The site, which was largely clear-cut but never developed, “is one of the last remaining large, prime residential development sites in Downers Grove,” according to Westar Properties Inc., which is handling the auction.

“Located less then one mile from the heart of town, this site is approved for 11 single-family homesites, with 75-foot minimum frontage each. Located in desirable school districts 58 & 99,” the Westar Web site states. The site is valued “in excess of $3.3 million.”

The property has been on the block since mid-December, said Steven H. Baumann, president and CEO of Westar.  The deadline for sealed bids is Feb. 18.

“Interested parties are invited to make their best offer on or before the deadline,” he said. “The best offer determined by the seller wins.”

Baumann said there has been “good interest” in the property, which which had been undivided for 85 years before being purchased by Andersen in 2005.

Almost since the beginning, neighbors of the site have voiced concerns about stormwater management, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency vehicle access and tree preservation.  As recently as November, a contingent of neighbors appeared before the village council to request a moratorium on parking restrictions for the north side of Jefferson, which borders the Nelson Meadow site.

The 11 home sites originally were anticipated to go for up to $385,000 each. Given the change economic environment and other projects, the developer is said to be interested in getting the Nelson Meadow property, which is one of the few remaining large and conveniently located local parcels, off the books.

While the Westar auction is targeted to builders and developers, Andersen reportedly is willing to make a deal with the park district or District 99 on the premise that either entity could use the parcel to supplement current recreational or athletic facilities.

A buddy downstate emailed me this study, noting one other blogger already has written about it.  His point; there’s a temptation to simply do what generates surplus income for the municipality.If Champaign follows the trends illuminated by the study, they will become a city of high end single family home, high end apartments, and national big box stores.

Would a logical pathway for DG see the CBD and Ogden Avenue taken over by national chains, as they generate (downstate, at least) more sales tax surplus per 1,000 square feet than do local businesses?    See Naperville.

There would be less talk of more middle income, affordable, insert-your-favorite-catchphrase-here types of homes, only high end single family homes and downtown apartments.  Surprisingly, attached homes like the high density townhouses currently languishing unsold around DG (especially downtown), would be cut back; they have a net cost instead of providing a net surplus of revenues.

Note to village: Champaign also plans to raise developer fees across the board to help balance their budget.

Pointing out the obvious, the reason high end homes make money for the muni is any given sized family tends to impose the same level of expenses on a muni whether they live in an  expensive $1-million-plus home or a $300 thousand modest home, yet the real estate tax based revenues make the big home owner pay well over three times more.  The cost burden on the library, schools, police, fire, etc. are about the same.

But without that imbalance, DG would be up the creek like every other western ‘burb.  We need our expensive homes with their expensive RE tax bills, and generally speaking, most owners of the big expensive homes can afford the burden.

The danger zone.

DuPage County has been seeking the ability to do whatever it wants to when it comes to developing real estate, under the cover of “affordable workforce housing” and “by right” use.

Despite opposition from every community that is aware of it, the county continues to push this potential program towards their goal. On April 21st and 27th, the village council met and wrote up a resolution declaring it’s opposition to the county attempt to create “Affordable Workforce Housing” in unincorporated DuPage County.

There are three components to this attempt to circumvent rational zoning laws:

• Senate Bill 1451, sponsored by State Senator Randy Hultgren (Wheaton) and Senator John J. Millner (Bloomingdale), would permit the county board in counties over 500,000 (excluding Cook) to use county funds to sell, lease, or exchange county property, including but not limited to a partial interest in property and to sell, lease or exchange property at less than fair market value, to achieve any housing need of the county and to benefit the residents of the county.  There are four counties that fit that requirement: DuPage (929,192), Kane (501,021), Lake (710,241), and Will (673,586).  Coincidence that bill sponsors are from DuPage?
• DuPage County’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) pumps a one time federal payment of $5,176,438 into a program designed to “provide funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale of the many foreclosed homes peppering the neighborhoods of DuPage County.  The county, at it’s discretion, can continue the program past the first year, and put additional funds into the program if it decides to.
• T-01-09-Proposed Amendments to the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance relative to Workforce Development Housing (AWFH) Regulations (Request to Send to ZBA for Public Hearing) covers that zoning changes that council and staff fired off the resolution against.

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference has also weighed in against some aspects of  this.  T-01-09 itself essentially eliminates one of the fundamental tenets of comprehensive county planning, that being deferring development approval to municipalities for areas that are within 1 mile (some counties 1.5 miles) of the municipal border.  This zoning amendment would eliminate the applications process planners use to look at building projects individually.

How it is now: “We want to do this; take a look, is this okay?  Will you let us?”

How it would be: (silence until bulldozers show up).

That could be an explosive problem in Downers Grove, where we have an unincorporated area on the southwest side that has, like everywhere else, many foreclosures going on that could be future high density developments.  Last year DG successfully used that deferred jurisdictional authority to stop a development project proposed by Pat Trowbridge which consisted of 24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what was called for in the original development the village opposed and prevented.  24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what could be built “by right” on the same property, with no say by the village.  38 townhouses on the same 2.75 acres of land.

Why do that?  Why change the zoning requirements and regulations, in many cases loosening the county’s own rules for things like density, setbacks, stormwater compensation, and required utility hookups?  Why open the door for severely overcrowded development projects being crow-barred into low density residential areas?

Higher density means more units equals more profit potential along with the lower prices.

24 units was too high a density for the village.  Add in an additional 14 units, mix in  T-01-09, and the village has no say.  That would create affordable workforce housing, but it’s also a development that throws the entire area out of kilter, out of density guidelines, and into potential flooding, something we don’t need more of here in DG.  On the plus side, it does allow for cheaper units to be built.  By building so many more of them, the developer can still make a handsome profit.

Naperville is the latest community to wake up to the potential nightmare this county undertaking represents, and they have also responded overwhelmingly in the negative.  In response to all the negative feedback, County Board member Kyle Gilgis (District 3 Downers grove), who has headed up the county effort, said the county will hold weekend informational meetings on the matter.  I could not find any information on the meetings on the County website.

Downers Grove straddles two districts, 2 and 3.  Should you wish to weigh in for or against workforce development housing as currently proposed by DuPage County you can get emails, addresses and phone numbers for all board members here.

Any white areas, even seemingly inside municipalities, are fodder for Affordable Workforce Housing development under proposed county rule changes.

I liked Emma.

Actually, I never really met Emma but I knew she was living in there somewhere inside that battleship grey bungalow with the cracking stucco just down the street.

Her flower boxes were weathered and peeling but the flowers themselves always meticulously arranged and cared for. Her lawn never looked great but it was neatly trimmed.

She always kept the shades pulled down tight across the old window panes regardless of the time of day; not a single shaft of sun would invade her living room that she didn’t personally welcome. She was in there all right and, like so many older folks who live alone, she seemed to prefer to keep to herself.

The first winter I spent as a proud homeowner here in town I was looking forward to that first big snowstorm so Icould fire up the new snowblower (a gift from my Dad) and slay the drifts in the driveway (pathetic, I know).

When that first storm came I knocked on Emma’s door and offered to clear her driveway and sidewalks. She shuffled cautiously into the screened in porch and, backlit by the cold fluorescent light in the entryway, and eyed me suspiciously.

She then waved me off with a ‘no, leave it alone’, and back inside she went. I understood; she didn’t know me. I cleared her sidewalks anyway but left the driveway alone.

The last few years weren’t kind to the little grey stucco. The dandelions were the first thing I noticed, followed by the
shades pulled wide open day and night and the porch light that was always on. Seems Emma had moved away.

The rumors around the neighborhood were many, but the balance was that she couldn’t keep up with the demands of an old house and an older body, and had moved in with her kids. That snowy evening on her porch was the first and last time we ever spoke.

Predictably, the house was snatched up by a local developer with plans to build two grand houses where Emma’s once
stood. The grey stucco sat on a double lot and had “teardown special” written all over it’s sagging porch. I didn’t
mourn it’s fate.

Only a month earlier I walked through an even older home two doors down during it’s pre-knockdown estate sale, where even the baseboards and window hardware were available for a price. I bought an old lawn edger (the kind you push) and walked around the deserted bedrooms and creepy basement.

Like Emma’s home, this place only meant something to the people who were raised here. Now, stripped of the laughter and the memories it was exposed for all it really was — a crumbling old home whose value was a fraction of the land it sat on. The demolition took place a few days later and now, a month later, the old grey stucco had its own date with the bulldozer.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the quick flip. The housing market tanked, and with it went the buyers forthose new Craftsman style two-stories that seemed to be popping up everywhere. The grey stucco sat, undefended and unaltered, for almost a year.

A caravan of four cars pulled up late one night last fall, and an uneasy feeling pulled in with them. I couldn’t imagine that any sane person would have bought Emma’s old home to actually live in it; it needed more work than the Blodgett House.

The following morning I watched from my porch, hoping Armando Montelongo from Flip This House would
be leading a camera crew around the exterior pointing out where the hot tub was going to go and how best to fit in an addition and retain the home‘s original charm.

I didn’t see Armando. I saw a brindle pitbull take a crap on the parkway and a burly looking young man with a neck
tattoo lead it back up the sagging porch, back into Emma’s house. The porch light had burned out.

Instead of taking his lumps and selling the property at a loss, the developer decided to rent it, and the saga of “Section 8 house” began. For those who are not familiar, this from the U.S. Department of Housing website:

The Section 8 Rental Voucher Program increases affordable housing choices for very low-income households by allowing families to choose privately owned rental housing. The public housing authority (PHA) generally pays the landlord the difference between 30 percent of household income and the PHA-determined payment standard-about 80 to 100 percent of the fair market rent (FMR).

Key statistic: The public housing authority generally pays a percentage to the landlord, AKA, the developer. The same developer who was poised to build a home you couldn’t afford right next door to yours has now put out the welcome mat for creepy Neck Tattoo Guy, his pit bull mix and a scary mix of his friends and family and the government is going to pay him to do it. Right next door.

If you brought over a bundt cake, the frosting would curdle when you crossed the threshold. Enough has been written on this blog regarding the opposing concepts of affordable housing and the insane teardown phenomenon, but there is a gray (stucco) area that no one ever wants to discuss.

What happens when the developers move on and leave behind dilapidated homes occupied by an ever-revolving cast of interesting tenants who have no roots here, no interest in establishing any and couldn’t care less what condition they leave the property in?

For those of you who lie awake at night fearful of the developer’s hammer swinging into your neighbor’s old house, imagine how much sleep you’ll lose when your daughter wakes up scared and crying because the man across the street is screaming bad words and his kids are standing around the front lawn at 3:28 in the morning.

Imagine how you‘d feel when you call the police for the third time this year and the flashing lights send rude orange beams onto your son’s bedroom wall. When the cars begin lining up at 10 at night on a Tuesday and you know this night is going to end with a screaming match, a fistfight and an indifferent police dispatcher. Again.

Could be worse. It could be a McMansion.

Here’s an interesting “post-renters” neighborhood dilemma. When Neck Tattoo’s kid (at least I think it’s his kid; there seems to be a dozen that rotate in and out) spends the afternoon hurling chunks of concrete against the stop sign on the corner and the cracking sound bounces around the street like a machine press in a glass shop, do you risk his wrath by gently reprimanding the boy or do you pretend not to hear it? Not to notice?

Do you cross your fingers and hope he has good aim because a misguided toss could easily reach your living room window? Do you really need any of this?

Emma’s house was never the centerpiece of the neighborhood, but at least she didn’t stumble onto the front lawn screaming obscenities and slamming car doors in the wee hours. She didn’t have a pit bull, but if she did I’d venture to guess she would have picked up the doo-doo on the parkway once in awhile.

I don’t know how well the Section 8 program has worked across the country, but I’m certain it’s helped some good people establish a foothold in pride and self esteem.

My experience, and that of my neighbors, has been considerably different. Emma’s home is one of three in the immediate area that is currently being rented and the drama narrative is similar in each case.

I never saw a squad car in the neighborhood when Emma lived here, and I don’t imagine I’ll see one when the new families move into the custom homes I pray are on the horizon when the leases run out.

Where we are now is in-between — a trough between collapse and recovery — and I can tell you from personal experience that in-between totally sucks.

In the meantime, I keep the police on speed dial and an ever vigilant eye on the neighborhood kids when they play in the front yard, fearful that one of our new four-legged neighbors may want to establish its dominance. It’s exhausting, but since Downers apparently has no ‘vicious dog’ ordinance, it’s reality.

Perhaps our village officials would enjoy living next to a snarling personification of a plunging housing market? Perhaps not — maybe they’re all cat people.

It’s unlikely that Emma is coming back any time soon, so I‘m keeping my fingers crossed for a market rebound. When I see that glorious bulldozer crest the hill and bear down on Emma’s house I’ll know the turnaround is approaching.

I plan to take the day off and set up shop on the front lawn with a comfy lawn chair and a cooler of Schlitz, and enjoy the show. It will be the first ‘show’ across the street that I’ve ever watched in the daylight.

Meat is a resident in Downers Grove. Having lost his position at the rubber tubing company during a recent downsizing, he is hoping to catch on as a stockboy at the White Hen downtown.

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.”

Clearly, the local housing market may still be on the way down. A story in today’s Wall Street Journal describes the rise in foreclosures of million-dollar homes — this just two days after a friend speculated that some of our town’s seven-figure mansions may be on their way to being carved up for multi-family housing.

Within just a six-block area of my own unspectacular dwelling — which I believe has lost 20 to 25 percent in value in that last couple of years — there are several million-dollar-plus homes that have been on the market not just for months, but for years. I know of at least one that is in foreclosure.

While assessments won’t immediately reflect the loss of value, if this financial storm is as bad as the experts seem to think it is, the impact will eventually trickle down to our village government, park board, school districts and every other property-tax dependent.

Another concern: How secure are the investments of said governmental bodies? From what I understand, it’s not uncommon for them to put several million dollars in a CD, then purchase insurance for whatever is above and beyond the FDIC guarantee.

But as we’ve seen with AIG, insurance is only as good as the insurer. And until we see the bottom of the financial catastrophe unfolding on Wall Street, it will be difficult to weigh those odds. And hard to predict how far the fault lines will be felt.

I wrote about our frustration with our state-mandated, hard-wired smoke detectors, which have the regrettable tendency to erupt at odd hours for no discernible reason.

Like everyone else who attempts to update an old house in Downers Grove, we were faced with several unexpected code requirements that added thousands to our budget while doing nothing comprehensive to bring our 85-year-old home up to “modern” standards.

While I understand that some requirements may be necessary to protect health and safety, others seem to reflect the interests of trade lobbies and the overreaching arm of paternalistic government institutions.

Like all homeowners, we have no desire to compromise our family’s welfare. After all, my children live in this house. But if battery-operated fire alarms were good enough before our kitchen rehab, why do we suddenly need expensive hard-wired ones after its face-lift?

And why must lights and switches be installed in every closet and storage space of a friend’s old-house renovation — other than to jack up an already high electrical bill?

Or how about this example from today’s mail:

We live in a 40-year-old home in DG and wanted to update the master bath with a shower base in place of the tub, a new tile floor and toilet. It was going to be $30,000 because of all the updates we were required to do, mostly electrical: fire/smoke alarms wired together and run on house power and each bathroom put on a separate circuit. (Our electrical panel is full, so in order to put the bathrooms on separate circuits they would have to put in a sub-panel.)

The end result? They decided to live with the bathroom as is.

“Too bad many of the lovely older homes in DG will not get updates and some improvements because of the over-the-top draconian codes,” the letter writer observes.

To that I would add: And too bad some homeowners see flouting the codes — by skipping the permitting process entirely — as the only practicable way to accomplish their projects.

There’s a variance process for homeowners who wish add a front porch or garage in defiance of setbacks or zoning regulations.

Why not a similar appeals process for residents of older homes who would like to update without triggering a laundry list of code requirements more appropriate to new construction?

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.

For the third summer in a row there’s major construction on our street and it’s loud, particularly at 7 a.m. when, if I’m not already working, I would prefer to be sleeping for just a little longer. Still can’t figure out why fully loaded Mack trucks are allowed to take the long way down our newly reconstructed street, but so they do.

And construction noise is not the only culprit.

If it’s not big trucks barreling down the street, it’s barking dogs, sometimes as early as 5;30 a.m. And then there was the guy who decided 8 a.m. Sunday was a great time to mow (he must have read the noise ordinance because it allows such activity beginning exactly at 8). To make matters worst, his mower kept starting and stopping and starting and stopping, not just shattering the peace and quiet, but my nerves as well.

Maybe I’m noticing it more this year because the evening weather has so often invited open windows. Or maybe I’m just a grumpus. If so, it probably has something to do with lack of sleep.

But I’d really like to know: How do you handle these neighborhood incompatibilities? Or do you?

And while you’re at it — is there anyway to get a neighborhood resident to park in front of his house instead of yours?

Just thought I’d ask.