Light Council Meeting Heavy With Public Comment
Residents have concerns regarding District 99's redevelopment plan for Downers Grove North High School.
Tuesday night's council meeting was marked by the presence of a group of Downers Grove residents who voiced their disapproval of Downers Grove North High School’s redevelopment plan.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, several residents spoke regarding the high school’s development plans.
Resident Tom Eagan listed four objections, starting with the claim that the local neighbors weren’t involved in the high school’s planning process, he said. Also, Eagan said the residents believe the traffic study presented to the Village Council when they agreed to vacate Prince Street was flawed and that student safety will be compromised with the school district’s proposed new bus plan.
Eagan, speaking on behalf of the other residents, said they respectfully request the appropriate commissions or council to not issue any more permits until they have time to make more appeals.
Mayor Martin Tully said there were a number of different pieces to the issue, the main being that the high school development is being directed by District 99, not the village.
Regarding Prince Street: “The issue that came before us was to vacate Prince Street, and we have a policy that governs that,” he said.
Tully said the council could only work where they had jurisdiction.
“We don’t necessarily have the same type of jurisdiction here that we might in other projects,” he said, adding he didn’t want to go into all the nuances of where the village did or didn’t have jurisdiction.
"We may not be able to say how the project should go, because it’s on school property, but traffic flow on surrounding streets is something the village is very involved in," he said.
Saratoga Avenue Resident Bill Kussman said the residents were trying to make an appeal to the council not to issue work permits for the project.
If all rules and laws are upheld, the council can’t stop something just because someone else doesn’t like it, Tully said.
Kussman said a flyer he received two weeks ago was the first notification he’d received about the project. Residents went to the meeting, he said, but the district was unwilling to work with them.
Along with other residents, Kussman is specifically asking that the district flip-flop their intended location of a soccer field and a parking lot—for traffic and aesthetic reasons.
“If they mess this thing up it’s going to be an eyesore,” he said.
Tully said the village does have a vested interest in the project, if for no other reason than traffic and safety, but he kept reiterating with the various residents that it was an issue of jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the council had a light agenda—with no items on the active agenda and a small number of first reads that garnered few comments from anyone on the council or in the audience.
There has been a request for a special use permit to allow a house on Main Street to be used as an office for a photographer.
Also, Community Development Director Tom Dabareiner presented a first read regarding the adoption of the 2012 Downers Grove Zoning Map. The most noticeable difference may be the inclusion of the property that the village annexed last year.
In This article
-
Downers Grove North High School
4436 Main St, Downers Grove, IL -
Downers Grove Mayor and Village Council
801 Burlington Ave, Downers Grove, IL -
Community High School District 99
6301 Springside Ave, Downers Grove, IL
goddess
9:40 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
What about closing Prince Street? Is that a done deal?
Chad D. Walz
11:34 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Maybe these residents should be more involved with thier community. Maybe then they would know what is going on. I am all for this improvment. That short stretch of Prince street is not needed for residents. There is no reason they cant just use Saratoga.
Ray
11:43 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
It seems to make sense that the parking lot be more closely situated to the school, with the soccer field further away. Couldn't some creative landscaping/evergreens address , to some extent, the "eyesore" concerns ? Looks like a decent plan, and the school needs it.
(wth-- i'm agreeing with Chad,...?!)
Chad D. Walz
1:24 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I'm not say bad Ray! LOL
goddess
11:44 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
So you get trampled on if you're not involved? That is not how it should work. I think the point is that it's not right to turn Saratoga into a busier street. I use Prince St. and I think it's wrong to cut off yet another street from Ogden. Can you imagine what that street will be like on a busy night at the school?
Patrick Murphy
5:01 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Good points Goddess, Just wait until Friday night football or other evening school functions. Right now Prince alleviates alot of traffic that will all be forced onto Saratoga in the future.
Patrick Murphy
11:55 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sounds like the good old " our hands are tied" approach is working fine. The village holds the keys to Prince Street, that in itself gives us more control than we're led to believe.Again, this isn't a post against the redevelopment,( there are many pluses) it's a post to try and get our city planners to put everything on the table. True traffic studies for one would be nice,( there will be more impact than what has been described) neighborhood input with regard to esthetics and safety.Someone posted potential issues with the new bus patterns, right now all busses line up to the curb, supposedly that's going to change with several lanes allowing students to walk around the busses, that could pose a more dangerous situation than what we have now. In the same note I'm all for getting the basses away from the fronts of all the homes down the street. Who would want that? I Open discussions are whats necessary and deserved anything less is a slight to the community.
goddess
12:05 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
That sounds reasonable. Do it right. What's the rush. Other than trying to catch the neighbors sleeping.
Chad D. Walz
6:17 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sleeping… Really…Really? The district has been kicking this idea around for many years now. During the sale of the land in Woodridge discussion there was a lot of discussion about this very project. Let's get our heads out of the sand here people. It is our jobs to keep track of what our government is doing not the other way around. Otherwise, why elect representatives to make choices for us?
Patrick Murphy
6:35 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I must disagree Mr. Walz, It's not necessarily our job to keep track of what our government is doing. You might be right in suggesting that we should watch our government should they prove again and again that they need watching or closer Tabs kept on them. It certainly should be the other way around, in that they should always make great efforts to keep us informed. Your post supports just that when you say they've been kicking it around for years and that it was brought up during the sale of the Woodridge land. So people on the North side see a head line that speaks of land on the South side for a school that we aren't part of but we should read it anyway because there might be some information concerning our own immediate neighborhood? If what your saying is true I must ask, " Is that the best they can do in keeping up informed?"
Joseph Sharp
10:35 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Great question Chad! Why do we elect representatives to make choices for us? They routinely make decisions against our best interests. Frankly, I think the government should send out emails and or voting cards asking us how we feel about these subjects. Not everyone is up on the happenings of their communities. I suppose that when something like a parking lot going up in front of her home happens, you might make more of a conscientious effort to stay informed. Sadly, I feel for the residents of Saratoga who now will have increased vehicle traffic. I had friends who use to live on this street and they spoke of the high school kids who came barreling down the street in the mornings and the afternoons. This certainly can't be great for home values in this part of town. How about the wear and tear on the brick streets in everyone's coveted "historic district"? I have seen so much about an open lot that a family owns supposedly affecting the "historic district" but no comments about the toll all this rerouting and extra traffic will effect it. Having to replace and fix vintage brick streets is certainly more costly than repaving it. Hopefully, when the bricks are wrecked, the taxpayers will only have to foot the bill for asphalt. Then it could be called the "new historic district".
Mark Thoman
11:54 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
http://www.csd99.org/capital-plans/ This is the page with the time line for the Outdoor Master Site Plan, with hot links to pertinent documents and presentations. It appears they did a mailer to the surrounding neighborhood and to interested parties. http://www.csd99.org/assets/1/7/102711-Open_House_Flyer2.PDF This October meeting maybe was the meeting neighbors said they were not notified or told about?
Chad D. Walz
8:56 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
We live in a Democracy. If you don't want in on the action then don't complain about the results. More American's, not just Downers Grove residents need to be more engaged with their government. When you only need a few percent of the village population to win an election that is sad. Where are the rest of the voters? Not the governments fault. There is plenty of info out there. You need to get your heads out of the sand and stay informed and involved. I am not commenting about this anymore. One day people will learn.