Mayor Dave Heilmann had terse words for a possible 9-story development on the site of a former lumberyard that has been a blight on the neighborhood for the past seven years.
Heilmann’s remarks came at the end of his president’s report at the meeting on Tuesday, where he also accused Village Manager Larry Deetjen of holding a secret meeting with the developers who now own the property.
A conceptual sketch of a 9-story office tower on the former Beatty Lumber property at 9537 S. 52nd Ave. was presented at the village board’s finance committee meeting on Feb. 8.
Sign up to receive the Oak Lawn Patch daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.
Developers Tony Ruh and Karl Shea, who developed the new Bally BFit Center at 10201 S Cicero Ave., purchased the former lumberyard for $775,000 in October, according to Cook County property records.
The mayor said he met with the developers in November, where he had made it clear they were to work with residents of the 96th Street and 52nd Avenue neighborhood in coming up with plans for redeveloping the property.
“I told them I didn’t want them to get caught in the crosshairs,” Heilmann said.
Recalling a proposal for a similar tower development for the former lumberyard several years ago, Heilmann said that residents were opposed to the idea of an office building in a residential area.
“I told them, ‘please work with residents. We need to have open communication,’” the mayor continued. “I could not figure out for the life of me how they could come back and say after that meeting they had a 9-story structure that was possibly acceptable to the village.”
It was only after asking village staff to produce any communications that the developers had with the village, when he learned of Deetjen’s offsite meeting on Jan. 27.
“[The developers] said they wanted to meet [the village manager] before they talked to the mayor,” Heilmann alleged. “The village manager sent an email back saying he would meet them outside of the office face to face.”
“It was never disclosed to me,” the mayor continued. “I sat down and talked to the developers for over an hour which means they lied to me. Then I find out that they were told on Jan. 27 that a 9-story structure was acceptable—even up to 13 stories if the architecture is right.”
Expressing his disappointment, Heilmann told village trustees he didn’t want to have a situation where, after a meeting he had to discuss the old Beatty property “someone is going behind my back having meeting out of [village hall] purposely in order to have a discussion on what I’m going to talk to them about and then find out that we’re working directly opposite of each other and there’s no communication.”
The mayor added that Trustee Bob Streit (Dist. 3) was also opposed to a tower at that location in his district because height was an issue in the last redevelopment proposal.
“I don’t want to start a fight,” Heilmann said. “I hope that this just ends it and that we move forward … All I ask is that this type of conduct can’t happen … I’m telling and asking the board, please do everything you can to listen to that group of people over there because a 9- or 13-story tower—we can’t have that.”
Ruh told Patch last week that he had his partner still didn’t have a final drawing but that “it wasn’t limited to nine stories.”
“It’s bigger,” Ruh said. “It’s going to be whatever it needs to make the development work.”
Deetjen immediately went into executive session after the open board meeting. In an email to Patch late Tuesday evening, the village manager denied there had been a "secret meeting." He said it was still too early to tell what the development would be.
“The market will help shape the proposal and all [the developers] are doing now is ‘conceptually’ looking at alternative scenarios,” Deetjen wrote.
Although a 13-story building is unlikely at the Beatty location, Deetjen added that there were already two 13-story buildings in Oak Lawn.
“[It’s] too early to determine building height and mass. I will say, however, that height allows one to get more green and open space,” Deetjen said.
The village manager added that citizens would be involved in product input in the development project’s early stages.
Google - (5 ILCS 120/) Open Meetings Act
Jane Quinlan what is your position on this? Answer: I really don't want to get in the middle. Comment: You already are!
I see nothing wrong with trying to make the area around the train station a high-density area. In fact, an attractive, dense, walkable area around the train station could be very attractive to businesses and potential residents. I know the people around the area aren't necessarily fond of the idea, but suburbs all over -- even those that don't have a train station -- are embracing higher-density development. The failures associated with the condos are in many ways a matter of timing, with buildings coming online just as the real-estate market tanked. While certainly it's important to know if someone's palms are being greased in an untoward manner, I'd like to hear more about the idea before passing judgement. Certainly, an office building is going to generate a lot more property tax revenue and attract more ancillary development than an empty lumberyard.
What I do find pretty absurd though is the people who create a new account everytime they want to poke at someone when its obvious that they have been involved in the comment section under a different name before.
At the end of the day, it's good for people to get involved, express their opinions, disagree, argue at times and work things through. Years ago, the former manager once said to me, "There are 55,000 people in Oak Lawn, and if 50 show up at a meeting, it's a big deal. That's why we can do anything we want." Our biggest safeguard is participation; our worst enemy is apathy.
If someone anonymous makes a gramitical mistake, or has their facts wrong, or even not PC for the times, you dont have to worry about your homes being burnt down by the "Angry Village Mob"; or tarred and feathered on the Village Green just because you support one side of a polorizing topic. I dont like everything I read in these articles, but I look foward to reading what my neighbors say. If we remain silent: Our elected officials will take it as a sign that they are doing a great job, not good mind you BUT GREAT. What ever you feel about anything in this Village, if you do not voice an opinion you are giving permission to people (you elected) to use their own judgement. Public opinion will always make a pol think "will this decision cost me an election"? Keep up the good fight, Our enemy is not each other but apathy.
Here is the thing; ultimately, the town is responsible for what gets built there, they had no problem flexing their legal muscle when they built the other properties with that front of a developer they used then. They threatened everybody with eminent domain, zoning problems, etc. They drove out Veli's, the Browsatorium moved, but never recovered...don't forget, they were all for taking the whole block down to 52nd. The lumber yard was one of the places that stood in the way back then, along with the other small businesses that fought. Imagine how much empty space we would be looking at now if the town would have been allowed to run even more roughshod over the area. They were SO worried at those meetings about how the area could be declared a TIF because it was 'blighted'...yet, how blighted does it look now? The road is unfinished by ten feet, the lot is unpaved and unimproved in any way... Not to lay the blame for all that on the current office holders, but to remind them of it.
Do some people hide on here, use multiple names; of course? Is some of it plain silly, yes it is. To your point about the property itself...I have never understood how a minute of meetings concerning the town are 'closed' or 'private'. Every person in that meeting, discussing town business, is paid to be there by taxpayers of Oak Lawn. If they are not being paid (via a commision of some sort that is voluntary or something), they are still doing town business, i.e., they work for us! Why is there ANY secrecy, AT ALL?! Nobody said that we would all get to cime in from the peanut gallery throughout the meetings; some parts would require any viewers to sit quietly or leave...that would be fine. To be escorted by officers from a 'closed' session? THAT is NOT transparency of our government. OUR government. When will these officials understand that they are there to represent US, not their backers or friends?
How do you know that the property can't accomodate the parking? Couldn't the building use parking under the structure? Isn't there a big parking garage there? It seems like it would be a good place. As for the vacant office buildings, please tell me you are kidding. Those buildings are not going to attract top notch businesses.