Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. DRAFT MINUTES 05/06/2008 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT May 6, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilks called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PLEDGE INVOCATION MINUTES APPROVE BILLS MAYOR'S REPORT TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 50TH ANNIVERSARY PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AND OPEN HOUSE APPOINTMENTS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Present: Mayor Irvana Wilks Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee John Korn Trustee Zadel Absent: Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilks led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION Trustee Juracek gave the Invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 15, 2008. Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. APPROVE BILLS Mayor Wilks stated the next item on the agenda, "APPROVE BILLS" was noted by an asterisk, and all items further listed in that manner would be considered with one (1) vote, as business item "IX. CONSENT AGENDA." MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Wilks presented proclamations to recognize: . ''Trinity United Methodist Church 50th Anniversary" Mr. Jim McGowan, Administrative Board President accepted the proclamation, and on behalf of the congregation thanked the Village Board for recognizing this important event. Pastor Dan Swinson was also present, and extended an invitation to the Village Board as well as the general public to join in the May 18th celebration at Trinity United Methodist Church. . "Public Works Week," May 18-24, 2008 Public Works Director Glen Andler accepted the proclamation, and thanked the Village Board for their continued support of the Open House; a fun yet educational event for the community. Mr. Andler stated the May 1 ih Open House marked the 29th year of the annual event. He extended a special thanks to the Mount Prospect Lions Club for their continued support and generosity. The Lions Club donates food/beverages and volunteers for the event. APPOINTMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Bruce Nejdl 313 N. Mac Arthur Boulevard 1 NORTHWEST MEADOWS SIDEWALK CONSENT AGENDA BILLS RES 19-08 RES 20-08 RES 21-08 RES 22-08 RES 23-08 RES 24-08 RES 25-08 RES 26-08 RES 27-08 RES 28-8 RES 29-08 Mr. Nejdl addressed the Village Board regarding the installation of sidewalk along the south side of Gregory Street between Oak Street at Fairview School and Meadows Park. Although neither he or other residents in the area support the Village's plans for the sidewalk his focus of concern was the manner in which the Village has proceeded with the project, specifically the communication between Village staff and residents affected by the planned sidewalk. [A copy of the comments presented by Mr. Nejdl are attached and made part of the meeting minutes.] Mr. Janonis stated the installation of sidewalks at this location was recommended as part of the Village's Neighborhood Residential Traffic Study. The traffic study indicated the sidewalk would enhance pedestrian safety. In response to Mr. Nejdl's concerns regarding removal of trees/bushes, Mr. Janonis stated Public Works had reevaluated to determine if the sidewalk could be placed further from the affected residential homes. However, due to the location of the Village's sewer line system placing the sidewalks further away would complicate drainage. Mr. Janonis stated he has discussed this matter with Nancy Fritz and the Village is willing to explore other options for the location of the sidewalk. Mr. Janonis stated a meeting will be set-up with residents from Northwest Meadows Homeowners Association, staff and no more than two (2) members of the Village Board. Mr. Andler stated that tree removal for the sidewalks has also been put on hold. CONSENT AGENDA Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve the following business items: 1. Bills dated April - 30, 2008 2. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL (OFSM) 3. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND NORTHWEST CENTER AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT (NW CASA) 4. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND CEDA NORTHWEST SELF-HELP CENTER, INC. 5. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER 6. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND GREATER WHEELING AREA YOUTH ORGANIZATION 7. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND HIRE UP MINISTRIES 8. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND JOURNEYS FROM PADS TO HOPE, INC. 9. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY LIVING 10. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND SEARCH DEVELOPMENT CENTER 11. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND SUBURBAN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE COUNCIL, INC. 12. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND WINGS 2 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT VEHICILES OLD BUSINESS AMEND CHAPTER (18) TRAFFIC RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC ZONES 11,16,&18 13. Request Village Board approval to accept sidewalk replacement program in an amount not to exceed $140,000. 14. Request Village Board approval to accept (1) accept state bid for a 2008 Ford E150 passenger van in an amount not to exceed $19,795 and (2) the purchase of one (1) 2008 Ford Explorer utility vehicle from the Suburban Purchasing Cooperative Contract in an amount not to exceed $24,925. Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Mayor Wilks presented for a second (2nd) reading an ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Village Code. This ordinance implements components of the Village's new "Residential Intersection Traffic Control" program and the "Residential Speed Limit" program for Zones 11, 16 and 18. The Safety Commission recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Project Engineer Matt Lawrie provided additional information as a follow-up to the questions/comments generated at the May 6, 2008 Village Board meeting. · Missing stop sign at Briarwood Plaza - the owner of the Plaza has reinstalled stop sign. · Test driving of cars through neighborhood - after discussion with the Police Department, the owner of the car dealership will no longer test drive cars through Lake Briarwood neighborhood. In addition, Mr. Lawrie provided at the request of the Village Board additional speed and volume data from the studies conducted in Zones 16 and 18. Trustee Korn stated that at the May 6, 2008 Village Board meeting four (4) Trustees expressed support for maintaining the 20 miles an hour speed limit in Zon18, yet the proposed ordinance still had the speed limit at 25 miles an hour. Mr. Lawrie responded that staff maintained recommendation for the 25 miles an hour speed limit. Mr. Seaby Bess - Lake Briarwood Homeowners' Association 2902 Briarwood Drive East Mr. Bess presented a copy of the December 19, 1978 Mount Prospect Village Board meeting Agenda which included the annexation of Lake Briarwood into the Village and Ordinance 2893 also dated December 19, 1978; amend Chapter 18 (Traffic). Mr. Bess presented the documents in support of the homeowners contention that the Village could not alter the speed limit nor remove traffic signs in Lake Briarwood. Mr. Bess stated the Homeowners are requesting the speed limit remain at 20 miles per hour and no stop sign removal. Village Manager Janonis stated staff had researched the annexation agreement and found no language in the agreement that would prohibit the Village's authority to change the speed limit or other traffic regulations. He stated the ordinance was passed in conjunction with the annexation agreement to authorize the Village's jurisdiction of traffic in Lake Briarwood. Trustee Juracek stated she too had conducted a document research regarding any stipulations for traffic regulations in the annexation agreement and agreed with Village Manager Janonis. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to amend the proposed ordinance by maintaining the 20 miles an hour speed limit in Zone 18. 3 ORD 5687 NEW BUSINESS PZ-09-08, 1920 CARBOY, ATHLETIC BARN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORD 5688 PZ-38-07, 309-313 W. PROSPECT AVE., 3 UNIT ROWHOME CONIDTIONAL USE & VARIATIONS Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved for the approval of Ordinance No. 5687 as amended: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Wilks presented for a first (1sl) reading an ordinance granting a Conditional Use; PZ-09-08, 1920 Carboy Road, The Athletic Barn. Community Development Director William Cooney provided background information on the petitioner's request for the Conditional Use permit for a Vocational School to operate a sports training facility. Mr. Cooney stated the school would be designed to provide a sports training facility in the areas of basketball and baseball with batting cages and basketball courts. The anticipated maximum occupancy would be 30 students and two (2) employees. Mr. Cooney stated the proposed Conditional Use request meets the standards of the Zoning Code and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Tom Barnard, petitioner, was in attendance and responded to questions from the Village Board. Mr. Barnard stated the facility which will allow the young athlete to college age athletes a facility to practice and improve skills was needed in the Mount Prospect and Arlington Heights area. He stated the facility will be co-ed and operate in a "boutique" type manner; facility can be used for recreational or coaching purposes. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to waive the rule requiring two (2) readings of an ordinance: Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve Ordinance No. 5688: AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (VOCATIONAL SCHOOL) Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Motion carried. Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel None Mayor Wilks presented for a first (1sl) reading an ordinance granting a Conditional Use permit and variations for a Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a three (3) unit rowhome development at 309-313 West Prospect Avenue. This ordinance grants a Conditional Use permit to allow dwelling units on the ground floor, and variations for front yard building setback, rear yard building setback and building height for a three (3) unit rowhome development. 4 PZ-37-07, 6-34 W. BUSSE AVE. & 12-20 W. NW HWY, MIXED USE DEV. CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIATION Community Development Director William Cooney provided background information stating the properties are currently vacant grass lots owned by the petitioner. The proposal is for a three (3) unit rowhome facing Prospect Avenue with vehicular access off of West Busse Avenue; rearloaded garages. Mr. Cooney discussed the current uses on Prospect Avenue and stated staff is opposed to the proposal because Prospect Avenue is more of a commercial, office and retail roadway. The Planning and Zoning recommended approval of the Conditional Use and Variations by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Paul Swanson, petitioner, was in attendance and provided additional information pertinent to development of the property as residential rather than commercial/office use. He stated a market analysis indicated the location would not support additional offices and the property is contiguous with residential properties. He canvassed the neighbors and found the homeowners generally supportive of the development. Trustee Juracek stated she was happy with the design but due to the streeUtraffic configuration of Busse /ElmhursUProspect Avenues at this location, she noted the importance of visibility and requested landscaping be designed to ensure a clear line of vision. Trustee Hoefert asked if consideration was given to using a rounded feature to the building structure. Mr. Swanson stated yes, but the more traditional architectural design maximized the developments' amount of green space. Trustee Hoefert questioned whether staff see this area along Prospect Avenue becoming residential over the next several years. Mr. Cooney stated that economically such a move would probably be cost prohibitive. Trustee Zadel asked the petitioner about the depth of the detention area. Mr. Swanson responded that he was not sure as the engineering has not yet been performed. Mr. Cooney stated that under the Village Code the project would qualify for the fee in lieu of for stormwater detention. Ms. Patricia Byrd 314 North Elmhurst Avenue Ms. Byrd asked Mr. Swanson several questions relative to the financing and marketing of the rowhome development. Mr. Swanson stated he has good financial resources and feels the project is the right product at the right time. Mayor Wilks stated the 2nd reading for the request for Conditional Use permit and variations for the three (3) rowhome unit development would be held at the May 20, 2008 Village Board meeting. Mayor Wilks presented for a first (151) reading an ordinance granting a Conditional Use permit and Variation for a Planned Unit DevelopmenUMixed Use Commercial and Residential. The ordinance grants a Conditional Use permit and Variation for a Planned Unit Development and a building height variation for Phase 1 of the Mount Prospect Town Center commonly referred to as the "small triangle," sub-area #1. Mayor Wilks reviewed the process for presentation and discussion of this item; 1) staff presentation 2) petitioner's presentation 3) Village Board questions/comments 4) public comments/questions from individuals in attendance. Community Development Director William Cooney provided background information on downtown redevelopment. The subject property, commonly known as the "Small Triangle" or Sub-Area 1" is bounded by Main StreeUNorthwest Highway/Wille StreeWillage Parking lot. He stated the small triangle was one of five (5) sub areas highlighted for redevelopment in 2004 by the Village's Downtown Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. 5 Mr. Cooney provided a brief history of downtown redevelopment and an analysis of the small triangle current conditions; 1) attributes - historical significance, existing businesses and affordable rents and 2) challenges - minimal private investment, functional structural obsolescence, stagnant property values and lack of parking. He identified recent actions taken by the Village: 1) extension of Tax Increment Funding (TIF) through 2021; 2) discussions with individual businesses and property owners in Sub Area #1 and 3) pursued acquisition of remaining properties and 4) entered negotiations with the Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation (HCDC). Mr. Cooney stated Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation presented its development proposal for Phase 1 of the subject property to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 27, 2008. At that meeting the Planning and Zoning recommended approval of the development proposal by a vote of 3-1. Mr. Cooney stated that in response to concerns expressed by residents at the March 27, 2009 the developer has made modifications to the proposed development. Mr. John Heimbaugh, President, Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation, Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, OK'N Architects and Mr. Michael Werthmann, traffic consultant with KLOA were in attendance to present and answer questions on the proposed development. Mr. Heimbaugh stated the concerns expressed by residents and the P & Z Commission regarding density and parking ratios were taken to heart. The proposed development has been revised; reduction in the number of residential units from 105 units to 97 and increased the parking ratio from 1.6 to 1.7. Mr. Fitzgerald, OK'N Architects provided an overview of the proposed development including revisions to the plan in response to resident concerns. He said the project utilizes Smart Growth Principles to create a viable town center with viable uses; retail and housing. Pedestrian oriented with close proximity to retail and civic campus with a link to public transportation. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the proposed mixed use development for retail and residential housing, utilizes a new urbanistic design that includes a public plaza, roof top terraces; landscaping on roofs, a parking garage and building design to maximize natural light. Mr. Fitzgerald then addressed issues raised by the residents in the adjacent condominium building and the revisions to the proposed project in response to the residents concerns. 1) retail loading dock (adjacent to south parking lot) - dedicated lane off of drive aisle, gets truck off of drive, two-way traffic can occur. (This loading dock is separate from the two (2) docks in the proposed development.) 2) increased sidewalk - east building along Main Street pushed to the west further from curb 3) 10 parallel parking spaces on NW Highway - buildings pulled back about 10 feet to add parking on NW Highway. Mr. Fitzgerald then provided an overview of each of the three (3) buildings by floor; retail space, residential units and public/private parking levels. East building (along Main Street) retail on the ground floor with residential units above; L-shaped building (west and north) west side - retail on the ground floor with residential units above; north side - parking structure with residential units above. Total of 97 residential units: 29 - one (1) bedroom units and 68 - two plus (2+) bedroom units. 165 residential parking spaces; 1 space for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces available for 2+ bedroom units. 31,000 square feet of retail space with 126 retail parking spaces in parking structure; up from 108 spaces. As adequate parking is a major concern Mr. Fitzgerald provided information on available parking within close proximity of the proposed development and other developments. His comments included travel times and safe crossing zones for pedestrians. 6 PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Fitzgerald concluded his comments with a description of the project architecture noting its consistency with the quality of materials with existing downtown district and the public plaza as the heart of the project. Mr. Michael Werthmann, traffic consultant, KLOA presented information relative to the proposed development and traffic. The proposed development will have access to all three (3) major arterial roads. The project includes two drives; having two (2) access drives on two different roads provides the site with maximum access flexibility. He noted the parking lot has been safely designed for the development and accessibility to the three arterial roads will enhance traffic distribution. Mayor Wilks called for a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Wilks reconvened the May 6, 2008 Village Board meeting at 9:01 p.m. Mayor Wilks opened the discussion to comments from the Village Board with her own comments and perspective on Downtown Re-development. Mayor Wilks has been a part of the downtown redevelopment since 1985 when she was appointed to the Downtown Redevelopment Committee. She remained committed as a Trustee and supported Mayor Farley's redevelopment efforts. Each development has been unique and had its own challenges. And, while Sub-Area #1 has been the most challenging the Village Board has addressed similar issues with the other developments. Mayor Wilks stated that she finds Mr. Heimbaugh's proposal unique and a development for the future. Although she has thought about other development options for the downtown area, a key consideration is the future of Mount Prospect, what will draw our young people, families and others to the downtown area. Mr. Heimbaugh has unique ideas, with demonstrated success in other communities. He has listened to the Village Board and proven sensitive to the concerns of the residential properties adjacent to the proposed development. He has made equity partners of those businesses that want to stay Mayor Wilks stated that while RFP's were not part of this process, the Village worked with a "preferred" developer on another downtown redevelopment project. This is not the first time the Village has not gone out for RFP. After a brief discussion by the Village Board it was decided to allow comments from the audience and then return to comments from the Village Board. Mr. David Lindgren, Chair Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Lindgren stated the EDC is comprised of residents and/or Mount Prospect Business owners whose mission is to work with the Village Board and staff to preserve existing businesses and attract new businesses. Mr. Lindgren stated the EDC reviewed the plan as favorable and encourages the Village Board to approve the proposed Heimbaugh development. (Mr. Lindgren provided a written copy of his comments that are attached and made part of the meeting minutes.) A significant number of property owners from the adjacent condominium developments were in attendance. Several of the condominium owners addressed the Village Board to voice concerns with respect to the proposed development. While opposed to this particular proposal there were comments in support of redevelopment. [As many of the comments were similar in nature a collective list of their primary concerns follows:] 7 Residents Teresa Adamski 11 South Wille Mr. Carl Johnson 20 South Main Ms. Gloria Flores Village Centre Mr. J. Kastens 5 West Central Road Ms. Donna Franczyk 20 South Main Street Ms. Linda Thill 5 West Cenrtral Road Mr. John Franczyk 20 South Main Street Mr. Karl Todd 20 South Main Street Mr. Harold Hansen 5 West Central Road Ms. Nancy Trutwin 20 South Main Street Ms. Rose Marie Hendricksen 20 South Main Street Ms. Sandra Turret 10 South Wille Street [Mr. Franczyk provided a written copy of his comments that are attached and made part of the meeting minutes.] Concerns · Density · Increased traffic flow and congestion in south parking lot · Loss of parking spaces · Management of additional truck traffic · Obstruction of Main Street entrance · Trucks in lot create hazardous conditions · Accessibility of fire and other emergency vehicles · Mixed-use not appropriate · Development will exacerbate existing parking problems · Development poses more risk for Village than Developer · Village's financing of project · Pedestrian safety · Further saturation of real estate market - detrimental to current owners · Hours of operation of retail establishments · Building height and architecture not in character of downtown · Guidelines for acceptable retail establishments · Funding for Phase II · Closure of Busse Avenue · Height of proposed building - 88 feet · Restrictions on condo rentals - owner occupied Additional Comments: Mr. Bob Scotese 911 South Busse Road Mr. Scotese had several questions and concerns regarding the proposed development including the Village's financial contribution to the project and how these finances compare to the Village's financial involvement with the other downtown redevelopment projects. He also questioned the loss of parking with closing of Busse Avenue and the other proposed parking options presented by the developer. He questioned who was financially responsible for maintenance of the parking structure. Mr. Scotese recommended the Village Board seek proposals to explore other options. He would like to see the Village continue with low-rise development; store fronts with parking on Busse Avenue. 8 Ms. Christy Watychowicz 301 South Wa Pella Ms. Watychowicz stated the downtown redevelopment needs to be sensitive to the entire community. She questioned how the project could move forward before all the property was acquired. She supports redevelopment but recommends Village put it out for RFP. Proposed development is too dense; need to support existing businesses and questioned adding new housing units in current market. Crossing 83 is problematic - pedestrian safety concern. Ms. Mary Simon 803 West Isabella Street Ms. Simon stated she is not in favor of Mount Prospect becoming a high rise community; keep height restrictions in place. She supports putting the redevelopment of the small triangle" out for RFP. Mr. Timothy Scott 100 South Emerson Mr. Scott stated he is a professional urban planner and presented his perspective on the proposed development. Mr. Scott stated the proposed development scenario for the small triangle over-scaled, both in terms of the number of structures on the site and the height and massing of the structures. He questioned the architectural structure, and had noted concerns with parking; vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation. He added that this development should not be the lone option considered by the Village. [Mr. Scott provided a written copy of his comments that are attached and made part of the meeting minutes.] Mr. Wes Pinchot 747 Whitegate Drive Mr. Pinchot questioned the Village's use of eminent domain. He also asked for a break down of the Village's contributions for the other TIF redevelopment projects. He would like to see Busse Avenue and the businesses on Busse Avenue maintained. He does not support the proposed development. Ms. Patricia Schwager 616 South Albert Ms. Schwager stated her family came to Mount Prospect because of the excellent schools but found the downtown rather shabby. She likes to shop locally and support her community. She feels the proposed project is magnificent. The Village Board and Village staff responded to some of the residents concerns. · Financing Mayor Wilks stated the financing of the TIF projects is public knowledge and will be made available to residents via the Village's web page and handouts. (Trustee Hoefert read the financial breakdown that was given to the Village Board.) Several questions were raised regarding the Village's contributions to the small triangle in comparison to the other developments. Mayor Wilks stated the Village has participated financially with all developments including Village Centre. Village undertook public/private partnership with TIF developments. Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village has some financial responsibility with all TIF projects; purchase property, clean-up of property or other commitment. Mayor Wilks stated the financing of the project will be discussed at the May 20, 2008 Village Board meeting. 9 In response to questions regarding financial risks to the Village Mr. Janonis stated there are safe guards built in to protect the Village. Before the Village would turn over property, developer must have financing. Mr. Cooney added that the developer would need to secure financing from the bank for the completion of both Phase 1 and 2. · Access for Emergency Vehicles Village Manager Janonis responded to concerns regarding emergency vehicles accessing building if drive or parking lot is obstructed. Village Manager Janonis stated that with the fire safety systems and infrastructure of the newer high rise buildings it is not as critical to have close access. However, should circumstances ever occur that emergency vehicles need access to provide services, the vehicles will do whatever is needed to gain access to the buildings. · Parking Mr. Cooney stated the increased demand for parking would typically be in the evenings when parking would be available in the municipal and metra lots. Although traffic counts indicate considerably less traffic at night Mr. Cooney recognized the safety concerns for crossing at Main Street and NW Highway and Wille Street. The use of safety zones for pedestrians will be pursued with lOOT. Mr. Heimbaugh and Mr. Cooney addressed the question regarding maintenance of the parking structure. Mr. Heimbaugh stated the public portion of the garage would be owned by the Village and the residential by the developer. Mr. Cooney stated an intergovernmental agreement would be in place to share the maintenance cost. The Village is guaranteed 126 spaces. Mayor Wilks returned discussion to the Village Board for their comments. Trustee Juracek responded to a resident's apparent misunderstanding of her comments regarding the rowhome development on Prospect Avenue. Trustee Juracek stated she had no problem with a one (1) drive access, her concern was with the street/traffic configuration of Busse/Elmhurst/Prospect Avenues and the need to keep a clear line of vision. Trustee Juarcek thanked the residents for their insightful comments and will be taking a close look at their concerns; loading dock, parking and other issues. She did state that as the owner of 43% of non-public right-of-way of Sub Area # the owner did have a right to come before the Village. And, fine tuning the proposal is part of the process. Mr. Heimbaugh's proposal does validate a lot of what was presented in earlier studies. The Village Board has heard the concerns of the residents and will have staff work on issues of concern. At the end of the day, Village Board can still say no but encouraged everyone to look at development proposal with an open eye. Stating the proposal was not a done deal Trustee Korn also thanked the residents for their comments. This is the time to ask questions and listen to comments. Trustee Korn stated he would have liked to had the opportunity to comment before hearing resident comments because he had questions for the residents; such as what type of development they would like in Sub-Area #1? He assured the residents, that even though Trustees Corcoran and Lohrstorfer were not in attendance they would also be informed of concerns discussed this evening. In response to Trustee Korn's question regarding the cost of a second (2nd) parking space, Mr. Heimbaugh stated the cost would be approximately $20,000. Trustee Korn also confirmed that parking for the services area on Route 83 was adjacent to the road not on it. Trustee Korn reconfirmed discussion of financing would be discussed at the May 20, 2008 meeting. 10 AMDEND CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) Trustee Hoefert stated he had several major concerns and identified some; · Alternative parking sites - pedestrian safety · Pedestrian safe zones - lOOT approved? Mr. Cooney stated lOOT has not approved · Truck traffic - going to be tremendous amount of traffic with restaurants · Busse Avenue closure - push traffic to alley · High rise building - slice downtown in half · Financials - discussion at May 20th meeting Trustee Hoefert stated comments from residents were very insightful and he appreciated their input. He supports store front concept and leaving pinnacle open; Village needs site lines. Trustee Hoefert stated he has had received countless comments/questions from residents regarding the development. · How did the proposed development for Sub Area #1 go from low-rise entertainment to a high-rise and why is the Village focused on it? Trustee Hoefert stated the change in plans came when the original owner, Dr. Oztekin reached out for a partner and Mr. Heimbaugh bought out Dr. Oztekin. · Why is Village unwilling to go out for RFP? Nothing illegal about not using RFP but there is historical precedent to do so. · Why are we not requiring developer to provide adequate parking? · Why building so high? · Why allowing developer to finance in phases? · Why deviating from downtown architecture? Trustee Hoefert would like to see monetary value assigned to Busse Avenue R-O-W. He stated the Heimbaugh proposal is old school; overbuilt; has inadequate parking and will create traffic congestion in downtown. Project is doomed for failure. Development feels wrong and convinced people do not really want it. Village needs to step back and seek additional proposals. Now is the time to make wise decision. Trustee Hoefert then asked Mr. Heimbaugh if he had put this project out for forbid and if so felt it was premature to do so since the project had yet been approved. Mr. Heimbaugh stated that he did not directly put anything out for bid; contractor working with subcontractor may have done so, it is an acceptable practice to obtain preliminary pricing. Trustee Zadel stated he appreciated the input from the residents; brought forth a number of concerns that merit further review and discussion. He recognizes parking is a serious issue. Although he does have several comments and questions he will hold until them until the May 20th meeting. In the meantime he will review resident comments made tonight and consider how to address. Mayor Wilks stated discussion of the proposed redevelopment of the small triangle would continue with the second (2nd) reading of the ordinance at the May 20th meeting. She asked staff to make sure the feasibility study and financial breakdown of TIF developments were posted on the internet. She thanked all the residents for their involvement and bringing their concerns to the Village Board. Mayor Wilks presented for a 15t reading an ordinance amending Chapter 18 (Traffic) of the Mount Prospect Village Code. This ordinance amends Sub-section C(1 )(b) in its entirety and replaces it with a new Sub-section C(1 )(b). Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to waive the rule requiring two (2) readings of an ordinance: Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel None Motion carried. 11 ORD 5689 AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISTION OF TIF PROPERTY 108 S. MAIN ORD 5690 MANAGER'S REPORT TELE- COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve Ordinance No. 5689: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Mayor Wilks presented for a first (1st) reading an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of TIF property through condemnation or otherwise in the Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area (108 South Main Street). This ordinance provides seller with more favorable tax treatment in this transaction. Community Development Director William Cooney stated the property was donated to the Village in 1969 to allow for the construction of a public parking lot. The Trustee's Deed that transferred ownership of the lot to the Village contained a reversionary clause that returns ownership of the property to the original owner at such time the property ceases to be used as a public parking lot. Given that the pending redevelopment of the small triangle does not utilize this parcel for public parking , at this time it is in the best interest of the Village to pursue the outright purchase of this land. Village Manager Janonis stated the owner agreed to the $230,000 purchase price. Trustee Hoefert stated he would vote in favor of this because it makes sense. Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to waive the rule requiring two (2) readings of an ordinance: Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve Ordinance No. 5690: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZNG THE ACQUISITION OF TIF PROPERTY THROUGH CONDEMNATION OR OTHERWISE IN THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (108 SOUTH MAIN STREET) Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated staff was requesting approval to accept proposal to replace Village-wide telecommunications system. He provided background information and stated since the April 22, 2008 COW meeting, staff addressed the concerns raised at that meeting with the recommended vendor. Staff is recommending purchase of a new telecommunications system from Sound Incorporated with additional purchases for 1) additional telephone system options 2) 24/7 maintenance contract 3) 4 hour UPS systems and a $7,000 contingency, for a total amount not to exceed $350,846.00. IT Director Joan Middleton and Mr. Wilson, consultant, were in attendance to respond to questions. 12 OTHER BUSINESS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN Trustee Juracek requested clarification of item # 4 on the agenda regarding purchase of UPS systems; one (1) or four (1) hours. Ms. Middleton stated the purchase is for one (1) hour. Trustee ladel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved for approval to accept proposal to replace Village-wide telecommunications system in an amount not to exceed $350,846. Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, ladel None Motion carried. Village Manager Janonis stated Coffee with Council is Saturday, May 10lh from 9:00 - 11 :00 a.m. in the Village Hall Community Center. He encouraged residents to attend as it is an opportunity to discuss concerns or offer constructive comments to staff and members of the Village Board in an informal manner. OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Wilks stated there was no need for the Village Board to discuss Land Acquisition ILCS 120/2 (c) (5) as listed on the Agenda, therefore the Closed session would not be held. ADJOURN There being no further business Mayor Wilks asked for a motion to adjourn. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee ladel, moved to adjourn the Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, ladel None Motion carried. The May 6,2008 Village Board meeting adjourned at 11:48 p.m. M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\MINUTES\MINUTESmay6,2008a.doc 13 1) Thank you Mayor & Trustee's 2) I represent myself and several other residents of Northwest meadows, the area to the west ofFairview school. Our Association president Nancy fritz is unable to be hear tonight, but I do have her sentiments and that of the other residents of the neighborhood. 3) The issue at hand is the installation of sidewalks being projected, no told, to the 5 homeowners along the south side of Gregory, between Oak street at Fairview school and Meadows Park. 4) A few weeks ago on a Saturday, we all found surveyors measuring & staking on our property. We had to ask why, since we had no advanced notice from the village. 5) When I inquired on Tuesday, to the Public works department, I was told by the village engineer, Jell Wulbecker, that it was in the preliminary stages of process, that all parties involved - surveyors, utilities, and PW staff all look over the property and then make a recommendation to the village board, at that time we would receive notices about such, and could then go and voice our opinion at a village board meeting. The letters to the residents would go out in 2 - 4 weeks. Our letters were in our mailbox in 3 days. AND that the project was to be contracted to be done in mid June. WE were not being told the truth. 6) It has been told to us that at the time of the traffic study, NUMEROUS requests had been made for sidewalks to be installed. While no one can ever answer, "what is numerous" , they can tell us the average speed along Gregory is 27 mph. Why can't you give us the answers we are looking for? 7) The drawing show's the sidewalk to flow anywhere from 1 foot from the edge of our property to 10 feet from our property. Not in a straight line from Fairview school to the park. There is a 40 foot easement, and 27 feet from the stake to the edge of the road. Why do we need people walking next to our houses. 8) Why is it that the village already removed several bushes from 2 lots, marked and contracted for removal, 2 large vibrant, living trees to be cut down? AND demand that one of the owners remove 2 brand new 3" thick maple trees that are in line with 2 older ash trees that they have no intent to remove. This started 3 months ago, so that again means that there is no preliminary work going on here, it's all for real. Is Mount Prospect not a tree city USA? Mayor, did you not participate on a Arbor day celebration last week at Fairview school, and tell all the children how important trees are, and how much you love them? I really don't think the Arbor Day foundation would like to hear that we are removing trees to pour more concrete. Some people on this board, mayor included are known to have stated that" they love sidewalks and want to see them everywhere in our village" Why? - they have not been in our neighborhood for 60 years, why are they needed now, for one or two requests, or to satisfy the personal agenda of this board ? What we the residents are requesting is a meeting with the board, the engineers and our association, to discuss the need for these sidewalks , and / or the placement of them, that makes more sense then what the engineers are ramming down our throats. 5 residents have made phone calls to the village and 5 different answers were given, but with Respectfully Submitted to the board, 5-8-08 and stated at the Public village board meeting on 5- 6-08. Bruce Nejdl~4U 313 North Mac Arthur Attached to the end of this is a copy of an email from one of the resident ,who is a engineer and has a possible solution. every call we hear the same standard redderick, stop sign do not stop speeding. Mr. Janonis... Madam Mayor, let me know what day you would like to meet, I have my calendar with me. Our Objective: To stop the removal of tree's To seek out a compromise to where the sidewalks need to be placed ( if we must have them) of which there is a large contingency against them. Keep as much green as possible, so not to upset the drainage flow and cause standing water for mosquitoes to breed, such the case a last year when the village installed curbs on the south side of Memory behind Prospect High school, without any advanced notice. Bruce From: Jeff Chamberlin Ueff@2010engineering,com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:49 AM To: 'Bruce' Subject: Sidewalk on Gregory Bruce, As I was driving to work yesterday morning, I realized that there is a perfect win-win solution to the problem. Busse between Lincoln and Lonquist has no sidewalk - there is simply a wide shoulder constructed of screetings for foot and bicycle traffic, I see people using it all the time. The mail boxes and signs are located Just on the grass side of the screetings, If this is good enough for a 35 MPH road, then why is it not good enough for a 25 MPH side street? This is the perfect solution: 1, No trees will be cut. 2. No curb to be constructed. 3. No drainage to worry about at the street. 4. Existing drainage ditch is not bothered. 5. Our neighborhood character is maintained. 6, People have a safe place to walk and ride bikes. 7, Little maintenance required for Public Works. 8. Less costly to construct than sidewalks. 9. Only one mail box and a couple of signs need to be moved. It is my opinion that the stop signs need to be added back In at both Dale and MacArthur - there is just too much opportunity to speed heading east from Waterman along Meadows Park. If the village Is showing a 27 MPH average on Gregory, that is already above the posted 25 MPH speed limit. When they put their speed enforcer unit out there. it does not tell the true story. The people who do not speed on side streets are not affected by it. However, the speeders have radar detectors and will have already slowed down by the time the unit reads their speed, So, If this machine Is showing a 27 MPH average, the actual average speed when it is not there is much higher. We see this all the time when trying to cross Gregory at Dale Street. If the goal of the Public Works Department is safety I then the stop signs need to be added back in as the experiment with removing them hasn't worked. I hope our government officials are open to an objective discussion on this issue with our Northwest Meadows Homeowners Association. I look forward to being part of that. - Jeff Jeffrey C. Chamberlin. P.E., LEED AP Mechanical 20/10 Engineering Group, LLC 601C Busse Road, Elk Grove, IL 60007 (847) 427-2010 (Phone) (847) 427-2201 (Fax) jeff@2010engineering ,com 5/6/2008 .~/k u(~(/r\...A ?~- --/___-v The EDC has had the benefit of a presentation made by Heimbaugh Capital and has reviewed the proposed plans. The EDC supports the Towne Center proposal and believes it will provide the needed redevelopment of the Small Triangle and further improve our downtown. The Village has been working hard for the past decade to create a vibrant, active downtown and we believe that this proposal is a good fit to continue the redevelopment of our downtown. The proposed plan would provide prime retail locations for restaurants and other retail establishments, which we believe will aid in the momentum, began last year by the Blues Bar, in the Small Triangle area. The architecture of the project provides a forward thinking look at a very visible intersection in the downtown. We especially like the amount of green terrace spaces that have been introduced and the public plaza area that will be ideal for outdoor dining and other public activities. It appears that Heimbaugh Capital has made every effort to address concerns that have been raised by area residents regarding parking. It is our understanding that Heimbaugh Capital has responded by reconfiguring the garage to now provide a total of 291 spaces, of which 126 will be for public use. The remaining spaces will be for the owners of the condos, which provides a 1.7 number of spaces per condo unit, that number is above the Code requirement of 1.45. In addition to the 126 public spaces that will be provided in the parking structure, there are over 500 public spaces located in the existing Village deck and the Metra parking lot that may be utilized for overflow parking. In summary, the EDC is very supportive of the proposal and encourages the Village Board to approve the project. We feel that the project will help in the rejuvenation of the Small Triangle, as well as an excellent addition to our Village's downtown. My name is John Franczyk, and I live at 20 S. Main Street, #603, in Village Centre. I'm here before you this evening to hopefully persuade you to reconsider the current Triangle Redevelopment Plan due to obvious density issues. The increased traffic flow and congestion in the South Loti Alley have a high probability of escalating into an untenable situation. Once the project is completed, what recourse will the Village have to alleviate the problems? Village Centre is comprised of three buildings with 205 residential units, 269 parking spaces in the garages, and 16 in our courtyard, two of them being disabled parking spaces. The only access and egress for our garages are through the South Lot. The current Triangle Redevelopment Proposal includes an additional 98 residential units in two condo buildings and a parking garage consisting of 286 spaces. The aerial view of this Proposal indicates that approximately 70 current surface parking spaces will be eliminated from Busse, Wille and the South Lot. But the most distressing aspect for me is the elimination of 20 spaces in the South Lot. It also appears the South Lot will become one-way, further limiting our access. Is this true? Will the South Lot be ceded to the proposed developer? Will we have to pay an access fee for traveling on private property? How will the additional garbage trucks, moving vans, delivery vehicles, many of which are the size of semis, be accommodated? There are already access problems in the South Lot, and if you consider the additional increase in business and condo activity, this could quickly become a dangerous situation. Will these trucks park on Main Street, Northwest Highway or Wille? Obviously not. Will there be a traffic coordinator to spread this activity throughout the day? Of course not. Our complex alone has garbage pickup five days a week, plus numerous delivery, moving, and service vehicles. You have already been given photos defining the current problems. Again last Thursday, a beer truck and landscape truck with trailer that was working on Village property blocked the Main Street access. And again yesterday, two beer trucks the size of semis blocked the Main Street entrance and the entrance to our Main Street garage. This continues to happen day after day after day. Would anyone leaving their home for work or an emergency want to find a semi blocking their driveway with the driver nowhere to be found? The most critical issue is access and egress of emergency vehicles, i.e., ambulances, fire trucks, etc., I am aware of one instance when an emergency vehicle was blocked from entering the South Lot. Luckily, in this case, no serious repercussions occurred. Will we be this lucky next time? Many senior and some disabled persons live at Village Centre, including me, a heart patient who has had quadruple bypass surgery and has a pacemaker and defibrillator implant. Any delay of an emergency vehicle in my case could cause my premature death. On behalf of all our residents who have or will have serious health issues, I hope you will ensure that our needs are addressed. I suggest everyone take a step back to reconsider what you are trying to do with this limited-access property. There has to be a compromise between under-utilization and over-utilization, which I believe this is. Quality of life and safety must be part of the equation. Timothy J. Scott, AI CP 100 S. Emerson St. - #308 Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 May 5,2008 Village of Mt. Prospect Attn: Mayor Wilks and Board of Trustees 50 S. Emerson St. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Dear esteemed elected officials, The last time I was compelled to author a letter to the Board was to support the administration's land use decision for attached single-family row homes on the east side of Emerson with an adjoining park at the south end of the block directly across from the public space in front of Village Hall. It is good to see progress being made on this site, and I look forward to the full intent of this sub-area of the downtown plan coming to fruition. Development of the small triangle serves as the impetus for this letter. Background/Perspective I am writing to you with what I believe is an especially unique position. That is, I have been a resident of the triangle neighborhood of the Village for more than 35 years and am a professional urban planner and designer (and member of the American Institute of Certified Planners). I have experience in the public and private sectors, with hands-on responsibility for high-value mixed-use projects in both capacities. As head of economic development and urban design for an affluent west suburban community, our team recently concluded the planning process for a mixed-use development with a projected worth more than seven times that of the proposal for the small triangle. I know quite well what it is like to encounter the proverbial not-in-my-back- yard syndrome, so please understand that the following analysis comes not from a well-intentioned, passionate neighbor who may fear development or be reluctant to embrace change but rather from a highly-trained professional who has long-time ties to the Village and who also cares deeply about its future. I will attempt to keep my comments as concise as possible (which is difficult to do given the scope of the proposal) and avoid the planner's lexicon as much as I can. What's right about it? The idea of an intensive mixed-use development is the highest-and-best use of the site, as is the vast majority of the downtown core. The Village has 1 capitalized on such transit-oriented development with the construction of The Lofts and The Emerson. Candidly, however, some of the projects erected earlier in the redevelopment efforts of downtown Mt. Prospect represent lost opportunities in concept (single use) and execution (suburban rather than urban relationships to downtown streets). While the dwelling units in the buildings do not create markets unto themselves, their residents do contribute in terms of generating sales taxes by way of convenience purchases, offering "eyes on the street" for safety, and providing the evidential vitality. As a result, it is good to see that the Heimbaugh proposal is a mixed-use one. However, I have great concerns with the conceptual renderings shown to date. What's wrong with it? Scale Simply stated, the proposed development scenario for the small triangle is over-scaled, both in terms of the number of structures on the site and the height and massing of these structures. It should be remembered that the site is quite small, and it could be characterized as the gateway to the Village. In essence, the intersection of Northwest Highway and Elmhurst/Main is the quintessential "Main and Main." As the front door to the Village, this intersection sets the tone for how the Village is perceived by residents, visitors, and those passing through. It is critical to note that The Lofts at the northeast corner of this intersection set a design precedent that connotes "village" rather than "city." The Emerson followed with a complementary scale. The scale does not overpower the block, and while larger than its immediate neighbors, the buildings still relate relatively well to them. The same cannot be said when considering the proposed development and its relationship to its neighbors, as well as its role in continuing to define the Village's character at its most high-profile intersection. Perception of BulklDensity So, instead of a proposal that attempts to put ten pounds into a five-pound bag, what can the site support? A quick field walk suggests two buildings, one on the existing triangular site, and one on the rectangular property running west of the Blues Bar. My sense is that a building for the triangular site should not exceed the scale established by The Lofts (approximately four stories), while a building along Busse should be approximately five stories (approximates the scale at The Emerson). While still offering a generous scale, such a prescription would be compatible with the established scale of nearby buildings and would also provide a nice, stepped-down transition from the Village Centre buildings to the north. If designed in a compatible fashion 2 (discussed in the next section), these two new buildings would relate to the new Blues Bar in terms of style, although that building's two-story form will appear smallish next to any new neighbors. This scenario also purposely assumes that Busse would remain open (addressed later in this letter), and at the suggested scale, the two buildings would not dominate the site or canyonize the street. Architecture The appearance of the proposal is quite "obvious," for lack of a better descriptive term. Suffice it to say, it is not contextually sensitive. It is important to note that whether overtly intended or not, the Village has developed its own architectural language. For the purposes of this review letter, it could be characterized safely as neo-traditional. This Mount Prospect-style is essentially an amalgamation of several traditional vernacular architectural styles. The collection of private redevelopments and Village Hall in this neo-traditional style gives Mt. Prospect an identity unlike some of its suburban neighbors, who, over time, have amassed myriad styles that do not necessarily act as good neighbors. Given the design of the Heimbaugh proposal, several developments in area municipalities come to mind. Some have been in place for while, and today their slab-sided, lifeless facades of oversized brick, commercial-looking windows, adjoining predominately above-ground parking structures, and skywalks appear drastically out of place given other more sensitive redevelopments that have been undertaken. Even with its many planning success stories, one can witness such artifacts in downtown Arlington Heights. Also, one need look no further than the City of Evanston in order to witness elements of the proposed design for the small triangle and the glaring change in character that such redevelopment has brought to what is otherwise a vital and vibrant city center. The Heimbaugh proposal has only one contextual point of reference in downtown and that is the Mt. Prospect Public Library. It should be remembered that prior to its remodeling, this edifice was not a beloved architectural icon, and that is an understatement. Even with its renovation, the building does not relate at all to its neighbors in any direction, including the municipal parking garage. While updated, its style is clearly in stark contrast to the more traditional building language that has developed in the downtown core; and if it were to be constructed from the ground up today, it is a fair bet to assume that a different architecture and site plan would be employed. Redevelopment of the small triangle in the style proposed is akin to repeating the mistakes of the past. Why is a contemporary style being proposed? It is likely for two reasons. First, it is typically less expensive to construct, at least in a scenario such as 3 this one. It is much easier to "value engineer" buildings designed with a purposefully austere style. A blatant example of this is in the metal panels that provide the skin of the proposed north elevation (again, see Evanston). Second, beyond it being less expensive, the proposal may be intentionally designed to stand out in order to attract attention and potentially to target a market segment that has perhaps escaped, to a certain degree, several of the other condominium projects in the downtown core. While only a hypothesis, it suggests that young professionals will overtly be marketed to by way of the more city-like design, complete with private outdoor spaces and amenities that one would expect in denser, urban environs. However, what will attract a broader spectrum of residents and visitors to downtown Mt. Prospect is a critical mass of exciting destination style-tenants for dining, entertainment, and shopping. The character of the Village's built environment should not be compromised by the more easily- achieved profit that a contemporary design affords, the incompatible "beacon" architecture that draws attention to itself, and the potential emphasis on pursuing a different market segment at the expense of its surroundings. For a context-sensitive design, the Heimbaugh team should look no further than the project portfolio of their architect. OKW's designs for a mixed-use project in Palatine by Focus Development, the ambitious mixed-use Uptown Park Ridge, and Norwood Builder's Founder's Row in Mt. Prospect show that the firm is capable of neo-traditional designs that are more reflective of the Village's downtown character. Rather than stretching to describe the proposed buildings as evocative of elements of the past (such as when the projecting bays of the condominium were compared to historic Victorian homes and rowhouses in the City of Chicago), the developer's team should consider an architecture that is compatible with what has become the established Mt. Prospect vernacular. Parking and Loading At quick glance, it appears that the most recent iteration of the developer's proposal appears to have a parking ratio that is within the range commonly- accepted for transit-oriented development projects. However, the manner in which the parking is configured is more of an issue. As mentioned above, the project is over-scaled in terms of the amount of structures on-site and the size of those structures, and the parking requirements are therefore greater. The parking deck is the most economical way to meet the ratio, and its presence contributes greatly to the perception of the proposal's excessive bulk. While it is more costly, parking at the triangle should be predominantly below grade and then supplemented by as much on-street parking as possible, which also means keeping Busse open to flow-through traffic (see next section). On-street parking provides convenient access that makes for 4 successful retailers, and it also creates a more hospitable environment by protecting pedestrians from passing traffic. At the very least, below-grade parking would accommodate the residents of the proposed development, and if possible, those shopping and dining there. This is not uncommon, and such a combination is evident nearby in downtown Arlington Heights. Considering the number of decades that a well-planned development would be in place, it is likely financially feasible. However, this may require that the developer alter its bottom-line expectation and that the Village consider providing additional assistance. Additionally, one should not forget the under-utilized parking structure across the street, and I believe there are ways to increase the usage of the main deck. The loading requirements found in older zoning codes can sometimes be considered excessive in relation to the way retail deliveries are often made today. Given the proposal's closing of Busse and a goal of securing more restaurant and entertainment tenants in the small triangle, more sensitivity should be given to this item. I have witnessed that vehicular conflicts currently exist, particularly with beer trucks, and this would only increase given a more intensive use of the subject property and the proposed closure of Busse. Access and Circulation - Vehicular and Pedestrian One of the more striking decisions of the proposal is the closing of Busse. Without Busse, the new east-west street for the development and that area of the Village is what is predominately now a service alley and access for residents to the three-condominium building development, Village Centre, north of the subject property. If Busse were to close, the alley becomes the new through street. Consequently, it will see a substantial increase in its use, and it is more than fair to suggest that the end result would be more traffic conflicts with residents traveling in and out of both developments plus all of the new traffic that would result from those shopping and dining in the proposed development. A representative of the developer's transportation consultant (KLOA, certainly a well-respected firm whose work I am familiar with) tried to offer speculative, qualitative assurances that the alley could safely serve as the area's new east-west through street, residential access point for both developments, and parking access for visitors to the new development. While I would imagine that KLOA provided calculations, I did not hear about the potential trips generated by the new development and a comparison of existing traffic counts for Busse and the existing alley versus the projected amounts that will be handled by the former alley turned catch- all street. It was fashionable years back to create larger blocks by closing streets, as it was to cul-de-sac detached single-family residential developments. In both cases, the planning world learned that the street grid and the smaller blocks 5 that resulted by such division were critical to creating genuine, walkable neighborhoods. Learning from the past, the profession has been advocating for a return to smaller blocks connected to existing street grids, and many municipalities have re-opened the infrastructure that had been closed to create self-contained, unnatural mall-like environments and isolated residential clusters. Unfortunately, the proposal by the Heimbaugh team is somewhat reflective of this bygone era. Pedestrian/Public Realm While an internal plaza may be a nice feature conceptually, in order to be successful, it would require enough visibility to attract passersby into those dining and retail businesses. In addition to being challenging to prospective tenants, inward-looking spaces can be foreboding if not designed in a celebratory and feature-laden fashion. Of particular concern is the reliance of the proposed development on private terraces and rooftop spaces at the expense of the public realm. At the street level, pedestrians should enjoy a generous sidewalk and be protected with a combination of on-street parking and raised planters. These elements facilitate walking and browsing, and with proper building orientation, such a streetscape accommodates uses such as outdoor dining. Although I do not have full-sized, scaled drawings to reference, the proposal appears somewhat lacking in this regard. Additionally, the public space at the corners of the development should be well-defined. This is especially important at the corner of Elmhurst and Northwest Highway. The building should be set-back enough to offer an inviting feature comprised of decorative hardscaping and lush landscaping, and it could perhaps loosely reference the southwest corner where the municipal sign is located. While the architect described the corner as iconic, the design does little to hold the corner given the asymmetric manner in which the tower meets the base of the building, and the metal fin cornice is all too familiar. Planned Unit Development (PUD) PUDs provide municipal leadership a heightened sense of review and the community with a public benefit, and in exchange, the developer may receive relief from certain provisions of the underlying zoning district or other village standards. Based upon the submitted proposal, the public benefits are difficult to discern. Aside from the central pathway, what could otherwise be public space is given to residential owners. While private terraces may make for nice amenities, the overall aesthetic is compromised; it results in a retail podium along Northwest Highway that reads like a strip mall since it is essentially bolted to the larger residential component. Programmed pass- 6 throughs, corner plazas, and public spaces above grade would be features that meet the tenets of a PUD, as would dramatic reductions in scale, reconfiguration of parking, change in architecture style, and overall refinement associated with the heightened sense of review afforded by the typical ordinance. Planning and Zoning Commission Please know that the service of these volunteers is appreciated. Although I was concerned that some of the underlying issues, urban design fundamentals, and potential impacts of the proposed development were not being addressed, I recognize that the group's charge is to review and react to the proposal that is in front of them. However, a particular moment from a recent meeting is worth noting. Specifically, there was a fixation on the parking ratio. As mentioned previously, the ratio was within striking distance of a generally accepted standard. Regardless, there are only two major variables that define the parking requirements, namely, dwelling units and commercial square footage. Recognizing this, the project architect offered to reduce the height and density of the easternmost building in order to increase the parking ratio. That reduction - and likely a larger one - was most assuredly expected by the developer and not just in that building. Frankly, this reduction was served to the Commission on a silver platter, and inexplicably, it was rejected immediately by the Chairman. Process The request for proposals (RFP) process has served the Village well in its redevelopment efforts. While some might suggest that ownership of the parcels in the triangle by multiple parties presents a challenge with respect to issuing an RFP, it is certainly not insurmountable, and there are two related underlying issues. First, the Village's expectations for the site should be well established. The work of the ad hoc planning task forces, the Village's comprehensive plan, downtown plan, zoning ordinance, conceptual design scenarios, and other pertinent regulations, and opportunities for oversight should have illustrated and enabled a very clear picture of what the community desires and deems as a desirable future for the small triangle. Second, the Village should have sought multiple options that meet this adopted vision. The perception I have gotten is that the Village has all but disregarded its planning homework and processes and is instead reacting to this singular proposal. 7 Critical Summary Simply stated, the proposal: (1) contains too many structures on the small triangle; (2) the structures shown are over-scaled (too tall, too big); (3) the architecture is incompatible with the established neo-traditional character of downtown; (4) the form of the buildings and their layout sacrifices the public realm for private, residential spaces; (5) the closure of Busse will likely lead to traffic conflicts since the former service alley and residential driveway would become a fully-functioning street and catch-all access point; (6) while providing parking on-site, rather than being mostly underground and supplemented by maximum on-street spaces, much of it is done in a bulky, poorly articulated, and inexpensively-skinned structure; and (7) should not be the lone development option that the Village is reviewing. Legacy vs. Expediency On balance, the elected leadership has done a fine job in its stewardship of the Village during its redevelopment over the years. In this case, however, the impression I have gotten from the public meeting I attended, as well as my interpretation of the articles in the popular press, have lead me to believe that this proposal is a fait accompli. That is decidedly disappointing, especially since I am supportive of the premise for a mixed-use development on the small triangle, just not the one that is being put forth. The question I would encourage you to ask is, "Does the proposed development create a place that the next generation will want to preserve?" Instead of discerning whether the scheme will have a multiple-decade legacy, it seems that the frame of reference being used to guide the process is the very poor condition of the existing area and a tax increment financing (TIF) district clock that keeps ticking, which makes any development scheme attractive. Rather, action for this prominent area should be governed by the "legacy" question, sound planning practice, adherence to fundamental urban design principles, sensitivity to established character, commitment to long- standing process, and community aspirations. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be heard on this critical issue. Please know that your dedication and service to the Village is appreciated. I / I / '-._/ Timothy J. Scott, AI CP 8