Loading...
Minutes - 05/16/2005 - Plan CommissionRI 2. 3. 4 5. MINUTES OF THE MAY 16, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JUNE 20, 2005. 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, Members Paul Adrian, David Braune, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin ABSENT: Member Surendra Goel IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer, Peggy O'Connell, Village Attorney Representative APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2005 SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2005 REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2005 Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Wolin to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2005 Plan Commission meeting as amended; the April 11, 2005 and April 18, 2005 Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. BREAKENRIDGE FARM EXTENSION — TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION — BREAKENRIDGE FARM EXTENSION LOT 6 OF BREAKENRIDGE FARM UNIT 1 19.569 ACRES OF VACANT Two -LOT SUB - LOT LAND LOCATED BETWEEN ADAMS ROAD AND BREAKENRIDGE 6 OF U UNIT NRro 1, 19 5G69 9 FARM NIT FARM ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — TITLE 14 OF ACRES OF vACANT LAND - PREL PLAT VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 May 16, 2005 THE VILLAGE CODE — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISION Robert Barth, General Counsel for the Institute in Basic Life Principles, reviewed the request. He said that the Institute has not had any business with the Plan Commission for quite some time. Lot 6 was part of Breakenridge Farm Unit No. 1. They are seeking to subdivide the north part of Lot 6. He identified Lots 1 through 6 in Breakenridge Farm on a large aerial photo. Lot 6 is approximately 19 acres. He provided some history and background regarding the Breakenridge Farm area and provided handouts with additional information. Much of the area was owned by Mr. Templeton. In the late 1940's he purchased about 100 acres in the area, which is now called the Breakenridge Farm area. In 1973 the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which was then known as the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts purchased some of the land in that area. In 1955, there was an Easement Agreement signed by the residents, including Mr. Templeton who owned land along the existing gravel road to Adams Road that was recorded in 1958. The lots eventually became known as Breakenridge Farm No. 1. About 120 acres were included in this easement agreement and the people that owned the property within those 120 acres were part of the easement agreement. In 1980, there was a preliminary plat considered from Mr. Templeton for a 12 -lot subdivision, which was considered and approved in 1980. Lot 13, which is land owned by Vanerka, was later added to that preliminary plat. Lots 5 through 12 eventually became Lot 6 of Breakenridge Farm Unit No. 1. In 1982 the Village Board approved the preliminary plat for Templeton Estates Preliminary Plat; the plat was later changed to Breakenridge Farm Preliminary Plat. In June of 1983, the Institute in Basic Life Principles purchased all the land that was subject to the Templeton Preliminary Plat, except Mr. and Mrs. Vanerka's property. In October of 1983, the Plan Commission first considered IBLP's application for a final plat. The Templeton Estate had preliminary plat approval for 13 lots. When the Institute purchased it in 1983 the decision was made to apply for the final plat. The only property that was going to be included was Lots 1 -4 of the previous Templeton Estate Preliminary Plat; later on the Vanerka property was added as Lot 5. In June 1984, the Village Board approved the Final Plat of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1, which consisted of Lots 1 -4 and Lot 5 (Vanerka's) and at the recommendation of the Village the rest of the property was added and the 19 acres essentially became Lot 6. The other lots known as Lots 6 -12 were essentially eliminated. Lot 6, the 19 -acre lot has remained undeveloped. There is a 16 -foot private road easement that was developed in 1955 that went from Adams Road around the loop VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 May 16, 2005 in Breakenridge Farm. All the easements were combined together to create the road. There was an 8 -foot easement on either side of each person's property. When the final plat 1984 was approved, it not only included the roadway, but Lot #4. It was paved under the provision of the final plat. In the approval of the final plat there was an additional 8 feet added. In addition to the 16 -foot private roadway easement there was an additional 8 -foot easement approved pursuant to the final plat. In 1985, the Plan Commission considered another application for Breakenridge Farm Unit 2. At the time Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 application for final plat was made, there were no intentions to develop the area. A meeting was held before the Plan Commission when the developer of the property did not know what was going to happen at the time. In 1985, the Plan Commission first considered IBLP's proposal to do a subdivision in the area that was Lot 6. The Village Board approved a preliminary plat for Breakenridge Farm Unit 2. According to the preliminary plat it was going to be a 5 -lot subdivision and there was going to be a large area to the south that was going to be Lot 11. During the process, after the preliminary plat was approved by the village board in March of 1985, there were meetings for the final plat and during that process there were some engineering problems. The proposed entrance for Breakenridge Farm Unit 2 was going to be on Adams Road. There were some dips in the road and one of the suggestions was a requirement to raise Adams Road in 2 different locations. For whatever reason, which may have been construction costs and engineering problems, among other things, in April 1986 IBLP withdrew their application for final plat approval. Breakenridge Farm Unit 2 was never approved for final plat. Lot 6 is the subject of the Breakenridge Farm Extension and they are requesting to take a 2 -acre parcel from existing Lot 6 to create a separate lot, which would be Lot 1. The rest of Lot 6 lot would remain open space at this point. They are not contemplating anything more at this point. This sums up the history leading up to the present request. Member Wolin asked why further consideration was not being given to develop the rest of the property. Mr. Barth responded that they have looked at what could be done with the whole area. The area to the east of the proposed Lot 1 is over 2 acres. There is also an existing water line running from Adams Road and they have looked at the possibility if the property were developed in the future, how it would be done. Their desire is to keep it open space; they have owned it for over 20 years as open space. There has been the thinking, that if it were developed to create a cul de sac with the lots to the south of the water line having access from Adams Road, but they have no plans to do that at this point. The reason for the thinking of development of the remainder of the property is because they have not just VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 May 16, 2005 -sir randomly drawn out a lot from the property without any consideration of the future impact it could have on potential development of what would be the remaining Lot 6. Member Bulin asked if this proposed Lot 1 is the same lot configuration as shown on the approved Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 preliminary plat as Lot 5. Mr. Barth said that it is not the exact same configuration, but by and large it was the same lot. Member Bulin asked that when it was subsequently approved Lot 5 became part of the larger part known as Lot 6. Mr. Barth responded that was correct. Lots 5 -12 on the Templeton preliminary plat were eliminated in the final plat. Mr. Barth said that the easement is a major concern and one of the real issues. As was shown on the preliminary plat of Unit 2 as well as the Templeton preliminary plat the proposed ingress and egress to those lots was from Adams Road. They are proposing that the ingress and egress for proposed Lot 1 would actually go down through Breakenridge Farm Road to Adams Road. There is a paved 28 -foot road for a portion of the road then it continues to be a paved road but is only 12 feet wide currently. A portion of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 final plat, Lot 4 and Lot 6 show that the setback lines and easement referenced on the bottom portion of the page "centerline 16 feet Ingress and Egress Easement per Document 8675857." That document number is the 1955 Easement Agreement entered into among all the residents that owned property along the gravel road. In addition to the 16 -foot private roadway easement, along the east side on the roadway easement, as part of Lot 6 and the Final Plat for Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 there was an additional 8- foot easement that was added. There is a total combined easement of 24 feet. The reason IBLP abandoned Breakenridge Farm Unit 2 was due to engineering problems and other situations that occurred at that time, As far as the engineering on the proposed Breakenridge Farm Extension plat, he believes all the engineering concerns have been addressed. On April 14, 2005, a letter was sent to all of the residents that were within the required area indicating that IBLP would be pursuing this 2 -lot subdivision. Immediately the question was raised whether the owner of this proposed lot 2 would have access to Adams Road through Breakenridge Farm Road, which has become an issue. Because of the history this issue has been addressed before. Two previous village attorneys have addressed this issue. In 1982, when the residents were considering paving a section of Breakenridge Farm Road, John Brechin. (Village Attorney at that time) commented on the issue of private roadway easements. He stated at that time: "These easement documents have been reviewed and appear to be reflected correctly on the proposed Plat of Subdivision (Unit 1). Essentially those easements are for the benefit of the property owners to the north, west and south for ingress and egress purposes for themselves and invitees. By law VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 May 16, 2005 there is no problem with the construction of improved roadways over the easement areas on the property subdivided. As such, would enhance the access rights of the benefited properties; however any impairment of these easements by the subdivider could be actionable by any of the benefited parties for the damages resulting for any such impairment." The issue at that time was requiring access to the four lots in the new subdivision; access to the other southern lots was not addressed. The issue of the other lots did come up in the archived documents in the Plan Commission minutes dated March 18, 1985 and the following was recorded: "Member Bushy suggested creating a no- access strip along the westerly rear lot lines of Unit 2 lots." She was suggesting that there would be a no access strip from those lots to the private Breakenridge Farm Road in order to access Adams Road." However, Attorney Dick Martens, (who was the Village Attorney at that time) noted "that since the roadway easement along the rear lot lines were private in nature the Village could not impose a no access strip since it would imply that the Village had an authority to control access to a private roadway easement. It is a private roadway easement and anyone who has land that is part of that easement would have the right to use that easement." On March 22, 1985, the then Assistant to the Village Manager issued a memo to John Brechin (Village Manager at that time) and in that memo states that, "the Village in its approval of Unit 1 required the grant of easements noted in green and blue to provide for both a wider roadway if needed in the future as well as to cover existing areas previously outside of the easement." This memo explained the situation. The colored diagram was not part of the Village archives. In the past there has been no direct effort to access Adams Road from Breakenridge Farm Road from Lot 6 or any property within Lot 6. It is clear from the private road easement standpoint it does in fact allow anyone who owns the property to access Adams Road via the private roadway in addition to the 8 feet that was created by unit 1 final plat. In summary they are asking for a 2 -lot subdivision. Lot 1 would be a little over 2 acres and Lot 2 would remain approximately 17 acres of open space. In April they notified the neighbors of their plan. At the Village Board meeting on April 26, 2005 it was referred to the Plan Commission. There were neighbors present that commented at that time. It has been IBLP's desire and goal to work with the residents and resolve any issues. He wrote a letter on April 28, 2005 where he addressed generally the legal question. Recently he addressed other concerns that the residents had. Their request is for a recommendation of approval of the 2 -lot subdivision known as the Breakenridge Farm Extension. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 May 16, 2005 Member Braune asked if the present Village Attorney had reviewed this and reached a conclusion. Peggy O'Connell, Village Attorney, said that they have reviewed the documents and their position remains the same. They believe that the easement in fact is valid and they have not been presented with anything to challenge that position at this time. Member Wolin said that he would like to better understand the history as to why obtaining access to Adams Road was a problem. Mr. Barth responded that application was withdrawn back. in 1986. Some of the issues were engineering problems that were going to by costly; also the president of their institution likes open space land and decided not to proceed due to the technical issues; and it has remained open space for 20 years. Village Engineer Durfey said that the engineering issues were minor issues that could be worked out in the typical fashion. Fred Capetta, Attorney, stated that he is representing about a half dozen homeowners and was retained on May 10, 2005. He discovered there were 12 other documents recorded on the easement subject. He explained to the homeowners that he could not apprise them of their rights or obligations because there were 50 years of documents to be reviewed along with 13 public documents that he had not as yet received. In addition, he was waiting for an FOI from the Village to review the application and file. He sent a letter dated May 12, 2005 to the Plan Commission seeking to continue the matter in order to have an opportunity to review the documents so that he can advise the landowners. He requested that the Plan Commission take no action until he has had the opportunity to review the documents and advise his clients of their rights so they can address their concerns. Chairwoman Payovich said that the Village Attorney has reviewed this and has made a decision on the easement issue. However, it has been the Plan Commission position to allow the applicant and residents, which may have concerns, the opportunity to address them. She asked if the 2 attorney's had an opportunity to meet and discuss this matter. Mr. Capetta noted that Mr. Barth had offered to meet with him; however he was leaving for court and was unable to. Mr. Barth said that he certainly would share the information with Mr. Capetta. He said that the Plan Commission is an advisory body to make a recommendation and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 May 16, 2005 11��a if all the technical requirements have been satisfied then it seems it would be an undue delay to stall this process. There is plenty of time prior to the Village Board meeting to get the information and make the presentation at that time. There is also the entire Final Plat process as well. If it is delayed and the result is the same, then it is an unwarranted delay. All the issues could be raised before the Village Board. He requested there not be a delay. He said that they contacted the residents beginning back on April 141h . There has been plenty of time for them to discuss the issue with him or gather information. He tried to supply information to them by providing handouts and exhibits. He requested the meeting not be delayed and that the Plan Commission make a recommendation up or down. Chairwoman Payovich said that she does not believe it is a stall tactic to bring the residents together with an applicant to try and resolve some issues, whether or not they have merit. The other issue is that the Village Board believes that these things should be addressed and looked at while at the Plan Commission level. Member Wolin said that he would also like additional time. He found some material confusing. He said that it looks like a patchwork of roads and that may be a desirable thing for some people. One of the major objectives of the Plan Commission is to do planning that makes good sense for the Village and all the residents. It would seem to him that with that beautiful piece of property other alternatives rather than to jump to a conclusion and add to the patchwork road. He would like to better understand what the alternative plans could be for that property so a decision could be made in the short term that would also be good in the long term. If the Plan Commission jumps too quickly and adds a lot to the patchwork of roads, and then the applicant would want to add another lot 6 -12 months later you are further adding to the patchwork. He drove out to the property, but Breakenridge is a gated area and he could not access it. Member Tropinski said that she was confused and would like more information in order to understand easements. She would like to see more information added to the plan to see how it is to be developed. A lot of history was presented here. She agrees that the issues should be ironed out before the Commission proceeds. Member Bulin said that he understands the easements but would prefer to defer until they have heard the residents point of view. Member Adrian said that he agrees with the Commission and he would like the attorney's to take into consideration the opinion of the Village Attorney. It is customary to the Commission that all issues are resolved when they come back at the next hearing so that a decision can be made. Member Braune said that he was involved in a similar but different matter. In that matter it was the Plan Commission opinion that legal issues are not part of the Plan VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 May 16, 2005 Commission purview. He does not particularly agree with that decision. He strongly supports the Chairwoman's position. This is a perfect opportunity to rewrite the easements in 2005 terms. He would lead toward more intense discussion between all parties involved. Member Wolin said that when making a decision, he likes a decision that has a good long term benefit. If the applicant's decision in the short term is to create one 2 -acre lot and at then come back at a later date and want to add 5, 6 or 7 other lots, then that leads you to a different conclusion. He would like some clarification from IBLP as to where they want to go in the future. He is also concerned as to what type of drainage issue may be on the property and how that would be developed, unless IBLP wants to keep it vacant in perpetuity. In terms of the access from Adams Road, if it is going to be developed it appears that it might be easy to do. He asked Village Engineer Durfey, if the applicant would develop the entire lot besides the roads and drainage what are some of the other issues that would be important from an engineering standpoint. Village Engineer Durfey responded the zoning layout to get the minimum 2 -acre sized lots accessible to some type of road network. In response to the first question, he said that the Preliminary Plat of Unit 2 and Final Plat of Unit 2 were withdrawn. It had the road coming out near where the water main comes out on to Adams Road. At that location to the south there is a hill on Adams. If a car is coming north on Adams you cannot see a car until it is almost right on top of you; so that was the issue there. If the road came out at that low point on the road on Adams there would be a site distance hazard for cars coming north. That is probably why Mr. Barth found that information in the archives. The road would have had to be raised or relocated to a different location. The original preliminary plat of Breakenridge had the road coming out further south. Unit 2 had it at the low point which was problematic. Mr. Capetta clarified that he did not mean to raise the issue that there was anything illegal about the easements. He did not understand the easements enough or the recorded deeds or the other documents in order to advise his clients until he understood what they said so that he could advise them. Chairwoman Payovich said that it was the consensus of the Plan Commission to continue this matter to the next meeting and they do not believe it is an unduly delaying the matter. She stated that the message to the two attorneys that it is expected they would resolve their differences and if Mr. Capetta has anything that would change the Village Attorney's opinion it needs to be given to the attorney in a timely matter so that we can resolve these issues. Director of Community Development said that if there is any additional information that was not presented at the meeting, then it needs to be given to staff VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 May 16, 2005 1�-- 31 VA and the Village Attorney right away. Staff and the Village Attorney should not be surprised at the next meeting because it could potentially cause a delay. If there is something additional, then staff needs to find out in a timely manner. Chairwoman Payovich said that this is directed toward Mr. Capetta so that something does not come to the Plan Commission 2 days before the meeting. Mr. Capetta responded that as soon as he gets the material together so that he understands it, he would make it available to Mr. Barth and would make it available to the Village Attorney. Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Braune to continue the hearing on the Breakenridge Farm Extension Subdivision to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on June 20, 2005 at which time Attorney Barth and Attorney Capetta will have resolved the issue before the Plan Commission and pay specific attention to the Village Attorney's opinion. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development updated the Plan Commission that there was a public hearing before the Village Board regarding the proposed TIF for the Oak Brook Promenade. Several people provided comments. The next Village Board meeting, some action should be taken. There was no other business to discuss. ADJO T: Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST; ---- Robert Kallien, erector of t pment Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 May 16, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT