Loading...
Minutes - 02/21/2005 - Plan Commission1. 2. 3. 9 5. 5. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MARCH 21, 2005. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Robert Kallien called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members David Braune, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. ABSENT: Member Paul Adrian IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ft MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2004 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2004 Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2005 Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Goel to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2005 Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There being no objections, Plan Commission Chairwoman Payovich changed the order of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TITLE 14 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — V OB - TITLE 14 SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS — TEXT AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS - TEXT AMEND VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 11 February 21, 2005 Dale Durfey referred to his memorandum on page 6 of the case file. Section 14 -3 -3C 11 will add language so that the preliminary plat would have to comply with the Public Work Construction Standards and eliminate any potential conf (language to be inserted): 11. The proposed improvements shall be designed and constructed substantially in compliance with the Public Works Construction Standards as referenced in Section 8 -1 -3 of the Village Code. Section 4- 4 -4Al2 will formalize one additional item to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement that that typically ask for ,(new section to be inserted) 12. That the hydrant benchmark listing referenced in section 14 -6 -3B3 shall be submitted. Comment: This will reinforce the requirement that the developer submit the benchmark listing and add it within the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Section 14- 4 -40f this will delete the requirement of having a Letter of Credit notarized since Letter of Credit are not typically notarized. 'T. Acknowledgment before a notary public; and" Section 14 -6 -1 This will formalize the current practice of utilizing the Public Works Construction Standards for subdivision improvements in Subdivision Final Plats and eliminate any potential confusion. Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: The proposed improvements shall be designed and constructed substantially in compliance with the Public Works Construction Standards as referenced in Section 8 -1 -3 of the Village Code. Section 14 -6 -2134 this was incorrectly kept in December 10, 2002 when the regulations were revised and it should not have been. This sentence and reference were kept incorrectly as the old section that was being referenced was being deleted. Delete the last sentence: "Where a water supply system or a sanitary sewer system is not available, the minimum lot area shall meet the requirements set forth in subsection 14 -6 -3133 of this chapter." Section 14 -6 -3C3 since the 2 sanitary districts approve and permit the sanitary systems in town, the existing section is to be deleted and replaced with: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 11 February 21, 2005 3. All sanitary sewers will be checked on completion in accordance with the appropriate sanitary district's requirements. This work will be the responsibility of and at the cost of the developer. The developer shall meet the record drawing requirements of section 14 -6 -4A. Section 14 -7 -5 — They are putting back into the Code the various certificates. The certificates were removed when the Code was reformatted which has caused some confusion. Currently the Village Clerk's office has to keep these separate at the reception desk in order for people to pick them up. Add the following to be placed before the list= of certificates. "As required by the Village Attorney for proper language." Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Goel to recommend for approval the text amendments as requested with the condition that the following be added to Section 14 -7 -5, "Certificates. As required by the Village Attorney for proper language." Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried 4. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT V013 - ZONING ORDINANCE — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — ZONING REVIEW PROJECT - ORDINANCE — ADD CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION TEXT AMEND -ADD CHAPTER 15 - TREE REGULATIONS PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the Plan Commission last discussed this issue it was decided that the proposed regulations as written were too restrictive and burdensome to the average resident. As a result of that he took the existing language and pared it down substantially. It greatly limited how tree preservation would be governed in Oak Brook. As proposed it would only apply to two situations, 1. The subdivision of land into two or more new lots; or 2. When someone demolished a house and the only area of applicability would be to the required yards. For the average residents, these regulations would have no relevance whatsoever. So the proposal has gone from where it applies to everyone to where it only applies to very minimal situations. Member Wolin said that when this got started a long time ago it sounded like a good idea to have a tree preservation ordinance. After having talked to a lot of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 11 February 21, 2005 people, he had many second thoughts about it. He really questions the need at all to have a tree preservation ordinance. He is in agreement with the desire to preserve our trees, because everyone knows that the trees are very valuable and enhance the community. The community has been around a long time and there have no been many problems. The one that brought this to the forefront was the Forest Preserve District chopping down the trees on 31s' Street. Based on discussions with other people, it is debatable whether they did the right thing or the wrong thing. There are people that will argue that the property will look a lot better with the enhancements that have been made. He would guess that 99% of developers know that trees add value to the property and will do anything they can to protect the trees and will only cut down a tree if they really have to in order to build a home that makes sense. Most developers and not going to indiscriminately cut down trees. He does not think there is a need for it and the way the revisions are worded it would not affect anything in the buildable lot which is the basically where they would cut down trees. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the buildable area there is an assumption being made that they could literally build a building to the farthest limits of the buildable area. His thought was that if someone is going to do a teardown, when they take out the demolition permit we could have them provide a tree survey identifying the trees on the property and see if the maximum number of trees can be saved when they place the new driveway or however the home would be placed on the property. People do value trees, however, when you look at Forest Gate it was scraped clean and they basically started over. Some of those trees through the planning process might have been able to be saved. Perhaps some of the trees did not have to be taken down. If there are at least regulations in place when there is a teardown so at least there is a discussion on trees that are already on the site. During the subdivision process, when someone comes in for a subdivision, a tree survey could be required to see where the large trees are on the lot and see if it can be planned accordingly. It was required during the Kanan Court Subdivision and the Oakland Subdivision provided a tree survey. Some of that is done now, but the intent was to put it in writing, so that it would be part of the Code. Member Wolin said that there is some merit to the subdivision. He is not concerned with the teardowns, because a developer would have to be out of his mind if he chopped down big trees which increase value to the property. A general discussion ensued regarding several lots where trees were taken down to build a new house and then residents call with concerns. Member Bulin said that it is much easier for a developer to cut down the trees and build, he believes that it would be a good idea to require a tree survey for a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 11 February 21, 2005 teardown because there may be a large tree worthy of saving. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he does not want to create a bureaucracy. When you consider what the inspectors and office staff will be faced with. When people call and say that a couple of trees are coming down and the Village has to come out and stop them from doing that; it puts the staff in a very awkward and tenuous position. You have no idea what trees there may be behind someone's property. Was it diseased, was it not diseased. Then what happens when a tree comes down, you cannot replace that tree and he feels uncomfortable with that. Member Wolin asked if the Village passes the tree preservation there are a lot of ways around it. For example, you buy a house and you want to tear it down, but you don't tear it down, you rent it for a year. While you are renting it you knock down the trees, then you do the teardown. Director of Community Development Kallien said that you could also build the house, get the occupancy permit, and then tear down the trees. The areas now that are full of trees could be completely cut down and there is nothing the Village could do to stop it. The difficulty with tree preservation is that you do not know how you do it just a little bit and limiting it is not foolproof. Someone could get around it very easily by changing the sequence of events when things happen. Member Wolin asked Mr. Perri in the audience how he views trees when he develops a property. Joe Perri, 137 Saddlebrook said that he has a situation in Brook Forest where in the buildable area there are quite a few trees that have the potential of coming down. There are a number of 10" pines and evergreens bunched together and although he would love to keep them they are off the proposed rear patio. Unfortunately 2 will have to come down because stairs will be there. When you start taking down 1 pine, you almost always have to take down one after another, because the sides of the trees are all bare because they have become tightly knit together over the years. Other situations are outside the buildable area, where there are trees or brush in the way of the driveway that would have to come down for sure, and that is outside the buildable area. A lot of it he would like to keep, however there is a lot that he would like to take out because it is overgrown and has grown out of control. Member Bulin noted that the design could be flipped to a mirror image and he would be able to save the trees. Mr. Perri responded that due to the topography he would end up with a lower level garage and personally he would rather have a garage at level rather than below. If they were oak trees he might redo the situation because that is what adds value to the property as opposed to arborvitae or scrub pines. When they were planted years ago they were planted close together and as VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 11 February 21, 2005 they grew they became intertwined with one another. When you take one down, then there aren't any needles on the next pine. So you have this new house with pines that really have no needles on one side and aesthetically it just does not look right. Obviously he would replace it with nice landscape all the way around with perhaps some Austrian pines for a screen. Member Wolin asked Mr. Perri how the other developers he knows view trees when they develop a property. Mr. Perri responded that in the situation of a subdivision it is almost inevitable that a large amount of trees would come down. The concern with oak trees that are located closer to the house is that there is a good chance they will not survive construction. Most developers try to keep whatever trees on site which are very nice. The big hickory trees, oaks and maples that are decent sized are really priceless because they cannot be replaced. Member Braune asked if there was pressure from the potential owners to keep trees during construction. Mr. Perri responded that in some instances they are skinning up rooms to save a tree and then in other instances some people want to build big palaces and they go end to end on the buildable area and there is nothing you can do about it. Member Goel asked about providing regulations for the commercial properties and whether it is needed. Director of Community Development Kallien referred to the recent Oak Brook Promenade and said that the developers are making a good faith effort to try to retain some of the existing trees as well as trying to add trees. Member Bulin commented that the developer used the age -old argument that they were removing the large trees that blocked the view of the fagade. Director of Community Development Kallien said that many of the office buildings in the office corridor are 30 years old now and there are situations where the trees are becoming overgrown. They were great 30 years ago when they were planted. There effectiveness has diminished in some cases. Most of the commercial developments have limited vegetation; they have vegetation that hides the parking lots because that is what is required by Code. When there is a special use we can dictate where there is vegetation and how it is to be maintained that does not mean there could not be a concern down the road. He is trying to lessen the bureaucracy. Chairwoman Payovich asked if it was felt that the landscape plan for the commercial developments covers it enough to protect the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it does. When the Village Board adopts a plan that plan is included. Member Bulin said that as long as the commercial redevelopment aspects are covered elsewhere, this is just picking up the loose ends. If a site is redeveloped VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 February 21, 2005 such as the Promenade there is a review process in place. Member Goel asked about adding some language regarding commercial redevelopments. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it could be added if there is any redevelopment of a commercial property that a tree inventory be provided and a landscape plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he is not sure that the language to protect or preserve trees has to be in the form that it is in. If the Plan Commission would recommend and the Village Board would agree, it could be intertwined into other codes. It does not necessarily need to be written as a stand- alone document. Charles Shemely, 3411 Heritage Oaks Court said that when he read the first regulation he was pretty much against it and then when he read it to his board of directors and the members they said that Oak Brook should not be doing this because on principle we do not need this. He received the same reaction from other homeowner association presidents, with the exception of those that would be affected by the 50 -acre development down by Breakenridge. He said that when he wrote to Bob Kallien back in June he did allow that you could probably make a case for new development and he had that particular property in mind. If someone were going to develop a large tract it would be nice to avoid what happened at Forest Gate. He has no idea how many good trees were there, although he had heard there were not a lot. He suspected that the person that designed it probably said that the trees did not go with the architecture or the look that they wanted; in any event that is passed. No one wants to see anyone clear cut a 50 -acre parcel if they can go in and do something reasonable. If there is an existing vacant lot that has never been built on it is probably overgrown. Some of the trees might be good trees. In the case of a teardown, chances are that there is a very old small house on it, relatively speaking to what is built today. As a buyer when you look at a piece of property, what you see is lines on a piece of paper, you don't see trees, what you see a buildable area. There is no cheap building in Oak Brook anymore. You could pay a million dollars for a teardown and then put a house on it. That old house might have had a lot of trees on it when that house was built and now they are quite old and they are in the wrong place for what is suitable for that lot and investment today. What would concern him is that there would be such a black and white set of regulations that he couldn't come in and say that he was going to cut down all the pine trees and arborvitae. He bought his lot 22 years ago and has recycled the arborvitae several times. When they get too big, you cut them down, dig them up and put in new ones and they grow like weeds. The white and Austrian pines are dying all the time. He doesn't think he would want someone saying that he could only use a 2,000 square foot building pad on a one acre lot because of some trees that were there that could VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 February 21, 2005 easily be replaced. He would be a little concerned if the proposal were so black and white that he could not redevelop a tear down. He does not believe that would be good for Oak Brook. Some of the properties you do want to replace eventually. In concept he does not like the idea of having a tree regulation, but he can see where there is some reasonable place when you get into development. As a homeowner if he would be looking for another house, he would have concerns, if he could not do anything with it because there are trees in the way. Property here is too precious now. When he bought his property they only kept 4 trees on their lot and cut everything else. They planted more than three dozen trees and have planted and replanted, and that does not see how regulating would have helped him one bit. He hopes that the Plan Commission is reasonable in this and attacks the problem that could exist and no more. In his view that would be new development and in the case of teardowns or existing vacant single lots there should be some real latitude for reasonable people to do the right thing in order to enhance the value of their property. Chairwoman Payovich asked Mr. Shemely if he felt the comments he made were a generic grouping of others. He responded that universally there was an objection to having regulation on this matter. On the other hand they don't want to see someone do to those 50 acres what happened in the center of town. A little bit of common sense regulation makes sense where developers, are coming in with very detailed plans; surveys topo's and if there is a chance to save a lot of stuff. He has a second home near Santa Barbara and he saw what happens when you become over regulated. You cannot build anything. It takes forever and is exorbitantly expensive to get around all of the regulations. If the Village becomes very tough on this, what it is is anti - development. He does not know if the Village wants to say that people cannot use their property for a best use. No one is going to say that we should keep everything green by making it just impossible to develop. Member Wolin said that he would be in favor of something relative to subdivisions. It could be a separate tree preservation ordinance or an addendum to the Subdivision Regulations. He does not believe there is a need on the teardown situation. Member Goel said that he believes the case is very well made and agrees with Member Wolin and would like to see a statement about commercial development. Member Tropinski said that she would like to see a separate tree ordinance. Something similar to what has been proposed. If it is hidden that shows you are not serious about your landscaping and it is also helpful to a person that is planning to build to have something specific. She would like to see something kept in the ordinance about teardowns because she has seen sometimes where owners take the easy way out. Every problem can be solved, but sometimes it takes a little more VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 February 21, 2005 effort, time and money and people are not often willing to do that. Especially good trees that are slow growers like the oak trees, some effort should be made to preserve them. She has seen people come in build a huge house and there is not enough room left on their land to plant trees to replace those that they removed and sometimes that can destroy the character of the neighborhood. She thinks something should be there and she thinks this is reasonable especially when the caliper has been raised. It shouldn't be that much of a hardship and if it was she could not see why they would not go for a variance. At least there will be something on the books that shows Oak Brook is serious about the Village being green. She does not see the proposal as being a hardship to the average homeowner it is geared more towards a developer. Member Bulin said that he agrees with Member Tropinski to quite a bit of an extent because inherently he believes that most developers are evil and like politicians they will say what you want to hear. What they say on one hand is not what they are going to do. He believes the inventory is a good idea to establish what is there and that does not mean they would have to necessarily have to preserve everything. Certainly in the buildable area he does not see why there should be a restriction to prohibit building unless the inventory shows that there is a 350 year old oak tree within the buildable area that requires a little bit of ingenuity to work around. He believes this is going in the right direction. The idea of having the ordinance may simplify it for developers and design professionals to have a document to go to and look at as opposed to hiding it in some other area of the ordinance. Keep it simply but make it obvious. Member Braune said that he believes they have removed some of the things that were considered to be onerous on part of the homeowner associations. He believes the Plan Commission would be very unhappy with themselves if they do not do something and then someone does something bad to a piece of property. He looks upon it more as installing a security system in your house. It is a way to protect the land and the trees before someone does something bad. If people rob them of the trees you will not be able to get them back by putting in an ordinance after the fact. The idea of protecting both teardowns with a reasonable regulation and new subdivisions in a separate document as a regulation that everyone can see is a good idea. Chairwoman Payovich said that she is inclined to go along with what Member Wolin and Goel said, which is that if it is possible to include it in some of the existing ordinances. She likes the idea of the tree inventory because it is a good starting point to have people look to see what is there. It appears that the Commission agrees that something needs to be done and should be done in a way that does not affect the residents, the homeowners in the Village because obviously they are going ahead and preserving the landscaping on their VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 February 21, 2005 property. Everyone appears to be evenly divided as to how to deal with the teardowns. With the consensus of the Commission, she would like to suggest that Director of Community Development Kallien come back with some thoughts about the issues brought up by Member Goel, and Member Wolin. She would like to see that put together for the next meeting. Member Wolin said that when he made his comments he based them on the assumption that he was more interested in the subdivision. However, Member Tropinski, Bulin and Braune expressed interest in the teardowns. If we are to honor their interests, then there really needs to be a separate tree preservation ordinance as opposed to combining it with the current regulations. Chairwoman Payovich said that Community Development Director Kallien could look at the two ways of doing this. They can then be reviewed and the Commission would have another discussion and then see what protects the best interest of the Village without adversely affecting the homeowners and restricting what they need to do with their property. We do not want onerous restrictions on anyone, but we certainly do not want to lose trees that should or could be preserved if we can. She watched what they did at Forest Gate and was appalled at some of the things that came down. Member Wolin said that the subdivisions are clear and it is easy to add something to the subdivisions. He asked where language could go relative to the teardowns. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would have to think about it. Member Wolin said after listening to the rest of the board and based on their preferences would be to use a separate tree preservation ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that what he would like to contact a couple other communities that have had a number of teardowns. Hinsdale is very different in that most of their lots are very small to begin with so there is very little to work with. Some of the north shore communities like Lake Forest, what do they do when someone applies for a demolition permit maybe there is some language that would help. Director of Community Development Kallien said that what he had proposed was that if we were to regulate tree preservation relative to a teardown, that the person not be impacted at all by the size of the home that they could build with or without the regulations. He was talking about the peripheral areas such as where the driveway would be or things like that. We are not infringing the rights of someone who wants to build a 27,000 square foot house they would be able to do that because it would be within the buildable area. He will see what some other towns have. He will provide Scenario One where he will take the existing regulations VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 February 21, 2005 and place a few words here and there that deals with the subdivision issue. If teardowns are going to be added to the equation, then some concise language is needed. It has to be somewhere where people know that it is there. It cannot be hidden in the Code somewhere. He will think about the commercial requirements. Mr. Shemely asked if he could see a draft when it was done. Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Wolin to continue the hearing on tree preservation to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 11 February 21, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT