Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:06:28 -0600
From: Gordon Goodman <GLGoodman@EarthLink.Net>
Subject: Proposed Nelson Meadow Subdivision PC 25-05
To: Mayor Brian Krajewski <BKrajewski@downers.us>,
Commissioner Sue McConnell <smcconnell@downers.us>,
Commissioner Ron Sandack <rsandack@downers.us>,
Commissioner Marilyn Schnell <mschnell@downers.us>,
Commissioner Martin Tully <mtully@downers.us>,
Commission Stan Urban <surban@downers.us>,
Commissioner William Waldack <WWaldack@Downers.US>
Cc: Cara Pavlicek <CPavlicek@Downers.us>, Enza Petrarca <epetrarca@downers.us>,
Dave Fieldman <DFieldman@Downers.US>, DRosenthal@Downers.US,
Jeff O'Brien <jobrien@Downers.us>

To: Mayor Krajewski and Commissioners McConnell, Sandack, Schnell, Tully, Urban and Waldack,

Re: Proposed Nelson Meadow Subdivision PC 25-05

I want to call your attention to three problem areas for the proposed Nelson Meadow Subdivision, File PC25-05:

Demonstrated disruptive influences of specific features in the proposed subdivision on the surrounding established neighborhood.
Impractical and inappropriate provisions for constructing the major stormwater management structure as feature of a private residential lot.
The absence of evidence demonstrating any "practical difficulties or particular hardships" associated with complying with provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance that might justify granting the requested exceptions.

In May 2005, I joined with my neighbors in sending a letter expressing many of our concerns about this proposed subdivision to Dave Barber and Keith Sbiral. (Our letter is available as an attachment in the September 12, 2005 Plan Commission Background Packet.) Several of our concerns have been addressed over the past nine months. But, many of our major concerns still exist, including proper respect for the established front yard setbacks with wooded streetscapes and walkways along Jefferson Avenue and Brookbank Road as well as adequate attention to long-term responsibility for and safety of the project's stormwater management structure.

1. Demonstrated disruptive influences of specific features in the proposed subdivision on the surrounding established neighborhood

Public testimony before the Plan Commission on October 3, 2005 provides clear and specific details of the disruptive influence that can be expected from the proposed subdivision. Too many residences, too close to the streets and on odd shaped lots are not consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood.

For example, consider the following testimony on page 8 of the October 3 minutes: "Mr. John Spriet, 1209 Jefferson, stated he moved into the area in 1999 because of the feel of the area, the larger lot sizes and the cul-de-sac. He is disappointed to see the proposed lot sizes will be half the size of his lot. He would like the new development to maintain the style and character of the neighborhood. He would like the walking path to continue."

More extensive evidence and documentation about these disruptive features are contained in the attachment to the September 12, 2005 Plan Commission Background Packet entitled "Jefferson Avenue Neighborhood Recommendations". Additional, updated evidence, including information about destruction of many mature trees, is also available at http://www.nelsonmeadow.com/neighbors. Finally, I hope that you will receive still more evidence on this topic in connection with your Council Workshop discussion on February 14, 2006.

2. Impractical and inappropriate provisions for constructing the major stormwater management structure as feature of a private residential lot.

The planning staff's reasons for proposing to provide a separate, non-residential lot for the stormwater detention structure seem persuasive. They include avoiding future problems with the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the detention structure as well as preventing the creation of a residential lot with substandard buildable area. Construction of the detention structure on its own non-residential lot would also permit improved safety features for the design, such as reduced grades of some of the slopes.

3. The absence of evidence demonstrating any "practical difficulties or particular hardships" associated with complying with provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance that might justify granting the requested exceptions

Minutes of the three Plan Commission meetings at which this proposed subdivision was discussed contain no evidence concerning any practical difficulties or particular hardships. At the bottom of page 11 continuing on the top of page 12 of the minutes for September 12, 2005, we read: "In terms of the exceptions being considered and meeting the five standards of hardships under the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Mr. Rathje addressed the exceptions point by point, believing that the public improvement exceptions being sought met the requirements of the five hardship standards."

However, in his letter to Chairman Alan Jirik, dated September 7, 2005 that is in the September 12, 2005 Plan Commission Background Packet, Attorney James F. Russ, Jr. provided a point by point discussion of the criteria for recommending approval of exceptions. His concluding point states: "These exceptions will have no impact on the reasonable return of this property. These exceptions are requested from the perspective of practical difficulty as the petitioner desires to maintain the essential character of the area and to blend this development with the character of this area."

In light of the testimony and other evidence already cited to the effect that the proposed development is disruptive to the character of the area, Attorney Russ' statement seems an unreasonable basis for claiming practical difficulties. It seems to me and other neighborhood residents that some other subdivision configuration of this site, one which more fully complies with Subdivision Control Ordinance requirements, is much more likely to blend into the existing character of this area and maintain its essential character.

For the above reasons, I urge you not to approve the proposed Nelson Meadow Subdivision with the exceptions that were recommended by the Plan Commission on December 12, 2005. Please require substantial revisions to make the proposed subdivision consistent with the essential character of our neighborhood and responsive to village staff concerns about stormwater management as well as to the neighbors' desire for established front yard setbacks with wooded streetscapes and walkways.

Sincerely,

Gordon Goodman