Loading...
Plan Commission Agenda 1997 09-1997 Cancelled • .... OP�gs%S OUR RG). Qe0 Y °9F CITY of YORKVILLE County Seat of Kendall County K 111 W. Fox,Suite 3 I Yorkville,IL 60560 E 630-553-4350 DE IN DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Planning Commission Member FROM: City Administrator Jim Nanninga nd Planning Commission Chairman Tom Lindblom SUBJECT: September Planning Commission Meeting Cancellation Due to lack of agenda the September, 1997 Planning Commission meeting is cancelled. Enclosed is a memo from City Engineer Joe Wywrot, dated August 18, 1997 regarding outstanding issues for Green Briar Subdivision. MEMO To: Yorkville Plan Commission From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Subject: Greenbriar Subdivision-Outstanding Issues Date: August 18, 1997 Attached find a copy of a 6/17/97 memo that listed several unresolved issues concerning Greenbriar. Most of these were resolved through a development agreement(attached)that was approved by the city and developer on 7/10/97, and which is summarized below: 1)Payment of Fees-All fees have been paid. The developer was owed$18,250 for onsite oversizing of watermain. The city paid for that oversizing by crediting back to him unpaid fees in the same amount. 2)Establishing a letter of credit for Unit 3 -This has been accomplished. 3)Revising the letter of credit amounts for Umts 1 and 2-This has not been done,nor do we anticipate that this will be done. 4) Street lights along Greenbriar Road-The intent of the 1/10/97 agreement was that the city and developer would share equally in the cost of constructing street lights on Greenbriar Road between Route 47 and Walsh Drive. Since there are 7 lights required in this section,the developer will pay for 31/a lights and the city will pay for 31/a lights. The developer and city will share equally the cost of the 4th light, and the city will install the remaining lights at a later date. 5)Watermain looping- The developer will construct the watermain connection to Elizabeth Street. This construction is guaranteed in the Unit 3 letter of credit. Since this connection will now be made,we can enter into a recapture agreement that will provide for the developer to recapture the entire cost of the watermain along Greenbriar Road. 6)Recapture for onsite oversizing of utilities-The developer has agreed that no oversizing of sanitary sewer occurred. The oversizing cost of watermain has been repaid to him by the city (see No.1, above). 7)Recapture for roadway construction-This item has not been completed. Once the final costs are known,the recapture agreement can be drafted. Yorkville Plan Commission Page 2 August 18, 1997 8) Sidewalk and Parkway Trees- Sidewalk construction in Unit 3 is guaranteed by the letter of credit for that Unit. Parkway trees will be required on all lots in Unit 3 and those lots owned by the developer in Units 1 and 2 as of July 10, 1997. Those trees are not guaranteed by the letter of credit,but we will be able to require an escrow account to be established by individual builders if the proper trees are not planted before the certificate of occupancy is issued. 9)Park land donation-The developer has indicated that he will not request the city to maintain the retention basin. 10)Conservation easement -No trees will be replanted by the developer in the conservation easement area. The approved plans called for some utilities to be constructed within this easement, and therefore tree removal in those areas was to be expected. If you have any questions about these items, please call me at 553-4372. cc: Jim Nanninga, City Administrator MEMO To: Tim Nanninga, City Administrator From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer -� Subject: Greenbriar Subdivision-Unresoly ssues Date: June 17, 1997 At their meeting on June 11th,the Plan Commission recommended approval of the final plat for Greenbriar-Unit 3. They were concerned,however,about several unresolved issues concerning Greenbriar. They requested that we summarize those items and report back to them at their next meeting. The unresolved issues concerning Greenbriar are: 1. Payment of fees. , A)Unpaid inspection or review fees to date for Units 1,2, and 3 total$21,278.33 .Much of this amount is in dispute because the developer feels that the city inspectors didn't have to be onsite for Units 1 and 2 for as many hours as they actually were. B)Unpaid inspection fee for Unit 3,which is 2.5% of the approved engineer's estimate. Because there are other issues that affect the cost of the public improvements(see Nos. SA and 8,below), the exact inspection fee is unknown at this time,but will be in the neighborhood of$17,000. This amount is due before we sign the final plat. 2. Establishing a letter of credit for Unit 3. A) Once the final engineer's estimate is known,we will be able to determine this amount. The letter of credit will have to be established before the final plat can be signed. 3.Revising the letter of credit amounts for Units 1 and 2. A)These letters do not cover some items, such as watermain and sanitary sewer. While those items were probably substantially complete before we signed the final plats,there still should have been 20-35% of their costs included in the letter of credit. 4. Street lights along Greenbriar Road. A)A verbal agreement was reached with the developer on 1/10/97 where he would install lights at 600 foot intervals and the city would arrange for the remaining poles to be set such that the final spacing will be 300 feet. This agreement requires the developer to install 4 light poles on Greenbriar Road,but he has installed only 3 poles and has declined to install any more. Tim Nanninga, City Administrator Page 2 June 17, 1997 5. Watermain looping. A)Early documents submitted by the developer show a watermain looping to Elizabeth Street and the special valving required due to the two-pressure system in this area of town. The final plans, however, do not include the loop. The developer has declined to install this second connection. This second connection was not shown on the preliminary plan. A 10"watermain extension to Elizabeth is implied on the general utility sheet of the final plan, but it is not shown on any of the detailed final plan sheets. B)Related to the watermain looping is the proposed recapture agreement for the watermain on Greenbriar Road. Since only one source of water is supplied,the developer is only able to recapture the difference in cost between the 12" main actually installed and the 8" main required to serve his development. If the watermain were looped,the developer could recapture the entire cost of the 12" main on Greenbriar Road. The developer has requested a fiill recapture for the 12"watermain. 6. Recapture for onsite oversizing of utilities. A)There is no mention in the PUD agreement concerning this,but the developer is requesting that the city reimburse him for the cost of oversizing watermains and sanitary sewers onsite(claimed to be$60,000 -$70,000). 7.Recapture for roadway construction. A)This agreement will allow the developer to recoup some of the construction costs of Greenbriar Road. 8. Sidewalks and Parkway Trees. A) The developer has indicated that he doesn't want to be held responsible for installing these items. They are typically installed by the builder/homeowner. While the developer may not actually install those items, he should be responsible for guaranteeing that they are installed and survive the one year guarantee period. 9.Park land donation. A)The current park land donation is about 3/4 acre. The remaining open space will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. A back-up Special Service Area has been created by ordinance over Units 2 and 3 to ensure that funds will be available to maintain those properties should the Homeowner's Association or the developer fail to do so. The developer would like the city to reconsider their previous decision to not accept ownership or maintenance responsibility of the wet pond. Jim Nanninga, City Administrator Page 3 June 17, 1997 10. Conservation Easement A)The Plan Commission was concerned that the conservation easement was being violated by the developer. They requested that we inspect those areas to see how many trees in the easement remain. There are 64 lots that have conservation easements along their rear or side yards. I inspected the easement today, and found that most trees within the easement remain,with the exceptions listed below. In most cases it was not possible to determine if open areas within the easement had trees removed,or if there were no trees there to begin with. In some cases it was apparent that individual homeowners removed trees(those lots are not listed below). Unit 1: About half the easement width was regraded on Lots 16 and 17. Unit 2: Over half of the conservation easement was regraded on Lots 27-30. There is a berm at the edge of the tree line on Lots 27-28, and regrading was performed on Lots 29-30 for a dry detention basin. There appears to be tile blow-out at the rear of Lot 30 which will have to be repaired. About half the easement is missing trees on Lots 45-47. Unit 3: Only about a 5 foot width of trees remain on Lots 125-129. There is a storm sewer there that required many trees to be removed. About half the easement was disturbed on Lots 135-137 to allow for storm sewer construction. If we assume that there was a large tree(6" dia. or greater)every 25 feet for every 5 foot of easement width, and that the entire easement was populated by trees before construction began,then about 160 trees may have been removed from the easement. If you have any questions concerning these items, please call me. cc: Yorkville Plan Commission GREED BRIAR P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION NARRATIVE May 10, 1994 Prepared By Dorris Engineering, Inc. 1N121 County Farm Road Suite #200 Winfield, IL 60190 John J. Bajor, Jr., Project Manager Prepared For Ronald J. Wehrli, President Crestview Builders 1207 Hunter Circle Naperville, IL 60540 DRAINAGE The parcel drains very well to the north. The proposed design makes good use of an existing basin at the northeast portion of the P.U.D. to provide adequate detention of stormwater. The topography is shown on the plan. No wetland or floodplain exists within the parcel. USES maps illustrate an off-site tributary stormwater area of approximately 190 acres S.S.E., this tributary flow is included in our stormwater management . engineering as "pass through". Discussions with Rick Powell of IDOT confirm the tributary area to be 94 acres. WATER An 8" DIP watermain runs parallel to and approximately 20 ft. northeast of Green Briarls northeast property line. it is proposed that this tap on opportunity be considered. This low pressure zone is approximately 46 psi. A 12" DIP watermain runs parallel to and on the east side of Route 47. As we wish to "Loop" the internal water distribution system and this 12" main is high pressure, a pressure regulating valve is required. It is proposed that this extension be looped via the access road to the south. SEWER A 12" sanitary sewer exists per preliminary plan drawing for a sewer connection. GENERAL Exhibit C illustrates the proposed project progress schedule. As we proceed, we wish to provide a presentation to the Planning Commission of a more defined preliminary plan. Exhibit D; Checklist -P.U.D. Development Plan lists the information we have provided with this submittal as required A narrative describing the current status of each item is contained in this report. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions or concerns that will facilitate our timeframe and progress. 5 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) "" )ss ' COUNTY OF KENDALL ) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOW COl�ES THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVIL.LE, an Illinois Municipal Corporation by and through its Mayor and City Council and RONALD WERHLI,Developer of GREENBRIA.R SUBDIVISION, who hereby enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to 65 ILCS of Illinois Compiled Statutes and in consideration of the parties mutually agreeing to provide for the development guidelines, contributions, allocation of recapture, and all other matters set out herein agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions; and fiirther agree that this Development Agreement is in full settlement and satisfaction of all mutual and respective claims between the parties and do release each other from any other claims between the parties as follows: 1. The Developer shall pay to THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVIILE immediately all current outstanding Review Fees to the CITY OF YORKV92E in the sum of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-Eight & 33/00 ($21,278.33), less a credit of Two Thousand Five-Hundred Thirty-One & 07/00 ($2,531.07) for work performed by the City of Yorkville Staff for review in relation to Units 1 and 2, for a total net payment of Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Forty & 04/00 ($18,747.26)by Developer to THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE. AR 2. In order to provide a safe and total improvement not only to GREENBRL SUBDIVISION but to provide for future expansion of the City water system both to the West and South of the subject Development, Developer agrees to install a 1 equalizing valve and 1,4 inch water main for purposes of looping the water system of GREENBRIAR SUBDIVISION between the City high-pressure system from Route 47 to a connection with low-pressure City water pressure system on Elizabeth Street, as per engineering specifications to be approved by the City of Yorkville Engineer, Developer's Engineer, and to be approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 3. That THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVffJ E will pass a Resohition in support of this Agreement for Recapture for the sum of Eighty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($84,500.00) as Developer's proportionate share of benefit to other property for purposes-of recapturing a portion of the water costs advanced by Developer. 4. That within GREENBRIAR SUBDIVISION, the Independent Consultant of THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVMLE has previously required oversbing to be performed , pursuant to City Statute at City request. In settlement of the payment of all claims for oversizing done within the Development at the request of said outside Consultant, the City and Developer agree that Developer will receive from the City of sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred& 00 ($18,500.00) as the total cost of oversizing, less a credit of Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-one&07/00 ($2,531.07) for City Staff review as to Units 1 and 2 of said Subdivision, leaving a net balance due from THE UNTIED CITY OF YORKVII.LE to the.Developer in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen& 93/00 ($15,718.93). Payment of said sum by the City will not be in the form of a cash disbursement but rather shall be credited against engineering and inspection review fees to the City for GREENBRIAR 2 SUBDIVISION, Units 1,"2 and 3 which is currently being improved. 5. Developer shall pay or receive credits from the City for inspection and Engineer Review Fees as per the notes contained in the Memorandum Agreement of the City Engineer,Joseph Wywrot dated July 3, 1997.on page 1 and July', 1997 on pages 2, 3 and 4 of said Memorandum attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Developer shall establish&Letter of Credit for the new Unit 3 of said GREENBRIAR SUBDIVISION as per the comments contained in the Memorandum of Agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference dated July 3, 1997. 7. Developer and the City agree to divide equally the cost of one additional street light on Greenbriar Dr. 8. Developer and City agree that the Developer will require as a condition of all development, sale and construction contracts on Unit 3 of said Subdivision and on , all unsold lots in Unit 1 and Unit 2 of Subdivision at least one parkway tree in front of each residential lot,two parkway trees on corner lots together with a one(1)year guaranty of survival by said trees. Parkway trees shall not be an element included in the Letter of Credit submitted by Developer. 9. Developer shall obtain an extension of the existing Letters of Credit for Units 1 and 2 of said Subdivision from Yorkville National Bank assuring completion of punch list items in their present format to THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVII.LE. Said extension shall be submitted to the City Staff prior to the expiration of the exiting Letters of Credit. 10. Developer has warranted to City Staff that no trees were removed in easement 3 preservation areas, other than those necessary for installation of public improvements. In all other respects the easement preservation areas shall remain in full force and effect. 11. Developer shall submit a petition in the form provided by the City for a down zoning of the R-2 Duplex lots as yet amvnly to be developed with lot numbers specified on said Petition revising their zoning from a Duplex or two family zoning to R-2 Single Family Zoning with lots to consist of at least 12,000 square feet in conformance with the City Subdivision Control Ordinance. Said Petition shall be processed according to the Yorkville Subdivision Control and Zoning Ordinance currently in effect and be refered to the Plan Commission upon filing for Public Hearing by THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, City Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 10d` day of . July, 1997. GREENBRIAR Attest: By: Ronald Wehrli City Cleric Prepared By: Law Offices of Daniel J. Kramer 1107A S. Bridge Street Yorkville, Illinois 60560 630.553.9500 4 MEMO To: Fite From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Subject: Grcenbriar Meeting Minutes Date: July 3, 1997 A meeting was held on July 2nd at 1:30pm at the City Office to discuss several outstanding' regarding the Greenbriar Subdivision.Present were Ron Wehrli, Sig Vaznelis,Kathy Jones,Tim Nannbgm Dan Kramer,IT Johnson, and Joe Wywrot. The discussions used a 6/17/97 memo from Jae Wywrot as a reference(see attachment).Discussion hopped from item to item during the meeting. The minutes below keep discussions on particular items together. Item No.10(Trees destroyed in conservation easemeot)- SV said that some tree removal was necessary to allow utilities to be constructed at the proper location. The storm sewer along the north side of development needed to be as far north as possible to minimize slopes away fiom the building envelopes.No lots were completely deforested.KY asked if some trees could be replaced. RW not willing.No trees were removed that could be reasonably saved. The PUD agent. allows the developer to install utilities in the conservation easement.It is more intended to keep homeowners from cutting down trees. Everyone felt that this was OK DK suggested that RW or SV send a letter to the Plan Commission stating that no trees were removed unnecessarily.JN said that the Plan Commission may still recommend that trees be replaced. Item No.9 (park Lind Donation) -DK said that the Park Board doesn't want the land. Tony Graff is active with the homeowners, and said that the neighbors want access.JT favors city ownership,but that-the decision has been made to not accept it for maintenance.DK said that liability is not an issue-recent court rulings treat ponds the same as a river,in that you can't fence a river or make it absolutely safe.Everyone agreed that the pond would stay with the homeowners association. The option of having the city take it over could always be revisited if the homeowners association requested it. Item No S (Sidewalks a_nd parkway trees)-This is an issue for the entire development. RW said that from the beginning there weren't any requirements for parkway trees.KJ and JN said that the old ordinance certainly required sidewalks, and probably trees. RW said that was never an issue when Units 1 &2 were platted Sidewalk is not in the fast two units letters of credit.Parkway trees were never brought up until now JT said that the Units 2&3 should have trees,because they were platted after the current ordinance took effect. SV said that the engineering plans for all 3 units were approved before that ordinance took effect JT said that construction began for Unit 1 before the city ever had any plans.He had to call out Pavia to start inspections so that the city knew what was going in the ground. DK said that if the plans were approved for all units under the old ordinance, and if that ordinance didn't require trees,then no trees are required. RW said . that he is willing to have sidewalks in Unit 3 covered by the letter-of credit,but he doesn't want to File Page 2 July 7, 1997 go back and establish a guarantee for sidewalk in Units 1 &2..No agreement regarding trees was reached. KJ said that RW held off working on final plans after the preliminary was approved. Therefore trees should be required in all units.RW said that was not true.He has always tried to get the plans approved as quickly as possible. JN reminded RW about RW's requested delay when Miss Kitty's was being considered by the City Council. item No.7(Recanture for roadway construction)-DK said that an ordinance has been drafted for this recapture,but it's not finished yet.RW said this shouldn't be controversial. TTtj``Ge.,y,�'No.6(ecan=for onsite oversinn_g of uti rues)-DK said that the city has a duty to pay Y�ry T for oversizing if it was required by the city. SV said there is language in the PUD agmt. concerning this. DK said that language was intended to apply to offsite utilities.KJ asked why we wanted oversized utilities.DK said to serve adjacent properties when they develop.KJ asked if there was a way for,the city to pass that cost along when those properties develop. DK said that city staff would need to determine which properties would benefit by the oversizing first.RW said that he has an estimate of$52,000 for oversizing water and sanitary lines. DK said that Bill Schmanski has sent a letter about this. JT said that any payment for oversizing should be restricted to material cost only. RW said that he wants direct reimbursement,not a recapture agreement from the city. The city needs to look at RW s estimate to see if it is reasonable.RW gave them a copy of the estimate. KJ asked that JW review the estimate. Item No.5 (Waterma_n looping and recarel- SV said that the original idea was to connect at Elizabeth Street,but there was a problem with low pressure. The supply was then switched to Greenbriar Road. The connection to Elizabeth was taken off the detailed plan sheets,but was inadvertently left on the overall utility plan.Early plans called for 2 connections,but was changed to 1 connection somewhere along the way.RW said that there was a meeting with the city on this, and he agreed to grant an easement for a future connection to Elizabeth and put the 12" watermain on Greenbriar Rd. if he got a 100%recapture for the Greenbriar watermain. JN indicated that at a previous meeting with RW,JT,DK and Bill Schmanski,Bill had said that there wasn't enough water pressure from the low pressure system, and that is why the watermain on Greenbriar Rd. was added along with the need for 2 sources of supply. JN doesn't believe that the city ever agreed to eliminate the Elizabeth connection. KJ said that the 2nd connection is required by ordinance.DK said that he didn't recall the 2nd connection being dropped from the plans. JN said that a 2nd connection is needed if RW wants to get the full recapture for the Greenbriar watermain.KJ asked if there are any signed agreements about the changes RW referred to. RW m said no. DK said that changes to plans without signed agreements are made all the time. KJ disagreed-this-is much too major a change to be made without city council knowledge. RW said he will file a lawsuit over this item.DK is trying to help to avert that. KJ asked which set of plans are the approved plans?JW said there's no way to be sure.Morris has supplied a more recently dated set which doesn't show the Elizabeth connection on the detailed plan sheets. When the city took over inspection from Pavia, however,Pavia supplied a set that did show the Elizabeth File w` Page 3 July 7, 1997 connection.KJ asked if the previous ordinance required 2 connections.JT said that the old ordinance covered Unit 1 only, and that the new ordinance covers Units 2&3.KJ asked what is needed to complete the connection?JW said several hundred feet of watermain and a pressure regulating valve.RW said that if the IEPA plans show the Elizabeth connection,then he will,put it in, otherwise no. JW said that the plans were changed several times after they were submitted to the IEPA. The city may have signed the permit application for a set of plans that showed the Elizabeth connection, and then the connection may have been removed afterward. JT said that the city never wanted to delay development, and that it wouldn't be unusual for us to sign the permit application before that plans were complete. JT pointed out that both the approved preliminary plan and an submittal from Morris Engineers call for the watermain to be looped Why would the city allow a connection to be eliminated after it was approved on the preliminary plan?KJ said that we need to try to figure out which set of plans are the approved plans.JW to research this. Item No.4(Street fights along Greenbriar Rd_�-RW said that he agreed to place one pole at the curve in the road,not every 600 feet. JN and JW recalled the January 97 meeting where RW agreed to 600 ft. spacing.RW disagrees. JW said that there needs to be 7 poles on Greenbriar Road The January agreement was based on the concept of RW and the city each funding half of the lights. Therefore each should pay for 3.5 poles. Would RW agree to that?RW said yes,if the city agrees to accept Greenbrier Road for maintenance after the punchlist is complete. There would still be a one year guarantee period for Greenbrier Road. ftem No.3 O&C3djWg letters of credit for J&is I & 21 -RW said that those letters of credit were approved by the city, and he doesn't want to change them. JW said that they will need to be increased, such as was done in White Oak,sometime before final acceptance to reach the 20% level.KJ asked if RW would give a 1 year guarantee after punchlist is complete?RW said yes.KJ asked JW if that was OK with him. JW said that he would prefer to have the letters of credit in place,but realized that we don't live in a perfect world. JW to prepare punchlist within the next. few weeks. Item N6_2 (Letter of credit for Unit 3) -RW said that he will include sidewalk in the letter of credit,but doesn't want to include trees. The letter of credit amount may also change based on the final decision regarding the second watermain connection. Item No.I (1!&=ent of fees -RW acknowledged that he owes past fees,but he wants the city to know that he has been in touch with other Yorkville developers and feels that Pavia double belled sometimes.KJ asked for specific dates.RW said it didn't matter,he would pay those costs if we can get all these other items resolved.He wants to apply these fees against money the city owes him for oversizing. The 2.5%inspection fee for Unit 3 is not a problem,we just need to agree on the engineer's estimate. File Page 4 July 7, 1997 The Unit 3 plat must go back to EDC now. KJ will schedule a special meeting for 7/7/97. DK doubts that the research for Item Nos. 5 & 6 can be completed by then. KJ said we will still try. The meeting ended about 3:45 pm. cc: Kathy Jones, Alderman Tun Nanninga, City Administrator Dan Kramer, City Attorney JT Johnson, Director of Public Works Ron Wehrli, Crestview Builders Sig Vaznelis, Morris Engineers