Glenview board approves Glenview Connect plans

In a move that's likely only the tip of the iceberg, the Glenview Village board of trustees on Tuesday approved an Economic Development Strategic Plan and a Downtown Strategic Plan resulting from the nearly yearlong Glenview Connect process.

Crafted by consulting planning and urban design firm Callison RTKL and real estate advisory firm Ricker Cunningham with public input through virtual and in-person workshops and open houses, the 247-page document offers guidelines for development in five study areas, including downtown Glenview.

"This is trying to ready the environment for investment by providing the board with numerous potential strategies that they may use to realize the comments and the direction and vision that was provided by the community as part of the Glenview Connect process," said presenter Jeff Brady, Glenview's director of Community Development.

"The plan doesn't have any prescriptive, specific actions for projects included in it. It's really a tool kit that has potential opportunities and broad strategies for the Village Board to ready that environment and to bridge any economic gap that might exist between what the market can support on new redevelopments in these particular areas, compared to what the community desires as part of the vision that they describe as part of this Glenview Connect process."

The final Economic Development Strategic Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan may be viewed at glenviewconnect.com.

In the Economic plan's appendix an "Implementation Matrix" lists numerous possible initiatives, a timeline for doing them, and who might be expected to pay for them.

Despite the open houses that generated some 800 comments, the 302 participants in a Glenview Connect survey or the 70-90 people who took part in each of the six board workshops, other than general themes there was little clear public consensus toward specific actions or wants.

In the words of one of the two visitors who spoke during public comment, community preference was "scattered."

The specifics that emerged were an emphasis on the downtown area - itself separated into five "character zones" primarily extending along Glenview Road - a preference toward incorporating open space and an opposition to dense developments of four stories or more.

As trustee Tim Doron said: "A lot of times I heard more about what the community didn't want to see than what they did want to see."

The consultants currently are updating zoning regulations for the Downtown Development District, which is under a development moratorium until Oct. 21. Working with the Glenview New Development Commission they'll offer a public open house from 7-9 p.m. Aug. 12 in the lobby of Park Center, 2400 Chestnut Ave.

The New Development Commission has an open house scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 25 at Village Hall to review specific recommendations. The adoption of the zoning updates is set for Oct. 19.

Steps such as establishing "to-do" lists of action items, identifying staffing needs, creating a formal downtown association and speaking with property owners to see if they'd want, for example, facade improvements, Brady said could happen within the next six months to a year.

"I think it is great if we can get some of these things going rather quickly because we've put so much work against it," said trustee Mary Cooper. "And then I think it's also realistic for people in the community to realize that some of these things really could take five to 10 years because they're big, long projects."

Trustee Gina DeBoni agreed: "This is a marathon, it's not a sprint."

The unanimous approval indicated trustees' excitement over the plans, but inevitably the economic gaps Brady acknowledged for development proposals - the difference in cost between what a developer will put into a project and the bottom line - will have to be reckoned with taxpayers.

As people indicated in those workshops and hearings, that also will be subject to further review.

"The premise that your consultant brought up was essentially downtown development was necessary, absolutely necessary. It's too expensive and it has to be subsidized," said the other resident who spoke near the end of the brief, 46-minute meeting.

"I strongly disagree with the concept that public subsidy is necessary or desirable, and just remind you that market forces prevail. You may build it, and they may not come."