Loading...
Minutes - 09/16/2002 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 16, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Village Trustee Village Engineer Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian Samuel Girgis Anthony Tappin Surendra Goel Alfred Savino Dale Durfey Robert Kallien Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to waive the reading of the August 19, 2002 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. PARILLE — 214 FOREST TRAIL— FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY AND A PORTION OF THE GARAGE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN Anthony and Karyn Parille, are the petitioners and owners of the property. Bill Lorek, P.E., Civil Engineer said that he prepared the flood plain calculations and the design of the grading and compensatory storage for the site. Mr. Lorek reviewed the request. Presently there is construction on an addition at the rear of the existing house that is not in the flood plain. They are proposing to add a 3 -car garage in front of the home. Presently the house has a driveway on the south side of the lot and they are proposing to extend the drive into a horseshoe style in order to have access to the proposed garage. The present driveway is not in the flood plain. To accomplish this new driveway design minor filling of the flood plain would be required. The total fill needed is under 1400 cubic feet. For comparison, a standard two -car garage would have four times the volume as what they would be required to fill. The Ordinance requires that they compensate for the filling by excavating at a rate of 1.5:1 times the volume. They are proposing to offset the filling for the corner of the garage and a little of the driveway by filling in the front area inside the driveway. They are also working to preserve oak trees that are in the front of the property. The compensatory storage will be provided in the area between the driveway and the street. It would start with a slight taper and would go down less than two feet in any place. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc �L'U . September 16, 2002 Mr. Lorek noted in the Village Engineer's report, next year there will be a change to the flood plain in this area and it would probably be reduced by 1% feet, that would make this situation easier because they would be less compensatory excavation they would have to do, but they would still have to do some cutting and filling if they waited until next year. Since the house is presently under construction, they would like to get the whole thing done before the end of the construction season this year. They would appreciate a positive recommendation on this request. Mr. Parille reviewed the standards for a flood plain special use as required by Ordinance. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. There will be no risk to life and property due to the slight encroachments. The area is well away from Salt Creek and there will be no increase to flood heights due to what they are proposing. They are proposing to compensate for any storage by 1.5:1, so it would have no impact on the flood heights or velocities. 2. The danger that material may be swept onto other lands, or cross - stream, upstream or downstream to the injury of others. There is no danger of injury to others because of the encroachment, they are well away from Salt Creek, which is to the west of this property. The flows do not come down this way. This is an area that will not have any impact on the flow. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. The proposed structure and driveway will not interfere with the prevention of these mishaps. The existing sewer and water system are protected adequately from any flood inundation. They are not raising any levels or causing any additional flows and are actually providing additional storage. 4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. There is no risk of damage to the owner due to the encroachment. It is a garage and a driveway and will be elevated one foot above the flood elevation presently which is a requirement of the Village. The garage is slab on grade so there would be no susceptibility to flood damage. 5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. They are proposing to add a garage similar to those presently in the community. The compensatory storage will blend into the grading and landscaping in the front yard. The proposed driveway and garage are common in the Timber Trails subdivision and will blend well and only add to its beautification. The Timber Trails -Merry Lane Property Association has approved the plans. 6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. This does not apply to the proposed structure or property. 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with the existing development and development anticipated in the near future. The proposed structures are completely compatible with the house and the subdivision. It is part of the building review permit process for the garage to be approved including all of the grading. 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for the area. The proposal of the garage and driveway are fully compatible and meets all ordinance requirements for storage volume and elevations. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc 2 1 j September 16, 2002 9. The safety of access to the property in time so flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. Complete access is available in times of flood or emergency, which is part of the reason why the driveway has to be elevated when it crosses the swale. 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. There are no expectations for any of these at the site location. The stream and conveyance are at the very west side of the property and has nothing to do with this site. 11. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Chapter. This does not apply. Mr. Parille noted the current home is a ranch with a one -car garage. They would like to add the additional garage space, which would require the relocation of the driveway into a horseshoe shape. Many homes have horseshoe driveways. Chairwoman Payovich said that she drove past the home to view the site. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his September 9, 2002 memo and said that the high water mark was confirmed, he agrees with the calculations and he has no issues with it. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. None of the members had any further questions regarding the request. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the flood plain special use, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 2. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Goel Motion Carried. IV. JOHN G. STOB SUBDIVISION — 3050 HUNT CLUB DRIVE — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien said that the property is located on the northwest corner of Hunt Club Drive and Oak Brook Road. It is presently one large parcel just over two acres in size. There is a small home on the property. A variation was granted several years ago relating to lot area so that it would qualify for a future subdivision. As such, the applicant wishes to subdivide the property into two parcels and the existing home would be removed. Gil Evans, Land Surveyor, Bollinger, Lach and Associates reviewed the proposal. The property contains a total of 2.302 acres. The southerly fifty feet of the property is already in a dedicated right -of -way at Oak Brook Road and is not part of the lot calculations in terms of meeting the requirements. The property is zoned R -2 and has one single family home on it. The zoning to the north of the property is zoned R -2, to the east is R -1, to the west is R -2 and to the south of Oak Brook Road is zoned R -1. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc 3 C�c September 16, 2002 Hunt Club Drive was created via easements for highway and utilities. There is a 45 -foot easement on the east side and a 15 -foot easement which is situated on the property that they are looking to subdivide. In 1997, a variation was granted that allowed the 15 -foot easement to be included in the overall lot area to meet the zoning requirement for lot area. They are seeking to create two lots out of an existing parcel, which would entail the demolition of the existing home that currently straddles the lot line. The southerly lot would measure 216 feet by 210 feet. The gross area of the lot would be 1.04 acres. The net acreage without the easement would be .971 acres, but it is included in the overall acreage to meet the zoning requirement. The northerly lot would measure 216 feet by 203.5 feet and the gross area of the lot would be 1.01 acres. It has .07 acres in the easement area. Incorporating the Ordinance that was passed, they are not seeking any other variations and meet all of the other requirements of the subdivision regulations. They are required to place a water main extension that would run along the west side of Hunt Club Drive. It would tie -in at Hunt Club Lane at the southwest quadrant of the intersection and would run along the west side of Hunt Club Drive cross the street and tie into the water main that runs on the south side of Oak Brook Road (31St Street). It would be roughly 1100 feet of water main, as well as three fire hydrants and two b -boxes to service these two houses. They are asking not to change the character of Hunt Club Drive. The area is a rural cross - section that has no curb and gutter. It is a beautiful area already vegetated and landscaped. They are seeking several variations to the Subdivision Regulations. In particular, they are seeking to waive the curb and gutter, street tree plantings and street lighting, sidewalks and storm sewer. Since the development is under three acres they are not required to provide any detention. John Lizzadro, 308 Oak Brook Road, owns the property adjacent to the subject property. His only concern was additional stormwater runoff problems because the elevation is very flat and whenever there is any rain it is like a river. He asked how that would be handled when they build on the property, because he will get the water run off. Village Engineer Durfey responded that most of the land falls from the north to the south. There is a roadside swale at Hunt Club Drive then it is picked up at a storm sewer at 31St Street. The proposed grading plan maintains that concept. The location of the storm sewer is at the low point and after that it goes up hill. There is not much that can be done without spending a lot of money to redesign the whole system. Mr. Evans said that they are preserving the overall existing pattern right now. They are essentially taking the majority of the water that is coming and carry it through the property. Trustee Savino questioned that when someone builds up the foundation higher than the existing land around it and said that the Village addresses drainage problems on some lots at the Village expense. He asked if the Village would be involved in a possible future project to the surrounding lots to provide drainage for them. Village Engineer Durfey responded that nothing has been planned, but the future is hard to tell. From the drawings and the topography provided it does not appear that there will be a future problem. As long as the house is built up and the drainage is designed to go around the homes to the lot line swales it should not cause a problem. Member Tappin asked if the drain sewer has the capacity to handle the water flow that is going to be developed. Village Engineer Durfey said that it is a good -sized sewer and should not have any problems. Member Girgis asked Mr. Lizzadro if this answered his issues and he responded that it did. Pete Dellaportas, 3030 Hunt Club Road lives just north of the petitioners lot. His entire property line on the south does have swales when it rains, so something needs to be done. The swale on Hunt Club does not quite drain the water. For some reason, it needs a better pitch. Every time a house is PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 4 PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc September 16, 2002 developed, it needs to be corrected. He asked if the petitioner was trying to seek a recapture for any adjacent property owners. Mr. Evans answered yes, but was not sure if this was the forum to do it. Mr. Dellaportas said four years ago, he was before the Village asking for a grant to put in a well because they did not have water. The Village said that he would have to put in the water himself, then go to the neighbor and try to do it together financially. The former owner of the property wanted nothing to do with the expense, so he had no alternative but to put a well in at his own cost. He spent in excess of $25,000 to put in the well. Chairwoman Payovich asked if this board should address the recapture issue. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ultimately it would require Village Board approval. Mr. Evans said that essentially the petitioner is being required by Village Code to put in the water main. They have had to address the issue of cost and the preliminary cost was around $62,000 to provide water for two homes. Essentially, the brunt of the cost is to provide water for one home because the water main could be tapped across from 31s` Street and the other water main would not have to be constructed at all. The water main is being constructed in this manner as required by Village Ordinance, but it is an expensive proposition. This subdivision was proposed quite a while ago and the reason it probably did not happen was the cost of installing the water main for two lots. The petitioner bought the property with the understanding that it could be divided and they did not particularly realize at the time what would be entailed in order to do this. They are seeking help if at all possible. Member Tappin asked if the Public Works Department has commented on this matter and Village Engineer Durfey said that they have not received a comment as yet. Chairwoman Payovich asked about recaptures. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is predetermined where someone fronts the entire cost of the improvement and then it is a matter of dividing equitably on a footage basis or per unit basis so that all parties are contributing a fair amount to the improvement. In this case, there are two lots and the water main would service these two lots and could ultimately service the third lot, so their benefit is 66.7% if there is another party connecting to it. There is not a big history in Oak Brook on how to handle this especially for an infill piece of property, which is somewhat problematic. Once the improvements are accepted and constructed, they are then the Village's responsibility for maintenance. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his memo dated September 10, 2002. Waiving land improvements with the exception of the water main is typical in this type of an improvement. It is less than three acres so detention is not required. The Public Works Department has been given the opportunity to make comments. These items can all be addressed in due time. Member Adrian thought they should discuss the recapture agreement. The Commission members asked several questions of the petitioner and Mr. Dellaportas. Normally this is addressed up front, He would love to tap into the water main but did not think a 66133 split was fair, since he has already spent $20,000+ on a well when he was denied water by the Village. Mr. Evans said that there already is an 8 -inch water main that creates a loop. They are doing this to satisfy water main requirements and the only lot that needs it is Lot Two. Roy Buziecki, petitioner and Mr. Dellaportas discussed the water main issue and agreed that it would be fair for Mr. Dellaportas contribute 116 of the final engineering cost to tap into the water main. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision as submitted, subject to the following conditions: PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc 5 r-- September 16, 2002 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 2. Concur with the agreement between the applicant and the property owner at 3030 Hunt Club who will pay 1/6 of the final engineering cost of the water main when developed. 3. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Goel Motion Carried. V. 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 at the last meeting additional language was reviewed which would further modify the fence regulations. A property owner from Saddlebrook also addressed some issues that she has with some unincorporated property adjacent to her lot. The Plan Commission continued the matter so that it could look at how this revised language would impact the community and may impact specific situations where there are fences that are required. Member Tappin said that he went to view the property Budovec property in Saddlebrook and said that it was in fact very bad. The neighbor in the unincorporated area behind her property has built a 5 %2 to six foot wooden fence all around their property to shield themselves from all the noise. He suggested to her that she ask permission to build a fence approximately 20 feet long on the property along the side of her property, but in unincorporated Westmont. She would be willing to pay for it but she may need some help negotiating or getting permission from the property owner. The Saddlebrook Homeowners Association would certainly try to help and guide her. Everything she said at the last meeting was true, although the noise and exhaust does not occur every day only on the weekends. This may be the solution to her problem, because she wants to put up a six -foot solid fence on the rear of her property. He is aware that she has picked up an application for a variation, however, he does not believe that Saddlebrook would approve the fence that she wants to put up there on the rear of her property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if that is the direction that they will go, then it would be a legal matter between the two adjacent properties. Without proper language between the parties it could end up being just a temporary solution, because the fence that benefits Mrs. Budovec is in essence on someone else's property and she would not necessarily control the fence. If that does not work out then her alternative is to seek out a variation or come up with some other alternate screening of landscaping that would be hardier to the conditions. Chairwoman Payovich said that she has two choices; to handle it personally either with an attorney and Saddlebrook or to apply for a variation. Director of Community Development Kallien said a third option would be to try some sort of landscaping that has not been tried yet. She is trying to protect her property value so there may be some incentive to expend the funds to try to work out a solution with the adjacent property owner. Director of Community Development Kallien summarized that in Section 13 -3 -6 -B of the Zoning Ordinance the chart would be amended to 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 PC -MTG 02- SEP.dOC �6 iY iL September 16, 2002 By changing the gauge of the wire would insure that the fence would have a certain degree of integrity to it. The fence that goes around the Forest Gate Subdivision is a silver chain link fence and there is a portion of the fence along 31st Street that does not have a top member on it. What happens is that the fencing becomes rather flimsy at the top, which is what they are trying to avoid so that the fence does not lose its integrity over time. In addition, the 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." Member Tappin said that he believes the color should just be one color dark green or black to insure more uniformity. Trustee Savino said that prohibiting slats in the chain link fence should be included in the language. Everyone agreed that slats should be prohibited. Member Girgis asked if the Village should consider consulting an architect to look at the options. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if a standard is going to be developed it should apply uniformly throughout the community. If we do not, then the burden of proving why it is written or enforced in a certain way is put back on the Village. Chairwoman Payovich asked if someone is repairing /replacing an existing fence more than 50 %, could it be included that they would need to conform to the new standards. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed that a percentage should be included to act as a trigger. Member Tappin asked about increasing the height of fences along the perimeter of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that issue was discussed prior to going to the Village Board. However, the potential effect of six -foot height hodgepodge fencing was not desirable. Member Tappin said that Saddlebrook has a situation coming up in the future regarding replacing the existing 5 -foot flimsy fence that they would like to increase it to a six feet high chain link fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the other scenario they could look at, would be when there is an entire subdivision or larger developments that abut up to one of the situations in place that would result in uniformity because it would be a larger development that would be installing the improvement. If that could be done it would avoid the hodgepodge effect. There was a consensus to review different types of fencing that the Village would like to incorporate. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this is a very complex issue and does not have to be rushed through the Plan Commission. He said that he would try to get some samples of different kinds of fencing available out there and would also talk to an architect to see if they have any suggestions. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Tappin to continue this matter to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. 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- SEP.doc September 16, 2002 V11. 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. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes F PC -MTG 02- SEP.doc Director of Coimjr4uTRy3Wvelopment Secretary s October 21, 2002 Date Approved September 96, 2002