Oak Park’s village board has opened the door to a high-rise development project that had been blocked by the Historic Preservation Commission four times.
The village board voted 6-1 to overrule Oak Park’s Historic Preservation Commission and allow for the development of a 10-story residential property in the current parking lot of the Boulevard Arcade Building at 1035 South Boulevard. The development would have four floors for parking beneath six residential floors with 24 luxury units. Other approvals are still needed.
Trustees in favor of the development said that the new construction would support the board’s goal of creating more housing density.
“Housing is something we definitely need in this village,” said Trustee Derek Eder. “The need for housing is there, and this is an opportunity to build more.”
The exterior of the building will feature an art deco design that evokes Oak Park’s Architectural heritage.
The Boulevard Arcade Building was designed by Oak Park architect E.E. Roberts in 1906 as a one-story, one-tenant commercial building. In 1922, the building was remodeled and a second floor added by Chicago architect Arthur Jacobs who created a multi-tenant shopping area in the building. The building was designated an Oak Park Historic Landmark in 2007. In 2008, it was restored to its 1922 exterior appearance, with restoration of the original 1906 cast iron posts and replication of transom glass windows.
The new development is led by Architect John Schiess and Sachem Building LLC.
The developer’s most recent appearances before the Historic Preservation Commission had only been made to get the opportunity to appeal that body’s decision to the village board after they had missed an earlier deadline to appeal the commission’s objections. On Aug. 28, the commission rejected a design concept for the property identical to packages it had previously denied.
The development will be the subject of public hearings again when the developer must go before the Oak Park Plan Commission.
Before overruling the commission’s denial, several trustees said that the village needs to work on its process to avoid a repeated waist of both developer and commissioner time.
“The fact that this has gone through four hearings and still needs to go through even more, I don’t know why they even want to build anything here,” Trustee Cory Wesely said. “That’s a problem that we at this board need to fix. We can’t have people waiting a year before they know if they can actually build something. I think that’s going to cost us development that we could otherwise use.”
The trustees heard from community members who supported and opposed the development concept. Opponents of the development — most of whom lived directly adjacent to the property — said that the new building would create traffic safety problems in the area and that overruling the Historic Preservation Commission would be rewarding developers who ignored the commissioners’ expertise.
Residents supporting the development spoke of the village’s need for more housing opportunities, telling trustees that the community’s current housing stock fails to meet demand.
The development had been opposed at previous hearings by representatives of the Oak Park River Forest Historical Society, Landmark Illinois and Thrive Counseling Center, which is adjacent to the proposed project.
“The applicant’s proposal is wholly out of sync with Oak Park’s architectural review guidelines,” Kendra Parson, Landmark Illinois’ advocacy manager wrote in a letter read into the record by a resident. “It goes against preservation standards in almost every way.”
Trustee Chibuike Enyia — the only one at the board to vote against the project — was one of several trustees to bring up the fact that the development is currently one unit short of triggering a requirement that the developers pay into Oak Park’s affordable housing fund.
“It’s going to be hard to get my vote on something (that doesn’t contribute to the affordable housing fund) because that is where I want to see a significant growth in Oak Park,” he said. “That affordable housing fund needs to have contribution to it on a consistent basis and if we’re going to say that we’re open to development there needs to be standards there.”
“It seems like developers come underneath that all the time.”
