Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2004 COW minutes 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 lade!. 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 lhe 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 th~ 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, I /J - J ~(þ:.J $:..bu DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6