Was it of the NIMBY variety?

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
50-80 less children in the District 41 census. Hmm.

Where were the grammar police on this one?

Fewer or Less?

"Use fewer with objects that can be counted one-by-one.
Use less with qualities or quantities that cannot be individually counted."

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Was it of the NIMBY variety?

Did you need to ask?

I've been guilty of that as well....I think we all have.

OK. Used to be a church. Church is going bye-bye. What would the residents like to see in its place? The building isn't coming down.

My backyard has a freakin' high school in it. And we rather enjoy it.

What the heck is a Montessori school anyway? I've seen signs and heard of the word Montessori, but what does it mean?

I had an opportunity to live with a high school in my back yard also, actually as a neighbor and in my back yard, but I turned it down. I think the marching band would have drove me nuts by day 5.

quote:

Originally posted by lupechennel:
What the heck is a Montessori school anyway? I've seen signs and heard of the word Montessori, but what does it mean?

Montessori
This link might answer your question. Although I am not a fan of Maria Montessori, I don't think I would object to one of her schools being in my hood.

An even better link
This is probably more information than you wanted, but will give you a good idea of what will be moving into the area.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: scotty,

"Church is going bye-bye. What would the residents like to see in its place? "

the church has turned over to several groups, it could remain a church

once purchased it could be torn town

the residents would perfer to see single family homes on the corner site

IMHO the 2 back lots could not be developed

Do Montessori schools pay taxes?
If no, my vote would be for houses.
Or luxury townhomes, if only we had any developers in town ...

This is NOT NIMBY - just a really bad plan!

This property is zoned R2 (residential) and the owners of the Diamante Montessori School are asking for a Special Use Permit to use the property as a pre-school. We have several concerns:

Our child, along with many kids in the neighborhood, attended Montessori and we are big fans of the program. We believe schools belong in neighborhoods. We are just concerned this is not the right place for a school due to its proximity to an already busy road and the already congested intersection of Park/Hillside/Phillip. For traffic flow through the property, the school proposes a NEW ROAD beginning at the current access off Hillside running along the building (going south) then turning in an “L” shape and running along the southern property boundary line (going west) and would require exiting vehicles to make a right turn heading north back to the Hillside/Phillips/Park intersection. This will dramatically increase traffic in this area!

The Diamante School is under NO pressure to leave their current location. Rather, St. Mark's would welcome them remaining where they are according to their representative who spoke on 1/9.

At the Jan 9 meeting the buyer clearly said they DO plan on an addition to the exiting building to accommodate another classroom and office space.

Full Disclosure: I am a neighbor close to this property. I will not pretend to be unbiased but will attempt to be fair and factual.

Of serious concern is how this all came about. The buyers are represented by a Village Trustees who also happens to be the Planning Board liaison. This is public record.

The Trustees involvement was glossed over at the Jan 9 meeting, conveniently brought up by a fellow trustee, and he merely said he would recuse himself from the Village Board vote.

It wasn't until an outraged citizen sent a letter to everyone he could think of including press and the Village Board and not until a group of concerned citizens showed up at the Board meeting just this Monday was it decided that this Trustee not be involved in ANY proceedings on the matter.

Nice but I think the damage has already been done!

I'm new to all this so tell me, is this the way our Village government usually operates?

quote:

Originally posted by GoodNeighbor:
Of serious concern is how this all came about. The buyers are represented by a Village Trustees who also happens to be the Planning Board liaison. This is public record.

The Trustees involvement was glossed over at the Jan 9 meeting, conveniently brought up by a fellow trustee, and he merely said he would recuse himself from the Village Board vote.

It wasn't until an outraged citizen sent a letter to everyone he could think of including press and the Village Board and not until a group of concerned citizens showed up at the Board meeting just this Monday was it decided that this Trustee not be involved in ANY proceedings on the matter.

Nice but I think the damage has already been done!

I'm new to all this so tell me, is this the way our Village government usually operates?

You might want to take deep breath for a moment.

First, re: the trustee. The trustee liaison has absolutely no say and no input on what occurs at commission meetings. It is likely that the commissioner who mentioned that the attorney for the petitioner was the trustee did not even know that to be the case. If there were some inside dealing or illicit activities, wouldn't that have been something that would have been hidden from the public and not publicly disclosed at a meeting? I know that trustee and know him to be a man of honor and integrity. I wouldn't read too much into this - volunteers need to make a living too. That being said - what damage has been done?

Second, re: your traffic concerns. Wasn't the Jan. 9th meeting merely a pre-application meeting? If I heard correctly, all of the commissioners demanded that the applicant/petitioner obtain a traffic study prior to moving forward with the plan. You said that traffic will dramatically increase - what do you base that on? You may be right but why not wait until the traffic study is done before making that assumption.

Such statements re: traffic increases without facts and allegations that damage has already been done due to a trustee's representation don't seem so fair and factual IMO.

It is my understanding that this plan is in its embryonic stage...you very well may be right with a lot of your points - but outcry and accusations are premature.

Given the number of commuters and high school students that walk that stretch of Park daily, I agree that adding another driveway for school traffic just S of Hillside would be folly.

Note: the Park/Hillside intersection already is not tremendously pedestrian friendly. Most notable, there is a large tree on the NE corner. Cars travelling W on Hillside almost always pull past it into the crosswalk in order to see traffic coming S on Park.

But, our village doesn't have a history of being overly concerned with the needs of pedestrians.

nor does our village seem concerned with the optional stop sign at Park&Duane!

Am I to understand that this preschool is at St. Mark's? Would the removal of that school now lessen congestion at Main and Hillside?

And really - when did we become concerned about high school pedestrians? Are we more concerned about them than the St. Petronille's pedestrians at Main and Hillside? It's a small Montessori school. I fail to see the problem - other than NIMBY.

Interesting stuff!

Speaking more to the process and not the specific situation, it seems wise for all interested in this proposed development to stay involved and informed. Even though the meeting was a pre-application hearing, it is important to express concern or support from the outset. All too often, if interested parties wait for all of the facts to come in and only speak at the Board of Trustees level, they are faced with the quote "This development has been approved by the Plan Commission and the Architectural Review Commission ..." It then seems like it is a done deal, even though this is not the case.

That said, there is no cause for alarm at this stage, either. I am certain that observations like the tree near the intersection and the rolling-stop at Duane would be welcomed, as these facts probably would not be known to staff, commissioners, petitioners or anyone else who does not observe it on a daily basis.

IMHO, Traffic studies are a good basis from which to work but should not be considered the final authority on the matter. It is interesting that in the recent past, traffic studies more or less concluded that traffic would not or only minimally increase on Western (Clinic), Lambert (BP), or Nicoll Way and Roosevelt (two new shopping centers.) The commissioners and residents should (and will) really consider all of the factors when reading the study. For example, iirc, the Western study did not include the fact that all deliveries (some 250 a day) would now be diverted to Western and the Lambert study was done in July, without benefit of peak baseball, football, YMCA or COD traffic.

Please keep us informed as this process continues!

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
I fail to see the problem - other than NIMBY.

It is not in MY backyard, tho I do walk that stretch of street often.

As a committed pedestrian, I would probably oppose just about any and all new driveways and curbcuts taking vehicles across sidewalks in what are purely residential blocks, provided the vehicle traffic is for any purpose other than to access private homes.

I do not see the village's interest in granting this special use permit. It isn't as tho this use of the property would result in any tax revenue for the village. I'd prefer subdividing it for private homes. No special use permit or variances required. Less traffic than this proposal, with tax revenue generated.

Finally, is there any compelling NEED for this or BENEFIT to the larger community? To me, is simply sounds like one entity's PREFERENCE to move to a certain location and develop it in a specific manner. Well, I guess in such instances I would tend to side with the preferences of the existing homeowners.

But I certainly imagine others might differ.

quote:

the optional stop sign at Park&Duane!

It is my experience that most, if not all, stop signs in GE are optional.

quote:

Originally posted by Buggy24:
"Church is going bye-bye. What would the residents like to see in its place? "

the church has turned over to several groups, it could remain a church

once purchased it could be torn town

the residents would perfer to see single family homes on the corner site

IMHO the 2 back lots could not be developed

I and many others would love to see this property remain a church. Since this sale came to light several options have surfaced that would mean it could remain a church. We are sad the current group has been told to leave at the end of the month. I believe they are planning late services and an open house farewell on Jan 27

The 2 land locked back lots that are also a part of the church property were sold to the church some time ago for $1 - or so I've been told. The lot closest to the church is used for parking accessible only through an easement with the property to the east. It must remain a parking lot should the Special Use Permit be approved. The 3rd back lot is just an open field. This entire back area is very wet most of the year and one adjacent neighbor helps with the drainage issue by digging a ditch. From any map you can see that there are some pretty deep lots just east of the church and this is because, as it was explained to me, this is basically a flood plain.

To my knowledge no current neighbor with contiguous property to these lots have been approached to buy either lot. However, I do know that several of these neighbors have ASKED to purchase this land. It will never be developed separately as it is land locked.

It's my understanding that the school is looking to grow and will be almost immediately planning an addition to the church (in addition to the driveway onto Park). If I'm not mistaken, the prospective owners have already fessed up to that (although that might be rumor). Adding on to the existing structure would make sense to me; the church interior is small. Is it true that the approval process does not taken into consideration plans for growth? In other words, once the special use is approved, will the owners have free reign to expand (in keeping with zoning restrictions of course)?. If so, this would appear to be a significant shortcoming of the review process. In effect, they'll be reviewing a plan that we already know will change. I fear this may be step one in a plan to build a considerably larger facility.

quote:

Originally posted by Fortysomething:
It's my understanding that the school is looking to grow and will be almost immediately planning an addition to the church (in addition to the driveway onto Park). If I'm not mistaken, the prospective owners have already fessed up to that (although that might be rumor) . Adding on to the existing structure would make sense to me; the church interior is small. Is it true that the approval process does not taken into consideration plans for growth? In other words, once the special use is approved, will the owners have free reign to expand (in keeping with zoning restrictions of course)?. If so, this would appear to be a significant shortcoming of the review process. In effect, they'll be reviewing a plan that we already know will change. I fear this may be step one in a plan to build a considerably larger facility.

Welcome to the GEBB, 40Something. But I must point out that I am the king of innuendo and half-thruths. Try not to step on my toes and we'll all get along just fine.