The URL can be used to link to this page

Plan Commission Packet 2004 02-11-04 � �, United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County EST.% 1836 800 Game Farm Road �� CO Yorkville, Illinois 60560 O II'' 1 \ O Phone:630-553-4350 16 Ken 25„ Fax:630-553-7575 `\\%.. kLE `\v PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, February 11, 2004 City Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Road 5:00 - 7:00 pm. Viewing of Transportation Study and Feasibility Study for Eastern Bridge Crossing: Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Previous Meeting Minutes: Corrections/Approval: December 10, 2003 Public Hearings: 1. Transportation Study 2. Feasibility Study for Eastern Bridge Crossing 3. Pollution Control Ordinance 4. PC 2001-16 Jean Dresden, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-2 One-Family Residence District and B-3 Service Business District to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District. The real property consists of approximately 20.53 acres at the Southeast corner of Route 34 and Eldamain Road, in the United City of Yorkville, Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. 5. PC 2001-16 DCI-Charrington, Inc., petitioners, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-2 One-Family Residence District and B-3 Service Business District to United City of Yorkville R-4 General Residence District and B-3 Service Business District. The real property consists of approximately 13.72 acres on the West side of Rob Roy Creek, East of Eldamain Road, in the United City of Yorkville, Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. Presentation: None Old Business: None Page 2 Plan Commission Agenda February 11, 2004 New Business: 1. PC 2001-16 Jean Dresden, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-2 One-Family Residence District and B-3 Service Business District to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District. The real property consists of approximately 20.53 acres at the Southeast corner of Route 34 and Eldamain Road, in the United City of Yorkville, Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. 2. PC 2001-16 DCI-Charrington, Inc., petitioners, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-2 One-Family Residence District and B-3 Service Business District to United City of Yorkville R-4 General Residence District and B-3 Service Business District. The real property consists of approximately 13.72 acres on the West side of Rob Roy Creek, East of Eldamain Road, in the United City of Yorkville, Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. 3. PC 2003-28 Tanglewood Trails - 1 1/2 Mile Review 4. PC 2003-29 Whispering Meadow Units 1 and 2 -Final Plat Additional Business: Adjournment: Page 1 of 5 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12,2003 Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Kerry Green, Anne Lucietto, Bill Davis, Sandra Adams, Brian Schillinger, Jack Jones, Michael Crouch, Andrew Kubala and Tom Lindblom. A quorum was established. VISITORS Mayor Art Prochaska; City Planner Mike Schoppe;Alderman Rich Sticka; Kelly Kramer, representing the city attorney's office; John Whitehouse, from Engineering Enterprises, Inc.; Art Zwemke; president and CEO of Moser Enterprises, Inc.; Tim Winter;project manager for Pasquinelli Development Group, Inc.; Wendy Yaksich, manager of entitlement for Moser Enterprises, Inc.; and Brian Urban from Cowhey, Gudmunson and Leder. MINUTES Minutes from the November 12 meeting were approved. Chairman Tom Lindblom announced that Al Trotsky and Tom Mizel have resigned from the Plan Commission. Mayor Art Prochaska stated that until the City Council votes to reduce the number of commissioners, seven people are still necessary to make a quorum. PRESENTATION Grand Reserve Preliminary Plan Art Zwemke, president and CEO of Moser Enterprises Inc., updated commissioners on the progress of the Grande Reserve development project. He said the developers recently met with those living in neighborhoods surrounding the planned development to give them an overview on the progress. He said construction crews have been able to move about 50 percent of the dirt in the Phase 1. Phase 1 covers 542 acres. Zwemke added that there also is progress on the new well and water tower. The target date for operation of the new water tower is Oct. 1, 2004. At the meeting with surrounding property owners, Zwemke said some residents living in the area of Kennedy Road and Bristol Ridge Road raised concerns about a sulfur smell in the water. Tim Winter, project manager with Pasquinelli Development Group, Inc., stated they looked in to the matter and couldn't come up with a good solution. Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Jack Jones said he lives close to that area and if a sulfur smell in the water was a concern, it was a short-term one. Commissioner Brian Schillinger then asked if the existing homeowners on Kennedy Road would be offered city water. Mayor Prochaska said they would only be offered city water if they annexed to the city. Returning to the progress of the Grande Reserve development, Zwemke said the phasing of the development will move from south to north and construction of three different neighborhoods will be at approximately the same time. Because it's more efficient, he said the developers plan to work on more than one neighborhood at a time. Zwemke added there are no material changes to the preliminary plan since the last time the commission saw the plan. John Whitehouse, from Engineering Enterprises, Inc., stated that the commission will see separate preliminary plans for those first three neighborhoods— 16, 17 and 18. Jones asked if any decisions have been made as to where schools would be located. Zwemke said some partial decisions have been made. However, he said the area is still undecided. He said there were potential plans for a regional campus in neighborhoods 4 and 5. He said the developers tried to buy the Hinsdale Nursery property and were unable to do so. He said the annexation agreement is written so that the school district can extend its option. He said the developers won't build at either possible school site until the option is seen. Schillinger said it makes sense to put a second high school north of Route 71. Zwemke said no one has mentioned the word high school and are calling the potential school area a school campus. He said the school district and the developers have left the door open for good planning and decision making. Meanwhile, Zwemke said residents neighboring the development have raised concerns about the replacement of Bristol Ridge Road and planned improvements to Route 34. He said they were concerned about how the improvements would affect the centerlines. He said the right of way goes deeper into MPI property and that they won't encroach on any existing property owner's land. Zwemke also said residents expressed concern about potential traffic stacking up on Oakland. However, he said there will be turn lanes added to alleviate any potential problems. Commissioner Anne Lucietto asked if the Illinois Department of Transportation has approved any of the possible cuts to Route 34. Winter said they have received preliminary approval from IDOT for the cuts. Page 3 of 5 It was also reported that the safety was a concern about the street that connects to Anna Marie Lane. Plans now call for the road to dead end. Commissioner Andrew Kubala said there a very sharp curve on the road and that dumping a 30-foot street onto an 18-foot street could be a problem. He said the developers picked the worst stub to connect. He said there are other roads that would be better connectors. However, Zwemke said they want to keep the neighborhoods in the development small and they want to discourage any through traffic. Lewis, he said, would go into the subdivision. Whitehouse commented that right now Anna Marie is the most substandard of any other nearby roads. He said no one wants Lewis through Lynwood to be a major outlet to Orchard Road. The connection as planned would be use more by people of the Lynwood subdivision than those living in Grand Reserve, he said. He added that if Lewis is opened up,the city could close access to Anna Marie. Returning to plans for the development, Zwemke said the development will be processed in three large phases,the middle first, the bottom last and the top first. The entire development ultimately will be connected to the Yorkville water system, he said. Lucietto asked if the developers have determined what the lots will sell for. Zwemke said they don't intend to sell lots to the public. They will sell the lots to builders, who will then develop the lots and sell them to prospective homeowners. He added that the baseline price for homes on the 10,000 square foot lots planned in neighborhoods 9, 10 and 11 will be about $265,000 to $270,000. Homes in neighborhoods 12 and 16 on 11,000 square foot lots will near the $300,000 range. Homes on 12,000 square foot lots will range from$350,000 to $400,000. Also, he added the buyers will have 8 to 12 percent in options available. Lindblom asked when to expect to see rooftops. Zwemke said finished homes should start appearing in October 2004. He added there are 1,245 home sites planned in the first area. Their best guess regarding build out is an estimation of 250 to 300 permits per year. Zwemke said the developers have committed to some major upfront costs including a $10 million commitment to road improvements. He said they intend to prioritize the improvements according to need and establish a$2,000 per home site fee for the road improvements. Commissioner Michael Crouch commented that the MPI has been more willing to pay for some of the necessary infrastructure improvements than other developers that have come to the city. Zwemke responded that they can't sell anything if the proper infrastructures aren't in place and prospective buyers won't be happy. I Page 4 of 5 Kubala asked if the areas on the preliminary plan marked in green are temporary detention areas. Winter replied that the blue areas are lakes permanent wet detention areas. The reset will only have water in them after it rains. Zwemke said they have the ability to mass grade and get the necessary retention and detention areas installed first. He said there are real efficiencies in the design. Lindblom thanked Zwemke and the other representatives from the developers present for coming and updating the commission on the progress of the development. Kubala asked why the Lynnwood subdivision wasn't shown more completely on the maps provided. He said it was a little misleading and added that it should be corrected for the next phase. In response to a question from Jones, Whitehouse said the reconstruction of Bristol Ridge Road is the first order. He said they are widening the road to the east. He said the roadway will be three lanes with a center landscaped median. The railroad crossing also will be widened and improved, he said. The grade will be improved somewhat on Kennedy, but not so much on Bristol Ridge. Whitehouse added that the city standard for streetlights is every 300 feet. He said there will be fewer lights than what the city requires installed along the roadway to preserve the rural nature of the area. Regarding green areas in the plan, Zwemke said MPI had 90 acres set aside as a conservation area. Those 90 acres are not part of the annexation agreement. He said the land was donated to Corelands Land Trust. Mayor Prochaska said the donation will allow the city to seek grants for improvements or to acquire more land for conservation. City Planner Mike Schoppe advised commissioners that when the preliminary and final plans come to the commission to look at the annexation agreement for design standards and not at the city's zoning standards. Zwemke said the annexation agreement is a strong document where they tried to build everything on paper. In response to a question about the depth of the ponds, it was noted that the depth of the ponds will normally be 6 feet. The potential maximum depth would be 11 feet. However, safety shelves will be installed in the ponds. Mayor Prochaska noted that the developers have contributed some upfront money that helped the city expand city hall and will help other areas of the city as well. Page 5 of 5 The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe 1 Page 1 of 4 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Plan Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT City Hall Conference Room Thursday, January 8, 2004 9:30 A.M. Attendees: City Administrator Tony Graff City Engineer Joe Wywrot Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Lynn Dubajic—YEDC Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman(arrive 9:50) John Whitehouse—EEI Jeff Freeman—EEI Sergeant Ron Diederich - YPD Tim Fairfield—BKFP Executive Director of Parks& Recreation Laura Brown (arrived 10:03) Guests: See attached MINUTES The minutes from the October 23, 2003 were accepted. PC 2001-06 GRANDE RESERVE FINAL PLAT UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 John Whitehouse with Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) reported that the only thing remaining to be adjusted on the plat is the easement provision language which he will email to the surveyor after the meeting. He stated that the developer is not disputing any of the engineering issues and is working on the fmal revision to the engineering. He also stated that the developer is not disputing any plat issues either. He stated that the Plan Commission recommendation could be made subject to the fmal engineering. Engineering items discussed were: o Unit 3 Road Location—the location of the road along the south side of Park E was discussed. MPI has made revisions to the intersection alignment. o Easement Issues—items such as wider easements on the side yard lot lines were addressed. o Lot Width Issue - Mrs. Kurtzman has reviewed the engineering plans and verified that minimum lot widths meet the Annexation Agreement. Mr. Whitehouse stated that EEI asked that minimum lot width be listed on the plats. o City's Park Development Standards—Mr. Whitehouse stated that the published pamphlet that applies to this should be referenced in the General Notes of the plats to indicate that these are the standards that apply. Joe Wywrot explained that this deals with grading issues, how the shoreline is treated with landscaping, safety shelves, etc. The developer did not have a problem adding this. o Communication with Fox Metro & Deuchler- Mr. Wywrot stated that the developer is communication directly with Fox Metro. . The developer explained that Fox Metro is doing the review and comments not Deuchler as Deuchler doesn't handle all of Fox Metro's reviews. Administrator Graff asked if the City could get a copy of their review and the developer agreed to forward it to Mr. Wywrot. o ComEd easement language—Mr. Whitehouse stated that revised easement language is being negotiated between ComEd and the City. This language will be provided in an electronic format once it has been finalized. He discussed that three words are in questioned by ComEd. He stated Page 2 of 4 that he will not be sending the revisions back to ComEd and the plat will be recorded as is. Mr. Graff stated that the City Attorney agrees that the city has met its obligation according to the franchise agreement. o Preliminary Plan Presentation - Mr. Whitehouse stated that a Preliminary Plan presentation for ten neighborhoods was made to the Plan Commission in December and it was well received. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for neighborhoods# 6—#16. There will be additional Preliminary Plans as the developer moves into the western and/or northern sections. Mike Schoppe was unable to attend the meeting however Mr. Graff went over his December 30, 2003 memo regarding Unit 1. The following items were discussed: o #1 under Final Engineering Plans -Median Gap in Street"A" - Tim Winter with Pasquinelli Development Group stated that the 175' gap was intended for a bridge effect for their entrance feature. Mr. Whitehouse commented that from a traffic and/or functional standpoint he did not see a problem with the gap. Mr. Graff stated that it does not hinder the function of the street but could be an esthetic issue. He noted that the gap should be pointed out to the Plan Commission and City Council so that they are aware of it. Mr. Graff stated he would address this with Mr. Schoppe to get clarification for his recommendation. o #2 Final Engineering Plans - Street "A" and Route 34 Intersection - Mr. Whitehouse stated that the outbound lane back-to-back(BB) minimum is 28' and should not be changed to 26' as Mr. Schoppe recommended. The inbound BB requirement is 20'. The developer indicated that the inbound will be 21 or 22' as requested by Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). o #5 Final Engineering Plans - Emergent Plantings— Seeding so there will be vegetative cover before the permanent plants take over. was discussed o #8 Final Engineering Plans - Regional Bike Trail—Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Schoppe recommended that the trail be a public trail. Mr. Whitehouse stated that he has handled this situation in the general easement provisions by including public pedestrian and bicycle trail easement rights to all storm water management areas. Mr. Wywrot discussed a January 6, 2004 fax from Brian Urban of Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd. regarding the entrance road, American Way, off of Route 34. Two items were discussed: o Safety Shelf Width —the plans indicate a 3' wide safety shelf however the Park Development Standards call for a wider shelf, 5 to 10'. He stated that a safety shelf was needed all the way around the pond and suggested a 5' safety shelf near the bridge effect. The developer stated that most areas of the pond have two safety shelves, one at water level and another at 10 -15 feet. Mr. Wywrot stated that the second shelf needs to be wider. o Easements along American Way—He stated that the right-of-way (ROW) was being "pinched". He indicated an area where it might be possible to get by without front yard easements because there are no utilities in the area. Mr. Graff discussed street lights. Mr. Wywrot stated that the City's standard street lights would be used on all roads with the exception of American Way where they would be double backed. The Council discussed using "night sky" street lights which put a reflector on top of the light. This reduces glow and allows the night sky to be seen. Mr. Graff stated that this is a rural characteristic that the City is trying to promote and he pointed out that this has been used on the collector road by Menard's. He stated that the standard for this hasn't been passed however it is being looked into. He suggested that it would be a good characteristic Page 3 of 4 for this subdivision. The developer asked for more information regarding this and Mr. Graff stated he would get it to them. Mr. Wywrot addressed his January 7, 2004 memo to City Attorney Dan Kramer regarding medians and islands in the City ROW. He stated that Mr. Schoppe sent him a memo regarding the creation of separate lots for medians and islands. He was suggested that the lots be owned by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Wywrot asked EEI for their comments regarding this along with Attorney Kramer's legal opinion. Mr. Graff stated that a policy addressing this needs to be established by the City Council. He stated that he would put this issue on the January 20, 2004 Committee of the Whole meeting agenda for discussion. Mr. Wywrot addressed his January 2, 2004 letter to Mr. Whitehouse regarding street names. He stated there are a few problems: o Anna Marie Lane— Should be changed to Anna Maria Lane to match the existing roadway name. o McClellan Blvd. —He suggested that the south end of the boulevard should end at the south side of Lot 61. He suggested that Lyman Loop make a complete circle. o Hastert Drive—Hastert Drive is across from Sunset Avenue. He suggested that the name of this street be changed to Sunset Avenue and the name Hastert Drive be used elsewhere. He suggested changing American Way to Hastert Drive. o Grand Trail East/Grande Trail West—He felt that the naming system is confusing and cannot be numerically addressed in a logical way. He suggested renaming Grande Trail East to just Grande Trail starting at Sunset/Hastert and extend east and then north to where it is proposed to end at Matlock Drive. The name Grande Trail West should be eliminated and the street heading west be renamed from Sunset/Hastert to McLellan Blvd. As the road passes McLellan, it should be changed again until is reaches its south intersection with McLellan. The road should then change names again for the section between McLellan and Alden. o Burr Street—the cul-de-sac off Burr Street should be named separately such as Burr Court. There is the same problem in Neighborhood 11 The developer understood Mr. Wywrot concerns and Mr. Graff asked them to resubmit street names to Mr. Wywrot by February 3, 2004 so the information could be put into the Plan Commission packets. Mr. Graff discussed Mr. Schoppe's December 30, 2003 memo regarding Unit 2. Items discussed were: o #7 Final Engineering Plans - United City of Yorkville Sign - The developer stated that they would include landscaping information around the sign with their next submittal. o #6 Final Engineering Plans - Plantings - Sergeant Diederich expressed concern regarding the use of evergreens along roads such as American Way because they grow and block surveillance to homes. Mr. Graff suggested that Sergeant Diederich meet with Mr. Schoppe to discuss the landscape plan. Joe Wywrot discussed the January 7, 2004 memo from Conservation Design Forum (CDF). They expressed their displeasure that stormwater management plans for the development do not provide the use of bioswales as referenced in the annexation agreement. They have also made suggestions such as plantings in the vicinity of basins. Mr. Wywrot stated he just received the memo and did not have time to go over it in detail. The use of bioswales was discussed further. Mr. Graff suggested scheduling a staff Page 4 of 4 meeting with CDF. If there are any recommendations from the meeting, they will be forwarded onto the developer. Mr. Graff went over Mr. Schoppe's December 30, 2003 memo regarding Unit 3. Items discussed were: o #4 Final Plat- Lot Ownership - Mr. Whitehouse stated that this as been resolved. o #5 Final Plat- Access Easement—Mr. Whitehouse stated that this was addressed with the blanket easement provision. o #6 Final Plat - Location of Lot 2N- Mr. Whitehouse stated that this is covered under a separate set of plans which are referenced in the Unit 3 plans. He did not feel this was an issue. o #2 Final Engineering Plans - Park Sanitary Sewer and Water Service - Mr. Whitehouse stated that this should be addressed by the Park Development Plan. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Schoppe is preparing this plan. The fmal location of buildings needs to be verified before utilities are run. o #3 Final Engineering Plans - Basin Grading—The developer questioned Mr. Schoppe's recommendation. The slope of the basin was discussed; gradual versus a steeper drop. The developer indicated that the detention basin is already built and felt that the way it is currently designed provides an area that is more useful. Ms. Brown explained that Mr. Schoppe is recommending a gradual slope instead of a steep slope because it is safer from a play standpoint as well as if a car goes off the road in that vicinity. Mr. Wywrot stated that the basin complies with state statute. The Council further discussed the pros and cons of the 5-1 slope versus the 8-1 slope. o #6 Final Landscape Plan - Entry Sign- Mr. Wywrot recommended that the sign be at least 15' off the ROW. Mr. Graff asked the developer to resubmit to the City by January 16, 2004. He asked them to look at the street names. He reiterated that the City staff would meet with CDF and relay any information to the developer. Also,the ROW policy will be discussed with the City Council. The developer was instructed to resubmit the fmal plats to Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Graff asked that all information for the Plan Commission be in to the Clerk's office by February 4, 2004. The Plan Council's recommended that this move on to Plan Commission subject to review of the resubmitted information. Additional Business None. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk Page 1 of 9 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT Plan Council Meeting Minutes City Hall Conference Room Thursday,January 22, 2004 9:30 A.M. Attendees: City Administrator Tony Graff City Planner Mike Schoppe Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman City Engineer Joe Wywrot Jeff Freeman—EEI Sergeant Ron Diederich—YPD (arrived 10:30) John Whitehouse—EEI Assistant Fire Chief Tim Fairfield—BKFP (until 11:15) Guests: See attached MINUTES None. PC 2003-19 BRISTOL CLUB 1 'A MILE REVIEW Gregg Gabel was in attendance though not on the agenda. He stated that he received a memo from Deputy Clerk D'Anna stating that PC 2003-19 Bristol Club would be on the agenda today. Administrator Graff allowed them to do a presentation. Attorney Rick Williams representing Laycom gave a brief presentation. Laycom owns approximately 122 acres at the southwest corner of Galena Road and Cannonball Trail known as Bristol Club. An Annexation Agreement and Planned Unit Development (PUD)was entered into which provides for 112 single-family homes on 25,000/square foot lots(minimum). The property is not contiguous to the United City of Yorkville and it is not known when this will occur. The developer would like to proceed and has decided to reduce the density by having the lots be a minimum of 3 acres. The developer has proposed to plat the development with Kendall County and the City will review under it the 1 '/2-mile review. When the property has contiguity, it will be annexed to the City under the estate zoning classification and governed by those regulations. Mr. Gabel asked the status of the City's review. He stated that they have submitted engineering and landscape plans and he thought the review was this morning. Mr. Graff stated that City Attorney John Wyeth has met with Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman to review the PUD amendment and is drafting a memo that he is expecting to receive later in the week. John Whitehouse with Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) stated that the engineering review is basically complete but needs to be fmalized based on the PUD amendment. Mr. Schoppe stated he received a revised landscape plan which he commented on in a memo a few weeks ago but he has not seen the revised plat or engineering plan. Mr. Schoppe stated that he assumed any current plans addressed the issues discussed at the September Plan Council meeting. Mr. Gabel stated that nothing has been changed because there wasn't a consensus at that meeting. Mr. Graff stated that it needs to be determined if the City is reviewing this as a 1 1/2-mile estate zoning for the City versus just a 1 '/2-mile review for the county. This needs to be clearly stated in the PUD Page 2 of 9 amendment so the staff understands what their review comments are related to. He indicated that a concept plan for the Rosenwinkle property, which makes the Bristol Club property contiguous, is due in to the City in the next 4-6 weeks and they hope to go before the Plan Commission in April. He stated with this imminent, Attorney Wyeth should request from States Attorney Tim McCann an intergovernmental agreement with Kendall County for jurisdiction. This would eliminate the 1 1/2-mile review as it would be reviewed under the City's estate zoning. He stated that he would be speaking with Mr. McCann and after this would have a better timeline for this to proceed. He stated he would contact Mr. Williams with the information. Mr. Graff suggested that there be a staff meeting and a meeting Anna Kurtzman, Joe Wywrot and Rick Williams to discuss the PUD amendment. The intergovernmental agreement and PUD amendment could be brought before the City Council at the February 3, 2004 Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting. He estimated that this would go before the Plan Commission in March. PC 2003-28 TANGLEWOOD TRAILS— 1 %-MILE REVIEW Bob Nelson the owner/developer gave a presentation to the Council. Mr. Nelson is new to the area so he gave a brief history of his company which was begun in 1987 and he gave the locations of his developments in Batavia,North Aurora and St. Charles. He will be closing on property located on Highpoint Road just south of Legion Road next to the Tucek farm on February 2, 2004. The 67 acre parcel will have 39 lots varying in size from 40,000 square feet to over two acres. He has met with Kendall County whose ordinance requests 40,000 square foot lots and is still requesting them. The homes will be on well and septic and he outlined the location of detention areas and walking/bike paths. While addressing City Engineer Joe Wywrot's January 14, 2004 memo it was discussed that the county's new RPD2 zoning is in conflict with the City's estate zoning. Mr. Graff explained that if the developer is looking to annex to the City in the future (anywhere in the next 3-7 years)the Plan Council will recommend to the Plan Commission that some of Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Schoppe's comments get incorporated into the agreement. Mr. Nelson stated that he hadn't planned on annexing so he would have to research this further. There was some discussion on the proposed revision for the Land Plan for the corridor south of Legion Road. The Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District has indicated that this area will be serviceable in the future so the Land Use Plan is being revised but will probably not be adopted by the City Council in the next 6-9 months. Mr. Graff noted that looking at the development's lot sizes; this is probably the type of zoning that will be proposed for the area. He stated that well and septic is agreeable at this point and if the property is annexed in the future, the homeowners will not be forced to switch to city water and sewer. Mr. Graff explained the annexation process to Mr. Nelson and recommended City Attorney Dan Kramer contact Mr. Nelson's attorney, John Martin, to discuss this further. Mr. Graff asked Mr. Nelson if he was agreeable with any of Mr. Wywrot's comments. The following items were discussed: o Roadway stub - Mr. Wywrot suggested moving a roadway stub (future connection to Ronhill Subdivision) one lot to the east in order to improve sight distances on Tanglewood Trail. Mr. Wywrot commented that there is a crest in the road that occurs close to the lot line one lot north and it is a safety consideration to move the stub. Mr.Nelson indicated he would not like to do this as the soil supports the present location of the road however he would have his engineer review this. Page 3 of 9 o Cul-de-sac islands—Mr. Nelson indicated per the county, the cul-de-sac islands are being deleted. o Sidewalks—Mr. Nelson stated that the county does not want sidewalks or trees in the ROW. Mr. Nelson indicated the location of a pathway through the subdivision on his plan which amounts to a one-sided sidewalk. Mr. Wywrot commented that the City's ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street or a trail system adjacent to every lot. He noted that the changes Mr. Nelson indicated puts him closer to compliance with the City's standard. Mr. Schoppe stated that the City standard is for a paved path and he recommended that a hard asphalt trail be located at the very least on one side of the street. Changing the location of the path from behind lots 37, 38 and 39 to the front of the lots was also discussed. o Streetlights - Mr.Nelson indicted on his plan where the streetlights will be placed. o Highpoint ROW—Mr.Nelson indicated that he has been requested to add an additional 45' of ROW along Highpoint Road for a total of 90'. Mr. Wywrot clarified that the total ROW for Highpoint is 80' so the developer needs to dedicate 40' plus an additional landscape buffer. Mr. Nelson agreed. o Easements—Mr. Nelson agreed to providing easements adjacent to all roadways and along the perimeter of all lots. o Detention basins—Mr.Nelson agreed that the detention basins should conform to the county's stormwater ordinance. o Water tower site- Mr. Whitehouse indicated that EEI has identified a potential location for a water tower on the property south of this however there are a few locations in this subdivision that would satisfy the elevation requirements for a tower. A determination still needs to be made if there will be a well and treatment facility at the site as well. Mr. Nelson stated he was not excited about having a water tower in the subdivision. Mr. Graff stated that this should be addressed in an annexation agreement and he suggested that EEI verify the location of the tower so that this could be discussed further. o Right-of-Way and Road Design - It was suggested to round off the ROW at intersections. Mr. Wywrot requested the bituminous pavement width be increased to 28 feet whereas the county requires 24 feet. Mr. Graff explained that the Plan Commission and City Council support the 28'. Curb and gutter are not required. Mr. Nelson stated he would take the position with the county that the City is dictating 28'. Mr. Nelson agreed to the binder thickness of 2.5 inches. The group reviewed Mike Schoppe's January 16, 2004 memo and discussed the following: o Lot sizes—Mr. Schoppe noted that the lots sizes do not conform to the City's standards however the plan could be done as a PUD in an estate district. The significant amount of open space justifies the lot size and width as presented. He stated that this subdivision would come under the City's Estate Class I. o Comprehensive Plan—the proposed plan is consistent with the Comp Plan. o Wetland Delineation - A wetland delineation should be done and the City forwarded a copy. Mr. Nelson agreed to this. o Existing vegetation - A general description of existing vegetation should be provided. o Front-yard setbacks - Front yard setbacks should be revised to 50' to be consistent with the City's ordinance. Mr. Nelson indicated that the county's requirement is 30'. Director of Public Works Eric Dhuse noted that the county likes a larger rear-yard setback to allow for septic fields. o Stormwater Basin Slope—a slope of not greater that 10:1 was recommended for both esthetics and erosion control. Mr. Nelson stated that the county wanted him to incorporate more bounce and flat useable space. Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Nelson took a closer look at the plan and found that the shape uoi}epaodsueil 4o 00` ivawiaedaa siou!iii -- t/00Z `LZ A enue ' -•_ --Qa, -�., , 1 ® 1 Y IRM ( , .y - .,s.,. � RPvn/s wv...e — j,=. 1 1 1..e . +fl+K'F'1 _1 _ ,Irp11..M am ,yy,� s-, JOAO A..444 an,I • „.�.,,N ..,., I, 1111'90N. ® sad nom, N .wy ION AMU.., ® ® kiewwn jiodej e3uBwJopaJ wejsA u r o Jodsuei • Apn2Sur.�aautu g AJDU!w!IaId AD1IJDd al.x!D.x -' 4 i j TSP Objectives • Description of existing and planned transportation system • Analysis of historic, current, and 2030 population, households, employment, and land use • Analysis of historic, current, and 2030 traffic characteristics • Analysis of existing and 2030 transportation system performance • Stakeholder and focus group perceptions of transportation and development issues 6E-I pua 99-I uaaMiaq saisjsaaiul qllnos-gjaou oN . (69 -11 `lti all 'CZ ii) sl(BMg61q gjnos-gpaou ssela AIiauoRaun4 aag6lq `snonuljuoa 4o aagiunu pal!Wll a Aluo inq `sAeMg6iq 1saM-issa Jo aagwnu e amaaagl . saililios4 ssala isuoRRoun4 JaMOI JO slauapaa JOU1W Si )IaoM1au ABMpBoa aqj 4o %VL Jan0 . El ..Milf i ri) • - .Vil i ---- -I , --- - diii __:_.____.___7.-.7-7, pir .:,,,,_. _ .trille TO r s sa�w�ii . , ,...r o/ i -- - . wrrsvy ! k 1 lirda, la - . r - 4rac �w . f _ .00 a 0`B f 411 1 1aolgeNop106441'.' eNW 1RAt • i , IMry� ✓' 1 INu4V (o��: _ i Iod17UW 1w110 1 1 Mg71Mul. � IoI1WYI�dI�Mld 1��61 I( � ,� 'r, ugtoallir I�NaIf s011 1 0061 /a 1 ssej jAeMpeo .......„ _,:___.... c ',. . , _ \N....a Number of Lanes .. _. .. .,. 11t..,I -- - ----, '- • .r 1l�Mrst ,_. *`,hh fi'` _ ! _ 4 r TMrwh Lanes I I �� I `� -r Numb r of Lanes s till 1.- r n, �:a;' 2ar3 A A _ i in .•:7;' C,-,.,ii: '-' :67,:ri:,1..,7 -f...rtr", 0:1.1;011:101,11,- tG f 1 I � 1� ` �� µ_ Dellalir l 1 s "" ► 1:. ® ; ® � , 1 g : t 11 LaSalle, 1 ! 41 1 C) Kendall - ! 4 r 1 1ii i p.mw . mit ti f' 1 Gundy ; 1 zf Will I e t - I e. t Is 1_. _ - .— -S • Lack of multi-lane roadways, especially within central and western parts of study area, with 85% of the roadways 2-lanes • No north-south multi-lane roadways west of IL-59 i iii Planned Improvements r t iripw - - d aro invasbugusts NA d Wiley Type ® Randall till a 4 . 4 N rrsa A FON 0 Mirrs rid add laws �+'I I' FON Servicei ortonsioa Impisv.rrrnt taFowRwkor mom up.w aroation ostoasioa 1st On too Mire Kane IIIIIIIMP Sullivan Rd Irridp' akowasZi — _ Abtra NSP A _.,„ =torsion orlwesMw ' Star Liss Sre and Rd add lawns r MSS 1`I dein DeI(afb US 34 /1 tM US 34 add imamsa. add y I , co Idiom mar--`-- add laws$ . '� 4 tore - . . • 47 add lards 143 S _L ale Rd () add s o aside and T LaSalle iraeovowlo nts ® �� Kendall Caton Fans.Rd _ to". Iadd boos 11) IL I Ingo I Ili ad iaaos I Rid.*Rd 4x10 - ' -_ continuous, _.t.'_. t M Grundy - liristrir rid _Rd irtorcMnus la s 1 US i s Will • The Eldamain Road Extension over the Fox River, widening of a section of IL 47 in Yorkville, widening of IL 59 and 1-55 and the 95th St. extension are the major planned north-south improvements. • East-west planned improvements on sections of US- 34 and in east part of study area ^, % w r Freight Facilities 11 -.� 1, �r :..mover- M1 ififtwA6b---,/ ,,...EM. ,- 4c.. i .ltaa....75,..... , k,-... Filfted li 4N c`� t Truck Rwr A ' 111111 �CwAss 2 '• 4 la iitraimm lir Qrpoirr rZ IMF / 1107 .,Aingilio Aar: t7ielta& fer, wt t E intim" rir 4 Mir - F +i, 441 ILaSalle f``r© Kendall 1is�`� �IrH het IullmIptfi., m ' 1 y41 �Gnsndy pa Edi- ' " -1^ 'tit . 01W zip * 6, onsF s t!1!f�1 _, � 4!i 74 4 1112.111?; . A E °ted sminumar • Class I truck routes are 1-55, 1-80 and 1-88. Class 11 truck routes are other U.S. & State marked routes • Freight facilities concentrated along Illinois River, the CSX & BNSF railroad lines, 1-55/1-80, and 1-88 • CenterPoint and Global 3 major intermodal facilities i li I Transit System r - Existit>w and Prad i84 31r Q�anwtesatar Rail and Sas Sonde +*1a meta Enhancements wl Mata Baton 1 3� LaFax existing Mete 1 MaraA/ ti Pace M N �iwPs a �1CsueAs ,1 A!Gaon Un. N1u Nuskr A Unas S Kin. FH i �� {�I ,av ii MI rr Fa DeKalb °s'�.ye ,� Plano Yorkvi . ;3D : tra Sta Ina I LaSalle li Kendall 23• �xrr X71 __.--. �� s"i t,,,,. Grundy ,...a...t.�� Will I i4'7. • Fixed-route transit service primarily in eastern portion of study area and in DeKalb • Transit ridership has increased or remained stable, but accounts for 0% - 4% of work trips from counties in the study area Non-Motorized Transportation ..... ., _ - 1 gabraartt (. waatL„ ,- Ne alarleM I FTro11I Rim :Pease1111aaaa��! lel Roues C Dike Trull ja /ball or Lana �'J _____.., _ . Trail f Wad Rows A/Most Suitable Caution Advised l %.....--.... .. '`'� res Not - Rim Recommended i s PP s Illinois Kano el s Pekin Pah A , _ 1 _.0 Trull OmtNM*Tia► ;i 1 I I t t CD 0 ' tell I ; 1 ,i. ,0 1 IKendall ,v t 1 - 1 ---- --. r f Grundy ..„,&.----........---... Wil/ 1 ,'-� 1 t} s L © T.E � IYL Carnal Taal 1 ) . I I • Bicycle and pedestrian trips account for 1 °,/co 8% of work trips from counties in the study area • Major trails include Fox River, Prairie Path, Virgil Gilman, Great Western, and l&M Canal aleiS aqi u! sa!Iunoa 6u!MOJ6 jsaise ate (ti,) Apunao pue 16) gleNe0 `(s) jepua `(Z) eue> `( L) II!M • AJ4uno3 ani u! sa!4unoa 6ulMo.i6 jsalse am (es) iepue pus `(6) aue ` • (ti) II!M • • 08 t' SZZ'E 11'L`99 996'69 e!u!6im 43)IlotinS 5S CC OL'£ 69E'£ 8179`16 L06176 e!6ioao iioJe3 vs Z6 06'9 I.11'`E l 18`LS ZZZ`l9 s!ou!111 IlePuel CS 91 01 9 61'1''£ ZZO`89 tL1'`1L eloseuu!w euinq,aus ZS 6Z OL'£ 0£S'£ 9E596 990'66 eue!s!noi uols5wn!i is 6g _ 00`5 ZLS'91 LL8'Zle 6W8ZE sexal AiawoBluoW 1t OE 09 E Z81''91 LS l'651' 6E9`SL1' epuou eai 01 56 OZ17 118'LI. 0EZ`SZ1' 11'0`£1'1' spurn' aUe)I6 E9 4 OL £ 6V6`1Z SZS26S 1'1,1'`1'149 sexai 061ep84 8 88 00`9 Z99`ZZ SL6'9LE LES'66C seXel Piles Poo L St OE S ISS't 0£6`£91' 181'`891' mei uoluap 9 rt oz 1* 6Z0'9Z Zt L'1'Z9 1LL`0S9 e!fuoso nauts§us S 59 01'S 9L0`LZ S8L2ZES 198`695 sloullil MAA 1' /2 09'9 81'6'62 058`9£9 86L`999 sexal, um m£ 0Z OE 1* 6SS79 SO9`651'`1 179l'ZZS`1 epeAaN vela Z 89 OL t. 91'9°SL 991'`EZ9`1 Z14 V669`1 e!Wo4!Re3 aPIsiamAl I. 6£ of uet!3 a6uet!o uoiUe!ndod uo!lelndod uo!lelndod uo!Wlndod a6ue43 abuey3 tuaatad !ea!aawnN 100Z I. Aln(' ZOOZ '1 AMP alelS kunoo 8 ittleti %4ueld a6uego o!JawnN Aq pelaos uoilelndod aaow J0 000'01, 4PIM -ZOOZ u!salluno3•S.n 6ulMO.i9 Isaisej mi. snsua3 io neeing *s.n uo,ija nda -i d zoos Booz 2000 - 2000 Population 2000 2030 County Change Population Population DeKalb 89,290 129,985 46% Grundy 37,700 65,271 73°x% Kane 407,520 679,962 67% Kendall 55,210 130,956 137% LaSalle 111 ,470 123,413 11 % Will 508,360 1 ,136,684 124% I Sub-Total 1 ,209,550 2,266,271 87% Total CMSA 9,157,540 11 ,872,589 ' 30% • 87% growth in population for counties in study area between 2000 and 2030 • These counties account for 39% of the 2000- 2030 population change in the total CMSA VS1/110 aqt u! abuauo juawAo!dwa OEOZ -000Z 0111 %8Z AOJ 1un000e saRunoo asagj • OEOZ Pue OOOZ uaamiaq aaaa Apnls u! sa!lunoo Joh ivawAo!dwa u! i pvtoi6 %88 • I i L L L ENO %EE £6158£ L 096 OSS 5 I �o a 1 1088 ! t760 E80 !. OZL 9L9 18101 %95 ZZO`SLtr OtZ`58I HIM %Zti Z 1. 1.$9 O0 `65 0118981 %9L t88`L£ OS' LZ 11ePUa)I °/01.9 920`68£ 06 I.`Z#iZ aueN %6t 896`62 OLO`OZ Apunae %6£ Z80`L9 482`8 gieNea uau�I�o dui �uau�Jto d�u e6us ; � 1 1 uno �3 o oEOZ 000Z uawitab� OCCe' 000e in,„, c,4 Jobs - fiN Balance 2000 2030 County Change Jobs/HH Job/HH DeKalb 1 .52 1 .47 i - 3% Grundy 1 .40 1 .23 ® 12°1° Kane 1 .79 1 .69 - 6% Kendall 1 .13 0.85 - 25°1° LaSalle 1 .37 1 .77 + 2910 Will 1 .09 1 .25 + 15% Total 1 .68 1 .75 + 4% CMSA • A decrease in the jobs-household ratio between 2000 and 2030 means that households are growing at a faster rate than jobs • Kendall County is forecast to have a significant decrease in the jobs-household ratio, while LaSalle is forecast to have a significant increase in IIMI II hiI 15..g! yf O i.i !►. ` 4;, L can .. B B _ " Viyil& ^^`` 10 -.(4"5.-",.- x� a' ,j:-.,'':`-- -'4i'li"--' - - — --^.� %.,� J�� Fad-��i t�►c..'�`°` v W • • _` a K / it+. 1 ; O4-0 1 •! : r. „ M Co Q) P wa1441 , _ 14.4 1 4 - r • �tJ) f 1 /, �� O 1 61111111 _iiiiii.imiiiiii,„___ ,, , ;. 1 L .. - a. 1 CL ...4.,_ co Q Existing Traffic `' `�"`'.. truffle oalhr k I 730 5900 C' 6200 t'f • Truffle fADT!N • i � X00 _ '12100 r. 21500. : N 2001 end • ■e f 1. 900 ct ' 1997'date 1/..// .. 14I1 Q 114 // �. 14500 4 �d ; :... W 3 8600 . , 1 4200 16800 Ns. ;0 X1700 I ' a,.21900 rn c+ e� o,2b0• 21, '/,/ .- 1 1 9* 15, i'• 0 179 I N Kano 1. 2e�40d'`' . /y /k 2g.ppp! I 4850 4500 b :' e _ 200 -_„�.,.__ 12600 `� 1 ./rw 'r I1 850* m , 1 p 2+4 °* 3K-4)*.."„, " '_ 1 ; . 4''' /f // I ../I -•/•;�,�" 12500 1 I *�.//• // ` 1 I DeKalb 1 8]�1.0100 Y. 1 t i 1320Q 178Q0- /.e 8,340' 3000 , I -._..d850--,.-- 12300 9400 � } 0P- ...-- 1 R�'f - 495/ ••c/• )6... 11 1 f" Q : 143 1 s D. LaSalle Ki 800 1li: 03 i ( • I M ,� ► , i /,.ic Kendall 1 g 1 , 1 50001•/// NN 1 1250 1 ye 2200 2000 r 1 ' ::.-4'1"' �A. 1 '" �h� f 1�1?' 1 1 // "I'.""."7"r'fl."..'" I I 25900 24600 -m, 23600j----28400 Willi gi • 14x00(s: VS 6600 3500 17900 1 130800 14500(Iv= 1 1 8300 I 1 I L ,�,io w..e..+lS.••w...�Z yr.-- ..•• tires' • Existing traffic volumes are generally higher in the eastern portion of the study area i iii 2000 - 2030 AD T Change ,04 I _. --- Mange in 1 4t 4:9 y Traffic N 1 2000 to 2030 A 1 47)1 ) chairhr Ih ADT '1 ,ii2500 A I 2501-5000 I ,I N001-10000 1 NMore than 10000 1 I I I Kane 23 5:6 1 1 1 1 .)•--- I 1 r'r I fT b — I , 1 ('2'r1 1 LaSalle 1 1 In • �123. Konrtall ; I , 1 1 1 1 GrundyI I °� I 1 1 1 I Will 1 1 1 1 ?47. I 1 1 • Major north-south routes (IL 23, IL 47, IL 59) show increases in traffic volumes greater than 5,000 vehicles per day 2000 - 2030 ADT Change Functional 2 - Lane 4 - Lane Class E — W N — S E — W N — S Principal Arterial 46% Interstate Other 11 Principal 48% 75% 49% 78% � Arterials ----- Rural Minor 163% 232% Arterials { 1 Urban Minor 95% 41 % 300/c Arterials Rural Major { Collectors 114% • Increase in traffic volumes is more pronounced on lower class facilities, particularly rural minor arterials and rural major collectors . ( 1 i ExistingTruck Traffic --....2..„4 Existia-1111 i 0 , 4' 700 (29 Tnrok Avaraga 1 400 i.3�� Da NY Traffic 000_ Truck Routes 11P01211444 447 ' ' ,.' �cless I 600 , , /Veins II . ii ti IP 3150 3' 2040 2050 --ff nil 50 429 0000 24 Kane 2150 6000 600 2600 450 2350 2400 r•- 325 , , , 3a _ 500 iI t ' V DeKalb 1000 1700 11 50 :500 i 00 1 I i 5 -' 2500 00 .:_g, % t � _ /", , 1650 bb. so. �` I 7 • 'PA. ,2, ' ' 1350 LaSalle �375 Kendall• 1550 141 50!250 1700 I I i000 !00 r5,;., , i _i ,.. t 275 AI .. 650 50 50 Grundy • '` i ;!: ,---, - ruc\,.6 20002030 Tk Traft/c an e .1 .....,,....„......._ ---_---- _---- ..____ . - r (6 i3 '? Trask Awray, 1 - . .211y Tramks I 200 too x 1 Number of Trips A i 5000 Cr 10fit '� i 3&�. } `' k 501- 00 A , 1 s' A/1001-2000 1 A/More then 2000 1 i 1 1 1 1 5��1 Kanea r�, 1 1 1 I ,1r""". 1 1I ..., , 1 —+..R.•+•� 1 DKalls 1 I '0 I 1 ; i 1 1 1 1 1 •- i 1 1 ;;u; 7l;4 ;]- 1 r. 1 1 LaSalle Kendall1. 1L 1 1 1s.� IF —• 1 '. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Grundy 1 1 1 1 1 1 Will ll 1 I s 1 1 f 1 '47. 1 1' 1 • Truck traffic is expected to increase over 60% with large growth in truck traffic on IL 479 IL 599 1-80. and 1-88 OEOZ ui spaads amen J8MOIs ui 6uiiinsaa `11A1n Will a6uBIIo to area aail6!u B spRixa IAA • sass Apnis an woad sduj °Ron pm Li! assaaou! %9L • �ane�l !o %69 0011z6 006` 1.85 sanoH ai314an !meal o ° /°1717 009`960`a 008 06L 8I. sem a13140/1 - - sui6uo %9L 006' 1.8 Z 00e 6E aloNeA enol suo!1eullsaO %Z8 00tr`999 009t0C dial a13!LIGA )IaoM &rnsea a6usuo oEoz 000z Ailsa eaay Jtpr% iHil `sd1WA .�a 1 ocoz 000z RN ,i,,. 2000 Level of Service,.. . : . . ..„ ,_ L ' ' Existing peak 1 x '' Period Lima i of$srrrbo x a Lev1olSante f r A/A,a n. o '. , r ; /VE,F s /Urban Segment (or Not Anayzed L , It\ ,,. ' . Kane — s-' t i E lir ,.>if i 63 I I1 5 t DplKalb � �.% 1 . -- ` , -.,. -: 1 i 1 aNe ti l 1 - �`r.: 1 /YI Kendall r` 1 ', t 1 i . ; 1 / , r ; 1 1 ir k 1 1 Grundy 1 1 G1 1 1 1 1 1 1 will i 7 F • In general, existing peak period levels of service are worse on roadways in the northern, central and eastern portions of the study .-‘.. , :,,, .,-_:, 2030 Level of Service ,:„,-;„,„ ��. ,, , � 2030� � CO 0 ,ed es .r. 1 Level of Service N C I T \ NE,F 1 `. ` Urban Segment I (or Not Analyzed...-... 1 N I 0 I I Kin, - t 1 1 1 1 1 - -.� yam+ iii 1' 1 t 1 IEA I 1 DoKa1f1 i ��,3 1 I t . r, �• i 1 1 . I 1 1 i LaSatte • 1 l t '�,2 Kendall 1 1 I 023 j f 1 I �i a 1 �� . r 1 1 / I ---.-------- .- __ 1 1 I I Grundy / I I I t 7 rel 4 I I_ — 1 I lipI -- !+t Witt P 1 , 1 ` 1 I 4 1 /I. 1 • In general, future 2030 peak period levels of service are "D", "E", or "F" on nearly all major roadways, with the exception of the western portion of the study area • it co cn ti'2 .- • =" I 1----- ---- ` --- ------------- ----------- .` el 1 « Iftimi,ii j N ti C/1lik 1 I 't• j 1 tn, * ....... OMEN 0 -1 S ) = I L:ry 1 X >,ti IP 0 •1 F,..s, e-9- C I •• ii.,,,,,,:,_..,441 1iii‘4:11 e ) O Sv • SI) r. n ti i. s r Cl)! 1.--'' 1. . i:::::::,!.-,,,_,41.,,,,,:- ,:-....alitti4ti' ' T-' 'its- _,......cl____:„....L ' .r.i. -,.. ..t ,,,,,,,. , .," IL-f ,tp f„,,..: s-T) '� -.Ya law ;_.,. �.,._ d i ♦D `/tel`■ _ (/(��yJ' s"'�" 1 .'r•' Jl. 1 it 4 r lot 1 r4. O `m.! —l . _ l d_.. • , r• N IF Au: � '1. t �� , ._ y yy iii/ :. 'f ---,-... ....:.x, - '-e 1 ' _a�. , /= CD CI, 4 2030 WC Ratios . : ...., • .....„,...! .. ( :-.1.4..._ 1 ' �1 Caps*ity2030 ! A 1 � � � ��l 1 r'� 17. -; , vic Rubs -,-..--t /1/0.eg.m pass A 1 , ',`�. `4 Cr" - p, 0.7-0.84 s ;... • 0.95- 1.00 1 — A/1.01 and mon r 1 f(,— 1 i 1 _...... I 1 1 -: , 1 1 DeKalb ; _ 1 1 4 1A_ , 1 1 1 ('� , 1 cas4/l "1 Kendall -- , 1 . _-__.__ I ' � Grundy , 1 I 1 I - 1 1 Will ,_ y 1 • 1 r ,11„ 1:: f • In general, future 2030 volume-capacity ratios are higher on nearly all major roadways, with the exception of the western portion of the stud area .-,k,. _..,___ \,....6 2000 - 2030 VIM Density 1 77 I .- sr? Champ*In • � ?' 1 , �{ �1'� Trawl Moonily 1 2000 to 2030 1 hi k WeoMho Ms i / s . . of Travel Mo;N ,S SIMI* MA Rif 2500 W VIII '.! 2500 or Ions eta 2501-5000 A En 3001-10000 6 10001.25000 \� IIore thou 2500 p 1' n I a <' DeKalb Kane F — '"`H - , :_. . of MI � } r , ti I n k 1 - LaSalle i ■ •i • -; _. • a M 1 Kendall ' r . k ..NE r.2.,12 `= 1 ' 1 1 r D` 1III1 Orurtdy 1 1 1 1 ( ' 1.1. I • Higher levels of change in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per square mile are indicators of future locations of increased traffic and congestion levels 2000 -- 2030 N - S Travel � �. Trails Volume 2000 to 2030 • MAKIN loc•Ibnc) Ori Chong'in Volum.- • 0-1000 • 1001•5000 O 5001-10000 O Mon then 10000 D.Kafb Kane +118,910 .71)) LaSalle Kendall +41 ,9 0 Grundy - ['maim s 0 s INrs Ac•1cNn SOUic•c:P0,COT • Large increases in north - south travel, with larger growth on north - south roads in the central and eastern portions of the study area, and much higher overall growth for north-south roads crossing US-30 versus US-52 , . ,--44 i\....4 2000 - 2030 E - W Tra vel Pi- -- ---. -----t 1 Tadao2000 2030 ` ' � ! erx � at .r. A 1 � f Chanes in Vain me:-. i ':a • 0-1000 a 10001-1-5000 I • : 10000 ` 0 Um than 10000 All ....._ +17,90 e 69, 10 I , .. '" LaSalle 1 Kendall I 1 fza' j 13rundy Will k '4' -.. 1 I I I 1 I — a i •. htC'K„E 5 0 5 Mrs ' Pc�faray Soua:ao:PS,COT • Increase in east—west travel, with larger growth on east—west roads in the central and northern portions of the study area, and much higher overall growth for east-west roads crossing the Fox River extended south versus the Kendall/LaSalle/DeKalb county line j 2000 - 2030 Work ftips r ....7-........--....-... -...- , - - ,-; Change in Work Tr Destinatiip ons From Kendall County IIII0-1000 pl 0 1001-5000 A En 5001- 00'.1 Kane 0000 an more A +12100 152% DuPage DeKalb +3700 +1300 73°16 55% To Cook +900 42% r Kendall LaSalle +200 , 9% t. Grundy +1100 101% +8000 175% Will • Large increase in work trips from Kendall County to Will (+175%), Kane (+152%), and Grundy (+101 %) \si.da Accessibility to Jobs Accessibility to Existing (2000) Jobs Travel Time 2000 2030 Change g _< 20 min. 502,500 I 433,800 - 14% _< 40 min 854,500 707,500 - 17% 5. 60 min. 1 ,499,100 1 ,243,900 - 17% 5. 90 min. 2,956,900 2,788,600 - 6% Accessibility to New (2000-2030) Jobs Travel Time 2000 2030 Change g 5. 20 min, 380,000 350,500 - 8% 5. 40 min 604,400 528,300 - 13% 5. 60 min. 910,400 797,700 - 12% <_ 90 min, 1 ,250,300 1 ,168,700 - 7% • Accessibility to existing (2000) jobs and to new (job increases between 2000 and 2030) jobs declines between 2000 and 2030 due to increased travel times •+4'#' �,• 1 w'8's. 6#8 +aeiP•bx s 4 ~.'..,- ^ k wj' ,1t�a y Cir 3 '"`{`` a • W=� r k m,� yr .,.y- nG e 04 •04, Ms , �, ,aJu 3"t�" • f ` k) nw- y 5+a za \ •t •, .,0,0-4,..v, . ..,,f,( • y'� r.•'-- l -. •',fi 5 N+ y`y^.+.0rBp'g} ! _ I la, ,4,• 4 1 �. S. .: p m .. ILA `t b .Ila �' f � i 143 1 - ' -4-i•l'F:4,4: - 4,.„, i i 74,,:,,,,v.." .. ., , ,4, ., ! A ' I 11.41 ----- \ I 1.,,-,. '- - . h, IrA ii; st Sr}p4 t cr .r ' 1 ` �ti`• .. 1y � �!'bS > : fix , ''� /�� i1 �iY. ay L z• i x,r4 a _ ',, { d 4. i a� 1 rk xrm: 3 e +,''" L ah< a s III' .,. 8s;_�z ase ,;,,,'ITa .»a^ri -�as.:�►. /)/, '' l(Cil I II I I II 111 I II I I 1;1) '----- oaw tt ..,aEd; ... i,w.S ,"."At'll ._,w.z�x s 3".' .,','.1:1 •a i '.i. tw a w ' 4,i,..,;'.':,—' 'fiYk't r 3S' ,� Mpg» _A 7,,:fili:1,,T,*1....:'-il- • #� U� f � " A ,'*' � CI • -;:, �� yft 1 � `ti,�� b't i' ;S 1,,,,;;;,:;„*„..".. sad''6!`ttip,. t I � -. 0 "^j,ikf+gyyi ['. y,. s at �y 'F esi,.:::,,,,, , ,F,14::;,,,:_,,,,,,,,‘, 1' j,. 8 w F -fig. + , ,.rn;J r . .,, 4:::: tf:y 3.iF ityTHV � t c a' t ' tir ' t `.` �" �, t..._� r.....4,,.!,. 1,:44..i,1? ]je.. • ,1101, ' wJ `tJ '%" #.0 } , i' k• 2* ' M •r„`, 1r f z„rd. 10 iiii p " .' 4i Y:. 'rFrN Ate"'v�,EF�,J ,:fr `,; # `Y F c 4_ fk. !t„, y iF kd �'"c '. trt _ Tr., 14/.. .�.t'7 l• '8' # w r uy k 4"�3''C i „x J',k,,,*.,e.• L w }'. r4 .'; 3Eu�8'"i s f 1 '''''&" i a't^+ i,-, ,� { , �"' �� '.,�' • t �T k� • ,tn"„".S cLr. ' ..,i. i E : { .r h qtr. >•,b- as(d �^.;�. a ° T` ri: f4{^ '� _ y y;r�/... d :4—�, r•.,•.ry . 1 F,” L+ay.r. R.. d. J ... . �RMIil0.'' .......... A4i!3r *3�'iF$�p ;'Y 1dw.£'J . x ./'Y !� �.'J n. • is 1 \,...._. ,. .,,, Tra vel Time Contours .,-,-,.,i.,-.1,4i-,,,t!, ___..... 00140.0 oafl MO*. IfiII1-lI Orbs 010•110. :1 _ 0 A 1 M . r #.. ,'.: M-io .� • 1- :1 0 r6 1 . „f1wm.. / 1 1 I r 1 u # t t ( Asa r 1 i j r r5 1 t r >..� t �o . i. x001 `,---....1,--* -01,, • t f 4 s • - ! f : Sir # F i i =4ITime T: TI.. .. _ ; Q0.„hue 1114metis +. sI..Ilfrri oifb '. MtlrsM7Mr1Me IfAtYi W5..l l',..). - t Ans {' 1 ,y; .:.-4 1f 150 , c,1 : ,1.15 S s 01.x5 i 1r-45 T 51- }f is "__ . s '• ..,-;--.,.-1: -1114, tl` .:' .:. '-„ . ..,,_,,,,... R .„ . . 1 s y U. 0 • .4.t :,11\--...,,I.- ri ,. t� __._!r- -r. , mes. .' i ......... ” I 1 e I ( M' 1' t 0000 ' - ._-. II -- -----_ 0000_- _ 0.00_ 0 1 e - - - - - ------ --.. aa�naas aapeal visa aajnwwoa Jo! saaAoidwa pua sjuapisaa 005`2 pus `aa�naas snq ainoi paxi j aoi apiu aaanbs aad saaAoidwa pue sivap�saa 000`v jo Rini pauigwoa B Jo plousaagj B sasn aaad . i - 4 1 inm i' t; _._..____ # �� - ice.f 1 1 I•`__ 1 Apltfu9 1 1 1 1 1 •� 1 •e 1 CZ •,7s..? --—_ ____cit;_f 1- _, ill ,. ,4, _. ........_ . lir „cp.), 'r-,,,i - Wil/ 5r7 1. ail, ;T G .ifil-- 1 I -V f ... .1, „.. s.,,... --,-._,...._______,.--' i : , - %.;, i 1. a' y= ,( W. 1 i L.. 1 . ." t �urN • 0001 uugi.ao1N gin 000P•MO 0042-0 I IU.utodwgv8£', 1 jpto.ug.ugIu11Woy 1 - l y 000Z P.ulgwo -- b F N M ssM � sll r — , I �s�dlll' i R spjoqsaiqj r000g , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,..„,,..: . , . .. _ 2030 Transit Thresholds it n � 1 . , wmss ' 1 • 1 i 1 {3't krvbt TbnsM ids 1 i47 Combined 2030 A 1 population _ end 1 ax3. _ r mpl0.250 A I o-2504 I s. - ''''''4 2501-4000 "_ 1♦ Mors Ilion 4000 i (2, ,� lfl{. .. Kano x: 4a411 rs f . ,.. - . ......., L.,• ,,,,,ii a . DeKalb (,.,«- L iF 1 �_ " -- t 1 l, 5alle I 1' K.ndall F231 1r :', i 1 "' e ' 1 1 2' • f ar- 0111 1: l r ti 1i 1, t 4,i' Mit 11. 1 a 1 Ifi (47)i� I' s e.e_ ... _ r.. �, -'fir-" . i` • Western Will, southern Kane, and northern Kendall counties exhibited increases in combined population and employment densities to warrant new fixed-route bus service a 111: High Crash Location• . . ilmamaamah..-mmariHigh Accidents I (64 .- Locations. I o l p 11111!to 2001 O O Numberof Accidents 0 ;4t Inblsectbn I I 0 4 O. a s 0 90 and fewer N .� ..„.v . _ , O 0 51-100 h ,.. s o • 101 and mon to I -.,-.,_ Fbad Segment I 0 50 and fewer A I s -0 N51 and mow 1 isei I Kane O 10.I I I I ,..1.-- .._,c.. — — — — I . I I O DoKalb O 5g i 1 b O I I O'_ 00, t w. -� 'SDI O ,;: i 0 0 1 I I I 0 d20 0 ' I ._-_ •- 2, r7t t I LaSalle i I Kendall , +2? I o i o. 1- 1 1l ` .r'' w;_- o, 4... / I I .�.,, I I I I Grundy �� 1 t o 0 7•S: "'0 1 I 1 r-''` e I 1 I .: Will 1 {8 ` I `.t t o I I ,47, ) I 1 I 1 - • High crash locations (based on 1999-2001 data) are mostly located in Kane, Kendall and Will counties 2000 - 2030 Crashes Study Area 2000 - 2030 Change Annual Measure Change Interstate + 290 + 20% Other Principal 4 Arterial + 1 ,830 + 43% Rural Minor 4 Arterial + 620 + 68% Urban Minor + 200 + 5114 4 Arterial Rural Major 4 ! Collector + 200 + 8114 Total + 3,140 +44414 • Higher growth in the average number of crashes per year on lower functional class roads, due to higher growth in vehicle miles of travel }uawa6euew aawnn wao1s pue saajinbe aaienn lo uoi}aidap imnn sua03= 04 asia 6UIA!15 si ivawdolanap P!deI . a3eds uado pue puew.ie anaasaad o} aaisaa . paqi3sep aaann swawdoianap IB!JISflPU! /Ie!3JOWLuo3 pue IeRuep!sei nnau Aueijj . ease Apfl4S all ui }uawdowap P!deJ woa} 6Ujiflsei aae 341eai mom pue meg, aamwwoo peseeJ3u . uogsa6uoo 3i/1ea1 aan�n� po43adxe pue 6u!4s!xe nano suaa3uo3 . ease Apnjs aye ui s}uawanoadwi uoppodsue4 ao1 paau e nnes saaployameis A4iiOIBi,j . COO ui sEsui}aaw aaploya)le}s 01 aanp sI5u1ijeei,ij epjoqayejg _ ;�r�% %,4 Focus Groups • Four focus groups held in Sept1lOct. 2003 • Transportation problems that were cited included traffic congestion, truck traffic, traffic signal timing, tollbooths, road construction, inadequate zoning, lack of transportation planning, lack of north- south roads • Population has grown too big, too quickly, resulting in infrastructure that is no longer adequate to meet everyone's needs • Housing is driving the development in the communities • Traffic congestion will worsen over the next 10 — 20 years until it cuts off the growth that's driving the area spew sseio Jarmo1 uo sassaaau! abejuaoaad aag0!q qj M `pajaa(oad sagseio paseaaau! • ease Apnjs woad Aj!!!q!ssaooe go! 6u!u!!oaa • 0£OZ pue 0002 uaannjaq uo!6aa aqj to aapuiewaa aqj of pue ease Apnjs ulgj M salmi !aneai paseaaau! • sa!junoo Apunao pue `!!!M `aueN of !!epua>i sd!aj Naomi u! saseaaou! a6aei • ease Apnjs aqj uuoaj sd!aj a!olgan u! aseaaou! %9L a g1!M 0£OZ PUB 000Z uaannjaq ease Apnjs aqj u! uo!jsabuoo oweaj 6u!uasaoM . sa!junoo !!!M uaa4saM pue `!!epueN uaagpou `auem uaajsea u! uogsa6uoo 3111E4 6U!Is!x3 • Bale Apnjs u! aoue!egw! p!ogasnoq-sgor . sa!junoO !!epuaN pue i!!M u! A!!B!oadsa `0£OZ of ease Aprils aqj u! saljunoo eqj aoi (oi ) gjMoa6 uolje!ndod uogenu!juo3 . Baae Apnjs u! sAeMpeoa `sse!o !Buoloun! aag6!q `snonuljuoo gjnos-gpou pawn • :s6u!pui suo.isn/auoa - Conclusions Overall Transportation Deficiencies • Declining Regional Highway Mobility • Increasing Local Roadway Deficiencies • Declining Access Between Study Area Residences and Regional Jobs Page 4 of 9 of the pond could be shifted to accommodate this. Mr. Nelson stated he would take a closer look the plan. o Landscape Plan—this should be revised to illustrate the proposed screening in the open space along East High Point Road. Mr. Nelson asked for and was provided with a copy of the landscape ordinance . The Council further discussed city water in the area,the promotion of the use of city water, combining the water service to this property along with the Tucek property, and the annexation of this property. Administrator Graff recommended a meeting between Mr. Nelson, his attorney and representatives from the Tucek property to discuss future water service in the area. Mr. Graff asked Mr. Whitehouse if he could develop an estimated cost of extending a watermain into this area. Mr. Dhuse asked if Mr. Nelson's attorney was preparing a backup SSA for the HOA. Mr.Nelson stated that he has suggested this to the county and he is open to this. Mr. Graff explained the City's street naming ordinance to Mr. Nelson and he stated that he would look into this. The Plan Council recommended the 1 '/2-mile review to the Plan Commission subject to Mr. Wywrot's and Mr. Schoppe's recommendations. This will be before the Plan Commission on February 11, 2004. PC2003-29 WHIPERING MEADOW UNITS 1 & 2—FINAL PLAT Mr. Graff asked Rich Young with Kimball Hill Homes if he had any comments/questions on Mrs. Kurtzman's January 16, 2004 memos. Mr. Young stated that he will comply with her recommendations. Mr. Schoppe indicated that he has only reviewed Unit 1 because he was not aware that both units were on the agenda. He indicated that he needed the Unit 2 plat and that he felt that the comments will probably be similar. Mr. Young stated that he went over Mr. Schoppe's January 16, 2004 memo and in general he did not have any problems with the comments. His only concern was for comment#3 under Final Engineering concerning drainage structures being relocated out of the 40' landscape easement. He stated that he needed to verify if he had enough room to have the 40' easement. Mr. Schoppe explained that the easement needs to be increased to 40' to reflect the landscape treatment south on Cannonball Trail in order to keep it consistence. Mr. Young did not feel this would be a problem. Mr. Wywrot noted that there are existing utilities along Cannonball Trail and he recommended that they not grade the berm directly over the utilities. Mr. Young stated he would look at the grading. Mr. Whitehouse's January 15, 2004 engineering report was discussed. Mr. Young stated that he and Brain Rieger from V3 Consultants, Inc. went over the report and feel that most of the items are not a problem and have been addressed on the revision of the engineering. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the biggest engineering issue is stormwater management. There are questions on how the large central basin (Lot 452) is going to function and discharge. It is proposed to discharge through Cannonball Estates into an old 10"tile that crosses Faxon Road then into an 8" rear-yard storm sewer and finally into the Cannonball Estates storm sewer system, which is a ten-year design. Mr. Page 5 of 9 Whitehouse recommended an almost zero release rate and minimizing the outlet to a 4" diameter. The basin will hold runoff from a 100-year storm. Mr. Whitehouse also discussed the rear-yard infiltration system that is being promoted. This will minimize the amount of water that will even get to the basin. He also noted that the old tile under Faxon Road will be replaced when the road is reconstructed. Mr. Wywrot commented that it would be replaced with small diameter PVC and probably should be revised to be replaced with a 12" RCP. The pond design was further discussed (depth, capacity, duration of holding water, etc). Mr. Schoppe noted that his letter asked for detailed information on the proposed planting for the Natural Vegetation Infiltration Area. This should address the possibility that the basin could on occasion hold water for more than 72 hours so they can select materials accordingly. The future Faxon Road extension was discussed. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if the geometry for this has been incorporated in the final plat, it is not reflected on the engineering plans. The ownership of Lot 451 was discussed and Mr. Young indicated that this will be owned by the HOA and Mr. Schoppe asked that this be indicated on the plat. Mr. Whitehouse stated that it was indicated that this lot was access to the property on the south(Frank Yabsley's property). He stated that he needed information regarding the existing driveway to the property. The location of the driveway was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse suggested that it come out on Old Faxon Road. It was suggested to get a comment from City Attorney Dan Kramer regarding the easements rights of the existing property. Mr. Dhuse noted that the name of Old Faxon Road should be changed in an effort to keep things consistent. There are no addresses on Old Faxon Road at this time. Assistant Fire Chief Tim Fairfield stated that it be preferable to see the name changed to something else while no one lives on it. The Council discussed alternate names and it was suggested to call the road Yabsley Way. Mr. Graff stated he would talk to Mr. Yabsley to see if his name could be used. Mr. Wywrot suggested that they check with AMG Homes regarding the name because they are improving the road. It was decided to move this onto the Plan Commission. Mr. Graff requested Unit 2 comments from Mr. Schoppe. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if he could get a response to his comments back from the developer by January 28, 2004 he will reduce his memo to the Plan Commission. The developer stated that their concern is running a model on the restrictor. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if the storm water issue was the only issue without a conclusion, it could be presented to the Plan Commission subject to engineering. Mr. Schoppe asked if the final landscaping plan could be submitted by January 28, 2004. If the storm water issue is not resolved, he will also comment to the Plan Commission that it is subject to final engineering. PC 2003-13 RUNGE PROPERTY—PRELIMINARY PLAN Mr. Graff noted that Mr. Schoppe stated in his January 16, 2004 memo that he had not received revised preliminary plans on this property. He stated that he was expecting the revised Preliminary Land Plan, Preliminary Engineering Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plans to review. Mr. Graff stated that the annexation of this property is still under discussion. Mrs. Kurtzman stated that there was a staff meeting scheduled for January 23, 2004 to discuss open space and the commercial area and a meeting on January 29, 2004 with City Attorney Dan Kramer to discuss the annexation language. Mr. Graff asked Mr. Fiascone if they wanted the preliminary plan and preliminary plat incorporated into the annexation agreement and Mr. Fiascone stated that at this point they would like to do this. Mr. Graff asked the Plan Council if they would like to get the annexation language solidified before doing the complete plan review. They discussed that the annexation language effects the preliminary plan and vice Page 6 of 9 versa. Mr. Graff suggested that staff review meeting be scheduled to look at the preliminary plan as part of the annexation discussions. After everything is worked out, a preliminary plan could be submitted to the Plan Commission in March. This could coincide with the annexation being approved by the City Council. The Council agreed this was a good idea. Mr. Graff asked Mrs. Kurtzman to coordinate meetings such as she did with the Grande Reserve development. Mr. Schoppe stated that in November 2003 he was given a draft of the annexation agreement for review and he asked if there was a revised draft prepared. Mrs. Kurtzman stated that the comments were given to Attorney Kramer who is revising the agreement but he is not finished yet. Mr. Graff stated that the revised draft will probably not be ready by the January 29, 2004 meeting which was scheduled to discuss staff comments with Attorney Kramer and to get the revision moving. He stated that Attorney Kramer has questions regarding what is being recommended and the legal conformity to the subdivision ordinance and zoning. Mr. Graff stated that some comments are leaning toward a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which the petitioner is not looking requesting. Mr. Graff stated that this might be similar to the Northgate development. Mr. Graff asked Gary Weber with Gary R. Weber Associates, Inc. and Matt Fiascone with Inland if they reviewed Mr. Whitehouse's January 15, 2004 memo and if there was anything they wanted to highlight. Mr. Weber gave an overview of the revisions; changes in the court house area; road radius changes in three locations and they provided a 30' access easement to the commercial area. Mike Mondus with Spaceco, Inc. addressed storm water management issues. Mr. Mondus explained that their analysis of the detention areas has to be refined but they are confident that the detention basins have enough volume. In regards to compensatory storage, Mr. Whitehouse has asked them to use a different method of calculation which they are in the process of doing. They feel they can make the volumes work. Mr. Whitehouse noted that they did not include the compensatory storage area in the detention calculations. Mr. Mondus stated that they did not include this because this area will be restored to a more naturalized state with less runoff. Mr. Whitehouse discussed the Rob Roy Creek buffer issue (how much is commercial, setbacks, etc). Whatever is done in the commercial area will impact the compensatory storage volume because more of the existing Rob Roy Creek flood plain is being filled. If straight zoning is given to the commercial area without identifying open space and setbacks then the City may be locking itself into storm water management issues. He stated that it would be good to see a delineation on the commercial area as to the setback. Mr. Mondus stated that their analysis demonstrates that the function of the width of the buffer from the creek is not so much a function of storm water management as esthetics. Ultimately, the amount of filling that the developer wants to do to maximize the commercial area does not cause increases in flood heights. It is more a planning issue than an engineering issue. Jeff Freeman with EEI explained the normal way of providing compensatory storage; using cross-sections rather than grouping it into one larger area downstream. He stated that if a certain cross-section is filled, then generally between this filled section and the next cross-section additional compensatory storage volume is provided. In this area, the compensatory storage is being squeezed together on the north side of the property and not being provided to the south. The reasons for this are 1) they looked at the design storm and this design did not raise water surface and 2) the design storm will probably never happen but there are other types of storms that they want to protect against. He stated that it will have to be a policy decision as to if this is an appropriate way to provide compensatory storage. Mr. Graff stated that this isn't a policy decision because there is an ordinance to follow. If they are not following it, they will need to ask Page 7 of 9 for a variance. Mr. Fiascone stated that he felt it was a policy issue because if compensatory storage was not allowed to be unified in one area it would diminish the ability to have a commercial area. If compensatory storage is forced on to the commercial site, setbacks will be increased, available parking areas will be decreased, pad areas will decrease and the area for a"big box" store is decreased. This will discourage commercial development. Mr. Freeman explained why standard engineering practices and the requirements of the ordinance are hard to apply due to the location of the creek. Mr. Whitehouse explained that the developer's compensatory storage is based on filling a certain amount of the flood plain adjacent to the commercial area and this creates a setback issue from Rob Roy Creek. The width of the setback from Rob Roy Creek affects the compensatory storage. Mr. Graff stated that he would have to present this as a policy question to the City Council. Mr. Whitehouse stated that another major issue for the property is how it will be served by sanitary sewer. He stated that they recommended an elevation for the interceptor and Mr. Fiascone stated that this information was provided to Deuchler. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the Plan Commission also brought up an issue of a north/south collector road. They recommended that the road immediately east of the park be the one to extend to Baseline Road. He stated that the layout has not been changed to address this recommendation. ROW issues were discussed. Mr. Whitehouse recommended that the number of lots remain the same, the ROW width be increased to 66' in accordance with the ordinance, the pavement width be increased to 30' and lot size be reduced to a minimum of 11,640/square feet. He stated that the overall impact on the subdivision will be minimal and the road and ROW widths would not be compromised. Mr. Fiascone stated that the internal ROW could be addressed by having 5' easement on each side of the road. This would give 70' of ROW, increase setbacks and not change the lot sizes. Mr. Whitehouse agreed and demonstrated how an easement along the road could widen the ROW and how it would affect sidewalks and setbacks. Mr. Fiascone stated that they needed direction as to how to treat the ROW width on Baseline Road as well as the internal roads. Mr. Wywrot stated that the City needed to coordinate a meeting with Sugar Grove to discuss Baseline Road. Mr. Graff recommended that the ROW issue be resolved before the plan goes to the Plan Commission however he was unsure if he could get a meeting scheduled with Sugar Grove in enough time. He stated that he could probably get direction on the internal roads. Mr. Graff stated that the internal ROW issue will be discussed at the COW meeting and he will ask the Council for their input. There was further discussion on the realignment/relocation of roads, the future use of Baseline Road, access from the subdivision to Route 47 and the commercial area, a stub road on the southeast side of the development to the neighboring property and the internal road network. The purchase of a lot for a pressure reducing center by NICOR was discussed. Mr. Graff suggested a meeting with Deuchler as well as Sugar Grove. He stated that he would have City Secretary Annette Williams set up the Sugar Grove meeting and he asked Mr. Wywrot to schedule the Deuchler meeting. The Plan Council recommended that the developer resubmit the preliminary plan based on the staff's direction on ROW widths for internal roads and Baseline Road. A timeline for the annexation and Page 8 of 9 preliminary plan was discussed. It was determined that the preliminary plan and annexation agreement would be before the Council at the February 3, 2004 COW meeting where the Council will be asked for input on the ROW and compensatory storage issues. The preliminary plan will then be before the Plan Commission on March 10, 2004. PC 2001-06 GRANDE RESERVE UNITS 4 & 6—FINAL PLAT The following comments from Mrs. Kurtzman's January 15, 2004 memo were discussed: o Minimum lot widths - Mrs. Kurtzman revised her comment by reporting that she received the information she needed this morning and upon review the minimum lot widths for the number of lots is fine. She stated that she would like to take a look at this again right before final approval to verify nothing has shifted after the reviews. o Regional Trail- She stated that clarification was needed as to if the trail was outside the 100-year flood plain and regarding ownership or easement of the trail. Separate lots or easements for the trail were discussed. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the trail was addressed under the provisions for storm water management easements. These easements allow for the location of a pedestrian and/or bike trails within the easement. Mr. Schoppe asked if this was consistent with the annexation agreement in terms of the ownership. Mr. Schoppe stated that in the annexation agreement there is an exhibit that outlines what open space land is owned by the City and what is owned by the HOA. Mrs. Kurtzman stated she would have to verify this. Mr. Schoppe questioned if the trail along the lake meets the standard of being a minimum of 40' from the lot line. He stated that the annexation agreement states that the parks and trails will be developed to the Park Development Standards adopted in September 2003. This requirement is one of those standards. There was further discussion regarding the trail and its proximity to the lot lines and the flood plain. Tim Winter with PDG stated that there was a provision in the annexation agreement stating that they could get closer to the lot lines. Mr. Graff read the annexation agreement which states that bike paths would be kept as far away from residential lot lines as possible using a 40' setback as a guideline and in no event will a bike path be located closer than 10' from a residential lot line. The developer agreed to review and relocate the trail one half foot from the high water line which should keep the trail as far away from the lot line as possible. Mr. Schoppe stated that he was unable to complete the review for Unit 6 and would have it done within the next week. The following comments from his January 17, 2004 memo regarding Unit 4 were discussed: o Bio-swale underdrains - Mr. Schoppe indicated that typically a bio-swale will have a gravel drain and an underdrain in it to insure that the water moves out in the event that the permeability of the soil is unsatisfactory. He stated that it is anticipated that the sandy soil in this area will be permeable enough not to need the underdrain however if it is not, then the underdrain will be needed. The engineering and purpose of the underdrain was discussed and Mr. Schoppe stated he would provide the developer with more information regarding them. Mr. Graff reviewed the bio- swale exhibit in the annexation agreement which does not indicate underdrains. o Low flow channels - Mr. Schoppe commented that portions of the channels are probably not a good area to plant emergent zone vegetation. He recommended that a wet mesic community would be more appropriate for this area. The developer indicated that they are addressing this. o Final Landscape Plans - Mr. Schoppe indicated that the Final Landscape Plan for Units 4 & 6 had not been submitted. The developer indicated that they submitted them on January 21, 2004. Mr. Schoppe asked if they addressed prairie plantings in the basins, a management plan, street trees and Page 9 of 9 screenings. He stated that the Landscape Plans need to have this level of information on them and that the wetland submittal should be consolidated with the Landscape Plan. Mr. Wywrot commented that all lots should be numbered not lettered on the final plats. The developer agreed to this. He also questioned if there should be a separate landscape plan for each unit bound to the Engineering Plan. Mr. Schoppe stated that he would prefer to see a separate Landscape Plan for each unit however it does not need to be bound with the engineering. John Whitehouse's comments on Units 4 & 6 were reviewed: o Erosion Control Plan - Mr. Whitehouse recommended that a reference to the Erosion Control Plan and the latest revision date of the plan be referenced on the cover sheet of each unit. o Low point of intersecting roads - Mr. Whitehouse demonstrated how the profile of the intersection could be changed in order to have water flow into inlets and not pool in the road. o Length of gutter flow - Mr. Whitehouse made some suggestion regarding gutter flow which should not affect the grading plan. Inlet capacity was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse suggested adjusting highpo ints. o Sewer pressure testing - Mr. Whitehouse recommended that a note regarding the pressure testing of all sewers crossing over water mains be noted on the plat. Televising the sewers was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse stated that this would be fine. o Street "M"- Mr. Whitehouse stated that there should be a note on the plans indicating that the pavement of this road will be thicker due to heavy traffic volume. Mr. Whitehouse complimented the final plats by stating it was an outstanding presentation. There was further discussion regarding exhibits to bring to the Plan Commission for review, easements,the recording of the plats, preliminary plat approval(Units 1-11) and final plat approval(Units 1-3). Mr. Graff recommended that the final plats be revised according to staff comments and resubmitted to the Plan Council for review at the February 26, 2004 Plan Council meeting. After this review, the final plats can move on to the March 2004 Plan Commission. Additional Business None. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PETITION APPLICATION LOG February 4, 2004 TYPE OF DATE OF AP NAME PETITIONER APPLICATION STATUS Bristol Club LayCom PUD Amendment 7/20/01 3/2/04 COW 1 '/z Mile Review Pending Westbury Village Ocean Atlantic Annexation& PUD 10/2/02 Preliminary Plan 4/14/04 Plan Comm. Preliminary Plan 6/12/03 Yorkville Hill Landscaping Edelmira Ortega& Annexation/Zoning 7/28/03 PUD Agreement @ 2/10/04 City Gerardo Barajas Council Runge Property IRED Development Annexation/Zoning & 8/6/03 Agreement @ 2/3/04 COW Ventures, Inc. Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan @ 3/10/07 Plan Comm. Kendall General Store Gary & Lelalu Annexation/Zoning 9/2/03 Approved @ 1/13/04 City Council Maxwell Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Dev. Corp. 1 '/z Mile Review 12/8/03 2/11/04 Plan Commission (East Side of Highpoint Road, 500' South of Legion Road) Fox Hill POD 9 & 10 DCI Charrington Rezone and 12/11/03 Public Hearing @ 2/11/04 Plan Commission Preliminary Plan 2/12/04 Plan Council Grande Reserve MPI Preliminary/Final Plat for Units 1, 2 and 3 12/12/03 2/11/04 Plan Commission for Units 4 and 6 1/12/04 3/10/04 Plan Commission for Units 5, 7, and 8 1/22/04 2/26/04 Plan Council Whispering Meadow Phase I Whispering Meadow Final Plat 12/19/03 2/11/04 Plan Commission (Fisher Property) Limited Partnership (Kimball Hill Homes) sx TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REPORT YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS The City of Yorkville conducted a citywide transportation study to identify collector and major collector roadways that lie within the City's comprehensive planning boundary. The study focused on the roadway requirements anticipated for the 2030 build-out condition of the area delineated in the City's current comprehensive plan. According to the current comprehensive plan, the boundaries are generally U.S. Route 30 to the north, Caton Farm Road to the south, Eldamain Road to the west and Grove Road to the east. Various resources were utilized in order to complete the Transportation Study. These include the United City of Yorkville Comprehensive Plan,the Kendall County Highway Map, and the Illinois Department of Transportation Average Daily Traffic Map. The purpose of this study was to define a primary roadway network that can be used as a planning tool by the City and developers alike to more intelligently plan future development within the City's corporate limits. The primary roadway network consists of collector and major collector type roadways. Collector routes are located at set intervals to collect traffic from local roads and to connect developed areas within a reasonable distance from a major collector route. A major collector serves as an intermediate link between points of origin/destination and the arterial roadway system. Arterial and minor interior roads have not been identified. Based on the review of the available data and the analysis of the proposed conditions, a primary roadway network has been established. Generally, a collector or major collector type roadway should exist approximately every 1/2 mile while limiting the number of access points such as driveways to the major collector type roadway. Please note that this document is a planning document to be used by the City and developers. This document is not meant to set policy, nor does it replace a traffic impact study for a development. Also, this document will need to be updated on a periodic basis depending on the growth rates and the locations of new development. A more detailed study may also be conducted in order to create a 5-10 year transportation improvement program, which will identify existing roadways to be improved. Should you have any questions or comments please contact; Joe Wywrot City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 WIr- ,.......) EASTERN FOX RIVER CROSSING STUDY YORKVILLE,ILLINOIS The City of Yorkville conducted a feasibility study for an eastern crossing of the Fox River. The City is looking for an additional crossing of the Fox River to help alleviate future traffic congestion and to serve as a link between the southeast side of the City and the north side of the City. The City of Yorkville provided a preliminary alignment and location of the proposed crossing. Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. studied this alignment and three more alignments in the general vicinity of the first alignment. These alignments begin at the intersection of US Route 34 and Countryside Parkway and continue in a southeasterly direction where they cross the Fox River and then connect to Van Emmon Road just west of Illinois Route 71. Various resources were utilized in order to map the area of the study. These include the Soil Survey of Kendall County, the City of Yorkville Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Atlas and Plat Book of Kendall County. The purpose of this study was to identify whether a crossing is feasible in the general vicinity of the alignment provided by the city based on environmental and engineering concerns for the selected location. Also included in the study were floodplain identification, soil analysis, existing and projected traffic and a review of the existing comprehensive plan. Based on the review of the available information, it has been determined that an eastern crossing of the Fox River would be beneficial to the area and is feasible to construct. The projected population growth would have an adverse impact on the existing IL Route 47 and Orchard Road bridges and an additional crossing would help to alleviate traffic congestion on the existing bridges. Also, an eastern crossing of the Fox River in the vicinity of the study area would provide access from the existing and proposed residential development on the City of Yorkville's southeast side to the new commercial development on the north side of Yorkville. Finally, although the Illinois Department of Transportation is considering a new bridge as part of the Prairie Parkway study and Kendall County is considering a new bridge as part of the Eldamain Road corridor, a crossing in the area of this study would still be beneficial to the area. The other proposed bridges would serve regional traffic, while the bridge in the area of this study would serve local traffic. The four alternatives traverse through the 100-year floodplain and through poor and fair soils. The preliminary cost estimates range from approximately$31.4 million to $70.5 million. Should you have any questions or comments please contact; Joe Wywrot City Engineer United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville,Illinois 60560 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Clerk's Office FROM THE DESK OF LISA PICKERING February 11, 2004 To: Plan Commission Re: Prairie Parkway Preliminary Engineering Study As per the Mayor's request, attached is a copy of the Prairie Parkway Preliminary Engineering Study for your review. Sincerely, Lisa Pickering J Office Assistant UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Clerk's Office FROM THE DESK OF LIZ D'ANNA February 2, 2004 TO: Plan Commission Dina Gipe RE: February 11, 2004 Plan Commission Meeting At this meeting, there will also be a public hearing on the Pollution Control Ordinance. Enclosed you will find a copy for your review and a copy of the Public Hearing Notice that was published in the January 22nd Kendall County Record. There will also be a public hearing in front of City Council on February 24, 2004. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 553-8531. Thank you, Liz D'Anna Deputy Clerk cc: Mayor and City Council City Administrator Graff Department Heads PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN that the United City of Yorkville will hold and conduct a public hearing on the creation of a Pollution Control Ordinance within the United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. This hearing will be held at the Plan Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, United City of Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560. Any person interested may appear and be heard. A copy of said United City of Yorkville Pollution Control Ordinance will be available for viewing beginning January 22, 2004, in the Clerk's Office at the United City of Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560. Published by authority of the City Council. Jacquelyn Milschewski City Clerk By: Elizabeth A. D'Anna Deputy City Clerk GCD191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Gardner Carton & Douglas Chicago, Illinois 60606 Washington, D.C. JOHN W.WATSON Tel 312 569 1000 Fax 312 569 3000 www.gcd.com member (312) 569-1446 World Law Group jwatson@gcd.com a global network of independent Fax(312) 569-3446 firms located in 37 countries August 19, 2003 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Anton Graff City Administrator United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 RE: Pollution Control Ordinance Dear Tony: Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter will highlight the terms of the proposed retention of Gardner, Carton & Douglas to advise the United City of Yorkville ("Yorkville") in connection with the development of a Pollution Control Facility Siting Ordinance for Yorkville. As we have discussed, the development of such an Ordinance represents a logical step towards ensuring the responsible management of anticipated public services in connection with the inevitable growth issues confronted by Yorkville. As a leader in the environmental field, Gardner, Carton & Douglas is uniquely suited to advise you in connection with the development of this Ordinance. Towards that end, enclosed you will find a preliminary draft of the elements of such an Ordinance. Of course, the exact substance of the final Ordinance considered by Yorkville will likely require significant additional discussion and consideration. At present, we anticipate that fees associated with the drafting of this Ordinance and its approval by the Yorkville City Council will not exceed $10,000. Of course, this estimate may change in the event that unanticipated circumstances are encountered during administrative review and public comment on the proposed Ordinance. Please call Roy Harsch or me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Watson JWW:kmm Enclosure cc: Roy M.Harsch CITY OF YORKVILLE POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SITING ORDINANCE Section 1. DEFINITIONS Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them as hereinafter provided: ACT: "The Environmental Protection Act,"415 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/1 et seq. APPLICANT: Any person, partnership, firm, association, corporation, Municipal corporation or unit of local government, company or organization of any kind that files a request for siting approval pursuant to this Chapter. CITY: City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois. CITY CLERK: The Yorkville City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL: The Yorkville City Council. FACILITY: A new pollution control facility as defined in the Act. PETITION: The application filed by the applicant requesting site approval for a facility. In addition, all other words used in this Chapter and defined in the Act shall have the same definitions and meanings as set forth in the Act. Section 2. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR SITING APPROVAL A. No later than 14 days before the date on which the county board or governing body of the municipality receives a request for site approval, the applicant shall cause written notice of such request to be served either in person or by registered mail, return receipt requested, on the owners of all property within the subject area not solely owned by the applicant, and on the owners of all property within 250 feet in each direction of the lot line of the subject property, said owners being such persons or entities which appear from the authentic tax records of the Kendall County; provided, that the number of all feet occupied by all public roads, streets, alleys and other public ways shall be excluded in computing the 250 feet requirement; provided further, that in no event shall this requirement exceed 400 feet, including public streets, alleys and other public ways. B. Such written notice shall also be served upon members of the General Assembly from the legislative district in which the proposed facility is located and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation. C. Such notice shall state the name and address of the applicant, the location of the proposed site, the nature and size of the development, the nature of the activity proposed, the probable life of the proposed activity, the date when the request for site approval will be submitted, and a description of the right of persons to comment on such request as hereafter provided. Section 3. APPLICATION FOR SITING APPROVAL A. A minimum of fifteen(15) complete copies of requests for siting approval, including fifteen(15) copies of all site plans, exhibits and maps, shall be delivered to the office of the City Clerk. Upon receipt of any such request for siting approval, the City Clerk shall date stamp same and immediately deliver eight(8) copies of the request for siting approval to the City Council, one copy to the City Administrator, one copy to the Director of Public Works, one copy to the City Engineer, and one copy to the office of the City Attorney. B. A copy of the request for siting approval shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of the request for siting approval or any part thereof upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. All copying requests shall be fulfilled by the City Clerk within a reasonable time from the time of the request and otherwise in conformance with the Freedom of Information Act. C. Requests for siting approval shall include the following: 1. A written petition on eight and one-half inches by eleven inches (8 1/2"x 11") paper which sets forth: a. The identification of the applicant and owner and, if the proposed site is owned in a trust, the beneficiary(ies). b. The legal description of the proposed site and a street address or some other reasonable description of where the proposed site is located. c. A description of the proposed facility, its operation and the expected longevity thereof. d. The area to be served by the proposed facility and a statement of the needs in such area for such a facility. e. The expected types, amounts and methods of treatment or storage of all wastes proposed for the site and the origins of these wastes. f. The monitoring plans, including background analyses for ground water, surface water and air. g. The plans for closure of the site and continued monitoring thereafter. h. Reasons supporting approval of the request. i. A prayer for siting approval. 2. The request for a permit made to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, if any such request has been made. 3. A site plan showing details of the proposed facility including,but not limited to: a. Cross-sections; b. All existing wells within five hundred feet(500') of the site; c. All monitoring wells; d. Fences,buildings and other structures; e. Roads, entrances and driveways; and f. Core sample locations on and within two hundred feet (200') of the site. 4. A detailed topographic survey of the subject site and the surrounding area within five hundred feet (500') which indicates land use and, if applicable, the boundary of the 100-year flood plain. 5. A statement of the plan of operation for the proposed facility including,but not limited to, the following: 2 a. Method of landfilling, incineration, composting, resource recovery or other process; b. Hours of operation; c. Personnel and their training; d. Litter, vector, dust and odor control; e. Surface drainage and erosion control; f. Fire control; and g. Corrective actions for spills and other operational accidents. 6. A statement or report of traffic impact regarding the proposed site including the anticipated number of vehicles and their size, weight and direction of movement. 7. All studies, maps, reports,permits or exhibits which the applicant desires the City to consider at the public hearing, including all documents submitted to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency pertaining to the proposed facility. 8. Certificates of insurance, from companies having a Best rating of A VI or better, verifying the insurance policies carried by the applicant to cover accidents such as fires, explosions, nonsudden accidental occurrences and pollution impairment. 9. If the site is a proposed hazardous waste facility, a copy of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act Contingency Plan. 10. A statement describing the past operating experience of the applicant(and any subsidiary, parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation) in the field of solid waste management. 11. A statement citing the past record of convictions of admissions of violations of the applicant (and any subsidiary, parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation). Said statement shall include,but not be limited to, a citation of the applicable statute or ordinance violated, a brief written summary of the violation or conviction and the penalty imposed. 12. Proof of notice given by an applicant pursuant to section 5/39.2(6) of the Act. a. A dollar($ ) application fee in the form of a certified or cashier's check to cover notice costs, court reporter costs, transcription costs, City consultant costs and other expenses incurred by the City in conducting the review of the request for siting approval, the subsequent public hearing and the siting approval decision; provided, however, that any portion of the application fee that remains unexpended at the conclusion of the siting approval decision shall be returned to the applicant. b. In the event that, at any time prior to the conclusion of the siting approval decision, the City has expended such sums as to reduce the balance of the application fee to a figure less than dollars ($ ), the applicant will be notified in writing with a list of expenses incurred. The applicant would then have fourteen(14) days to deposit with the City Clerk, an additional dollars ($ ) in the form of a certified or cashier's check. Any portion of the fees, including any additional fees that remain unexpended at the conclusion of the siting approval decision, shall be returned to the applicant. 13. The pages of the application and all exhibits submitted to the City shall be consecutively numbered. 3 D. An application for siting approval may not be filed which is substantially the same as a request which was disapproved pursuant to a finding against an applicant under any of criteria of subsection 9B of this Chapter within the preceding two (2)years. E. No application for siting approval shall be deemed to have been filed or accepted for filing unless all of the requirements of this Chapter applicable thereto shall have been met, and the City Clerk shall not give a receipt or other indication of filing until such time as it is determined by the Department of Public Works that the application complies with the requirements of this Chapter, specifically, subsection C of this Section. Within twenty one(21) days after delivery of an application, the City Clerk shall advise the applicant either: 1. That the application is complete and that it has been accepted for filing, designating the date of filing; or 2. That the application is not complete, specifying wherein it is deficient. The acceptance of the application by the City Clerk is a pro forma acceptance. The applicant is solely responsible for providing sufficient technical information to meet its burden of proving the criteria cited in section 5/39.2(a) of Act, as may be amended from time to time. The City Clerk shall cause to have published no later than thirty(30) days after the date of filing of the application a black border notice stating that such application and supporting evidence are available in the City Clerk's office for public inspection. F. In order to give members of the public an opportunity to make informed written comment pursuant to section 5/39.2(c) of the Act and to give members of the public and departments of the City an opportunity to prepare adequately and fairly for the public hearing hereinafter described, the applicant must fully comply with all application requirements as set forth in subsection C hereof. Failure to submit any required information with the application shall render such required information inadmissible at said public hearing. G. At any time prior to the completion by the applicant of the presentation of the applicant's factual evidence and an opportunity for cross-examination by the City Council and any participants, the applicant may file not more than one amended application upon payment of additional fees in the sum of dollars ($ );provided,however, that the time limitations for final action by the City Council shall be extended for an additional period of ninety(90) days. H. Other amendments may be made if, in the opinion of the City Council, any such proposed amendment is nonsubstantive and a majority of the City Council allows such amendments. Section 4. REVIEW OF APPLICATION A. Upon receipt of a copy of a request for siting approval,the Director of Public Works shall notify the following of such receipt: 1. Department of Zoning Appeals. 2. Plan Commission. 3. Budget Officer. 4. Building Inspector. 4 5. All City consultants. B. The Department of Public Works shall be the Department responsible for coordinating review of the request for siting approval by those mentioned above and is authorized to call meetings and set deadlines for the submittal of reports and recommendations. C. Those mentioned above are authorized to prepare and submit reports and recommendations in response to the request for siting approval. Preliminary reports, reports, studies, exhibits and any written comments concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site that the City departments and consultants desire to submit for the record at the public hearing shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than ten(10) days in advance of the date set for public hearing. In the event that the tenth day prior to the date set for public hearing falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next working day shall be considered the day that such information shall be filed. Copies of such information shall be available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk. Members of the public shall be allowed to obtain copies of such information upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. D. Those mentioned above may attend the public hearing and may ask such questions as needed to assist in reaching their recommendations. E. The City departments and consultants retained by the City are authorized to present testimony at the public hearing as hereinafter described. Section 5. INFORMATION FROM OTHER PARTIES All reports, studies, exhibits or other evidence or copies thereof, other than testimony, which any person, other than the applicant, desires to submit for the record at the public hearing must be filed with the City Clerk at least ten(10) days before the public hearing. In the event that the tenth day prior to the date set for public hearing falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next working day shall be considered the day that such information must be filed. Copies of such information shall be available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk. Members of the public shall be allowed to obtain copies of such information upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. Section 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. When Held: 1. No sooner than ninety(90)but no later than one hundred twenty(120) days from the date of filing of the request for siting approval with the City Clerk, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council. 2. Within twenty(20) working days of the date a request for siting approval is accepted for filing, the City Council shall determine the date, time and location of said public hearing,but in any event, the public hearing must be scheduled to commence no sooner than ninety(90) days but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the request for siting approval was accepted for filing by the City Clerk. 5 B. Notice of Hearing: The City Council shall notify the City Clerk of the date upon which such hearing shall be held and shall request the City Clerk to cause notice of such hearing to be made as follows: 1. Publish two (2) legal notices in a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of the proposed facility. One such notice shall be published no later than sixty(60) days from the date of filing of an application, and one such notice shall be published no later than seventy five(75) days from the date of filing of an application. Such notices shall consist of the following: a. The name and address of the applicant. b. The owners of the site and, in case ownership is in a land trust, the names of the beneficiaries of said trust. c. The legal description of the site. d. The street address of the property and, if there is no street address applicable to the property, a description of the site with reference to location, ownership or occupancy or in some other manner that will reasonably identify the property to residents of the neighborhood. e. The nature and size of the proposed development. f. The nature of the activity proposed. g. The probable life of the proposed activity. h. The time and date of the public hearing. i. The location of the public hearing. j. A statement that all copies of evidence other than oral testimony to be submitted at the public hearing must be filed with the City Clerk at least ten(10) days before the public hearing. 2. Certified mail to all members of the general assembly from the district in which the proposed site is located. 3. Certified mail to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 4. Certified mail to the County of Kendall and all municipalities within one and one- half(1 1/2) miles of the proposed facility. 5. Public hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation published as a display at least once during the week preceding the public hearing. Such notice shall consist of all items described in subsection B1 above except for items 1 c and 1j. C. Hearing Procedures: 1. The Mayor shall preside over the public hearing and shall make any decisions concerning the admission of evidence and the manner in which the hearing is conducted, subject to this Chapter. The Mayor shall make all decisions and rulings in accordance with fundamental fairness. The Mayor may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent or unduly repetitious testimony or other evidence. No ruling of the Mayor shall be appealable. 2. The applicant for siting approval shall have the burden of going forward with evidence of the suitability of the site location for the proposed use. 3. Any person appearing at such public hearing shall have the right to give testimony and comment on the suitability of the site location for the proposed use. Any 6 person shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at said public hearing. Such persons shall have the right of reasonable cross-examination. 4. Conduct of the public hearing shall be as follows: a. Call to order. b. Recognition of the applicant and identification of the request for siting approval. c. Recognition of fees, notices and dates of filing of the request for siting approval. d. Recognition of the City staff and consultants and other parties wishing to testify and any other reports, exhibits, maps or documents of record as filed pursuant to this Chapter. All parties, including members of the public, intending to testify or cross-examine must sign in or submit written notification of said intent to the City Clerk on or before the first day of the public hearing. Should the public hearing extend beyond one day, additional parties or members of the public, not of record as of the first day of the public hearing, will not be allowed to present testimony or cross-examine. e. The applicant, the City and other parties may make an opening statement. f. The City Council shall then hear testimony and receive evidence from the applicant and/or any witnesses the applicant may wish to call. Upon the close of the applicant's testimony, other parties may offer expert witnesses and evidence they may wish to present. These other parties may or may not be represented by counsel. Upon the close of the applicant's and other parties' testimony and evidence, the City may present any witnesses and evidence it wishes to present. g. All witnesses shall testify under oath. Testimony may include the use of exhibits. All witnesses shall be subject to reasonable questioning, as follows: direct, cross-examination, redirect, recross, etc. After all parties have presented testimony, reasonable rebuttal, sur-rebuttal, etc., may be allowed at the discretion of the Mayor. h. Should any issues, facts, data or other evidence arise during the course of the public hearing which were not apparent or reasonably foreseeable by a party from the request for siting approval as filed with the City Clerk, such situation may constitute grounds for a recess in the public hearing for a period not to exceed five (5) working days. i. Summary statements by applicant, other parties and the City, subject to limitations as imposed by the Mayor. j. Rebuttal statement, if any, by the applicant, subject to limitations as imposed by the Mayor. k. Hearing closed. Section 7. PUBLIC COMMENT A. The City Clerk shall receive written comment from any person concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site. Upon receipt of any such written comment, the City Clerk 7 shall date stamp and shall file such written comment and the postmarked envelope in which such comment was received. B. Copies of such written comments shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of any written comment upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. C. Any written comment received by the City Clerk or postmarked not later than thirty(30) days after the close of the public hearing shall be made part of the record of the public hearing as hereinafter described, and the City Council shall consider any such timely written comments in making its final determination concerning said siting request. In the event that the thirtieth day falls on a Sunday or a Federal holiday, the next day on which mail is delivered shall be considered the thirtieth day for purposes of this subsection. Section 8. RECORDS KEPT A. The City Clerk shall be responsible for keeping the records of said hearing. The record shall consist of the following: 1. The request for siting approval as described in subsection 3C hereof. 2. Proof of notice as described in subsection 6B hereof. 3. Written comments filed by the public and received by the City Clerk or postmarked within thirty(30) days of the close of the hearing. 4. All reports, studies, exhibits or documents received into evidence at the public hearing. 5. The transcript of the public hearing. 6. Findings of fact and recommendation of the City Council. 7. The resolution containing the final decision of the City Council. B. The City Clerk shall be responsible for certifying all copies of the record of the public hearing. Section 9. SITING APPROVAL DECISION A. After the public hearing and any continuation thereof, the City Council shall hold a public review meeting for purposes of establishing findings of fact and a recommendation concerning the siting approval request. Any findings of fact and recommendation shall be supported by the record. A written resolution thereof shall be presented to the City Council within one hundred seventy(170) days from the City Clerk's acceptance of the filing of the siting approval request. B. In making its recommendation on the request for siting approval, the City Council shall base its decision on the following criteria: 1. The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to serve; 2. The facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; 8 3. The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding property; 4. The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain; 5. The plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents; 6. The traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows; 7. If the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental release; 8. If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any and all applicable requirements specified by the Illinois Pollution Control Board for such area have been met; and 9. If a solid waste management plan was previously adopted for Kendall County prior to the filing of the Petition, the facility is consistent with that plan. C. The City Council shall consider as evidence the previous operating experience and past record of convictions or admissions of violations of the applicant (and any subsidiary,parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation) in the field of solid waste management when considering criteria in subsection B2 and B5 of this Section. D. The City Council shall consider the record from the public hearing and shall make a determination concerning a siting approval request within one hundred eighty(180) days from the City Clerk's acceptance of the filing of the siting approval request. The City Council may conditionally approve any request for siting approval; provided, such conditions are not inconsistent with regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. E. No determination by the City Council of a siting approval request may be reconsidered. F. A local siting approval granted under this Chapter shall expire at the end of 2 calendar years from the date upon which it was granted, unless the local siting approval granted under this Chapter is for a sanitary landfill operation, in which case the approval shall expire at the end of 3 calendar years from the date upon which it was granted, and unless within that period the applicant has made application to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to develop the site. In the event that the local siting decision has been appealed, such expiration period shall be deemed to begin on the date upon which the appeal process is concluded. G. Siting approval obtained pursuant to this Chapter is transferable and may be transferred to a subsequent owner or operator. In the event that siting approval has been transferred to a subsequent owner or operator, that subsequent owner or operator assumes and takes subject to any and all conditions imposed upon the prior owner or operator by City Council pursuant to this Section. However, any such conditions imposed pursuant to this Chapter may be modified by agreement between the subsequent owner or operator and the appropriate county board or governing body. Further, in the event that siting approval obtained pursuant to this Chapter has 9 been transferred to a subsequent owner or operator, that subsequent owner or operator assumes all rights and obligations and takes the facility subject to any and all terms and conditions of any existing host agreement between the prior owner or operator and the appropriate county board or governing body. Section 10. ADMINISTRATION OF FEES AND COSTS A. Upon termination of any proceedings under this Chapter, a final accounting and summary of all authorized expenditures and reimbursements shall be presented to the City Council. B. Any portion of an application fee not required for reimbursement to the City for costs and expenses incurred by the City under this Chapter shall be returned to the applicant. Should there be costs and/or expenses in excess of the amount paid by the applicant in the application fee, the applicant shall bear any and all additional costs. C. In order to properly administer the application fee received with respect to this Chapter, the City Collector is hereby authorized and directed to receive and hold such application fees for administration subject to the review and approval of the City Council. D. In order to expedite payment of all bills incurred as a result of administering this Chapter, all bills and questions concerning billing should be directed to the City Collector. CH02/22257552.1 10 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Clerk's Office FROM THE DESK OF LIZ D'ANNA January 7, 2004 TO: Plan Commission Dina Gipe RE: February 11, 2004 Plan Commission Meeting At your February meeting, there will be a public hearing on the Transportation Study and Feasibility Study for the Eastern Bridge Crossing prepared by Smith Engineering. Enclosed you will find a copy of each study for your review. Also, enclosed is a copy of the Public Hearing Notice that will be published in the January 22nd Kendall County Record. Please note that the pubic hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., but the studies will be available for viewing from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 553-8531. Thank you, Liz D'Anna Deputy Clerk cc: Mayor and City Council City Administrator Graff Department Heads LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SMITH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 759 John Street DATE: January 6, 2004 YORKVILLE,ILLINOIS 60560 JOB NO: YORK-020700-2 ATTENTION: Ms. Liz D'Anna PHONE: (630) 553-7560 SUBJECT: Eastern Fox River FAX: (630) 553-7646 Crossing TO: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 We are sending you ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items: Shop Drawings ❑Prints oPlans ❑Samples ❑Specifications ❑Copy of Letter ❑Change Order ®Other COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 15 Report THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For Approval ❑Approved as Submitted Resubmit Copies for Approval ®For Your Use ❑Approved as Noted ❑Submit Copies for Distribution zAs Requested Returned for Corrections ❑Return Corrected Prints ❑Review and Comment ❑Other Remarks: Should you have any questions or need further assistance,please call. Copy To: File Signed: Camie R. Ferrier, P.E. Project Manager • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SMITH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE: January 6, 2004 759 John Street YORKVILLE,ILLINOIS 60560 JOB NO: YORK-010675-9 ATTENTION: Liz D'Anna PHONE: (630) 553-7560 SUBJECT: Yorkville FAX: (630) 553-7646 Transportation Study TO: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 We are sending you ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items: ❑Shop Drawings ❑Prints :Plans Samples ESpecifications ❑Copy of Letter ❑Change Order ®Other COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 15 Reports THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ▪For Approval ❑Approved as Submitted oResubmit Copies for Approval ®For Your Use ❑Approved as Noted Submit Copies for Distribution ®As Requested Returned for Corrections ❑Return Corrected Prints Review and Comment oOther Remarks: Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Copy To: File Signed: C,V1-1 ,s u2A 4.- Camie R. Ferrier, P.E. Project Manager UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PETITION APPLICATION LOG January 7, 2004 a TYPE OF DATE OF AP NAME PETITIONER APPLICATION STATUS Bristol Club LayCom PUD Amendment 7/20/01 PUD Amendment @ 1/20/04 COW 1 '/2 Mile Review 1 1/2 Mile Review @ 1/22/04 Plan Council Westbury Village Ocean Atlantic Annexation& PUD 10/2/02 Annexation& PUD Agreement @ Preliminary Plan 6/12/03 1/20/04 COW Yorkville Hill Landscaping Edelmira Ortega & Annexation/Zoning 7/28/03 PUD Agreement @ 1/13/04 City Gerardo Barajas Council Runge Property IRED Development Annexation/Zoning & 8/6/03 Agreement @ February COW Ventures, Inc. Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan @ 1/22/04 Plan Council 11925 Route 34 Richard & Valerie Annexation/Zoning 8/15/03 Approved @ 12/23/03 City Council LaBerge 308 N. Bridge Street Susan & Gary Rezoning 8/21/03 Development Agreement Approved Kritzberg @ 12/23/03 City Council Kendall General Store Gary & Lelalu Maxwell Annexation/Zoning 9/2/03 1/13/04 City Council Kylyn's Ridge Phase 2 AMG Homes Final Plat 10/6/03 Approved @ 12/9/03 City Council Raintree Village Wyndham Deerpoint Final Plat 10/17/03 Approved @ 12/9/03 City Council Units 2 & 3 Homes & Creek Partners, LLC Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Dev. Corp. 1 '/2 Mile Review 12/8/03 1/22/04 Plan Council (East Side of Highpoint Road, 2/11/04 Plan Commission 500' South of Legion Road) Fox Hill POD 9 & 10 DCI Charrington Rezone and 12/11/03 Rezone Public Hearing @ 2/11/04 Preliminary Plan Plan Commission Grande Reserve MPI Preliminary/Final Plat 12/12/03 1/8/04 Plan Council for Units 1, 2 and 3 2/11/04 Plan Commission Whispering Meadow Phase I Whispering Meadow Final Plat 12/19/03 Tentative 2/12/04 Plan Council (Fisher Property) Limited Partnership (Kimball Hill Homes)