Plan Council Minutes 1999 06-24-99 . UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
Committee Minutes -Plan Council
June 24, 1999
Meeting Location: City Conference Room
Time Convened: 9:30 a.m.
Time Adjourned: 11:50 a.m.
Attendees:
Jim Nannninga City Administrator
Joe Wywrot City Engineer
J.T. Johnson Director of Public Works
Mike Schoppe City Planner
Ralph Pfister Y.B.S.D.
Wally Ahrens B.K.F.D.
Jack Taxis B.K.F.D.
Norm Williams Project Manager, Herman Associates
Mike Fitzsimmons Chamlin&Assoc, Inc.
Tom Herman York Meadows Apts.,Herman Associates
Ben Rozansky York Meadows Apts.
Michael Cope York Meadows Apts.
John Behrens York Meadows Apts.
Tom Ragauskis York Meadows Apts., T.J.Adam& Co.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
The revised Subdivision Ordinance was distributed at the last Plan Council. Joe asked if
everyone had an opportunity to review it. Mike Schoppe and Bill, specifically, were to review it.
Mike Schoppe did review it and had some comments. Highlights were reviewed. These relate to
procedural aspects not the technical end. The Land Cash Ordinance could be put right into the
Subdivision Ordinance. The Landscape Ordinance could be also. It was to keep them separate,
but to reference them in the Ordinances. On page 12,the Preliminary Plan is identified under the
Concept Plan. The Preliminary Plan needs to be a separate item. On page 15, under#4 under the
Concept Plan, it asks for a topography plan. Needs to be asked for under#10 in Preliminary
Plan. Under 96 in the same section,we talk about them identifying the net density,we also need
to ask for the gross density. #7 talks about requiring typical lot sizes at the Concept stage, also
need to ask for the minimal and average lot size they are considering in the Concept stage and
request gross and net areas to be given. Under the Preliminary Plan under page 16,need to
identify that we are requesting a Preliminary Plan(which includes Engineering) and Preliminary
Landscape Plan. Need to ask for some site data on Preliminary Plan. Mike Schoppe has listed
out what needs to be provided. Request a good legal description. 17 & 18 talk about getting the
Kendall County Soil Conservation written statement, this is necessary for approval of this stage.
Lots fronting on state and county highways,redefining types of roads based on the ADT's, we
need to be consistent with the type of terminology we're using throughout the Ordinances. Joe
will take these comments and revise. Sandy and Joe will work on it. Bill didn't have any
comments. This will go to Public Works Committee next.
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Mike gave an overview of this specific Ordinance. It gets down to the nuts and bolts and
addresses the important items. Single family and duplexes won't require as much landscaping.
Will ask for parkway trees and when it backs to a path to have treatment to the rear of the homes.
All other developments will have additional requirements i.e., perimeter,parking lots (interior
and perimeter)when they abut an arterial, area around the building. Also gives a time when they
are to comply with this Ordinance. There are five primary areas addressed; parkway,parking lot,
lot area, perimeter, and situations where it abuts a primary or secondary road.
There was discussion on the specifics on the parkway trees. This had been discussed at a
previous meeting. This will be discussed further.
Jim asked about specifics when screening residential from commercial or industrial. Residential
use and nonresidential use are separated. Then there are specifics for a nonresidential use that
backs to a residential use. It is broken down into the separate areas. There are specifics as to
how many trees need to be used per different area. A formula can be used to substitute bushes or
shrubs or evergreens for trees to allow for flexibility in visual style.
Mike suggested a sample drawing to give the Council an idea of how this will guide the
landscaping on a specific project like Art Sheridans.
Jim asked about detention in the front yard, similar to Aldi. This Ordinance will address
perimeter and parking lot landscaping, whether or not there is a basin there. This will apply to
the individual homeowner or a developer(builder) of a subdivision. Both. This Ordinance can
be tripled in size easily,but Mike felt as if it should be kept simple. Mike will address a line in it
that requirements can be added per the opinion of the City Council.
YORK MEADOWS APARTMENTS
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed but no presentation prepared for today.
One issue was the requirement for covered parking for every space. This will impact the project.
Jim and Joe stated that it is an Ordinance to have the parking enclosed,not just covered which
reads 2 spa. A variance can be applied for if you don't want to do it. The time element was
questioned if a variance is applied for. Only the density was grandfathered and all permit and
fees must be taken care of by 8/12/99. A notice has to be published and a meeting called of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. This would be a minimum of 15 days,but longer depending on papers
being published.
The next issue was that 24 parking spaces be located in the same lot as the building. There are
24 spaces but not necessarily in the same lot. They are located within easy walking distance of
the building. Site plan was looked at. Joe felt that with the clause for joint parking, it is within
the Ordinance. Garages do count as parking spaces. There would be room for a carport,but not
for garages. A variance request must show a hardship other than economic. Joe suggested a
balance be created by going from 96 units down to 90 to create more room for the parking and
lessen the parking requirement. The setback for the garages was discussed. Carports are used a
lot when the owners want car parking only, as opposed to storage. A carport is not an allowable
option. They must be enclosed, like a garage.
The next issue is building size compared to the lot size,the way it is laid out there are two
buildings that do not meet the requirement in the Ordinance. Does it require a variance? This is a
technicality.
Rest of the York Meadows Apts. arrived at 10:15 a.m.
Reviewed what was discussed. Tom added that these plans don't show it but they are adding
proportionally 48 garages throughout. The garages are covered and do count as a parking space
only if the garage is independent of the space. You can't move a car to get another car out. The
water shouldn't flow through the garages. Reviewed the two lots that don't meet area
requirements. Overall there is an excess of about 18,000 sq. ft. Jim will check with our attorney
whether this needs a variance. Lot 6 & 7 are short. Swapping buildings with lots could
eliminate the problem. Changing the amount of bedrooms per apartment in each unit was also
discussed. Tom would like to avoid applying for a variance. Deadlines were discussed for public
notice requirements and timeline for hearing on a variance.
Tom Herman asked for comments from the City. Joe stated that there are items missing. The
Landscape Plan, Plat of Easement, Detail sheets and Engineers Certification. Side yard setback
is 15', R-4 should be 12' or 50%of building height whichever is greater. Measured from the
midpoint of the ridge would be 12.6', which is ok. In the pavement structure,there is a landscape
island in the cul de sac. J.T. says we don't want this. A 3" mountable curb or B612 boxcar curb,
either would work for plowing snow up onto. Joe suggests that they keep the watermain parallel
to the street in the parkway as well as with the sanitary sewer to keep service toward the front
end of the lots. Give the structures names or numbers.
Stormwater detention-Joe would like to get the CAD file to check the file for the volume. Joe
will check the volume, there is a 10% grace factor.
On the Grading Plan-It's very flat there could be a problem with puddling, some berming might
help. Note identifying private and public storm sewer. All would be private except where it
drains in the right of way.
In the proposed easement agreement,there is mention of a meter room, there is verbiage stated
that the City will build and protect the owners. This needs to be changed. This room is your
idea and the City needs to get in there but the developers are building and responsible for it. The
language needs to be worked out with Dan Kramer. The Water Ordinance specifically states the
rules and language. We have the right to access that room at any time, according to the Water
Ordinance. There was discussion as to the size of lines and whether or not there should be
separate water and sewer lines for each unit. Bill Dettmer had not been asked to review this and
would like to per BOCA 96 building code. Bill advised Tom Herman to review this with his
architect also. Bill will meet with a representative to discuss the water and sewer issue. Joe
reminded of Fox Hill,Unit 5 with one sewer line run down the center and separate water lines.
JT was concerned that in the future it could be sold as condos, then there is a legal that the
water/sewer service has to be single. Tom Herman stated it could be a covenant in the agreement
that if ever taken from rental to condo it would have to have a Homeowners Assoc to maintain a
common area sewer as well as any other common area. JT just concerned that it could happen, as
in the past, without the City even knowing about it until there is a problem with the water and/or
sewer. JT not against it,just concerned about maintaining it. Ralph feels one line is better. Bill
Dettmer said by code, one line is acceptable. Bill said code is a separate line for townhome.
Code does not address a condo, only multi family. It is difficult to have separate sewer lines into
one building in multi family because of the different levels. There should only be one line per
building.
Mike Schoppe had some comments. The yard requirements are met. Please show the lot areas
on the plat. The parking is one short. The 20' access easement should be changed to a 24'.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said this is a platted easement and that the sewer main was outside of the
ROW. Joe had made suggestions for moving them. It was agreed that 20'was adequate for
turning into a parking stall.
Mike Schoppe would like to get a copy of the landscape plan. There is additional screening
needed by the single family homes. Entry sign needs to be shown on the site plan with the
setbacks. Provide some berming in some of the larger open areas. The detention is not required
on a separate lot but in the easement.Need to show the trash enclosures on the plan with the
screening planned for them. The issue of the park land cash needs to be settled. Jim says that
issue is settled.
Is there a sign requirement on the entry sign. The setback requirement is a 60' sideline according
to the Ordinance.
Jim asked for a schedule to be made of meetings to aim for. Jim asked for comments from the
board.
Tony feels that the single access for traffic is good. Bill assured Tony that the lighting
requirement is being met. Mike will watch for landscape screening,keeping it low in the
walkway areas so as not to provide hiding areas.
Jim stated that the Council will not entertain an extension at this time. You need to have all
plans approved for the whole project, fees paid for one building permit and be issued one
building permit by the deadline of August 12th, 1999. This will satisfy the requirement for all
the buildings. Jim gave out a copy of our Engineering and house review fees and reminded them
of the letter of credit needed. Discussion was held as to which fees were included and which
were grandfathered. Jim will get a listing to Tom Herman of all the fees that will apply.
Tom Herman verified that one building permit will secure all the buildings if met by Aug 12,
1999. Must pay water connection fees too? Yes by unit. Final plan, letters of credit,
engineering plans, all fees paid for first permit.
Joe Wywrot stated that in the meter room there will be 12 meters per each 12 unit building.
YBSD fees, development, and land cash fees were discussed.
Tom Herman was sure that the fees had been discussed and several were grandfathered which
was the reason for meeting the deadline in August.
Jim does not believe the development fee is grandfathered for anything built since enacted.
Tom Herman says they have less than 60 days. The EPA permits require a permit for each
building because each building is over 15 PE.
Tom asked if these items are addressed, is this the only review memo.
Joe stated if each is resolved, only a plat of easement is needed to get approval for utilities. This
is the only thing that needs City Council approval without requesting a variance.
Joe is leaving 7/6 for vacation and won't return until 7/21/99.
Tom Rosanky asked what the attitude is of the City Council on this project.
Jim stated no one is trying to stop this project but the neighbors have expressed concern.
Tom Herman stated they could give a blanket easement and Joe Wywrot agreed that this was the
best.
Jim reminded them that the engineering plans must be complete for Joe's review when he gets
back from vacation on July 21 st in order to get approval at City Council on July 22nd.
Jim stated the next meeting is for approval of plat of easement at Committee of the Whole on
July 1 st and City Council on July 22nd.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
Minutes taken by Sandy Marker,transcribed by Holly Baker.
Wpcminn