A respected corporate neighbor, Fairview Village proposes building four eight-unit senior citizen residences on the site of the failed Green Acres subdivision. The buildings will conform to current setback requirements, but will be lower and have smaller footprints than the million-dollar homes that had been planned for Lynn Gremer Court. One of the two new homes that were built at the location — but which never sold — will be maintained as a club house for residents.

While there were impassioned statements on both sides of the issue, perhaps local attorney Bill White offered the most persuasive argument for separating what is generally viewed as a model project brought forth by an irreproachable petitioner from the zoning challenges it presents.

White, who serves as chairman of the zoning board of appeals and previously represented a group of neighbors who oppose Fairview’s request, submitted a written objection to the propose rezoning in advance of the council workshop meeting. I spoke to him about the hot-button issue yesterday.

With the village on the brink of updating its future land use map and comprehensive plan in conjunction with the Total Community Development 3 process, White argued that it is premature to entertain a re-zoning request that could have a potentially far-reaching impact on the west side of Fairview.

Should that zoning change become effective, the council will have a much more difficult time holding off other requests that may be more intrusive than the Fairview Village proposal, White said. Particularly when a report on the impact of similar projects on nearby housing values seemed to indicate there is no bad news for homeowners.

White is concerned the measure used by consultant Tracy Cross & Associates “isn’t fine enough to limit their conclusion to Lynn Gremer Court.” If he’s right, the report also could be used to justify the encroachment of multi-family housing in other single-family neighborhoods.

If the Cross report, and a second report by the MIT Center for Real Estate are objectively true, “it will make scrupulous following of the future land use map more important,” White said. “If we get challenged on it, if we’ve disregarded it here and there, why should a judge uphold it now?”

“The more scrupulously we follow the future land use map, the easier it is the defend it,” he said.

Rather than addressing the Fairview Village proposal now — and perhaps leaving itself open to a legal challenge on the basis of spot-zoning — the council should consider and update the future land use map first, then consider the Fairview Village proposal in light of whatever changes may be enacted, White says.

For example, the village might chose to create a special R-5 zoning category for less-dense senior housing — a move that would protect the neighborhood from other multi-family developments while allowing for expansion of Fairveiw Village, he said.

“None of the arguments preclude Fairview Village from getting what they want after an open and transparent process,” White said.

“If we do a comprehensive review of the land use map and if the future land use map says, yes, we will create a stretch of R-5 s(enior), it would be very hard to break it because the community, as a whole, would have gone through the process.”

Based on their comments at Tuesday’s meeting, several council members seem to agree that the issue comes down to zoning, not to the merits of Fairview Village or its plan.

“From my perspective, it is not whether or not senior citizen housing is valuable but whether or not its is appropriate at this location and time,” said Commissioner Marilyn Schnell. “To my mind it is truly and only a zoning issue and that is the only decision the council has to make.”

Schnell and Commissioner Martin Tully seemed concerned that a council decision more than five years ago to allow a townhouse development as a transition between a commercial development at 63th Street and Fairview and the single-family neighborhood to the south was intended to be a sole exception to single-family zoning along that stretch of Fairview Avenue.

“From what I remember intending and expecting in 2002 and 2003, I have a real problem with this,” Tully said.

Noting that “process matters to me a great deal,” Mayor Ron Sandack agreed that the petition is a zoning issue and the council’s role is to determine whether the project belongs in the location in question under the terms of the current future land use map.

“I have no doubt, to be blunt, that Fairview Avenue is likely to change in the future,” he said. “But we haven’t had that discussion yet.” Such a discussion would involve neighbors and stakeholders, he said.

“We have a tough decision to make, but we signed on as leaders and that means telling someone no.”

The petition was remanded to the Plan Commission by the village council in June due to changes in the project’s proposed setback and updated traffic and property value impact studies. The commission had previously recommended approval of the project by a 6-2 vote in October 2007.

While the commission reportedly felt the studies presented by Fairview Village were satisfactory, their discussion centered on whether the use is compatible with the single family neighborhood. An estimated 50 residents were on hand for the meeting.

Look for the village council to again take up the matter in October.

Stewart’s demeanor was professional and thoughtful, but it was also clear he is frustrated by the controversy surrounding plans to build four eight-family units in the residential neighborhood on the west side of Fairview Avenue. Citing the need to consider additional information, the village council in June remanded the proposal to the plan commission, which had earlier recommended in favor of it.

Fairview Village bought the failed Green Acres subdivision on Lynn Gremer Court with the goal of building four two-story buildings on the seven lots facing the cul-de-sac. The senior community also bought an additional five lots on Davane Lane, which it has since put up for sale.

“The only way the mortgage company would sell us the (seven) lots would be if we also bought the additional five,” Stewart explained.

While some neighbors are convinced the senior community has designs to expand further into the neighborhood, “we won’t build a project that doesn’t front on Fairview,” Stewart said. “We own a couple of more houses on Fairview, but the fact is, Fairview Avenue is not Davane Lane.”

The plans call for 32 senior adult apartments with entry fees in the $600,000 range. The buildings will conform to current setback requirements, but will be lower and have smaller footprints than the million-dollar homes that had been planned for Lynn Gremer Court. One of the two new homes that were built at the location — but which never sold — will be maintained as a club house for residents.

The only change Fairview Village is asking for involves density — zoning would be changed to R-5a townhouse residential from the current R-3 single family — but it’s a whopper for the folks who live nearby.

Neighbors have expressed concerns about the development’s impact on late-night noise and disruption (assuming more ambulance calls to the senior residences), stormwater, traffic and home values.

Fairview Village has successfully allayed the first three issues, Stewart said, but the matter of home values continues to be a sticking point.

Stewart said the senior community engaged Tracy Cross and Associates Inc., which provides regional housing data to the Chicago Tribune, to analyse the potential impact of the project. “Their conclusion was that there would be no detrimental impact on local home values.”

Nevertheless, village staff has recommended the plan commission deny the development because Fairview Village “has not demonstrated the impact of the proposal on adjacent property values.”

The senior community intends to gather additional data and meet with planning staff before the matter comes before the plan commission yet again on September 8.

“I’m not saying it will increase values, but I’m saying it won’t negatively impact them,” Stewart says of the project. “We’re not trying to hide anything.”

Fairview Village has been in existence for more than 100 years, although it moved to Downers Grove in 1973. It has expanded multiple times, including adding 56 cottages in 1992 and 218 apartments in 1995. Another 197 appartments, a new nursing home and fitness center are planned for 2010. To date all the construction has been on the east side of Fairview Avenue.

Clearly, the demand for the services Fairview Village provides is growing, with waiting lists for some of its facilities of up to two years.

“There are for-profit competitors where seniors can move in tomorrow,” Stewart says. “People want to be at a non-profit, religiously sponsored campus like Fairview Village. ”

The senior community wants to continue to be a good neighbor and has invited local residents and their attorney, Bill White, to attend the Sept. 8 meeting.

“We’re trying to take the high road,” Stewart said. “A single-family development was tried there and failed. We believe our plan would be great for Downers Grove.”

Fairview Village’s proposal to build four multi-family units on the west side of Fairview Avenue was to have been heard by the plan commission Monday, but for reasons that remain unclear, the senior citizen community put off submission of the petition.

You’ll recall that Fairview Village’s plan to expand its campus across Fairview has raised the ire of neighbors who wish the area to retain its single-family residential zoning rather than be rezoned to allow townhouses as Fairview Village has proposed.

Fairview Village previously had indicated its willingness to work with neighbors in refining the plan. The proposal is expected to come before the commission on Sept. 8.

This post will be updated if/when calls to Fairview Village are returned.

The proposed development, like other similar buildings in the downtown district, would include first-floor retail and restaurant space with condos ranging from about $350,000 to $650,000 above. Downers Grove Village Square LLC is the petitioner.

At least one neighboring business apparently has registered its concern about the impact of such a development on parking in the area. The municipal lot behind the Downers Grove library is at near-capacity virtually all day long and parking on nearby streets is restricted.

So it may not be too far-fetched to consider that the proposed development could bring with it reconsideration of the parking options on the downtown’s northwest side. And one of those options might very well be a parking deck on the site of the library lot.

It will be interesting to how deeply the village council delves into the parking issue when it considers the development proposal sometime this fall. In the meantime, the indefatigable Mark Thoman has much, much more information on the proposal.

Of particular interest is whether the council will accept the report as the final word that there is no looming shortage of affordable housing in Downers Grove — or whether there will be enough commissioners who remain unconvinced to continue the process.

There was a difference of opinion on the AHCH as to what, in any, the next step should be. However, a source close to the committee says the majority of members agreed that housing in the $250,000 – $400,000 should be stabilized, even if only by helping older residents maintain their homes.

Clearly, there are many in the community who don’t want to see this issue — which burst forth to so much apparent local enthusiasm a year ago — fizzle out. You can expect proponents to be out in force at tonight’s workshop meeting.

Should commissioners be swayed, they will need to decide what the next step is, including whether to reopen discussion of ceding part of the bond cap to the state’s IDHA housing program.

In other business, the council will consider whether to amend the zoning of two manufacturing parcels at 715-719 Rogers St. from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to DT (Downtown Transition) to allow for a planned development of 16 townhouses. Mark Thoman discusses the matter in detail, including its potential for major stormwater problems in the future.

Originally planned for tonight’s meeting, but postponed until May, is discussion of the T-Mobile application to erect cell towers in Gilbert and Hummer parks.

The commission said T-Mobile did not meet standards for a special use permit for the towers. Commissioners felt the towers would be more appropriately situated in industrial areas. However, locating in those areas would require a variance, which could pose an additional hardship to T-Mobile.

Some 25 residents addressed the commission, expressing their concerns about cell tower emissions, impact on recreational activities, and the advisability of using public parks for commercial purposes.

Plan Commission members took a deliberate approach to the issue, asking many questions and listening to resident comments despite the late hour. The meeting didn’t conclude until midnight.

The T-Mobile proposal, which was approved by the Downers Grove Park District last summer, would have brought cell towers to local parks for the first time. Towers currently are situated at Village Hall, on Ogden Avenue and on various water towers around town.

T-Mobile may pursue the issue with the Village Council next month. However, I’m told it would be unusual for the council to overturn a unanimous recommendation by the Plan Commission.