Li-Ping Yuan
M.S., Geology, specializing in Geomorphology and landform changes. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Ph.D., Geology, specializing in fluid flow through porous media. University of South Carolina.
As Presented to the Planning Commission.
Not every pieces of land is the same. That’s why we need to do planning to best use our limited land resources.
The Mayneland farm is every different from other pieces of land, even its neighbors. In fact, within this farmland, it can be divided into three different areas. Each area has its own characteristics and features. We can either, with modern brutal forces, flatten out this land to make it featureless so that it can only be used for building houses, as most of other feature poor land. This plan will only benefit people, developers and landowners, who are leaving this land after all. Or, we can plan the land for best uses that benefit existing and future residence of this site and surrounding areas.
I think the best use of the land is to have an open sport field at the southern low elevation and flat area. This area can also serve as a huge detention basin with expandable capacity in the future. The middle sloping area is a natural scenic spot. It has high relief and a beautiful pond, and should be preserved as a natural park for its scenic view and nature significance. The northern top flat area, well, is similar to most residential area. I don’t see special features/significances except a few big and beautiful trees. These trees can be preserved with careful development and I think they will also increase the value of new houses being built.
The southern one third part of the land is the lowest area of the Cress Creek watershed before going cross the Mill street and entering into the Cress Creek. This has been the nature detention basin for storm water and is the last line of defense for flooding the downstream Cress Creek and Creek Side subdivisions. Once the water get into the creek channel, there is no way to stop it.
The Kimball Hill’s plan is to fill up more than half of the area for houses and dig deep in the rest area for mostly keeping the original water retention capabilities. These new small retention basins are so deep that it maxes out the potential retention capability of the land. If we dig deeper, it will be a pond without increasing the retention capacity. These basins may be enough for the development of this Mayneland farm property. But we will loss the most precious piece of land for flood control of the Cress Creek watershed.
Why do we need this land for future increasing of the retention capacity? One good example is the “Steeple Run Watershed Improvements” project. The urbanization in the upper portion of the Steeple Run watershed caused flooding problems in the Huffman Street. The city has to spend 7 - 9 million dollars to lower the bottom of Country Commons Park (4 feet) and Spring Hill Park (8 feet), in order to increase the storm water retention capacities to protect the downstream Huffman Street. This is quite possible to be repeated in the Cress Creek watershed. We do need this land for future possible flood control.
In addition, small retention basins have no other use than, once in a few years, during a major storm for water storage. A large retention basin can be used for sport fields most of the time as in the Steeple Run Watershed Project. I think this is the best use of the southern one third of the Mayneland farm.
The middle sloping area with many trees is a beautiful area for a scenic park. It has a steep slope about 30 feet high. This is very rare in relatively flat mid-west area. Park district personals did mention that the Segal park has similar features. The Segal park does have two slopes facing each other. They are about 30 feet high also. However, the view cannot compare with the Mainland farm slope. If there is only one high rise, it has a great view in all directions. But if there are two high rises facing each other, the facing sides do not have good views.
The Mayneland farm also has a depression at the base of the slope. There is a pond at the center of the depression. The pond has water year around. The depression forms a beautiful amphitheater like environment. On the other hand, the Segal Park has a mostly dry streambed between the two slopes. It is far from scenic.
The Mayneland farm pond was also the origin of the Cress Creek. It is probably still communicating underground today. These unusual slope and pond should also be very interesting regarding its geological significance.
In summary, at least half of the Mayneland farm is best for parkland, either for controlling flood/playing sports or for scenic views/natural center. This parkland cannot be found elsewhere and there is no substitute. If we let it go, it will disappear forever and there is no way we can get it back. There are plenty of land for building houses but, please, don’t destroy the nature too much to hurt ourselves at the end.
Li Ping-Yaun, Ph.D. Geology
Presented to the Planning Commission.