Plan Council Minutes 1999 05-27-99 t
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
Committee Minutes - Plan Council
May 27, 1999
Meeting Location: 111 W. Fox St.
Time Convened: 9:38 a.m.
Time Adjourned: 11:18 a.m.
Attendees:
Jim Nanninga City Administrator
Bill Dettmer Building Inspector
Joe Wywrot City Engineer
J.T. Johnson Public Works
Mike Schoppe Schoppe Design
Tim Fairfield B.K.F.P.D.
Jack Taxis B.K.F.P.D.
Alan Norton Cannonball Hill Developer
John Schumacher Seibert Engineering
Alan Norton - Cannonball Hill
Joe Wywrot had met with John a few weeks ago and made a few points. The
revised plans have not been received yet.
John stated that the plans are being drawn as we speak. There is going to be a
berm around the detention area, lot lines will be moved on Andrea Court to
accommodate storm water flow along them. Andrea Court will have significant
fill added. The City needs to have a soil engineer to sign off on the type of fill
used, and method of compaction. The concern here is settlement.
Joe is concerned with the lot configuration at the front building lines on the court
lots. 80' setback is normally required, but our ordinance allows a 10% reduction
in cul-de-sacs to 72', this is allowable.
Easements are needed. A landscape plan and wetland mitigation plan are needed
also.
1
f
Preliminary plan was approved by the City Council with zoning as R2 single.
The park contribution is all cash, less some expenses to connect to BBCN park.
Landscape plan should be included with the engineering plans.
The next step is back to Plan Commission for final approval. Final Engineering
and landscape plan are needed prior to Plan Commission agenda. These plans need
to be to Mike Schoppe and Joe Wywrot by Friday. Joe needs one to mark up.
John needs to get a set to the County and Forest Preserve, also.
The wetlands issue needs to be addressed Endcap, Ltd. is checking with the Corp.
No Corp. permit yet. John will check on it. Delineation is done and on the
Engineering plans, separately written out. Won't have Corp. approval prior to
Plan Commission. Can mitigate on site. Discussion was held on the wetlands.
Mike Schoppe agrees Plan Commission can go ahead but City Council needs final
plan and Corp. approval and mitigation.
Looking at about one month to get all signatures on final. Mike Schoppe also
requested a copy of the Annexation Agreement. There isn't any Development
Agreement.
Sidewalk - tabled indefinitely.
Additional Business - Subdivision Ordinance
Tim Fairfield asked about location, height and numbers vs. words for addresses on
buildings. That is the Building Department's regulation not this Ordinance.
Item b.) refers to the text on the flow chart regarding the concept plan. b and c go
together.
The second g.), this should be treated the same as sidewalks. Art doesn't care for
this. The trees would be planted in the utility easement. City Council wants trees
placed behind the sidewalks and is mandating the streetscape trees. The where
2
and who is decided by City Council. But then who owns the tree? Schoppe
suggested treating the trees the same as the sidewalk. Discussion was held about
putting the trees in bond or letters of credit.
The first f.), this is a decrease from the 35% it is currently. 35% is just too much.
The first g.), is also a decrease from 20% to 10%. JT would like to add a
provision for maintenance of street lights. We will send a certified letter allowing
10 days for repair, then if not corrected we will do the work and bill them.
The first k.), is for watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. Recapture for
oversizing of pipe only.
NPDES regulation on the quality of stormwater discharge starts at a certain
population. Have we reached that yet? no. Kane County is working on theirs
now.
Discussion was held regarding whether or not to include the landscape ordinance
as part of the Subdivision Ordinance. It needs to be separate for business and
industrial. The landscape ordinance will include all issues. Needs the
requirements for wetlands, 100 year flood plain line and other plains. Lists will be
checked.
Mike Schoppe will review the Subdivision Ordinance and bring it back at next
Plan Council. Bill Dettmer is reviewing the grading ordinance, possible changes
coming.
Extensive discussion was held regarding the procedure of a board or commission
approving something "subject to...". Some feel this is not an approval unless
reviewed to be sure that the "subject to..." is done. Each plan, in sequence, needs
to be approved before going on to the next one. Don't go to final without an
approved preliminary on file. Minutes should be added for meetings when people
have been asked for information.
All changes need to be made and included for a Public Hearing at City Council.
Discussion was held on the flood plain study, 1982 vs. 1989. The 100' flood plain
3
1
is 1 1/2' higher in the 1989 study at some locations. FEMA has not adopted the
1989 study. Joe W. will talk to Dan Kramer. Bill Dettmer will report back on
feedback from other towns regarding working w/FEMA. Joe W. feels the 1989
study is more accurate than the 1982 study. Mike Schoppe will report back his
review by June 24th.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Holly Baker
4
z
MEMO
To: Tun Nanninga, City Administr for
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Subject: Revisions to Subdivision Contr Or2ice
Date: May 26, 1999
Attached find a draft of the proposed revised subdivision control ordinance. Some of the changes
deal with standards and some clarify current practice. Below is a summary of the major proposed
changes:
a) Adds definitions of the following terms: City, Development, Eyebrow Cul-de-sac, Floodplain,
IDOT, Improvement Plans, Land Improvement, Parkway, Parking lot, Concept Plan,
Preliminary Plan, Final Plan,Planned Unit Development,Preliminary Plat, Final Plat,Estate
Residential Street, and Wetlands.
b) Insert Section 5.02 dealing with Concept Plan.
c) Insert flow chart that describes plan review process.
d) Requires a field file survey to be performed prior to the preliminary plan being prepared.
e) Requires final plat legal descriptions to be tied to section lines.
f) Allow bonds as a construction guarantee. Requires bonds or letters of credit to use
city approved forms. Limits reduction to the guarantee prior to final acceptance to 25%of the
approved engineer's estimate of cost.
g) Reduces the one-year maintenance guarantee from 20%to 10%.
h) Requires record drawings to be submitted on computer disk as well as mylar.
i) Requires a 25-foot radius at all ROW intersections.
j) Requires the developer to supply an inventory to the city of streetlight poles, arms, luminaires,
etc. equal to at least 10% of the number of streetlights erected in the development.
k) Changes the manner in which a developer recoups his cost of oversizing of utilities. Currently
our ordinance states that the city will pay the oversizing cost directly to the developer. The
proposed change would only allow for a recapture agreement against benefiting properties.
The recapture agreement would have a maximum duration of 10 years.
1) Changes the position required to enforce the ordinance from the Building Inspector to the
City Administrator.
Proposed changes to the Standard Specifications for Improvements, which is an exhibit to the
ordinance, are as follows:
a) Requires the developer to obtain an insurance policy, naming the city as additional insured.
Uses IDOT standards for types of insurance and dollar limits.
b) Calls for a woven geotextile in roadway undercut areas.
c) Calls for the joint between edge of pavement and the concrete gutter to be sealed with a hot-
poured joint sealer.
t
d) Eliminates the minimum standards for major collector and arterial roadway pavement design.
Instead, requires the design engineer to use the approved traffic study and IDOT Circular
95-11 to design the pavement. Establishes minimum design criteria using the IDOT method.
e) Establishes ADT volumes for certain types of roads: Less than 1000 ADT are local residential
and estate residential streets; 1000—2500 ADT for minor collector and industrial roadways;
Greater than 2500 ADT for major collector and arterial roadways.
f) Requires the developer to remove/trim trees from park sites as directed by the city. Also
requires that all items deemed hazardous by the city be removed from park sites.
g) Requires the developer to plant the"streetscape"trees.
h) Allows HDPE storm sewer in sideyard and rearyard areas.
i) Requires that storm drainage sump structures be located off the trunk storm sewer.
j) Requires flared-end-sections 15" and larger to have grates.
k) Establishes release rates of 0.04 cfs/acre to the 2-year storm and 0.08 cfs/acre for the 25-year
storm.
1) Requires all main-line watermain valves to be installed in 4-foot minimum diameter vaults.
m) Calls for"Trench Adaptor" valve boxes or"gripper arms" at hydrant valve boxes.
n) Requires the developer to use the city's gauge when pressure testing watermain.
o) Requires water and sewer service line trenches to buildings to be backfilled with stone if
within 2 feet of existing or proposed pavement.
p) Establishes design criteria for sanitary forcemains.
q) Requires developer to supply an inventory of fuses, relays, fire extinguishers, etc. for lift
stations.
r) Requires developer to provide start-up training and O&M manuals for lift stations.
s) Establishes a policy for adjusting sanitary manhole rims if required after vacuum testing.
t) Requires that the Traffic Study take construction traffic related to subdivision build-out into
consideration.
There are some other items not yet added to the text that we may or may not want to insert into
the ordinance or exhibit. Those items are:
a) State that if an approved final plan hasn't had construction begin within a certain period of
time after approval (perhaps 3 years), then the approval expires.
b) Require that sump-pump line discharges be directed through the subdivision's detention basin.
c) Require certain best management practices for the design of stormwater detention/retention
facilities. These deal with water quality issues.
d) Require an 11"x17" simplified plat to be supplied to the city for use in establishing street
addresses and enforcing weed complaints.
e) Require that the maximum amount of time between paving of binder course and surface
course be 2 years instead of the current 3 years. Current IDOT standards use the 2-year limit.
The 3-year limit we use results in less damage to the surface course but subjects the binder
course to more wear and tear.
Please place this item on the May 27, 1999 Planning Council agenda for discussion.
Cc: JT Johnson, Director of Public Works