|
VILLAGE OF PALOS PARK
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION
MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 2010
The Plan Commission of the Village of Palos Park, Cook County, IL met
for its regular meeting on Thursday, April 15, 2010. Chairman Ralph
Jones called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Answering to roll call
was: Julie Kay, John Basso, Martin Strubin, Michael Sundermeier, and
Chairman Jones. Paul Petan, Marty Strubin, and Michael Wall were absent.
Steven C. Manning, Community Development Director and Sally Kinney,
Secretary to the Plan Commission were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Michael Sundermeier moved, seconded by Julie Kay to approve the minutes
of the public hearing on January 21, 2010. Upon voice vote the motion
carried unanimously.
Julie Kay moved, seconded by Michael Sundermeier to approve the regular
Plan Commission meeting minutes for January 21, 2010. Upon voice vote
the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: Concept Review of proposed Code Amendments
EASEMENTS
Steve Manning told of recent requests from property owners to build a
fence, driveway, retaining walls, gate, gate post in a utility easement.
The Village Code does not address this kind of construction in the
easement.
The Village Council asked what kind of standards could be added to the
Code to address this easement issue. There was discussion of the Village
contacting the property owner giving them notice, restoring the easement
if the Village has to enter the easement to repair. They discussed the
authority to issue permits if it did not interfere with any of the
utilities or whatever else that is in the easement. For pre-existing
easements the Village could have the property owner sign an agreement
form that states that they understand if the Village damages something
existing in the easement that was not permitted (i.e. fence) the Village
would not be obligated to repair or replace but would make every effort
to do so.
Mr. Manning stated that a recent brick gate built in an easement cost in
excess of $20,000 with a sewer line located only three feet away. If
repair was needed to this area the Village would have to dig a trench
and heavy equipment would have to be brought in. Our Code does not
address a situation like. Mr. Manning was looking for suggestions and
direction from the Plan Commission.
Chairman Jones said that he thought it was assumed that if property
owners built on an easement and the Village had to work in the easement,
if something was destroyed in that area it would be the owner’s
responsibility to repair or replace it. He thought it was good to have
an established standard in the Code. Chairman Jones said he thought on
page 5 of the packet in the italicized writing, that the mention of a
“building” was not clear. He would rather have it worded as a “shed” not
indicating a permanent structure with a foundation. Chairman Jones asked
why a “tree” was mentioned as needing a permit by the Village. Steve
Manning said the Tree Body was considering permitting tree planting, but
thought it made sense to remove it for now.
On page 6, Section 3 of the packet of information Chairman Jones would
like the term “probably” removed as it is not firm. He liked the fact
that a signature would be required prior to receiving a permit so
property owners and the Village know their rights. Steve Manning said
that this ordinance would be reviewed by the Village attorney.
John Basso said that many property owners had given the Village easement
rights. He asked if this meant that the Village may not restore the
easement after permission was given by the property owner. Mr. Manning
said it was a concern to determine what restoration would mean. Chairman
Jones suggested that the ordinance state that if the easement was
donated for public utilities it could be considered a special agreement.
Mr. Basso said the easements donated to the Village did not have
particular language guidelines.
Chairman Jones asked if was clearly stated that all new and existing
easements would be addressed. Steve Manning said that he could clarify
it so that there was no misunderstanding to the resident. Chairman Jones
said that it is something that the Village needed to have in place.
PRIVATE STREETS
Steve Manning stated at the last meeting there was a concept review for
a subdivision that included a private street. In summary, he tried to
identify the major issues that had surfaced in the past regarding
private streets: density, durability, maintenance, and privacy.
Currently, there were two private streets with gates, Misty Harbour and
a secluded entrance off 123rd at 111th. There are several private
streets in town including Shadow Ridge.
Chairman Jones stated that he was against private streets because there
was an ordinance that did not allow for private streets. If the Code was
rewritten and satisfied past problems then it would be fine because it
decreased the burden on the Village. He did not want to increase the
density by including the private street in the property calculation for
square footage. He said it would be important to have the private
streets built to the same standards as a public street. Chairman said it
was also important in regard to gates, that the Village, utility
companies and emergency vehicles would be able to enter.
Another important issue Chairman Jones said was that the property owners
would need to know that they were responsible for the private streets
and the maintenance of them. Steve Manning said Willow Springs assigned
a re-occurring tax or Dormant SSA, that would be collected if the owners
did not maintain a private street. State law does not currently demand
that single family areas maintain their private streets.
Chairman Jones asked if an ordinance could be written by the Village in
order to make sure single-family owners participated in the maintenance
of their private streets instead of levying a tax. Shadow Ridge was
asked to set up a covenant for their association to maintain the street.
John Basso said that homeowners in an upscale gated community probably
would want to keep the streets maintained. Julie Kay said that it would
have to be written in the ordinance that the Village would not take
street maintenance over until the street is repaired. Mr. Basso stated
many people are not aware they are on a private street. Julie Kay said
she did not like the idea of the Village becoming a town of private
streets. Nature had always provided the privacy. There are plenty of
communities people can go to if they wanted to live on private streets.
Mr. Manning said that this ordinance could be limited to new
subdivisions. He said that private streets could be approved without a
gated entrance. Mr. Basso said that many people feel more secure behind
gates. Steve Manning asked if only small developments should be eligible
for gating. John Basso said he thought that private streets had to do
with cheating on the size of the lot. Chairman Jones said that the gates
were the concern. If pillars were used they should be no taller than
eight feet. He would like to see an ordinance addressing private street
maintenance.
Chairman Jones asked if there was any public comment on what was
discussed so far. Steve Maier, 8810 W. 121st Street said that 120th
Place is behind his property. He thought the Village made 120th Place a
private street after public use for 20 years several months ago. He
asked if the provisions that you are discussing going to affect existing
private streets. John Basso said it has always been a private street.
Mr. Maier said he owns part of the street and it was a very small
street. If we were required to maintain a street damaged by construction
on the block he would get involved because it would affect him
financially. Steve Manning said that Code amendments are never
retroactive. 120th Place is a good example why a mechanism has to be set
up from the beginning before the first home is built so all property
owners know what their responsibility is.
SETBACKS
Chairman Jones said that from a building code standpoint elevated
driveways and retaining walls are not considered part of the house, it
fit the Code and was reviewed by the building department. Steve Manning
said it would be easy to address this if home designers put garages in
the lower level at the back of the house. Chairman Jones said it may be
less expensive to build the retaining wall than to lower the garage. It
makes sense to have the garage entry at the same living level as the
rest of the house. They are meeting the setback limits with the
retaining wall. Michael Sundermeier said they are trying to maximize the
width of the house and are basically using that easement for the
driveway.
Steve Manning stated that the typical side yard setback requirement in
R-1-A is 15 feet or 15% of the width of the lot. In the case mentioned
by Mr. Maier, the 15% is 23.5 feet. Chairman Jones said that they could
step the wall or “terrace” every two feet and landscape to soften the
look. Chairman Jones said we have to be careful not to get too
restrictive or people will not build in Palos Park and we did not want
that to happen. The way the site slopes, they were stuck with doing
something like that in order to have the garages on the logical main
level. He stated that any retaining wall with this impact should have a
requirement to be terraced every two feet. Chairman Jones said he has no
issue building a non-permanent structure in a setback as long as it
meets the Code.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Steve Maier, 8810 W. 121st Street stated that there
was a home on 121st Street being built with no variance requests with an
acre lot and it complied with Village Code. The issue was that the
garage was set high and the driveway needed to be raised to meet the
foundation. There was no foundation being put in to support the driveway
which would be elevated and on an angle, it seemed unsafe. When Mr.
Maier called the Village he was told that no foundation was being built
in the setback but a retaining wall was being put in. There is nothing
in the Village Code that addressed retaining walls and builders are
using retaining walls to support driveways that go up to the second
floor of the
home. These walls are being built approximately 8 or 9 feet high and
will be built in the side yard setbacks. Mr. Maier thinks this is
encroaching. He did not think this was appropriate for our Village. Mr.
Maier stated that nothing should be built in the side yard setbacks
without being reviewed, and the neighbors should be considered.
Maria Rogers, 12021 S. 93rd Avenue, stated that she did not want any
more private streets. Private streets end up costing the Village money
in the long run.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.The next Plan Commission meeting will take place on May 20, 2010 at
7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, John Basso moved, seconded by Michael
Sundermeier, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Upon voice vote, the
motion carried with 4 yes votes.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
__________________________________
Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission |
Search Our Site
