Minutes - 04/21/2008 - Plan Commission1.
2
3.
S
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21, 2008 REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN
ON JULY 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
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Gopal Lalmalam, Mintu
Sharma, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski
ABSENT: Member Richard Knitter
IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Dale L. Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer,
and Michael Meranda, Director of Public Works
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. MINUTES
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2008
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2008
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Singhal to approve the minutes of
the February 18, 2008 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written and the March
17, 2008 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion
Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS VOB- OBJECTS
WITHIN
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS -- OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS PARKWAYS
Chairwoman Payovich opened the hearing to comments from the audience.
Roger Macnider, 370 Forest Trail described an experience that he had on his way
home from work on January 3, 2008. About a block from his home, a village water
main had broken and the street was a sheet of ice. A neighbor has stone pillars on
the edge of the driveway and when his car slid on the ice, it knocked one down and
did about $6,000 damage to his vehicle. He was concerned about the location of the
pillars being located one foot from the roadway so he contacted the village and
found out that, it was permissible and that a permit had been issued for it. He
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 20 April 21, 2008
commented that he did not think solid objects should be located one foot from the
roadway.
Larry Whitlow, 3007 Avenue Loire said that recently, a woman had fallen asleep
behind the wheel of her car at about 2:30 in the afternoon as it was going down
Meyers Road. The car went across the road into the retaining wall (onto county
property), spun out and then knocked a fire hydrant out of the ground. It caused
thousands of dollars in damage to his property (as a result of the water from the
broken hydrant) and totaled the car. This goes to the point he made that it is
ridiculous to be concerned with boulders, when there are retaining walls and
thousands of trees located in the right -of -way.
Gary Kronen, 418 Luthin Road said that after attending the meeting on March 17,
2008 and after hearing Mr. Durfey's presentation regarding objects in the right-of-
way as well as the comments made by other residents and the commissioners, he
asked to provide comments directed to the issue in general and some specifics
regarding his home at 418 Luthin. (These comments were read into the record and
are attached to the case file on page 27 -27e) He urged the Commission to make a
recommendation that would take into account historical experience and that, which
is reasonable and practical.
Village Engineer Durfey said that this is a very complex and serious issue and
documents and opinions would be provided so that the Plan Commission has as
much information as possible on which to base a recommendation to the Village
Board. He reviewed the map on page 1 of the case file. The orange roads are
village roads and the blue are private roads in subdivisions and the village does not
have jurisdiction over these types of items. Roads that are not highlighted are state,
county, or tollway.
Obiects Within Parkways
Village established the following policy.
A. Items that are relatively mobile and have low mass and low height are
allowed within the parkway as a matter of right and do not require a permit.
Examples include grass, flowers, flexible reflectors, wooden lathe stakes
(often used to mark driveways in the winter), and normal mailbox posts.
B Items that are more permanent than those contemplated in Section A, might
be allowed within the parkway under a permit issued by the Village. This
section addresses those objects that are substantial enough to require a
permit and justify engineering review and village approval over what they
are and where they go. Examples include sprinkler lines, light posts, small
identification walls, and ornate substantial mailbox structures, "mirror"
ornate mailbox -type structures, trees, and shrubs. Except for those items
discussed in the preceding paragraph. A private clear zone of 10 feet
adjacent to the back of curb or edge of pavement should be maintained.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 20 April 21, 2008
y
This does not include items that are or become village property such as
hydrants, street trees, etc. Objects that are smaller than eight inches above
the ground could occupy this private clear zone and would not require a
permit. This would allow applicants to place small items within the private
clear zone that should not cause damage to vehicles. Examples include
small boulders or timbers. The parkway located beyond the private clear
zone, could be used for other larger objects such as light posts, which
would require a permit by the applicants.
C. Items that pose safety hazards or interfere with the private clear zone
within parkways are prohibited within the parkway. Examples include
larger boulders, vertical pipes, berms and private retaining walls.
That original section prohibits placement of certain items within the right of way
and was included to meet the following guidelines.
1. Roadway guidelines
2. To keep the village owned parkways relatively clear and uncluttered.
3. To allow space and access for utility access and maintenance.
4. To allow space and access for JULIE locates.
5. To reduce the amount of damage to private objects within those parkways
should construction be needed and minimize residential complaints about
restoring their private objects.
6. To reduce the severity of accidents should a vehicle leave a roadway and
thereby reduce the village's liability.
The details of the original ordinance "Objects With the Parkways"
Paragraph A talked about small type items such as flowers, etc., which are not a
problem.
Paragraph B talked about more substantial type items that would be a concern and
the second part talked about a private clear zone, such as a reasonable area close to
the road that should not have private type obstructions. Another section talked
about past the 10 -foot clear zone.
Paragraph C talked about prohibited items anywhere within the parkway.
Several residents complained to then Village Manager Veitch about the original
restrictions on the parkway items, Manager Veitch on August 29, 2001, approved a
revision that was to be placed in the first update to the Public Works Standards.
A. Permitted Items Items that are relatively mobile or have low mass and
low height may be placed within the parkway and do not require a permit
from the Village. Examples include turf, small decorative gravel, rock or
mulch, flowers, shrubs smaller than 12 inches in height, flexible or
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 20 April 21, 2008
frangible reflectors or delineators, lathe stakes (for winter marking),
standard not large than 5 by 5 mailbox posts, and boulder or formations of
boulder not great than 8 inches in height.
B. Items Permissible Through a Permit Items larger or more permanent in
nature than those contemplated by Section A can be permitted within the
parkway subject to engineering review by the Village, issuance of a pen-nit
and execution of a covenant to be recorded against the adjacent property.
Examples include irrigation sprinkler lines and heads, light posts, small
ornamental landscape or identification walls, structural masonry or timber
mailbox structure, mirror structures, driveway pylons, shrubs larger than 12
inches in height and boulders. Ornamental walls, boulders, or formations
of boulders with a height above grade greater than 8 inches, which are
termed to be large boulders maybe permitted subject to specific review and
issuance of a permit. The following standards would apply:
1. Ornamental walls or large boulders shall be located at least 10 feet
from the back of curb or edge of pavement.
2. Ornamental walls or large boulders shall be located at least 5 feet
(horizontal) from a water main, storm sewer or sanitary sewer and at
least 15 feet (horizontal) from a fire hydrant, inlet, manhole or any
other at or above grade public utility fixture or appurtenance.
With respect to any item permitted pursuant to Section B, the property
owner shall execute a covenant.
C. Prohibited Items.
The details are in the first section of A, which somewhat expanded the original small
item list to include boulders less than 8 inches in height. Section B talked about
substantial items, which are basically similar to the original standard, although it did
add that it kept a 10 foot clear zone for items greater than 8 inches and added
dimensions from utilities for maintenance purposes. In Section 3 the totally
prohibited items was pretty much the same as the original concept.
Even with this several residents would not comply and continued their discussions
with the Village Managers office in 2001 and thereafter.
A. IDOT Federal -Aid Procedures for Local Highway Improvements.
1. Chapter 5, Section 8 Design Policies, Sub-Section 2 Urban Design,
Paragraph In Border Area:
"Wherever practical, an additional buffer width of 12 to 15 feet
should be provided behind the curb and sidewalk and kept free of
obstacles... safety and environmental advantages..."
2. Sub - Section 4 Horizontal Clearance and Guardrail Policy:
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD.
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 20 April 21, 2008
"Removal of the roadside obstacle should be the first alternative
considered."
3. Paragraph c Clear Zone Area under Sub- Section 4
"Definition. The `clear zone' is a recovery area that is free of
roadside hazard
"On urban streets with a design speed less than 45 mph, a minimum
clearance area should be provided at least 2 feet from the face of
curb.
The minimum rural clear zone is 10 feet.
B. ASSHTO (American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
1. Chapter 4 Cross Section Elements; - Horizontal Clearance to
Obstructions:
"The term `clear zone' is used to designate the unobstructed,
relatively flat area provided beyond the edge of the traveled
way for the recovery of errant vehicles."
"For urban arterials, collectors, and local streets where curbs are
utilized, space for clear zones is generally restricted. A
minimum offset distance of 18 inches should be provided
beyond the face of the curb, with wider offsets provided where
practical. However, since most curbs do not have a significant
capability to redirect vehicles, a minimum clear zone distance
commensurate with prevailing traffic volumes and vehicles
speeds should be provided where practical."
2. Chapter 5, Local Roads and Streets.
"Safety is an important factor in all roadway improvements.
However, it may not be practical to provide an obstacle -free
roadside on local roads and streets. Every effort should be
made to provide as much clear roadside as is practical."
Under Local Rural Roads, Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions:
"A clear zone of 7 to 10 feet or more from the edge o f traveled
way, appropriately graded with relatively flat slopes and
rounded cross - section design is desirable."
Under Local Urban Streets, Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions:
"On all streets a minimum clearance of 1.5 feet should be
provided between the face and obstructions such as utility poles,
lighting poles and fire hydrants. For facilities without curbs, a
VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 20 April 21, 2008
71rA
clear zone commensurate with a rural cross section and design
speed should be provided..."
"Trees are acceptable along local streets where speeds are low
(40 mph or below), where curbs are present, and where
adequate sight distance is available from intersecting streets and
driveways."
Under Special- Purpose Roads, Clear Recovery Area:
"Providing a clear zone adjacent to a road involves a trade -off
between safety and aesthetics. A driver who leaves the road
should be provided a reasonable chance to regain control and
avoid serious injury. Desirably, 10 feet or more of recovery
area measured from the edge of the traveled way, should be
provided on the higher order recreational roads, such as primary
access roads.
3. Chapter 6 Collector Roads and Streets, Introduction:
"Safety is an important factor in all roadway improvements. On
low volume roads or streets or in urban areas, it may not be
practical to provide an obstacle free roadside. However, every
effort should be made to provide as much clear roadside as
practical. Proper placement of utility features also assists in
achieving safer roadways.
Under Rural Collectors, Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions.
For rural collector roads with a design speed of 45 mph or less,
a minimum clear zone of 10 feet measured from the edge of the
traveled way should be provided.
Under Urban Collectors, Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions.
"Roadside obstructions or urban collector streets should
preferably be located at or near the right -of -way line and
outside of sidewalks, On urban collector streets, which have
curbs but no shoulders, a clearance of 1.5 feet or more beyond
the face of the curb should be provided to roadside obstructions
where practical. Urban collector streets with shoulders and
without curbs should have clear zones, as described previously
for rural collectors."
"Roadside obstacles, such as trees that might seriously damage
out of control vehicles should be removed wherever practical.
However, the potential benefits of removing obstacles should be
weighed against the adverse environmental and aesthetic effects
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 20 April 21, 2008
of their removal. Therefore, trees should be removed only
when considered essential for safety. However, it may only be
practical to remove those fixed objects in very vulnerable
locations."
4. Chapter 7 Rural and Urban Arterials:
Under Urban Arterials, Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions:
"Clear roadside design is recommended for urban arterials
whenever practical. On curbed street sections, clear roadsides
are often impractical, particularly in restricted areas. In such
areas, a clearance between curb face and object of 1.5 feet or
wider where practical should be provided. A 3 -foot clearance to
roadside objects should be provided particularly near turning
radii at intersections and driveways. Where pedestrian are not a
factor, obstructions should be set well back, protected or
provided with breakaway features."
C AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
1. Section 1.2 The Forgiving Roadside Concept:
"Regardless of the reason for a vehicle leaving the roadway, a
roadside environment free of fixed objects with stable, flattened
slopes enhances the opportunity for reducing crash severity.
The forgiving roadside concept allows for errant vehicles
leaving the roadway and supports a roadside design where the
serious consequences of such an incident are reduced."
2. Table 3.1 Clear -zone Distance Curves shows an 8--11 foot distance
for the 40 mph design speed, the lowest speed shown. Table 3.2
Clear -zone Distance in Feet from Edge of Traveled Ways list 7 -12
feet item for 40 mph or less with fairly flat back slopes.
3. Table 3.2 Horizontal Curve Adjustments lists adjustment factors to
the clear zone numbers above based on the radii of roadway curves.
1
4. Section 3.4.1 Curbs:
"When obstructions exist behind curbs, a minimum horizontal
clearance of 1.5 feet should be provided beyond the face of
curbs to the obstructions. This offset may be considered the
minimum allowable horizontal clearance but it should not be
construed as an acceptable clear zone distance. Since curbs do
not have a significant redirectional capability, obstructions
VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOD
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 20 April 21, 2008
behind a curb should be located at or beyond the minimum
clear -zone distances shown in Table 3.2."
5. Section 4.0 Overview:
"Although a traversable and unobstructed roadside is highly
desirable from a safety standpoint, some appurtenances simply
must be placed near the traveled way. Man made fixed objects
that frequently occupy highway rights -of -way include highway
signs, roadway lighting, traffic signals, railroad warning
devices, motorist aid call boxes, mailboxes and utility poles.
6. Section 10.0 Overview:
"Ideally, appurtenances should be located where they are not
likely to be hit by an errant vehicle. In situations where
appurtenances are likely to be hit, they should be of a yielding
nature, where practical, to minimize damage to the striking
vehicle and its occupants."
7. Section 10.1 Need for Individual Study of Sites:
"While the clear roadside concept is still the goal of the
designer, there are likely to be many compromises in the urban
or suburban area. One misconception is that a curb with a 1.5
foot offset behind it satisfies the clear roadside concept.
Realistically, curbs have limited redirectional capabilities and
only at low speeds, approximately 25 mph or lower.
Consequently, regardless of curbing, the designer must strive
for a wider clear zone that is more reflective of the off peak
operating speed or design speed, whichever is greater."
8 Design Speed:
"Urban and suburban operating speed vary by time of day
more than rural operating speeds do. During free -flow
conditions, and especially during late night, speeds are much
higher; often well beyond the speed limit. Higher speeds result
in the potential for more sever accidents."
"Consequently, roadside features need to be designed for the
higher operating speeds that occur during free -flow conditions.
This may mean that the estimated encroachment speed used to
design for roadside features may be higher than the design
speed for the roadway as a whole. Therefore, the designer
should consider the speed at which encroachments are most
VILLAGE Or OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 20 April 21, 2008
9. Curbs:
likely to occur when selecting an appropriate roadside design
standard or feature."
"Realistically, curbs have limited redirectional capabilities and
only at low speeds of approximately 25 mph or lower. Curbs
alone may not be adequate protection for pedestrians on
adjacent sidewalks or for shielding utility poles."
"In urban conditions, from an operational standpoint, a
minimum horizontal distance of 1.5 feet should be provided
beyond the face of curb to any obstructions. Designers should
strive for horizontal clearances more appropriate for the off-
peak operating speeds."
10. Landscaping:
"Along most urban streets, some type of landscaping exists.
Trees, shrubs, lawns, decorative rock and other materials are
used to provide a pleasing setting for drivers, pedestrian,
bicyclists and abutting land owners."
"Considerations in the design of landscaping include:
• The mature size of trees and shrubs, and how it would
affect safety, visibility and maintenance costs.
• Sufficient border area to accommodate the type of
landscaping planned
• Potential future changes in roadway cross section.
Visibility restrictions resulting from landscaping are of
principle concern to the designer. Points that must be
considered include the following:
• Border area landscaping should allow full visibility at
driveways for drivers and pedestrians.
A clear vision space of 3--10 feet above grade is
desirable along all streets and at all intersections. This
allows drivers in cars, trucks and buses to have good
sight distance. Many cities have ordinances regarding
sight restrictions at corners, which incorporates this
`clear space' idea.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 20 April 21, 2008
Large trees or rocks should not be used at decision
points, such as, gore areas and island noses to protect
poles and other appurtenances."
These design guidelines from various agencies can be 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 these needed or required obstructions, private items, such as
large boulders or pipes are suspect as to their placement within the
public right -of -way.
Legal Type Matters:
In November of 2003, he asked past Village Attorney Ken Kubiesa to opine on the
original 1999 Objects in the Parkway Standards and the then proposed revised 2001
standard concerning the village's legal liability. 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).
Some of IRMA's comments from that letter are summarized as follows:
"IRMA has over the years reviewed the issue of parkway or right -of -way
obstructions. IRMA has previously concluded that (without any construction
or placement standards in place) if objects or obstructions are placed or
constructed in a municipal right -of -way or parkway and the municipality
allows those obstructions to remain, in certain circumstances, the municipality
may be subject to liability for any injury or damage resulting from the
obstruction. The municipality, may however have available the protections of
the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. But, what appears to be accomplished by
enacting standards of construction and placement of objects in a parkway is to
create an "intended and permitted user" status of the homeowner in the
parkway or right -of -way, which may then result in the loss of the protection
provided by the Tort Immunity Act. Also, it would seem that the municipality
would lose its "lack of notice" argument as well under the provisions of the
Tort Immunity Act. Clearly, there is an exposure to liability on the part of the
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 20 April 21, 2008
Village of Oak Brook, however IRMA cannot say with any definiteness
whether or not the enactment of standards of construction and placement
increase that exposure or liability to the Village."
"...I note that the provisions of the proposed changes to the Village's
ordinance include a provision requiring the execution of a covenant by the
homeowner providing indemnification of the Village for liability resulting
from the placement of an object or obstruction in the parkway. This is a good
method of transferring the risk to the homeowners and IRMA strongly
encourages the retention of this provision in any final ordinance."
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.
After the June 19, 2006 Plan Commission meeting, then Assistant Village Attorney
Gosselar penned a memorandum dated July 17, 2006 (Exhibit E -1 on pages 4.c -4.e
of the case file). Some of her comments were as follows:
"An attorney, George Stamogiannos, spoke at the Plan Commission
meeting ... he made several incorrect statements concerning the Village's
liability for the existing and future objects placed in the right -of -way. To
clarify these issues, and also to provide clear legal advice to the Commission, I
reviewed several questions regarding the Village's potential liability related to
permitting objects to be placed in the public right -of -way. The following are
my findings:
1. ...the Village can be found liable for injury or damage resulting from
objects placed in the public right-of-way under certain circumstances.
The Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity
Act protect the Village from liability for injury resulting from a
condition on publicly owned property. However, if it is proven that
the Village has actual or constructive notice of the existence of a
condition that is not reasonably safe, in a reasonably adequate time
prior to an injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against
such condition, the Village can be liable for the injury. Moreover, if
the village has an ordinance or policy requiring removal of objects
placed in the right -of -way, it may be liable for its failure to enforce the
ordinance or policy. Finally, if the Village has notice of any
dangerous condition on public property, whether via a permitting
process or actual notice via photographs or memoranda identifying
such conditions, and fails to protect against the danger, it may be
liable.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 20 April 21, 2008
2. ...to the extent that certain conditions are clearly dangerous and the
Village is aware of such conditions and fails to remediate the danger,
the Village could incur liability for such conditions if any injury
occurs. A policy specifically permitting certain objects in the right -of-
way, if such object could reasonably be considered dangerous, would
also trigger potential liability for resulting injury and may constitute a
waiver of defenses under the Act.
With respect to any such potential liability, the correspondence in the
Commission's packet from Susan Garvey ... states that, depending on
the specific circumstances, the Village may or may not be covered
under its General Liability insurance for damages or injuries resulting
form the presence of objects in a parkway.
Finally, the agreement required in conjunction with permits for certain
objects in the parkways are to include an indemnificati on to protect the
Village from liability. However, the indemnification provision is only
of value to the extent that -the property owner can actually fund the
defense and liability costs. It may, therefore be prudent to require that
such property owners include the Village as an additional insured on
their personal homeowners insurance policies.
Mr. Stamogiannos gave his opinion that the Village can no longer
enforce any restriction against objects in the right-of-way because of
the length of time during which the Village has failed to enforce any
such restrictions to date. He based his statement on what is known as
the doctrine of laches; however, laches is not generally applicable to
municipalities. There mere failure to enforce (non- action) by officials
is not sufficient to establish this defense.
4. Mr. Stamogiannos also stated that because some objects had been
present in the parkways for many years without objection from the
Village, the property owners have a right to continue to use the
parkways. In this regard, he was apparently making an argument for
adverse possession of the parkways by private homeowners, that is,
the right of a homeowner to claim an ownership interest in or right to
use the area in question. In the absence of legislation to the contrary,
adverse possession is not generally permitted over public property.
Mr. Stamogiannos also argued that the benefit to the City in requiring
removal of the objects form the parkways is outweighed by the
detriment to the homeowners. Obviously, a compelling argument to
the contrary could be made with respect to known conditions that
could be dangerous. The public interest in safety and prevention of
unreasonable liability to the taxpayers far outweighs the interest of a
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 20 April 21, 2008
private property owner to have decorative improvements on the public
right -of -way, especially since public property is owned and to be used
by the public as a whole. Decorative improvements outside of the
boundaries of private property are clearly not a matter of right while,
in contrast, the Village has an obligation to maintain public property in
a reasonably safe condition for the intended users.
The Village's attorneys are certainly aware that the Village has interests at
issue with respect to private improvement sin the parkway beyond issues
related to the law and liability, Some of these interests include the cost to
the Village of enforcing any regulations that may be adopted, and the
Village's interest in the aesthetics of the community and the needs of its
residents. Nevertheless, as the Village's attorneys, it is our responsibility to
lay out the legal issues clearly so that the Plan Commission is fully informed
as it considers any recommended policy."
Ms. Gosselar's comments also raise a red flag concerning the Village allowing
dangerous conditions in its right -of -way. She also discussed the fact that this issue
covers more than just the law and liability; aesthetics and needs of the residents
should also be considered. An opinion has not been received yet from the Village's
current attorney, however, that should be included at the next Plan Commission
meeting.
Michael Meranda, Director of Public Works commented that his department has a
vested interest in this issue because they will be in the enforcement end and they
would obviously have some issues as to what is placed within the parkway for their
own operational purposes. Mailboxes are a major issue for the department. During
the winter, they run into the issue of damage. Typically, they are blamed for any
damage done to a mailbox and they will repair or replace it and at some point in
time would like to discuss the Village's responsibility. They do not repair or
replace any masonry structures. They are allowed to place theirs there with the
caveat (recorded covenant) that makes the homeowner responsible. However, some
ornamental metal types can run several hundreds of dollars to replace. They would
like to see a discussion point where a cap could be placed on the village
expenditures to repair or replace those other types of mailboxes.
The other issue they have would be things that are buried within the right -of -way
that cannot be visibly seen. They have water main breaks and a lot of excavations
that take place throughout the course of the year. They had one today and they
broke an irrigation line in the right -of -way. Currently, the Village is not responsible
to repair or replace it, even if they have caused the damage. Whether or not a
permit was issued, there should be some dialogue as to whether the Village should
participate in the cost. The resident in this case is helping to beautify the parkway
area and maybe the village could consider participating in those types of issues.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 20 April 21, 2008
Member Singhal questioned how much beautification is being done by the owner
and how much is the Village really paying for damages as was mentioned.
Director of Public Works Meranda responded that it was difficult to put a total price
on it; but it is not so much the cost as it is the time involved. It is a very small force
and the range is around several thousand dollars yearly, but it is the time being
spent going back to take care of it. The issue is more that of perception. The
residents do things in the parkway to beautify the area and the neighborhood.
During the course of repairs in the parkway area, such as irrigation lines, which are
plastic and cannot be located and you do not know where they are at; and
sometimes when they are on a repair at 2:00 in the morning, that is the last thing
they want to worry about is it is not a big concern. From the Village's perspective,
there may be some costs that should take place, which is not a major expense. If
the brick and masonry structures were included., that is totally different and can
range into the thousands of dollars each.
Member Sharma questioned how the right -of -way was determined.
Village Engineer Durfey responded said that it is different by street. The major
street in Brook Forest is Regent Drive and has an 80 -foot right -of -way, which is
exceptionally wide. Most of the streets in Brook Forest probably have a 60 -foot
right -of -way. Typically, from the back of curb to the front lot line is probably in
the range of 12 -18 feet; that assumes that the road is put in the middle of the right-
of-way, which may not be the case. Each subdivision is somewhat different.
Saddle Brook and Forest Glen were annexed into the village and those streets may
only be 60 feet, but have additional front yard setbacks. The right -of -way ranges
may range from 12 -18 feet of parkway space.
Member Singhal commented that the Village is responsible for the right-of-way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that it was dedicated property that the Village
owns in the public trust for the public.
Director of Public Works Meranda said that many residents might not be aware
what the right -of -way area is. In other communities, it is the space between the
curb and the sidewalk. In areas of the Village without sidewalks, it may give the
impression that all of it from the edge of the street pavement is the property owners,
when that is not the case. It is public right -of -way and is not maintained by the
Village. The Village does not have the where with all to go and mow or water the
grass, etc., so each resident is responsible to maintain it, but it is Village property.
One of the things needed is the educational perspective that the resident may
maintain it, but the Village is ultimately responsible and liable for it.
Trustee Wolin questioned the policy on utility placement and tree location within
the right -of -way.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 20 April 21, 2008
Village Engineer Durfey responded that all utilities are required to obtain a permit
to work in the right -of -way and typically the utilities are located as close to the
right -of -way line as possible so that they are the farthest from the roadways. As
more utilities are going into the ground, they are encroaching closer to the street
and some are located under the pavement. Aboveground structures should be
placed as far back as possible for safety reasons. If the ground must be opened to
maintain the utilities, the village does not want them too close to the roads.
The subdivision regulations require trees at an approximate 40 -foot spacing for
aesthetic and environmental reasons. On new subdivisions, existing trees are
counted and they remain. If there are none a developer is required to place trees in
the right -of -way by Code. They are typically located 5 to 10 feet back of curb.
Hydrants are located no closer than 5 feet back of curb.
Director of Public Works Meranda added that everyone is vying for space in the
right -of -way and it is getting more and more crowded. The Village tries to keep the
utilities as far away from the water main as possible, which is typically the lowest
in the hole. The sanitary sewer is not as low, but does not break as often as water
mains do. The Village tries to keep the gas and electric as far away as possible so
that they do not have to worry about them so much when an excavation is done on
the water mains.
Village Engineer Durfey added that the standard is 5 -foot horizontal distance from
the water main for any other utility.
Director of Public Works Meranda said that policing the utilities is tough and
people are supposed to stay five feet away, however, if someone is not on site
watching the installation, it can get off line, which can create problems down the
line for maintenance activities. Policing the activity is a very difficult thing to
enforce. You can have all the rules that you want, but for many you are at the
mercy of whoever is installing the utility in the right -of -way.
Larry Whitlow, 3307 Avenue Loire said that not only thousands of trees located in
the right -of -way, but they are required by the Village to be located there. He
reminded the Plan Commission that a tree with an 8 -inch caliper or more is
unmovable. Mailboxes and boulders move, but trees do not. At the last meeting
posters, pictures and articles were provided showing that multiple people have been
killed by hitting trees. If the boulders are going to be removed then all the trees
must be cut down. He questioned whether there had ever been a lawsuit filed in the
village over the last 50 years that made the village over this issue. To his
knowledge there has never been one and questioned why this was an issue now.
Chairwoman Payovich questioned if anyone was aware of any lawsuits ever being
filed against the Village.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 20 April 21, 2008
It-
Village Engineer Durfey responded that he would check with the Village
Attorney's office to see if anyone has any records of lawsuits being filed. He
referred back to the comments in Attorney Gosselar's letter that if the Village had
knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to act and something happened; we
could be in serious trouble. Just because something has not happened does not
mean that it could not. The Village has to be somewhat proactive if it deems
certain conditions dangerous.
Mr. Kronen, 418 Luthin Road said that he deals with insurance companies all the
time and the job of the insurance carrier and lawyer is to set you up to avoid all
types of liability. Historically it can be shown that this has essentially been a non
issue although anything could always happen. No matter what you do, it is not
going to stop anyone from hitting anything and would not stop someone from filing
a lawsuit because it is their right to do so.
Chairwoman Payovich requested that information be provided from other
communities that have similar roads like Oak Brook and what they do.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that a survey was in the process and the results
would be presented at the next meeting. He noted that the Village has both
shoulder streets with drainage ditches as well as curb and gutter streets.
Member Shanna questioned how items were placed in the right -of -way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that prior to 1999 some people just did it. In
1999, the Village started to enforce that provision. Some people complied and
others complained to the Manager. It was then suggested to somewhat revise the
policy and some still complained.
Director of Public Works Meranda noted that because there are not sidewalks in
some areas, people assume the property belongs to them, when it is actually right-
of-way owned by the Village.
Member Iyer questioned how the Village could go about informing the residents
what is Village right -of -way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that when this issue has been concluded
information could be contained in the Village newsletter, added to the website, a
letter to the homeowners associations, etc. There would be ways to get the
information out there, but it would take some time to do it.
Director of Public Works Meranda added that information could be included in the
packet of information that is provided to new homeowners.
Director of Public Works Meranda said that his department faces this issue every
day and are questioned by the residents as to why the staff is on their property when
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 20 April 21, 2008
it is the Village right -of -way.
Member Singhal questioned whether approval of the policy would actually beautify
the Village; make it safer and how many homes would actually be impacted.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that the first step would be to determine what
items would or would not provide beautification.
Member Sharma asked how the issue of a retaining wall would be dealt with and
whether it would be determined to be a necessity due to the land (418 Luthin Road).
Village Engineer Durfey responded that when the permit was first applied for the
wall was noted on the plans. The permit engineer advised them that the wall was
not permitted in the right-of-way. The site plan was revised and resubmitted
showing that the slopes were contoured and the wall was not necessary or required;
that plan was approved and they received the permit from the Village. The wall
was allowed on the private property, just not in the right -of -way. When his staff
went to do the final grade inspection it was discovered that the wall had been built
under the original drawing that had not been approved by the Village. To date, a
final grade inspection has not been approved.
Mr. Kronen, 418 Luthin said that the feature could be removed which would also
involve the removal of existing trees that help to beautify the neighborhood and
which covers the overhead lines. He questioned whether 4 feet of property should
be destroyed because of a wall that is there to maintain the grading and prevent
water from flooding the driveway. There are different topographical features that
exist on many properties throughout Oak Brook. He urged a common sense
approach that would impact every property in Oak Brook going forward.
The Plan Commission requested some additional information be provided at the
next meeting.
Member Sharma asked is an approximate cost estimate to remove the items about
of the right -of -way could be provided.
Director of Public Works Meranda noted that an estimate would be dependent upon
the outcome of the Board and if it would be the responsibility of the homeowner.
Village Engineer Durfey added that it would also depend upon the item being
removed. A 15 -inch boulder would be easy to remove; a 4 -foot boulder is not easy.
Director of Public Works Meranda noted that when they were going through this
process several years ago a particular street was estimated to cost around $8,000 for
2 or 3 boulders which, due to their size required the rental of a crane of the
boulders.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK.
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 20 April 21, 2008
Member Lalmalani asked if there have not been any major issues in the past then
perhaps the existing structures should be grandfathered and guidelines should be
created for any items in the future. The expenses could be insurmountable to
remove all the items that currently exist in the right-of-way.
Village Engineer Durfey said that the issue of grandfathering items would be an
issue to be discussed at the next meeting.
Member Singhal said that perhaps the Village's permit process should be reviewed
and should any deviations be allowed no matter what the circumstances; otherwise,
the Village loses total control and that situation occurred at the Midwest Club and
were forced to enforce what had been approved. Otherwise, how do you maintain
any semblance of civilized order?
Village Engineer Durfey commented that this is a very serious issue and after the
Plan Commission concludes its review, the Village Board will be able to determine
what the rules are and staff would enforce them.
Chairwoman Payovich asked whether an idea of what the costs would be that
would include the time and manpower, whether it would require outside sources to
enforce the rules.
Director of Public Works Meranda responded that examples could be provided, but
it would be impossible to quantify because they do not know what would have to be
removed.
Village Engineer Durfey said that the bottom line would be the goal for the Village
and what would have to be done to achieve that goal.
Mr. Kronen, 418 Luthin Road said that he agreed with everything that was said and
believed that an estimate of ongoing costs would be to manage the problem. Every
property would have to be surveyed annually to make sure that nothing has
changed. The Village does not have the manpower to pay someone to drive around
and survey these items. The costs could possibly run into the hundreds of thousand
dollars to remove the items, but what would the cost be to monitor it in the future.
The process may be more expensive than just removing the existing boulders.
Chairwoman Payovich asked if costs could be determined from previous village
projects in Ginger Creek and Yorkshire Woods where items were removed from the
right -of -way.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that Ginger Creek asked the Village to remove
all boulders as part of the project and he would confirm whether those costs were
included. Some residents moved them back out of the right -of -way.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 20 April 21, 2008
1�?�
Member Sharma questioned if the property owner removes items from the right of
way and at a later time adds something else or moves them back, would the Village
then be liable. If not, why would the Village be required to monitor these items on
a yearly basis?
Village Engineer Durfey responded that they would not need to be monitored in
that fashion. The Village has many laws and regulations, which are not monitored
on a regular basis. When things are found that are not in compliance, the village
takes the appropriate action.
Director of Public Works Meranda said that once the Village Board makes its final
determination, it would not take much to survey, inventory and list the existing
items that would be grandfathered. As things come up and they are noticed, if they
were not listed as part of the record then whatever procedure is in place would be
followed.
Mrs. Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that things have been located in the front
of her home for a long time and asked by whose standards is the word "reasonable"
defined. She questioned if items under 8- inches were allowed in the right-of-way.
Village Engineer Duurfey responded that was part of the revision proposed by
Village Manager Veitch and was believed to be a reasonable measurement
standard. Something that is only 8- inches high would probably not cause more
damage that if it had not been there. Because of complaints by some of the
residents, the entire enforcement has been placed on hold since 2000.
Chairwoman Payovich questioned the height of a typical curb.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that it is 6- inches.
Member Iyer motioned, seconded by Member Sharma to continue the review to the
next regular Plan Commission meeting on May 19, 2008, VOICE VOTE: Motion
Carried. The Plan Commission the following at the next meeting.
1. Request the opinion of the current Village Attorney on this issue.
2. Information on the type of other towns enforcement on this issue; similar
towns that also have some of the rural roads like Oak Brook.
3. An approximate cost estimate to remove the items about of the right-of-way.
4. The cost of the removal of items from the right- of-way as part of the Ginger
Creek and Yorkshire Woods paving projects.
5. Request that the Village Attorney be present at the next meeting to answer
questions.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 20 April 21, 2008
5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS
0
7.
There was no new business to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Sharma to adjourn the meeting at
9:10 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST: �..
Robert Kallien, Dir for of o munity Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD.
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 20 April 21, 2008
OTHER
BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT