Loading...
Minutes - 09/15/2008 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 15, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: CALLTOORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:33 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Richard Knitter, Mintu Sharma., Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski ABSENT: Member Gopal Lalmalani IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Community Development Director and Dale Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 2008 Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Iyer to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2008 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. The Plan Commission revised the order of the evening agenda and agreed to hear the New Business before the Village matter. 5. NEW BUSINESS _ NEW BUSINESS A. FULLERS13URG HISTORIC FOUNDATION — TEXT AMENDMENT — FULLERSBUaO HISTORIC CHAPTER 8 OF ZONING ORDINANCE — AMEND TEXT TO PERMIT FOUNDATION - THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT STRUCTURES RE HISTORICAL STRUCTURES Mr. Walter O'Brien, Attorney for the applicant, the Fullersburg Historic Foundation with Audrey Muschler representing the Foundation, reviewed the request. Mr. O'Brien said that the Staff Report raised an issue that "the proposed text amendment seeks to ensure that certain referenced historic structures cannot be "demolished, razed, or removed." This language may conflict with private property rights. Buildings owned by the public have a far greater chance of being preserved." VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 17 September 15, 2008 �+y He suggested that the proposed language be modified, since the Staff Report noted that the Village did not have building plans on file that relate to the identified structures and that the text be modified would state that the structures are to be restored "substantially to the condition they were in prior to the fire and or other casualty or in accordance with the plans on file with the Village, if any." Some of the uses are nonconforming uses and under the ordinance do not have a right to be reconstructed. The amendment tries to accomplish the ability to rebuild so that the structures would not be razed since they are historical structures either by an owner or another public entity. The intention is to try to protect the Village to keep the historical district in the shape that it is in now. Audrey Muschler provided some historical background. She said that the Fullersburg Historic District is the only district in all of metropolitan Chicago that has five of the original buildings, including the Graue Mill, Miller's house, Ben Fullers house, Faith Fellowship Church and the York Tavem. When a survey was done in 1974 it was stated that the whole district was an archaeological site dating back to 5000 B.C. In 1980, the Ben Fuller House (built around 1840) was threatened to be demolished for the construction of a commercial building. They were able to work with the Forest Preserve District and were able to move the building onto the Forest Preserve District property. If it had remained on its original site, it would have qualified to be placed on the National Register. The Graue Mill was placed on the National Register of Historic places. The Village of Oak Brook and the Village of Hinsdale created a gateway historic preservation ordinance and listed that area as a historic district. They were concerned with the York Tavern and the Miller's house. The Forest Preserve District did not own the Miller's House. They started working with the Forest Preserve District and were asked by them to form an organization with representation from the Graue Mill and the Ben Fuller's House from Hinsdale and Oak Brook, which they have done and have worked with them ever since and have accomplished so much in relation to the sites and what they represent. Six parcels of land have been threatened with commercial development, but with the help of the Forest Preserve of DuPage County, the Village of Oak Brook and the State of Illinois, which has put in $1.5 million, $705 million has been spent on that district. This was another step taken to make sure these buildings could be reconstructed and would not be razed. Mr. O'Brien noted that the Zoning Ordinance only deals with 2 out of the 5 structures, so the first step would be to include the other structures that are in that district. There are only 2 that are legal nonconforming, the church and York Tavern. The language would ensure that if there were a fire, this would ensure that they would not be razed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 17 September 15, 2008 Sandra Brubaker, Executive Director of Graue Mill and Museum and who is also on the Board of the Fullersburg Historic Foundation, said that she represented the Board of Directors for the Graue Mill and Museum at this hearing and that they supported the proposed amendments. More than 6,000 school children every year come to this area for field trips and the importance of an historic district can be seen; and what it offers for the children to see the mill and the miller's house and understand that is where people worked and how they lived, The community supports keeping these historic structures alive and they would like to see them protected. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that 2 letters were received. One was from the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County asking that the Plan Commission defer its final consideration in this matter. He noted that it was admirable to go down this path to preserve these structures, but he was uncomfortable the way that the language was written. The York Tavern had not been consulted, and they should weigh in on the proposed text. When the text was reviewed the main concern was how it was written because the state statutes are clear about what happens with a nonconforming use; and the Village Attorney was comfortable with that language. However, the provision as written states that these structures cannot be moved, razed or demolished is a concern because it takes out any control by the owner of the property. Of the 5 structures, the York Tavern is the only true nonconforming use, because the underlying zoning is R -2. The church may have some nonconforming setbacks, but churches are an underlying use in a residential district. There are other concerns with mandating that something be rebuilt, such as insurance involvement, the owner having the funds to rebuild, etc., and these are things that the village cannot control. Member Tropinski also noted that the language has a timeframe for construction and there is the probability that the Village would not have building plans for most of these structures. She questioned who would be charged with bringing the structures up to code, especially with the protection of health, safety and welfare. With historically significant buildings, someone is needed to oversee the construction to ensure what is done and that it would be appropriate. She questioned which buildings had been reviewed as being historically significant. Ms. Muschler responded that there is a member on their board who is involved with the Landmark's Preservation Council and has a PHD in historic preservationist. She was involved with the historically accurate restoration of the York Tavern during its reconstruction. Ms. Brubaker added that the Graue Mill and the Miller's House have sprinkler systems. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that when the Graue House was rebuilt, it was a cooperative effort between the Village's Community Development VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page e33 of 17 September 15, 2008 Y� Department and the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, since it was owned by the County and was upgraded in terms of safety. The York Tavern also had a sprinkler system added during its reconstruction. Those 3 buildings are probably the most protected. If the amendment goes forward for approval, he suggested that pictures of the structures should be kept on file so that it could be determined at a later date what the buildings looked like. Member Knitter questioned the difference between the Oak Brook Historical Society and the Fullersburg Historic Foundation. Ms. Muschler responded that the Forest Preserve District wanted separate representation by an organization to deal with the Fullersburg area, which is located in Oak Brook and Hinsdale. Fifty percent of the people they work with are from Hinsdale. Member Tropinski questioned that if the other structures would be added to the National Register, then the ordinance would not need to be adopted because the buildings would be protected. Ms. Muschler responded that the Ben Fuller House would not qualify because it was moved from its original site. They have talked with the National Historical Register Coordinator for the State of Illinois. and they do not think that the Graue house qualifies for the National Register. They have not explored the possibility where the church is concerned. Jean Follett, who is the Historic Preservationist, believes that the York Tavern qualifies for the National Register, but they do not know whether the owner would want that designation, because it would put certain restrictions on the owner. Member Singhal asked if the owner of the York Tavern would want to do something different with their land in the future, how would that conflict be resolved under the proposed text. Mr. O'Brien responded that the York Tavern is a nonconforming use and has been issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the modifications made to the structure, for ADA purposes. Any further changes would require that they come back before the Village because the structure is located in the historical district and would have to be granted approval for any modification. If it were destroyed they would like to see that it could be rebuilt as it currently is. The proposed language allows that as the structure currently exists that it would be legal as opposed to legal nonconforming. Member Tropinski said that she had a problem in the instance that should the York Tavern be destroyed by fire, and the owner did not have the financial means to rebuild, the ordinance as drafted places a burden mandating that it must be rebuilt and that construction must start within 12 months, which is vague about what VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 17 September 15, 2008 �t t 13 "construction started" meant. Mr. O'Brien noted that if it were to be reconstructed it would be required to be rebuilt the way it looked prior to the fire. He said that the intent of the language was that if there was the intent to rebuild, it must at least commence within 12 months. In fairness to the property owner, if he did not want to reconstruct, he would not need to. However, if the intention would be to rebuild, then it would have to comply with the Certificate of Appropriateness that was granted. The language protects the process because should 50 percent or more of a legal nonconforming structure be damaged, they would not have a right to rebuild unless the village would allow it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that two letters had been received addressing concerns with the proposed language. The letter from the Forest Preserve District stated that they would like the matter continued in order to study the possible impacts. Although, Mr. O'Brien offered some additional suggestions to address some of the concerns raised, by the Plan Commission, it would be appropriate to continue the hearing. Motion by Member Singhal, seconded by Member Iyer to continue the hearing to the next Plan Commission meeting to allow the Forest Preserve District additional time to respond as well as Mr. O'Brien. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Iyer, Sharma, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: I — Member Knitter Absent: 1 — Member Lahnalani. Motion Carried. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS Village Engineer Durfey said that this is a very complex issue and staff would continue to provide as much information as possible so that the Plan Commission could discuss each item and then make a recommendation. He referred to his memorandum dated May 14, 2008 beginning on page 36 of the case file. GOALS — WHAT WE ARE 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 2. Village Liability 3. Should the parkways be clear and relatively uncluttered VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 17 September 15, 2008 UNFINISHED BUSINESS VOB- REVIEW OFOBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS 4. Should a goal be that space and access is available for utilities and JULIE locates? 5. Should a goal be to reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction or maintenance is needed? 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 be a goal? 8. Are there other goals? At the last meeting there was a discussion regarding the need for safety items and issues, aesthetics and uniformity as goals, then discussion would be needed as to the details of objectives in order to meet those goals. Member Knitter said that safety, aesthetics and uniformity are three goals. Member Singhal said that he would agree, as long as safety also deals with the liability issue since the Village would need to consider that in its decision. Member Knitter said that part of the goal would be in how it is implemented. For example, if the Village is worried about boulders, is there worry about trees, fire plugs, mailboxes made out of wood or concrete, there are telephone poles etc. and where do you draw the line. If you remove boulders for safety and liability, then trees, fireplugs, mailboxes, etc., because they could all damage a car. Village Engineer Durfey said that there are public and private type issues. A fire hydrant has a public purpose to help provide fire protection to a neighborhood. Trees have a public purpose, which provides nature to a neighborhood. A boulder in front of someone's home does not provide a public purpose; it is private to the individual homeowner for aesthetics. Member Sharma asked what the extent of the problem has been in Oak Brook. Village Engineer Durfey responded that approximately 10 to 20 percent have placed something in front of their property. Member Knitter said that if cars hit a mailbox or boulder the liability issue would be the same. Member Singhal said that it was reported that in the last 50 years there have not been any real safety or liability issues. Village Engineer Durfey commented that a Police Department memo was submitted and is on page 31 of the case file. He was not aware of any lawsuits to date. Member Singhal questioned if the Village should hold a bigger context issue VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 17 September 15, 2008 regarding how safely is the driving being done. Should the Village look at the issue of enforcing the traffic /driving regulations more stringently than the objects in the right of way? From a legal perspective does the Village become accountable if it is a drunk driver, or a driver that is speeding or driving carelessly? Under those circumstances is there a liability that the Village would even need to worry about. Can we really say that it is the object in the right of way that could cause an accident and is the bigger issue enforcing the driving rules? Member Knitter said that it could be speed bumps or the ridges that are put on the side of the road, if you start to leave the road then you become aware of that before an object is hit. Village Engineer Durfey noted that there are several memos in the file from the Village attorney's and its insurance attorney that if someone, whether or not they are drunk and hit something in the Village right of way that the Village knew that it should not be there, so the Village could have additional liability. Member Knitter said that to him, it is where you draw the line. If the goal is safety and liability, then there are probably 99 percent of the lots that have an object in the right of way, whether it is a tree or a mailbox. Village Engineer Durfey responded that if an errant vehicle left the roadway and hit a fire hydrant, then it would be legally different than hitting a boulder, because a fire hydrant has a public purpose and are expected, and a boulder is not. Parkways are typically 15 -20 feet wide where the roadway ends and the private property begins. The original plan had a ten -foot clear zone that had restrictions that allowed certain things to be placed. Most agencies have a clear area. As an example, in Rolling Meadows, if a resident wanted to place something in the right of way past the clear area, they would have to sign a covenant and provide insurance in order for the village to okay it. Theoretically the homeowner would be responsible if someone hit it. Most of the things in our village's right of way were placed there without permission. The vast minority has received a permit and a covenant. Member Iyer asked if the village attorney should be at the hearing. He asked if the Village could use those examples that are being used by other villages instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Village Engineer Durfey said that they are in the file to be used as guidance as to what other towns do. Member Sharma said that it seems like most of the other towns are not in favor of objects in the parkways and more restrictions have been put in place since 2006. Larry Whitlow from Chateau Woods said that he takes great exception as to what is said in the survey, which only lists towns that have restrictions. His wife spent VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 17 September 15, 2008 many hours talking to all the neighboring towns and most have no restrictions. Gary Kronen, 418 Luthin Road said that as expected, Village Attorney Sterk presented the worst -case scenario from a legal case and insurance perspective. It was clear from his comments that the Village would not be responsible from a liability perspective for injuries sustained in the parkway, which had already been determined in an Illinois court. There is no liability. All he said is that you cannot prevent someone from suing. Most surrounding villages have five feet or less in their rights of way. Does this Village have more, just because the lots are larger? There have been no issues with utilities or EMS with objects in the right of way. The only thing being discussed is theoretical issues because there have not been any practical issues regarding anything in the right of way. There has never been a survey presented to substantiate the cost, although'a resident from Chateau Woods had an estimate of over $6,000 to remove three boulders. Does the Village really want to spend its tax dollars to clean up the mess? The overwhelming majority of encounters have been with mailboxes and there has been only one accident with a vehicle and an object in the right of way. Although there has been a lot of talk about boulders, there has been no discussion regarding construction issues, when things come up during construction. The first thing that should be discussed is the grandfathering and what should be allowed to stay before something is decided on how to handle things in the future. His retaining wall is about 9 feet behind the street and goes about 4 feet over the line. There are drainage tiles under to support it. The highest portion of the wall is about 18 inches high. Member Knitter asked if someone were driving and hit the retaining wall, how much Rather would they travel before they hit a tree. Mr. Kronen responded about 5 feet. The retaining wall on the west side of the property would actually stop someone from hitting a huge oak tree that is about 100 years old. The wall is a lot safer than other things in the right of way. Henry Richo, 11 Lochinvar said that the issue they are having in Ginger Creek is that there are overgrown bushes in place along the curbs that people have had for many years, which have become a visual hazard when making turns. There are also boulders that are placed so close that a car could potentially hit it and cause an accident. They are seeking a way when an ordinance is adopted to be able to go to their homeowners and make them comply due to the safety issue. Chairwoman Payovich asked for clarification as to whether the issue with the bushes was to cut them back to allow for a line of sight or for them to be removed. Mr. Richo responded that it was to have the bushes trimmed from the line of sight so that they would be no more than a couple of feet off the ground, then it would not be an issue when you are turning. The bushes abut the street. A legal document is needed to require them to do that, because right now they don't have to. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 17 September 15, 2008 IRV- Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane asked whether input had been received from the insurance companies and how they viewed it. She questioned whether it would be seen as the driver's responsibility under his or her own insurance. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed the objectives from his May 14, 2008 memo: OBJECTIVES TO MEET GOALS 1. If safety is a goal, than a reasonable area should be left open and private items that could cause harm should not be 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 August 29, 2001 Standard allowed small boulders less than 8" in height as an option. It was discussed that such small items should not cause undue harm. Both Standards utilized a 10 -foot private clear zone. Rolling Meadows uses a 3 -foot clear zone. Whatever size zone is approved, only those items that should not cause harm should be permitted. 2. If reducing Village liability is a goal, then options are available. 3. Clear and uncluttered parkways, relating to aesthetic items. 4. Does not apply 5. Does not apply 6. There are a myriad of items that could be placed in the parkway, such as: • Sprinkler lines • Light Posts • Small Identification walls • Ornate/substantial mailbox structures • "Mirror" ornate mailbox -type structures • Trees — this is covered in another section of the Public Works Construction Standards. • Shrubs • Hedgerows • Retaining walls • Boulders of various sizes • Vertical posts VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 17 September 15, 2008 • Fences • Underground dog fences It should be 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 not - 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/indemnification might mitigate this. Former Public Works Director Meranda stated at the April 21, 2008 meeting that his annual costs would only be several thousand dollars to repair sprinkler lines that are damaged for water main breaks. However, repairing dog fences and other items could significantly increase that amount. Additionally, with each Village capital project (road resurfacing with curb repairs drainage improvements, etc.), cost could very possibly be significant. 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/indemnification would also be appropriate. Additionally, allowing the placement of items without engineering review and permitting could cause damage to an existing utility (e.g., manhole, water main or service line, valve, storm sewer, street light cables) or other items. Village Engineer Durfey said that the most recently enforced clear area from the edge of road was ten feet, which would preclude people from placing above ground objects. Member Knitter agreed that 10 feet would seem to be appropriate. Member Singhal questioned whether the enforcement of 10 feet would require the removal of the shrubs that have created a visual obstruction in Ginger Creek. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the Code, which is now in abeyance, said that a small boulder measuring 8 inches high could be placed in the clear zone, because if a car hit a boulder of that size, the chances are that the risk factor would be low, versus that of a two foot high boulder, which has a much higher risk factor. Member Singhal said that the enforcement of something that had already been in place, if someone can justify that a wall can provide more safety and more beautiful, the Village Engineer could do that. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 17 September 15, 2008 Village Engineer Durfey responded that would be dependent upon the final policy that is adopted. Member Knitter said that he did not mind moving forward that if boulders are 8 inches or smaller they would be acceptable and larger than 8 inches they are not acceptable. If a homeowner would request a variance then the Engineering Dept., then they could accept them on a case -by -case basis, as deemed appropriate. Village Engineer Durfey confirmed that the consensus of the Plan Commission would be to permit a 10 -foot clear zone. Items that are not bulky and are 8 inches or smaller would be permitted because it would be a low risk factor. Below ground items within the 10 -foot zone that would be acceptable would be sprinkler lines and invisible dog fences. Both would require a permit and the homeowner would sign a covenant that would state if they were dug up by a utility company or the village for whatever reason, then since they are located on Village property, they assume all responsibility for replacement or repair, not the Village. GRANDFATHEREDITEMS 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 and a reasonable are 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 parkway and an existing type of item is permitted, then it could remain under any approved condition such as a covenant or indemnification. 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," this seems like a meager replay). This could also affect the Village's liability; advice is needed from the Village Attorney. It is important to note that the vast majority of existing items within the right -of -way were placed without permission. This begs the question of if someone places an object on a village parkway without permission, why should it be kept just because it is there. If grandfathered items were permitted to remain, the only way to accomplish its implementation would be to inventory all Village Parkways (as Rolling Meadows did) and note the date. That date would then become the "start date." It would also be appropriate to.photograph and note each item with some characteristic identifiers for logging into a computer database for record keeping. However, this would only VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page I 1 of 17 September 15, 2008 FM 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 grandfathers. Additionally, there would be no way of knowing in the future if any underground items existed before the start date. A summer intern could accomplish the inventory at minimal cost. An additional concern is whether grandfathering would include items that were placed by residents after being told not to before the start date. Also, the question of safety and liability would remain on those items allowed before the start date. If grandfathering is approved, should the Village send a letter to all residents informing them of their grandfathered item and the start date? 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 "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, a public utility might demand that they be permitted to place above ground items close to a road if the Village allowed private items? Member Knitter questioned when the last ordinance was in place providing for a 10- foot clear area that did not allow a boulder larger than 10 inches, were those boulders grandfathered at that time? Village Engineer Durfey said that grandfathering was not permitted at that time. When Village Staff had time, they would go down the street and identify boulders or other items. The resident would be contacted and they would be given the option of removing it themselves or the Public Works Department would push the items back onto their property; or they would remove them. The file contains information that some residents did comply and other residents said that they would not do anything. They then complained to the Village Manager and that is where we are at today, when everything was just put on hold, until the Village Board makes a final decision. Member Tropinski noted that some items have been in place for many years and questioned whether those items could be documented, then have a form drafted that would be signed by the resident acknowledging that item was present and was grandfathered and that they release the Village from any liability or a hold harmless clause. The form should also state that they agree and understand that if any work is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 17 September 15, 2008 done in the area, the Village would not be responsible to repair or replace the item. The form would be recorded so that if the property were sold, the next owner would understand that if they wanted the item moved or repaired it would be done at their expense. Village Engineer Durfey added that the document would need to be recorded so the next owner would know. Member Singhal said that they had a situation in the Midwest Club where the owner did not respond to the notices to correct a situation within a set amount of time, after sending a couple of notices, the final notice stated that the Association would take care of the issue and bill the property owner, if they did not comply. He questioned if this type of system could work on a village -wide basis. Village Engineer Durfey said that notices could be sent, but was not sure about billing them for the work. The Village could remove the items at its cost. To provide an estimate of Village cost for removal could not be estimated due to the unknown of not knowing how much noncompliance would occur and what would need to be removed. Member Knitter commented with grandfathering, if people are permitted to maintain objects in the ROW by signing a covenant, then why couldn't people add new items and sign the same hold harmless agreement when they do so. It would not however, encourage the safety issue going forward. Member Tropinski said that grandfathering would prevent a hardship on residents, but someone buying or building, the law would be in effect and accepts those conditions in effect. Member Singhal noted that some things have been in existence for decades, that can be documented and those items can be grandfathered. Village Engineer Durfey said that if there is a 10 -foot clear zone and there is a 2 foot boulder located back of curb, the choice would be to move it back 10 feet and have a signed covenant recorded or it could be relocated behind the 10 foot clear zone by the owner or the Village. Member Knitter noted that boulders are located next to the roadway in Midwest Chase, but are allowed to remain since they are private streets. Member Singhal said that was why Midwest Club was able to enforce their actions through their by -laws. Member Iyer said that there must be a mechanism in place to grandfather items. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 17 September 15, 2008 1;;4 Larry Whitlow from Chateau Woods said that grandfathering means having an exemption from what is going forward. He said that they are known for having the biggest boulders in town and their insurance company has them fully covered. There is a $1 million liability policy in place. His boulders were in place over 30 years ago and were there long before he was there or officials sitting on the boards. Gary Kronen said that because some of these items have been on the books for so long and were never enforced by the Village, it cannot go back over 30 years to now enforce those items. The Village would probably face many lawsuits if that happened. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission to wait until the next meeting to decide upon grandfathering and to discuss the matter with the Village Attorney at its next meeting. ORNATE /SUBSTNATIAL MAILBOXES The U.S. Postal Service regulates mail service; therefore, mailboxes meeting their regulations must be permitted. Their minimum requirements are that a box into 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 omate. 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 covenant. At the February 28, 2007 Village Board meeting, there was some thought that the Village should contribute to the cost of repairing/replacing ornate mailboxes. He noted the following: 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 now 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 rimes when he does not know that he has caused damage. In those cases, staff assumes the resident is correct when they make a claim and replaces the mailbox. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 17 September 15, 2008 3. Village practice is: ■ Repair the existing structure at minimal cost, or ■ Replace mailboxes damaged by staff with a 4" x 4" wood post. Former Public Works Director Meranda suggested a 3rd option of reimbursing a resident a maximum of $75 on each mailbox repair /replacement. The resident then can install a simple mailbox and post or use the $75.00 toward a more ornate item. He noted that Burr Ridge has a $50.00 maximum for repair of mailboxes, Rolling Meadows uses $25- $50.00 and Westmont reimburses up to $100.00. 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 cause it? 5. Staff asked several builders the cost of such structures with the answer being about $1,000 43,000. 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 again and unsound structure. In a cursory inspection of the Trinity Lakes subdivision in 2006, 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 or a private one). In those cases, should the Village pay for the damage? In reviewing whether the Village should contribute, a comment at the February 28th Board meeting 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. On the two surveys (2001 and 2008), 7 out of 17 and 13 out of 31 towns allowed brick mailboxes, while 10 out of 17 and 18 out of 31 did not allow them. Regarding repairs, 6 out of 16 and 5 out of 29 towns did repair damage to brick mailboxes while 10 out of 16 and 24 out of 29 did not repair the damage. The two issues seem to be: 1. Should the Village permit ornate/substantial mailboxes? VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 17 September 15, 2008 2. Should the Village contribute to the cost of repairing/replacing omate mailboxes? Member Tropinski commented that she like the idea of a flat fee to repair or replace the mailbox. Member Iyer said that the Village should permit ornate mailboxes and provide a flat fee of $75 to $100. Member Singhal asked if the Village could control whether or not an ornate mailbox was allowed. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it could control what is allowed on its property, Some towns do not allow them. The Village allows them to be one foot from back of curb; a building permit is also required. Member Knitter said that he believes the existing Code is fine. Member Sirighal commented that he did not believe the Village should repair mailboxes unless it was clearly their fault. Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that over the past 37 years she has had several experiences. One time she had to go looking for her mailbox and another time, after she had purchased a beautiful mailbox with a matching stand it was hit by a snow plow and damaged. The top part of the mailbox was okay, and although the Village would not replace it with the same base, she was appreciative that the Village replaced the post; and they did a good job. Larry Whitlow said that prior to 2001 there it was his understanding that covenants did not exist. Village Engineer Durfey summarized that the consensus of the Plan Commission regarding ornate mailboxes is to allow them with a signed covenant and if damaged they would be replaced with a standard post -type mailbox or $100 toward the repair. Member by Member Singhal, seconded by Member Iyer to continue the review to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on October 20, 2008. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Iyer, Knitter, Sharma, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 Absent: 1 — Member Lalmalani. Motion Carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 17 September 15, 2008 --ow OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di for o ommunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 17 September 15, 2008 12-$' ADJOURNMENT