Marathon Council Meeting Discusses Proposed Walgreens
Residents at village council meeting overwhelmingly against proposed Walgreens relocation to 63rd and Woodward.
After discussing the proposed Walgreens at 63rd and Woodward for more than two hours during Tuesday night's council meeting, the fate of the pharmacy's relocation from 63rd and Belmont is still unclear.
For the residents in attendance, the proposal represented everything from a bureaucratic blunder to an affront on their livelihood. Residents took issue with everything from traffic safety to the integrity of the soil the Walgreens would be built on. Essentially, the residents supported any perceived flaw in the plan they felt would cast the proposal in a negative light.
And though the petition won't be voted on until June 5 at the earliest, many of the public comments came across as if it were already a done deal, creating an accusatory tone that mayor Martin Tully took exception with numerous times throughout the meeting.
“You've basically accused us of cheating on a test we haven't taken yet,” Tully said at one point during the public comment.
Representatives and partners with Walgreens were also on hand to address various issues such as sight distances on Woodward and truck traffic, but with the dearth of information and complaints the residents had, they were unable to address every concern at the meeting.
Council members, for the most part, remained neutral during the meeting, with Commissioner Bob Barnett offering one of the rare glimpses of an opinion for or against the proposal.
“I personally cannot be supportive of this thing going forward unless there's physical changes to the northbound [traffic] of Woodward,” Barnett said. “Unless there are physical changes to northbound Woodward I'm still struggling to support this.”
Barnett did add, though, if the traffic and safety problems could be met, he might feel differently.
The proposed Walgreens, which would occupy the northwest corner of Woodward and 63rd, requires more than simple construction. The plan calls for the annexation of numerous properties, the consolidation of those properties, rezoning the property from R-1 Single Family Residence to B-2 General Retail Business and finally, authorizing a special use permit for the property.
The biggest point of contention since the beginning for residents is whether or not the proposed Walgreens would fall under the umbrella of “low-intensity office”, which is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for in that area if not used for the residential it currently is. In January, the Plan Commission ultimately felt it did not fall under that umbrella, and they voted against recommending the plan to the village council. However, village staff recommends approval of the plan.
goddess
8:25 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
They just need to find another location for this store. Simple as that.
Kent Frederick
9:05 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Has anyone asked Walgreen's if they have approached the owners of the shopping center across 63rd Street about building a store in the parking lot? It seems to me that a store over by the Mobil station would cause less traffic problems.
Kent Frederick
10:47 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Here are some other questions. Why is the village staff recommending approval, when the Plan Commission voted 7-1 against recommendation? Does the staff think that the Plan Commission is missing something, or does the staff simply see the potential for sales tax revenue?
Jon
1:11 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
The plan commission tries to avoid controversy and did not want to look like the bad guy here. Can you blame them? They are an advisory board only and sometimes they forget that they are to look out for the interests of the residents of Incorporated Downers Grove. I will say it once more if you want a voice in the Village of Downers Grove you should incorporate into the Village simple as that!
goddess
12:29 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
It's all about money. Screw the poor neighbors whose property values and quality of life will tumble.
Jon
1:39 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Falling Property values give me a break! Everyone that opposes change always says it will hurt property values. Some of the highest property values in Downers Grove are between the railroad tracks and Ogden Avenue. The commercial development in those areas which is much more dense than this proposal on 63rd has hurt property values. The same non factual statement was said when the other commercial corners around 63rd, Woodward and Belmont area were developed. Focus on how this development can be improved and negotiate. Irrational comments and false statements at public meetings will never be successful. I loved the soil comment at the meeting. Those types of statements may decrease property values. Who would want to buy a house in a neighborhood on unstable soil.
Mark Thoman
5:58 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Mr. Bykowski, the Comp Plan prescribed Low-Intensity Office, not Low-Intensity Commercial. There's a distinct and deliberate difference.
The idea, at least from my point of view was
1) to provide a reasonable buffer to the residential areas from the heavy commercial use across the street,
2) at the same time allow for measured and finite redevelopment to a higher use for that part of a corridor despite shallow lot depths, and
3) avoid another situation like Fairview Village, where the SW corner of 63rd and Fairview opened up a zoning can of worms that started working south on the west side of Fairview.
http://www.dgreport.com/index.php/2008/11/05/council-turns-thumbs-down-on-fairview-plan/
At that time, then-Mayor Sandack correctly noted, “Process dictates we abide by the Future Land Use map.”
The current, Council approved (2/7/2012) Land Use Map shows affirms the Comprehensive Plan's designation that this would best be used as Low-Intensity Office. Good process would see Council abiding by the Future Land Use Map they approved.
Fairview south on the west side, BTW, provided much impetus to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan update. Then Council Commissioner Tully took up the cause and worked effectively to make it happen.
Robert Bykowski
12:55 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Thanks. I had office written down, thought I must've misheard it, was wrong.
Kent Frederick
10:47 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Several years ago, Walgreen's wanted to build a store on the site of the burned-down Lone Star restaurant at 63rd and Main, replacing the store on Lemont Road next to what is now the empty Michael's Fresh Market.
The problem there was that Walgreen's wanted a sign that was taller than what the new sign ordiance permitted. And, Walgreen's wanted the store to face the street, with the loading dock facing the other stores in the mall, which the other store owners objected to strongly.
Despite Walgreen's promising to close the store by Michael's, the Village Council voted to reject the proposal. As it turned out, Walgreen's never submitted a proposal that took into account the various objections, and the store on Lemont is still open.
Since then, CVS opened at 63rd and Main, knocking down the portion of the mall east of the Ace Hardware and building a store that fits with the rest of the mall.
What bugs me is that Walgreen's always wants things its way and doesn't try find solutions to objections from residents, nearby store owners, and the Village.
The Village Council did the right thing in rejecting the Walgreen's proposal for 63rd and Main, and it ought to strongly suggest to Walgreen's that working with the owners of the mall across from the desired location would satisfy just about every constituency in DG.
Linda Schranz
10:49 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Kent, I agree with you 100%.
Ken Kuchar
6:49 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Plan Commission votes 7-1 against Walgreen site; Comprehensive Plan is more than a "guide"; almost 1500 resident sign petition against site; Woodward was not made as a major thoroughfare; residents safety, noise concerns were dismissed as normal Not in My Backyard whining; commissioners appreciated "compromise" of residents - mitigation yes - compromise not; Walgreens at 63rd and Woodward will be an eyesore and a black eye to a tone deaf village council. Progress? I don't think so. Also property values will decrease 25%.