Amid enthusiastic applause, Tinley Park’s Plan Commission voted Wednesday to recommend the Village Board reject a special-use permit for an apartment project that has drawn the ire of residents who say it would irreparably damage the character of their neighborhood.

The Village Board is expected to take a preliminary vote on the recommendation at its July 11 meeting.

Some 300 people attended the Plan Commission’s special meeting, held in the auditorium of Andrew High School, and several of them stood and applauded commissioners even before the unanimous vote was taken on a motion by Commissioner Peter Kroner to recommend denial of the special-use permit sought by the developers.

The plan for The Residence at Brookside Glen calls for two buildings, with 72 apartment units each, separated by a clubhouse with an outdoor pool. A dog park also is part of the proposed development. Monthly rents would range in the area of $1,500 to $2,500 for the one- and two-bedroom units.

It is proposed for a roughly 8-acre site southwest of 191st Street and 80th Avenue.

Residents of the Brookside Glen subdivision have argued that the development would bring unwanted traffic congestion, hurt the value of their homes and not fit in with the character of the subdivision, which includes a mix of town homes and single-family detached homes.

The project would be developed by Karli Mayher and DJM-Vandenberg Brookside Joint Venture. Following the Plan Commission vote, a representative for the developers declined comment.

In 2000, plans were approved for that property for a condominium development consisting of 144 units spread among nine buildings, but it was never built. The developers have said that changes in the housing market have made high-end rental developments more attractive than owner-occupied condos or town homes.

Residents had complained the two buildings the current developers proposed were too big and resembled hotels.

When the developers initiated talks with Tinley Park about the project, they envisioned eight buildings with 18 apartment units each, Andrea Crowley, an attorney with Griffin & Gallagher in Palos Hills representing the developers, told the commission Wednesday.

There had been some questions as to whether the site was zoned to allow for apartments, although decades-old drawings of the initial planned-unit development for Brookside Glen indicated condos or apartments in that section, with possibly office and retail uses closer to the intersection of 191st Street and 80th Avenue.

Some of the documents spelling out the zoning can’t be located, Village Attorney Patrick Connelly said at the outset of Wednesday’s meeting.

“We don’t have them,” he said, which makes it “somewhat difficult to pin that (issue) down.”

Crowley insisted “that’s not an issue” for the commissioners to consider, referring to whether the housing units would be rentals or owner-occupied.

The developers had agreed to relocate outdoor patios and the dog park to put them farther away from nearby town homes.

Many residents and some of the commissioners questioned the viability of the development, pointing out the high rents and lack of nearby amenities, such as a train station or shopping that could be easily accessed on foot or by bike.

The developers hired consulting firm Tracy Cross & Associates to do a market study on the project, and Cross said at the meeting he saw “significant market potential” for The Residence and believed “the project can be very successful.”

Kroner, in a good impersonation of an attorney grilling a hostile witness on the stand, questioned Cross’ findings during a lengthy exchange, and commission Chairman Ed Matushek questioned Cross’ assertion that the apartments would attract affluent millennials.

Cross said that 42 percent of all current renters in Tinley Park are under the age of 35 but that renters in their 40s, 50s and 60s would also be drawn to the development.

Because of the proximity to jobs in downtown Chicago, Matushek said he believed millennials would prefer to live there as well and not “in the middle of nowhere,” referring to the Tinley Park site, and that residents of the buildings would need to drive to the train or shopping.

Commissioners also questioned whether there would be sufficient demand considering that another apartment project has been in the planning stages for downtown Tinley Park, immediately south of the Oak Park Avenue Metra station.

Cross pointed out that — with the exception of two rental developments in Orland Park, Ninety 7 Fifty on the Park and The Residences of Orland Park Crossing — no new rental housing has been built in the south and southwest suburbs in many years. He said his study showed the area in and around the village would be able to absorb as many as 1,125 new rental units over a five-year plan, with the assumption that they would come on the market in phases.

Because the number of planned housing units was not an issue, commissioners were asked to consider deviations regarding the height of the buildings and how far set back from the street they would be.

In their voting, commissioners were not required to elaborate on their reasons for voting to recommend denial of the special-use permit.

Still, it was clear from comments made by them during Wednesday’s session and previous meetings where The Residence was discussed that they had concerns about the project.

Typically, when a motion is made on a special use or other matter before the commission, it’s made in affirmative wording, with phrasing such as “recommend approval,” and commissioners voting either up or down on it.

Commissioner Mark Moylan said he wanted the commission to send a strong message to the Village Board of its feelings about the project, asking that a motion recommending denial be worded as such.

mnolan@tribpub.com

Twitter @mnolan_J