Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2004 COW minutes MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 24, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Pé?rk District Community Center, 1000 West Central RQad, by Village Manager Michael Janonis and accepted nominations from the floor for Mayor Pro Tem. Motion made by Trustee ladel to nominate Trustee Skowron as Mayor Pro Tem and Seconded by Trustee Hoefert. Motion was approved. Trustee Skowron assumed Mayor Pro Tem duties. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael lade!. Absent from the meeting were Mayor Gerald Farley and Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs and Finance Director Dave Erb. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from January 27, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee ladel. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE - PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS Community Development Director William Cooney provided a general background on the process that generated the report that will be presented this evening. Georqe K. Busse, Chairman of the Committee, provided the details of the Committee process. He stated the purpose of the study was to revalidate the process that has occurred to date and to review progress of the existing plan for modifications leading to the eventual completion of the downtown redevelopment. He stated the Committee undertook the study with several assumptions. Among those assumptions were the need to have areas for congregation, pedestrian-friendly areas, mix of residences and retail, attractive character and the continuation of the streetscape program. Community Development Director Cooney provided a review of the past progress and provided some general photos of the downtown prior to redevelopment and currently. He stated the TIF District was created in 1985. Among the projects undertaken were the Hemphill Development, the Clocktower Development. The first Ad Hoc Committee report highlighted a five-block area. That Committee recommended a three-phase program which was implemented in the spring of 1998 leading to the development of the area along Northwest Highway and 83 and Central. He stated the condominium sales have been stronger than anticipated and the Loft development has sold 26 of 34 units. He also provided an overview of the civic block development including the Village Hall construction project and the Library expansion. 1 He also highlighted the improvements the Village has undertaken including the General Store movement and the park development next to it. He also mentioned the train station improvements and the streetscape and traffic flow improvements related to the train station. Georqe Busse stated the Committee has broken down the downtown into six sub-areas with unique conditions attributable to each sub-area. Sub Area 1 - Busse Avenue - Small Trianqle Area He stated the size of the area in addition to the space limitations in addition to multiple owners provide significant impediments to development of this area. He also stated that based on the capacity of the TIF, this area is impractical financially to redevelop under the existing TIF. The Committee suggests a pedestrian-friendly area to serve as the gateway into the downtown, and to highlight the historical character by giving clear viewing space to the Busse Avenue businesses from Northwest Highway. It is also recommended that some retail space and parking be incorporated in the area. Sub Area 2 - Existinq Villaqe Hall Block Committee recommends redevelopment of Village Hall property only and not to deal with the buildings along 83. This is contradictory to a previous recommendation by the previous Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee felt that the redevelopment of the businesses along 83 will come in due course. Sub Area 3 - Remote Bank One Parkinq Lot Block The original plan called for all town homes along the west half of the block and projected approximately 18 units. This Committee has suggested a revision to those recommendations but still include a transition phase of town homes leading into the single-family home areas on Maple. The Committee felt that the town homes would be a welcome addition to the existing housing stock. The Committee is suggesting some open space at the north end of the block with a 50' setback with a park at the south end of the block more centrally located to Village Hall open space. The location at the southern end will allow for overflow of various events in the center part of downtown. He stated the Committee has reviewed the input from citizens concerning the park at the north end of the block and the Committee feels there can be some accommodation with an additional setback area. Sub-Area 4 - Bank One Block Bank One is currently not in the TIF area, however, other parts of the block are. The Committee recommends the Bank One area be redeveloped as mixed-use, retail and residential, with row homes facing Maple and such development would take place once a decision has been made by the current owners of the Bank One building. These recommendations were not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee review. 2 Sub Area 5 - Central Plaza Block The Committee focused on Central Plaza itself and did confirm that that block is not in the TIF area at this point. This block was also not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee report. However, based on the need to address the status of Central Plaza, the Committee recommends up to a three-story mixed residential and retail development which will likely need Village assistance to get redevelopment underway. The Committee felt the redevelopment of Central Plaza is critical due to its location at the entrance to the downtown. Sub Area 6 - Western Trianqle This area is bounded by Elmhurst Avenue, Central and Northwest Highway. This area was not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee review and the Committee has no recommendations at this time due to viable businesses currently occupying that area and the need to focus development along Route 83. George Busse stated the Committee also included economic issues which need to be considered and the Committee. win suggest that the Board focus on completing Areas 2 and 3 within the existing TIF timeframe. However, if Sub Area 1 is included with areas 2 and 3, there will be a need to extend the TIF to generate sufficient funding for Area 1 redevelopment. The Committee also suggests that Area 4 could redevelop on its own without Village assistance. Unfortunately, Sub-Area 5 will likely need Village assistance or a new TI F created for its redevelopment. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Several Board members thanked the Committee for its efforts and recommendations. There was a question regarding some additional details of the proposed development along Route 83 and the impact of the proposed or suggested surface parking lot to service the small triangle area. There were also clarification comments regarding various Sub-Areas and the option to increase the housing mix. It was mentioned about the concern of extending the TIF and the possible impact on other taxing bodies. Laurel DiPrima. member of School Distrièt 57 Board and the Ad Hoc Committee. spoke. She stated it is her understanding TIFs are nor bein!f extended without School District support as directed by the General Assembly at this time. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: It was mentioned that the report will require cost/benefit analysis to determine financial benefit and impact. It was also noted that the Committee recognized a desire to preserve historical buildings and clearly identify the challenges ahead. David Lindqren, 743 Whiteqate, a member of the Economic Development Commission, spoke. He stated on behalf of theEDC,. they. are supportive of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and noted that the previous decisions regarding the development in the TIF District have brought in returns higher than expected and an extension of the TIF might be warranted based on past history. 3 Bill Blaine. 119 North Emerson.. representinq SOSMP, spoke. He stated it is the Committee's purpose to retain open space at Central and Emerson as a park. He stated that the group can claim support of 70% of the voters and has significant political influence. He stated the Committee members are concerned about multiple story downtown structures and want the area at Central and Emerson preserved. "Central Park" has heritage trees and if the Park is developed at the southern end of the block, then these trees will be lost. His Committee suggests that the area at the northern end of the block be developed as a park initially and once a park at the southern end of the block is acquired then reconsideration could be made regarding the future of the park at the north end of the block. He is presenting a petition that includes 1,394 signatures which provides overwhelming support to protect the "park." He stated the voters that Committee members have talked to do not want anything but green space and are concerned about building on every available parcel in the downtown. He stated that the Board should be concerned about a refusal to acknowledge the voters which may impact them in the future regarding the "park." He stated the Ad Hoc Committee focused on economic issues and the Villagé Board, along with the Ad Hoc Committee has focused on materialism. He stated the community rejects materialism and the canyon-like views of multi-story bùildings. He stated the "park" can remain with benches and paths. He stated the Library visitors will utilize the "park." He stated previous comments have labeled the "park" as too dangerous and the "park" area can be separated from traffic with a fence. Max Ullrich. 319 South Pine, owner of Van Driel's. spoke. He stated the Village Board needs to do something about Central Plaza because it projects a poor image of the community right at the entrance to the downtown. He is supportive of the row home option on the block because he does not feel that the area can be legitimately redeveloped for a viable business purpose. Craiq Kopstain, 623 North Elmhurst. spoke. He is a member of SOSMP. He suggested the Village Board look to do something regarding Sub-Area 5, Central Plaza, because of its rundown nature. He also stated he has concerns about the reuse of the Bank One building and whatever the reuse of that building ends up being, it should complement the character of the existing structure. . Ron Ditthardt. 123 North Emerson. spoke. He stated that during his efforts to collect signatures, he did not encounter anyone person against the SOSMP position. He appreciates the opportunity to have input but stated that the reason previous input was not made by citizens because it is difficult to envision the appearance until work actually begins in many cases. He stated that previous Village Board comments about the value of the land need to be addressed because parks increase value of the surrounding land. He stated a previous comment also included the fact that the park location is in the wrong spot. He offered the location of the park adjacent to the Arlington Heights' Library. He also acknowledged the statement regarding the busy streets near the parksite and stated that many parks in Chicago are adjacent to busy streets. He would prefer to have the entire block as open space. Chuck Bennett, Five West Central, spoke. He stated that he likes the new condos and has been witness to the rebirth of the downtown firsthand. He stated the downtown should be family friendly and due to the limited available space, this may be difficult. He also voiced concerns about the difficulty of filling available retail space and questioned what is the right mix. Have any studies been formulated determining this mix? 4 He stated he is supportive of saving open space. He would feel that the development of town homes in the parking lot area could be undertaken with a proviso of park settings at either end of the block. He also felt that the current Village Hall site could be an excellent alternative location for open space so there is no high rise on that site. He is concerned about the financial impact about possibly closing Busse Avenue to vehicles as one suggestion by the Committee. He stated people need convenience to the businesses. Rich Benson. 220 Autumn Lane. President of School District 57 Board, spoke. He stated that the School District Board would be concerned about any possible TIF extension. Rich Scholl, 12 South Maple. spoke. He feels that putting a park at Central and Emerson could be problematic since he has experienced first-hand, the shift of traffic from Emerson to Maple during the construction process. He stated that once Emerson is reopened to traffic, the volume of traffic along Emerson will also be an issue. Ken Fritz, 1200 West Northwest Hiqhway. spoke. He stated that in previous downtown redevelopment plans, there is a desire for an urban design as defined in the 1976 plan where the focus was always as Emerson and Busse as the central point of the downtown with open space at all four quadrants of the intersection. He stated the current Village Hall site should be redeveloped as a commercial endeavor and outdoor activities should be centered on that intersection and they cannot be centered when the open space is at the north end of the block. Don Harmon, 16 North William, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about the existing Village Hall and the new Village Hall including area for seniors and the building should be only for business uses of the Village. He feels that the Library patrons should visit the downtown businesses and if there is too much traffic, this spin-off will not be possible. He also feels that town homes will also complement the existing housing stock in the community. Jackie Hinaber. 211 West Coventry, spoke. She wanted to set the record straight as a member of the Library Board. She stated the Library Board has at no time been in discussion with any representatives of this group about the use of the three lots for a park to complement the Library functions. She stated the Library Board did explore usage of those lots for additional parking or an annex building during previous Referendum discussions. However, the conclusion of the studies were such that the regular need to cross Emerson posed a distinct safety issue. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was stated that the Village Board will take the report under advisement. It was also stated that the Board is appreciative of the grass roots effort of the group. It was also noted that just because the group designates the area as "Central Park"qoes not mea.n.it e)(ists as a park. It was also stated that even though the group designates the trees as "heritage" trees, such designation has yet to be defined. It was noted that the Village Board has made a special effort to avoid the canyon effect which may be present in other communities by limiting the height and density of height on specific areas of the downtown. Village Board members acknowledged the fact that open space is desirable in the downtown. And the need to utilize open space with existing or programmed open space is very valuable for flexibility of the community use. It was also mentioned that green space should work in conjunction with green space that is being developed as part of the new Village Hall. 5 VI. VII. VIII. IX. DS/rcc V. REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY Finance Director Dave Erb provided an overview of the existing Policy and stated the last modification was made in April of 2001. He is recommending additional broker dealers and bank institutions for use by the Village. He stated that all institutions are involved in governmental finance operations and all credentials have been verified. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the recommendations to revise the Investment Policy of the Village and bring back for formal Village Board action in the near future. 2003 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director David Erb provided information on the preliminary and unaudited figures for 2003. He stated that these figures would be the starting point for the 2005 Budget discussions. He provided a comparison of the budgeted figures with the actual expenditures and revenues. He stated that revenues came in 1.67% over budget while expenditures were 14.52% under budget. He also stated that refuse and MFT funds came in under budget and the previously projected 2003 deficit was projected at $1.5 million that based on the year-end figures, that deficit is more likely to be $300,000. He stated the projected deficit for the 2005 fiscal year is $1.6 million. He stated there is a need to review the revenue stream for the upcoming Budget discussions. He also mentioned the impact of investment income in the pension funds. Village Manager Janonis stated that there is a workshop slated for mid-March to discuss plans for the 2005 Budget. This workshop session will be a Saturday meeting. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that he has no report and also stated that the Closed Session which had previously been scheduled has been cancelled for this evening. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks stated that the Lions Spaghetti Dinner at Grace Lutheran Church is February 27, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ / ¡J ~~ s;;:~ DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6