Loading...
Minutes - 05/15/2000 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 15, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Engineer A quorum was present. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stelios Aktipis Stephen Allen Samuel Girgis Surendra Goel Barbara Payovich David Pequet Anthony Tappin Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Tappin, to waive the reading of the March 20, 2000, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. ROMANELLPS SUBDIVISION — 3121 YORK ROAD — PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Chairman Aktipis briefly advised the members and audience of the petition request. Brian Mulhern, attorney, represented the petitioner John Romanelli. He reviewed the proposal, stating that they are seeking a simple two -lot subdivision. The current property address is 3121 York Rd, it is one street address, but two tax parcels. The site is approximately 2.5 acres located in the R -2 Zoning District. It will be a flag lot, served by a single access road to the rear lot. This property is immediately south of the recently approved Sue Boon, 3 -lot subdivision. Because the site is less than three acres, stormwater detention is not required. The proposed plat meets the lot area and width requirements of the Ordinance. There is a special setback from York Road, which is 100 feet from the section line in the middle of York Road. The subdivision would easily allow for the installation of the bike path along York Road. Member Tappin questioned whether the driveway was in the right -of -way. Village Engineer Durfey noted that the road will be removed as part of his comments to the applicant's engineer. There is no road, it is a flag lot with access to York Road. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 7 Chairman Aktipis questioned Engineer Durfey regarding the planting of trees, and he responded that the County would not allow them in the right -of -way unless the Village agrees to take over the responsibility for the trees, which is the only the condition under which the County will permit them to be planted. Member Allen asked what plans exist to make the bike path contiguous up to 31s' Street. Village Engineer Durfey said that would depend upon easements as they are received. The subdivision code requires the installation of sidewalks, which the Village usually waives in lieu of a bike /path. They can give the developer the option of building the bike /path or giving the Village the money and they will build it in the future. Member Tappin asked about the possibility of burying overhead utility lines. Mike Mulhern, said that they would discuss the issue with ComEd. Chairman Aktipis added that usually an agreement is entered into with the developer, that they will contribute to the cost when the lines are buried in their particular area. A brief discussion took place regarding utility lines being buried in other subdivisions. Dale Durfey noted that Trinity Lakes was not required to bury their lines, as it was very expensive. Member Pequet said that it would not be practical unless they did the entire area. Director of Community Development Kallien stated that a representative of Christ Church, across the street from the proposed subdivision, was concerned that the placement of the driveway could be a problem when service ends on Sundays. John Romanelli responded that the existing driveway to the lot currently, is about 20 feet south of the church's driveway. On Sunday, there are police out there directing traffic. Chairman Aktipis asked if the flag were on the south side of the lot, and suggested that if that were the case it might ameliorate the problem. Mr. Romanelli said that the reason they placed it to the north side of the lot was because there are about 25 magnificent oak trees on the south side of the lot and he is opposed to taking down any substantial trees. Member Girgis said that he received a call from a resident that was concerned if there would be any grading changes. Mr. Romanelli said there will be no changes. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin, to recommend approval of the petitioner's proposal as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of a pedestrian /bicycle path along York Road or a cash contribution in lieu of its consideration. 2. Waive the requirement of streetlights and street trees. 3. If financially feasible, and if appropriate for the area, consideration should be given to providing underground utilities. 4. Final Engineering plan approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Nays: 0 - Absent: 0- Motion Carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes Allen, Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Pequet,Tappin and Aktipis 2 V.Y May 15, 2000 IV, YORKSHIRE REALTY (YORKSHIRE GLEN OF OAK BROOK) — 4 YORKSHIRE DRIVE —PRELIMINARY PLAT—SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION Ed Resner, Eddy - Resner Engineering, advised the members and audience that the Village Board has directed that they revisit one issue of the plan. They designed a stormwater detention facility and because of the slope of the land on the down side of the slope, they had proposed a wall to confine the water. Mr. Resner said that it is a 7 -lot subdivision, a cul -de -sac off of Yorkshire with a landscaped circle in the middle. Because the topography drops a significant distance from the tollway to Harger Road, it is difficult to come up with a detention basin that is typically on a flat piece of land, where you dig up dirt, add a pipe and let the water run out. In order to allow a large amount of flexibility for future architects planning the footprints of the future buildings, it was their opinion that the subdivision would have a wall along Harger Road. The wall would meander around some pine trees to maintain an evergreen buffer between Harger and the future four homes along that piece of the property. The detention wall, that was going to hold the water back, varied in height from two feet to six feet. The top of the wall would be the same elevation but because of topographic differences, the wall would vary so that some places would have two feet of solid surface and in other places there would be six feet of solid surfaces. Because they were able to push some soil against the bottom of the six feet high wall and slope it away, they are only proposing to having an exposure of 42" at the highest point. Mr. Resner said that the idea of wall as opposed to a berm would require a great amount of study by the Plan Commission because a berm is a preapproved facility in the Village. A berm could be placed all along the side. It was his recommendation to the client that by using a wall, there would be more available building square footage on the lots. A berm will tend to take 10- 20 feet of width and it would be advantageous to allow more flexibility in the future to have a wall that is only 12 inches wide, meandering behind the pine trees. Various types of wall treatments were submitted for review to provide an attractive facility that was initially intended to be part of a stormwater detention basin. Chairman Aktipis questioned, if in the areas where the wall is relatively low, could that area be easily bermed and perhaps reserve some of the needed wall area to where the height difference is such that berming would cause the buildable area of the lot to be minimized. He suggested to berm at both ends of the subdivision then in the center, if a wall is needed, to design it in a more decorative fashion by stepping it up. The members are sensitive to the wall issue because one was installed that is ugly and they do not want that to happen again. Mr. Resner stated that he understood, and he could guarantee that there would be a design element in the final engineering drawings. Member Allen said that he did not remember the wall being shown in the initial review. He understands the consideration for losing some of the lot flexibility, but wanted to know how visible it will be from Harger Road. Mr. Resner said that he saw a very valuable feature by using the existing evergreens and pine trees and thought it would be better to have the wall behind them, and use the green as the buffer in those areas. Over half of the wall will be behind trees, because he meandered it to the 40 -foot setback line. There is 40 feet of green space between the proposed wall and the right of way line of Harger Road. Member Allen said that esthetically a landscaped berm being would be more pleasing than a wall, even though architecturally and design wise it could be done well, he is somewhat uncomfortable with dealing with a wall in that area. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 3 �"L Mr. Resner said that he can expand the limits of the berm, but the berm will have an effect on the pine trees. The base of the berm may be twenty feet across which may be encroaching on a natural buffer. If it is the direction of the Plan Commission during the final process to maximize the length of the berm with some allowance for the vertical wall behind the pine trees, it would minimize the appearance of the wall, and the applicant would have the flexibility of buildable space. It is there strong feeling that they would offer some architectural land planning opportunity in the future that would not necessitate someone coming back seeking additional space to build later. This is what he is trying to avoid. Member Allen noted that a berm could be landscaped. Mr. Resner said that many options and variables exist and they would like some sense of direction from the Plan Commission so that when they get to the final engineering stage they will have some concepts approved and then the Commission will not be surprised at the final plat stage. Member Tappin was advised that there was going to be a homeowners association that would be responsible for the maintenance of the wall. Chairman Aktipis said that there are some technical issues involved in the wall that have to do with fencing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the definition for fence in the Zoning Ordinance states that "a fence is a structure used to delineate a boundary or as a barrier or as a means of confinement or for confinement." When the structure is open on both sides, with a face along Harger Road and a face on the other side towards the homes, it is in essence a confinement structure; therefore it must conform to the fence requirements. The fence requirement in the Village is 42" in height and 50 percent open. There are no solid fences or walls allowed in the Village and there is no definition for wall in the Zoning Ordinance. The issue was brought up to the applicant regarding 25 Breakenridge because it has a very nice architectural wall in front of the home. The concept in that case was to conform to the fence requirements by limiting the height, instead of 50 percent open in a vertical manner, it was 50 percent open in a horizontal manner. He had suggested to the applicant that combining the berming ability, moving some dirt with the ability to do a similar type wall, the same thing could be accomplished to meet the fence regulations. If the Plan Commission would recommend to the Board that we allow a 42 -inch solid wall, it may not meet the fence regulation in the Zoning Ordinance. Some concept exists that satisfies the need of retaining stormwater, meets the fence regulations, various ordinances and still addresses the issue of esthetics. We do not want to repeat what exists in Forest Gate, but in that situation, it is a wall that holds up the dirt from falling into Jorie Blvd. This situation has a wall open on each side. It is easy to criticize a concept, but coming up with something that meets everyone's needs may be more difficult. Mr. Resner said that the question is pillars, or no pillars. The wall could be lowered a few more inches. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he is not concerned with the pillars, they can be higher, the concern is the main mass of the wall. Pillars are more for architectural feature. The methodology used by Tom Hawk, was where they took segments of wall and measured the entire area and then came up with an area that equals 50 percent, which meets the intent of the Code. If the applicant could do that here, we could have a win - win situation. Mr. Resner said that he believes they could come back with the final engineering and design within 30 -45 days. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 4 I..4 Chairman Aktipis said that he prefers combining the wall with berming. Mr. Resner would like the Plan Commission to also explore berming with landscape block on each side, instead of a natural dirt berm on both sides. They would like to get a sense of direction to that aspect. Member Allen questioned which lots would be most affected by the berms, by losing the most square footage. Mr. Resner said that if a berm had to be placed all across, Lots 2 and 3 would be affected and would come close to the planning ability of any architect building a house over $400-500,000. Community Development Director Kallien said that the concern expressed at the Board meeting is the visual impact of the wall onto Harger Road, which is the most sensitive measurement that we are concerned with. On the backside there is a little more leeway in that it has to function as a stormwater management facility. Member Payovich said that a step pattern could be used toward Harger Road, with a straight wall to the rear which would allow for greater flexibility would lead the Village in the right direction for the fence. Member Goel questioned whether they could make a deeper ditch to contain the overflow water. Mr. Resner said that he is controlled by the depth of the cross culvert on Harger Road. He has come very close to matching the bottom of the culvert, and has already made the detention basin bottom as low as it possibly can. He can go up, but not down. He does not want to go up, because If he goes up, he will have to go wider, which will remove more planting space for the four lots. Chairman Aktipis noted that if you go below the culvert, it does not give him any additional detention. Member Goel believed that as long as the water from the subdivision can be contained in the ditches, the concern is if it is made lower than the water from the culvert can go into the ditches, and by placing an engineered structure there it will prevent any water coming from the side to the ditch. Mr. Resner said that he will not receive any credit for any stormwater volume below the culvert. Chairman Aktipis asked Village Engineer Durfey if it would in any way improve the capacity of the retention if you go below the culvert level. Durfey responded yes, but he said the water would have to be pumped out. As it currently is planned, it works with gravity. He is not aware of any detention basins that have a pump. Member Payovich asked the Village Engineer that if they used the stepped approach, like 25 Breakenridge, with a straight wall on the side of the homes, would the applicant be able to accomplish what is needed for detention. Village Engineer Durfey said that his plan does that now, as far as a gross volume. Robert Kallien said that the Village Board had questions concerning the stormwater management concept. The petitioner was asked to provide further information concerning the drainage concept, the structures involved, the materials to be used, and the appearance of the finished project. They felt that all the other issues raised by the Plan Commission had been resolved. They wanted the Commission to focus in on how the stormwater facility could be accomplished and what it would look like. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 5 �� Chairman Aktipis said that the question before the Plan Commission is whether preliminary approval will be given, and let staff determine the details over instructions provided by the Commission, or whether the Plan Commission would want to see a final plan. Member Allen said that he wanted to see a more detailed plan along with more information. Maybe a berm is not feasible on the whole area, but he does not believe enough information has been given to provide a well thought out decision whether a berm, wall, or combination is feasible without more detailed plans. Member Payovich, Girgis, Goel, Pequet and Tappin all agreed. Member Pequet said that it would be helpful for the members to be shown some elevation photos of the subject area. It would be helpful to be able to visualize the site, and then provide an overlay of the proposal. It is very difficult with these types of elevations to get a feeling for berm, fencing, pine trees, etc. It would be helpful to have a large photo to be able to demonstrate exactly what they are proposing. Everyone is struggling with the aesthetics, and they cannot visualize what they are proposing. No one in the audience spoke in support of or against the proposal. Mr. Resner asked for a sense of direction. He said that it seems that the consensus is that one side of the wall towards Harger should be very similar to the Breakenridge wall, which would vary in height from 20 -21 inches of solid exposure; and on the homeowners side there is a greater distance that would be more suitable for a wall. In this specific instance, how much is suitable? 42" or six feet, or is there a number the Commission would like used so that they can be closer to what might be approved. Member Pequet said that they are not suggesting to mimic the Breakenridge property, it was just an existing situation that may or may not apply. The consensus leans more towards berming than walls. They are not prepared to say exactly what size wall, but rather the fact that the wall is less appealing than a berming strategy. Perhaps a complete berm will not be a solution, but it was suggested that perhaps 25% berming could be added. Member Allen said that the overlays would be very helpful. It is very difficult to conceptualize just a wall, or berm, or combination. Mr. Resner questioned if the entire area were bermed rather than a retaining wall, would the overlays be necessary. Chairman Aktipis said that everyone is more familiar and comfortable with berms. If a wall needs to blended in the area, due to technical reasons, then they want to feel more comfortable with the idea. Mr. Resner said that with the entire area bermed, some flexibility in the architectural design is taken away Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Payovich to table this matter to the Plan Commission meeting of June 19, 2000. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 7- Nays: 0 - Absent: 0- Motion Carried. Allen, Girgis, Goel, Pequet,Tappin and Aktipis PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 6 V. ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. L • Director of Community evelo ent Secretary June 19, 2000 Date Approved PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 15, 2000 7