Loading...
Minutes - 04/11/2005 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE APRIL 11, 2005 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MAY 16, 2005. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Special 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 7:28 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, David Braune, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no minutes to be approved. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. VILLAS OF OAK BROOK SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD, 3111 3113 and 3115 MEYERS ROAD — 8 -LOT SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION WITH VARIATION — TITLE 14 of the VILLAGE CODE — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Chairwoman Payovich asked Member Braune, if he had the opportunity to review the CD of the March 21, 2005 Plan Commission meeting. Member Braune responded that he had reviewed the CD as well as the case file. Chairwoman Payovich noted for the record that he was eligible to vote in this matter. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this matter was continued from the regular March 21, 2005 meeting to resolve some issues. The applicant has provided some additional site plans as a result of several meetings they have had with staff and the neighbors. John Brechin, 619 S. Addison road, Addison, Attorney for the petitioners said that At the Last Plan Commission meeting some residents from Midwest Club spoke VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 April 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS VILLAS OF OAK BROOK SUB — 2901 OAK BROOK RD, 3111, 3113 and 3115 MEYERS ROAD — 8 -LOT SUB - PREL PLAT OF SUB and raised concerns of the location of the roadway coming off of Meyers Road. They met with staff to go over a couple of alternatives they had to solicit staff input. They also met twice with two of the residents, both of which are in attendance at this meeting. The original plan had the south side of the roadway 5 feet from the lot line. What they have done in this plan was to move the roadway from 5 feet to 16 feet from the lot line. It creates more of a separation of the roadway from the lot line. With 16 feet they will be able to do more in terms of berming, and they have agreed to put in substantial landscaping for the mutual benefit of the parties, which they think will resolve any issues that this roadway otherwise presented. They believe that controversy has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. They believe the residents got everything that they wanted. They did want the roadway moved substantially further north, but they did explain and go over the reasons why that could not be done, including encroachment into the floodplain and the ultimate loss of one lot, which would have been financially devastating. They think that this is a very good compromise. The roadway meets village standards in terms of its width, and the subdivision otherwise conforms to village requirements and they asked for the Plan Commission's favorable recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Mikolos Bende, 714 Midwest Club, said that they would -have preferred the road to be moved further north, but they understood that it could not be done and still maintain the lot sizes. They did agree to provide a private functioning gate at the entrance to the road. Other than that they agreed to the plan. No one else in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. Member Goel said that he believes the applicant made a good faith effort to meet the one outstanding issue from the last meeting. Member Wolin said that if the residents were happy with the design then it was fine with him. However, there is a concern that he has brought up at every meeting, and that is this property is flood plain property and has created a variety of obstacles to development. One concern he has that has not been resolved is the amount of the property that is dedicated to detention. It is his understanding that nothing is to be done in a detention basin, no trees, no vegetation, nothing. The Plan Commission at many meetings expressed interest in tree preservation, etc. and with that much of the property dedicated to detention, you just do not have it. It looks to him that 2/3 of the property is detention basin and he is not sure that is a very good precedent. He asked to be corrected if he said anything wrong. Village Engineer Durfey said that the basin has to be reserved for stormwater flows and volumes of stormwater. An occasional tree would not be a detriment significantly to that. There is another location in town where residents have trees in a backyard detention facility and the Village has not taken removal tactics, so an VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 April 11, 2005 occasional tree would not cause a problem. Structures, such as sheds would be a problem. Compensatory storage areas that are still flood plain fall under the National Flood Insurance Program. Their goal is to minimize damages, so a shed, lawn equipment, tractor would not be permitted because those would be damages in a flood condition. Member Adrian asked if there was a detention basin off the bike path at 35th Street and Meyers Road that actually fills up with water often. Village Engineer Durfey agreed that it is a detention basin. Member Adrian asked if that was going to happen to these detention basins. Village Engineer Durfey said that the basin to the east on the old Falco parcel is stormwater detention. The vast majority to the west is compensatory flood storage; so that could conceivably flood less often than the detention basin. Chairwoman Payovich asked if they were like the detention basins seen in some of the commercial properties along Harger Road, where if there is not any significant rainfall you do not see much water in them. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the things that came up during the original proposal that has been mitigated somewhat is the elevation. There were substantial height issues with the previous proposal and the applicant has done a very good job in trying to match some of the existing topography. The second issue that has not been fully resolved is the size of the buildable area and what can be built as far as accessory structures. The reality is that people who choose to look at these lots as a potential home site have to realize that there may be some limitation. Not all types of homes and improvements are going to fit here and they have to make that decision up front. If they want a lot where they want to build a substantial swimming pool, this is probably not the location; that is a realization. He thinks the applicant has tried to address a number of the issues that we have previously identified, especially with the walls. Chairwoman Payovich said that there are number lot of lots in Old Oak Brook that have significant flood plain areas behind them. They cannot do any building and it has not decreased the value of those homes. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the most westerly part of the subdivision currently has three houses on the property today. Under this proposal there will be three houses and they will probably be much larger and more substantial. Under today's rules the homes that exist there now would not have been allowed to be developed because of the flood plain. That is why some of the circumstances are different here than what previously existed because there is a whole new set of rules that apply today that did not apply then. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 April 11, 2005 Chairwoman Payovich asked Village Engineer Durfey whether everything the applicant has done is within the stormwater guidelines and that he has no concerns. Mr. Durfey responded that was correct. Member Braune asked if the existing pond on the Falco property was going to be enlarged. Mr. Brechin responded that it was going to be slightly enlarged. Mr. Brechin said that when you compare this subdivision to others, such as Tuscan Woods which has more severe restrictions than this proposal; Old Oak Brook where some of the lots are more than 50% in the flood plain; and Covington which some of the lots have 12 feet or less of usable area behind the homes and a dramatic drop off this proposal is not a precedent. They did discuss with staff would could or could not be placed in the detention area and there really is not a hard and fast rule. They are going to address that issue in two ways. First they will handle through the sales force to advise people that start talking about pools, tennis courts, etc. that they should talk to Village staff before they commit to anything because they do not want them to be disappointed to buy a lot and then find out that an amenity they want cannot be used. Secondly, they are going to approach it through the covenants. It will set forth as specifically as they can the restrictions that exist on the property. They do not want anyone to be surprised just as the Village does not want anyone to be surprised. Restriction has not detracted from the sale - ability of lots such as in Old Oak Brook and they don't think it is going to detract from the sale - ability of these properties. Member Bulin questioned if many of the trees would be saved considering the grading that is required., Mr. Brechin responded that from the initial tree inventory many of the species of trees on the site are not worth keeping. When the tree plan is presented as part of the final plat they will be willing to accept any input if there are any significant trees worthy of preservation. Member Bulin asked Village Engineer Durfey to expand on the comments of item 5 in his March 15, 2005 memorandum (page 8.a of the case file) Village Engineer Durfey said that relates to the initial comment on the walls. The Public Works Standards have gentle slopes from the normal water level going up. In this case because of the flood plain constraints and issues, they have elected to put walls in. Member Bulin asked if under the normal water level would there be a ledge before there is another drop off (referring to the eastern most property line where it is steep). Village Engineer Durfey responded that type of detail would come with the Final Plat engineering. Member Wolin commented that he has concerns with the subdivision that he has addressed since the very beginning and even though it has been said there are other subdivisions out there with these restrictions he has not since that in the time he VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2005 has been on the Plan Commission. Mr. Brechin advised the Plan Commission that they have pictures taken from the various subdivisions which they referred to in their presentation. The members of the Plan Commission agreed to look at the examples provided by the applicant. Mr. Flowers described the location of each of the pictures. Several were from the Trinity Lakes Subdivision and Covington. One of the homes shows how close the home is to the waters edge (approximately 12 -16 feet). There is a substantial grade approximately 4 to 1. Another home has a walk out basement and right out to the water. Lots 2 and 3 on the western portion part of the property, shows the house foot print with a substantial wooden deck, pool, 3 -car garage as well as a play set in the backyard. Similar amenities for Lot 3. The views will be substantial. In Tuscan Woods Subdivision, which was approved by the Plan Commission they did site research. One of the houses which is currently under construction is 4 feet away from the detention area and goes down on a 3 to 1 slope. There is no where near the amount of yard on these properties that they are providing on the proposed subdivision. The detention areas are usable by the homeowner; they just cannot build anything in them. There are drains that will keep the area dry unless there is a 100 -year flood that forces it to back up until the restricted water flow allows all the water to be pushed off into the ponds. The lots in Tuscan Woods are going to have similar restrictions because of the detention areas in the back of the property. They believe what they are planning to provide for this subdivision will provide substantial resources for the people to build whatever amenities they want to have. I think you have to appreciate a home with a pool, hot tub, gazebo, large deck, substantial parking plenty of green area and a huge driveway is more than enough for a homeowner in Oak Brook. The members and audience took a few minutes to review the pictures and then resumed the hearing. Member Wolin said that after reviewing the pictures it is obvious that subdivisions in that past have had similar type problems. As a person that takes flood control very seriously. The fact that there is a precedent does not mean that the commission has to vote to approve this one. The only condition that he will vote yes to is if there is a statement added that acknowledges the fact that we recognize that this property has substantial flood plain limitations and that a very significant portion of the property is dedicated to a detention basin. He does not want to see a vote go forward to the Village Board that this is a pristine development. Member Adrian asked if the developer would be willing to refrain from tree cutting VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 April 11, 2005 until it goes to final plat. Member Braune said that based on the current state of the current properties; and the previous plans that were seen, and what we see now he thinks that it is going to be an improvement to the set of properties in its entirety. This is a far better plan than the original one submitted. He has visions of this being substantially nice when it matures out. He is in support of the subdivision as well as the addition Member Wolin would like to see added. Mr. Brechin said that this is not going to be an issue. It is going to be an easement and is going to be maintained as a common area through the association. The landscape plan will be reviewed at the final plat stage; and if there are an inordinate amount of trees in any detention area the Commission will say that they cannot be there. Everyone will know up front where vegetation will be; what it will be; and what impact if any it would have on the flood plain and the stormwater detention. Staff will have plenty of opportunity to review it. It would be too extreme to say that nothing can be in the detention area in the way of landscaping. Member Goel said that some statement should be made with respect to the stormwater areas at the time of final plat. Member Bulin said that part of their retention area as well as part of the proposed detention area is going to be vegetated with a certain amount of native plant material. Unless a concrete bowl is created, there is going to be a certain amount of vegetation that will have to be incorporated in order to make it aesthetically pleasing. In the base of the detention area there will not be vegetation, but there are side slopes to take care of. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Braune to recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat of subdivision. In recommending approval of this subdivision the Plan Commission wishes it to be recognized that the subject property has substantial flood plain resulting in a significant portion of the property with dedicated basins as well as a significant amount of retaining walls around the detention and compensatory storage areas. The recommendation includes the revisions on pages 16 and 17 of the case file, subject to the following conditions. 1. Subject to all of the conditions contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum (page 8.a of the case file) dated March 15, 2005, paying particular attention to item number 11. 2. Recommend approval of the requested variation for private streets. 3. A waiver of the Subdivision Regulations requiring a 66 -foot right -of -way dedication. 4. No trees are to be cut down from the site until final plat. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 April 11, 2005 5. There will be limitations on the ability to landscape stormwater detention areas. These will all be reviewed as part of the final plat process. The goal is to have the maximum amount of landscaping that does not detract from the stormwater drainage capacity and function of that area. 6. It is appropriate for the developer to utilize the southeast corner of the Village's well site property for grading purposes as opposed to constructing a wall. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2005 ADJOURNMENT