his
Commission packet. He said there seemed to be some differences as the peak roof and garages look different and
that there is no stucco shown on his elevation, it is all brick.
Joseph Donnelly suggested that the view on sheet A-1.3 (dated January 14, 2008) is an angle view, this would
explain why Chairman Rogers is not able to view the sides. Chairman Rogers said the peaked roofs are not the
same. Ms. Connolly checked the materials on sheet A-1.3 and said the Petitioner could discuss why there is
possibly a discrepancy in the rendering elevation. Chairman Rogers said there is brick on the projection and
stucco on the back wall. Ms. Connolly stated that is correct.
Chairman Rogers swore in Victor Dziekiewicz, Principal of Design Bridge, Ltd, 1415 W. Grand Avenue,
Chicago, IL, and his assistant, Jacob Swindler, 1232 W. Huron, Chicago, IL.
Chairman Rogers asked if there is a different elevation shown in the Staff's presentation than the copy of the
elevation provided to the Commission. Mr. Dziekiewicz explained that they should be the same. He said that this
development is unique unlike most developments set in rows. The proposed elevation rotated the buildings so
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 5
they're offset from one another. The 3D view is a clear representation of what will be seen on site. This would
be a different than looking head on. Stucco would only be used in a small area; the rest of the sides, front, and
back would be two (2) different colors of brick.
Chairman Rogers mentioned that this was an innovative design and was surprised in the way everything fit while
providing neighbors with some green space. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he did review Village tapes of previous
meetings and he spent time listening to the things that were said. There is more yard space between the proposed
development and the neighbors on the East and West side. He took a cue from Northwest Highway and created
the rotation of the site, and he was able to squeeze the development in. The facades facing the neighbors would
not just be flat, but would be staggered so there would be a significant amount of expression rather than having
just a plain wall. The original proposal included 17 units and he believes 14 is a good compromise for the project
to be viable; anything less would not work for his client.
Mr. Dziekiewicz briefly discussed the 3D view. There would be 10 "A" units, 2 "B" units, and 2 "C" units. The
basic "A" units are a standard 3 bedroom layout. The living day functions on the ground level with parking. The
bedrooms would be upstairs. The units contain a 2 car garage with an additional two parking spots on the
driveway. The buildings are staggered to create private entryway and each unit faces its own driveway. The `B"
and "C" units vary with the option of having the master bedroom on the ground floor.
Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he met with neighbors and wanted to address some of their concerns. He discussed
the landscaping and stated that all units would have basements. The escape windows and air conditioning unit
would be in the back of the unit, the decks measure 12' x 18'. He also mentioned the circular turn area in the
development would be the area for underground detention. He stated that the water on the property would go
through a restrictor and would be designed according to the Village requirements and the requirements of dealing
with a 100 year storm.
Mr. Dziekiewicz said that emergency vehicle access works with the Fire Department equipment. He created a
template for the Fire Department to review and it provided ample maneuvering room, meeting Code requirements.
Mr. Dziekiewicz reviewed the plan for the existing trees and created a new landscape plan. Concerns were raised
from the townhome neighbors to the West , this allowed the Petitioner to change the type of shrubberies. He also
stated that trees and bushes would shield the auxiliary parking area for the neighbors. He said that the proposed
landscaping will contain more green space that is currently on the property.
Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the setback on the East side is 50 feet; the last proposal was at 40 feet. He also
mentioned that there is a 30 foot set back on the West side. He added that the setbacks are greater in this new
proposal and asked if any of the Commission members had a question.
Chairman Rogers mentioned that there was little landscaping along Northwest Highway. He said more parkway
trees were needed along with more landscaping in the 30 foot setback. Ms. Connolly mentioned that the Village
would require that trees be planted, by the Village, on the parkway at the developer's expense. The trees would
be planted during the spring or fall Village planting schedule.
Mr. Donnelly asked what the price range is on the townhomes. Mr. Dziekiewicz said between the low $500,000s
and middle $600,000s. Mr. Donnelly mentioned that part of the PUD requires that there has to be a benefit to the
community, he asked Staff how this requirement was met. Ms. Connolly said that in the past, Petitioners have
been allowed to make a donation to the Park District for improvements to a local park. She asked that the
Petitioner have this benefit prepared prior to the Village Board meeting.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 6
Mr. Donnelly noticed that the rear setback requirement for R2 is 25 feet and the proposed setback is 20 feet. He
wanted to know if we needed to include this as part of the amendment; Ms. Connolly said she would look into
this. Mr. Donnelly stated that this set back was indicated on a chart in the Staff report on page 4.
Mr. Donnelly continued and referred to page A-1.0 of the Petitioner's packet. He asked if the 14`h parking space
is handicap or if the parking is 14 plus one additional handicap space. Jacob Swindler confirmed there are 14
spaces; they had to remove a handicap space due to the lot coverage limitation requirements. Mr. Donnelly asked
the Petitioner to adjust the exhibits accordingly.
Ms. Connolly advised that she received e-mails from the neighbors and stated that they were included in the
Commission's packet. Chairman Rogers confirmed that these would be submitted into the records.
Chairman Rogers swore in Mary Simon, Vice President for the Homeowner's Association, 803 W. Isabella,
Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Simon stated that she is representing the association and its concerns. She stated that
she met with the Petitioner on Monday, January 21 and mentioned that the Petitioner has only covered a few
items. She said that the first zoning change on the property was for State Farm and now there is a request to have
the zoning changed again to multi -family units that use to be '/2 acre lots. She stated that prior to State Farm, the
whole neighborhood was zoned RX Single Family.
Ms. Simon's biggest concern is density. She said that in the past, there were 17 units proposed and that the
Village Board said that was too much. She mentioned that the Village Board said the highest amount it would
allow on the site would be 14. She agreed with the previous mention of 12 units or under, 14 units are too many.
Ms. Simon feels that the Village is using the townhomes (Villas) to the West as precedent for the area. She feels
that multi -family developments are going to continue in the area based on previous cases. She said that when the
Villas were built, only one property was affected. This proposal directly affects nine homes and the entire
neighborhood. She is concerned with the storm sewers and water. Water is backed up all the time and the
neighborhood was built over a creek. She said sump pumps are constantly going off and fears the addition of 14
townhomes (laundry, dishes, toilets, bath, etc.) would tax the system.
Ms. Simon told the Petitioner that she is still confused on the location of the windows, and location of the air
conditioning units. She also said the last time this property went to Village Board that the Police Department
wanted a fence. A fence is not addressed in this proposal and she is confused by what the Village wants. Other
concerns included snow removal and where would cars be placed if all the parking spaces were filled. She states
that extra cars would park in the neighborhood with people cutting through yards.
Ms. Simon said she learned that the storm water goes through the neighborhood as IDOT does not allow it to go
to Northwest Highway. She said the plans on the garages included a 19' x 19' size. She spoke with an
architectural student and questioned what size a garage should be. She found out that the minimum size should be
20' x 22' and stated that the Petitioner is making the smallest garage to say it's a 2 -car garage. She has additional
concerns on the real estate market, and believes that a couple units may sell and fears the remaining would
become rentals.
Ms. Simon calculated the lot coverage on her own by using the buildings, decks, and parking spaces. She came
up with 50% coverage and wants the numbers that the Petitioner provided to be checked. Ms. Simon disagrees
that this development is compatible with the neighborhood. She briefly discussed the elevations and what the
neighbors would eventually see from their point -of -view. She concluded by stating that this new proposal is
much better than what was submitted in the past, but still believes that 14 units is too dense and it will be a
detriment to the neighborhood.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 7
Chairman Rogers wanted to clarify the lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said the calculations are based on the
Petitioner's information and her understanding is the road is included when figuring out lot coverage; she asked
the Petitioner to verify. Mr. Dziekiewicz says that he is able to accurately measure lot coverage with today's
computer technology, and that 49.9% is correct. Ms. Simon said that she is confused because she added the
square footage of every building and ended up with 50%. She also wanted to clarify an error stating that page A-
1.0 in the Petitioner's packet contains an error, this page states that there are 12 "A" units as opposed to the
correct number of 10. Mr. Dziekiewicz confirmed that square footage is dimensional as it would include the 2°d
story, etc. Ms. Simon said she now understood the Petitioner's calculations.
Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Fulk, 1003 Isabella, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Fulk stated his property backs up to
the proposed location and has been following the project since previous proposals at neighborhood meetings. He
said that it is difficult to develop the site. According to Mr. Fulk, other townhome developments that have been
approved have never been to 7 single family homes in the RX zoning district. He discussed the possibility of
having 11 or 12 units as this would increase the distance from the lot lines and create more green space. Mr. Fulk
concluded by stating that he wants quality and not quantity, and he urged the developer to build fewer units.
Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Glombowski, 206 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Glombowski wanted to
reinforce some of the objections that were discussed by his neighbors. He is concerned with the proposed
development being surrounded by the RX zoning. He said the current proposed property does not have a pass
through access road like the adjacent townhomes (the Villas). The proposed site is landlocked. He forecasted a
worst case scenario in which parking over busy holidays would obstruct emergency response equipment. He
disagrees that there is adequate turning room for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Glombowski stated that the Fire Department was doing drills last summer on the State Farm site. He advised
them not to spray water as the lot would fill up as it does not drain fast. He mentioned that there is currently a
restrictor that services the Northwest Meadows Association. He believes that this is plugged up as it fills up fast
and drains slower than a 2.5 inch restrictor would normally allow. Mr. Glombowski also disagrees with the
Public Works assessment stating that the sewer and sanitary lines are average or better. He stated that the
additional taxing on the 50 year old system would cause expensive repairs and believes that Staff and the
Commission should talk to Public Works.
Ms. Connolly clarified that she spoke with the Water Superintendent, who stated that they are currently working
on a spot repair program, where Public Works is lining four to five miles of sewer a year. This is a CIP project
with over $3 million spent to correct worst case scenarios. They use a scale of 1-5 to classify the condition of the
pipes with 3,2,1 (average to best) and 4's and 5's are the worst. Public Works projects there will be no pipes
worse than a 3 by the end of 2008.
Chairman Rogers asked when the Villas were built, he said the water went to through the neighborhood. Mr.
Glombowski advised no. He said the sewer from State Farm goes directly through his property. Chairman
Rogers asked again where does the water run from the Villas? Mr. Glombowski said down Dale Avenue (the
other direction from the surrounding neighborhood). Mr. Glombowski continued by stating that with the storm
last summer, there was a lot of water overflowing at the State Farm building. He said most of the storm water
was absorbed by the surrounding properties with the exception of one neighbor. Chairman Rogers clarified that
there would be more green space on the proposed property than the current amount. Mr. Glombowski stated that
he is aware of the change, but not certain it will do its job and has his doubts. Mr. Glombowski concluded by
stating that the Staff recommends that this proposal be accepted, and he disagrees vigorously.
Ms. Simon mentioned Meadows Pool and the giant basin that was installed to catch the water. She stated that
they had to re -design the parking lot to be a retention basis. She wanted to know if these 14 units had the same
problem. What would be done to fix it? She said the site is landlocked and wanted to know what the Petitioner
would do.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 8
Chairman Rogers swore in Lou Sbarboro, 702 French Way, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Sbarboro said he is
concerned with parking. He never heard anything about anyone seeking to put parking on Northwest Highway.
He briefly discussed his safety concerns with traffic turning onto Northwest Highway and was surprised to hear
that this subject came up. Chairman Rogers said this is not an option being proposed, but he does know people
are looking into this is as a possibility, and he understood Mr. Sbarboro's concerns.
Mr. Donnelly stated that he drove through the Villas and asked where the homeowners park extra cars when
residents have parties. He noticed that there isn't substantial parking on their property. Mr. Sbarboro said that the
subdivision is a unique situation; families allow others to park on each others' driveways and it all works out.
Chairman Rogers swore in Jean Spejcher, 202 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. She stated that her backyard has
the largest impact to the proposed development. Her concern is about the water and she stated that she does
understand that there will be more green space. She said with the addition of 14 units, there is going to be more
need for the water to be absorbed. She concluded by stating that the proposed development will have higher
needs and feels there will be an imbalance in the current system.
Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other questions from the audience. Hearing none, he asked the
Petitioner to address questions raised by the neighbors. He asked the Petitioner what they have done to protect
the homeowners: Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the parking lot would be its own detention pad. Currently, there is
a substantial non -permeable surface. He suggested that the current restrictor on the site may not be working. He
tried to maximize the side yard spaces so that they could be as far away from the homes as possible, and they also
created as much green space as possible.
Mr. Dziekiewicz also wanted to clarify and separate the sewer system and the water detention system, even
though they will eventually connect. He said that they are considered separate from an engineering stand point.
The vault and inlets are designed for a storm. Storm water will eventually end up in the system, but the vault was
built to allow it to enter the system at a slower rate. Mr. Dziekiewicz said by creating a great amount of
permeable space, the significant amount of rain water will go away as it was intended to if there was no
development at all. When storage for natural percolation would not be sufficient, that is when the inlets would
take over and water runs into the storm system vault. The water would be contained on-site and would flow at a
rate it is intended to be compatible with a 100 year storm.
There was brief discussion on water that would enter the sewer system.
Chairman Rogers mentioned the biggest problem seems to be storm water. He asked the Petitioner how much
acreage feet is in the vault. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that his engineer was not at the hearing, but the overall size of
the vault is 21,800 cubic feet. Based on the plans, the vault looks like it measures 60' x 50'. Chairman Rogers
asked if the poured concrete vault could be increased by 25% more than what is required.
There was a brief discussion about possibly increasing the size of the vault by 25%.
Mr. Dziekiewicz said he would need to discuss this with his Civil Engineer, but would consider increasing the
size of the vault if there was a valid need to do so. Chairman Rogers said increasing the vault size would allow
water to stay on the site for a longer period of time.
Chairman Rogers asked about the 19' x 19' size of the garage stating that 20' x 20' is usually the minimum size.
Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he has a 19' x 19' garage and it works out fine. Mr. Donnelly asked to confirm that
there was a separate area in the garage for garbage and recycling containers. The Petitioner stated that there is an
area for the containers and it is not included in the 19' x 19' dimension.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 9
Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner about snow removal. Mr. Dziekiewicz replied that the homeowners'
association documents could be written to require off-site snow removal. Chairman Rogers asked if this could be
made a requirement; the Petitioner agreed to the condition.
Mr. Donnelly asked if the Police Department required a fence, he stated that the Developer would have to install
due to specifications provided by the association. Mr. Dziekiewicz asked Staff if they knew if a fence was
required or not. Ms. Connolly said that the Police made a recommendation for a fence with the last proposal as a
way to deter crime or a cut through. They did not make this comment this time. Ms. Connolly questioned if the
Police Department did not address this matter on this submittal since neighbors strongly objected to a fence last
time. Mr. Donnelly said he remembered the discussion. Mr. Dziekiewicz said if a fence would be required, it
would be installed.
Chairman Rogers asked for a motion to include the increase of the storm sewer detention be increased by
approximately 25%. Mr. Donnelly added in the benefit for the community.
Ms. Connolly repeated the additional conditions of approval:
A. Install additional landscaping along Northwest Highway;
B. Note a 20 -foot rear setback;
C. Identify the public benefit before Village Board review;
D. Increase the storm vault capacity by 25%; and
E. Require the association to remove snow off site.
Ms. Connolly asked if anything else needed to be added. Mr. Donnelly asked about the fence requirement; Ms.
Connolly stated that she would confirm with the Police Department. Chairman Rogers said the consensus with
the Petitioner and neighbors is no fence, which he supports.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Case Number PZ -03-08, the rezoning of 1040 Northwest Highway
from B1 to R2 attached single family and to approve a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development with the
conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional conditions agreed upon tonight and just noted by Staff, for
the property located at 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ -03-08; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Rogers
NAYS: Roberts
Motion was approved 3-1.
After hearing two additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald
Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
C.T—ments and Settings\kdewis\Lmal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKOTZ-03-08 1040 W Nonhwest Hwy.dm
CASE NO. PZ -04-08
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Hearing Date: January 24, 2008
1042 S. Elmhurst Road
Doyle Signs
January 9, 2008
08-14-204-023-0000
Variation — additional wall sign
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Andrew Skic, Building Inspector
Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant
John E. Streetz, US Bank
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved
3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ -38-07 to the
February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ -04-08, a request for a
Variation for an additional wall sign at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road, at 9:23 p.m.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, said the Subject Property is located on the west side of Elmhurst Road, between
Golf and Huntington Commons Roads, and contains the Golf II Shopping Plaza with related improvements. The
Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B1 Office District and R1 Single
Family Zoning District to the north and west, a B3 Community Shopping Planned Unit Development and a R4
Multi -Family Planned Unit Development to the south, and a commercial/retail center located in Des Plaines to the
east.
Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner proposes to install an additional wall sign for the US Bank facility located
inside the Dominick's grocery store. However, Sec. 7.305.13.1 of the Sign Code allows only one wall sign per
establishment, unless there is a separate entrance from the exterior of the building. There are currently four wall
signs on this elevation that relate to the grocery store. Dominick's previously received relief from the Village's
Sign Code for the existing multiple wall signs and does not propose to eliminate any of those signs to
accommodate the proposed US Bank sign. Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed US Bank
wall sign.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -04-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 2
Ms. Connolly said that the shopping center has an expansive elevation along Elmhurst Road and measures over
850 linear feet. Multiple tenants occupy the center with the Dominick's elevation measuring more than 250 linear
feet. The sign band area that the proposed US Bank sign would be located is recessed from the Dominick's
elevation and measures 25.65' x 14' (359.51 sq. ft.). The proposed US Bank wall sign measures 10.7' x 2.75'
(29.5 sq. ft.) and would cover approximately 8% of the recessed area.
Ms. Connolly stated that the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of
Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a
Variation and relate to:
• The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the establishment;
• The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is not
created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property;
• The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood;
• The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or
endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the
spirit and intent of this Chapter.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner notes in their application that the wall sign is needed to identify the US Bank
facility inside the Dominick's grocery store. Staff discussed installing a window sign, which is permitted by the
Sign Code. However, the Petitioner determined a window sign would be too small, provide minimal exposure,
and would be difficult to see because the building was setback more than 300 -feet from Elmhurst Road.
Ms. Connolly stated in the past, the Village has granted relief for a similar request for I" Chicago when it located
inside the former Dominick's located at Mt. Prospect Plaza (SRB-05-98). Also, the area for the proposed sign
could be considered its own signable area because the area is recessed from the Dominick's elevation and the
architectural character of the sign area could be interpreted as its own store frontage. Therefore, the request is in
keeping with the intent of the Sign Code: one wall sign per street frontage.
Ms. Connolly said based on the above analysis, the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation as listed in
Section 7.725 of the Village's Sign Code. Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the
following motion:
"To approve a Variation to allow an additional wall sign for US Bank, as shown on the Petitioner's
exhibit prepared by MC Sign Company date stamped January 17, 2008 for the property at 1042 S.
Elmhurst Road."
Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case.
Chairman Rogers confirmed with Staff that the bank is operating inside the grocery store. He asked if the sign
was approved, could the Commission make it contingent on the bank operating within the store so if they do not
operate in the store then the sign has to be removed.
Ms. Connolly said that they could make it a condition of Variation approval. Chairman Rogers stated that this
sign is only for US Bank, not for any other sign. Ms. Connolly asked what would happen if the bank merged and
obtained another name; Chairman Rogers said a bank name change was permissible, but he cannot support
another sign for the grocery store.
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008
PZ -04-08
Page 3
Joseph Donnelly asked if the sign is going to go where it is in the Petitioner's drawing and not where the
temporary banner is currently located. Ms. Connelly confirmed that the drawing location is where the sign will be
placed.
Chairman Rogers swore in John E. Streetz, 232 Interstate, Addison, IL. Mr. Streetz said that he has requested a
Variance for an additional sign at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road so US Bank could be properly identified on the exterior
of the building. The sign itself is a set of individual channeled letters with neon illumination reading US Bank in
their red, white, and blue colors. These are individually mounted. Mr. Streetz said he agrees with the Staff
recommendation for the approval of the Variation and reiterated some of the comments made in the Staff
summary.
Chairman Rogers clarified for the Petitioner that the Variation would be exclusive to US Bank or any succeeding
banks, and that the Variation is not applicable to signage for the grocery store. Mr. Streetz stated that this is
something he could agree to.
Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at
9:32 p.m.
Ronald Roberts made a motion to approve Case Number PZ -04-08, a request for a Variation for an additional wall
sign subject to the sign being used only for a bank located inside the grocery store, at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road.
Marlys Haaland seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 4-0.
After hearing one additional case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald
Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
C\Documents and Settmgs\kdmis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK6BWZ-04-0S 1042 S Elmhurst Road (Wall Sign) dm
CASE NO. PZ -05-08
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONERS:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Hearing Date: January 24, 2008
1750 Azalea Place
Larry and Joan Schrambeck
January 9, 2008
03-25-303-027-0000
Variation — second driveway
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Marlys Haaland
Ronald Roberts
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Andrew Skic, Building Inspector
Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant
INTERESTED PARTIES: Larry Schrambeck, Joan Schrambeck, Garry Schrambeck, David Gates,
Sheila Gates, Bob Guthrie, Chris Guthrie, Rosemarie Kern, Ted Kern,
Phil Leong, Chris McLaughin, Marcy Mueller, Ron Mueller, Steve Vels,
Frederick Brill
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved
3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ -38-07 to the
February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ -05-08, a request for a
Variation for a second driveway at 1750 Azalea Place, at 9:32 p.m.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane,
between Euclid Avenue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The
Subject Property is zoned RI Single Family and is bordered by the RI District on all sides. The Subject Property
was developed under Cook County jurisdiction and annexed into Mount Prospect in the early 1970s.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard
along Basswood Lane. Sec. 14.2209 of the Village Code allows recreational vehicles to be parked in a residential
district but only if the vehicle is parked on an approved driveway or parking pad; gravel is not an approved
surface and not permitted. Staff learned of the gravel pad during a Systematic Inspection and contacted the
Petitioner about removing the gravel pad. The Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle
on in order to comply with Village regulations. However, Sec. 14.2215 of the Village Code allows only one
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -05-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 2
driveway per lot. As the Petitioner already has a driveway in the front of the house on Azalea Place, Variation
approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane.
Ms. Connolly showed a table that compared the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 single family residence district's
bulk requirements. It showed that the subject property complies with the Village's Zoning Regulations, with the
exception of the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed old aerial photos and could not determine
when the gravel was installed. In conversations with the Petitioner, Staff learned the gravel was laid around 1976.
Also, the Village does not have a record of construction for a gravel pad. Since the gravel pad was installed
without the benefit of a permit and it was constructed after the property was annexed into Mount Prospect, it is
not considered a legal non -conformity and is not allowed to remain.
Ms. Connolly said that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning
Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly
summarized these findings:
• A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not
generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person
presently having an interest in the property;
• Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
• Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes to install a curb cut and driveway on Basswood Lane and
construct a driveway in lieu of the existing gravel pad. The recreational vehicle would be parked on an approved
surface, which would comply with Village Codes. Prior to applying for the Variation, the Petitioner researched
alternatives such as parking the vehicle in front of the house on the existing driveway. They found that the
vehicle may extend over the sidewalk, and that the vehicle would be highly visible in this location. They
researched selling the vehicle, but found that option to be financially prohibitive. They also contacted storage
facilities to determine whether it was feasible to park the vehicle off-site. They found the cost to be somewhat
significant, but another consideration was the inadequate level of security the facilities provide. Based on this, the
Petitioner opted to apply for the Variation for the second driveway.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's application included a petition signed by several neighbors and an email from a
neighbor, both supporting the Petitioner's request, and the email noting how minimal of an impact the driveway
would have on the neighborhood. However, Staff found that the request for a second driveway was not based on
a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but would serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. Staff
appreciates the Petitioner's desire to store the vehicle on-site, which is permitted by Village Code, but in order to
do so, a second driveway is needed, requiring relief from the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has
taken considerable steps to screen the vehicle in this location and would modify the surface it is parked on, but the
lot is typical of most lots in the Village, and the request would not be unique to the Subject Property.
Ms. Connolly stated based on this analysis, the Variation request for a second driveway fails to meet the standards
for a Variation as listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny the following motion:
"To approve a Variation allowing a second driveway be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the
Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17, 2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place."
Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -05-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 3
Joseph Donnelly asked if a circular driveway was considered with a drive to the backyard so the RV could be
parked on the side of the house while being fenced in. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner wanted to screen
the vehicle as much as possible and that is why they wanted to keep it in the current location. The Petitioner did
consider selling the current vehicle and purchasing a smaller RV to park on the driveway, but there was concern
that the neighbors would see it as an eyesore.
Chairman Rogers said he would be concerned if the RV was parked on the side of the house as the entire vehicle
as opposed to only seeing the front.
Further discussion continued whether or not the entire side of the RV could be seen from Euclid.
Chairman Rogers swore in Garry Schrambeck, 2205 Oak Leaf Lane, Lake Villa, IL. Mr. Schrambeck was
speaking on behalf of his parents', the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck stated that they are asking for a Variation to
install a second driveway with access from Basswood Lane into the backyard of the residence. Currently, there is
a gravel pad that is neat and free of weeds. The Petitioners have parked RV vehicles since 1975 and have never
received one complaint from neighbors or Village employees. The location of the residence is within a few
blocks of the Village Manager and several trustees who have never filed complaints.
Mr. Schrambeck said in the summer of 2007, they were informed that his parents were in violation of Code
14.2209 that took effect in 1993. They called for an inspector and met with Robert Roels. According to Mr.
Schrambeck, Mr. Roels stated that the backyard was kept nice and neat and believed there would be no reason
why the gravel pad would not be grandfathered in since it has been there since 1975. He said Mr. Roels would
provide a follow-up after speaking with his boss. He stated Mr. Roels would ask for this RV be grandfathered for
the next 10-15 years and the next homeowner would not be granted use. Mr. Schrambeck said no response ever
came from the Village. He stated that the Petitioners are not refusing to put in a second driveway to conform to
Village Code. They are willing to pay for this major out-of-pocket expense.
Mr. Schrambeck said a second driveway would require a second depression, but only one depression is allowed
per Village Code. He has spotted several homes in the neighborhood that contain a second depression (circular
driveway). He said the Petitioners' RV should not be an issue due to all the depressions. He continued by stating
that the RV is on the road most of the year. Over the past 36 years, the Petitioners have never been in violation of
any Village Codes and they're not ready to start now.
Mr. Schrambeck continued by stating the Petitioners should be grandfathered in and be granted approval
installing a second driveway. Parking the RV in the front of the home would be an eyesore and it would also
block the viewing of a bus stop for neighbors. He said that they have letters and a petition from 25 neighbors
stating that the RV should be left where it is at. The Petitioners have explored the options of storing the RV off
site, but the cost, security, and loading/unloading process would take its toll on the Petitioners.
Mr. Schrambeck said that several Village inspectors have been to the house over the years regarding the fence and
shed, but nothing has been said about the RV. He said the Petitioners have not kept the RV a secret from the
Village as a vehicle sticker has been purchased over the past 32 years. Mr. Schrambeck concluded by stating that
this would be a travesty if the Petitioners lost this RV at this point in their life.
Chairman Rogers asked that if the Petitioners were willing to make a permanent parking pad that contained
concrete or asphalt and would run it to the street if allowed. Mr. Schrambeck agreed. Chairman Rogers said he
saw the property with the gate. He stated that the RV could be seen, but it is not intrusive. He said something
needs to be unique in order for a hardship. Chairman Rogers said the property is unique being bordered by three
streets: Euclid, Basswood, and Azalea.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -05-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4
Chairman Rogers swore in Ronald Mueller, 1780 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Mueller said he has
resided at this address for 36 years and stated that the RV is concealed. He stated that the second driveway is not
a bad idea, but it would lower the value of the home. He said the gravel pad has been maintained by the
Petitioners and cannot be seen from the street. He concluded by stating the property and the motor home are both
well maintained by the Petitioners.
Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Guthrie, 1784 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Guthrie has resided at
this address for 16.5 years. He said the RV is not an eyesore and he has never had a problem. He does not
understand why a second driveway cannot be installed.
Chairman Rogers swore in Frederick Brill, 1762 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Brill stated that he wrote
a letter to the Commission. He stated that the Petitioners have been able to drive over the parkway all these years
without damaging it. He said the Petitioners maintain the parkway. He does not see gravel and mentioned that
there use to be trees along Basswood Lane that would hide the RV even more. These trees were diseased and
eventually removed by the Village. He hopes that the Petitioners could be grandfathered in with a cement or
asphalt pad without a driveway to the street and cutting of the curb. Mr. Brill concluded by stating that if a
second driveway was installed, this would create a loss of parking on Basswood and would detract the beauty of
an unbroken parkway.
Chairman Rogers said that a driveway would be required
driving over the grass and the curb. He realizes that
parkway without any damage.
He said that they can't allow the Petitioners to continue
the Petitioners have done a great job maintaining the
Chairman Rogers swore in Chris McLaughin, 1756 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. She said she hopes this
case could be grandfathered in. She is concerned with the safety if a second driveway is built. She stated that
cars would use the driveway apron as a quick turnaround. Ms. McLaughin also mentioned that if the RV was on
the front driveway, it would block her view of the bus stop for her children.
Chairman Rogers asked if there were any provisions to take action on grandfathering the existing conditions. Ms.
Connolly said no because of the way the case was published and the actual request. She said the request came in
for a second driveway, not to grandfather in the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that she has reviewed this case
with the Petitioners. The Village Code gradually evolved over time from requiring a parking pad to be a dustless
hard surface, no gravel and no clay, to where it arrived to today requiring concrete, pavers, or asphalt. Ms.
Connolly said she discussed gravel pads with Public Works and they stated that gravel has been a problem over
the years in the storm sewers. She appreciates the Petitioners being diligent in maintaining the parkway, but the
Village cannot allow one person to be the exception, as ruts in the parkway are a significant property maintenance
issue.
Mr. Donnelly asked what year the property was annexed into the Village. Ms. Connolly confirmed the year was
1971 and she was told that the pad was installed in 1976. She said Staff could not grandfather this in because the
pad did not exist when the property was annexed. Discussion continued amongst the Commission and Staff
regarding the grandfathering option.
Mr. Donnelly asked if there could be a Conditional Use on disabilities. Ms. Connolly replied that a condition of
approval could be placed on a Variation.
Mr. Donnelly said he would like to leave the property the way it is; Ronald Roberts agreed with Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Schrambecks sound like wonderful people and neighbors. He continued by stating that
a driveway would be there forever and a hardship would decrease the property value. He would like to find a way
for the Petitioners not to install a second driveway. The way the case is written is to approve a second driveway,
Mr. Rogers said he would vote to approve this.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -05-08
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 Page 5
Mr. Donnelly asked if they can hold off voting tonight and have the Petitioners come back with a new proposal.
He wanted to know if republishing was an option. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioners could withdraw this case and
submit another application.
Mr. Roberts suggested that the Commission vote on the second driveway and the Petitioners could always change
their plan within a certain limit of time. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Variation is good for one year.
Mr. Donnelly asked what recourse the Petitioners would have if the Commission voted on the second driveway.
Ms. Connolly said that she could talk to the Village attorney about grandfathering, but as she understood the
issue, there was no basis to grandfather the parking pad in as it was not there when the property was annexed.
Chairman Rogers said he cannot support allowing the Petitioners to drive over the parkway, it has to be an
approved surface. Mr. Roberts stated that the Commission is approving one option for the Petitioners, a second
driveway. He stated that the Petitioners could seek other options. Mr. Roberts continued by mentioning that the
Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to say whether or not the Petitioners can drive over
the parkway. He said the case being presented is for a second driveway, whether they implement this option is up
to the Petitioners or the Village Board to decided.
Mr. Donnelly asked if the driveway could only be where the tires are, so the driveway would not have to be the
whole width. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code allows paving strips.
There was general discussion regarding if paving strips were present, there would be less likelihood for cars to use
as a turnaround.
Mr. Schrambeck wanted clarification that the Petitioners could just do strips for the tires rather than do a complete
apron.
Further discussion involved grandfathering in the RV and the 1993 Zoning Code. Ms. Connolly stated that the
1993 Zoning Code was updated to create provisions for RVs to be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Donnelly followed up this point by stating before 1993, the Village Code did not have provisions for parking RVs
in residential neighborhoods.
The Petitioner, Larry Schrambeck, stated that he put in a gravel pad without a permit because he thought it was
not a permanent structure as it could be removed at anytime. This was the ruling in Niles, where Mr. Schrambeck
worked, and he thought he did not need a permit in Mount Prospect.
Gary Schrambeck said if the second driveway is approved this evening on an approved surface, it would include
the strips. Ms. Connolly stated that the parallel paved strips are an approved alternative by code. However, the
curb cut/depression would still be required.
Further discussion involved whether or not the strips could go into the backyard. Also, it was stated that the
gravel pad would still have to be removed.
Ms. Connolly confirmed that they are not reviewing the materials, as those requirements are defined in Chapters
15 and 16 in the Development Code, the case presented tonight is just for the second driveway. The Petitioners
could go back and revisit the paving materials after Village Board approved the second driveway.
Mr. Donnelly suggested if the Petitioners create a paved surface in the backyard to market this as a patio. If strips
were placed, they would have to be removed upon the sale of the home.
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008
PZ -05-08
Page 6
Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if the Code allows paving bricks that allows the grass to grow through as
an approved material. Ms. Connolly said she would have to check with Engineering as brick pavers are allowed
in the right-of-way.
Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at
10:07 p.m.
Mr. Donnelly made a motion that the Commission approve the second driveway with the condition that the
driveway apron be removed upon sale of the property; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers
NAYS: None
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
C Omurnems and Sellings\kdewfs\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Piles\OLK6B\PZ4)5-08 1750 A -lea Place (V -2nd Driveway).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -14-07
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBERS:
REQUESTS:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: March 27, 2008
1630-1780 Wall Street
Michael Ricamato
Not required; signs posted on-site February 13, 2008
08-23-203-026 / 027 / 028 / 029 / 030 / 038
Plat of Vacation
Plat of Resubdivision
Richard Rogers, Chair
Leo Floros
Marlys Haaland
Keith Youngquist
Joseph Donnelly
Ronald Roberts
William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development
Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
Michael Ricamato
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. After roll call, Chairman Rogers stated that
they have the minimum amount of Planning and Zoning Commission Members for a quorum. In order for a case
to receive a positive recommendation, a unanimous vote must occur. The voting for the minutes from the January
24, 2008 meeting were held over until the next meeting since only two members were present from that meeting.
After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced case number PZ -14-07, a request to approve a Plat
of Vacation and the Lake Center Plaza Resubdivision No. 3 at 1630-1780 Wall Street, at 8:10 p.m.
William Cooney, Director of Community Development, stated that this was a follow-up to a case that had
previously come up before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that this is a two lot subdivision with
the construction of two individual warehouses. Mr. Cooney showed an exhibit referencing six lots of record that
were subdivided in the 1970s. He stated that the Petitioner needed to consolidate the lots with the larger facilities
into two lots and also vacate a portion of the cul-de-sac on Wall St.
Mr. Cooney said that the Petitioner had submitted the necessary documents for review and Staff recommends
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chairman Rogers asked if the two parcels would become part of the adjoining lot and stay with the small half
circles. Mr. Cooney confirmed with Chairman Rogers that the properties would be subdivided into two lots.
Chairman Rogers swore in Michael Ricamato, 1660 Wall St., Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Ricamato stated that they
would be constructing two parcels on six lots that will be subdivided into two lots. He said that they would be
vacating the cul-de-sac on Wall St. based on the Village's recommendation.
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008
PZ -14-07
Page 2
Chairman Rogers asked if there would be a dead end road. Mr. Ricamato stated that the road tees off at
Montgomery St. and confirmed with Chairman Rogers that it is not a dead end street.
Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at
8:14 p.m.
Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve case number PZ -14-07, a request to approve a Plat of Vacation and the
Lake Center Plaza Resubdivision No. 3 at 1630-1780 Wall Street; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Youngquist, Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 4-0.
After hearing one additional case, Keith Youngquist made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. The motion was
approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -37-07 Hearing Date: March 27, 2008
PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 6-34 W. Busse Avenue,
12-20 W. Northwest Highway
Busse Avenue right of way between Main Street and Wille Street
and the easternmost 10' of the Wille Street right of way adjacent
to the subject property
PETITIONER: Homebrook Prospect LLC
c/o Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation
PUBLICATION DATE: March 12, 2008
PIN NUMBERS: 08-12-102-057 / 058 / 030 / 059 / 060 / 061 / 062
08-12-107-022 / 003/ 020 / 004 / 006 / 007
REQUEST: Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Commercial
and Residential)
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair
Leo Floros
Marlys Haaland
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly
Ronald Roberts
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development
Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES: John Heimbaugh, Mike Fitzgerald, Michael Worthman, Jonean Ford,
Wilma Galassine, Carol Tortorello, Robert Gniech, Carl Johnson, James
Grady, Joanna Challacombe
Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. After roll call, Chairman Rogers stated that
they have the minimum amount of Planning and Zoning Commission Members for a quorum. In order for a case
to receive a positive recommendation, a unanimous vote must occur. The voting for the minutes from the January
24, 2008 meeting were held over until the next meeting since only two members were present from that meeting.
After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced case number PZ -37-07, a request for a Conditional
Use (Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Commercial and Residential) approval at 6-34 W. Busse Ave., 12-20
W. Northwest Hwy., and the easternmost 10' of Wille Street right of way adjacent to the property, at 8:14 p.m.
William Cooney, Director of Community Development, stated that the request was for a Planned Unit
Development on the property known as the "Small Triangle" or "Sub Area 1." He showed some pictures of the
area. He said that this was one of five sub areas highlighted by the AD HOC Committee in 2004 when they
reviewed potential re -development options in the downtown area.
Mr. Cooney gave a brief history of downtown re -development for the Village. Mr. Cooney also provided an
analysis of current conditions. He said the attributes for the Small Triangle included its historical significance,
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 2
existing businesses, and affordable rents. The challenges that Mr. Cooney presented were its minimal private
investment, functional structural obsolescence, stagnant property values, and lack of parking.
Mr. Cooney stated recent Village actions for the area. These actions included: pursued an extension of Tax
Increment Funding (TIF) through 2021, the Mayor and Staff held individual meetings with business and property
owners in Sub Area 1, and pursued acquisition of remaining properties. Mr. Cooney said that the developer has
also pursued remaining properties as well. He also mentioned that the Village has entered negotiations with the
Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation (HCDC).
Mr. Cooney said that HCDC would be presenting their development concept and asked the public to voice their
opinions as well.
Chairman Rogers restated that the proposal is for a Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development), he said because
it is a Planned Unit Development, certain density requirements can be within ranges and other items could be
discussed.
Mr. Cooney stated that the actual project meets almost all codes. He said that a portion of the western tower
exceeds the 80 foot height maximum. He stated that this was the architectural feature. He also said there are 107
parking spaces for commercial (public) parking. There is approximately 35,000 square feet of retail space and by
code, there would need to be 137 spaces. Mr. Cooney stated that there were provisions for off site parking in the
Village parking deck as well as the adjacent Metra lot on Northwest Hwy.
Chairman Rogers swore in John Heimbaugh, President of HCDC, 666 Dundee Rd, Northbrook, IL and Mike
Fitzgerald, OKW Architects, 600 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL. Mr. Heimbaugh explained the history of HCDC and
provided HCDC's credentials. He highlighted mixed use developments previously built by HCDC.
Mr. Fitzgerald gave a brief profile of OKW Architects and provided pictures of similar mixed use projects that
OKW has completed in Evanston, Wheaton, Palatine, and Mount Prospect (Founders Row).
Mr. Fitzgerald said the proposal includes a mixed use project of retail and residential along with a parking garage
to serve both uses. The East building (along Main St.) will include retail on the ground floor with residential units
above. The West and North buildings would be connected. The West building would have retail on the ground
floor with residential above. The North building will be the parking structure with residential units above. Mr.
Fitzgerald created a scale showing the project.
Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the floor plans for all three buildings including the plaza that is between the East and
West buildings. The retail would be along Main St. and extend throughout the plaza with the remaining retail
primarily running along Northwest Hwy. He also addressed residential access points throughout the buildings.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that they have made some adjustments since the Committee of the Whole Meeting on March
11, 2008. He said the East building would be shifted back 12 feet to allow more sidewalk space along Northwest
Hwy. He stated that the East building would be pushed off Main St. as well. The West building has been shifted
by 8 feet to allow more room on the sidewalk along Northwest Hwy. Mr. Fitzgerald said this also allowed for 9
parallel parking spaces along Northwest Hwy.
Mr. Fitzgerald said vehicular access to the site would be at two locations. The first would be on the West side off
of Wille St. and the second would be from the Village parking lot directly North of the site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated
that the parking garage would serve the commercial patrons as well as the residents. He said there are 107
parking spaces for commercial use; this is a ratio of 3.13 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space. He stated
that this ratio does not include the public parking off site or the nine proposed spaces along Northwest Hwy.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 3
Mr. Fitzgerald said there was another revision of the loading zone due to the concerns provided by neighbors. He
said the proposed loading zone would be North of the parking garage and would run parallel to the building as
opposed to running perpendicular as originally proposed. He said there would be a cut -in to the curb and the
loading zone would allow two lanes of traffic to pass by. He stated that trucks would no longer block any access
via the Village parking lot.
Mr. Fitzgerald said the garage access point on the North side of the structure does not align with the garage access
for the condo building to the North. He did mention that even though they do not align, they are directly across
from one another and it allows for drivers to make visual contact for entering and exiting their respective
structures.
Mr. Fitzgerald discussed other service elements for the buildings.
Chairman Rogers swore in Michael Worthman, of KLOA Inc. Mr. Worthman stated that he is a licensed
professional engineer with the State of Illinois. He said he was retained to complete a traffic study for the
proposed development.
Mr. Worthman stated that both access drives will lead commercial patrons and residents to their respective parking
areas. He said by having two access drives on two different roads provides the site with the maximum access
flexibility.
Mr. Worthman discussed concerns from the previous meeting regarding traffic in the Village parking lot directly
North of the site. He looked at the traffic volumes and stated they are low. Mr. Worthman stated that there are
between 40-45 vehicles within the peak hours. He said the parking lot has been safely designed for the
development.
Mr. Worthman said that neighbors suggested at the last meeting eliminating access to the site from the North. He
does not advocate this because it decreases the flexibility. He also believes that if access was eliminated that there
would still be a significant volume of traffic for the site utilizing the parking lot to the North. He said the access
drive would allow traffic to move quicker.
Mr. Worthman stated that there are currently no crosswalks on Main St. / Busse Ave. and Northwest Hwy. / Wille
St. Mr. Worthman said there is a proposed median/pedestrian refuge area. He will discuss this with the Illinois
Department of Transportation based on Staff's suggestions.
Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the commercial and residential parking plans. He said for the residential parking, there
are a total of 105 units that will be using 168 parking spaces (1.6 cars per unit).
Mr. Fitzgerald showed site sections, elevations, and discussed that the buildings would be made of brick with
limestone detailing.
Chairman Rogers said that parking in downtown Mount Prospect is a real problem. He believed that the parking
presented was not adequate. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Fitzgerald the total number of bedrooms.
Mr. Fitzgerald did not have the total number of bedrooms, but he did discuss the sizes of the units.
Mr. Cooney said the parking for the four projects that have been approved in the downtown area have a parking
ratio ranging from 1.38 to 1.5. Mr. Cooney stated the only complaints that have been presented to him regarding
parking were by the residences to the North of the proposed site. He believed that the marketing people
misinformed residents that they could park their vehicles overnight in the Village's parking lot. Mr. Cooney said
he has not received any parking complaints from the condo owners at the Clocktower, Lofts, or Emerson building.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 4
Chairman Rogers said he understands that the lot to the North of the proposed development is a thoroughfare
owned by the Village. Mr. Cooney confirmed that the Village owns the lot. He stated that there are easements
over the right access to the Residents development to the North and existing commercial to the South. Mr.
Cooney said that the lot was designated as guest parking for the visitors and for the businesses to the South. Mr.
Cooney advised that it was never intended for overnight parking.
Keith Youngquist asked what would stop residents from parking overnight in the proposed parking garage. Mr.
Cooney stated that the Village would own the public portion of the parking lot and there would be no parking
from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Chairman Rogers confirmed that the proposed parking garage would have similar hours like the parking deck
North of Village Hall. Chairman Rogers said residents to the North of the proposed site could park in the public
portion of the proposed garage. Mr. Cooney said the Village enforces parking regulations in the downtown area
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., in two hour zones. He said most of the downtown is unlimited parking from 6 p.m. to 2
a.m.
There was general discussion on whether the residential portion of the proposed parking garage would be heated.
Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed that it would be partially conditioned, but not a heated garage.
Leo Floros asked how many restaurants the Petitioners envision in this proposed development. Mr. Heimbaugh
said that there would be more than two. He said restaurant patrons would utilize the public parking. Mr.
Heimbaugh stated that a busy Saturday night would not be sufficient parking, he explained that is why the
adjacent parking would be used.
Mr. Youngquist led a discussion on another business in the downtown area. He believed downtown Mount
Prospect is not a walk -able community. He believed that people utilizing the adjacent lots and crossing at a
variety of places would create a dangerous situation.
Mr. Cooney stated that by closing Busse Ave. would create a pedestrian zone at Main St. and Wille St. He said if
this development becomes an entertainment zone with restaurants that will be busy beyond rush hour (6 p.m. — 7
p.m.). Mr. Cooney said traffic counts drop dramatically and it would be an easy walk across the street with a
halfway zone in the middle of the streets.. Mr. Cooney stated that the proposed development is very accessible
from a pedestrian standpoint.
Chairman Rogers discussed the possibility of putting a crosswalk in the center of the walkway courtyard. Mr.
Cooney said that the chances would not be good; he does not believe the State would give this via mid -block.
There was general discussion that continued regarding walking and driving in downtown Mount Prospect.
Chairman Rogers stated that people have two or three cars. He said parking is a problem. He stated it is not fair
to add more units when parking is already a problem. Chairman Rogers said he would like to see more parking
spaces in the proposed garage.
There was general discussion regarding the signature elements of the building.
Mr. Floros said he loves the look of the site and welcomes this style to the downtown.
Marlys Haaland was very pleased with the proposed site.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 5
Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioners had a chance to review comments from Staff regarding the additional
items that need compliance of this proposal was approved. The Petitioners agreed.
Mr. Worthman said 1.6 is a sufficient ratio as surveys and census data support this number.
Chairman Rogers swore in Jonean Ford, 5 W. Central, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Ford said the proposed garage
faces the North building and she is concerned with the metallic industrial look. She stated that half the units to
the North look out on the courtyard and face the South parking lot. She wanted to know if the Petitioners could
do anything to clean up the look.
Ms. Ford is also concerned with traffic. She said the Residences condo has to use the Village parking lot for
entering and exiting. She is concerned with additional parking spots for the proposed development.
Mr. Floros asked Ms. Ford if the traffic in the Village parking lot could go either direction. Ms. Ford said yes.
Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Ford how many trucks are currently in the loading area. Ms. Ford said that since the
Blues Bar was added, quite a few large trucks, one or two trucks at a time. She is concerned if more restaurants
come in, this would mean more trucks would be unloading.
Chairman Rogers swore in Wilma Galassine, 20 S. Main St., Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Galassine said her condo
overlooks the triangle. She sees large semis for the Blues Bar and garbage trucks for pick-up. She said it is
crowded. Ms. Galassine questioned emergency access to the proposed site and what type of security would be in
place for the garage.
Chairman Rogers swore in Carol Tortorello, 223 S. Elmhurst Ave., Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Tortorello read a list
of reasons why the proposed development was a bad idea. This list ranged from the design of the development to
also what would be done for snow removal. She also addressed issues with traffic, parking, and for the lack of
request for proposals.
Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Gniech, 10 S. Wille, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Gniech does not like the design
and views parking in the Village lot to the North of the development to be a major issue. He would like to view
another site.
Chairman Rogers swore in Carl Johnson, I1 S. Wille, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Johnson agrees with Chairman
Rogers in regards to the parking. He believes that parking in the downtown area is a problem. He stated that the
traffic study was completed before the closure of Busse Ave. Mr. Johnson believes that the Village parking lot
would be used more by drivers to cut through to Northwest Hwy. He asked if a no left turn sign could be placed
at Main Street and the parking lot to eliminate some of the traffic.
Chairman Rogers swore in James Grady, 40 E. Northwest Hwy., Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Grady wanted to know
the height of the buildings. He also wanted to know if other projects could be considered. Mr. Grady also asked
what the zoning is for the proposed development.
Mr. Cooney said the zoning for the site and the area bounded by Central Road, Northwest Hwy., and roughly
Emerson St. is B -5C. Mr. Cooney stated that B-5 Core allows mixed-use developments built throughout the
downtown area.
Mr. Grady said he was concerned with limitation on the type of businesses and he wanted to know how the
residents above these developments are protected. Mr. Grady led a discussion regarding Elements Fitness and
what restrictions fitness gyms would have on hours of operation, etc.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 6
Mr. Cooney said that Elements had to obtain a Conditional Use for their operation, but that a 24 hour convenience
store would be permitted in the downtown area. Mr. Cooney stated that 24 hour businesses are part of the mixed
use lifestyle. He summarized that certain uses may need a Conditional Use and some do not.
Mr. Grady concluded his statements by saying that parking at the Emerson building is a problem.
Chairman Rogers swore in Joanna Challacombe, 11 S. Wille, Mount Prospect, IL. She said the plan was
beautiful, but also has concerns for the parking. She asked if the number of units could be reduced above the
proposed parking garage. She stated that parking in her building is a 1.3 ratio and is inadequate. She stated a 2
bedroom unit in her building with 2 adults only has 1 parking space. Ms. Challacombe had additional concerns
about whether or not this would be considered a green building.
Ms. Challacombe said she crossed Main St. at 7:30 p.m. to attend the meeting and had no problems. She believed
that the Village should encourage walking and biking and she hasn't heard the Petitioners discuss bike parking in
the proposed development. Ms. Challacombe concluded by asking what would restrict Metra train riders from
parking in the public garage and taking the train.
Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners to address some of the questions and concerns addressed by the residents.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that bike storage would be provided in the proposed buildings. He mentioned that all of his
projects look at green principles and strategies. He did not know if the proposed development would be LEEDs
(green) certified.
Chairman Rogers asked about the structure of the buildings. Mr. Fitzgerald said the building structure would be a
poured place concrete system and steel frame precast plank system. The buildings would be sound proof and
stated that they would have to abide by Village Code. Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the heights of the buildings. He
said that they would work with Staff regarding garage security.
Mr. Cooney stated that the public component of the proposed garage would be patrolled by Police. It will be well
lit at all times and there would not be a security guard.
Chairman Rogers asked what the Village would do for people parking in the public portion of the garage during
the daytime and riding the train. Mr. Cooney said they would be ticketed as most of the downtown parking is for
two hours.
Mr. Fitzgerald discussed emergency vehicle access. He said the development is surrounded by roads with access
from four points and the plaza could be engineered to support emergency vehicles. Mr. Fitzgerald stated for every
project he has completed, parking has been an issue. He said to go from a 1.3 ratio to a 1.6 would equal adding
60 spaces.
Mr. Heimbaugh said if he took all of the units larger than 1 bedroom and assigns 2 parking spaces, it would be 75
units and 150 parking spaces. He continued by stating each 1 bedroom unit has 1 space for each of the 30 units.
This would create a total of 180 parking spaces at a 1.7 ratio. The proposed development has 169 total spaces for
residential that equal the 1.6 ratio as proposed. Mr. Heimbaugh stated that he has never had every 2 bedroom unit
purchase 2 parking spaces. He said the absolute maximum would be a 1.7 ratio.
Chairman Rogers said that he understood the ratio, but stated that there is currently a parking problem and the
proposal would add to the problem. He said by trying to eliminate some of the parking issues and make sure the
Petitioners do not aggravate the issue.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -37-07
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008 Page 7
Mr. Youngquist asked if it was the intention to sell the parking spaces. Mr. Heimbaugh said that 1 parking space
is included when a unit is purchased. A second space can be purchased.
Chairman Rogers asked the possibility of a no left turn sign from Northbound Main St. into the Village parking
lot. Mr. Worthman stated that he met with the Village's Engineering Staff. He mentioned that Staff was very
comfortable with what was being proposed with the current design. Mr. Worthman agreed that the traffic would
need to be monitored and if changes needed to be made, they would be. He said this could be accomplished at a
later date.
Chairman Rogers asked about snow removal from the property. Mr. Heimbaugh stated that it would be piled into
the middle of the plaza. He discussed the possibility of heating portions of the public plaza pavement to minimize
the amount of snow build up.
Chairman Rogers questioned the look of the parking garage. Mr. Heimbaugh said that they could minimize the
amount of metal on the parking structure and increase the masonry.
Mr. Cooney discussed emergency access and stated that an ambulance could drive through the plaza. He said that
the Fire Department has reviewed the plans and did not indicate any concerns. Mr. Cooney advised that Staff
could follow-up on emergency access.
Mr. Floros asked if it was possible to increase the amount of parking without impacting the existing plans. Mr.
Heimbaugh stated that they have two options. One would be to alter the ratio between public and private parking
and the second would be to reduce the number of residential units.
Discussion continued with the Commission and Petitioners regarding the parking ratio.
Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioners could increase the size of the parking garage. Mr. Fitzgerald replied by
asking what the Planning and Zoning would be comfortable with. Chairman Rogers said 200 spaces or at least a
1.7 ratio.
Mr. Youngquist is concerned with the location of the proposed parking garage to the North. He believed that
guests of the condos would take up spaces in the public portion of the parking garage.
Mr. Fitzgerald said in order to gain a 1.7 ratio, he said they could remove the penthouse units in the East building
and that would reduce the overall units to 101. Then there would be 168 spaces and they would need to find a
couple more spaces to bring the total to 170 or a ratio of 1.7.
Chairman Rogers asked if there was an easier way to pick up the additional spaces by increasing the size.
Mr. Youngquist said that he did not have a problem with the 1.6 ratio for residential parking; the issue is with the
size of the public portion of the proposed garage.
Further discussion continued regarding utilizing the downtown parking deck and the Metra lot.
Mr. Floros made a motion to approve case PZ -37-07, a request to approve a Conditional Use (Planned Unit
Development/Mixed Use Commercial and Residential) at 6-34 W. Busse Ave., 12-20 W. Northwest Hwy., and the
easternmost 10' of Wille Street right of way adjacent to the property; Ms. Haaland seconded the motion.
Chairman Rogers said he wanted to add an amendment to take a second look at the parking to be a part of the
motion. He would like to see an increase. Mr. Floros said at least a parking ratio of 1.7.
Richard Rogers, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 2008
PZ -37-07
Page 8
Mr. Cooney stated that the Staff's recommendation includes for a Variation to approve the maximum height of
88.6 feet and a request of a Variance for parking from 137 to 107 for the commercial component in the motion.
Mr. Floros said he will support this proposal as it represents change for Mount Prospect. He discussed the reasons
why he liked the proposal.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Rogers
NAYS: Youngquist
Chairman Rogers said there was a 3-1 vote. This case moves onto the Village Board without the Planning and
Zoning's approval. He stated that it would take a super majority vote from the Village Board for approval.
Keith Youngquist made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the
meeting was adjourned.