Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 1996 09-17-96 UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE Committee Minutes-Planning Council Date of Meeting: September 17, 1996 Time Convened: 9:35 AM Location: 111 W. Fox Adjourned: 12:55 PM -1- Attendees: Name Representing Joe Wywrot City of Yorkville Keith Kuczkowski Kuczkowski Zoning Kim A. Peterson Kuczkowski Zoning Ralph Pfister YBSD Tony Creal Creal, Hyde&Larson Adam Trott Creal, Hyde&Larson Karl Norberg Landmark America Tom Grant Representing Landmark America Jeff Palmquist Lannert Group Gary Pike McClure Engineers Dean Edmeier Edmeier Group Tony Graff P.D., City of Yorkville Bill Dettmer City of Yorkville J.T. Johnson City of Yorkville Jim Nanninga City of Yorkville Tim Fairfield BKFD 1.) PC96-18 FOX HIGHLANDS - The Edmeier Group/Dean Edmeier A preliminary detailed layout of the town homes has been brought into the plan, and currently reflects a density of below 5 units per acre. These will lie at the Western edge (West of the ComEd line), we have discussed many times about having 6 unit, 4 unit and 2 units, we have knocked that down, and they will be 4 unit and 2 unit pods. The Planning Commission has expressed some concern about the entry roads having no egress. There had been some discussion recently with George Bell regarding a possible road connection from the town homes into the Halbesma property or possibly into the Walnut Ridge development. You may recall we had one long stretch of roadway, they have broken in a cul de sac to break up the long stretch, and this other stretch that had almost a drag strip nature. We will show in the near future a detailed topography that will reflect hills and a gradual curve to slow down the traffic. Edmeier stated they are looking for feedback on this. J.T. points out that the issue of the long stretch of road leading to a cul de sac still has not been resolved on this plan, zoning ordinance limits this length to 600'. Edmeier points out that once they have the topography map it will show that area more clearly with hills, curves and that the road could be made wider, they are now shown at the standard of 31'with a wider entrance. J.T. states that putting curves and hills in are not an answer. Nanninga states added width usually adds more speed and points out that shifting the stub road down some would make it possible to tie into the crossroad in County Hills, and Barb Dwyer is considering this possibility to relocating their tie in road so their development would connect into the Fox Highlands via their re-positioned tie in road. Dean points out that this -2- place in the road is a large hill, and making it an intersection could cause a problem and once they have it, the topo will show this more effectively. Palmquist states that the Planning Commission had an overlay that was very helpful. Edmeier presents a blow-up of the entryway and identified street scape, berm area with evergreen screen, preliminary foot print of homes with garages behind them, and driveways with turn-a-rounds, and tree lined street. He points out that the single family homes sit on a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot, with the average lot being 12, 465 sq. ft., and that lots under 12,000 sq. ft. that do not backup on open space represent 18% of the total lots. The drawing shows some double driveways with a 6'grassy strip between them. J.T. asks that those grassy areas be preserved by putting that in the covenant. Edmeier Ok's and confirms the parkway width at 11'to 11 1/2'. Nanninga states that City minimum is 10', and adds that there are some driveways that come out onto the main road that could easily be repositioned to come out onto a cul de sac instead, and reduce potential problems along the main entrance road, and confirms with Edmeier that there will be 2lanes out onto Route 71 at the entrance including a turn lane. Wywrot states there is an ordinance prohibiting an entrance road within 1/4 mile of another entrance road onto a major highway, and there is already one coming out from Wildwood at about 400' from the proposed entrance to Fox Highlands. Edmeier states that they are working on that issue. MOT will have final say on this, and it will also require a traffic analysis. Edmeier is waiting on feed back and interior work regarding another entrance from Halbesma property, and that the main entrance road would be posted no parking on one side. Johnson states perhaps no parking at all should be allowed, or the street should be made wider, and questions where are guests for parties to park, suggesting that could possibly be only by permit. Palmquist asks what kind of fence will be adjacent to entrance along 1st block. Edmeier answers it will be basic picket or something stylish. Palmquist states he hopes that it be protected by the covenant even though that only covers 10 years. Wywrot asks if the cul de sac at the end of the main road should show as a curve into the adjacent development in future plans. Nanninga asks for additional comments on how to lead Edmeier as there is one more Plan Council to pull all the new material together and address these issues prior to the next Planning Commission, and asks to move on to the Townhome issue stating that the biggest issue on the townhomes is access. Since this was originally planned for all single family homes do we want access from the Halbesma property into the townhome area. Edmeier asked if that parcel has been annexed as yet, or is anyone looking into that now. Wywrot suggests that the access issue at the Town Homes could be resolved by connecting the two cul de sac roads. Fairfield agrees that this would work for BKFD. Another issue is the private road issue. Johnson states he prefers it remain a private road due to the snow removal difficulty. Edmeier states he hesitates to commit on connecting the cul de sac roads or making them wider until he can look into it further. He would like to keep the townhomes self contained so as not to get into the issue of Halbesma property being town homes or single family. Additionally Edmeier would not want the Route#47 entrance to be an entrance to the golf course, as he wants just one way in and out for golf purposes. The townhome street widths are 24'wide and the sidewalks are 4', there is 2'between them as a parkway, so they are in flux with what will be wanted by the Planning Commission. Nanninga states that there needs to be overflow parking for the townhomes due to roads being only 24'wide, and they really should be wider. If they were 31'it would allow parking on one side. Edmeier asks, is this below standard street width, and stated if they did connect the two cul de sacs they could squeeze the road in and around to avoid the trees. Or would doing wider -2- streets eliminate the need for connecting the two. Johnson asked what happened to the proposed golf cart path. Edmeier replied that it was eliminated, and while they would like to put it in, it would mean loosing a lot of trees, and easements on lots. Nanninga states that if they put in a trail, they could eliminate the sidewalk on one side in the town homes, and asks if the architectural on townhomes has the brick, two car garage, steep roof line. Edmeier answers that it is all there. Palmquist asks if plans are ready showing the Golf Course Villas. Edmeier states they may have to move them to the other end of the club house, near the pro-shop and banquet facility, as it is cramping the areas where it was originally planned for. They will be able to increase the size of the lots by moving the villas. Wywrot states there has been some concern raised by the adjacent Block Farm trustees regarding irrigation, well and the effect of ground water use, as well as residents going into the corn fields, golf balls being hit into their field, golf carts running over land, etc. Edmeier answers, saying the design of a berm&plantings there will discourage that, and water will be collected in ponds on the golf course, and not onto neighboring property. Adding that a pronounced berm would eliminate the need for a fence, but they have not weighed the berm vs. fence issue. Edmeier will be back to next Planning Council with new drawings. PC96-20 FOX HOLLOW/Landmark America- Concept Presentation Starting with the streets, they are 26'back to back paved, 5' sidewalk with one side continuous. The front yards are 30' (from R-3)Widened road parkway. Roads vs. the front yard is what they wanted to address at this session. Marginal waivers 26 height, with off street parking of 2 per unit(on site - 7 short) 1.95 stalls per unit - signage for up lighting. Town Home driveways, fence 5-7 ft or could berm as an alternative. Nanninga asks if they would berm 5-Thigh. Response is yes. Palmquist states a combination of berm and landscaping to achieve what is necessary, would be nearer to B-3, with some appropriate landscaping as opposed to a berm. I'm not sure a continuous berm is appropriate along Route#71. Landscaping is what you want for a compatible and untouched look.. Also that the streets need to be 28'wide and back to back might be acceptable, and curbing of 6.12 is standard. 5' carriage walk. Fox Hollow representative said they can do a 28' street and might do a perimeter path since this is an isolated piece, they will research a tie into the Harris Forest Preserve and to the Riverwalk path. They are advised to call Don Mulvey at Harris Forest Preserve for information on where to tie in, etc., and that with the path they could then do 28' road, and sidewalk on one side only if they need the space. Provided this is guaranteed seniors&there is no plowing problem. Pfister asks if the high curbs are dangerous with seniors. Graff answers the higher are actually safer(from traffic), and a couple of feet of buffer parkway is much better and is what he would like to see, even if brick paved, which makes it easier to maintain than grass which is usually killed with the salt, etc. while being plowed. This extra space provides just a bit of extra buffer between walkers and drivers. Fox Hollow representative states they can put in a 3'to 7' parkway, varying the width as they go based on other elements of areas, will add interest also. Palmquist states you could even get away from the street where it is possible and add some landscaping. Nanninga states driveways would still need to be a minimum of 20' in depth so cars do not block sidewalks. Fox Hollow Rep. replies they have mostly 30' from the roadway, but they can push the buildings back 2'to 4'to accommodate the 20' driveways, so as to not block sidewalk. Nanninga states the rule is 20' -3- behind sidewalk. Now in regard to sewer and water. We want ComEd, NiGas and anyone else you can get, in the rear, NiGas historically wants to run in front, we have mandated years ago that they cannot run on the same side as the water, so they have to go over to the sewer side. Wywrot states sewers should be 10-15 deep. Fox Hollow Rep. asks about easements, and is advised to contact all utilities to iron it out. ComEd easement along back. Nanninga states the look that the City is going for is the steep roof& R-3 is 25' or 2 1/2 story, which ever is the most restrictive. The pitch of the peak is the question. Fox Hollow will provide a drawing, and stated that coach lighting will be fine. Graff asks if they will be seeking any variances. Tom Grant, legal representative for Fox Hollow states they will be seeking a variance regarding school transition fees since they will not be generating any students. This development will be seniors only, and no students will reside here. Nanninga states the transition is Ok, but Land cash should still apply, and asks about untilities. Fox Hollow replies that they are 95% sure of having all gravity sewers and Hughes has talked to Nanninga regarding any issues on sanitary sewers, but they are trying to get everything handled regarding roads and buildings first. Johnson states water tests show 1000 gal. per minute, 20 psi., so they need 12" into site and then most on site should be 8" to 12" , and should work with fire protection on this. Nanninga asks if there will be a stub to Hughes parcel at his expense along Route#71, he may have an opportunity on Route#47. Wywrot states it is a dead end line so it would be good to have a stub to Hughes, and that they need 2 connections, each 12" @ Route#71. and the State of Illinois standard is 35 recommended minimum. Discussion followed regarding not meeting minimum water pressure requirements. Fox Hollow states they can feed these two buildings with 1 1/4" service& 3/4" throughout the inside of the units, so they can pick-up meter loss inside 4 upper units of building 8, 9, 10 & 20. Johnson states they could have a pressure tank as back-up. Fox Hollow representatives states they would rather fix on paper, as they are not in favor of pumps, etc. In regard to storm water retention, they are planning to increase the ponds, they are comfortable with the storm water perimeter design and ask if they can increase ponds as the are some off site tributaries areas, to the East and beyond, and we will be providing some facilities to safely convey that water through and into our storm water retention pond. During a small storm, areas downstream will actually benefit from our detaining flows from off site areas. In is only in the maximum storms, the 100 year storms which still may come into play for the overflow piping that will basically bring the off site water through the site, not mitigated. We do have good facilities under Route 71, one is a cattle crossing 3'wide x Thigh box culvert. Johnson asks about underground, and Fox Hollow indicates a combination with ditches. Johnson states the City has just gone through this with Elizabeth Street and doesn't want pipe and swale in open spaces where it can accumulate. A swale is OK for looks, but they need to keep as much as possible under ground. Fox Hollow needs to go over this with Joe Wywrot. Nanninga states that getting back to the street issue, that 28' street width would limit parking to one side only, but small parking areas of approximately 6 spaces could be scattered. They need to have a minimum of 20' feet of driveway between the building and the sidewalk. for parking in the driveways without blocking sidewalk. Fox Hollow will study comments and come up with a plan. Wywrot states that Fox Hollow should be billed for Engineering Fees based on the new flat fee schedule. Some concerns that need to be addressed are snow removal for emergency vehicles. Palmquist states concern with preserving trees. Nanninga asks them to have Tom Grant look into the Park Board requirements. They will come back to Planning Council again with a Preliminary Plan for utilities. They will come back to -4- Planning Council again with a Preliminary Plan for utilities. Wywrot asks that they submit preliminary plan a week ahead of next Planning Council 10/01/96, and the next is 10/15/96. Fox Hollow is hoping to go to Planning Commission on November 13th. PC96-21 KUCZKOWSKI/Keith Kuczkowski Kuczkowski is asking for a zoning variance on 3 lots on East Van Emmon, maps included, across the street from the Robb Container. Water and sewer was extended 1 - 1 1/2 years ago. We are proposing changing zoning to R-2 multi duplex. The lots are 100'frontage and 150' deep and 15,000 sq. ft. Planning Commission didn't see a real problem. We are requesting change to the zoning to rezone R-2 Multi-duplex. Correct terminology is R-2-D. He would like to have them be salable independent homes. We are not looking at making these be rentable apartments, we are looking at sellable homes, not geared to any particular groups, but nice and something with a few amenities, but not a lot because of the area. They don't feel the area warrants single family homes as lots are adjacent to a 4 unit apartment house, and a factory across the street. That may eventually be changed, but it is a business at this point. So we don't feel it is appropriate for single family homes and don't feel its really appropriate for upscale high end duplexes or town houses. We are looking to come in with something reasonable with a few upgrades but keeping it financially under control. Van Emmon is a busy street but there will be room for a turn a round driveway so there won't be a problem backing onto Van Emmon as it is a busy street. These lots are heavily wooded and also on a very steep hill, but there is a plateau at the top. In the middle which would be the building site, keep the turn around up there. There are a lot of major old growth trees on the property and they want to stagger the units between those trees. Looking at two story buildings, or that would be the norm and stagger them to save the old trees as much as possible, but we will be realistic and not keep a tree 2' from the foundation. Peterson states he proposes to build 20'two story units, and provide 2 car parking per unit, plus a 1 in the turn-around and one in the garage. Peterson stated he has a bit of concern as far as what the City would want from them in the way of improvements along the sides of Van Emmon should the be re-worked. This could affect driveways, culverts, and curbs. Kuczkowski asks if anybody knows what the activity on Van Emmon Road is now, and what does the City plans on doing. Is it going to get wider or is there going to be curb anywhere that there isn't now. I know that's what people generally want in a more residential area, but I think that needs to be addressed as to what is to be expected out of us without putting something in just for it to be torn out in four years. Dettmer states we have taken the position that the Special Use would require 2 car inside parking. Peterson asks if that is absolute. Dettmer replies that as far as he's concerned, yes. Nanninga states that in asking for special use, you can ask for a few things. Without Special Use, or P.U.D. you can't ask for anything. We have no way of knowing if you are going to turn around and sell this to someone else. Nanninga states he wants to be certain that they will not become rental units. Peterson states that his concern with the two car is that if they go any less that 20'wide for the unit, and add another 20'for the garage, this puts the side yard down to nothing. It would be nice to expand the 20' unit, as a 20'unit is very basic, and asks if every other duplex being built has had two car garages. Nanninga replies that the recent ones all have 2 car garage, and adds that there are some questions as to how much easement there is along Van Emmon, and if Kuczkowski has enough set-back, as there is talk now of some FAU money that could be available to the City to -5- widen& re-do Van Emmon. This money is designated for use in connecting two State Highways, namely Route#47, and Route#71. Kuczkowski states he has heard that they want to make Van Emmon 4 lanes. Johnson states he thinks there is a 10' easement along Van Emmon. Kuczkowski states he believes it is 15', and that the plat filed in Paul Anderson's office shows 15'. Pfister asks if this parcel of lots have been divided. Kuczkowski states he had these lots platted when the water main went down Van Emmon. Pfister asks if they were single family on the plat. At that time the thought was single family, now that they have been sitting as long as they have, he wants to market them as duplexes. It doesn't help having a four flat next to lot one. He has heard that if he wants to sell them and make good money, if he had them zoned as duplex lots he would have built them years ago. He has a vested interest in what Peterson builds on these lots, because he has 6.8 acres behind these lots. To get away from what we currently see on Van Emmon, the duplexes would allow him to have a trickle down effect to nice single family behind. Wywrot states that the street is wider than the 15' now. It is stated that the street is at 33' now. Kuczkowski states he thinks the 15' feet should be added to the 33', he thinks that is what it ends up being. Palmquist states then this is incorrect. Johnson states we need to verify, and if its not there then that needs to be addressed. Wywrot asks if he plans to have a common driveway to reduce the amount of cuts on Van Emmon rather than individual driveways going all the way up. Johnson states that if they have more easement then lots 2 & 3 would fall below 15,000 sq. ft. Even with an additional T they will fall below the 15,000 sq. ft. Kuczkowski states that they need to check that figure. In regard to what may be required, so that they don't fall below that minimum no matter what they dedicate, with him owning all the property in the back, He doesn't know what is required so as to meet the 15,000 sq. ft. to make the City happy. If there is a short fall of adequate land to build the duplexes he could add onto the back as he owns 6.8 acres behind these lots. Palmquist states he would have to re-plat, but that may or may not be the appropriate action to take. Wywrot states the City would need to see where the buildings would sit on the lots because of the terrain. Would need a topography. Topography discussion. Kuczkowski asks if anyone has walked the lots, that anyone that was ever thinking about building, would know where the building has to sit because of the plateau, regardless of where the road lies. The property is almost like a staircase and then it flattens. Peterson states that 40'to 50'is the maximum for building size because of the way the ground tapers off, and the major tree growth. If you are insistent on the two car garages it eliminates 70% of the trees on the minimum 100' width. The nice brick or masonry is an issue. I think we can still do single family with single car garages can't we? I'm not sure why there is a need for double car garage. Johnson states the code calls for minimum one car garage with an additional parking spot. Peterson states that is what he is proposing. They have a situation of 3 lots that are not ideal for anything, but Kuczkowski will sit on three empty lots, and you will look at three empty lots if they don't do something productive, because they are not going to be single family homes. Palmquist states there needs to be a correct survey done, and in the meantime the City will look at the prospects of what the requirements are for Van Emmon becoming a collector road. Kuczkowski asks if it is possible that there has been a change in the requirement minimum. He has been through this once, have there been changes in the last 3 years. Johnson states it is all based on Van Emmon becoming a collector road or not. Kuczkowski replies, so we are talking the theory of what if, and that is probably why I didn't do it in the first place. Johnson states that when the City first looked at doing this there were so many constraints that we didn't feel it was ever going to come -6- about. Pfister asks if we could see a site plan. Peterson states he knew there was a two car garage issue, and it changes the cost of building, and with a two car garage it keeps the unit small because of being at maximum width. Now, what does create a nicer building, a two car garage or a nicer living quarters. He would opt for nicer living quarters with a modest garage, especially like a lot of seniors, and not have my side yard down to bare bones. Nanninga states side loading is an option. Peterson replies side loading is great if you have the width, and you are not fighting trees. He is looking for ascetics too. I would like to give some things but I would like some flexibility on the part of the City. Pfister asks if a P.U.D. should give flexibility. Johnson states that this is a Special Use. Peterson states he is willing to go to brick, but he is asking for flexibility on the 2 car garage issue, that he is willing to help overall but states this is not reasonable, and asks what the City has lost based on allowing these buildings with 1 car garage when everything in this area is R-3. Johnson states Kuczkowski has his own radiator shop just East a bit. He states there should be some affordable homes in Yorkville. Nanninga replies there is a lot of affordable homes already in Yorkville, and that doesn't mean these have to be starter homes. Palmquist states that the issues here are the topography and the road issue(additional right-of-way). Nanninga advises them to come back with a plan. Kuczkowski states the area is in transition. Peterson agrees that they will walk the site, check access possibilities and bring in a proposal & see what they can do. Back 10/01/96. PC96-13 The Development Group/.Fox Mill -Darren Sloniger As Sloniger is not present a discussion begins on the plan. Palmquist states the plan is very tight and we need to see how this ties to the Town Home area. The landscape plan is very preliminary and needs to be very specific with species identified as well as size. Off site parking is questionable too. Nanninga asks what we are deciding here. Palmquist states he will work with him on landscaping, and Wywrot will also work with him on questionable areas. Asked back for 10/01/96. REAR YARD UTILITIES Wywrot states rear yard utilities should always be encouraged. NiGas can't use this easement, it is for Ameritech and ComEd only. Adjourned 12:55 PM Minutes by: ndra Marker CITY OF YORKVILLE PLANNING COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 SIGN IN SHEET NAME (PLEASE PRINT!) COMPANY PHONE # kq� s TD�t}Y Gl���t: � GR�fca l-}Y�E � t,J4+2s�r19 �1��7Z�-13u PAAA M T "Nor e44svp I%'& ��2 Y PI�E� plc CCUi2C ��/� X3/5 X33 -ZD�