I really don't think residents are upset because they are afraid the potential developments will not "meet code," it's more of a quality of life issue. And has anyone checked to see if selling this property is even legal? It's not your land or your money - it belongs to the citizens (ie tax payers) of Lake Zurich. You are to be acting in their best interest, not yours, not board members, not potential developers.

Kathy is so right. It is a quality of life issue for us. Will there be something to draw me, my family, and the other 18,000 existing LZ residents downtown or will it be another residential-only property?

If the property is sold I assume a developer can then build just about anything they choose as long as it meets building codes (electrical, plumbing, etc.) and form codes (sidewalks, parking, landscaping) ... something like a boring residential-only property that's up to code. Ugh.

Please visit the link below and get the facts. The FBR regulates the mix of commerical and residential spaces. These buildings will not be blank, boring residences. If left to her own devices, Branding would skip the buildings and go for a community center! Be careful!

http://www.volz.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/786

and http://www.volz.org/index.aspx?NID=245

Guess nobody has read this....
Regulating Plan: Block A
Promenade Level Uses
Commercial/Retail
no limit
Residential (access to dwellings above)
15% max.

To "THE FACTS" above. I’m not a lawyer but here goes:

As far as I can tell, a chart on page 6 of the FBR says no more than 15% of the first floor of Block A property can be residential (for access to upper floors). The rest is commercial/retail it says. Commercial I assume could be a restaurant. Hooray! But it could also be an insurance company or dental office, right? Yikes. Commercial/retail is not the same as restaurant/retail.

And in a previous Patch article, Richard Sova of Landover (one of the four developers) proposed "a U-shaped residential building ... There would be no commercial." Huh? If commercial is mandatory per the FBR, then what on earth is Sova doing in the room? Why didn’t someone kindly show him the exit? Note it sounds like developer Cukeirman also had, on paper, a residential-only proposal . Again, where's the exit door?

The Patch piece continued with, "board members have expressed a desire for mixed-use development." Huh? There's a big difference between "a desire" and "a mandatory requirement." Which is it?

In yet another Patch article, Mastandrea is quoted as saying, “when I look strictly at all apartments or all residential, I’m not too much in favor.” Huh? If commercial/retail is mandatory on the first floor per the FBR, it’s not a question of “being in favor of” or “being against” all apartments or all residential. Right? Commercial/retail must be 85% or more of the first floor, period.

The Facts / JF - Great Due Diligence. And Great Find. Nice work.....

Seems like everyone in the Village wants a social hub in our Downtown!! Most comments resonate this sentiment, as well as, people/friends/family I speak with in LZ and surrounding communities. We all want a DESTINATION to visit and hang out in....

How haven't some individuals on our Board (Branding, Sustich, Rezeznik, and Halen) not been able to comprehend this yet?

The Facts / JF - Great Due Diligence. And Great Find. Nice work.....

Seems like everyone in the Village wants a social hub in our Downtown!! Most comments resonate this sentiment, as well as, people/friends/family I speak with in LZ and surrounding communities. We all want a DESTINATION to visit and hang out in....

How haven't some individuals on our Board (Branding, Sustich, Rezeznik, and Halen) not been able to comprehend this yet?

Bear,

Recheck your numbers.

Here's what I saw: Mastandrea and Sprawka liked Smith with commercial/retail on the first floor (remember Smith developed the FBR which was approved a long time ago), Sustich liked Brugelmans who proposed commercial/retail from the start, Poynton like Cukeirman who originally had residential but changed to commercial/retail on the first floor, Rzeznik liked Sova who originally had residential but changed to commercial/retail on the first floor, Halen made no selection and Branding made no selection.

It looks like 5 liked commercial/retail on the first floor.

1. Selling the Property? Yes. Why do you think it was purchased? No, not a fire sale, but let them put some skin in the game. That's all.
2. Social Hub, Entertainment, Cultural Center? Will it pay for itself? We have the PAC at the HS. It is state-of-the-art & 50% bigger than the Metropolis in AH. And that was private funds but went belly up about the time it opened. I've heard too many say "I don't care what it costs" until they see the bill.
3. Developers will build whatever they think will make money. The codes are what holds them in line. Micromanaging is what ran McCaffery out, yet allowed Somerset to be built. Now, everyone says they are the ugliest things in town.
4. No matter what you believe, the real fact is that you are already paying for the TIF failure. The property tax burden gets a lot bigger in FY2014 and also will drain a significant amount from existing sales taxes.
5. While you are slinging insults at these trustees, remember that all of this was created under a different board and administration. These trustees (at least some) have been asking for Bob Vitas's "Plan B" since Sept 2010 and this is the first we have received.
I am as frustrated as everyone else. I think the trustees are as well. Learn from the past but don't live in the past.

Jet - just want to comment on your item #2. The PAC at the HS is difficult to schedule because the HS uses it and it is costly to rent. I don't think that's the type of social hub/entertainment residents are looking for. At least the people I speak with want a downtown like Wauconda or Arlington Heights.

The Village motto should be "PROGRESS THRU LITIGATION" . There is so much discussion on the codes, Thats the problem! Let ANYBODY submit a plan. Forget about the "YOU MUST"--- Let the community opine--- Never know, theres a better chance we might hit on something- Be careful about too much support behind Mastandrea (SP?), he brought most new residential construction to a grinding halt (when things were good) by supporting the Fire Sprinkler Association and demanding fire sprinklers in homes and townhouses. I say unwind a lot of the BS and make it a community project........

To The JET "... yet allowed Somerset to be built. Now, everyone says they are the ugliest things in town."

I'm one resident that doesn't think Somerset is ugly. Sure, it looks out of place against the "dumpy-Wisconsin-beer-town" look that is Lake Zurich. But if McCaffrey's vision was completed it would be a different story. If block after block was built with the same coastal vacation resort look it would have been a great transformation. Visiting the town would take you to another place, another time. Much like going to Long Grove.

In Long Grove each property on its own is boring, ordinary. But putting the entire historic concept together block after block ... the series of small storefronts, the signage, the proximity to the street, etc., creates something special. A destination.

I'm in design/remodeling and see it all the time. One of my designers has a great concept for a room on paper. And everyone agrees it's great, special, unique. So we start with the less-than-safe paint color on the walls. And then the drama begins. Homeowners panic, freak out. Because they only see the paint -- not the entire concept. So we have to calm the homeowner down and reassure them that once everything is done they'll have a different opinion. And then we complete the room. Cabinetry, lighting, furniture, window treatments, etc., .... the concept comes together and the homeowners now love it. They just couldn't see the design vision until it was complete. That's Somerset Homes.