Glenview trustees weigh options for downtown zoning code
There are Glenview residents who can align with village board Trustee Tim Doron, who on Tuesday stated a distaste for "canyonesque" streets in downtown Glenview.
Time and again during the Glenview Connect project that concluded last summer, participants derided proposed developments rising any taller than four stories, max.
Tuesday's board meeting, the first remote meeting since this past June 15 due to the uptick in cases of COVID-19, featured a first consideration of zoning code amendments for Glenview's downtown that came out of the Glenview Connect process.
The village's New Developments Commission recommended the amendments on Dec. 8, by a 7-1 vote. The document contained two options pertaining to height, concentrating on what kind of control the board, village commissions and the public could have over development proposals.
Other than the possible inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations in the code, proposed by Trustee Gina DeBoni, those options were the main fodder for Tuesday's two-and-a-half-hour board meeting.
Building height was standard for both options in the downtown area, roughly bordered on the south by Dewes Street, extending north along Waukegan Road to Lake Avenue, and west to parcels on Washington Street.
A fifth story was eliminated from the new code, with the top of a roof deck on a four-story commercial/residential development rising 53 feet (48 feet along Waukegan Road) plus an additional 10 feet for rooftop architectural features.
An exemption would allow elevator "penthouses" up to 15 feet tall if they were set back more than 30 feet from the front facade.
Where the options differed was that Option 1 would allow four-story buildings on specific parcels by right, screened by final site plan review; Option 2 would allow three-story buildings to proceed by right, but four-story buildings would need Planned Development approval, which includes a public hearing.
After initially preferring Option 2, the New Developments Commission changed course and on Dec. 8 and recommended Option 1.
"The public will still have the opportunity in Option 1 if the developer is complying with the height requirements, to provide feedback on a proposal," said Jeff Brady, Glenview's director of Community Development.
"It's just mandated as part of the process (in Option 2). It happens in either one of the processes; it's just more of a specific requirement in Option 2," he said.
Village trustees were split, eventually requiring a tiebreaking vote by President Mike Jenny. His vote for Option 1 as presented in the amendment, causing a 4-3 outcome, came primarily to get the motion carried to a second board consideration on Jan. 18.
The issue kicked around by the trustees, as it had been by New Developments, was the clarity and certainty for developers provided by Option 1 and the flexibility and discussion afforded in Option 2.
"I think that Option 2 kind of helps provide a compromise for the residents who spoke out very loudly about three stories," said Trustee Mary Cooper. "Though (with) three stories, it's harder to make the (financial) numbers work, I think, if we had a little bit tighter rein on the treatment of the fourth floor that provides a good compromise."
Trustee Chuck Gitles, echoing Trustee Adam Sidoti's skepticism that a Planned Development might scare off developers, and Option 2 would be "unique to Glenview," called that option problematic.
"At this point I'm in favor of Option 1, given (what) we've discussed tonight as well as the Commission to vote 7-1 in favor of it," Gitles said.
Trustees Jim Bland, Gitles and Sidoti voted for the first option, with Cooper, DeBoni and Doron going for Option 2.