|
VILLAGE OF PALOS PARK
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON JULY 20, 2011
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting of Plan Commission of the Village of Palos Park, Cook
County, Illinois was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Answering to roll call
was Julie Kay, Michael Sundermeier, Michael Wall and Chairman Ralph
Jones. Paul Petan, John Basso, Martin Strubin were absent. Also in
attendance: Steve Manning, Community Development Director and Sally
Kinney, Secretary to the Plan Commission.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Michael
Sundermeier moved, seconded by Julie Kay, to approve the minutes of the
May 19, 2011 meeting as presented.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: -4- Sundermeier, Kay, Michael Wall and Chairman Jones
NAYS: -0-
ABSENT: -3-Petan, Basso, Strubin
3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. John and Jeanne Jensen, owners of
property at 12345 S. 83rd Avenue requesting to vacate the full width 66’
of the 124th Street right-of-way adjacent to their lot.
Discussion: Chairman Jones said it made sense to vacate this portion as
the full east portion had already been vacated to the Mastersons. Mr.
Jensen stated that he wanted to vacate the street in order to preserve
the land and keep it forested. Dr. Blakeman was at the meeting and said
he had no intention of requesting vacation of half of the street
right-of-way adjacent to the Blakeman property.
Chairman Jones reiterated that Mr. Jensen’s intention was to protect the
area and that was why he wanted to purchase it. He notified Mr. Jensen
that the Village may establish conservation, drainage and utility
easements in a vacated right-of-way.
Steve Manning stated that he received a call from AT&T and though they
do not currently have any lines in the right-of-way area they have
requested the Village reserve an easement for them. A letter was also
received by Nicor and notification from the Public Works Department
asked for an easement for water and sewer.
The Plan Commission took the following action: Michael Wall moved,
seconded by Julie Kay to recommend approval of street vacation of the
remaining portion of 124th Street adjacent to the Jensen property a full
66’ but in all cases drainage, conservation and utility easements would
be included. Dr. Blakeman had publicly expressed no interest in
purchasing his portion.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (4) Wall, Kay, Sundermeier, and Chairman Jones
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
Chairman
Jones stated that the Plan Commission is a recommending body and that
this matter would be heard by the Village Council on Monday, August 8,
2011 at 7:30 pm.
B. Robert J. Noetzel, owner of property at 9105 W. 120th Street
requesting the full 66’ width or half width of the 120th Street
right-of-way adjacent to his property.
Discussion: Robert Noetzel stated that he had resided at his residence
for 41 years prior to sewer and water being installed which spoiled the
natural environment. He would like more privacy and to preserve the
natural environment. He would like to clean up the area as there were
large dead trees and yard waste that was dumped in the area. He saw the
ordinance in the newspaper and thought that it would be easier to vacate
the street than it was in the past and decided to take advantage of it.
His neighbor across the street, John Byrne recently passed away. His
children may liquidate the estate and the land may be sold to
developers. He said that things may change on 120th Street so he was
interested in the entire 66’ or half if that was all that was available.
Chairman Jones stated that he walked 120th Street and there was a path
that goes to 90th Court. He did notice that structures on the Byrne side
were close to the path. Chairman Jones asked if the path was really on
120th Street and that the path did not seem to be 33’ from the wall.
Steve Manning said it appears the path is in the right-of-way but we can
confirm when we do a plat of survey. Mr. Noetzel said the path was
closer to the Byrne property than his. Michael Wall said he did not
believe title insurance could be acquired on a piece of property without
street frontage.
Chairman Jones said that staff has estimated the Noetzel property size
at 1.92 acres. If property was over two acres the street would be a set
price, if under an acre and street vacation created two acres an
appraisal would be required. Mr. Noetzel said he could subdivide one
acre and still keep his home on .9 acres. Chairman Jones said he could
not. Chairman Jones said it was nothing personal but that they were
concerned with the next owner of the property. Chairman Jones said he
could not have an existing home on less than one acre and subdivide an
acre off as it would not be approved if street vacation created another
buildable lot. Mike Wall asked if it would be two buildable lots without
street frontage. Steve Manning said it would depend on how it was
subdivided. Chairman Jones asked Mr. Noetzel if he would still be
interested if appraisal was required. Steve Manning said the lot size
was an estimate based on a tax map that may not be accurate.
Mr. Manning commented that the purpose of the hearing was to determine
if the right-of-way was worthy of vacation or retention as public
property. Mike Wall asked if Mr. Noetzel would consider taking a part of
Lakewood and what was the main reason in taking 120th and not Lakewood.
Mr. Noetzel responded that it was beautiful forested property. If he
wanted to develop the property he would pick any area that would bring
his land over two acres. His intention was to preserve the property. If
a street vacation created another buildable lot, subdivision would not
approve parcels under one acre. If there were 2.02 acres then it could
be sold at listed price in the ordinance.
Mr. Noetzel said that the Village may have responsibility to improve the
street depending on what was done with the Byrne property. Michael Wall
asked if he would be interested in vacating a portion of Lakewood. Mr.
Noetzel replied that the Lakewood area was a floodplain and he wanted
120th because it was forested and beautiful.
Adrian Jackiw, 9010 121st Street stated that her family used the path to
get to 119th Street. A lot of people use the area for walking their dogs
and sledding. He asked Mr. Noetzel if he would still allow people to
walk the path. He said yes. The path was mainly on the Byrne side of the
right-of-way. Mrs. Jackiw said if the purpose was privacy she did not
know how only half the easement would accomplish that. She was concerned
that she may not be able to use the pathway. Michael Wall said then if
you walk west on 120th can you get to 92nd Avenue. He was concerned
about cutting this area off from public use. Mr. Noetzel said if granted
he planned to reforest and clean it up.
John Thomas Byrne, 9100 W. 121st Street said that he had a large piece
of property but to subdivide would cause one of the parcels to be land
locked. The only way to get into that property would be to run a
driveway to the landlocked lot along 120th Street. He said he would
rather not see that nature eliminated but otherwise would have no access
to the other lot.
Steve Manning said the two Byrne houses share a driveway that goes south
to 121st Street. If a third Byrne lot was created, it might have access
to 121st. Chairman asked if he could run a driveway along the
right-of-way of 120th. Mr. Manning said it was physically possible but
owner would have to purchase right-of-way. He said subdivision of the
Byrne property may not be possible depending on the floodplain. Chairman
Jones said the area served a purpose to the public.
Chairman Jones said the Byrne property was currently a tax division and
was 3.14 acres. John Byrne said that he would talk with his siblings
about the interest in purchasing half of the right-of-way. Mr. Noetzel
said he would still be interested even if he could only get half of the
street. Chairman Jones said the owner would bare the cost of the
appraisal. Michael Wall said it was his position that it should remain a
public property since it was still in use.
The Plan Commission took the following action: Michael Wall moved,
seconded by Julie Kay to deny recommendation of street vacation since
recreational public use was in effect to get through to the forest
preserve for public purpose and rely on the Village to maintain it. This
could result in possible subdivision of two properties.
Upon
roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (4) Wall, Kay, Sundermeier, and Chairman Jones
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
Chairman
Jones and Micheal Wall noted an objection to the street vacation was
received by e-mail from Terry Wallace.
Chairman Jones stated that the Plan Commission is a recommending body
and that this matter would be heard by the Village Council on Monday,
August 8, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
C. Bike Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Discussion: Steve Manning stated that the Bike Plan is to be a part of
the Transportation Plan within the Comprehensive Plan. The core and most
important part was the location of bikeways. The bikeway locations were
intended to link local destinations and other bikeways. It was the hope
that Village bikeways would eventually link to regional trails.
There were three bikeways that the Village was attempting to link:
1.One was the Cal Sag Trail which would follow the Cal Sag Canal from
Lemont to Burnham. This regional trail has been in planning for 30
years. Village access to the Cal Sag Bike Trail would be on Route 83 at
86th and Route 83 at 119th Street.
2. Existing trail in Palos Heights through
Memorial Park linking Lake Katherine to Tinley Creek Woods.
3.The LaGrange Road widening project which has been started including a
bike path on the west side of LaGrange from 179th to Creek Road. Steve
Manning stated that the Village had requested IDOT would extend that
trail to Wild Cherry. The path will be separated from the curb within
the right-of-way was 10’ wide asphalt with a line painted down the
middle for two-way traffic and a pedestrian bridge at 142nd Street.
Mr. Manning stated that he was part of the planning process of Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). CMAP was looking for locations
for new regional trails. They were considering ComEd rights-of-way and
Southwest Highway for new bikeways. The bikeways would be separated
into:
Trails—Separate right-of-way from street.
Paths—Within right-of-way but separated from street such as a
sidewalk
Lanes---Striped lane on road pavement
Route—On road pavement and shoulder shared with vehicles
All
involve substantial cost and investment. There were grants paying for
the Cal Sag Trail, IDOT money for LaGrange trail and developers could be
required to build trails in other areas. The County and State had
implemented a complete streets policy so that when road improvement
projects were planned they would include bike access.
Mr. Manning spoke of seven key objectives for the bikeway:
Objectives:
1.
Connect high priority destinations
including parks, schools, stores, and train stations making bikeways
a viable alternative to vehicular travel.
2.Link to other bike ways in the region including forest preserve
trails, Cal Sag Trails and other municipal trails.
3. Facilities should be designed for safety such as selecting low
volume streets for bike routes and installing appropriate signage
for traffic control and way finding.
4.Install traffic calling feathers where feasible to raise driver
awareness
5.Update the Village standards for inclusion for new bikeway
facilities and new developments.
6.Pursue grants for bikeway construction and programming.
7.Support other jurisdictions to pursue bikeway planning
implementation complete streets policies and promotional activities.
Mr.
Manning said that the Village had received a grant in order to purchase
and install bike route signage this year. The Village was looking for
the most appropriate place to install signs. Mr. Manning stated that at
the last Plan Commission meeting there was concern about signage and
safety along McCarthy Road. This area of the trail was removed from the
plan for safety reasons. The bikeway along 131st and 104th are busier
routes with paved shoulders on 131st but not on 104th. These areas were
seen as vital components to the bike route system. The Village planned
to approach the church to see if they would allow their property to be a
part of the bikeway in lieu of these busy roadways.
Julie Kay said she had reservations about sign pollution. There are too
many signs. Mr. Manning responded that signs would be used to raise
driver awareness, safety and way finding. Bike signs for drivers were
similar in size to a stop sign. Bike signs for bicyclists would be
smaller. Active Transportation Alliance may not recommend posting signs
on sidewalks as they did not want to encourage walker/rider conflict.
Steve Manning stated that the Plan Commission was voting on the bike
plan map to be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan and the objective
statements. He said the plan showed where the Village would like to
develop and seek funding for a bike path. Mike Wall stated that there
were areas where he was worried about traffic. He asked if the trail map
could be broken down area by area to indicate whether the area was a
path, lane or a trail. Chairman Jones said he was very concerned about
safety and would like to see 131st Street and McCarthy and LaGrange
designated as a trail only. Paths are in the right-of-way and trails are
out of the right-of-way. Mr. Manning said McCarthy Road and LaGrange
Road are state jurisdiction and IDOT would build a path not a trail
according to their complete streets policy. Mike Wall was concerned that
they were recommending what may not be the safest area.
Steve Manning said the signage plan was not finalized. One possibility
was to have an entry sign that showed that Palos was a bike-friendly
community and nine crosswalk signs would be 2’ square metal IDOT signs.
There would also be a way finding sign every two blocks but there could
be fewer. Julie Kay said that was too many signs. Julie Kay asked, “Do
we want people outside of Palos around here and riding by the school?”
Mike Sundermeier stated that some signs are needed so people know where
they are going. However, every two blocks seemed like a lot. James
Petropoul stated that bike trail signs range in size from 24” and the
length depends on the length of the message.
Julie Kay said that in Scottsdale, AZ the trail was extensive and there
were no signs along the trail except for crosswalks and busy streets.
Chairman Jones asked if signs could only be at locations where bike
trails cross, whatever would reduce the amount of signs. Julie Kay asked
why we couldn’t have way finding signs only where the bike path goes in
different directions. She said finding your way was part of the
adventure. Steve Manning said bike trail maps would be available at the
Recreation Center, Library, Village Hall, and the Metra Station.
Chairman Jones clarified that “routes” are shared with vehicles in order
to make them for bicycle use. “paths” are in the right-of-way and
“trails” are out of the right-of-way.
Bob Busch, 12805 94th Avenue said he grew up in Palos Park, liked
bicycles but was apposed to any shared lane configuration on 94th
Avenue. There was only a 16’ easement for the first 1200’ of 94th Avenue
and they paid to pave it. Mr. Manning stated that it was in an earlier
version of the plan but it was removed. Mr. Busch said he did not move
to Palos Park to be in a zoo. He did not want people gawking at the big
houses and throwing their water bottles.
Adrian Jackiw, 9010 121st Street said she had three boys and would like
them to be able to ride their bikes and walk safely in the neighborhood.
Since the Village was working with consultants on the bike trail she was
confident. Mrs. Jackiw asked if members of the community were asked for
their opinion on signs and what they thought bike path would look like.
She said she liked some signage as it showed a welcoming community.
Maria Rogers, 12021 S. 93rd Avenue asked who was maintaining the bike
path area and paying for the land and what the cost was. Mr. Manning
said that the Village did not directly pay for any of the bikeways shown
in this plan but that grants were tax supported.
Mr. Wall asked why we wanted all these other trails when we have the Cal
Sag Trail. Mike Sundermeier said that kids want to ride through the
Village and it was currently not safe.
Steve Manning said the access to the Cal Sag Trail was planned along
Route 83 at 86th and 119th. Chairman Jones said he viewed the bike trail
as part of the future. With rising gas prices and pollution, he thought
the trail could take people where they needed to go it was a good idea.
Julie Kay said she did not have a problem with safe bike paths it was
marking the trails bothered her.
Steve Manning said there was a parking lot being planned at Route 83 and
86th Avenue and it would be connected to the Cal Sag Trail. Michael Wall
stated that the parking lot had not really been planned yet. He asked
who was building the parking lot and Mr. Manning answered that it would
be built as part of the trail and not by the Village. Mr. Wall said the
parking lot may not be necessary. Chairman Jones asked if there was a
demand for a parking lot at that location. He asked if the people that
were going to bike on the Cal Sag Bike Trail would come from Palos Park.
If we had a connection from the Palos Park Trail to 86th Avenue, Palos
Park residents could then ride their bike to the Cal Sag Trail and the
parking lot would not be needed. Steve Manning said that the parking lot
would not be built by Palos Park but by the Cal Sag Trail on MWRD land.
Chairman Jones said that they could make a motion to extend the trail to
86th Avenue and thereby eliminating the need for the parking lot.
Julie Kay asked since we had the Cal Sag Trail, why would we want all of
these other trails through Palos Park? She said she grew up here and
raised her kids here. They rode bikes and found a way to safely get to
the forest preserves. She did not want to see all of the signage and
trails. Ms. Kay said Palos Park was a unique, wooded, private community
and now we were going to be changing Palos Park. Mike Sundermeier said
it was much different now than it was twenty years ago.
Michael Wall said that the bigger questions was do we want all of this?
Julie Kay said why do we want people coming off Route 83 and coming to
Palos Park?
Chairman Jones said that why did we need a parking lot if the trail was
for Palos Park residents? Julie Kay said she did not want he trail to go
down 86th Avenue. Chairman Jones confirmed that the Cal Sag Bike Trail
could be accessed from 104th Avenue, so since there was another access
for Village residents we did not need the parking lot. Chairman Jones
said we should eliminate the parking lot as they did not see a need it
would bring people in from outside of Palos Park. Mr. Manning asked to
make your bike plan motion separate from the parking lot issue.
The Plan Commission took the following action:
Michael Sundermeier moved seconded by Julie Kay to recommend the bikeway
plan with the following changes: designate LaGrange Road and McCarthy
and 131st Street as “Trail Only” area; eliminate one of the indicated
bikeways on map which run parallel 131st and ComEd right-of-way; and
only install signs at locations whose bike trail splits off. No signs in
between. Only signs where direction of path changes or splits off.
Necessary signage should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES:(3) Sundermeier, Wall and Chairman Jones
NAYS:(1) Kay
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
The Plan
Commission took the following action:
Michael Wall moved, seconded by Julie Kay to recommend elimination of
the parking lot at approximately 86th and Cal Sag Bike Trail.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES:(4) Wall, Kay, Sundermeier, and Chairman Jones
NAYS:(0)
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
D.
Proposed amendment to the Village Code regarding zoning standards
for residential planned unit developments.
The Village Council approved a motion at their 6.13.11 meeting to have
the Plan Commission recommend amendments to the RPUD standards in the
Zoning Code. The Plan Commission discussed a myriad of possible changes.
Possible changes discussed:
1. Using 15 acre minimum to avoid
clustering throughout the Village.
2. Setbacks need definition of shared
driveway.
3. Buffering standard is ambiguous.
4. No massive areas of asphalt for
driveways without green space.
5. Add minimum of two-car garage. Two
internal parking and one external parking spot.
6. Guest parking to be within so many feet
of unit in lieu of centrally located parking.
7. Maximum of six units per building.
8. Eliminate one-bedroom units from PUD
amendments.
9. Whether or not to have single and
multi-family units intermingled within development.
10. Allow smaller manor homes which would
accommodate a different market.
11. Require open space percentage in lieu
of lot coverage.
12. Using density bonuses to encourage
construction of active recreation.
13. Require bikeways and sidewalks.
Maria
Rogers, 12021 S. 93rd Avenue had been in a variety of communities where
smaller homes were available, there was recreation and something to do.
People get up in years and cannot maintain their homes on their own but
still want activities.
The Plan Commission took the following action:
Michael Sundermeier moved, seconded by Michael Wall to recommend the PUD
discussion be tabled to the August 18, 2011 meeting.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (4) Wall, Sundermeier, Kay and Chairman Jones
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
E.
Proposed amendment to the Village Code regarding zoning standard
in the R-1-A district. Section 1268.02 (f)—Corner side yard of not less
than 35 feet for lots that are 125 feet wide less. Section 1264.04
(e)—No variation shall be authorized for corner side yards less than 35
feet on lots 125 feet wide or less.
Chairman Jones said that the Plan Commission reviewed this in January
and recommendation was made to keep it the same. Chairman Jones stated
that the reasons against changing outweighed the reasons for change.
Julie Kay stated that 45 days and $300 over the lifetime of a home was
not too much to endure for a resident.
Jack Martin, 11920 Hobart (ZBA Member for 20 years) encouraged the Plan
Commission to keep the current corner side yard setbacks as a resident’s
corner side yard is someone’s front yard. Corner side yards are a
challenge. Small lots need a variance usually and the Code has been
working pretty well. Mr. Martin said that the Zoning Board had been very
receptive to resident hardship and that the process had worked.
The Plan Commission took the following action: Michael Wall moved,
seconded by Julie Kay to recommend the Village Council to keep the
Corner Side Yard setbacks as is.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (4) Wall, Kay, Sundermeier, and Chairman Jones
NAYS:(0)
ABSENT: (3) Petan, Basso, Strubin
4.OLD
BUSINESS: None
5.NEW BUSINESS: Applications for the September 15, 2011 meeting
applications are due August 15, 2011.
Public Comment: None
6.ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Michael Wall moved,
seconded by Michael Sundermeier, to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m.
Upon voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
________________________
Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission
|
Search Our Site
