Loading...
Minutes - 10/18/2004 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 18, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 21, 2005. 1. CALL T 0 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. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members David Braune, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. ABSENT: Member Paul Adrian. IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Bulin, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2004 Regular Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. REFLECTION CIRCLE SUBDIVISION f /k/a FALCO SUBDIVISION — REFLECTION CIRCLE SUB — f /k/a 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — THREE -LOT FALCO SUB — 2901 SUBDIVISION OAK BROOK RD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — 3 -LOT SUB Director of Community Development Kallien briefly reviewed the proposal and the current status of the Plan Commission review. At the last meeting there were a number of issues that required further review. Jim Flowers stated that he represented the property owner, Vito Falco and introduced Robert Olson and Jiun Lin from Balsamo -Olson Engineering Co., the engineering firm for this project. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 20 October 18, 2004 Chairwoman Payovich asked Mr. Flowers to review the outstanding items from the last meeting. Mr. Flowers responded to each item as follows: 1 They were asked to provide conceptual drawings and materials to be used on the fence by the curbing. Response They have supplied the information requested on page 28 of the case file. 2. Provide the proposed design and actual elevation of the walls. Response. They have supplied the conceptual design on pages 33.c and 33.e of the case file. 3. Show location of the bike path to be relocated at least 5 feet from Oak Brook Road. Response They have met the location on both sides of the property, from the Village of Oak Brook property to the west to the Bear Manor side on the east. To move it to the south five feet would disturb the continuity and alignment of the bike path along 31" St and would not continue in the direct path where it connects from Bear Manor in a straight line encroaching further out into the Falco property would not keep it contiguous with the overall plan for the bike path. 4. The protective measures to be used to protect cars and pedestrian from falling into the detention ponds. Response They have submitted a barrier design on page 28 of the case file. It does meet with the guidelines and standards of preventing vehicles and pedestrians from accidentally falling into the pond. 5. Provide elevation of the building pads. Response The building pad elevation of the 2 proposed single- family lots are shown on the preliminary plat. The elevations are lower than the neighbors on the east and on the south of the property. The property to the west contains a series of ranches built in the 1950's that should not be compared to the building pad and elevations included on the subject property. 6. Meet with neighbor, George Mueller to review the revised plans and address his concerns. Response. He personally met with Mr. Mueller and reviewed the revised plan and he believes that they agreed that the improvements being made would not only compliment their property but would be aesthetically pleasing to Mr. Mueller from his site angle. 7. A comparison analysis of the original 4 lot plan versus the proposed 3 -lot plan. Response- The comparison was explained in the letter Dated October 115 2004 on page 30 of the case file. The original VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 20 October 18, 2004 plat is on page 29. Member Tropinski questioned the differences shown of the pond water on page 33.d, which looks totally different from what has been presented; and with the new pond configuration asked how it would meet the flood-lain requirements. Mr. Flowers responded that it is an alternate plan that was drawn up to address a certain safety issue contained in Member Tropinski's letter to the Commission, which identified a potential problem for pedestrians and cars. They provided a different layout for the pond with the possibility of having a segregated water area with grass around the water features. Both plans work from a geometry and a flood plain compensation perspective and provides an alternative as requested in item no. 8 in her letter on page 31 of the file. There is enough excess capacity contained within the walls within the retention area, and maintains a water level of 694.3. They do that by creating a hydraulically connected water feature between the existing pond and the new pond located a little further south. By doing that and providing for the necessary rise in elevation to the exterior retaining walls they still fall into the compensation requirements. Mr. Lin responded that there would be a rim in the lower tier of the wall to the bottom of the basin on the north end. Member Braune asked what the slopes would be from the second tier down to the mean water edge and how much concrete wall would be exposed. Mr. Flowers responded that there would be a 1% slope from the most inside wall to the water and that about 4 feet would be exposed, then a plateau and then additional varying heights, but the maximum would be another 4 V2 to 5 feet. Member Bulin said that the street elevation would still be approximately 705 -706 at its highest elevation. The safety ledge previously now is shrubbery. Member Wolin asked what the side view would look like. Mr. Flowers said that 33.b and 33.c show side elevations. Member Goel questioned if the revised plan is used, would they still need the retaining walls in order to keep the volume required by the County for the compensatory storage. The entire area within the retaining walls is considered floodplain compensation. Chairwoman Payovich questioned design details for the walls. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the Yorkshire VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 20 October 18, 2004 Glen Subdivision was reviewed it required a number of walls, when it went to the Village Board they requested additional details relative to the walls. The impact of walls in the Village has gone to another level since the Forest Gate Subdivision. Mr. Flowers said that they could only provide a conceptual_ plan. It was suggested that a concrete structure be visualized, whether they use a concrete wall or concrete aggregate material that makes up retaining bricks that are stacked upon each other to provide the wall, those decisions would be made once they know they are going through with the project. Until they know are moving forward it is virtually impossible to provide what that wall would actually contain because it would be up to a structural engineer to provide that answer. Member Tropinski asked why they could not at least provide the aesthetics of what the wall would be faced with. Mr. Flowers responded that they did provide pictures of sample walls they might use. Chairwoman Payovich noted that when the Yorkshire Glen Sub went through this process they were required to submit conceptual plans showing the elevation of the walls. Member Tropinski said that she believes a detailed rendering could be provided of the wall with a note about rebar reinforcing. Mr. Flowers responded that it is much more complicated than that. Once they know the concept has been approved, then they can work with the structural engineers to determine what is required as far as the thickness of the walls and what the makeup would be. At that point they would evaluate whether they would use a poured concrete or a keystone brick, which is an interlocking stacked brick. Until they know the concept is good, it is two different groups of people that they have to go to determine the viability of each one of those plans and the structural engineer is the one that has to dictate what the requirements are. Member Tropinski noted that the plans all show stone walls. Mr. Flowers responded that is the facade. It is an application that is put on over a concrete wall. It will not be left as a concrete wall; it would have a veneer over the wall to look like stone. The alternative to that would be the keystone brick, which has a face in it when it is actually manufactured. Chairwoman Payovich asked for a consensus on the height of the building pads. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 20 October 18, 2004 Member Goel said that he does not have a problem with the building height. The structure height rules were changed and how could they be prevented from building it to the maximum height. If the applicant is within those rules, he does not see the basis of the objection. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he does not object to building to the maximum height; however, it appears that the greatest amount of in -fluence to the height of the building pads has more to do with instead of taking excavated soil_ off -site they are utilizing the excavated soil on -site and raising up certain aspects of the property and placing the building pads on that. Mr. Flowers responded that it was somewhat of a benefit to have the extra earth on -site to be able to build up the front elevations of the homes. The primary consideration of the elevations of those homes is that the existing structure is at 714. In order to provide the most pleasant appearance of new homes of value on the property they have to keep them in somewhat conforming heights at the front entry of each building. They are already 5 feet below the front entry of the existing home. One of the reasons they brought the road up to 705 is because they did not want the rise from Mr. Falco's front door to be such an extreme. There is a 9 -foot difference between existing top of foundation and the road. That is where they took the entire basis from as they moved from the existing structure on the site out to 31" Street. There is no symmetry if they have it less than the 709 presented on the plans. The suggestion by staff that they go 6 feet below that would certainly make the buildings look out of place and would not be a nice feature for the development. Chairwoman Payovich asked the Village Engineer if the top of foundation for the new homes would be conceptually a nice view for the existing area. Village Engineer Durfey passed out a revision that he made to the applicant's sketch located on page 34 of the case file. He responded that if their existing top of foundation is 714 on the Falco home and the house was built under the old code, which allowed a maximum height of 30 feet (top of foundation — 744). The new homes are allowed to go up to 45 feet from the top of foundation. So 709 plus 45 feet is 754 (which is the raised bold line). If this plan is approved the 2 new homes would tower over the existing home by about 10 feet. In response to the Chairwoman's question, he has some sincere concerns about that. Bringing in 9 -12 -14 feet of fill and starting the house from there does not make much sense to him. Member Wolin asked if his concern was from engineering, aesthetic or another standpoint. Village Engineer Durfey responded from all standpoints. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 20 October 18, 2004 Director of Community Development Kallien noted that there are numerous subdivisions in Oak Brook that have some terrain and the original developers utilized that terrain to their benefit. In Trinity Lakes there is quite a bit of terrain and it offers the ability to place very unique houses at different elevations and it works quite well. In this case, we do not have symmetry and in theory we have quite the opposite. They have taken land that has a natural slope to it and manipulated it in such a way to take away any opportunity to utilize that. Everyone has different taste, but he does not buy the argument of symmetry. Mr. Flowers disagreed. He said that in keeping with the overall symmetry, the surrounding homes, at Bear Manor the top of foundation is 714.5 and behind that in Midwest Club is 710. There are requirements that are being imposed upon them, with detention and flood plain. They still have to look at top of foundation on each of the homes. In no other homes is there such a substantial drop. There is an assumption that the home is going to be built to the maximtun, or that Mr. Falco would never build an addition onto his home. They believe the top of foundation needs to stay at 709. Village Engineer Durfey said that for a point of clarification, that two of the houses on the plan from the Midwest Club has one of the houses at 714.7 And the other at 707.2. Mr. Flowers noted that one in between them is at 710. Member Braune said that the homes behind these homes will not be seen, but these homes would be in front. The document of page 3' ).e of the case file gives him the sense that that when it is developed it will appear there will be 2 houses sitting upon piles of pyramidal dirt. Mr. Flower said that from the road height at 705 and the top of foundation of the home would be 709 so the incline from the road to the front of the home would actually be three feet. They are at 708 at the top of the drive, which is only a one -foot step to get into the front of the home. Member Bulin noted that Bear Manor and the other homes sit at higher elevations to begin with because the natural topography in the area is sloped from those homes across the site. This land has always been on a lower site, which is where all the storm water drainage went naturally. Now it is basically being engineered to control that storm water drainage so that they can gain building sites in what was naturally a low area. This is being raised up to the standards of the other sites that were part of the natural topography. He questioned that the site may be over engineered. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 20 October 18, 2004 Mr. Flowers disagreed. He said that if the site were over engineered it would not work; and this does work the way it is engineered. Member Bulin added that it does work if it is engineered but that does not mean it is appropriate. There may be issues that may be able to be overcome but he thinks it is being forced on this site. Mr. F lowers said that he does not see where it is being forced, what they are doing is looping at things from the top of the Falco residence and looking out. The impact is whether you look out that front door and see two rooftops next to you or two front doors. Mr. Falco is very concerned what the appearance is going to look from his front door. Member Bulin said that the problem he has is the amount of wall and structure being created in this loop, which looks like a cement pond. There could probably be a better green approach. Mr. Flowers said the wall cannot be moved, but trees, shrubs, materials are being planted against the wall and in the final plat, it is not a preliminary plat concept. Member Wolin said that it appears behind lots 2 and 3 there is basically a sloped down detention pond, which is very limited as to what can be put in it. The owner would not be able to put out a play set in the back yard. It makes no sense to build homes where you open up the back door and between you and the lot line is only a detention pond. In addition, it looks like a concrete bathtub in the middle, where you look down 10 feet and he finds that aesthetically unpleasing. He quoted from the Subdivision Regulations in Section 14 -6 -2, Topography, "In the subdivision of any lands due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as large trees, water courses, topography and other elements which, if preserved, would add attractiveness to the proposed development." He does not think this plan meets that requirement and he does not think that this plan is a good deal Mr. Flowers said that they have worked on this for quite some time and they would not be here today if Mr. Falco did not find this visually pleasing. He said that perhaps the final concept cannot be visualized. Page 33 -e of the case file is a sketch that provides would it could look like upon completion. With regard to natural topography and natural change in elevation, they are dealing with what is being provided to them by Ordinance and County regulations. They are providing for a private drive and easy ingress and egress to the new structures. When you go out the back of the homes, there is an area directly behind each of the homes that would allow for a usable rear patio or some other feature. Because of the requirements that are being VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 20 October 18, 2004 placed on the development, the detention area to the west would be grassed and would have to be maintained by the homeowner. He does not know how to accommodate one man's feeling of what is appealing versus another man's. Mr. Falco is ultimately the one that makes that decision. It is his house and what he will be left with and what he has agreed to in order to move forward. With regard to what would be found to be appealing, he would have the ultimate agreement or disagreement and acceptance. Village Engineer Durfey said that you can do things in a detention pond that do not interfere with the use of the pond, which means take up the storage space for flood waters and not be able to be claimed as damage on an insurance policy. Part of the problem is that a swing set or play areas get put in on the weekend and the Village may or may not catch it. A swing set would not take up so little volume that it would not deter from the detention basin use. However, would a homeowner want a swing set in a detention basin, which is going to hold water after a normal rainfall for at least an hour or two? Mr. Flowers said that the detention area is for in the event of a flood, and in the event that the water in the area grows to such an amount that it must be detained on the property that they have the necessary structures in place to do that. For all intents and purposes, the existing terrain of the property is dry at all times. Going out there after a rain, under the current conditions, after an hour they do not hold water on the property. They believe with grass in the area and the necessary percolation and providing drains in the detention area that would take any water that sits in there flow into the drains and flow off to the detention pond. These are suggested pads for the homes. It has been put there for visualization. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that as presented the building pad represent approximately 5700 and 6200 square feet, factoring in a 3 -car garage so these homes are not overly large. Although Mr. Falco may find theirs pleasing, this board and the staff also have a responsibility to the future residents that are going to live there. They basically would not have backyards that can be used They have green space, but they would not be able to benefit from decks or the normal things most people can have. Member Braune questioned that there was a usable back yard. Mr. Flowers responded that it is usable, although it cannot be built on. It is usable for a play area for family. Member Bulin said that in order to keep the homes out of the I00 -year flood they had to raise theirs the 10 -12 feet. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 20 October 18, 2004 Village Engineer Durfey responded no, that the basement could be below the BFE (base flood elevation) but surrounded typically by an earthen berm where the top of foundation is two feet above the base level elevation and the house is protected and the basement would not take water which is typical in Oak Brook. In the past, when a house is in the flood plain people have come in to take out a permit to fill and compensate and dig out. They fill for the pad and then compensate and dig out some place else on the lot. Then apply for a letter of map revision that takes out the portion that was filled from the flood plain. Once that is accomplished that part of the lot is no longer in the flood plain and a building with a basement can be permitted. There is this earthen area of 10 -20 feet around the home around that would in essence be a dike so that water would not get into the home. Member Goel said that the lot sizes include the water retention area, and asked if it was legal to define the lot size including those areas. Village Engineer Durfey said that it is legal. The lot area meets the zoning requirement the usability could be substantially less and that is part of the Plan Commission's job to see if it is a good idea. Mr. Lin said that there is a consequence of lowering the top of foundation. Consequently the road will be lowered and the wall in front of Mr. Falco's house is going to be increased. Mr Flowers said that if they lower the front elevation, the road would have to be lowered, which would potentially be a 12 to 14 foot drop from the front step of Mr. Falco's house down to the street. Member Tropinski said that they need to look at the entire package. The land slopes are very steep and she believes they are unsafe and very difficult. Mr. Flowers said that it is a 4 to 1 slope, which is a very accepted slope Everyone can have an opinion on the issues. Their opinion is that it is a very nice appealing look for the homes. They have visualized it from the front step of each home and what areas are usable. He potentially is one of the people that may build on one of the lots, so he knows what he is walking into. Another family member is potentially the next builder so they know what they are walking into. They all have children and know what the situation is and they are looking forward to build here. They have been working on it from the outside to the inside to make sure that the whole project works. They believe that the plan not only satisfies the requirements but also satisfies the aesthetic requirements of Mr. Falco. In order for their lot to flood, Ginger Creek has to flood. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 20 October 18, 2004 Mr. Flowers said that some things are not being taken into consideration by trying to lower the road. Assuming the road is 703, there is a 9 -foot step from the road to Mr. Falco's front door. There is an existing terrain on the east side of the property. That terrain is at 704 to 705 and if they lower the roads on that side of the property then they are looking at additional retaining walls on the eastern portion of the drive to keep water off of Bear Manor. They have loolced at every possibility in order to meet every requirement placed on them. It provides for ingress and egress for emergency vehicles; it provides for water compensation and detention; it provides for a sufficient area for each of the new homes. This plan provides for the development of this property and it works. They have reviewed it from every angle and have met every requirement set before them. This is the highest and best use for the property. To continue to donate all of this area for floodplain is not only a disservice to Mr. Falco, but also a disservice to the community because there would be no improvements to the existing property. There would be no incentive for Mr. Falco to do anything with this property. He is trying to improve the overall drive -by appearance of his property as well as the aesthetic appearance for the Village. They believe what they are doing is not only going to be more appealing, but is going to be in line what has been done further east along 31St Street. Chairwoman Payovich asked George Mueller in the audience if his water run off concerns had been addressed. Mr. Mueller responded that Mr. Flowers told him that the runoff issue was addressed and the retaining wall elevation from his property would be no more than a two -foot visual from his property. Mr. Flowers added that the runoff water from Midwest Club and their property that currently goes onto Mr. Mueller's property would be maintained entirely on their property. He also added that there is a two -foot visual wall and beneath the wall would be an earth berm that gradually slopes off. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as a planner that the highest and best use does not necessarily mean most. In the time that he has been here no one has ever said that Mr. Falco's property was in need of redevelopment. It is a nice property and not in dire need of redevelopment. This is a decision that the owner is proceeding with in terms of trying to attain additional value for the property Member Bulin said that the engineering may alleviate some flooding problems, but he finds the center pond most objectionable. The barrier is positioned right at the curb line and then another drop and it seems very VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 20 October 18, 2004 sharp. The circle u- shaped drive almost seems like a hazard in waiting. If there could be some sort of green space on level with the road, before the drop off or break it up so it is not such a dam like created structure. Landscape could cover some of it. Maybe some of the walls could be manipulated somewhat to break it up, He ack- ow1_edged that the engineering aspects have been taken care of, but thinks it needs to be softened. Member Tropinksi would have also liked to see something that looked more natural with a soft safety ledge and have the water on a level that it can be seen and not look down 10 feet just to see a little bit of water. She thinks it is out of character of the neighborhood and what is in the Village Member Goel said that he concurs with the aesthetic aspect of the walls. He does not have any major objection with the heights but the walls are also very troublesome. Member Wolin said that he agrees with Member Bulin and Tropinksi, he doesn't think that it fits in with the area or Oak Brook in general. He restated his concern with walking out the back door and having a detention area there that you cannot do much with. He thinks it sets a bad precedence for other developments. He does not have any major objection to the structure height. Chairwoman Payovich asked the Plan Commission for direction to the applicant. Member Wolin noted that he did not know how much could be done that would end up with a positive consensus with everyone. He said that Jeff mentioned that not all property is meant to be developed. There is a lot of land along Salt Creek that should have never been developed and maybe this is one of those properties that there is no good solution except for the home that is on it right now. Member Goel said that he would not agree that this site could not be engineered, but the present concept of the walls is not acceptable. Whatever, the applicant to do to soften the impact the walls. If the owner can come up with an acceptable plan it could be reviewed again. Member Tropinski could not tell them how to redesign the plan. She suggested that they evaluate it and if they want to develop it they could come up with another plan with another design. The land should be usable and in character with the neighborhood with more open and natural landscape. She feels uncomfortable with the retaining walls and the pond VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 20 October 18, 2004 and the dry retention pond would be a disservice to future property owners. Member Bulin said that it seems a bit forced. Maybe there is another approach, he is not sure. He suggested that they go beyond engineering and try another type of design professionals. Member Braune said that he has a great deal of difficulty visualizing what the property would look like developed. He asked to see sketch of the property with some houses on it and to provide conceptual details They must have a vision of the property that has not been presented well to the Plan Commission. He asked that they come back with a drawing that would allow them to see the vision they see. Mr. Flowers thanked everyone for their comments. They will go back and look at the possibility of doing more engineering work. He said that extensive hours have been spent on the engineering to come up with the most possible rendering and utilization of the area for all the compensation and storage required for the site. They will come up with some type of drawing of what it would look like from various points on the property. They will try to "soften" it. He is not getting any positive feedback on the preliminary and is cautious to spend considerable amount of money to provide a model which would dictate what types of homes would be built on the pads. They can try to provide additional drawings to try to show their vision of the site upon completion. It is very difficult for to try to address Member Tropinski's concerns of the safety and dangers of the pond in the circle area, then when they try to accommodate hat by reducing the amount of water they fall into other areas of problems. It is going to be difficult to please everyone on the board and get 100 percent consensus that they all love the project, and they understand that. A statement was made that the future property owners would be subject to the conditions. That is true, however, they would buy the house knowing what that condition and would buy it on its appearance. The homes are bought on the basis of liking it. They will come back and provide a more visual aspect of the overall plan. Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Goel to continue the hearing on the Reflection Circle Subdivision to the regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for November 15, 2004 with the stipulation that they see drawings more conceptual in nature that will give the Commission a clearer vision of the applicant's vision of the property. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 20 October 18, 2004 5 NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW VOB -TEXT PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF TOTE NTTT T JAGS Za ADD FLkP 15 CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — ADD CHAPTER 15 — TREE - TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Tree Preservation Regulations was initiated about a year ago based on a substantial number of trees that were cut down along 31St Street. The Village Board had asked the Plan Commission to look at the tree preservation issue. The Village does not have a regulation in place and has been very lucky that there has never been any significant clear cutting of trees on someone's property. The Plan Commission initiated a review of the concept and reviewed other tree preservation ordinances that existed in other municipalities. The regulations ranged from the very complex to very simple. The Plan Commission took what they thought was the best practice and applied it to a draft set of regulations. To get additional comments he had formulated the proposal that before any tree preservation proposal went to the actual public hearing, we wanted to provide a witness test to see what the public really thought of the proposal. The regulations were sent out to all the homeowner associations and were also placed on the web page. We did receive comments ranging from people not liking it at all, to those that thought the concept had some relevance, but that it needed to be modified so that it did not impact as many properties as it could. No one contacted him and said they thought it should be adopted as is. As a result and after talking it over with Village administration he came up with the concept that maybe the Plan Commission needs to reevaluate the proposal based on the comments received. Joe Rush, 3721 Spring Road said that the Village has had some substantial clearing in the past as the result of the Village rezoning property immediately west where hundreds of pine trees were cleared. He has lived in Oak Brook for 44 years and his grandfather for 24 years before that. For the last 66 years they have managed their property without the involvement of the Village of Oak Brook. He understands the reason for this came out of the Forest Preserve cutting down a substantial number of trees to build a new driveway. If the ordinance were passed, there would be no jurisdiction over the Forest Preserve District. It would have a serious effect and impose an undue burden and expense on Oak Brook residents. He did an inventory today of the trees on his property, which is a 1' /z acre lot He has 14 fruit trees, 129 trees made up of blue spruce, pine, other evergreens, lindens, box elders, elms, wild cherry, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 20 October 18, 2004 crab apple, maples and a various number of unknown species. Across the street he has an additional 66 trees. Roughly he has 244 trees on his property. Approximately 50% of the trees were purchased by him with his money, planted on his property and now if this legislation goes through, the Village wants to be able to tell him what he can do with them. To keep his property in good shape he has from time to time cut down 3 to 10 trees every year. Trees have fallen in windstorms; trees have been cut down if they start to damage a roof or cars; and trees have died or are dying and need to be removed. By this ordinance, if he were to cut down a tree, the required tree inventory would require him to hire a surveyor to locate the trees and the setbacks on his property, then hire a landscape architect or an arborist to identify each tree. Then if he were to cut down a 12 -inch tree he would need to replace it with 4 or more 3 -inch trees, because of the size of the trees, he would have to hire a landscaper to bring them and plant them. The $100 permit tree would be peanuts compared to the other costs involved. This alone would probably cost well over $1000 He said that Item 8 on page 3 refers to a list of trees that have been identified by the Village for eradication, but there is no list. Oak Brook no longer has large parcels of properties to control, but unfortunately this ordinance would cover everyone in the Village. He was on the Village Board for 24 years and was the Zoning Board Chairman for a brief time. He has never seen what is in his opinion, such a poor excuse for an ordinance as this one. The Village is nearly completely developed. It has been developed well and people take care of their trees because they are a valuable asset. It is like locking the barn after the horse has run away. He urged everyone to vote no when it comes up for approval He had one final thought, if passed by the Village; he asked if the Commission had any idea how many trees he could cut down before it was passed. He thanked the Commission. Charles Shemely, 3411 Heritage Oaks Court since 1984. He is president of the Heritage Oaks Private Roadway Association. Heritage Oaks is a 22 year old subdivision and most of it is heavily wooded. He does not have as many trees as Mr. Rush, but he has a similar situation. He purchased the property 22 years ago and has a little over an acre He went out and did an inventory today and counted 4' ) trees on his property that would show up on the inventory of 6 -inch caliper or greater and that does not include his west lot line which is pretty much au natural. There are a lot of black locust, ash, box elders, etc. and four of the trees were there in 1982. The rest of them they paid for, sometimes several times over and some trees have been replaced or removed. He does not believe the Plan Commission is taking into consideration that all the greenery in the Village is not native; it has been paid for by homeowners. It is not the property of the Village it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 20 October 18, 2004 belongs to the homeowners. When he received the proposed tree regulations in June he copied his board of directors with a request for comments; their response was uniformly negative, mainly questioning why Oak Brook would be imposing such an onerous unneeded regulation on residential property owners. He relayed these comments with specific objections to Mr. Kallien in a one -page letter dated June 28, 2004. They want these objections on the record. He then copied Mr. Kallien's letter, the tree regulations, and his response to his membership. Again, the response was totally negative regarding the Village imposing this new regulation on residential property owners. It was so much so that the members continued to ask him what had happened to the tree regulations and whether it had been killed yet. They could not imagine why this thing would ever see the light of day. It was the main topic of interest at their annual forum and their annual meeting in September. All he could tell them was that it had been pulled back from the August Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing. He said that he had understood from a couple of trustees that they were going to ask for it to be reviewed. His members asked that he follow this and let them know if the tree regulation still has life because they will come out and campaign against it. He also copied his letter to other homeowner association presidents and the responses were the same as he had heard from his members on how the Village could impose this regulation on residential property owners. One recurring comment received continually from his members and other associations, which was not prompted, was that "Big brother is coming to Oak Brook." That is exactly how they view it. The way that he looks at it is that government camels are sticking their big nose under everybody's tent. He went to the Village website to review all the Plan Commission meeting minutes back to January of 2004 on this proposed regulation. His take from this reading was that initially Village staff was urging that the Commission not overreact by creating burdensome regulations to correct a problem that doesn't exist for residential homeowners due to two situations that occurred, not on residential lots,-but on large projects, Forest Gate and the Peabody property. Yet Commission members were insistent that regulations apply to all properties, including single - family residence lots and that the total area of property including the buildable area should be included because someone might cut some trees that the Commission thinks should be preserved. The opinion of staff was that private residential property owners had been good stewards of their trees thus far, with no regulation and it stands to reason why. Property values are higher on wooded lots. With prices as they are today who is going to buy a lot and cut trees down It does not stand to reason that they would do it. Further, he could not figure out why the Commission would require over compensation for a tree removed. It makes no sense to them to replace the total caliper of a tree VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 20 October 18, 2004 removed with multiple smaller trees; it reminds them of a cornfield. They have a situation on a typical one -acre lot and there would probably not be appropriate space for the additional trees. He carne up with the same illustration as provided by Mr. Rush. He looks at it when the trees mature. If he would take down a 12 -inch Cr ee, then he would have to put up three or four new trees? Where is he going to find space for it and what is it going to look like in 20 years? What the Commission is doing is perpetuating a cycle of plant and harvest later at a continual increasing cost. He believes the cost projected by Mr. Rush was very conservative in terms of what it would be required to remove a tree. Then the dots began to connect for him, in 2002 one of the Village objectives was to create a public right -of- way beautification plan in response to Village Objection 365 -1. Mr. Meranda, Public Works Director, wrote a memo to the Village Manager on July 16, 2002 detailing that plan by area of the Village. His memo also included the annual maintenance cost required for his department budget. The memo also stated that execution was dependent upon available funding. They lalow that the Village has had to defer fiuzding for many projects in the past 2 years and to also seek new sources of funds due to declining sales tax revenue. Then the proposed tree regulation arrived in his mailbox with this built in scheme to have residential property owners pay for the beautification plan, because if they cannot use the trees, they are required to contribute the trees or the cash to the Village. He spoke with the trustee that was part of developing the beautification plan about the proposed tree regulations and the response he got was that it was "dear and near to the trustees heart" and he expressed to that trustee why he thought it was misguided. He believes this is an ill- conceived regulation that will not sit well with much of the community. If it is felt that there is a true need to protect -the Village from clear cutting from a new development or a major redevelopment then write a regulation for that purpose, but leave the single family property owners out of the reach of this onerous, intrusive and unnecessary regulation. He said that he has heard there is one piece of property that could be affected by that scenario and the Fullersburg people at the _ southern end of the village are concerned about it and he would support them in that. It is reasonable to require a developer who is coming in with all of the engineering to also identify where the trees are. He doesn't think that anybody has to be unreasonable in terms of agreeing what can be cut, what can be moved or what should be compensated for, but that is a developer. These regulations have no place for an individual homeowner and the Village is looking to create a fire storm here. He thanked the Commission. Mary Lebbin, 3815 Washington, said that she has been on the Fullersburg Woods Association for 10 years and everyone loves and treasures their trees. The only agency that has done massive destruction of trees has been VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 20 October 18, 2004 our government. During the time they were having hearings regarding the widening of 31" Street, one of the most recurring objections was the possible destruction of almost 300 trees. Government has taken down the trees not the private homeowner. She asked that the Commission kill this proposal. It is not going to be a pleasant scenario. The homeowners are going to get completely riled up because they love their trees and there are enough problems right now within the Village government. She thanked the Commission. Chairwoman Payovich thanked everyone for taking the time to speak. She noted that for as long as she has known, the Village has prided itself in getting responses from the homeowners and listening to what is being said. She said that we are all residents and the Commission has the same concerns. Speaking for herself and the Commission she stated that there was never any intention to fund any Village program; that was never discussed and was never a thought. Member Wolin commented that he had voted in going forward with the proposal. However, at this point in time he would definitely vote against it, at least as it stands. He talked with the president and property manager of the Oak Brook Club and they tore it to shreds relative to the perspective of a large condominium development. They have 340 condos, 25 acres of land and depending on how you count trees, there are somewhere between 500 and 1000 trees on the site and every year trees are coining down for different reasons. There are a lot of very large willow trees that are 25 -30 inches in diameter and are reaching the end of their lifespan. Each year they lose branches and sooner or later they will have to come down and to replace them with multiple trees makes no sense. There are other trees they would like to remove because they are undesirable. This ordinance would be very costly from that standpoint, so it applies to their development just as it does to single - family homeowners. He said that the Commission's objectives were very noble, they all love trees and thought this seemed like a good idea. However, if they step back and ask if it is really needed, especially after the things that have been said at this meeting, as well as his own feelings, Oak Brook has been around a long time and there has been only one major episode and that it was not done by a homeowner. Homeowners want trees for the reasons that were given Tree preservation got started 3 0+ years ago with Mr. T in Lake Forest and there was a massive reaction which resulted in an 85 -page tree ordinance in the northern suburbs and it has been spreading south ever since. When you think about all the costs that are associated with this versus the number of violations that the Village has had and will likely have in the future; the costs far outweigh the benefits. It does not snake any sense With the thoughts that were expressed, the few areas where developments may be possible we may want to consider something, but we have to be very careful The proposed VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 20 October 18, 2004 ordinance should be either killed or reworded carefully and restricted to those areas where there could potentially be harm. Director of Community Development Kallien said that whatever is recommended here should go to the Village Board, rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals for public bearing, so that they can determine what is going to happen with it. They may make a decision to table it indefinitely or they may decide it is a good idea and send it to the Zoning Board for Public hearing. Whatever the Plan Commission decides is not final, only the Village Board can do that. Member Bulin noted that the Village Board initiated the action not the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if anything can be said about this is that, it is very clear how people feel about trees. If anything, it got people to discuss the value of trees. Joe Rush added that if he took down an elm tree that he has which is in excess of 24- inches he would have to replace it with 15 trees. He has over an acre and wouldn't know where to put them so he would have to give the trees or money to the Village, so he would fund the Village's landscape proj ect. Chairwoman Payovich said that was not the Village's intent to fund that program. There was not an underlying motive, there was intent to do something good for the Village and keep its atmosphere, which is one of the reasons that it went to the homeowners associations so that it could be reviewed and to point out the things that may or may not work. She thanked the audience for their continents. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would provide all the information received on this issue from the homeowner associations as well as additional thoughts. Whatever the Village does relative to tree preservation or any type of regulation, the staff is left to enforce it. If anyone were to look at the Community Development Department, there are five people and whatever is enacted, there are five people to enforce it. Mr. Shemely said that one of their newest members is just completing a home, and is a developer /builder and he was very implicit to Mr. Shemely that this regulation is a mistake not just for residential property owners, but for anybody. Because of the dealings he has with other communities on this issue, these regulations are used to extort money from developers for whatever reason. He thinks that it is an onerous thing and another burden VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 20 October 18, 2004 for a developer. Member Bulin said that he does not want to see what happened at Forest Gate to happen again; where a developer was going to preserve all the mature trees and then clear cut the whole site. Mr. Shemely responded that neither does he, however he read Mr. Kallien's comments and some of the trees that were taken down were not good to start with, but there could have been some that could have been preserved. Member Bulin said that if a tree inventory had been required, we would have known that. Director of Community Development Kallien said that people are not clear cutting their properties; it is quite to the contrary. This was motivated by a single instance and if someone would ask what the benefit would have been `to have had this ordinance in place over the last 12 months he would say; probably none. It probably would have been a burden to enforce, but in terms of a direct benefit to stop something that has occurred, he could not think of any at this point. Member Bulin commented that the proposed tree preservation ordinance actually gave them more trees with the McDonald's development because they did an inventory of what existed on the site. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that McDonald's may have provided the trees anyway by just looking at the extensively landscaped property next door. Chairwoman Payovich asked that when the issue comes up for discussion and the Commission feels ready to, she would like to have a note sent to the homeowner association presidents, so that everyone would have the opportunity to discuss it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that before it goes to the public hearing he would have it published in the newspaper. Motion by Member Wolin seconded by Member Braune to continue the hearing on the Tree Preservation Regulations to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 15, 2005 in order to receive the comments without further discussion at that meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 20 October 18, 2004 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW PROJECT — PLANNED UNIT VOB - REVIE w DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) PROJECT —PUD's Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to continue the hearing on the Village of Oak Brook — Review Project — Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to the regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for January 17, 2005. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS RESCHEDULE REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING FOR RESCHEDULE DECEMBER REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MTG FOR DECEMBER Director of Community Development Kallien said that due to the December holiday we have polled the Plan Commission in order to reschedule the meeting date. Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Wolin to reschedule the regular Plan Commission Meeting date from December 20, 2004 to December 13, 2004 which is the Monday prior. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURMENT Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 20 October 18, 2004