Minutes - 05/18/2020 - Plan Commission2.
V I `AGI "I MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 2020
OAK B R K� REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
APPROVED AS AMENDED ON JUNE 15, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO
ORDER
The Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski
via Zoom teleconferencing at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons through Zoom
teleconferencing:
PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Richard DiBernardo, Thomas
Doyle, Jeff Finlay, Raju Iyer, Raj Lal and Kenneth Wilczak
IN ATTENDANCE: Director Tony Budzikowski, Village Attorney Michael Castaldo
III, Consultant Village Engineer James Patterson, Planner Rebecca Von
Drasek and Planning Technician Gail Polanek
Chairwoman Tropinski shared the sad news of the passing of former Commissioner
Simon Sheers with the Commission expressing sympathy for his family and noting that
he would be missed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES
REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 20.2020 JANUARY 20,
2020
Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Lal to waive the reading of the
minutes and to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2020 Regular Plan Commission
meeting as written. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 7 — Members DiBernardo, Doyle, Finlay, Iyer, Lal, Wilczak and
Chairwoman Tropinski
Nays: 0 —
Absent 0 — Motion Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
Chairwoman Tropinski explained that consistent with the Governor's April 1, 2020
Executive Order declaring a state of emergency related to the emergence of COVID-
19 and in guidance with the Centers for Disease Control and the Illinois Department
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes
Page 1 of 14
�p
May 18, 2020
5.
of Public Health, in person meetings and hearings would not be conducted by the
Village in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room at the Butler Government Center. The
entirety of the meeting would be conducted virtually via online web conferencing
system.
NEW BUSINESS New Business
A. D & S ESTATES RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 — 3324 ROSLYN ROAD — D a S ESTATES
RESUB OF LOT 1 -
FINAL PLAT — TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT -
TWO -LOT SUBDN
Chairwoman Tropinski explained the legal authority to conduct the virtual public
meeting, the required process for public participation, public written comments that
were received and would be read out loud, the process for those that pre -registered in
order to provide comments telephonically during the meeting. She reviewed the rules
and procedures for discussion, deliberation and voting. She asked for an overview of
the requested subdivision.
Director Tony Budzikowski noted that the meeting was live and added that the
Governor's Executive Order 2020-07 in regards to public meetings follows:
"During the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation, the provisions
of the Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120, requiring or relating to in-person
attendance by members of a public body are suspended. Specifically, (1) the
requirement in 5 ILCS 120/2.01 that "members of a public body must be
physically present" is suspended; and (2) the conditions in 5 ILCS 120/7 limiting
when remote participation is permitted are suspended. Public bodies are
encouraged to postpone consideration of public business where possible. When a
meeting is necessary, public bodies are encouraged to provide video, audio, and/or
telephonic access to meetings to ensure members of the public may monitor the
meeting, and to update their websites and social media feeds to keep the public
fully apprised of any modifications to their meeting schedules or the format of
their meetings due to COVID-19, as well their activities relating to COVID-19. "
Director Budzikowski noted that the petition was for a two -lot subdivision, consisting
of 27,216 square feet (Lot 1) and 27,235 square feet (Lot 2). The proposed lots comply
with the zoning standards that allows a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet. They are
not seeking any variations.
Chairwoman Tropinski asked if the petitioner/applicant had confirmed and accepted to
proceed with the virtual public meeting and had provided a written waiver and consent
for this virtual meeting.
The applicant Lucien Senese and attorney representative Peter Dressler, confirmed that
they did and do consent to proceed with the virtual public meeting.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 14
May 18, 2020
Lucien Senese, property owner thanked everyone for their time and noted that he was
not trying to upset anyone with the subdivision and had hoped to sit down and discuss
their concerns, but were not able to. The house has been in their fancily for over 63
years and he had hoped to keep it for years to come and did not want to tear it down.
Financially he cannot do that, which is one of the reasons for the subdivision.
Mr. Dressler reviewed some of the facts of the proposed subdivision.
• There have been absolutely no changes to the lot in the past 63 years as far as
grading or elevations. Any issues that may arise from other witnesses with
respect to stormwater issues would not have been created out of the existence
of the residence or the property itself.
• They are proposing to split the existing 54,450 square foot large lot into two
lots. The existing two front lots were subdivided in 2015 and both are slightly
over 27,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision will create two lots that
would be substantially identical to the two existing front lots.
• The new lot would be serviced by an existing 30 -foot wide recorded easement,
which provides for maintenance by the existing three lots and includes a
provision for a four-way split of the maintenance costs in the event that the rear
lot is further subdivided, which is what they are requesting.
• The lots would be in excess of 27,000 square feet, well within the required
25,000 square foot minimum for the R-3 zoning district.
• They are not seeking any variations.
• The subdivision will result in the lots conforming more to the surrounding lots.
• At this point in time, no changes to the topography are indicated. At some point
in the future, if the subdivision is approved and the lots are developed they
anticipate that the development would require compliance with both Oak Brook
and DuPage County Stormwater requirements, thereby alleviating any issues
with respect to future flooding.
• It is anticipated that the detention that would be done on Lot 1 would actually
improve the stormwater retention for the surrounding lots. He reviewed
pictures of the site, detention areas and surrounding properties.
• The previous realtor Tricia went by today and the large detention at Polo to the
south was mainly dry.
• There is new retention being constructed at the front lot of this subdivision
under construction and there will be detention in the rear yard of the subject
property.
• Page 12.e shows the sizes of the surrounding lots. There are R-2 lots outside
of the R-3 lots.
• The plat has been reviewed and approved by the Village Engineer.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 14 May 18, 2020
a
• The Fire Department has reviewed and has provided their opinion that there is
no issue to access the proposed lot any more than exists with any other flag lot
in town.
• When the original subdivision was subdivided in 2015 there was a four -lot
subdivision drafted at that time, however Mr. Senese had decided to maintain
the family residence and changed the plan to a three -lot subdivision. They are
now proposing the fourth lot to be added.
• They will comply with all DuPage and Oak Brook stormwater management
requirements. They are not seeking any additional curb cuts on Roslyn for the
new lot.
• The property will be very similar to the other lots that surround it.
• The current 63 -year-old ranch style residence on the property has not been
amenable to a sale. The property is older than any other property surrounding
it. It has a basement with a very low ceiling and is not amenable to be built -
out.
• The entire 1.25 -acre property has been on the market for a number of years,
with a starting list price of $2 million. The price has been dropped repeatedly
over time and is currently down to $749,000, which includes the house. There
has been no traffic or interest to date of the single lot.
Based on the existence of the surrounding lots, the requirement to conform to any
stonnwater requirements by the Village and DuPage County, and the necessity of Mr.
Senese to sell the property they are requesting the Plan Commission to recommend
approval of the subdivision.
Chairwoman Tropinski asked the applicant, with the temporary technical issue with its
presentation if they felt they had an adequate opportunity to present their desired
evidence.
Mr. Dressler responded that it did not cause them any difficulty and they were able to
present and hope that the members have had the opportunity to see how the actual
subdivision would assist in making the surrounding neighborhood uniform.
Member Doyle referenced the map on page 8.a and in regards to the lots surrounding
the property, the lots average 26,638 square feet. Of those 9 lots, 8 are almost the same
size or smaller. There is only one lot adjacent to the property that exceeds 27,400
square feet and it is only 400 square feet larger. He looked at the property and
appreciated many of the comments made. He did not see it as a situation that the
subdivision would detract from the neighborhood. If you Zillow the area, all of the
abutting houses are in excess of $1 million, with the exception of one. That particular
property, which is the subject property, was on Zillow at $800,000. Even if the house
were torn down and two homes developed, they would improve the economics of the
neighborhood.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 14 May 18, 2020
Member Iyer asked if they would have their own entrance or a common entrance
Mr. Dressler responded that currently the drive ends in a T and the drive would be
maintained, so there would be no passing into one lot from another lot.
Member Dibemardo was uncertain about the stormwater situation and flooding in the
area. Most of the residents appeared to be concerned with flooding and questioned it
because there appeared to be plenty of detention provided.
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson responded that there are not major drainage
problems in the subdivision. This type of subdivision would not have an impact on it.
There are minor drainage complaints due to settling with some on one specific property
that has happened over decades of time since the subdivision was developed. There is
an existing 80 -foot wide stormwater management easement along the west property
line along existing lot 1. It would be used to construct a detention basin in compliance
with the village and county stormwater ordinance. During his review with the rough
calculations, it does not appear that there is much concern at all for additional runoff
to 407 or 409 Ascot Lane. He estimated that there would be about a 20-30 percent
reduction in the release rate of water from the proposed subdivision to the two lots on
Ascot. He was not concerned about the stormwater aspects of this proposed project.
Director Budzikowski noted that there had been a lot of rain lately, although there was
some standing water. He was surprised there was not more water in general. The large
pond on 35b Street was full, but he was surprised that the Polo pond was almost empty
and he spoke with Jamie Patterson about the restrictor. He asked that the Commission
keep in mind that the existing house on 3324 Roslyn was constructed in 1958, was not
in the Village at the time, and was constructed without any stormwater management.
It is a high point of the subdivision and was the only house built at the time. Sheet
water drains off the lot to the adjacent lots. The lot in the rear was very saturated. With
the potential new development there will be some sort of stormwater
detention/retention area that will slow the release into the stormwater system that may
be a benefit, considering it is a 63 -year-old house that sheet rains right now. The
County's stormwater management was adopted in 1993 and is fairly restrictive. Every
few years, more intricacies have been added to it and in some ways has compensated
some of the developments that did not have stormwater detention. With the
development of the lots, they feel there would be some stormwater management added
on the property instead of the existing sheet water.
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson added that it would be a benefit to the properties
located on Ascot because all the water from the many existing impervious areas due to
all the buildings that have been constructed in the subdivision and will be routed
through the detention basin at a slower release rate than what currently exists.
Member Wilczak had concerns that the lots will have front yards facing rear yards
without street access creating a subdivision within a subdivision. He believed the
residents have legitimate concerns.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 May 18, 2020
(b
Member Iyer questioned access for emergency vehicles.
Director Budzikowski noted that there was a letter in the file from the Fire Chief, that
although it is not optimal they can access it, especially with the number of flag lots that
already exist in town.
Member Finlay said that in the Oak Brook Club they see fire trucks and ambulances
frequently. They have very narrow roads with no place to tum around and the fire
department manages. He disagreed and noted that the proposed subdivision meets the
requirements of the subdivision regulations.
Member Wilczak did not believe the ladder truck could operate on the rear lots. In his
opinion it could be accessed, but would not be able to operate.
Member DiBemardo questioned whether the 30 -foot easement would need to be
revised to include two houses in the rear.
Director Budzikowski noted it was a cross -access easement and allows for utilities.
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson said that during the review of the subdivision
on page 15.b of the case file, he worked with the surveyor to have the access easements
and the public utility easement provisions modified so that the appropriate property
owners would have access to it when needed.
The public comment period was opened to comments received in advance of the
meeting.
Planning Technician Polanek noted that the rules were a little different again for this
type of meeting. She noted that all the documents that would be mentioned were also
contained in the case file.
Jim Pehta, President, Midwest Chase had provided a survey that was completed and
submitted by the following residents of the Midwest Chase Subdivision. All contained
comments/reasons for not supporting the proposed 3324 Roslyn lot subdivision into
smaller lots.
1. Kamal and Urmilla Chawla — 402 Ascot Lane
2. Rama and Kusum Barad — 301 Polo Lane
3. Elizabeth Gossage — 408 Ascot Lane
4. Marilyn Smrcina — 409 Ascot Lane
5. Penka Zamfirova and George Sosenko — 208 Roslyn Road
6. Gregg Herlin —100 Livery Circle
7. George Zehak — 403 Ascot Lane
8. Thom Kettle— 304 Polo Lane
9. Muneer Bachh - 92 Livery Court
10. Mohemao Khaleel — 105 Livery Court
11. Howard Leafstone — 305 Polo Lane
12. Donna Musil — 111 Livery Circle
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 May 18, 2020
13. Sagul Tonsiengsom — 405 Ascot
14. Peter Cotseones — 303 Polo Lane
15. Hudai Dirilten — 202 Polo LaneGovind & Malini Lakshmah
16. Shashank Bhatt — 209 Roslyn Road
17. Govind and Malini Lakshman — 94 Livery Court
Additional Letters/emails received from:
Marilyn Smrcina, 409 Ascot Lane sent an email, signed the survey and submitted a
separate letter contained in the case file. In her email she commented as follows:
An overview of the points that I would like to address at the Planning
Committee meeting on May 18th regarding the Senese Property.
• Subdivision of 5 -acre plat and development.
• Stormwater runoff from the property
• North half subdivided portion has a sketchy access to the property questioning
emergency vehicle access
• Impact on surrounding homes and homeowners
Muneer Bachh and Rukhsana Muneer sent a letter stating: I am writing this letter
to express my strong opposition to subdivide the property at 3324 Roslyn Road into
smaller lots. Some of our major concerns are listed below:
• Safety and security of fire and police will be compromised by smaller lots,
which are essentially land locked. There is no way fire or other larger
emergency vehicles could get into these intended properties through a shared
30 -foot access path, put in place for two homes that will face Roslyn.
• Potential flooding with two new homes impacting adjoining neighbors, who
are already faced with flooding during a high intensity rainfall.
• Higher and extended impact of dust and noise during construction for two
homes.
We request that application filed by Lucien Sense for subdivision of the property
at 3324 be denied.
Samir Lakhany — no address. Stated in an email: We are a resident that is just
south of this property. We are opposed to the split, as it will take away from the
values of our houses in which we had built, due to the current regulations on the lot
sizes. hi addition, we built in this neighborhood so our views would not be
obstructed. We are opposed to this.
Planning Technician Polanek noted that these letters were all contained in the case file
and read as required.
Chairwoman Tropinski opened public participation to the three residents that had
registered to speak prior to the meeting and to identify themselves prior to speaking.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14
May 18, 2020
Marilyn Smrcina, 409 Ascot Lane said that she was a resident of the Midwest Chase
subdivision and a member of the HOA Midwest Chase Private Roadway Association.
They have had a substantial amount of construction in their subdivision over the last
five years. The homes under construction are causing additional stress on the
properties on Polo, Ascot and Roslyn roads. The difference between the new homes
on Polo and the older homes is approximately 15 feet at grade. This is also the case
for the home at 3324 Roslyn.
Storm systems are producing heavier rains and they have had five extreme flooding
instances in the past 12 years. Stormwater does run off these properties and impacts
the homes on the south side of Polo. Additional homes built on the site in question
would increase the burden during a rain event and no water at all ever appears in the
new detention area at Polo and Roslyn.
She had gone to the village and met with Mr. Hudson and Mr. Patterson and they
assured her they were on top of it. She and the other homeowners can see the problem,
but questioned what they were looking at and what they see. They are supposed to be
working for them, but how many times are they expected to suffer the consequences
based on decisions made because they are easy to make. These are the city planners
and engineers and questioned what they see or not see and ignore. Stormwater runoff
onto the existing homes is evident by the large ice dams appearing on driveways in the
winter and the stormwater runoff events flooding the driveways on Polo and Roslyn
Roads today.
Construction trucks are disturbing the private driveways. The north half of the property
belonging to the D & S Estates was subdivided into 3 parcels with an easement at the
208 Roslyn property. The current owner of the parcel in question was admitted into
the subdivision by the village at the time of the first proposal. They failed to pay the
HOA assessments and are now asking to land lock two additional large homes covering
any open green space available to absorb any stormwater. In addition to the threat of
increased flooding, her concern was that of all properties surrounding the proposed
development.
She questioned the access for fire, EMT, or police emergency vehicles to reach these
properties. They already have a lot with questionable access due to a utility easement,
which seems unbuildable and dangerous. She asked if the Commission recognized any
of these concerns and if a decision is made sight unseen so if it looks good on paper,
let's set up the permit revenues. It may be a win for the Village in the short-term, but
in the wake of their decisions, the burden is born by the surrounding homeowners.
They will pay the price of destruction to their property and decreasing property values.
People move to Oak Brook for the privilege of high-end suburban living and you would
be allowing and forcing an atmosphere of city life. The Oak Brook vision as she
understood it was open Space. This move will repeat the mistakes of Hinsdale and
Elmhurst by maximizing building on minimal lots to increase the revenue of Oak
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14
J�
I
May 18, 2020
Brook at a rate of less than.01 % in permit fees. This kind of decision will change the
integrity of the planned community and result in a high-end trailer park.
Her concern was for the integrity of the subdivision and to keep the vision Paul Butler
had in mind when the Village was formed and not the lot owners who have left and
abandoned the building, who must be told constantly to cut their grass and who do not
pay their HOA fees or real estate taxes to the county. These people should not be
allowed to circumvent the rules of the HOA and its Architectural Committee by
petitioning the Village prior to HOA approval. To add to the mess they have created
they listed the property for sale.
She added an additional comment that the flooding in this area is far greater than they
have seen. They may come to the subdivision at a time that is not optimal. The
detention on Polo and Roslyn has never had water in it and has a restrictor to her
knowledge, but the restrictor is useless because there is never any water in it. They
also accept all of the water from the Saddle Brook pond systems that goes into their
pond on 35a' and Roslyn and then floods the rest of the subdivision. She asked that to
be taken into consideration.
Thomas Astrauskas, 407 Ascot Lane, said that Marilyn made very good points, as she
is his neighbor. He said that he had talked to Mr. Patterson about water coming into
his backyard.
He questioned that this was a subdivision inside of a subdivision and has become an
upscale trailer park. He did not see how a fire truck could come in and go from this
property. It could make it difficult and he felt there should be some regulations or
distances for the property so that if a fire truck came and would destroy all of the
pavers. He questioned who would be responsible for that and if it would be the
homeowner association to put patches which is like applying band-aids. The grass and
weeds have not been cut. They don't care about anything and it is really sad. His point
of view is against the subdivision.
Jim Pehta, 101 Livery Circle, asked that his letter to the Plan Commission be read
aloud at the meeting. The letter is on page 8 of the case file and was read aloud as
follows: Key points in opposition to D & S Estates plan to subdivide.
1. The number of homes in Midwest Chase that are equal or less square footage
than the proposed lots is 15 of 53 total. The average square footage of these
lots is 24,388.
2. The number of homes in Midwest Chase that are greater than the proposed lots
are 38 of 53 total. The average square footage of these lots is 33,333 square
feet.
3. For emergency vehicles, there is not roadway access direct to this property as
there is within the two lots facing Roslyn Road
Can you imagine Oak Brook fire and police trying to access the property on a
30 -foot side blacktop pathway?
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 14 May 18, 2020
_rb
My opinion by granting this proposal you are helping to change the character
of Midwest Chase and our residents are very much opposed to that fact given
their response to date.
4. We polled our residents and 100 percent were opposed to this plan need action,
the principal reason, without one indicating this was a welcome addition to our
small subdivision.
The common answer was: "is too many big homes on small lots and this would
help accelerate that fact moving forward"
5. Residents expressed concerns about potential flooding to their lots on Ascot
lane and others due to the elevation of 3324 Roslyn. No consideration has been
given to the potential water runoff from new homes on 3324 Roslyn Road
property to homes on Ascot Lane.
6. Can you approve the property for subdivision when the property taxes to the
county are subject to a tax lien? As you know the village attorney has said the
county will not issue new pin numbers until the county real estate taxes are
paid. How does this owner pass a clear title to the new lots, if granted without
payment of country real estate taxes?
7. Upon further inquiry with real estate sales person hired by Mr. Senese this
owner did not seek to sell the property at auction or discuss the sale of the
property with any of the `cash for your home in any condition' which is what a
prudent owner would do to investigate all possible angles to sell the property.
There are numerous websites that offer to pay cash for your home in any
condition.
8. The expected cost to demolish the 5500 square foot home and haul away the
debris is over $100,000. If the party cannot afford to pay real estate taxes, how
does the owner plan to pay for demolition before the area becomes an eyesore?
That concluded the letters contained in the case file.
Member Finlay said that he did not know whether it was normal to look at comparing
different sizes of lot with different zoning districts, as there are two different districts
in this subdivision. If the larger district is taken out then the median is only 27,458,
which puts the proposed lots right in line with all of the other R-3 zoned lots.
Director Budzikowski responded that there are two different districts was a good point
and it was the way the property developed over time. Those in the R-2 districts have
a 1 -acre minimum and are located next to R-3 lots, so there is a disparity of lot sizes.
The minimum lot size for an R-3 lot is 25,000 square feet. Like many developers they
are looking to comply with the Code and do not go above and beyond the code
requirements. The two proposed lots do meet and exceed the code requirement. Due
to the 80 -foot stormwater detention easement in the rear yard will be double to the 40 -
foot code requirement, which is a benefit to this two -lot subdivision. There may be
further restrictions in the rear.
Mr. Dressler responded to the comments made by the residents. He noted that right
now they are subject to water that drains from the 3324 Roslyn property. With the
further development of the property as two separate lots and construction of detention
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page
1100 of 14 May 18, 2020
{ I:J
that should decrease the water flow based on Mr. Patterson's estimate. Considering
that right now there is a 5500 square foot ranch house there will be similar lot coverage
with two houses that would probably not be ranch -type houses, so the footprint would
probably not be larger than the existing. The benefit to the people on Polo is that there
would be a detention area for the rainwater to be held and controlled off rather than the
existing uncontrolled runoff into their yards.
The real estate tax would be dealt with at the sale of the property, which is common as
a condition of closing and would be made current at that time.
In regards to Mr. Pehta's letter, he did appreciate the Commissioner's comments
regarding the R-2 lots. The two lots proposed are well within and right in line with the
other R-3 lots in Midwest Chase.
He noted that there was a letter from Fire Chief Liss confirming that access to the back
two lots would not be an issue for the fire department. He understood the
Commissioner's concerns regarding access for the ladder truck and would hope that
the Fire Chief could comment on it at some point.
He understood the concern for too many big houses on small lots, but what they are
proposing is no different from what is on the lots surrounding them. These are not
small lots in comparison to all the lots that surround it or other lots in the R-3 zoning
district, so it is not really a valid problem.
It is very unusual to have a house or vacant lot auctioned off in a sale unless it is a
government seizure or bankruptcy where someone is trying to get rid of something
quickly. The problem with that or selling it to someone for cash is that you may get
only $0.60 on the dollar from the value of the property. The property is now listed
with a real estate agent with a long list of clients in this area.
The cost to demolish a 5500 square foot home does not take into consideration the use
of the foundation areas and existing spoilage to fill in spaces, as well as bringing in a
crusher as part of the process to actually reuse some of the materials from the existing
structure, which saves landfills, reduces the amount that needs to be hauled away and
reduce the overall cost of the project.
Member Wilczak questioned the location of the fire hydrants that were not noted on
the plat. He did not question the size or driving an ambulance or fire truck, However,
in the event of a fire, you are not using a ladder truck, but once they drop the hose on
the driveway from Roslyn they will have to run down to the house and no other vehicles
will be able to come in. They would be carrying ladders from the street. He believed
the fire hydrant locations should be listed. The other concern was the maintenance of
the driveway for snow removal, etc. and he thought the omission of those things were
significant.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 14 May 18, 2020
Mr. Dressler responded that there was an easement agreement that makes the
responsibility for the maintenance of the driveway the responsibility of the
homeowners that use it, which is currently Mr. Senese and the two property owners in
front. There is also a provision in the easement agreement that if another lot would be
added, the cost would be split between all four properties. There will be maintenance
of the road including snowplowing by the people who benefit from its use. The cost
is shared as expenses occur.
Planner Von Drasek noted that the Polo Lane subdivision also has shared driveway
access. She noted that this proposed subdivision already has an easement agreement
from the existing 3 -lot subdivision.
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson stated that 202 and 204 Polo both have access
through 200 Polo Lane and do not front the street.
Director Budzikowski noted that there is existing easement language on the plat. In
regards to a fire hydrant location, final engineering has not been submitted that would
require the locations. If it does not comply with the Code for the proper hydrant
distance, the new developer would be required to install a hydrant to meet the Code.
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson responded that the Public Works Director
would need to be consulted and that there may not be another hydrant required. As
part of the construction of a new home, they would be required to use the hydrant on
Roslyn and provide long water services. He also noted that 202 and 204 Polo drive
through a driveway access easement provided by 200 Polo and they must drive through
another property to get to those properties that is maintained within a cross access
easement agreement.
In response to a comment regarding the maintenance of the pond in the Polo
Subdivision, Consultant Village Engineer Patterson said that the 4 lots in the Polo
Subdivision share the maintenance costs of the detention basin at Polo and Roslyn.
Director Budzikowski said that if the detention basin is not holding water possibly due
to the restrictor, it should be investigated to make sure that the system in that location
is functioning properly.
Member Doyle questioned the ability to add conditions concerning the driveway.
Director Budzikowski responded that it would be a significant cost to the individual
homeowners and it is a policy that we have not had before. There are between 50 and
60 -plus flag lots throughout the Village and most if not all of those driveways were not
constructed with that type of pavement to accommodate a fire truck. Although he
understood the concern, it would be a significant requirement for a residential
driveway. He would check the concern with the fire district.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes
Page 12 of 14
T??
May 18, 2020
Consultant Village Engineer Patterson responded that he reviews the village's
residential driveways plans and it has never been a requirement that the driveway
support a ladder truck. He added that if a house were on fire, repairing a little asphalt
would be a drop in the bucket cost wise. He did not believe there would be a severe
failure due to the outrigger pressure on a slightly failed asphalt driveway.
Mr. Dressler added that Mr. Senese noted that when the driveway was installed from
Roslyn to his residence it was almost installed as a roadway with two-inch stone and
not just a layer of asphalt, which was something that the overall association required
as well as in the language with shared expenses with this property and the future
subdivision. These were some of the things required with the subdivision in 2015.
Member Wilczak had an additional concern that the ladder truck would tip over on a
driveway that could not support the weight.
Director Budzikowski noted that a resident of Midwest Chase had commented on the
Zoom chat line that the Oak Brook Fire Department did not respond to calls in the
subdivision. However, the Fire Chief reviewed the subdivision plan and did not
indicate that another fire district responded to this subdivision. If it were not Oak
Brook's jurisdiction, he would have stated that. There is mutual aid with our
surrounding communities, if our department is elsewhere on a call.
Planner Von Drasek agreed that the subdivision was in the Oak Brook jurisdiction.
Chairwoman Tropinski asked if the petitioners would like the Commission to proceed
with a motion.
Mr. Dressler and Mr. Senese agreed to move forward.
Chairwoman Tropinski asked if the petitioners felt comfortable and that they did not
wish to present anything further to the Commission. She asked if they felt that they
had an adequate opportunity to state their case.
Mr. Dressler responded that they felt there had been adequate opportunity to state their
case and ample opportunity to respond to comments and questions both from the
Commission and from the public. They stated they would welcome a vote on their
request.
Chairwoman Tropinski added that comments made by the public/audience as well as
reading comments that had been received prior to the meeting would be made part of
the record.
Member Iyer questioned during the roll call how the Commission would know the
issues in the conditions would be addressed.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 14 May 18, 2020
am
7
91
Director Budzikowski responded that the easement language was included on the plat
and he would look to the Fire Chief to update his letter to identify if this is a practice
that is currently being utilized and if they have any additional comments concerning
this. This was not an additional condition to the motion.
Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member DiBemardo to recommend approval
of the D & S Estates Resubdivision of Lot 1, Final Plat as presented, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Requirement that the stormwater management area for both lots be
constructed as part of the first building permit;
2. Modification of the plat language related to maintenance responsibilities; and
3. Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 6 — Members DiBernardo, Doyle, Finlay, Iyer, Lal and Chairwoman
Tropinski
Nays: 1 — Member Wilczak
Absent 0 — Motion Carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business discussed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Finlay to adjourn the meeting at 8:42
p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 6 — Members DiBemardo, Doyle, Finlay, Iyer, Lal and Chairwoman
Tropinski
Nays: 1 — Member Wilczak
Absent 0 — Motion Carried.
ATTEST:
/s/ TM Budzikowski
Tony Budzikowski
Development Services Director
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes
Page 14 of 14
/0.
May 18, 2020
OTHER
BUSINESS
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT