Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 05/11/2004 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF APRIL 27,2004 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE--PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS IV. (This is a continuation of the discussion from the April 27, 2004 COW meeting.) On February 24,2004, the Village Board received the final report and recommendations of the Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee-Phase II. At that time, the Mayor and Trustees took the report under advisement. At Tuesday's Committee of the Whole discussion, the Board will discuss and deliberate the various recommendations and look to reach consensus as to a future redevelop strategy key parts of the Downtown. In late 2003, the Village Board formed the Downtown Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee- Phase II to review the remaining redevelopment opportunities within the Village's downtown. The Board requested that the Committee review the Concept Plan and related recommendations included within the Village's existing Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan (adopted in 1998) to determine if they are still appropriate. In addition, the Committee was also asked to look at other potential redevelopment opportunities that exist outside of the boundaries established by the existing Strategic Plan. The Committee met on a weekly basis from the beginning of December 2003 through mid- February 2004. In addition to the general Committee meetings, a public hearing was held on January 31 to allow for public review and comment on the Committee's preliminary recommendations. At this time, the Committee is prepared to tender its final report and recommendations to the Village Board. Committee members, along with appropriate staff, will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTIC/PA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. VI. VII. VIII. PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE (This is a continuation of the discussion from the April 13, 2004 COW meeting.) At the April 6 Village Board meeting, staff began to review the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations regarding a variety of Village initiated text amendments (PZ-41-03). Following the review of a number of items, the Village Board continued the discussion to the April 13 Committee of the Whole meeting. The remaining issues to be reviewed with the Village Board involve the following: Pavement Separation Conversion of Attached Garages into Living Space No Trespassing Signs Compost Pile Locations Gravel Driveways Location of Port-A-Pots Residential Construction Site Fencing Staff will provide a detailed review of these remaining issues during the April 13 Committee of the Whole meeting. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION LAND ACQUISITION: 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (6). "The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body." LITIGATION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (11). "Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting." MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 27,2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Matt Lawrie. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. Trustee Zadel abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. Mayor Farley decided to take the items in a different order than the Agenda; therefore, Jurisdictional Transfer Policy discussion was moved to Item IV, while the Downtown Redevelopment Phase II Recommendations discussion was moved to Item V. IV. JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER POLICY DISCUSSION Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided general background on numbered and unnumbered State routes within the Village. He stated there are 32 miles of State routes within the Village of which 7.6 miles are unnumbered routes and 7.8 miles are Cook County routes. Therefore, there is a potential of transfer of all State and County routes. He stated the Village already maintains some sections of these roads through agreement. He stated that Central Road is in very poor shape. He stated the jurisdictional transfer is defined as transferring authority and obligation from one taxing body to another but not the transfer of the ownership of the land. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has informed the Village that no improvements will take place on Central Road without jurisdictional transfer. Jurisdictional transfer allows for signage and regulation by the authority assuming control of the road. With that includes the maintenance of all curbs, gutter, traffic signals, and storm sewer, however, land ownership remains with the State. Obviously, the future costs of repair shifts to the local government. There is a also a question regarding the liability of the road when one entity maintains and regulates the road while yet another entity retains ownership of land for which the road sits. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: 1 It was noted that Central and Busse are not truly local roadways since they convey a significant volume of traffic through the Village. The State has been approached several times by various elected officials of the Village to get the roads improved, however, all efforts have been rebuffed, therefore, the only remaining option is for a legislative solution. It was noted that Central Road needs total reconstruction. Wolf Road, which was accepted by the Village 12 years ago, has remained in good shape with regular maintenance by the Village. It is estimated that the cost of a five-lane profile with sewer work would be approximately $1.5 million per mile with approximately $40,000 per mile for maintenance. Such a cost would amortize to an annual funding need that would generate a 12% tax increase to assume responsibilities for the roads in question. It was noted that the Village should work with the Northwest Municipal Conference and local legislators in an attempt to resolve this impasse. The State has allowed the roads to deteriorate to such a manner that they are not willing to invest the funds for necessary replacement and one would think that such disrepair does increase liability to the State. Consensus of the Village Board was that the stance by the State is an unfundated mandate and is quite unreasonable and this information is for basic background and not necessarily for action at this time. V. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE-PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS Mayor Farley stated this is a follow up to the February 24 Committee of the Whole meeting. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated staff is looking for direction from the Board regarding the five sub-areas that have been identified in the study. At least one opportunity exists for consideration of amending the TIF document to address development in one or more of the sub-areas. Mr. Cooney stated the process of redevelopment has been underway for nearly 30 years. The Ad Hoc Committee review included a Phase I report from 1998 that focused on the area bounded by Northwest Highway/Central/Emerson and Wille. The five sub-areas to be discussed this evening are as follows: . Sub-Area 1 considered the small triangle is bounded by Busse/Northwest Highway and Route 83. Sub-Area 2 is the existing Village Hall lot. Sub-Area 3 is the block that consists of the Bank One remote parking lot. Sub-Area 4 is the Bank One block. Sub-Area 5 is the area where Central Plaza exists. . . . . Sub-Area 1 Recommendations: The Committee had recommended a three-story development that includes a unified appearance with a vehicular closure of Busse and limiting access to pedestrians only and a parking lot off Northwest Highway with one level of retail and two stories of condominiums. 2 Ben Trapani, 222 South Pine, spoke. He stated the back of the buildings that face on to Busse shows a very poor appearance and he is proposing a more open appearance for the block. He would propose a development that would cover the entire block and not close Busse as a similar approach that Arlington Heights has undertaken. One alternate discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee was for a parking lot fronting on Northwest Highway which would have to be addressed as part of this development. He stated that he could put additional numbers together if the Village Board shows interest and he stated he has talked to the owners of the property on West Busse about relocation opportunities. George Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He stated the Committee wanted an open visual vista into the Busse Avenue area from Northwest Highway and wanted to retain some of historical buildings along Busse. He stated there are significant economic limitations due to the size of the block and based on that, the Committee wanted to retain some buildings of historical value. Tom Neitzke, 17 South Maple, spoke. He is the owner of the building at 22 West Busse. He stated that the businesses on the north side need the businesses on the south side of the street because they feed off one another and the area should be considered a Preservation District, not just a preservation row of historical buildings. He stated he would be better to either retain the whole District or eliminate all the buildings. He stated he is against any TIF expansion as a business owner and feels that TIFs create unrealistic market conditions for development. He stated that if development attractiveness already exists then the market would undertake such development and the creation TIFs artificially create markets for development. He stated much of the redevelopment that takes place within TIF Districts eliminates the uniqueness of businesses and he suggests the Village Board focus on other areas within the downtown before addressing the small triangle area. John Nowicki, 515 South School Street, spoke. He recently has purchased a new condominium unit in the Norwood development and would like to keep the existing businesses in the Busse Avenue area. He suggested retaining the existing facades with new buildings behind. He also suggested some consideration about subsidizing rents for existing businesses to move into the new developments with assistance in taxes and rents. Norm Kurtz, owner of 32 West Busse, spoke. He stated that the proposed plan may be trying to do too much on this limited space. He felt if the area is to be addressed, then the whole block should be included with some open space and he is supportive of a Trapani-style plan. He is concerned about a wall facing Route 83 and the appearance as if it might cut off that block. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that several of the buildings that are considered Preservation Row or Preservation District has not been maintained well and are in serious states of disrepair. The Board has previously been very careful not to create a canyon effect and feels that a proper setback from the property lines will be necessary to ensure that such an effect is not created. There are several financial issues that need to be further investigated in order for complete analysis of the options for consideration. 3 There was some concern expressed about the proposed height of the Trapani proposal and the desire to avoid closing Busse Avenue to vehicular traffic. It was also noted that without the TIF, the downtown would not look like it does now and likely would not have changed from its appearance prior to any redevelopment occurring. The Board was quite patient in allowing the market to undertake redevelopment in the downtown for many years and such redevelopment until the Village got involved with the TIF. It was suggested that the small triangle be considered as the last area to be redeveloped and focus on other areas within the TIF that would have an improved return on investment. Sub-Area 2 Recommendations: This is the existing Village Hall block. It is anticipated that the Village Hall building will become available around August 1 and it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Village Hall building will be an extension of the concept of the building along Northwest Highway. Village Manager Janonis stated that staff has been working with Norwood through the Option Agreement for the Village Hall site and anticipates that a final decision on moving forward regarding the site will be within the next 30 days. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He is concerned about the height of redevelopment and feels that the height should be similar to what is already along Northwest Highway. Max Ullrich, 319 South Pine, spoke. He is the owner of Van Driel's. He stated that the increase in taxes will impact on development and assessments will continue to rise, therefore, there is a built-in business factor to any redevelopment because of the increased price. Tim Scott, 600 East Evergreen, spoke. He felt that the area should be a mixed-use development and supports the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for Sub-Area 2 and focus efforts on redeveloping the block as outlined in the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. Sub-Area 3. This is the east side of Emerson between Central and Busse. Previous recommendations included row homes with green space at the south end of the block with a 50-foot setback from Central at the north end. The property would be approximately two and one-half stories, height of no more than 30 feet with vehicular access from the rear of the properties. Bill Blaine, 319 North Emerson, spoke. He complimented the Village Board in their efforts to date and appreciates the letter explaining the Village Board's position that was recently sent to all the petition signers. He feels there is a need to ensure that any green space be of a comparable size to the existing three lots so that there is a return on investment based on the ambiance of the area. He feels that whatever the Village Board's decision is on this block is what the Village Board will be remembered for in the future. He feels that the public commitment for a park is adequate as long as the lot at the south corner is of comparable size and the entire block is developed at the same time and not on a piecemeal fashion. 4 He suggested the Village Board retain the north end as open space until the south end of the property becomes available. Ron Ditthardt, 123 North Emerson, spoke. He also appreciated the letter from the Village Board explaining their position. He wanted to outline a few points that were not responded to in the letter. He felt that the Village Board was ignoring the citizens which at last count numbered approximately 2,000 people and the fact that they want a park on this location and the Board is risking a disagreement with the citizens. He also is concerned about how the property would be obtained for development on the south side and any open space on the south side would not match the size of the property available on the north side. He also felt the appearance is important in terms of economics including the retainage of mature trees on available sites. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he does not concur with SOS Mount Prospect's position and feels that green space should be closer to the center of the downtown which would mean the south end of the Emerson block where such property would complement downtown events. Rachel Toeppen, 409 South Hi-Lusi, spoke. She acknowledged that there is new space coming on line around the Village Hall but felt that the Keystone Plaza area on the west side is not a true gathering space and should not be considered as such. The Keystone Plaza area is not what you would consider a park. Tim Scott, 600 East Evergreen, spoke again. He stated he is a professional planner by trade and feels that the green space is important in the downtown and is supportive of a park on the south end of the block and the remainder of the block to be built as row homes does make sense from his standpoint. George Haas, 115 North Emerson, spoke. He felt that it is possible to retain open space at both ends of Emerson. Carol Jarosz, 122 North Stratton, spoke. As a School District member, she would be interested in the Board committing to a park in the downtown and retaining the current green space until new space becomes available. She feels there is a need to honor the founding fathers and the green space that will be developed by the Village so an acknowledgment of their contribution would be valuable. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Several members of the Board complimented SOS Mount Prospect's position and their ability to generate dialogue with the Village Board. It was also noted that it is unlikely the three lots will be developed separately from the rest of the block. It was noted that the row homes will provide a transition space to the single-family homes. It was noted that the Village has started the process of obtaining the Bank One parking lot and will also start work soon on obtaining the two homes at the southern end. Several Board members felt that the development of the block simultaneously instead of piecemeal fashion was critical. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for development of Sub-Area 3. 5 VI. VII. VIII. The remaining discussion of the other Sub-Areas will be discussed at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. VILLAGE MANGER'S REPORT None. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, III - ~ ~(þ:..J $:..b:u DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department * CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM * FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: DATE: MAY 5, 2004 TIF FINANclALS SUBJECT: The Village has utilized Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as the primary economic tool to spur the redevelopment of our downtown area over the past two decades. The TI F district was created in 1985 and is due to expire at the end of 2008. Attached to this memorandum is a one page financial summary for the TIF district. The spreadsheet summarizes all past TIF expenditures and the projected expenditures and revenues generated by the proposed Ad Hoc Committee redevelopment plan. The projected cash flows indicate that the Village can accomplish most, if not all, of the redevelopment plan within the existing life of the TIF. It requires that the Village proceed with the plan quickly, including initiating negotiations to acquire property. The assumptions utilized in the attached spreadsheet are outlined below: Sub-area #1 This area consists of commercial properties along NW Highway and Busse Avenue between Route 83 and Wille Street. The expenditures for this sub-area include the acquisition ($2.45 million), demolition ($225,000) and environmental cleanup ($500,000) of all properties in the "small triangle" block and the construction of 10,000 square feet of retail space and 20 condominium units in their place. The properties located along the north side of Busse Avenue would remain with façade and interior improvements anticipated on these properties. In addition, the Village would invest approximately $600,000 in streetscape improvements around the entire sub-area #1. We have assumed that all property acquisition would occur in 2005 and that half of the project would be complete in 2006 and the other half complete in 2007. We have assumed that the Village would sell the property for $700,000 ($30,000 per unit plus $10 per square foot of retail) in 2005. I would note that the "Trapani Plan" that would include the acquisition ($3,000,000) and demolition ($200,000) of all properties on the north side of Busse Ave. cannot be funded without extending the term of the current TIF. Sub-area #2 This area consists of the existing Village Hall, Sakura and Continental Bakery properties. The plan would keep Sakura and Continental Bakery in their current locations and calls for the demolition of the Village Hall. A 5-story, mixed use development would be constructed on the Village Hall site that would include approximately 40 condominium units and 15,000 square feet of retail space. The attached spreadsheet anticipates that we would not incur any costs for acquisition, demolition or environmental cleanup and that we would invest approximately $350,000 in streetscape improvements. We have assumed that construction would begin in 2005 and that half of the project would be complete in 2006 and the other half complete in 2007. We have assumed the proceeds from the sale of the Village Hall site would be deposited in the General Fund and are therefore not included in the TIF pro-forma. Sub-area #3 This area consists of the three Village-owned vacant parcels, the Bank One surface lot and the two residential homes owned by Wallace Busse on Emerson Street. The plan for this area would require the acquisition of the Bank One and Wallace Busse properties ($1.45 million), demolition ($25,000) and no environmental cleanup costs. In addition, we have budgeted $500,000 for the installation of a park area on the south end of the site. We have assumed that construction would begin in 2005 and that half of the project would be complete in 2006 and the other half complete in 2007. We have also assumed that the Village would sell the property for $840,000 (14 units X $60,000) in 2005. Financing Given the short amount of time left in the TIF (4 years), we have assumed that all of these expenditures would be funded through a short-term loan with a local financial institution. Other Revenue The TIF financial outlook has improved dramatically due to two factors; the Village's ability to utilize the full tax increment generated in 2009 and the fact that the equalized assessed value of the downtown condominiums has far surpassed the Village's conservative estimates. The State legislature clarified TIF regulations so that the Village can utilize the 2009 tax increment ($2.88 million) to cover eligible expenses, although all eligible expenses must be made prior to 12/31/08. Revenues have also increased because the average EA V for condominiums in the downtown has more than doubled the projected EA V's. Conclusion As the numbers indicate, the TIF can support the further redevelopment of the downtown as proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee. That being said, it is imperative that the Village pursue the implementation of the plan quickly since there is limited time remaining in the TIF. If the Village wants to pursue the complete redevelopment of sub-area #1 the TIF would have to be extended. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their meeting on May 11th. Staff will be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. ~, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TIF CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS -Sub-Area #1 (Tr. Only), #2 & #3 Updated: April27,2004 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Pre-1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Beginning Fund Balance 882,988 922,127 2,475,047 1,021,338 594,318 (455,550) 903,543 (348,998) (556,789) (700,205) (293,581) (48,181) Receipts Revenues Properly Tax Increment (Sch 1) 22,779,922 3,829,494 776,759 837,269 801,036 804,700 912,881 1,185,391 1,647,677 1,815,025 2,139,533 2,408,723 2,736,620 2,884,812 Sales Tax Increment 8,425 8,425 Rental Income 130,257 127.708 2,549 Pontarelli LOC Fofeiture 100,000 100,000 LUST Reimbursement 334,110 334,110 Other Income 1,283,285 1,105,812 177,473 Investment Income 885,424 542,784 29,768 117,702 96,916 52,901 16,780 10,502 18,071 interfund Transfer 371,558 56 1,671 369,831 Land Sale Proceeds (Sch 2) 5,891,715 1,243,000 1,135,360 748,355 1,225,000 1,540,000 31,784,696 5,614,223 909,076 2,198,027 2,034,983 1,940,066 1,299,492 2,598,366 1,665,748 3,355,025 2,139,533 2,408,723 2,736,620 2,884,812 Other Financing Sources Bond Proceeds 17,365,000 7,655,000 1,160,000 5,550,000 800,000 2,200,000 Bond Proceeds. Current Refund 635,064 635,064 16,000,064 7,655,000 1,160,000 5,550,000 635,064 600,000 2,200,000 TOTAL REVENUES 49,784,760 13,269,223 2,069,076 7,748,027 2,034,983 1,940,066 1,934,556 2,598,366 2,465,748 5,555,025 2,139,533 2,408,723 2,736,620 2,884,812 Expenditures Bond Principal (Sch 3) 17,365,000 4,870,000 490,000 595,000 1,205,000 905,000 995,000 470,000 625,000 845,000 795,000 915,000 2,055,000 2,600,000 Bond Principal- Current Refunding 635,000 635,000 Interest and Fiscal Charges (Sch 3) 5,611,578 2,117,073 125.607 281,249 464,190 406,101 354,603 309,385 287,075 288,045 336,675 289,675 234,900 117,000 Interest on Interfund Loans Total Debt Service 23,611,578 6,987,073 615,607 876,249 1,669,190 1,311,101 1,984,603 779,385 912,075 1,133,045 1,131,675 1,204,675 2,289,900 2,717,000 Auditing Fees 5,708 400 400 400 430 445 460 478 498 517 538 560 582 Bond Issuance Costs 118,750 20,711 90,660 7.379 Legal & Financing 116,411 34,360 18,427 19,625 2,521 21,478 20,000 Relocation Expense 346,258 346,258 Other Professional Services 310,434 61,663 83,138 30,994 15,821 4,566 14,252 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Other Services 13,087 614 12,473 Electricity 165 165 Properly Acquisition (Sch 4) 9,871,544 1,007,810 4,558,362 400,075 5,297 800,000 3,100,000 Façade Program 356,845 9,600 5.000 12,245 175,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Interior Buildout Program 353,742. 5,000 193,742 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Downtown Streetscape Program 4,137,275 217,831 19.080 106,397 301,381 526,684 315.902 1,350.000 700,000 600,000 Briel< Sidewalks 102,414 18,553 8,775 1,589 2,997 17,000 3,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Demolition (Sch 5) 589,550 37,788 126,398 79,325 96,039 250,000 Site Clean-up, Phase I (Sch 7) 2,183,401 396,089 783,003 504,309 500,000 Infrastructure (Sch 6) 1,718 1,718 NW Electric Sales Tax Rebate 791,268 67,466 69,677 82,819 86,131 89,577 93,160 96,886 100,761 104,792 Residences at VC Development Incentive 499,634 21,478 150,862 69,697 257,597 Lofts and Shops at VC Development Incentive Shires Development Incentive 100,000 50,000 50,000 Emerson Park Improvements 500,000 500,000 Interfund Transfer 371,558 56 1,671 369,831 Capital Spending 5,399,162 5,399,162 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,780,502 12,386,235 2,029,937 6,195,107 3,488,692 2,367,086 2,984,424 1,239,274 3,718,289 5,762,816 2,282,949 2,002,099 2,491,221 2,832,374 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 4,257 882,988 39,139 1,552,920 (1,453,709) (427,020) (1,049,868) 1,359,093 (1,252,541) (207,791) (143,416) 406,624 245,399 52,439 FUND BALANCE, ENDING 4,257 882,988 922~127 2,475,047 1,021,338 594,318 (455,550) 903,543 (348,998) (556,789) (700,205) (293,581) (48,181) 4,257 1 of 12 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR MICHAEL W. JACOBS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 6, 2004 SUBJECT: PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE BACKGROUND As you may recall, on April 20th the Village Board approved a variety of Text Amendments to the Village Code. Although a number of issues were addressed in the approved amendments, the Village Board continued their review of the following items: ./ Flags & Flagpoles ./ Pavement Separation ./ Driveway Widths ./ Attached Garages To assist in your review of the remaining proposed amendments to the Village Code, this memo has been formatted to include the following information for each of the issues identified above: . A summary of each issue to be considered; . An outline of the Village's current regulations; . Staff s initial recommendations; . The final recommendations by the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission; . The Village Board's initial comments; and . Additional Staff comments. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Issue: Fla!!s & Fla!!poles - The Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles, as well as the number of flags, within any of the single-family or multi-family residential districts. The code specifically excludes flagpoles from the various residential district height limitations (along with chimneys, steeples and radio/television antennas). In addition, the Village Code is also generally silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zonin"g districts. Existing Regulations: R-X, R-l, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts - Height Limitations, Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the Zoning District's height limitations: a) Chimneys; b) Flagpoles; c) Steeples; and d) Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structures. PZ-4I-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - May 11, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Staff's Initial Recommendations: Sign Code - Section 7.205:E. Flags: Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, shall be permitted per zoning lot. No more than two (2) flags shall be displayed on a single-family property at one time, and each flag shall not exceed a maximum size of three (3) feet by five (5) feet. Non-Residential Districts: A maximum of three (3) flagpoles, with no more than two (2) flags on a pole, shall be permitted per zoning lot. The maximum height permitted for the flagpole shall not exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. For flags flown from a flagpole, such flagpole shall be a minimum of four (4) times the length of the flag. In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions would apply to flags and flag poles within all zoning districts: I) Location: Flagpoles or flag supports shall not be located within a required interior side yard. A flagpole or flag support shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any property line. Flags, flagpoles and flag supports shall be located in such a manner that no portion of the flag will project over any property line or contact any other structure when fully extended. Roof mounted flags, flagpoles or flag supports are prohibited. 2) Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes regarding the use and display of the United States flag. P&Z Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations regarding flags and flagpoles and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Board Comments: The Board generally concurred with Staffs recommendation; however, the majority of the Board supported increasing the maximum height for flagpoles within residential districts from 20 feet to 25 feet. Additional Staff Comments: During the Village Board's last review of this issue some concerns were raised regarding the proposed maximum of 3 flagpoles on non-residential properties. In reviewing various properties throughout the Village, Staff determined that the only instances where more than 3 flagpoles exist are the War Memorial at Lions Park and the two auto dealers (Buick and Volkswagen) on Rand Road. While the War Memorial consists of 6 flagpoles, the flags on display at the auto dealers are mounted on existing parking lot light poles. If the proposed amendments were adopted any existing flag display that meets the Village's current regulations would be considered legal non-conforming and be allowed to remain; however, any future flags or flagpoles would be subject to the new regulations. Issue: Driveway Width - The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway width to 35% of the lot width (there are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width). The code includes an exception for driveways that serve three-car garages, allowing a maximum driveway width that would match the width of the garage, but no greater than 32-feet, within 15-feet of the garage's front elevation. The driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would normally be allowed by Code. This approach is designed to result in driveway widths that are in keeping with the size of the property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, recent trends in home PZ-4I-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - May 11,2004 Page 3 of 6 design have seen an increase in both the size (2, 3 and 4-car) and orientation (front, side and rear-load) of garages. With this in mind Staff believes that the following amendments to the Village's driveway width limitations are warranted. Existing Regulations: Sections I4.22I5:A.3 and I4.22I5:A.3.a - Driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-I and R-2 Districts shall conform to the following requirements: 3. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot coverage of 35% for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. a. Width of driveways serving 3 -car garages shall be permitted to be up to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between garage doors plus 2 feet. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. Staff's Initial Recommendation: Sections I4.22I5:A.3 and l4.22I5:A.3.a 3. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot coyerage of limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. a. Width of Driveways serving ~ garages with a width greater than the maximum permitted driveway width in Section 14.2215:A.3.a may shalt be permitted to be up to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between the garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. P&Z Recommendation: The P&Z Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding driveway width (by a vote of 6-0), but questioned if the proposed limitations could address all of the potential garage/driveway configurations. Following a brief discussion, the Commission noted that in those instances where the proposed driveway width regulations could not address the specific design of a garage and driveway, the property owner could request relief from the Code. PZ-4l-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - May 11,2004 Page 4 of 6 Additional Staff Comments: In reviewing the issue of driveway width the following factors must be considered: . Definition of "Width" - The Village Code currently indicates that the maximum pennitted driveway width shall include all adjacent walkways. This stipulation was included to limit the overall width of the driveway and prevent sidewalks from becoming additional parking areas. However, the inclusion of all adjacent walkways has direct impacts on the design of walkways and entryways. . Application of Driveway Regulations - The Village's existing regulations regarding driveway widths apply throughout an entire property, regardless if the portion of the driveway is located within a required yard or in the permitted building envelope. . Relationship to Sidewalk Regulations - The Village Code currently pennits a maximum width of 5 feet for service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps that encroach into a required front yard. The existing 5-foot width limitation does not accommodate many of the recent trends in walkway/entryway design. In addition, the existing 5- foot limitation is less than the maximum width of 8 feet allowed for stoops that project into a required yard. . Lot Coverage - In reviewing the Village's various limitations regarding driveways and walkways it is important to note that the Village Code includes underlying lot coverage limitations for all residential zoning districts. Potential Options: In reviewing this issue Staff has identified the following options that could be used (either individually or in combination) to regulate driveway widths: 1) Front Yard Lot Coverafle Limitation - To provide some design flexibility while also maintaining a minimum amount of green space, a lot coverage limitation could be established for the front yard. This limitation could be based on the zoning district's underlying lot coverage limitations (ranging from 35% to 50% depending on the district). In applying this approach it is still suggested that a maximum driveway width be established. 2) Varied Materials - To help visually separate various paved surfaces the Village Code could be amended to require different materials, patterns, or colors between various paved surfaces. 3) Establish Specific Limitations For Each Desifln Element - This option would maintain the Village Code's current approach by defining specific size limitations for driveways and walkways. To help accommodate greater design flexibility the current limitations could be changed (such as increasing the maximum walkway width from 5 feet to 8 feet or 10 feet). In addition, specific language could be developed to determine what is included in driveway width. PZ-4I-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - May 11,2004 Page 5 of 6 Issue: Pavement Separation - The Village Code contains specific regulations regarding a variety of paved surfaces, including, but not limited to, driveways, patios, stoops and service walks. The issue that often confronts Staff, however, is how to clearly delineate one type of pavement from another when the pavement areas are adjacent to each other. For example, if a driveway serving a detached garage in the rear of a property is located directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become (either temporarily or permanently) a parking pad seeing that a vehicle could access the patio area directly from the driveway. Another example would be if a homeowner would like to place a small concrete pad along the side of their house as an area to locate their garbage cans. If the proposed pad was to be located directly adjacent to a stoop or service walk, the total paved area may exceed the size limitations for each individual element (service walk, stoop and concrete pad). To address the scenarios outlined above Staff has required a minimum separation of I-foot between paved areas; however, no formal language addressing this issue is included in the Village Code. In response Staff suggested specific language be included in the Village Code to require a minimum I-foot separation between different pavement areas. It should be noted that this separation requirement would not apply to those situations where pavement connections are needed (such as where a service walk would connect to either driveway and/or patio). Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: P&Z Recommendation: Board Comments: None A minimum separation of I-foot shall be provided between all paved areas (including driveways, patios, service walks, etc.). This requirement shall not apply in those situations where pavement connections are needed to provide pedestrian access from one paved surface to another. The general consensus of the Commission was that a required pavement separation would not prevent the potential storage of vehicles on various paved surfaces, thus requiring a specific pavement separation within the Village Code would not be beneficial. Prior to the P&Z Commission's review of this issue, the consensus ofthe Village Board was to require a minimum separation of 2 feet (thus allowing easier maintenance). During the Village Board's most recent review of this issue it appeared that the consensus was to support the P&Z Commission's recommendation; however, the Board wanted to review this issue in conjunction with driveway widths. Issue: Attached Garaees - The Zoning Code currently contains some vague language regarding attached garages within the Village's single-family residential districts. To address this issue Staff suggested the Village Code be amended to include specific restrictions regarding the maximum permitted size of attached garages. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: The Village Code previously listed "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-I & R- 2 Districts, and "Single-Family Dwellings" as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 & R-4 Districts. The recently approved text amendments included specific language to address these inconsistencies within the Village Code. The Village Code was amended to include "Single-Family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-A, R-I, R-2, R-3 & R-4 Districts. This amendment; however, did not limit the size of attached garages. During the Planning & Zoning Commission's review of this matter Staff presented a number of options in regulating the size of attached garages. These PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - May 11, 2004 Page 6 of 6 options included establishing a maximum garage size based on the size of the house or controlling the exterior appearance of the garage. P&Z Recommendation: Following review of this issue, and potential restrictions on the size of attached garages, the P&Z Commission determined that the garage size is not as important as the visual impact from the street. To address this issue the P&Z Commission recommended (by a vote of 6-0) that a restriction be included within the Village Code that would allow no more than a 3-car garage to face the street (including the front and exterior side yards). The specific language is outlined below. Limitations Ref!ardinf! Attached Garaf!es In Sinf!le-Familv Residential Districts: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one ofthe following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. Additional Staff Comments: It is important to note that the recently adopted text amendment to the Village Code now includes all garages when calculating floor-are a-ratio (FAR). This may be sufficient in limiting the overall size of garages. CONCLUSION Staff looks forward to reviewing these various issues with the Village Board during the May 11 th meeting. In addition to the attached exhibits, Staff will present additional information during the meeting to help clarify the various proposed amendments. . William J. oney, AICP Director of Community Development H:/PlanlPlanning & Zoning COMM!P&Z 2004/StaffMemos/PZ-41-03 MEJ MEMO (remaining 4 issues) , .æ ~ U qJ ~a IS~ e~ a~ m a ~ ~ LL: 9J .~ ~ <::) ~~ -~ ~ -e~ CIJ"~ ~~ 6~ Q ~ ~~ ~a ~-8 ~...... ~~ (ije ~ ~,' ~..,~' -S .ir. 't1i ....~ CIJ"~ ~~ 6~ 9 ~ ...~ ~ 16(:) :t-8 AJ...... ~~ ~e 'ï:: s .~~ ~ ~t::ßI ~ -s ~~ill¡. tJ ~ ~¡ilili ~ ~ ~:m-!!Ooo ~ t:: illl~ -§ 6 \J Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T. O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1700 W. CENTRAL ROAD, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056-2229 PHONE 847/870-5640 FAX 847/253-9377 TOO 847/392-1235 SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE AND TIME: Public Works Building 1700 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Monday May 10, 2004 7:00 p.m. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Citizens to be Heard Old Business New Business A. Traffic study at the Intersection of I-aka Avenue & Evergreen Avenue B. Traffic study at the Intersection of Prospect Manor Avenue & Memory Lane C. Traffic study at the Intersection of Fairview Avenue & Henry street Commission Issues Adjournment 'NöfÈ:iÂNÝ iNÓlvfbùA'iWk ^, ,i " .~qÇÞMMQC>Åtí '"iN'~'f"'>"i," $J~.gEr:}i47/3 TRUSTEES Timothy 1. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel MAYOR Gerald L. Farley III. IV. VI. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: (847) 392-6000 Fax: (847) 392-6022 TDD: (847) 392-6064 Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION ORDER OF BUSINESS REGULAR MEETING Meeting Location: Village Hall 100 South Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: May 13, 2004 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 1, 2004 OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Discussion - Commission's Goals and Objectives 4th of July Parade "Diversity" REPORTS [Commission/staff] . Family Issues . Suburban Mosaic Book of the Year . Affordable Housing ADJOURNMENT MINUTES COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION 2ND Floor Conference Room, Public Safety Building Thursday, April 1, 2004 7:00 p.m. The meeting of the Community Relations Commission (CRC) of the Village of Mount Prospect was held Thursday, April 1, 2004 in the 2nd floor conference room of Village Hall, 100 South Emerson, Mount Prospect, Illinois. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brennan called the meeting to order at 7: 05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present Commissioner Schultz Commissioner Tolbert Commissioner Parikh Absent: Commissioner Muench Also in attendance: Mayor Gerald L. Farley Joe Hanafee resident Lisa Angell staff liaison APPROVAL OF MINUTES Following the discussion of the question regarding the use of CDBG housing funds, page 2, paragraph 10, 2nd question, a motion to approve the March 4, 2004 meeting minutes was approved and seconded. The minutes were approved as written. OLD BUSINESS . Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) [At the March 4, 2004 meeting Ms. Marisa Warneke, Community Development Neighborhood Planner, provided an overview of housing programs in the Village's current CDBG 5 year consolidated plan. At that time Ms. Warneke also indicated her willingness to explore with the Commission the possibility of incorporating their affordable housing objectives in the Village's 2005 CDBG 5 year consolidated plan.] Since the March 4, 2004 meeting additional discussions regarding affordable housing in Mount Prospect, and what role the Commission should have in promoting affordable housing in the Village have taken place. Commissioner Schultz summarized her meeting with Mr. Hanafee which was a review of the current CDBG budget. Commissioner Schultz stated she also contacted Ms. Warneke for additional information on the HUD programs and affordable housing guidelines. However, due to the massive amount of documentation, and further clarifi- cation on what documents would facilitate their research on affordable housing, Commissioner Schultz and Mr. Hanafee had not met with Ms. Warneke. Ms. Warneke also indicated Chairman Brennan and Mayor Farley would be meeting first to discuss the Commission's activities including its interest in promoting affordable housing opportunities in Mount Prospect. Chairman Brennan stated he and Mayor Farley did meet to discuss the Commission's various activities including affordable housing. Chairman Brennan then invited the Mayor to share his thoughts on what role the Commission could have in promoting affordable housing in the Village. The Mayor expressed his support of the Commission's interest in affordable housing programs and complimented the Commission on their proactive efforts to promote diversity such as the Racism Forum and the Mosaic Suburban Book of the Year. He believes these types of programs are constructive for building diverse and inclusive neighborhoods. Mayor Farley reaffirmed the Boards support in working in a constructive manner with the Commission. Mayor Farley closed his comments by stating community leaders have maintained a long-standing commitment to keep housing in Mount Prospect affordable; the Village currently exceeds HUD guidelines for affordable housing. Next, Chairman Brennan asked the members what role they would like to see the Commission take, on the issue of affordable housing. Commissioner Schultz stated she would like to research how other communities have addressed affordable housing, and what contributed to their success. Commissioner Tolbert asked what was considered affordable housing in Mount Prospect, and what criteria is used to establish a benchmark for affordable housing? In response to Commissioner Tolbert's question it was noted that one of the criteria used by HUD is the percent of household income spent on housing costs; less than or equal to 30% of annual household income. Chairman Brennan reviewed the comments from the Racism Forum which have helped the Commission identify issues to consider; diversity and affordable housing. He also reviewed the various CDBG funding programs, and wondered if the Commission would support proactive measures to facilitate awareness of the available funds to minority populations. Commissioner Parikh suggested the Commission review its intended purpose first, and then prioritize and focus on the goals/objectives expressed at the Forum that are within the realm of the Commission's charge. Chairman Brennan asked the Mayor to talk about what the intent of the Village Board was when creating the Community Relations Commission. The Mayor responded that the Village of Mount Prospect is a proactive rather than a reactive community. The Mayor and Village Board believed the Commission would be a positive force in this practice, and enhance the Village's efforts to be more inclusive. Although the members agreed it was important to define the Commission's general purpose, many of the questions/comments centered on the Commission's level of involvement on affordable housing issues. The staff liaison informed the members that Brian White with the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities will be at the next Family Issues Committee Meeting, April 20, 2004. Commissioner Schultz and Mr. Hanafee both indicated they would like to attend the meeting. The staff liaison provided the details regarding the date and time and suggested they contact Nancy Morgan to let her know they would be attending. Chairman Brennan suggested the Commission take time to review the Village Code governing the Community Relations Commission, the comments/suggestions from the Racism Forum, the CDBG priorities, and be prepared to discuss these items at the May Commission meeting. Chairman Brennan asked the staff liaison to mail these documents to the members in advance of the next meeting. . Suburban Mosaic Book of the Year Chairman Brennan stated the program continues to receive very positive support; Village Trustees, Mount Prospect Council of Churches, Sunrise Rotary, etc. Chairman Brennan also mentioned another program that was suggested at the last Suburban Mosaic Book committee meeting. A "movable feasf' which would facilitate understanding of different cultures by having the family(s) of two different cultures share a meal in one of their homes or worship centers. Although the initial program would be designed for two cultures to meet, the ultimate goal would be to have several cultures participate in the same "feast" Chairman Brennan stated he has done a lot of work publicizing the program as has the Daily Herald. A letter about the program and selected books will go out to both public, and private schools under Chairman Brennan's signature. It is the Committee's intent to have everything in place so the program can start in June 2004. There are three reading categories: teen/adult, middle school and elementary. Teen/adult House on Manao Street Middle school The Bread Winner Elementary Everybody Cooks Rice (tentative) Hoping to get an author to talk about their book at one of the local libraries the participating libraries have pledged money for the author(s) fee. [It was mentioned that authors are typically drawn to bookstores rather than libraries to promote their books.] Chairman Brennan reported the Sunrise Rotary had donated $500 to the program for publicity. He asked Mayor Farley if funding would be available from the Village. The Mayor responded that funds would be available to the Commission. Additional comments/questions regarding the Mosaic Suburban Book of the Year. Chairman Brennan - flyer promoting the program should be finalized by late April he will get flyers to Mayor Farley for distribution at suburban Mayors' meeting selected books are available in paperback, audio, English and Spanish author of House on Manao Street is Cisneros Commissioner Tolbert- if the flyers are available he will see if they can be displayed on the literary table at the Rotary's District Conference. Commissioner Schultz- gave Chairman Brennan the Spanish translation of the flyer Commissioner Parikh - he would like to assist in publicizing the program. NEW BUSINESS No new business was scheduled for discussion. However, Commissioner Parikh did ask the members to consider another proactive measure to facilitate understanding and acceptance of our diverse population. Commissioner Parikh related to the members how he had successfully worked with the Mount Prospect library to recognize the Asian culture during its celebration period. Commissioner Parkih suggested the Commission develop a similar approach to enhance community awareness and greater insight into the many cultures that make this community. One suggestion was for the Village to do a proclamation honoring the culture(s) that has a special event or religious holy day(s) in a specific month. Chairman Brennan encouraged Commissioner Parikh to include this as a goal when the Commission discusses goals/objectives at the May meeting. REPORTS Family Issues - no report OTHER Chairman Brennan asked all those present to join him in congratulating Commissioner Parikh and his wife Hema on their 25th wedding anniversary, March 23rd. Chairman Brennan stated he would be out of town for the regularly scheduled May meeting and wondered if it could be rescheduled for May 13th. The Commission fully supported his request and the next Commission meeting was scheduled for May 13, 2004, 7:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room of Village Hall, 100 South Emerson. Commissioner Schultz asked if she and Mr. Hanafee should continue to meet about affordable housing. Chairman Brennan indicated they should continue to meet, and the Mayor asked Commissioner Schultz to contact Marisa Warneke about the requested HUD documentation. The Mayor asked the staff liaison to let Ms. Warneke know Commissioner Schultz would be contacting her to set a time to meet and determine which documents would be beneficial to their research. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, M. Lisa Angell Staff Liaison 847.870.5640 MAYOR Gerald 1. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: Fax: TDD: 847/818-5328 847/818-5329 847/392-6064 ** REVISED AGENDA ** ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: 2nd Floor Conference Room Village Hall lOO South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Tuesday May 11, 2004 8:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Aprill, 2004 meeting IV. OLD BUSINESS A. B. Development Update Downtown Redevelopment status V. NEW BUSINESS VI. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. C:IWin2kProfileslVLowelLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FiIesIOLKC\5-6-04 EDC agenda. doc