Kaptur Administrative Center
8999 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
708-671-3700
General Information
Webmaster

VILLAGE OF PALOS PARK
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS & REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE PLAN COMMISSION
MAY 20, 2010 

►Click here for Public Hearing of May 20, 2010

The Plan Commission of the Village of Palos Park, Cook County, IL met for its regular meeting on Thursday, May 20, 2010.  Chairman Ralph Jones called the regular meeting to order at 11:12 p.m.  Answering to roll call was: Julie Kay, John Basso, Martin Strubin, Michael Sundermeier, Michael Wall and Chairman Jones.  Paul Petan was absent.  Steven C. Manning, Community Development Director, Bob Jungwirth, Christopher Burke Engineering, and Sally Kinney, Secretary to the Plan Commission were also present. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Michael Wall moved, seconded by Julie Kay to approve the regular Plan Commission meeting minutes for April 15, 2010.  Upon voice vote the motion carried unanimously.

AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE 

Easements 

Chairman Jones reiterated changes to be made to the Easement portion of the ordinance: 

• There would be no charge to remove trees.  Trees that were taken down would be replaced tree for tree so if it was a 50 caliber inch tree only one tree would be replaced, it would not be per caliber inch.
• If the owner refuses to remove a structure in the easement, the Village would remove it and charge the resident to do so.
• A confirmation of receipt of notice would be obtained.  Certified letter or a staff visit with a sign off would be required. 

With those changes the Chairman asked for a motion to approve the proposed Code amendment for easements. 

The Plan Commission took the following action at the regular meeting following the public hearing:   

There being no further discussion, John Basso moved, seconded by Marty Strubin to approve the Code Amendment for Easements with the changes as discussed.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried with six yes votes. 

Driveways and Retaining Walls 

• Michael Wall had a question regarding end of Section 2 and Section 3 on page 12 should read “or as needed for the driveway to meet the requirements of this Code” instead of “or as needed to accommodate”.
• Garage Locations—setback for side-entry attached to be same as side-entry detached (at least 30 feet)
• Driveway Locations—setback at least 8 feet from side lot line or more if needed for a drainage swale and retaining walls;
• Retaining Wall Locations—setback at lease 8 feet from lot lines or more if needed for drainage swales, and maximum height of 3 feet for each retaining wall, and if terraced, then at least 3 feet separation between retaining walls.

The Plan Commission took the following action at the regular meeting following the public hearing: 

There being no further discussion, Michael Wall moved, seconded by Marty Strubin to approve the Code amendments for garage locations, driveway location, and retaining wall locations as discussed.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried with 6 yes votes. 

Private Streets

Chairman Jones stated that the width of the right of way is 66’ and asked if they wanted to reduce it to 50’ so the Village would not to take a private street and make it a public street.  Also they asked that if it was an easement or an out lot that it not be counted as part of the area of the site for purposes of subdividing.  Michael Wall said he would still like to see some enforcement language regarding maintenance.  Chairman Jones said that it may not be necessary.  Mr. Wall said as long as the owners complied why would there be an objection in the ordinance.  Chairman Jones said it seemed to make things very complicated by having to collect taxes etc. if they did not comply.   

Mr. Wall said that he understood that the initial construction was according to a certain code but that did not apply to maintenance.  As it was written it should be modified to contain that enforcement language here rather than worrying about relying upon some other section of the code or later when a problem arose.  Chairman Jones asked that at what time would someone be forced to maintain a private street.  How would that be determined?  It was stated in their private agreement but did not give the Village any enforcement power.  Mr. Daniels said that in regard to the enforcement mechanism he did not perceive that as a zoning ordinance matter.  If the recommendation was to the Village Board that they consider whether the property maintenance issue did require a zoning hearing, then they would have your recommendation and it could be decided whether or not the code addressed that concern.  From a zoning perspective usually it was standard for those types of terms to fall within the zoning ordinance and then another ordinance would take over.   

Mr. Wall said this was not a zoning ordinance.  There was no reference to any other part of our code or any municipal enforcement power.  Steve Manning stated that there could be a reference to enforcement authority as described in a certain section.  It would give the Village and put everyone on alert that the Village did have enforcement authority and will take action if they did not maintain the street.  Mr. Wall asked Steve Manning for the section of the Code that would be referenced.  Mr. Manning said he had adopted the International Building Code with several subsections, one being the standard property maintenance Chapter 1422, that would give the Village the authority to require maintenance of facilities.  Mr. Wall said with that modification stating that private streets have to be maintained per IBC Section 1422 Property Maintenance would be part of his motion.  Mr. Wall indicated that part of his motion was to reduce the width of the private street to 50’.

Chairman Jones stated that in regard to the height of the guardhouse 12’ and the gate would be 6’ in height. 

The Plan Commission took the following action at the regular meeting following the public hearing: 

There being no further discussion, Michael Wall moved, seconded by Marty Strubin to approve the Code Amendment for Private Streets, Guard Houses and Gates with the changes as discussed.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried with 5 yes (Wall, Strubin, Basso, Sundermeier, Jones) 1 no (Kay). 

Preliminary Plat of Subdivision—Castles of Shadow Lakes 

Chairman Jones said that after lengthy discussion, the fence on each side of the pillars for the gatehouse request had been withdrawn.  The private street request had been recommended but will need final approval from the Village Council.  There are not any street lights except at the guardhouse.  The gate will meet the ordinance as far as being 75% open.  The preliminary approval was for the basic concept.  Reduce the pavement width to 20’.   

Mr. Daniel stated that the Private Street Amendment would be before the Village Council at the same time as the subdivision.  He asked the Plan Commission to consider an alternative recommendation in the event the private street option was rejected so that the subdivision could proceed.  The layout did not change in this instance the only change would be that there was a larger street.  If the private street was approved it would be a 50’ street width.  If not it would stay at 66’, the width of a public street.  They were asking that the recommendation go forward conditionally in the event the private street amendment did not pass.  It was just a protective measure to help keep the subdivision moving along and evaluate the feasibility after the next Village Council meeting instead of coming back to the Plan Commission again.  It would still meet the 1 acre minimum.   

In addition Chairman Jones said they wanted to pursue the elimination of the 33’ wide access easement on Ramsgate.   

Steve Manning said that there was a swale requirement for new subdivision.  For infill development in the older part of town you do not require the easement unless it was already established as a drainage way.   

There being no further discussion, Marty Strubin moved, seconded by Michael Wall to approve the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision (with Private Street) as discussed.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried with 5 yes (Wall, Strubin, Basso, Sundermeier, Jones) 1 no (Kay). 

Second vote taken if “private street” does not pass the Village Council, Preliminary Subdivision approved with 66’ public roads. 

There being no further discussion, Marty Strubin moved, seconded by Michael Wall to approve the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision (with Public Street) as discussed.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried with 6 yes (Sundermeier Kay, Wall, Strubin, Basso, Jones)  

Chairman Jones told the petitioner the recommendation would be on the June 14, 2010 Council agenda and encouraged a representative to attend. 

Announcements

1. The June 17, 2010 Plan Commission meeting will be cancelled.
2. The July 15 meeting is being rescheduled to July 8, 2010.

At 11:35 p.m. John Basso moved, seconded by Julie Kay to adjourn the public hearing.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. 

Minutes respectfully submitted,
___________________________

Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission 

MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

 HELD BY THE PLAN COMMISSION

MAY 20, 2010

The Plan Commission of the Village of Palos Park, Cook County, IL met for its regular meeting on Thursday, May 20, 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, and Michael Wall were absent (Michael Wall arrived at 7:50 p.m.).  Steve Manning, Community Development Director, Bob Jungwirth, Christopher Burke Engineering, and Sally Kinney, Secretary to the Plan Commission were also present. 

AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE

 Easements

Chairman Jones said that at the Concept Review at the April 15, 2010 meeting reviewed possible amendments to the Village Code relating to easements, setbacks, and private streets.  Steve Manning modified Code Amendments according to comments made by the Plan Commission on April 15. 

Chairman Jones stated that there have been problems in the past with residents building in utility easements and when authorized personnel needed to do work in the easement area there were access issues.  The Village needed to establish in writing how these easement situations would be handled when the Village needed to access the easement and who would be responsible for the cost of replacing what had to be removed.  Chairman Jones said it would be good to clarify in the Code how a situation should be handled when the Village needed to do work in an easement.  He read from the draft ordinance provided by Mr. Manning. 

Chairman Jones commented that one change would be that confirmation of receipt of notice to a resident would be required if the Village needed to access the easement in front of a home.  Chairman Jones said the notification should be in writing, not a phone call or putting something in the door.  Julie Kay agreed that confirmation of receipt should be obtained unless it is an emergency.   The resident would sign off that they were notified that they had 72 hours to remove the structure. 

The Chairman questioned that if notice was given and the object was not removed from the easement he said that the expense of removing the object would be incurred by the owner.  Michael Sundermeier and Julie Kay agreed that if the resident did not comply with the Village’s request to remove the obstruction in the easement, the Village would remove it and then charge the resident.  Any structure is whatever was put in the easement by the owner.  The Village would do its best not to remove any trees from the easement. 

Michael Wall arrived at 7:50 p.m. 

With regard to the ordinance, “objects” should be clarified throughout the ordinance.  John Basso asked if the Village had ever had to access an easement and if there was a problem.  Mr. Basso asked if a resident plants trees and 30 years later when they are full grown and the Village needs to cut the trees down, the resident would have to pay.  As this ordinance read it states that the Village was only responsible to grade and plant grass.  Mr. Basso stated that if a resident gave the Village permission to work in the easement and the area is fully planted and mature, he thought the Village should replant the trees.  Julie Kay said that the Village cannot replant 40 year old trees.   Chairman Jones said he thought this applied more to structures, not trees.  This was a utility easement and there was always a chance that access would need to be made.  Mr. Basso said that restoration should be more than

grass.   Section 4 applied as of the ordinance adoption of June 14, 2010 but not Section 3.  John Basso thought trees should be replaced tree for tree by quantity.  However, resident should not be charged for removal of trees if any need to be replaced.   

Chairman Jones reiterated changes to be made to the Easement portion of the ordinance: 

• There would be no charge to remove trees.  Trees that were taken down would be replaced tree for tree so if it was a 50 caliber inch tree only one tree would be replaced; it would not be per caliber inch.
• If the owner refuses to remove a structure in the easement, the Village would remove it and charge the resident to do so.
• A confirmation of receipt of notice would be obtained.  Certified letter or a staff visit with a sign off would be required. 

Setbacks 

Chairman Jones began the discussion regarding excessive height of retaining walls and driveways built right up to property lines.  The Plan Commission was looking to restrict how close driveways and retaining walls to hold driveways were placed on the property in the setbacks.  

Chairman Jones read from the ordinance in regard to garage locations. He said that if the home has a side-load garage facing the side lot line it was required to be setback 30’ to allow room for the driveway.  In some cases, a retaining wall was used to elevate the driveway above the side yard grade.  Steve Manning said the new Village ordinance would require more than 30’ if needed. 

In regard to driveway locations, Chairman Jones said this ordinance would increase the driveway setback to 8’ to a side lot line from the current 3’.  Chairman Jones asked why the Plan Commission would want to change this to 8’.  Steve Manning stated that 8’ is the minimum width of a drainage swale in the Village Code.  Chairman said that the previous ordinance stated that if the 30’ needed to be increased that would suffice.   If a drainage swale was unnecessary than why couldn’t it remain at 3’?  Steve Manning said that these standards would apply to new construction as the Code required a side yard drainage swale.   Chairman Jones said that the Plan Commission would be adjusting the ordinance to match what the Ordinance stated in regard to drainage swales.    

Chairman Jones began the discussion in regard to retaining walls.  The Plan Commission discussed at the Concept Review on April 15, that in lieu of an 8’ retaining wall, it should be required to be a maximum 2’ terraced retaining wall.  John Basso said that 2’ was very small; 3’ would be a little easier to plant.  Chairman Jones said that a 3’ minimum with a 2’ height.  Mike Sundermeier said that it might be too many terraces.  Mr. Basso stated that it might be too restrictive.  Mike Sundermeier said he thought the issue was how high a retaining wall should be?  Chairman Jones stated that the goal was to try to soften the look of the wall.  Mr. Basso said he did not want to put something in an ordinance that would be impossible to follow.  He said the same thing could be accomplished with a screening of plantings and evergreens.  Chairman Jones said that the neighbor would view a gradual slope in lieu of a wall.  Bob Jungwirth, was asked what a logical slope for an earth and berm would be to slope up to a high driveway.  Mr. Jungwirth said three to one was considered the maximum of a turf slope.  It could be steeper with some groundcover, flag stone, blocks or something.   

Chairman Jones thought that if it was changed to 3’ of planting area and a maximum 3’ height for the retaining wall that would make more sense.   Julie Kay asked if the Village could require that these retaining walls be the same material as the house.  Chairman Jones said that requirement would be very expensive as engineering, foundation and material cost would have to be considered. 

Audience Participation 

Chairman Jones asked if the audience had any comments regarding the easement and setback code amendments. 

Steve Maier, 8810 W. 121^st

Mr. Maier asked if 120th Place would be affected by this new code amendment, it was a private street built over an easement, if the Village had to get in to change the water lines that are under the street.  Steve Manning said he understood the private easements gives the Village access rights to the lift station.  The proposed code amendment would not affect previous private streets. 

Regarding setbacks and retaining walls.  This only applied to someone who wanted to build something within a side yard setback.  Mr. Maier said the Village is allowing foundation walls and are calling them retaining walls and they are built in to the side yard setbacks.  Originally, when we were discussing this it had to do specifically with things built in the easements.  It was not being built in a buildable area.  A retaining wall could not be built within 8’ of the lot line.  Steve Manning said that variations are still possible.    

Private Streets 

Chairman Jones said since 1992 no private streets have been allowed in the Village.   He said that private streets are beneficial to the Village because they do not have to be maintained or plowed.  They are not beneficial as they are really a driveway and no one is allowed to enter the area.   Chairman Jones said the Plan Commission was again considering private streets.  

Chairman Jones began the discussion asking if we wanted to require 66’ private streets.  The reason we have public streets in the Village was so that utilities that run along side of the streets.  That was not necessary for a private street.  If we require private streets to be 66’ it would be possible for the homeowner’s association to approach the Village at some point asking for the Village to take over the street.  The residents of that private street could state that they were paying taxes towards plowing and maintenance but were not getting that benefit to their private street.  The Village would have a difficult time refusing to take over the private street if the street completely matched Village specifications. 

 Chairman Jones asked if the size of the street could be reduced to 50’ width.  In a very big development it might add two houses, but the benefit to the Village to not be responsible for the private street.  Julie Kay said that if someone bought on a private street it was because they wanted a private street.  The Village cannot take over a private street if it did not meet Village specifications. 

Chairman Jones said that if the street was an easement or an out lot it should not be counted as part of the area of the site.  One of the reasons that the Village decided to eliminate private streets was because they were including the private streets as part of the size of the lot in the development and were getting more buildable lot.  It should be clarified that an easement cannot be counted as part of the area.  Steve Manning said this stipulation is in another part of the Code but thought it worthy to repeat it in the easement section. 

Castles of Shadow Lakes—Preliminary Plat of Subdivision 

Mark Daniel, Daniel Law Office, said the subdivision was zoned R-1-A District total acreage was just shy of 7.2 acres.  Property with or without a private street could be subdivided in the fashion to meet the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement.  Acreage per lot varied, 1.0064 to 1.03751, if the street was included the lots would be larger. 

The homes would be different based on preferences of the purchasers.  The main access would be off of Wolf Road with a gatehouse at the entrance.  The neighbors had some concerns.  There would be no fences and the subdivision would have covenants and declarations.  The developer will consider the locations of the homes on the lot and in relation to surrounding neighbors. 

Neighbors had concerns how detention ponds would affect root areas of trees on neighboring parcels.  Mr. Daniel said this issue would be addressed.  The subdivision meets all ordinances of the Village except for a couple.  Lots 3 and 4 have an issue with the radius along the cul-de-sac and a variance had been requested.  Gate house, private streets, and type of fence variances have been requested. 

The automated unmanned gatehouse is an architectural preference.  The Village would have any easement over the cul-de-sac area but relieved of all obligations.  There would be full access for emergency public safety officials. 

The gatehouse would have a 30’ setback with a turning radius for emergency vehicles.  The fence style would be a 6’ high iron fence with monument posts.  The proposal was to obtain an authorization of the subdivision on a preliminary basis containing an authorization for the gatehouse.  The proposal would be to have the gatehouse placed in the street easement area; it would cross Lots 1 and 6.  The proposal would be to have the association covenants and declarations control the use of that right of way including the maintenance of the gatehouse.  The dormant special service area option would give the Village the certainty it would be maintained.  An association would be set up and assessments would be obtained. If the area was not maintained, the special service area could be activated by the Village and receiving funding for repair through property tax.  If the gatehouse height can only be 8’ that would be fine, a 12’ height would allow improvement to the gatehouse roofline and its appearance with respect to the fence. 

 Street lights would be at the gate a combination of customary streetlight and decorative lighting.  Street lights would not be placed throughout the subdivision. 

In regard to Lots 1 and 6 the gross floor area features of the structures on these lots would not include the gatehouse.  The approach was to not include the gatehouse in the gross floor area. 

Chairman Jones asked if the road was a private street and the easement was maintained by the association and the gatehouse was within that easement, why it spanned lots 1 and 6 if it is within that easement.  Mr. Daniels responded that in lots 1 through 6 the lot lines were underneath the street.  The total lot area including the street with or without the street did still meet the 1 acre requirement.  If it was an out lot then the gatehouse would be part of the out lot. 

Mr. Daniel began the discussion of the detention/retention ponds.  He said there were three structures on the lot.  Water flowed about 66% to the north, northwest with a small amount towards Wolf Road and a small part moved to the southeast.   They believed they are providing more than was necessary in the way of detention and design.  There would be a detention pond in two general areas, northeast on lot 6 and on lot 4 in the northwest. 

The neighbors stated preference for a properly maintained, wet basin detention pond.  Mr. Zubek preferred that as well but Mr. Jungwirth said that either wet or dry were still options.  Swales and drainage easements were on the side rear and front of every lot in the subdivision.  Mr. Daniel said they would not change the rate, volume, and direction of the flow.   The purpose was to hold water so that it did not flow in a way that was going to damage a road or cause flooding on other property.  The pre-existing condition now was that sheet flow was moving off the property to the north at a significant rate and volume. 

The water collected in the facility by a restrictor which controlled the rate and volume of water. 

Steve Manning asked Mr. Daniel to clarify the possible changes in the shape of the two ponds when it would come back for review.  The rectangular detention ponds that were mentioned are conceptual only.  The ponds could be shifted south due to the tree drip line or the shape could change.  Pond design could be affected by choice of the wet or dry basin.  

Mr. Wall asked if the detention ponds were about 80’ deep from north to south and about 200’ wide.  He said they seemed to diminish the actual size of the lot.  Mr. Fano said the pond is 6’ deep from the bottom to the high water level and 7’ to the top of the berm, for emergency volume.  They symbolize the true volume of a 100 year 24-hour rainfall could hold. 

Chairman Jones wanted to clarify that the heavy lines around the corner of the pond are actually lock block terracing, deepest at the corner and tapered up the grade.  Mr. Fano said yes.  Plans will be fine tuned after the preliminary plat of subdivision is approved. 

Mr. Daniel stated that the developer was willing to work with the Village and neighbors on the swales along Wolf Road and 113th Avenue or off site towards the north. 

A private street in a cul-de-sac of this sort really would not affect the interconnectivity of the neighborhood.  The requested iron fence with the 50% capacity requirement that we would like to meet is to separate from the traffic not the community. 

Mr. Basso asked about the strip of land and how close the house is to the lot line.  Mr. Manning said that narrow strip which is actually Lot 7 was actually always part of the property. 

Chairman Jones asked if the 113^th Avenue improvement plan was in place.  Mr. Daniels said that is had not progressed to the point to know what if anything was to be done.  Chairman Jones asked if the neighbors would have to contribute to improvements.  Mr. Daniel said it may be possible that some work could be completed in a cost sharing arrangement.  If there was an impact off site that they did not see we would contribute financially. 

Steve Manning said that both ponds have a release, one a restrictive pipe at the bottom and one is an overflow at the top, which will release in the north direction.  Property owners at the north will be affected by the design.  Drainage at 113^th at this time was very problematic, limited swale, undersized culverts, drain tiles, narrow roadway and occasional flooding over the road.  He said the Village had a small budget for drainage repairs, he considered this an opportunity to improve the area to the swale, shoulder, streets, and culverts along with the subdivision.  The best way to make this happen was to have a sharing arrangement by the property owners, developers and Village.  Mr. Manning said he was glad the developer went on record as they are willing to participate.  This would help the property owners to the north of the development if those improvements happened.  There would be less flooding, dryer yards, and the life of the pavement would be longer. The designing and engineering has not been finalized.  he Village would not approve the final plat until all was worked out. 

Bob Jungwirth said that he was confident that the developer followed the design standards that the Village had.  He said there will be more run off but the rate was regulated by ordinance that will be adopted by MWRD.  Mr. Daniels said the development would increase the flow of surface water.  To compensate for the excess water these detention ponds will alleviate that water.  

Chairman Jones asked if the 50% open and 50% closed was the fence and the gate.  Mr. Daniels said yes.  The gate will be iron and stone and very solid looking.  Chairman Jones said he thought it would be very restrictive, like a wall.  Mr. Basso said trees and evergreens are much nicer than a fence.  If the whole idea was to shield the subdivision, than a live fence would work.      

Mr. Basso said that there was nothing worse than a water problem.  To create another problem on 113^th Street on top of a current water issue, the Village really needed to be careful and make sure that there was no more water.  Mr. Wall asked Mr. Jungwirth if he was confident that there would be no more water flowing to the surrounding properties.  Mr. Jungwirth said the increase will be the total volume due to the increase in impervious services.  However, the detention pond will capture that water and release it at a controlled rate.  The ordinance that has been drafted and will be adopted in Cook County by MWRD is a maximum release rate of .15 cubic feet per second, per acre.  That is very low compared to what naturally occurs on property.  It will be more water but regulated to a safe rate that will not adversely impact the downstream property.  If we extend the time it would take for the water to disperse than the area would stay wet for a longer period of time. 

Mr. Daniels said that Mr. Zubek had decided during the meeting after hearing the concerns about the style of fence along Wolf Road outside the gatehouse would be withdrawn.  He still wanted to look into the gatehouse feature on the entry which may be modified in light of Mr. Zubec’s request to withdraw. 

Chairman Jones had a concern about the 24’ width of pavement, couldn’t it be less like 20’.  Mr. Daniels said they could decrease to 20’.  Chairman Jones asked if the gate could be more open than 50%.  He said he would prefer something like 80%.   

Chairman Jones said the ordinance should state that the private street should not be counted as part of the lot size.  Steve Manning said it would make sense to include it in the motion, Chairman Jones agreed.   

Public Comment 

Patrick Doherty, 12315 S. 113^th Avenue  

The main problem was the sump pumps of the existing houses on Wolf Road.  The property owners on Wolf Road have their sump pumps directed towards 113^th Avenue.   He suggested the retention pond be placed on the south side to alleviate the after storm effects by the sump pumps. 

Mike Wall asked Mr. Daniel if the water that flows to the south currently be directed to flow north.  He responded that 2/3 flows northwest and the other 1/3 flows towards the northeast.  Unlike what is going on now there will be planned detention for water on these properties that will also collect discharged water from the sump pumps of new houses in the subdivision.   

Chairman Jones asked if the problem that 113^th Avenue floods or is it that your backyards flood because the people to the east are pumping water to the west.  Mr. Doherty responded that both of those things are taking place.  Chairman Jones stated that the backyard problem will not be worsened by this development.    

Caroline Bratsos, 12409 S. 113^th Avenue

Mrs. Bratsos stated that the run off comes through gravel when retention ponds are built, will the bottom retain all of the water?  Mr. Daniel responded that there should not be seepage.  These ponds would be designed with a clay liner.   The detention was to pass through a restrictor.  Any engineer had to sign plans by state law and would be responsible.  

Steel Bratsos, 12409 S. 113^th Avenue

He was concerned about the accuracy of the water calculations.  He was also concerned about the aesthetics.  He wanted to make sure the Village stayed with its long standing tradition to keep the environment natural and the topography protected.  He said he did not want to look at a 6’ wall as he walked out his front door.   

Michael Sundermeier asked if redoing 113^th Street help at all?  Steve Manning responded that the ideas being considered of widening and deepening the swale along 113^th would certainly help the water conditions in these residents’ yards.  Mr. Basso said wouldn’t it just be easier for everyone to clean out their ditch.  Mr. Manning stated that the ditches are just very shallow. 

 Wayne Hansen, 11301 McCarthy Road

The project containing retention/detention ponds would probably stop a lot of flow.  He had lived in the area for a decade.  When he first moved in the ditch was probably 24” deep.  At this time in some places there is no ditch left it is overgrown.  If the ditch was returned to its original depth it would probably work fine.   

As far as gated communities, how does an ambulance enter?  Mr. Daniel said there may be a knox box available.  The electronic gates have a seeing eye and can open automatically.  Chairman Jones stated that since they are taking the fence out grass creet can be put on one side of the post and an emergency vehicle can drive right over it. 

Tom Weymeier, 12 Old Creek Road

He stated that there is an easement between the west edge of the subdivision and Ramsgate Drive and asked for it to be abandoned.  Steve Manning said he was recommending that it be abandoned.  It was a much wooded area and he wanted that preserved.   

Chairman Jones asked Steve Manning what the process was to abandoned this easement area.  Mr. Manning asked Chairman to make it part of the motion. 

At 11:10 p.m. Julie Kay moved, seconded by Michael Sundermeier to adjourn the public hearing.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. 

Minutes respectfully submitted, 
___________________________

Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission

Recreation Department
708-671-3760
8901 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map

Library
708-448-1530
12330 Forest Glen
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map
Website

Police Department
708-671-3770
8999 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map
Website

Fire Department
708-448-0369
8815 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map

Village Email
♦  Mayor: John F. Mahoney
♦  Village Manager
♦  Treasurer
♦  Police Chief: Joe Miller
♦  Fire Chief: Steven J. Carr
♦  Recreation Department
♦  Library Information

Village Commissioners
♦  Public Works: Nicole Milovich-Walters
♦  Police: Dan Polk 
♦ Building: G. Darryl Reed
♦ Finances: Kent Oliven

© All Rights Reserved, Village of Palos Park