[0:15] meeting for Wednesday, September 9th,
2026.
[0:18] » Roll call, please. Bethany.
>> All right. Commissioner Harlo,
[0:22] » here.
>> Commissioner Curry,
[0:23] » here.
>> Commissioner Kenberger, [clears throat]
[0:25] » here.
>> Commissioner Jablonsky is absent.
[0:28] Commissioner Cernovich
>> here.
[0:29] » Commissioner Willoughby
>> here.
[0:31] » Commissioner Fusone
>> here.
[0:32] » Commissioner Moore
>> here.
[0:34] » Chairman Cashman
>> here. Next order of business are public
[0:37] comments for non-aggenda items. Is there
anyone here to speak on a non-aggenda
[0:42] item?
Seeing none, we'll move on. Next, our
[0:45] approval of minutes. We have the minutes
from August 6, 2026 special meeting. Do
[0:50] the commissioners have any requested
revisions, reitions to the minutes?
[0:54] » None.
>> Hearing none. Can I have a motion to
[0:56] approve the minutes as submitted?
>> Krillinburgger. So motions.
[1:00] » Curry. Second.
>> Roll call vote, please. Bethany.
[1:03] » Commissioner Harlo.
>> I. Commissioner Curry. Hi,
[1:05] » Commissioner Krillinberger.
>> Hi,
[1:07] » Commissioner [clears throat] Cernovich.
>> Hi,
[1:08] » Commissioner Willoughby.
>> Abstain,
[1:10] » Commissioner Fusone.
>> Hi,
[1:13] » Commissioner Moore.
>> Hi,
[1:14] » Chairman Cashman.
>> Hi.
[1:16] » Uh, next we have a public hearing. Um
case A-27-2026
[1:21] the preserves of Hensdale for South 010
Madison Street a map amendment exterior
[1:28] parents and site view and tenative and
final plat of subdivision to allow for
[1:32] development of 19 code compliant lots
single [clears throat] family detached
[1:35] homes and an outlot for stormwater
detention and one lot for future
[1:39] development located in the R2 district
as well as a private park with public
[1:43] access located in the OS district. And I
have a motion to open the public
[1:48] hearing.
>> So moved. Willoughby.
[1:51] » Second. Cernovich.
>> Roll call, please. Becky.
[1:54] » Commissioner Harlo.
>> Hi.
[1:55] » Commissioner Curry.
>> Hi.
[1:56] » Commissioner Kenberger.
>> Hi.
[1:58] » Commissioner Cernovich.
>> Hi.
[1:59] » Commissioner Willoughby.
>> Hi.
[2:00] » Commissioner Fone.
>> Hi.
[2:02] » Commissioner Moore.
>> Hi.
[2:03] » Chairman Cashman.
>> Hi.
[2:05] » Is there um someone here from the
applicant to make a presentation?
[2:11] [clears throat]
>> How we doing? Good evening.
[2:12] » Welcome.
>> My name is Walker Kikas on behalf of the
[2:14] applicant. Um, first want to say thank
you so much for having us tonight. Thank
[2:18] you so much for Bethany, Tim Ryan, and
the whole team for putting this
[2:22] together. You all been fantastic.
Appreciate it.
[2:25] » And before we move on, can I ask um for
everyone who wishes to speak tonight to
[2:29] be sworn in by our court reporter?
[2:35] » If you if you intend to speak, please um
raise your right hand.
[2:39] » Audience,
everything you're about to say tonight,
[2:42] the whole truth.
I do. I do.
[2:46] » Great. Thank you.
>> Okay.
[2:49] » All right. Thank you. So, we'll do a
brief overview here and then open up for
[2:53] any questions. Um, the project scope of
this, as you mentioned, is 19 code
[2:58] compliant single family homes. Um, so it
is zoned R2 currently right now and
[3:04] we're not requesting any variances, so
it will stay R2. Um, and then also on
[3:09] top of that, there's three phases really
or three components. First is the north
[3:13] seven lots and then you have the south
12 lots and then you have the uh just
[3:21] over 15 acres of which is going to be
open space um which will be the open
[3:26] space district OS.
[3:32] So to zoom in on on both sides of these
on the north side here this these are
[3:36] the seven lots here. Uh they're roughly
well they are 100 by 400. So they are
[3:41] rather large lots. And then something to
point out is the five- foot gravel path
[3:46] uh on the north side there. It is
highlighted in yellow in the photo there
[3:50] on top. Um that will connect both
Madison Street to Adam Street.
[3:55] So that will be a nice kind of thorough
fair basically connecting instead of a
[3:59] sidewalk going all the way around to
Ogden, they'll be able to connect
[4:02] straight through there.
Now to the southside there is 12 lots.
[4:07] Uh they range from over 20,000 square
feet to over 34,000 square ft. Um there
[4:15] was a question about the culdesac there.
So the culdesac is in fact a culde-sac.
[4:20] It is not a street. It is not going to
Bonnie Bray. It is staying on our
[4:23] property and you'll have access on Adam
Street. So, if you're taking a right on
[4:27] Ogden, get on to Adams and then you take
a another right into the culde-sac and
[4:31] it'll be a roundabout and then come back
to Adam Street.
[4:36] Uh, another thing to mention here is the
new head wall extension connecting the
[4:40] sidewalks. I know that was a a important
point and we wanted to address that as
[4:44] well. So, uh, we met with engineering
and they said if you put in a head wall
[4:49] there that we'll be able to connect the
sidewalk from the north to the south as
[4:53] well. So essentially, you go from all
the way from Adam Street along the
[4:57] gravel path all the way down south Adam
Street along a sidewalk and over the
[5:02] head wall, which would be a sidewalk and
into that area as well. So since you
[5:07] were we're creating a loop all the way
around.
[5:10] That's kind of the brief presentation
there. Uh please let us know if you have
[5:14] any questions. Thank you all so much.
>> Great. Thank you, Laurel. Questions?
[5:20] » After [clears throat] the commissioner
talk, then we'll open it up for input
[5:22] from the community.
Um I I do have a number of questions,
[5:27] but just
>> to be clear about what you were just
[5:30] saying about the head wall.
>> Yes.
[5:32] » So does that mean that the entire
property will have what is essentially a
[5:37] sidewalk around it?
>> Yes, correct.
[5:40] » So all along Adams, all along Ogden.
>> No, I'm sorry. Not not Ogden. Um the
[5:46] engineer can speak to that, but
basically I do would not allow a
[5:49] sidewalk along Adams there or along
Ogden. So there is a sidewalk that
[5:54] connects from the culdesac street if
you're going north on Adams. So right
[5:58] now the waterway goes underneath Adams
right now.
[6:01] » So essentially we're adding a head wall
there that would widen up a space for a
[6:07] sidewalk so that no one has to walk in
the street like it is currently.
[6:10] » Okay.
>> Okay. [clears throat] Um,
[6:15] so, um, I'll start off by saying thank
you for everything that has gone into
[6:21] this proposal thus far. This is like
this is a huge amount of work and, um,
[6:26] I'm super appreciative about that. Um,
some that said, I do have some
[6:34] questions. Um, some things seemed
somewhat vague. Um, I'll start with the
[6:40] traffic study. Um the in-out numbers,
there was definitely um justification
[6:48] given for those in the handout. Um but
they they
[6:55] don't seem realistic to me as a Hinsdale
resident um knowing the patterns of our
[7:02] neighborhoods and so forth
>> in terms of the in-out at um the peak
[7:07] times and it also
>> just thinking about um [clears throat]
[7:12] the Ogden Avenue traffic conditions
which that um sheet didn't really
[7:18] address. only addressed the traffic that
would be coming from the homes. Um, you
[7:23] know, it's two lanes in both directions
and I would be really concerned about
[7:28] the left turns in and the left turns out
off of Adams or coming from Adams. Um,
[7:35] especially if it's a school bus that has
to do that every day and they're just
[7:40] waiting and waiting and wait, you know,
it's it could really be problematic. So,
[7:44] I think the traffic study needs um more
development. Um and perhaps even if a
[7:52] light did go in [clears throat] there,
it could be something that was timed,
[7:56] you know, synchronized with Madison and
and 83 so that it wouldn't um
[8:03] you wouldn't just have this traffic
snarl every single day. It would it
[8:07] would really flow. But I I do think they
need something with this many people
[8:11] going in there. Um,
I'm wondering if these are going to be
[8:18] speck homes or custom homes.
>> So, essentially, we're we're just doing
[8:23] the infrastructure to it and then we're
going to either sell them to people that
[8:26] want to buy a custom home or sell them
to a builder. So, we're just
[8:30] redeveloping the land and subdividing
the lots.
[8:33] » I see. Okay. And so, that's why the
covenant was written as though there may
[8:37] be many different developers coming in.
>> Exactly.
[8:40] » Okay.
>> Yes. Got it. Um and I did appreciate by
[8:44] the way in your covenant um details such
as your monotony clause because um
[8:49] Hinsdale does not have you know a single
sort of monotonous development style and
[8:56] it would be in my view it would be a
shame if this if this beautiful area
[9:03] ended up vastly different from what the
rest of the town is. Um,
[9:10] okay. Thinking also though about the the
exterior appearance and site plan
[9:16] criteria,
many of your answers to those questions
[9:20] had to do with um we will match the
neighborhood. So that seemed very vague.
[9:27] There's no neighborhood there. And so I
was just wondering what you were
[9:31] referring to if it is Monty Bray or
um the houses in Oakwork or the other
[9:39] side of Ogden which is largely
commercial.
[9:43] » No, it it would be the houses from AC
across south of Ogden into Hinsdale.
[9:49] Hinsdale proper.
>> Okay. Yes. Like on South Adams South
[9:53] Monroe like
>> Yes.
[9:55] » there.
>> Yes. Exactly. But at the at the same
[9:58] time, it's hard for us to dictate
exactly what these houses will look like
[10:01] because we're subdividing the lots and
say a builder come in comes in and says,
[10:07] "Oh, no, we didn't you specified a
certain brick or something like that."
[10:12] It would be hard to kind of narrow and
pinch everybody down into that. We
[10:16] obviously do not want this to look like
a just blanketed subdivision. We want it
[10:23] to, you know, adhere to Hinsdale. every
lot will go through planning and
[10:28] development and go through that whole
process. So we are looking to kind of
[10:31] adhere to uh Hinsdale look for sure.
>> Okay. Um
[10:37] to that end I would suggest that maybe
the in the exterior appearance and
[10:42] [clears throat] site plan information we
could tighten up that language a little
[10:46] bit
>> for sure
[10:47] » so that um
>> we would end up with that result.
[10:50] » Yeah, we're happy to take a look at it
with Bethany [clears throat] and the
[10:52] team.
>> Okay. Um
[10:55] Do you have any plans for wetland
landscaping?
[11:01] » No. So, John Pinbrook did an absolute
great a great job with meeting with all
[11:05] the neighbors in in the immediate area
and saying, "What do we want this park
[11:11] open space to look like?" And it was a
strong majority saying we want this to
[11:16] be as natural as possible with maybe a c
maybe a walking path or something like
[11:21] that and some benches, but to leave it
as much untouched as possible. Um so we
[11:27] heard that we related to the the
Hinsdale team. Um and that's what we
[11:32] kind of settled with there is to leave
it as natural as possible.
[11:38] » Okay. Um [clears throat] I think in
order to do that, you still need a plan.
[11:45] And it so that for instance, if
invasives start to creep in, you either
[11:52] let them naturalize or you take them
out. Um maybe you as you're creating
[11:59] your walking path, you create a focal
point and that's where the benches are
[12:05] sort of pointed or um
>> you see what I'm saying? Still a very
[12:10] light touch. But I think you need a
plan. I mean, even just the maintenance
[12:15] plan because the way that it's all grass
right now, I mean, someone has to be
[12:20] mowing that.
>> Yes, for sure.
[12:21] » So, um, there needs to be a like a clear
even a light touch plan in terms of that
[12:30] wetland.
>> For sure.
[12:32] » Um,
okay. There wasn't anything in the
[12:36] packet having to do with the school
impact. Have you looked at how many
[12:41] students you're thinking you would be um
um
[12:47] adding to Monroe CHMS
Central?
[12:52] » We did take a brief
>> Yeah, we did take a a brief look at that
[12:55] and and we're working with city staff on
nothing was necessarily in writing on on
[13:01] things, but it it did come up. So, we'll
continue to work with them on that.
[13:05] » Okay. And then um my last point would be
that um I know you have a lot of water
[13:13] detention on here and I'm sure other
commissioners will speak to that. Um but
[13:19] I'm I do have a concern just kind of at
the 30,000 foot level. Um that the edge
[13:26] of the flood plane goes over several of
the lot lines um with a few of them in a
[13:32] very significant way. And um
we have had developments in in um
[13:40] Hinsdale
built in a flood plane in the past. Salt
[13:45] Creek um you know the Grow Mill
development is the one that really comes
[13:49] to mind. And when you have an enormous
hundred-year storm,
[13:56] people really, you know, are in danger
and they lose property and it it doesn't
[14:01] seem necessarily responsible to be
developing the edges of it um in that
[14:09] way. So,
I just I would hate to see people
[14:16] purchase these beautiful lots, you know,
invest their lives and their homes and
[14:21] everything here and then
have a huge event like that
[14:26] » for sure. [clears throat]
>> Good. The engineer speak to that?
[14:30] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[14:32] » Well, uh my name is Alex Her. the civil
engineer uh on this project and so um
[14:38] flood plane
>> which firm
[14:40] » Gabriel Group
>> Engineering and so um this uh concern
[14:44] was raised by staff and uh county. So um
the design of the each lot which uh
[14:50] touches the flood plane will meet um
county village and FEMA standards uh for
[14:55] minimum protect you know the the minimum
required protection. Obviously, we're
[14:59] going to do more than the minimum, but
the flood plane permitting will go
[15:03] through the county. So, we will make
sure we meet county as well as uh
[15:07] village standards for any lots developed
within the edges of the flood plan.
[15:13] » To your knowledge, has the county
changed their [snorts]
[15:18] requirements
after any of these big events have
[15:22] occurred in recent years? Uh I believe
their ordinance uh was u adopted or
[15:28] revised and adopted in 2022
um after the new flood plane maps were
[15:33] issued.
>> Okay.
[15:34] » So it's been that in the last since the
last revision.
[15:38] » Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. No further
questions.
[15:42] » Thanks Laura [clears throat]
Cynthia.
[15:44] » You touched on a lot of things. Thank
you again for all the work done for
[15:48] this. I have some of the same questions.
Um, one of them, however, and you're the
[15:53] engineer. Um, I have a concern that
these lands were inhabited by Native
[15:58] Americans for a long period of time, and
I'm wondering in your construction, have
[16:03] you done any overview of what you might
expect once you number one tear down the
[16:10] buildings as well as the construction as
you're move? And I know you won't be
[16:14] part of the houses being built. you're
going to be just [clears throat]
[16:18] doing the the ground works uh for these
lots, but I'm wondering if you think
[16:23] that that's something you should look
into.
[16:25] » Uh yes, it will be. Um uh one permit
that's required of this is the storm
[16:29] water pollution prevention permit by the
IEPA. We'll need to get one on uh we'll
[16:34] need to uh obtain a permit for this
project. And one of the reviews is um
[16:39] done by the state uh historical
preservation office and they look
[16:43] through various cultural architectural
or archaeological uh issues for this
[16:48] land. So yes, it will go through um the
state um historical preservation
[16:54] » that would be checked before anything
begins with constructions of homes on
[16:57] the property. Correct.
>> Correct. Yes. Um [clears throat]
[17:01] then a question the the open space um I
know that you are giving to the village
[17:07] of Hinsdale although it's the HOA is
going to be maintaining that parcel of
[17:11] property it's it's designated to or or
given to the village of Hinsdale. Is
[17:16] that correct?
[17:20] » Yeah. Beth Bethany you want to clarify
on that?
[17:23] » Yeah. So what they're proposing is that
that uh that about 15 acres of land will
[17:30] be maintained privately uh in the future
by the future homeowners association. Um
[17:35] our village code in our subdivision does
allow them to um propose subject to
[17:40] village board approval private common
open space instead of publicly dedicated
[17:45] land. And they are able they don't have
to keep this land to be publicly
[17:49] accessible but they have um with this
path added especially to provide
[17:53] connection to Madison Street they are
making the land publicly accessible
[17:57] which is not required by the code
otherwise there's a fee in lie that
[18:00] they'd be required to pay.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
[18:03] It's nice to know with the the water
that's there, are there any concerns or
[18:08] anything you need to do because I'm sure
if it is a village property, um there's
[18:12] liability issues if something were to
occur on that property. And I'm
[18:17] wondering because I know you're taking
one bridge down, there is one remaining,
[18:21] is there anything you need to do to
protect that as a public space or is
[18:25] there anything you would require?
>> Um
[18:29] I mean they're they're engineering the
site so that you know there shouldn't
[18:33] hopefully be flooding within this area.
Um they'd have to look into further of
[18:37] what an HOA might need to do in terms of
liabilities, insuranceances, um but it
[18:42] won't be publicly dedicated land. So
that's something that the future HOA
[18:46] would be required to maintain and look
into.
[18:48] » Okay.
And I had, you know, question about the
[18:52] homes being designed. [clears throat]
So, is your plan to if someone came in
[18:55] and said, "I'm going to take over all
these properties in one builder," or are
[19:00] you going to try and sell portions of it
at a time?
[19:05] » We're we're pretty early in the in the
process on that. We're we're still
[19:09] trying to get through all the
infrastructure and trying to get this
[19:11] passed and through dupage and so forth.
So, it's it's we haven't even put it to
[19:16] market or anything. So, it's it's very
hard to say at this time. I'm just
[19:19] wondering what safeguards we would have
so we don't wind up with a little
[19:23] development there where everything kind
of looks the same.
[19:26] » Well, I think in the covenants it's very
>> Is the covenant strict enough that would
[19:29] protect us?
>> Yes, it really gets into the details of
[19:32] » architecture review by
[19:39] » Yes. So, there's another plans. I know
you were talking about park bench is
[19:42] there in your question about landscaping
and having an idea what that would look
[19:45] like. Um,
playground equipment I thought. Is that
[19:49] ever something that would come to pass
that you would want to add, but that's
[19:52] nothing you'd be doing at this point?
>> Correct.
[19:55] » Okay.
>> Yes.
[19:57] » Uh let's see. I think that is and the
assessments to the homeowners
[20:04] as you start to sell things off. I'm
thinking whomever buys this has to
[20:07] continue taking care of the property
until everything is divided up equally.
[20:11] Correct.
>> Exactly. For sure.
[20:15] um the bridge that you removed and I
know that it was in bad shape. Is there
[20:20] a reason you wouldn't put that back?
>> That was it. It was a very dilapidated
[20:25] wood structure that jumped off into like
a a little island you could call
[20:32] » um just for liability purposes and all
this stuff. It it was like it doesn't
[20:36] make sense to even put this back,
especially with that island there. Who
[20:40] knows if someone gets stuck there,
someone brings something on it. So we we
[20:44] agreed we'll we'll go and take that
down.
[20:46] » Great. Thank you.
>> Sure.
[20:47] » No more question.
>> Thanks.
[20:49] » Great.
>> Jen,
[20:51] » uh my my questions are pretty
straightforward and thank you guys are
[20:54] very thorough. Um can you elaborate on
publicly accessible? Will there be
[20:58] parking for uh uh for the public? Will
they actually be welcome or will there
[21:03] be some sort of obstacle to using the
park? No, this this is strictly, you
[21:07] know, like Bethany mentioned, this is
owned and maintained by the HOA and this
[21:13] will be open and and free for the public
um you know, citizens of Hinsdale to
[21:19] come and enjoy themselves. So there
there is no catch or signup sheet or
[21:24] anything like that.
>> Okay. And park some parking available
[21:26] for
>> Oh, I apologize. No, no, no parking um
[21:30] for it. It just didn't it didn't make a
lot of sense because we're bringing the
[21:33] sidewalk straight down kind of there
too. Um so no no parking but if anybody
[21:38] wants to walk or ride their bike and
enjoy nature then have at it.
[21:42] » I'm coming.
>> It sounds good. It is a beautiful piece.
[21:45] » Uh and it looks like you're going to
have comments from the neighbors. So
[21:49] what's your perspective on the comments
you got from the neighbors? Uh was the
[21:53] process Salt Creek and residents pretty
uh positive from your perspective?
[21:58] » For sure. There was definitely obviously
rightfully so. There was concern about
[22:02] water and and where is this water going
to go? We're concerned about flooding
[22:06] and so forth. Again, rightfully so. But,
uh, like like Alex mentioned, we're
[22:10] going we're going to hear strictly to
Hinsdale and DuPage County. Um, and
[22:17] whatever their recommendations are,
we're going to follow that and go from
[22:19] there.
>> Okay. and a little bit more than the
[22:21] minimum as you [laughter]
>> um the uh uh covenants some of the
[22:26] covenants look like they are uh actually
not as restrictive as village of
[22:31] hensdale so I would and maybe I'm wrong
maybe I didn't read them correctly but
[22:35] like signage is the one that stuck out
for me because we're very signoriented
[22:40] Julie
um [laughter]
[22:43] so uh if if uh is there something in
there that I missed that said uh subject
[22:50] to the more restrictive of these
covenants or village, county, state,
[22:56] federal restrictions or is that
>> that's that's a good question. I could
[23:00] check on that and and make sure that it
does adhere to at a minimum Hinsdale
[23:06] » and and village staff and the village
attorney have reviewed those covenants
[23:09] and it was my understanding that they
were revised so that they would meet
[23:13] village code requirements.
>> Okay. very specifically the uh
[23:16] construction signage uh that's
temporary, you know, we are building a
[23:20] house here. We are Bob's construction
company. It looked from my understanding
[23:25] of the village code that that would not
be allowed here, but I might be wrong.
[23:28] » I will double check on that after the
meeting. We do allow for certain
[23:31] construction signage. Um but I'll double
check to make sure there's no conflicts
[23:35] with the with the code right now. And
>> sounds good. Um a and lastly uh you seem
[23:41] very confident in this and this seems
like a to me a very good plan so far
[23:45] subject to further cave. What is your
have you done other work in the area?
[23:50] » Yes for yeah we've we've built we're we
built plenty of homes in Elmherst area.
[23:55] We've we've built multiple homes in
Hinsdale Clarin Hills. Um so yes
[23:59] » you're not a builder. You're a land
>> Yes. I speculator.
[24:04] » Yeah. I I thought you were talking about
personally me. I apologize.
[24:06] » I kind of am.
>> Uh yes. So, so there are multiple
[24:09] partners on this this deal. Um, and
within the LLC there is everybody is
[24:15] welloriented in different facets, but
yes, there is a um a builder that is
[24:21] that is on this team as well. Um, one of
the partners that is very active in
[24:25] Elmherst has built, like I said, in
Hinsdale and Clearon Hills. Yes.
[24:29] » Okay. And you're well financed. This is
going to go through and you're going to
[24:31] finish the plumbing and
>> Yes, for sure.
[24:34] » Okay. Um, good. That's all I have.
Thanks, J. Julie.
[24:40] » Hi. Um, my first question is Okay. Um,
it's my understanding it's not a PUB.
[24:48] So, how can you ask for waivers?
>> I I can answer that. So, our subdivision
[24:54] code does allow them to ask for specific
waiverss to the subdivision code. So the
[24:59] waiverss that they're requesting are
for, for example, that sidewalk along
[25:03] Ogden Avenue and street trees, which are
in the subdivision code, not the zoning
[25:07] code.
>> Okay.
[25:09] » So they're they're not zoning code
waiverss because that would require a
[25:11] variation.
>> Um my next question is about the
[25:14] landscaping plans. Has the village
forester had a chance to review those?
[25:20] » Yes, he we're still working through the
comments.
[25:22] » Yep. There are still a few um fi I think
one of the conditions that staff has
[25:27] recommended that's added if if this
should move forward as a recommendation
[25:30] tonight is that all final um village
forester comments would be addressed and
[25:35] there's pretty minor ones still that are
left but but there were still a few of a
[25:39] few dead trees here or there and then to
allow for some flexibility of because we
[25:43] don't know what the individual lots will
be built out as and where those
[25:46] driveways specifically will be that
maybe a street tree or two would be
[25:50] moved a little bit this way or that way
still meeting the code requirements for
[25:54] I think the 40 foot spacing. So,
>> thank you.
[25:57] » But they have reviewed it and we we
would like to add to make sure that they
[26:00] they address those final comments.
>> Okay, that's very helpful. Um even
[26:06] though I would have liked if that had
all been figured out before you were in
[26:10] front of us tonight so we know exactly
what we're voting on. Um, okay. My next
[26:16] question,
um, and Cynthia, you brought this up.
[26:23] Um, if you were going to do a Shipo, you
know, historical review,
[26:28] I think that's very important because,
as you probably are aware, that whole
[26:33] area was um, villages for the Native
Americans.
[26:38] Um, I know Oakbrook did a survey many
years ago that lists what was found and
[26:45] what should be done for um, future
development.
[26:49] And I think that's something um, that
needs to be looked at. And we've had
[26:55] another applicant in front of us before
a few years ago and they had all that
[27:01] work, everything done before they came
in front of us. So they knew they could
[27:05] go ahead.
Um,
[27:09] so I would like to see something like
that. Um, it seems like you have a lot
[27:15] of things you're considering which you
don't have the final answer on yet.
[27:21] So certain things are kind of vague to
me like the landscaping, the shipo
[27:27] review,
um, the exterior appearance of the
[27:31] homes.
Um,
[27:34] » there's no exterior appearance on per
comp
[27:37] » right on code compliance
>> and that's what these would be all be
[27:40] » okay but I still have
>> we're really talking subdivision here
[27:44] » okay um I had some questions too about
the park open hours how that would be
[27:50] enforced
>> so I I think we we would list that in
[27:55] the HOA documents uh but yes it would it
would adhere to the village of Hensdale
[28:00] parks as well so that there it would be
I I believe is it 8:00 or 7 8 o'clock
[28:06] that um there's a cut off time for uh
people using that.
[28:12] » I thought I read somewhere the cut off
time in your plan was going to be six
[28:15] o'clock. Am I mistaken?
>> It it could to to be honest, I'm I'm not
[28:19] exactly sure that specific line in the
HOA documents. Um but if I could for for
[28:25] the forestry, she she mentioned them
there. Yes, we're we're going to we're
[28:29] actively working on the rest of the
engineering and we've already um emailed
[28:34] the village basically saying yes, we're
working on these. It was a couple of of
[28:38] trees that we were taken down. Um and
then like like Bethany said, just we
[28:44] don't know exactly where what side of
the driveways these houses are going to
[28:47] have, so it would be premature to
finalize tree placement when we don't
[28:52] know exactly where everything's going to
fall. So, but yes, we we will we will
[28:55] accept, you know, the forestry's uh
remarks on that.
[28:58] » Would that have to go to the tree board,
Bethany, or back to us, or how would
[29:03] that work?
>> Um, to my knowledge, I don't believe
[29:05] that they'd have to go to the tree
board. Um, there these are pretty minor
[29:09] comments that we'd work with them on.
There were a couple of trees, um, like
[29:14] some buckthorn that were still can be
shown as removed. There were some dead
[29:17] trees that were noted. Um, so these were
pretty minor. Um, but I will double
[29:22] check if it needs if this would need to
go to the tree board for some of those
[29:25] tree removals. Um, and that would but it
wouldn't need to come back here if we
[29:29] added that as a condition of approval to
work with staff.
[29:32] » And the conditions on page two that are
being recommended addresses all that so
[29:36] that the village has the authority to
then address all the tree issues and
[29:41] » for building permits. So, it have to be
reviewed and approved before they get
[29:45] the permit.
>> Sounds like you guys are going to be
[29:47] busy.
>> Yeah. Um, okay. I also had a question
[29:53] about the school impact. Um,
[30:03] and then do you have any plans for like
street lights, things like that?
[30:08] » Yes, th those are in the the plans as
well. I don't miss that.
[30:11] » Yeah, we're we're going to be fixing the
the existing street lights. Yes,
[30:15] exactly.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[30:19] Okay, that's all I have. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[30:21] » Thanks, Julie. And Mark. [clears throat]
>> Yeah. All right. Thank you. U Thank you
[30:26] very much for the plans. I understand
this is a very constrained site from a
[30:29] water resource perspective. So, I'm
going to bear that in mind while why I
[30:33] make my comments, but um first, uh I
wanted to start with the open space. Um,
[30:39] did we is the park district been engaged
as it relates to I I'm I'm totally
[30:44] opposed to it being remaining public. I
think it putting it on the HOA. It I've
[30:51] seen enough detention ponds that get
left to HOAs to fund. I don't see it
[30:56] happening. It's
>> you're opposed to what?
[30:59] » To staying with the HOA, the public
space.
[31:02] » Oh,
>> because it it really that's a lot to put
[31:06] on a HOA. I mean detention ponds alone,
let alone 15 acres. I think what Harlo
[31:10] or Commissioner Harlo was saying was
important. We need a maintenance plan to
[31:14] understand what maintenance looks like.
What are we maintaining too? There's a
[31:17] lot in this covenants and restrictions
for maintenance. [clears throat] But at
[31:20] the end of the day, if that doesn't
happen, we go through the lean process.
[31:23] We go through um you know, potentially
turning over to the village in the first
[31:27] place um or at the end of the day. So, I
would like to start there of is this an
[31:34] amenity that could be turned over to the
to the village as park? We don't get big
[31:38] chunks of open space like this that
could become parks. Why not take the
[31:41] opportunity of putting it in the public
trust?
[31:43] » That's that's my opinion.
>> Could you address that, Bethany? Because
[31:46] I know the village talked about it and
they prefer this approach versus taking
[31:50] over the lake
>> in in the initial stages with the
[31:52] applicants and they can also speak to
this because we've spoke about this uh
[31:56] consistently. We did talk about uh the
possibility of this land being dedicated
[31:59] to the village. The village did do some
initial cost estimates of what it would
[32:03] just cost to mow the grass and it was
exponentially high compared to our
[32:09] current parks budget. And so there were
some concerns of um how do we how do we
[32:13] also maintain public access but keep it
private? And so they have they have
[32:18] looked at the private option.
>> I still think that should be explored
[32:21] more mowing. Maybe that's not the use.
Maybe it's a prairie. Maybe it's
[32:25] something like being nature preserve.
>> We also did get like what it would do be
[32:30] to to go to maintenance plans and
everything, what it would be to actually
[32:33] plant, do native plantings, wetland
restoration, and the costs were quite
[32:37] high, but it is something that you guys
can recommend that the village board
[32:40] look at further. Um, but we did do
initial costs last year and they they
[32:45] were above budget.
>> Yeah, I that's that's my biggest
[32:49] challenge with with this is that I just
I think it's a lot to put on HOA.
[32:53] typically the the you know I don't know
if a special service area was discussed
[32:57] but that's not necessarily appropriate
if we're going to keep it for the public
[33:01] right to put it on the HOA to fund an
SSA either. So that's why I think at the
[33:06] end of the day an SSA is not necessarily
the right mechanism. I I truly think we
[33:12] need to explore more. I I I think 20
years from now the endgame is this
[33:17] either there's a lean on every property
there because of maintenance issues. And
[33:22] I'm not trying to be a doomsday, but I
just think this is the way it's going to
[33:25] play out is that either there's lean or
at the end of the day it's turned over
[33:30] to the village. So why not explore that
from the beginning and it sounds like
[33:34] you've explored it, but I I would highly
encourage that.
[33:38] » Even though it's been under private
control for 50 years.
[33:42] » Yeah. And it's there's del there's trees
falling down in it. There's it's
[33:47] » I mean it's it's not
>> a great from a natural resource
[33:52] perspective and if I I mean that's just
my opinion. I agree.
[33:55] » So um so that's the public um plan but
at a minimum if it stays in this I agree
[34:02] with Commissioner Harlo we need a
maintenance plan because maintenance is
[34:05] the trigger for what is the village
going to hold to the HOA to from a
[34:11] maintenance perspective because the
village has the ability to do the
[34:15] maintenance themselves and then recoup
those costs. what is the baseline
[34:18] maintenance requirement so that that can
be held against that if it does stay in
[34:22] the private sector.
>> So, good idea.
[34:25] » Um, so the other items I had um
obvious
[34:32] around a detention pond. I understand
you need that to get your volumes. Um,
[34:36] they it makes maintenance challenging.
You you can only get into that pond from
[34:40] lots nine and or from nine and 10. Um it
it's just the retaining walls are
[34:46] another added level of maintenance. And
so I think part of this personally I
[34:50] know it's you know conforming. It's the
density. You got to fit you know storm
[34:55] water requirements. You got the culdeac.
You got all these lots. It's the density
[34:59] that's driving the decision or the need
to have that retaining wall. I'm not a
[35:03] fan of retaining walls in detention
ponds. They end up you know they there
[35:07] are barriers to maintenance. um
especially if you can only get in from
[35:11] two lots to to do that maintenance. Um
and they are a maintenance need
[35:15] themselves that again retaining walls
are expensive. You know my my my you
[35:21] know concern is that the density is too
high for everything you need to fit comp
[35:26] um based on the water resource
constraints at this site. So um that's
[35:31] just another one of my comments. And I
also um just you know I understand um ID
[35:37] do won't let you put the crossing um
there. I'm assuming we're going to
[35:42] Monroe with this school um this year. I
that's a just a challenging crossing if
[35:48] if people do try to cross there. I don't
think they're going to go all the way up
[35:51] to the north end of the thing, walk over
to Madison, and then come back down. Um
[35:56] I I have some concerns that there will
be, you know, um some crossing at a very
[36:02] crazy intersection to a dead end
culde-sac on Adams, right? That's what's
[36:07] on the other side behind manner.
>> Correct.
[36:10] » Yeah. So I just I have some concerns
there
[36:13] » with this much. You know,
>> I don't think anyone's walking to school
[36:16] from this area.
>> I know, but I People do cross there.
[36:19] Yeah. Oh, I cross there.
>> Yeah, I cross there. Yeah.
[36:21] » But I've seen school buses picking up
kids.
[36:23] » I agree. I'm just saying in general
there's, you know, there isn't increased
[36:28] amount of potential for trying to cross
that. I just
[36:31] » um I'm just raising that as a concern.
>> And do you have a suggested alternative?
[36:35] » No, I don't. But this isn't my project.
>> Understood.
[36:39] » Yeah. Good.
>> But the school district does have to
[36:42] sign off on the final plan. So they will
have input here.
[36:47] » Yeah.
>> Those are my considerations.
[36:50] » Thank you, Mark.
>> Yep.
[36:52] » Hi, how are you? Um, Commissioner Willby
brings up a really good point. Um, I do
[36:58] know that, um, over in Gro Mill, you
can't get a loan backed by Freddy and
[37:03] Fainy because the HOA has not kept up
with their, um, flood issues and you
[37:07] can't get a loan. Um, so I mean, that's
a really valid point. If there's this
[37:12] becomes a problem, these houses can't
get loans because the the flooding
[37:16] becomes so bad that Fanny and Freddy
won't support back a loan. Do you want
[37:22] to answer?
>> Right. Um, the homes will be outside of
[37:26] the flood plane.
>> Um, so there should be no issues getting
[37:30] insurance for homes outside of the flood
plane. There is flood plane on the
[37:34] property, but the homes will be outside
of the flood movements.
[37:37] » I think it's actually more of an issue
with the village not wanting to, you
[37:41] know, cover this cost. Less of a
problem, I guess. Um I mean yes the
[37:46] flood planes obviously an issue but more
along the lines of the HOA covering or
[37:50] being in charge of this um open place.
Yeah.
[37:55] » Um okay. So um as many have said before
this is a gateway to the village and I
[38:02] really wish we had an opportunity to
know what was being developed for sure
[38:09] on the west side um of Adams but we
don't. That's not your problem. Um but
[38:14] we are given certain criteria to look at
um 12 or 13 points that you know all
[38:19] relate to um the
existing structures nearby and the
[38:25] compliance and comp compatibility with
things nearby and um it's really hard
[38:29] for us to um look at that because
there's we don't know what's coming. So
[38:33] just for the record, I think we should
be looking at this um as you know, at
[38:38] least not as a whole because this is
owned by different people, but we
[38:42] should, you know, have a better
understanding as to what's being
[38:44] developed over there. Um with that said,
relates to you guys, um it being the
[38:49] gateway, um I know IDA will not allow
you to plant trees or anything or bushes
[38:55] or arboret along Ogden. Um, but I would
like to see some landscaping um, behind
[39:02] that easement if possible. Um, on the
burm. I think we talked about a burm
[39:06] going right there. I think it's
important to kind of have some coverage
[39:10] between Ogden and those houses. I don't
know how much space because you don't
[39:14] know what's being built there yet, but I
do think that's really important to
[39:17] have. Um,
>> yeah. Um, as part of the grading plan,
[39:21] uh, there is a burm.
>> Yes.
[39:22] » On private property between the homes
and Ogden. Would it be possible to build
[39:27] on ever build um plants on on that BM?
>> Uh I don't see why not. I mean that make
[39:32] most sense because I don't think
anyone's wants to look at Ogden outside
[39:36] the back window. So right
>> I think most folks
[39:38] » Well, you would think that
>> Yeah, I would. But but they don't.
[39:41] » Yeah, I would put [laughter] evergreens
on these BMS, right?
[39:43] » Yeah. I really think that's a suggestion
that we should um implement as a
[39:47] condition to this site plan if you're
against it or not. No, we we're we're
[39:54] we're willing to to entertain it for
sure.
[39:57] » Okay. Yes.
>> Looks like there's the burn is about 7
[39:59] foot high from the backyards.
>> Yeah.
[40:03] » Uh well, as I think about um Kensington
over there, that development, and you
[40:08] just I mean, obviously the trees aren't
that tall, but you just when you're up
[40:12] in those houses, you just look directly
onto Ogden.
[40:16] » Oh, the new development.
>> Yeah.
[40:18] » Um and you can honestly when you're in a
on Ogden, it's not even not on Octton,
[40:22] but when you're on Octton, you can see
in the windows. So, it's just being a
[40:26] gateway to the village. I think it's
important. So, um, and then I just echo
[40:32] the park security measures. Um, I was
over there looking at the property and I
[40:37] was asked to leave. So, whoever's doing
that did a great job. [laughter]
[40:41] They said, "Who are you? This private
property.
[40:42] » What were you doing?"
>> I was looking at the I was looking at
[40:46] all this. Um, but I
>> Did you say on the record that you were
[40:49] on our property? Is that what you said?
[laughter]
[40:51] or not. There's no sidewalk. So,
>> did you see that? No trespassing sign
[40:56] [laughter] posted.
>> Have you been sworn in?
[41:00] » Um,
>> officer will take care of you when
[41:02] [laughter]
>> um
[41:06] anyways, I do know that since it's been
vacant, I I have teens and I know they
[41:10] have not my kids, I'm just getting us
all in trouble. Um, that that teens have
[41:15] been over there a lot. Um, and just so
you guys are aware that it's become a an
[41:20] issue with trespassing. For sure.
>> For sure. Yeah, we we've been working
[41:23] with city staff, city staff and the
police have been phenomenal. Um, we're
[41:28] doing our best to secure it, but at the
same time, we're our hands were kind of
[41:32] tied with Kameed trying to get out there
in disconnecting 950 North Madison. Um,
[41:38] so we hope to have a disconnect letter
in hand um within the next week and then
[41:43] mobilize the crew and have these things
demoed within two weeks.
[41:47] » Okay. I would just suggest like
>> I don't know um just as simple as a sign
[41:53] stating the hours or something to keep
people off the out of the park
[41:58] » right now. It says no trespassing
everywhere.
[42:00] » I'm just saying once it's developed,
Steve, [laughter]
[42:03] » that's for sure. Well, she was on the
public street.
[42:06] » Yeah, I'm sure you never crossed the
curb.
[42:08] » I don't know. Something was weird was
going on. They said there was an
[42:11] investigation. I need to leave. It was a
[laughter] whole thing.
[42:15] » Um and then um just my concern with the
traffic. Um I think it is going to be a
[42:22] bigger issue and not necessarily your
fault but again looking at the whole
[42:27] picture um it'll be something that once
we do get the proposal for next door
[42:32] we'll have to take a look at and it
might affect your sit you know whether
[42:36] ID do takes a piece whatever it's just
in the future that's it's going to be
[42:41] huge a huge piece of the project.
>> Yes. Again, we're willing to work with
[42:45] village of Hinsdale um and in the public
to, you know, to do what's right
[42:50] basically in this in this situation. So,
if something does come up, we're happy
[42:53] to work the v with the village.
>> Appreciate that.
[42:55] » For sure.
>> And and related to that, the development
[42:57] plan, I thought there was a letter in
here about the just rough schedule, you
[43:01] really are looking to start on the north
lots first and then um reserve place as
[43:07] it was called the culdeac. That would be
the second phase.
[43:10] » Yes, correct. So, we're going to be
basically doing all the the whole water
[43:13] and sewer loop all the way around. And
it's not like we're just going to be
[43:17] just on the north side. We're going to
be doing a little stuff on the south
[43:20] side, too, with the water and sewer loop
around, moving some earth, that kind of
[43:23] stuff. Um, but yes, our our main focus
will be on the north seven lots first.
[43:29] » Great.
>> And with those north seven lots, that's
[43:32] where they on this plan um in our
packet, that's where the flood plane
[43:38] really encroaches on several of the
lots. um most uh dramatically. Can you
[43:45] just explain expand upon your statement
that all of the homes will be built
[43:49] outside of the flood plane?
>> I'm really concerned about lot 13 where
[43:55] 90% of it is in the flood plane. 14 it
looks like about 75% of it is in the
[44:01] flood plane. I don't know how you can
position a house without having it like
[44:06] at the curb. So if you could just um
there's easements on those specific lots
[44:11] different depths to stay away if you
could describe the storm water easements
[44:14] that they're on.
>> How does that work?
[44:16] » Right. So um for flood plane to relocate
the flood plane limits. We would fill in
[44:22] part of the flood plane and provide
compensatory storage on other parts of
[44:26] the property. So there's a lot of land
where we can move dirt around. And so
[44:30] essentially we're going to change the
flood plane limits once the homes are
[44:34] proposed. So once they figure out what
the final footprints are, we'll move the
[44:38] flood plane limits appropriately and
we'll compensate for that at other parts
[44:41] of the property or of the land. And
there's plenty of land outside of the
[44:44] flood plane to provide that compensatory
storage. So that these easements, the
[44:49] storm water drainage, storm water
management easements that you have on
[44:52] like lot 16, 15, 14 that get
increasingly deeper that will be kind of
[44:59] driven by final engineering with the
county and village or will those
[45:03] easements is that what you think they'll
be?
[45:05] » Well, those easements are are fixed. So
>> So no one can build on those parts I
[45:12] mean they're deep lots. um they really
can only build out towards the street
[45:16] side, not the back side.
>> Correct. And and you'll see those shaded
[45:19] boxes. That's the proposed footprint and
those are large footprint.
[45:23] » Right.
>> And so um yeah, and and those um the
[45:26] southern lots where the flood planes are
encroaching. We'll be relocating those
[45:30] flood plane limits by uh providing
compensatory storage on the other lots.
[45:36] So we'll just move it around, move the
flood plane limits around to make sure
[45:39] the final flood plane limit is outside
of the building. on this these drawings
[45:45] » where they
>> these are all easements. So you can't
[45:48] build on this lot even though it's this
deep. You [clears throat] can only build
[45:51] in this portion of the
>> right there.
[45:53] » Yeah.
>> Keeping away from the storm lot.
[45:57] » Yep.
[46:01] » And other questions or comments? Thank
you Scott.
[46:05] » Keeping on that same thread. Uh,
hi. By the way, as we look at square
[46:13] footage of home that can be built and we
look at the size of the lots and we're
[46:18] saying that there's an easement or a
non-buildable part of these lots, does
[46:23] that count against the F and how big
those houses can be? Because in other
[46:29] words, if you can't build if you have a
lot that's could allow for a 20,000
[46:34] square foot lot or whatever and a house
to be built on that, but you can only
[46:39] use
>> 10% of the lot or 20% of the lot. It
[46:43] doesn't make sense for it to be zoned R2
to me. And so I'm asking the architect
[46:48] in the room and how that works because
it it doesn't seem to me to make sense
[46:54] » from you don't like utility easements
and everything are not part of the
[46:58] » No. Uh the whole lot counts for the
underlying property, not the
[47:02] » even if it's not a buildable part of the
lot.
[47:04] » Correct. So any sort of easements like
if you even had a rear um comed easement
[47:08] or a storm sewer ement your back, it's
still the underlying lot.
[47:11] » Okay, cool. Thank you. Um that helps.
Um, I'm going to go to where
[47:17] Commissioner Fusonei was a little bit
too.
[47:21] There's something about all of this area
that I think we have to look at
[47:26] holistically. We're touching on it with
the water.
[47:30] And if if you're saying you're going to
now maneuver
[47:36] water,
hold it, retain it, do whatever you're
[47:40] going to do for these houses on this
lot. And we're then we're going to do
[47:44] the same thing on the west side of the
road.
[47:48] And they're connected. That water is
connected. That waterway is connected. I
[47:52] think we have to look at this
holistically as one area of water
[47:57] management, not just each component
because whatever you guys do is now
[48:02] going to put off on the other side for
them to have to do something similar.
[48:06] And I'm not sure that each is going to
solve the holistic problem as individual
[48:11] components.
I'm just not I just don't not
[48:15] » the county does.
>> Well, but they did does the county know
[48:18] that this is all happening? Does the
county know both parcels are going?
[48:22] » Yeah, though the county is going to be
involved in this everything. They look
[48:25] at it holistically. Okay.
>> Not just even for Claire Hillsdale.
[48:30] » So the entire water
>> so for this body water doesn't man
[48:34] matter them.
>> It matters to them but they look at it
[48:37] all together. No, I mean it to this our
governing body, this committee, it water
[48:42] doesn't matter because the county takes
that
[48:44] » correct
>> and does that.
[48:45] » Yeah, it's a plan commission. We don't
get involved in water
[48:48] » and and they will be required to meet
all county requirements. And just to
[48:52] confirm, their team has been in touch
already with DuPage County several
[48:56] times, many times with staff.
>> Just want to make sure that that's
[48:59] addressed, right? Because if I'm a
neighbor, that's my concern,
[49:03] » right? Number one. Number two is the
traffic. And it's the exact same issue.
[49:09] But the county doesn't do the traffic,
do they?
[49:12] » No.
>> No, we do.
[49:14] » So, if we're looking at the traffic and
we're looking at that holistically
[49:19] and you're going to put these houses in
here with school age children, then
[49:23] we're going to put senior living across
the way and then some other units,
[49:27] right, that are going to be back in the
other area. First of all, are you guys
[49:30] involved in that area at all? The the to
the west?
[49:33] » No. Your group is not. No. Okay.
>> So, there is no continuity factor
[49:40] occurring here. And I think about
sidewalks
[49:43] because senior people need sidewalks to
walk and that area needs them and this
[49:49] area needs them too. So, I know we
talked about the trees along Ogden and
[49:53] the Burm. I would prefer to have a
sidewalk along there that would connect
[49:57] you over to that area.
And I know we have a sidewalk plan. This
[50:02] isn't part of the sidewalk plan. I
understand and get all that. I think we
[50:05] need to revisit the sidewalk plan again
holistically for that area of the
[50:11] village because otherwise it's going to
be an island. And if we're going to have
[50:16] traffic that's going to increase
dramatically in that area when the
[50:20] senior part's done and all that's done,
there's no way you're going south on
[50:24] Adams taking a left onto Ogden. It ain't
going to happen. You can't do it now.
[50:29] Coming from the south going north, you
can't do it. So, I don't see how that
[50:33] occurs.
And then the only way that those people
[50:37] in in all these homes are going to be
able to get to Monroe School is to go up
[50:42] to Spring Road, down Spring Road, then
down Madison. That's it.
[50:47] » Or they have to go through Claron Hills.
One of the two. So, this has to kind of
[50:53] be baked in to the thought process on
what's going on here. I'm not seeing it.
[50:57] I don't think we're there yet. Um, I
think we can get there. I'm not saying
[51:02] that that's a deal killer at all. I'm
just saying it needs to be thought
[51:06] through a little bit more. The other
thing I would say is the the the access.
[51:09] So lot 20 isn't part of this.
>> Correct. Correct.
[51:13] » Why?
>> Uh long long story short, we just there
[51:19] was
we thought we were going to sell it off
[51:23] at at a certain point. Um so we decided
let's just focus on this square for now
[51:28] and then we'll revisit that later.
>> Okay. So there's no other reason besides
[51:33] that.
>> Okay. Has has consideration been con
[51:37] been given to extending Glendale Road
west to Adams?
[51:43] » Uh no.
>> Is that is where Glendale dead ends to
[51:47] the north side of lot 20 and where that
path and road is is where it would go
[51:51] through.
>> That would have to be that would have to
[51:53] go through the village. We we we're
putting in a culde-sac and then
[51:56] basically deeding it over to Hinsdale.
though. Um,
[51:59] » this is all the way up north on
>> Yeah, correct. Cor correct. I mean, we
[52:03] » Where's the Is there a culde-sac up?
>> Yeah, the culde-sac is on the south, but
[52:07] yes, for a city road to You're You're
saying to go on that property. Is that
[52:11] what you're saying?
>> Yeah.
[52:13] » Uh, I don't I don't know that at this
point. I mean, we we haven't even
[52:18] entertained um you know, developing that
at at this point.
[52:23] » Okay. I just raise it because it might
help with the traffic flow. It might
[52:28] help with things up in that area.
>> And you're saying to bring the street
[52:32] all the way to Adams. Is that what we're
saying?
[52:36] » Okay.
>> So, that's a consideration.
[52:38] » Um,
>> agree with the trees. Um, I'm going
[52:43] through. I've got a bunch here.
[52:47] » The pedestrian br as you have it though.
That's where the pedestrian bridge will
[52:50] be replaced up in that area on that
walkway as you guys have it now.
[52:55] » Uh, there's there's a wooden a wooden
Yes. Wooden um structure there that
[53:00] we're taking it down. But that
>> concrete one in the back that will stay.
[53:03] » The one up in on the north side.
>> Yes. Exactly.
[53:06] » Yes.
>> Um but the sidewalk that connects the
[53:10] north houses down to the south. Is that
going to be a side like an actual
[53:16] sidewalk or a path?
>> Yes, that will that will be a sidewalk.
[53:18] So once
>> So the connectivity is that culvert area
[53:22] or whatever it's called the area that's
>> the head wall. The head wall. Yes.
[53:25] Exactly. Right.
>> All right.
[53:27] Um,
[53:31] bear with me. I'm trying to skip the
ones that have already been answered.
[53:43] » Um, okay. on the site review plan that
we had. It it was kind of raised earlier
[53:50] when it said um things along the lines
of on the amendment application. This
[53:56] document it said uh consistency of the
proposed amendment with the purpose of
[54:01] this code to match with the surrounding
Salt Creek Club.
[54:09] » Say say that what what was the question
or criteria
[54:11] » consistency. So it says on the on the
amendment on the map amendment
[54:15] application, it says the consistency of
the proposed amendment with the purpose
[54:18] of this code says this proposed
amendment will be consistent and match
[54:22] the surrounding Salt Creek Club.
>> So I I think that's because the water
[54:25] goes up to their property line too. So
it was basically insinuating that we
[54:29] plan on leaving it natural all all the
way up here.
[54:32] » All the way over there too.
>> Yes, exactly.
[54:34] » Thank you. That that helps a lot.
>> Um open natural space.
[54:39] » Okay, that's good. The other one was the
site plan review. Now, I I know that you
[54:46] guys,
it sounds like you have builders on your
[54:50] within your group, within your team,
and those builders, you know who they
[54:56] are. You know what they're going to
build.
[55:00] It says that that the that the general
design is going to meet the overall
[55:05] neighborhood and all that stuff right in
here. But and I know we said that
[55:11] there's
governing documents to this
[55:14] » covenants.
>> But the covenants aren't okay.
[55:18] » They're in here.
>> So So all that's going to be met and
[55:21] we're all good with that.
>> Yeah. It spells out, you know, masonry,
[55:24] you know, first floors. Yeah.
>> Which island masonry, right? [laughter]
[55:28] » I thought I saw that.
>> Make sure there needs to be masonry. No
[55:31] thin brick.
>> Cool.
[55:32] » Is nice.
>> All right. Hang on. I'm spinning quick
[55:36] here. Oh. Um on the one through
six, the south lots
[55:44] along Ogden, you've got the setbacks
there.
[55:53] You see where it's on? It's on this
document on page five.
[55:57] » Yes.
>> So your setbacks say 35 foot front
[56:02] setback line.
>> Yes, that's correct.
[56:06] But I think the back setback line on the
other document says it's supposed to be
[56:11] 50 ft.
>> You want to answer that?
[56:14] » I can speak to this.
>> Yeah.
[56:15] » So technically those are considered
through lots. So they have a double
[56:19] front frontage basically. So they
wouldn't have as you see on the lots to
[56:24] the north, they have a true rear
setback, but these technically have a
[56:28] front setback, a primary front setback,
and a secondary front setback. So that's
[56:32] why you're seeing a slight difference
between both sides of the preserve
[56:34] place. Okay, thank you. That helps. I
learned something new there. Uh, and
[56:41] lots one and seven, they are going to
face lot one will face the house will
[56:45] face north and lot seven, the house will
face south. Correct.
[56:48] » Correct.
>> All right. Um,
[56:58] okay. Yeah, that's that's all I've got.
I I just look at the cohesiveness of
[57:02] this plan with West and I think that's a
big thing that still needs to be settled
[57:07] out.
>> Absolutely. Thanks, Scott. And I'll use
[57:10] that as a perfect segue because um we've
been looking at this property for seems
[57:16] like a decade. I mean, I've I've been on
the plan commission for I think 13 years
[57:20] and we looked at this with Ryan
Development years ago and the biggest
[57:25] issue and it commissioners have touched
on it is traffic. not necessarily for
[57:29] what you guys are proposing, but
ultimately what will be developed here
[57:33] » and without working with ID do and
creating dedicated turn lanes um so Adam
[57:40] southbound have a dedicated turn lane so
you can go um eastbound and then also um
[57:46] northbound from west if you're coming
west on Ogden be able to turn north
[57:49] that's going to require some additional
land be set aside from the properties to
[57:54] allow for a larger um and then to get
the approval from ID dot so it's kind
[57:58] crucial. Without approval, I'd be
surprised if anything could be developed
[58:03] other than R2 on these properties
because it would just create a density
[58:07] and traffic that would be too big. With
that said, we we don't know. We've we've
[58:11] had plenty of discussions and we know
what we talked about with Ryan in years
[58:15] past and there's some current plans are
developing.
[58:20] um what they could obviously set aside
with on Adams to create a left an
[58:24] additional lane on Adams out of their
property. But the issue is what I see is
[58:30] on lots one, two, and three on your
south portion that if ID do wants to
[58:36] create a turn lane that they're going to
need to take some land from those lots
[58:40] and you know and this is going to be a
long process whenever I do would get
[58:43] around to making this approval. I know
like someone mentioned lights, but I
[58:47] think in as we found in the Brian
project um they're not supportive of a
[58:51] light. It's too close to um 83 and
Pascinelli um and also to Madison to add
[58:57] another additional light there.
>> That's correct. if if years from now
[59:02] they did need to take land um from those
lots, lot one is larger than 20,000, but
[59:10] then you get into an issue if they
needed to take some land off at lot two
[59:13] and three. Has there been any
discussion? What are your thoughts about
[59:17] that? Because to Scott's point, we need
to we know that at some point we're
[59:21] going to be looking on the west side of
the street and we need to make sure this
[59:24] works for all the residents that are
going to be living in these facilities
[59:28] and the neighborhood for Fullerburg and
everyone up on Adams, even Oak
[59:32] residents, too. So, we need to make
sure, but I'm just kind of curious what
[59:35] your thoughts are. Um, and do you feel
like if this dedication for this
[59:39] culde-sac and this road, you know, it
goes into place that you could
[59:45] lose some land on those lots um,
whatever ID do would require to and
[59:51] still go forward and have buildable lots
>> for sure. Again, we're willing to work
[59:56] with the village on on especially if
this is good for the village, good for
[1:00:00] the public. Um, obviously, you know,
good for our residents, too.
[1:00:05] » Good for you, too. Yeah, exactly. Um,
but long story short, I mean, we're we
[1:00:10] don't know anything about that project.
We're not involved in that project. So,
[1:00:12] we don't we have no idea um we would
have to really work with the village and
[1:00:17] see how much they is IDAT looking to
take with their turn lanes and so forth
[1:00:23] um to see what that would look like.
Does it get it past underneath the
[1:00:28] 20,000 foot threshold? Therefore, we
have to do variances and we have to do
[1:00:31] this, that, and the other. and it's just
a whole different
[1:00:34] » it rolls downhill very quickly, right?
So again, to answer to answer your
[1:00:38] question, we're open to it, but we just
don't know what's going on.
[1:00:41] » I just want to make sure that's on the
record because it we know at some point
[1:00:44] we're going to have to address it. Um it
would be definitely a benefit for these
[1:00:48] 19 properties
um would benefit them because it's going
[1:00:52] to be easier to get it out of that
neighborhood and would benefit the
[1:00:54] entire area. Yeah. So I think it would
be a good case for a hardship and a
[1:00:59] variance, you know, because it's not
like it's some um
[1:01:03] it's an important issue for the entire
community. So
[1:01:05] » for sure.
>> Um
[1:01:06] » make one follow on to that. Um would it
be possible to tweak um the way that the
[1:01:14] culde-sac is laid out so that lots one,
two, and three were a little bit larger
[1:01:18] from the start in anticipation of
if land needed to be carved from the
[1:01:24] Ogden side, then they wouldn't need a
variance. They would still
[1:01:27] » qualify as R2.
Um, and that would mean lots seven,
[1:01:33] eight, and nine probably,
you know, the ones on that side
[1:01:37] shrinking just a little bit. But
>> it almost feel like if they took the
[1:01:41] angle of the colise,
>> rotated it slightly.
[1:01:44] » Yeah.
>> You have any thoughts on that or you
[1:01:47] want to look into that?
>> Um,
[1:01:50] » it's the center line.
>> I mean, uh, phase two, the culde-sac uh,
[1:01:55] portion was a challenge. Um, you can see
the gray changes over there. Yeah.
[1:02:00] » Um and u I mean I don't want to get into
the weeds of the technical aspects but
[1:02:05] it it was very difficult to come up and
meet the detention requirements for this
[1:02:10] phase. And um uh there was there was a
comment about these retaining walls. it.
[1:02:16] We had to work very closely with the
village um engineering consultant to
[1:02:21] come up with this and it was a very it
was a a collaborative process to come up
[1:02:26] with this
>> because of the um the challenges
[1:02:31] » right
>> um so to relocate
[1:02:35] this culde-sac
would
[1:02:39] um significantly I feel reduce the
buildable area on those northern lots
[1:02:45] now even though They look big, right?
They're they're big,
[1:02:49] » but you can see where the detention
>> pond takes. And we are really squeezing
[1:02:55] down the buildable area,
>> right,
[1:02:57] » to meet the uh storm water requirements.
>> Um, and not just, but you know, exceed
[1:03:02] the, you know, we we exceeded slightly.
Um, so that's my initial thought is
[1:03:09] » it was challenging to make everything
work. It's like a 4D puzzle, literally.
[1:03:13] » Right.
>> I mean, I'm not suggesting that. I don't
[1:03:16] think it makes sense to change something
for an unknown.
[1:03:18] » Yeah.
>> But I just think we need to be aware of
[1:03:20] it. And it is a fascinating concept
where you retaining water above a a pond
[1:03:25] like a lake which is you know
interesting concept. But um you know
[1:03:29] again trying to um slow down um the
movement of water into the the
[1:03:34] waterways. So I just want to mention it
and I think
[1:03:37] » I mean lot one seems like you have the
depth and then who knows what ID even
[1:03:41] require. You know that they're going to
be very specific on what the
[1:03:44] requirements are. And who even knows
their timeline? I mean, right, I I
[1:03:47] worked on the I290
expansion back 30 years ago.
[1:03:53] » 30 years ago, still nothing [laughter]
happened. So, we were talking about it.
[1:03:56] » It's coming.
>> Yeah, it's coming. It's But so again, um
[1:03:59] » Okay. Well, that
>> you know, thanks for the, you know, the
[1:04:01] the awareness.
>> Okay.
[1:04:03] » Um but uh yeah, this was challenging and
this we made it work
[1:04:08] » uh on sidewalks. And I'm I'm glad um
Scott, multiple um commissioners brought
[1:04:12] it up. Is there a reason and I I
actually I live on Adams just south of
[1:04:18] Aen and I love this area and I go for
walks and runs up up Adams and Spring
[1:04:24] Road and down Madison. So I'm very
familiar with this area and of all times
[1:04:28] of day and there are, you know, people
jogging, walking, biking. I mean, it's
[1:04:33] it's amazing how much traffic there is,
but it's so beautiful. It makes it's a
[1:04:37] it's a very peaceful area. The amount of
bikers is amazing. like in in the dark
[1:04:41] you'll see um them up there biking up
and down Adams the sidewalk you stop you
[1:04:45] ended at the preserve um place is there
any reason that couldn't on the lot one
[1:04:51] that that sidewalk couldn't extend down
to where the the radius starts and then
[1:04:55] terminate you know at the at Adams
because I just even though there's no
[1:05:00] crossing from South Adams to this North
Adams it there are people going across
[1:05:05] there I mean literally a path is almost
made by the number of people that cross
[1:05:09] it every
So, I just think having getting them off
[1:05:12] the street once something happens to the
west, I'm sure there'll be sidewalks as
[1:05:16] part of that because as Scott mentioned,
I mean, if you have uh seniors and
[1:05:20] everything, we're going to want to use
this great amenity, this park, this
[1:05:24] space and want to connect with that, but
it would just seem like it'd be since
[1:05:28] you're putting the walk in now on lot
seven, just seeing it extend a little
[1:05:33] further south, I think, would be
helpful.
[1:05:37] Uh I mean we could do that but I believe
discussion with staff was that it was
[1:05:43] essentially the thought was it led to
nowhere. Right.
[1:05:47] » Right.
>> But realistically like you were saying
[1:05:49] people going to cross.
>> Right.
[1:05:50] » So
>> that goes to the if we're going to
[1:05:54] repurpose this entire area
[clears throat]
[1:05:57] » the sidewalk plan needs to be revisited.
I know it's not for this discussion.
[1:06:01] » It's not for this and when I do gets
involved I mean we're gonna need to
[1:06:04] really work with that. Yeah, but it
needs to occur,
[1:06:07] » right?
>> And it's it's not anything you guys are
[1:06:09] doing wrong.
>> So, that's one thing I take you to
[1:06:11] consider that because it's just kind of
curious. I was surprised that it
[1:06:14] stopped, you know, at that spot.
>> We're open We're open to that.
[1:06:17] » And then regarding um like the path from
lot 20 from basically Madison to Adams,
[1:06:23] why gravel
versus pavement? Uh
[1:06:28] » the reason I ask is like accessibility,
you know, strollers, you know, pushing a
[1:06:33] baby in a stroller on gravel is a is a
challenge. You know, it's like going to
[1:06:38] the beach with the stroller. Um what was
the rationale behind it?
[1:06:41] » Well, it would it would be compacted
gravel. So it' be the very small stuff
[1:06:45] that you can roll things easily across,
but it again at the same time the whole
[1:06:49] thought process was to leave it as
natural as possible and not just cover
[1:06:53] this whole thing with concrete. the
gravel walks I mean um have to be
[1:06:57] maintained also. I mean they'll run out
and everything and costly. I just I just
[1:07:02] think
>> in my personal opinion it's a mistake
[1:07:05] for it to be gravel at the get-go that
it'd be more effective to all the
[1:07:10] neighbors over on Madison, the
Fullersburg neighborhood and connecting
[1:07:14] those, you know, basically Madison and
Adams together. And I know from seeing
[1:07:18] like plan commission, you know, signs up
on North Adams, there's undeveloped lots
[1:07:23] that are just full of trees and
everything that will be houses at some
[1:07:26] point. So, we're going to be adding more
than just these 19 lots. There'll be
[1:07:29] plenty of additional homes built.
>> I I just think the connection needs to
[1:07:34] be better.
>> Yes. So, you said a water main, correct?
[1:07:37] » Water man underneath the
>> Yeah, there I think that was part of the
[1:07:40] consideration too with city staff. Their
water meter the water man is going
[1:07:43] underneath that gravel path as well. So,
Bethany, what what what's the village
[1:07:49] take on that?
>> I would have to con confer back with our
[1:07:53] village engineering.
>> Okay,
[1:07:56] » that's something we can look into though
if you add it as a condition.
[1:07:59] » It is fascinating on the north end of
this where the village line moved. I I I
[1:08:04] assumed it was either on the west side
or in the center of the road, but I was
[1:08:08] shocked when I saw that it's actually on
the east side of Adams.
[1:08:12] » Yeah. Um, so I was teasing Bethany that
when they go to get a building permit,
[1:08:16] they have to pull it from Hinsdale and
Oakbrook [laughter] because their
[1:08:20] driveway is going to be in Oakbrook and
their, you know, the curb cuts in
[1:08:23] Oakbrook and then the house is in
Hinsdale.
[1:08:25] » For sure. Yeah.
>> Fascinating.
[1:08:26] » Yeah.
>> Um, [clears throat]
[1:08:31] and with that, any other
>> questions or comments right now from
[1:08:34] commission?
>> Just one quick one. I'm sorry. I I
[1:08:36] forgot it earlier. Um, Bonnie Bray Road
dead ends into lot 12
[1:08:45] » and there's lot 12 goes north of Bonnie
Bray and there's no way for anybody in
[1:08:50] that neighborhood to have access to the
park that we're now describing or is
[1:08:55] there anything that can be done there
from being a good neighbor to figure out
[1:09:00] a solution in that little area right
there? It's on page eight of 21
[1:09:06] » versus going north.
>> Can you come across
[1:09:10] » it's just it's it's only by it's only by
>> I mean there's no way even if you shrink
[1:09:14] these down
>> you're just going to be blocked by lot.
[1:09:18] » So to answer your question talking with
Alex the Yeah. lot lot 11 and 12 is
[1:09:23] right here. Correct.
>> Yeah. If even if we were to shrink those
[1:09:27] down to the minimum 20,000 square feet,
there's no way to get around that on the
[1:09:31] north side there with a detention pond.
>> Okay.
[1:09:35] » To to go.
>> So the elevation is too it's too steep.
[1:09:38] » Yeah. It's too steep and it would it
would be a waterway essentially.
[1:09:42] » Yes.
>> Have to be. [laughter]
[1:09:45] » Thank you. That answers my question.
>> Anything else?
[1:09:50] » One other idea following on that. Um
could just be [clears throat] a sidewalk
[1:09:56] or gravel path that connects to the end
of the culde-sac that just goes down the
[1:10:03] lot line basically.
>> How does that elevation look over here?
[1:10:07] She's saying connect right here.
>> I think you'd want to ask the people in
[1:10:09] Bonnie Bray if they want people
Bonnie Bray is a a public end right now
[1:10:14] and you'd be encouraging people to go
down.
[1:10:16] » Oh, to go through their property. Okay.
I kind of remember back in the Ryan
[1:10:22] project that this came up and I I
thought that neighbors then didn't want
[1:10:27] to change.
>> Right. Okay.
[1:10:31] » Neighbors in the audience saying
[laughter]
[1:10:37] » they don't want that.
>> And Juliet, you had a question.
[1:10:41] » Yes. Back to lot 20. Does that about um
Butler Cemetery?
[1:10:47] » Yes. Yes. There is a cemetery north of
that. Correct.
[1:10:49] » Are there any plans for that?
I believe Institute of Basic Life owns
[1:10:54] it.
>> The cemetery?
[1:10:57] » Oh, I'm I'm not sure. Yeah, we're
>> we have no knowledge of that.
[1:11:02] » And and to be honest, what do you do
with the cemetery?
[1:11:06] » Well, um
>> golf.
[1:11:08] » Well, [laughter] come on.
>> Enjoy the peaceful.
[1:11:14] » Yes, you're right.
Um, and I've got a a process question.
[1:11:20] Um,
>> based on this conversation, it seems
[1:11:23] like there's
>> uh some I do work that's less to be done
[1:11:28] » and I've not part of this project.
>> Understood. Well, actually, I guess
[1:11:32] that's my question. What is the process?
I got the impression that that's a
[1:11:36] lengthier process and that it's external
to what we're trying to do.
[1:11:40] » It' be tied in with whatever happens in
the west side of the west side of Adams.
[1:11:48] All right. So, it's it's not relevant.
>> Well, only relevant in the point that it
[1:11:53] could possibly impact like lots one,
>> two, and three.
[1:11:58] » Possibly, but we don't know.
>> Which could cause the uh angle of the
[1:12:04] street that leads into the culac
>> to be changed. So, is that a contingent
[1:12:10] that is
problematic to us voting positively for
[1:12:16] this?
I don't know the answer to that.
[1:12:20] » I mean, it's this is something we just
need to be aware of. We whenever
[1:12:25] something gets proposed for the Westside
Adams, we will be part of it and then
[1:12:28] we'll we'll bring it up. I just wanted
to make sure that they're I'm figured
[1:12:32] they were aware of it, which you are,
but that just, you know, we just have to
[1:12:36] cross that bridge when we get to it.
Okay. Not part of this process.
[1:12:40] » No, it could be IDOT might say there's
no changes allowed. They're not going to
[1:12:43] do anything.
>> No chang
[1:12:47] on the west side.
>> Yeah. Is that
[1:12:50] » But to your point, do we get up in front
of it instead of doing something
[1:12:53] approving something and then having to
look and say we should have maybe done
[1:12:57] this?
>> Yeah.
[1:12:58] » Yeah. That's my point.
>> Looking at like you said to look at the
[1:13:01] whole project and say what is where is
this going to go?
[1:13:04] » Yeah. If there if there is a turn a lane
needed here and it causes a problem with
[1:13:08] lot one and two uh which makes it
something different than we would
[1:13:14] approve is is this the c before the
horse if that really is something we can
[1:13:19] kick down the road and say deal with it
later that's fine.
[1:13:23] » Beth any thoughts on that?
>> So in prior talks with the village
[1:13:26] attorney on this because this is a code
compliant RT subdivision and not a
[1:13:30] planned development they're not asking
for variations. There's very little that
[1:13:34] the village can do at this stage to
impel them to give roadway dedication.
[1:13:39] And it was said earlier of roadway
dedication for what at this point. There
[1:13:42] aren't plans to to perfectly know what
would be needed with that other project
[1:13:48] on the other side of the road. Um but to
confirm what the applicants have said
[1:13:52] earlier, they they are happy to talk
with the other developers and be part of
[1:13:55] this project moving forward and and have
those negotiations. So, it would be
[1:14:00] something that would be mutually
beneficial to everyone in the area and
[1:14:04] for these developments. So,
>> okay. And it is R2. It is compliant. And
[1:14:09] to Steve's point, we've seen a handful
of proposals for this area. Um, this is
[1:14:14] about as least dense as you're going to
see on this property. Right.
[1:14:20] » Correct. And this is code compliant as
it is zoned today.
[1:14:24] » Okay.
>> Yeah. The R2 minimum 20,000 uh square
[1:14:27] foot lots. All right, that's Do you have
any comment on that? It wasn't a
[1:14:32] question,
>> so it was fine.
[1:14:35] » Uh, I mean, we we definitely went to
more more of a restrictive zoning, too,
[1:14:38] as opposed to three and four. Um, that
is smaller lots and try to smash as much
[1:14:43] as as as in as a as possible, but no, we
decided to do R2, which is bigger lots
[1:14:50] that kind of fit the footprint of it as
well as to kind of preserve as much as
[1:14:53] possible, too. So, there was some
thought there.
[1:14:56] » Thank you. to your point like fits the
nature of the area of the lots that are
[1:14:59] there.
>> Yes.
[1:15:00] » Right.
[1:15:04] » Yes. Um not any more commissioner.
>> Just one question. I'm concerned a
[1:15:08] little bit about the market
marketability of 13 and 14. Do you
[1:15:12] foresee that? And I know you're talking
about moving soil around and trying to
[1:15:15] adjust the way the flood plane is, but
if I were going to build a houseite,
[1:15:20] that would not be my choice to pick
those two lots. Did you ever think about
[1:15:24] reducing the size of the instead of the
you know that how many are there? Six of
[1:15:29] them seven of them. Seven. Are you
concerned at all about that?
[1:15:35] » Uh no. Ba basically working with the
engineers and talking to DuPage and um
[1:15:40] the city engineer as well. We have had
extensive talks with them over basically
[1:15:46] a year now. Um, and again like like Alex
engineer said, everything is outside of
[1:15:52] the flood plane. So everything is very
marketable as well as these lots are
[1:15:57] massive. They're 100x 400 ft deep.
>> So it looks like a a 50 by 150 on on the
[1:16:03] site plan right now, but it's they are
very large. Um, and everything is going
[1:16:07] to be outside. So
>> I just as a homeowner, I'm sorry to
[1:16:11] interrupt. Um, I would, even though it's
a very deep lot, I wouldn't want to look
[1:16:16] at a pond out in my backyard if in, you
know, everyone talks about the
[1:16:19] hundred-year flood, which we seem to
have every so many years we get the
[1:16:23] hundredyear flood.
>> Um, I just wondered if there was a
[1:16:26] concern about that on particularly those
two, but you're saying there's not.
[1:16:31] » No, no, no concern.
>> And the market will dictate that.
[1:16:35] » It will,
[1:16:38] » but lot 19 is still available if you
would like that. [laughter]
[1:16:45] I want 20.
>> 20. Yeah.
[1:16:50] » Top of the hill. Lot 19.
>> Yeah.
[1:16:55] » Thank you, commissioners. Um like to
listen to any residents um community
[1:17:00] members that would like to speak to this
matter.
[1:17:01] » All right. Thank you all very much.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm sure we'll
[1:17:04] talk more.
>> Yes, sir. Please come up. tell us who
[1:17:08] you are and uh where you live and sure
love to hear what you have to say.
[1:17:11] » I'm Dan Hammer and uh I live at 424
Glendale which is one of maybe the only
[1:17:16] houses that actually abuts this project
but it's on the corner of Glendale that
[1:17:21] uh you were mentioning drive straight
into the property. Um so I have a few
[1:17:26] questions. I used to be a real estate
developer so pardon me. try to go
[1:17:28] through them quick because um because I
have I questions and you may not be able
[1:17:32] to answer them but I think these are
questions that I just want to get on the
[1:17:35] record because I think maybe uh
commissioners might have similar
[1:17:38] questions and some of them were riffs
off of the things that were brought up.
[1:17:41] Uh so what I didn't understand is there
going to be a development agreement
[1:17:44] that's signed that's a commitment that
the village can hold the homeowners
[1:17:48] association to uh regarding all the
maintenance and the plans for the storm
[1:17:53] water the dredging or any problems that
come up in the park and if there's
[1:17:57] because it seems like there should be
some sort of contract with the developer
[1:18:00] to get the subdivision um approved and
then if they don't live up to those
[1:18:04] commitments then the village would be
able to lean the homeowners association
[1:18:08] and so forth. So, I don't know if I'm
putting the cart before the horse here,
[1:18:11] but it seems like that would be the
natural thing. And I don't know if this
[1:18:14] logistically if this is an approval of
the project to go forward or if it's
[1:18:18] subject to further negotiations or uh or
what, but it seems like that would be be
[1:18:23] nice to have a development agreement
that all the plan commission was happy
[1:18:26] with locked down before you were on the
record supporting the project.
[1:18:29] » We're recommending body the village
board would ultimately approve this, but
[1:18:33] » Okay.
>> That's a really good point and other
[1:18:36] commissioners have brought up similar
concern
[1:18:37] » and that Okay, I guess. Great. And that
because I think there are going to be a
[1:18:40] lot of there's going to be a lot of
expertise involved in maintaining this
[1:18:43] park. The water issues are significant
even if the counties can oversee what
[1:18:46] needs to be done and it is going to
require systematic dredging and and bank
[1:18:51] management and whatever else. Um so I I
that is none of my expertise and I'm
[1:18:56] part of a home of a large association of
residents that um have brought that
[1:19:01] those issues up a lot. I got to say I'm
very excited about a code compliant
[1:19:04] project coming in here. I think this is
great. It's a huge improvement from
[1:19:08] where we were with the um tiny houses
that were there in the original plan
[1:19:12] years ago. Um but uh if they don't
maintain the association doesn't
[1:19:18] maintain it. Uh you know, the village
will end up owning it in the end. I do
[1:19:22] think that's highly likely um because
it's not enough houses really to fund
[1:19:26] this. And I do think it should be a
village uh park. Uh we've all maintained
[1:19:31] it. The village should buy this. So to
have the opportunity to get it for free
[1:19:35] effectively if you could negotiate that
in exchange for the village maintaining
[1:19:39] it um and taking that off the homeowners
association. I would think that'd be an
[1:19:43] advantage assuming that you knew what
you were getting into with the pricing
[1:19:46] of maintaining it. Um
I'm concerned that lot 20 which is not
[1:19:51] on the picture um but is uh to the east
is not in the group. Yeah. I think seem
[1:19:57] to want it in the association and
subject to the developer agreement and
[1:20:01] so that um it was helping to fund the
park and uh and especially because it's
[1:20:06] right next to my house and so I'd also
like a commitment in the development
[1:20:09] agreement that that will also stay R2
and it won't turn into something else
[1:20:13] because right now a lot of commercial
activities happen in that building. Um
[1:20:19] the uh let's see, you know, I would put
in the plan now. I would actually
[1:20:23] honestly think the village should want
to buy that as the entrance to the park
[1:20:26] cuz almost all the village residents
that'll get there will be coming up
[1:20:29] Madison to get into the park. So, it
seems like even if you're not going to
[1:20:32] buy the whole thing and actually pay for
it, there's an argument to buy that lot
[1:20:35] 20 for the village. Uh let's see. in the
development agreement, I think you'd
[1:20:40] want uh in addition to maintenance to
keep it open space and to comply with
[1:20:45] the parks open hours and that that um
that that trail along the north side
[1:20:51] should I think at least be asphalt like
the trails in the neighborhoods in uh
[1:20:55] Oakbrook, which is there's a very common
um this is very common the sort of
[1:21:00] wetlands and retention ponds and so
forth in all of these buildings in
[1:21:03] Oakbrook and I've jogged through those
for years. Uh, and they're all asphalt
[1:21:07] at least, if not concrete, but mostly
asphalt. Uh, I agree that there should
[1:21:11] be a sidewalk in Ogden. There are
sidewalks. Like the commissioner said,
[1:21:14] there's a there's a sidewalk on Adams.
It's just dirt. Uh, right now it's not a
[1:21:18] sidewalk. And the same thing on Ogden.
There's people walking on Ogden all the
[1:21:21] time, which I find dangerous. I know
some people don't like the idea of um a
[1:21:25] sidewalk in Ogden, and I think it's
because they're worried about people
[1:21:28] walking through town. Um, but I'm pro
pedestrian and I think uh that you know
[1:21:33] there should be a sidewalk in Ogden. And
so I wouldn't offer that waiver. I'd say
[1:21:38] sidewalks that go to nowhere someday go
to somewhere. So build a sidewalk and
[1:21:42] the next the next guy who builds a
project, he's going to have to build a
[1:21:45] sidewalk. Um, please don't extend
Glendale. Uh, and uh, let's see. IBLP
[1:21:52] does own that cemetery. It's the old
Butler cemetery and it's where they
[1:21:56] moved all the bodies from Oakbrook that
Butler uh found. Um and a lot of them
[1:22:01] are unknown. Nobody knows who they are.
It's a problem because IBLP is
[1:22:05] abandoning all of their properties in
this area and that's going to be you
[1:22:09] know there are laws about cemeteries
which I'm not an expert on to make that
[1:22:12] they're supposed to have funds to
maintain them and that cemetery is
[1:22:15] falling apart. The tree there are big
trees down and so forth. I've tried to
[1:22:19] get Bronzewood to buy that property and
they have entered into negotiations, but
[1:22:23] they didn't go anywhere. So, that's as
far as I know that's dead. But that
[1:22:26] really the village should be doing
everything in my opinion to force IBLP
[1:22:30] using the power of whatever uh finding
them and regulating them or or or or
[1:22:35] negotiating with the state to push them
because if they end up if that's the
[1:22:38] last thing IP owns, it's just going to
be a mess.
[1:22:41] » You mean the village of Oakrook? Isn't
that in Oakbrook?
[1:22:43] » Yes.
>> Oh, it might be in Oh, okay. That might
[1:22:45] be an Oakbrook. Yeah. Sorry. Well, then
Oak should be doing [laughter] say Oak
[1:22:49] » the middle should be working with
Oakbrook to do that. But um and then the
[1:22:53] final thing I'd say is on that on that
path is going to run right along the
[1:22:56] cemetery. So it is a nice way of
breaking the homeowners away from being
[1:23:00] literally next to the cemetery. But I
would wouldn't want that path to have
[1:23:03] 10-ft privacy walls on one side and
cemetery walls on another side. It would
[1:23:08] not be a very pleasant path. So, I
wonder if under the development
[1:23:10] agreement, I would think you'd want that
the backyards of those houses to be open
[1:23:14] like they are in sort of Oakbrook on
those similar paths in Oakbrook.
[1:23:20] » Those are all my comments. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:23:34] » Um, hi, my name is Bob Lindren. Um, I
live at 1020 Birchwood Road in Oakbrook
[1:23:41] and um, the uh, so I'm going to give you
a slightly different perspective here.
[1:23:46] I'm going to give you a little bit of an
Oakbrook perspective on on this area and
[1:23:51] on Fullerburg Woods. Um, my wife and I
have lived on Birchwood Road at this
[1:23:56] location since 1987.
So, we've seen a lot here and and we've
[1:24:02] spent many many many more hours fighting
zoning and development issues relating
[1:24:07] to the IBLP than we ever care to uh than
we ever thought we would get into. Um,
[1:24:14] the number of Hinsdale residents
currently who utilize Ogden Avenue on a
[1:24:19] reg Adams Road rather on a regular basis
between Ogden and Spring is precisely
[1:24:24] zero.
This is an Oakbrook Street for all
[1:24:28] intents and purposes. And um I
recognize, you know, there's a long
[1:24:32] history of kind of joint governance and
joint identity in Fullersburg between
[1:24:38] Hinsdale and Oakbrook. When we first
moved here, there was a joint uh area
[1:24:43] association. Fullersburg Woods Area
Association was equally comprised of
[1:24:47] Hinsdale and Oakbrook residents. Uh my
wife and I both served on that group and
[1:24:52] uh we made a lot of good friends who
live in Hinsdale in that process.
[1:24:57] Hinsdale and Oakwork have a little
different way of doing things and we
[1:25:00] understand that and appreciate it. But
there are other than the uh IBLP
[1:25:05] sidewalk currently and the history on
that of course is the IBLP was forced
[1:25:10] into building that sidewalk because
Oakick residents were deeply concerned
[1:25:15] with the number of uh their uh I don't
know exactly what to call them students
[1:25:21] I guess or whoever they were but young
people uh pre-teens and teenagers who
[1:25:27] would be parading up and down uh Adams
Road and it creating a big uh health
[1:25:33] issue, safety issue. But uh that that
traffic is gone now and there are no
[1:25:39] sidewalks up and down Adams Road as you
well know if you walk we've probably
[1:25:44] passed one another on Adams.
>> Um I walk my dogs on Adams every day and
[1:25:51] um so there are no sidewalks, there are
no street lights and the character of
[1:25:56] that area, particularly that part of
Fullersburg is defined by that. So, I
[1:26:02] ask you to think long and hard before
turning uh an area which is basically
[1:26:06] populated by Oakbrook residents and and
and imposing, if you will, a Hinsdale
[1:26:12] sensibility um on that area. Um if you
do, you do. It's your call to make. We
[1:26:18] understand that. But wanted to let you
know there there are other people
[1:26:21] affected by this decision.
>> Related to that, are you in support of
[1:26:25] like the R of the R2 size properties?
>> Uh yeah. Now, I I think I wanna I want
[1:26:30] to uh I want to commend uh the
development team, the applicants because
[1:26:36] it seems very clearly what they've done
is on the north unit, they've tried to
[1:26:39] echo, if you will, the Oakbrook zoning.
We on Birchwood Road, we're in Oakbrook
[1:26:44] R2 zoning, which is minimum lot size of
one acre. So, uh and they've come very
[1:26:50] close to one acre on the seven, uh
northernmost lots on the southern 12
[1:26:56] lots. they kind of mirror the other side
of Ogden a little bit more. So there's
[1:27:00] clearly a there there there's a a
detectable obvious effort to try to
[1:27:05] harmonize if you will and I I appreciate
that. Um on the subject of water when we
[1:27:14] some of you may remember there was an
epic flood in the area and I think it
[1:27:17] was 1988 or ' 89. Anybody old enough and
been around long enough?
[1:27:21] » 87.
>> 87 excuse me. Thank you.
[1:27:23] » The year I got married.
>> Okay. It was actually I should remember
[1:27:26] it better because this year we moved
into our house. At the time we were told
[1:27:30] that was a hundred-year flood. There
have been three more of them since then
[1:27:34] of the same magnitude. So be careful
what you call a 100red-year flood. We've
[1:27:38] had um uh a lot of change not only in
the weather but in the amount of the
[1:27:44] area that is covered by impermeable
surface. Um there's been a lot of
[1:27:49] development and uh the holistic theme is
I think a very important one and I don't
[1:27:54] know uh if if uh Hinsdale staff has
coordinated with Oakbrook staff at all
[1:27:59] and it's still in the planning stage
there as well but there's a 16 12 acre
[1:28:04] parcel to the west of this property
across Adams just north of Birwood where
[1:28:11] there's a development proposal being uh
entertained by Oakbrook at this time and
[1:28:16] uh it's uh it's It's eight um Oakbrook
R1 lots that are being asked for. They
[1:28:22] are asking for a variance and um I also
think it's savvy on the part of a
[1:28:27] developer to go in and not ask for
variance because the second you open ask
[1:28:31] for a variance, you open Pandora's box
in terms of other things that people can
[1:28:35] can come at you with. But two acres of
that 16 and a half in the pro plan
[1:28:41] that's proposed are dedicated to uh to
uh retention ponds. And my I understand
[1:28:47] that the plan is to vent those to
release those to the other side of a of
[1:28:51] atoms. So this is all very complicated
and very interconnected. And with all
[1:28:56] due respect to to uh storm water
management engineers, I don't think
[1:29:00] there's a natural phenomenon in the
urban world that's more poorly
[1:29:04] understood than underwater uh
underground water movement. And u so
[1:29:10] it's just um it's a very very uh fraught
and delicate area.
[1:29:15] Um,
I think that was basically it. I'm a
[1:29:20] little bit concerned about the parking
issue since the IBLP property has been
[1:29:25] vacated. Um, some of you may know
there's been a little bit of a problem
[1:29:30] with uh un unauthorized u activity on
that property. There was this summer
[1:29:36] there have been a lot of kids in the uh
condemned buildings. Um police have
[1:29:41] Hinsdale police have been called on a
number of occasions and uh those people
[1:29:46] have all parked on Birwood Road and
they're going to use those side roads
[1:29:50] off of uh Adams uh for parking. And so
I'd really um I like Dan Heammer's idea
[1:29:57] and one thing that uh Hinsdale could do
is is is buy that lot and make it
[1:30:01] parking for this park. Um there would be
a tremendous amount of logic to that. Um
[1:30:07] but uh uh parking on the side streets is
is of concern.
[1:30:12] Um I think that's maybe you've raised a
lot of really really good issues. It's
[1:30:16] been a very uh a very thorough
examination. Um again traffic is u
[1:30:24] it's hard to see how that problem is
really going to be sol soluble. Um
[1:30:29] although I do think that it's more
logical probably uh if ID do needs to
[1:30:32] take property it would be more logical
to take it from the west side of uh of
[1:30:37] Adams than from the east side. Um but
it's uh it's a real dilemma because I ID
[1:30:42] dot is not going to signal that Adam's
uh intersection and uh there's there's
[1:30:48] there's no
uh even even with a dedicated left turn
[1:30:53] lane and my wife made this comment
earlier today. If there's a dedicated
[1:30:58] left turn lane, traffic is still going
to back up from that intersection and
[1:31:02] they're going to block access uh egress,
if you will, from the culde-sac road.
[1:31:08] So, it's going to be difficult for
residents of that culde-sac road to exit
[1:31:12] onto Adams even other than to exit and
go right and go up to Spring and then do
[1:31:16] what they need to do. So, there are a
lot of issues to be uh carefully
[1:31:20] considered. I agree with Dan. We've come
a long way from the proposal that we
[1:31:24] looked at five years ago now, I believe.
>> Um, time flies. A few of you were here
[1:31:30] then, I remember. Um, and um, so
hopefully we can it would be nice if I
[1:31:36] agree with the comment that that the
density is a problem on the north end
[1:31:40] that some of those there's maybe more
lots there than should be there. Um I I
[1:31:46] I I have to believe that the applicant
has made a good faith e e e e e e e e e
[1:31:48] e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e effort to balance
[1:31:50] those concerns with the economic
viability of the of the project. So if
[1:31:55] seven is number seven's number, I would
have hoped uh that there had been a more
[1:32:00] elegant solution to placing those
houses. There are really two logical
[1:32:04] buildable areas on this property.
They're the high spots just north of
[1:32:09] Ogden and at the very north end of this
property. And if if the parcels had been
[1:32:14] able to be located on that high ground
looking down, it would have perhaps
[1:32:18] involved some terracing. But um but to
have seven lots all individually coming
[1:32:24] down onto Adams Avenue driveways coming
down and as you uh know from walking
[1:32:29] that that's right at the bottom of a
hill and um people drive much faster
[1:32:35] than the 30 mph speed limit on Adams
coming over that hill. So I think there
[1:32:40] safety issues there and at a minimum the
speed limit on Adams needs to come down
[1:32:44] to the speed limit on Madison which is
25. I I haven't understood for a long
[1:32:49] time why Adams has been at 30 and
Madison at 25 but uh so that's all I've
[1:32:54] got. Thanks.
>> Thank you.
[1:32:55] » Thank you very much.
[1:33:04] » Hi Eric missile through Chevel Drive. We
are the property. It looks onto uh the
[1:33:08] big uh commercial building. Our property
will look when you look to the left
[1:33:13] right onto this property.
>> Okay.
[1:33:15] » You're on the south side of Chiovel.
>> Yes.
[1:33:18] » Okay.
>> Um it comes down to a couple fundamental
[1:33:21] issues here, guys. Let's talk water.
That lake is a solution to a bigger
[1:33:28] community problem. Start with the water
on the south side of Ogden. Go look at
[1:33:32] that culvert that goes under the uh IBLP
building. That's a bottleneck that
[1:33:38] causes flooding that flows into the
creek that flows into here. We're
[1:33:42] looking at a big commercial building for
redoing IBLP. Bad idea. We oppose it
[1:33:47] since opinions have been stated that's
going to drain into here.
[1:33:53] How deep is this lake and creek?
Two feet. I might not have measured it.
[1:33:58] I've lived around there long enough and
fish there. It's about two feet deep.
[1:34:02] it's full. That that is the solution to
a lot of the flooding problems. I know
[1:34:06] it takes money. I know it's going to
hurt your project, but that's the
[1:34:10] answer. Um I I would really and again I
get the DuPage County overseas, not this
[1:34:16] board, but that's how how to fix it.
traffic
[1:34:22] Ogden and Adams is not conducive for
the Brian redevelopment
[1:34:29] that was uh abandoned a couple years ago
or what is being regurgitated uh
[1:34:35] allegedly now. That's not the right
solution for the property. You're going
[1:34:38] to have eight new homes going up that
IBLP sold north of Birwood. You're going
[1:34:44] to have 19 homes here if I'm doing the
math right. Could I ask on the on those
[1:34:49] homes? Is that going from Birchwood the
open area into the woods or is it
[1:34:53] starting at the top of the hill?
>> It's south of Deer Park and it will go
[1:34:58] west will be the street will be east
west from what was presented to the
[1:35:01] village of Oakbrook.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
[1:35:05] » So you all a sudden you're going to have
30 new homes around here. That's going
[1:35:10] to be a lot of traffic plus what you're
going to put into the west.
[1:35:15] And my opinion is that should be R2.
IBLP has carved up and started trading
[1:35:22] off individually and no one's looking at
this collectively.
[1:35:26] You know, this is something if we go
back 30 years ago, Bob and Sharon, I
[1:35:30] think you you bought that 30 years ago
when BLP wanted to develop hotels and it
[1:35:35] was a a broader issue. The communities
need to collaborate here, too.
[1:35:39] I'm certain there's discussions behind
the scenes. I don't know what has but I
[1:35:43] would really encourage Oakrook and
Hinsdale to work collectively together
[1:35:46] for a good solution.
>> Thank you.
[1:35:49] » Great. Thank you very much.
[1:35:53] » Yes sir.
[1:36:00] » Hi Steve Carlson 16 Bonnie Bray. Just
briefly, I think the point was very well
[1:36:06] made that expecting this HOA with maybe
19 homes to financially and otherwise
[1:36:14] take care of that open land is just a
major problem in the making a disaster
[1:36:21] waiting to happen. uh if for whatever
reason if Hinsdale parks do not feel
[1:36:28] like they could take that land I would
hope there would be some conversation
[1:36:32] with county because a lot of people
don't realize it but at county has a
[1:36:38] small parcel at the west end of
Birchwood which is actually designated
[1:36:42] as Brush Hill Forest Preserve so it
would be great to have it part of
[1:36:48] Hinsdale Parks if that doesn't work
really explore if it could county land
[1:36:53] because again I think expecting this
private entity to take care of something
[1:36:57] like that is just not going to happen.
Thank you.
[1:37:02] » Great. Thank you sir.
[1:37:14] » My name is Sharon Lren and I live in
Oakrook at 102 Birwood Road and I just I
[1:37:22] want to make one comment. I've been
listening. There's been some very good
[1:37:26] comments and um points made. Um however,
everybody's talking about water and it
[1:37:34] being a problem. And then everybody's
talking about oh well, we need
[1:37:38] sidewalks. We need all these things.
Okay.
[1:37:43] Drive down
um Adams Road and look to the west. You
[1:37:51] don't see any sidewalks. You don't see
any street lights. And you keep going
[1:37:55] down Adams. There's no sidewalks. And
there's no street lights. And there's no
[1:38:00] dead elderly people. And there's no
elderly people just walk hobbling
[1:38:06] around. Okay? You have to think of the
area. The area is called Fullersburg
[1:38:14] Woods. Okay? the more concrete you put
in that area with sidewalks and um
[1:38:22] everything, okay, it's not permeable.
You're going to cause more water
[1:38:27] problems, which you're arguing that you
want to solve. So, I think there's um um
[1:38:35] this is not downtown Hensdale.
This is Fullersburg Woods. Thank you.
[1:38:42] » Thank you.
[1:38:51] Hi, I'm Patty Bellwock and I live over
on Canterbury Court over I've lived on
[1:38:58] the west side, I've lived on the south
side and now I live in like what I said
[1:39:01] it's like living in Hayward, Wisconsin.
It's beautiful and thank you for all
[1:39:05] you're doing here. This is a lot of
work. I see it. The only thing I was
[1:39:09] talking about or came to talk about and
I did talk with one of the guys ahead of
[1:39:13] time um because when we they asked us to
come and kind of take a mini vote on
[1:39:18] when they were talking about putting the
nine homes or whatever they were doing
[1:39:22] in there a year ago or two years ago and
I said my only request was about the
[1:39:26] safety and you've all talked about it
because it's changed. I've been over
[1:39:29] here 22 years now and it's changed so um
you know up and down um our street
[1:39:35] Madison and especially in the last year
there have been four major homes at the
[1:39:39] north end that have been built. You
could barely because if you go over to
[1:39:42] walk in the woods, you know, over at
Fullersburg, you can barely turn around
[1:39:45] because three huge trucks were at each
house almost, you know, and that's kids
[1:39:50] are around there now, too. And then now
when we build this, it's the same thing.
[1:39:54] And it's fine, but we just were
concerned about they had said that they
[1:39:58] were going to exit or in um the intro
and exit would be on Adams, you know,
[1:40:04] rather than on um Madison because we've
got so many. And then with Salt Creek
[1:40:09] Club in the summer, the kids are running
up and down there and everything. And
[1:40:12] then in the winter, you would be
surprised or those that are there know
[1:40:16] that the bus loads come those first
couple of blocks have a lot of many
[1:40:19] kids. Even Canterbury Court has about I
would say eight kids under the age of
[1:40:23] five now. And you know, and everybody
thinks it's all mostly older people over
[1:40:26] there, but there are a lot of younger
people. So, I'm just saying we were
[1:40:29] concerned and I really just wanted to
talk about it. And then he was nice
[1:40:33] enough to talk about it with me before
the meeting and he assured me that
[1:40:36] that's the way it was going to stand. So
I and I just thank you for all you've
[1:40:40] done and that you're doing with your
time and effort. Thank you.
[1:40:44] » That's it.
>> Thank you, ma'am.
[1:40:56] » My name is Bonnie Brown and I live at
541 Bonnie Bray. All
[1:41:00] » right. [laughter] We'll get through
that.
[1:41:02] » You like it your name when you saw the
house?
[1:41:04] » It started with the home inspector
before I even go out the place.
[1:41:08] Uh, my questions might be a little more
specific than a lot of them have be
[1:41:12] been. Just so I've got it on the record,
the culde-sac will never connect to
[1:41:17] Bonnie Bray Road. Is that a yes answer
to that? That is not part of the plan.
[1:41:24] » That is correct.
>> Correct. That is correct.
[1:41:25] » Okay. How about a walking path? Because
>> there is no path proposed.
[1:41:30] » No, there is no pathway. Okay. Because
we don't want to become the parking lot
[1:41:33] for the park either. Um, they addressed
the sidewalk all the way around the you
[1:41:40] you could walk all the way around and
they didn't mention the east side of the
[1:41:43] property except for a head wall. Does
that head wall go the entire length of
[1:41:48] the development or
>> just at the culvert just where the
[1:41:53] street where the creek goes underneath
Adams?
[1:41:55] » Oh, all right. Okay.
>> Just so there's width there to put a
[1:41:57] sidewalk in.
>> Okay. So then there is there a sidewalk
[1:42:00] through because he his exact words were
that you could walk all the way around
[1:42:05] and that so there will be a sidewalk the
rest of the way on the east side also.
[1:42:10] » No west sidewalk.
>> No on the east side. On the east side
[1:42:14] that's that faces up towards Bonnie
Bray.
[1:42:17] » No, there's no sidewalk.
>> There's no sidewalk there. Okay.
[1:42:19] » Along the around the culde-sac there's a
sidewalk mean
[1:42:22] » Okay. Just a circle around the
culde-sac. Yes. But not the entire east
[1:42:26] side of the development. Okay. Um, you
mentioned street lights and said you
[1:42:30] were going to fix the existing, but will
you be adding street lights in the
[1:42:34] culde-sac?
>> Yes, they are required to by village
[1:42:38] code.
>> Okay. Because we don't have them on
[1:42:40] Bonnie Bray. So, we have our nice
darkness. We get to see the um and the
[1:42:47] only other comment was just I what made
my hair stand on N was when they said
[1:42:52] lots 13 and 14 in the flood plane,
they'll just move dirt to get it off the
[1:42:56] flood plane. That was a little worrisome
of where that water water would go.
[1:43:02] Thank you.
>> Thanks, Bonnie.
[1:43:11] Anyone else like to speak on the matter?
Great. Thank you. I appreciate your
[1:43:17] input. It's very helpful.
Commissioners, other questions or
[1:43:23] comments, discussion?
[1:43:27] Okay, hearing that. Um, I'll have a vote
to close the public hearing.
[1:43:33] » Krillinberger still motions. We have a
second.
[1:43:36] » Second. More.
>> Roll call vote, please. Bethany.
[1:43:39] » Commissioner Harlo.
>> I.
[1:43:41] » Commissioner Curry.
>> I.
[1:43:42] » Commissioner Krillinberger.
>> I.
[1:43:43] » Commissioner Cernovich
to close the public.
[1:43:49] » No, I'm
>> Commissioner.
[1:43:51] » You want to keep it open, huh?
[1:43:55] Commissioner, did we did we make a vote?
Commissioner Cernovich.
[1:43:58] » Um, I'm just wondering we should have
some more discussion before
[1:44:02] » we're going to have discussion just
closes the public hearing.
[1:44:04] » Okay. Can we reopen it if needed?
>> Why would you want to do that?
[1:44:07] » Are there additional comments and
questions?
[1:44:09] » I would like to have some more
information before we take the vote.
[1:44:13] » Okay.
>> Well, yeah, we're going to
[1:44:14] » we're going to talk this as close as the
public
[1:44:16] » this, but it could be Okay.
>> Yes.
[1:44:20] » Are there additional are there
additional questions for the applicant?
[1:44:22] We can we can leave the public hearing.
>> No, but I I guess I would I would prefer
[1:44:28] a lot of things are kind of vague. I
would like to have some answers
[1:44:34] continue the public hearing. Um I feel
like they still have some work to do.
[1:44:43] Um
I would like to see them reach out to
[1:44:46] Shipo for one. Uh we had a lot of
questions more questions about flooding.
[1:44:51] Um
I I I'd like more details about the
[1:44:56] plan. I don't know how others feel.
>> The issue is do we close the public part
[1:45:03] of the meeting and then can we address
those if if we close the meeting or not?
[1:45:08] » Oh yeah.
>> Or if we continue.
[1:45:09] » I just want to make sure that that
>> yes
[1:45:11] » both can be done.
>> Thank you Scott. Okay.
[1:45:14] » If we have questions we can still reach
out and questions can be
[1:45:17] » Yes. To the applicant. Yes.
>> Okay. My recommendation is that if this
[1:45:21] is continued to a future public hearing,
we do not close the public hearing.
[1:45:26] » There you go.
>> Yeah, there you go.
[1:45:27] » So
>> maybe we should talk about where
[1:45:32] » where people sit and what the thoughts
are because we could continue.
[1:45:36] » Okay.
>> I just feel, you know, this is a very
[1:45:40] special area.
Um there's a lot to consider.
[1:45:45] I don't feel that there's a need to rush
through this. I appreciate all the hard
[1:45:50] work you've done over the past year or
so. Um, but I feel that there's still
[1:45:55] questions and I think we should do it
right. Take our time before this move
[1:46:01] would move on to the board of trustees
>> like specific questions.
[1:46:08] » Um,
a lot of questions that came up to us.
[1:46:11] Um, well my I would like to have a ship
overview for one. Um I think there's
[1:46:17] been a lot of discussion about
sidewalks.
[1:46:20] Um traffic
um the traffic study we had
[1:46:28] was quite different than the one we had
gotten from Ryan which was
[1:46:32] » because the loads are different.
>> Well the loads are different.
[1:46:34] » This is 19 houses
>> but um
[1:46:38] » you you study a million times there be
that's the loads. It's it's published
[1:46:42] data. Well, but I'm I think we need to
like several people brought up, we need
[1:46:47] to look at the whole area and whole it
like both both developments.
[1:46:52] » We can't I mean this is a co-compliant
subdivision application. We can't tie it
[1:46:58] to some other
unknown.
[1:47:02] » Okay?
>> You know what I mean? Like it'd be like
[1:47:05] you trying to develop a house and
they're like, "Well, we're not going to
[1:47:07] give you approval on the house until
your neighbor, you know, develops his
[1:47:10] house." I mean, if it In fact, when we
did the Ryan, they were developing the
[1:47:14] entire thing. So, it was it was
inherent. It was went all the way from
[1:47:18] Madison to to 83. So, that was all and
made it it was complicated, but it was
[1:47:23] one project. This is different in that,
you know, that McNotton developed those
[1:47:28] series of houses off of Madison. That's,
you know, one piece that's done. This is
[1:47:33] then the the east side of Adams. It's a
subdivision project.
[1:47:38] » Yes.
>> The big unknown is the west side. And I
[1:47:40] don't I don't know what it could end up
being and nothing ever happens. It's
[1:47:43] going to be in our two houses,
>> right?
[1:47:45] » You just don't know. There's no way of
knowing.
[1:47:47] » Well, another question I had um there
are quite a few questions about who's
[1:47:52] going to maintain.
>> I mean, I think that's I mean, that's
[1:47:55] one that I I think
>> so I have a list of things.
[1:47:59] » It's code compliant, but we are making a
map amendment with respect to the OS and
[1:48:03] I want to make a map amendment in the
right direction from a maintenance
[1:48:06] perspective. Yeah, I think that I think
those have been really good points.
[1:48:09] Well, I mean to your point is should it
be should we recommend that the to the
[1:48:14] board that the village buys this? Are we
being like, you know, pennies are
[1:48:18] foolish?
>> Yeah, we need to explore options. I
[1:48:20] mean, I think the gentleman brought up
the the county there's con, you know,
[1:48:24] there's there's partners that we could
pull in conservation foundation to
[1:48:27] explore this. I I think that needs to be
explored way more than it and no offense
[1:48:32] to the village staff, but I think
>> we are missing an opportunity to get
[1:48:37] this in the public trust where it's
going to likely end up anyways. I mean,
[1:48:40] I know when this started, I was hoping
that this was going to be a public park,
[1:48:44] you know, owned by
>> and then, you know, this other concept
[1:48:48] and I was curious on what's the stance,
>> but the maintenance aspect is a really
[1:48:53] important issue. I mean I I
[clears throat] mean that was a creek
[1:48:57] back in the day.
>> It's a baselike principle. Put the dams
[1:49:00] in made the this shallow pond
>> that and it likely could become a
[1:49:05] liability to an HOA too from it being
damned up if there's you know I mean we
[1:49:09] just took out the Grom mill
>> um dam you know that from a water
[1:49:13] quality perspective. Not going to go
down that rabbit hole but it could
[1:49:16] become a liability from a a maintenance
of I I believe that's damned up down in
[1:49:21] the cemetery.
>> Yeah. Yeah. They have a couple dams. So,
[1:49:24] it's just something that needs to be
explored more of because all of that
[1:49:28] that you're putting on a HOA, like I
said, in my line of work, I've seen
[1:49:33] » a homeowner associations can't even take
care of the detention bonds in some
[1:49:36] communities and and
>> I can't imagine what those HOF fees
[1:49:39] would be.
[1:49:42] » That's part of it because if the village
if the village is saying they don't want
[1:49:46] to maintain it because it's too
expensive,
[1:49:49] » how why would an HOA want to assume
that?
[1:49:52] » Okay. and then the liability.
>> Right.
[1:49:54] » Right. So, you've got both of those
issues that an HOA is going to have to
[1:49:57] take care of. If this if we had thought
about this, the re the reason it's zoned
[1:50:02] what it's zoned now,
>> right?
[1:50:05] » You can't build on wetlands. So, it
never should have been zoned R2 to begin
[1:50:10] with, right? In other words, you can't
build a house. You can't build it.
[1:50:14] » So, it should have been public lands or
public property to start with. It just
[1:50:18] wasn't because it was bulk area.
So now
[1:50:23] we're tied up with these gentlemen on
their project and thinking about this,
[1:50:28] but
I don't know that the HOA thing I think
[1:50:31] I think you raised a really good point
and and Bethany, you're already saying
[1:50:35] that the village has looked at this and
is kind of going maybe not. I mean,
[1:50:40] could that be revisited by them and and
a plan put together where they could
[1:50:46] accept it? And if not, then we start to
explore other partners, right?
[1:50:51] » Um,
>> yeah. I mean, like the
[1:50:53] » but this is like the big part of
actually what the charge is before us.
[1:50:57] » I mean, it's fascinating to know that
the Duke bount forest preserve district
[1:51:01] has land west of this, you know, down
one, you know, and, you know,
[1:51:06] Fullersburg Woods is a great asset for
the entire community and it's great to
[1:51:11] have that that park land and forest
preserve land there. You know, maybe
[1:51:16] this maybe there is if it's not
Hinsdale, maybe it is the forest
[1:51:19] preserve district.
>> I feel the village is going to
[1:51:23] ultimately get all the responsibility of
pleasing this area, ensuring
[1:51:26] maintenance, all the benefit of not
getting the land. Yes.
[1:51:29] » Or all the challenges. Yes.
>> With a property but not by not having
[1:51:33] the land and so why go through all
burden if we don't explore the
[1:51:38] opportunity to get the land.
>> So is this a question for the applicant?
[1:51:43] » No, I think this is more a question for
the Well, but no, if it's a if a
[1:51:46] homeowners uh if the homeowners
association fees are going to be $10,000
[1:51:52] a month,
>> that's just an absurd amount. I hope
[1:51:57] » um does that sully the project and and
again this is a market
[1:52:02] » thing. It's I don't think it's up to us
to say the homeowners association fees
[1:52:07] are going to be too much. No, no, but
but it's part of our package in the
[1:52:11] covenants and restrictions and I my
opinion is I don't like how they are set
[1:52:18] up for in my opinion they're set up for
failure.
[1:52:21] » I agree.
>> Well, and I think this is much more
[1:52:23] complicated than a detention pie.
>> Yes, it is.
[1:52:25] » I mean, this is a waterway.
>> Yeah. To the to the resident's point,
[1:52:28] but people who are moving into this want
to be near this park. I think it's an
[1:52:33] amenity,
>> not a liability. And
[1:52:37] » it's going to be maintained. It sounds
like it's going to be maintained in a
[1:52:40] way that is and I I don't know I don't
know nothing about know nothing about
[1:52:44] nothing but in a way that is more open
and free and uh original prairie sort
[1:52:52] rather than uh the palace at Versailles.
>> I mean
[1:52:57] » so maybe there's some maybe it's going
to be less expensive.
[1:53:00] » I mean that goes to your point
Commissioner Harlo. I mean there isn't a
[1:53:04] plan for what it's to be maintained to.
Um
[1:53:08] » it's kind of a plan. We were told it's
going to be open lands.
[1:53:11] » That's a lot of different definitions to
that plan.
[1:53:14] » They're on for example on the south side
of the water feature that will
[1:53:19] essentially be people's backyards that
are I mean I guessing it'll probably be
[1:53:24] mowed up to the edge and accessible. Is
that truly part of the park too? you
[1:53:28] know, some things I just think it
>> it would need the benefit of maybe
[1:53:32] exploring this more is also then looking
at a little bit more comprehensive what
[1:53:37] does the park look like from a use
perspective.
[1:53:40] » Well, then that's is that a matter of
continuing and asking that question?
[1:53:43] » Well, and asking the village I mean
that's where I mean the idea continuing
[1:53:47] and asking the village to really
investigate this more
[1:53:50] » and ultimately that's a village board
decision.
[1:53:53] » So that ultimately that decision would
be a village board decision. So clearly
[1:53:57] there could be a recommendation to move
this forward with the village board to
[1:54:01] consider those as options.
>> Um I do want to make it um at least put
[1:54:06] it on the record that about a year ago
we the village did contact the DW page
[1:54:10] county forest preserve just to see you
know based on the budget discussions of
[1:54:14] would they be open to this land
acquisition. Um, according to our
[1:54:18] discussions with them, their policy is
that they only will accept land that
[1:54:22] would be adjacent to land they already
exist and there is no direct adjacent
[1:54:26] land. So at that time when we had
reached out to them, they were not
[1:54:30] interested in the parkland um aspect. We
could of course circle back with them
[1:54:34] but that was the policy decision at the
time that they had informed the village.
[1:54:40] » I appreciate everything that the
applicants have given us and I really
[1:54:44] appreciate village staff. You know,
Bethany, as I always remind you, I no
[1:54:48] longer have to bring my zoning code book
with to meetings and you take care of a
[1:54:52] lot of the issues before it even gets to
us. But, um,
[1:54:57] » I just think that the meeting needs to
be continued to explore some other
[1:55:00] options.
>> Um, take our time, do this, right?
[1:55:07] Bethany, can I ask you a question? If
you know or anyone else is remembering
[1:55:11] when the woodlands was developed,
clearly different than the village of
[1:55:15] Hinsdale. No sidewalks, rolling hills,
there's been water issues there. Uh that
[1:55:22] was looked at differently. Why were
there no reasons to ask that development
[1:55:28] to have sidewalks? How was that looked
at differently? Because I look at this
[1:55:32] property as the same type of environment
as the woodlands.
[1:55:36] » I have the answer. Actually, our our
expert historian might know the
[1:55:40] development of the woodlands better, but
it's my understanding that part of that
[1:55:44] was even maybe not even developed in
Hindale and annexed in later.
[1:55:48] » It was,
but then when they did the storm water
[1:55:51] improvements, there was a special and
then there were significant village
[1:55:54] storm water improvements later on,
>> but they were never required to put
[1:55:58] sidewalks or make it look like ones. No,
but they had to chip in. When the storm
[1:56:01] water improvements were made, they had
to pay,
[1:56:03] » right?
>> The residents of
[1:56:05] » something.
>> We both paid those SSAs
[1:56:09] » when the storm we both paid those when
>> we paid those. Oh, yes, we did.
[1:56:15] » Yes.
>> So, I mean the I think there's a few
[1:56:19] issues that kind of boil to the top.
It's first the part the this open space.
[1:56:23] Should it be owned by the village or
should it be private and with public
[1:56:26] access? I think that's a big question
and I my con idea there's a consensus
[1:56:32] here that the commissioners would like
it to be publicly like owned by Hinsdale
[1:56:38] so it could be maintained prop that's
>> because I do think I mean
[1:56:42] » that is not on the table.
>> Yes it's a map my opin it's we're m
[1:56:47] being asked to review a map amendment
right with respect to going from R2 to
[1:56:52] open space
>> I think we have a clear how the open
[1:56:56] space is set up not
>> set up but owned is a whole different
[1:57:00] thing. You're not offering it to the
village.
[1:57:03] » No,
>> I don't know whether
[1:57:04] » aren't we?
>> No, this is that's not on the table. The
[1:57:06] the offer is the offer.
>> That'd be a good place. Come on. Thank
[1:57:09] you.
>> Yeah. So, we were offering it to the
[1:57:14] village.
>> That's what I thought.
[1:57:16] » Yes. 100%. We were offering it to the
village. Yes, we we Yes, we
[1:57:22] said no. I mean from from this meeting
obviously things have changed a little
[1:57:25] bit but we you want you want to answer
this?
[1:57:28] » Yeah. John Pemrook swearing construction
here.
[1:57:32] » Yeah. I appreciate everybody's time and
everybody's putting a lot of effort into
[1:57:35] this. But we've been back and forth for
two years on this now. So there's many
[1:57:41] phases have gone through this. So we did
offer this to the village. They refused
[1:57:46] it. They said they couldn't afford it.
So we said we take it over because I've
[1:57:51] been at this racket for 45 years. So
I've built about 600 customuilt homes.
[1:57:58] These homes that are going to go in
these lots are about4 to5 million.
[1:58:03] Okay. So we're talking here tonight
saying these each house here going to be
[1:58:07] 4 to 5 million on the top side. On the
bottom side is about two and a half to
[1:58:11] three million. Now we're talking about
that they can't afford to maintain this
[1:58:16] property. I just me put 45 years of I
disagree and but that's just me because
[1:58:24] I've never seen that on that quality.
Now if you're in a different situation
[1:58:29] but we're maintaining I'm maintaining it
for the last two years and the cost that
[1:58:35] I can do it for and that the village
could do it for this is a whole
[1:58:39] difference because we have our numbers
really fine-tuned
[1:58:44] and we have to have that. So
[clears throat] we're talking about I've
[1:58:49] you know I understand you're looking at
this and saying well but we've there's
[1:58:54] two years of discussion here and
Hensdale refused it. That's what I would
[1:59:00] that's what we were told that Hensdale
did not want to do this. So it's that's
[1:59:05] why we've gone this route public private
can we hold for just a sec now. Was that
[1:59:11] on the staff level or on the village
board level? So the the when this was
[1:59:15] brought up, the village the village
staff expressed concerns and there were
[1:59:19] also some elected and appointed
officials involved that were in
[1:59:22] discussion about preliminary budget
numbers that was brought back to the
[1:59:25] applicant that there there are budget
concerns and then they have decided to
[1:59:30] make it private. So [clears throat] the
the the initial and budget analyses were
[1:59:34] done but it wasn't by all any means
conclusive. Again, this can be a
[1:59:38] recommendation from the plan commission
for the village board to consider this,
[1:59:42] but that would need additional time for
additional review of what those costs
[1:59:46] would be the village and the villages.
The trustees are ultimately the budget
[1:59:50] makers. So, if if there was an ability
to look at what those long-term
[1:59:54] maintenance costs would be, um that's
something that can be done at the next
[1:59:57] stage as well. I think it might also be
helpful for the village engineer, the
[2:00:02] the engineer for the applicant to come
up and kind of talk through what the
[2:00:06] historic IDNR resource, you know, and
review process looks like. And I think
[2:00:10] it would also be good for him to kind of
go through with everyone of what's
[2:00:13] required with DuPage County for a storm
water maintenance plan on a private side
[2:00:18] because there will be some of those
maintenance items built in. They're
[2:00:21] typically not something that's brought
forward with the plan commission packet
[2:00:24] and they're done as part of that DuPage
County review. But I also think that
[2:00:27] there is an ability to add in with our
HOA documents or if this does say
[2:00:32] privately owned and maintained for
additional maintenance, you know, plans
[2:00:37] to be put in place. So
>> So are we talking acquisition costs of
[2:00:41] the land and then maintenance of the
[clears throat] land?
[2:00:42] » Yes. There's always Well, and and in
this particular case, they could choose
[2:00:46] to donate the land to the village as
part of the subdivision process,
[2:00:49] » public benefit.
>> Yes. As part of that.
[2:00:52] » So those are on the table.
>> No, they've not been offered. they well
[2:00:56] they've been offered and declined so
it's not on the offer.
[2:00:58] » I think it's important to recognize I
think there's some frustrations that
[2:01:01] there's professionals that have been
working on this a really long time but
[2:01:05] this is really the first time we've seen
or heard of any of it. So, for us to ask
[2:01:09] these questions, I think are really
important because we're the lay people
[2:01:11] and professionals that are, you know,
volunteering to do this. And I think um,
[2:01:17] you know, our question should be
addressed
[2:01:19] » without a doubt.
>> And to be to be clear, the the land has
[2:01:22] not been declined by the village. That's
a decision that's done by the village
[2:01:26] board. So, the proposal has come forward
based on concerns by that were brought
[2:01:31] up in discussions with the applicant and
staff that there are budgetary concerns
[2:01:34] with long-term maintenance on the
villages side. At the end of the day,
[2:01:38] it's always been clear that the village
board has to decide should they take the
[2:01:41] land or should it be privately owned and
maintained, right? And the applicant has
[2:01:45] chosen to go the easy route of trying to
make it privately owned and maintained
[2:01:49] for further budget discussions.
>> And I think we got some useful
[2:01:52] information here. And the these are
private property rights. So they can
[2:01:56] offer it to the village or not. And 19
time $3 million is some large amount of
[2:02:03] value in residential real estate to be
held by people who have means. So it
[2:02:09] sounds to me like there might be some
resources here to maintain this
[2:02:13] property.
>> Concern is John's point.
[2:02:15] » Yeah. No
inexpensive house.
[2:02:18] » Sorry. Yeah. I I I Yeah, that's you
know, if we were talking about $500,000
[2:02:23] homes, and I'm not knocking any price,
but I'm just This is my territory,
[2:02:27] right?
>> Um but we're not,
[2:02:30] » you know, the lots here are going to be
very expensive because the property was
[2:02:35] very expensive and to develop this
property is very expensive. So, the lots
[2:02:39] are expensive, but it we all we're in
Hensdale, so we all know about Hensdale
[2:02:44] and surrounding suburbs. The lots are
expensive anyway. So, there's been a lot
[2:02:49] of like, you know, uh, numbers being
crunched and this and that. So, I'm
[2:02:54] saying under the seventh lots at the
northern half, they're going to be $5
[2:02:59] million homes. Okay?
And the southern half, there'll be any
[2:03:05] place with 2.5 to 3.5 million
>> on top of the land costs. on top of the
[2:03:11] land costs. Like I'm doing houses right
now in Elmhurst. A 50 by190 lot is $1
[2:03:17] million. Now we're putting a a house on
top of that. Another 2.7.
[2:03:23] That's Elmerst because I built over 400
houses in the Elmerst in the last 30
[2:03:27] years. So I'm just saying is
the HMO is not a problem in this. I'm
[2:03:35] just saying the way we've we've set it
up. But if the village wanted to take
[2:03:38] this and take it over and maintain the
whole thing, but we've had discussions
[2:03:43] about sidewalks, the sidewalk, hence
they didn't want the cost of maintaining
[2:03:48] the sidewalks. I can go down the road
here with discussions and I'm not it's
[2:03:54] two years of discussions here. So it's
like we're trying to say, well, we want
[2:03:59] to be part of this as well because I
think it's a beautiful property. I think
[2:04:02] anybody I always say when that I call it
a quiet park. This is my vision of a
[2:04:07] quiet park. No phones, no lab, no
computers, no nothing. You sit out
[2:04:12] there, you read a book, there'll be a
book stand there and all your problems
[2:04:16] go away. So because it's a beautiful
piece of property and I want to keep it
[2:04:20] as much pristined as possible but there
is a lot of engineering involved and
[2:04:27] that's why we've got DuPage we've got
the engineers in Hinsdale we got this
[2:04:31] fine engineer here so these are all
professionals that make this all
[2:04:35] possible so there is restrictions on us
you know and that's the on all sorts of
[2:04:42] it so
I think it's a beautiful piece of
[2:04:45] property so I'm trying to keep it like
we're talking about wetlands and stuff
[2:04:49] and maintaining it. Well, the way it's
been maintained for the last 10 years, I
[2:04:55] don't think it should be maintained like
that.
[2:04:57] » There's a lot of this stuff that's been
cut that should go back to wetlands.
[2:05:01] Should go back to the natural side of
it. We're talking about when a tree
[2:05:05] falls over the ground. Let the ground
take it back unless it's blocking a
[2:05:09] sidewalk. That's what wetlands is about.
So, we're very concerned too. I I me
[2:05:17] personally because I think it's a
beautiful piece of property and I want
[2:05:19] it maintained and as much destruction as
less as possible on that piece of
[2:05:25] property. So it's like we're looking at
but when we when we're discussing and
[2:05:30] you correct when you said this is the
first time we're looking at this and we
[2:05:34] we're concerned and I understand that
but on the price of the houses there I
[2:05:40] don't think that maintaining what's
there because anybody that's going to
[2:05:45] buy there is buying it for the it's just
so beautiful
[2:05:51] » you know it's it's just believable and
it's been there like you said for you
[2:05:56] know forever and I think there's a lot
of it there that should go back to
[2:06:01] natural because if you look at the other
side towards Bonnie Bra has been taken
[2:06:05] over and it's beautiful you know it's
just natural you know so
[2:06:10] » well but one thing I was like because
right now one thing that's missing like
[2:06:15] just you started with the maintenance
that if if there was a a strong
[2:06:19] maintenance agreement and plan that made
sense okay the it's privately owned
[2:06:25] owned, they need to maintain it. But if
they don't, then this is what the
[2:06:29] repercussions are for the village. True,
which is not currently in I mean I I
[2:06:33] have to go back and read these
covenants, but I don't remember reading
[2:06:35] anything to that specificity about
maintaining the the park.
[2:06:40] » There is they talk um about going into
the lean lean process, but it doesn't
[2:06:46] define what maintenance is and what are
you maintaining too. I think that's the
[2:06:49] part. Do you think if there was a
defined plan to like Laurel's comment
[2:06:53] and yours that really did seem to cover
everything that then?
[2:06:58] » Yeah, I still have reservations. It's
not that not
[2:07:01] » that would be plan B. So plan A would be
public.
[2:07:03] » Yeah. Because to with all due respect I
I get I get the funding part. I'm not
[2:07:08] the maybe the money will be there. It's
the actual execution of you know a
[2:07:13] homeowners association actually
implementing. I appreciate your your
[2:07:18] vision for this property, too. I mean, I
I spent a lot of time in Dean Ma Nature
[2:07:22] Preserve. Love that place. You know, is
there an opportunity? I think we need to
[2:07:26] explore. What does it mean for this to
be a park?
[2:07:29] » To your point, it hasn't been
maintained. Mowing it just to mow it
[2:07:32] right now, you know, and is that what is
that what the maintenance plan goes to?
[2:07:37] I I think you need a maintenance plan.
You need a vision to then understand
[2:07:41] what you're maintaining, too. Um, so I
think the open space, Jim, to your
[2:07:46] point, it is under our preview if we're
we're saying this goes to OS. What does
[2:07:50] the OS look like? Um, just like we would
say what do the houses look like when
[2:07:55] it's going to R2. That's my opinion. We
have an opportunity here sitting on this
[2:08:00] commission. I don't know that I want to
just toss it to a recommendation to the
[2:08:04] board to consider. I think I would like
to have it a little bit vetted out so we
[2:08:08] could have some
>> to like Julie's point, continue it and
[2:08:10] get some more study. Not that I don't
trust the [clears throat] board, I just
[2:08:13] think we have the opportunity to
provide. Well, I think that would also
[2:08:16] communicate to the board that we want
them to look at this again.
[2:08:20] » Yeah.
>> And also the water issue, you know,
[2:08:23] would page maybe we get an answer by
then.
[2:08:26] » Okay. I
>> mean getting that's that's a long
[2:08:30] process. I mean storm water I'm
confident that they're going to comply
[2:08:34] with the storm water premise. The county
doesn't give you you have to like the
[2:08:37] flood plan.
>> It's not negot negotiate. So, I think
[2:08:40] the storm water I'm it's more like this
open space and what's going to happen to
[2:08:44] it.
>> Um, and then
[2:08:47] you know the sidewalks, one of the
residents spoke. I mean, I guess should
[2:08:51] there be sidewalks? I mean, I is
interesting because I walk Adams down
[2:08:55] Spring Road and there are no sidewalks
and so I walk facing traffic. If it's
[2:09:01] dark, I put some reflective stuff on
because I almost got a guy on a bike,
[2:09:05] you know, because you just it's dark. I
mean, there's no street. It's beautiful.
[2:09:08] I mean, you can walk up on deer and
raccoons. There's It's a really nice
[2:09:13] neighborhood. Should we even have the
sidewalks along Adam? [laughter]
[2:09:16] » I think you should connect the two the
north and the south if you're going to
[2:09:21] have that's going to be all the same
kind of HOA. Correct. I think you
[2:09:24] connect them so that they
>> and maybe just leave it like
[2:09:26] » feel like they're in the neighborhood
and and it's not
[2:09:29] » it's not like, you know, sidewalk,
>> but should the sidewalks be in the back,
[2:09:35] not along Adams? you know, like
>> I think the natural path that's already
[2:09:39] there is kind of in in a little bit,
right? That's correct. Yeah. So, I think
[2:09:43] you maintain that,
>> right? But that would be different than
[2:09:47] what they're showing here because
basically once they get up here, it's
[2:09:50] all along Adam.
>> I think it almost Oh, I see what you're
[2:09:52] saying.
>> Would it would it be better to follow
[2:09:54] the flood plane and connect with down by
the bridge?
[2:09:58] » Got to stay outside of the lot line
>> and then it would have the aesthetic
[2:10:01] more of what that part of Fullersburg
Woods looks like. Mhm.
[2:10:06] » versus sidewalks along the curved line.
>> I understand what exactly you're saying.
[2:10:10] » Yeah.
>> And then maybe you you know you have
[2:10:13] because you have the head wall and you
have the connection from the culinary
[2:10:17] » then they get and then you still have
the connection from Madison
[2:10:20] » across. I guess I still back to the
gravel.
[2:10:23] » I mean we got water manes under every
street in town. I mean why why do we
[2:10:27] care?
>> Yeah. Asphalt they can dig up and fix. I
[2:10:31] mean, I I just think
if we're going to make connect these
[2:10:36] neighborhoods, I think we should connect
them. I think it's I've been going
[2:10:39] through since you bought it. It's been
great. Thank you. You know, when the
[2:10:43] gates open sometimes,
>> sometimes I'll go from Madison across
[2:10:47] Adams, you know, can work change my
path, but um
[2:10:50] » it's a gravel the gravel trail is my
idea.
[2:10:54] » Okay.
>> Okay. I didn't want concrete.
[2:10:56] » Okay. But what about
>> Yeah, but it's it's going to be a gravel
[2:10:59] that it's not loose gravel, but if he if
he decided, well, no, John, we disagree
[2:11:05] with you that it has to be a concrete
sidewalk, that's okay.
[2:11:09] » But what about asphalt to match
>> orphalt? Yeah, that's the current one's
[2:11:13] asphalt.
>> Yeah, that's current one.
[2:11:15] » I think that would kind of because I
agree. I mean, you walk through Fuller's
[2:11:18] Bird Wood, especially after the recent
rainstorms, there's a lot of maintenance
[2:11:21] needs. There's it's washed out quite a
bit. So I think you know even the
[2:11:26] crushed limestone compacted requires a
lot of maintenance unless you have your
[2:11:31] drainage.
>> Let's focus on a simple issue. Let's
[2:11:33] like sidewalks. I mean what are your
thoughts about that?
[2:11:36] » I like what you just said a lot.
>> Not having them along on [clears throat]
[2:11:40] the seven north properties instead of
having where you're showing them is
[2:11:44] following more of the flood plane line.
So they go in the back.
[2:11:48] » Is that possible?
>> Could be. Yeah. Like I didn't want the
[2:11:50] sidewalks there but it's a village. It's
a like but it's a requirement. So that
[2:11:57] you know
>> well they'd still have a sidewalk per
[2:12:00] se. It's just not street.
>> Yeah.
[2:12:03] » Like it is right now. There's a sidewalk
right there that twists in.
[2:12:07] » But I guess if I was buying one of these
properties, you know, in this seven
[2:12:10] lots, would I rather people, you know,
do I want people walking in the back?
[2:12:16] » No.
>> You know,
[2:12:17] » probably. You know,
[clears throat]
[2:12:21] » you know, you could you could keep like
it currently does in a way,
[2:12:25] » you know, it starts by the the head wall
where you're proposing that and it goes
[2:12:29] up and hits the road,
>> you know, but you could in a way like
[2:12:33] bring it back to Adams and just have
that, you know, through the park area,
[2:12:37] this open space area,
>> keep that and then eliminate the
[2:12:40] sidewalks, you know, along the those
seven lots, right? And then you you'd be
[2:12:45] able to every because everyone walks on
Adams because there's no sidewalks. And
[2:12:49] then if you did walk from Madison
across, you know, you say this is an
[2:12:52] asphalt path, you could still connect
these neighborhoods together.
[2:12:56] » Correct.
>> Right.
[2:12:57] » It's like on the traffic study, you
know, just me personally, but you know,
[2:13:01] if I was living there, I would never be
making a left on Ogden, right?
[2:13:05] » Because I've got a brain in my head,
[laughter] you know. But I understand
[2:13:08] there's people out there that don't have
brain would want to stay 25 minutes and
[2:13:13] and make a left, you know, onto that
street. But it's like, you know, once
[2:13:18] you get used to it, you know, first of
all, it's too dangerous anyway with the
[2:13:22] traffic that's on Oden, but we can't
stop that,
[2:13:25] » you know.
>> But, uh, we we definitely Yeah. But like
[2:13:29] we're two years at this, so working with
village staff and with everyone and this
[2:13:34] is where we've come to. We are open to
your suggestions for sure. Yeah. It's
[2:13:39] just, you know, uh it's R2 compliance,
you know, that was my big thing
[2:13:45] » on this that I wanted R2 compliance.
>> Uh and I didn't want it overbuilt
[2:13:53] » and I'm concerned about it be prestige
when I leave it. I want it better
[2:14:00] looking than it is today. But I think
it's beautiful because like I tell
[2:14:04] people if you're having a stressful day
or anything, just go out there and sit
[2:14:08] down for a while and just have a look
out on.
[2:14:10] » Yeah. No, it's beautiful. I agree.
>> You got to go back to your work again.
[2:14:14] » It's unique to Instale, too, to have
>> it. It's totally unique.
[2:14:17] » Yeah.
>> Because we have what I call like
[2:14:19] manicured parks. We don't have a space
like this.
[2:14:22] » Yeah.
>> And I've been talking to a good few
[2:14:25] neighbors, especially on Madison there,
that uh are big into gardening and big
[2:14:30] into that. And we've had discussions
that when they hitch,
[2:14:37] you know, the homeowners association
would come together that my thoughts
[2:14:40] that there should be a gardening comm
set up to maintain it and have guidance
[2:14:46] and make it more beautiful. So there's a
lot of uh
[2:14:51] process here to it of course but
>> you know we're here in front of you for
[2:14:56] R2 you know that's you know and it's
I've heard discussions about across the
[2:15:02] street which we have nothing to do with
>> uh [clears throat] whatsoever but
[2:15:06] » you know to me it's only hearsay right
now
[2:15:09] » what's it could be our two it could it
might not be developed at all right
[2:15:14] » you know and I understand that I do
might be involved but this is all I
[2:15:19] don't think it should you know he has a
vision but we don't know what is going
[2:15:23] to be there
>> well John would you be if we would you
[2:15:26] be if we voted to continue this and then
so we gave the staff and the v the board
[2:15:32] more time to consider the ownership
aspect of this what what's being
[2:15:37] proposed and to address any other
concerns and then
[2:15:41] » sure yeah
>> we basically see in a month
[2:15:45] » I don't know if the village would be
able to get budget numbers turned around
[2:15:48] within a month.
>> Okay. So, a couple months.
[2:15:50] [clears throat]
>> Yeah. So, just be aware that this would
[2:15:51] probably delay them for a significant
more time.
[2:15:54] » That would be, you know, on f like
>> that's why I'm asking you.
[2:15:58] » Yeah. That would be Yeah. Because Yeah.
If it was I don't mind a month at four
[2:16:03] weeks, like after two two years, four
weeks. But if you said three months down
[2:16:07] the line, I think that's
>> Would you think in a couple months like
[2:16:11] if it wasn't in um October that November
at the latest? You're talking about an
[2:16:16] acquisition cost than a maintenance
cost, right?
[2:16:19] » More of the maintenance cost. Um, but
what I'd recommend is um, and I I still
[2:16:24] would like their engineer to speak to
the maintenance and monitoring plans
[2:16:27] that's required with DuPage County
[clears throat] so that it's understood.
[2:16:30] There's there maybe is two things
brought [snorts] to the table. What does
[2:16:33] it mean for the village, you know,
maintenance and responsibility versus
[2:16:37] what does it mean for a private HOA? And
those are two separate costs that we can
[2:16:41] try to bring forward. At the end of the
day though, again, it is a village. the
[2:16:45] village board would make that ultimate
decision, right?
[2:16:48] » Um, and the village staff has not,
again, the village staff hasn't made
[2:16:52] that decision. It's the village board
who would,
[2:16:55] » but we we can try to get those costs on
our end.
[2:16:59] » Yeah. So, yeah, I just want to expand on
um Bethy's um request that I go over
[2:17:04] this. So, Dwage County has jurisdiction
over wetlands and flood plane. So this
[2:17:10] private public park um most of it is
grass essentially and it's the um the
[2:17:17] creek and the um um the borderline of
the creek is where you got the natural
[2:17:22] plantings, the wetlands, things like
that and that needs to be maintained. Um
[2:17:27] that's where the most of the um high
maintenance efforts are. So um we have
[2:17:34] to provide the county because they
oversee wetlands and flood plane a
[2:17:38] maintenance plan a plantings plan and we
also have to provide a budget to them.
[2:17:43] And so on a project that John P's
working on in Elmherst it's a private
[2:17:47] owner 60 foot lot. It backs up the salt
creek. It's got wetlands and flood
[2:17:52] plane. So they also have to come up with
we came up with a maintenance plan and a
[2:17:57] planting plan and it's the single
uh owner
[2:18:02] can afford it. I mean it's it's a mod
it's a modest what I find is a modest
[2:18:07] plan for for this two $2.5 million home.
>> Yes. And so for 19 homes with the same
[2:18:15] or double the value will be reasonable
to maintain what they need to maintain
[2:18:20] to meet county standards. And the rest
is really just mowing. It's if you've
[2:18:26] seen it, it's it's a lot of grass and
that's that's a very basic maintenance
[2:18:30] operation. But the specialty maintenance
is by the homeowner or in this case HOA
[2:18:36] and it is a reasonable cost that
is very common when the property backs
[2:18:42] up to a creek or pond or whatever that
has wetlands flood plane.
[2:18:46] » And do you have those costs? Do you
>> um I think the it was like around $2,000
[2:18:54] two to $3,000 for the planting and
maintenance and that's already just
[2:18:58] planting month. Um that was the initial
planting plan and then really the
[2:19:03] maintenance is just pay attention that
>> cut grass
[2:19:07] » cut grass village is not comfortable
>> it's not dead
[2:19:09] » they thought that initially was way too
much
[2:19:11] » staff has not reviewed their maintenance
and monitoring plan I don't believe
[2:19:14] we've seen that or that's been submitted
to the county so we we would probably
[2:19:19] want to review that and see that I don't
know if that's been prepared yet
[2:19:23] » I thought you said that the was really
expensive so you didn't
[2:19:26] » the wetlands plans that we got together
and I apologize I don't have them in
[2:19:29] front of me and they're from quite a bit
ago. They were substantially higher and
[2:19:33] they were they were also wetlands
mitigation and mowing costs.
[2:19:37] » Yeah. I mean I would suggest we don't
put you on the spot with that.
[2:19:41] » I don't want to I can't remember this
morning explor [laughter]
[2:19:46] and they're out of date anyway.
>> Explore the options. What are the
[2:19:48] components? what are the components that
would be covered under maintenance
[2:19:51] monitoring plan for as you're committed
but even though those are requirements
[2:19:56] somebody needs to do them and that and I
my point as I said earlier I'm not
[2:20:01] necessarily worried about the funds it's
the execution that you know HOAs are
[2:20:06] typically people doing it as a side job
or you can I know you can hire third
[2:20:10] parties that manage as HOA but execution
is usually the issue of doing the
[2:20:16] maintenance and and what are we meaning
to so I think my opinion would be is
[2:20:20] that we just need to explore this option
more at the base of it though I don't
[2:20:25] want to miss an opportunity if there's
an opportunity for this to be public
[2:20:28] lands I think that needs to be explored
too
[2:20:32] » uh just to be clear um it's the county
that will um monitor it to make sure
[2:20:38] it's in compliance and if the homeowners
don't take care of it they will go in
[2:20:42] and lean in and do it themselves so it
wouldn't be the village jurisdiction
[2:20:47] » um so the county that
>> I'm let me clarify. I understand that
[2:20:50] part. Okay. The the codes, covenants,
and restrictions tie in the the village
[2:20:55] for the a for this. This is specifically
talking about the village for the open
[2:20:59] space. I agree there might be carveouts
related to the storm water management.
[2:21:04] But as written right now, codes or the
the codes, conditions, and restrictions
[2:21:08] are written to the village
responsibility.
[2:21:10] » So the the grass.
>> Yeah.
[2:21:13] » So I think I think it just needs more
thought. That's
[2:21:17] We're not going to solve it.
>> I mean, that storm we had on feel like
[2:21:20] it [clears throat] was it was a
Saturday, August 6th or something. I
[2:21:23] mean, it flooded across Adams at the low
point. Um, it didn't get anywhere near
[2:21:29] to the your flood plane high high water
spots, but it it definitely went across
[2:21:34] the street and blocked the street. So,
it happens. And that's where all that
[2:21:38] grass was underwater for, you know, at
least half a day. So I I apologize but
[2:21:44] to get this clear. So are you saying
that you're going to look into that
[2:21:50] Hensdale takes it over? Is that what I'm
hearing?
[2:21:53] » Well, we're that's one one thing we're
if we did continue it I want them to
[2:21:57] revisit that the option is the Hel of
you guys
[2:22:02] know for two years
>> not from us. We're asking that be
[2:22:05] explored. Right.
>> Yeah. So, I don't know who's giving me a
[2:22:07] note that who's suddenly saying that
Kenzel wants nothing to do with it. They
[2:22:12] can't afford it.
>> And you know, I'm just saying it's new
[2:22:15] here to me today to say, well, now we're
going to look at it
[2:22:20] » after two years because we were open to
that
[2:22:23] » very early on, but we we were said no.
>> Oh, I remember when I I remember when
[2:22:27] you presented at the community house and
neighbors and everything. Yeah. It
[2:22:31] wasn't
>> I don't I don't remember I don't
[2:22:33] remember it being private then. I think
the idea was hopefully that would be
[2:22:36] deed to the village
>> who would be making that decision of
[2:22:39] saying okay Hinsdale are going to take
it completely over
[2:22:42] » the village board.
>> The village board.
[2:22:44] » Okay. And like do they have to meet and
discuss this?
[2:22:47] » This would be referred to the village
board.
[2:22:50] » This is going to the village board no
matter what.
[2:22:52] » Right. I understand that. But would it
be at that then it would move on from
[2:22:56] here and that would be a stipulation to
say this is an option that the village
[2:23:00] board will discuss at that time
>> h that they might just do that and
[2:23:05] you're saying why can't we just do that
now essentially like what are we waiting
[2:23:08] on
>> why would that be wait like
[2:23:10] » hold this up for another three months
>> I get it
[2:23:12] » yeah no
>> I get it
[2:23:15] » we've done we've done plenty of that I
mean ultimately they're the decision
[2:23:19] makers are the ones that are alive
>> because when the village they'll come
[2:23:22] back can say no which I'm a not a I'm
not a betting man [laughter]
[2:23:28] um you know I wouldn't want to have lost
three months
[2:23:32] » true
>> it is my understanding that the function
[2:23:34] of this organization is to deliberate
these sort of issues and then go to the
[2:23:39] board with a recommendation with enough
information to do that
[2:23:44] it's my view that based on the
conversation in the two-year process
[2:23:49] that Bethany you mentioned elected
official appointed officials, village
[2:23:53] staff and the applicant um have gone
through that we have enough information
[2:23:59] that the uh that the that assembled
group and the applicant have both come
[2:24:05] to the conclusion that the current plan
of keeping this a private park with
[2:24:12] public access maintained by the very
well-healed homeowners association is
[2:24:18] the optimal plan. We can disagree,
but from what I've heard, it sounds like
[2:24:24] this has been turned over, thought
about, and um and it's real different
[2:24:29] than Grom Mill, which is less well
healed, I'll say. And I I don't know
[2:24:35] their average income or anything. Um but
that this is not a bad plan. So if we
[2:24:42] actually disagree with that and we think
it's a bad plan and we think that the
[2:24:45] there's no way that this is going to
work which I do not think since that's
[2:24:49] the case then we should continue this.
If this is not a bad plan and there are
[2:24:55] risks, there are always risks. We went
through what's the place on the corner
[2:24:58] of 55th and
>> in zone metals.
[2:25:00] » Yeah, different issues, but we ended up
having to trust the developer who stood
[2:25:04] in front of us similarly and said, I am
a developer who really likes to do good
[2:25:10] work. That worked out pretty well. Um I
think we're in a similar situation here
[2:25:16] and maybe it'll go bad in three or four
years or 10 years or 30 years. Um, but I
[2:25:22] I I I I'm inclined to believe that you
guys have thought this through and that
[2:25:29] this is going to be well maintained by
yourselves as you develop it and then
[2:25:33] the homeowners association eventually.
>> I'll be like either way I'm involved in
[2:25:38] this project for the next three years.
So the book stops with me and any of you
[2:25:43] after tonight can research John Pembrook
Island Construction. You can talk to
[2:25:46] Elmer. That's where I have 500
customuilt homes in the last 30 years.
[2:25:51] And I'm not blowing up myself, but it
speaks for itself. What I don't uh
[2:25:56] misrepresent myself because my word is
my bond. And I I tell that to everybody
[2:26:01] I build a house with. You can get all
the attorneys in the world. You can get
[2:26:04] all the inspectors. Who's left at the
end of the day? The homeowner and the
[2:26:08] builder. And if the builder shows up and
takes care of business, there is no
[2:26:12] problems. But I can stand on my track
record. I have a long track record on
[2:26:17] building and developing. So, it's like I
appreciate your comments, but it's two
[2:26:23] years that we've discussed all this.
Maybe you're not privy to everything
[2:26:28] that we've discussed, but we've
discussed way before that. Honestly,
[2:26:32] when I started here, I thought Hinsdale,
why wouldn't they want this? Why
[2:26:37] wouldn't they want to take this? This is
a one a golden opportunity.
[2:26:41] » I was told no, it would never happen.
and it would never pass. It should then
[2:26:46] we went to to the public private option.
I think that's a great idea too. I think
[2:26:51] because these houses the people that are
going to buy these houses,
[2:26:55] you know, I'm a simple builder. Okay.
So, but the people I've been I've been
[2:27:00] dealing with for the last 30 years.
People say to me, 10 years ago, people
[2:27:04] couldn't put 20% down to buy these
houses. People are coming with $2
[2:27:09] million down and then get a mortgage.
Where they got the money, I don't know.
[2:27:14] But the money is there. And I'm telling
you that that's the people I deal with
[2:27:19] all day long. And that's the caliber of
people that will be building in these
[2:27:23] houses. So I know I know you have you're
hesitant on that, but I totally disagree
[2:27:30] with you, but that's just because the
caliber of people that are buying these
[2:27:34] houses. And if I drive around Hinsdale
or drive in all Elmhorse or Sharon Hills
[2:27:39] or Western Springs, all the houses are
maintained, you know, two $3 million
[2:27:45] houses, we can all drive around them.
They're all being maintained. They're
[2:27:49] all being kept up because it's their
biggest investment they'll ever make
[2:27:52] probably in their life.
>> Okay.
[2:27:55] » Which is true. I mean, I would think if
these 19 people, this is now going to be
[2:27:58] like their water waterway.
>> Yeah. I would bet that as soon as they
[2:28:02] would build houses, these first seven,
they're going to look across and see
[2:28:05] that chain link fence that's overgrown
at Salt Creek Club
[2:28:09] » and want that thing, you know, they
contact
[2:28:12] and say, "Get that thing out of there
because it's an eyesore."
[2:28:15] » I don't know if they know what they
would be signing up for either, right,
[2:28:19] from the initial like we don't know how
much. I mean, $10,000, who knows? I
[2:28:24] mean, we don't know what they're it's
going to be.
[2:28:26] » Well, I guess there's two options. one I
guess kind of want to get a feel for the
[2:28:29] the commissioners here is one option is
we we vote on what we have in front of
[2:28:34] us and if we want to make
recommendations to the board and we can
[2:28:38] do that or secondly if we were going to
continue it I would want to continue
[2:28:42] just for a month
>> and and that's as much time as the board
[2:28:46] can have to really you know do a pause
and say think about this again about
[2:28:50] purchasing or get you know getting the
land and then also looking at the
[2:28:53] maintenance plan and agreement and
getting put some more meat on the bone
[2:28:56] Right.
>> And and but not beyond a month because
[2:29:00] that's not fair to John and and his
group.
[2:29:04] » I don't know if we re if we vote it
through and recommend our recommend say
[2:29:07] our recommendations. Won't that same
thing happen even if we don't extend it
[2:29:11] a month?
>> Like they have the time to review it
[2:29:15] whether we extend it a month or not.
>> The board.
[2:29:17] » Yeah. The board.
>> So there'll be two reasons.
[2:29:21] » I just don't know why we're we
>> because there'll be two it'll be two two
[2:29:24] meetings for the board, right? Ult
ultimately because this this public
[2:29:28] versus private land um for the park
would be the village board decision. Um
[2:29:34] there could be a recommendation from the
plan commission to still look at the
[2:29:37] maintenance and monitoring plan if it
stays private and what those costs would
[2:29:40] be to the homeowners and putting
together an established plan, maybe
[2:29:44] building some of that into the HOA
covenants. So, in the case that there
[2:29:47] truly is a a maintenance and monitoring
plan, which a lot of communities do
[2:29:51] require, we just don't have as um
in-depth of a of a landscape code
[2:29:56] because we don't have a bunch of
detention ponds historically in
[2:29:58] Hinsdale. We're pretty built out. It's
not large developments with detention
[2:30:02] pond lots, but there's tons of companies
that can put a detailed maintenance and
[2:30:06] monitoring plan as the private side so
that we can understand what those costs
[2:30:09] might be to individual homeowners. And
then we can go back and try to figure
[2:30:13] out what those village costs would be as
well if it became a publicly dedicated
[2:30:16] park and present those to the village
board.
[2:30:20] » How many applications have we had like
this where we've made a decision in one
[2:30:25] meeting?
[2:30:29] » I mean
>> we've never had an application like
[2:30:31] that.
>> Well, like this. But for for
[2:30:33] » I mean like you take the oaks that was
one meeting. We subdivided that was a
[2:30:38] » meadows
>> in Meadows. Wait a minute. Total that's
[2:30:41] a totally different
>> totally different but I guess size and
[2:30:44] scope I mean and questions and trying to
think
[2:30:47] » I guess so I guess the question is I
mean where did the commissioners feel
[2:30:50] about continuing versus voting?
>> That's why I would like to continue.
[2:30:54] » I have to say my concern is I think our
job is to try and fine-tune this as best
[2:30:58] we can have our best recommendation and
then present it to them. I feel like if
[2:31:03] we do this too soon it's we're just
handing it over to say this. So whether
[2:31:08] is and I don't want to delay you too
long. Time is money and weather
[2:31:13] permitting. Um I just think we need more
time to digest this.
[2:31:17] » Yes,
>> we have too many questions about things.
[2:31:19] Um even something as simple
>> as one quick question.
[2:31:23] » If if we revisit the you sell it to us,
you deed it to us, whatever the village
[2:31:29] takes it
>> um or you gift it, whatever happens. Are
[2:31:34] you guys still amendable to that if if
we
[2:31:36] » Oh, we are. Yes, we are. Yeah. But it's
the board that's making the decision,
[2:31:41] right?
>> You own the land.
[2:31:42] » Well, yes, that's correct. Yeah.
>> And if if we're not asking that question
[2:31:45] and the answer is now, no, we're not
going to do that.
[2:31:48] » That's an answer we need to know right
now. If you are willing to do it, then I
[2:31:53] think we need to do the work.
>> Yeah.
[2:31:56] » And and find out what your options are.
>> Find out what you're willing to put into
[2:32:00] the maintenance plan. Bake that in,
understand it, right? Get all that kind
[2:32:05] of documented, and then let you see that
plan. and then have the village go what
[2:32:09] do we want to do and let the board make
up their mind but give them give them
[2:32:13] the numbers and the options so that we
know where we're going
[2:32:15] » so continue yes
>> I continue
[2:32:18] » nana
>> but a month I continue one month
[2:32:21] » yeah no just a month
>> I want to vote because I think they can
[2:32:25] provide the this information what we are
requesting directly to the village the
[2:32:30] board without us having to meet again
>> continue like you started so I think I
[2:32:37] Um continue
>> your vote.
[2:32:40] » I abstain. [laughter]
[2:32:43] » I think we have all
>> continuing interest in everybody.
[2:32:48] » It's
>> It feels like we're continuing to
[2:32:51] continue
>> near impossible to get everything in a
[2:32:54] month, but at least it's a good start.
>> But further down the road,
[2:32:59] » I'm still confused and the and I
appreciate the month because it hurts.
[2:33:03] You know, there's a lot of, you know,
but I'm just saying is who's making the
[2:33:07] decision on because
>> I wanted Hinsdale. I wanted to give this
[2:33:13] to Hinsdale two years ago.
>> So, who's making the decision now in a
[2:33:18] month to saying we're going to take
this? It I I find it not going to
[2:33:22] happen.
>> Well, I mean, isn't the the
[2:33:26] situation where the continuence is on
part for the village to evaluate what
[2:33:31] their options are in more detail, right?
I mean, so it's not necessarily putting
[2:33:34] it back on you, John. Right. But I think
our
[2:33:36] » I think it will help the whole process
because the board will have to get
[2:33:39] involved and think about this with staff
in the next month.
[2:33:42] » Yeah.
>> You know, and I mean, we we've
[2:33:45] recommended things that were referred to
us, re-recommended back to the board and
[2:33:49] then they voted no,
>> you know, because they never wanted to
[2:33:52] refer to us in the first place. So
ultimately the board can do what they
[2:33:55] want but I think
>> given a month hopefully if we then took
[2:33:59] that time John that then the board will
actually be more educated about all the
[2:34:03] issues on this so that when it gets from
us to the board it'll be a better
[2:34:07] process for them.
>> Didn't you say they could you couldn't
[2:34:10] get that information in a month
together?
[2:34:12] » I I can't make promises but they would
also need to have a m I'd want the
[2:34:16] applicant to also look at the
maintenance monitoring plans just so
[2:34:19] both can be presented accurately. And
since I'm, you know, we're open to it,
[2:34:23] but I go back to this fine woman here's
uh statement is to say, well, if we're
[2:34:31] recommending it, right, why can't we
like the board is going to look at this
[2:34:36] in a whatever in a month, right? But if
we sent it to the board with a
[2:34:41] recommendation to say
the owner is open to give this to
[2:34:47] Hensdale,
>> it's up to you now to say yes or no and
[2:34:51] they're going to say no.
>> I'm firmly believe they're going to say
[2:34:56] no. Well, we're not held up for a month
just because of that. Now, if there's
[2:34:59] other instances that you can't on this
is R2,
[2:35:02] » right? and you're saying no, you know, I
we can't do it for other reasons. I'd
[2:35:08] like to hear that. It just can't be just
uh
[2:35:12] » it just can't be the public private park
though. I think any
[2:35:15] » Well, just to clarify, you keep saying
it's R2. Part of the site is R2. We're
[2:35:19] being asked to review the open space.
So, I don't I know that
[2:35:22] » Sorry, apolog.
[2:35:27] challenge could be is if I look at this
application in its entirety, either we
[2:35:32] heavily condition it or vote no.
>> Right.
[2:35:35] » Right.
>> Yes.
[2:35:36] » And I think our first vote would be for
the map amendment, which we can't do
[2:35:40] » until, you know, it's decided it's going
to be public or private.
[2:35:45] » Okay. No, I just clearing.
Yeah.
[2:35:49] My hope would be if we did continue it
that in a month's time we things we have
[2:35:55] much more clarity.
>> Yeah.
[2:35:56] » And we'd know like say the board goes no
absolutely not we want this to be
[2:36:00] private then we know that and then then
the focus is on the maintenance plan and
[2:36:05] and that language and then we recommend
to the board and then it's the board's
[2:36:08] job to
>> and the first thing I do when I come
[2:36:10] back is I'm going to apologize to each
one of you when the board said yes.
[2:36:15] [laughter]
[2:36:18] We hope they do.
>> John, are you one of the builders? Will
[2:36:22] you be building homes?
>> Yes,
[2:36:24] » you will.
>> I might build them all, but it's just
[2:36:26] that's not in the game plan right now.
You
[2:36:29] » know how many you might be building?
>> I might build four or five or six, you
[2:36:32] know.
>> Okay.
[2:36:33] » You know, yeah, they're going to be big
houses. They're going to each one of
[2:36:36] these houses are is more than a year
build because these are going to be very
[2:36:41] expensive homes. So, you have some ideas
of the houses you're going to be
[2:36:45] building your building. So, might we be
privy to that?
[2:36:48] » Oh, yes. I can show you many. I can show
you 300 of them. If you want, you know,
[2:36:54] I can bring or send Becky information on
on curb appeal houses that I know that's
[2:36:59] going to go that way.
>> Okay.
[2:37:01] » Yeah. Just
>> and I'm amazing stone guys by trade. So,
[2:37:04] » I know that's where I love I was reading
that. Three generations.
[2:37:08] » I knew there was a mason.
>> Three generations. Yeah. So, yeah. But I
[2:37:11] can furnish that to Bethany. She can
send it on TE of the caliber of houses
[2:37:16] that I know that are going to go there.
>> Okay. The owners will be buying the
[2:37:19] property though and then Yes. And then
the contract.
[2:37:22] » So you're not building anything on spec
there?
[2:37:24] » No, they're too expensive.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
[2:37:27] Big speculation.
>> Yes. I I I don't like it.
[2:37:31] » I like to go Las Vegas, but not that
heavy.
[2:37:33] » That's a rolling a big dice.
>> That's right.
[2:37:37] So, commissioners,
do I have um a motion to continue this
[2:37:44] to our
our October? What's the date? October
[2:37:49] meeting.
>> Let me give you the date specific. Um
[2:37:53] and I I would be helpful to have a
specific motion of to provide additional
[2:37:57] time for that
>> next.
[2:38:00] » Okay. [laughter]
Let me give you the date. And same I
[2:38:03] know there was a lot of discussion here
about asphalt paths versus gravel paths
[2:38:07] um
>> and and some and possibly looking at a
[2:38:10] different side. Yeah. So it would be
good for a recap of of giving the
[2:38:14] specific direction. Our next Octo
October date to continue the public
[2:38:19] hearing would be to October 14th at 6:30
p.m.
[2:38:24] » October 14th. Okay. So, and and with
that, this potential motion would be to
[2:38:33] request that the village staff and the
board reconsider
[2:38:38] um ownership of this open space versus
being privately owned and publicly
[2:38:44] access
that um we see more detail in the
[2:38:50] maintenance plan and agreement that
would be part of the covenants. Um, so
[2:38:55] some more work on that. Um, some clarity
on the fact that it would follow village
[2:39:01] of Enzel park hours.
There's another one. Um I personally,
[2:39:08] and I don't know if you guys would agree
with it, the idea of looking at the
[2:39:11] sidewalks again
>> and
[2:39:13] » um mostly for lots
[2:39:18] lots
>> 9 through
[2:39:20] » um 12 12
through 19. No, 13 through 19. The seven
[2:39:26] lots in the northwest. um possibly not
having the sidewalk along the roadway,
[2:39:32] but possibly along the um at the back
following the flood plane or the
[2:39:36] waterway.
Um providing an asphalt path between
[2:39:42] Madison and Adams versus gravel.
[2:39:47] Um someone had I thought a good comment
and I would agree with um right now like
[2:39:51] the Butler Cemetery and the roadway and
everything. I mean, there's no fences.
[2:39:56] You can walk into the cemetery. Is I
don't know. I can't remember if there's
[2:40:01] anything in agreement about fences
in the covenants.
[2:40:05] » Not yet.
>> But I think it would probably be nice to
[2:40:08] have something related to that path that
there wouldn't be fencesh
[2:40:13] » a prohibition of fences either on the
north side of that path or on the south
[2:40:16] side of it so it could be stay open to
those properties.
[2:40:21] » I don't know if the rest of you would
agree with that or not.
[2:40:24] I think there should be something there.
Is that what you're suggesting?
[2:40:28] » No, no offense. So you don't create a
tunnel. So you don't create I agree with
[2:40:31] you.
>> That is open like a current.
[2:40:32] » I agree. And the sidewalks, just a
question. These are we saying now that
[2:40:36] all of these walkways are going to be in
an ash vault rather than concrete.
[2:40:40] » Uh there's focusing specifically on the
gravel walk that was proposed that that
[2:40:44] would be asked for.
>> What about the rest of them?
[2:40:46] » Well, I guess in my mind if you elim if
you and this would be up to you, John.
[2:40:50] » Well, if it was in the back, it's
definitely should be as not concrete.
[2:40:54] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[2:40:54] » And then I think it would blend in more
naturally with um
[2:40:58] » this with the open space
>> and then once you get down to
[2:41:03] um
let's see preserve place. I mean I think
[2:41:07] that would just follow village standards
be concrete walks you know basically
[2:41:11] from the head wall down to around the
culde-sac to keep that concrete or would
[2:41:16] you want that to be asphalt as
>> asphalt so it's all the same?
[2:41:20] » I think it blends in better with the
environment there. Is there any issue
[2:41:22] with the village on that?
>> Are you proposing asphalt to long
[2:41:26] preserve place?
>> Yes.
[2:41:27] » For the walks,
>> I would have to check our subdivision
[2:41:30] code um to see if there's a specific.
>> We have a month to investigate.
[2:41:33] » We do. [laughter]
>> Sorry, Bethany. I know you have nothing
[2:41:37] to do.
>> Nothing.
[2:41:39] Keep it
>> for the phone to ring.
[2:41:41] » Um were there any other
>> I had one quick
[2:41:47] » What did you They are going to do a ship
overview. They have not started that
[2:41:52] as part of the permit they need to pull
for construction for NPD, the National
[2:41:57] Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
They are required through the notice of
[2:42:00] intent to do the Illinois Historic
Preservation and the Endangered
[2:42:05] Threatened.
>> It's part of the process.
[2:42:07] » It's part of the process. They have to
have that to submit their construction.
[2:42:11] » And we had we're doing a project golf
club and we had to do that.
[2:42:14] » Yeah. Part of the process.
>> Good. So it sounds like you guys have a
[2:42:18] lot to do work to do more than like over
the next few months like the water thing
[2:42:24] too.
>> Anything else?
[2:42:26] » Any other approvals
>> part of the motion?
[2:42:29] » No, I think how's that feel?
>> Great. I wanted to recommend the um
[2:42:34] landscaping arbor or whatnot along the
burm against
[2:42:39] » Oh, landscaping along Ogden.
>> Yeah.
[2:42:41] » Yeah,
>> that's a good one.
[2:42:42] » Yeah.
I also think that um in thinking about
[2:42:48] the maintenance requirements for the
wetland
[2:42:52] um you know for this whole area I think
we there needs to be a little clarity
[2:42:59] about um trees tree damage when trees
come down
[2:43:05] do they just
get left there or they you know thinking
[2:43:09] about some of the big storms that we've
had that have come through and there
[2:43:13] There are old trees on that property and
so stuff comes down and
[2:43:20] that'll change how the park looks
relative to now if those trees start to
[2:43:25] come down and they just get left to rot.
Um I'm not commenting on what that
[2:43:32] direction should be. I'm just saying
people who think it it's lovely now with
[2:43:37] the trees up, if they all start to it,
like if it starts to convert into
[2:43:43] looking more like Fullerburg, that
should be an intentional decision on
[2:43:47] people's part and not just, oh, we
didn't really plan for that and now
[2:43:52] these things are down and there's no
budget to get rid of them.
[2:43:55] » So,
>> well, that's one thing that this was in
[2:43:58] Bethy's package on page two. Under any
motion we put together the following
[2:44:03] conditions they wanted to include that
all final engineering comments must be
[2:44:07] addressed prior to building to building
permit issuance. All final tree
[2:44:11] protection and planting plans comments
provided by the superintendent of
[2:44:14] forestry and grounds must be addressed
prior to building permit issuance. Final
[2:44:18] pen selections and locations for street
trees must review and approved by
[2:44:21] superintendent forestry and grounds.
Then all requirements listed in title 11
[2:44:25] the village code shall be which is
subdivision code I believe shall be met
[2:44:29] prior to recording the plan of
subdivision. So I think I mean and on to
[2:44:32] Mark's point the trees are one thing but
the county is going to determine what
[2:44:36] happens along the waterway. I mean
they're very specific about what can be
[2:44:40] planted or what maintained there.
>> Yes.
[2:44:43] » They're triggering buffer requirements
right?
[2:44:45] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> I mean down to the species of what what
[2:44:48] the plants have to be. So,
>> so I think it'd be between the villages
[2:44:52] um
superintendent forestry and then the
[2:44:56] county on what they need for the
wetlands
[2:44:59] » that that should be addressed.
>> Okay.
[2:45:01] » And those those village arborist
comments are related only to the public
[2:45:05] street trees, not to the interior street
trees.
[2:45:08] » Oh,
[2:45:11] I think the interior trees that would be
more of a landscape plan.
[2:45:15] And I don't know that any of these are
actually that. So,
[2:45:20] » no, we have there was a tree survey
>> and uh
[2:45:24] » survey was already here.
>> No, you're right.
[2:45:26] » Yeah,
>> the tree identification preservation
[2:45:29] plan is already in here.
>> So, this was
[2:45:33] » it's
>> this would have to be, you know,
[2:45:35] basically comply.
>> Yeah, this this would not require an
[2:45:39] overall landscape plan besides the
street trees. Of course, we can get them
[2:45:42] to look at if they're not putting street
trees on Ogden, we can look at working
[2:45:46] with them and putting those on private
property. But similar like what we did
[2:45:49] with the Oak subdivision, um you know
that we review the street trees, the the
[2:45:54] subdivision code, but the individual
lots would be developed separately with
[2:45:58] under separate permit. And then
obviously um anything that's required by
[2:46:01] DuPage County for the waterways would be
submitted to them as well and the
[2:46:06] detention ponds.
[2:46:10] » Okay. Does that sound like a motion?
>> I I think so. Can I [laughter] give a
[2:46:15] can I give one more summary? Um uh so we
will look at some um additional
[2:46:20] information to help the village board
reconsider the ownership of the private
[2:46:24] versus public parkland. Um we will work
with the applicant to look at details on
[2:46:29] a possible maintenance and monitoring
plan. Um if it does stay into private
[2:46:33] ownership by an HOA to be maintained and
owned. Um, we'll provide some clarity on
[2:46:39] the village of Hinsdale park hours and
see if if there's um potential reasoning
[2:46:43] for changing what was included in their
HOA covenants. We'll um have the
[2:46:48] applicant look at sideways, especially
behind lots 13 to 19 and possibly
[2:46:52] reorienting that sidewalk at the rear.
Um reooking at possibly changing any of
[2:46:58] the gravel or concrete paths and
sidewalks into an asphalt path. and
[2:47:02] village staff will check to see um if
there's any issues with putting an
[2:47:06] asphalt path along preserves place,
which is going to be a publicly
[2:47:09] dedicated road. Um looking at some HOA
covenants that would possibly restrict
[2:47:14] fences being um constructed along the
north property line, especially along
[2:47:18] that Butler Cemetery area. Um the IDNR
or SHIPO or any sort of natural resource
[2:47:25] or history reviews will be done with the
final permitting as part of the DW Page
[2:47:29] County storm water process. and um
possibly looking at landscaping and
[2:47:33] those street trees on Ogden in that BM.
Does that sound like a good summary?
[2:47:38] » Very good,
>> Steve.
[2:47:39] » Yes, sir.
>> Uh the open the meeting is still open.
[2:47:43] Do you want to do something like that
before we do the motion or
[2:47:47] » if we're going to continue it and keep
the meeting open, right?
[2:47:49] » Yes, we would continue the public
hearing. That's why the motion basically
[2:47:53] failed previously to close the public
hearing with all that discussion. So, we
[2:47:57] will transfer this to continue the
public hearing
[2:48:00] » and then hopefully we can bring all this
information to the next meeting.
[2:48:05] » So, do I have a motion to continue this
to our October 14th meeting at 6:30 with
[2:48:10] the conditions and the research that was
mentioned by Bethany?
[2:48:14] » So, moved. Will it be seconded?
>> Roll call vote, please. Bethany.
[2:48:19] » Commissioner Harlo.
>> Hi.
[2:48:20] » Commissioner Curry.
>> I. Commissioner Krillinberger.
[2:48:23] » I.
>> Commissioner Cernovich.
[2:48:25] » Hi.
>> Commissioner Willoughby. Hi,
[2:48:27] » Commissioner Fonei.
>> Hi,
[2:48:28] » Commissioner Moore.
>> Hi,
[2:48:29] » Chairman Cashman. Hi,
>> thank you very much. Appreciate your
[2:48:32] patience and time.
>> Thank you.
[2:48:36] » Here, do I have a motion to adjurnn?
>> Krillinburgger. So, motion.
[2:48:39] » All in favor? All right.