Loading...
Minutes - 07/17/2006 - Plan CommissionNA H H MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON AUGUST 21, 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 7.34 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members, Gopal Lalmalani, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin ABSENT. Members Paul Adrian, Rau Iyer and Mom Saiyed IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy, Trustee, Barbara Gosselar, Assistant Village Attorney and Dale Durfey, Village Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 15, 2006 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Tropinski to approve of the minutes as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF NNE 19, 2006 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Tropinski to approve of the minutes as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS NEW 8USrNESS Chairwoman Payovich noted that with the approval of the applicants and Commissioners, the agenda order would be changed and New Business will be heard before Unfinished Business. A. ASHLEY CHASE SUBDIVISION — 4 AND 5 OAK COURT -- FINAL PLAT ASHLEY CHASE SUB - 4 AND 5 AND PLAT OF VACATION — 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION OAK CT - FINAL PLAT 2 -LOT SUB John Huntington, with Daspin and Aument, LLP located at 210 22"d Street, Oak Brook, the Attorney for the applicant and owner David and Suzanne Arch, of 4 Oak Court provided the background and overview of the request. The applicants acquired the property known as 4 Oak Court in the Oak Brook Lakes VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 19 July 17, 2006 ,1-� Subdivision. At that time, there was an unusual arrangement with the owner and developer of lot 3 and agreed to the creation of a scenic easement that would preclude the construction of improvements in the northeast corner of the Oak Brook Lakes Subdivision. The Arch's subsequently acquired lot 3 so they now own both lots, so they are the only parties with an interest in these two properties. The purpose of the resubdivision is to modify the common lot line by moving it further to the south. The practical effect of the change is that the pond, which straddles the lot line between the two lots, would be located completely within lot 4. This would give therm more control over the landscaping and erosion control along the sides and perimeter of the pond. Once that is done, the originally agreed to scenic easement would go away, so they are seeking that the vacation of that easement be platted and recorded to make it clear that the scenic easement has been extinguished. The Subdivision Regulations require that the public utilities easements be contained along the side yards, between each lot in a subdivision Since the lot line would be moved to the south, they want to vacate the easements along the original property line that were created when the Oak Brook Lakes Subdivision plat was first recorded, then rerecorded. A letter was submitted from the surveyor verifying that there are no utility installations in the existing easements. The easements would be replaced by a conventional side yard easement in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations along the relocated property lines. It will be more efficient, because the easement would not go right through the pond so they would be easier to install and maintain. Both resulting lots would be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance in regard to lot area, without variations. The plat complies with all ordinances and regulations of the Village. The Village Engineer has made some minor comments and has met with the surveyor and everything is being addressed. The Village Attorney questioned whether the vacation of the scenic easement could be granted without the unanimous consent of all the property owners within the subdivision. The Declaration was a private agreement between the owners of Lot 3 and 4 and was never part of the Oak Brook Lakes Subdivision approval process or the recording of the plat of subdivision. The easement is probably gone because the two properties that are benefited and burdened by the easement are under common ownership. However, that does not change the fact that there is a Declaration with an attachment to it in the public record, so they feel it is better to have it vacated. The only other issue that has been raised was by a resident in Hinsdale that was concerned whether this was going to interfere with the view she has become accustomed to. The plat does not include any improvements and he has responded to those concerns. The Hinsdale resident's view from the east will actually be enhanced not reduced VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 July 17, 2006 No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Wolin said that he did not see a risk in vacating the scenic easement, but asked what the disadvantage is in keeping it. Mr. Huntington responded that it is actually vacated now; since the property is under common ownership the easement does not benefit or burden the owner of lot 3 and does not burden or benefit the owner of lot 4. Because it is strictly a private agreement between those two lot owners, the common lot owner would have the right to extinguish it. It has probably been extinguished by legal theory anyway, but it is still of record. The only reason it was created in the first place was a condition of sale The Arch's wanted to have a little bit of control over the view from their home especially since a solarium was built to the north side of their property going east. They did not want someone that built on lot 3 to construct something that would infringe upon the eastward view. They own both lots now and are resubdividing them. If they would decide to sell off the southerly portion of the property, they can control the landscape because it would be on their lot 4. Before they owned both properties, all they had was the right to preclude the owner of lot 3 from building something there, but that did not mean that they could compel the owner of lot 3 to landscape the property in a manner that met their standards. Now that they have complete ownership of it, they have the right to landscape and control the storm water detention. They own their sight lines and now, if it were ever sold, the owner of lot 3 would be free to do whatever they would like to do as long as it is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Regulations. Member Wolin said that change makes sense and it is to the benefit of the Arch's and the residents of Graue Mill. If anything, it would make the view better for Graue Mill. He did not see any real negatives to the proposal. Mr. Huntington said that their primary structure is in existence on lot 4, so there cannot be any additional construction back at that end due to the 60 -foot setback to the east and the 18 -foot setback on the side. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Tropinski, to recommend approval of the Final Plat for the 2 -lot subdivision, plat of easement vacation, the waivers to the Subdivision Regulations as requested, subject to final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes- 4 — Members Lalmalani, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 3 — Members Adrian, Iyer, and Saiyed Nays: 0 -- None. Motion Carried. S UNFINISHED BUSINESS VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 July 17, 2006 1--0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5, A. STARBUCKS COFFEE — 2407 22ND STREET — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ORA -1 TO B -3 TEXT AMENDMENT — SECTION 13 -7C.2 SPECIAL USES, TO ADD THE TEXT "OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ADJACENT TO RESTAURANTS ", SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN FACILITY. Ted Johnson, President of Design Strategies, 2311 22nd Street, Oak Brook is the authorized representative of Starbucks said that at the last meeting they provided for the record, the findings of fact regarding the map and text amendments, and the special use requests. The request for the map amendment is to rezone the property from ORA -1 to B -3. They are seeking a text amendment to allow outdoor dining areas in the B -3 District and two special uses. One is to allow outdoor dining areas adjacent to the restaurant and the second is to allow a drive -thru facility. At the last meeting, the Plan Commission requested further information on the drive -thru as well as the outdoor dining area. They provided information (in the case file) regarding drive -thru lane usage. They looked at three different mature locations in operation and provided both weekday and weekend information on the am. and evening peak. The a.m. peak is for a range between 6 am. and 10 a.m. The evening is from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The highest weekday usage of the drive - thru lane was 65 vehicles from 8 -9 a.m. At the last meeting, they testified that the target time for processing at the drive -in window was 45 seconds. Based on that they felt they have enough stacking spaces. The average Starbucks has stacking for 6 vehicles and they are proposing 9 at this location. The Plan Commission expressed concerns regarding the vehicles potentially jumping the curb and going into the outdoor dining area. They provided a site plan as well as a detail of how they intend to secure that area. They will use bollards that also contain a light source and will be integrated Into the railing around the outdoor seating area. The bollards will be spaced 6 feet apart and will be placed on all three sides of the outdoor dining area. He noted that the Director of Community Development Kallien had provided a memo in the case file regarding questions to the Fire Chief and Public Works Director and reviewed each at the request of Chairwoman Payovich. Mr Johnson summarized each item. The first question asked if the proposed site would be suitable for the construction of a new fire station and the Fire Chief responded that it was not and the complete response is on page 25 of the case file. The second question was to the Public Works Director and asked if the development of the property would have a negative impact on the existing water tower. The response was that it would not. The complete response is contained in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 July 17, 2006 STARBUCKS — 2407 22 "d St — MAP and TEXT AMENDMrNT — SPECIAL USES — OUTDOOR DINING AND DRIVE -IN FACILITY The third question was to the Public Works Director and asked if the site offered any opportunity to expand the Village's water storage needs in the 22" Street corridor. The response was yes, and if the need arises, it is adjacent to the water tower. Starbucks response to that was that the site is not for sale. The property owner wishes to lease the site to Starbucks and retain the property for the use of his family. The final question was to the Village's Consultant that had been retained for its commercial revitalization planning effort. They asked for continents relating to the Starbucks redevelopment effort. The consultant indicated it appeared that the proposal would not be in conflict with the overall goal of a redeveloped and revitalized 22 "d Street corridor. The consultant did comment that the proposed cross - access along the south end of the property was important. At the last meeting, Starbucks represented that the back southern portion of the property would provide for a future cross - access to the property to the east. Member Lalmalani said that there was concern raised by a commercial resident located to the west of the site regarding traffic issues and one traffic death. He said that there is a lot of congestion in that area, particularly when you cross because there is no traffic light. Mr. Johnson responded that this type of use is not a traffic generator, such as the office use that brings people to that destination, which adds traffic and additional movement onto the roadway. Starbucks basically takes the cars that are already on the roadway, they come in, get their coffee, and go back. Additional vehicles would be added to the corridor. He said that his office is located next to the site at 2311 22 "d Street and he does not see the traffic problem as indicated in the letter from the commercial neighbor located on the west side of Tower Drive. Chairwoman Payovich questioned whether this use was more of an opportunistic use for the traffic in the area rather than a destination. Mr. Johnson agreed. Member Wolin said that he agrees to a certain extent that the bulk of the traffic that comes to Starbucks would be traffic that is going down the road anyhow. Some people really love their Starbucks coffee and he is concerned with people going westbound that try to go in, and then try to get back out to go westbound. A median strip does not exist that the cars could go into for a protected area. Immediately north of Tower is a Home Depot where cars are exiting at the same location. He believes it is a dangerous intersection and it behooves the Village along with the State to figure out what can be done in the way of traffic lights along the whole section of road along 22 "d Street. He asked what could be done to improve the safety at that location. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 July 17, 2006 *I-w Mr. Johnson said that there may be a concern, but if anyone would be heading westbound and they find the maneuver at this location too difficult there is another Starbucks location 2 miles west. People find the easiest Starbucks to get your coffee of your way from the house to the office. They have reviewed initial IDOT plans for 22nd Street that shows a proposed light at the intersection at Tower Drive, Village Engineer Durfey responded that the IDOT report talks about traffic signal modernization and it lists the 4 signalized intersections along 22nd Street and that signals are not warranted at any other location. It refers to vacant property on Tower Drive and at such time the vacant property would be redeveloped traffic signal warrants would be re- evaluated based upon new traffic counts. When the report was done in 2002, a signal was not warranted at Tower Drive, Member Wolin asked if it were an automatic when traffic gets to a certain level. Village Engineer Durfey said that it must meet certain warrants. Several warrants are based upon accidents, some upon delay, and some upon traffic. You should not put a traffic signal in unless it meets one or more of the warrants within state guidelines before a signal is installed. Member Wolin stated that he did not attend the last meeting, but viewed the entire tape of the meeting. He believes the request meets all of the requirements, except that he has concerns regarding the safety issue. The property owner is entitled to develop the property with the highest and best use possible. With increased traffic, there will be a greater exposure for accidents, but where do you draw the line. He would motion to approve the request, however noting the concern of the Plan Commission about the safety along with a recommendation that the police or fire department provide some comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Member Tropinski suggested the possibility of restricting the exit to allow right turns only from Tower Drive onto 22nd Street. Member Wolin said that might be an option that Starbucks and the building across the street would be agreeable to the signage. He said that the tenants of the building across the street may not find the right out only unacceptable Mr. Johnson said that the Police Chief and Fire Chief might want to get involved regarding that type of restriction there should be on the land uses. Chairwoman Payovich said that it seems appropriate to have the Police Chief attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to answer questions. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 July 17, 2006 No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Map Amendment Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani, that the applicant has addressed the required factors on pages C to C 2 of the case file and to recommend the request for a map amendment to rezone the subject property at 2407 22 "d Street from ORA -1 to B -3. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission has raised concerns regarding traffic safety at this location and request the following- 1. They request that the Police Chief be present at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to discuss the prior safety history of this intersection, along with any concerns that he may have about safety at this intersection and any recommendations that he may have to minimize safety issues. 2. Data to be provided showing the number of accidents at that location.. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Lalmalani, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 3 — Members Adrian, Iyer, and Saiyed Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Text Amendment Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani, that the applicant has addressed the factors on page E of the case file, and to recommend approval of the requested text amendment to Section 13 -7C.2, of the Zoning Ordinance to add "outdoor dining areas adjacent to restaurants" as a Special Use in the B -3 District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Lalmalani, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 3 — Members Adrian, Iyer, and Saiyed Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Special Uses Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani, that the applicant has addressed the standards on pages G and I of the case file, to recommend approval of the requested special use for an outdoor dining area adjacent to the restaurant; and the special use for a drive -thru facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the property in substantial conformance with the plans submitted. 2. Discussion on the appropriateness for additional safety measures to be considered between the parking lot and the proposed outdoor dining area ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Lalmalani, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 3 — Members Adrian, Iyer, and Saiyed Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 July 17, 2006 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS VOB- OBJECTS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS PARKWAYS Village Engineer Durfey said that he has broken the review into several components /goals that start with the concept and then build policy /objectives that meet those components /goals. At the last meeting, he went through a PowerPoint presentation that was shown to the Village Board. He will review his April 11, 2006 memorandum to the Village Board that covers specific issues. GOALS — WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH Before generating policies, decisions should be made concerning what is trying to be accomplished. What concern or concerns should be addressed? The following should be a starting point: 1. Safety - Should a goal be to reduce the severity of accidents if a vehicle leaves the roadway? For example, if a vehicle left the roadway and struck a large boulder, people inside the vehicle probably would sustain more injuries than would have occurred if the boulder had not been there. This is very possible since some of the boulders weigh tons as opposed to pounds and are essentially immovable. 2. Village liability - Should a goal be to reduce the Village's liability if a vehicle leaves the roadway? In the preceding example, the Village could be held liable for the additional injuries and/or damages. 3. Should a goal be that Village -owned parkways be relatively clear and uncluttered? 4. Should a goal be that space and access is available for the construction and maintenance of utilities and JULIE utility locates? S. Should a goal be to reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction or maintenance is needed (and minimize residential complaints about restoring their private objects)? 6. Should a goal be the Village allowing residents the opportunity to place items within the parkway? 7 Should a combination of all or some of these and which ones and to what extent be a goal? VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 July 17, 2006 OBJECTIVES TO MEET GOALS 1. If safety is a goal, then a reasonable area should be left open and private items that could cause harm not permitted. The initial Standard allowed items that are relatively mobile and have low mass and low height to be within the parkway (e g., flowers, flexible reflectors) since such items should not cause undue harm. That Standard then stated that items that pose safety hazards are prohibited (e.g., larger boulders). The proposed 8/29/01 Standard allowed small boulders less than 8" in height as an option. It was discussed that such small items should not cause undue harm. 2. If reducing Village liability is a goal, then options are available. a. An option is to not allow harmful items. b, Another would be to allow items but have the adjacent property owner execute a covenant defending and indemnifying the Village. The Village Attorney would need to be consulted on how to do this legally. If clear and uncluttered parkways is a goal, then all items should not be allowed. 4. If availability of space and access for the construction and maintenance of utilities and JULIE utility locates is a goal, then options are available: a. An option is to not allow any items. b. Another would be to limit the kinds of items. For example, items that are relatively mobile and have low mass and low height (e.g., flowers, flexible reflectors) would be permitted but very large boulders or other items would not be permitted since they would inhibit installation and maintenance of utilities. Likewise with areas covered by large ground cover vegetation that makes it impossible to work. S. If a goal is to reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction or maintenance is needed, and minimize residential complaints about restoring their private objects, then options are available: a. An option is to not allow any items. b. Another would be to limit the kinds of items to those that would are relatively mobile and have low mass and low height (e.g., flowers, flexible reflectors). 6. If a goal is to allow residents the opportunity to place items within the parkway, then the kinds of items that would be permitted needs to be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 July 17, 2006 �4 defined. The initial Standard stated that items that are relatively mobile and have low mass and low height are allowed and that items that are more substantial might be allowed subject to engineering review (e.g., sprinkler lines, light posts, ornate /substantial mailboxes or trees). There are a myriad of items that could be placed in the parkway which include: Sprinkler lines, Light posts, Small identification walls, Irate/substantial mailbox structures, "Mirror" ornate mailbox -type structures, Trees, Shrubs, Hedge rows, Berms, Retaining walls, Boulders of various sizes, Vertical posts, Fences and Underground dog fences He noted that the Village does regulate certain items (e.g., driveways) that are placed in parkways. A difference between driveways and other items is that a driveway is not optional; it must be placed to provide access. If non - optional items such as driveways are regulated, it makes sense to regulate optional items. If items are allowed, the Village should not absorb the cost of restoration when they are damaged due to accidental (e.g., a vehicle off the road) or intentional (e.g., planned construction) activities. A covenant should be discussed for this. The Code currently requires that a permit be approved for work within the parkway, which includes all of these items. The requirement of a covenant would also be appropriate. Additionally, allowing items without engineering review and a permit could cause damage to a utility, such as, a water main, valve, storm sewer and street light cables or other item. GRA NDF,A.THERED ITEMS In this discussion, the question of "grandfathering" arises. The answer should depend upon the goals and objectives that are approved. For example, if safety is a goal, a reasonable area should be left open, and private items that could cause harm not permitted, then any existing items would be removed in order to meet the goal. If an approved goal is to allow residents the opportunity to place items within the right -of -way and an existing type of item is permitted, then it could remain under any approved conditions, such as a covenant. If the Village were to approve a general grandfathering, it could have a negative effect on the approved goals and objectives (e.g., a resident might say "He got to keep his boulders, why can't I install some ?" With the only reply being "His was there first ", which seems like a meager reply). This could also affect the Village's liability; Village Attorney advice is needed here. It is important to note that the majority of existing items within the right -of -way VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 19 July 17, 2006 were placed without permission. If grandfathered items were permitted to remain, the only way to accomplish its implementation would be to videotape all Village parkways and note the date. That date would then become the "start date." It would also be appropriate to note each item with some characteristic identifiers for logging into a computer database for recordkeeping. However, this would only note the visible items. Underground items such as private electric /gas lines to light poles and underground dog fences would not show. Without a permit, staff has no way of knowing what is underground to grandfather. There also would be no way of knowing in the future if an underground item existed before the start date. An additional concern is whether grandfathering would include items that were placed by residents after being told not to. If grandfathering is approved, should the Village send a letter to all residents informing them of their grandfathered item and the start date? CONSISTENCY As with any policy or government edict, consistent interpretation and enforcement must be paramount. Therefore, whatever policy the Village chooses to approve, it must be even - handed. This should be discussed in relation to the above "Grandfathered" section. This also relates to private, residential items allowed versus public utility items. If the Village permits certain private items, does that legally carry -over to public utility items. In other words, would a public utility demand that they be permitted to place aboveground items along a road if the Village allowed private items? Again, Village Attorney guidance is needed here. ORNATE /SUBSTANTIAL MAILBOXES Mail service is regulated by the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, mailboxes meeting their regulations must be permitted. He understands the minimum requirements are that a box to which mail is delivered (the mailbox) must be certain distances from the traveled way. How the actual mailbox gets placed at that location is the question. Many mailboxes utilize wooden posts, some ordinary and some ornate. Many utilize ornate masonry structures of varying construction. It has been Village policy for many years to permit ornate mailbox structures so long as a covenant is executed stating the owners assume all risk and maintenance and to defend and indemnify the Village. Since mail delivery is subject to federal regulations, it seems appropriate to allow ornate mailbox structures with reasonable conditions such as the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page I I of 19 July 17, 2006 covenant. At the February 28`" Board meeting, there was some thought that the Village should contribute to the cost of repairing/replacing ornate mailboxes. He noted the following for informational purposes: 1. On any given snowstorm, there are scores of independent driveway snowplow operators plowing driveways and pushing snow up and onto Village parkways. Some probably cause mailbox damage. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who caused the damage after the fact. 2. When a Village snowplow operator damages a mailbox, he notes it on a form and staff replaces the mailbox. There are probably times when he does not know that he has caused damage. In those cases, staff assumes the resident is correct and replaces the mailbox. 3. Village policy has always been to replace mailboxes damaged by staff with a 4" x 4" wood post. 4. Would the Village be expected to pay for all mailbox damage no matter who actually did the damage since there is no way to determine who caused it? 5. Staff has asked several builders the cost of such structures with the answer being about $1,000 - $2,500. Of course, there are extremely elaborate structures that cost more. 6. Most mailbox damage is not caused by the snowplow actually striking the structure but by the windrow of snow that is pushed against an unsound structure. In a cursory inspection of the Trinity Lakes subdivision, numerous mailboxes, both wooden post and masonry, were found to be structurally unsound, not that they might fall over by a gust of wind, but certainly by the impact of wet snow traveling at a fair velocity; be it a Village plow truck or a private one. In those cases, should the Village pay for the damage? In reviewing whether the Village should contribute, a comment was that the Village should encourage the aesthetics of mailboxes by partially funding their repair /replacement. This then goes to the issue of having public money spent on private items, especially in light of the fact that homeowners do not pay any real estate tax to the Village. EXTENT OF THE ISSUE While it would be extremely time consuming to exactly quantify all existing objects within the Village parkways and the number of properties affected, he estimated that about 10 % -15% of properties along Village roads currently have an object or objects within the parkway. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 July 17, 2006 ENFORCEMENT Whatever policy is approved by the Board, staff will have to enforce it. Depending on what policies are approved, little to extended amounts of staff time will be needed while trying to maximize cooperation with residents which could significantly burden existing staff. Some cost will also be required for actual field remediation and possibly legal fees. He noted that the original policy took a considerable amount of staff time when it was being enforced. OWNERSHIP OF ITEMS WITHIN PARKWAYS The question arises when someone places an item off of their property and within the Village's right-of-way, do they own it or does it become Village property? Chapter 4 of Title 8 of the Village Code addresses trees, shrubs and weeds. Section 8 -4 -1 states: "Any trees or shrubs located within public rights of way are public property under the control and jurisdiction of the Village. All trees or shrubs placed within public rights of way shall become the property of the Village upon their placement. Trees may be planted within public ways in accordance with the public works construction standards and upon receipt of a permit. Approved tree species are listed within the public works construction standards. Placement of trees shall be limited to areas that do not impede or interfere with the sight of pedestrians or operators of vehicles. The applicant shall provide any landscape watering necessary. (Ord. G -637, 7- 13- 1999)" It makes sense for trees to become Village property so that the Village can maintain all trees along a street and control nuisances and disease as well a sight distance issues. For others, such as light posts, it seems to make sense to keep ownership with the private property owner. Village Attorney guidance is again needed here. As this issue is discussed, it would be appropriate to ascertain which items should become Village property. EXISTING COVENANTS If the Village revises the current policy of requiring a covenant, what then VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 July 17, 2006 happens to all the existing covenants that have been recorded, which probably numbers in the hundreds? Since the Village does not have a GIS or any other easily accessible database with this information, each lot would have to be researched, taking a considerable amount of staff resources. Would a document rescinding the covenant be generated and recorded? After resident discussion, he asked that the matter be continued to the September Plan Commission meeting. Chairwoman Payovich opened the comments to the audience. Terry O'Rourke, 8 Woodridge Drive, has been a resident for about 8 years. His first comment was with objects in the right-of-way, how far, is far enough. He does not know who picked 10 -feet, but the primary purpose seems to be trying to keep cars from driving off the parkway, which seems a bit ludicrous to him It seems that every tree and mailbox should have a little barrier placed around it so that no one runs into it. He believes there is supposed to be an expectation that people's cars stay on the road. You cannot cover every possible contingency of every car on any street. If they run off the road, for the most part it would be their own fault; so it does not make sense to him. There are existing trees, so if it said that all trees within 10 feet should be removed just in case someone runs into them if they drive off the parkway; it just does not make any sense. He understands the cost versus the benefit of these regulations. To pay people to run around the village to log every item within 10-feet of the right -of -way seems to be an inordinate waste of Village resources. If that is all they have to do, then there is something wrong with Village priorities. People that own their homes should have the right to improve their property without being nitpicked on items that are improving their property and are not causing any realistic harm. It is reasonable to say if the Village is worried about people driving onto the parkway, then perhaps a study should be done to find out how many times someone has actually done that, and has the village or anyone else every been sued as a result of that. If that is not the case, then why is the village putting regulations into place to prevent something that has never happened and probably not happen. It gets to the point of just being ludicrous. Larry Whitlow, 2007 Avenue Loire, Chateaux Woods, has been a resident for almost 19 years. He brought pictures to the last meeting and passed them around for those members that did not have the benefit of seeing them. He lives in Chateaux Woods. He said that everyone here today has chosen to live in Oak Brook, in large part because of the beauty and wonderful curb appeal of our neighborhoods. Most of the items in the right- of-way, including trees, boulders, entrance structures, mailboxes, etc. have contributed to this beauty. He already addressed the Planning Commission with regard to homeowners' perspectives of items in the Village's right-of-way, and submitted a copy of his VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 July 17, 2006 r� comments. He summarized and highlighted some of the points related to this issue. Point 1 — No one has submitted information related to documentation of any injuries, much less deaths, as a result of impact with items in the right -of -way. Many of these items have been in place for 20 -30 years or longer, and were placed in good faith when no restrictions existed. To their knowledge, they have not caused harm to individuals, nor have they caused access problems for utilities, so why would the Village impose restrictions now? A mandate to remove many items currently in the right -of -way would have a devastating effect on the Village's visual aesthetic appeal and also to the resident's home values. Point 2 -- Most neighboring towns do not have these types of restrictions; some do. Why should the Village of Oak Brook be more stringent than our neighbors or than the County? Point 3 — SAFETY — It is a fact that impact with trees has resulted in more injuries and deaths than impact with boulders. If hit by a car, a mature tree is immovable and will definitely cause injury, to cars and to people. So if the Planning Commission recommends removing boulders of certain sizes, then all trees in the right -of -way should be removed also, since there are documented instances of injuries resulting from tree impact. Does the Village want to cut down hundreds and hundreds of mature, stately trees? Point 4 -- LIABILITY - If the Village is concerned about its liability, allow individual homeowners to execute a covenant to indemnify the Village. A precedent has already been set by allowing homeowners to execute these covenants for mailboxes, so it would be reasonable to allow homeowner covenants for other items in the parkway. Point 5 — UNIFORMITY & CONSISTENCY - If a detennination 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. Point 6 -- GRANDFATHERING - Oak Brook homeowners have spent hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to enhance the appearance of our properties, and this includes items in the parkway. If items were placed predominantly for the purpose of beautifying one's property and simultaneously the Village, and have not caused injury to -date, why not allow their continued existence in the parkway? Point 7 - ENFORCEMENT AND COST - If removal of items in the parkway is ultimately mandated, a major consideration would be cost of manpower hours for enforcement, and also cost of subsequent removal of trees, boulders, retaining walls, masonry entrance structures, etc. With the Village's budgetary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 July 17, 2006 constraints, it is prohibitive for the Village to incur these extreme costs to remove /relocate all of these items, let alone the costs -to the homeowners to re- landscape their properties afterwards In consideration of the above, he implored the Village to leave well enough alone. To date, they have not had problems with items in the parkway. Please let the Village maintain the wonderful esthetic quality of its neighborhoods. Use the resources elsewhere, and not for removing trees, boulders, retaining walls, and entrance structures that all contribute to the unique appearance of our majestically beautiful Village of Oak Brook. Michael Forutan, the president of the Old Oak Brook Homeowner's association and has been a resident for 17 years. He whole- heartedly agreed with the residents that spoke. He is an orthopedic surgeon. To has knowledge, no accidents, death or damage has been caused by anything along the parkway in his subdivision. They have had drivers going 60 -70 rnph going off the road and hitting the entrance causing significant damage to the property and to themselves. That has been the driver's fault. Two reputable insurance companies accepted fault and never brought claims against them, because they had an entrance structure with large trees along the entrance. He asked that the village not put into action and covenant that would cause a problem, when no problem exists. He said to leave the objects in the parkway they are not the source of any problem, except that they add to the beauty of the Village. However, when he pleaded his case before the Village Board on February 28, 2006, he requested that the owners of mailboxes, which are not optional objects in the parkway, but mandated by the U.S. Postal Service to be placed within 3 feet of the curb, to be protected from weapons of mass destruction, which are the snow trucks. He has seen them drive at high speeds and they have damaged his landscaping and many mailboxes. Some of the mailboxes cost on the average of $2,000 and some of them have cost about $12,000. His thinking is that the drivers believe it is not their problem if the mailbox is destroyed because they are trying to plow the snow; and that is not acceptable. They should give up their sense of impunity and immunity and understand that the village is going to talk to them, address the problem with them and is going to compensate the owners for the cost of construction for the mailbox. He did not suggest the price of $12,000 be paid by the village, but somewhere around $2,000 - 3,000. He stated this to the Trustees and President Quinlan, and Mr. Durfey was to prepare a proposal, which was to be placed on the agenda for the Plan Commission, so that if this is passed, the damage to only the mailbox structures be compensated and reconstructed if they are damaged by the snow trucks. Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that the neighbors presented everything VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 July 17, 2006 beautifully and she did not have much more to add. She passed out additional pictures and noted that she has been at her location since 1970 and is in the grand fathering arena of the issues. There has been objects in the parkway since 1978 when wood planters were installed and replaced 8 years ago with cement blocks that are prevalent everywhere. Chairwoman Payovich asked what the Plan Commission would like Village Engineer Durfey to bring back to the next meeting. She said that she would be curious as to how many lawsuits have taken place in the village as well as how many accidents. Member Wolin agreed, without doing an extensive study. Village Engineer Durfey said that he was not sure what type of system the Police Department had and how easily it would be accessed. Chairwoman Payovich asked him to check with the Public Works Department for any log they may be able to provide for mailboxes or damage. Member Wolin said that since the matter has come up he has become more aware, and everywhere you look there are objects in the parkways and not only in Oak Brook. In Elmhurst, he noticed big trees, light posts and literally hundreds of objects that are within a foot of the roadway. He questioned whether the parkway is shown on plats of survey. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it is, however, he noted that people never look at it or know what it means. He said that the survey shows the outline of the lot and typically, the street curb in front of the property, but it does not say what you can do to it. Parkways vary roughly from 12 to about 25 feet. Member Wolin questioned if there have been issues with regards to utility work being obstructed by boulders or pipes, etc. Village Engineer Durfey responded that he did not know. He noted that the Water Department does water main breaks and do not generally keep him apprised of those things; as far as utilities, he did not know. Member Wolin asked what prompted this study to begin with. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it was started when the first ordinance was adopted in 1999. Before that time, the Public Works Department was becoming concerned with items being put in the right of way; especially on top of the water main. It seemed to be more and more prevalent of people putting things off of their property onto the Village's property; so the point was raised VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 July 17, 2006 whether it was a good idea. They tried to quantify it in the first set of Public Works Standards. They tried to enforce it and some people complied and some complained. It went around and around and this is where we are at today. Member Wolin said that it might have been initiated by the concerns expressed by the Public Works Department. Village Engineer Durfey responded that they had some concerns and as an engineer, knowing about parkways and IDOT federal standards of safety areas next to roadways was also a concern. Looking out for the interest of the Village, if something were to happen, would the village be party to a lawsuit, so he had a professional obligation to bring up the subject. Member Wolin said that it appears Public Works has a vested interest in this matter from a couple of standpoints. When there are boulders over utilities that may cause problems or if a snowplow driver tears down or damages a mailbox it could be a problem. He suggested that Director of Public Works Meranda be present at the next discussion in September to address concerns that he may have about objects being placed in the parkway and what might be done to minimize damage to mailboxes. He would like to know if it is a big problem, how often it occurs, whether it is one employee, what kind of damage, etc. He would like the Director to attend and would like to know what negative impacts there have been with boulders and other items in the parkway and on utility easements. He would like to know how big of a problem is the mailbox damage and what can be done to minimize it. Member Wolin said that he had been observing objects in the parkways over the last several weeks in both Elmhurst and Oak Brook; it seems that Elmhurst has a bigger problem. He was on the city council for 8 years in Elmhurst and did not recall any lawsuits regarding damage from items in the parkway They have many concrete and metal light posts right next to the roadway. Member Lalmalani asked if the village had ever been sued by anyone regarding these issues. He would like to know if it is a real issue or a theoretical issue. Village Engineer Durfey responded that he did not know of any, but it is not his department it would be more of a question for the Village Attorney's office. Member Tropinski would like to know how much the Village has paid in the repairing or replacing of mailboxes. Member Wolin said that he did not want to give the impression that nothing should be done because there may be an opportunity to do some things without making them overly rigorous, which could become a nightmare for staff. As an example, he used Harger Road, which is winding and somewhat hilly and has VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 July 17, 2006 V 0 7. many boulders along it, which during the winter can be dangerous with the snow and ice. It could be that some of those larger boulders could be somewhat of a danger. If it can be deemed that there are dangerous situations like that the village could work with specific homeowners to relocate them. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the discussion of this issue to the September 18, 2006 meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS oTHBR BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Tropinski to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien Dir r of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OIL OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19 July 17, 2006