PACE Bus Circulator Study

There are not direct links to this, but here's the PACE BUS Circulator Study. Click on Project Reports, then scroll down to Service Specification Reports. Downers Grove has the full report. Chapter Three has the estimated costs, and estimated sources of revenue, such as they are.

"The planned service is designed to be integrated into the current shuttle service creating a more effective and comprehensive system. The planned service is also intended to complement existing Pace service."

This quote from the Executive Summary indicates this is not a changeover from the shuttle; this something different and additional to the shuttle, not made entirely clear at the council presentation by the study presenter.

This does not look like it has any impact on the shuttle, and would be an additional cost to the DG budget at some level, from a couple hundred thousand up to 1.5 million each year.

I'm still leery, and if it's outside the shuttle, I'm more leery/less enthusiastic. Of the four trial run communities, we have the most ambitious plan. Addison has no bus service to speak of, so one line running through the middle of town works for them. Wheaton; the study is just adding a route connecting the train station to the County Complex on the west side. Lombard is kind of a smaller scale DG plan.

At this point, I'd say show me where the money comes from, then let council deliberate the particulars.

2008 CIP - Scope and Design Open House

The Village has more projects than stormwater projects this year. On a Tuesday when the council did not meet, members of Public Works showed residents what else is coming for the 2008 construction season.

The weather turned pretty lousy by 7pm, but there was pretty good attendance anyway.

I hoped DG's newest news man RonBurgandy would be there, or even say, a columnist from the Sun, but there was no press at all. I took these pictures on my phone, so the light is suspect and makes everyone look shiny.

I didn't think to take down names, so this amiable guy in the dark shirt is Bike Path Guy. He talked about the first two phases of signage and stripage for designated bikeways, so he's also Sign Guy.
It's tough adding in bikeways in DG because our streets typically don't have the width in the older parts of town, and there isn't much off-street path opportunity. Signage is important to alert drivers that bikers are around. Most pathways will be marked with signs every 220 feet or so. The two guys in the sign department will be very busy this year.

As usual, there were several staffers on hand to answer any questions. Deputy Village Manager Dave Fieldman was in good spirits. Usually he's the guy who answers a lot of questions at council meetings (although Tom Dabareiner, Director of Community Development, is giving him a run for his money lately).

There were several PW guys there handling questions, so he had a light load for a change.

Like I said, my phone cam makes everyone look shiney, although the focus is always perfect. Yeah, Dave looked a little, I don't know, blurry.

I talked briefly with Ms. Weaver to continue lobbying for saving our mature, non-ash, non-invasive parkway trees from straight line sidewalks (seeTrees Winning New Friends at Public Works ), and the Sidewalk Guys have the message to save every tree possible from now moving forward. Just in a three block run we saved 18 trees. Have to say, if she keeps to her plan we'll save several hundred trees before we finish sidewalks in DG and get back up to speed on infrastructure. That matters.

L-to-R Village Manager Cara Pavlicek, Plan Commissioner Greg Beggs, and Public Works Director Robin Weaver.

Like I said, I didn't think to write down names of people, so I only know the well-known names, so I don't know who this guy is . Said his name was Ron something...

I'm kidding. Mayor Sandack was all smiles too, and took time to talk with residents and thank them for coming out in such bad weather.

Trees Winning New Friends at Public Works

Mark Thoman	Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 4:16 PM
To: Robin Weaver , Kerstin von der Heide Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara"
Ms. Weaver, Ms. von der Heide, et all, I live at the SE corner of 61st and Carpenter Streets, which will undergo a major multi-month construction project starting this spring. My reason for writing (I will follow up with you, Ms. Weaver, if possible prior to Council's Tuesday meeting), is to see if it is possible to meet with yourself and our Village Forester Ms. von der Heide, and whomever else you feel would be an invested party, for the purpose of discussing modifications to sidewalk placement along Carpenter. I am not protesting sidewalks, and do not seek to delay or prevent their installation. What I do seek is to keep intact as many non-ash trees along Carpenter as is possible, and to make this an ongoing objective for all future sidewalk projects. This will require rethinking the typical linear 5' wide sidewalk placed 1' off property lines. Ms. von der Heide is aware when the sidewalk was placed along 61st Street, that I was in favor of the sidewalk, and devastated by the lack of thinking that went into removal of a 40 year old healthy maple 16' from the street. When the snow clears you will still be able to plainly see where the botched trunk grind/sodding has resulted in a dead depression in my front yard, and how unnecessary the removal really was. Moving forward, we as a village must place a prime value to our remaining non-ash, non-invasive mature tree inventory, and be creative in replacing the ash population that we will lose as quickly and affordable as possible. What I ask the village to consider, and this project can serve as the test bed, is to re-engineer the sidewalk component, to rethink the placement so as to avoid taking down trees. I've looked at the plans- the sidewalks are the typical straight lines, and it looks like they will take out significant numbers of non–ash trees and shrubs. These trees contribute to minimizing the extensive storm water problems my neighbors have to the north on Carpenter, and help keep water from cascading down onto my neighbors to the south. Their loss would be a tragedy, but I believe it can be reduced to an absolute bare minimum by thinking it through starting now, several months ahead of the project. Simple judicious planning, open minded engineering, and sensitive project management can avoid the prospect of any street losing fully grown, mature non-ash tree stock, even with sidewalks being installed for children and pedestrian safety. Having a sidewalk meander slightly as it travels down a parkway is a small price to pay in order to skip 40 years spent growing a replacement tree canopy. To that end, existing mature non-ash trees on public property and parkways must take priority over future planned sidewalks. This will take a different mindset than what has been normal in the past, but our tree future is not normal, and we cannot take out trees that take 40 years to replace, simply so a sidewalk can be laid in a straight line. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and whom you think appropriate at a mutually convenient time to discuss this matter in more detail, and I am willing to volunteer my time to assist in any way I am able, to effect a positive change in the sidewalk process that results in saving non-ash trees. I don't have Kerstin's email. I guessed at her e-address, and would appreciate you forwarding this to her if I missed. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to meeting with you on this very important issue. -- Best Regards, Mark Thoman 1109 61st Street, Downers Grove, IL 60516-1820 HP 630-852-7260 WP 630-515-1186 F 630-515-1189 M 630-750-5179

---

	Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 9:04 AM
To: Mark Thoman
Good luck on this one. I noticed at our old house, when they ran the sidewalk through, they whacked the beautiful 20’ Burr Oak that I had nurtured from a small sprig. And from your personal experience, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity on this issue at Village Hall. From the 12/18/07 Village Council Meeting minutes: “Mr. Thoman said he attended a meeting last week with the Village Forester who made a presentation regarding the potential Emerald Ash Borer infestation, saying that this will wipe out most of our ash trees. He said the Village needs an aggressive plan for tree replacement. Trouble will come with the installation of sidewalks. He reviewed the process for installing sidewalks, saying that the retention of trees is a higher priority than ruler-straight sidewalks. His area is scheduled for sidewalk installation, which will mean removing a number of trees and shrubs. Installing a meandering sidewalk, rather than ruler-straight, would allow some trees to be saved.”

---

Weaver, Robin	Wed, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM
To: Mark Thoman Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara" , "von der Heide, Kerstin" , "Millette, Mike"
Hello Mr. Thoman. I wanted to let you know that we haven't forgotten your e-mail request for additional care and saving of trees along our projects, especially since we will be losing a substantial number of trees due to the Emerald Ash Borer. Between snow and ice control activities and vacation schedules we haven't had a chance yet to review your specific area and the work scheduled there. Within the next two weeks we should be able to review the site and the plans and discuss them as they relate to tree preservation. I will get back to you at that time. Robin Weaver Interim Director of Public Works Village of Downers Grove 630-434-5461 rweaver@downers.us

---

Mark Thoman	Thu, Jan 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM
To: "Weaver, Robin" Cc: "Pavlicek, Cara" , "von der Heide, Kerstin" , "Millette, Mike"
Ms. Weaver: Thank you for the update. At this point with the EAB, it should come as no surprise my very strong support for Ms. von der Heide and her tree ordinance. Other communities in the Chicago area (and elsewhere) have shown that a tight tree ordinance can be a very positive addition to the community. It is critical that, if as a village we are to regulate protection of non-ash, non-invasive tree species, we set the regulatory bar very high for the private sector by how we treat existing tree stock on public land, and that means top priority to keeping existing trees intact and unharmed. Thanks again for keeping me informed. -- Best Regards, Mark Thoman 1109 61st Street, Downers Grove, IL 60516-1820 HP 630-852-7260 WP 630-515-1186 F 630-515-1189 M 630-750-5179 markthoman.blogspot.com

---

Weaver, Robin	Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM
To: Mark Thoman
Hello Mr. Thoman. In our internal joint review of the plans for work on Carpenter Street we determined that the plans call for the removal of 20 trees. There is room to instead locate the sidewalk further into the Right-Of-Way (closer to the street) and avoid almost all of the trees. It is likely that two trees will be removed. So, design changes are being made to the plans. We will also take precautions to protect the trees, just as we require private developers to protect public trees. Now that we've enacted an internal process to jointly review all the capital projects in advance of design, our work will be better planned, have fewer conflicts and be more efficient by incorporating capital and operating considerations. Your interest in this project and interest generally in our parkway tree program is appreciated. Robin Weaver Interim Director of Public Works rweaver@downers.us 630-434-5461

---

Silver Lining to Economic Trouble

Interest rates are ratcheting down as the Fed tries to avoid a total economy meltdown.

That's good news for us here in DG as staff and council wind their way along the stormwater issue. Bids will go out for a financial consultant to shepherd bringing $25 million in bond debt onto the books for stormwater projects.

Interest rates, and bond rates, are at significant lows. Serendipity works, and the luck of timing will save the village millions in interest payments. This is also a great time to take a look at any other bond issues we have out there, with an eye towards lowering the rate and the amount of interest paid.

Good news for DG in the midst of bad news on the economy.

On-Line CRC Now Off-Line

“The Community Response Center (CRC) was created to improve communication between the Mayor, Village Council, Village staff and residents. The goal of the CRC is to enhance the Village's effectiveness in dealing with concerns and requests. Maintaining an open line of communication with residents and businesses is a top priority of the Village Council.”

“The Community Response Center (CRC) uses a database that allows the Village to document concerns and complaints received from residents and track the follow-up and actions associated with them.”

Through November 2007 there have been 3,319 contact records for the village via the CRC.

The on-line CRC is a pretty cool tool. Using the Trackwise CAPA software , any contact to the center receives a number that allows for the record to be tracked as it winds it’s way to resolution. Several residents used the CRC to report multiple building violations at 4929 Forest, along with dozens of other inquiries monthly. Other high volume times are after storms, reporting flooding and tree damage.

The “Residents Guidebook to Residential Construction”, written by residents John Scofield and Charlie Smart, provides detailed instructions how to use the on-line CRC to the residents benefit. They also give hands on directions how to call in and email the CRC.

The on-line CRC is down. I don’t know when it happened, but you call in, or email the village.

With the CRC going off-line, that process just got less transparent.

I emailed the CRC and asked when it would be back up. I also email Liangfu Wu, Director of DG’s Information Systems Department, with the same question. I’ll post whatever response I get.

Trending the Future of Code Enforcement

A lot of people thought 4929 Forest unapproved building alterations were no big deal; not worth pursuing. No health hazard or safety issues were involved, and had builder Michael Prince come before village council (as he had twice already) asking permission in advance of changes (as required), they would have been granted.

Commissioner Waldack had reservations and made a motion that the walls be changed back to the original brick masonry. It died quietly for lack of a second, with no discussion about issuing 4929 Forest an occupancy permit with the condition Mike Prince not start another building until he finished changing back to the approved and spec'd masonry walls on this building.

Some changes and variances were granted the project in March 2007: allowing higher density (4 additional units) and smaller parking spaces. Some changes were not authorized; substituting brick for stone, changing the roof from a faux mansard, and changing wall construction in large areas from brick masonry, to "stucco".

That stucco is actually a Senerflex® Adhered Mat Design feature, manufactured by BASF Wall Systems. It is Tyvek, a mesh with cement, styrofoam (rigid) panels cut and placed to create walls, cornices, detail features, and then sprayed with a primer and a finish coat of acrylic polymer mud and you're done. Does it look good? It looks terrific.

The architect drawings show a cross section of the design. According to BASF's sales brochure, Senerflex®Adhered Mat Design is "used when an unobstructed plane is required to allow the exit of incidental moisture from the structure’s walls. It is ideal for retrofit over walls that are not suited to adhesive attachment." It comes with a seven year wear/seven year moisture warranty. Masonry typically will last forever with rare tuck pointing needs. Is it cheaper than brick? Yes. Initially.

There's the rub; cheap now for the builder, more expensive later for the homeowners. Michael Prince has moved some of the life-cycle costs of his building downstream into the future, where the cost is not his.

Note: remember this life-cycle costing concept. It is important to the village moving forward. More later...

Back to the trending issue at hand: does this start a trend, or change direction of a trend in our village?Is this a trend for how we want buildings built in downtown Downers Grove?

Acadia On The Green began life as a full four floor steel and masonry construction (like 4929 Forest BTW). It changed structure design when the National Building Code changed, and the top three floors were built out with wood, and a brick facade on the exterior walls. That was cheaper than a full steel and masonry building, the required design up until a couple years ago. And now this, changing 4929 Forest wall construction to save some construction costs, and to move things along faster.

That was a differently made up council, and they fared just as well as the current council, trying to figure out, as Commissioner Durkin so aptly fired off "How did this happen?"

The village council can bring to bear the long view of the Strategic Plan, and of the Total Community Discussion, to the process of legislating good codes, and of setting good policy. Good codes makes for clear direction; good policy makes for long term solutions. A wall guaranteed to last for seven years is not a long term solution.

Every builder in every town posts up a bond for their project; the bigger the project the bigger the bond. Village has the option of pulling any fines levied out of that posted bond, for things like not following the requirements. The builders all know this. The village staff have enforced it many times.

Updated: Staff has confirmed that when the permit was issued, no bonding fee was required by the village. What can rightly be considered a huge loophole in the planning and enforcement process, has since been closed by staff.

Take a look at a blow-up from the plans filed with the village. This is a trail of the changes made. You see four changes are made for permit purposes; this probably where he asked for permission and it was granted. The last (top) three changes don't appear to be made to meet the requirements of a revised building permit; they were done later. These are probably the changes for which council forgiveness will be granted in January 2008.

The trend for enforcement of future projects? Builder Michael Prince knew those changes needed approval but took a pass. He told staff to take him to council and they'd get it straightened out. Council sure did; they let Michael Prince completely off the hook no matter which way you cut it; council even went on public record agreeing they were letting him off the hook, both at the January 8th workshop meeting and at the January 15th Council meeting where they approved it unanimously 6-0 (Schnell was absent).

The trend for clarity in enforcement of requirements? This doesn't straighten anything out; this twists it up in new and innovative ways. Now, any builder who does what he pleases, now he can cry foul if he's ever fined or brought to account for not following the rules. A precedent has been set. The requirements now have an asterisk by them*.

A trend for consistency with all builders and with neighboring municipalities? Some other builders I spoke with (none wanted to be on record) were miffed. They paid fines here and there over the years; it's part and parcel of building. Hinsdale's tough; village inspectors watch you like a hawk just waiting for you to do something not exactly in the approved plans. Naperville's tough too: they just don't care why you can't quite do what you said; too bad, it's fine time. Oh, and all those insubstantial changes? Change everything back to reflect the plan that was approved. Or else. Joliet is typical of many communities. Like Downers Grove they work very closely with the builder so everyone is dialed in before construction starts; from then on it has to be exactly as the approved plans show or they must get permission for changes. Want to keep building in Joliet? Follow the rules.

In one sense, building is a race against time to finish/sell a project before construction loans and costs eat you up. Materials get more expensive every month you delay, any corners that can be cut to save a buck, a nickel; all are weighed. If you're good at it, you make some money, you do more. If you're not, you rarely get to keep going. Even if you're good with one project, it's no guarantee the next won't be your last.

You don't always get it right and then the inspectors write you up and fine you, ding you, and you try and avoid more in the future by playing it by the rules. In return, you get to build in desirable areas where people pay a premium to move and live. Statistics kept by the Village Department of Community Development show a trend; a trend that enforcement and fines work. But council has sent the message loud and clear: no foul, no fines, nothing to see here, move on. The rules changed. What did they change to?

The possible new trend in rules? Say whatever it takes to get the project past the Plan Commission and get it approved by council, and then build it how you want, as long as it's close. If it poses no health or safety problems and is in code, council will approve it; council said they would approve it. Said my friend Bob the Builder, "Over there, they're tough and consistent. Over here, now somebody else got a break we didn't. What about us? We've built here, and paid fines here, and try and follow rules here. When do we get our free pass? Do we get one from now on?"

Actions speak louder than words. Rather than say to builders that builder expectations for variances and exceptions should be severely lowered, council has, by it's actions, trended towards publicly lowering the village expectations of builders. Builders will be happy to oblige and meet this new trend, these lowered expectations, and even test that new bottom, all in the quest to build a bit cheaper. Does council want that trend to continue? I have to say of course not. There's just that problem that they have taken deliberated, and deliberate, steps to do just that.

This trending is not a trend towards sound, consistent public policy.


*Rules need not apply. See your local village council for details.

C&D Wrap-Up

Tuesday should be a wrap: council should unanimously approve staff's definition of a "recycling collection center" that specifically excludes C&D facilities and transfer stations. It effectively mirrors state statute.

I tried to personally thank those who helped along the way; it was a very wide group. Whether they spoke, actively helped me, passively helped, just expressed an opinion for or against what I was doing, or let me sit down and explain why state statutes in this case should be observed and adhered to, they all became part of steering the village back on track in a somewhat open and transparent process. I liken it to steering the Titanic safely away from the icebergs.

Seniors at Cameo, led by Larraine Tresnak and Barbara McLellan
Downers Grove Coalition for Managed Redevelopment
Downers Grove Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Downers Grove Watch
Downers Grove Economic Development Corporation
Pierce Downer Heritage Alliance
Village of Downers Grove Office of the Village Manager
Morton Arboretum
Downers Grove Village Council
DuPage County Forest Preserve District
Village of Downers Grove Community Development Department

In particular:
- Andy Clark. He pushed me to get into it rather than simply complain about it.
- Gordon Goodman. He reminded me to keep an open ear to divergent opinion, and keep it civil. I did, even when others baited me, and that helped both broaden and sharpen my research and presentation materials.
- Brian Krajewski. His opposition to the project site when mayor stalled it long enough for me to begin getting a handle on where staff went wrong, and to build a case for protecting residents and businesses by getting it right.
- Ron Sandack. As mayor he allowed most of my meeting comments to go way past 5 minutes, and allowed considerable latitude in my comments.
- John Schofield. He acted the 'devil's advocate' to keep me on task, and he punched holes in weak parts of what I was doing, so what remained was logical, rational, and robust.
- Tom Sisal. He told me to learn the pertinent zoning and environmental law, i.e., know what I'm talking about and why.
- Marilyn Hannapel. I'm not 100% sure: she was the little grandma who came up to me after a Plan Commission meeting (that didn't have a good outcome for residents), and asked me, "When do we count?" It took persistence, but you count.

1/17/08 Council Vote Update:
5-1 it passed. The sole Nay vote, Commissioner Neustadt, I spoke with after the meeting, and I understand the reasoning behind the Nay vote as he explained it to me. From Elaine Johnson's DG Report:

"My concern is that by amending the definition of the “recycling collection facilities” we will exclude the construction and demolition debris facility from the zoning ordinance. I feel that with the new buffers in place that limit the location of recycling facilities as well as the special use process the village has the ability to review each potential application for a special use. By excluding a specific facility or business the village may be open for a law suit."

I don't agree, but I understand.

"A slap in the face of the Village."

That's a direct quote from Commissioner Marylin Schnell, speaking out forcefully on Michael Prince's 4929 Forest LLC project having changed the look and feel of the project, apparently to lower construction costs, but bypassing village requirements for prior approval of such changes.

So, is it a slap in the face or not?

What was approved then (left), and being built now (right). Then, a big fairly featureless cube filled with luxury condos. Now, a big fairly featureless cube filled with luxury condos.

The Plan Commission uses standard imperatives on any approved construction project:

"THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS PREPARED BY __________ DATED ___________EXCEPT AS SUCH PLANS MAY BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO VILLAGE CODES AND ORDINANCES."

What staff and Mayor Sandack said is the new look substantially conforms, so let's not get into stop orders and potential litigation. I can relate to that; it is a big project that is in a TIF district, so the property tax is all gravy for the village: a good deal so let's not screw things up, just let it go because it is substantially the same building. There is no harm, so no foul.

The Plan Commission is very consistent in their requirements, and makes very clear:

"ANY CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER AS THE BASIS FOR THIS PETITION, WHETHER THOSE CHANGES OCCUR PRIOR TO OR AFTER VILLAGE APPROVAL, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPORTED TO THE VILLAGE. CHANGES MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION"

and:

"IT IS THE PETITIONER’S OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH ALLAND VILLAGE LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES." APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY."

So I see where Schnell feels the Village has been "slapped in the face" by the builder. It is Mr. Prince's obligation, as the owner of record of 4929 Forest LLC, and as part of the approval of the development, that he present any changes for approval prior to making them. That is the requirement.

There are multiple meetings required by muni ordinance where the look and scope of the project are hashed out, (28.1602), a preliminary approval by staff (28.1603), final approval (28.1604), and any amendments to scope and look (28.1605). There's at least two building inspections as well as an electrical, plumbing, and sewer/water inspection where the builder is required to be at these inspections, and so he has had multiple opportunities at his location to make the village aware of changes made.

No wonder Schnell used the analogy of a "slap in the face"; Mr. Prince had his opportunities, as did the inspectors, were they equipped with a set of proper plans.

So, as Commissioner Sean Durkin wondered , sounding a bit embarrassed and miffed by this turn of events, how did this come to pass?

Good question.

Given Mr. Dabareiners very short track record with the village, had he known of changes in the project, I think he would have immediately made 4929 Forest LLC follow village procedure, probably with another red tag (halting the project until back into conformance, which he has done once already). He seems quite good about his job. So that may leave it at the feet of the field inspectors. A dropped ball.

Does this open the door wider for the next builder to ignore procedure? There's plenty of construction projects planned or underway in the village that, given the building economy right now, builders would love to squeeze some cost out of. If the village is granting forgiveness instead of permission, why not change cast stone to brick, and brick to stucco or something cheaper?

Where were the inspectors bringing this to the attention of the village during the framing of the building? Changing a roof line and wall materials are pretty noticeable, but I don't know if it is substantial, and I highly doubt it makes the whole project unsafe in some way.

It is a fact on this one, it is specifically the builder responsibility to inform and ask permission for the variances from approved plans. Everyone who builds here knows this. I do not know the bond amount- the minutes from the April 2005 Plan Commission meeting are not available on-line (a continuing saga). 'Onus' is a legal obligation, and it is on the builder in this case.

It will be interesting to see if there is any fine, taken out of the bond fund, or if council gives 4929 Forest, LLC, a pass on this. This situation, and the village's response, will set a precedent, so staff and council must be careful that the precedent is not that we as a village lose control over how things get built.

If they give a free pass with no fine- no slap financial slap on the wrist for Schnell's "slap in the face"- it is inevitable there will be another builder who will do the same. Is that what we want?

Old Knowledge, Recently Reminded

Municipalities, Home Rule or not, are expected to comply with requirements set forth by the Illinois Compiled Statutes. Communities may sometimes change those requirements, but until such time as the municipality otherwise provides by ordinance, those requirements are in effect to the full extent of the law, and even then that power to change by local ordinance can be preempted by the state.