Public Comments of Oct. 9, 2007
La Grange Plan Commission
Hearing on Proposal for La Grange Place

Harlan Hirt, 421 S Spring Ave

Prior to making verbal comments, Mr. Hirt provided the pro tem chairman of the Plan Commissioner with a copy of a written statement he had prepared in advance of the meeting. Those written comments are published below the following transcript of his verbal comments.

I have prepared three pages of [written] comments. I think I will make some additional comments ... based on this evening's meeting.

I do want to state that I must strongly disagree that the Park District's action [in deciding to sell a portion of Gordon Park to the developer] is not relevant [to the matters before the Plan Commission] because the Village of La Grange must agree to this whole process to allow the process to proceed as proposed.

As I identified in my [written] comments, the nominal figure being put out there is that 2.8 acres of parkland are going to be sold when in fact the park will lose 3.5 acres. To accomplish keeping it down to 2.8, the Village must agree to a land swap. As far as I know, this body [the Plan Commission] is the one that would make a recommendation on a land swap to the Village Board. So I think that is very much on your agenda.

It was very difficult to get information but I think by searching the documents made available by [Village] Staff, I would like to refer to the one that is called the Land Title Survey. This very clearly presents the fact of where the 2.8 acres are and where the additional land is that the Village would have to swap.

I also have some strong recommendations, as the previous speaker [William Dobias] said, about the the idea of connecting the two streets [Shawmut and Locust Aves]. We're losing parking spaces down by [Gordon] Park, as I understand it. What would nominally become Shawmut Ave is not a standard Village street, but rather it is an access road with substantial parking on it for the [development's] residents, and firmly would be built as part of the development and not platted as a Village street.

The other comment I would like to make tonight, based on the [engineering consultant's] comment, is the concept that you would take stormwater that has been contained [in an underground cistern proposed by the developer] and deliver it to the Deep Tunnel. This is not in keeping with the spirit of Deep Tunnel. When last I knew, this was not an acceptable practice in managing the Deep Tunnel. I think your consultant does need to review that. Basically, the Deep Tunnel is to put combined sewage in. When you have separated sewers, you have to deliver the stormwater to surface drainage and not deliver it to Deep Tunnel.

So, I do hope my [written] comments will be reviewed. Based upon what I heard tonight, I do want to extend [additional comments] for the record. I will be doing that in the next week or so.

What follows are the written comments Mr. Hirt provided to the Plan Commission prior to delivering his verbal remarks.

While I had heard about the possible sale of part of Gordon Park I had not realized how far along things have gone, considering the little information that I received. (I was out of town and missed learning of the special Park District meeting on July 31). I began to focus on it when I saw the item in the Suburban Life that there was this meeting tonight, and that the Park District of La Grange has a date in court on Oct. 18 to get judicial approval to sell the park land. This last one seems to suggest that things are serious, perhaps far beyond a common sense approach to the issue.

Therefore, I began a search to see what I could learn.

The best item I found is the Land Title Survey in the plan for the development (provided by Village Staff). [I note that the stated scale of 1 inch = 40 feet is not correct, but the graphic scale and identified measurements agree with about a scale of 1 inch = 92 feet, should someone else try to use the document.]

This document identifies the two parcels of park land that would be sold; and these total 2.82 acres, as cited in other references.

This map also identifies that the Park District would be essentially giving away 0.71 acres to the Village of La Grange. This is the portion of Shawmut Avenue that is identified as "to be deeded by Park District to Village." Based on this, it appears that when the road was vacated, full ownership reverted to the Park District. The technicality is that it is proposed to trade this for the eastern row of parking spaces, so that they would now be owned by the Park District rather than the Village. Even if no land were involved, this would appear to be a net loss to the Park District. Also, what one would visualize as a normal Village street for the reopened Shawmut Avenue, appears on the plans as a drive to accommodate parking in the development. I see no benefit to the users of Gordon Park to have Shawmut Avenue opened for through traffic, which also means that the parking area would essentially become a through street.

Also, the plan provided by the developer includes a proposed plan for the rehabilitation of Gordon Park. It appears to show that there would be a loss of one small soccer field and two tennis courts; the need to transplant a play lot and picnic shelter, at the expense of other open spaces, and other open space not specifically developed would be lost. I could not find if this proposed work would be undertaken by the developer as part of the project, or if it is only shown for illustration as to what the District might do. The one plus to the concept would appear to be that the District could pass the cost of razing the unused buildings on to the developer.

I have examined the minutes of the Park District regarding this trade. The minutes of July 16 identify that the District will develop a master plan for Gordon Park. It would seem prudent to have this before making any decision and the Plan Commission should examine it as part of its overall site planning review, i.e., Is it different than that proposed by the developer?

The minutes from the special Park District meeting of July 31 identify that even though there was considerable public opposition, after an executive session, a motion to sell the property was approved. This motion did not identify what the sale price was/is. When I asked to see the sales agreement that supported the motion, I was advised by staff that it was still in draft and would not be public until it is final. It would seem prudent that one should understand both sides of the sale before agreeing to proceed further. As a citizen I would like to understand what the funds will be used for before I could possibly support any deal.

Putting these facts together is not simple.

This biggest problem is that in total, the useful land of Gordon Park will be reduced by 3.53 acres, plus the Park District is being asked to assume responsibility for maintaining half of the current north-south oriented parking (there are additional spaces at the foot of the access drive, whose ownership is unknown to me). For this "deal" to proceed as proposed requires that less than 3.0 acres be sold. To accomplish this and avoid a public referendum, which may be living within the letter of the law, but not the spirit, would appear to require that the Village agree to the land swap. Whether or not this proposed land swap would legally keep the "sale" to less than 3 acres I have to defer to others. I have not heard or seen anything in the public arena regarding this aspect of the deal.

As I understand Village structure, the Plan Commission would be the logical body to formulate a recommendation for consideration of the Village regarding this land swap, although there also is a Parking Commission which should be heard from. I would read the first stated agenda point for tonight's meeting, "planned Development Concept and Final Plan," as putting that point on the table for consideration by the Plan Commission.

Even though I am a member of the La Grange Environmental Quality Control Commission and this body has not been asked to address any environmental issues, speaking as an individual, the concept of effectively reducing a park by 3.5 acres does not seem like a sound decision to me from an environmental standpoint. There is only so much open/green space, or acquisition of replacement will not come easily. That this is not a good, timely decision is particularly true given that I have not been able to learn what the trade off might be, i.e., Assuming there will be some cash settlement, what will it be used for? The corollary question would be how could this 3.5 acres be best used as a park to serve the citizens of La Grange. We as citizens should challenge the Park District to explain why it should not be effectively used as park land and I would hope that the cited master plan did not assume the sale was a done deal. (None of this appears in the public record.)

I would recommend that the Village take a posture against the land swap that may keep this issue from going to a public referendum. I do not understand how the Park District could proceed with Court approval without some form of Village approval.

Therefore, given what I knew prior to the meeting, it appears extremely premature to proceed to a recommendation by the Plan Commission. Instead the developer should be challenged to make sufficient information available to the public as part of the referendum process.

Since the opportunity to comment is the third point under this agenda item, following presentations by the developer and staff, I may wish to add to or revise these comments, and would suggest that since the last point suggests a recess to a later date, the opportunity for public comment should likewise be extended, i.e., point number 4, "Close Public Hearing" would only be applicable to this evening's session.

I realize that several of the comments should be directed to the Park District, and my intent is to forward this document (subject to revision based on tonight's meeting) to the District; however, getting the full story should be relevant to the Plan Commission agenda.

If there are any questions, and they are appropriate under the agenda, I would gladly respond.