Loading...
Minutes - 10/20/2008 - Plan Commission1. 2. 3. ►1 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. APPROVED AS AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 1 d, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Gopal Lalrnalani, Mintu Sharma, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski ABSENT: Member Richard Knitter IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald 'Wolin, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development, Dale Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer and Mark Sterk, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BuSINESs B. FULLERSBURG HISTORIC FOUNDATION — TEXT AMENDMENT _ FULLERSBURG HISTORIC CHAPTER 8 OF ZONING ORDINANCE — AMEND TEXT TO PERMIT FOUNDATION - THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT TEXT AMENDMENT STRUCTURES RE HISTORICAL STRUCTURES The Fullersburg Historic Foundation requested a continuance to a later date. Motion by Member Tropinski, seconded by Member Iyer to continue the matter as requested. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK -- REVIEW OF PUBLIC 'WORKS vos- .REVIEW OF OBJECTS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS WITHIN PARKWAYS Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his October 13, 2008 memorandum that summarized the goals the Plan Commission discussed at its last meeting. He continued with the review of his May 14, 2008 memorandum. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page I of 10 October 20, 2008 '1;.2 OWNERSHIP OF ITEMS WITH PARKWAYS Chapter 4 of Title 8 of the Village Code addresses trees, shrubs and weeds. Section 8 -4 -1 states: Any trees or shrubs located within public rights of way are public property under the control and jurisdiction of the Village. All trees or shrubs placed within pubic rights of way shall become the property of the Village upon their placement. Currently in the Public Works Construction Standards are standards for tree species, all deciduous, no evergreen. If another species is desired the Village will review and approve it or disapprove it with the reasons why. It makes sense for trees to become Village property so that the Village can maintain all trees along a street and control nuisances and disease as well as sight distance issues. For others, such as light posts (assuming they are allowed), it seems to make sense to keep ownership of those with the private property owner. Village Engineer Durfey went through discussion points on what would be appropriate to be public or private ownership as follows: Sprinkler lines - Currently they are under private ownership. A covenant is signed when they are installed stating that if they are damaged, the Village does not repair them. The Plan Commission agreed that they should remain under private ownership and maintained by the owner and if damaged, the Village does not repair them. Light posts - Currently they are under private ownership. A covenant is signed when they are installed stating that if they are damaged, the Village does not repair them. The Plan Commission agreed that they should remain under private ownership and maintained by the owner and if damaged, the Village does not repair them. Small identification walls — These are typically placed parallel to the street in front of the residence. -He suggested that they remain privately owned and if damaged, the Village not repair them. The Plan Commission agreed that they should remain under private ownership and maintained by the owner and if damaged, the Village does not repair them. ornate /substantial mailbox structures - Currently they are under private ownership. A covenant is signed when they are installed stating that if they are damaged, the Village does not repair them. VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 October 24, 2008 The Plan Commission agreed that they should remain under private ownership and maintained by the owner and if damaged, the Village does not repair them. "Mirror" ornate mailbox -type structures- Currently they are under private ownership. A covenant is signed when they are installed stating that if they are damaged, the Village does not repair them. The Plan Commission agreed that they should remain under private ownership and maintained by the owner and if damaged, the Village does not repair them. Shrubs and Hedge rows —In Ginger Creek there is a hedge row right at the edge of the concrete shoulder that the resident installed some years ago and according to Village Code it becomes Village property. It is right next to the shoulder and may inhibit snowplow activities. The Homeowner Association president called and said that they do not believe it should be allowed and that the hedges should be removed. Member Iyer asked if the Village would be obligated to remove it. Village Engineer Durfey responded that removing a hedge row is not a big- ticket item.. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the property owner planted it, and the Village has ownership of it, does the Village remove it or have the homeowner remove it. Member Lalmalani said that if it is on Village property the Village should maintain it or remove it. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the Village only maintains street trees, but would probably remove the hedge rows. The location of these hedge rows are within the ten -foot clear zone and objects that are more than 10- inches high as recommended by the Plan Commission at the last meeting. Based on that recommendation the hedge row would not be permitted in any instance. Any work done on Village property typically requires a permit, with the exception of planting grass or something very small of that nature. The Plan Commission agreed that since the Village owns the item and if at some future time it becomes a safety hazard or an obstruction the Village could remove it. it Retaining walls — The current Public Works Standards do not pen-nit private retaining walls to encroach into the right of way that would decrease the ability for the parkway to be used by utilities, etc. In these types of request, the Village has not allowed them. The Plan Commission agreed. Boulders of various sizes -- (outside of grandfathering) boulders that are VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 October 20, 200$ greater than 8 ", which are located more than ten -feet from the road and suggested that they be privately owned and some type of covenant or indemnification that would not make the Village liable and should the area need to be dug up, the Village would not put them back. The Plan Commission agreed. Vertical posts -- Should there be any area within the right- of-way ten feet more or less where posts two feet or so high would be allowed. The Plan Commission agreed that they should not be allowed anywhere within the parkway from the road to the lot line. Underground dog fences — The problem is that they are not seen unless they are accidentally dug up and would recommend that they not be allowed on the Village parkway. The Plan Commission agreed. GRANDFATHEREU ITEMS - If safety is a goal and a reasonable area 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. 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 if someone placed an object on a Village parkway without permission, why should it be kept just because it is there. If grandfathering is permitted, then a staff person or summer intern would need to go around the Village and do an inventory and log it, Everything up to that point would be allowed to remain and from that point on new things would not be allowed to be placed in the right -of -way. It could be accomplished as Rolling Meadows did. Village Attorney Sterk commented that indemili cation is fine, but questioned the ability of the property owner to indemnify in case of an injury. Indemnification assumes that the property owner is going to pay off any judgment entered against the Village, including reimbursement of attorney fees, etc., that can be very substantial sums of money, and that some may not be able to afford to do. That is why an insurance policy that would cover the property owner and the Village would be required. Then the Village would need to keep track of policies to make sure that it does not lapse at time of renewal. Policies come due on different dates, so the Village would have to inventory all of the items, all of the agreements, all of the indemnification agreements, and copy of each insurance policy. If the Village goes forward then it should pick the insurance company this way the Village would know that it is an acceptable insurance company and if the policy lapses the Village would be notified because they would be listed as insured. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 October 20, 2008 Chairwoman Payovich questioned whether the property owner could handle it through their own insurance company by naming the Village as an additional insured and the agent would have to notify the Village if the policy lapses. Village Attorney Sterk responded that would be fine if the Village could handle tracking the paperwork for approximately 200 -300 properties. Each policy would be written differently and would have to be reviewed. Member Vivek questioned if it would be appropriate for the Village to pick two insurance companies to give the property owner an opportunity to pick one because umbrella policies can become expensive. Village Attorney Sterk said that the Village could find out if a policy could be obtained to cover the properties listed. Owners could choose to pay for it and leave the objects in the roadway or not pay it and remove the objects. Trustee Wolin commented that the Village Engineer has already identified the homes and interested residents have been attending the meetings all along and have raised questions regarding the problems that the Village has had. It is not apparent that the Village has had any problems in the past or they have not been serious. Questions have been raised that trees in the parkway are probably a bigger hazard and more likely of a vehicle hitting a tree rather than a boulder. Speaking as a Trustee, knowing that this would be a gruesome budget cycle because of the economy and declining sales tax revenue, there is not going to be a lot of extra staff around to do other projects. Surveys have been conducted as to what other communities are doing and it ranges from some that are very strict and some that do nothing; and some have rules but do not enforce them. He questioned what happens if those that have those items keep them and the Village does not do anything. If the Village is aware that there is a problem that has been brought to its attention, such as a safety issue with bushes that block sight lines, appropriate action should be taken or an indemnification taken at that point. Based on that is there really a need to do this everywhere? Relative to new things, the process that has been reviewed with Dale is very good and addresses new things that should not be allowed. Chairwoman Payovich posed to the Plan Commission, whether to grandfather the items that currently exist in the right -of -way or have some type of plan to have them removed. Member Sharma said that if all of the items were removed it would be a large expense to the Village. Chairwoman Payovich said that she has not heard of any cases involving issues with objects in the right-of-way. VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page S of 10 October 20, 2008 Member Iyer commented that an inventory would have to be made in order to monitor items that may be added. Village Engineer Durfey said that every property in the Village should be inventoried with a picture showing those that do or do not have any items in the right of way so that there is an accurate record or any question that something was added after the grandfathering has been adopted. If an owner adds something over a weekend, the Village may not know about it for several months. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that although there are about 3400 houses in town and approximately another 100 vacant lots. However, a number of the houses are in subdivisions with private streets, such as Midwest Club and Hunter Trails that would not be counted. A. good pictorial inventory would be needed of all of the lots with public streets. When the Village begins working with GIS this would work very well with it. Village Engineer Durfey said that with the GIS, which may be enabled within the next couple of years would probably include a picture of every lot anyway, from a zoning and planning viewpoint, including commercial sites. Chairwoman Payovich commented that this project would fit into that program without a lot of additional cost. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Singhal questioned if it would be easier to say that the old rules apply and that all the people being grandfathered would be given a single notice informing them to apply to the Village so that there is a record. Village Engineer Durfey said that staff would have to go and take the pictures and then send a notice to the resident with a copy of the picture advising them of the process. Member Lalmalani questioned whether they had the manpower to do the work. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it could be done with existing staff and a summer intern that could be completed in one summer. Chairwoman Payovich noted that the memorandum from the Director of Public Works addresses many of these issues. She questioned if the comments raised by Trustee Wolin and the consensus of the Plan Commission would be that the grandfathering of existing items would be allowed, unless there is a safety issue or hazard that is brought to the attention of the Village that there would be a possibility that those particular items would need to be removed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 October 20, 2008 Village Engineer Durfey added that anything in the parkway could be a safety hazard for an errant vehicle, which could be a brick mailbox, huge boulder or trees. We have fire hydrants, streetlights, trees, boulders, monuments, etc. Some are needed for public purposes such as a fire hydrant or streetlight and street trees that provide for the aesthetics and nature in the community. A boulder is there only for the property owners' aesthetic pleasure, not for anyone else. If safety is a goal and a ten -foot zone with nothing higher than 8 inches in the area is the goal, then should grandfathered items be permitted in that area if they are closer than ten feet? Every object could be a safety hazard to an errant vehicle. Chairwoman Payovich agreed, but added that so are the trees that the Village has planted in the right -of -way as well as mailboxes. Any item in the right-of-way could become a safety hazard for an errant vehicle. However, during these meetings, there has not been a time or has it been brought to the attention of the Village that this has been a safety issue where someone has gotten hurt because of these items. The goal is to try to minimize it going forward and to address specific instances that exist which may be a safety issue and would need to be removed. Village Engineer Durfey noted that under the current codes, he could deal with sight safety issues. If a huge boulder were located on the edge of the road, other than it is a general safety hazard, it would not be deemed as a specific safety hazard. Village Attorney Sterk added that every item in the right -of -way is a potential hazard. Village Engineer Durfey said that there are certain items that are wanted in the right - of -way such as a fire hydrant, because they have positive effects. Member Sharma questioned who would be responsible to determine whether something would be a safety issue. Village Engineer Durfey said that the Plan Commission would determine that by grandfathering. If it were determined, that everything in the right-of-way today would be okay, or note that some things are not okay. Member Lalmalani questioned how many trees would have to be removed. Village Engineer Durfey said that he doubted that the Village would 'want to eliminate street trees, fire hydrants or street lights because they have positive as well as negative impacts. Various government agencies have determined the positive impacts of those specific items outweigh the negative; therefore, they are permitted on the public right of way. Member Lalmalani questioned what the positive impacts were for trees. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 October 20, 2008 Village Engineer Durfey responded that they are aesthetic, a natural environment, which helps clean the air and creates oxygen. Cities typically allow and demand street trees in new subdivisions. Member Lalrnalani said that the issue is more to minimize the items in the right-of- way- Village Engineer Durley noted that the post office also requires a mailbox, but a small wood mailbox would cause minimal damage. Trustee Wolin said that this is a complex issue. Most are in agreement that there have not been many, if any, problems and no serious problems in the past. Going forward, there are a lot of good decisions have been made and he sees no reason why the Village could not adopt to go forward as our standard. It was discussed that an intern could document the items with pictures over the summer. The next logical step would be to send a letter to all of the homeowners advising them of the standards that are being adopted. However, it is recognized that some residents have objects in the right of way and they will be grandfathered in based on what is in the picture. However, if the Village has to do maintenance in the parkway and the object is damaged, the Village will not repair it, other than filling in and planting seed. If it would be determined that there were a safety hazard that requires attention, the Village would ask that it be removed or the Village would remove it. In some cases, a covenant of some sort would be appropriate. Peter Huizenga, President of the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association discussed examples in their subdivision. The issue of the hedge row and shrubs that hang over the concrete and a pedestrian is forced to walk off the concrete shoulder and move into the street. Another house has pine trees that obstruct vision, is unsafe and blocks the sight of another car coming. They would like the assistance of the Village in establishing the standards so that they have a basis to talk to the homeowners. Presently they have an issue trying to enforce these items. He believes most would oblige if they knew that there was an enforcement aspect that could be applied. They would like to be able to deal with the extreme cases in order to improve the safety of the area and the visibility at intersections and on the roadway. It would also help to improve the appearance of the neighborhood. If there is a basis of standards that is a Village standard, then it also becomes a standard of the association so they could go back to the homeowner. It would be a nice way to present it so that they know there are some teeth in making the correction, rather than just allowing it to continue. Many homeowners would want to make some corrective action. Larry Whitlow, 3007 Ave Loire, said that Trustee Wolin put things together very well as what should be done. He believes that grandfathering is the only commonsense thing that can be done. Most of the items were placed in the right -of- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 October 20, 2008 A�k way long before there were restrictions. He believes their boulders were put in about 35 years ago, which was 15 years before they moved in. If the total issue is really safety, then all the trees should be taken out. If it is an issue of liability, then require an umbrella policy, (which they have) and then that covers the liability for the Village. He has spoken with the insurance company specifically about this issue and has been told it would be covered. In the interest of fairness, there is no valid objection to grandfathe:ring the existing items. Mr. Huizenga said that the grandfathered items are their problem. They do not have any recent problems. They do not want to create any animosity with the homeowners, but would give them a basis of talking to them and persuading people so that it can improve the area. Trustee Wolin said that the examples that were given are safety issues, which requires that no trees should be planted less than five feet from the street, so if trees were right next to the street, it would cause damage after a period of time. Village Engineer Durfey said that the conclusion is that all items presently located in the right-of-way would be permitted to remain with the exception of trees that are located within five feet of the road and vegetation that grows and overhangs onto the roadway or shoulder. Larry Whitlow asked if the pines on the edge of the driveway that have also been located there for 35 years would also be removed. Chairwoman Payovich said that personally she is not saying that the village needs to go and chop down every tree within five feet of the road. Each issue needs to be addressed individually and the Plan Commission is not making the final decision; the Village Board has to review it and decide. Chairwoman Payovich asked the Commissioners if they felt comfortable about making a recommendation at this meeting. Member Iyer said that everyone seems to agree with everything, with the exception of some minor things, which can be sorted out. Everyone has said that the Village needs some guiding principals as to what we need to achieve, but not some draconian law where the Village goes out and starts cutting everything down. He is very comfortable with it and believed it should be moved to the next level. Member Lalmalani said that common sense should prevail. The members reached a consensus to move the matter to the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission did not need to come up with the exact language, but a framework of principals has been put VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 October 20, 2008 5. I 7. together that can be forwarded to the Village Board to be wordsmith. Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer to forward a framework of recommendations to the Public Works Construction Standards regarding Objects Within Parkways to the Village Board. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: d -- Member's Iyer, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal. Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 -- Absent: 1 — Member Knitter. Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business to discuss. OTHER BUSINESS oTFWR BUSDZESS There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at 9: p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di ctor of mmunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10 October 20, 2008