North Cook News

Village of Arlington Heights Plan Commission met April 12.

Here is the minutes as provided by the Commission:

your name and spell it for the court reporter and give us a brief description?

MR. DADAY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steven G. Daday,

D-a-d-a-y. I'm an attorney and I represent the Petitioner in this request for resubdivision.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you, Mr. Daday. Now, were all the proper

public notices given?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, they were.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Would you please proceed?

MR. DADAY: Just as an overview, and you may have to give me a little

leeway here because I don't know if I can operate this entirely, but I think Sam will help me a little

bit.

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, press the down and that should --

MR. DADAY: Our petition here this evening is for a resubdivision for the

property located at 620 South Beverly. Currently, the property consists of a single family home on

three lots. What we're seeking to do is to consolidate the three lots into two conforming parcels.

The Petitioner would be residing on one of the lots in a house obviously, and the other one would

be sold.

Currently, our request is for lots that are conforming to the zoning

code. We're not asking for any variations. It's conforming both in terms of the size, the gross area

of the lots, as well as both the width and the depth. So, we believe that it conforms to all the

zoning code and zoning regulations and we obviously would ask for approval of this.

You can see from the map, our parcel is in yellow. Again, it sits on

three lots. I think one of the major issues is where it fits in in terms of the lot size of the

surrounding areas. In reviewing the parcels and the maps and so forth, we determined that there

are, of the approximately 10 to 12 parcels that are immediately adjacent, there are three that

would be larger than the conforming and there would be approximately six to eight that would be

either the same size or smaller.

So, it's our contention that in terms of the numbers of conforming lots

and also larger lots versus the smaller lots, that actually the predominant character of the

neighborhood is for the 75-foot lots or smaller. I think that's supported by the Staff

recommendation or the Staff report. This is another view and it's a little bit larger area.

Also, just to introduce the folks here, Mike King is the engineer, one of

the engineers on the project. Tom Karr is the husband of the trustee of the trust. She couldn't be

here tonight because she's ill. Carol Wilcox is the realtor for the sale of the property to Mr. Karr

and his wife.

With that, I don't really, we've met all of the, and responded to all the

comments. We're in full support of all of the Village recommendations and comments. Once

again, we're not seeking any variations here and we would certainly welcome any questions.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, is that your presentation?

MR. DADAY: That's it.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you, Mr. Daday. We'll hear the Staff report

next and then we'll come back for questions.

MR. HUBBARD: All right. So, as you've heard, the subject property is at

620 South Beverly Lane. The current zoning district of the property is R-3 which is a One-Family

Dwelling Zoning District. The Applicant is before you this evening to request preliminary plat of

subdivision approval to consolidate three existing lots of record into two lots. You may note that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area is for a single family detached, and so the

proposed subdivision and existing zoning conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

This is an aerial of the property. You will see that the subject property

is outlined with the red border. Inside of the red border, there are three existing lots of record that

you can see, all of which were platted in 1929, approximately 50 feet wide by 132 feet long.

Overall, together they are 19,800 square feet.

The Petitioner has proposed to consolidate these three lots into two

lots being each 75-foot wide by 132 feet deep, and the preliminary plat of subdivision is shown

here. The setbacks as shown on the plat of subdivision comply with all of the setback regulations

in the R-3 District, and with regards to width, they are 75-foot wide and they comply with the R-3

minimum lot width standard of 70 feet, and at approximately 9,877 square feet in size for each lot,

they comply with the R-3 minimum lot area restriction of 8,750 square feet.

When analyzing the acceptability of the subdivision, Staff always

looks at the existing lots on the block. So, here you'll see a map showing the subject property in

relation to the lots on the block. We want to make sure that the subdivision is within the

established character of the neighborhood.

In doing this, we found that the proposed lot sizes and lot widths fell

just about in the center, in the middle of what is already existing on the block. In fact, the median

lot width was 62.5 feet for the lots on this block. They are proposing two 75-foot lots. The mean

was about 88.2 feet, again they're proposing 75 feet. The median lot area on this block was 8,166

square feet. They are proposing a little larger lot at approximately 9,800 square feet. Again when

you look at the mean lot area, it is just over 10,000 square feet, and they’re proposing just under

10,000 on each of the two lots. So, it kind of fits very well right in the middle of what exists on this

block and we did not believe that this was going to be out of character in this area.

A lot of times, there are drainage and stormwater concerns when

subdividing a property. It's just one house now and there is going to be two homes there in the

future. So, what we do is we want to make sure that this subdivision is conforming to all

stormwater and drainage requirements and is not creating an impact on neighboring properties.

I would like to point out that as part of this subdivision, they will be

installing a storm sewer inlet on the back of the property, and I don't know if I can get my cursor on

the storm sewer, and that is going to be right here. Then there is going to be a line that leads out

towards Beverly Lane and connects with the storm sewer in Beverly Lane. The lot will be graded

so that rainfall that falls on the lot will drain this way down and come here and enter into the inlet

and eventually lead down towards, or lead out towards Beverly Lane. Similarly, on this side, it

would do the same, it would come down up like this into the inlet and then out towards the street.

So, in fact, there would very likely be an improvement to the lots in the rear as currently the rainfall

could sheet drain to properties to the west, but now it's going to be directed into this inlet out to the

service line that's going to go out to the sewer. In the front, the lot is graded so that rainfall here is

just going to fall out towards the street.

So, Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat

of subdivision subject to four conditions, one of which is that a fee in lieu of onsite detention is

required. In a small residential two-lot subdivision, we're not going to require, the code does not

require onsite stormwater detention, so this stormwater is going to go into the Village's storm

sewer system and there's a fee in lieu of providing that onsite detention. So, that's what condition

number one addresses. There are going to be impact fees for one of the lots required, and then the other two conditions relate to this standard conformance with all applicable codes and policies.

Then Design Commission approval will be required once the two homes are proposed on site.

They will have to submit a Design Commission application and Staff would evaluate to make sure

that the architecture is compatible with the neighborhood.

So, that concludes the Staff portion of this and I'd be happy to answer

any questions.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Mr. Daday, Petitioner agrees to all the Staff

recommendations?

MR. DADAY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Before we go any further, I think we may have a

question from one of the Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Yes. You just talked about it but in the

department comments, in the Engineering Section, it does have a check that stormwater detention

is required, and it is talked about in verbiage that it is required but a fee in lieu was acceptable. But

then in the Staff report, you're saying it's not required and you're asking for a fee in lieu. Which

one is it?

MR. HUBBARD: I think it's just that, I guess it's required by the code to

provide that capacity, but a fee in lieu of is acceptable on a small subdivision like this. So, I don't

know if that answers your question.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: But the Staff report pretty much says that

it's not required. So, I do have an issue with the wording in the Staff report.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, could we have a recommendation to enter

the Staff report into the public record?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: So moved.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Second?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: All in favor?

(Chorus of ayes.)

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, thank you. Next, we'll go to the

Commissioners for questions. Commissioner Jensen?

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: I was in the Plat & Sub and I really don't have

any questions. I would rather hear from the public and other Commissioners, and then I may ask

some questions after that.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Warskow?

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Yes, I do have some questions. Sam, this

is a combined sewer here in this area?

MR. HUBBARD: It is, yes.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Is this part of the plan that the Village is

addressing with infrastructure changes? Is Beverly Lane part of that?

MR. HUBBARD: I do not believe so. I know that there are no capital

improvements proposed in this immediate Scarsdale neighborhood over the next five years.

There is no plan for any immediate change to the infrastructure. I know that the Village is looking

at overall flooding problems and this area could be one of those considered to have looked at as COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I would like to know if somewhere in the

future this area and the combined sewers are going to be addressed in this area, because as

much as I understand the grading and the inlet, I do understand things change over time and what

is intended and put in place in development does no way stay there. I have the same issue with

my own home. So, I just want to address any concerns of the neighbors, that if there are currently

flooding issues and you're going to take away thousands of square feet of permeable surface, that

there's going to definitely be plans to address that.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Commissioner Ennes?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: A couple of questions. So, Sam, currently we

have three lots, three 25-foot lots with one residence on it. Technically, with the R-3 zoning, could

there be three homes on the 25-foot lots? I'm sorry, 50-foot.

MR. HUBBARD: 50-foot lots. With the way that the site exists today, no,

those lots would not be eligible for development each with a single family home.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: But the R-3 zoning does allow them on 75-foot

lots?

MR. HUBBARD: It does, yes. In certain cases on 50-foot lots as well, but it

also depends on how the other lots on the block are developed, and must meet certain criteria.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Mr. Daday, a question for you. Does the

Petitioner currently own and reside in the existing residence?

MR. DADAY: He owns it but he does not reside there.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Did they recently buy it?

MR. DADAY: Well, they bought it about eight or nine months ago and we've

been going through this process.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: With the intention of making these changes?

MR. DADAY: Yes, right, right. Apparently, my understanding is that if they

were to upgrade the property to kind of a modern with kitchens, bathrooms, all that stuff, it would

be a very extensive renovation and very expensive.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: They bought the whole with the intention of

renovating?

MR. DADAY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: That's all I have for the time being.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Green?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Sam, is there any estate zoning overlay in this

area?

MR. HUBBARD: No.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: I know that there is an estate in the Scarsdale

portion but it just doesn't cover this block. Is that --

MR. HUBBARD: I mean in the Comprehensive Plan it's estate, I believe it's,

no, I think it's just single family detached. So, no, there is no estate.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: There's no estate overlay for --

MR. HUBBARD: Correct, it's just single family detached.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Okay, that's my only question.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Sigalos?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I was at the Plat & Sub last August I guess it was, and I really don't have any other questions at this point.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Dawson?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I'd like to wait for public commentary to ask

questions.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Same for me, I don't have any question at this

point. So, we'll open it up to the public for questions and comments. I'll start on my right side,

your left side. Anybody in the front row have any comments or questions? Maybe in the next

row? Yes, would you please come forward and state your name for the court reporter and spell

it?

QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE

MR. ARNOLD: Sure. My name is Bob Arnold, I live at 625 South Newbury

Place which backs up to the property in question. Sam, I want to ask, if you could, go back to the

aerial view that you showed earlier? Thank you.

The property outlined in red is the property in question. My wife and I

live just to your right. Thank you. That lot is 120 feet wide. The lot up from that, 617 I think is the

number to the north of my lot, is about 100 feet in width. I consider that these are adjoining

properties. I know that Staff has looked at the properties on Beverly. There are some like-sized

properties on Newbury that adjoin this, so I think it's part of the character of the neighborhood that

I'm referring to.

My wife and I have lived in this house since 1975. I wish somebody

had told us when we bought that we were subject to flooding. We've dealt with this problem for

almost since we moved into the house. If I had the money today that we've spent, I could have

bought a very, very nice new car. It's been a significant drain on our finances.

I emphasize this because a lot of it is the old combined water-sewer

and we had backup. I can't contend that this property in question has anything to do with our

flooding. But we are very, very sensitive to anything that's going to change the character of the

properties in the area. As I said, we've spent a terrific amount of money and I'm not asking that

this subdivision or this action, the Plan Commission solve my plumbing flooding problem, but I do

not want it to add to it.

That's my concern. I'm not asking the Commission to say, okay, we

can guarantee there will be no fallout on your property. Nevertheless, it's a very significant

concern.

Along with that is the question of grading. Sam, if you could go to that

grading plan? On this is the lower left-hand corner of the diagram, thank you, and that lot line is

our property, of lot number two. Including the grading in that way --

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Mr. Arnold, just so I understand, the rear lot line

is yours?

MR. ARNOLD: Sam, could you --

COMMISSIONER ENNES: The rear lot line of lot two?

MR. ARNOLD: I can't read the numbers from here.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: The bottom one is lot two.

MR. ARNOLD: Is lot two? Yes, the bottom one, thank you, the bottom one

is where our property joins the property in question. I understand and appreciate the need for the grading, that should relieve me a great deal of the concern that I've just expressed. But it's related

also to the removal of trees on this property.

There are significant number, Sam, I'd ask you again for the, do you

have the diagram of the trees and which would be removed? If not, I can talk to it from the

grading plan.

Good, thank you. Again, speaking to the lower half of this diagram,

you can see a number of trees are marked for removal. Those trees obviously absorb a lot of

water, but there's a lot of shrubbery in that same area. One of the reasons we like living where we

do is because of the attractiveness that results from the trees and the shrubs and would really like

to be able to, I'd like to suggest that the grading be done in such a way to preserve more of those

trees than this diagram shows, and that we retain some of the character of the area as well as use

the trees for absorption of water.

The last thing that I would ask is that based on the drawings, the

grading level is two feet above that creates a berm. I'm sorry, what's the difference? I forgot, six?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, it's close to two feet in some areas down at the lowest

point where the water would head toward the inlet, towards the end of your property.

MR. ARNOLD: Right, and so at my property line it would be two feet above

the inlet. My concern is, well, I'll just say it, I know of a couple of instances in the Scarsdale area

where violations of city code have occurred and nothing was done to correct them. I'm worried

that if that two feet difference is not maintained I will have no recourse. So, I don't know where I

go with that except to put it on the record here in hopes that we can avoid a problem in the future.

One last question that I have, is the design of the home, assuming it's

approved, if the design of the home is available, will we have an opportunity to see, sorry, I have

to talk with my hands, to see what the design will be and the resulting impact on the trees and

shrubs as well as the grading? Is there an opportunity for us to do that?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Sam, could you answer that?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes. As it goes through the Design Commission process,

yes, typically you will be notified that there is an application that went to the Design Commission. I

will say that that's not always the case. If there are no impacts to the site, if the architecture is

textbook perfect and fits in, occasionally, we do have the authority at the Staff level to approve

administratively. For a project like this that's generated a lot of public interest, I don't think that

would be the course of action. I think this would go likely to the Design Commission.

MR. ARNOLD: How do we keep track of when it would be going to that

commission?

MR. HUBBARD: A sign will be placed on the property and neighbors within

a 100-foot radius would receive mailing that

there's --

MR. ARNOLD: Oh, right, thank you. Thank you. Any questions of me?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Not at this point. We'll wait after everybody else.

MR. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir, please come

forward. State your name and spell it please.

MR. LYTLE: Yes, thank you. My name is Rick Lytle, I'm here with my wife,

Alicia Lytle. We live at 630 South Beverly which is the lot immediately south of the lot in question.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Would you spell your last name please?

MR. LYTLE: L-y-t-l-e.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you.

MR. LYTLE: If it's okay, could I also put back up the PowerPoint slide with

the lots surrounding the one in question? Because my point I'd like to make and then ask a

question is twofold. One, I've heard reference in this meeting and understand there is

consideration from this board about any project that would significantly affect the character of a

block or neighborhood. Second, I also understand that this board would consider any project that

might significantly affect homes' values. My wife and I and neighbors have discussed these two

points and would like the board to consider something what we believe is very significant along

both of those dimensions.

Although the Petitioner makes a very technical and clean case about

the number of 50-foot lots in the block, I want to be really clear that this visual shows that all of the

lots surrounding this particular lot in question with the exception of Bob's lot and Mary Edith just

behind are at least 150 feet. Now, you can argue whether or not technically that's three 50-foot

lots, but when you look at where the homes are built, primarily in the middle of what is essentially

150-foot lots. I would like to make the case here that this project will unquestionably change the

character of that portion of the block. If I could just take a moment to explain?

If you look to the south, my lot, over 150-foot. You look to the north,

Joe's lot, over 150-foot. You look to the east just across the street, a lot of over 150 feet, almost

200 feet. So, the one that's in question is the one right in the middle, and that's the one, although

technically there are other 50 and 75-foot lots well to the north, well to the south of these

immediately adjoining lots, we would make the case that the character of this block is going to be

changed significantly because the one large lot in the middle is the one that's going to be split into

two.

The second point I would like to make is only in relation to the difficulty

of defining changing character. The point I just made is the first one. The second I would make is

that when my wife and I moved into this neighborhood five years ago, we looked and one of the

reasons we bought this particular home, at a very high price by the way, was because of this

dynamic. This is one of the few remaining areas in the Scarsdale neighborhood where we have

these multiple large lots with beautiful homes on them, traditional homes mind you. Most of them

are some of the original homes in the neighborhood, mine and the one that is going to be taken

down being two of them, and the character of this lot will be changed significantly. The reason I

could say that is because when we moved in five years ago, the main reason we bought this was

because of the size of the lots surrounding us. So, this is the point I'd like to make simply related

to definition of character of the block.

The second point which is obviously impossible to prove but I'll make

my case anyway is whether or not this will actually materially change the value of my home. I

would make the case that it would. The reason for that is simple. Only five years ago I was in the

market, we purchased the home for $925,000, very pricey decision for us. I could tell you that one

of the main points to this is that we saw that the lots around us were the larger lots. I can also tell

you that our plan, based on the owner that lived in this home beforehand, was that these lots

would remain as they are, that these lots would remain as they are.

We talked to our neighbors on either side. They have no intention.

The owner who is no longer in there had no intention of this lot being subdivided. They reached a point in their lives where they had to move away. So, I can only say that the home value

argument I would make is that we would not have only five years ago paid the same price for the

home that we purchased had we known that this type of project would take place immediately

adjacent to our lot.

So, those are my points and I thank you for the consideration. But I

do believe that this will materially change the character of the block and will materially change the

value of the four homes surrounding the block including ours. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Please come

forward and state your name and spell it please.

MR. HOULIHAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joe Houlihan.

I live in the 608 block on Beverly, that is the lot immediately north to the lot in question. We have

lived there for 22 years, raised our ten kids. Our main issue with this proposal by the Petitioner is

the complete destruction of the existing character of the neighborhood.

The Planning Department comes out, as Rick had said, with the idea

of trying to say, oh, it falls within the average of the lot size. But as Rick said, the lots immediately

surrounding the property are all 150-foot at a minimum. They are the biggest lots in the entire

Scarsdale subdivision, not the estates, they are the biggest lots in the entire Scarsdale subdivision

and have been that since the subdivision was established back in the 30's. Now, this proposal

would completely and irrevocably alter how the neighborhood looks and feels.

I would like to bring to the attention of a prior attempt in the

neighborhood, going back to 2002, to subdivide two lots. That was the street of 900 block at South

Burton which is currently occupied by the prior mayor, the house. The full Board of the Village at

that time made a very wise decision in rejecting what was a conforming plan but it was not within

the character of the neighborhood. Who was the person who strenuously mentioned these

arguments? It was none other than our attorney who at the time Mr. Daday was a trustee on the

Board. He says just because it falls within the code and does not require a variation but it would

alter the character of the neighborhood, from 4/15/02. Also, the previous mayor said we feel that

the character of the neighborhood is a major issue in any interpretation and on voting.

Now, here we have the same person who has no trouble with altering

the entire character of a neighborhood. It doesn't affect him but it affects us, the neighbors. So,

we would seek that the board here would suggest to deny the Petitioner's request even though it

falls within the code but it is not within the character of the neighborhood.

One other item I would bring up, too, regarding the flooding, in lieu of,

well, who does that benefit? The fee in lieu of a potential wall retention? The only people that

protects is the Village. What about if there is flooding? Can we go back to the Village then and

say, well, where is the money? That is the most ridiculous solution to a potential problem, that a

developer pays a fee, but if there's any water problems there is no correction or no solution.

So, we think that the proposed approval given by the Village Planning

Department is completely off base when it come to the actual real life effects that a development

could have if problems were to occur. That's just my piece. Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Please state

your name and spell it.

DR. HILL: I'm Dr. James Hill, I live, Hill is spelled H-i-l-l. I live in the property

immediately east of the proposed project at 615 South Beverly Lane.

Several issues, one is I'd like to go back to the plat of the drainage.

Mr. Arnold I don't think raised his concerns there, I'm concerned about him than I am with me.

You're talking about one drainage spot for two properties. If that drainage spot clogs, where does

all the water go? Into Mr. Arnold's lot and the lot immediately adjacent to it, correct? So, he's

already got a flooding problem, if that one little drainage is clogged, that's going to be a huge

problem.

I'd be very interested to know what the amount of water retention

space is available in the current property as to what's proposed here. I think there's a huge

difference between the water retention available now as opposed to what's proposed. So, water

drainage and flooding is a huge problem with what's currently proposed without a doubt.

Number two, I'd like to correct some false information. Somebody

asked the question that when the property was sold it was intended for renovation, that was never

the case. I can tell you from personal experience that there were surveyors on that property

almost immediately after the sale looking at how to divide that property up. So, that property was

never sold with the intention of renovation, it was sold with the intention of subdivision. That they

were intending to try to divide it into three properties if possible. So, it's a money-making proposal,

not adding to the neighborhood proposal.

Third thing is I'd like to ask the board about how many properties

within the range of, let's define it the central portion of Scarsdale, you may or may not agree with

me but I think the central portion of Scarsdale is a key neighborhood in Arlington Heights. It has

incredible properties with unique architecture and it's one of the true gems of Arlington Heights. If

anybody disagrees with that, then that is my view, but my point is I'd like to know how many

properties within the range of let's say Grove on the north, Lincoln on the east, Rockwell on the

south, and let's say Pine on the east, how many of those properties have been subdivided in the

past 60 years? Do you know that?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: I don't know if we can answer that.

DR. HILL: I would answer the question is I believe one. If you want to go

look at that property, it's horrible. They have no backyard, looks like crap, it's terrible. So, I think

that that's not been a tradition in Arlington Heights and it certainly has not been a tradition in the

central part of Arlington Heights.

Final thing is where does this end? If we divide this property, what

are we going to do? Just keep dividing properties until we turn into the city of Chicago where

we've got bungalows stacked on top of bungalows? Is that what Arlington Heights wants to be?

That's not what I bought property in this neighborhood. I bought property here because it's a

great, great, great suburb. Scarsdale is a great gem in this neighborhood.

So, if we start dividing properties and stacking homes on top of

homes is not my idea of the projection for Arlington Heights. So, I think, everything that my

neighbor said I agree completely with, it's going to completely change the character of that block.

It's going to completely change the character of Scarsdale. It's going to set a trend of just taking

homes, cutting them in half, putting in little, tiny bungalows on top of all of them. I think there is

character in this neighborhood that needs to be maintained and I think it's your job to maintain it.

That's all I got to say.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to make

a comment or statement? Yes, ma'am. Please state your name.

MRS. ARNOLD: My name is Mary Edit Arnold, and I live at 625 South

Newbury. Our home is on the west side of the property. As my husband indicated, we are extremely concerned about the potential of increased water coming on to our property. We've

lived there since the mid 1970's and, as he said, we have had leaking or backing up in our floor

drains or coming in the wires that stick out of walls because of the type of highwater table. We

believe there is probably a creek that runs underneath our property.

We know that we have had to cut down three 100-year-old trees

because of their age, and we know that probably has affected the water table as well. We cried

when we had to cut those trees down because one of the reasons that we put up with an old

house is because of the trees that exist in the neighborhood. The people that live in Scarsdale

are willing to compromise and have old drain tiles that have to be fixed and other items with the

joy of home ownership. Luckily, I love my home. But as Bob said, we just today are involved in

another $20,000 project to keep our home dry.

We've already spent $40,000 to keep our home dry and it really

concerns me when someone comes in and the first thing out of their mouths in talking to a

neighbor is I wonder how quickly we could get these trees cut down. That set the tone for our

concern about this neighborhood project. Trees make a difference. They absorb water. They

cool the neighborhood. I know when I was working and came back from Schaumburg and turned

off of Arlington Heights Road, the temperature in my car went down 10 degrees because of the

absorption of water and what the trees were able to do and effective air conditioning.

I'm worried that if you approve it even before a house plan is provided

for you to rule on, that the owner could come in and cut down trees that are not necessary to cut

down. Once a tree is cut, it's gone. So, we are very concerned.

About the overload on the system on Beverly, beware. Until the

Village was able to relieve some of the pressure on our system, all of Scarsdale estates was

coming down, I think Burton or Bristol, I can't remember which, you could have floated a toy boat,

it would turn the corner, come over to Newbury and proceed on down in front of our house. We

had standing water halfway up our lawn many, many, many times. The Village was able to

reduce some of that by improving the drainage on Rockwell, but I don't know if that would affect

Beverly.

So, if you have additional water because of impermeable land and

fewer trees, I think you may have a backup problem like we've lived with for many, many years.

Thank you for listening to me. I'm really concerned.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to make

a statement or comment? Yes, ma'am. Please state and spell your name.

MS. HAUTZINGER: Hi, I'm Stephanie Hautzinger, last name is H-a-u-t-z-i-ng-e-r.

I live two houses north of the subject property.

My biggest concern is just, you know, as the other neighbors have

mentioned, impacting the character, historic character of the neighborhood. The reason we

bought a home in this neighborhood is we love the historic homes, historic character. As the other

neighbors have stated, this will have an impact.

I realize this block is not typical of some of the other streets in

Scarsdale. But it is a very special, unique block, and that is why we love it. That is why all the

other neighbors love it as well.

I do have, you know, considerable concerns about, I realize if this

goes through, if the lot is subdivided, the proposed homes will go through the Design Commission

review, however, there is a limit on what can be, you know, approved and rejected by that. There s not going to be, you know, I fear for the quality of the homes that are built, that it's not going to

match the quality of the historic homes that are surrounding it and within Scarsdale.

You know, I'm very concerned about the precedent this sets for other

homes in the neighborhood on large lots. I know there's a lot of, you know, a number of

significant, you know, architecturally significant homes to me on larger lots that are, you know, not

updated because there's people that have been in them for a long time. My concern is, you know,

as those houses turn over, if this subdivision gets approved, it will be, you know, a significant

precedent in the future for those other historic homes to get torn down. That would be a travesty

for this neighborhood. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, if not, we'll close

the public comment portion of this hearing and we'll go back to the Commissioners for final

questions and deliberation. Commissioner Jensen?

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Yes, just a couple of points of clarification.

First of all, the Plan Commission obviously goes through all of various issues and makes a

recommendation to the Board. The Board makes the decision. I want everyone to understand

that because many of you are talking as if a decision would be made tonight by the Plan

Commission. That's not our function.

A couple of questions of Staff. Landscaping seems to be a big issue.

I know on larger subdivisions, we do have the ability to impose some constraints on what they

can do in terms of tree removal and preservation and so forth. Clarify what can be done in terms

of dealing with the landscaping, especially shrubs and trees.

MR. HUBBARD: So, for subdivisions that are three lots or greater, we do

require the submission of a tree preservation plan. We do require a deposit for trees that are

required to be preserved to ensure that they are preserved. For a two-lot subdivision like this, it's

not a requirement of code. We can't relate to code and say you cannot cut a tree down because

of this code section.

So, we can encourage, and we have encouraged the Petitioner to

save as many trees on site as possible, and they have agreed to make efforts to save as many

trees on site as possible.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: In terms of replacement in the case we just

talked about of larger ones, we may have to replace what, two for every one we take out or some

such ratio?

MR. HUBBARD: Depending on the size of the tree.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: But there is nothing other than encouragement

that could be done relative to this property, is that correct? Or is there some condition that can be

put in for even the Plan Commission puts it in and the Board considers it? Or whatever, what

latitude do we have?

MR. HUBBARD: I mean if there is a specific condition that you would like to

further ask that the Petitioner work with Staff to identify additional trees where possible, we can

meet again and discuss it and see if there were opportunities for additional tree preservation.

That could be a condition if that's something the Plan Commission wanted to consider.

MR. DADAY: We would represent, too, Mr. Jensen, that we're going to

make every effort to preserve as many trees as possible. We're not talking about a small, we're

talking about very conforming properties and housing with professional landscaping, with

landscaping that fits within the neighborhood. We're talking about two houses that we anticipate would have a value somewhere between $900,000 and $1.1 million each. So, to that extent, you

know, we're not going to put two trees in front and two trees in the back. We're going to try to

maintain as many as we can that are existing, and also adequately landscape this property.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: So, the Petitioner might be amenable to at

least working with Staff to try to get a preservation plan or a landscaping plan that actually stayed

within the character of the neighborhood?

MR. DADAY: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Thank you. Water detention, what the

Petitioner is required to do is basically handle the water on their property. Is that correct?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Do we know, I mean, a lot of these homes are

very old. Are they handling all the water on their property or are they contributing to the general

flooding in this area? Do we have any way of knowing that?

MR. HUBBARD: That would probably depend on how they're graded, where

the rainfall falls, and if it's directed, based on the grading, towards other properties or the streets.

It's based on how the land is graded.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: So, a part of Mr. Arnold's concern might be that

the flooding is coming from some of the people who are very concerned about the flooding that

this property might then produce.

MR. HUBBARD: Sure.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: The character of the neighborhood obviously is

an important state of consideration. We've had a number of cases over the last few decades

around the character of the neighborhood. There's streets where we had small houses, they were

replaced with McMansions or whatever. There was the argument about the character of the

neighborhood.

Can you shed any light on the precedence that are set or how the

issue of the character of the neighborhood is taken into account when you have a petition such as

this one?

MR. HUBBARD: Traditionally, Staff will look at the immediate block where

the home in question is located. I don't know if there's a specific precedent that I could point to.

Sometimes we look beyond the block. You know, defining the area of what the vicinity is is not

always cut and dry, but we traditionally start and look at the immediate block. That's the way our

code is written as far as frontages and setbacks is to look at the immediate frontage and where

the property is located.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, the last is more of a comment than a

question. I think there is an important issue that probably needs to be discussed as other

Commissioners speak to the character of the neighborhood. I find less compelling the

deterioration of the value of the property. I don't understand the rationale, and quite frankly if

you've got some data I'd love to see them. But I'm not too moved by that particular argument. But

I do think the area, the character of the neighborhood is something that requires some additional

discussion on this Commission. So, that's all I have at this point.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Warskow?

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Yes. I just want to have clarification on the

point I brought up earlier, Sam. Is or is it not required to have stormwater detention on a two-lot

subdivision? 

MR. HUBBARD: We do not require stormwater detention on a two-lot

subdivision. In lieu of that, we accept a fee in lieu of stormwater detention. We do not require, if

someone wanted to subdivide a lot, we would not require them, a two-lot residential subdivision,

we would not require them to install onsite stormwater detention. In lieu of requiring that, we

would allow them to provide a fee in lieu of putting that on the site.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I just don't understand, because if it's not

required, then why are you collecting the fee? But okay, if that's --

MR. ARNOLD: Could we get clarification as well? I know public --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Could you hold please with your comments?

Thank you.

MR. ARNOLD: Sorry.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I ask for clarification? What is fee in lieu of --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Hold on, hold on. Let's finish here and then we

can come back.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Okay, so by ordinance it's not required but

we are asking them to provide a fee which will help the entire Village of Arlington Heights

stormwater infrastructure?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes. I suppose, you know, I don't know specifically what

the MWRD stormwater and local, you know, engineering stormwater requirements are. You

know, I would imagine there is some language in our code that says whenever you subdivide a

property you have to accommodate for stormwater detention, right? So, on a small project like

this, while that's required to provide detention, we allow a fee in lieu of putting that detention on

site. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but this is something that is, you know, for

multiple properties we allow. Instead of putting detention on site for something so small like this,

we allow a developer and subdivider to provide a fee in lieu of putting an actual dedicated

retention or detention basin on their property.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: But if we felt that the need was there, and

I'm not saying this particular issue but just in general, if we felt the need was there to actually have

the detention because of the stormwater issues of the surrounding area, we could make that a

condition to ask for actual detention on the property?

MR. HUBBARD: I would have to talk to our Village Engineer and see if that's

something that would be supported by what they think is best practice in their code.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I'm just trying to figure out like because

we're accepting a fee because it's such a small property, just trying to figure out what the actual

stormwater detention requirements are passed down from MWRD and our ordinance are. I just

know from personal experience that you can have grading put in and then things change over

time and you're stuck with a problem. So, I am concerned that this is in a combined sewer area,

they have experienced flooding issues. Taking off that much space, permeable space can

contribute to those flooding issues. Those are all my comments.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Ennes?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: A couple of questions for the Petitioner. Do you

know how many trees are in this proposed swale area that need to be removed?

MR. DADAY: I don't know.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Is that something, Sam, that we know?

MR. HUBBARD: I'm sure that should be in the preservation plan that would show the number of trees to be removed.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: That would be primarily over the west or the

south side?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Sam, it's on drawing two of three on the

engineering plans, if you have it on the PowerPoint.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: If it's correct, it looks like there's nine trees that

would be removed.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Where is that, over the west?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: At the west end of both lots one and two.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Do we know what diameter those trees are

approximately?

MR. DADAY: There are numbers on the --

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Can you answer that? You're the engineer?

MR. KING: Yes. So, the size of the trees here --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: I need you to speak into the mic so that --

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Okay, you can answer the question. So,

approximately how many trees are there that are going to be removed?

MR. KING: Removed with the swale, it looks roughly nine with my first look.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: On average, what's the diameter of those trees?

MR. KING: Five inches, six inches. The ones we're removing with the

swale?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Yes, with the swale.

MR. KING: Yes, average of about, it looks like five. I see a three, six, four,

seven, 13. So, six or seven. There's a 25-inch as well and a five-inch. I'm just looking at the plan

and pulling them out.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: A couple of them are older trees, but a number

of them are relatively small?

MR. KING: Smaller.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Would the Petitioner be open to the idea of

submitting a, is this lower lot the one that's going to be sold off?

MR. DADAY: I'm not sure. We're not sure yet.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: They're not sure which one they want to build

on. Would they be open to the idea of putting some kind of condition in there to replace those

trees along the edges of the swale, the edges of the lot? To keep the wooded nature?

MR. DADAY: Sure. I mean replace them with the same size?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: No, I'm not looking for the same size. Those are

13-inch trees. Even a five-inch tree isn't that big of a deal.

MR. DADAY: Sure. We're willing to work with Staff on that issue.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: So, with any development, you're going to lose

some trees. Sam, when a developer comes in and develops a lot, and to address Commissioner

Warskow's concern, the new property owner, they may change that swale that causes the water

to go onto an adjoining owner's property, but they're prevented from doing that, correct?

MR. HUBBARD: Sure, yes, if you're going to alter the grading and the

stormwater flow patterns.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: So, if you're an adjoining property owner and you noticed they've changed swales from what was originally done, you need to bring that up. If

you're getting water from them, you need to bring that up with the Village and force them to put

them back the way they are. They cannot shed water onto your property that isn't already going

there.

Now, with this development, they are going to be responsible for their

own water. That's the idea of the swale. So, they're not going to make conditions any worse. It

might be better.

MR. HUBBARD: Right.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Also with the Petitioner, you have a realtor?

MR. DADAY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Does the realtor have valuation experience?

Experience in the neighborhood?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: If you would, would you please come up to the

microphone and state your name and spell it please?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: I don't know if you want to comment on this but

some of the adjoining property owners are concerned that dividing, making this subdivision and

having two lots in there would reduce the value of their homes. How many years do you have

experience --

MS. WILCOX: Twenty, at Baird & Warner in Arlington Heights.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: State your name please and spell it?

MS. WILCOX: Carol Wilcox, and I'm a realtor with Baird & Warner for 20

years.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: For 20 years. Do you have valuation

experience?

MS. WILCOX: Well, I'd like to explain something. When Dr. David Dufell

and Dorothy who have lived in the home for 35 years hired me to sell the home, we started out at,

we were going to sell the home, you know, the way it is, you know, not doing anything with the lot.

We started out at $725,000. So, as people came through the house, seeing they did a very nice

job over the years of keeping things, the roof or, you know, different systems in the house but they

never updated the house, so as people came --

COMMISSIONER ENNES: You're talking about as far as kitchens and

bathrooms and that type?

MS. WILCOX: Right, kitchens and bathrooms. The home is a colonial, it

looks like a very nice colonial from the outside. But as people came through looking at the home,

they wanted to bring a contractor in to see what it would take to rehab the house to make it a

more modern home that would fit in for their lifestyle. So, the numbers that we got using, I even

called in someone, Bruce Miller who is a big Arlington Heights contractor who I've worked with for

15 years, he came in, his numbers were about $350,000. We got numbers from $350,000 to

$500,000 to get the house up and running to, you know, fit in with all the other homes.

The home has three bedrooms upstairs and one bath upstairs. No

master suite. On the first floor, there is a small bedroom that used to be a garage that they turned

into a bedroom and put a bath in it. So, there's a lot of things in the home that really had to be

changed to fit, you know, all the remodeling. The kitchen was very old, very, very old. The

basement, then after putting all this money into the home, you would have an old basement that,

you know, you can't raise the house up, it would have been even more money.

So, it just didn't work, nothing worked. So, we reduced the pricing, we

sold it to this gentleman for I think $650,000. He brought people in. But there were at least four

different potential clients that brought contractors in, and everyone, they walked away because it

was just too much to fix the house up.

So, the value of putting two new homes in there that would be

between $900,000 and $1.2 million I mean is way better than having this old house that nobody

can deal with. You cannot remodel it. It's just too much.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Are you aware if this property has had flooding

problems?

MS. WILCOX: No, the basement, I think over the years because I know this

couple, over the years I think they had one major thing in the basement and nothing else, because

you could tell there is a water line in some of the paneling and we talked about that to disclose it

on the disclosures. But other than they did fix whatever it was at that time, I don't know if it was

gutters, I can't remember, gutters that were being, you know, pulled away from the home or

something. So, they didn't have any major flooding ever.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Thank you. That's all I have for now.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Green?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Sam, as we're looking at this aerial, as an

architect, I'm looking at some of the surrounding homes there. Can you tell me why immediately

to the west of those two homes they're so close to the property line? Or is the aerial off here?

There is no backyard setback.

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, that's a good question. One of those to the north, this

would be an accessory structure at 617 so that the backyard setback would be five feet, that's an

accessory structure. On this one --

COMMISSIONER GREEN: What about the rear yard? Wouldn't it be 30

feet in the R-3?

MR. HUBBARD: For a principal structure, yes. For an accessory structure,

it's five feet. So, this being not attached to the principal home, that would be an accessory

structure and allowed to have a five-foot rear yard setback. This one as being attached to the

principal home should conform to the 30-foot rear yard setback. I'm not sure why, perhaps a

variation.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: So, the impervious surface area would be

reduced with the amount of building on these lots, is that correct?

MR. HUBBARD: Their impervious surface would be reduced?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Would be less water to be absorbed on the

property because you've got a lot of structure on these lots.

MR. HUBBARD: Sure.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: The home to the east, is there a backyard at all

on that property alone? It looks like it's over the property line. Is that a possibility here?

MR. HUBBARD: It's a possibility. It's probably more likely that the aerial is

just a little bit off here. But yes, this could be determined as a side yard and that's why it's so

close to the side yard setback. I guess all the analysis would have to be done on this property.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you want me to speak to that?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, I just want to get to, the point here is if you

were to try to build these homes today, those three that I mentioned that are surrounding this property, could you do it the way they are right now?

MR. HUBBARD: Not without variations. Maybe 617 possibly could be built,

but 625 and 615 probably not. Hard to say just looking at the aerial.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Right. No more questions.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Sigalos?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I'm really torn between this because I see the

immediate homes around the subject property are the larger lots, yet I see other homes are in the

same street that are built on 75-foot lots. I believe the last neighbor, is it Mrs. Hautzinger?

MS. HAUTZINGER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: You are in the corner of Beverly and Fairview?

MS. HAUTZINGER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Would you please come back up to the

microphone?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: So, your home is on a 75-foot lot?

MS. HAUTZINGER: Correct.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: How long have you been there?

MS. HAUTZINGER: We moved in in 2008. So, about nine years.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: These other homes adjacent to you there are

larger lots where they've been there for many, many years?

MS. HAUTZINGER: Correct, yes. They're all historic homes.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I see further homes to the south that are on

75-foot lots and looks like a couple of 50-foot lots if I'm reading this correctly?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I really don't have any other question at this

point.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Dawson?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: So, I'm also very torn. When we're talking, I

keep hearing historic homes. These are built in the 70's or earlier?

MR. ARNOLD: '38, 30's. 1938.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: All of these homes are built in the 30's?

MS. HAUTZINGER: Yes.

MR. ARNOLD: Many of them. Some older. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: I want you to answer the question but I need you

to come to the microphone and state your name again so the court reporter can pick you up.

MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry for interrupting. Yes, our home, Bob Arnold is my

home, our home which is just to the west was built in 1938. The house just to the north was built

at about the same time. There's a house across the street that was built in the 20's. So, many of

these homes are very old, they've been there a long time.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: But your home certainly didn't have that

driveway area and that attached home in the 30's, or that attached garage in the 30's?

MR. ARNOLD: That's probably true. It was this way when we bought it in

'75.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Okay. No, I'm just thrown because I'm

looking at these pictures of these homes and they just don't look like historic homes to me. So,

this term historic home is throwing me, that's all. I was just trying to clarify. The 30's would certainly be a historic home, these certainly looked more like 1960's or 1970's homes to me. They

don't look what I would classify as historic.

MR. ARNOLD: If I could qualify one thing? On our property, that's a garage

that goes back close to the property line, for whatever that's worth.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Sure.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: So, I really don't know what specific questions

I have. I'm really, I think like many people, struggling. I see the character of the immediately

adjoining properties being affected by this. But I can also see where the Arnold's home, the water

problem is largely caused by their own impervious surface issues, not necessarily the home

behind them. While I sympathize with the flooding issue, you know, I struggle with how much

building went up around this property and now this property is going to be penalized for the

building that went all around which added continually to the problem.

The flip side to that is I'm also not necessarily torn by the argument

that we're going to build, we need to build $2 million homes here because if it's a $650,000 home

and you could have put $350,000 into it to make it work, the math to me says that's a million-dollar

home. So, if someone is willing to buy a million-dollar home in a 75-foot lot, why wouldn't they be

willing to buy a $650,000 home and put $350,000 into it and live in a million-dollar house in a great

lot? So, that argument doesn't work with me either.

So, I'm really very torn on what to do here. So, I'd like to I guess listen

to whatever everyone else has to say.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: Can I ask one further question?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Sure, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: Sam, the stormwater inlet that the Petitioner is

proposing, that's not a requirement of the Village, is that correct?

MR. HUBBARD: I would have to defer to our Engineering Department. I

don't know if the representative from the engineering, who did the work on the engineering --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Come back up to the microphone please. State

your name again.

MR. KING: Michael King with Manhard Consulting. Yes, we did --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Spell that again?

MR. KING: Michael King.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: King, K-i-n-g?

MR. KING: K-i-n-g. Yes, we were in constant communication with the

Village in how this is developed, the standards in Arlington Heights, I serve my community. I did

their own stormwater review. Yes, we are in, right now Mr. Arnold's property, specifically it sheet

drains towards his property and now we're introducing a swale. So, all the water that today falls on

the southwesterly corner portion of the lot would drain right to Mr. Arnold's property. But in the

future, it will be picked up by the swale and drained out to the road. So, we're taking all the

stormwater that lands on this property and taking it to the road instead of letting is sheet drain as it

does today to the adjoining properties.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: So, that's, with that stormwater inlet, that's

going to help Mr. Arnold's property?

MR. KING: Correct. Everywhere that's sheet draining off this property

currently will be collected by the storm sewer, would be routed directly to the right of way in the Village.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: I guess my question originally was is that

required by the Village or is that the Petitioner's desire to put that in to help the stormwater

situation there?

MR. KING: I can't say if it's a certain requirement but we're doing it for

helping the drainage conditions. I think we're not allowed to detrimentally affect the drainage off

site, so instead of doing exactly the amount of area that drains off site now compared to the

proposed conditions, we're just collecting all the water onsite and delivering it to the right of way in

the Village.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: But can the Petitioner turn around and say,

well, you know what, I'm going to build this swale but I'm not going to put the stormwater inlet in

there?

MR. KING: No, we have an engineer's opinion of probably cause that we're

tied to for these public improvements. That storm sewer is considered a public improvement of

the Village. So, it's tied to the development of this property.

MR. DADAY: So, if it gets approved, assuming it gets approved, it's got to

be put in.

MR. KING: It's within the stormwater easement to the Village that the drain

is in.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: So, again it's got to help with the surrounding

properties.

MR. KING: Correct, and it has to be built with the development of these two

lots, yes.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: So, stay for a moment, Mr. King. So, can you tell

me that the new condition with two houses and less trees but the addition of the swale and the

sewer line is going to improve the situation, improve it from what it is today?

MR. KING: Correct.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, thank you. Ms. Wilcox, you may have

answered, could you come back up please? You may have answered this, maybe I didn't catch it,

but you did address the value of the property we're speaking of, but how in your opinion does it

affect the surrounding homes? If any?

MS. WILCOX: You mean the way it is currently?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: No, no, by putting up these new homes, two new

homes, how is that going to affect the value in your opinion of the surrounding homes?

MS. WILCOX: I think it's going to enhance it.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Why is that?

MS. WILCOX: Because the, well, to go back to your point, putting between

350 to 550 into this older home, it just didn't work for all these people that brought contractors

through because you still have an old foundation. You have this garage that was turned into a

room that has to be knocked down. So, that was just a preliminary number that they came

through. But there were at least five people that did this and I was one of them, you know, by

bringing a contractor through to help with some of the information.

But putting in, and who knows, the house, if a person comes through

there and they want to build a brand new home, they could build a home for $1.5 million. I don't know what people are putting into their houses now. New kitchens are costing people, you know,

$160,000. It just depends on how much they put into the home. But I can't see that it could be

anything but helpful.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, thank you. So, my opinion is I agree that

it's definitely going to change the character, but this development is meeting all the requirements

and it's a free market issue. You know, they're meeting code and I don't know if we can't tell

people you can't develop land if you meet all the codes. So, that's kind of where I'm sitting.

So, any final questions, deliberations, recommendations?

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Yes, yes. A question of Sam, and really this

relates to another commission so you may not know the answer. But when the Design

Commission looks at things in a neighborhood like this that is quite old, how would they approach

that as far as you're aware? I mean do they try to get something that is consistent with that

particular neighborhood? Or do they, you know, want to have the new homes look more modern

and so forth which would change the character definitely? So, maybe you can shed some light on

what we would expect from the Design Commission to be the requirements that would be

imposed on Mr. Karr.

MR. HUBBARD: Well, I don't know if I want to even make a guess there.

You know, I can't answer.

MR. DADAY: Can I comment on that? Because I was actually on the

Village Board when the Design Commission was instituted. Part of, one of the reasons was there

were a couple of houses up on Highland that basically took up an entire block, and we felt at that

time that there should be some architectural and design input into the nature of what was going in

there. There was also another one as I recall, I believe it was on Burr Oak and it was very modern

and it clearly was not consistent with the neighborhood.

So, from my experience going back many years, I think the purpose

of it was to evaluate what the construction was, the design, the architecture as it related to other

properties in the neighborhood. So, I think they do take that into consideration and I think that

was their charge.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Just for the record, the house is on Elm just off

of Burr Oak.

MR. DADAY: Is that where it was?

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, it's hard to image that if we left the

property just as it is, that that would be great for the neighborhood, character or otherwise. So,

clearly, it seems to me there ought to be something that can be done that would be in keeping

with the neighborhood that would address a lot of the issues relating to detention as well as

landscaping. I would like to, I'm not sure exactly how it works yet but I'd certainly like to see

something under landscaping to get a little bit more commitment that some of these landscaping

issues would be addressed in terms of the shrubbery even though it is below the two-lot

subdivision.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I just have one last comment as it relates to

stormwater, and it's more just clarifying generally for people, that no only is there dealing with the

stormwater in your property which now that we've discussed it through I see it's going to stay on

the property, but it's also going to go into the stormwater system. With less permeable surface,

more is going to go into a combined sewer system. Just want to put that in the record.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: So, what do you see is the ramifications of that? Can you keep going with that line of thought?

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: It just means as we come across these

situations more and more where we're taking away cases where the green is handling it on its

own, we're now putting it into a stormwater system that's already overburdened that we're already

talking about million-dollar plans to correct.

MR. DADAY: Could I say one thing to that point? To a certain extent, that's

not just relating to this particular issue. In many ways, it's a Village-wide problem that the Village

is trying to deal with in many areas of the Village.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: But developing to the extent that we are on

individual properties is adding to the stormwater system.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I don't disagree with you but I just don't know

how we draw the line with this Petitioner when we've granted so many --

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I know but I'm just, I'm trying to get

everybody to understand the problem.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Absolutely. I see, I absolutely see your

argument; I just don't know how we can make this Petitioner pay for what's been going on for

years and years and years. Where do we draw that line, right? I think the Village is going to have

to come up with a solution.

I struggle here because I live in a historic area, it was designated just

recently as a historic area. I bought a home that was an old home intentionally to put a $300,000

addition on it. I mean that's why this argument just, and my lot is smaller than the lots that, you

know, the area that I live in, it's like a luxury you guys have these big lots. I don't have these big

lots. I don't have a problem with it. We love where we live. We don't mind not having these big

lots. The majority of Scarsdale that I see are teeny tiny lots that to me, I drive through Scarsdale

and go oh, I couldn't live in this neighborhood, they're on top of each other.

So, it seems like there is a very unique strip here that has a few

homes that's beautiful and I get that and I sympathize. I really do sympathize, which is why I'm

struggling so much because it's just not my, it's throwing me because it's not necessarily my

personal experience. Where I'm at in the lot size that would be built here is where I live and I'm

very comfortable with it and like it and enjoy the lot size. So, it's hard for me to have that

argument.

I'm more concerned with the flooding and I have a hard time getting

over the fact that this will help. How can we, if we leave the property as it is, nothing is going to

help. This could help. So, you know, I struggle with that. But I do follow the argument that it will

significantly impact this neighborhood, and the fact that every surrounding neighbor has shown up

here against it, I mean that has to have a lot of sway with me because they are here. How often

do we have meetings and people don't come and they're here and they're saying this will impact

me.

So, it's just, I'm very torn I have to say.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Sam, could I ask, I'd like to ask a couple of

questions. So, if we made a recommendation and the Board accepted the recommendation to not

allow the subdivision, so whoever bought this would have to basically stay with three lots that are

one large lot and so forth. Would the owner of that have to do anything about the water problems

at this point? Because clearly there are water issues that Mr. Arnold has been enjoying for

decades. So, the question is if we block this, are we leaving things worse off or better off in terms of the water? Let's just start with the water.

MR. HUBBARD: There would be no code requirement that the Village could

lean on to make any future homeowner here make any improvements to the existing grading and

drainage. It's how it is. When you make a change to a site and it's subdivided and put the new

homes on, then you have to make improvements so you have to meet current standards, you

have to make sure you're not causing adverse impact on neighboring property owners. But if the

site was to remain as is --

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, I guess I'd ask Commissioner --

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: But you're talking about flooding from one

property. There are already two separate --

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, right, I'm going to get to your issue. I'm

going to your issue now which I'd like to have you address which is, is the current situation going

to leave it better or worse off relative to the water that flows into the storm system?

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Right now? There is more green space on

this lot to absorb that water so it is not going into the sewer system. Can I do the calculations and

tell you, you know, this compared to that, I don't have a degree in that. But I do know that the

more green space you need, the less goes into the sewer system.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, we don't know whether it's material or not

or significant really at this point. We don't know if it's fundamentally going to overload the

stormwater system.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: No. I'm making more of a comment that as

we continue to do more and more, we are gradually adding to that problem.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: But that's not this Petitioner's issue. I mean

he's got to ensure there's a specific place --

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: I understand that's more of a Village

ordinance issue.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: This is a Village issue of fixing the storm sewer

system which shouldn't have been combined, but we can't lay the entire burden of the Village's

concerns off on this Petitioner.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: No.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: That's what we seem to be slipping into and

that is very bothersome to me.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Well, I would just like to say I'm not slipping into

that. So, the storm problems, my experience as an architect for 40 years is that the storm water

runoff issues are created by the homeowners. They put gardens, they put up walls, they plant

things, they change the grades on the back of the houses, and they stop the natural flow of water.

So, I've dealt with this, I can't even tell you, for decades and it's always the same thing.

Somebody has built or raised and planted their garden over here and they cut off the water from

here and it becomes water wars in the backyard.

So, I just want to say that these properties are going to meet 100

percent the engineering requirement for their stormwater and it is not going to hurt any other

neighbor. Whether you take a little more space away from the ability of water to soak into the

ground, okay, there might be a slight argument for that. But it's not going to be significant.

If you really wanted to make a change in Scarsdale, get rid of those

sprawling ranch units and put up a two-story because then you have more space for the water to absorb into the ground. So, we're making these arguments and this Petitioner is not here to fix the

storm sewer and the combination sewer that's been there for 40 or 50, 60 years in Scarsdale. So,

the Village who has an engineering responsibility to fix that water at some point, so if they're

looking to collect the dollars to do it, it's going to happen. Neighbors, it will happen some time

when the Village comes up with the money. So, it's not this man's problem because there is

stormwater.

I don't mean to get hot but I deal with this a lot and it's never what you

think it is and you can't hold up somebody from doing the simple subdivision for all the problems

that have been created for the past 50 years.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Sam, can I ask a question? What's our, do

we have a specific criteria here like we do with the special use consideration? There is no specific

guiding criteria for us to consider?

MR. HUBBARD: Not for a subdivision.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Oh, that's helpful.

MR. DADAY: We're also not asking for any variations.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: No, I understand. Potentially, you could be

later. I'm not, you know, I'm not against the plan. The thing that's stopping me is the neighbors

being here expressing their concern over the change in the neighborhood. I mean we've

approved many of these subdivisions before and, you know, generally they seem to go fine. But

we have neighbors here that are making arguments about changing this specific pocket and

preserving this specific unusual pocket. That's the only thing that's throwing me off.

I'm not as concerned about the water because just to Bruce's point --

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: No, I get that. I only brought it up as a --

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: No, no, no, I'm not looking at --

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: As a general comment about continued

property developments like this. Not laying the burden on this specific property owner, just

making a comment to get into the record to be read by Village Trustees and the Staff that this I

think is causing a gradual issue.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: So, hopefully we'd like them to deal with the

Village problem, not necessarily force this Petitioner to fix everybody's problem.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Yes.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Which is what some may interpret it as.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Okay.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Any other comments, motions,

recommendations?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I talk?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: I'm sorry, the public comment portion is closed.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: I would like to make a motion.

A motion to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees approval of PC#17-003, a

Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to subdivide/consolidate three lots into two single-family

lots.

This approval shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The developer shall provide a $5,040 fee in lieu of onsite detention, as well as

pay all engineering fees and bonds prior to appearing before the Plan

Commission for final plat of subdivision approval.

2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1, land contribution fees shall be

paid for parks, schools and library, per Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code.

3. A Design Commission application must be submitted for each new home

within the subdivision.

4. The Petitioner shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and Village

codes, regulations, and policies.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Can we, before a second, can we add

something about the landscaping that we talked about?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: We have to second, we second it first and

then we have comments and questions.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Okay, I'll second and then suggest we add

something.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Okay, now we can discuss.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Commissioner Jensen seconded. Any other

comments, additions?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: What was your comment?

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, the comment is that we had a lot of

discussion around the landscaping issues, and it seemed like the Petitioner or at least his

representative was amenable to that. So, I'd like to see something written here as a fifth condition

which actually at least encourages as far as possible that something could be done to preserve

the landscape.

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, you can put a condition in there that, you know, ask

the Petitioner to work again with Staff to identify potential areas for additional tree preservation.

It's all linked to the design for the grading, too, I mean that's why they're having to take out some

of these trees so that they can put the swales in so that it does improve the drainage. But we can

reevaluate that.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Well, I think I'd like to see that added.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, Sam, you can work on something like --

MR. DADAY: Well, we'll cooperate with the Village in that respect. But as

Sam mentioned, you know, if you leave some of the trees in, maybe the swale has to be

redesigned. So, you know, when you take something out or put something in, it affects the

engineering of the project. So, we're happy to and we'll cooperate with the Village in terms of

preserving trees.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: If possible.

MR. DADAY: If possible. Also, as Mr. Ennes suggested, we will work to

replace trees that have been removed.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: That are lost.

MR. DADAY: Yes, as best we can.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Isn't that part of the process anyway? I mean

as you're going through with plans and designs, wouldn't that be part of Staff's role anyway, Sam?

MR. DADAY: I don't think it is in this instance.

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, there is no requirement for a landscape plan as part

of a smaller subdivision like this.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: You wouldn't require, so you wouldn't have

any requirement of planting of new trees or anything of that sort with this?

MR. DADAY: Not replacements.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Okay.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: We have to amend the motion. There's a

motion on the table and it doesn't include that language.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: I would like to move an amendment to the

original motion to add a fifth condition for the landscape. That needs to be seconded.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Bruce, it's your motion.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: I don't think that that should be in there. I'll take

a consensus and we can vote on that number five.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Well, we can vote on your motion and then if it

doesn't go past, then Lynn can make a new motion related to the trees.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Correct.

DR. HILL: I just have a question. Is it normal for the Board to not listen to

public comment after there's been a discussion about facts some of which have been

misrepresented and then not listen to the public again? Is that the normal democratic process

here?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Sir, the normal process is to have public

comments, we did that.

DR. HILL: And we cannot go back on the statements that have been

made --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Not at this point, no, sir. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: You could clarify though certainly at the Village

Board meeting.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I beg your pardon, you did say there would be time.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: He can talk to the Board and make all the

points that he wants to make.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: I'll mention it at the end of this, thank you.

MR. ARNOLD: We had the impression earlier that you would allow some

further discussion. When I tried to ask a question --

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, let's go with the motions or amendments.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Items one through four have been seconded.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Are we going to vote now?

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: There's a motion on the table. I think we can

go ahead and vote. So, this is without the trees.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: This is just as per code and as per ordinances is

what this says.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Let's take roll call vote on the recommendations

as they currently stand, one through four.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Dawson.

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: No.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Ennes.

COMMISSIONER ENNES: Yes.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Green.

COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Jensen.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Yes.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Sigalos.

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: Yes.

MR. HUBBARD: Commissioner Warskow.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Can I abstain, Sam?

MR. HUBBARD: Sure.

COMMISSIONER WARSKOW: Thank you.

MR. HUBBARD: Chairman Lorenzini.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Yes.

MR. HUBBARD: That's it. Five positives, one negative, so the motion

passes.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you, Sam. Okay, just a clarification, this is

a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has the final approval. If I

indicated otherwise than what you understood, the reason we handle things the way we do, we

want to hear all your comments, and then hopefully your comments are addressed, the questions

you bring up and your comments and concerns are addressed by the questions and clarifications

that the Commissioners asked. If we keep leaving the public comment open, this could go on

forever.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But you can't clarify this information?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Anyways, you can always make final comments

with the Board of Trustees when it comes before them.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Even for mis-information?

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: So, is there a motion to --

COMMISSIONER DAWSON: You can certainly write a letter to the Trustees

clarifying anything you felt was mis-communicated before the Trustee vote. If you submit it to the

Staff, they will circulate that to the Trustees.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Okay, thank you for your attendance tonight.

Congratulations, you received majority approval on your project. Any time or date, Sam, going

before the Board?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes, they were targeting the May 1st Village Board. Yes,

the May 1st Village Board meeting for this.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Thank you all for attending.

MR. DADAY: Thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Other business? Anything else, Sam?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes. On the 26th, we will be meeting. We have on the

agenda the return of the Aubrey Subdivision on Palatine Road. We also have Heart's Place which

is a 16-unit supported living facility on Ocean Road. That's going to be on April 26th. We do have

some additional, the Ordinance Review Committee is going to be meeting sometime in April, and

the Comprehensive Plan possibly in April.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Hey, Sam, a question for you before we

adjourn. When we did the text amendments, there was some discussion about a couple of

reports we routinely got in the past. One of them was a tracking report. The other one was a

monthly report which basically showed us what was happening with the development in the

Village. Mr. Enright said that he would check and the director would make a decision. Could you

let us know what the director has decided?

MR. HUBBARD: I can. The directors have decided that we are able to

provide you with the development tracker spreadsheet that details all the projects that have gone

before you and tracks the progress of them when they've been heard and approved and so forth.

Relative to the monthly report, that only goes to the Village Board. It does contain sensitive

information about projects that are not formally yet been proposed and they're not public, so the

decision was to keep that only going to the Village Board.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: So, even creating an abbreviated version that

dealt with business that's already been dealt with? Because I found that the monthly report would

show how the Village was developing in picture, word and data. It was very useful in being able to

do this job. So, I don't want to see things that have not come before this Commission, but it would

be nice to see how the Village is developing because part of what our job is to recommend the

direction of the development. So, I don't know if I'd like to at least have it entertained that we got

some kind of a redacted or modified version of that monthly report at the very least.

Clearly, I'm ecstatic that we get the tracker because I think we ought

to be able to see what business we and Staff have done in terms of the petitions. So, I think

we've moved in the right direction, but could you at least explore the possibility of getting an

abbreviated version of that monthly report?

COMMISSIONER ENNES: I would second that.

MR. HUBBARD: Thank you, I will certainly pass the message along.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Well, we used to get an e-mail but no paper

copies.

COMMISSIONER JENSEN: You don't need to e-mail it, Sam. You can post

it up the website. You don't even need to send them electronically, you don't need to pay for an

electronic stamp. Just post it. But at any rate, I can understand that there is sensitive material

that has not transpired as of yet. There is no reason we should get that. I understand.

MR. HUBBARD: We will certainly get the development tracker and we will email

that to you.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Thank you. Anything else? Motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER GREEN: I'll make that motion.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Second?

COMMISSIONER SIGALOS: Second.

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: All in favor?

(Chorus of ayes.)

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN LORENZINI: Adjourned, thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-mentioned petition was adjourned

at 9:13 p.m.)