Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streetscape Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glencoe board adopts streetscape study but removes three residential-adjacent parking study areas after residents’ objections
Summary
After extensive public comment focused on safety and neighborhood character, the Glencoe Village Board approved its Streetscape + Parking Study June 18 but voted to remove three proposed study areas adjacent to residences (including space near Friends Park) from further consideration.
The Glencoe Village Board on June 18 adopted a final Streetscape + Parking Study that advances pedestrian connectivity and updated design standards for the uptown business district but removed three residential-adjacent study areas following sustained resident opposition.
Development Services Director Taylor Baxter summarized the study’s outreach and findings, saying it prioritizes walkability and recommends further study — not immediate construction — of potential on-street parking in a handful of locations. He told the board the study replaces a prior infrastructure action that would have unilaterally established new curbside parking with language to “conduct a study and outreach to evaluate on-street parking expansion opportunities, including parking space orientation and landscape guidelines.”
During public comment, more than 20 residents from Vernon, Greenwood, Hazel and surrounding blocks urged the board to remove proposals that would add on-street spaces directly adjacent to homes and Friends Park. Gabby Perski, who lives across from Friends Park, said putting “a dozen or more” parking spots there would “permanently alter the residential neighborhood” and worsen safety for children; other speakers cited sight-line problems at crosswalks, delivery truck conflicts and the loss of green buffer space.
Several residents also pointed to the study’s occupancy findings and municipal lots as alternatives. John Catz, citing the consultant’s weekday/friday observations, said peak occupancy was about 85 percent and argued that the issue is convenience rather than a parking shortage. Multiple speakers urged use of existing municipal lots, time-limited spaces for turnover, improved enforcement of employee parking, and targeted engineering changes such as flashing crosswalk lights.
Board members acknowledged those concerns. Trustee Rubin and others said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ safety and property-value worries. After discussion, a motion to approve the Streetscape + Parking Study with study areas A, B and C (the three residential-adjacent locations, including the Friends Park frontage) removed carried on a roll call vote.
The approved action does not authorize construction of new curbside parking; it directs staff to continue the planning program for the core uptown district while excluding the three contested residential sites from further study for on-street parking. Taylor Baxter said the removed areas could still benefit from other recommended measures in the study, including parking-enforcement strategies, adjustments to time-limited spaces and pedestrian-safety engineering.
Next steps include staff-led public engagement on remaining actions in the study and targeted engineering measures mentioned during the meeting, such as new pedestrian crossing treatments near Friends Park. The board emphasized it will notify and involve affected neighbors as further analysis or design work proceeds.
