Loading...
Minutes - 08/19/2002 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Village Engineer Director of Community Development Director of Public Works A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian Samuel Girgis Anthony Tappin Surendra Goel Alfred Savino Dale Durfey Robert Kallien Michael Meranda Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Tappin, to waive the reading of the May 20, 2002 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. 111. TROPINSKI and JACHIMOWICZ RESUBDIVISION — 808 and 806 COVENTRY LANE FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — RESUBDIVISION of TWO LOTS Chairwoman Payovich reviewed the request, which is based on a court action by the owners of the two properties. The order by the Court is to have the lot line moved to the west to accommodate access to proposed Lot 1. The petitioners re seeking relief from the Village by having the property resubdivided. Vince Mancini, Attorney with Connolly, Ekl and Williams, Clarendon Hills, Illinois, represented, Marcia Tropinski and reviewed the background of the case. This is a court forced action resolving a dispute between neighbors involving a driveway easement and access. Lot 1 is the Tropinski lot and Lot 2 is the Jachimowicz lot. It is a simple matter of purchase of some property belonging to Lot 2 and shifting the lot line over to accommodate a driveway that has been there for quite some time. In 1984, an easement was recorded to allow access through proposed Lot 2 to the garage on proposed Lot 1. As a result of court action they are requesting to shift the west property line and incorporate the entire driveway as part of Lot 1. There are a few issues that have come about due to the Plat of Resubdivision. The first would be that there is a flood hazard area located in the northern half of Lot 1. The flood area actually crosses the back portion of the three -car garage, which was built under a permit in 1993. A shed structure was built PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc August 19, 2002 in 1949, which is also in the flood plain. They are requesting that those two buildings be excepted from the flood plain and not be raised. The other issue is that there is a sewer that services Lot 1. It is underground and touches Lot 2. It is a unique case. It is not a resubdivision in the normal sense; it is simply in response to a court action. They have tried to reach a settlement between the two neighbors. This effects both properties favorably as it removes a burden on Lot 2 and allows Lot 1 to have direct access without the use of an easement, thereby increasing the value of both lots. It is a fair and adequate remedy to the situation. Village Engineer Durfey said that he has barely reviewed the revised plat, which he first saw today. Mr. Mancini noted that the owners certificate on any resubdivision requests that any thoroughfares dedicated to the city or village be dedicated. This is not a resubdivision for the purposes of building new homes, there are no thoroughfares or dedicated properties, and it is simply replatting two lots so the language has been stricken. They also wanted to clarify that no new buildings will be placed in the flood plain area. The drainage certificate that is typically required, would be necessary in this instance because drainage is not being shifted, it is as is. Only the lot line is being shifted. Lot 2 has a newly constructed home so there is no reason for the drainage certificate. Eva Jachimowicz, owner of proposed Lot 2 said that this final conclusion would be the best solution for both neighbors. The documents presented were discussed and agreed upon together. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his August 7, 2002 memorandum (page 8 of the file). 1. Introductory statement 2. Statement of fact, but due to the legal ramifications of the court proceeding, the Village would allow this. 3. Minor drafting revisions such as lead arrow lines to language changes. 4. They are recommending a waiver from the Subdivision requirements from 6 -foot public utility easement down to a 5 -foot on the side lot lines to match the existing Steeplechase Subdivision. 5. Recommendation that the requirements for providing topography and the installation of land improvements be waived since it is only a realignment of a common lot line. 6. Clarification of the existing driveway configuration and any proposed changes so that the file is clear. He is not sure what is going on with the existing driveway. Mrs. Tropinski said that a drawing was submitted (page I of the file) that shows how the driveway is planned. The eastern property boundary of the driveway will not change and will be the driveway boundary line. On the western side is will be extended slightly as shown on the drawing. It is their intention to maintain a 10 -foot wide driveway. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the driveway that is currently on Lot 2 will be removed and the easterly boundary would follow the new boundary and so some pavement would be removed. The portion of the driveway that would be existing on Lot 2 could then be removed. The neighbors would then be responsible for the maintenance of their own driveways. 7. They have checked with the three main utility companies and were told that they have no facilities in the public utility and access easement in front of Lot 2. Mr. Mancini responded that a similar easement is located on Lot 1 and he does not know why it is there. Marcia Tropinski said that originally the easement on Lot 2 contained the telephone cable lines and are no longer there. Village Engineer Durfey said that on Lot 2, the easement has been vacated and no longer exists today. If there is nothing there, the easement on Lot 1 perhaps should be vacated to get back additional property since it may not be needed. Marcia Tropinski said that the reason it was on there is because PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 2 PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc August 19, 2002 they were told by the utility companies that they did not officially vacate the easement. The utility lines were once in it and they never had it vacated. It appears to be more of a technical matter. Village Engineer Durfey said that a separate plat of vacation or abrogation to resolve the matter. This is not a big deal for the surveyor to do. 8. As far as revising or omitting language on the Owners Certificate and the Flood Plain Easement Certificate as requested is more of a legal issue and should be reviewed by the Village Attorney. 9. The sanitary sewer easement hereby dedicated on the plat should be changed to sanitary sewer service easement for Lot 1. 10. There are several minor drafting items. Chairman Payovich asked the Village Engineer if there were any significant items that he needed more time to review. Village Engineer Durfey said that there is nothing significant, it could be approved subject to various conditions. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the resubdivision as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to the comments contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum dated August 7, 2002 (page 8). 2. Subject to review by Village Attorney Martens. 3. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nayes: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Cei.T� IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS — SECTION 13 -3 -6 -B FENCES Director of Community Development Kallien said that the issue of fences has been before the Plan Commission several times before. In February, the Plan Commission recommended some very specific language. The Village Board evaluated that language, which among other things, would have prohibited chain link fences in the future. The Village Board took no action and again deferred the matter back to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) to offer up language that would improve the fence provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on ZORC review, page 8 of the file is the staff report that includes the proposed text. Section 13 -3 -6 -B of the Zoning Ordinance is a chart that would amend the fence provisions that would add the following: "Chain link or wire fence shall be at least 9 -gauge wire, shall be constructed with a top member or brace with wire material (finished side) facing the neighboring property and shall be painted or coated in a dark color (e.g., black, brown, or dark green)." PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 3 PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc August 19, 2002 In addition, that section of the chart regarding fences adjacent to patios and swimming pools shall include the following: "See requirements for chain link or wire fences set forth in the preceding item." That addresses some of the issues previously brought up by the Plan Commission in terms of improving the aesthetics, however, it still provides for the ability to install chain link fencing. It was found that there is over 30 miles of chain link fencing. This language would raise the bar and make it more aesthetically pleasing. Trustee Savino said that if chain link is going to be permitted, then it should be made as aesthetically acceptable as possible. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not chain link fencing can be banned. The Village Attorney does not believe it can and he thinks it can. Some communities have done it, such as Burr Ridge and Long Grove. He has read an article by the American Fencing Council on how a number of communities have banned chain link. He is not advocating that, but they are trying to insure that any chain link going in would at least be as aesthetically pleasing as possible and would be of the gauge and strength that would hold up. So color and gauge were changed and height has remained at 42- inches. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this would not prohibit individuals from putting in wrought iron fences or split rail and masonry if it can meet the 50% open provision. Member Tappin asked if this applies to the Village borders? Director of Community Development Kallien said that at one point, language was proposed allowing six - foot high fences in certain areas where residential development abuts non - residential development or along the boundary of another municipal jurisdiction. The Village Board discussed it in some detail, but no action was taken. Trustee Savino said that had it been approved, it could have ended up with a checkerboard look and that was not a desired appearance. The Board is of the opinion that if a problem exists they can come to the Board and request a variation. Director of Community Development Kallien introduced Joan Budovec, 157 Saddlebrook Drive, who wrote one of the first letters to the village concerning this issue. Her property is along the southern boundary in Saddle Brook. She has a number of issues that she would like to address to the Commission. Joan Budovec said that she has lived in the Village for 19 years, and her property abuts up to unincorporated Westmont. The entire rear yard backs up to the other property's driveway. The person living there is the third owner of the property since they have been there. He moved in 4 -6 years ago they watched him collect cars, trucks, plows, an assortment of automobile equipment, tires, engine block, mufflers. He also ran a business and tow trucks were bringing in cars. They reported him to DuPage County, but the inspector stopped it, but he cleaned up his act a little and is now doing it again. He no longer repairs cars, he restores them, which is a slight difference. They are allowed to keep up to four cars on the drive, but he has more than that. Their problem is that they have an unsightly view, loud engine noises and a lot of problems with exhaust fumes. They have spent thousands of dollars on evergreen shrubbery that grows in the shade and they all died. Amlings replaced them and they are all struggling again. The landscaping will never hide the view, it will not stop fumes or muffle the noise. Several pictures were brought in to show the site and the view from their backyard. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc 4 0 August 19, 2002 Member Girgis asked if she approached her neighbor and she said they did, but he was unresponsive. She said that they have contacted DuPage County and said that they are not very cooperative. She said that they County advises her that they will take care of it and that is the end of it because they never receive any feedback so they do not know what is going on. They have been contacting the County for almost two years and they do not know what else to do. What bothers her is the fencing regulations in the Village. The Village's "Mission Statement" says that it wants to enhance property. How can they enhance their property or protect themselves? She said they cannot because the regulations are hurting and frustrating them to no end. She finds them unreasonable and discriminatory because they cannot protect their property value. She is upset and noted that the members would also be if they lived where she does. She said that because of the location of her house they are blocking the view of this site from other Saddlebrook residents, because their home and shrubbery. If the house were not there, there would be a line of people complaining about this. They need help and object to the current fencing regulations. Member Adrian asked if she has applied for a variation. She said that is what she intends to do and she wanted this situation noted on the record. Member Tappin said that the board of directors of Saddlebrook is looking at repairing the fences that have been torn down. They are trying to solve some of the problems. She will apply for a variation in the near future. Director of Community Development Kallien continued the fencing review. He noted that if a permit application is received for a fence, the Village is limited in its ability to not issue the permit. In situations where we are aware there are underlying covenants, they try to seek out comments from the Subdivision ahead of time so there is a minimal amount of conflict. Trustee Savino noted that the problem with adopting a solid fence then it applies throughout the Village. If people have a particular hardship they can apply for a variation. Chairwoman Payovich said that she wanted the opportunity to look at Mrs. Budovec's property and give the fencing amendment further thought. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Tappin to continue this matter to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW OF PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PLAN — VILLAGE BOARD OBJECTIVE 365 -1 Director of Community Development Kallien said that Village Board Objective 365 -1 is a Public Right -of- Way Beautification Plan and as part, this review is meant to gather proper support and understanding of the public and it was recommended that comments be received from the homeowner's associations as well as the Plan Commission. Director of Public Works Meranda said that several years ago the Village got into a mode of beautification on the medians and parkways and other right -of -ways throughout the Village. This is an attempt to lay a foundation for those village -owned areas and to beautify them with low maintenance PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc 5 (Ai August 19, 2002 trees and shrubs. If funds are available they would like to look at the opportunity to do water and lighting schemes and maybe sculptures in the future. It is an opportunity to enhance the gateways as you come into the village. It is a very slow methodical process and they are using the McDonald's Jorie Blvd. medians as our goal. Those are not always going to be obtainable those areas are irrigated and take a lot of maintenance. This is a start and they would like to build on it year after year. Any comments or suggestions would be forwarded to the Village Board and will be contingent upon funding. They are projecting to actually start this year at the York and 22nd Street area. There is a proposal with a landscape architect and the detailed scheme will be taken back to the Board. On page 1 -c of the case file, they are hoping to do the first 5 items listed this year. Member Tappin asked what kind of response was received from the Homeowner's Associations. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a letter was sent to them on July 22, 2002 and nothing has been received to date. Member Tappin asked if the divider on Meyers by the Saddle Brook Subdivision, south of 35th Street could be included because it needs attention. Director of Public Works Meranda said that they would not do it right now, because it is County right -of -way and they are trying to do just the Village owned areas right -of -way. In the long -range goal they would try to take care of the county and state areas to do additional plantings. Chairwoman Payovich asked if they are anticipating completing the Village owned plantings within the five -year plan shown. Director of Public Works believes that will take care of the Village -owned parkways. They would then go into other areas. Member Adrian, asked if only medians are being included in the beautification plan, or if other areas within the Village being considered, such as the population signs? The signs are very plain. Director of Public Works said that all the population's signs are different and it could be something they could look into. Need to be careful for funding. Member Tappin asked about the maintenance on Jorie Blvd., and how much damage has been done from the street salt. Director of Public Works Meranda said maintenance is very important. If there is no irrigation available, a low bid contractor is used and some of the plantings have died or are not doing very well. They must be maintained. We have gone through two very difficult summers, July no rain and last July was the same, without supplemental irrigation, plantings cannot handle it. Chairwoman Payovich asked in the McDonald's area was irrigated. Director of Public Works Meranda said that the entire area is irrigated and McDonald has spent over $250,000 on that area. They are anticipating having the plans come back from the landscape architect by next week and then they would like to take those renderings to the Village Board. They do not want to do soldier -row trees; they want something with interest and theme. The goal is not to just plant a few trees and bushes. Director of Public Works Meranda said page 1 -a is an example of a median planting and the cost runs $51,000 to $69,00 per year. One of the goals is to put in things that spread on their own as they grow. They are looking at approximately $300,000 over five years. There will be a landscape plan for the median on 31St Street, but they have not seen it as yet, which is usually very late in the process. Member Adrian suggested perhaps the village should consider starting smaller plants on village property and as they mature they can be transplanted to another area. Director of Public Works Director said that it was a good idea, but they would have to see if they had space availability and manpower to do it. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2002 6 PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc y There are no public monies available. A grant was received several years ago, which was only about $10,000 and that was the last time they were able to get anything. Director of Public Works Meranda said that the last time the Village had some kind of grant was when the State worked on 31 s' and Route 83. They beautified the infields themselves, but they will not do it for Village right -of -ways. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission members to provide comments to the Village Board. Member Girgis noted that Hinsdale has a program downtown and people adopt it. There may be some creative way of incorporating a sense of community and have the residents participate in some way. There is an "Open- Lands" organization and volunteers offer their time and materials at cost in lieu of a donation to "Open- Lands" People would not have to go out and actually do the work. Themselves. Director of Public Works Meranda said that they tried "Adopt a Highway" program and it failed miserably. Bob said that in staff report there was a consensus on the program however, there was a comment said that they would to see it expanded to some of the county roads, Meyers, York, etc. There is an interest in sprucing up the population signs at some point in the future. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Tappin to recommend support of the program to the Village Board along with the following comments: 1. Expand the project at some point to include state and county right -of -ways. 2. Explore the possibility of replacing the population signs. 3. Interest in seeing what the County is going to do with 31St Street 4. Consider the use of drought tolerant trees and plants 5. Maintenance of the plantings 6. Village to look at the possibility of growing some plantings on Village property to curtail some of the costs. 7. Consider irrigation of some of the areas. 8. Use of salt tolerant plantings. 9. Insure that the maintenance of the plantings is very important after they are planted. If not maintained it would look terrible and costly plantings may not survive. 10. Encourage a sense of community by residents. Consider a program that would allow residents /families to adopt planters. There is an organization called open lands. They have volunteers that donate their time, materials are purchased at cost and in lieu of a donation to "Open Lands" by whomever they are helping. If someone adopts a section, they may not actually have to do the work. Could lighten the Village burden. 11. Explore the possibility of seeking corporate participating by way of maintenance or contributions for landscaping in front of commercial buildings. Perhaps the commercial properties could maintain the landscaping once planted. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vl. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business on the agenda. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 7 PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc August 19, 2002 Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Director of Com unity Development Secretary PLAN COMMISSION Minutes F-J PC -MTG 02- AUG.doc September 16, 2002 Date Approved August 19, 2002