Glenview Village Board Approves Development and Cook County 6b Tax Incentives
The Village Board's final meeting on Dermody Development on Allstate Property took place on Tuesday night, July 19, 2022. Dermody’s project is now officially approved.
The vote was 4-0 (COOPER, DEBONI, GITLES, SIDOTI). 2 Trustees were absent (BLAND, DORON).
DOWNLOAD DERMODY SITE PLAN
DOWNLOAD DERMODY ZONING MAP
Based on the prior two meetings, approval was a foregone conclusion. For those members of the public willing to sit through this two-hour meeting, it was appreciated that such approval did not take place in an empty room.
A change from the prior meeting was that the developer revised the “environmental sustainability” section in its “design guidelines”. However, this “concession” is more of a public goal that the public will never know is ever achieved.
Trustee Cooper (1:43 mark) talked about being “tough” on holding Dermody accountable for “sustainable issues addressed”. This is nothing “tough” here as this portion of the design guidelines is aspirational, not legally binding (“reasonable efforts”, “work with future tenants”, etc.).
Dermody’s project was approved by the Glenview Board of Trustees in less than 30 days:
June 21, 2022: the first meeting dealing with the Agreements between the Village of Glenview and the City of Prospect Heights
July 5, 2022: the second meeting dealing with the Annexation and Development Agreement between the Village of Glenview with Allstate Insurance Company/Dermody Properties, LLC
July 19, 2022: third meeting focusing on the final steps: ordinances regarding the annexation, rezoning, and the proposed development plans.
Trustee Gitles (1:41 mark) restated what he said at the July 5, 2022 meeting that this was not an expedited process and that “this was over nine months in coming”.
Trustee Cooper (1:43 mark) stated that “you can’t just have the process go along forever”
Even if they worked on this and were fully aware, rushed hearings and incomplete disclosures were at the public’s expense. The public is a necessary party here, which is why the state law requires that a public hearing be held.
On Tuesday night, the Village’s Director of Community Development, Jeffrey Brady, was allowed to cite information not contained in any of the documents released to the public. The four Board members in attendance accepted those representations as being facts, unchallenged.
On Dermody’s project, what’s next?
The legal options concerning the challenging rezoning and annexation approvals in court were explained in earlier emails.
No doubt, money not being spent on independent traffic or fiscal studies will end up being spent by the Village on attorneys to fight its own residents.
The developer, Dermody, might make the business decision that as a cost of doing business; it would be in its interest to work out deals with the property owners on the north, Gertrude B. Nielsen Child Care and Learning Center (GBN), and south boundaries (Glenview Place).
If Glenview is sued, they might slow up their project.
GBN reported on Tuesday night that they had made an offer to purchase some of the land from Dermody. Glenview Place Condominiums raised sight lines issues, which Dermody says are being resolved with a tall berm/landscaping on top and building setback.
This would be a business decision, based on timing and their favorable terms from Glenview. However, if they do nothing, Dermody knows the Village will back them.
Once it gets past the deadline for any legal challenges, Dermody is calling the shots here, not the Village. They are not partners with the Village.
On Tuesday night, Dermody got the Village to agree to limit its exposure to having to do any updated traffic study. Such an obligation is predicated upon the number of truck loading docks in the first five buildings, Dermody’s “Phase I”. That is the only metric that will be looked at.
I think it is fair to say that a smart developer like Dermody is going to keep “Phase I” under the agreed-upon ratio. By doing so, they will avoid being required to do any further traffic study. No more talk about traffic. They have no other requirement to do anything further on traffic.
Even if they have to study it, under their agreement, they completely control it, it is going to be the developer’s expert. They control the report.
As far as further public participation in this project, under the agreements, it is not intended for there to be any more of that.
As soon as next month, once the New Development Commission gives them “final subdivision, final architecture, landscaping, final lighting, and final signage”, none of any future development at the site will ever return for public hearings (New Development Commission or Board of Trustees).
Trustee Cooper (1:42 mark) talked about being confident about “more conversations in additional phases”. The developer has no legal obligation to do that, and none of that will be happening in public.
Once approvals for the five buildings in “Phase I” approvals are done in 2022, per their agreement, Phase II and Phase III are handled differently.
Under the terms of this Ordinance, the “Approval Terms” (Section 8), a Village Staff member, the Director of Community Development, Jeffrey Brady, has been ceded authority over this project from here on.
For “Phase II and Phase III” that clause reads: “the Community Development Director is authorized to approve plans associated with Development Phase II and Development Phase III, including architectural, landscaping, lighting, signage, and site plans, that substantially conform to the Guidelines, Templates, and NDC-approved Landscaping Standards.”
This is years into the future. The developer’s “Fiscal Impact Report”, assumes a Phase II with two buildings in 2025 and Phase III with three buildings in 2027. At the developer’s discretion, these dates can be extended years into the future. A Village Staff member decides whether those plans “substantially conform”.
This is important because these are not necessarily the same buildings. On their own, Village Staff has been authorized to approve a taller building in Phases II or III without elected officials or the public being involved.
Specifically, the ordinance allowed the developer a variance to Zoning Code Section 98-162(b) to allow building heights within Phases II and III of the development of up to 120 feet (the maximum height permitted by right is between 35-70 feet). For reference, attached is the developer’s site map, in comparison to the residential neighborhoods to the east and south.
Under the developer’s plans, in comparison to “Phase I”, those buildings are intended to have more building area, trailers, and cars.
Nonetheless, no elected (Trustees) or appointed (New Development Commission) will ever review these plans in public. Instead, this will be reviewed by Village Staff members in private.
All of this is great for the developer: no more public meetings and protection if Trustees are voted out. Great for the Village Staff too, since it cedes power to them, with no oversight. Staff can look over plans and then issue permits.
Why elect a Board of Trustees?
On fiscal studies, since she was not there on July 5, 2022, Trustee DeBoni (1:45 mark) talked up the developer’s revenue estimates, as creating money for downtown Glenview, affordable housing, supporting social services, “real opportunity” to do some good as a “fiscal steward”.
Even assuming the developer’s numbers are correct, the amount that Glenview itself is getting does not back that up Trustee DeBoni.
William J. Seitz
Chair,1850 Glenview Road Facts
1850glenviewroadfacts@gmail.com
Comments