WEB EXTRA!
Developers seeking to build a 53-unit condominium project at the corner of Brookfield and McCormick avenues in the Hollywood section of Brookfield received a loud and clear message last night both from members of the Brookfield Plan Commission and residents: No way.
Wrapping up a marathon five-hour public hearing, featuring testimony from nearly 75 residents, plan commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend sending developers back to the drawing board. Not one resident spoke in favor of the proposal.
Refuting the developers’ contention that the building fit guidelines set by the 2020 Master Plan for the village, Commissioner Charles Grund stated that those involved in the master planning process in 2003-04 specifically noted that Hollywood was different from any other area contemplated by that study.
“Most important, they decided that buildings in the Hollywood area should be limited to two-and-a-half stories,” Grund said. “They did that deliberately because that’s what’s there now. The Hollywood section is different because of everything we heard tonight–it’s the character of the neighborhood.”
Developers heard plenty about neighborhood character as resident after resident approached the microphone to denounce the plan, which would have brought a 34,000-square-foot building featuring 11 one-bedroom, 33 two-bedroom and nine three-bedroom units to 8544 Brookfield Ave., a site currently occupied by a 12-unit apartment building and two single-family homes.
“For some reason, the powers that be feel it’s OK as long as they’re up front and open,” said resident Sam Levin. “I’m here to tell them our community will not be hoodwinked into accepting this development.”
Residents reiterated concerns that the development could worsen the crowding situation at Hollywood School, saying the development would attract families with children despite claims by developers that the building would have little effect on the school’s population.
Riverside School District 96 Superintendent Jonathan Lamberson, while not overtly condemning the plan, outlined the enrollment situation at Hollywood School, saying that a demographic survey done by the district suggests that enrollment has not yet peaked and could hit 1,700 in coming years.
“That puts enormous pressure on us because we do not have excess capacity in District. 96,” Lamberson said.
Architect Errol Kirsch, representing the Stronghill Group development company, stressed that the development was designed in such as way that it was sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and would include such elements as stormwater detention and extensive landscaping to soften the bulk of the building. Underground parking for 106 cars would provide not only parking for condo owners but their visitors.
He said developers had already responded to residents’ initial complaints about the bulk of the project by lowering it two stories and reducing the number of units from 60 to 53. He said the development was likely to raise property values.
“What we have done to reduce the impact of [the building] aids in the character of the neighborhood being sustained,” Kirsch said.
Michael LaRocque, one of the three principals in the Stronghill Group, expressed disappointment in the reaction to the revised plan and disputed the idea that he and his company were carpetbaggers who would make a profit and leave the community with something less than desirable.
“I graduated from District 96, and all six of my siblings graduated from RB as did [Stronghill partner] Steve [Barth],” LaRocque wrote in an e-mail to the Landmark this morning. “Steve lived in Hollywood, in one of the actual buildings we are talking about. He still lives here and so does his mother. His daughter will likely move back to Brookfield after graduating from college.
“My point is that not only have we been investing in Brookfield for years financially, we are emotionally invested also. We are trying to create something that we will be proud of.”
But residents were having none of it.
“The scale is just way wrong,” said Carol Casey, “We all want rational development of this area.”
James Sedlar, an architect who said he worked with Kirsch many years ago, said that Kirsch had “failed” this particular architectural critique. He also commented that in 31 years as an architect, he had never seen so many people pack a room to speak out against a development.
“This is totally wrong,” Sedlar said. “If you don’t get it, and the board doesn’t get it, there’s something really wrong.”
Of the plan commissioners, only Chairman P. Christopher Straka appeared positive toward the concept, saying a three-story building at the site was acceptable and expressing faith in the engineering done by developers for water detention and traffic impact.
In the end, after hesitating, Straka joined the other commissioners in recommending denial of the plan.
“You need to look at the density closer,” said Commissioner Karen Miller. “I have real concerns with the number of units and lot coverage. And I’m very unhappy with the design. I recommend you go back and redesign this.”
As part of the planned unit development (PUD) process, the Plan Commission’s recommendation to deny the preliminary project petition will go to the village board, which will consider the matter at a Committee of the Whole meeting in November. Residents were asked to consult the village’s website (www.villageofbrookfield.com) for information on the date for that discussion.
The village board can override the Plan Commission’s recommendation with a supermajority vote. If the board overrides the vote, the matter will proceed to a final plan review, which must again be considered by both the Plan Commission and village board. If the board denies the preliminary review, developers will be forced to rethink their plans for the property.
“Many of the residents who spoke at this meeting, and many who were not comfortable doing so, see redevelopment of this site as a good thing,”LaRocque wrote. “We are going to give this meeting a lot of thought before we make a decision on what to do now.”
