IMPORTANT ALERT: On Friday night 4/28, the Village posted their agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting to take place in person at Village Hall for Tuesday May 2, 2023, at 7:30 P.M. At the bottom of that agenda for the May 2, 2023, meeting, (attached), there is a resolution to authorize the execution of the Fifth Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Village of Glenview and The Drake Group (“Drake”) for the sale of the 1850 Glenview Road. This is land owned by the Village. Download Agenda for 5.2.23 Meeting RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL MEETING ON APRIL 25, 2023 Based upon this agenda item, we now know the purpose of the Special Meeting on April 25, 2023 -- to discuss the contract with The Drake Group and the purchase of 1850 Glenview Road. Village Board decided not to post the video of this Special Meeting. A look at the minutes sheds no light on their discussion. Will we ever know how they voted behind closed doors resulting in a lack of transparency? Board of Trustees Special Meeting, 4-25-23 PROPOSING TO GIVE DRAKE A FIFTH (5TH) AMENDMENT OF HIS CONTRACT. Download the proposed Fifth (5th) Amendment Key points:
This extends Drake's contract until July 31, 2023.
The Village will forgo any further regulatory review, even though Drake never received Final Appearance Commission approval, as required by the Ordinance when his project was approved in 2020. (Ord. No. 6334).
Drake is being allowed to change his project in 2023, without public input.
Once again, if this resolution were to be adopted, the Village would be showing more loyalty to a developer than to neighboring property owners. The Village wants to get this building built: a large apartment building along the railroad tracks in the center of downtown Glenview. It apparently remains committed to Drake, too. None of the issues discussed for the past FIVE years have been resolved: the safety issues raised by publicly funded new road cuts at Depot Street, the tearing up of Pine Street for private water retention underneath, and the loss of parking with no replacement, among others. The Village is bending over for Drake. SHOW UP ON TUESDAY AND LET THE BOARD KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS On short notice, your help is needed. Ideally, please be there in person. No doubt, the Village will want to seek a quick public vote to be taken on Tuesday. Do you want transparency or business as usual? For public comment, you will be limited to three minutes. Even if you do not speak, just sitting there as an observer, you are denying the Village an empty room. If you do not want the Village Board to execute a Fifth Amendment, contact Village leadership, and tell them to vote "NO" to execute a Fifth Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1850 Glenview Road between the Village and Drake on 1850 Glenview Road. Send them a clear message. You can send an email the Village President and Trustees at the following: mjenny@glenview.il.us jbland@glenview.il.us mcooper@glenview.il.us gdeboni@glenview.il.us tdoron@glenview.il.us kjones@glenview.il.us asidoti@glenview.il.us (Note: Katie Jones, the newly elected trustee, may not have a working email address, but she is the person who will be voting on these agenda items at this meeting) Even better, let them know what you think in person on Tuesday May 2, 2023, at 7:30 p.m. Even as an observer, you are doing your part. FIVE OF THE SIX TRUSTEES HAVE NEVER VOTED ON THE DRAKE PROJECT. OF COURSE, PRESIDENT JENNY WAS A 'YES'. Only one Trustee remains who voted on the 4th extension in January 2021 (Cooper, who voted NAY). The other five current Trustees are new to the Board since the 4th extension. No Trustee that voted for the original Drake contract on June 19, 2018, remains on this Board. This contract has been going on for nearly five years. Two years before a lawsuit was filed, Drake had focused his attention on getting concessions from the Village, not upon closing a sale. Given that five of the six Trustees have never voted on this project, I think every recipient of this email is better versed in the details of this project than any of them. If there are four “NAYS”, the Village President cannot break a tie. All Trustees should be contacted, but assuming Cooper remains a “NAY”, to avoid a tiebreaker 3 of the 5 new Trustees will need to be convinced to vote “NO”. Let them know why you think the vote on this project should be "NO". Let’s make them comfortable with an easy (and popular) decision! Their email addresses are above. DEVELOPERS OVER RESIDENTS? This is publicly owned land, and the Village has already spent millions of public dollars to support this private development. It is time to move on from Drake. This is just another example of a situation (Willow & Pfingsten is another) in which the Village makes commitments in private at the expense of the public. Too often the Village ignores residents. The Village knows that if only neighboring property owners object, it can isolate them, and then ultimately, ignore them. This has happened again and again. This needs to stop. How about starting on Tuesday night? Otherwise, this cycle will repeat itself elsewhere. Regarding 1850 Glenview Road, the last time this contract came up was via Zoom over two years ago. On January 5, 2021, the Village Board approved a 4th amendment to the Drake contract that extended the contract. This was done in a way to stop having to keep going back in public asking for extensions. Every extension always benefited Drake. Nothing has ever stopped Drake from buying the property. However, why buy the property if the Village (paid by its taxpayers) is doing all the work for you? The way the 4th Amendment to the contract was written, the Closing Date to buy the property was extended until sixty (60) days after the final resolution of the first lawsuit, including any rights to appeal, against the Village relating to the sale and development of the Property. Drake's time is up. It is beyond the scope of this email, but there are a lot of problems with getting a transaction done. In retrospect, the Village narrowly tied Section 9.1 of the Agreement to extend the Closing Date to just the first lawsuit. NEED TO RESTART REGULATORY REVIEW WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The Village Staff report falsely states that the "development process has been finalized". That is not true. Under Section 5 of the Ordinance, "Final Appearance Commission approval is required for any proposed architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage." See, Ord. No. 6334 (March 3, 2020). The Drake Group only has preliminary approval of proposed architecture, signage, and landscaping (on June 24, 2020, via Zoom). The minutes make clear that the Appearance Commission expected to review the project again. There were many questions and comments. The Appearance Commission went out of existence on July 1, 2021. Therefore, Drake cannot satisfy the terms of the Ordinance. He did not finalize the development process in existence at that time. Drake never completed the regulatory review. At the time, the Appearance Commission had the authority to reject projects approved by the Board of Trustees. Maybe Drake did not want to risk it? Now, as of July 1, 2021, the Appearance Commission no longer exists. Regulatory review needs to start all over again, with the New Development Commission. DRAKE PROJECT HAS CHANGED The Village Staff Report also states that Drake's project has changed, too, and Village Staff has the authority on their own to approve changes without the public involved in any approvals: "As part of the permit process, modifications to the interior layout of the development would include the addition of 2,200 square feet of retail space on the ground floor of the mixed-use building (resulting in a total of 5,200 square feet of retail space) and the reduction of the total number of dwelling units from 68 to 65 units, neither of which require any modifications to the development approvals that were previously granted…" This is a major change. Ord. No. 6334 approved allowed the applicant, The Drake Group, to construct a building with 68 apartment units, 3,000 SF of first-floor retail space (the proposed tenant was Sweet Mandy B’s Cupcake Shop); 88 at-grade parking stalls within the building for tenants. The merits of this project were the entire public debate three years ago. What is referred to as being "modifications to the interior layout of the development" is a new development from what was originally approved. In 2020, approved was a so-called "mixed-use, transit-oriented development". Now, the merits of this in a post-COVID world warrant a public discussion. Relative to the contract itself, Drake was limited to no more than 3,500 square feet of leasable retail space in the First Amendment, as adopted on April 4, 2019. You cannot change it to 5,200 square feet without completely redoing the project and the contract. The First Amendment had specific terms: submittal of an executed Letter of Intent and then a signed Lease “to lease up to 3,000 square feet, but not more than 3,500 square feet, of leasable retail space, as part of the Purchaser’s Development Plan, to a tenant that shall be approved at the Seller’s sole discretion”. To change from this means the public is a necessary party. What is described in the Staff Report is an even more dense building than approved in 2020. DRAKE NEEDS MORE TIME??? In the past month, before the New Development Commission, two proposals have been presented: 1900 East Lake Avenue, 140 apartments and 1400 Milwaukee Avenue, 255 apartments. Without commenting on the merits of them, both developers presented their timelines. In each, both had started and promptly completed applications with the Village. If their projects were approved, both would have financing and development plans in place. Drake? Per the Staff Report, with 65 apartments, Drake needs to extend the closing date for 90 days “to coordinate with his lenders and attorney to facilitate the closing”, “to receive architectural plans and construction bids from trade partners and suppliers to obtain final construction pricing to finalize loan underwriting prior to being able to close on the property”. In other words, what are presented as being “minor” modifications here are major: (1) the architectural plans that have not been received; (2) construction bids and pricing that are not complete; and (3) financing that is not in place. Why is the Village continuing to do business with Drake? MORE PUBLIC MONEY TO A PRIVATE PROJECT To emphasize, the Village is not done subsidizing this project. It has already spent several million dollars. The Village obligated itself to construct a new one-way Depot Street roadway parallel to the train tracks, a new Metra signal arm, 8 parking stalls to the west of the proposed Development for the use of Drake’s then retail tenant space, cutting down all the trees along Glenview Road and Pine Street, and ripping up Pine Street to allow Drake to private use of a public street for private water detention underneath. The Staff Report cryptically refers to them as “the Glenview Road and Pine Street streetscape, stormwater detention, and the Railroad Avenue connection and curb cut on Glenview Road”. What “part of the Village’s CIP process” means is that public dollars would be spent here to complete them, not money from Drake. CONCLUSION Please let the Village know what you think. Please let me know if you have any questions, and given the time sensitivity here, feel free to forward this blog to anyone you think might find it of interest. William J. Seitz Chair,1850 Glenview Road Facts billseitz.org WJS
Comments