Village board reviews three Lake Street corridor concepts; trustees press on five‑story housing, buffers and market placement

The Village Board on Monday heard a presentation from design consultant House of Lavine on three concept scenarios for the Lake Street corridor master plan and directed staff to collect trustee feedback to shape a combined “Scenario D.” The presentation and ensuing discussion focused on trade-offs between development intensity, buffers to adjacent neighborhoods, parking and feasibility for multifamily housing.

“Today we’re going to walk through three developing concept scenarios and ideally get a lot of feedback from you,” a presenter from House of Lavine said, describing the firm’s outreach (focus groups, staff meetings and a village visioning workshop) and five planning influences that will guide the master plan. The consultant called the corridor “a gateway into the community” and highlighted coordination with IDOT and an Oak Avenue realignment, existing wetlands and detention areas as major constraints.

House of Lavine described Scenario A as the most intensive option, centered on a market core and a destination entertainment anchor at the Bartlett Road–Oak Avenue node; Scenario B as a balanced mixed‑use option with more multifamily housing; and Scenario C as the least intensive, prioritizing open space, trails and larger ecological buffers. The consultants said the site model covers roughly 65 acres and that the presentation was intended to test feasibility at a range of intensities.

Trustees pressed consultants on several specifics. On building heights and feasibility, consultants said developers in focus groups had signaled that “five stories is what you need to be viable” for multifamily development; trustees and the design team discussed stepping building heights down toward adjacent single‑family yards to lessen visual impact. "You don't want a five‑story building looming above somebody's backyard," one consultant said.

Trustees also questioned stormwater and wetlands constraints. One trustee noted multiple detention ponds shown in the plans and asked whether they represented real basins; the consultants said some marshy zones currently exist and that engineering would determine whether those become constructed detention facilities or conserved naturalized water features.

The market’s location prompted particular debate. Several trustees worried that placing a temporary or seasonal market on the prime corner might leave a valuable corner underused part of the year; the consultants said they had asked Tom's Market and been told the operator prioritized accessibility and parking over a specific corner location. "Tom himself said I don't think I need to be on 20. I just want to be accessible," a trustee reported from stakeholder feedback.

Questions about parking and circulation were frequent. Consultants said parking could be internalized (podium or centralized parking) and that the next study round would “right‑size” the plans to test actual building footprints, sidewalk and street layouts and parking counts.

Trustees generally expressed a preference for a hybrid that pulls elements from B and C rather than the most intense A option. Concerns voiced included: avoiding five‑story blocks immediately adjacent to single‑family yards; ensuring 40–50‑foot landscape buffers where feasible; clarifying which wetlands/IDOT‑controlled areas are not buildable; and resolving parking and market‑access needs.

Consultants said they would develop a Scenario D combining what trustees liked from each plan and return with 3‑D modeling and verified building footprints. The board asked members to submit written comments to staff to inform the next draft.

Trustee Sansky moved to adjourn at the end of the session; Trustee Leaport seconded. The clerk called the roll and the recorded spoken votes in the transcript were “yes” from Trustees Betterman, Dany, Ganzy, Leaport and Sansky; one trustee’s spoken vote (Hopkins) was not captured in the excerpt.