Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2012 11-29-12APPROVED 6/27/13 PLAN COUNCIL Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:00 a.m. Yorkville City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560 Attendees: Krysti Barksdale-Noble - United City of Yorkville Bart Olson - United City of Yorkville Jeff Weckbach - United City of Yorkville Brad Sanderson – E.E.I. for the United City of Yorkville Laura Schraw - United City of Yorkville Pete Ratos - United City of Yorkville Eric Dhuse - United City of Yorkville Deputy Chief Larry Hilt, United City of Yorkville Police Mike Torrence, Bristol Kendall Fire Department Dan Kramer – Petitioner’s Attorney James “Jim” Ratos, Petitioner Lynn Dubajic – YEDC (arrived approx 9:15am) Jason Pesola – Pesola Media Group Ron Bauer – RB & Associates Chris Bauer – RB & Associates Frank Willman – Willman & Groesch Dave Kellogg The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Brad Sanderson. The minutes from the last meeting (February 23, 2011) were approved as submitted. Kendall Crossing Development Preliminary and Final Plats: Mr. Sanderson opened the discussion by stating City staff had put together some comments (provided) and asked Mr. Kramer opened with some of his responses so the Plan Council could decide how to discuss the other items. Mr. Kramer suggested first going over the engineering review from November 20, 2012. Preliminary Plat Review: 1. A legal description should be added to the first sheet of the plat - Mr. Kramer said a number of the mechanical ones had no problems at all and Ron (Bauer) was going to do a preliminary plat review for legal description and site data. 2. A site data table should be added including the pertinent items noted in the PUD Ordinance. The parking stall dimensions should be provided in the site data table – (not addressed) 3. The lots should also depict building footprints and dimensional setbacks. Information regarding purpose/use and heights of buildings should also be provided. - The lots on the building footprint will be the theatre building. As far as the other lots, at this time there is no way of knowing who the users will be there so supplying footprints at this time is not possible. He stated Ron could at least set the set-backs. Mr. Kramer wondered if they should at least provide “side lot lines; or set-backs” on the plat knowing that in all likelihood, they are going to shift with the different type of users. He asked if there could be a statement on the plat that the side set-backs will be determined by end-user. Ms. Noble said that if it is a minor revision, it can be approved administratively. If it’s a major revision, they would need to go back and re-visit the issue. They are allowed to do anything minor that doesn’t increase density. Mr. Kramer asked that in the final PUD agreement call out that there is anticipation there may be minor revisions on side-yard setbacks. 4. The existing zoning and land use of adjacent property within 500’ of all sides of the site should be noted. - Regarding existing zoning, Mr. Bauer stated he did not have everything within the 500 feet shown. Mr. Kramer said when it reaches 500 feet, it starts getting into residential users. He would like to see it stated that, ‘this area of block 1 of Countryside is all single family; this is all R4; etc.” Ms Noble said that was all they would need to do. 5. There appears to be several existing easements within the proposed development. The text is illegible. The existing easements need to be depicted clearer. - Mr. Kramer said they now have the title report and Mr. Bauer has the back up documents. Mr. Bauer said there was some confusion with the existing utilities and the J.U.L.I.E. report did not locate everything they asked for and will probably ask for new markings to fill in the missing gaps. 6. The developer should provide comment on the intentions of the proposed easement that traverses through the middle of several lots. Proposed easements need to be clearly defined. - Mr. Sanderson asked Mr. Dhuse if the utilities belonged to the city at that time and he said the storm sewer did not; sanitary and water did. Mr. Sanderson questioned whether some of the islands were in the right location and how they were going to match up with the proposed turn lanes. He said more detail was necessary. 7. Detailed topography of the intersections of the interior streets with Countryside and Center Parkway should be provided. – (not addressed) 8. A better understanding of how the proposed development will maintain or not maintain access points with neighboring lots should be provided. – Mr. Kramer asked Mr. Sanderson if he answered his question. They did a narrative in the sense that Mr. Bauer did a final plant, looking at a lot of angles from the title company. They had him number, as a separate lot, all of the internal private roadways. Their intent, upon closing, is to have an LLC form that will take title named Kendall Crossing LLC as the legal title holder in which Mr. Ratos’ group will own the lots. The common lot (that will be the streets) will be owned by Kendall Crossing Businessmen’s Association; an Illinois not-for-profit. They will then have a detailed OEA (Operation Easement and Access Agreement) as to all of the lot owners who will have a vote and ownership in that and it can’t be separated from that ownership. There will be detailed terms on maintenance and ownership. 9. Existing water main should be shown. – Mr. Bauer said it just didn’t get shown on the preliminary plat, but they have located and verified it all. 10. Soil borings should be submitted for review. - Mr. Kramer verified that Mr. Ratos just gave them to Mr. Sanderson. 11. Any proposed loading areas should be identified on the plans. – It was determined that a loading dock would not be necessary since normal traffic would be via hand truck into the theatre. There is a “pull-off area” for truckers to unload merchandise. There is a double-door for deliveries. 12. It is unclear whether the sheets labeled “Topographic Survey” are a continuation of the “Preliminary Plat.” If so, the titles should be changed. - Mr. Bauer explained these two items were separate on the original check sheet so that’s why he submitted ‘topographic survey’ separately. It was very difficult to get everything on the preliminary plat so he just submitted both of them at the same time. Mr. Kramer asked Mr. Sanderson if he needed any changes or was it acceptable; and he said he believes Ron understands. 13. A preliminary engineering plan has not been submitted, rather the petitioner is moving immediately to final engineering. – Everyone is trying to use what they have and recycle stuff. Mr. Ratos has already spent $150,000 on this project and has nothing to show for it until Monday when he meets with ‘the guy’ coming in here Monday and hopes to have things worked out and done. He appreciates the patience of the City and they need a little “grey area” from the Council to get to the next point. Right now they’re trying to finalize the grading in the parking lot. Final Engineering 14. A storm water management report needs to be submitted. – Mr. Sanderson said they need to indicate what the proposed impervious is and what the estimate is on existing facilities and they need to provide some narrative and calculations along with that for what they need. Ms. Noble injected on the City’s end, the County has adopted their new stormwater management effective January, 2013. The City had to provide a list of developments that were exempt and they included this development as exempt as a good faith gesture from the City’s end and would appreciate more information to back this up. Mr. Sanderson just asked for calculations. 15. A traffic study needs to be submitted. – Mr. Kramer questioned the feasibility of this request from IDOT. Ms. Noble answered that was the purpose of asking for it. Mr. Kramer assured them if IDOT requires it, they will do it. (ITEMS 16 through 20) - 16. The plans are generally incomplete; therefore, we are only able to offer a partial review. – 17. The City’s construction notes for water main construction and YBSD’s notes for sanitary sewer construction need to be added to the plans. – 18. Detailed proposed grading needs to be provided. – 19. Lot lines and property lines need to be shown on the plan sheets. – 20. Roadway widths need to be dimensioned. – Mr. Kramer said theses items were more “clean-up,” as they have already been addressed in one fashion or another and he didn’t see any issues at all with any of them. (ITEMS 21 and 22) - 21. The amount of proposed storm sewer inlets within the parking areas appear to be inadequate. Please note that a maximum of six inches is allowed for ponding with a 10-year design storm. – 22. Rims and inverts of existing and proposed utilities need to be shown. – Mr. Kramer said he needed Mr. Bauer and Mr. Sanderson to chat to make sure they were on board with both of those items. Mr. Bauer questioned if “six inches” was a City ordinance and Mr. Sanderson said it was. 23. The existing water main and sanitary sewer are in poor condition. The replacement of this infrastructure should be discussed. – Mr. Kramer said they needed input from Mr. Dhuse, Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Ratos. Mr. Ratos said he just had all of the sewer lines camera’d and they’re in good shape as far as sanitary. He will provide copies of the findings from Kuhn Plumbing. Mr. Kellogg said there was a revised concept for sanitary is now one connection. He would like to replace the water section in front of the theatre for starters. They would boost it up to 12” to the main line and there is a service connection for water and fire. Mr. Dhuse said Mr. Kellogg should talk to fire protection about service connections. (ITEMS 24 through 27) 24. All appropriate utility permit applications need to be submitted for review. – 25. Appropriate details need to be added to the plans. – 26. The final engineering plans need to be submitted to IOT for review and comment. Any comments from IDOT should be provided to the City. – 27. The plans need to be submitted to YBSD for review. Please forward their comments to us upon receipt. – Mr. Kramer said these were more general comments about what needs to be included for review and they have no objections to any of those. 28. A clean version of the photometric plan needs to be submitted. The version that was provided is difficult to read. As required by City ordinance, a minimum of 1.0 foot-candles measured at the adjoining property lines must be met. – Mr. Kramer asked Mr. Sanderson if he received the disc from the photometric people and Ms. Noble said she had the disc. 29. A cost estimate for the proposed improvements needs to be provided. - Mr. Kramer knows that for bonding purposes they need to have the cost estimates so they’ll get a little bit further along and then with some of these things, particularly with IDOT, become clearer he’ll be able to present to the City a “phase construction schedule.” Mr. Kellogg said they hope to have engineering plans by December 15. Also, he has come up with a plan with Jason Pesola that if they go over budget on this, they are going to help subsidize this, to a degree, because they do have some of that TIF money; but the City has to know that they are giving these people $1,500,000 in incentives to come here that his company is giving them. The money is a very big deal because the money they are getting; they are giving back. They’re hoping that by the theatre coming in, it will make the other lots more valuable and, in turn, bring in more money, tax dollars, etc. It’s all contingent on the theatre coming in to Yorkville. 30. A proposed construction schedule needs to be provided. - Ms. Noble said December 12 Plan Commission wouldn’t go to City Council until Dec 19. Mr. Kellogg asked if they could then move dirt and Ms. Noble said first they would need a final. Final Plat Review (ITEMS 31 through 37) 31. The minimum font size should be 8pt. Currently, numerous items are difficult to read. 32. The Public Utilities and City Collector’s certificates should be removed. 33. The City Utility Easement provisions are incorrect and should be replaced with the Public Utility language. 34. The private utility easement provisions are shown on both sheets; one should be removed. 35. Building setback lines need to be shown. 36. Provisions for access easements need to be provided. 37. The widths of adjacent right-of-ways need to be shown. Mr. Kramer said, once again, these are mostly clean-up items. These are things we need to provide and he has no objections. Mr. Kellogg said they are planning on putting two lifts of 4” on the main road and two lifts of 3” on the parking lot. Landscaping The meeting was then turned over to Ms. Schraw to cover landscaping. She said her Nov 20 memo should cover everything. Mr. Ratos asked if the PUD could override this and Ms. Noble said the PUD can allow for variances. He then asked them to approve the plan as is so they could get this thing done. Mr. Kramer reiterated that Ms. Schraw was looking for items 1-7 to be identified on plan and 8 really gets to the heart of number of trees and density of landscaping. A question was raised about the landscape buffer and Ms. Schraw said it just needed to be indicated on the landscape plan. Mr. Kramer is sure the landscaper can find a replacement for the Autumn Blaze Maple. General Memo Ms. Noble said she needs an overall plan that calls out a site date and parking stall dimensions. Mr. Kramer addressed the written plan development schedule and said after Mr. Ratos meets with the NCG owners, they should have a idea of quickly or slowly they want to go. He should be able to provide side-by-side improvements with the public improvements going on at the same time. He also mentioned to Mr. Ratos that they need to look at re-doing the brick monument entry signs – he would like to see at least elevations from Aurora Sign Co. Roof-top equipment will be in the middle of the building, not visible from ground level. Meeting adjourned 9:57 am Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie Olsem, Administrative Secretary