Plan Council Minutes 1997 01-23-97 I
CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1997 AT 9 : 30 AM
CITY CONFERENCE ROOM, 111 W. FOX ST. , YORKVILLE
Present Representing
Jim Nanninga City of Yorkville
Tim Fairfield BKFD/EMS
Joe Wywrot City of Yorkville
Ralph Pfister YBSD
John Spenader Western Engineering/Inland
Bob Williams REI/Building Department
Jeff Humm Inland Dev. Corp.
Tony Graff ( 10 : 30 AM) Yorkville Police Dept.
PC 96-19 INLAND/SUNFLOWER ESTATES-Revised Preliminary Plat & Plan
Review (attached is memo from Joe Wywrot dated 1/22/97 . ) Numbers
in minutes correspond to items on Joe Wywrot' s memo.
Joe W. stated he had met with Greg Gabel, John Spenader & Jeff Humm
last week and had gone over plans and agree on many of the issues .
Have received the soil and land use opinion from the Kendall Co.
Soil & Water Conservation District, based on soil type and there
could be some high ground water in the area. He requests that we
get soil borings now to see if there is a problem. May need to
change grading.
1 . Potential for High Groundwater Problems.
John S.-Want to do soil borings between preliminary and before
final . Grading final done with final engineering. Will be taking
lots of dirt out. Low areas, more uniform slope to detention and
ground elevation will come up. Will be tied to interceptor.
Surface flow will stop. Will drop water table-can address with
boring.
Joe W. -If problem is severe, sump pumps could run all the time. The
ordinance gives the City the ability to say there won't be
basements and he feels we need to know now.
Jim N. -Should do borings and ground water elevation now, so we have
the historical data, as the final may not mean anything.
Jeff H. -Cost to do 6 holes is $1,500 per day. They will know from
that information if there is serious water problem, and then will
do more.
Jim N. -Have tubes to monitor, to show what ground water is doing.
Joe W. -Better time to do this now that ground is frozen.
Jeff H. -Will take recommendation back to office.
2 . Homeowners ' Association.
Joe W. -Green Briar has signed a waiver not objecting to an SSA,
being establishing at a later date and this is a legal issue.
Jeff H. -They have done this in the past so he thinks it is a
possibility.
Jim N. -Wants to know what is common, status of park and is
detention private.
John S. -There is 4 .95 A parkland dedication minus what is needed
for detention. There would be some kind of maintenance agreement.
It is a wet area.
Jeff P. -Don't feel park would want that.
John S. -He would recommend to his clients a Homeowners SSA.
Natural flow is offsite and wants the feeling of Planning Council
of which way to go. Is waiting for topal . Final engineering will
decide as all water ends up in the same place.
3. Recapture Fees, Fees Related to Connection w/Greenbriar Rd.
and Required Contribution for Future River Crossing
Jim N. -He has talked to Dan Kramer and he has indicated support
from the City' s perspective that the developer will put street
lights in Green Briar Drive every 600 feet and we are asking every
adjacent developer to put the lights in between. Would be about 2
lights .
Jeff H. -Inland has an agreement with the City, had dedicated some
r.o.w. and Inland was to pay 12-1/2% recapture to the City on road
connection, approximate cost of $290,000 to construct road for
improvements .
Jim N. -Need definition of roadway-sidewalks, street lights?
Jeff H. -Will talk to Dan Kramer and Matt Fiascone.
Jim N. - Water main down Green Briar-there will be some recapture
Joe W. -Will meet with Dan Kramer as this is not clear. Recapture
will be for water main along Rt. 47 . Jeff H. will also talk to
Matt Fiascone on this .
5 . Survey and Legal Description
Joe W. will need legal description soon.
9 . Perimeter Survey
John S. -There are 58 A not 60 A in perimeter boundary survey. Did
not receive correct survey and topal . Will get correct boundary
and there is no problem meeting the area requirements .
10. Park Board-Land Contribution
Gregg Gabel has met with the Park Board and should meet with Sue
Swithin for information that will be part of the agreement.
12 . IDOT Input on ROW Dedication, Rt. 47 & 71
John S. -Still waiting on IDOT. Will submit plans as there are
changes . Discussion on original access to Rt. 47 .
14 . Development of Phases
Phase 1 now has 21 lots .
Joe W. -Water main looped back to Green Briar only for this phase,
1 single roadway access off of Green Briar Rd. , and second access
to Rt. 71 in Phase 2 . Need 2 points of access as soon as possible.
Tim F. -Has no problem with 23 lots but must go in when 2nd phase is
started. Also had question on water main.
John S. -It will depend on what happens with Fox Hollow on water
main. IDOT does not want water main in r.o.w.
All present had no problem recommending that type of phasing.
16 . Field Tile Analysis
Analysis is done and field tiles will be shown on the preliminary
plan.
17. Typical Cross Sections
Joe W. -Wants ornamental light pole taken off drawing. They will
follow the subdivision regulations for light poles .
Joe W. -Boulevard cross section shows B6-12 curb and gutter on the
outer edges and on inner edges shows vertical barrier curb, which
is adequate. Walsh Drive in Green Briar is a 31 ' back to back road
and is larger than the other roads in that subdivision so sort of
considered a collector and is stubbed to extend someday to Fox.
Would like to impart some collector road characteristics to Walsh
(increase pavement structure. ) Walsh is 31 feet back to back and
has a relatively thin pavement structure because current ordinance
wasn't in effect yet.
J.T.J. -Wehrli ran into foul ground so it is beefed up stonewise.
Joe W. -A collector road is 1-1/2 on 4-1/2 on 12 inches of stone so
would be 6 on 12 and need 2 more inches of asphalt and 2 more
inches of stone.
Jeff H. -Will improve part of Walsh as the 80 foot r.o.w. as the
collector because of the commercial designation and some
improvements will be made at intersection based on IDOT
recommendations .
Joe W. -Minor collectors are to be 39 feet back to back with 80 foot
r.o.w. He would recommend 31 foot back to back.
Jeff H. -Will go with 12 inches of stone and keep asphalt the same.
JTJ-Extra 2" is in the binder and is cheaper. It will set for a
year and then may have to be dug out and put in again. He feels
should add 2" extra binder.
Jim N. -Should negotiate with EDC if this is to be considered a
minor collector.
John S. -When they do traffic study need to know what to expect.
Jim N. -Need to do pavement design.
Joe W. -Definition of a minor collector is a street which collects
and distributes traffic within intensively developed areas and is
used primarily for internal trips within the planning area
John S. -Wants to confer on traffic study with traffic engineer. If
City wants more pavement he may have hard time justifying.
Joe W. -See what traffic study says .
JTJ. -Green Briar has tried lime stabilization and lost.
This item must be addressed at engineering.
18. Cross Section for Berm Buffering
Joe W. -This will be part of final plan design.
Jim N. -At preliminary plat time they must show landscape, trees,
etc. as in subdivision ordinance.
John S. -Berm will be minimum of 3 ft. high, with average of 4 ft.
plus or minus . A note will be added to the plans.
19 . Traffic Study
Joe W. -Traffic study is forthcoming.
Jim N. -Need to discuss traffic signals as ultimately they will be
• coming and we need to know how they will be paid for. We told Fox
Hollow they must pay 50% as signals are needed and this will be in
their P.U.D. Part of the commercial could pay at least 25% and
there would be no recapture. Commercial generates more traffic.
If a traffic signal is required the developer would have to pay for
it. IDOT will probably require a left turn lane.
20. Walsh Drive
Joe W. -There is radius of 100 ' near lots 47-51 and does meet the
ordinance for a residential road and this goes back to the issue
of whether Walsh Drive is a minor collector or local residential
street. Is a big change from 100 ' radius to 400 ' radius . This is
an issue to be addressed when we see traffic projections .
22 . IDOT Approval on Intersection
This information is forthcoming from IDOT.
23 . Consider Extending Stub Roadway
Joe W.-Wants to discuss potential roadway extension with property
to the west. No recommendation from Planning Commission. Property
to west has relatively poor site distance and access to 71 is low.
May be a good idea to have it there. Gregg Gabel does not want to
break up the green belt on western edge of property.
Jeff P. -If property to west can't get access to 71, then they
should connect.
J.T.J. -When you get past D & H you would get some site distance.
Whatever is planned now, the Harris property will have to adjoin.
Jim N. -Harris is beyond the service area for Rt. 47 so would need
another sewer.
Jeff P. -If you were to build the road, the other person would add
that much more park.
Jeff-Distance seems long, appear to have access on 71, need 2nd
access other than Green Briar
John S.-Don't want to do this.
Joe W. -Would want some dry ground in the area and could make
northern pond larger.
JTJ. -Is in Wehrli ' s agreement for roadway purposes for 20 years, if
it does not happen goes back into lot. Must refer to our lawyer.
Jeff H. -If stub road is needed would leave closed off .
24 . Street Lights South Side Green Briar
This was discussed previously-Jeff will check agreement.
26 . Scott Drive
Joe W. -Traffic study should include Scott Drive.
JTJ-Wants to vacate, but have had a gentlemen's understanding when
we asked them to annex, so we could get tax dollars, not to do
anything with Garage Rd.
Discussion on connection, park & vacation. Inland is not
developing property at this time.
JTJ. -If vacation is done and Silica wants a turn onto 47, he
expects Inland to pay for any improvements needed. Through
negotiations with Silica Sand, the City would not be indebted to do
• anything with Scott Drive. The City plows and the Township will
grade the road. IDOT does not like the road off 47 .
Jim N. -Another option would be to vacate make it a private road,
1/2 for Inland and they would give 1/2 to Silica.
Joe W. -Asked Jeff H. if City vacated, would they deed 1/2 to Silica
Sand.
Jeff H. -Not his decision to make. Inland does need road, needs site
plan that shows some frontage, no plans for commercial piece at
this time.
JTJ. -If this is commercial property, in order to get the plans
done, he feels their 1/2 must be fully improved to a collector or
a minor street.
Joe W. -Traffic study needed on that road (pavement structure etc. )
Should resolve now with Inland, Silica and City. Would like road
vacated.
JTJ. -Would recommend this be a major collector because of
commercial property.
The Planning Council would recommend vacation of that roadway, with
the understanding that Inland and Silica Sand reach some agreement
for access for both properties to Rt. 47 and if not Inland must
improve road to collector standards .
John S. -Seems like a no win situation for Inland.
JTJ. -Wants to see collector road. If deal can't be worked out or
show other land design for that area, then road would be their 1/2
of the length across frontage. Property is dedicated r.o.w.
Tony G.-Has question on preliminary plat.
Jeff P. -This is a platted subdivision and they were permitted to do
up to 60 A. residential. No final plat.
JTJ. -When we allow preliminary plat, only need substantial
performance.
Jeff P. - Final creates lot.
Joe W. -We have asked for traffic study for Scott Drive, and
discussing negotiations for Inland and Silica Sand to revise access
for both their properties, (private or public) as the City may want
to vacate part or all of Scott Drive.
Tony G. -Are we going to hold up preliminary plan approval until
this issue is resolved? He would be totally against it as a
collector road. IDOT does not want these cuts on 47 . Legally we
must allow them access to their property because of r.o.w. Don't
want to hinder current business . Are we going to force a dedicated
r.o.w. upon Silica Sand if negotiations fail?
JTJ- Our Subdivision Control Ordinance only allows certain things,
as they are asking straight zoning, our only fallback is to tell
them they must improve road.
Tony G. -We could be pressured to accept if commercial is brought
in. Does not want minutes to reflect if all negotiations fall
apart, Inland can fall back on collector road. IDOT could feel we
created a hazard, especially a commercial user, could have 4-5
thousand cars per day.
JTJ. -If we say the road is within the City's jurisdiction and needs
to be a major collector, they must talk to IDOT who designs that
cut onto 47, and they will not allow that slant onto 47, by their
standards .
Jeff P. -Silica' s options are either to take over their half and be
subject to the maintenance or it becomes subject to IDOT's
standards as a collector.
Tony G. -The City' s stand is that we will not pay for this .
Jim N. -Have had discussion with owner of adjoining commercial
property.
Jeff H. -Will come to meeting with all involved parties .
28. Preliminary Detention Calculations
Joe W. -Preliminary detention calculations are fine, our ordinance
requires a different method. He agrees that analysis is more
accurate. More of safety factor in ordinance than in this method.
Discussion followed on flooding, where water flows, field tiles and
creek.
Joe W. & JTT. -Feel it would be better to go with ordinance.
31 . Water Main/Land Use Plan
Joe W. -Originally had requested a 12 in. water main to go from 71
to Green Briar Rd. Now feels combination of 12 & 8 would be ok.
John S. -He explained where the 12 and 8 would be.
Jim N. -This does not obligate city to oversize.
35. Berm
Joe W. -Berm has been deleted from A & R Trucking site, but was not
added to rear of the lots . There is gap in the berm.
Jeff P. -If there is a problem, indicate in lieu of berm and
landscaping, heavy landscape plants can show adequate screening.
36 . Preliminary Landscape Plan
Already discussed, this will come in final design.
37. Cul-de-sac, R.O.W. and Pavement Diameters
Joe W. -Plan shows 120 ft. wide r.o.w. and 90 ft. pavement width,
but our ordinance requires minimum 130 ft. wide r.o.w. and 100 ft.
pavement width. Must meet ordinance.
38 . Intervals Between Curbline Drainage Structure/Trunk Sewers
Joe W. -Ordinance requires drain structures every 300 ft. ( flow
interval) and these are stretched out further.
John S . -This will be addressed in final engineering.
Jeff H. -Still have issues to resolve but want to continue moving
ahead. Need to discuss storm water and other issues.
This will not go back to Planning Commission but on to Economic
Development Committee meeting on February 18, 1997 .
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Meeting for Comprehensive Plan for staff will be next Wednesday.
Jeff P. has been working on options on the Mitchell property.
Meeting adjourned at 11 : 15 AM.
Minutes by:
Ju Bell
MEMO
To: Jim Nanninga, City Adminis rator
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer L3 rJI
Subject: Sunflower Estates -Revised Preliminary Plat& Plan Review
Date: January 22, 1997
I have reviewed the revised preliminary plat and plan for Sunflower Estates, received on January
21st, and have the following comments. Comment numbering generally conforms to previous
correspondence.
General
1. We have received the land use report from the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation
District, which indicates a strong potential for high groundwater problems. Soil borings should
be obtained prior to preliminary plat and plan approval to check groundwater elevations. This
information would be useful during rough grading and detention basin design.
2. The developer has indicated that a Homeowner's Association will fund maintenance of
common areas. Do we need to discuss a default SSA at this time?
3. This entire development is in the benefitted properties area for the Route 47 sanitary sewer and
watermain, and therefore recapture fees will be assessed. There will also be fees related to
connection with Greenbriar Road and a required contribution for a future river crossing for a
gravity sanitary sewer.
Plat
5. We need a plat of survey and legal description of the area to be zoned R-2 residential. This
document will become an exhibit to the re-zoning ordinance.
9. The maximum area to be developed for residential purposes is 60 acres. I input the perimeter of
the residential area(including park and detention areas)to an AutoCAD file, and determined
the area to be about 58 acres. During this exercise, it became apparent that there is an error
in the perimeter survey, which should be corrected before the preliminary plan is approved.
10. I understand that the Park Board wants all land as the park contribution for this development.
The plan indicates about 3.8 acres of park land along the west side of Walsh Drive,just south
of a one acre detention basin. Based on our ordinance, about 3.9 acres would be required if
the subdivision was built out at 50% 3-bedroom and 50% 4-bedroom homes.
12. We need IDOT input on ROW dedication along Routes 47 and 71.
Jim Nanninga, City Administrator
Page 2
January 22, 1997
14. The residential development as now proposed calls for 3 phases, with Phase 1 having only 23
lots near Greenbriar Road. Because Phase 1 is so small, the developer wants to complete the
second roadway access (to Route 71) as part of Phase 2. This needs to be discussed at
Planning Council.
Plan,
16. The field work for the field tile analysis has been completed. Tiles need to be shown on the
preliminary plan.
17. The typical cross-section for the 80'ROW connecting to Route 71 should be 1.5" surface on
4.5" binder on 12" stone. The rest of the cross-section appears to be adequate, although the
street light shown should be replaced with a city-standard concrete pole with mast arm.
Regarding the other cross-section, should Walsh Street be considered as a collector
street, at least with respect to pavement structure? This needs to be discussed at Planning
Council.
18. The typical cross-section for berm buffering between residential and business properties need
definition. I understand that this will now be worked out as part of final plan design.
19. We need a traffic study for the new intersection with Route 71, the Route 47/Greenbriar Road
intersection, and Scott Drive. The Route 71 intersection needs to be studied under two
scenarios, those being with Fox Hollow and without Fox Hollow. This will help demonstrate
any need for traffic signals and geometric improvements, and also help to divide costs
should signals and/or turn bays be necessary.
20. The pavement centerline radius from Lot 47 to Lot 51 scales out to exactly 100 feet, which
meets our minimum requirement for a local street. If Walsh Street is to be considered as a
minor collector, this radius should be increased to 400 feet.
22. MOT will need to approve the new intersection with Route 71, as well as the proposed
driveway onto Route 71 west of Walsh Drive.
23. Consider extending a stub roadway at Lots 54-55 to the property to the west. This would also
provide better access to the detention pond and other common areas. The Plan Commission
discussed this issue briefly, but didn't make a clear recommendation. This needs to be
discussed at Planning Council.
24. Construct street lights along the south side of Greenbriar Road from Walsh Drive to
Route 47. Construct sidewalk, plant trees, and landscape parkway along the south side
frontage of Greenbriar Road.
26. Improve Scott Drive(a.k.a. Garage Road) across the frontage of the development.
28. The preliminary detention calculations used USDA's TR-55 and TR-20 computer models,
and indicate a need for about 16.7 acre-feet of detention storage. While I believe that these
models were used properly in analyzing the site, our ordinance requires that detention be
calculated using the "MSD"method. Using our method, I calculate that about 20.3 acre-feet
of detention is needed.
31. The watermain connecting Route 71 to Green Briar Road is shown as a combination of 12
inch and 8 inch pipe, the change in diameter apparently occurring at the Walsh/Columbine
Jim Nanninga, City Administrator
Page 3
January 22, 1997
intersection. I had originally requested that this watermain be all 12 inch diameter, but after
reviewing our Land Use plan, I feel that the current plan is preferable. The 12 inch main
connects to two 8 inch mains, both of which continue on to separate connections to the 12
inch main on Green Briar Road. The carrying capacity of the 8 inch mains are nearly equal to
that of a single 12 inch main, and given the proposed land use, I feel that they would serve the
development adequately. Putting in too many large diameter watermains could lead to
problems with mamtammg chlorine residual, and they're also more expensive to maintain.
This needs to be discussed at Planning Council.
35. There should be a berm shown along the rear of Lots 24-26 to act as a buffer between
residential and non-residential properties.
36. No preliminary landscaping plan for entryway features, detention basins, berms, and
boulevards has been submitted. I understand that this item will be worked out during final
plan design.
37. The cul-de-sac diameters need to be increased. The ROW minimum diameter should be 130
feet, and the pavement minimum diameter should be 100 feet. This was overlooked in
previous reviews.
38. Intervals between curbline drainage structures are too long along some sections of roadway.
The maximum distance between structures (or between structures and a crest) should be 300
feet. Also, trunk sewers should not flow through a curbline drainage structure because that
tends to prevent sediment from falling out at the catch basin.
The Plan Commission recommended approval of the plat and plan, subject to resolution of these
issues. This plat and plat are scheduled for review at the January 23, 1997 Planning Council
meeting.
City of Yorkville
Planning Council
January 23, 1997
___.NAME._ REPRESENTING
2.
4• � � sue ,� , s. �. - - -
5.
7.
9.
S
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.