Minutes - 06/19/2006 - Plan Commission1.
2.
3.
El
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 19, 2006 REGULAR' MEETING
OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK
BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JULY 17, 2006
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
7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members, Raju lyer, Gopal
Lalmalani and Marcia Tropinski
ABSENT: Members Paul Adrian, Moin Saiyed and Gerald Wolin
IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Director of
Community Development, Barbara Gosselar, Assistant Village
Attorney and Dale Durfey, Village Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTPS
REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2006
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to approve of the minutes
as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS
A. STARBUCKS COFFEE — 2407 22ND STREET — MAP AMENDMENT — TO STARBUCxs -
2407 22""
REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ORA -1 TO B--3, TEXT AMENDMENT — MAP and and St -
"TEx1'
SECTION 13 -7C.2 SPECIAL USES, TO ADD THE TEXT "OUTDOOR AMENDMENT —
SPECIAL USES —
DINING AREAS ADJACENT TO RESTAURANTS ", SPECIAL USE — TO OUTDOOR
ALLOW AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A DINING AND
DRIVE -IN
RESTAURANT SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN FACILITY. FACILITY
Director of Community Development Kallien summarized the request. It is a small
site located on the southeast corner of 22nd Street and Tower Drive and 1s presently
used by Alpha - Graphics. It is less than one acre and is limited as to what can be
developed there. About a year ago, Starbucks approached the Village about their
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 19
June 19, 2006
desire to build a stand -alone facility. They are requesting a map amendment, text
amendment, two special uses, and at least one variation.
Ted Johnson, President of Design Strategies, 2311 22nd Street, Oak Brook is the
authorized representative of Starbucks and summarized its request. He reviewed the
zoning designation in the area. He noted that the zoning is B -3 just east of the
property and ORA -1 including and just west of the property and they are requesting
to rezone their property to B -3. Alpha - Graphics is the only tenant in the building
and presently operates in the northern half of the building; the southern half is
currently vacant. The building is approximately 6200 square feet in size on a .77-
acre property, approximately 120 by 280 feet in depth. The proposal is for a
freestanding facility approximately 2000 square feet, with an entrance on the west
side of the building. There is a drive -thru with a window on the east side of the
building and a drive -thru lane can accommodate up to 9 vehicles to stack for the
drive -thru. On the north end of the building is the proposed outdoor dining area.
There will be a patron parking area located on the west side of the building.
Employee parking will be on the south side of the drive -thru. There are reserving an
area on the far southern end of the site to accommodate a potential future cross -
access drive to the property east of the site that would allow them to gain access to
Tower Drive. When they met with staff earlier in the year it was indicated that in
the entire corridor they would like some type of frontage road system that would
accommodate a cross traffic maneuvering between the parcels so that all the traffic
would not be required to go onto 22nd Street. At this stage, they have reserved an
area where that drive could be accommodated. The building would be a one -story
masonry structure, which would be about one -third of the size of the existing
structure. In order to develop the proposal the site would need to be rezoned to B -3.
He responded to the map amendment factors as follows:
Map Amendment
1. Character of the neighborhood
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of 22nd Street and Tower
Drive. 22nd Street is a retail /office corridor on both the north and south sides of the
roadway adjacent to the subject property. The south side of 22nd Street is located in
Oak Brook and the north side is within the City of Oakbrook Terrace. Tower Drive
is a short stub terminating at the water tower property directly south of the subject
property. Specific uses within this corridor include professional and medical
offices, retail commercial and restaurants.
2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular
zoning restrictions.
The applicant is seeking rezoning from ORA -1 to B -3 to permit the development of
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 June 19, 2006
the proposed Starbucks building. The existing ORA -1 District permits some retail
uses similar to the proposed use, although does not specifically permit the use as
proposed. The adjacent property to the east is zoned B -3 and it is our opinion the
proposed rezoning will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding property
values. In fact, the redevelopment of the property to the proposed use will be
providing adjacent users with an amenity.
3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would
Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area.
The rezoning of the subject property from URA -1 to B -3 to permit the development
of a freestanding Starbucks Coffee building will be compatible with the proximate
land uses and will not have an adverse impact on the use or value of the properties in
the surrounding area.
4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes
The property is suitable for a limited number of uses identified in ORA -1 District.
However, due to the subject property's small size (33,600 square feet) it is difficult
to accommodate many of the uses permitted in the district. They are requesting a
change in zoning from the ORA -1 to B -3 in order to redevelop the subject property
as proposed. The B -3 classification is consistent with the zoning contained on the
adjacent eastern property as well as the trend of development within the area.
5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties.
The subject site is located within the ORA -1 District and contains a single story
building currently being used by a retail printing establishment. The parcel to the
south of the subject property is zoned ORA -1 and contains a municipal water tower.
The area to the west is zoned ORA -1 contains a, medical office building further
adjoined by a retail use. The parcel directly east of the subject property is zoned B -3
and contains professional office buildings, Uses directly north of the subject
property on 22"d Street are located in the City of Oakbrook Terrace and are within
their B -3 District. Uses within this area included retails commercial, medical and
restaurants. The proposed redevelopment will be consistent with the land uses in the
area.
6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has
remained unimproved considered in the context of land development.
The existing building has been there since 1968. The property has been developed
with a single story building.
7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed
on the Individual Property Owner.
,There is no gain to the public associated with retaining the existing ORA -1 zoning
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 June 19, 2006
.--�
classification, but there would be a substantial hardship imposed on the property
owners. Due to the subject property's size, there are a limited number of uses
permitted in the ORA -1 District, which would be accommodated on the property.
Rezoning to the B -3 classification to permit the proposed redevelopment will
increase the economic use of the property resulting in positive tax benefits to the
Village of Oak Brook.
8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals
or General Welfare of the Public.
The proposed B -3 zoning classification, which currently exists directly east of the
subject property, would permit the development of the proposed use, which is
designed to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public. The
proposed use is compatible with other retail and accessory uses in the immediate
area, which provide amenities for the growing number of area workers, shoppers
and residents.
9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use is consistent with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and represents a
rational use of the subject property in concert with, and complementary to the many
significant retail, office and service uses within the adjacent area.
10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners.
It is their opinion that there is a demonstrated need and demand for the proposed use
at this location. The trend of development has been distinctly toward retail uses
within the 22nd Street /Butterfield Road corridor. The residential density of the
surrounding community as well as the high level of disposable income coupled with
an extremely accessible location can be expected to provide a ready market for the
proposed use.
The proposal also includes the request for a text amendment. The B -3 Distnct, does
not have a provision for outdoor dining areas although the B-1 and B -2 District do
allow it as a special use. They requested that the zoning ordinance be amended to
allow the outdoor dining as a special use in the B -3 District. .
,In response to the standards for the Text Amendment, some of which do not apply to
a text amendment. He stated as follows:
Text Amendment
1. Character of the neighborhood
The response would be the same as for the map amendment. There are many
restaurants along the 22nd Street /Butterfield Road corridor that currently contains
outdoor dining areas.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 June 19, 2006
2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular
zoning restrictions.
Not applicable.
3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would
Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area.
Not applicable.
4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes
Not applicable.
5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties.
The subject site currently contains a single -story office building by a retail - printing
establishment. The uses directly north of the subject property on 22nd Street are
located in the City of Oakbrook Terrace and are within its B -3 District, which
pen-nits outdoor dining.
6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has
remained unimproved considered in the context of land development.
Not applicable.
7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed
on the Individual Property Owner.
Amending the B -3 zoning classification to allow outdoor dining areas as a special
use will permit the proposed redevelopment that will increase the economic use of
the property resulting in positive tax benefits to the Village. Currently outdoor ding
areas adjacent to restaurants are allowed, as a special uses, in the B -1 and B -2
districts.
8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals
or General Welfare of the Public.
Amending the B -3 zoning classification to allow outdoor dining areas as a special
use will permit the proposal, which is compatible with other retail and accessory
uses in the immediate area, which provide amenities for the growing number of area
workers, shoppers and residents.
9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan.
Not applicable.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 June 19, 2006
0
10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners.
It is their opinion that there is a demonstrated need and demand for the proposed use
at this location. There currently exists many restaurants in the corridor, which have
outdoor dining areas. The existing B -1 and B -2 districts permit, as special uses,
outdoor dining areas adjacent to restaurants. The residential density of the
surrounding community as well as the high level of disposable income coupled with
an extremely accessible location can be expected to provide a ready market for the
proposed use.
There are two special uses that are required in order for the proposed development
to be approved and developed. The special uses are the outdoor dining area and the
drive -thru facility. In response to the Special Use factors, he responded as follows:
Special Use Standards
1. Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed
necessary for the public convenience at that location.
This does not apply to this proposal. The proposed use is a Starbucks Coffee facility
with drive -thru and outdoor patio area. Subsection Al describes public uses and the
proposal is entirely private in character.
2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected;
The two elements of the proposed Starbucks Coffee facility, which require a special
use, are the drive -thru facility and outdoor patio area.
The drive -thru area has been designed with a dedicated drive, separated from the
parking area, and contains a stacking queue for (9) nine vehicles.
The outdoor dining area is located on the north end of the proposed building with
access to and from the building and parking area. The outdoor dining area is fenced
from the drive -thru lane and is substantially set back from 22"d Street.
3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the
neighborhood in which it is located.
The special use elements of the proposed plan, drive -thru feature and outdoor patio
area, have been designed and located, so as to not have an adverse impact on use
and value of adjacent properties. It is commonly accepted that proximate food
establishments are considered a desired amenity for office /professional buildings.
This parcel is adjacent to two such buildings. Furthermore, retail uses similar to the
proposed use are already established in the general area.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 June 19, 2006
That concluded the required standards and factors.
Chip Beltchenko, Development Manager, Starbucks Coffee Company, said that they
are looking forward to working with the Village and being able to serve coffee to the
residents and those that work and shop in Oak Brook.
No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
Trustee Kennedy said than he is on the Commercial Revitalization Task Force for the
Village, along with Chairwoman Payovich and Bob Kallien. This is an exciting
proposal, but he is in a bit of a quandary, because this project does exactly what the
objective is in the commercial revitalization, which is to see existing obsolete office
buildings, demolished and then redeveloped as a modern office or retail facilities.
Although this is a step forward viewed as a particular project and would be a nice
amenity for that area. The problem is that the Village is just getting started on the
commercial revitalization project and a consultant has just been hired. There is no
question that the corridor on the south side of 22nd Street, between Midwest Road
and Meyers Road, is going to be a major focus of commercial redevelopment in the
Village of Oak Brook. There is a lot of interest in it. At this point, not having
kicked off the urban planning process, we do not know what is going to happen
there. There will probably be a combination of office, retail and some other things.
His problem with the proposal is not the proposal itself, but where it is located. It is
adjacent to one of the two major roads that currently lead into that entire sub area,
from Midwest to Meyers Road. Tower Drive would probably end up being a major
entrance into whatever happens in that whole corridor. At this time, he does not see
how the Village could be confident that this particular development is going to fit
into the overall picture. He would hate to see a project like this approved that would
end up with a beautiful new facility, but in the wrong place; from the standpoint of
the inner connectivity of the roads within the corridor area. The Village owned
property, which is the location of the water tower (directly behind this parcel) has
been under consideration to relocate Fire Station No. 2 somewhere in that area,
which is on the south side of 22nd Street west of Midwest Road. There are a lot of
long -term planning considerations. The planning process has not yet started, but
soon will be. Although, he would like to see the Starbucks proposal move forward,
he would hate to see it go forward before the input is received from the urban
planning team.. It is important to know that what is being proposed is not going to
impede further development of the area in terms of aggregating individual properties
to make projects happen in terms of the inner connectivity of the roadways to take
traffic off of 22nd Street and let it pass within this property. Those are just a few
concerns. He asked Director of Community Development Kallien if the commercial
revitalization process consultants could focus on this sub area from Meyers to
Midwest Road and provide a quick, but confident opinion on whether this project is
going to be consistent with what eventually happens there.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 June 19, 2006
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the consultant could be
asked to at least weigh in on the request. One of the difficulties is that so much of
the revitalization process will involve the input of the business community, the
residents and stakeholders in the community. Beyond a quick review at this stage,
they really would not have the opportunity to have the others weigh in. There is a
certain risk, but we could at least have the consultant look at it.
Trustee Kennedy asked if a very quick input could be received from the Village as
to what the plans might be for the Village owned property by the water tower.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Village is and will
probably continue to look at other alternatives for relocating the fire station, so a
report would be needed from the Fire Chief. A report could be obtained from the
Director of Public Works regarding the water tower facility located south of the
proposal and what impediments or opportunities that the applicant's proposal would
provide. Although it would probably come from the revitalization process, but this is
a stub streets that is perpendicular, but does not connect to the tollway, and is there
any long term development opportunity there so we would need the input of the toll
authority. The site proposal does provide some much needed cross access with
some properties to the east and possibly to the west, which is something our corridor
is lacking. The building looks nice and there is some sense as to what they are
proposing, but is part of the bigger issue.
Trustee Kennedy said that it is at a crucial point at that corridor because it is one of
the main entryways, of about 3 or 4 roads, or private drives to provide access to that
entire one -mile plus swath of land. It lies at a very crucial crossroad as to what the
Village may eventually be doing. He hates to delay the petitioners, but in this case,
we need to try very hard and quickly to make sure that allowing this project to go
through is not going to interfere with a broader plan for this very important
commercial area of the Village.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that we could get the
communication process started, between the Village, the applicant and consultant.
Chairwoman Payovich said that we would also like to have more members available
from the Commission. In the interest of moving the matter forward she asked the
Commissioners whether there were questions.
Member Tropinski said that the proposal looks like it would be a very nice
development, the car stacking is done is very nice and having the patio on the north
end, so that the activity can be seen is very nice.
Member Iyer said that he agreed with Trustee Kennedy and Director of Community
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 June 19, 2006
Development Kallien as to how the proposal fits into the overall perspective and
scheme of things. He questioned if more than 9 vehicles are stacked during peal{
hours, would the traffic spill over onto the road, and how it would be handled.
Mr. Beltchenko responded that the standards call for a minimum stacking for 6 to a
maximum of 8 vehicles; the 9 proposed, goes beyond their normal stacking
requirement. They have an internal guideline of 45 seconds to drive through There
are cars moving through all the time, they do not have cars stacked out into the
parking lot. If there were a case, where someone ordered 15 Frappacino's, they
would ask them to move forward to park and they would bring them out to the car.
Member Iyer questioned if there was enough protection for the outdoor dining area
that would face 22nd Street, in case a car would go through.
Mr. Beltehenko responded that there are wrought iron railings and posts for the
outdoor seating area that provide for safety.
Michael Achim, Construction Manager, Starbucks said that they can also address the
concern by using concrete bollards that are able to stop a car.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a plan should be provided
showing what would be installed to stop a car. In the staff report, an issue was
raised regarding the cars in the parking lot that are facing the seating area. There
have been issues with other buildings regarding safety concerns with the direction
the parked cars are facing in relationship to the seating area and that a car may go in
an unexpected direction and what protection device would be utilized. He asked
that the applicant provide the peak hour stacking for some of their busy stores.
Mr. Beltchenko said that they could provide the number of cars served each hour.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that any issue relative to signage
would be handled through a separate building permit and would be what is
allowable by Code. If a ground sign would be desired, they would need to go
through the hearing process.
Member Lalmalani said that it appears to be a beautiful use of the site; however, he
also has the same concern as Trustee Kennedy regarding what the bigger picture is
going to be with the commercial corridor development. They would hate to approve
something that would be a major conflict with what the corridor is planning to do.
He said it would be a good idea to continue the matter until an analysis is received
from the commercial revitalization consultant.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village needs the
consultant to weigh in on the broader issue as to how this all fits. Issues raised by
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 June 19, 2006
wv---: Z mo
Trustee Kennedy relative to the other departments, such as the Public Works
Department, regarding the water tower, and the Fire Department. If possible, they
would like to get those departments represented at our next meeting.
Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer, to continue the Starbucks
Coffee applications hearing to the July 17, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. At that
time, the concerns that have been raised are to be addressed if possible. ROLL
CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Iyer, Lalmalani, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich
Absent: 3 -- Members Adrian, Saiyed, and Wolin
Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried.
A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS voa- OBJEUrs
WITH v
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS PARKWAYS
Trustee Kennedy advised that several months ago the Village Board heard the
presentation on this issue and also heard from a number of residents. They
discussed the matter, which is a very complex subject. He made several points
made by the Village Board.
1. The Village Board has a concern that "the horse is already out of the
barn" in the sense that there are several hundred situations throughout
the Village, where people have built things in the public right of way,
that may or may not raise concerns. The Village has not enforced its
standards for objects in the right of way for about six years. There are a
lot of situations that now exist, which concerns the Village Board.
2. There was a consensus to continue to allow the ornate masonry /stone
mailboxes that are popular in town. The Village Board's feeling was
that we should try to accommodate those and maybe impose limits in
the future as far as the size of the mailboxes and requiring a covenant by
the property owner to hold the Village harmless in the event of damage
or injury.
3. Almost all Trustees expressed concern about the safety and Village
liability issues raised by large boulders, a berm and retaining walls in
the public right of way.
4. They recognized a need for a consistent simply policy and consistent
enforcement of whatever the Plan Commission recommends and the
Village Board ultimately adopts. It has to be even handedly applied;
and hopefully as self - enforcing as it can be.
5. They were concerned with the man -hour burdens on staff and the cost to
the Village in the enforcement of a very complicated solution and a very
complicated set of rules. The concern with the burden and the cost to
staff would be aggravated and magnified if a "grandfathering" was
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 19 June 19, 2006
adopted, where existing situations could continue to exist, but new ones
could not. It would require the staff to catalogue all of the existing
encroachments.
6. After hearing the input and having some discussion, the Village Board
would be inclined to adopt an approach that deals with the more serious
issues that Village Engineer Durfey will show to the Plan Commission,
as opposed to dealing with every conceivable object that is placed in the
right of way by private parties.
Although it is difficult to speak on behalf of other Board members, he said
these points were a fair consensus of the Village Board discussion several
months ago.
Village Engineer Durfey said that as stated by Trustee Kennedy, it is a very
complicated subject. He said that it would take several meetings, to review the
material and for the Commission to provide a recommendation to the Village
Board.
The Village Board approved an ordinance on July 13, 1999 adopting the first
Public Works Construction Standards to establish uniform policies concerning
requirements for and procedures regarding construction standards in the
Village. Staff has been working on a revision for several years, however on
particular section has received considerable debate and needs special attention
before staff can finalize the revisions.
The Section entitled "Objects Within Parkways" prohibits certain items from
being placed in the right of way and was included in the roadway guidelines.
• To keep the Village owned parkways relatively clear and uncluttered
• To allow space and access for utility installation and maintenance
• To allow space and access for JULIE locates
• To reduce the amount of damage to objects with the parkways should
construction be needed and also minimize residential complaints about
restoring their private objects; and
• To reduce the severity of accidents should a vehicle leave the roadway
and therefore reduce the Village's liability.
For example, if a vehicle left the roadway, struck a large boulder and the people
inside the vehicle sustained more injuries than would have occurred if the
boulder had not been there, the Village could be held liable for additional
injuries.
One particular kind of object that was and still is pervasive was the placement
of boulders in front of resident's properties and Village right -of -way. After
adoption of the 1999 ordinance, staff proceeded to enforce the provisions and
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 June 19, 2006
contacted many residents regarding these boulders. Many of them complied
and removed the boulders or requested that Public Works remove them, but
some objected.
Several residents complained to then Village Manager Veitch about this
provision. Considerable discussion ensued with Manager Veitch and staff, and
on August 29, 2001, Manager Veitch approved a revision on Exhibit B (page 7
of the case file) that it was to be placed in the first update to the Public Works
Standards. Even with this, several residents still would not comply and
continued their discussions with the Manger's office. During all of this, staff
did not have the boulders removed since the Manger's office was in
discussions.
Due to the considerable discussion and lack of clear direction (Managex Veitch
left the Village in 2002), Assistant Village Manager Crotty directed that a
resolution wait until a replacement Village Manager was hired, and then he left.
Staff essentially not enforced this issue in either of its forms for several years.
They have told several affected residents that they would be informed when the
Village Board and Plan Commission would review this item when the
Standards update was on an agenda.
Concerning the promulgating of rules for objects within rights-of-way, he
reviewed several manuals and noted their citations in Exhibit C (page 6 of the
case file). Their thoughts were 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 objects and
obstructions within a large distance from the traveled way and some
are there for other safety or environmental reasons, such as fire
hydrants, traffic signals, directional signs, street trees, etc.
Aside from the needed or required obstructions, private items, such
as large boulders or pipes are suspect as to their placement s within
the right -of -way.
Additionally, the following should be considered:
1. The Village right -of -way is owned by the public and held by the Village
in the public trust. The Village must have control over others who want
to use it.
2. The Village regulates utility companies who want to use the right -of-
way; private use should also be regulated. Use of the public way should
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 June 19, 2006
be even - handed.
3. The Village should not absorb the cost of repair when a private object is
damaged, accidentally or intentionally. The Village and various utilizes
are constantly constructing/maintaining facilities within the right -of-
way.
4. Large obstructions interfere with utility maintenance. For example, the
extremely large boulders in front of 3007 Avenue Loire would hamper a
water main break repair, and bushes would not allow the Village and
other utility complies to locate their facilities for a JULIE request, which
the Village is mandated to do.
5. Without proper regulation, Village infrastructure could be damaged by
work being done without permits.
He forwarded a draft of his memo containing this infonnation to present
Village Attorney Kubiesa and asked for his thoughts. 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). 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.
He presented several pictures as examples of existing obstructions within the
Village rights -of -way in a Power Point presentation. These examples were also
shown in Exhibit F (page 2 of the case file). The examples included boulders,
bushes, small tree plantings, walls, fences, and trees that are not allowed per the
Public Works Construction Standards. At 21 Natoma Drive, a resident had a
laden stone piece of rock in the right- of-way that was hit and moved by the
Village's snowplow, this past winter. During the winter sometimes, the
snowplows do not know exactly where the curb is, so space is needed.
Some action steps were presented to the Village Board. The placement of
private objects within the Village rights -of -way needs to be resolved so that an
update of the Standards can be finalized. Specific discussion and direction
should include:
1. There are several concerns that arise in creating a policy for items within
the Village right-of-way:
• A major concern centers on safety and Village liability. The goal
should be to reduce the severity of accidents if a vehicle leaves the
roadway and therefore reduce the Village's liability.
• Should the Village -owned parkways be relatively clear and
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 June 19, 2006
uncluttered'?
• Space and access is required for utilities and JULIE utility locates.
• To reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction is
needed (and minimize residential complaints about restoring their
private objects).
With that in mind, the Village needs to decide if it will allow private objects
to be placed on Village right-of-way and if so, under what circumstances.
Should an indemnification covenant be required from the adjacent property
owner?
2. Does the original "Objects Within Parkways" section of the Standards
meet the Board's current thinking? Does the August 29, 2001 proposed
revision or does the Village want something else?
3. Assuming that certain objects will not be permitted within the right-of-
way, would any existing object be grandfathered, and how is it
determined how far back in time to go? Would they be allowed to
remain with the liability issues or must all such items be removed or
relocated, and who pays for it? Does it include items that were placed
by a resident after being told not to? If grandfathered, there is no way of
knowing when many of these items were installed and creating and
updating a database would be a tremendous task requiring weekly
monitoring of every street and additional staff or a consultant.
4. Once the Village Board decides these issues, staff will then draft
revisions to the Public Works Construction Standards to be brought
before the Village Board for consideration and ordinance adoption.
5. Staff will then enforce the provisions. He noted that the original policy
took a considerable amount of staff time when it was being enforced.
Additionally, it would take an extended amount of time with the current
engineering staff to enforce whatever the Board decides while trying to
maximize cooperation with residents.
There was a copy of a survey done by the Village of Burr Ridge in September
and October of 2001 (page 3 of the case file). To summarize,
8 of 17 towns did allow boulders, some with conditions
■ 9 of 17 did not allow boulders
■ 7 out of 17 did allow brick mailboxes, some with conditions
■ 10 out of 17 did not allow brick mailboxes
■ 3 out of 15 repaired damages to boulders, some with conditions
■ 12 of 15 did not repair damages to boulders
■ 6 out of 16 did repair damages to brick mailboxes, some with conditions
• 10 out of 16 did not repair brick mailboxes.
A color -coded Village map was included (page 1 of the case file) The policy
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 June 19, 2006
applies to the Village streets only; it does not apply to private streets.
Chairwoman Payovich opened the comments to the audience, reminding them
of the 3- minute time limit requirement.
Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that she prepared a letter that had been
submitted for the file (page 13 of the case file). She noted that she never
ignored anything that was ever presented to her from the Village regarding this
issue. She watched the well - presented pictures show by Mr. Durfey. She
brought pictures from the front of her house in the winter after the snowplow
has covered the areas. It also shows the blocks, which are not cemented in
place, are movable are located 4 feet behind the mailbox, which is behind the
curb line. She has been a resident since 1970 and these things were in place at
that time, the plants have grown and things had been done to accommodate
them. She is the last person that would want anyone hurt, and she understands
how some of the boulders and even mailboxes could create a major problem
because some of the streets are dark at night. Merry Lane was developed later
so there are wider streets, so it is not as much of an issue as it would be for a
narrow street. She showed picture of the area with snow covering the area.
Larry Whitlow, 2007 Avenue Loire, Chateaux Woods, 18 -year resident,
thanked the Plan Commission for allowing him the opportunity to present the
perspectives of homeowners regarding items on the Village's right-of-way. He
provided written testimony as well as picture boards. Many objects in the right -
of -way, including hundreds of deciduous and evergreen trees, large stone and
pavers, retaining walls, ornate mailboxes, masonry structures at the entrance of
subdivisions, boulders and other plantings all contribute to the beautification of
Oak Brook. No one can deny the tremendous visual impact that the Village has
as one drive through its subdivisions.
Many of the objects referred to have existed in their locations for 20 -30 years or
longer, and to his knowledge have not caused accidents or resulted in personal
injury. A mandate to remove many items currently in the right -of -way would
have a devastating effect on the Village's aesthetic appeal and home values.
He commended Village Engineer Durfey for a very thorough report regarding
the issue.
He addressed several issues as follows.
■ Safety. They have large boulders on their property that have been there
for over 30 years and have not resulted in personal injury. Driving
through the Village, there area hundreds of trees in the parkway,
especially in Forest Glen, Brook Forest, Trinity Lakes and Saddlebrook,
and many of the trees are very large. If hit by a car, a mature tree is
immovable and will definitely cause injury, to cars and people. Many
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 June 19, 2006
times the newspaper reports on the deadly results of a car colliding with
a tree. He personally attested to this issue, since several years ago
someone ran into the side of his vehicle on an icy road on 31st, which
then ended up hitting a tree and causing $13,000 in damage. With
regard to large boulders he asked how often it has been in a newspaper
that a boulder caused a deadly injury and said that he was not aware of
any such instance and questioned if any had occurred in the Village over
the last 30 years. He said that if the Village Board recommends the
removal of boulders of certain sizes, then all trees in the right -of -way
should also be removed, since there are documented instances of injuries
resulting from tree impact, which are beauties of nature. He asked if the
Village remove the many hundreds of trees and strip the Village of their
beauty; if safety is a major objective, then trees as well as boulders
would have to be removed.
■ Liability. He said that it is unreasonable to expect all items in the
parkway to be removed. Other neighboring towns, such as Elmhurst
and Downers Grove, do not have these types of restrictions on items in
the parkway. Some towns do not ask property owners to execute a
covenant defending and indemnifying the Village if homeowners elect
to place items in the parkway. If the Village is concerned about its
liability, it seems reasonable to expect individual homeowners to
execute a covenant to indemnify the Village. They would be happy to
do so. If damage to items in the parkway occurs while gaining
necessary access for utilities, it would also be reasonable to expect the
homeowner to be responsible for replacement of items they placed in the
parkway.
■ Allowing certain items in the parkway, but not others. Since the
Village is approximately 40 years old, and thousand of items have
existed in the parkway without causing harm to individuals nor have
they been a detriment to the Village, how could anyone determine at this
point what is permissible and what is not? How can anyone predict what
will result in someone's injury or death, would it be a boulder or a tree?
Statistically, the likelihood is that it would be a tree. Many items in Mr.
Durfey's list can cause significant injury, such as substantial mailboxes,
trees, large shrubs, boulders, retaining wall, fences, etc If it is
recommended to remove everything, even though there is no
documentation from officials regarding injuries to warrant it.
• Ornate Mailboxes. Since ornate masonry mailboxes have been
permitted when a homeowner signs a covenant indemnifying the
Village, then it sets a precedent for permitting other structures in the
right -of -way as long as a homeowner does likewise.
• Grandfathering. It was stated that the majority of items within the
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 June 19, 2006
right -of -way were placed without permission. 10 to 40 years ago when
many of these items were placed, there were no ordinances regarding
these items, so there was no need to get permission for their placement.
Through the years, collectively Oak Brook homeowners have spent
hundreds of thousands; even million of dollars to enhance the
appearance of their properties, and this includes items in the parkway.
How would a Village mandate for removal of items impact their
investments? If items were placed predominately for the purpose of
beautifying someone's property and simultaneously the Village, and
have not caused injury to date, why not allow their continued existence I
the parkway?
Consistency. If a determination is made to restrict items in the right -of-
way, this must be made with regard to equity across the board for
anything and everything that could potentially cause personal injury.
Therefore, if boulders are restricted, then trees must also be restricted
and removed. They cause far more harm than boulders. With regard to
consistency there is another issue. These considerations pertain only to
items in the parkway on Village roads. Isn't the Village concerned with
the safety issues, liability issues, or access issues for utilities on private
roads in gated communities in Oak Brook? Also, why are restrictions
not mandated/enforced on county or states roads. Should the Village be
more restrictive than these agencies or other neighboring towns?
Enforcement and cost. If removal of items in the parkway is ultimately
mandated, another major consideration would be cost of manpower
hours for enforcement. There is also cost of subsequent removal of
trees, boulders, structures, etc. It seems prohibitive for the Village to
incur these extreme costs to remove and relocate all of theses items, let
alone the costs to the homeowners to landscape their properties
afterwards. Removing these items will most certainly diminish the
aesthetic appearances and will result is a sterile looking environment.
In summary he said;
• Safety. There has been no documentation to indicate that items in the
parkway have presented safety issues. There have been no reports
presented of injuries or deaths in our Village as the result of trees,
boulders, retaining walls, or others. It does not appear that safety
concerns should be a determining factoring.
• Liability. If the Village is concerned about liability, permit the
homeowners to sign a covenant indemnifying the Village.
• Consistency. If removal of items in the parkway is mandated, than any
and all items that might cause injury or death, including trees, must be
removed. Trees are potentially far more harmful statistically than
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 June 19, 2006
boulders. Why shouldn't these guidelines apply to private roads? A
tree is a tree, is a tree anywhere, and can cause damage anywhere.
Costs. If removal is mandated, consider the overwhelming costs of
removal and of enforcement,
Considering these statements, he implored the Village to leave well enough
alone. To date, there have not been problems with items in the parkway.
Please let the Village maintain its wonderful aesthetic quality in its
neighborhoods and use resources elsewhere and not for removing trees,
boulders and structures that contribute to the unique appearance of the
majestically beautiful Village of Oak Brook.
George Starnogianos, an attorney with his office located at 610 Roosevelt Road,
Wheaton, spoke on behalf of his clients, residents of the Village. He said that
he understands that the Village has worries regarding liability. However, in
DuPage County, which is heavily Republican, it is extremely unlikely that
anyone would bring a lawsuit and win in DuPage County. There are trees and
mailboxes there; and what is the difference between a tree and a mailbox? How
is the Village liable or negligent by not allowing a boulder in the right -of- -way,
but allows a tree. It is the same concept and the Village would not be held
liable. What will happen, if the Village imposes a uniform policy of all
boulders, all retaining walls, and basically saying that everything has to go, it
would invite an obscene amount of litigation. The Village has basically slept
on its rights. The Village has the right of way, however over the course of the
last 30 years it has not enforced its rights. Since it has not enforced its rights, it
has slept on its rights; and the courts do not look favorably on an individual that
has slept on its rights. The courts have a doctrine of laches, which is basically
the same thing as a statute of limitations. If someone does not bring an action,
or after a while of letting something happen and all of a sudden decides not to
allow it anymore, the courts will step in and say that they cannot do that. The
Village would basically be expecting individuals that have spent thousands and
tens of thousands of dollars in landscaping, and have them take it down and it
will not really benefit the Village. As far as the safety concerns, a tree would
cause much more damage than a boulder. There is very little benefit to the
Village in removing these structures; however, it would be a great detriment to
homeowners, financially. If the benefits are weighed, the Village would have
little benefit and the homeowners would have a huge detriment. In his opinion,
the courts will not look favorably on this. Residents will start systematically
start suing the Village. As someone wins, it will escalate and the Village will
have to deal with hundreds of lawsuits, which would be much worse than a
potential individual whose bumper was scratched by a rock.
Chairwoman Payovich said that this review and the second half of Village
Engineer Durfey's presentation would be heard at the next regular meeting.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 rune 19, 2006
�4
6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER
BUSINESS
7.
There was no other business to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at
9:03 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST :_.
Robert Kallien, D' ector f Community Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19
-12re
June 19, 2006
ADJOURNMENT