Minutes - 03/18/2008 - Plan Commission1.
2.
3.
Ell
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 2008 REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN
ON APRIL 21, 2008
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
7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL: ROLE, CALL_
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Rau Iyer, Richard Knitter, Gopal
Lalmalani, Mintu Sharma, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski
IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Robert Sanford, Trustee, Robert L.
Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Dale L.
Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES
REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2008
SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to approve the minutes of
the January 21, 2008 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written and the minutes
of the February 11, 2008 Special Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE
VOTE: Motion Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS BUSIN
BUSINESS ESS
A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT -- PERFORMANCE vO BND- TEXT
STANDARDS — REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF APPLICABLE TEXT PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Director of Community Development Kallien provided a review of the last meeting.
He said that progress had been made and a consensus was reached that the existing
table included in the Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance should be
replaced since the Village has not been able to really enforce it due to its technical
requirements. Staff reviewed other communities language and found a sound table
that was being used and working effectively. Several codes were researched and
page 12 of the case file has three possible alternatives to the existing chart from
Geneva, Naperville and Elmhurst. They are all similar with a daytime and nighttime
maximum. He consulted with Steve Young, a member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals who has working experience with sound issues. The Elmhurst number may
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 17 March 17, 2008
1W.e-
be too low, based upon the amount of ambient sound that is generated from the
existing roadways, including 1 -88,1 -294 and Route 83. They looked at developing a
sort of hybrid between what Geneva and Naperville uses. If the Village had these
proposed regulations last summer, the problem that was encounter would not have
been an issue. The existing pool pump would fall within the parameters of what
would be provided in the proposed amendment. It would also keep the Village out
of some of the disputes that neighbors may have. It would protect the Village and
the citizenry from noises that are burdensome and obnoxious and it would control
and regulate what sound codes are really meant to do. The following times and
decibels to be regulated were offered for consideration. He noted that the numbers
decrease by 5 decibels in the evening.
The reading taken from the property line taken from the property last year in Brook
Forest showed that the ambient sound was over 50 decibels, when the pool
equipment noise was factored in, it would have been under 60 decibels, but not by a
significant margin.
Mr. Young said that it was important to note that by just standing in front of Village
Hall and aiming the meter toward the street the ambient noise was over 50 decibels,
probably closer to 55, just reading the ambient noise alone by standing outside with
minimal traffic.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that with the amendment as
proposed the Village has the equipment to enforce it. Under the rules that exist
today, the Village does not own the equipment necessary to regulate it. If the
Village did own that equipment, there are so many other variables relative to
calibration, monitoring for weather, along with other factors, it would be very
difficult to get an accurate reading at least from a staff perspective.
Chairwoman Payovich asked whether there were members of the audience that
would like to speak to this issue.
Trustee Sanford spoke as the president of the Brook Forest homeowners association.
He said that the issues that have come up relative to noise were from Brook Forest.
The problem they have is that the home on Shelburne is elevated above the home on
Regent Drive. The resident on Shelburne has a swimming pool. There were two
problems, one being water fiom the pool leaking onto the other the property, which
he believes started the process; and from there began the noise issue. They received
a complaint that the pump on the swimming pool was outside the parameters of the
Village sound ordinance. The problem turned out that the sound ordinance as it
exists is unusable. Instead of measuring sound in terms of decibels, it is measured
with decibels and a series of frequencies, which the Village literally cannot do.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 17 March 17, 2008
*110W�
Maximum Permitted Decibel (DBA) Levels
Time of Day
Residential Commercial Industrial
Between 7 am and 7 pm
60 dba 65 dba 70 dba
Between 7 pm and 7 am
55 dba 60 dba 65 dba
The reading taken from the property line taken from the property last year in Brook
Forest showed that the ambient sound was over 50 decibels, when the pool
equipment noise was factored in, it would have been under 60 decibels, but not by a
significant margin.
Mr. Young said that it was important to note that by just standing in front of Village
Hall and aiming the meter toward the street the ambient noise was over 50 decibels,
probably closer to 55, just reading the ambient noise alone by standing outside with
minimal traffic.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that with the amendment as
proposed the Village has the equipment to enforce it. Under the rules that exist
today, the Village does not own the equipment necessary to regulate it. If the
Village did own that equipment, there are so many other variables relative to
calibration, monitoring for weather, along with other factors, it would be very
difficult to get an accurate reading at least from a staff perspective.
Chairwoman Payovich asked whether there were members of the audience that
would like to speak to this issue.
Trustee Sanford spoke as the president of the Brook Forest homeowners association.
He said that the issues that have come up relative to noise were from Brook Forest.
The problem they have is that the home on Shelburne is elevated above the home on
Regent Drive. The resident on Shelburne has a swimming pool. There were two
problems, one being water fiom the pool leaking onto the other the property, which
he believes started the process; and from there began the noise issue. They received
a complaint that the pump on the swimming pool was outside the parameters of the
Village sound ordinance. The problem turned out that the sound ordinance as it
exists is unusable. Instead of measuring sound in terms of decibels, it is measured
with decibels and a series of frequencies, which the Village literally cannot do.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 17 March 17, 2008
*110W�
There are additional problems when you try to measure noise from a house that is
relatively close to 1 -88. The existing sound ordinance is designed primarily for
commercial application. Under the interpretation of the present sound ordinance, it
is illegal to cut your grass and most people should not run their air conditioners; so
the ordinance is flat out impractical. He would like to see the Village avoid the
possibility of a lawsuit over these issues, because that could be a real problem. He
would also like to see a sound ordinance that is at least usable, measurable and
calculable, although it may not be perfect. Bob Kallien has reviewed ordinances
from Elmhurst, Geneva and Naperville and are at least measurable. The Village
does not have the technical staff in house to do all of the measurements. Aside from
training staff personnel to do the measuring, the equipment required is very
expensive. In the past, the ordinance was done for the commercial side of the
Village and it was applied to the residential side, which just does not work. In order
to avoid further problems, he would love to see this issue resolved and hoped that
the Plan Commission would consider some of these problems and the practicality of
having an ordinance that does not work.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Member Knitter questioned whether the property discussed was over the level dust
during the day or in the evening.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in this particular case
the pool equipment runs from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. The homeowner agreed to
turn it off so it was not operating in the evening. Under the existing chart of octave
bands, it was over by about 2 -2 %a decibels. If the proposed chart had been applied,
based upon the numbers that existed last year, the pool equipment would not be in
violation with the code.
Mr. Young said that not only is there a time differential that has to be taken into
account, humidity is also a factor because sound travels faster or slower dependent
upon the humidity. The elevation of the home, as well as the angle of the pump is
also a factor and with the right conditions, it could be plus or minus 5.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that in this particular case,
Trustee Sanford indicated that the homeowner had replaced the pump and additional
screening was provided around it. Therefore, the conditions that existed last year
may not be the same this year.
Member Knitter questioned the impact of sound as it relates to temporary issues,
such as construction around the house, cutting grass, etc.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that normal construction
activity equipment is exempt from this section of the ordinance and is controlled
under another section that limits the timeframe that the activity can occur. If the
noise appears to be excessive, those regulations would go a long way for the Village
to address them if they should they occur. If someone attempted a construction
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 17 March 17, 2008
F-FINIm- 0-1
activity at 9:00 p.m., the regulations would be effective. Aside from this complaint,
in the last nine years, there was just one other complaint several years ago regarding
humming from some equipment. After reviewing police incident reports for the last
5 years, the main complaint received regarding noise related to barking dogs, which
are addressed in the police regulations.
Member Vivek asked who would be responsible for responding to the complaints
and whether that would require additional help.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Community
Development staff would handle it, which is comprised of the building inspectors
and him. Outside help would be sought on rare occasions, if needed.
Member Sharma commented that in her experience, pool equipment is running and
cycling around the clock. She asked if it would become mandatory to shut it off in
the evening since the pool companies advise that the filter should run 24 hours a
day.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this property in Brook
Forest is unique in that it is a smaller lot. The location of the equipment meets the
code requirements, but it is very close to the property line. It is almost an anomaly
as to where it is located in proximity to the adjacent houses. Other properties in the
community have houses that are separated by much larger distances and at larger
distances, the sound dissipates.
Member Sharma added that she has one and that pool equipment does make a lot of
noise. She asked if the Village would need to purchase the equipment required to
measure the noise.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Fire Department has
sound decibel meters. If it would not be possible to use that equipment, one would
be purchased. A decibel meter would be much cheaper than purchasing an octave
band meter, which could cost in excess of $10,000 and would need to be calibrated
yearly.
Mr. Young noted that either meter would need to be calibrated each year and that
there are field and lab quality calibrations. Lab quality calibrations should be done
yearly on the decibel meters. The calibration on an octave band meter is much more
costly than the decibel meter, along with the added expense of the equipment.
Member Iyer questioned the cost of the equipment and that hopefully. He added
that it appears its use would be very limited.
Mr. Young responded that the cheapest one is around $100. Meters that have a
printout of the reading could be another $200. Calibration could cost between $50-
75 yearly. Economically it would make sense to use a decibel meter.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 17 March 17, 2008
Trustee Wolin questioned item 3 on page 12.a of the case file relating to Exhausts.
The noises listed could be very irritating; however, there could be scenarios where
they could be used for short periods when the electric power is off and a generator
would run to keep a freezer or refrigerator working,
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this language was
verbatim from the Elmhurst and Naperville codes. It is the language that they use,
but he would be more than willing to modify it. An example would be the generator
for the building at 814 Commerce that backs up to the Steeplechase subdivision and
uses a larger almost engine -like device. Almost all of the office buildings are now
seeking permits to install back up generators. Five years ago, rarely any had them,
but now many of these buildings are in operation 24 hours a day and must have a
continuous power source. The generator is becoming lifeblood, and for some of the
buildings it needs to be quite large, not like the small quiet ones used for a home
generator.
Chairwoman Payovich questioned how these things would be dealt with in an
emergency like the one Trustee Wolin described.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that language could be
added so that it would not apply to an emergency situation and would not be an
issue.
Trustee Wolin suggested that the language could state that it would not apply to
reasonable use during an emergency situation.
Mr. Young said that the language should include emergency generators and back up
power equipment.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that language to address that
issue would be added when it goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Trustee Wolin questioned Item e. on page 12.d of the case file, Lawn
Mowing /Maintenance and described the time allowed as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and he
agrees with that, but in the summer, it is light outside until 9 p.m. Perhaps it should
be later so that if someone would like to cut the grass when they come home from
work in the evening, they could.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that 9:00 p.m. would be fine, but
he would not like it to begin any earlier, so that the landscape companies cannot
start running equipment at 6:15 in the morning.
Trustee Wolin said that it was his understanding that the police department enforces
the issue of loud music, including that from automobiles.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that if the Zoning
Ordinance were amended to deal with the normal sound issues, he would like to
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 17 March 17, 2008
recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board consider adding a
loud music provision to the Police Regulations. A number of communities like
Elgin and Aurora have very tough standards; and, if it is over a certain number, the
police can write a ticket. Most typically happen on the public right-of-way, which is
governed by the police department. He said that when this application goes before
the Village Board they could direct the Village Attorney to add additional language
in the Police Regulations to address car stereos.
Trustee Wolin questioned the description and meaning of the measurements made
using the flat network of the sound level meter. It states that the variation of no
more than plus or minus two ( ±2) decibels. He asked whether it would be possible
to have the language say the same thing by using simpler words regarding the
measurements and meters on page 12.b of the case file.
Mr. Young responded that a sound level meter is not a digital meter, it is an analog
meter so the line moves back and forth and it is being counted from that standpoint;
if a digital meter is used, it would provide a more accurate reading.
Trustee Wolin asked what an impulse type noise was and noted that the variation of
plus or minus two decibels does not seem to be much.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that an impulse noise could
be like a pulsing sound coming from a good car stereo. Other impulse noises would
be like a pile driver that stops and starts on the sound wall along the tollway. It
would be a repetitive sound that goes off every several seconds, which would cause
the numbers on the meter to increase rapidly.
Director of Community Development Kallien commented that some of the present
language has just existed in the code. It could be cleaned up a bit and leave in what
is really needed.
Mr. Young added that the language about the needle could be removed and changed
to require a digital meter.
Member Iyer said that if a digital meter were used, then that would eliminate any
confusion.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that half of the paragraph could
be eliminated by removing the reference to needles and plus or minus two decibels.
What has been proposed and has been recommended is a significant change to the
existing code. If it appears to need further tweaking later, an amendment would be
sought.
Trustee Wolin questioned Item 1 on page 12.c of the case file and the wording
relating to the property line noise source; he suggested the language be changed.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the origination of the
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 17 March 17, 2008
MMI-0-
sound source is that the reading would be taken 25 feet from the sound source. If
the source were coming from the property line, then it would have to be measured
25 feet from the property line. Using the pool equipment as an example, previously
it was measured 8 -9 feet from the source. Technically, under the state regulations it
should be measured 25 feet from the source. It would be measured from the
property line as long as it was 25 feet from the source. Large manufacturing users
purposely buy a lot of land so that they create their own buffer.
After a discussion among the members, it was agreed to remove the word "unless"
in Item 1 on page 12.c and replace it with the word "of "
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Knitter to recommend approval that
the language be amended to Zoning Ordinance Section 13- 10 -3A, Performance
Standards, Noise. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The existing noise provisions found in Section 13- 10 -3(A) of the Zoning
Ordinance are outdated and are extremely difficult to enforce.
2. The existing noise level table, which was based on IL EPA regulations, is in
conflict with the IL EPA regulations, which provides for an exemption for
land used for single - family housing.
3. The recommended changes are consistent with noise level ordinances found
in other suburban communities.
4. The recommended sound /noise level table is reasonable and can be measured
and enforced by the Village.
5. The additional provisions address situations previously not addressed in the
current Village Code and should benefit the public, safety and welfare of the
community.
The recommended language to Section 13 -10 -3: Performance Standards and
Sound/Noise Level table is revised as follows: (Note: The revised/added language to
the amendment as proposed is bolded, underlined and italicized. Deleted proposed
language has a strikethrough.)
Performance Standards: Any use established in any zoning district the ORA1,
ORA2 or ORA3 office - research- assembly districts shall be operated so as to comply
with the performance standard regulations prescribed in this section, and no use
lawfully established on the effective date hereof shall be hereafter altered or
modified so as to conflict with, or further conflict with, such performance standards.
A. Noise: Sound levels shall be measured with a sound level meter and associated
octave band filter manufactured according to standards prescribed by the
American National Standards asseeiation Institute. ANSD. Measurements
shall be made using a digital decibel
meter. Impulse -type noises shall be subject to the performance standards
prescribed in this section, provided that such noises shall be capable of being
accurately measured, s shall be those
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 17 March 17, 2008
ire.
noises whieh eause rapid fluctuations of the needle of the sound level
meter- with of no more than plus of MMUS two (44) deeibels.
Noises incapable of being so measured, such as those of an irregular and
intermittent nature, shall be controlled so as not to become a nuisance to
adjacent uses.
At any point on or beyond the boundary line of the district desipiated below,
the sound pressure level of any operation or plant (other than background
noises produced by sources not under control of this section, such as the
operation of motor vehicles or other transportation facilities) shall not exceed
the decibel limits in the table below:
Sound/Noise Level Table
Maximum Permitted Decibel (DBA) Levels
Time of Day
Residential Commercial Industrial
Between 7 am and 7 pm
60 dba 65 dba 70 dba
Between 7 prn and 7 am
55 dba 60 dba 65 dba
(Add the following language)
Noise — General Requirements
1. All sound measurement readings must be set up not less than 25 feet
(7.6 meters (m)) from the property - line - noise- source. The 25 -foot (7.6 m)
setback requirement is from the noise source and not the property line o
uiess the noise source is contiguous to the property line.
2. Activities exempt from these provisions include the operation of motor
vehicles or other transportation facilities; lawn equipment (mowers and
blowers) and snow removal equipment; church bells /chimes; residential air
conditioning units (installed and operating in accordance to manufacturers
specifications) and pool pumps /heating equipment (installed and operating in
accordance to manufacturers specifications).
3. Unnecessary Noise Standards: The following activities are declared to be
loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this ordinance.
a. Horns and Signaling Devices — The sounding of any horn or signaling
device on any automobile or other motor vehicle on any street or public
place of the Village except as a danger warning.
b. Animals or birds — The keeping of any animal or bird which, by causing
frequent or continued noise, shall disturb the comfort or repose of any
persons in the vicinity.
c. Exhausts — The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any engine,
stationary combustion machine, generator, motor boat or motor vehicle
except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent
loud noises there from The use of emeaency generators and other
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 17 March 17, 2008
back y2 power source would not galy gal to reasonable use during an
emerzency situation.
d. Loading The creation of loud and excessive noise in connection with
loading or unloading any of vehicles.
e. Lawn Mowing/Maintenance — It shall be unlawful to cause or make
loud noise through the operation of lawn maintenance equipment
including, but not limited to lawn mowers, lawn blowers and tractors
before 7 a.m. and after _9 S p.m. on any day during the week, This
restriction shall not apply to golf course, Park District or Forest Preserve
maintenance operations.
6. Recommend that the Village Board consider adding a loud music provision
to the Police Regulations.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 7 — Members Iyer, Knitter, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and
Chairwoman Payovich
Nays: 0 -- Motion Carried.
4. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS von - OBJECTS
W XTHfN
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS PARKWAYS
Village Engineer Durfey provided an overview of the topic. He noted that this was
before the Plan Commission back in July of 2006. At that time, two meetings were
held and then the agendas became very complicated so the review of this matter was
placed on hold.
He said that the subject was very complicated and would take several meetings, in
order to review all of the material. Eventually the Plan Commission would provide
a recommendation to the Village Board. Some legal issues were brought up during
the previous review and material would be presented from past Village attorneys.
This issue only applies to subdivisions with public streets. It does not apply to
subdivisions with private streets such as Midwest Club, only those with public rights
of way.
The Village Board approved an ordinance on July 13, 1999 adopting the first Public
Works Construction Standards to establish uniform policies concerning
requirements for and procedures regarding construction standards in the Village.
Staff has been working on revisions for several years; however, one particular
section has received considerable debate and needs special attention before staff can
finalize these revisions.
The Section entitled "Objects Within Parkways" (marked exhibit A -- on page 8 of
the case file), prohibits certain items from being placed in the right -of -way, and was
included in the first Public Work Standards to meet roadway guidelines.
■ To keep the Village owned parkways relatively clear and uncluttered
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 17 March 17, 2008
■ To allow space and access for utility installation and maintenance
■ To allow space and access for JULIE utility locates
■ To reduce the amount of damage to objects with the parkways should
construction be needed and also minimize residential complaints about
restoring their private objects; and
■ To reduce the severity of accidents should a vehicle leave the roadway and
therefore reduce the Village's liability.
For example, if a vehicle left the roadway, struck a large boulder and the people
inside the vehicle sustained more injuries than would have occurred if the boulder
had not been there, the Village could be held liable for additional injuries.
One particular kind of object that was and still is pervasive was the placement of
boulders in front of resident's properties in the Village right -of -way. After adoption
of the 1999 ordinance, staff proceeded to enforce the provisions and contacted many
residents regarding these boulders. Many of them complied and removed the
boulders or requested that Public Works remove them, however some objected.
Several residents complained to then Village Manager Veitch about this provision.
Considerable discussion ensued between Village Manager Veitch and staff, and on
August 29, 2001, Manager Veitch approved a revision on Exhibit B (page 7 of the
case file) that was to be placed in the first update to the Public Works Standards.
Even with this revision, several residents still would not comply and continued their
discussions with the Manager's office. During all of this time, staff did not have the
boulders removed since the Manager's office was in discussions with the residents.
Due to the considerable discussion and a lack of clear direction, staff essentially has
not enforced this in either of its forms, since this became an issue. They have told
several affected residents that they would be informed when the Village Board and
Plan Commission would review this issue in the Public Standards update, Several
of those residents were in attendance at the meeting this evening.
Concerning the promulgating of rules for objects within rights -of -way, he reviewed
several manuals and noted their citations in Exhibit C (page 6 of the case file).
Their thoughts were summarized as follows:
• Sometimes, vehicles leave the roadway, for whatever reason. They
should have an area next to the roadway in which to recover before they
strike an object, or at least have the object "give" to minimize damage
and injury. This area should be as large as possible.
• Realistically, it is impractical to eliminate all obstructions within a large
distance from the traveled way. Some are there for other safety or
environmental reasons, such as fire hydrants, traffic signals, directional
signs, street trees, etc.
• Aside from the needed or required obstructions, private items, such as
large boulders or pipes are suspect as to their placement within the right-
of-way.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 17 March 17, 2008
-11�
Additionally, the following should be considered:
1. The Village right-of-way is owned by the public and held by the Village in
the public trust. The Village must have control over others who want to use
it.
2. The Village regulates utility companies who want to use the right-of-way;
private use should also be regulated. Use of the public way should be even-
handed.
3. The Village should not absorb the cost of repair when a private object is
damaged, accidentally or intentionally. The Village and various utilizes are
constantly constructing/maintaining facilities within the right -of -way.
4. Large obstructions interfere with utility maintenance. For example,
extremely large boulders in front of 3007 Avenue Loire would hamper a
water main break repair, and bushes would not allow the Village or other
utility complies to locate their facilities for a JULIE request, which the
Village is mandated to do.
5. Without proper regulation, Village infrastructure could be damaged by work
being done without permits.
These were the same concepts used during the creation of the first policy. Previous
Village Attorney Martens had also opined on the subject and promoted a reasonable
clear zone free of non - essential items. Regarding a more recent legal review, he
forwarded a draft of his memo and attachment to past Village Attorney Ken Kubiesa
and asked for his thoughts. He forwarded the issue to Susan Garvey of IRMA (the
Village's insurance carrier) in a letter dated November 7, 2003 attached as Exhibit D
(page 5 of the case file) to obtain IRMA's opinion. Mr. Kubiesa responded in an
email dated January 15, 2004 with Susan's reply letter of January 5, 2004 attached
as Exhibit E (page 4 of the case file). Ms. Garvey's response seems to raise a red
flag concerning the Village allowing a homeowner to be permitted to place objects
in the right-of-way, as was the direction of the Veitch August 29, 2001 revision.
He presented several pictures as examples of existing obstructions within the Village
rights -of -way in a Power Point presentation. These examples were also shown in
Exhibit F (page 2 of the case file). The examples included boulders, bushes, small
tree plantings, walls, fences, and trees that are not allowed per the Public Works
'Construction Standards
Trustee Wolin asked for examples of what problems could occur with some of these
items being placed in the right-of-way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that some of the issues that can arise are:
■ Unacceptable species of trees being planted under power lines can result in
an errant vehicle striking the tree, which it might not have if it was not there.
Boulders may or may not cause damage to a vehicle, depending upon size.
If there were a water main break, and the trees have grown large, it may take
the Public Works Department several hours to remove a tree before the break
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 17 March 17, 2008
-_P�
could be repaired.
All of the homeowner association presidents were sent letters advising that this
matter would be on the agenda this evening.
Some action steps were presented to the Village Board. The placement of private
objects within the Village rights -of -way needs to be resolved so that an update of the
Standards can be finalized. Specific discussion and direction should include:
1. There are several concerns that arise in creating a policy for items within the
Village rights -of -way:
• A major concern centers on safety and Village liability. The goal should
be to reduce the severity of accidents if a vehicle leaves the roadway and
therefore reduce the Village's liability.
• Should the Village -owned parkways be relatively clear and uncluttered?
• Space and access is required for utilities and JULIE utility locates.
• To reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction is
needed (and minimize residential complaints about restoring their private
objects).
With that in mind, the Village needs to decide if it will allow private objects to be
placed in the Village right-of-way and if so, under what circumstances. Should an
indemnification covenant be required from the adjacent property owner?
2. Does the original "Objects Within Parkways" section of the Public Works
Standards meet the Village's current thinking? Does the August 29, 2001
proposed revision or does the Village want something else?
3. Assuming that certain objects would not be permitted within the right-of-
way, would any existing object be grandfathered, and how is it determined
how far back in time to go? Would the objects be allowed to remain with the
liability issues or must all such items be removed or relocated, such as walls,
boulders, etc, and who pays for it? Does it include items that were placed by
a resident after being told not to? If grandfathered, there is no way of
knowing when many of these items were installed and creating and updating
a database would be a tremendous task requiring almost weekly monitoring
of every street by additional staff or a consultant.
4. Once the Village Board decides these issues, staff will then draft revisions to
the Public Works Construction Standards to be brought before the Village
Board for consideration and ordinance adoption.
5. Staff will then enforce the provisions. He noted that the original policy took
a considerable amount of staff time when it was being enforced.
Additionally, it would take an extended amount of time with the current
engineering staff to enforce whatever the Board decides while trying to
maximize cooperation with residents.
Village Engineer Durfey concluded the presentation and advised the Plan
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 17 March 17, 2008
Commission that additional information would be provided at the next meeting,
including some legal issues, surveys and public works comments. He expected that
another 2 or 3 meetings might be needed.
Chairwoman Payovich opened the meeting for comments from the audience,
reminding them of an approximate 3- minute time limit requirement.
Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that she agreed that boulders are not a thing of
beauty but that her little planter box is. She passed out pictures and said that she has
been involved in this issue since 2002 when she was first notified. She addressed
the issue and wrote a letter to then Village Manager Veitch. All of these things have
been in place for a very long time and she has lived in her home for 38 years since
1970. In 1978, wood planters were put in place to accommodate the dwarf
evergreens that were planted. When it rotted, the 11 -1/z inch high ornamental walls
were replaced. In the closing paragraph of her letter to Mr. Veitch she stated, "All
of this was well in place before the August 29, 2001 update to the Public Works
Construction Standards. As such, I request your consideration for leaving the
structure in place although they are 111 /2 inches high rather than the 8 inches
permitted."
Member Knitter asked if the objects were located close to her driveway.
Ms. Hosler responded that that they were, but are located 4 feet behind the mailbox,
which is behind the curb line.
Gary I<xonen, 408 Luthin Road said that pictures were provided to the Village and
should be in the case file (pages numbered 21 in the case file). He believed that he
offered a common sense approach to this issue. They live at the highest junction of
their property, which abuts the neighbor at 412 Luthin Road. There is an
approximate 6 -foot drop between 132 feet of frontage. The wall was planned to be
built, but unfortunately, it had to be extended due to a grading issue. Behind the
wall lies drain rile that carries the water more east and west of the driveway so that
they do not get flooded. As opposed to the people that have left the ravine and built
retaining walls that extend out to the street, theirs is graded in such a way that
unfortunately they needed to extend the wall. It is not located there for decoration
but serves a purpose. The only suggestion from the Engineering Department to
resolve the issue was to take down one foot or so from their property line. That
would not only change the drainage between their property and the adjacent
property, but furthermore, all of the old trees on the property would need to be taken
down on that side of the property. Everything was down when the property was
built to maintain the look of Luthin Road, because they do abut Fullersburg Woods.
This is not a boulder sitting out in the right -of -way; and he would like consideration
given when the wall is serving a specific function and really needs to be considered
for an exemption. They would be more than happy to sign a covenant protecting the
Village from anyone who should go off the road and strike the wall. With respect to
their specific situation, when the property was built, HJH Homes received an
exemption to build according to the old standards because some of the properties on
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 17 March 17, 2008
their road actually lie too close to the property line and are in violation of the current
regulations. They were allowed to build under the old regulations before any of this
came into effect. As such, since their property needed the wall to deal with the
grading issues, regardless of anything, they should be grandfathered in. He believes
that the issue on their property shows a more common sense approach needs to be
taken, since there are a wide variety of topographical issues. No one could come up
with an alternative solution. If they take the wall back six feet, it would leave an
edge of dirt that would be exposed and ultimately, over time, will be taken down by
the deer in the area. When that happens, there will not be a way of repairing it.
Larry Whitlow, president of the Chateaux Woods subdivision and has resided at
3007 Avenue Loire for 20 years. He has the notorious boulders that were mentioned
by Village Engineer Durfey, which have been placed in that location for about 35
years. He said that everyone here today has chosen to live in Oak Brook due to the
aesthetic beauty and beautiful curb appeal of the neighborhoods. Most of the items
currently in the right-of-way, such as trees, boulders, entrance structures, etc., have
contributed to this beauty. He summarized and highlighted some points related to
the issue of items in the right -of -way.
1. There is no documentation proving the need for restrictions. To date, no
one has submitted any information related to documentation of any
injuries as a result of an impact with items in the right -of- -way. Many of
the objects referred to have existed in their locations for 20 -40 years or
longer, and were placed there in good faith when no Village restrictions
existed. So many of the items were placed so long ago that they were not
put there by the current homeowner. To their knowledge, none of these
items has caused any harm to any individuals, nor have they caused
access problems for utilities. The water main scenario mentioned by Mr.
Durfey does not exist because the water main is 4 to S feet behind their
boulders. Why impose these restrictions now? The mandate to remove
items currently in the right-of-way would have a devastating effect on the
Village's aesthetic appeal and home values.
2. Lack of restrictions on neighboring Villages, Most neighboring towns do
not have these types of restrictions. Why should the Village be more
stringent than our neighbors or the county? You can drive through
Elmhurst, LaGrange, Downers Grove, Lombard and look at the beautiful
trees and boulders in their right -of -ways. Have you ever heard of any
town removing trees, boulders, masonry structures twenty years after
they were in place? There was not one picture shown by Mr. Durfey of
the mature trees throughout the Village. Hitting one of those trees would
be far more damaging than any boulder could be.
3. Uniformity and Consistency. It is a fact that an impact with trees has
resulted in more injuries and death than an impact with boulders. He
passed out newspaper articles relating to accidents with people killed by
hitting trees. If hit by a car, a tree is unmovable and would definitely
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 17 March 17, 2008
D
cause damage or serious injury to cars and people. There are many
documented incidents of injury and death resulting from tree impacts. If
the Plan Commission recommends the removal of boulders of certain
sizes because of safety concerns, then with regard to fairness and equity,
all trees in the right -of -way must also be removed. Trees cause far more
harm than boulders. He questioned if the concern for the remote
possibility of a tree causing harm in the right -of -way would prompt the
Village to cut down hundreds of mature, stately trees.
4. Liability. If the Village is concerned about its liability then allow
individual homeowners to execute a covenant to indemnify the Village.
A precedent has already been set by allowing homeowners to execute
covenants for mailboxes, so it would be reasonable to allow homeowners
to execute covenants for other items in the parkway.
5. Grandfatherinp, Oak Brook homeowners have spent hundreds of
thousands; even millions of dollars to enhance and maintain the
appearance of their properties, and that includes items in the parkway. If
items were placed predominately for the purpose of beautifying
someone's property and simultaneously the Village, and none have
caused problems in the last 20 -40 years, then the Village should allow
their continued existence in the parkway. If the Commission wants to
make a change, do so for new construction, but do not penalize those
who had placed items in the parkway long ago.
6. Enforcement and cost. If removal of items in the parkway is to be
seriously evaluated, a major consideration should be given to the cost of
manpower hours that would be required for its enforcement. There is
also a cost to the Village for the subsequent removal of all trees,
boulders, retaining walls, masonry structures, etc. With the Village's
budgetary constraints, it is prohibitive for the Village to incur these
extreme costs to remove and relocate all of these items, let alone the cost
to the homeowners to landscape their properties afterwards.
In consideration of these statements, he implored the Village to leave well enough
alone and to make better use of the tax dollars and resources elsewhere, and not for
removing items that contribute to the aesthetic beauty of the neighborhoods and the
Village. He submitted newspaper articles to be included in the files.
George Stamogianos, an attorney, his office located at 610 Roosevelt Road,
Wheaton, spoke on behalf of his clients, Karen and Paul Pocus that reside at 340
Timber View Drive in the Village. He said that their stance on the issue is that the
Village should take the same position as the court would, by balancing the equities
here. When dealing with items in the right -of -way, such as boulders, retaining
walls, etc., the Village has the right to remove them when they are located on
Village property. He asked what damages are caused by these being located on
Village property, and responded, not that much. There was discussion of the Village
being sued by individuals due to damages, etc., but the chance of someone
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 17 March 17, 2008
prevailing on that would be very slim and should not be considered; compared to the
possibility of having countless lawsuits that would be caused by the Village to have
people remove the items that exist in the right -of -way. Over many years, the
residents have paid tens of thousands of dollars adding retaining walls and
landscape, etc. Perhaps at that time, a permit was not required and asking them to
remove the items now is going to cost the residents tens of thousands of dollars. His
client has a retaining wall and if it had to be removed would cost them tens of
thousand of dollars, when it is not bothering the Village at all. It is their position, as
others have stated, to grandfather these items in and have the residents execute a
hold harmless letter for the Village that would make the property owner personally
responsible for any damage, It is a balance of the equities. The Village cannot
attempt to take away everyone's rights and cause them to spend thousands of dollars
of added expenses for the sake of saying that the Village would want it removed
from the right -of -way.
Member Vivek questioned who has suffered as a result of these items in the right-of-
way. He asked if data could be gathered to indicate that these objects are truly
public safety hazards, as well as being a liability to the Village.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that he would try to find something, although he
did not know whether the Village kept those kinds of records and how far back they
might go. The Village is not very computerized in that regard.
Gail Polanek referenced page 18 of the case file regarding a report compiled in 2006
by the police department in response to this question regarding property damage.
Member Lalmalani questioned what prompted the review of this matter.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that some of the contributing factors were that
Ginger Creek asked the Village to remove all of the boulders in the right -of -way
when its streets were paved. The Public Works Department also had some concerns
and that probably several things culminated into starting the process.
Chairwoman Payovich said that objects in the right -of -way were removed when the
streets were paved in Yorkshire Woods.
Member Knitter asked if a tree could legally be placed in the right -of -way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that street trees are required in the public right -
of -way. Street trees are required in new subdivisions on a street in the parkway.
Everyone wants trees and environmentally they provide oxygen from our CO2.
There are many reasons why everyone wants street trees in public ways. Like fire
hydrants, there is a public reason and benefit for certain things to be in the
parkways.
Member Knitter said that he lives in Saddle Brook and it appears that almost every
tree is approximately 15 feet from the edge of curb. He questioned whether those
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 17 March 17, 2008
00,��
were in the right-of-way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that it depends on how wide the street it. Most
rights of way are 66 feet, some are 80 and others could be greater, so it depends
upon the street. Typically, from the edge of the road to the back of the curb to the
lot line could be between 10 -20 feet.
Member Knitter asked if was safe to assume that the location of the utilities may be
behind a stone mailbox or boulders and not be located within the first 2 -4 feet where
one of these objects would be located.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that it depends upon the subdivision. On one
side, there could be water and on the other, there could be a storm or sanitary sewer
and a gas line. The gas line is required to be on the opposite side of the water main.
Water main breaks have to be dug up. Sewers do not break too often, but they have.
There are also phone lines, Comcast lines are there, but on a specific site location, it
can vary depending upon the location.
Member Iyer motioned, seconded by Member Knitter to continue the review to the
next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to discuss.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Member Knitter questioned whether an implementation plan had been put in place
on the now approved Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan
Gail Polanek responded that the Village Board was in the process of working on
hiring a firm, if not Houseal Lavigne, to work on an implementation plan.
There was no other business to discuss.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Knitter to adjourn the meeting at
9:06 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST:
Robert Kallien, Dir for of munity Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 17 March 17, 2008
NEW BUSINESS
OTHER
BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT