VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee Meeting June 22, 2006, 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Downers Grove Public Works Facility 5101 Walnut Avenue, Downers Grove, Illinois Call to Order Chairman Pro tem Beckman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. A roll call followed and a quorum was established. Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Mr. Beckman, Mr. Bollenberg, Mr. Crilly, Mr. Gorman, Ms. Matthies, Chairman Eckmann, Mr. White Jonathan Hall, P.E., Development Engineer/Stormwater Administrator; David Barber, P.E., Director of Public Works; and Ms. Sharon Connell, Recording Secretary Others Present: Laurel Bowen, 829 Clyde Dr.; Robert and Audrey Freeman, 6005 Brookbank Rd.; Stann Monkos, th Pl.; Vaughan and Wilma Nelson, 5831 Middaugh; Paul Koutnik, 5400 Park; William Waldack, 1409 Willard; William Wrobel, 7800 Queens Court; Margaret Legel, 5939 Brookbank; Jayne Vandervest, 5912 Brookbank Rd.; M. K. Morley, 5915 Brookbank Rd.; David Winklebleck, NIA, DuPage County; John Schofield, 1125 Jefferson Ave.; Jerry Kuprewicz, 5943 Brookbank; Lisa Olmstead, 5936 Carpenter; Rick Jeschke, 5918 Brookbank; Ron Moravec, 5935 Brookbank; E. Rusnak, 6001 Brookbank; James Cavallo, 6943 Valley View Drive; and Bruce Eastmond, 5931 Brookbank Rd. Approval of May 25, 2006 Minutes Minutes of May 25, 2006 were approved, with changes, on motion by Mr. Gorman, seconded by Ms. Matthies. The following corrections were noted: On page 1, note that Chairman Eckmann was not present and Chairman Pro tem Beckman opened the meeting; page 1, last line, delete the word grade and insert the word grate ; page 2, first line, delete the word grading and insert the word grating. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0. Public Comments - None New Business A. PUBLIC HEARING Flood Plain Variance - Allowable flood depth on Brookbank Road - Chairman Pro tem Beckman discussed the protocol for the public hearing. Public Works Director Barber presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining the request by the Village for a variance for the depth of water over Brookbank Road, specifically, for the proposed southbound lane of Brookbank Road. The developer will be providing the construction but the Village is bringing the application forward since it is a request by the Village to complete the section of street for the project. Per Mr. Barber, the goal is to match the elevation of the current roadway. Mr. Barber called attention to the fact that the current flood plain in existence has not changed as a result of other construction in the area. The proposed roadway with proposed sidewalk was noted. Under the proposal, the maximum

2 depth of water at the flood plain level would be 11 inches; at the middle point would be 13 inches; and at the pavement edge it would be 16 inches. The County s Stormwater Ordinance limits the water depth to 6 inches. Because the Village is trying to match the existing cross section, it is requesting the variance. All other portions of the requirements of the County s and the Village s stormwater ordinances will be met. Issues that have been common with Brookbank Road include standing water. However, staff believes the full depth, up to the maximum 100 year flood, has been rare and will not be a regular occurrence. A majority of vehicles and emergency vehicles should be able to pass through the area after a rain. In working with the developer, staff will work to match and resurface the roadway to the existing roadway. In summary, Mr. Barber recommended that the variance be granted in order to match and improve the existing roadway in order to complete the project. Per a question, it was clarified that the base flood plain elevation of feet was the high water surface of the 100-year flood condition for the entire graded area. Flooding conditions were clarified as being the 100-year flood plain as determined by the County s delineation of the flood plains in the area. Other discussion followed regarding a drainage pipe on the western side of the road which drains to a nearby wetland area and whether it was considered as part of the modeling, to which Mr. Barber confirmed it was. Reviewing sidewalks, Mr. Barber stated the sidewalks will be constructed adjacent to the curb to limit the damage to the wetlands area. Mr. Bollenberg voiced his disappointment in constructing sidewalks adjacent to curbs and questioned their value for this project. Regarding compensatory storage fill, it was reserved for the sidewalk and anything within the flood plain. Per a question, the detention pond s depth will be approximately 5 to 6 feet below the flood plain elevations. Mr. Bollenberg expressed concern about runoff into the backyards off of Arnold Street and the drop-off being overly steep. He stated he would like some terracing done. Mr. Barber conveyed that some terracing may take place as well as some retaining walls. As to whether the Village would experience any greater expense by maintaining the roadway, Mr. Barber said he did not foresee any concerns and there were a number of other, similar streets in the Village. The difference between floodway and flood plain was explained. There being no further questions, Chairman Pro tem Beckman opened up the meeting to public comment and asked that the public keep their comments to three to four minutes. Mr. Stan Monkos, th Place, stated the variance should be denied since the petitioner did not provide a compelling reason for a variance for a long standing ordinance passed in the best interest of DuPage County residents. Instead, the stated reason was to enhance access for residents and emergency vehicles. The request for a variance was contrary to 6 of the 24 stated purposes of the Village s Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance. The fact that the current roadway has existed for decades underscores the point of a lack of a compelling reason. He notes that the variance request is significant in that it requests a variance of 200% above the ordinance requirement for flood and depth on a roadway. The petition does not include the addition of larger storm drains to carry the additional 12 inches of water runoff. He stated the current storm drains on the southeast corner and northwest corners of Brookbank and 60 th Place cannot handle heavy rainfall. He believes any additional stormwater runoff caused by the roadway without the installation of drains will make a mockery of the current ordinance. He notes that at one time emergency vehicles came from opposing directions and the vehicles could pass each other. He expressed concern about altering the character of the flood 2

3 plain noting that it was altered prior and since then the floodplain does not perform as it once did prior to alteration. He discussed how the prairie-type flora changed in the area once alterations took place, noting that the area transformed to a classic wetlands. He notes the floodplain withstood the recent 100-year flood of 1994 prior to any alterations to the flood plain but expressed concern as to how the floodplain would handle a future 100-year flood after alterations have been completed. Mr. Monkos expressed concern about the developer s track record and whether he will do what he says. The area is an eyesore and a mosquito breeding ground for the past five years. He requested that the petition be denied. If approved, it would be a disservice to the taxpayers and homeowners in the area. Mr. Brian Freeman, 6005 Brookbank Road, a member of the Village s Environmental Concerns Commission, presented and discussed four slides which covered topographic contours. He notes the 750 feet contour. In addition, he presents a map from Flood Source, which depicts the same area as a flood plain Zone A-1 which is considered a serious flood plain area, possibly greater than a 100-year flood plain. Explaining the zones, he notes that Zone A reflects no base flood elevation has been determined. He was surprised by the Village s base elevation of feet and notes that the area reflected is prior to the time that the subdivision was altered. The alternation may have enhanced and widened the depth of the flood plain. Mr. Barber clarified that the maps being presented were old and dated Newer maps have been developed by the County showing exact flood plain mapping. The new maps developed by the County have been accepted by FEMA. He noted that all of the flood maps have been replaced with the new County map. Regarding standing water and flowing water, Mr. Freeman stated the peak flow between 1988 and 2000 was 1000 cubic feet per second through St. Joseph s Creek, which is located near the section of Brookbank Road that was being discussed. He expressed concern about future alterations to the area and recommended that if a retention wall were built or a detention basin was deepened and widened, the proposal may work but it would have to be calculated. While he supported the other side of Brookbank Road being constructed, he also did not want to see flooding in the area. Mr. Ronald Moravec, 5935 Brookbank Road, agreed with Mr. Monkos statements. He reiterated the area was a mess and believed there was no way the detention pond could be made deeper because the tractors, when digging, reached the groundwater table, which was why the standing water was present. He expressed safety concerns about the retaining walls against the properties on 60 th Place. Lastly, he explained that the sidewalk will have to be jogged down next to the street, it will be a safety issue, and it will be useless during the winter. He would like a safe sidewalk installed. Mr. John Schofield, 1125 Jefferson Avenue, said the flood plain spills into his backyard. He posed five questions to the commission: 1) How does the proposal affect the base flood elevation at his property; 2) what is the consequence of doing nothing for the flood plain; 3) can the sidewalk be constructed at a proper level but distant from the road by making it a boardwalk; 4) what are the consequences of raising the roadway so that it is not in the roadway and the additional compensatory storage for it; and 5) does the current erosion control meet the existing Village code and what would happen in the future. In response to the first question, Dir. Barber stated there would be no change in the flood elevation to the area. He further defined the term compensatory storage in the flood plain and how it would work in the proposal. 3

4 Mr. Emil Rusnak, 6001 Brookbank Road, resides across from the pond. He did not understand why his area had to become a retention pond for the development and have 18 inches of water. He raised concern about the current conditions in the area and the fact that he had four inches of water in his crawl space. After a drain was installed at the end of his property by the Public Works Department, his basement is finally dry. Mr. Jerry Kuprewicz, 5943 Brookbank, who has resided in his home for six years has noticed that water is an issue since the development occurred. The real issue is water runoff. If the proposed road was not constructed, he asked whether the area could be used to control flooding in the area instead. He believed the Village should not be considering the installation of a street until the water issues were resolved first. Ms. Lisa Olmstead, 5936 Carpenter, has resided in her home for eight years and has experienced basement seepage since the development. She did not support the new road due to traffic, noise, and the additional water problems. Mr. Jim Cavallo, 6943 Valley View Drive, chairman of the Pierce Downer Heritage Alliance, indicated his environmental committee discussed this proposal and drafted a proposed resolution which he presented to the Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee, noting it was to oppose any variance in the DuPage Stormwater Flood Plain Ordinance and the Downers Grove Stormwater Flood Plain Ordinance for the Village s request. Mr. Rick Jeschke, 5918 Brookbank Road, is the last house on the street and has resided in his home for four years. He does not recall ever seeing no water behind his house. He expressed concern that if the area experiences another 100 year flood, how long will the water stay. Even with last year s drought, approximately one foot of water was behind his home. He asked about another pipe draining into the pond. He asked that the sidewalk be located away from the curb. Ms. Laurel Bowen, 829 Clyde Drive, said she opposed this matter five years ago when it went before the Plan Commission, calling attention to the fact that the development violated the stormwater ordinance and was the cause of Downers Grove being put on probation for one year. She inquired as to why the Village notified only a handful of residents when the proposal would impact many more. She noted that ordinances were put in place to limit development in flood plains which cause adverse flooding and stormwater retention problems. She opposed the variance because it was unnecessary and harmful to the interest of the citizens. The only benefit she saw was a massive profit to the developer at the expense of all homeowners in the area including those who will reside in new homes. She questioned why the Village was seeking a variation from the restrictions already in place to protect the residents. She asked that the commission deny the request. Per Mr. Ronald Moravec s question, Director Barber explained that the pond will be a drybottom basin. Mr. Moravec called attention to the fact that children s safety will be put in harm s way if the sidewalk is constructed at the curb. Lastly, he noted that the Village s sign states that the hearing can be continued without further notice to the public and asked how it could be done. Mr. Hall clarified that if the meeting is going to be continued it will be announced at this meeting. If a recommendation is made however, it will be forwarded to the Village Council. Notice will be sent but the sign will not be reposted with a new date. However, Chairman Pro tem Beckman indicated that the commission would not follow that protocol and it was not the intent to not notice a continued hearing. 4

5 Mr. John Schofield asked if engineering plans were available to address how the additional compensatory storage will be provided. Chairman Pro tem Beckman and staff conveyed they had the plans. Mr. Mike Morley, 5915 Brookbank Road, commented that a friend of his used to swim in the lake that was in the area 50 years ago. Ms. Laurel Bowen stated she was disturbed by the request and stated that if the commission approves it, a precedent was being set. The hardships to the developer are what the Village wants to pass along to the neighbors. Ms. Lisa Olmstead, 5936 Carpenter, believes the Village has a duty to control development so that it does not adversely affect residents by placing their homes in flood plains. She asked for consideration. Chairman Pro tem opened up the meeting to commission comments. Mr. Bollenberg believed the proposal affected two lots and he did not see the potential for the builder to profit. Instead, it was the Village that wanted to complete the road to benefit the residents of the Village. Mr. Barber added that when the development was approved by council, the council and the Plan Commission directed that the road be completed as part of the project and the developer agreed to do so. Concern was raised about standing water near the sidewalk and creating an icy area, wherein staff clarified the sidewalks will be sloped so that during normal conditions water will run off. The detention pond was noted on the map by staff. Staff also conveyed that the area was a wetlands which was supposed to hold some water. Mr. Barber explained how the pond and detention area were now designed correctly to the County and Village s ordinances. Mr. Barber and Mr. Hall confirmed that the Village notified other watershed communities. Details followed by Director Barber on what type of storm it would take to raise the water level to a 100-year flood. Clarification also followed that 16 inches of water cover and not 18 inches of water cover will occur. Asked if the proposed roadway could be constructed without a variance if it was raised up, Mr. Barber stated it could but more compensatory storage would be necessary. Mr. Barber emphasized that the two roadway sections needed to match and the plans were designed that way. Final plans for the sidewalk were not confirmed. Mr. Hall added that the sidewalk will affect the wetland buffer, but, at the same time, the wetland ordinance asks to minimize the impact to the wetland buffer. Mr. Bollenberg believed the wetland was already affected and it was half way into the roadway already, so the sidewalk would always affect the wetland. Mr. Gorman made a motion to recommend approval of the Village s variance request. Seconded by Mr. Bollenberg. Mr. Gorman emphasized to staff that there be no over-road water flow coming from the east. He noted that compensatory storage will be provided and the proposal will complete the roadway plan that was initiated in the 1960 s. The proposal met the hardship and uniqueness requirements as pointed out in the ordinance. Roll call followed: 5

6 Aye: Nay: Mr. Beckman, Mr. Bollenberg, Mr. Crilly, Mr. Gorman, Ms. Matthies None Motion carried. Vote: 5-0 Old Business A. Stormwater Master Plan Update - Director Barber stated he will have the text potion of the plan at the next meeting. A draft will be provided to the commissioners ahead of time. Adjourn Mr. Gorman made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Seconded by Ms. Matthies. Motion carried by voice vote of 5-0 Respectfully submitted, (as transcribed by tape) /s/ Celeste K. Weilandt Celeste K. Weilandt, Recording Secretary 6