Glenview trustees approve rezoning and 60‑lot East Lake subdivision despite resident concerns over traffic and schools

Glenview — The Village of Glenview Board of Trustees voted 4–1 on Feb. 18 to approve an ordinance on first consideration that rezones 1900 East Lake Avenue to R6 and clears preliminary steps for a 60‑lot single‑family subdivision, after a presentation by staff and the applicant and more than an hour of resident comment.

Director Bridal summarized the project as a cluster development aimed at “empty nester” buyers, with lots ranging from about 7,500 to 21,000 square feet, roughly 37% of the site set aside for right‑of‑way or open space, and a market price range the applicant estimated at about $900,000 to $1.3 million. Bridal said the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions would require a minimum of 75% of homes (about 45 of 60) to include a first‑floor primary bedroom and that about 15% of units (roughly nine homes) would be single‑level ranch models.

The applicant’s attorney, Cal Bernstein, and market consultant Grace Cogge of Compass presented comparables and sales data intended to show demand for first‑floor primary suites. Cogge said baby boomers “represent 31% of all homebuyers” and told trustees that “out of all of the homes that are currently available in Glenview, only 10 offer Main Floor primary bedroom options,” a point she used to argue the product would largely attract empty‑nester buyers rather than families.

Residents at the meeting offered mixed views. Andy Lapp of 1428 Blackthorn Drive said he supported the plan’s general intent but raised technical concerns about stormwater in low‑lying rear yards and questioned whether the new Sequoia storm pipe had been tested for a 100‑year event. Lester Siznoitz urged a backup entrance for emergency access and raised mobility concerns for future residents. William Sites and Alan Cohen pressed trustees to delay action, arguing the project’s density and student generation could worsen District 34’s operating pressures and questioning whether the developer could bind future lot buyers to house‑type restrictions.

Trustees debated those points. Trustee Doran and others asked staff to explain why village projections (using the Naperville model based on bedroom counts) estimated about 25 K–8 students from 60 units while the applicant projected 21 and District 34 projected 32. Bridal said differences stemmed from differing methodologies and local multipliers. Trustee Souty, citing staff engagement with residents and case studies of similar Glenview developments, moved to waive the second reading; that procedural motion passed by voice vote. Trustee Sidoti then moved to approve item 10a, seconded by Trustee Doran. Roll call votes were: Doran Yes, Jones Yes, Sidoti Yes, Cooper No, Deboni Yes; the motion carried 4–1.

The board and staff stressed the approvals are an early step. Bridal said next steps include final engineering review, relocation of existing identification signs, relocation of the driveway off Tall Trees Road, stormwater and roadway design, a formal subdivision plat to be reviewed by the plan commission, and any easements, dedications and final CC&R language. Bridal noted that whatever school‑ and park‑impact fees are in effect when the applicant pulls building permits will be the fees applied to the project.

The board’s action advances the project to later approvals and permitting; staff and the developer committed to continue consultations with District 34 and neighbors on school‑impact issues, stormwater mitigation and traffic/entrance design.