CONFUSION DELAYS NEW RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION

To clarify Village rules governing construction in existing Glenview neighborhoods and revise the rules governing larger projects, a team of developers led by Warren James proposed a new ordinance at last Tuesday's meeting of the Glenview Village Board, but the task of reviewing and revising it proved too much for the trustees and their leader.

   John Crawford thought definitions from Glenview's original ordinance should be added.  Donna Pappo said the provisions should govern both neighborhood and large subdivision development, and Rachel Cook wanted to clarify whether this new ordinance would apply to home additions.  Kent Fuller favored voting on the proposed ordinance to at least begin better regulation of teardowns, and John Patton felt fencing should be required around large subdivisions as well as smaller sites.

Confusion reigned and President Firfer attempted to summarize ways that the Board might proceed.  When her remarks failed to focus debate, Crawford suggested voting on Patton's idea – to require fencing of large developments.

Firfer jumped at the chance to settle what seemed a relatively simple question. Without reviewing the proposal or calling for debate, she pronounced the magic words: "All those in favor of Trustee Patton's amendment signify by saying aye." 

But the effort to escape complexity backfired.  Three Trustees voted yes.  Three did not.  "Three nays?" said Firfer.  "Okay, I wasn't sure.  Well then it's up to me.  Do we do, uh, fencing of –."  She paused, seeming suddenly uncertain again.  "Are we keeping this all in one ordinance?  This is what I'm not clear on?  I still don't know the approach . . . Does this mean the park district's going to have to fence in their site?  And the school, when they build, will be fencing in their site?  You're going to add great cost to all of those as well."

"I'm not sure if that's a great cost," said Patton. 

"Well what are we talking about?" asked Firfer.  "What kind of fence are we talking about if we're going to do a fence?  I guess I'm a little concerned, but I don't know if it's great cost to a project or little cost, and until this time we have had many large scale developments in Glenview, all around Glenview, that we have not had problems on . . . Are we creating something that there's not a problem on?  And I guess that's my concern.  What kind of fence are we requiring?  Are we going overboard?"

At that point, Village staffer Phil Knudsen came to the rescue, proposing to rewrite the construction ordinance.  Without comment on the fencing issue, Knudsen offered to define several categories of construction that might be regulated differently by the board.
"I think that's more of a logical approach, where you'd have one document with all the requirements in it for the different types," said Firfer.   "Some will be the same, some will be different, and I just think that makes so much more sense.  I would like to see something back here that then we can go through and take a look at.  That's an approach that I think is more logical because this is getting so convoluted, I'm even, was even – "

"How are you voting?" asked Trustee Crawford, returning to the original motion. 

"For the fence?" said Nancy.  "For the amendment?  I'm voting," she said, laughing, "I need more information on what we're requiring.  I would like a continuation so we can consider this more.  We're not sure what we're passing or what we're going to end up with."

Donna Pappo then called for the matter to be tabled.

"I think I'd like that because I would like to know what I'm voting for, and I certainly may be very much in favor of it," said Firfer.

With that, the Board voted unanimously to discuss the matter another time.
   
A PROLOGUE  

One important point lost in the confusion of debate came from local builder Gary Rizzo who read about proposed changes to the construction ordinance in the Glenview Announcements and took a drive through the Glen.  Rizzo complained erosion control rules that are enforced at small construction sites seem to be ignored when work is being done on a massive scale.

At the Glen, he said, "I see a lot of grade above curb line that is not erosion protected, so in a hard rain, soil is running off into the streets.  I did read that there's a street sweeping program, but they obviously didn't sweep today.  It's quite dirty, and there's a lot of mud clumps around.  If I left a site like that, I'd be cited in a heartbeat.  The neighbors wouldn't tolerate it." 

Rizzo went on to point out greater harm to the entire community.  Silt from the Glen is running into the public storm sewers of Glenview and perhaps into our creeks and streams.  "This is something that should be looked at pretty closely," he said.

Missing the point completely, Board President Firfer replied, "We're not exempting soil erosion in this ordinance. we're not exempting any of these large developments." 

"That I understand," said Rizzo, "but it looks exempt."

"From the Announcements or from the ordinance?" asked Firfer.

"From my observations on the site," Rizzo replied.

"Well, that's an enforcement issue," said Firfer, dismissing Rizzo's concern. 

POST OFFICE PRAYS FOR DELIVERY

The General of the Glen, Don Owen, predicts ground will be broken  next spring for Glenview's new post office, but the postal service isn't so sure.  Years ago, the postal service told Village officials that eight acres were needed at the Glen, but the Village set aside only five acres and is resisting demands for more land. 

Also up for debate, the route that postal service trucks will take.   They'll be heading for a site behind the new Dominick's, and the postal service would like to use Shermer Road north of Lake Avenue. The Village rejects that idea, suggesting the mail trucks use Dominick's service road.  Postal workers sworn to deliver mail in all kinds of weather don't want to depend on a grocery store to clear the road of snow and ice, especially in the wee hours when mail trucks come and go.

Which raises another thorny question.  Do the buyers of some pricy homes at the James Company's neighboring Southgate development realize that semis will be arriving at midnight, 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., six days a week?  Do they know that from the second floor of their houses, they'll have a scenic view of the post office, its loading dock and 143 parking spots?  Will residents be fuming over the truck fumes wafting their way?

FIRFER FLUNKS THE TESTS

Village Board President Nancy Firfer, a former teacher, startled a post-parade audience on Memorial Day, telling the group the U.S. Army is celebrating its 50th birthday this year.
Huh?  Some guys in the crowd knew better.  They had served in the Army during World War II more than 50 years ago.

At Tuesday's Board meeting, Firfer repeated the claim before presenting an honorary plaque to an army recruiting officer.  Having failed the history test, she proceeded to flunk math, explaining that the first Continental Congress had established the U.S. Army in 1775.

The officer gently corrected Firfer, noting that this is – in fact – the 225th anniversary of the Army and gallantly blamed his office for failing to provide the Village President with proper information.

GLENVIEW INSISTS ON THE  "SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE"

The James Company must build a sidewalk along Landwehr Road behind its Glenridge Meadows development.  Residents there begged for a delay, pointing out the sidewalk would not connect to anything, that several trees and a large number of bushes would be lost and that a partial walk already exists on the east side of Landwehr.

Homeowners' association president Dee Nahigian told the board, "Our tree canopy is extremely important to us.  It is imperative to the peace and quiet of our community.  It is critical for us to have that protection."

Representatives from District 31, including the schools' superintendent, had other ideas.  They argued that kids could not safely walk to Winkelman or Field schools (located on the east side of Landwehr) unless a sidewalk was built on the west side.  "The children are more important than anything else – money, trees," said the vice president of District 31's School Board.

Trustee Donna Pappo proposed a compromise – asking the James Company to complete the eastside walk. "It would be more effective for children, for the hospital, for the ice rink to have one continuous sidewalk rather than forcing people to cross back and forth," she said.
Trustee Rachel Cook added that Landwehr has no stop signs or traffic lights from Willow to Lake.  What's more, the speed limit is 40 miles per hour.  She urged the Board to work toward making the road slower and safer.

Board President Nancy Firfer admitted that the west side walk might never be completed since some right-of-way lies in unincorporated Glenview, but Trustee Kent Fuller went with chapter and verse: "Sidewalks tend to be controversial because they involve change," he said, "We have a policy of putting sidewalks on both sides of arterial roads, filling them in as we go." 

In the end, all but one Trustee (Larry Carlson) voted to require construction of the sidewalk, Fuller predicting the trustees would be forgiven by the folks at Glenridge Meadows when new bushes grow in.

BOARD TOSSES TEARDOWN ISSUE BACK TO PLAN COMMISSION

The longest and most heated debate of the evening was largely a rehash of prior Board and Plan Commission hearings.  Chatham Road resident Richard Feit again pleaded for "proportional construction" – limiting tear downs to a 30 percent increase over the average square footage of existing homes on a block.  Calling for "common sense" and "good judgment," he challenged the Board "to protect the beauty and charm of older neighborhoods being hit by teardowns" with a moratorium.

Grant Ireland, Norma Morrison and a few other residents agreed with that sentiment and said a moratorium on teardowns was needed to allow time for passage of effective controls, but developers in the crowd were outraged by the idea. 

Builder Bernie Schmitt rejected the notion that neighbors should have any say in how a homeowner chooses to develop his property.  Citing market demand for larger homes, he told the board, "There isn't one house that I've built in Glenview that I've forced anyone to move into... They want bigger rooms.  They want three-car garages because they can afford it, they've worked hard for it, and this is what they feel they deserve."

"Look at the naval base," he added.  "That's one big teardown when you think about it.  That's progress – wonderful progress."

Schmitt acknowledged that a 12,000 square foot home described by Feit was extreme, "but you can't make laws and rules for one or two exceptions . . . I think Glenview should be known as a city where we can do business in a reasonable, civil manner."

The Board decided not to impose a moratorium, noting that the Plan Commission will begin discussing new regulations for tear downs on Tuesday (June 13).  The Trustees asked the commission to move quickly in crafting a new teardown ordinance, saying they would like to vote on something at their July 18 meeting.

As participants left the board room, an argument erupted and continued for nearly 30 minutes in the lobby.  Builder Schmitt, who had just called for civility, shouted at Norma Morrison.  Implying a communist plot by those who favored the moratorium, he told the long-time resident of Glenview to "go back to where you came from – Russia or China or wherever!"

CATELLUS AGREES TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL SUGGESTIONS

While Glenview's Environmental Review Committee has no legal right to advise the builders of an industrial park adjacent to the Air Station Prairie Preserve, Catellus executive Dan Marcus said his company would consider suggestions from the ERC. 

The President of the Glenview Prairie Preservation Project, Sandy Hausman, asked the Board to exact that promise and showed pictures of various grassland and wetland birds seen this spring on Catellus' land, adjacent to the prairie.  Among them, meadowlarks whose population dropped 67percent between 1967 and 1989 and savannah sparrows who disappeared at a rate of 59 percent over the same time period. 

"If Catellus is concerned about our environment, if Catellus intends to be a good corporate citizen," she said, "then I think we need to know whether this company is willing to work with our Environmental Review Committee to consider its suggestions on how to develop in a way that will not jeopardize the future of these birds."

Hausman pointed out, for example, that Catellus had pledged to plant one tree for every five parking spaces it builds.  "If you want to protect grassland birds," she said, "you don't want trees in the neighborhood.  Hawks will sit up there and prey on the baby grassland birds below.  This is the kind of detail that the Environmental Review Committee has called to our attention.  It seems small to us, but it makes a very big difference to mother meadowlarks and savannah sparrows."
Catellus said it was the Village that had required the planting of trees and expressed a willingness to consider ERC recommendations as development proceeds.  Trustee Fuller said he wanted scientists from Glenview's prairie consulting firm Conservation Design Forum to help Catellus landscape its property,  and Trustee Cook said she would like the ERC to weigh in on the issue "before we go to the expense of planting trees."

ECHOES FROM CALIFORNIA

Meanwhile, from Catellus country we hear a surprising tale.  The San Francisco-based developer is a major player at the Alameda Naval Air Station across the bay.  When that base announced plans to close,  politicians got excited by the prospect of new development – new tax revenues, but citizens raised environmental concerns and began fighting to preserve habitat for wildlife.
Unlike Glenview, Alameda had a federally endangered bird – the least tern -- nesting at the Base, and Washington insisted on preservation of 565 acres.  The land will be added to the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.  That may sound swell to Glenview's environmental forces, but some folks in Alameda aren't satisfied.  They thought more should have been saved.
"Every bird habitat is important," says one woman who has kept a close watch on Alameda's redevelopment.  "That's the problem.  You lose 69 acres here, 30 acres there, and the birds leave.  You can't crowd the same number of birds onto fewer and fewer acres."

Besides fighting for habitat, community residents are questioning the need for the  upscale homes Catellus wants to build at Alameda and a 200-acre golf course planned for the former naval air station.  They're also upset by plans to build a new Home Depot down the road in Hayward.
And you thought Glenview was unique.

MORE TO COME ...

This week's Watch is a little too long to be e-mailed.  We will, therefore, send it in two parts.

BOARD BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON GLENVIEW STATE BANK

The Village Board refused immediate re-zoning for Glenview State Bank's property on Chestnut Street next to the Great Park.  The bank hopes to build a large office building at the site and had asked for re-zoning from "industrial" to "B-2" – a decision that could influence zoning of adjacent properties in the future.  B-2 classification allows a wide variety of businesses from animal hospitals and bowling alleys to taxidermy and mortuaries. 

Re-zoning is usually done with the best interests of a community in mind – and those interests are usually outlined in something called a "comprehensive plan."  Glenview's comprehensive plan is 10 years old and is set for review this fall.

In the mean time, the trustees asked the Plan Commission to think about whether and why all of the land along Chestnut should be re-zoned.  At the very least, some Trustees feel "B-2" is too broad a category and prefer "B-1" – a classification that allows mainstream forms of commerce like restaurants, bakeries, book and gift shops, florists, apparel and toy stores.

Ironically,  the Plan Commission debated the size of Glenview State Bank's proposed building, the fact that it would be taller than permitted under local zoning law and the fact that it is set back from the street by only 15 feet, but they failed to recognize that B-2 might not be right for the property or even necessary.  B-1 zoning allows banking and drive through services.
   
LEHIGH TRIANGLE COALITION WINS UNENFORCEABLE PROMISE

Still worried by architectural drawings showing parking lots, town homes and trees where their businesses now stand, owners of properties along Lehigh Road – collectively known as the Lehigh Triangle Coalition – asked the trustees to approve a resolution pledging not to condemn or initiate re-zoning of their land.  Village attorney Jeff Randall had written such a promise for the Board, but many Trustees preferred language submitted by the Lehigh Triangle Coalition's lawyer.

Fending-off criticism of his draft, the village lawyer said he would rewrite the resolution and submit it to board members for final approval.  Randall also told the trustees that neither resolution was enforceable.  "You're not bound never to do anything," he said. 

Glenview Watch wonders, if the resolution is not legally binding, why bother?

NEW GREENWOOD DEVELOPMENT WINS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

The Board also okayed a site plan on Greenwood north of Lake.  Four small homes on the west side of the street will be torn down so developers can erect a new eight-home subdivision.  Several Trustees questioned the placement of houses – their backs to the existing neighborhood – and the density of the plan, but the developer said it was not economical to build anything less than eight homes.  A majority of the Trustees approved the plan.  A second vote will come at their next meeting June 20.

READERS WRITE:

Some folks from the Lehigh Triangle tell us they'll be joining a statewide protest of high gasoline prices.  Noting that Illinois pays more than any state except Hawaii, they urge consumers to boycott gas stations on June 28.

About those mysterious architectural drawings of the Lehigh Triangle and a claim by Plan Commission chief Tim Doron that they represent one possible look for that site 25 to 50 years from now, RW muses: "When have they ever planned so well?"

RS says, "You know this used to be a very nice village – peaceful, laid back and quiet.  What have we done?  This is just the beginning of a new era, an era of hustle and bustle.  Only problem is that we don't have the highways to handle all of this growth.  Lucky are those who can take the train.  Maybe bicycles will become our transportation of the future.  Not a bad thought."

With regard to a lawsuit by citizens hoping to block construction of the new Lehigh Road through grassland bird habitat at the Glen and Trustee Patton's assertion that the action was "frivolous," JL writes: "Those who tried to block Lehigh Road had my best interests at heart, and I do not think it was frivolous.  I resent Patton's assuming that what is good for Patton is good for me and Glenview.  He is arrogant and irresponsible as well as presumptuous in assuming so." 
    
Also, whether well meaning or not, our views and anyone else's views, no matter what they are, are all important and should not be silenced because government wants everything to go in a certain direction.  We should continue to question and probe what is happening in our city government even though that government has had it all one way for so long they can't understand there are people who think differently or may wish passionately to change that direction.  Patton has again shown us how he would run the city if given the chance, and that is doing it his way and to heck with those who dissent."

And with permission from Glenview resident Debby Rubenstein, we reprint her passionate letter to the Glenview Announcements:

"Regarding the controversy on environmental upheaval during the construction on the former naval base, I share the experience that I had today.  While driving south on Lehigh, just south of the Willow Road overpass, I drove past a bird sitting in the road.  When it did not fly away as my car approached, I knew that the bird was in trouble." 

"I continued driving to where I could turn around and head back to the bird.  I pulled off the road, intending to pick it up and take it to my vet.  My first problem was getting to the bird.  There was so much traffic on Lehigh due to the construction on Willow Road that I could not.  While several cars swerved around the bird, no one even slowed down to investigate why a woman was standing in the road waving her arms (in my vain attempt to get traffic to stop.)  Before I could get to the bird, someone hit it.  The bird was crushed and sent flip-flopping down the road."

"I do not know what kind of bird it was.  It was brown and white with a long, thin bill.  Perhaps it was ill or too young to fly properly.  I would not be surprised if the construction at the former naval base during nesting season was a factor in a nest being displaced or destroyed, resulting in the displacement of the bird."

"Glenview is in a sorry enough state with the traffic situation due to the abundance of construction without construction also causing the destruction of wildlife.  Are the battered bodies of dead birds going to be the symbol of Glenview's progression?"

YOUR TURN

What's on your mind? Drop us a line by e-mail at GlenviewWatch@aol.com or the old-fashioned way. We're at 3537 Maple Leaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60025. Thanks for reading. Dean Schott and Sandy Hausman, Co-Editors of The Watch.

To read past issues of Glenview Watch, Click Here