Loading...
Minutes - 05/17/2004 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE MAY 17, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON JUNE 21, 2004. 1. 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 7:32 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: 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 L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2004 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune, to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2004 Regular Plan Commission meeting as amended and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. KANAN COURT SUBDIVISION - f/k/a MIDWEST COURT SUBDIVISION - KANAN COURT 3308 MIDWEST ROAD - FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION - VARIATIONS MIDWEST ROAD - D- MID�i'EST ROAD - TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FINAL PLAT WITH - SECTION 14 -6 -3E• SECTION 14 -6 -3D• SECTION 14 -6 -317: and SECTION VARIATIONS - 4- LOT SUBDIVISION 14- 6- 3A -2.c Director of Community Development Kallien said that this matter was continued to review some technical issues and comments raised in regards to the trees, alignment and dimension of the street, bike path, and lighting. Village Engineer Durfey has provided written comments and some issues need to be discussed. John Brechin, Attorney for the applicant reviewed the proposal. There is a memorandum from Village Engineer Durfey dated May 13, 2004, which noted that there are some open issues. Subsequent to that memo a meeting VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 16 May 17, 2004 was held and all sides have agreed as to what revisions need to be made. He summarized the issues the Plan Commission addressed at the last meeting. 1. Bike Path. The bike path has been moved 20 feet west at the north and south ends from where it was, and about 6 feet further west from where it is today in the center of the property. The movement of the bike path westward achieves a number of goals. • It becomes a safer bike path because it is much further away from Midwest Road pavement and right of way. • It is believed that they have established very good site distance for the people coming in and out of the subdivision and a bicycle /pedestrian, so there should be minimal possibility of the conflict between them. The path is somewhat curved, instead of a straight line, which makes it more aesthetically pleasing. 2. Landscape plan. The plan has been revised after looking over the draft tree preservation ordinance. The number of trees has been enhanced and they have made a good faith effort, taking into effect that it is not an ordinance yet. 3. Subdivision Gateway. The sign has been reoriented and are going to make modifications to the cul -de -sac island at the request of the Fire Department, so they have better maneuverability for their largest equipment. The gate detail has been provided to the Village. 4. Easement. They initially intended to run the sewer line between lots 1 and 2 south, to connect an existing sewer that is within the Midwest Club court. To do so, they have to go over the north half of vacated 33rd Street. They communicated with the owner of that property because there is no easement over it, and they responded that they have no desire to grant such an easement. Their alternate plan now is to go down Midwest Road to the north line of Lot 160 in Midwest Club and proceed west to connect. There is an existing 10 -foot utility easement in that area, so that will be the method they will use to connect to the property. 5. Waiver of Street Light. There are only 4 lots, and in reality the cul- de -sac is a common driveway. They think the illumination provided by the gateway features will be sufficient to identify the opening for travelers. There is a precedent for not having a street light. Heritage Oaks Subdivision does not have one. Brook Forest entrance on Midwest Road also does not have a streetlight. The streets in Brook Forest are public streets and are a much larger subdivision. They believe what they are proposing is sufficient and will preserve and maximize safety. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 16 May 17, 2004 .1�c Dr. Salt, President of the Midwest Club Subdivision said that no one was informed of this issue until Friday, which is when they were advised that the Plan Commission meeting was this evening. Dr. Jain, 1708 Midwest Club Parkway, owner of the property known as Lot 160 that the applicant is seeking to access. He asked why he was not informed that they were going to be digging into his property until the letter he received on May 14, 2004. Village Engineer Durfey said that he notified the homeowner's president as soon as he knew about it, to make it a public knowledge. Village Engineer Durfey noted that he received the plans on May 11, 2004 and the letter was sent out on May 13, 2004. Dr. Jain said that before these plans were made, someone should have come to talk to him, or questioned if it was a practice to just come in and dig on someone's property. Mr. Brechin responded that there is an easement for public utilities on Lot 160, which means that with a permit, a public utility can construct a public utility in that area. The easement was established when the property was platted, which should show up on Dr. Jain's plat of survey of the property. It was just last week that they received final word from the owner of 3312 Midwest Road that they would not grant the easement. Only then were they able to re- engineer the project. They recognize that the Village did give notice to the property owner at the appropriate time. If the arrangement was approved by the Village, they would be in further contact with the property owner. Dr. Jain said that the easement is still on his property and is part of Midwest Club. Dr. Sait that he said that he would like to bring this up to the board of the Midwest Club and they need to discuss this with its attorney. Dr. Jain has legal rights and it appears that they will be uprooting some hedges and trees and none of this was given to them. All they received was a letter stating they are planning to access the lot, but not told what it involved, what was being dug, what was being moved and this was all done without information being given to the Midwest Club Homeowner's Association or to the owner of the property. Before any plans are approved, they are requesting copies of whatever plans have been submitted to the Village be given to the Association and to the owner, so they can go through them in detail and see what is involved and then come back to this board to discuss it. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 16 May 17, 2004 Director of Community Development Kallien said that this is a unique situation where there are easements and when there are easements in place there is an anticipation that the reason those easements are there are to provide certain connections to utilities, access and drainage, whatever the specific easement is for. In this particular case, the person that lives on that lot was unaware that the easement existed, so there is a need to have some discussion to make everyone aware. Chairwoman Payovich said that it appears that a letter was sent from the Village in a timely manner, based on when the revision was received from the applicant. Unfortunately it was not enough time to come in and discuss it. She asked Dr. Salt if he had called the Village Engineer when he received the letter. Dr. Sait responded that Mr. Durfey called him on the 11th or 12th and he asked Mr. Durfey to send him a copy of the letter which they received on Friday. Plans were not included and they have no idea what is going to be done. The Midwest Club Homeowner Association meeting is scheduled for May 25, 2004. Member Adrian asked the applicant, if trees or hedges are removed on Lot 160, would they be responsible to make it whole. Mr. Brechin responded that it is their responsibility to restore the property. He said that any plantings in an easement are in jeopardy. There is no right to plant within an easement. They will do what they can to restore the property so that the property owner and Village are happy. Mr. Brechin said that the owner should have received notice of the initial hearing, since they live within 250 -feet of the property. Member Braune noted that Dr. Jain's name appears on the list of the surrounding property owners in the case file. He may have received notice when the initial proceedings had taken place, which is part of the process. Gail Polanek, Community Development Department, responded that a mailing label is provided for each property owner within 250 -feet as well as to all of the Homeowner's Associations. All were mailed by regular mail and a copy of the letter sent was dated April 14, 2004, a copy of which is in the case file. Dr. Sait and Dr. Jain said that they did not receive those letters. Member Goel said whether or not a letter was received, the owner of the adjoining property should be kept well informed by the developer of the proposed development as to what is going on the property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 16 May 17, 2004 _S3- Member Wolin agreed and said that it is one thing to get a letter about a new subdivision and it is another to be told they are going to be digging up your property. He asked if the new subdivision has the legal right to use the easement. He would like the Village Attorney to advise the Commission on that issue. He would highly recommend the matter be continued until things are clarified with the Midwest Club. Chairwoman Payovich agreed that it would be a good idea to give Midwest Club time to review this at their upcoming meeting. The Plan Commission tries to be fair to the applicants and to the residents of the Village. There was a discussion as to continuing or concluding this matter at this meeting. It was decided to continue on with the review. Member Wolin said that he would like to know if the applicant has pursued all other alternatives. Chairwoman Payovich asked Village Engineer Durfey if he is aware of any other alternatives than the ones presented this evening. He responded that he does not have a listing of the Hinsdale Sanitary District easements throughout the Village. Mr. Brechin said that the only other alternative would be for the Village to agree to condemn the easement over the north half of vacated 33`d Street which could take anywhere from 30 days to 2 years, which is not either cost or time effective. There is no doubt that there is a public utility easement, which they have a right to use. They recognize their obligation as neighbors to satisfy as best they can the needs and desires of the property owner, but there is no question that it is a public utility easement that they have a right to use. Mr. Mehul Shah, applicant and President of Kanan Construction said that he understands Mr. Jain's concern and he would feel the same way. They did try to work out an easement agreement with the adjoining neighbor at 3312 Midwest Road and he kept them stringing along until the last minute and were finally told that they are not interested. When his team advised him that the sewer would have to go through the Midwest Club, he said that they should be contacted by letter. He said that harmony and positive energy are very important and it is very fair that the Midwest Club review the matter at their meeting. If a special meeting is possible he would be obliged, but if not so be it. His people will attend the Midwest Club meeting and if permission is granted to go through the easement they will make sure that it is addressed properly so that the landscaping will look as it is or better. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 16 May 17, 2004 Member Goel said that he believes that these four lots will be one of the most beautiful subdivisions of Oak Brook and thrilled that it is coming, however, he is not persuaded that 7 trees really need to be removed. If the subdivision entrance is moved to the north end of the lot he believes most of the trees could be saved. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he reviewed the concept plan. In working on our tree preservation language the applicant has said that they would. There is a stark reality when someone proposes a subdivision of land there are some very basic factors that one must meet to get approval. Those factors are that all of the lots meet the minimum lot size, have adequate utilities, access and so forth provided at the site. Chairwoman Payovich noted that it appears that the applicant is attempting to make an effort to go along with the theory of the proposed tree preservation ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien added that there is only so far that we can go with the tree issue without regulation. We need to keep that in mind. We have trees and are trying to maintain as many as possible, and this is one alternative that is out there. The Plan Commission has worked the proposed ordinance on, but it will also go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing, which will allow all interested parties to comment. It will then go to the Village Board to adopt it and we do not know in fact when, or if it will occur. The applicant has committed to try to meet the intent of the proposed language and to retain whatever trees they can and to replant. Member Goel asked if the discussion was out of bounds. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is not, and the Commission is welcome to put the scenario forward, but he needed to relay that information. Mr. Brechin said that the driveway is located where it is at for safety. Relocation of that drive anywhere else is going to mean that there will be a less safe entrance. The proposed drive is located at the highest point in Midwest Road in that area so that the site distance is maximized. It is a fallacy to say that moving the location of the driveway will save trees. The trees are being removed due to the County requirement that the retaining wall be removed and because of the grades the trees are in jeopardy and would probably not live. They want to maximize safety and they regrettably lose trees. So the solution is to replace as many trees as they can above and beyond what the ordinance requires, which is an expression VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 16 May 17, 2004 of good faith and good planning. The orientation of the lots with the driveway in the center is aesthetically pleasing and is good planning. Any other driveway orientation would be as good planning. Chairwoman Payovich asked how the location of the driveway determined to be the safest access. Mr. Brechin responded that the highest point in the roadway gives the maximum site distance, which provides the most safety; therefore this is the optimum location for the driveway. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Goel agreed that the highest point is where the access is located; however, Midwest Road is fairly flat along that entire area. Village Engineer Durfey responded that Mr. Brechin's comment was correct where the proposed position for the proposed driveway is at the apex of the curvature of the roadway. It slopes down and to the north and to the south, but the middle of the lot is the high point. John Greene, Engineering Resource commented that the centerline of the new cul -de -sac court is proposed at the high point of Midwest Road. There is approximately two feet of fall off from their road to the north lot line and three feet of fall off from the proposed road to the south property line. Based on the speed limit on Midwest Road there are certain safe stopping distance requirements that are published by IDOT and that the County has adopted. A certain amount of feet is required for the speed limit. If the entrance was not located right at the high point, if it was skewed even 100 feet in either direction, the crown on Midwest Road would restrict an oncoming driver from seeing a car entering or leaving Midwest Road. He also commented that the plan before the Commission has four lots that are just about 25,000 square feet with only about 100 feet of roadway involved. Member Bulin said that he believes that the proposal is the appropriate solution for 4 lots on this property to meet the R -3 zoning, considering all the safety issues. Member Braune commented that he has driven by the property a number of times and his initial reaction that if the retaining wall goes, the trees are lost anyway. Since the County has required that the retaining be removed the trees would not survive the construction process, so the issue of safety and access is moot. Member Goel questioned if the County wants the retaining wall removed VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 16 May 17, 2004 even if the entrance is not there, or is the wall required to be removed because of the proposed location of the entrance? If the area would not be touched, why would the County require its removal? Mr. Brechin said that they do not understand either. The County said that the retaining wall must go regardless of where the entrance is because they do not want a retaining wall in their right of way. Whether that is good or bad planning that is the County's directive and they have to follow it. They approached the County more than once and were given the same answer, and once the wall comes out the trees are in jeopardy and their likelihood of successful living is minimal. Chairwoman asked for a consensus of the Commission to accept the plan as proposed on this issue. The members agreed. #2 Waiving street lights Member Wolin questioned the lighting on the gate. Dave Gumm, Walsh Landscape, noted that they have added two more light standards out close to the property line on both sides located on the north and south side across from the sign area. The lights would add additional illumination in the area. There is one light pole in the middle of the cul- de -sac so that there are three lights in the entrance area. Member Wolin asked Village Engineer Durfey, if a street light were required, where would it be located. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the best location for a street light would be at the top of the T of the intersection which would is on the east side of the street, opposite the road, a secondary consideration could be on the west side in one of the corners on a diagonal facing the intersection. Member Payovich asked what kind of street light would be recommended for that area. Village Engineer Durfey responded the typical shoe box style. Member Payovich asked if there are alternative. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the shoebox style has been the standard as far as cost factors, inventory, etc. Mr. Brechin said their concern is that a streetlight may attract traffic that they do not want to attract. It is a question of how much light is enough in order to maximize safety and yet preserve privacy. It is not an intersection of two public streets with 20 -40 lots in the subdivision. They do not see VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 16 May 17, 2004 the need for the type of lighting improvement that the ordinance would require under a traditional subdivision scenario. Member Bulin responded that he accepts that argument and accepts it because he believes that enough lighting is being provided, but he is deferring this to the Village Engineer in regards to safety issues. Member Tropinski, agreed, and said that it seems like adequate lighting is provided and would be aesthetically pleasing; and it appears to be far more than what some of the other subdivisions have. The two pole lights, plus the light on the sign should be reasonable. Member Braune said that his concern is installing the light on the east site of the street and what impact it might have on Trinity Lakes. In another forum, a light was installed, and then flooded a neighbor's house with light. It was meant for safety and lit up everything around it. Village Engineer Durfey said that it is very easy to put a shield to stop light from going backwards. Many of the lights in York Words have a backside house shield so that it is not light behind the light. Member Adrian said that he also thinks that it is adequate regarding the lighting, but defers to the Village Engineer recommendation. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the Village regulations require a street lighting system, which is typically waived except at intersections. He added that he tries to err on the side of caution, and if someone would be unfamiliar with the area, he said that he would find it easier to find a lit intersection as a guide point. Member Braune asked if there were any other lights in the vicinity besides at 31s' and 35th Street. Village Engineer Durfey responded there were not. Mr. Brechin said that they just do not believe that a traditional street light is necessary, and it would detract from the aesthetics of the subdivision. The type of lights they are proposing will not only look good, but would function well. Chairwoman Payovich said that she tends to err on the side of caution also but based on what the Commission landscape architects are saying, there will be light that will allow people to identify the entrance to the subdivision. Member Goel said that the Village Engineer must follow the regulations and he is doing it right, but the Commission has the professional opinion of two architects on their board that should also be respected. It is not a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 16 May 17, 2004 <-�- -Ly-- typical intersection so the lighting they are proposing seems to be very adequate. Member Braune said that since the trees will be removed, the 14 foot lights will be visible. He would not prefer to dirty the area with a big light bulb. All other members agreed. The street lights are recommended to be waived #3 Storm sewer system Mr. Brechin said that the maintenance responsibility of the storm sewer system will be covered in covenants along with the roadway and other common elements. #4 Fire Department Access. Village Engineer Durfey said they had a meeting with the applicant's engineer about reducing the cul -de -sac bubble a couple of feet and putting the gate posts back behind the curb a couple of feet. The Fire Chief seemed to be okay with the concept, although he would have to see the actual plans with his equipment, but it looks like that is the right direction. Chairman Payovich said that this issue would be one that staff would sign off on as it proceeds. #5 Subdivision Gateway plans Village Engineer Durfey said that he has been told they have taken the walls out of the plans, and there will just be a fence across the frontage, which makes the problem disappear. Mr. Brechin responded that the offending feature was the wall that exceeded the height permissible. They are staying with a 42 -inch metal fencing, which is in compliance with the regulations. 46 Revised Landscape Plans Member Wolin asked for clarification to this issue because Village Engineer Durfey's memo states "15 trees are proposed to be planted as close as 22 -feet which is an extremely close configuration that should not be permitted." However, then it states that "The Subdivision code states that trees should not be placed more than 40 -feet apart" and then it states "the Public Work Standards states that trees should be planted 40 -feet VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 16 May 17, 2004 apart." They do not all tie together. Member Bulin said that he understands that Public Works would find it easy to maintain 40 -foot spacing, but the trees would never grow that big in our lifetime. Even the City of Chicago has adopted 25 -foot spacing. He believes the 22 -foot spacing proposed is fine. He suggested that larger caliper trees be used. Village Engineer Durfey said that he had discussed this issue with Public Works Director Meranda and he had suggested a letter from the landscape architect regarding the spacing of the species. #7 Construction Schedule — Standard procedure #8 Bike Path - Member Adrian asked what kind of material would be used for the bike path in front of the subdivision. Mr. Brechin said that they would maintain the asphalt surface. Mr. Shah said that it would be stamped asphalt that would be aesthetically pleasing. 49 Waiving the requirement for sidewalks in exchange for the developer relocating existing pathway. Mr. Brechin said that if sidewalks were required they would ring around the cul -de -sac, it does not seem appropriate for such a small development and would detract from the aesthetics, and the location of the bike path eliminates the need for sidewalks. #10 Storm sewer stubs and sump pump drainage. Village Engineer Durfey said that because the subdivision is so small it does not require detention. Therefore there is no detention basin and no storm sewers needed to catch the sump pumps. With the more ecological thinking these days, sump pump and down spout drainage is the best management practice if it discharges out onto the grass and has a chance to percolate into the ground verses getting into a pipe and whisking it away so that it can flood someone downstream. It is a reasonable request. #11 Midwest Club Easement Chairwoman Payovich said that the recommendation was to provide plans VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 16 May 17, 2004 _1� to the Midwest Club and Mr. Jain. The applicant will meet with them at the Homeowners Association meeting on May 25, 2004. Member Wolin said that he would like it checked out to see if there are other alternatives. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he and Village Engineer Durfey would look into it. Member Braune noted that it was also requested that the Village Attorney review the easement issue. Dates were reviewed for a special meeting. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the Village Engineer had received any comments back from Public Works regarding any issues. Village Engineer Durfey said that he had not received a response back, but would think not. Member Payovich asked if a more developed landscaped plan could be prepared. Mr. Brechin said that the plans will note the spacing, size, and the number of the varieties included. The members agreed that they would like to see revised plans prior to making a recommendation to the Village Board. Chairwoman Payovich asked that the following items be submitted for review at the next meeting. 1. Landscape plan that will show the trees to be removed and location of the replacement trees with consideration of the proposed tree preservation plan. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Goel, that the hearing on the Midwest Court Subdivision be continued to a Special Plan Commission meeting that is to be scheduled. VOICE VOTE. Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. OAK BROOK PARK DISTRICT — SPECIAL USE — TITLE 13 OF THE OAK BROOK PARK DISTRICT — VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 13- 12 -7A.2 — SPECIAL USE - AMEND SPECIAL USE TO INCLUDE SPLASH PARK /PAD AND SPLASH PARK/PAD and PLAYGROUND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT Tom Suhs Director of Parks and Recreation for the Oak Brook Park District reviewed the request. They are seeking to add a splash pad to the Family Recreation Center. The splash pad is a bowl surface area that does not hold water in any manner. It is augmented with a lot of spray and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 16 May 17, 2004 water toy applications. There are various sprays that are activated by the children. There is a rubberized surface that is dished out so the water is not held and is recycled through the drain. The second aspect of the request is to create some additional playground space. There is currently a playground in existence and they will be expanding the equipment. The request is in response to some requests and needs. The splash pad is directed toward the use by children, but there is no problem with adults in the area. The whole component is designed for children from 3 to 12 years old. The area will also be accessible to the handicapped. It will be outside and the usage would be in conjunction with the Family Aquatic Center. The splash/pad component will be entirely fenced in and the only access would be through the existing doors on the sun deck and will be part of the Family Aquatic Center. The playground is in an open area. They have already received permission from the Village to relocate the current existing service drives that go around the facility. They are also relocating a small portion of the bike path. The operation of the facility will be in compliance with the hours of the Aquatic Center, which closes at 8 p.m. and 4 p.m. on the weekends. It is totally driven by weather. It is located on the south side of the facility. Member Bulin said that the landscape plan submitted does not reflect the number of trees in the visual provided by the Park District at this meeting. Mr. Suhs said that the area is heavily vegetated and they will augment it as much as possible to create a buffer zone. There are a number of shade areas and cabanas in the area and there is access to the indoors for those seeking shade. Member Braune asked if there was a high usage of water. Laura Evans, Aquatic Center Manager responded that the water goes down the drain, through a filter and is recirculated. Mr. Suhs added that they want to maximize the use of the water as much as possible. Ernie Karras, 75 Forest Gate Circle, said that the Forest Gate Homeowners Association has some concern that the lighting of the facility is done in such a manner that it will not be facing the Subdivision. The fact sheet they received from the Park District referenced that the lighting would be turned off when the facility closes. They want to ensure that the lights would not glare into the homes. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 16 May 17, 2004 M, Mr. Suhs said that there are lights that are used as security lights. They are going to augment those in terms of wattage. There will be some lighting on poles, but they will be facing the splash pad area. There is no intention of lighting the playground area. He added that the poles would not be more than 20 feet. The mature trees are over 30 feet high. Chairwoman Payovich said that if necessary, back shields should be added to the lights to reduce any spillover. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would be appropriate to add a condition that the source of the light be properly shielded. Mr. Karras said that the fact sheet also noted that the music played outside would not be as loud as Route 83 traffic. A number of the homeowners asked what that means. Mr. Suhs said that he is not sure that they are going to have any music, but if they do add speakers, they would be directed toward the facility alone. Member Adrian asked if there is a decibel level that could be attached to the conditions. Mr. Karras said that normal conversations are between 40 -50 decibels and an extremely loud voice is around 70 decibels. That is the range of a human voice, which is between 40 -70 decibels Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the Code and the maximum that is allowed is 72 decibels. Member Braune said that said the Forest Preserve District provided some information in their application regarding sound levels. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we could provide the sound provisions that were included for the Mayslake outdoor events. A copy of the Ordinance will be brought to the Zoning Board meeting. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Adrian to recommend approval of the request from the Oak Brook Park District to amend their special use for the property located at 1450 Forest Gate Road to permit the construction of 4800 square foot splash park/pad and additional recreational equipment south of the Family Recreation Center. In making this recommendation, the Commission finds that: 1. The Oak Brook Park District property is zoned CR Conservation VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 16 May 17, 2004 Recreation and is currently improved with a number of uses for the recreational benefit of the Oak Brook community. 2. The Plan Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of a special use and amendments in order to permit the construction of the Family Recreation Center and recent additions. 3. The applicant has met with representatives of the Forest Gate Subdivision on the planned improvements to the property. 4. The proposed amendment to the special use is deemed reasonable and does not jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. The recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. The source of light is to be properly shielded from the adjacent residential property. 2. It is recommended that Staff forward the existing sound level information contained in the Mayslake special use and be possibly incorporated into the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 0 — None. Motion Carried 5. C. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDNANCE REVIEW VOB -TEXT AMENDMENT- PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE TREE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — ADD CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that he incorporated the comments raised at the last meeting into the revised text. Copies of the draft have been given to the village staff. Village Engineer Durfey has provided some comments to revise some on the text to make it a little clearer. There was a brief discussion on drip line. The next logical step is to send the proposed draft to the homeowner associations to get their input and provide those comments for he public hearing process. The members discussed the proposed draft and the consensus was that the draft accomplished what the Plan Commission intended. It was agreed that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 16 May 17, 2004 -11-0� 5 6 7 the draft should be sent out to the homeowners association for their input and then go forward to the Zoning Board of Appeals at their August meeting. Mr. Joseph Perri, 137 Saddle Brook Drive, commented on concerns regarding the effect on trees when redeveloping existing parcels. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Adrian to forward the proposed Draft Tree Preservation Regulations for review and comment by the Homeowners associations and then forward the Draft and comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on August 3, 2004. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 0 — None. Motion Carried D. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW PROJECT — PLANNED UNIT VOB - REVIE w PROJECT - PUD DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Bulin to continue the hearing on the Village of Oak Brook — Review Project — Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to the next regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for June 21, 2004. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Wolin to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 p.m. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Director Community Development Secretary r VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 16 May 17, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURMENT