Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. DRAFT MINUTES 05/20/2008 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT May 20, 2008 ROLL CALL CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilks called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present: Mayor Irvana Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee John Korn Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael ladel PLEDGE INVOCATION MINUTES APPROVE BILLS & FINANCIALS MAYOR'S REPORT AMDEND CHAPTER 13 (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Trustee Korn led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION Trustee Lohrstorfer gave the Invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 6, 2008. Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, ladel Nays: None Abstain: Corcoran, Lohrstorfer Motion carried. APPROVE BILLS AND FINANCIALS Mayor Wilks stated the next item on the agenda, "APPROVE BILLS AND FINANCIALS" 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 Wilks requested item D. under the Village Manager's Report; Request Village Board approval to accept Architecture Contract for Phase I, Facility Study Project, be removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under separate discussion. As there were no objections, Item D. under the Village Manager's Report was removed from the Consent Agenda. MAYOR'S REPORT An ordinance to delete one (1) Class "R" (Restaurant Only) liquor license issued to Cuisine Korea, Inc., d/b/a Kim's Restaurant, 1827 West Algonquin Road and one (1) Class "W" (Restaurant, Wine and Beer Only) was presented. Deleting the two (2) licenses amends Chapter 13 (Alcoholic Liquors) of the Village Code by decreasing the number of Class "R" liquor licenses issued by one (1) and the number of Class "W" licenses by one (1). Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to waive the rule requiring two (2) readings of an ordinance: Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Corcoran, Hoefert, Korn, Juracek, Lohrstorfer, ladel None Motion carried. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee ladel, moved for approval of Ordinance No. 5691: 1 ORD 5691 APPOINTMENTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Motion carried. Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstorfer, ladel None APPOINTMENTS Mayor Wilks noted the revision to the memo dated May 20, 2008 specific to the reappointment to Chair of the Safety Commission. The revision correctly notes that in his reappointment Mr. John J. Keane shall serve as Chair of the Safety Commission. Mayor Wilks presented the following appointment and reappointments for Village Board approval: Community Relations Commission Reappointment Reverend Anthony J. Tolbert III, Chair Term expires May 2011 Rubee Li Fuller Term expires May 2011 Maria Ortiz Term expires May 2011 Firefighter's Pension Board Reappointment David Erb, Finance Director Term expires May 2011 Police Fund Board Reappointment Dennis Saviano Term expires May 2011 Safety Commission Reappointment John J. Keane, Chair Term expires May 2011 Charles Bencic Term expires May 2011 Fred C. Pam pel Term expires May 2011 Youth Commission Reappointments Adam Kiel Term expires June 2009 Eric Logisz Term expires June 2009 Daniel Milewski Term expires June 2009 Alex Oplawski Term expires June 2009 Nandi Roy Term expires June 2009 Derek Steinweg Term expires June 2009 Trustee ladel, seconded by Trustee Korn, moved to approve the appointments and reappointments as listed above. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstorfer, ladel Nays: None Motion carried. 2 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD MOUNT PROSPECT LIONS CLUB FARMERS' MARKET VILLAGE FAIR CONSENT AGENDA BILLS AND FINANCIALS ORD 5692 COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Mr. Fred Steinmiller, Mount Prospect Lions Club 33 North Cathy Lane Mr. Nick Acerenza, Mount Prospect Lions Club 808 Partridge Mr. Acerenza thanked the Village Board for their continued support of the Farmers' Market. He stated the 2008 Farmers' Market located in the commuter parking lot begins June 8th and will be held every Sunday through October 26th. He stated that in addition to the many fresh market items offered by various vendors, the "Hearing" bus will be on-site for individuals wanting to have their hearing tested. Mr. Acerenza also gave a report of the earnings from the 2007 market and where the money was donated. Total income was $15,473; $8,500 to Human Services; $5,500 Mount Prospect Fire Department and the balance was divided between to the Lions Club Scholarship Fund and the Fire Alliance. Mr. Jeff Hady, Mount Prospect Lions Club (Chair - 2008 Village Fair) 12 North Elm Mr. Hady requested the Village Board waive the permit fees for conducting the annual Village Fair, July 2 - 6th at Melas Park. Mr. also thanked the Village Board for the Village's annual $3500 sponsorship of the 4th of July fireworks display. However, he stated the actual cost for the display is $12,500 and it has become increasingly difficult to generate donations from businesses to off set the cost of the display. He requested additional funding from the Village Board to cover actual cost of the 4th of July fireworks. Village Manager Janonis stated funds are available to cover the additional $9,000 for the 2008 event; budget amendment would be made at the end of the budget year. He stated the request for the Village to cover the actual cost of the fireworks display would be included in next year's budget discussions. Trustee Korn stated as he served on the Executive Board of the Lions Club he would recuse from voting on the two (2) requests. Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to approve the request to waive the permit fee for the Lions Club Village Fair, July 2 - 6, 2008. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Lohrstorfer, Zadel Nays: None Abstain: Korn Motion carried. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to approve the additional $9,000 to the cover the actual cost of the 4th of July fireworks display. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Lohrstorfer, Zadel Nays: None Abstain: Korn Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve the following business items: 1. Bills dated May 1 - 14, 2008 2. Financial Report dated April 1 - 30, 2008 3. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIATIONS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 3 UNIT ROWHOME DEVELOPMENT 3 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS RES 30-08 RES 31-08 RES 32-08 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PROJECT 2008 #7 POND REHAB TURNOUT GEAR OLD BUSINESS PZ-37-07, 6-34 W. BUSSE AVE. & 12-20 W. NW HWY, MIXED USE DEV. CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIATION 4. Request Village Board approval to accept public and private improvements for Alexian Brothers Medical Center, 199 West Rand Road. 5. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT OF LICENSE WITH THE MOUNT PROSPECT LIONS CLUB TO CONDUCT A FARMERS' MARKET 6. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT OF EASEMENT FOR BRIARWOOD BUSINESS CENTER (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DEMPSTER STREET AND LINNEMAN ROAD) 7. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS RULES AND REGULATIONS 8. Request Village Board approval to accept proposal for Algonquin Road- Busse Road- Dempster Street Pedestrian Signal Project recommendation to hire engineering consultant in an amount not to exceed $48,246.37. 9. Request Village Board approval to accept proposal for Engineering Design recommendation for 2008 Pond Rehabilitation Project, Kensington Business Park - Pond #7 in an amount not to exceed $26,871. 10. Request Village Board approval to accept bid for Fire Department Turnout Gear in an amount not to exceed $23,680. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstrofer, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Mayor Wilks stated Item A. PZ-38-07, 309-313 West Prospect Avenue an ordinance granting a Conditional Use permit and variations for a Planned Unit Development, three (3) unit rowhome development was approved under the Consent Agenda. Mayor Wilks presented for a second (2nd) 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 welcomed all those in attendance and reminded everyone of the decorum to be maintained during the Village Board meeting. She stated Community Development Director William Cooney would make his presentation first followed by Mr. John Heimbaugh. Comments and questions would then be taken from those in attendance followed comments and discussion from the Village Board. Village Manager Michael Janonis then made a clarification of the vote required for approval of the proposed development project. At the March 27, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the Chair indicated the 3-1 vote on the project would proceed as a negative recommendation to the Village Board, and therefore require a super majority vote for approval. However, Village Manager Janonis questioned the super majority requirement and requested the legal opinion of the Village Attorney; per the current Village Code, a majority vote for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission is considered a positive recommendation for approval by the Village Board. Hence, the 3-1 vote for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is a positive recommendation for approval by the Village Board. Approval of the request for the conditional use permit and variation for the Planned Unit DevelopmenUmixed and building height for Phase 1 of the Mount Prospect Town Center requires a simple majority vote rather than a super majority vote. Community Development Director William Cooney addressed six (6) of the seven (7) primary issues of concern raised at the May 6, 2008 Village Board meeting regarding proposed development. 4 1. Insufficient Parkina · 291 total spaces in new deck of proposed development · 569 shared parking spaces - NW Highway/South Parking Lot/Metra LoWillage parking structure · Ovenight Guest Parking - downtown residents 2. Commercial Deliveries · 3 loading areas around perimeter - south lot zone for Blues Bar/Main Street zone for East building/Wille Street zone for West building · Zones (minimum 9' x 60') for commercial deliveries/solid waste collection/valet services · Reduction in loading in south lot 3. Pedestrian Access · 2 pedestrian crosswalks - (1) Busse Avenue across Main Street and Wille Street across NW Highway · IDOT approval required 4. Retail Viability · 31,000 net square fee of retail space · Retail Broker provided objective review of retail component - ideally suited to full service restaurants/dinner most significant revenue segment/appears to be an abundance of parking for 2 full service restaurants/other likely retailers include: boutiques/novelty stores/personal services/specialty grocer/professional offices. Project appears ideally planned given the characteristics of the Primary Retail Trade area and site. 5. Density · Overview of Contextual Density Plan (units per acre and parking spaces per unit) Mount Prospect Town Center - 49 and 1.7 The Emerson - 72 and 1.38 The Lots & Shops - 29.1 and 1.41 Village Centre - 62.1 and 1.48 Clocktower - 43.3 and 1.51 6. Villaae Financial Obliaations · Village negotiated framework of a public/private partnership · Total Village contribution $9,209,042 - $3.5 million in land contributed at such time as senior financing is secured by Heimbaugh/$5.4 million in project revenue (incremental property and sales taxes -paid only if generated by project)/ $308,742 previously expended on demolition and business relocation. · Village expenses less than those of the Residences and Lofts and Shops projects · Project Financials and Previous Redevelopment Financials - copies attached 7. Emeraency Access Fire Chief Mike Figolah addressed concerns regarding emergency access. Emergency access is a primary concern of the condominium owners accessing the south lot behind the proposed development. He focused on three (3) factors that have greatly enhanced fire safety in multi-story buildings and at the same time reducing the need for fire equipment to have direct access. · Construction Features - fire safety features make buildings extremely safe: fire sprinklers throughout building/fire rated stair wells/voice evacuation/generated power within building. · Type of occupancy and Code applied during construction Fire safety requirements in compliance with 2000 International Building Code. 5 Fire Chief Figolah stated a 13' wide fire access lane will be painted the entire length of the south lot road and parked trucks will be ticketed to reinforce the area remains open for emergency vehicle access. Fire Chief Figolah also offered to meet with residents to further discuss their emergency access concerns. Trustee Hoefert commented on the following: · Parking totals - on-site parking totals fall short of restaurant parking standards · Overnight parking pass - great · Commercial deliveries - when delivery trucks arrive at the same time where will they stack up; will be driving around · Safe Zone - makes sense, questioned whether lOOT will approve · Differential with other developments - not an apples to apples comparison · Land valuation - questioned whether Busse Avenue was included (Mr. Cooney stated it was included as an expense Trustee Juracek stated the financials did not include the developers cost for construction, makes a difference when assessing cost sharing. Trustee Corcoran questioned whether the Village's calculated investment for the Emerson building included Village Hall. Mr. Cooney stated it did not, if it had the Village's share would have been significantly higher. Mayor Wilks commented the overnight guest parking was not a new concept in response to concerns raised about the proposed development. The idea was presented by staff in September of 2007 and received a positive response from the Village Board at that time. Mr. Heimbaugh, President Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation stated Mr. Mike Fitgerald, O'r<0/V Architects would present a full overview of the proposed development in as much detail as possible. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the bar has been set higher with the proposed Mount Prospect Town Center. Contextual Plan with density, traffic flow, pedestrian access and parking best use of this site is mixed-use. Residential above retail best development with the benefit of open space. Mr. Fitzgerald also discussed the issues of density, parking spaces, safety zones, loading zones, and access points as previously presented by Mr. Cooney. He noted that building a centralized multi-level parking system to serve the downtown is a wise community decision as it allows former parking lots to be used for residential and retail sites. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the proposed mixed-use development addresses the importance of architectural design, variety of residential units, parking, pedestrian access, retail/restaurants, open space and other features that will draw people to the downtown. His presentation included exhibits of the proposed development and examples of landscaped safety zones. He provided an overview of the three buildings that will surround the open plaza with retail frontage. He noted 20% of the units will have direct access to a private terrace and all residential units will have access to terrace outside of the clubhouse. A total of 97 units; 1,2 and 3 bedroom units, condos/town homes. Mr. Fitzgerald described in detail the architectural design. He stated the design is based upon clearly defined traditional architecture. The horizontal layering provides depth and visual difference, and is in rhythm with buildings down the street. Mr. Fitzgerald concluded his remarks by stating the proposed development is the best development for the downtown area; bringing further life and vitality into the community. 6 Mr. Heimbaugh provided a brief recap of the process this project has taken, noting the process has been both valuable and constructive. The comments from the Village Board, Planning and Zoning Commission and residents led to revisions that improved the project and will serve in the best interest of the residents. Mr. Heimbaugh discussed the revisions that have made to the project since the May 6th Village Board meeting; fire lane, loading zone and pedestrian access. He also addressed the parking concern stating the project includes a productive use of parking facilities and provides sufficient parking for both residents and consumers. Mr. Heimbaugh concluded his remarks by stating the proposed project is a new and unique opportunity at the center of the Village's civic corridor. Development is unlike any other in the NW corridor; image and function of Village core will attract others to the downtown area. Stating he agreed that a mixed-used development was the way to go, Trustee Hoefert identified several areas of concern he had with this specific proposal. Open Space vs Green Space; urban design; viability of a parking garage; condition of the housing market; viability of development with competition from Randhurst -life style center; safety zones - need IDOT approval; staging backed up delivery trucks; pedestrian and vehicular nightmare. Mr. Heimbaugh responded to the concern regarding delivery trucks stating vendors do not want trucks left waiting. The standard practice is for vendors to communicate with drivers and customers to coordinate deliveries and establish routine. Trustee Hoefert questioned the architectural design; why change from the original more traditional design. Mr. Heimbaugh stated a complex with more masonry, less glass was originally considered. However, the development is different by design, felt it was important to increase the amount of light and air. The buildings were not meant to be a model of existing developments but rather compliment the diversity and richness of downtown. Mr. Heimbaugh and Trustee Hoefert briefly shared their respective knowledge of real estate purchases and development during certain business cycles. In response to a question from Trustee Hoefert regarding premature bid process, Mr. Heimbaugh stated it is a common practice to seek cost factors prior to project approval. Trustee Hoefert also questioned the decision by OKW to get behind this project, noting other more traditional project designs by OKW. Mr. Fitzgerald stated OKW is not behind but with Mr. Heimbaugh in this development; OKW takes pride in its service to its clients and products to communities. Mr. Fitzgerald shared his insight into architectural design and trends, stating that putting a style name on a building does not make it a good building. He stated the development does not mimic other buildings but does fit well. The development is well planned, consideration given to scale and detail of buildings and quality of building materials. The buildings offer light and air allowing inhabitants to connect with open space. Trustee Corcoran referred to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal regarding the housing market. He said that in certain areas of the Chicago area the housing market is still strong. He asked Mr. Cooney to obtain a copy of the article and provide copies to the Village Board. Mr. Cooney responded to several questions from Trustee Corcoran regarding existing developments. . Green space - Lofts (no green space); Emerson (only landscaped parking islands) . Developer purchase land in advance of project approval - yes 7 · Randhurst development parking deck - yes · Proposed development similar to other developments in downtown - yes Trustee Corcoran asked for further clarification on the number of parking spaces. Mr. Cooney stated the parking spaces used during the day by employees of local businessesNillage would be available in the evening for consumers. Trustee Zadel stated he would like a response to the question regarding what impact the Randhurst development will have on this development. Mr. Heimbaugh stated the developments are different markets in site and location. Developments will not be competing for same retail tenants. Randhurst will house national retailers and large restaurants. Downtown redevelopment cannot take nor wants larger retailers. Trustee Lohrstorfer asked Mr. Cooney questions regarding the assembly of land in the downtown area and the cost of the land. Mr. Cooney stated that the appraisal price of land goes up with redevelopment. The land value in the downtown area has gone up with Sub-Area #1 being the most expensive. He acknowledged that this is not unusual and occurs in other communities. Mayor Wilks called for a recess at 9:26 p.m. Mayor Wilks reconvened the meeting at 9:33 p.m. Mayor Wilks opened the discussion with comments from the audience. Mr. Bob Gniech - Association President 10 South Wille Street Mr. Gniech read an e-mail statement to him from State Representative Carolyn Krause. Representative Krause stated she shared his concern and suggested the Village Board step back and take another look at the development. (statement is attached and made part of the meeting minutes) He also expressed his doubts that truck traffic can be managed; delivery trucks will be stacked up and cause traffic congestions. Carol Tortorello South Elmhurst Avenue Ms. Tortorello questioned the Village Board's need to rush residents into this project. She stated residents already have parking issues why create more. She asked that the redevelopment be put out for RFP. (written comments are attached and made part of the meeting minutes.) Mr. Bob Scotese 911 Albert Street Mr. Scotese expressed several concerns about the proposed development: developer trying to fine tune a development that shouldn't built; opposes the closure of Busse Avenue; misleading information regarding maintenance of public parking garage. He also questioned why developer would purchase land without approval for development. Ms. Kiefhaber 20 South Main Street Ms. Kiefhaber expressed concern with the parking situation; already a parking problem Village needs to look at big picture. She also questioned whether the developer needed to meet zoning codes for design. 8 (Staff informed Ms. Kiefhaber that the Village did not have codes restricting design.) Charlie Houle 109 N. Emerson Street Mr. Houle questioned how many other developers plans were considered before Mr. Heimbaugh. Mayor Wilks stated Dr. Oztekin the original land owner had approached several developers but none were interested. Then he approached Mr. Heimbaugh who purchased the property and came to the Village with a development plan. Mr. Houle who is an employee of Sub-Express stated he is concerned for the future of existing businesses impacted by the proposed development. He stated Sub- Express is the heart of Mount Prospect and accommodations should be made for those businesses who want to stay. Mr. Tom Zander 208 N. Forest Avenue Mr. Zander, Pickett Fence Realty spoke in support of the proposed development. Mr. Zander provided a local perspective of the real estate market in and around Mount Prospect. He indicated that compared to adjacent communities the Village has barely stuck its foot in the water and could sell a 1,000 more housing units in the downtown area. He stated in the long-term the housing market will always go up. Mr. Jim Uszler, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce 9 South Elm Street Mr. Uszler expressed the Chambers support of the proposed redevelopment. He stated the project appears well planned for the site. The planned density is needed to further support existing, as well as, new businesses in the downtown area. He stated the parking lot behind the Chamber has a lot of delivery truck traffic and he has never observed the problems suggested by individuals opposing the project. (written statement is attached and made part of the meeting minutes) Mr. Carl Johnson 11 South Wille Mr. Johnson questioned the percentage of Sub-Area #1 owned by the Village and by the owner. Mr. Cooney stated without the ROW the Village owned 54% and Mr. Heimbaugh 46%; with the ROW the Village owned 69% and Mr. Heimbaugh 31%. Mr. Johnson stated the Village shouldn't have to accept just one proposal, he asked if the Village had considered a proposal from Mr. Tod Curtis who owns 13% of the subject area. Mr. Cooney stated that Mr. Curtis did submit a plan but it had significant issues that would need to be addressed before serious consideration could be given. Mr. Johnson asked the Village Board and Mr. Cooney if they were aware that unsold units at Founder's Row were up for auction. Mr. Cooney replied that he was not aware but this was not an uncommon practice. Mr. Richard Amadeo 713 Wilshire Drive 9 Mr. Amadeo stated he remembered the concerns expressed by neighbors regarding development of the Kensington Business Center, Home Depot and town home development. Like these developments he would like the Village to continue its drive to stay vibrant. While he can't say if this was the right development, but if it is the Village needs to move forward. Mr. Roy Stobbe Central Road Mr. Stobbe provided a historical perspective of the housing development in Mount Prospect, stating the Village needs to maintain history. He stated the Village needs a city plan like the city of Chicago. He asked if consideration had been given to water/sewer lines if Busse Avenue is closed. [Mayor Wilks responded that water/sewer and other infrastructures are part of redevelopment plans.] Ms. Laurie Huber 302 Neil Avenue Ms. Huber spoke in support of the proposed redevelopment stating she is very excited about the downtown area. She said that a lot of people in the community are also supportive and excited about the proposed redevelopment. Ms. Rose Mary Hendricksen 20 South Main Street Ms. Hendricksen shared an article from the Daily Herald regarding the redevelopment project in Arlington Heights. Due to the market the number of housing units have been reduced. [copies of the article were given to the Village Clerk for distribution to the Village Board.] Ms. Henricksen also asked about Mr. Curtis' Gateway Centre proposal. Mayor Wilks stated the Village has tried to communicate with Mr. Curtis for a couple of years. Proposal he did finally submit had significant issues. Ms. Hendrcksen also reported the existing businesses are not keeping garbage contained. [Mayor Wilks stated staff will inspect areas and address with business owners.] Mr. Dave Peters, Vice President Mount Prospect Downtown Merchants Assoc. Mobil Print 201 West Central Mr. Peters spoke on behalf of the MPDMA stating the business organization supports the proposed redevelopment project and encouraged the Village Board to move forward with the project as presented. Delay of the project will harm existing businesses that have invested in the community. The Village needs a functional downtown that will serve in the best interest of the community in the long-term. [written statement attached and made part of the meeting minutes] Mr. Don Deign 11 South Wille Street Mr. Deign showed pictures of multiple trucks unloading at the same time in south alley and expressed his opposition to the proposed project. He stated parking and traffic is chaotic because of the delivery trucks. 10 Ms. Mary Simon 803 West Isabella Street Ms. Simon stated her opposition to the proposed development. The proposal is too dense, parking on NW Highway requires lOOT approval, feels Village is giving too much money away. She also questioned whether there were any environmental costs. She does not believe the eminent domain to obtain property is appropriate. [Mayor Wilks stated Mr. Heimbaugh would be responsible for site clean-up costs.] Mr. Dave Lindgren, Chair - Economic Development Commission 743 Whitegate Court Mr. Lindgren stated the consensus of the EDC supports the proposed project, believe it is in the best interest of the Village to move forward with the proposal from Mr. Heimbaugh. He stated the goal of a TIF District is to improve/enhance the value of the property. When this project is completed it will provide significant land valuation and additional revenues. Mr. Brian Knight 10 South Wille Mr. Knight stated with the building height of the proposed development his view of the city skyline will be obstructed; loss of this attribute will impact resale of his property. Mr. Larry Letow 307 South Wa Pella Avenue Mr. Letow stated he was a mortgage professional and that while this area is not as bad as other parts of the country the housing market here is bad. Questioned why more projects are not being looked at; feels it would be better to compare with other project proposals. Ms. Cybil Saussen 11 South Wille Street Ms. Saussen expressed her opposition to the proposal stating density should be measured in more than just the number of units. She is concerned with physical impact concerned this area will become a hot spot. She recommended taking a look land from an environmental perspective, use that would not increase pollution and reduce energy use. She is also concerned with the environmental impact from idling trucks. She said the downtown area is in need of a grocery store. Mr. Nick Honcharuk 11 South Wille Mr. Honcharuk expressed his opposition to the proposed development, stating he agreed that the project was fundamentally flawed and reiterated comments made by Mr. Tim Scott at the May 6th meeting. Mr. Honcharuk had noted concerns with the parking ratios, service aisle behind the Blues Bar and the fire lane. He asked what the economic benefit was for not going out for bid. Trustee Zadel stated the economic value is in the project. He further stated there was no hard and fast law requiring an RFP; the Village did not go out for bid for the Emerson and did go out for bid for Clocktower and the developer went under. Believes the Village has done it due diligence with the project before them. 11 Trustee Corcoran also responded to Mr. Honcharuk's comments and provided an overview of the RFP process; an imperfect process that has worked well for the Village in some cases but not very well in others. He also provided background on the Village's efforts to redevelop Sub-Area #1, which has been the subject of discussion for several years. The Heimbaugh proposal is not the first proposal to be considered, multiple proposals were reviewed. Three years ago the Village did approve plans for an entertainment development but when the low-rise project did not turn out to be financially viable the property was taken on by another developer, Mr. Heimbaugh. The Village's proposal was for the developer to find a solution, give the Village Board your ideas for evaluation. Mr. Heimbaugh has presented a decent proposal with good prospects for success. It is a respectable design that fits the parameters of the Village's intent with the financial resources to complete the project. Trustee Corcoran stated the constructive input from residents has been valuable and enhanced the Village's ability to address key issues; parking, density and financial performa. He is satisfied the Village has a good plan before them. Trustee Corcoran also touched on two variables that had not been part of the financial discussion. The land value of Busse Avenue and the land value of the old Village Hall allows for an apples to apples financial comparison of the Village's financial percentage. With the inclusion of these variables the Village's percentage for the Sub-Area #1 is 61.7% and the combined total for the other developments is 65%. Trustee Corcoran stated the Village has tried to engage Mr. Curtis in discussions and invited him to share his plans. The proposal he finally submitted too few details for consideration. Mr. Honchurak indicated the proposed development would saturate the housing market, ultimately creating a negative economic impact on the taxpayers. Mayor Wilks reminded Mr. Honchurak the subject property is in TIF District. And, as a condition of redevelopment Mr. Heimbaugh must enter into an agreement to meet the necessary the financial figures. Mr. Ken Kirkwood 317 South Edward Mr. Kirkwood asked the Village to place a moratorium on subsidies to private investors. He stated he opposed both the redevelopment of Sub-Srea #1 and Randhurst. He encouraged the Village Board and residents to read the book "Free Lunch." [written statement attached and made part of the meeting minutes] Mr. Patrick Preissings 308 South Wa Pella Avenue Mr. Preissings expressed his opposition to the closure of Busse Avenue and the proposed redevelopment project. He supports the mixed-use concept but not this plan; the proposed project will create traffic congestion. He also questioned safe- zone concept. Mr. Wes Pinchot 747 Whitegate Court Mr. Pinchot stated he is not against redevelopment as long as it is complimentary and doesn't have a negative impact on the residents and/or businesses. It is the Village's responsibility to implement a viable plan. He feels the proposed development is based on poor planning - parking garage/traffic/closure of Busse Avenue/ inadequate on-site parking. He recommended TIF funds be used to rehabilitate existing businesses. 12 Mr. Babak Solis 11 South Wille Mr. Solis expressed his opposition to the proposal, with specific concerns regarding truck traffic and congestion. Mr. Michael Werthmann, KLOA, traffic consultant responded to Mr. Solis' questions regarding the traffic study. Mr. Werthmann stated the study indicated the current design is adequate, more than sufficient to accommodate additional traffic. It was noted that the result of the consultant's traffic study was reviewed by Village engineers. Mr. Steve Polit 601 Wilshire Drive Mr. Polit recalled a similar process that occurred several years ago. Residents in single family homes expressed opposition to the development of the condominium units that are home to residents who are now opposed to the proposed development. He stated that even though there may be disagreement with the proposed development it is important to keep perspective. Ms. Nancy Fritz 103 North Mac Arthur Boulevard Ms. Fritz stated she is concerned with the amount of tax dollars being expended for private development. She is not opposed to development but concerned with Village's investment in project. She values the history of Mount Prospect and supports efforts to maintain its history and remain a suburb of people working together. Mr. Steven Kasch 114 North Will Street Mr. Kasch asked what had changed since the Village had approved the Blues Bar and the single building approach for redevelopment. Trustee Corcoran responded the entertainment low-rise concept did not work out as a financially viable development. Ms. Christine McCue 105 East Prospect Avenue Ms. McCue stated she as well as her family and friends are very excited to have the new development. She loves the Blues Bar and looks forward to having additional retail spots within walking distance. Mayor Wilks opened discussion to the Village Board. Trustee Juracek shared her historical connection with the Village dating back to the 1920's when her grandfather sold milk from the Mount Prospect creamery in his Chicago store. Her heritage and the economy of the Village of Mount Prospect have been intertwined for a very long time. Spending time in Mount Prospect with family members since the 1960's and finally relocating here with her own family in 1977 she has fond memories of the community. However, progress happens and many of those places are gone. She stated the downtown area has not aged gracefully and the downtown area was shabby prior to redevelopment efforts. And, although she was not immediately drawn to Mr. Heimbaugh's proposal for the Triangle, a redevelopment proposal was welcomed. Her vision for the triangle is a "Highland Park" style that offers an appropriate look and feel. 13 Highland Park contains a diversity of style, including buildings as high as 6 or 7 stories mixed in with 2-3 story buildings. What makes downtown Highland Park work is effective use of street-level space and upper story setbacks to keep the eye drawn to the pedestrian level; both on-street and off-street parking; simple traffic patterns and a critical mass of offerings that make you want to get out and walk around. The Port Clinton Square in Highland Park bears an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Heimbaugh's proposal. Trustee Juracek then addressed both the misinformation about the development and the concerns frequently expressed by residents; aesthetics, parking, pedestrian safety access to condo parking to the north, the lack of competing proposals and taxpayer risks. The negative reference of "packing 10 pounds into a 5-pound sack" actually creates the necessary density to make the project work. The downtown is simply too tiny to create necessary economic mass without maximizing the use of the property. The business community knows this and endorses this proposal. We want successful commercial business establishments, not places that close shop due to lack of sufficient business volume. Parking - the residential parking situation for this development is in good shape. Gas prices will change the behavior of drivers who currently drive around to find on-street parking rather than utilizing multi-level parking garage. Permitted overnight parking in the Village parking structure and greater use of the Chase Bank parking lot expands available parking solutions. Pedestrian Safety - pedestrian safety from parking lots can be enhanced with valet parking, safety zones, marked cross walks and lights embedded in pavement. Access to condo parking to the north - residents to the north must have access to their premises. A striped fire lane, signage and recessed delivery lanes will improve this situation. Lack of competing proposals - Mr. Heimbaugh has the right as does any property owner in the Triangle to present a proposal that includes his property to the Village. He has a significant stake in seeing that a successful project is built. Taxpayer risk - Mr. Heimbaugh will be putting in 45% of the cost of this project and will be required to have financing commitment for the entire project before the Village will let him proceed. Trustee Juracek thanked everyone who contributed to the instructive and constructive debate and stated the proposal is far better than its original because of the public process. Trustee Hoefert shared his closing comments pertaining to the Heimbaugh Development proposal. He stated that over the last several months has brought forward the flaws in the development including the lack of on-site parking; lack of vehicular and pedestrian access and competition with life style mall. Feels the development will fail. He has received an onslaught of negative comments from residents opposed to the project. The negative response to this project is similar to the public opposition of the Village's first TIF redevelopment. However, with the first development the Village Board responded to the opposition by taking a step back to review other development proposal. As a result the Village Board chose a different developer and a less intense development which has been successful on all counts. Trustee Hoefert described the success of the Park Ridge redevelopment which included an impressive public participation. 14 He stated now is the time for the administration to listen to the people and to step back from this development and look to the development community at large to surface alternative development proposals for the citizens of Mount Prospect to see and comment on. [written comments are attached and made a part of the meeting minutes]. Trustee Korn thanked the residents for their participation in this process. He said a number of residents have commented that this is a done deal and are upset with him even though he has yet to share his position. The Village Board has listened to the comments from residents and has addressed their issues of concern. He agrees parking is a problem; it has long been his recommendation to require two parking spaces per condominium. And, while there are not two (2) parking spaces per unit, this development has a 1.7 parking ratio, which is more than the other buildings. He stated that he may ultimately lose friends and customers because people don't agree with him but this property needs to be developed. The Village Board decision is based on what is best for the community. Letting the property just sit there is not the solution and that is just not going to happen. His decision is based on what he believes is best for Mount Prospect, and he asked not to be judged by his vote. Trustee Zadel stated he has been a resident of Mount Prospect for 58 years and holds a lot of memories of the downtown area. He witnessed the decline of the downtown area that has only been able to move toward revitalization through the TIF program. When elected one of his primary goals was to do what was needed to improve the downtown area. Now the Village must complete the final piece of the puzzle for TIF development. He stated the increased land value of the triangle is not surprising. He also commented on the RFP process, and stating that while it can be successful it is not the only way to go. He talked about the original plans for an entertainment district, the realization it would not work and the property then sold to Mr. Heimbaugh. He stated Mr. Heimbaugh was a successful developer and he demonstrated an ambition to work with the Village. He reiterated that Mr. Heimbaugh is responsible for financing and recruiting retail; if he doesn't meet these conditions, project will not be turned over to him. Trustee Zadel thanked the residents for their input and feels the developer has addressed their concerns. He stated the Village has found a quality developer with concepts that will work despite economic times. The development with its open plaza is visually appealing, and will attract people to the downtown. Trustee Corcoran thanked the residents for their constructive comments and the decorum of the meeting. He also thanked Steve Pol it for reminding everyone of similar public opposition to Clocktower. He stated the balance of trying to keep things the way they were and at the same time making improvements is very difficult. He stated that when he was first elected to the Village Board in 1989 the downtown area wasn't too great, but since 2003 progress has been made to improve the downtown. The economics of the triangle has been difficult and the original property owner had to walk away from plans for an entertainment development. Mr. Heimbaugh a successful developer has now provided the Village with a proposal for the last piece. In referencing the comments of Mr. Kirkwood, Trustee Corcoran stated the government shapes the way we do business. Government laws are designed as such that if we don't compete for business, they will go to other communities. He stated the Triangle has been the most challenging and the traffic on Route 83 is the both the best and worse for the Village. He stated the redevelopment proposal fits with everything that has been done including the financing. 15 ORD 5693 NEW BUSINESS To address the immediate concern with trucks obstructing access he requested immediate action be taken with stripping of fire lane and booting offending trucks. He believes the rising gas price will change driving behaviors and prompt cost saving decisions; walking to local retailers/restaurants. The Village Board is aware of the need for a grocery store within walking distance and continues to try and fill this gap but to date nothing has been found. Trustee Corcoran stated this is the development for the property, he likes the architecture and it offers more green space then existing developments. He stated the Village will continue to work with the developer to accommodate resident life styles. Trustee Corcoran stated this is the development for the property, he likes the architecture and it offers more green space then existing developments. He stated the Village will continue to work with the developer to accommodate resident life styles. Trustee Lohrstorfer commented on the outstanding summaries. He stated the public process for this development occurred here tonight. He stated residents voicing their concerns to the Village Board was instrumental in making sure the residents got what was right for downtown. People who drive through downtown will say Mount Prospect knows development; different/unique development. He commented on the developer's willingness to put his reputation and money on the line, noting that financing of the development is key. He thanked residents for input and encouraged them to remain connected as this process continues. Mayor Wilks requested the ordinance be amended to include a condition requiring the developer to enter a development agreement. Trustee Juracek, seconded by Trustee ladel, moved for approval to amend the proposed ordinance by requiring the developer to enter a development agreement with the Village as a condition to granting the Conditional Use and variations. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstorfer, ladel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee ladel, seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer moved to approve Ordinance No. 5693: AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE VARIATIONS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Corcoran, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstorfer, ladel Hoefert Mayor Wilks thanked the residents for their involvement, stating their input made it a better project. Mayor Wilks called for a recess at 12:56 a.m. Mayor Wilks reconvened at 1 :07 a.m. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Wilks stated all items listed under New Business on the agenda had been approved under the Consent Agenda. 16 MANAGER'S REPORT ARCHITECTURE CONTRACT, PHASE I, FACILITY STUDY PROJECT VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated staff was requesting Village Board approval to accept Architecture Contract for Phase I, proposed construction for a new Fire Station 14, an expanded Public Work Facility and a new Emergency Operations Center. Fire Chief Figolah provided an overview of the process since the Village Board gave staff approval at the April 1, 2008 Village Board meeting to enter into negotiations with SRBL. He stated staff has had several discussions with SRBL to develop a contract for architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, civil engineering, telecommunications, landscape architecture and interior design services. Fire Chief Figolah stated two additional services are included as options in the contract for services; Furnishings Design and Procurement and LEED Certification. It is estimated that using the expertise of SRBL's consultants for furnishing design and consultants the Village could save on additional expenses from having to move utilities through change orders. LEED is a green building rating system that promotes sustainable site planning, safeguarding water and water efficiency, energy efficiency and renewable energy, conservation of materials and resources, as well as indoor environmental quality. In an effort to offset the additional costs of LEED consulting and construction, the Village can pursue grant money from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation. Staff recommends Village Board approval to enter into a contract with SRBL Architects for architectural services for the Phase I proposed construction projects in an amount not to exceed $1,070,987. This amount includes the high end estimate of fees for base architectural services as well as the two optional service packages. Fire Chief Figolah and SRBL representative Jake Davis responded to questions from the Village Board. Trustee Korn asked what would happen if the project did not meet LEE D's certification. Fire Chief Figolah stated the project would not be eligible for certification nor grant money. He does feel the silver if not gold certification is achievable. Trustee Lohrstorfer asked what is the extra cost by going after LEED's certification. Mr. Davis responded approximately 4-6% of the construction cost. Trustee Juracek commented that bundling the cost of furnishings and services with LEED certification would be a highly integrated approach. Mr. Davis agreed that approach would offer additional opportunities. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved for approval to accept Architecture Contract with SRBL Architects for the Phase I proposed construction in an amount not to exceed $1,070,987. Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Zadel None Motion carried. Mr. Polit commented on how residents are frequently involved in the beginning of public issues seldom remain connected through the entire process. He challenged residents and the Village Board to find a positive mechanism to initiate and maintain resident involvement of public issues. 17 OTHER BUSINESS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Wilks complimented Public Works on the May 1 yth Open House. 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 Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to adjourn the Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Lohrstorfer, Zadel None Motion carried. The May 20,2008 Village Board meeting adjourned at 1 :23 a.m. on May 21,2008. M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H: \C LKO\WI N\MI N UTES\MI N UTESmay20 ,200Ba. doc 18 /' 'I ,A;r;;J , ij/(Y'o (tJ:r~ Sub Area #1 ~/! . Issues raised at the 5/ 6/08 tneeting: /" (Q. Insufficie~t par~ng. fa) · Comm~rC1al delivenes ~ . Pedestnan access . Retail viability . Density ~.-, . Village [mancial obligations f1 j. Emergency access o Insufficient parking . 291 total spaces provided in new deck . 165 spaces for residential (1.7 per unit) . 126 spaces for commercial (4 per thousand square feet) . Shared public parking: . 10 spaces on NW Highway . 35 spaces in South Parking Lot . 141 spaces in Metra lot (evenings and weekends) . 383 spaces in Village deck (employee and overflow) KEYNOTES: CD MOUNT PROSPECT TOWN CENTER 126 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES CD NORTHWEST HIGHWAY 10 PARKING SPACES o PUBLIC DRIVE 35 PARKING SPACES (~ METRA PARKING LOTS 141 PARKING SPACES G) VILLAGE PARKING GARAGE 383 PARKING SPACES TOTAL PARKING 695 PARKING SPACES Public Parking Analysis Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation ll. j,/L\ I " //fjl'ILI /' u '.,.//OJ! p'Vl fl ~' Vii' (J ]xV Overnight Guest parking . In response to detnand frotn downtown residents: . Village initiating 3-day overnight guest parking passes . Maximum of 3 consecutive passes - 9 days . Maximum of 10 passes in a year Commercial deliveries . 3 loading areas around perimeter . South lot zone for Blues Bar . Main Street zone for East building . Wille Street zone for West building . Each zone is a rninirnurn 9' x 60' . Zones provided for commercial deliveries, garbage collection and valet services . Loading in South Lot will be reduced from current levels Commercial Deliveries Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation r o Q.) a. -. ::J (C N o ::J CD )> I -U c C- - -. (") o -'. - < CD :J: co 3' IT ~ lC :::r (") III 12, ~ c co < co 6' ~ co a (") o il o ~ 0' j 1JO$ ~mr- ;tJZr 2S~~ zmm (j) r o Q) a. -- ::J CO N o ::J CD OJ I ~ Q) -- ::J en r+ .., CD CD r+ % CD 3' a- D> c: fQ ~ o D> 12. [ C ~ 0- " 3 CD ;a o 1'. OJ ~m r)> Ow z-i G) ~~ _;=Jl:::'"J:=J./ ___ _ --.:J 'G)'1J 0)>)> OJ;:o:::O OJ)>^ -<G)z mG) r o tu a. -- :::J CO N o :::J CD () I ~ -- - - -- CD (J) r-+ .., CD CD r-+ I'~i. c lO ::r Cl A> 12. !i c '" < '" i~l. C1 ,~~. o i~I' V[..........=~IYL.~J'/ OJ ~.~ rm goo z-l G) Pedestrian Access r" 0J . 2 pedestrian crosswalks proposed to access project from overflow parking areas . South side of Busse Avenue across Main Street . East side of Wille Street across NW Highway . IDOT approval required . Initial verbal indicated that so long as a "safe zone" can be created, IDOT would likely approve the requests LANDSCAPE AREA AREA OF REFUGE LIGHT POLE, TYP. Main Street at Garage ACCESSIBLE RAMF TO VILLAGE HALL PARKING GARAGE PAINTED I~ Northwest Highway Pedestrian Access LIGHT POLE TYP. PAINTED CROSSWALK I Main Street at Busse IJ! ~~!~:;iJ~4,,;~ Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation . tJj ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ("D :': I-d rD ~ rD 00 fII+ ~ ~. ~ ~ > (j (j rD 00 00 Retail Viability . Project includes approxitnately 31,000 net square feet of retail space .. Village hired retail broker to provide objective review of retail cotnponent (CB Richard Ellis) . Broker opined that: . "project is ideally suited to full service restaurants" . "dinner is likely to be most significant revenue segment for any foodservice operator" Retail Viability . Broker opined that: . "there appears to be an abundance of parking for 2 full- service restaurants (7,000 square feet each) and additional retail in the project" . "other likely retailers would include boutique furniture, family /kids clothing, jewelry, gift/novelty/art stores, personal services, specialty grocer and professional office" . "the Project appears ideally planned given the characteristics of the Primary Retail Trade Area and the site". Density Project # of Units Acres Units/Acre Sub-Area #1 97 1.98 48.99 Emerson 54 0.75 72.00 Residences 205 3.30 62.12 Lofts and Shops 34 1.17 29.06 KEYNOTES: CD MOUNT PROSPECT TOWN CENTER HEIGHT: 5 & 7 STORIES DENSITY: 49.0 UNITS/ACRE RESID. PARKING: 1.70 SPACES/UNIT (3) THE EMERSON HEIGHT: 5 STORIES DENSITY: 72.0 UNITS/ACRE RESID. PARKING: 1.38 SPACES/UNIT (3) THE LOFTS & SHOPS HEIGHT: 3 STORIES DENSITY: 29.1 UNITS/ACRE RESID. PARKING: 1.41 SPACES/UNIT 8) VILLAGE CENTRE HEIGHT: 7 & 5 STORIES DENSITY: 62.1 UNITS/ACRE RESID. PARKING: 1.48 SPACES/UNIT (~) CLOCKTOWER HEIGHT: 6 STORIES DENSITY: 43.3 UNITS/ACRE RESID. PARKING: 1.51 SPACES/UNIT @ VILLAGE LIBRARY HEIGHT: 3 STORIES (j) VILLAGE PARKING GARAGE HEIGHT: 5 LEVELS (-40 FT.) (8) VILLAGE HALL HEIGHT: 3 STORIES (-72 FT.) C~ RETAIL HEIGHT: 1 & 2 STORIES CON.TEXTUAL,. DENSITY PLAN d> Contextual - Density Plan Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation Village Financial Obligations . Village has negotiated the framework of a public/private partnership . Total Village contribution $9,209,042 . $3.5 million in land contributed at such time as senior financing is secured by Heimbaugh . $5.4 million in project revenue (incremental property and sales taxes) (paid only if generated by project) . $308,742 previously expended on demolition and business relocation . Village share of redevelopment expenses less than those of the Residences and Lofts and Shops projects Project Financials '1/1 /~ iiJ I AI" l..f / Village Heimbaugh Total " , Jt -I kJ S I )t (ft) ft,", ,,,ulS l' !~ r 0;,1 (J . fl? l...' Land Acquisition $3,500,300 $3,875,000 $7,375,300 Sales Tax Rebate 0 0 0 Tax Increment Rebate 5,400,000 0 5,400,000 Site Clean Up 0 500,000 500,000 Demolition 118,742 250,000 368,742 Streetscape 0 400,000 400,000 Public Parking 0 2,520,000 2,520,000 Infrastructure 0 0 0 Business Relocation 190,000 0 190,000 Total $9,209,042 $7,545,000 $16,754,042 54.970/0 45.030/0 100.000/0 ,'\ , ) :"J '\ ~. ,f "rr~ \ '\ ;J "-<) . Y " I. '\ L~ ,I;\jf (V t 1.\ ~.." ~ . \V. \) \.. " ~ \ ,x. u ~. (~~'".~ \, ~ '~~. \ \ _~ ~~ \ c ~ ~. ''\ ,.~ '\) J ~ ~\ ( \~'d.\' '. ~\ \\ .( "1" " " '~ ~ I. \~ ,'( \ \ Previous Redevelopment Financials Sub Area Lofts and Founders #1 Residences Shops Row Emerson - ViIIage ----- '..- Expenditures $9,209,042 $5,609,432 $1,925,664 $516,850 $251,600 Developer Expenditures $7,545,000 $3,781,360 $748,355 $1,053,150 $821,695 Village Share 54.970/0 59.730/0 72.010/0 32.920/0 23.440/0 I Developer Share 45.030/0 40.270/0 27.990/0 67.080/0 76.560/0 Emergency Access . Construction Features . Type of Occupancy . Code Applied During Construction m 3 CD ., (C CD ::J ('") '< )> ('") ('") CD en en :I: .. 3" c- O> c: co ::r (") 0> "52. [ c .. 16 5" '0 3 .. a (") g '0 o a S' ::l ACCESSIBLE RAMP. TYP. RELOCATED TRANSFORMER CD " " 0.: ~ . o I b o .... 13'-0" Emergency Access 4" THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LETTERS 24" HT. 4" STROKE INSTALL PREFORMED PAVEMENT MARKINGS TYPE 1 }/ / 13'-0" / CD FIRE LANE LEGEND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS DRIVE I EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING II 'Qf!<lj.:"'!,~".;:~,,,--, ";,.,,,.,,-.',];:-;<;( Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation EXISTING TRANSFORMER CONCRETE CURB. TYP. - On Sun, 5118/08, DavidK2425@aol.com <DavidK2425@aol.com> wrote: From: DavidK2425@aol.com <DavidK2425@aol.com> Subject: Re: REPL Y --Mount Prospect downtown To: michael_zielinskius@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:34 PM Michael: I share your concern. Also, I want the new development to blend into our community. I do not want overcrowding of buildings. Perhaps the board can step back and take another look at the development. Carolyn Krause Just think what your unit will be worth if this proposal is Excepted by the Village board. Just ask the people in 11 south- 20 south and 5 west buildings. Thav can't Sell for Less then thav Daved. If you do not have anything pressing to do Tuesday May 20 At 7:00 P. M Lets fill the Village hall, If you need a ride call And thank you Michael Z. for taking Time out of your life To contact Rep. Carolyn Krause for Her take on this issue. Please send our thanks for her response to us. Bob Gniech and the Owners at 10 south Wille st.. '~ ~- tj-j lI0J~ <t /OI/ll~J..t ~QbJ(t - -to, -t- VlI f -~~~~~/ruuL"t.~-c-k; ~ .-rIMw k.~CL~' Jb ~ ~ rhJ paw )aMn/~ W P ~,~ rf # ~ iIJ-W-1 rna-.W If' TtumJ ( JIuJ ~~~MfcUto7Jh'~thJ~~ . . ,I '..1 0AuJ~1!:::JJ:;;~~,w-tw~.~~,~ J~.~~ . ~ - tW-dv., ~~~ Ii cLW.u~ ~ "f' ~ <1J,w.,).~ CtAu ~ ~ JLr~JJA 1J~~ , ~ ~ Jwu} ~ rtw nuddtv 'b ~ wz.qd-{K ~r:UrJL~ -~03~NtJrfJ, ~~( ~ ~~~ ~.~'Co tLtLJ:Lt-..~ . ~ ~~,;, kde-t~(ffl.{), ~~ < . ..Wtv ~ 4 - ~- ~ tPAd- tvnJ ~1 W ~ thul~~: .jJ.UvM~WtuwM ' !r--1t0.~~~, ~ ...~tIW,.~~Frtw,~M~~' .J~ .;.L ~ J.4 ~ ~. \)~ - ~ ih t.-o Jdu 1" ~i-. !J ...12-F p" d- ~ ~ ~~ ~ r-ztu;,~;Uh, -..' y .tV;- ~ ~ /v1N)v~ ~,c~; -p~~~,~~~-- ~/d0~J , /6' /~g' -.f A rLOl-- 10 iC:(o tc.( 1,.1,.0 , /1/") ~II"IJIL CA '/( ) :he Mount Prospect Chamber ~~7~~P~ After reviewing 'their plans, they seem to be in keeping with the original proposal of the most recent Village ad hoc committee which I participated~ The project appears well planned for the site. The residential component is considered by developers to be a necessary component to maintain the viability of any "downtown" redevelopment project. The planned density is needed to further support existing, as well as, new businesses in the downtown area. Parking and other infrastructure improvements have been well planned to support a successful retail project. J '___17 )/~/4; 1A I ~L5 /?'V" I encourage the trustees to look at this project for the good of all Mount Prospect citizens and not for the vocal citizenry who object to new developments because they "think the retail will fail or the condos won't sell" and have no real facts to back them up. Sure the economy is difficult right now, it was even difficult in 2001, but you have an obligation ~o m~than the citizens in this room tonight. You must do what is right for the future of Mount Prospect, not the past. We believe the Heimbaugh project is a thourough and well planned effort. Dave, ######## Mount Prospect Downtcwn Merchants Association Village Board Meeting - Tuesday, May 20,2008 My name is Dave Peters, I am one ofthe owners of~Mobi1e Print, ~ a downtown business. I am also the Vice President of the Mount Prospect Downtown Merchants Association and stand here now as their representative. The Executive Board and membership of the downtown merchants association want you to know that we feel the small triangle proposal should move forward as presented. The village has started the process of redeveloping the downtown area, but that process is nowhere near complete. We have built a small portion of a downtown,but not enough to draw the residents and shoppers needed to support a healthy downtown. It is our belief that delaying this project further will cause significant h~ to those businesses that have already bought into and invested significant time and money in therfe<k'tTetopment concept of VIe 88';:...-.\"n. Businesses that have taken up space iQ.... Downtown Mount Prospect buildings cannot survive if this is all there will be.is. tl ! ~ g ..~t1Jllm 41' years to come. They are effectively running "downtow.~~ b\lSinesses but a functional downtown is not yet here. They are desperately waiting for the rest of~o~ntown to appear. In terms?f downto~n condos/we pa~e in comparison.to the development of our neighbo~ng towns;':h"T ",It ('""/~,,,/~ Both Arlmgton HeIghts and Des Plames have many tImes the number of condos and retaIl space .....L.I'E'~tli~~4j1e Qavt;' i:e"",num+gY1m. M8'1nt Pro~t. The redevelopment process we have followed to this point has been ~~ a good one,but it is far from complete. This project is the fruition of the long-standing downtown redevelopment plan that both the village staff and prominent community members drafted and re-confirmed over the last ten years. To suggest that our current housing market conditions guide this development is short-sighted. We ask that you stand by the spirit of that plan and continue the redevelopment of the downtown area. By definition, a downtown is an area of denser residential and business properties. It draws many /'Il-tl't I \/tly pedestrians and is conducive to strolling, shopping and interacting with others. It typically is a ~ 1--:1":\ I environment, a public space that includes the sights and sounds of an urban setting. This type of environment is a benefit to both the residential and business community. This project is not for a few, but for the 55,000 residents of this village. We ask that you retain your "big picture" perspective and base your decision on the best long-term interest and future prosperity of the entire village. Thank you for your consideration. tfiffftfttf:ffH:t Triangle Development c)/ d oj c;/ .. /"1/ ,://1'. 11 Development subsidies such as the Triangle and Randhurst are transfer payments from homeowners and small business and ordinary citizens to developers who range from the rich to the filthy rich. It is odious to use the power of government to benefit private investors. In my opinion it is immoral. Local governments tax small businesses and use their tax dollar to subsidize big box stores that will run them out of business. Some studies have shown that almost all subsidies fail to produce the promised returns, much time turning in financial disasters. Tax Incremental Financing Districts (TIFs)run for 23 years. Have we studied the results of past subsidy programs? I've lived in Mt. Prospect for 40 years. I'd like to see a report on how well we've done in spending the taxpayer's dollars. I ask the Village Board to institute a moratorium on all subsidies to private investors until you can show the voters that we've been getting what we've paid for. To say the least, I'm skeptical. I refer to the Board's attention this book by David Cay Johnston, the tax expert of the New York Times. The title is Free Lunch: How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves At Government Expense (And Stick You With The Tax Bill) A couple examples: the Walton family combined is the richest family. Sam Walton's genius was getting local governments to sell out their local businesses and subsidize his low prices. President Bush never made money in oil. He made all his millions by selling a community to use eminent domain to seize property and a referendum to build a stadium for his team. Also, in 2006 the major sports of baseball, football, basketball and ice hockey lost a combined $340 Million. But, because you and I and tens of millions of ordinary citizens gave them a combined subsidy of $2 Billion, the superrich owners were able to divide among themselves a profit of $1.6 Billion. That my friends is reverse Robin Hood: Take from all, even the poorest, and give to the richest. I submit that is exactly what the pending Triangle and Randhurst developments are and I am strongly opposed to both. R. Kent Kirkwood Closing Comments made by Trustee Hoefert at the May 20th Board meeting pertaining to the Heimbaugh Development Proposal of the Downtown Mount Prospect's "Small Triangle" As most know, one of our neighboring communities to the east, Park Ridge is currently redeveloping significant portions of their uptown. Four years ago, I personally witnessed a very robust RFP and very public design review process at work in Park Ridge. It was impressive. The entire community was involved. So many people participated that the public presentations and discussions that they had to be held in a school gymnasium. How sad that we haven't mirrored their approach or even replicated our past public downtown redevelopment processes. I believe the people from OKW will remember the Park Ridge process because OKW was there and made one of the competitive proposals under their RFP. OKW didn't shy away from the competitive process and guess what, OKW were chosen as the developer. Unfortunately, our "small triangle" development process and this development proposal have been out of the public eye and flawed from the beginning. Over the past two months I have brought awareness of the flaws and shortcomings to the developer, the people of Mount Prospect and this Board. Once this proposal became public in early March and open discussions actually began, we have received few positive comments. We have, however, received an onslaught of comments against this development from the citizens through personal contact, e-mails, letters, and public comments at meetings like tonight. Frankly, I cannot remember when we have had such opposition to a development plan? I take that back. I do recall back in the mid-1980's when the old Busse Florist property by the water tower, the first development under the Village's TIF was up for redevelopment and the Village Board at that time was essentially in favor of a plan put forth by a developer named Rescorp. Rescorp's plan was to build a large apartment complex on the property. This development met with huge opposition from the people. Our then mayor, Mayor Krause showed intense leadership and the Village Board, comprised of Trustees Skip Farley, Leo Floros, Ralph Arthur and others, showed the courage to step back from that proposal and give the people their voice. Once that Board paused and allowed for the opportunity to review other development proposals, of which they saw 6 alternate plans, the Board actually ended up choosing a different developer and a less intensive development which has been successful on all counts. There are definite parallels here. Now is the time for this administration to listen to the people and to step back from this large scale development on the land we have curiously coined the "small triangle" and look to the development community at large to surface alternative development proposals for the citizens of Mount Prospect to see and comment on. For if this Heimbaugh development moves forward, I believe it will be an abysmal failure, financially, ascetically, and functionally. I believe we will be saddling Mount Prospect's downtown and the people who live in our downtown with the problems that this development will surely bring with it and, we will be saddling it for all time. This is an irreversibly decision and unfortunately, it will be a permanent stain on the legacy of this administration. I challenge Mayor Wilks and this Board to pause, as Mayor Krause and the Village Board did so many years ago, and create an opportunity for alternative developments to come forward for the area we call the "small triangle". By doing so, we will bring this development process out of the darkness and into the light, injecting the elements of competition and choice into the process, and allowing the voice of the people to be heard from beginning to end.