The danger zone.

DuPage County has been seeking the ability to do whatever it wants to when it comes to developing real estate, under the cover of “affordable workforce housing” and “by right” use.

Despite opposition from every community that is aware of it, the county continues to push this potential program towards their goal. On April 21st and 27th, the village council met and wrote up a resolution declaring it’s opposition to the county attempt to create “Affordable Workforce Housing” in unincorporated DuPage County.

There are three components to this attempt to circumvent rational zoning laws:

• Senate Bill 1451, sponsored by State Senator Randy Hultgren (Wheaton) and Senator John J. Millner (Bloomingdale), would permit the county board in counties over 500,000 (excluding Cook) to use county funds to sell, lease, or exchange county property, including but not limited to a partial interest in property and to sell, lease or exchange property at less than fair market value, to achieve any housing need of the county and to benefit the residents of the county.  There are four counties that fit that requirement: DuPage (929,192), Kane (501,021), Lake (710,241), and Will (673,586).  Coincidence that bill sponsors are from DuPage?
• DuPage County’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) pumps a one time federal payment of $5,176,438 into a program designed to “provide funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale of the many foreclosed homes peppering the neighborhoods of DuPage County.  The county, at it’s discretion, can continue the program past the first year, and put additional funds into the program if it decides to.
• T-01-09-Proposed Amendments to the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance relative to Workforce Development Housing (AWFH) Regulations (Request to Send to ZBA for Public Hearing) covers that zoning changes that council and staff fired off the resolution against.

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference has also weighed in against some aspects of  this.  T-01-09 itself essentially eliminates one of the fundamental tenets of comprehensive county planning, that being deferring development approval to municipalities for areas that are within 1 mile (some counties 1.5 miles) of the municipal border.  This zoning amendment would eliminate the applications process planners use to look at building projects individually.

How it is now: “We want to do this; take a look, is this okay?  Will you let us?”

How it would be: (silence until bulldozers show up).

That could be an explosive problem in Downers Grove, where we have an unincorporated area on the southwest side that has, like everywhere else, many foreclosures going on that could be future high density developments.  Last year DG successfully used that deferred jurisdictional authority to stop a development project proposed by Pat Trowbridge which consisted of 24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what was called for in the original development the village opposed and prevented.  24 townhouses on 2.75 acres of land.

This is what could be built “by right” on the same property, with no say by the village.  38 townhouses on the same 2.75 acres of land.

Why do that?  Why change the zoning requirements and regulations, in many cases loosening the county’s own rules for things like density, setbacks, stormwater compensation, and required utility hookups?  Why open the door for severely overcrowded development projects being crow-barred into low density residential areas?

Higher density means more units equals more profit potential along with the lower prices.

24 units was too high a density for the village.  Add in an additional 14 units, mix in  T-01-09, and the village has no say.  That would create affordable workforce housing, but it’s also a development that throws the entire area out of kilter, out of density guidelines, and into potential flooding, something we don’t need more of here in DG.  On the plus side, it does allow for cheaper units to be built.  By building so many more of them, the developer can still make a handsome profit.

Naperville is the latest community to wake up to the potential nightmare this county undertaking represents, and they have also responded overwhelmingly in the negative.  In response to all the negative feedback, County Board member Kyle Gilgis (District 3 Downers grove), who has headed up the county effort, said the county will hold weekend informational meetings on the matter.  I could not find any information on the meetings on the County website.

Downers Grove straddles two districts, 2 and 3.  Should you wish to weigh in for or against workforce development housing as currently proposed by DuPage County you can get emails, addresses and phone numbers for all board members here.

Any white areas, even seemingly inside municipalities, are fodder for Affordable Workforce Housing development under proposed county rule changes.

Unmaking the road to hell.

I missed this one Monday at the Plan Commission.  Petition PC-12-09   is for the redevelopment of a single family home at 4929 Montgomery Avenue on the near northwest side.

The plans call for an significantly larger home to replace the house currently there, and consolidates two lots into one.  The home scheduled to be build looks to be a beauty.  Very large, but well proportioned to the lot, and using a combination of materials and features, such as flanged eaves and an excellent eyebrow feature to soften the look and add an aged grace to brand new construction.  And by combining lots the side yard setback requirements actually double to ten feet.

Although some trees will be lost, it is the prerogative of the landowner to remove trees.  The owners in this case are acting responsibly to the community tree canopy, and the plans call for those outside of the immediate construction foot print to be saved.  The owners have also stayed within the bounds of muni ordinances with regards to front, side, and rear setback requirements.

Although the house is large enough that it will dwarf the immediate neighbors, it fits the requirements for bulk and mass, and asks for no variances.  The plan offers a welcome variant for garage siting, avoiding the “snout house” appearance of a three car garage protruding from the front of the house proper, by turning two of the three garage spaces sideways and moving them back into the house footprint, rather than sticking out front to the street.

The site as shown has a slight slope to the rear of the property, sloping east and south with the general topology of the neighborhood, and therein lies a problem.   The planned house will have over twice the roof area as what is being replaced, and that water will run off into gutters and downspouts to the ground.  Much of the roof will drain to the rear of the house.  The sump pump output will also be routed to the backyard, where it will exit to the ground.

Although the slope is a matter of mere feet water moves to the lowest point, and here the lowest point is in the neighbors backyards to the east and south.  Flooding aggravated or caused by run off from newer development has been a front burner issue for residents on the receiving end of the water.  In the past two months, council has heard from at least two residents regarding new flooding problems that did not exist even 3-4 years ago, but that exist now.  They contend the new construction in the neighborhood that has also occurred in the last 3-5 years is to blame, have brought pictures of flooding to show council, and have asked for council’s help.  Right now, council is overseeing help on a massive scale: close to $100 million in storm-water projects, a huge borrowing and spending commitment  to specifically mitigate the destructive effects of flooding is in process.

Every corner of the village has it’s “poster child” for thoughtless development that leads to flooding, and it’s usually the big new house crammed down into a small lot, but here, the big new house is on what is, in essence, a big new lot; the owners appear to be trying to do the right things.

The problem is routing the water output to the back yard, and then calling it a day, expecting no further steps need be taken.  Everyone saw how soggy the entire village was last week.  The ground was saturated and wasn’t taking in any more.  Low spots on driveways were being pumped, sumps were running 24/7, the village was slowly soaking up the excess. History says this development will trigger another couple of unhappy residents who will soon find their water problems getting worse instead of better.

NIMBY. Please.

There are two healthy mature trees in the immediate area that will soak up some of that output, over 1,200 gallons of water in the first 24 hours (and producing a lot of oxygen in the process-I’ll leave that for another day) but after 24 hours most tree species have diminished absorptive capacity.  The sump will keep pumping so long as water is being collected from around the foundation and fed into the sump.  that water will continue to appear in the back yard, along with roof run-off in excess of what the ground normally would absorb.

And that causes flooding.  It won’t flood the new house because the output will move downhill, away from the house; but it will move towards the houses south and east, creating a water problem for them that previously did not exist.  Add to that the next two houses to the south have much of their lots covered with impervious surfaces; they too add to run-off.

55th Street as additional Barth Pond detention.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The village has always walked a thin line between individual property rights, and what is in the best interest of the larger community.  Several commissioners now have direct experience and exposure to flooding issues, whether that be via the Storm-water Commission, the Environmental Concerns Commission, or by being out in the rain clearing drains.  This would serve as a good place and an opportune time for council to begin the long and difficult process of tying together storm-water best management practices, development guidelines, construction codes, community development planning, and zoning.

What council might start thinking about is requiring features to be built-in to correct this situation.  Dry wells, rain barrels, and cisterns can provide storage for water run-off up to their capacity, and that water can be used later on the lawn or on flowers and plants.  Rain water, if you haven’t tried it, has a growing group of gardening fans for it’s overall high quality.

Some of his now...

Another surface feature, rain gardens can also be used in these situations.  Rain gardens are landscaping features that provide dry bottom detention much like the Washington Park project, but on a much smaller scale that fits onto a single lot.  They slow and hold water on the surface, allowing it to filter into the ground, be absorbed by suitable water thirsty plants, and evaporate into the air.  The cost of installing such a feature is usually several hundred to a couple thousand dollars, and most landscapers can easily incorporate a sensible rain garden sized for the task by working with the architect and builder-which they already will be doing for new construction.  Given the size and scope of this home construction, and of most new construction in the village, this is a tiny portion of the project’s expense, and adds an interesting feature visible from the back patio.

... or more of this later? Take your pick.

The theory here is to slow, filter, and mitigate as much water as possible right where it lands instead of accumulating and moving it downhill to somewhere else.  That somewhere else already is getting the same waterfall, and adding to that is creating the problems council is now seeing.  Historically the trend of allowing developers to move costs downstream to the village at a later date happens by council inaction.

Creating solutions, as the village council has been able to demonstrate, requires actions that may not result in immediate remedy, but shows responsible leadership, and mindful regard for the health, safety, and welfare of the community.   A rain garden or similar devices with a modest cost to the builder/developer/owner, to slow and mitigate water run-off from the property, are a wide contrast to the community later paying millions to fix an entire neighborhood, or even tens of thousands to place pipes later to carry backyard flooding down an easement to the nearest storm sewer, in the process doing nothing to slow and mitigate run-off.