Loading...
Minutes - 03/21/2005 - Plan Commission1. 2 3 H MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON MAY 16, 2005. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the West Wing Training Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. ABSENT: Member David Braune IN ATTENDANCE: Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2005 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Wolin to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2005 Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — ADD CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Staff has requested this matter be continued to a later date. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Adrian to continue the review of the Tree Preservation Regulations to a later date. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 March 21, 2005 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS VOB - ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT - TEXT AMEND -ADD CHAPTER 15 - TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. VILLAS OF OAK BROOK SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD, VILLAS OF OAK BROOK SUB — 2901 3111, 3113 and 3115 MEYERS ROAD — 8 -LOT SUBDIVISION - OAK BROOK RD, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION WITH VARIATION — TITLE 14 ME 3113 and 3115 YERS ROAD — 8- of the VILLAGE CODE — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOT SUB - PREL PLAT OF SUB Village Engineer Dale Durfey provided an overview of the project. Mr. Vito Falco is the owner of the 4.69 acres at 2901 Oak Brook Road and the new developer that is part of this project now is Mr. Frank Drukas, the owner of 3.54 acres located at 3111, 3113 and 3115 Meyers Road. They have combined their projects together. Roughly the subdivision is almost double what is was before. It is proposed to be 8 lots, 6 lots will be for residential home sites and 2 lots will be the out lots for two cul de sac streets. John Brechin, 619 Addison Road, Addison, Illinois, attorney for the applicants, advised the Commission that some of this property was reviewed a few months ago as "Reflection Circle Subdivision" basically it was the east half of what is now being proposed. At the various meetings, concerns were expressed over a number of issues including the pond on the west side of the property and how it appeared in relation to the roadway, which was a horseshoe type arrangement at that time. There were also concerns raised about the elevations of the lots and how the subdivision would relate to the property to the west, which at that time was owned by Mr. George Mueller. Mr. Flowers and Mr. Drukas got together and decided to consolidate both their efforts into one plat. It has been reviewed a great deal with staff. At one time they had hoped to have one roadway throughout the area, but that arrangement would have created a need for more fill because of the flood plain on the property. They have decided to go with 2 cul de sacs, which they request to be private streets. The total property encompasses 8.23 acres and they are proposing 6 buildable lots and two out lots; Lot 4 and Lot 8 will be for the private streets and will not be buildable, In summary: • All 6 buildable lots will conform to all R -2 standards in terms of lot area. • They think there is sufficient buildable area on each of the lots so that typical amenities can be reasonably placed on all of the properties. • In terms of stormwater management they have maintained flood plain compensatory storage and all required stormwater detention. • They will not encroach upon the wetlands at all as well as the wetland buffer that goes 50 feet beyond the wetlands will not be disturbed by the construction. • There will be dry stormwater detention on the site and will be usable by the owners of the properties and may be inundated for a brief period of time if there is a significant event. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 March 21, 2005 • The elevations have been reduced on Villa View Drive by up to three feet. This is more in keeping with suggestions from staff and the Plan Commission and it makes the grading plan they are proposing much more compatible with the existing topography and grade so there is not significant amount of cutting or filling and they are working with the natural topography and grade as much as they can. • The reduction in elevation allows for the wall on the east side of the flood plain compensatory storage area to be reduced from 8 feet to 4 feet. There were comments at a previous Plan Commission meeting on how the 8 -foot wall would look. They have reduced it by 50% so there is a significant lessening visual effect the wall would have. • The grading plan has been revised to minimize alterations to existing topography and grades. • Dale had mentioned that the walls around the lake were a deviation from the Public Works Construction Standards because the slopes standards cannot be met. The reason that has been done, the way they have is because they have utilized the walls so that they would not have to expand laterally the pond. They think they will function just as well and believe there should be consideration for approval of their proposed plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the slopes suggested by the Village are not met here. • Both roadways will be constructed consistent with subdivision standards. • The variation requested is for the right of way. The Ordinance requires a 66 -foot dedication; they are suggesting 30 feet. They are asking this because it minimizes what would have to be done in terms of flood plain compensatory storage filling and cutting. • They are seeking an easement over the Village's property of approximately 1500 square feet. They are asking for the easement so that they can come onto the Village property and grade. If the Village declines, instead of grading the area, they will have to provide a wall, which they do not think, is aesthetically pleasing. • Staff had suggested the relocation of the bicycle and pedestrian pathway. Along Oak Brook Road (31 St Street) the bike path will be shifted an average of 8 feet to the south to keep the bike path away from the pavement on Oak Brook Road where the speed limit is 40 -45. • There is a minor relocation of the bike path that exists along Meyers Road. Presently there is a small section that goes into Lot 7; they are going to swing it toward the west so that it abuts the lot line. They are also going to relocate a portion of the bike path adjacent to the Village's property as well as what is adjacent to their property. ■ They are also seeking a waiver of the requirement for sidewalks. Because of the existence around the entirety of the property with the pedestrian bicycle pathway, they believe it is a reasonable request. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 March 21, 2005 ■ The reason for the variation to the street is to prevent a further intrusion into the flood plain. That concluded the summary of the proposed subdivision. Chairwoman Payovich asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Mikolos Bende, 714 Midwest Club, said that their property abuts the proposed subdivision by Meyers Road and they object to the location of the cul de sac as it is shown. They would then have roads on 3 sides of their property and it would negatively impact the value of their property. They suggested that they flip the proposal around and put the cul de sac on the other side, then the rear of the 3 lots would back up to Midwest Club. Mr. Brechin responded that there are two problems; one is the existence of the flood plain compensatory storage area because you cannot build a roadway in there. The second issue is the distance of the driveway to the Meyers Road intersection. They do not believe the County would allow them to install a roadway access that far north. The County has reviewed the plan and verbally advised that they believe the drive to be in a favorable location for the roadway access. The County's general position is that they will not provide anything in writing until they see approved plans, which would not be until final plat. A preliminary plat will not have anything that is formally approved. Member Adrian asked the Bende's if there were any kind of buffer existing between their property and the proposed roadway. Mr. Bende responded that there are some trees and a three -foot cyclone fence. He said that his neighbors would be equally concerned, but they are on vacation. Many of the people are snowbirds and are away for the winter season and are not even aware of the proposal. Mr. Brechin said that there would be only 3 homes accessing the site and there will not be significant traffic volumes. They can enhance the landscaping along the southern edge of the property as it abuts the roadway to minimize any visual impact. Mr. Bende said that people will use that road for turning around. Across the street Heritage Oaks just put in a gate, for just that reason to keep outside traffic from coming through. Mr. Brechin said that there is a significant cost to gating. Mr. Bende said that they just found out this proposal just a few days ago because they were out of town and they are not prepared. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 March 21, 2005 Chairwoman Payovich said that the Plan Commission would go through the review of the proposal. The Plan Commission reviewed Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum on page 8 -8.a. of the case file. Member Bulin asked if the cul de sac meets the Fire Dept. requirement. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it did. Member Wolin asked if the utility easement was along the lot line. Village Engineer Durfey responded that for preliminary plat purposes, it is not required at this time. Member Wolin asked if utilities would be going under the road. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the sanitary sewer and a storm sewer would be located along the south edge and a water main along the north side. Mr Brechin reviewed the guardrail detail. There will be a 9 -inch curb. It will basically be a very substantial barrier to keep any vehicle from leaving the roadway and getting into the pond. That will be further supplemented by the guardrail system that will be approximately 2 feet back from the curb, so that if anyone can jump the .curb the guardrail will restrain them. Member Tropinski asked if there were not any streetlights, how someone would avoid hitting that curb at night. Member Brechin responded that anyone entering or exiting would be at such a reduced speed that it should not be a problem. Member Tropinski asked how high the guardrail would be. Mr. Lin reviewed the cross - section and responded that from the back of curb to the face of the wall there is a two -foot clearance; so that is where they proposed the guardrail. The guardrail is about 3 feet high from grade plus adding another 9" for the height of the curb, there is almost 4 feet from the edge of pavement. Member Goel asked if the two ponds connect. Mr. Lin responded that they did. There will be an underground culvert to equalize the water level. Village Engineer Durfey commented that on the Village requirements for a street lighting system, typically they are waived at the final plat stage, except for intersections. Typically there would be a streetlight at Oak Brook Road and Villa View Drive and Meyers Road and Dana Point Court unless the Village decides to waive the requirement. Mr. Lin reviewed the proposed one tier wall as compared to the two -tier wall proposed the last time. This time they utilized the existing topography on the site. There will be much less fill by four feet from what they had before. At Mr. Falco's house the top of foundation is at 714 and the top of foundation for lot 2 is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 March 21, 2005 709 and lot 3 will be at 706. Chairwoman Payovich asked what the slope would be going down. Mr. Lin responded that it would be one to one. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically retaining walls are straight up and down. They are proposing a boulder - landscaping wall with a one to one slope. It is basically it is a retaining wall and whatever works, as a retaining wall would be permitted. Village Engineer Durfey said that one of the criteria on the lake cross - section for detention pond in a residential subdivision (page 8 -b of the case file) is designed for the safety of children to keep them from falling into the water. The east side of the property with the boulder- landscape retaining wall; it would be very difficult for anyone to get over there first of all so it is a little different situation. Member Wolin asked about the situation on the other side. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it was his understanding that the guardrail would be in effect that physical barrier to not let people go past. Village Engineer Durfey said that an addendum he wanted to put on his memorandum where it says on item #3, "although a note on the plat states..." the developer is not going to do that any longer. They are going to do a little more compensatory storage so the entire parcel on the east side is going to be all lake. Member Wolin said that one of his concerns the last time was that the yards are all detention basins. He does not believe it is a good precedent. Mr. Brechin said that the buildable area is 80 feet by 70 feet; there is significant property that can be utilized for accessory structures. Mr. Lin said that the building pad is 5600 square feet of buildable area that is for a single story building. There is a concrete wall in response to the Plan Commission's concerns to the make more room in the back of the building pad. Member Bulin commented that their concerns were regarding the steep slope in the area, the concrete wall will provide a more level area. If a two -story home were built it could support over 11000 square feet of home. Member Adrian said that if there is flood plain in the back yard that is okay. He asked whether several homes in Old Oak Brook that back up to Salt Creek are perfectly acceptable, but their back yards literally are in the flood plain and when the creek flows it comes right up to it. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Adrian said that if someone is well aware that if there is a heavy rain, their VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 March 21, 2005 backyard would become a lake, and they want to live there, he does not think that is an issue. A precedent has been set in Old Oak Brook, so how can the Commission look at this and say that they do not like it. He does not believe this should be an issue for the Plan Commission, at least not for him. Chairwoman Payovich said that Member Adrian has made a very valid point. Old Oak Brook has been there for quite a while and the homes there are working very well off of Salt Creek. And you would think there would be more significant flooding that what we have on this site. Mr. Brechin responded that some of the homes in Old Oak Brook are more than 50% in the flood plain and floodway. It has not depreciated the value of the homes in that subdivision. Member Goel asked if it would be acceptable according to the current standards. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the standards relate to volumes of flood plain detention and compensatory storage. Those standards are pretty much the same in Old Oak Brook. Chairwoman Payovich asked if those Old Oak Brook standards would be very similar to what they are dealing with on this proposal. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Wolin said that he respects Member Adrian's opinion, but he wanted to reiterate what he had said and he understands the precedent that was set with Old Oak Brook. He came from Elmhurst and lived in a floodplain there and his house was flooded. After the fact, he learned all the rules for building in a floodplains and floodways. He respects floods and is very cautious about them. He wanted to go on record to say that he does not think it is a good idea to build homes where a large part of the backyard is the storage area. Member Tropinski commented that she is concerned about all of the slopes around the houses because it appears that it is not very usable land for a family that would want some of the usual amenities, shed, swing set, pool, etc. Mr. Brechin said that potential buyers in Oak Brook are discerning and are going to know what they are looking at. When you talk about 5600 square feet of buildable area you can do many things with that and have many amenities all within the buildable area. There are some people that like the topography and overlooking water, which is something for the buyer to consider. He said that he believes this proposal meets the Subdivision Regulations and should be viewed as such. Whether any individual Plan Commission member would or would not buy property in the subdivision, is interesting but not conclusive of anything. Buyers VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 March 21, 2005 are going to know exactly what they are getting into and decide if they want to buy it or not. Similar to property in Old Oak Brook who paid very significant sums for lots, a lot of which are not useful in the traditional sense. Member Wolin commented that the subdivision as proposed is not the most appealing with restrictions in the backyard, lack of landscape; water and the concrete retaining walls do not add any beauty. Chairwoman Payovich commented that she understands floodplain issues. However, there are a number of subdivisions in Burr Ridge that have small lakes and the homes are built up similar in concept like this one is proposing. They had brick tiered retaining walls and the homes were quite large in established subdivisions. She thinks there are places where this particular concept does work well. Mr. Brechin noted that DuPage County has given them a favorable sign on both roadways and they do not anticipate any problems getting permits from the County once the final plat plans are prepared. Mr. Brechin said that there are two owners of this subdivision and prior to the finalization of the covenant agreements, they will create an entity that will be responsible to the Village. These will all be addressed in the final plat documents. Village Engineer Durfey clarified #11 in his memorandum explaining that they wanted to build a small dike on the corner of the Village property so that they would not have to build a less desirable type wall around their lot lines In response to questions regarding the trees on the site, Mr. Brechin said that unfortunately when there is a lot of grading on a site, it is very difficult to save many of the trees. If they are bigger trees you cannot feasibly relocated them. It will be their task to create and develop a landscape plan and when it is done will look better than it does now. Mr. Brechin said that currently the property does not have access to bike path and they do not have sidewalks. There will not be the level of traffic that would need sidewalks. It would be difficult to add any more impervious surface on the site, which is why they are seeking the variation. The bike path along Meyers Road goes in and onto their property, and they cannot find any easement ever being granted to the Village for the purpose of allowing the bike path there, which means if there is no easement it should not be there. Rather than just removing it, they propose to relocate it so that there is no gap in the trail. Also they will not have liability or insurance requirements regarding a public bike path on private property, which is a cleaner way to go for everyone. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 March 215 2005 Member Goel asked what they are gaining by combining the east and west parcels into one subdivision. Mr. Brechin responded that if the properties were developed separate and apart, you could end up with two storm water systems and two flood plain compensatory systems encompassing more area for no more benefit. They have centralized the compensatory storage and detention for their mutual benefit and it has better planning principles. There is a natural integration of the east and west sites and if one were developed separate and apart from the other they may not fit together as well. It is treating a larger area of land as one system and results in better planning and you can see how the east relates to the west side. Member Bulin said that he believes this plan is a vast improvement over the previous scenario. He agrees with Member Adrian on a lot of the economic issues. He does have a few concerns such as the crossing over the ponds and is also concerned of the closeness on the Dana Point Drive location in relation to the properties in Midwest Club and if there could be a way to accommodate the neighbors. The elevations on this proposal are much more appropriate. Chairwoman Payovich said that the applicant has done a good job of making their presentation. She would like to give them the opportunity to work with the homeowners to come up with a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Bende, 714 Midwest Club, said that he does not think it is fair to have 3 roads around their property. They will be overlooking a 28 -foot pavement and does not know how any kind of screening could elevate that problem. Member Adrian suggested that the homeowners and the applicant sit down and try to discuss a remedy to the situation before the Plan Commission makes a final decision. Mr. Brechin said that they will commit to meet with the neighbors and try to work something out that is mutually acceptable and they would certainly incorporate that into their plan. They will try to hear from all of the neighbors that may have concerns. After a brief discussion it was agreed by the Plan Commission to continue this matter to a special meeting in order to give the applicants and the neighbors the opportunity to resolve the issues. All surrounding property owners will be notified by mail of the special meeting date. Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Tropinski to continue the hearing on the Villas of Oak Brook Subdivision to a special Plan Commission meeting to be scheduled. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 March 21, 2005 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 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 10 of 10 March 21, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT