[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.

Copy of Plan Commission Meeting

Transcript