Loading...
Minutes - 07/18/2005 - Plan Commission1. 2. 3. MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2005. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, David Braune, Jeffrey Bulin, Surendra Goel, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy, Trustee, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer, Peggy O'Connell, Assistant Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. There being no objections, Plan Commission Chairwoman Payovich changed the order of the agenda to take New Business first. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. STEWART SUBDIVISION -- 3109 YORK ROAD AND 405 OAK BROOK STEWART SUBDIV - 3109 YORK RD AND ROAD — TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION 405 OAK BROOK RD AND VARIATION TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - TWO -LOT SUB - FINAL FLAT AND VARIATION Chairwoman Payovich said that in this request for a two -lot subdivision, the applicant has 2 properties, one at 405 Oak Brook Road and the other at 3109 York Road both are in the R -2 district and both presently have a nonconforming lot size. He would like to increase the lot area of 405 Oak Brook Road by 11,000 feet. Mr. Warren Stewart resides at 405 Oak Brook Road and is the owner of both properties. He provided a brief overview and history of the properties. He said that he purchased the property at 3109 York Road about 4 months ago. He reviewed the configuration of the parcels. The County took 50 feet away from all the parcels along Oak Brook Road in order to widen it, which left all the parcels in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 22 July 18, 2005 a nonconforming status. The parcel on York road, which is 587 feet deep and 66 feet wide, has a house that was built on it over 20 years ago. A portion of the rear of 405 Oak Brook Road abuts to the rear yard and around 3109 York Road. Because of the long length of the parcel and because the area in the rear portion was so remote to the lot that yard debris, which became unsightly, ended up at the rear of the lot which abutted his lot at 405 Oak Brook Road. The applicant had planted 13 -14 mature conifer trees along the lot line to help block the view. In doing so it cut into his rear lot cutting it back to around 40 feet. He told the previous owner (of 3109 York) that if he was ever interested in selling the property he would be interested in buying it, which he did. By adding a portion of the lot from 3109 to the lot at 405, it not only makes it a complete square, it turns it into a fully conforming lot meeting the one -acre minimum requirement in the R -2 district. It is currently approximately 39,000 square feet and 3109 York Road is also currently 39,000 square feet. If approved, the lot at 405 Oak Brook Road would be 47,000 square feet making it an acre and an eighth and would restore the depth lost when Oak Brook Road was widened. What is being taken from 3109 York Road is almost useless to the property. The change would shorten the lot by approximately 167 feet. It will still be 420 feet in depth. The result would leave the house almost perfectly centered on the lot. The front door of the house faces the south, which is the side yard of the lot. None of the properties north of 3109 York conform to the R -2 guidelines. If land from 3109 were added to each of the lots facing Oak Brook Road, they would still not become conforming lots. He said that he is not into making lots smaller; he is from the Paul Butler school of open land, lots of nature and trees. That is exactly why he wants the larger parcel. The development has been stagnant for years with the smaller lot depths. More is gained by adding the land to 405 Oak Brook Road than what is lost at 3109 York. Mike Deproseris, 411 Oak Brook Road, residing next to the property at 405 Oak Brook Road said that he is all for the proposal. Mr. Stewart said that everyone around him gave him their support and when asked whether they needed to attend the meeting he told them he did not believe it was necessary. He did have them sign a petition which was made part of the file. He understands that he is talking about making a property smaller, but he emphasized that the property being made smaller loses no desirability. Nothing visually changes in the neighborhood because of it. As it stands right now there are 5 nonconforming properties, if the variance is granted, that would be reduced to 4. In addition the property at 3109 York Road which is now the second largest parcel of the five will remain the second largest. After the division it would be almost 28,000 square feet which is 10,000 or 11,000 square feet larger than the property at 413 Oak Brook Road, and is comparable to the other 2 properties. He is not taking anything out of the norm for the other properties. There are many places in Oak Brook where properties do not meet the guidelines, but after this, this one will meet the minimum requirements. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 22 July 18, 2005 Member Wolin said that the proposal makes a lot of sense. He questioned if there was a driveway to the south of the 3109 York parcel. Mr. Stewart responded that it was a driveway in the Sue Boon subdivision. He said the driveway changed the dynamics of the neighborhood dramatically. Not only are there 3 large homes, but the front doors of 3 large homes. None of the neighbors are happy, because they would have rather had the back yards facing their backyards. Approval will give him control over that boundary line. He has spent about $42,000 planting mature trees trying to shelter the view. He did not want to give the wrong impression because they are very friendly with the new neighbors and has a good rapport with them, but it is a striking contrast to what it was before the development. He did not bring this up in his letter of explanation but it is one of the benefits of doing this in order to plant large trees to create a buffer. Typically in an urban grid system, backyards face backyards. Member Wolin asked that based upon the layout of all the homes, there is really nothing that can be done with the long narrow lot other than keeping it as it is or breaking it up. Village Engineer Durfey said that the plat meets the Code. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Adrian to recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision and variation to the Subdivision Regulations as proposed. In making this recommendation, the Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for approval of a final plat. Approval is subject to the approval of the requested variation to the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the lot area requirements. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 - Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 - None. Absent: 0 - None. Motion Carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A BREAKENRIDGE FARM EXTENSION -- TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION — BREAKENRIDGE FARM EXTENSION - LOT 6 OF BREAKENRIDGE FARM UNIT 1 19.569 ACRES OF VACANT TWO -LOT SUB -LOT LAND LOCATED BETWEEN ADAMS ROAD AND BREAKENRIDGE 111 BREAKENRIDGB FARM CiNI1' I, I9,569 FARM ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — TITLE 14 OF ACRES OF VACANT LAND - PREL PLAT THE VILLAGE CODE — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS or SUBDIVISION VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 22 July 18, 2005 Chairwoman Payovich noted that the applicant's original request has been amended from a previous 2 -lot subdivision to now a 4 -lot subdivision and a revised plat has been provided. The applicant has met with staff, the village attorney and the residents of Breakenridge Farm Subdivision. Robert Barth, General Counsel for the Institute in Basic Life Principles recapped the history and summarized the events. He reviewed the map on page 11 of the case file. Breakenridge Farm Unit 1, which consisted of Lots 1 -4 and Lot 5 (Vanerka's) and the 19 acres became Lot 6. The lots are owned by the O'Malley's in Lot 1, Barbara's in Lot 2, Guisfredi's in lot 3, the Wolf s in Lot 4, Vanerka's in lot 5 and the Institute in Basic Life Principles in Lot 6. On June 12, 1984 the village approved the final plat consisting of these 6 lots. On March 26 1985, the village board approved a preliminary plat for Breakenridge Farm Unit 2, which was only part of Lot 6 of Unit 1. The application was drawn for the final plat but in April of 1986 it was withdrawn and never went for village board approval so Breakenridge Farm Unit 2 was never approved as a final plat. Twenty years later, on April 15, 2005 the Institute filed an application for approval of a 2 -lot subdivision consisting of a 2 -acre parcel and the remaining 17 acres for the other lot. The Institute's goal has always been to keep as much open space as possible. They were approached by an entity that lives on Adams Road and was interested in purchasing a part of Lot 6. Some concerns were raised about the proposal at the May 16, 2005 Plan Commission hearing. On June 17, 2005 the Institute submitted a letter to the Plan Commission suggesting an alternative plan for discussion and consideration on pages 15-15A of the case file that would have 3 lots north of the water line. There is an existing water line running from Adams Road and would leave about 12 acres for future development, if it were ever developed. That alternate plan would eliminate any uncertainty as to any future access on Breakenridge Farm Road. It is a gated community with an entrance off of Adams Road. The issue that has come up is access to Breakenridge Farm road from Lot 6. The Institute's desire that has been mentioned many times is to have only one lot approved, but because of concerns of the residents they have amended their proposed preliminary plat to include one other lot and that would eliminate forever the possibility of more access to Breakenridge Farm Road because it would be limited to the 2 proposed lots on the amended plat. At the last meeting he also indicated that proposed 4 -lot subdivision in no way negatively impacts the potential fixture development of Lot #4. The Institute has no intention of developing it; they want to keep it as open space. For the sake of the residents and the concerns that were raised, they were willing to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 22 July 18, 2005 amend the proposed preliminary plat to now include 4 lots. It is slightly different than what was suggested in the alternate plans at the last meeting only to provide for more space for Lot 2 and 3 and slightly reconfigure Lot 1; Lot 4 would remain 12 acres. At the June 18, 2005 Plan Commission meeting these alternate plans were discussed as well as several sketches were provided as to how the remaining 12 acres could be developed into 5 spacious lots of more than 2 acres with direct access to Adams Road. He also discussed perceptions, principles and the plan; and that the principles involved deal with the feasibility of the plan, the foresee ability of the plan and the flexibility of the freedom of the landowner with respect to the plan. The meeting was continued to this meeting because there were too many issues that were raised. One was dealing with detention and the other was if the Institute decided to change it then they would need to file a formal amended application with the proposed plat. The amended proposed plat basically took the concept of the alternate plan/idea that was discussed at the last meeting and formally amend the application for a 2 -lot subdivision to a 4 -lot subdivision. After a meeting with Dale Durfey on July 5, 2005 a few slight revisions were made which have been incorporated into the plan before the Plan Commission. There have been specific objections raised to the plan in the past and they feel that they have addressed all those objections as summarized: • Access to Adams Road via Breakenridge Farm Road through the 1955 easement agreement that grants all owners of the area access along that road. Based upon previous discussions and previous meetings this proposal clearly shows that the owners of Lot 6 clearly have access to use the easement. In the Unit 1 Final Plat there was an additional 8 -feet added onto the western border of Lot 6 for the purposes of ingress and egress. The proposed preliminary plan addresses the uncertainty of future access on Breakenridge Farm Road. • It addresses detention areas as noted as Detention Area A and B. The detention areas have been designed to be large enough to handle any runoff from the larger Lot 4 as well. If there is any other future development, then the future detention area C can be utilized. • The lot sizes are over 2 acres which complies with the zoning requirements ranging on Lot 1 with 2.09 acres, Lot 2 with 2.71 acres and Lot 3 with 2.70 acres. The reason for the larger lot sizes on Lots 2 and 3 is so that each lot would have 2 acres or more of buildable area. If some of the other lots are considered in Breakenridge Farm Unit 1, two of the lots on them have privately maintained detention easements on them. One belongs to the O'Malley's on Lot 1 and the Barbara's on Lot 2. If you subtract what he has been told by Mr. Cappetta (in a letter to Mr. Durfey) about the amount of square footage that is in those detention areas, then if calculated correctly, Lot 1 leaves only 1.52 acres of buildable space and Lot 2 with 1.96 acres of buildable space, The proposed buildable space area is very consistent with the general configuration of Unit 1 lots. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 22 July 18, 2005 �1-1 ? • The roadway issue. There is currently a 16 foot easement, however only 12 feet is paved. There is another 8 feet available which would be potentially 24 feet. Also, at the last meeting he stated that the Institute is willing to widen the road if the Village thinks it is necessary. • Traffic is another issue that has been raised. The lots that are actually using the area of concern, there are only 4 lots that use it on a regular basis. Adding one or two more lots would not create more problems in terms of traffic. • The whole issue as to whether Section 14 -1 -3E pertaining to development in stages applies. The Village Attorney as well as the Institute argues that section does not apply because they are not proposing a planned development in stages. All they really wanted was one lot, but for the sake of concession and to try to eliminate some of the uncertainty they are proposing now a 4 -lot subdivision, which would include one lot with 12 acres that would stay as open space for the foreseeable future. • Drainage on 3712 Adams. The Kramer's own the property that is north of proposed Lot 3. The drainage will be taken care of by the proposed detention. Mrs. Kramer, 3712 Adams said that their concern is water detention as well as storm water runoff. They are having significant problems now and have been happening for a long time. They have marine battery operated sump pumps that are continually operating. For a home to be built, their concern is where would the water going to go. She took the graph to a civil engineer to represent their interest. He gave them advice to bring to the village. ' The proposed berm should be a 100 - year flood berm so that no water hits their property. There are rather large homes being built, the downspouts and the stormwater runoff should be channeled into the sewer lines, which can be planned ahead of time. She was told to also request site or a watershed plan prior to building permit submittal. The engineer said that after building permits are issued that would be too late. He implied that these were easy things to do and would not be too difficult. Mr. Barth said that they would agree and would work with their engineers to ensure that they would improve the status of their property and not make it any worse. Mary Lebbin, 3815 Washington asked if something were required in writing to be sent to the resident from the engineer to say that the residents would be protected. When they built their home they went through a lot to make sure that they would not flood their neighbors. Mr. Barth said that would all be addressed in the final plat process when all of this would be reviewed by the village and the Village Engineers. Village Engineer Durfey said that it would be part of the final plat process when you get down to detailed engineering and would receive a more stringent review than when the Lebbins subdivided because the ordinance has been updated since then. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 22 July 18, 2005 M,- Elaine Iozzo, 138 Breakenridge asked where Lot 3 would access the road. Mr. Barth responded that access for Lot 3 would be through Adams Road. Mr. Cappetta showed a copy of the preliminary plat that he said was Filed for Breakenridge Farm by the Institute in approximately 1982, At that time the approximate 30 -acre parcel was proposed as a subdivision. Five lots were ultimately decided on. Using a pointer he said that approximately ten of the acres above (where the proposed plat is today) were to have access off of Breakenridge Farm Road as they were developed; and the other 19 -20 acres below were to have access off of Adams Road with two cul -de -sacs when developed. Today, the amended petition shows 2 of the lots that were originally proposed for access through Adams road and are now being proposed to go through Breakenridge Farm Road. That is the difference between the plans. There has been discussion on the effect of Section 14 -1 -3E and have heard the opinions of the Village Attorney and Mr. Barth. He said that Mr. Barth stated that there are two conditions precedent on the section and they have both been met. Mr. Cappetta said that then the statute can have no meaning because the statute has no meaning if you eliminate the possibility that they are entitled to know what is going to happen to the balance of property as was done on the Unit 1 Preliminary Plat. To say that what has been proposed in the amended 4 -lot subdivision would guarantee that there would be no further request for access onto Breakenridge Farm Road would be really foolish. They have demonstrated on the Unit 1 Preliminary Plat that showed all the property was to be serviced off of Adams Road. The deal was that the top 10 acres access Breakenridge and the lower 20 acres would access Adams Road. The fact that that was the understanding is really not important because tonight they have the legal ability to request something else; just as they would next year, next month, or 5 years from today to request something else. They could request at that time to come back through that property and request access through that road so by not showing anything it does not show what could happen to the future of that property. This section of the Code, which was passed in 2002, says that we are entitled to know what is planned for the site before the plan is submitted, that is exactly what that section does. Member Adrian asked the Village Attorney if a motion can be made subject to allowing no further access through Breakenridge Farm Road in any development in Lot 4. He asked if it could be added in and would it be legally binding since the Institute is doing this in attempt to show they would not seek further access by showing 4 lots and they would agree to that; and Mr. Barth agreed. Assistant Village Attorney McConnell said that it would be binding and said that it is actually the request from Mr. Barth which addresses the easement question as to access to that road and that is what they are proposing at this time. Mr. Cappetta said that he understands that the Commission will follow their attorney's opinion; VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 22 July 18, 2005 however, he said that this could result in serious matters and he wanted them aware of his view. He said that when they (IBLP) came in 1982 the deal was decided that the north 10 acres would access through Breakenridge Farm Road and the south 20 acres would access Adams Road and everyone thought it was a great idea and agreed to it; that was the promise as perceived by the parties. But you cannot stop and should not be able to stop someone from coming back 2 or 5 years later when they file a new plat of subdivision they can ask for what they want. When you say can we place something in this subdivision to prevent them from coming in later with the next subdivision and at that time request to access into Breakenridge Farm Road; you cannot change that. It is their right when they come in and ask for a resubdivision; you cannot stop it. He said that he could stop it with a private agreement with IBLP, but the Village cannot stop it. Mr. Barth commented that Attorney Cappetta had made a comment with respect to the preliminary engineering of Breakenridge Farm that was done by the Templeton Estate. This was done before the Institute owned that land. The Institute cannot be bound by that preliminary plat. They had purchased the land at the time the preliminary plat had already been approved. In the final plat process the Institute changed that and the proposed cul -de -sacs had been abrogated and abandoned. That particular plan which was a 12 -lot subdivision with Lots 5 -12 which was part of the Templeton Estate preliminary plat and when the Institute took the property and proceeded, the decision was made only to develop lots 1 -4 and leave the final lot, the large Lot 6. That was the Institute's involvement. Prior to that time the Institute was not involved. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell asked Village Engineer Durfey if the preliminary engineering shown on the board had ever gone to final plat. Village Engineer Durfey responded that just Lots 1-5 had gone to final plat. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that what Mr. Cappetta referred to the 20 acres south (below the pointer he used) never went to final plat. Village Engineer Durfey said that it went to final plat as Unit 2, but it was withdrawn before it was approved. A preliminary plat is a document of record, but they never followed through with a final plat for the bottom half that was fully executed. Mr. Barth added that even proposed Unit 2 is different than what Mr. Cappetta has displayed on the board. The proposed Unit 2 had only 5 lots with a different configuration, different cul -de -sacs and a different roadway system than what is shown as proposed by Mr. Cappetta. That was the Templeton Estate proposed preliminary plat and has no relation to the proposed Unit 2 that the Institute did in 1984 -1985, which was withdrawn. Mr. Cappetta asked if he could blow some smoke out of the bag and said that this document came from the village records and represents the preliminary plat that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 22 July 18, 2005 they are required to file. At that time the village decided they would allow them to plat 5 lots and hold the rest in abeyance. It was not withdrawn it was the document that came from the village records. The fact that he is a subsequent owner does not change the fact that this was the preliminary plat and this was the understanding. It only illustrates that things can change. You can say whatever you want on a preliminary plat until you have a final plat things can change. The same thing is happening here. Once you allow Lot 4 to be an undivided piece of property any subsequent owner can come in and can ask to have it platted any way that they would like. The owner would not be restricted except by what the village might recommend. His point is, is that Section 14 -1 -3.E prohibits the Plan Commission from taking any action until they are fully informed of the entire preliminary plat; and the preliminary plat that has been submitted is not complete. Lot 4 exceeds the R -2 zoning and there are lots that are available there that could impact the property. Mr. Cappetta said that in 2002 the village passed an ordinance in the community Section 14 -6 -3 and it also has a mandatory statement, not a discretionary statement that says a paved street system designed and constructed in accordance with village standards shall be installed to serve all lots in the subdivision. There are no exceptions. An easement which is a private agreement between parties does not comply with the statutory language that the streets must be in the subdivision and must touch each lot. There are no subdivision streets to serve the lots they are proposing. Lots 1 and 2 do not have a street. They have a private easement. He believes the Plan Commission does not have the ability to recommend an approval of this because it fails in two accounts to meet the code requirements adopted in 2002. It may have been okay prior to that time, but this is the law that this community passed and that is the law that we should sustain. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell asked Mr. Barth if this was addressed this in his original comments? Mr. Barth responded that he has in the past. Breakenridge Farm Unit 6, as part of the final plat included not only the 8 foot on the east side of the 16 -foot easement but also an additional 8 foot that was part of the final plat. So that provision Mr. Cappetta is referring to has been satisfied. There is a provision for an additional width on the Institute's property. They are not altering it or changing it in any way and would be willing to make it wider because there is room and it has already been provided for to make it wider. Chairwoman Payovich asked Village Engineer Durfey if he would like to make a comment on this issue and he declined. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that when Mr. Cappetta was making his original comments and again, she said that she did not receive any of Mr. Cappetta's argument for tonight, until it was heard this evening. Looking at the ordinance the way that it is written, it is her opinion that there is compliance, but she would say that she is remembering from the testimony provided by Mr. Barth at VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 22 July 18, 2005 last months meeting regarding this issue. Mr. Barth said that he did indicate that whatever is required with respect to the Breakenridge Farm road along the proposed lots 1 and 2 along Breakenridge Farm Road, they would comply with all the ordinances. Mr. Cappetta said that this is not the first time that he raised this. He said that he raised this at the first meeting and was told by the Village Attorney that the easement was not to be discussed and he was not permitted to discuss it further and he was stopped from discussing it at that time. However, now that the Commission is going to vote he is going to call it to their attention that what he believes to be a serious legal defect that the word easement does not meet the requirement of the statute and that when Mr. Barth says they gave an additional 8 foot easement and that gives them the right; that does not make the easement a street. It is still not a street and the fact that they have an 8 -foot wider easement does not make it a street and it does not comply with the statute. There are 2 serious defects legally to the plat and it is not a new argument, it is an old one. Together with the comments he mailed (he was referring to a written transcript of his presentation at the June 20, 2005 Plan Commission meeting) he asked it be part of the record. Mr. Barth said that the way it was addressed was by previous attorneys. When Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 was discussed there was a question as to whether there could be an overlay over the private easement. At that time the Village attorney said that there could be an overlay over the private easement and that is where the 28 -foot is an overlay over the 16 -foot easement that was included in Breakenridge Farm Unit 1. There can be an overlay with respect to satisfy the streets, overlay of a private easement and that is in the record as part of the documentation and may be in minutes of the first meeting. Mr. Cappetta said that he does not want to correct everyone's arithmetic but 16 plus 8 plus is 24. - The statute requires 27. If the argument were correct, which he believes it is not then they still do not have the right number of feet to do the street. That is the end of the story. The statute states clearly that you must comply and it says how big it must be and it must be a street. There are no exceptions. It is Oak Brook law that was passed in 2002. He said that he was not allowed to argue it at the first meeting, but he said he could not let the Commission vote without knowing that there is a legal defect in what they are doing and leaving your residents little alternative but to redress that issue. Member Adrian said that it is always the Commissions purpose to try to represent the village residents also. He asked Mr. Barth that in reference to what Mr. Cappetta said earlier, would the Institute be willing to enter into a private agreement with the Breakenridge Farm residents addressing the issue of this road and further access from Lot 4, in order to alleviate the situation that exists. Would the Institute entertain that? Mr. Barth said that Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 consists VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 22 July 18, 2005 of the lots 1 -6. Their proposal is only involving a portion of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 which in the northwest portion of Lot 6. He said that at the last meeting he said they (IBLP) would be willing to widen that paved road, but from an engineering standpoint and from the resident's standpoint he does not know if they (the residents) want him to put in 27 -28 foot curbs and gutters. They will do whatever the Village wants them to do. That was the same issue that came up when Breakenridge Farm Unit 1 was discussed from what he reviewed in the village archives and the Board decided that he had to be 28 feet cubs and gutters and that is what was done. He does not believe the residents want that, but they will do whatever the Village wants. Member Adrian asked if the Institute would be willing to discuss a private agreement between the Institute and residents of Breakenridge Farm about any further access to that road from any other property included in proposed Lot 4. Mr. Barth responded that they are doing this to preclude that possibility. Member Adrian said to Mr. Cappetta that this is exactly what he had asked for. Mr. Cappetta responded that is not exactly what they asked for. He said that they do not have sufficient land to put a road in, that is required; and they do not control the land that they need to do this on, nor does the village. He said that it may be a great idea but if it is not your land then you do not have the right to do it; and he (IBLP) does not have the right to do it. Member Adrian answered that this was Mr. Cappetta's suggestion. Mr. Cappetta responded that he is just telling them what the Oak Brook law says. Member Adrian answered that he (Mr. Cappetta) said earlier that a private arrangement would work, but that the Village could not mandate it through a recommendation that it would only work if it were a private agreement. Mr. Cappetta said that was true. Member Adrian said that is what he suggested and Mr. Barth agreed. Mr. Cappetta responded that as of yesterday they still did not have an agreement worked out with IBLP. Member Adrian answered that they just did. Member Braune said that it seems as if two issues were being mixed here. One is an earlier assertion that in a later appearance to this board or future board, there might be some attempt to access Lot 4 off of Breakenridge Farm Road by cutting along the boundary of Lots 1 and 2. If this plat is approved further up the line then they would really have to jump through hoops to get that change made to a plat. The second issue is just how wide should Breakenridge Farm Road be. He suspects that the Institute owns enough land along their property to donate enough land to make it 28 feet wide by cutting down the size of lots 1 and 2 slightly and asked Mr. Barth if that was true. Mr. Barth noted that the currently paved 12 -foot road stops by the Wolf's property (lot 4). There is a 16 -foot private easement going down past the creek to Mr. and Mrs. lozzo's property. As part of the approval of Breakenridge Farm Unit 1, there was an additional 8 -foot added on the east side of Breakenridge Farm Road. The Institute owns on its property not only the 8 -foot private easement but also as part of the plat, another 8 feet. That same additional 8- foot was part of the final plat along the western part of Lot 4, so the whole issue has already been addressed when the final plat for Unit 1 was approved. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 22 July 18, 2005 Mr. Cappetta said that his interpretation is as follows: After the approval of the preliminary plat of Unit 1 there was a decision to do six lots and an improved road was put in and was the only improved road that was put in, which does not connect down to the Institute property. The only easements that exist are private easements which he has repeated are not roads. Even if you take the 16 plus 8 equals a 24- foot easement, which is not a road and does not satisfy the requirements or the statute, which requires a wider road. He also said we do not know how wide it should be because they do not know what IBLP wants to do on the property, because there is vacant property that is undefined. Mr. Barth commented that they would do whatever is necessary, whether it should be part of the final plat process more than preliminary plat process. Chairwoman Payovich asked Village Engineer Durfey where this fits in the review process. He responded that this section being discussed, Section 14 -6 -3 is under the Final Plat provisions of the Code. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell asked Village Engineer Durfey how wide the roads currently are. He responded that by lot 4, 5, and 6 on the old plat it varies from 12 to 14 feet of asphalt. Member Goel said that he was not at the last couple of meetings and he reviewed the DVD's of the last meeting, which were delivered, personally to his home. The people in the Community Development Department are very dedicated people and the reason he said this was because on page 20.b. there is a letter in the file dated June 28, 2005 with statements against the Village Engineer, which left a bad taste for him. He has full faith in the Village Engineer. Proposed lot 2 is 2.71 acres and half is taken by Detention area A. The pools are coming so close to the property line that they are dangerous. It seems if we have not been enforcing the correct size of the lots then the Commission is not doing it right. If the Detention area A is owned by the property owner of Lot 2, but it gets overflow from all the area surrounding it then it is not fair to use his area for detention of others overflow. He does not believe it was ever the intention of the Zoning Ordinance that when we specify the sizes of the lots that they should be short changed by roads or detention areas and things like that. A mistake was made on Forest Gate where the road area was made part of each lot and the mistake should not be made again. If it is not clearly stated then he would like to see the Zoning Ordinance revised so that we do not short change the property owners by taking their area away in detention areas, roads, etc. and then say that they still meet the minimum lot size requirement. His recommendation is that the Commission takes a firm stand that when talking of the lot size; it should be lot size not including detention areas, roads or anything like that. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 22 July 18, 2005 Chairwoman Payovich asked the Village Engineer if there were other areas in the village that have detention basins on their property including Breakenridge Farm that he can address. He responded that there are such lots around the village. She asked if there was anything specific in Breakenridge Farms similar to this. He responded that Lot 1 has a detention easement that is probably somewhere between one -third to almost one -half of its lot that is within the detention easement. Lot 2 is maybe one -third of the lot and is probably a detention easement in that range. There is no detention on Lots 3, 4 or 5. Chairwoman Payovich asked him how those detention basins have worked out over time and he responded that he is not aware of any problems on those parcels. She asked if any complaints have been received from the residents and he responded not to his knowledge. Member Goel said that he thinks we are short changing these properties by taking their area. If we have been doing it that way then we need to correct ourselves. Member Bulin, referred to Village Engineer Durfey's memo dated July 2, 2005, paragraph 6 the detention facilities are mentioned and some of the problems with having them on private lots. Village Engineer Durfey said that for instance there is a backyard detention basin on several lots in the Forest Glen Subdivision. It has presented some problems for maintenance to get to the site. Over time people tend to plant trees or encroach into the easement that dissipates its intended use. If it is put into a private lot owned by the association, so it is not privately owned by an individual it reduces those problems immensely. On larger subdivisions developers have parcels they can use specifically for detention purposes. On a small subdivision they typically cannot dedicate that type of land and still get economic development for the development, so the smaller ones are usually are in easements and the larger ones are in dedicated land. There are roughly 19 acres on the site; it deserves some discussion about whether it is big enough or still small enough. Mr. Barth asked to address Member Goel's comments. He said that detention area A is .66 acres and as he mentioned in his presentation, the goal was to have at least a 2 -acre minimum buildable lot area even with the detention area. Detention area B is .68 acres so there is also 2 acres of buildable space on that lot also even with the detention area. He said with respect to his comment on his letter, the only reason that he put that in was to clarify the record. It is a moot point because the application has been amended. What had happened was that there was a memo from Dale that addressed their very first submission and subsequent to that memo there was another submission even before the first Plan Commission meeting so the one that was before the Plan Commission at the first meeting was one that had the detention areas in it. The first one that Dale commented on did not. He talked to Dale about VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 22 July 18, 2005 it before including it in the file. He just wanted to put that in just to clarify the record. Member Wolin said that he agrees with Member Goel's line of thinking and with Dale's memo. He happens to think that 14 -1 -3E does apply and he recognizes the fact that the Village Attorney states that it does apply. He said that he is not an attorney, so from a legal standpoint he would assume that she is correct. However this is a planning commission and the objective of a planning commission is to do some planning that makes sense for the village for all the residents. From a planning standpoint it makes sense that when you take a large lot and are subdividing it all at once you can do it right. So that you can do it right in terms of roads and detention. Section 14 -1 -3E, from a legal standpoint it does not clearly say that and it behooves them as the plan commission to get the Subdivision Regulations changed so that it does say that; because it makes sense. By doing it this way we are not doing detention in an optimum fashion and that has been pointed out by the Village Engineer. The property has water on it which has affected the residents and we want to make sure that the detention is done properly. If they neglect to consider this particular regulation we leave ourselves very vulnerable for other developments. For example, the IBLP owns approximately 50 acres near this piece of property. If we neglect this ordinance, what we are saying is that they could develop it one lot at a time. With 2 -acre zoning that could be 26 homes more or less. If you developed it one lot at a time it could be very ugly. He thinks that it is very important that as a Plan Commission that they consider the intent of what the subdivision ordinance says. If from a legal standpoint it does not protect the residents, then the wording ought to be changed. From a personal standpoint the original plan makes a lot of sense, with nice roads coming in and fire trucks can get in readily, the lots are nicely sized and the water detention is there and it is very similar to what the IBLP is proposing today. He thinks it behooves the IBLP to plan this out in total. He asked Mr. Cappetta what he meant about preparing a letter a few days ago. Mr. Cappetta responded that he was referring to the presentation that he had made at the last meeting. No additional letters were sent. Member Goel said that he agreed that this piecemeal development could lead to a very haphazard complication. He said that as the planning commission they have to plan so that things do not go that way. Member Tropinksi said that she agrees with the comments that have been made. She would like to see the detention in common areas. She is very interested in the roadway and having driven it, it is a very narrow road. You are building huge houses and for any reason if a fire truck came in there they would have no place to go. If you are building huge houses you would want to have better roads so that vehicles could travel down them. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 22 July 18, 2005 Mr. Cappetta said that his understanding is that they file a petition here and the Plan Commission can recommend it or not. He is not proposing that the road be made wider because he does not believe the Plan Commission has the legal ability, nor does he. He does not represent the people who own the land that you need to widen the road and the Plan Commission does not have the legal means to do it. The question is has the petitioner, as he has filed this application, met the requirements of the ordinance; and he said that it does not. Is the petition sufficient under the ordinance and the answer is that it is not. Can the applicant make it sufficient, perhaps he can, but then he would have to file another one and he would get an opportunity to look at it; and if they agreed they would not object. He said that he does not have the power to negotiate those issues. Member Adrian said that it is up to the Commissioners to defer to the Village Attorney and the Village Engineer on those issues. They listen to Mr. Barth's opinion and Mr. Cappetta's but ultimately they have to be subject to staff's opinion He asked Village Engineer Durfey if the IBLP has met the conditions of a preliminary plat, and he answered that they did. Member Tropinksi asked who determines how wide the roadway should be. What is important here? Mr. Barth said that the condition exists and this is the time to resolve it. Member Wolin said that based upon Village Engineers memo where it is stated that it would be better to put the detention into a common area. If the IBLP were to plan out the entire 19 acres and do it in an ideal fashion from the standpoint of roads and detention, is the detention they proposed the ideal detention or would there be a better option such as to put it into a common area. Village Engineer Durfey responded that is a political decision. The Preliminary Plat of Breakenridge Farm. Unit 1 had all private easement detentions, which was approved by the village board which already made the decision for this area. Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, which they may have, that would still apply. Member Wolin said that he was still confused on the roads. He noted that IBLP could make the part of the road located on their property as wide as they want to and could meet current standards; however, the issue Mr. Cappetta raised is that they cannot widen the section of the road beyond their property. When he asked how wide that section of road was; Mr. Barth responded that there was a 16 foot easement and also an 8 foot easement on the east side included in the Unit 1 final plat approval for a total of 24 feet available. Mr. Cappetta added that he did not know if anyone had the power to convert that underlying easement to a street. Member Wolin said that the 24 feet provided does not meet the 28 feet minimum required by Code. So the question is whether 24 feet is okay, does it need a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 22 July 18, 2005 variation to the regulations. Mr. Cappetta said that the statue tells how wide the road must be. He said that 27 feet would probably be the minimum. The point he made was that the petition as filed does not meet the statute. Mr. Barth responded that the petition does meet the all the requirements for preliminary plat approval. There is a different process with more stringent requirements for the final plat. Chairwoman Payovich said that the Assistant Village Attorney has advised that the Plan Commission can vote on what has been presented by the petitioner, which is an application for a preliminary plat. The Village Engineer has said that all the requirements have been met for a preliminary plat and Village Engineer Durfey acknowledged that statement. The Village Attorney is comfortable that all the requirements have been met for the preliminary plat. If it was voted on at this meeting all additional issues would be addressed at the time of final plat; which would be the section of road that appears to be noncompliant. The Assistant Village attorney agreed. Mr. O'Malley, President of the Breakenridge Farm Homeowner Association and owner of Lot 1, which has a water retention area in the back of it said that one of the key things is the water issues. He said that he took some of the board members to show them the back and as of late May and June there was still water standing on the property even with the dry spring they have had. There are lakes along the west side of Route 83 and a portion of those lakes drain into a creek that drains into Breakenridge Farm Lake, they run down through the properties to Spring Road and Salt Creek. The issue they have is 3 -fold. His back yard drains into that creek and two or three homes come onto his and he accepts that as part of his property. He maintains the property and cannot build anything on that property without coming to the Village. Some of the other properties have other issues with if. If you get into the area of a 4 -inch rain and the area is developed further down at Route 83 and Adams, the water over flows onto the road. If additional housing is put in, it will have an impact not only on Breakenridge Farm Road, but to everyone on Spring Road. When people bought these properties they got a plat of subdivision to show what the front was and what was going on. He was able to research to find out there was another road coming off Adams with 5 lots. Everyone that bought the properties in the back, Iozzo bought their property in the early 1960's clearly looked at the plat. Their issue as a group of residents is that there are 4 lots on the road. Anywhere else in that area there are 2 or 3 lots on these narrow roads. They like their privacy number. Secondly, bringing in more homes has an impact on the traffic and the water. Certain areas of water they can control, others they cannot. They want to control and manage it so that to impact not only them but what happens on Spring Road. The impact on Spring Road is that if you have a freeze, a rain and it goes back to a freeze and there is ice there, you could have an accident. This may or may not impact it, but it is something they need to think about. VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOD Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 22 July 18, 2005 There are several things they have to consider every step of the way. The roads along Adams Road have variances and they decided not to take the road out to Adams because the road had a certain elevation variance, but if they put it further south it would work. Through that whole area from 35`x' and Adams there is an 80 foot variation on all the roads. That is why the other concern is the traffic issue. They would like to minimize the traffic in that area because of that. They are not objecting to the zoning of 2 acres or the water retention ponds. No one has looked at the flow of the water, or the impact of the flow of the whole area around it and the traffic patterns. People that have been living there for 40 years have had a certain traffic flow that has not had a major impact. If you increase it, it will change the whole design. Chairwoman Payovich asked for Mr. O'Malley's suggestions. He said that his primary focus was that when they bought the properties they like the road off Adams; that was their primary focus. He had personal meetings with Ben Zismer to try to work through this issue, but every time they came to a discussion it would be changed by Mr. Barth. That is why they have had so many different plats because there are so many issues. They would like to have a whole plan as to what they will deal with because the water and traffic issues have not been fully addressed here. You cannot do this on a final plat; it has to be done on a preliminary plat because it would just cause a lot of confusion to everyone in the area. They would just have to address this again down the road. Elaine lozzo said that this was their third meeting and if it is passed (by the Plan Commission) then they have to go through this again and it would really be passing the buck. Brian Clingen, 66 Breakenridge Farm Road said that Mr. Barth and the IBLP is the most controversial landowner left in Oak Brook. They have been a part of the most contentious issues that have come before the past Plan Commissions and Village Board. Anyone that has lived in the Village for any period of time is well aware of the past history of the Institute. Whether they are good or bad, he is not to judge or make a comment on. He said that their predecessor Plan Commissions have worked very hard to understand in its entirety what the IBLP planned to do with land or what they were attempting to do with their land. In many instances the Village of Oak Brook and the Plan Commission fought those efforts very hard. In this instance here we are not quite sure what all is being proposed, but it seems to him that this commission is bending over backwards to allow the IBLP to go ahead with sort of a piece meal process. In over the past 25 or 30 years this is the sort of thing that has been fought very hard against. He said that he did not understand why the rush to go ahead and get something approved for this member of the Village. Chairwoman Payovich interjected that the Plan Commission is not rushing to approve anything. They have to address what an applicant puts out to them on a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 22 July 18, 2005 legal issue and just because an issue might be voted on does not necessarily mean something is approved. The past history of this Commission and all the Commissioners on it, they have not rushed to judgment on many things, if any. Mr. Clingen said that there are certainly issues before them that there is at least great disagreement. He has heard several Commissioners question issues and uncertain with things. There is ample reason to deny this petition as it is before them right now; ample reason. The question is given this ample reason, given that there is great concern amongst the residents in the area; not only the direct residents, but everyone in that area as well as many in the Village of Oak Brook in general as to what the ultimate plans of the IBLP are. Why would this Commission not take that opportunity to say that this petition as it stands right now is insufficient and deny it. Member Braune said that he was sympathetic to Member Wolin's comments. His comments are well taken and if you consider how this all started it was because someone approached IBLP to purchase one lot, which would have been carved out on its own as a single lot. We have managed to progress to a point where they have something a little more elaborate than that, He is sympathetic to Member Wolin's standpoint and he thought they should see what the whole thing looks like and do it right instead of little bits and pieces. Not withstanding the fact that the Village Attorney has said that they may not have a legal leg to stand on in all of this; he is still sympathetic to Member Wolin's standpoint. It behooves the Plan Commission to be planners. Chairwoman Payovich asked if there was something they would like the petitioner to do or did they want to go ahead and vote. Member Wolin said that he is not going to make any motions. He wants the petitioner to come up with a plan for the entire 19 acres, which would make him happy. They made a wise decision on buying this land and they deserve to make as much money as they can, he just wants it to be planned and developed in the best way for the village while making sense for the IBLP. Chairwoman Payovich asked if they want to make a motion to deny, this and ask them to come back with something else. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that it has been her position consistently that they can only vote on that which is contained in the preliminary plat before them. Under Section 14 -3 -2.E of the Subdivision Regulations states that, "if the plat is disapproved, the Commission shall furnish the Village Board and the applicant a written statement setting forth the reason for disapproval and specifying with particularity the aspects in which the plat fails to conform to these regulations and with the Official Plan." If they do go forward and do not approve the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 22 July 18, 2005 preliminary plat as it stands those things have to be addressed. Chairwoman Payovich said that it could be the water detention issue. Mr. Cappetta said that Section 14 -6 -3, 14 -1 -3.E and the detention issues are just cause to deny the petition. Mr. Barth responded that based on Section 14 -3 -3, the preliminary plat requirements are listed in the Village Code and they have complied with every one of those requirements for the preliminary plat. The references to things that are in the final plat process will be dealt with during that stage of the approval process. Member Braune said that recognizing that the residents have put up with 3 months of this so far, however let's assume IBLP has met the requirements for the preliminary plat approval. What might happen in the future in front of the Village Board? Village Engineer Durfey said that the Plan Commission could recommend approval with certain conditions and the Village Board may agree with those conditions and approve the plat plus state that those additional items must be done when they come back for the final plat. Such as to make the road wider, make the detention basin public lots. There are specific spaces in the preliminary plat certificate for conditions that the Village may want to add to it. Member Bulin said that since we have gone through this for 3 months they have been through a positive compromise to an extent where now they have limited the potential of 2 lots access onto Breakenridge Farm Road as opposed to unknown numbers. The detention areas shown may or may not alleviate the current water problems, but with Village Engineer Durfey's synopsis that putting these on a public area or association area in development of the whole 19 acres may be in the best interest of the whole area to alleviate all of the water problems. It was determined out of the discussion that Breakenridge Farm Road is in an unsafe condition regardless of whether any residences are added to it or not. There are other issues that have come forth and in this case they have made positive movement, but there are still issues that should be looked at for the overall plan. As the other Commissioners have mentioned, we are the Plan Commission and should look at the full 19 acres, even though the Institute does not plan on developing Lot 4, which is still 12 acres and could be 4 -6 lots; it is more important to look at the detention area potential for the full 19 acres and how it can benefit all of Breakenridge Farm. The road issue is going to be a debacle in the future. He believes they have met all of the preliminary requirements and it could be voted on and pass it or not pass it passed based on preliminary requirements. There are some issues that the Plan Commission is concerned with even though staff has recommended that they go ahead with it. It has gone the right direction and people VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 22 July 18, 2005 should be looking at it that they could be solving some existing conditions that are bad now and if nothing gets done, nothing gets solved. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Goel to deny the petitioners request for the subdivision as proposed and to recommend deny it for the following reasons: 1. It does not meet the intent of Section 14 -1 -3 -E that recommends at the time of preliminary plat of subdivision that the entire plan for the subdivision be provided at that time. it would set a bad precedent to approve it without the total plan. 2. It is clear from resident comments as well as observation of the area that there are water detention problems on this site and it is important that the proper water detention planning and other water problem provisions be provided for the entire 19 acres at one time with a preference to the extent that it is possible that the water detention be placed in common areas and not part of a private easement. 3. There was a question whether the roadway system meets the current requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Further clarification is needed as to whether the roadway system would support that particular regulation. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 1 —Member Adrian. Absent: 0 Motion Carried. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell noted that the matter goes forward to the Village Board pursuant to Section 14- 3 -2 -E. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS Chairwoman Payovich said that the Commission would continue with a brief discussion of teardown requirements. Member Bulin said that the information provided was basically on bookkeeping and policing the area "type of things" and asked if that was the direction Member Wolin was thinking or was it more global as far as restrictions and limitations on teardowns. Member Wolin responded that at this time it is more of the policing. He said that he was approached by the president of a homeowner's association where there have been some teardowns and the concern has been when new homes are not being VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 22 July 18, 2005 built right away and the property is not left in a suitable state. The way that Hinsdale and some other communities control it is that either you build another home in a reasonable amount of time or you restore the property so that it fits in with the area. A bond is required so if it is not taken care of there are monies available to restore the property. A number of suburbs have similar ordinances. There was also a section included in Bob's email about controlling dust and protecting trees during demolition. He said that it looks straightforward and suggested that the Commission have Bob draft up something along the lines of what he has provided. Member Wolin said that another person questioned whether we should have architectural standards, which could be interesting. The past village Attorney took the position that because Oak Brook is a Non -Home Rule community there cannot be an architectural review committee. He asked if that was still true. A number of the homeowner associations have architectural review committees. If Oak Brook cannot have an architectural standards ordinance then could the Village hold back on issuing a permit if approval has not been received from a subdivision where one is required? Warren Stewart, resident said that the Village could control it by having an approved materials list. Taste is very difficult to regulate. Requiring an approved materials list and requiring items of high standards might be a way to control it. Chairwoman Payovich said that this topic requires more discussion and before Bob is asked to draft a teardown ordinance, she suggested that they need more participation in order to do that. Member Wolin agreed. Henry Rico, 11 Lochinvar, Ginger Creek resident, said that it was the president of his homeowner's association that brought this up. He said that some of their concerns are houses were there was a tear down over a year ago and the lot looks very bad. There are piles of dirt and the association has sent numerous letters to the owner to ask them to at least seed and level the grade of the lot and they have ignored them, and they have tried on at least 4 or 5 occasions. There are other lots that just do not look right according to everyone's standards. They have another person that brings snow from his business lot and drops it off in his residential lot. They have sent him letters and he has ignored them. They are building some beautiful homes, but the people doing the construction are leaving dirt, debris and stone on the street every day; they should clean up after themselves on a daily basis. It would be nice to have some rules in place to control it. Gail Polanek, Community Development Department suggested that Mr. Rico contact the Community Development Department in the morning with the location and an Inspector would be sent over to the site in question. She said that the builders are required to clean up the street daily. There are also property VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 22 July 18, 2005 ln__� maintenance issues that can be looked at. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell added that she, Bob Kallien and Dale Durfey are currently working on certain amendments to certain code provisions so that they can make some of those ticket -able offenses. Sometimes a letter does not bring someone into compliance; more so it would be the violation and it would be a ticket where they are required to go to court and explain themselves to a judge. They are working on it right now and they are hoping to go the Village Board and ask for an amendment to the ordinances so they can begin the ticketing procedure. Mr. Rico said that he did receive an email from Bob Kallien and he suggested that something could be put in place so that the builder could be required to post a bond so that they could restore the property if the builder does not. They liked his suggestion. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, D' ector of mmunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Plan Commission Minutes Page 22 of 22 July 18, 2005 ADJOURNMENT