Page 1 of 3

foia - Fwd: ROW agreement for new building at Cottage Hill and Park

From: <marti.deuter@gmail.com>
To: <foia@elmhurst.org>
Date: 11/5/2018 8:57 AM
Subject: Fwd: ROW agreement for new building at Cottage Hill and Park

Begin forwarded message:

From: "James Grabowski" <James.Grabowski@elmhurst.org>

Date: October 1, 2018 at 10:22:24 AM CDT
To: "Marti Deuter" <marti.deuter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: ROW agreement for new building at Cottage Hill and Park

Marti-
You are 100% correct on the impact to city sidewalk/ROW and that the developer will
restore the sidewalk at their expense.
We have other projects (Addison parking deck, The York Building) where the footings are
underneath city sidewalks. I too am surprised to read Mr. Pal's comments. Had we not
asked for the contribution, there might be residents suggesting we missed an opportunity.
Let me know if you have additional comments or need more information.
Jim

James Grabowski
Elmhurst City Manager

From: <marti.deuter@gmail.com>
To: <james.grabowski@elmhurst.org>
Date: 10/1/2018 9:02 AM
Subject: Fwd: ROW agreement for new building at Cottage Hill and Park
Hi Jim,

Please let me know if my understanding of the encroachment and impact to city is

incorrect.

Thanks.

Marti

Begin forwarded message:

From: marti.deuter@gmail.com

file:///C:/Users/ecyprian/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5BE00610coedomaincoepo100... 11/5/2018
 Page 2 of 3

Date: October 1, 2018 at 8:58:59 AM CDT

To: Edgar Pal <epal183@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ROW agreement for new building at Cottage Hill and
Park

Hi Edgar,

Thank you for directly raising your questions.

Public Works reviews ROW vacation requests. In this case, the developer is
not asking to vacate the ROW. As proposed, the building’s underground
footings would encroach the ROW. The sidewalk will be affected when the
foundation is built and then fully restored, at no cost to the city. From the
developer’s letter, it sounds possible to construct the exact same building,
but at significantly higher cost.

If approved, the developer will realize significant savings at no cost or

impact to the city. I fully support city staff’s suggestion that a contribution
be made to the recently created Public Arts Commission. Our current
downtown plan recommends that the city explore public art projects and
programs. The plan goes as far as to say the city could consider establishing
a set aside for public art or a “percent for art” requirement for new
development.

I think the contribution offered by the developer is an example of leveraging

new development to create improvements that will benefit the entire
community. It’s something I would like to see staff and elected officials
keep in mind as we consider new development. The council tends to have a
pro-business/development mindset, and I am very pleased to see a
community benefit be placed in the discussion. Quite honestly, I’m
surprised that you see it otherwise.

Kind regards,

Marti
630-818-0330

On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:41 AM, Edgar Pal <epal183@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Marti,

Good morning! I hope you're doing well.

I just noticed this document posted on Boarddocs for last week's

DPZ
meeting. http://www.boarddocs.com/il/coe/Board.nsf/goto?
open&id=B4RVZZ76BE1F

It seems that the developer is requesting to encroach upon the

ROW for the new building on Cottage Hill and Park. In return,
they're offering a $20,000 contribution to the Public Arts

file:///C:/Users/ecyprian/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5BE00610coedomaincoepo100... 11/5/2018
 Page 3 of 3

Commission. (See page 2 of the attachment on that link.)

Do you know why this arrangement might be necessary? Seems

to me that if the developer wants to buy the land, they should
just pay into the City's treasury, rather than make a side
contribution to a commission. Also, aren't ROW questions
usually heard by PWB instead of DPZ?

Edgar

file:///C:/Users/ecyprian/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5BE00610coedomaincoepo100... 11/5/2018