Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenview board approves rezoning for 40‑unit residential project at Pinkston Road
Summary
After a lengthy presentation and robust public comment, trustees approved first consideration of a plan to rezone 2660 Pinkston Road to RT‑8 for a 40‑unit duplex (attached single‑family) development; staff highlighted a traffic study showing ~90% fewer trips than a previously proposed commercial project and commitments on tree replacement and landscaping.
The Glenview Board of Trustees on April 3 approved first consideration of multiple actions to permit a 40‑unit residential development at 2660 Pinkston Road, including an amendment to the comprehensive plan, rezoning to RT‑8, official map amendment, conditional uses and preliminary site, architecture and landscaping approvals.
Director Jeff Brady summarized the proposal as 40 rental units in 20 duplex structures (27 three‑bedroom, 13 four‑bedroom) with 21 ground‑floor primary‑bedroom units and no basements. The site plan includes an extended Charlie Court connection; staff and the applicant said the configuration and a recent right‑turn lane on Willow Road will limit cut‑through traffic. Brady cited a traffic study estimating roughly a 90% reduction in vehicle trips compared with the previously approved commercial plan.
Brady also addressed tree replacement obligations left from prior work on the site: the previous developer’s permit required 679 replacement trees and the village holds a cash escrow and bond; the current applicant proposes to plant ~260 trees on site and return leftover surety to the village to fund about 590 trees elsewhere.
Developer Michael Norman described extensive neighbor outreach (multiple meetings) and said the residential plan was chosen after a prior commercial concept proved financially unfeasible. Trustees asked detailed questions about the detention basin (naturalized with underdrains and expected to drain within 24–48 hours), fencing and landscaping strategies along Willow Road, and whether senior/age‑restricted units or affordable units had been considered; Norman said the product is not age‑restricted and the economics did not allow pro‑rated affordable units.
Several trustees—citing LaSalle factors, compatibility with surrounding residential uses and traffic safety benefits of replacing a commercial proposal—expressed support. Dozens of neighbors in the public gallery spoke in favor of the plan, emphasizing long public engagement, tree‑planting commitments, and the private funding of the project. Trustee Sodotti moved approval and the motion carried.
