Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns Highwood council that rapid redevelopment is outpacing parking and planning
Summary
Resident Todd Michael told the Highwood City Council on June 16 that recent redevelopment has outpaced infrastructure planning, citing specific projects with apparent parking shortfalls and urging greater transparency and conditions on developers.
Todd Michael, a Highwood resident, told the City Council on June 16 that recent waves of redevelopment are proceeding without adequate planning for parking, traffic and community impacts. "The response was absolutely shocking," he said of a prior answer that residents could simply "park at the train station," arguing that was not a realistic solution for hundreds of new units.
Michael gave several concrete examples he said illustrate the problem. He said a building at 546 Green Bay Road has 37 units with 22 indoor parking spaces, requiring the city to lease 10 public spaces and create roughly 12 exterior spaces on Washington — "approximately 44 parking spaces supporting 37 units," he said — which he called insufficient and visible each evening.
He told the council the Nightingale property "was never even went through the formal planning and zoning process," and cited project counts he said are appearing in town: "now we're looking at 105 units for 134 parking spaces" at one site and "93 units with 99 parking spots" across from Buffo's at another. Michael said repeated variances and approvals over planning department objections raised questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the review process.
Michael also raised concerns about transparency and possible conflicts of interest tied to a proposed music venue and other projects, and publicly asked "Krista" to explain why she recused herself from a recent vote, saying "transparency matters" and urging a public explanation. The transcript records no response to that request during the public comment period.
During the public exchange, a council member asked what infrastructure Michael was referring to; he clarified the concern was parking and traffic capacity, not water or other systems. Another resident, Tim, added that retirees and families often own multiple vehicles and that proximity to a train station does not eliminate car ownership or visitor parking needs.
Michael urged the council to demand stronger commitments from developers for infrastructure and public benefits rather than offering incentives without offsets. He closed by warning that residents, former residents and the media are watching the council's decisions and urged officials to be prepared to defend their development strategy at the ballot box.
No formal action followed the public comment; the council moved on to agenda items after applause for the speaker.
