Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenview board approves second consideration for sports center at 2200 Tanglewood Drive amid neighbor concerns
Summary
Trustees approved the second consideration of an ordinance for a sports center at 2200 Tanglewood Drive after applicants reduced building height and proposed restricted patio hours; nearby residents urged additional review on noise, lighting and tree removal and asked for DAC involvement.
The Glenview Board of Trustees approved second consideration Sept. 16 of an ordinance allowing amendments to a planned development, final site plan review and preliminary architecture, landscaping and lighting for a proposed sports center at 2200 Tanglewood Drive.
Staff summarized changes the applicant offered after earlier hearings: a reduction in overall building height by 4 feet 3 inches, recommended patio hours limiting outdoor service to 10 p.m. on weeknights and 11 p.m. on weekends and holidays, and a revised estimate of tree-removal deficit reduced from 32 to 28 trees. Staff noted the initial earthwork could proceed after engineering approvals while final appearance and landscaping would return to the Development Adjustments Commission (DAC) for detailed review.
Neighbors and homeowners association representatives urged caution during the public-comment period. Patricia Walter told trustees the proposed fountain "is not gonna do anything to reduce any of the noise" from outdoor patios; Karen Hoffman and other speakers expressed concern about lighting, cumulative light pollution from recent projects, and losing trees that provide views and privacy. Steve Strauss (Valley Low Homeowners Association vice president) asked the village to continue negotiating smarter lighting choices and suggested replacing removed trees in other shoreline locations.
Trustee DeBoni said she had voted no at an earlier meeting because DAC questions remained unanswered but supported approval after staff provided follow-up. Trustees Sidoti and Cooper said technical determinations—such as exact hours, detailed acoustical work and final tree mitigation—are appropriately handled by the DAC and that applicants had shown responsiveness by proposing changes. Trustee Jones moved approval with a second from Trustee Cooper; a roll-call vote recorded approval by Trustees DeBoni, Jones, Sidoti, Bland and Cooper.
The ordinance's approval at second consideration allows the applicant to proceed toward engineering approvals and DAC final-appearance review; the record shows trustees expect the DAC to resolve remaining technical details, including acoustics, lighting color/placement and precise tree-replacement plans.
