Minutes - 06/20/2005 - Plan Commission1.
N
3.
4.
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 20, 2005 REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN
ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2005.
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
7:42 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, Jeffrey
Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin
ABSENT: Members David Braune and Surendra Goel
IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development, Dale
Durfey, Village Engineer, Peggy O'Connell, Assistant Village
Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 2005
Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of
the May 16, 2005 Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading
thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
A. BREAKENRIDGE FARM EXTENSION --- TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION — 13REAKE-NRIDGE
FARM EXTENSION -
LOT 6 OF BREAKENRIDGE FARM UNIT 1, 19.569 ACRES OF VACANT Two -LOT SUS - LOT
LAND LOCATED BETWEEN ADAMS ROAD AND BREAKENRIDGE FARM UNIT UNIENRIDGE
F 1, 19.569
FARM ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — TITLE 14 OF ACRES Or VACANT
LAND - PREL PLAT
THE VILLAGE CODE -- SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF SUBDIVISION
Director of Community Development Kallien summarized the status of this matter.
He said that at the last meeting there was testimony heard and there were a number
of legal issues. The Plan Commission decided to continue the matter in order to
allow all parties to further investigate the issues and communicate with one
another.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 24 June 20, 2005
Chairwoman Payovich described the process for the hearing. Anyone seeking to
make comments will be heard after the presentation.
Robert Barth, General Counsel for the Institute in Basic Life Principles said that
prior to discussing the specifics of the request, he had two issues that he felt was
important to this matter and wanted to discuss them first; perceptions and
principles. He said that often our perception of something often determines our
responses. Sometimes those perceptions are not accurate and not based on the
facts. If our perceptions were based on inaccurate or incomplete information our
conclusions would likely be wrong. He used the laser pen as an example that if
someone had seen it 50 years ago and the technology did not exist at that time, they
might perceive that there was something behind the object making the red dot,
while it was being pointed to with the laser. Only if he placed his hand in between
the object, only then would it be perceived as coming from the pen. There is some
perception there, and without understanding everything there could be a wrong
conclusion. He asked to take a moment to address some of the perceptions that
people may have of the Institute (IBLP). Many of those perceptions are from
people or by people who have little or no knowledge of the Institute.
He has heard the Institute labeled from some kind of convent to some kind of
military compound and these are perceptions that have no factual basis. The
Institute primarily helps individuals and families understand and imply principles
of living that are taken from biblical truths. This has led to a number of different
ministries including working with orphans in Romania, Mexico and Russia;
working in prisons to help prisoners take the responsibility for their actions and
seek forgiveness and reconciliation. Other ministries include working with families
that want to home educate their children and train them to be honest, diligent,
creative and responsible. Working with young men and training them emergency
response skills to respond in natural disasters such as hurricane and flood relief,
and assisting law enforcement search and rescue efforts. The young men that have
been trained in this, back in 2003 when the space shuttle Columbia disaster
occurred, the young men that had been trained through this program were invited
and were the only private group that helped in that recovery process of the space
shuttle. The ministry includes seminars, interpersonal relationships, anger
management; conflict resolution and character training all are based on biblical
principles. The Institute is very family and service oriented. A flyer with a brief
description was passed out to the members. This is not relevant to this particular
proceeding but it does give a little understanding as to what the Institute is all
about.
He said all this because of lack of information or misinformation, which results in
misunderstanding and wrong perceptions, which often leads to wrong views and
wrong actions. One of the most dangerous consequences of wrong perceptions is
fear.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 24 June 20, 2005
With respect to the Institute's application there have been rumors innuendos, false
statements of fact and many misrepresentations. There have been some that have
expressed the perception that Institute has some grand scheme to connect Lot 6
(which is the 19+ acres that are part of this particular application) with the 57 acres
east of Route 83 and south of 35'h Street. As he explained in his letter, that is
legally impossibility because the land in between is no longer owned by the
Institute; it is owned by the Forest Preserve District. Even if there was some
intention, which there is not, it is legally impossible to connect the two tracts of
land, via Breakenridge Farm Road. There have been a number of people that think
that the idea is to have multiple narrow lots in Lot 6, which is not possible either.
The distorted views and false information in a recent newsletter that went out to all
the residents in the Fullersburg Woods area is another example of misinformation.
According to their article is that educational and civic political association. A
portion of the newsletter was passed out, and the only reason it was provided was
to clear the record. Many of the residents may have received the newsletter and he
wants to make sure that it is understood what is true and what is not. Highlighted
in the first paragraph indicates this language: "They own considerable amount of
property within the Hinsdale -oak Brook communities, and most residents are wary
of the way in which this property may be developed or subdivided, and how it will
impact the community." The Institute has stated at the last meeting that it has
owned this property for over 20 years and has maintained its rural character for the
benefit of all the residents. The subject property, known as Lot 6, is zoned
residential. The only thing that the Institute could ever do with this property is to
allow it to be used as 2 -acre home sites. The statement that "frost residents " is an
exaggeration and that they "are wary" being used is either evidence of fear or
possibly and intent to create fear among the residents.
The second paragraph states, "...Commission heard the attorney appearing for
IBLP explain why he felt the easements for road access dating back as much as 50
years give the buyer of a two -acre parcel access through Breakenridge Farms
development." Early in his career a judge one told him that he didn't care what he
"felt like" he said what are the facts and what is the law. With respect to the access
along Breakenridge Farm Road, the legal documents that control the easements, as
well as the Village attorney, agree that Lot 6 does have access to Adams Road
through Breakenridge Fann Road.
The third paragraph in the newsletter said, "Dan Callaghan (of Foresi Gate) is the
proposed builder, " He has no idea how anyone could have thought this because
the perspective buyers of the lot have never heard of Dan Callaghan and they have
not even talked about having a builder yet. So whether this is a misstatement of
fact unintentional or some intentional misstatement, he does not know. It does not
really matter because the fact that the letter went out and people read it, and it does
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 24 June 20, 2005
create or arouse a concern among people about a higher density proposal for this
particular area, which just is not the case. IBLP is only proposing what the Code
requires, which is two -acre lots and would never consider anything else with
respect to that land.
He brought this up because perceptions will be wrong if based upon wrong and
misleading information. This is a rather inflammatory article which contains
misstatements of fact and innuendos about IBLP's motives has probably caused
some to have wrong perceptions about what they are all about and what they are
intending.
At the last meeting he went over the past history and legal documents and some
past misconceptions and he trusts the additional information this evening will make
things even clearer.
The Plan Commission is responsible to make recommendations to the Village
Board on present development requests, but it is also responsible to consider the
impact of present plans on future development, while still respecting the rights of
individual property owners. First of all the plan must be feasible and foreseeable
planning and flexible. Foreseeable planning involves code requirements, zoning as
well as any engineering requirements and what is the present impact of this plan
and future implications. The concept of flexibility in the planning recognizes that
the Village does not own the property and it has certain constitutional limitations
on what it can require a resident to do to avoid being an unconstitutional taking.
The owner does have the freedom to use his property as he desires as long as it is
consistent with the Village Code.
First, is this feasible planning? Lot 6 is a large tract along Adams Road. He
reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for the 2 -lot subdivision. Lot 1 is 2.1 acres
and Lot 2 would include everything else. He said that this current plan is feasible
according to current Code. They are not seeking any variances, and all the
engineering issues can be worked out. It is 2 -acre zoning and is certainly feasible
according to zoning and engineering.
Secondly, is it foreseeable planning? There is an existing water line that goes
across from Adams Road west and then southwest to a lot currently owned by Mr.
Palumbo. Proposed Lot 1 is north of the water line and it is foreseeable that Lot 2
could be above the water line and west of Lot 1. He reviewed the feasibility of
developing other lots on the site.
Finally, is it flexible planning? Yes, it gives the land owners the option of
developing the bottom part in the future at some point, if they ever chose to do so
in a way that is flexible.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 24 June 20, 2005
At the last Plan Commission meeting there was a mandate to deal with the access
issue along Breakenridge Farm Road and whether Lot 2 would have access to
Adams Road via Breakenridge Farm Road. Secondly, there were concerns
expressed by some Plan Commission members regarding future development.
Efforts have been made to try to deal with those issues since the last meeting. In his
letter (dated June 16, 2005 — page 15) he stated that he made several attempts to
contact Attorney Cappetta. On June 1St, they met and on June 2, a proposal was
fax'd to him that would deal with both of those concerns regarding access and
potential future development. He informed Mr. Cappetta in another
communication on June 3, 2005 that there was no way to combine this
development with another lot.
On June 6th he sent a letter to Attorney Cappetta outlining in more detail the
proposal. On June 7"' he received a fax back from Mr. Cappetta stating that he was
not in a position to be able to accept the proposed settlement. He talked with him
on June 14 and again at that time he was unable to give his opinion one way or
another as to what his clients would or would not support. Mr. Barth clarified that
he understands that the Plan Commission is the body that makes the decision and
are concerned with the resident's interest, as is IBLP; but the Plan Commission is
the body that makes the initial decision.
They are proposing the same plan to be approved that was submitted, at the May
meeting; however, in an effort to not come before the Commission without
anything else, he had his engineer come up with an alternate plan. They are not
amending their application; they just want to show the Commission, in order to
address concerns raised about future development. The plan is called Alternate A
and shows what can be done in the fixture. The concept is feasible and complies
with the zoning and engineering requirements. The alternate plan does eliminate
one of the concerns which is the foresee ability question as to how many lots would
have access and be abutting to Breakenridge Farm Road. The concept eliminates
the uncertainty as to how many lots would have access to Adams Road through
Breakenridge Farm Road which would limit the number of lots to 2. It is good
planning from a utility standpoint because the water line is there. It does have a
good planning aspect; it directs limits and defines future development. Any of the
other lots would have direct access to Adams Road.
Some have raised the issue whether Section 14 -1 -3E applies. In its entirety it states
as follow: "Where a tract of land is proposed to be subdivided in several stages
over a period of years, and the subdivider requests approval in parts, he shall, at the
time of submission of the first part, submit a detailed plan of the entire tract to be
eventually developed, with appropriate sectioning to demonstrate to the Oak Brook
village plan commission that the total design as proposed for the entire subdivision
is acceptable under the terms of these regulations. The plan commission and village
board may give preliminary approval to the overall plan and final approval on the
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 24 June 20, 2005
WA01,
parts as submitted from time to time."
As he stated in his letter to the Plan Commission, (page 20 -b) there are 2 aspects
that result in a conclusion that this particular provision does not apply to this
application. The owner, IBLP does not propose to subdivide this tract over a
period of years and the subdivider has not requested approval in parts. In order to
deal with the foresee ability issue they were thinking about what could be done
here. It was their goal to inform the Plan Commission of possibilities that by taking
of this one lot would in no way adversely impact the potential future orderly
development of the remainder of Lot 6.
He showed 2 sketches of the possibilities of how the balance of Lot 6 developed as
5 2 -acre lots. His purpose is not to show what would be done; the purpose was to
show what could be done. The alternate does account for all the land in Lot 6. The
concept eliminates the engineering problems that existed on Adams Road in the
preliminary plat from 1985. It provides sufficient space for orderly development
of the proposed lots and provides flexible planning.
In summary, in considering the perceptions, the concept of the principles of
flexible, feasible and foreseeable planning the proposals meet all those
requirements. The concept was shown as what could be done. The Institute is not
interested in doing more than a two -lot subdivision, but if it would be more
aesthetically pleasing and give more peace to the Commission as well as some
neighbors they would be willing to considering adding the other two lots. They are
not requesting to amend their original proposal; they would like their original
proposal approved. Approval of the preliminary plat as proposed does not
detrimentally impact the potential future orderly development of the remainder of
Lot 6.
Chairwoman Payovich opened the discussion to the members.
Member Wolin asked the differences of the access road locations between Sketch A
and B. Mr. Barth responded that the difference in the cul -de -sac and access is
merely a matter of aesthetics and design there is no real reason. In Breakenridge
Farm Unit #1 the cul -de -sac was where the water line was. The elevations shown
on these sketches at the possible access points should not be a problem. It just
shows that with a 12 -acre tract there are a number of potential ways that it can be
planned out and developed into 2 -acre lots or more.
Member Adrian asked for clarification that the lots could not be connected to the
other parcels they own on the northwest corner. Dale responded that it was his
understanding, but he has not reviewed that.
There was a brief discussion on the alternate plans proposed.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 24 June 20, 2005
Member Bulin asked if it is okay to approve a plan that would leave a 12 -acre
parcel or should they be looking for a more defined description as to how it would
be developed. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the applicant could request
a two -lot subdivision. One 2 -acre parcel and one 15 -acre parcel and could build a
home on the 15 -acre parcel.
Member Bulin said that even the original proposal was acceptable. If they went
with the alternate proposal it would be okay to leave Lot 4 as 12 acres without a
description as to how it might someday be developed.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that in essence and the way he
reads the regulations with the 12 -acre parcel we are not approving a preliminary
plat. It talks about a plan to show how it eventually could be developed. The
regulations say that the Plan Commission and Village Board may give preliminary
approval. There is some assumption that there could be some modification over
time of actually how that occurs. As a group if the Plan Commission endorsed one
of the proposals, one of the issues that would have to be reconciled would be that
the original proposal came in for a two -lot subdivision. Under both of these
scenarios we could now be creating 2 more additional lots than the application
showed.
Member Bulin said that if lot 3 on the alternate would have access to Adams Road
it would have to go through a defined detention area, which would be a potential
problem. Village Engineer Durfey commented that the north end would be fine.
Member Wolin said that it appeared that the applicant could get approval of a two -
lot subdivision as requested leaving the remaining acreage vacant; but it is clear in
Section 14 -1 -3E it is very clear that you cannot do that. He reread the section into
the record. He said that it makes sense. . The Plan Commission has seen example
after example of lots that do not quite fit so they need variations, and one of the
ways that you avoid it is by doing the correct planning in the first place. Mr. Barth
showed a classic example of that with his charts. One of the lots changed when
they added lots, because when you do a little bit of advance planning you see things
that don't quite fit. The right thing is for IBLP to come in with a total plan. They
may only develop Lot 1, but they need the total plan at this point in time.
Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell responded that the beginning provision
which states, "When a tract of land is proposed to be subdivided in several stages
over a period of years." Here, IBLP is not making that type of a proposal. They
are making a proposal that deals only with two lots; one that they want to subdivide
out. It was her legal opinion that that provision does not apply to IBLP given what
it is that they are asking for.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 24 June 20, 2005
Mr. Barth said that they are not proposing these five lots, they are just projecting to
show that by following good planning principles taking out Lot 1 and leaving Lot 2
does not preclude or adversely impact the potential future orderly development of
the rest of the land at some point in the future, if that ever is done.
Marcia Tropinski asked if the access to Breakenridge Farm Road was resolved for
Lot 1 and whether the easement issue has been resolved. Mr. Barth responded that
he as well as the Village attorney agrees that based upon the 1955 easement as well
as the Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 final plat, the access is there to Adams Road, via
Breakenridge Farm Road. There is an additional addition to the 16 -foot easement
from 1955, which includes owners of the area, which includes Lot No 6. IBLP who
bought the property from Mr. Templeton by the easement itself defines who has the
rights to that easement, which is the owners of the land which was defined as
Breakenridge, including the west half of the southeast quarter of section 35. As far
as the requirements for the approval of the final plat of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1,
there was an additional 8 -foot easement tacked onto the side of that 16 -foot
easement; so along Lot No 6 there is not only a 16 -foot easement that was granted
in 1955 by the landowners that got together and signed the easement as a covenant
running with the land. There is an additional 8 -foot on the east side of
Breakenridge Farm Road encroaching into Lot No. 6, easement for access marked
as ingress /egress on the preliminary plat.
Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that according to the minutes this was
one of the issues raised by Mr. Cappetta at the last meeting and whether or not
there was anything that he was going to present that was going to attack the legality
of the easement. She has not received anything from Mr. Cappetta to alter her
opinion that the easement remains valid. She stands firm in her decision and
would acknowledge that she has not been presented with anything that would alter
her mind.
Member Wolin said that he can appreciate the interpretation that was made by the
Village Attorney however, based upon the interpretation this section of the code is
meaningless. He really thinks the section that he quoted from, the intent is very
valid that it is always a good idea to plan out things as much in advance as you can.
He asked Attorney Barth, if you look at the roads through Breakenridge it is a very
narrow network of roads. He does not mean to be negative to the residents of
Breakenridge, but it is a very complex network of narrow roads. He asked if it
was possible to plan out the new subdivision in a way that you would have direct
access all lots from Adams Road in a more straightforward manner. He questioned
if that was something that was considered or are there reasons why it would not be
considered, including access to Lot 1. Mr. Barth responded that the land on Lot 1
abuts Breakenridge Farm Road and the easements themselves and the plat of Unit
1, it specifically provided that would be accessible.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 24 June 20, 2005
Mr. Barth said that with respect to the provision of 14 -1 -3E one needs to keep in
mind that there are constitutional limitations in terms of requiring someone to
develop something if they don't plan to. Fox example, if there was a preliminary
and final plat approved by the Village that had something like this configuration,
The Institute or the landowner would be locked into that. Once a final plat is
approved and recorded, that is sort of the way that it has to be unless you go
through a long drawn out process of trying to amend the plat. That seems to be
totally unnecessary because the applicant is not asking for that. They are not
asking to develop this land over a period of years. This land may remain open
space for 50 years they don't know, they are not asking for that. It has been open
space for over 20 years since the Institute took ownership of it. They are not asking
to do this over a one or two year period, so that is why this request does not fit into
that particular category because they are not asking to develop this land over a
period of time. The only purpose he had of even explaining or showing the
sketches was to alleviate any concerns that may be there that taking out Lot 1
would not impact another lot to the west of it. Their thinking was to show a
concept. They would not access Lot 1 through Adams Road because it makes
sense, there is a water line to the east of the lot and the lot abuts Breakenridge Farm
Road and it is legally provided for.
Fred Cappetta, Attorney, represented some of the property owners of Breakenridge
Farm Road. He stated that his view obviously is a variance from those already
heard. He said that he has met and spoken with 10 landowners in Breakenridge
Farm; the owners of five lots, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Breakenridge and the owner
of five additional lots in that area that were not part of Subdivision 1. Those are
the O'Malley's, Barbara's, Guisfredi's, Wolf s, Vanerka's, Iozzo's, Clingen's,
McClement's, Nalbach's, and the Pasquinelli's.
The resident's expect that the Village through its Plan Commission and its Village
Board assure its residents that the planning mandated by Oak Brook Ordinance G-
104, 5 -27 -1969; 2000 Code will be strictly adhered to when it says that the Plan
Commission should maintain reasonable standards of design for subdivision and
for resubdivisons of unimproved land and reasonable requirements governing the
location, width, course and surfacing of public streets and highways, alleys, ways
for public service facilities, curbs, gutters, size of lots to be used for residential
purposes, storm water drainage, water supply and distribution and sanitary sewers.
They do not deny the owner of Lot 6 may use its lot to build a single home and
link that house to the existing Breakenridge Farm private road. However, once the
petitioner uses that right, like all other lot owners, its right to build or link to the
private road is then exhausted and a second house may not then be built. But that
is not what the owner of Lot 6 proposes. Instead, the petitioner proposed to create
almost the smallest lot permissible under the Village current R -1 zoning, a 2.16-
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 24 June 20, 2005
-�O�
acre lot. The average size of the other lots in Breakenridge Farm Subdivision is 2
three - quarter acres, or 27% larger than the proposed lot.
He made his concerns known to the petitioner and requested that if they want to
multiply the rights granted under the original 1955 private road easement and the
1982 Subdivision of Unit 1 with respect to Lot 6 that it should first declare how
many additional users are proposed beyond the one that would be otherwise
currently permitted. How much land should be engineered to establish proper and
consistent water retention? Can the roads be used as they are if there are going to
be additional users? If a 28 -foot setback road was required for Lots 1 through 5 in
Breakenridge why doesn't the potential of an additional nine lots give rise to a
similar requirement for at least part of the road? Are water and sewer adequately
Planned considering the ultimate density permissible in the proposed
development?
The original proposed subdivision did not definitively reserve a ground water
detention site or make provision for its maintenance, both physical and financial.
The plan suggests retention but does it in a way that is not a current commitment
but instead is a statement of future intent which is subject to future change. So
what the petitioner proposes is a minimally sized lot without a final disposition of
ground water issues and resultantly future changes of water detention requirements
could impact the usable size of the lot, which is already too small.
The prior record covenants of Lot 6 requires the owner of Lot 6 to get the consent
of the other Breakenridge owners as to the proposed development, the proposed
land sale, and ultimately the house plans, but IBLP has failed to comply with this
requirement. To obfuscate the consent requirement and to cloud the issue it seeks
apparent municipal authority, so that IBLP, as is consistent with its history, rushed
to the municipal body with a half-baked plan that fails to disclose the future
development of the property. The petitioner talks about its desire to maintain open
space but it does not propose 5 -acre lots nor has it suggested donating land to the
forest preserve or the park district for use by the public.
IBLP's actions are driven by their desire to retain its ability to maximize the future
development of Lot 6 which is all right, but hey should admit that their motives are
pecuniary and not hide behind unsupportable and misleading statements about
open space.
The petitioner withdrew the proposed Breakenridge III Plat of Subdivision, which
linked to Adams Road because it cost more money than they were willing to spend
to amend Adams Road so that Breakenridge III entrance onto Adams could be
done safely. Additionally, Breakenridge III would have resulted in a less dense
use of land than the current plan. The first proposal made here suggests one or two
small lots now with little or not road improvement cost and leave the potential of
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 24 rune 20, 2005
< LZ
the full utilization of the property with the highest density possible and the
smallest commitment to road expense and water detention expenses and results in
a potentially high number of smaller lots. Do not get lost in the avalanche of
documents and dialogue. The bottom line is, this is about the most money for the
owner of Lot 6 and the least protection and preservation of oak Brook character of
that area.
He said that they are going to disagree with what the attorney has said and what
Mr. Barth has said. He reviewed language that was put up on the easel that said,
"The Subdivision Regulations of Oak Brook, Ordinance G -708. 12 -10 -2002
provides that: no land shall ... be subdivided without complying with these
regulations. No lot... (of a) proposed subdivision... shall be ... sold until such
subdivision plans ... have been approved by the Village ...
14 -1 -3 -E further provides where a tract of land is ... to be subdivided in
... stages... the subdivider... shall, at the time of submission of the first part, submit
a detailed plan of the entire tract...
The owner of Lot 6 is attempting to change the right of a typical land owner.
IBLP is thwarting the law by using the rights of an owner is such a way as to
permit their use and simultaneously retain those rights so they can be used again
and again at a subsequent date. To make matters worse, Lot 6 is not only using its
right as a lot owner and simultaneously attempting to retain the right for additional
subsequent use but is doing so without disclosure of how the property will
ultimately be planned in contravention of the clear meaning of that statute, which
can have no other meaning. There is no other way to read that statute but to say if
you are going to do it in pieces you have to declare what the whole use is.
Each of the following underlying conditions must be addressed in any proposed
plat of subdivision presented by any petitioner. The petitioner's proposed plat of
subdivision does not adequately deal with these underlying conditions because the
full breadth of its intended use is not disclosed it remains concealed at this time.
When Lots 1,2,3,4, and 5 of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 were approved for
development, the Village required that the then existing 16 -foot private easement
adjacent to those lots be improved and widened to a 28 -foot asphalt road back to
back so that the 5 unimproved lots would all have access to a private road that was
constructed in a manner and wide enough to service those 5 new lots.
He has asked the Village staff to respond to the question of what has to be done to
the road for the next user if the Village approves the pending proposed plat.
Chairwoman Payovich asked when he asked staff that. He responded that he met
with Village Engineer Durfey about 2 weeks after the last meeting.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 24 June 20, 2005
Mr. Cappetta said at what point is the petitioner improperly burdening the private
road that services the entire Breakenridge Farm subdivision. It is apparent that the
petitioner is being allowed to improperly burden the entire Breakenridge Farm
Subdivision if the Village allows a change to the existing plat of subdivision that
permits potentially nine additional users that are not undisclosed and may come
into existence not anticipated by the original subdivision without making adequate
provision at this time for water, sewer, street, sanitation, storm water drainage, and
other municipal and residential services,
If the petitioner intends further development of the remainder of Lot6, the Village
would have to consider the necessity of the continuation of the 28 -foot paved road
further south and southeast in order to serve any additional improved properties.
However, the private road cannot be extended to a 28 -foot width because Lot 4
and 5 that currently exist own the land that would be required to expand the
easement. Absent an existing or future owner of Lot 4 or 5 granting an additional
12 foot easement, any future development of Lot 6 would result in the creation of
an unsafe bottleneck at that point.
He called to their attention the approved engineering plans of Breakenridge Unit 1,
which recited the minimum street requirement for the original 5 lots.
Since the property is bordered by a river branch on its western boundary and
contains a lake, an existing dam and bridge, and within 1000 feet has a 40 -foot
elevation change, this property screams for a proper plan of water retention and it
should be established upon the use of Lot 6.
The 5 previously developed lots of Breakenridge Subdivision Unit 1 have in effect
the following plan for ground water drainage. There is a 58,000 square foot dry
retention pond and 40,000 square foot pond and several drainage ditches so
currently there is in excess of 2 acres of water retention planning that exists in the
five- platted lots. Now we are looking at another 19 acres and we are talking about
maybe we will do this or that, but we are not making a plan for what is going to
happen.
Each of these retention areas owned by IBLP is located wholly within a private
owner's lot. He was advised by Village staff that the preferred method the village
wants currently is to have the retention areas located within common areas owned,
managed, administered and maintained through a homeowner's association. The
proposed Plat of Subdivision fails to provide for the manner and method that the
proposed retention areas will be owned, managed administered and maintained.
He believes it became painfully obvious to IBLP that their proposed plan could not
be recommended by this board. Their last minute sketch A and B and they refer to
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 24 June 20, 2005
it as an alternate, so he was not sure how to deal with that. He does not think that
Sketch A or Sketch B leaves us any better than the original plan. Firstly, they have
not been given a proper opportunity to study the plan, but he can show significant
defects similar to those in the initial proposal. Firstly, although there are cut lines
in Lot 4 to make it appear that they are individual lots and we are simply talking
about a large Lot 4 of 12 acres; this is no different that talking about having a
leftover 15 -acre lot. The lines which are imaginary are nothing more than another
big open field where we do not know what is going to happen and we are now
being told that maybe they will use the road, maybe they will use the water and we
have no way of making a plan. Second, there is no definitive provision for ground
water made in these plans. Third the road is not properly planned to support the
additional homes. Finally, when he called the Village this morning to determine
what the staff's position was on these amended petitions he was informed that a
staff position had not yet been developed and as a result they could not adequately
inform him of staff s position on these amendments.
He therefore recommended that the original plan as presented be recommend for
disapproval and that the proposed amended plan which was filed on Friday, June
16, 2005 be set down for hearing at your next regular monthly meeting and during
the interim he will meet with staff to determine what their ultimate
recommendations will be and he will be happy to attend and tell the Commission
what he thinks about that which is what his privilege is.
Member Wolin said that one of the points raised was that staff has not had a
chance to review Alternates A and B. He said that he has read and reread the
Subdivision Ordinance and it says that the Village Clerk shall refer all copies of
the preliminary plat to the Plan Commission, one copy to the Village Engineer at
least 14 days in advance of the plan commission meeting. It says that the Village
Engineer shall furnish the Plan Commission with a written report on his review of
the preliminary plat. His interpretation of that is that Alternates A and B are not
really a preliminary plat; the only preliminary plat they have to vote on is the
original presentation from the last meeting showing the 2 -lot subdivision.
He asked Village Engineer Durfey if the original plat is truly a preliminary plat
that has been reviewed and could it be voted on in that form. Village Engineer
Durfey responded that it was a plat that was applied for and reviewed by him in his
memorandum He said that it could be voted on pending some of the comments in
his memorandum and some changes along the way, yes.
Member Bulin asked Mr. Cappetta if in his presentation he actually asked the Plan
Commission to force improvement on Breakenridge Farm Road to the minimum
standards as presented. Mr. Cappetta responded that he did not ask the
Commission to enforce it, he simply pointed out that he questioned why a
development would be allowed that could go beyond that without having staff talk
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 24 June 20, 2005
about what the engineering on that road should be. It is not his duty to alter the
law or tell anyone how to enforce the law. He did not think that he received a
satisfactory answer from staff. He would like to know what the thinking is that
would permit the potential use of these additional acres on that road which is 16-
foot wide. Member Wolin said that he interpreted his comments as the road is
deficient in its current state with the existing housing. Mr. Cappetta said that he
was not criticizing what is currently there. The Breakenridge Farm residents are
very happy with what they have; they resisted when the village put in the 28 -foot
road. What they have there is beautiful.
Member Bulin said that if Lot 6 was allowed to develop with one house that would
access Breakenridge Farm Road. Mr. Cappetta interrupted and responded that
they could not object to that. Member Bulin continued and said then at what point
would the village have to enforce improvements on that road. Mr. Cappetta
responded that according to the statute they would have the right to look at it and
use their judgment as to whether or not it was felt that anything should be done in
light of a 19 -acre piece, a stream, a dam, a river, a 50 foot elevation drop and the
Commission could look at it and say that you should or should not do something.
It is the Commission right and that he said was his interpretation of the statute.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that Mr. Cappetta made a
statement, that the request as originally requested by Mr. Barth that they wanted
one additional lot to have access onto Breakenridge Farm Road that they would be
part of that subdivision. Mr. Cappetta said no, but explained that if they came in
with Lot 6 as it exists without subdividing and built a home on the "lot" he would
have the right to building a house and use the road and they would be part of the
homeowners association because it is a part of the original covenants recorded in
1984. He said the rules change if the property is subdivided.
Mr. Barth said that the actual covenant document, in Section 5 states that,
"...every record owner of fee simple interest in real estate subdivided hereafter by
declarant in the west half of the southwest quarter of section 35 ... shall become a
member of the association..." Much of the discussion brought out by Mr. Cappetta
regarding detention and engineering those are things that obviously, have to be
worked through on a final plat process rather than preliminary plat. He disagrees
with his position that only one owner of Lot 6 would have access to Breakenridge
Farm Road by the very nature of the covenant itself. Mr. Cappetta responded that
Mr. Barth rnischaracterized his position; he said that is not what he said. He said
that he answered the question correctly and as the documents provide.
Mr. Steve Norgaard, attorney for the contract purchasers of the property
(presuming that it is subdivided). The contract purchasers are residents of Oak
Brook as well. While there are some residents that have hired an attorney to
represent their interest against this proposal there are also Oak Brook residents
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 24 June 20, 2005
0
both corporate and individual that are in favor of this. He stated that the board
needs to take into account the inaccurate information that has been put for here
both in terms of the newsletter that he can also attest that his clients have not
chosen a builder or done any plans because they do not know if the subdivision is
going to go through. He also wanted to say that what the board should be looking
at is what the law is. It is unfortunate that Mr. Cappetta and his clients might not
want to have happen here what could happen but the law is the law. The law
benefits and burdens people. The law in this case permits the use of this land as a
residence as long as there are 2 -acre lots, so that needs to be kept in sight. He is
sure that some of the residents that have access to this road have developed their
land either through additions or new construction. He is not sure if anyone came
before the board in that case and said are the roads wide enough, long enough or is
there enough detention. That was probably done through the planning process in
order to get a building permit, as it should be in this case, not whether the
subdivision is appropriate. He disagrees with Attorney Cappetta's interpretation of
the statute and he also pointed out that the relevant portions of the statute, which
were pointed out by the Village Attorney, had been deleted from his text by three
little dots that he displayed for view by the board. It is very important to point out
where Mr. Cappetta has it displayed; it says that, "no land shall ... be subdivided
without complying with these regulations." The actual text of the ordinance says,
"where a tract of land is proposed to be subdivided in several stages over a period
of years and the subdivider requests approval in parts" well the subdivider has not
requested that approval. The subdivider is IBLP and has not proposed to
subdivide this in stages; it is a one - subdivision request and that is for subdividing
Lot 6 into two lots. He said that he heard Mr. Cappetta state that once the Unit 6
owner exhausts its right of use, or uses it once; it exhausts its right of use. Mr.
Norgaard said that does not exist anywhere in the easement document or the
covenants as Mr. Barth pointed out, that needs to be pointed out because some of
his language those fast was inflammatory and designed to be inflammatory
because he is a good attorney and he is trying to obfuscate what the actual issues
are here and the board should take into account their legal counsel's (Village
Attorney) and their opinions as to what these are. They have recommended that it
is proper to subdivide. They have found that the language supports the IBLP and
the vote should go accordingly.
Mr. Cappetta responded that the use of the ellipse in that section is a way of not
giving the board 5 paragraphs, he challenges anyone to take those ellipse; all of
those words are connected to the words that follow. The ellipse are parenthetical
phrases that you do not need to understand, but he said you're free and if you want
1 will give you a copy of the whole statute. He said that there is no
misrepresentation he assured the board. He said that when Mr. Norgaard said that
the use of the 2 -acre lot was their absolute right that is not true. The Plat Act
requires that if they are going to sell something of 2 acres they have to come in for
a plat of subdivision, so they couldn't come in for a 2 acre lot and just do a
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 24 June 20, 2005
subdivision. The Plat Act requires that they come in for a subdivision plat so that
these things can be planned and that people don't come up with 2 acre, 2 acre, 2
acre lots and then all of a sudden they have access problems, detention problems,
road problems, safety problems, and that is why they passed the Plat Act so that
people wouldn't be doing that. It is required if he wants to sell a 2 acre piece. He
said that what he said was that if he came in for a building permit he would have a
right to do it, but the moment he wants to split off 2 acres he subjects himself to
this law.
Mr. Norgaard said that Jim and Kathy Willett are the proposed purchasers. Mr.
Willett said that he does not have much to say it is kind of a whirlwind of
everything happening here. They are Oak Brook residents, with a young family
with 3 children and they think that the Breakenridge area is a beautiful area and
they would love to build a home there and raise their family.
Mario Vescovi, President of the Fullersburg Wood association and live in
Fullersburg. He referred to the letter written to the residents. He said that Mr.
Barth brought up two things a question of fear and Mr. Callaghan. The question of
fear arises when he was on the Zoning Board about 10 years ago at a time when
IBLP had a master plan to rezone the area to build a university or college. The
fear was in the majority of the population of those that live in the tranquil unique
area of Fullersburg. They think that they are blessed with open land that very few
people have. They take pride in the fact that it is a very pristine area. The
problem with their request was that there would have been between 3,000 to 4,000
students in the area that they felt would have had a major impact, not only on the
services of the Village but the fact that they felt they would have lost the village.
He said that with no hate, but all love and intent. As residents with 4.000 students,
we all know that people do not vote as they should and that was a major concern.
The other concern was the issue of traffic. They have a traffic expert that said with
3,000 students there would not be an impact on traffic in the area. He added that
he is a jogger and he jogs through the IBLP property almost every day. He said
that at that time he asked the traffic consultant how many students were currently
at IBLP and he was told about 90. Well, he said that there were a number of
properties on Ogden Avenue, Adams Road, Madison and he counted about 70
cars, which he told the gentleman, and with that the consultant said that (verbatim)
they (IBLP) did not tell him that. The impact of telling them that there would be
3,000 -4,000 students and no traffic was very misleading and that was the question
of fear. The other issue was Mr. Callaghan who built Forest Gate, high density
and basically when Mr. Butler had the design of the Village he envisioned, one -
third residence, one -third commercial and one -third open space. The last bastion
of open space in Oak Brook is probably IBLP. They own about 160 acres and
their biggest fear was that somebody purchasing that land would rezone it and
develop it something like Forest Gate. They had a town hall meeting last October
for the Fullersburg Woods area to discuss some of the issues regarding the election
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 24 June 20, 2005
and a question was IBLP and the possibility of the land being redeveloped and
possibly rezoned for higher density homes. Ben Wiseman is the CFO of IBLP and
he met with Fran Gaik the President of their association and the question was that
property being sold because there were rumors and innuendos that the property
was going to be sold to a developer. They asked Ben if Callaghan had been
involved in the purchase of the land and he said that he had been in contact.
Maybe the assumption is wrong but the Callaghan issue has been involved by their
CFO. If it includes the current property being disputed or the other 60 acres that
lies south of 35th and west of Adams. They do not admonish people that live in
Forest Gate, but to take open land, and create high density, it should have never
been built; so that is the fear that they have. When Callaghan's name is raised
they think of high - density areas.
Mr. Barth said that Mr. Callaghan has never been involved in anything that they
are talking about here. They have been approached by a number of developers
with respect to the 57 -acre parcel of land. As he testified at the last meeting the 19
acres which are the subject of this hearing they were not considering doing
anything with the land expect that they were approached by the Willett family and
began to consider the possibilities. Callaghan is not involved in this. If there was
a discussion last October about any land, then it was about the 57 acres and not
this subject property.
Penny Wolf, 55 Breakenridge Farm, Lot 4 and one of the original owners in Unit
1. She had the Breakenridge Farm Unit One Conditions, Covenants, Restrictions,
Reservations and Easements affecting the property of the Institute of the Basic
Youth Conflict, which was its name years ago. She read into the record: The
property subject to this declaration Lots 1 through 4 and lot 6 in Breakenridge
Farm Unit 1 The declaration was signed by Dr. Gothard. They bought their
property from the institute and their purchase agreement between the Wolf's and
the Institute. "...Shall be considered a binding contract to purchase Lot 4 of the
preliminary subdivision plat of the Breakenridge Farm property. The individual
lots shall vary in size from approximately 2.40 acres to 3.15 acres. Actual sizes
will be determined by final plat of subdivision and survey. Each lot will be
serviced by municipal sewer and water and an asphalt street. Concrete curb and
gutter is to comply with Oak Brook standards. Adequate accommodations will be
provided to satisfy Hinsdale Sanitary District requirements, underground gas,
electric, telephone shall service each respective lot through properly recorded
easements. She said that her only point was being that they would have loved to
just come into Breakenridge Farm with the original street that they had. All the
residents did not want to see the street come in. They had to put in streets and
sewers to live there and if anything is done with this development she believes that
they should not be just be able to come in on the road the way that it is. They
should have to do what they did or change the whole complex of the plat.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 24 June 20, 2005
Elaine Iozzo, 138 Breakenridge Farm, and have lived there for 40 years and have
watched this transpire for 40 years. She said that she told Attorney Cappetta that
all she wanted to do speak about tonight was that she wanted the property it
platted. In 1966 the Village fathers said that you must plat it before you can
subdivide it. Now she understands that platting it does not mean anything because
you can plat it and withdraw it as the Institute did in 1985. She cannot understand
if Lot 6 is part of Unit 1 or if it is a unit by itself. When they presented their
preliminary plat Unit 1 was subject to certain things. She does not understand. In
1982 it was presented and was supposed to be platted as the whole 30 acres. They
platted the 10 got building permits and then presented a preliminary plat for the 20
acres and then withdrew it. She asked where are we she told the Plan Commission
she does not understand it. She asked Mr. Barth, if Lot 6 is part of Unit 1 then it
is subject to all the requirements that Penny said, including the 28 -foot road.
Mr. Barth responded that Lot 6 is 19 acres and is part of the final plat of
Breakenridge Farm Unit 1. He said that the documents say that the roadway was
28 -foot from Adams Road to the corner of the Wolf's lot. There was a provision
made in the final subdivision plat for Unit 1 not only for the 16 -foot easement but
for an additional 8 foot easement for potential future development for roadway.
Mrs. Iozzo said that they have read that the roadway requirement for Unit 1 is 28-
foot. She had to give up her nice road to allow Unit 1 to come in there with a 28-
foot road. Adams Road has 24 feet. When you come into Breakenridge you have
to have 28 feet with curbs and gutters while there are no curbs and gutters on
Adams. They had to give up the pastoral area that they had to accommodate the
subdivision. She asked who would pay for the road.
Mr. Barth responded that the Institute was amenable to make the road wider and
pay for it. Mrs. Iozzo said that she cannot live back there with all these houses,
and although she does not want the wide road, but for safety purposes they have to
have a 28 -foot road. She thinks the whole thing should be platted and why the
Village cannot require one that cannot be withdrawn.
Village Engineer Durfey confirmed that this is Lot 6 in Unit 1.
Carrie Kramer, 3712 Adams Road said that it sounds to her after listening to
everything this evening that their house is directly in front of Lot 1 and she has not
heard to her satisfaction the resolution to water detention. Out of the 19 acres, the
parcel in question has all of the standing water. A lot of the water that is not
standing comes into their property and they have a lot of water problems. They
have pumps in the basement and drainage ditches right and left. Her concern is
that whatever development results, how the water detention would help them.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 24 rune 20, 2005
:ate'"
Chairwoman Payovich said that there are a number of ways to proceed. They can
vote on the proposal and if the Village Board sees a reason to send it back that can
happen. They can have the Village attorney and staffs review the information that
they have received on a late date from both attorneys. Mr. Cappetta answered that
he submitted nothing late. Chairwoman Payovich reminded Mr. Cappetta that at
the last meeting is was requested that the Commission have ample time to review.
Nothing was received from his office delineating anything that was presented this
evening. Mr. Cappetta responded that he met with Village staff and reviewed all
of these points with them at their meeting two weeks ago and he thought that was
the way he would communicate with the Commission. That was his understanding
of the procedures and he made all of these points this evening at that meeting.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that for all applicants and other
parties it is always helpful to get information and additional comments in writing
but it is not necessary. Chairwoman Payovich said that at the last meeting it had
been requested to get a lot of information so that everyone would have time to
review it and she thinks that everyone tried to do that, but it has gotten to the
Commission at a late date to review. She polled the Commissioners on how they
would like to proceed on the issue.
Member Wolin said that he did not think he could vote on this matter this evening.
He commented that Mr. Barth said that for the preliminary plat you do not need
the water detention things and he does not really believe that is true. He read the
preliminary plat requirements from the Subdivision Ordinance and it clearly states
that the plat should include in the proposed location of sewers, water mains, storm
drains and detention facilities, etc. So he believes that is really part of the
preliminary plat in black and white. Secondly, a number of times this evening
comments have come up about the drainage. Of all the subjects that are talked
about, drainage is one that is nearest and dearest to his heart. He was a former
flood victim in the flood of 1987 and spent the next 8 years of his life along with
Chairwoman Payovich resolving flood control problems along Salt Creek as well
as flooded basements, etc. He can appreciate the comments from residents that
have a problem. He looked at this lot and there was a lot of water on it was not a
period of rain and you wonder what it would like after a big rain, so the drainage
could be a serious concern on this property. The correct thing would be to abide
by the Subdivision ordinance and for 13LP to come in with a complete plan for the
subdivision including the water detention, the streets, access, etc. He is not against
subdividing this land; he thinks they have every right to subdivide it and make as
much money as they can develop it as long as the development makes sense. The
correct thing may be for access to Lot 1 from Breakenridge Farm Road; however
he has not seen different alternative ways that the whole subdivision could be laid
out. We need to abide by the Subdivision Ordinance.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 24 June 20, 2005
Member Tropinksi said that she agrees with Member Wolin and she would like the
Village Engineer and Village Attorney address some of Mr. Cappetta's comments.
She is very uncomfortable on the roadway and easement issues.
Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said there has been a lot of talk tonight
about proposed sketch A and B and wanted to clarify some things. She said that it
is important to point out it is only thing that would be in proper form for the
Commission to vote upon is the application that is dated April 15, 2005, which is
their preliminary plat of subdivision. The additional sketch A and B are not in a
final form, which was admitted by Mr. Barth, they are merely drafts to show the
Commission that there is a reasonable way that this land can be utilized in the
future. The applicant has remained firm in their request for the preliminary plat of
subdivision marked as page A in the packets. Absent the water issue that is in the
memo, that is what is before the Commission today. If the Commission wants to
go further to discuss Sketch A and B then there are other things that the petitioner
needs to do to bring it properly before the Commission.
Mr. Barth said that all the detention areas are addressed on the proposed
preliminary plat for Lot 1 and Lot 2. They have discussed those issues with the
Village Engineer and their engineer. Village Engineer Durfey responded that part
of the information required such as the preliminary storm water calculations, acre
footages, and things of that nature are still outstanding. He has given those
comments to the engineer, but we do not have them as of today.
Member Bulin referred back to the Village Engineer's memo of May 10, 2005
where he noted deficiencies in the plat as presented. However the plat as
presented does indicate detention areas, easement, sewer and water lines, they are
on there just not complete. There are a number of things that have been addressed,
but are not complete per Dale's memo, so that information needs to be finalized.
Lot Sketch A and B are not relevant. The Alternate plan that was provided does
divide the property into 4 lots and perhaps the Commission should give some
consideration to that scenario. That scenario would limit the amount of exposure
and would completely isolate the parcel from further development, but cannot be
considered because it is not part of this application. The Assistant Village
Attorney O'Connell agreed.
Member Bulin said that he would suggest continuing this and allowing the
applicant to address the storm water calculations and additional missing items
from the preliminary plat and perhaps focus on the Alternate plat that was
submitted.
Chairwoman Payovich asked what the applicant would need to do to proceed with
the Alternate Plat dated June 16, 2005.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 24 June 20, 2005
�I
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that they would need to
submit revised materials and staff would need to evaluate and other interested
parties would and come back to a future meeting.
Member Bulin said that the alternate plan gives a limited exposure to Breakenridge
Farm Road and all that is left in the 12 -acre parcel is what connects to Adams
Road.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Commission should be
mindful that in the final deliberation there should not be loose ends. The Village
Board should have a recommendation that is well thought out and addresses all the
issues both pro and con. If it is not, then the Village Board could send it back to
the Plan Commission for more work. There is a time issue with the applicant but
we owe the community and our Village Board the proper review.
Member Adrian said that the Plan Commission is sort of making IBLP's mind up
for them whether or not they want to submit what they have already submitted. He
said that he does not believe that is the Plan Commissions position. If they want to
submit what they have originally the Commission should either vote on it or not.
The Commission cannot tell them to change their ideas of what they want to do; it
can be suggested.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that he was correct in that
anyone can ask for anything, however staff, the Plan Commission and the Village
has the responsibility to follow codes and ordinances that were adopted and we
have to be mindful of those so as not to contradict those codes and ordinances. If
there is a contradiction then the applicant needs to seek relief from those or vary
them.
Chairwoman Payovich said that Member Adrian was correct but there are
deficiencies that need to be addressed and brought back, especially on the storm
water detention. If IBLP chooses not to proceed with the alternate plan then the
Commission will have to vote on the original preliminary plat as it stands. At
minimum the applicant will need to correct the items in the Village Engineer's
memo.
Member Wolin said that -there appears to be a difference of opinion amongst the
Commissioners. He believes they need to show the entire plan for the property.
Member Bulin said that he was trying to find a compromise. He is trying to see
that Lot 4 is isolated so that it cannot effect any future development along
Breckenridge Farm Road. If they are required to show development for Lot 4 then
a lot more work needs to go into it than what they have shown and that may be
irrelevant to future development that may never be done. Mr. Barth responded that
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 24 June 20, 2005
r.
the caution he has is that whenever a final plat is approved that is the way it is and
they have no intention of doing anything with Lot 4 at this time. As he said in his
letter, this is a good provision to prevent bad planning, but it cannot be used as a
club to force people to develop land that they do not want to develop.
Mr. Cappetta said that there is only one thing pending before the board to vote on
and that is their choice; as he sees it.
There was a discussion on continuing or voting on the matter and whether or not it
if it were denied would it go forward to the Village board and voted on; or could
go forward to the Village Board and be referred back to the Plan Commission as
an amended application. There was some confusion on the process.
Director of Community Development Kallien said this is like all cases that go
before the Plan Commission. If this is not approved here, then it has to go to the
Village Board where it is approved or denied; or the applicant can withdraw the
matter. If it is withdrawn it is up to the applicant to resubmit. Member Adrian
said that the Village Board could vote to approve or not approve it.
Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell reviewed some of the preliminary plat
procedures to the Plan Commission in an effort to clear up some of the questions
and address some concerns. Section D -E states, "that the Plan Commission shall
approve or disapprove the application for preliminary plat approval within 90 days
of the date of filing the application or the filing by the applicant of the last revised
supporting data, whichever date is later unless such time is extended by mutual
consent. When the preliminary plat has been acted upon by the Plan Commission
it shall be referred to the Village Board. If it approves, it shall indicate so on the
plat. If it disapproves such plat it shall furnish the Village Board and the applicant
a written statement setting forth the reasons for disapproval and specifying with
particularity the aspects in which the proposed plat fails to conform to these
regulations and Official plan. The Village Board shall accept or reject said plat
within 30 days after its regularly stated meeting following the action of the Plan
Commission unless such time is extended by mutual consent."
Mr. Barth said he was content to continue this matter for another 30 days and
everything would be in place at that time in order to give the Commission
complete information so that it can make a decision on it.
Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Tropinski to continue the hearing
on the Breakenridge Farm Extension Subdivision to the next regular Plan
Commission meeting on July 18, 2005. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
Chairwoman Payovich addressed the attorneys and directed that they submit all of
their comments to staff in writing as quickly as possible.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 22 of 24 June 20, 2005
6. OTHER BUSINESS
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Wolin said that various members of the community have brought different
problems to his attention. One of those is a potential teardown requirement. The
main problem is that someone tears down a house and they do not build right away,
sometimes the lot is left in a state that does not look good in the Village of Oak
Brook. He thinks there is a need for an ordinance to address the issue that you
either build within a certain time period or take steps to make the lot presentable.
The second item may need a legal opinion at a later date. Most of the homes in
Oak Brook are beautiful, but once in a while someone builds a home that is
questionable and the residents get upset. Many of the homeowner associations have
an architectural review committee. The question is whether Oak Brook should do
anything relative to approving architecture. His understanding was that this topic
came up previously and from a legal standpoint they were advised that the Village
could not do it. He asked for clarification as to whether or not they can do it. He
clarified that he was not saying that it is something that he believes the Village
should do, but the Commission should consider discussing it.
The last item has to do with code enforcement. If a homeowner does not take care
of his home are there codes in place so that you can make a homeowner cut his
grass, paint, etc. If there are those ordinances, is there a mechanism in place to
enforce them?
Director of Community Development Kallien said that Member Wolin has brought
up good points and asked that he call and they would discuss them.
Member Tropinski provided handouts of information regarding teardowns.
Although she did some research from several villages; she did not find anything for
many villages.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that one of the reasons she
was having difficulty finding information was because typically teardowns are part
of the building code is because they relate to those types of things. The reason that
is the case is because when something is part of the Zoning Ordinance, the statutes
are very clear as to how those inclusions are made. How you have to go through
certain public hearings, with notice requirements, and so forth, before it can
ultimately be enacted. When it occurs as a municipal or building code item it can
occur much quicker and that is why some communities choose to place it in other
places. It can also be modified without going through the process, because
typically things going through the Plan Commission can take 60 -90 days before it
becomes law at the earliest. It also has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, so it
gets to be cumbersome.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 23 of 24 June 20, 2005
Member Tropinski questioned the size of private roadways. Village Engineer said
that there is no Code regulating private roadways. In the Subdivision Regulations
there are public roadways and a normal street is 28 -feet back to back. The fire
trucks are all the same size. By law they cannot exceed 8 -feet wide, excluding
mirrors.
She was concerned that the larger ladder trucks would be able to make turns.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that has to do with the radii and is the reason
for the larger cul -de -sacs so they can accommodate the trucks.
There was no other business to discuss.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting at
10:06 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST:
Robert Kallien, Dire or of Co unity Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Plan Commission Minutes Page 24 of 24 June 20, 2005
ADJOuRNMEN,r