HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Commission Packet 2004 04-14-04 epc„.,
0 United City of Yorkville
County Seat of Kendall County
EST.at iftime 7836
800 Game Farm Road
V)tlYorkvil ,Illi
O 1O Phone:le630-5nois53-4350
60560
'A im= Fax:630-553-7575
/Lt.E ‘‘'
PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
City Council Chambers
800 Game Farm Road
REVISED: 4/8/04
Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Previous Meeting Minutes: Corrections/Approval: March 10, 2004
Public Hearings: None
Presentation:
1. School Site Study by Mike Schoppe
Old Business: None
New Business:
1. PC 2001-06 Grande Reserve Units 5, 7, and 8- Preliminary/Final Plats
2. PC 2002-06 Westbury Village - Preliminary Plan
3. PC 2003-13 Bailey Meadows (fka Runge Property) -Preliminary Plan
4. PC 2004-03 Rob Roy Falls - Concept Plan
5. PC 2004-04 Villas at the Preserve - Concept Plan
Additional Business:
Adjournment:
`c�D c/r)
,w 0, United City of Yorkville
IN nnr
County Seat of Kendall County
EST.44 1836 800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville,Illinois 60560
Phone:630-553-4350
11 Kends.: Fax:630-553-7575
/1-LE NNI
PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
City Council Chambers
800 Game Farm Road
Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Previous Meeting Minutes: Corrections/Approval: March 10, 2004
Public Hearings: None
Presentation:
1. School Site Study by Mike Schoppe
Old Business: None
New Business:
1. PC 2001-06 Grande Reserve Units 5, 7, and 8 - Final Plats
2. PC 2002-06 Westbury Village -Preliminary Plan
3. PC 2003-13 Bailey Meadows (flea Runge Property) -Preliminary Plan
4. PC 2004-03 Rob Roy Falls - Concept Plan
5. PC 2004-04 Villas at the Preserve - Concept Plan
Additional Business:
Adjournment:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
YORKVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2004
Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Clarence Holdiman, Anne Lucietto, Andrew Kubala, Bill Davis, Brian
Schillinger, Michael Crouch, and Tom Lindblom.
A quorum was established.
VISITORS
Mayor Art Prochaska; Alderman Richard Sticka; City Attorney Dan Kramer; City
Planner Mike Schoppe;Lynn Dubajic from the Yorkville Economic Development
Corporation; and John Whitehouse, Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Also, see attached sign-
in sheet.
MINUTES
Minutes from the February 11, 2004 meeting were approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PC 2004-02 Triangle Investments, LLC, petitioners, has filed an application with the
United City of Yorkville, requesting rezoning from R-4 General Residence PUD and B-3
Service Business District to R-2 One-Family Residence District PUD and B-3 Service
Business District.
See attached.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PC2004-02 Triangle Investments
Chairman Tom Lindblom said the petitioners are seeking only concept approval at this
point.
He pointed out that there are six or seven lots that are less than 12,000 square feet. He
suggested the Plan Commission limit the number of lots smaller than 12,000 square feet
in the development to a certain number. He added that many of lots in the Green Briar
subdivision are smaller lots already.
Mayor Art Prochaska said immediately behind this development are duplex lots.
However, he said many of the lots in Green Briar are about 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Brian Schillinger said he doesn't think the city should allow any lots less
than 12,000 square feet. He commended the developer for changing the proposal from R-
4 to R-2. But he said he would still like to see all of the lots meet the 12,000 square foot
minimum size.
Lindblom asked the developers if they could make all of the lots 12,000 square feet.
Pete Huinker, from Smith Engineering, hired by the developer, said the lots are 12,000
square feet except on lots that back up to open space along and on the west property line.
Schillinger then asked if the engineer could move a line on Lot 8 to make the rest of the
lots comply with the required size. However, the Huinker said that would make Lot 8
even more irregular than it already is. He added he will try to take another look at the
design to see what could be done.
Lindblom then asked commissioners if they were okay with the 10,000 square foot lots
that abut open space. Commissioner Anne Lucietto replied that she believes all of the lots
should be 12,000 square feet.
Commissioner Bill Davis said he would be open to some leniency on lot sizes because
the developer has changed the zoning request from R-4 to R-2. Commissioner Michael
Crouch added that he's in favor of the changed zoning. But he would like the developer
to try to make all of the lots 12,000 square feet. If that's not possible, he said he might be
open to approving several smaller lots.
Crouch also said he wasn't happy when a line of trees was destroyed when the Green
Briar subdivision was built. He said he'd like to see the existing line of trees on this
property preserved.
Huinker asked if the trail access on the property had to be an outlet or an easement. City
Planner Mike Schoppe said he would need to speak with the Park Board about that for
certain. Huinker said the answer to that question could help in enlarging some of the lots.
Lindblom asked if the entrance onto Green Briar lines up with the proposed entrance for
the senior housing development. Schoppe said it might not be possible to line the two
roadways up. He added that the northern road, however, will match.
City Attorney Dan Kramer suggested the zoning request be split into two votes—one for
the B-3 zoning and one for the change from R-4 to R-2.
Commissioner Andrew Kubala made a motion to approve the enlarged B-3 area for the
eastern portion of the parcel for PC 2004-02. Crouch seconded the motion. The motion
was unanimously approved. Holdiman, Lucietto, Davis, Schillinger, Crouch, Kubala and
Lindblom voted yes.
Lucietto made a motion to accept the change in zoning for PC 2004-02 from R-4 to R-2
with minimal destruction to the treeline. Crouch seconded the motion. The motion was
unanimously approved. Lucietto, Davis, Schillinger, Crouch, Kubala, Holdiman and
Lindblom voted yes.
2. PC 2004-06 Grande Reserve Units 1,2,3, 4 and 6 final plats
John Phillipchuck, representing the developers, said he's met with city staff and there's a
consensus that the plats should be approved.
He said the lot sizes are in excess of what was set forth in the original agreement.
Kubala asked why the drawings for each of the development weren't drawn to the same
scale. Engineer Tim Winter said the different scales were used to maximize the sheets of
paper.
Kubala then asked why some streets changed names where there was only a modest
change or curve in a street. For instance, he said, in Unit 1 McLellan Boulevard turns into
Lyman Loop when there's no noticeable change in the roadway.
Schoppe said he'd take that up with the city engineer to discuss why. Winter said because
McLellan Boulevard turns into Lyman Loop, a road that makes a complete circle, it
would be easier for the fire department to find houses by changing the name.
John Whitehouse, engineer with Engineering Enterprises Inc., said that the road name has
to change somewhere and it made sense to make the change at the intersection. If the
name wasn't changed, then McLellan Boulevard would loop back onto itself.
Crouch said that the point is well taken that some houses on the same street will have
different street names and numbers. Whitehouse said there will be a street sign out in
front of those houses differentiating the streets.
Moving onto other aspects of the final plat approval, Whitehouse said he wanted to
clarify some comments made in his report. He said he has resolved his initial concerns
regarding the definition of lot width. There are several different ways to interpret the
definition the way it is written now. The interpretation the developer is using is an
acceptable definition, he said.
Whitehouse added that the city will need to try to clear up the confusion regarding the
definition of lot width at another time. He also said the developer has complied with all
of the city's requirements.
Schoppe said the plats look good although there are a few small outstanding issues. He
said he would recommend approval of the final plat subject to staff comments and
recommendations.
Kramer suggested the Plan Commission vote on a recommendation for approval of the
preliminary plan for those numbered neighborhoods and then take a second vote on the
final plats.
Whitehouse said the annexation agreement requires the preliminary approval for
neighborhoods 6-16 which would be units 1-11 before the approval of final plats. Then,
there will be two other areas where preliminary plans will be presented—one for the
northern area and one for the western area.
Kubala asked why neighborhood numbers are different than the unit numbers. Whithouse
said it's the way they are recorded. He said the annexation agreement refers to the
neighborhoods.
Kubala made a motion to approve the preliminary plan for PC 2004-06 for units 1,2, 3, 4
and 6. Lucietto seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Davis,
Schillinger, Crouch, Kubala, Holdiman, Lucietto and Lindblom voted yes.
Kubala made a motion to approve the final plat for PC 2004-06 subject to staff comments
for units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Schillinger, Crouch, Kubala, Holdiman, Lucietto, Davis and
Lindblom voted yes.
3. Election of a Deputy Chairman
Lindblom said the Plan Commission needs to elect a deputy chairman to take over when
he cannot attend a meeting.
Crouch nominated Anne Lucietto to be the deputy chairman. Kubala moved that
nominations be closed. Crouch seconded the motion. The motion to close the
nominations was unanimously approved by voice vote. Kubala then made a motion that
the ballots be cast unanimously for Anne Lucietto as vice chairman. Crouch seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote..
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF KENDALL )
BEFORE THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION
In the Matter of : )
)
)
)
THE YORKVILLE PLAN )
COMMISSION PUBLIC )
HEARING )
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had taken at the hearing of
the above-entitled matter taken before Kerry E .
Chitkowski CSR No . 84-003340 , on Wednesday , March 10 ,
2004 at 7 : 00 p . m . at 800 Game Road , Yorkville ,
Illinois .
D- 697204
DEPO • COURT
reporting service
800 West Fifth Avenue • Suite 203C • Naperville, IL 60563 • 630-983-0030 • Fax 630-983-6013
www.depocourt.com
3
1 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay. I will call the meeting to
2 order.
3 Can we have roll call, please.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)SS: 4 MS. GIPE: Clarence Holdiman.
COUNTY OF KENDALL
5 MR. HOLDIMAN: Present.
6 MS.GIPE: Bill Dream. Anne Lucietto.
BEFORE THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION
7 MS. LUCIETTO: Here.
In the Matter of: ) 8 MS. GIPE: Bill Davis.
) 9 MR. DAVIS: Here.
THE YORKVILLE PLAN )
COMMISSION PUBLIC ) 10 MS. GIPE: Andrew Adams. Brian Shillinger.
HEARING )
11 MR. SHILLINGER: Here.
12 MS.GIPE: Jeff Jones. Michael Crouch.
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had taken at the hearing of 13 MR. CROUCH: Here.
the above-entitled matter taken before Kerry E. 14 MS.GIPE: Andrew Kubala
Chitkowski CSR No. 84.003340, on Wednesday, March 10, 15 MR. KUBALA: Here.
2004 at 7:00 p.m. at 800 Game Road, Yorkville,
16 MR. LINDBLOM: We do have a quorum.
Illinois.
17 The previous meeting minutes. I trust
18 everybody has had a chance to look at them? Is there
0.697204 19 any significant changes or corrections? Hearing none,
06:59PM 20 can I have a motion to approve the previous meeting
21 minutes.
22 MR. HOLDIMAN: So moved.
23 MR. SHILLINGER: Seconded.
24 MR. LINDBLOM: Any further questions on the
2 4
1
2 PRESENT: 1 minutes or the motion? Hearing none those in favor
3 Mr.Thomas Lindblo, Chairman 2 signify by saying aye.
3 THE QUORUM: Aye.
4 Mr. Daniel J. Kramer, City Attorney
4 MR. LINDBLOM: Opposed? Hearing none, the minutes
5 Mr.Andrew Kubala, Board Member 5 are approved.
6 Mr. Brian Shillinger, Board Member 6 At this point, I would entertain a
7 motion to go into public hearing.
7 Mr. Michael Crouch, Board Member 8 MR. HOLDIMAN: So moved.
8 Mr. Michael Schoppe, Board Member 9 MS. LUCIETTO: Seconded.
9 Mr. Bill Davis, Board Member 06:59PM 10 MR. LINDBLOM: Moved and seconded. Those in favor
11 of the motion say aye.
10 Mr. Clarence Holdiman, Board Member
12 THE QUORUM: Aye.
11 Ms. Anne Lucietto, Board Member 13 MR. LINDBLOM: Opposed? Okay. We are now in
12 Ms. Dina Gipe, Minute Keeper 14 public hearing.
15 At this time, I ask anybody that wishes
13 16 to address the commission to please stand and raise
14 - - - 17 your right hand.
15 18 (Witnesses sworn.)
16 19 MR. LINDBLOM: Thank you. The public hearing is a
17
18 20 PC 2004-02 Triangle Investments, LLC, petitioners, has
19 21 filed anapplication with the United City of
20
21 22 Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting
22 23 rezoning from the United City of Yorkville -- it has
23
24 24 on our agenda R-3. It should be R-4.
1 of 5 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 12 03/26/2004 12:35:30 PM
5 7
1 MR. SCHOPPE: The current zoning is R-4. 1 requests and our agenda show R-3. They should both
2 MR. LINDBLOM: Yes. In our agenda it has R-3. 2 show R-4?
3 MR. SCHOPPE: Correct. 3 MR. LINDBLOM: Yes,that's correct.
4 MR. LINDBLOM: It should be Yorkville R-4 General 4 MR. KUBALA: Thank you.
5 Residence District PUD and B-3 Service Business 5 MR. LINDBLOM: Are there any questions for Mike
6 District to United City of Yorkville R-2 One-Family 6 about this for clarification at this point? Okay. At
7 Residence District PUD and B-3 Service Business 7 this point, Greg, would you like to state anything?
8 District. The real property consists of approximately 8 MR. INGEMUNSON: Yes,just briefly, so every one
9 36.4 acres at Greenbriar Road and Route 47, in the 9 understands why we are requesting what we are
07:01PM 10 United States of Yorkville, Kendall Township, Kendall 07:03PM 10 requesting.
11 County, Illinois. 11 Essentially my client did a little
12 I have asked Mike Schoppe, one of our 12 research with some various possible suitors for
13 consultants, to give us a brief explanation of what is 13 commercial developers out there, and they indicated
14 going on so we get off with a good start and don't get 14 that the commercial parcel was too small for a --
15 more confused. 15 MR. LINDBLOM: Greg, I am sorry, could you
16 MR. SCHOPPE: If you remember, this property was 16 identify yourself.
17 referred to as the Hopkins' corner sometime ago, maybe 17 MR. INGEMUNSON: Greg Ingemunson,
18 a year ago, and it was annexed and rezoned at that 18 I-n-g-e-m-u-n-s-o-n.
19 time under the name of Hopkins'corner. 19 They recently spoke with various
07.01PM 20 When we did Hopkins' corner, we rezoned 07:o4PM 20 brokers, and the information they received was that
21 it into two pieces, R-3 and R-4. The R-3 is up 21 the 14 acre piece was probably too small to get a
22 against Route 47 and the R-4 was the rest of the 22 box-door like a Jewel or Dominick's or something like
23 property going back to Greenbriar. 23 that, so they just recently thought the 18 acres was
24 Now, currently the B-3 zoning is about 24 probably the best side to get an anchor store in there
6 8
1 650 feet west of Route 47, and the balance of the 1 that would be good for the commercial piece so that's
2 property is the R-4 zoning. 2 the reason why we are requesting the change.
3 What is being asked tonight is 3 One other note is that when we downsize
4 essentially to move the B-3 line from 650 feet, move 4 from R-4 to R-2, I think it was 72 units in the
5 it west a couple hundred feet to about 870 feet. 5 Hopkins' corner and we are going to 41 units in the
6 So this strip of land, right in here, is 6 R-2 section.
7 currently R-4,and they are requesting to have that 7 So, any other questions, I will be happy
8 200 foot strip changed to B-3. That's one part of the 8 to answer them.
9 rezoning. 9 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay. At this point is there any
07.02PM 10 The other part of the rezoning is to take 07 04P 10 questions at all from the audience or anybody that
11 the remaining residential parts of the property, which 11 would like to address the commission? Sir?
12 is R-4, and change that to R-2 PUD. 12 MR. SHANNON: My name is Jack Shannon. I would
13 In your package,you have a concept 13 like to know how far-- I live on the back wall. How
14 plan that they put together. It is a concept plan. 14 far behind my house will that be? Is that going to be
15 They are not requesting any approval of that plan. 15 retirement?
16 They are just requesting the zoning. 16 MR. INGEMUNSON: When you say you live on the back
17 But if you have any comments, on the 17 wall, back where?
18 plan, that you would like to share with them, I am 18 MR. SHANNON: Actually, if you are in the corner,
19 sure they would be interested in hearing that. They 19 I am the second house from the corner towards
07 03P 20 are going to be preparing once -- if this rezoning 20 Sunflower States.
21 does go through, they will prepare preliminary plans 21 MR. INGEMUNSON: South of the property?
22 of engineering and come back to the city with a formal 22 MR. SHANNON: Yes.
23 submittal. So that is what the request is. 23 MR. INGEMUNSON: South of this property?
24 MR. KUBALA: I have a question. Both the zoning 24 MR. SHANNON: Yes.
03/26/2004 12:35:30 PM Page 5 to 8 of 12 2 of 5 sheets
9 11
1 MR. INGEMUNSON: Okay. 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS. )
2 MR. SHANNON: The back part of it. 2 ) SS.
3 MR. INGEMUNSON: That is going to all be R-2. 3 COUNTY OF DU PAGE )
4 It's going to be residential. So R-2 with 12,000 4 I, Kerry E. Chitkowski, a Certified
5 square foot. It is all single family residence. 5 Shorthand Reporter,do hereby certify that I reported
6 These here. 6 in shorthand the proceedings had at the hearing of the
7 MR. SHANNON: Actually, I am right. 7 above-entitled cause and that the foregoing Report of
8 MR. LINDBLOM: Route 47 is here. 8 Proceedings,Pages 1 through 11, inclusive, is a true,
9 MR. INGEMUNSON: Here is Route 47 and Greenbriar 9 correct, and complete transcript of my shorthand notes
10 here. 10 so taken at the time and place aforesaid.
11 MR. SHANNON: I am actually, as you come in 11 I further certify that I am neither counsel
12 Greenbriar Road -- 12 for nor related to counsel for any of the parties to
13 MR. INGEMUNSON: It cant be here. This is 13 this suit, nor am I in any way related to any of the
14 Greenbriar Road right here. 14 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way interested
15 MR. LINDBLOM: This is the duplexes. Are you in a 15 in the outcome thereof.
16 duplex? 16 I further certify that my certificate
17 MR. SHANNON: No, I am in a ranch on the back 17 annexed hereto applies to the original transcript and
18 wall. 18 copies thereof, signed and certified under my hand
19 MR. INGEMUNSON: There is single family residence 19 only. I assume no responsibility for the accuracy of
07:O6PM 20 all in R-2. 20 any reproduced copies not made under my control or
21 MR. SHANNON: 1522 Walsh Drive. 21 direction.
22 MR. INGEMUNSON: You are probably just west of the 22
23 property. We are asking to rezone this into 23
24 single-family residential. 24
10 12
1 MR. SHANNON: Okay. That's okay. I wanted to 1 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my
2 know how far they were going back before the 2 hand this 26th day of March,A.D., 2004.
3 commercial is going to be out in front of it. 3
4 MR. INGEMUNSON: Okay. The whole back is going to 4 Kerry E. Chitkowski
5 be residential. All the back. So it's split in 5 CSR No. 84-003340
6 almost half. 6
7 So half is residential and half is 7
8 commercial. The commercial is towards Route 47. 8
9 MR. SHANNON: Okay. 9
07:06PM 10 MR. LINDBLOM: Are there any other questions from 10
11 the public? Can I have a motion to close the public 11
12 hearing. 12
13 MR. HOLDIMAN: Motion. 13
14 MR. LINDBLOM: Is there a second? 14
15 MR. SHILLINGER: Seconded. 15
16 MR. LINDBLOM: Any discussion on the motion? 16
17 Hearing none,those in favor say aye. 17
18 THE QUORUM: Aye. 18
19 MR. LINDBLOM: The public hearing is now closed. 19
20 - - - 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
3 of 5 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 12 03/26/2004 12:35:30 PM
..- . .: .
1
box-door-7:22 feet-6:1,6:4,6:5 Lucietto-2:10,3:6, 7:5,8:7,8:10,10:10
1 Brian-2:5,3:10 filed-4:21 3:7,4:9 quorum-3:16
brief-5:13 foot-6:8,9:5 - Quorum-4:3,4:12,
10-1:16 briefly-7:8 formal-6:22 M 10:18
12,000-9:4 brokers-7:20 front-10:3
14-7:21 Business-5:5,5:7 Marcy-1:16 R
1522-9:21 G Matter-1:8
18-7:23 C matter-1:15 R-2-5:6,6:12,8:4,
Game-1:17 meeting-3:1,3:17, 8:6,9:3,9:4,9:20
2 Chairman-2:2 General-5:4 3:20 R-3-4:24,5:2,5:21,
chance-3:18 Gipe-2:11,3:4,3:6, Member-2:4,2:5, 7:1
200-6:8 change-6:12,8:2 3:8,3:10,3:12,3:14 2:6,2:8,2:9,2:10 R-4-4:24,5:1,5:4,
2004-1:17 changed-6:8 Greenbriar-5:9, Membere-2:7 5:21,5:22,6:2,6:7,
2004-02-4:20 changes-3:19 5:23,9:9,9:12,9:14 Michael-2:6,2:7, 6:12,7:2,8:4
Chitkowski-1:16 Greg-7:7,7:15, 3:12 raise-4:16
3 city-6:22 7:17 Mike-5:12,7:5 ranch-9:17
City-2:3,4:21, . Minute-2:11 real-5:8
36.4-5:9 4:23,5:6 H minutes-3:17, reason-8:2
Clarence-2:9,3:4 _____ 3:21,4:1,4:4 received-7:20
4 clarification-7:6 half-10:6,10:7 Motion-10:13 recently-7:19,7:23
client-7:11 hand-4:17 motion-3:20,4:1, referred-5:17
41 -8:5 close-10:11 happy-8:7 4:7,4:11,10:11, remaining-6:11
47-5:9,5:22,6:1, closed-10:19 Hearing-1:11,3:19, 10:16 remember-5:16
9:8,9:9,10:8 comments-6:17 4:1,4:4,10:17 move-6:4 Report-1:14
commercial-7:13, hearing-1:14,4:7, moved-3:22,4:8 request-6:23
6 7:14,8:1,10:3,10:8 4:14,4:19,6:19, Moved-4:10 requesting-4:22,
Commission-1:6, 10:12, 10:19 , 6:7,6:15,6:16,7:9,
650-6:1,6:4 1:10 Holdiman-2:9,3:4, N 7:10,8:2
commission-4:16, 3:5,3:22,4:8,10:13 . requests-7:1
7 8:11 Hopkins'-5:17, name-5:19,8:12 research-7:12
concept-6:13,6:14 5:19,5:20,8:5 none-3:19,4:1, residence-9:5,
72-8:4 confused-5:15 house-8:14,8:19 4:4,10:17 9:19
7:00-1:17 consists-5:8 hundred-6:5 note-8:3 Residence-5:5,5:7
consultants-5:13 residential-6:11,
8 corner-5:17,5:19, I 0 9:4,9:24,10:5, 10:7
5:20,8:5,8:18,8:19 rest-5:22
800-1:17 correct-7:3 identify-7:16 once-6:20 retirement-8:15
84-003340-1:16 Correct-5:3 Illinois-1:3,4:22, One-5:6,8:3 rezone-9:23
870-6:5 corrections-3:19 5:11 one-5:12,6:8,7:8 rezoned-5:18,5:20
County-1:4,4:22, Illionis-1:17 One-family-5:6 rezoning-4:23,6:9,
A 5:11 indicated-7:13 Opposed-4:4,4:13 6:10,6:20
couple-6:5 information-7:20 order-3:2 Road-1:17,5:9,
above-entitled- Crouch-2:6,3:12, Ingemunson-7:8, 9:12,9:14
1:15 3:13 7:17,7:18,8:16,8:21,
P roll-3:3
acre-7:21 Csr-1:16 8:23,9:1,9:3,9:9, Route-5:9,5:22,
acres-5:9,7:23 current-5:1 9:13,9:19,9:22,10:4 package-6:13 6:1,9:8,9:9,10:8
Adams-3:10 interested-6:19 parcel-7:14 _
address-4:16,8:11 D Investments-4:20 part-6:8,6:10,9:2 S
agenda-4:24,5:2, parts-6:11
7:1 Daniel-2:3
J Pc-4:20 Schoppe-2:7,5:1,
ago-5:17,5:18 Davis-2:8,3:8,3:9 petitioners-4:20 5:3,5:12,5:16
almost-10:6 developers-7:13 Jack-8:12 piece-7:21,8:1 second-8:19,
anchor-7:24 Dina-2:11 Jeff-3:12 pieces-5:21 10:14
Andrew-2:4,3:10, discussion-10:16 Jewel-7:22 Plan-1:6,1:10 Seconded-3:23,
3:14 District-5:5,5:6, Jones-3:12 plan-6:14,6:15, 4:9,10:15
Anne-2:10,3:6 5:7,5:8 6:18 seconded-4:10
annexed-5:18 Dominick's-7:22 K plans-6:21 section-8:6
answer-8:8 door-7:22 Pm-1:17 Service-5:5,5:7
application-4:21 downsize-8:3 Keeper-2:11 point-4:6,7:6,7:7, Shannon-8:12,
approval-6:15 Dream-3:6 Kendall-1:4,4:22, 8:9 8:18,8:22,8:24,9:2,
approve-3:20 Drive-9:21 5:10 possible-7:12 9:7,9:11,9:17,9:21,
approved-4:5 duplex-9:16 Kerry-1:15 preliminary-6:21 10:1,10:9
Attorney-2:3 duplexes-9:15 Kramer-2:3 prepare-6:21 share-6:18
audience-8:10 Kubala-2:4,3:14, preparing-6:20 Shillinger-2:5,
aye-4:2,4:11, E 3:15,6:24,7:4 Present-2:1,3:5 3:10,3:11,3:23,
10:17 previous-3:17, 10:15
Aye-4:3,4:12, engineering-6:22 L 3:20 show-7:1,7:2
10:18 entertain-4:6 Proceedings-1:14 side-7:24
entitled-1:15 land-6:6 property-5:8,5:16, significant-3:19
B essentially-6:4 Lindblo-2:2 5:23,6:2,6:11,8:21, signify-4:2
Essentially-7:11 Lindblom-3:1,3:16, 8:23,9:23 single-9:5,9:19,
B-3-5:5,5:7,5:24, explanation-5:13 3:24,4:4,4:10,4:13, public-4:7,4:14, 9:24
6:4,6:8 4:19,5:2,5:4,7:3, 4:19,10:11,10:19 single-family-9:24
balance-6:1 F 7:5,7:15,8:9,9:8, Public-1:10 small-7:14,7:21
behind-8:14 9:15,10:10,10:14, Pud-5:5,5:7,6:12 sometime-5:17
best-7:24 family-5:6,9:5, 10:16,10:19 put-6:14 sorry-7:15
Bill-2:8,3:6,3:8 9:19,9:24 line-6:4 South-8:21,8:23
Board-2:4,2:5,2:6, far-8:13,8:14,10:2 live-8:13,8:16 Q split-10:5
2:7,2:8,2:9,2:10 favor-4:1,4:10, Llc-4:20 square-9:5
box-7:22 10:17 look-3:1* questions-3:24, Ss-1:3
03/26/2004 12:35:30 PM Page 1 to 1 of 2 4 of 5 sheets
2
stand-4:16
start-5:14
state-7:7
State-1:3
States-5:10,8:20
store-7:24
strip-6:6,6:8
submittal-6:23
suitors-7:12
Sunflower-8:20
sworn-4:18
T
Thomas-2:2
together-6:14
tonight-6:3
towards-8:19,10:8
Township-5:10
Triangle-4:20
trust-3:17
two-5:21
U
under-5:19
United-4:21,4:23,
5:6,5:10
units-8:4,8:5
up-5:21
V
various-7:12,7:19
w
wall-8:13,8:17,
9:18
Walsh-9:21
Wednesday-1:16
west-6:1,6:5,9:22
whole-10:4
wishes-4:15
Witnesses-4:18
Y
year-5:18
Yorkville-1:6,1:10,
4:22,4:23,5:4,5:6,
5:10
yourself-7:16
z
zoning-5:1,5:24,
6:2,6:16,6:24
of 5 sheets Page 2 to 2 of 2 03/26/2004 12:35:30 PM
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PETITION APPLICATION LOG April 7, 2004
TYPE OF DATE OF AP
NAME PETITIONER APPLICATION STATUS
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 Under legal review
Gerardo Barajas
Bailey Meadows IRED Development Annexation/Zoning & 8/6/03 Preliminary Plan 4/14/04 Plan Comm.
(f/k/a Runge Property) Ventures, Inc. Preliminary Plan
Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Dev. Corp. 1 '/2 Mile Review 12/8/03 4/13/04 City Council
(East Side of Highpoint Road,
500' South of Legion Road)
Fox Hill POD 9 & 10 DCI Charrington Rezone, Amend. to 12/11/03 4/20/04 COW
Annex. & PUD Agree.
Preliminary Plan
Grande Reserve MPI Preliminary/Final Plat
for Units 1, 2 and 3 12/12/03 4/13/04 City Council
for Units 4 and 6 1/12/04 4/13/04 City Council
for Units 5, 7, and 8 1/22/04 4/14/04 Plan Commission
Whispering Meadow Units 1 Whispering Meadow Final Plat 12/19/03 Approved @ 3/9/04 City Council
and 2 (Fisher Property) Limited Partnership
(Kimball Hill Homes)
Cornerstone Triangle Investments Rezoning & 2/10/04 4/13/04 City Council
PUD Amendment
Rob Roy Falls (Rt. 34 North Sexton Development Concept Plan 3/5/04 4/14/04 Plan Commission
of Fox Hill)
Villas at the Preserve Burnside Homes Concept Plan 3/23/04 4/14/04 Plan Commission
(Rt. 71 and Walsh Drive)
1 APPROVED BY THE
COMM PARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ON: ,3 G ✓v
Plan Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday,February 26,2004
9:30 A.M.
Attendees:
City Administrator Tony Graff Mike Schoppe—Schoppe Design
Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman Sergeant Ron Diedrich
Ex. Director Parks&Recreation, Laura Brown Public Works Director Eric Dhuse
Jeff Freeman, EEI John Whitehouse, EEI
Guests:
Brian Urban,MPI Keith Berg, MPI
Brent Lewis,Westbury Todd Lundquist,Westbury
Kevin Serafin,Westbury Attorney Sandy Stein,Westbury
The meeting began at 9:30 AM,with guests Mr.Urban and Mr.Berg in attendance from MPI.
Minutes:
The February 11, 2004 minutes, after spelling revisions,were approved.
Addition to Plan Council
Mr.Graff explained from this date forward that Deputy Clerk,Liz D'Anna,will be filling out
forms for proposed resubmittal dates for all developers after their respective meeting with the
Plan Council.
Grande Reserve,Units 5,7 & 8—Final Plat
Mr. Graff stated Units 4 and 6 will go to Plan Commission on March 10. EEI and Schoppe
resubmittal final plat comments will need to be to Liz by AM on March 3rd, for Plan Commission
packets. Units 1, 2 & 3 packet information is complete.
1) PUD Review—Anna Kurtzman
a) Units 5 (Neighborhood 10)and Unit 8(Neighborhood 9)—Easement language,
which has been used on other plats,will be added to exhibit D1 by Moser.
b) Unit 5,Unit 7 and Unit 8 (Neighborhood 9)—Architectural standards language,
as stated in the annexation agreement,needs to be provided at final plat. This is
for single family dwellings, and will be provided by Moser.Mr. Graff stated this
is a planning issue for City Council, and they would expect Anna Kurtzman to
provide a letter, also for Plan Commission, approving elevation, facade materials,
and standards that will be attached to the exhibit.
c) Plats for Units 7 & 8: (1)Two lots are excluded to differentiate between home
owners association and public areas. One lot will be school/park lot and the
second lot will the storm water basin. Moser will include in Unit 7; (2)Mr.
Urban suggested Unit 7 and Units 8 bike paths changes, (10 feet minimum from
residential property lines and no path encroachment upon high water lines)had
been changed on the plat.The engineering/mass grading plan (#5) shows Lot 5N
with the addition of a portion of the bike plan on the lot, as confirmed by Ms.
Kurtzman.
2) Design review—Mike Schoppe
2
a) Unit 5: (1)Mr.Urban will look at spacing in berms,and it will not be eliminated,
as it was designed to assist with non-blockage of drains from the Lynwood
subdivision. There is a flood route through this area,which prevents a berm, if
complaints come from Lynwood. Mosier will look at additional landscaping on
the Lynwood side.Mr. Graff suggested additional screening may be offered on
the Lynwood side if complaints are heard; (2)Mr. Schoppe says Unit 5
(Neighborhood 10) shows a bio-swale path up to the edge (Lot A). Engineering
plans shows a path on the cross section of the bio-swale. Mr. Urban said the path
will be removed on the revised plat.
b) Unit 7 (Neighborhood 16): (1) Storm water management issues allow for
pedestrian trails—there should be a blanket easement over all of lot 5N for
access, as stated by Mr. Schoppe, and stated in EEI's recently revised storm
water management easement language; (2)Mr. Berg commented on the width of
the bike path, which is shown in the park development standard language. Detail
will need to be shown,with 2"of asphalt to 8"of aggregate, and extending the
12"base out and up to the surface; (3)The maintenance plans, which are
mentioned on all unit's comments,will need to be provided to Mr. Schoppe prior
to the final landscaping plans. Most,if not all the areas, as stated by Mr.
Schoppe, are maintained by the home owner's associations. Mr.Urban
suggested MPI has put other maintenance plans together for other development
plans and would submit.
c) Unit 8(Neighborhood 9)—Mr. Whitehouse suggested all water and sewer stubs
must be on plans. Mr.Urban suggested separate permit will be issued by EPA
for sewer and water connection permits.
d) Unit 7, as commented on by Mr. Whitehouse, suggests that Blackberry Oaks
Golf Course is potentially looking at annexation of their clubhouse.Road
crossing would occur with Kennedy Rd. reconstruction,but stubs need to be
headed in that direction,and to right of way lines. Mr.Urban suggested these
plans are being considered by MPI. Mr.Whitehouse will forward any new
sketches for development to MPI.
e) IDS/IDOT comments will be provided to EEI from MPI. The 75' right of way
will not be changed,but ultimately there will be not right turn lanes when the all
5 lanes are completed.
1) CDF comments will be addressed in another meeting. MPI has a meeting on
March 1 with CDF, and Mr. Schoppe and Mr. Whitehouse plan to be in
attendance. Mr. Graff stated CDF is now reporting directly to Mr. Schoppe, for
coincidental issues that may be raised with developers.Mr. Berg asked if CDF
recommendations will be city wide, and this will be determined.
3) EEI review
a) Unit 5—(1)Mr. Urban asked for clarification under#41, water main
constructions,which are in the Illinois standards, according to Mr. Whitehouse;
(2)Mr.Whitehouse stated that the final plat boundary for Unit 5 (Neighborhood
10)does not correspond to the previously platted Unit 2. It should not be
included in both plats; (3)Two dimensional items are not in compliance with the
legal description—two lot width setbacks in unit 7; (4)Mr. Whitehouse stated
that the IDOT certification can be removed; (5)Discussion of Corn-Ed pedestals
was discussed. EEI's recommendation is that 20' easements are on the lot side,
for storm sewers as well as underground public utilities, so as not to cut through
landscaping at the home; (6)Mr. Whitehouse said Olson Court needs to be re-
named; (7) Grand Trail is a minor collector, and there would be no direct
3
vehicular access. These must be off load,not a side load, because driveways
need to be diminished in number, and especially because they are near
intersection; (8)Lots 360-361 should have no access to Edith Street—these are
dedicated rights of way,per Mr.Whitehouse; (9)Mr.Urban asked for guidelines
for manholes under curbs, and Mr.Whitehouse suggested Joe Wywrot, City
engineer,would like to eliminate every other one; (10) Mr. Urban questioned the
collector road 40' curb return on Grand Trail Drive. He suggested MPI stay with
the smaller radius to prevent excess speeds. A further discussion is warranted
with Joe Wywrot; (11)Mr.Urban asked about cost sharing regarding Anne
Marie Lane in Unit 8. Mr.Whitehouse suggested that EEI would be meeting
with Jim Heinz,Bristol Township Hwy. Commissioner. The vertical grade is
fine,but the concern is with pavement width. There is a possibility of its use as
emergency only, and possible Lynwood school site bus traffic, but this is still
under consideration. Mr. Graff suggests the meeting occur before April Planning
Commission. Mr. Urban said the water main ends at dead end at Anne Marie
Lane, and there will be a hydrant on the live side.Mr. Whitehouse will advise on
the feasibility of this remaining a dead end at this time.
b) Unit 7 (Neighborhood 16)—(1) John Whitehouse reiterated the school park site
suggested have 50' setbacks lines; (2)Within the school site in Unit 7, there are
major storm sewers needing to be platted as public utility and drainage easements
stated John Whitehouse; (3)Discussion was held on the relocation of the stone
sewer on the school site plan, in Unit 7, in regards to surface structures and
facility designs, and giving the city the most flexibility. Mr. Graff and Mike
Schoppe suggested meeting with the school district and Kimball Hill, taking the
current concept plans,with the current piping place 4'-6' deep, to determine the
school district's direction.
c) In Unit 8 (Neighborhood 9): (1)There is a section of Grand Trail on two units •
that needs to be removed from the plat, per Mr. Whitehouse; (2)Need wider
easement between#660 -661 overflow channels per John Whitehouse.
4) Police Department/Public Works/Park&Recreation Reviews
a) No additional comments per Sgt.Ron Diedrich,Directors Dhuse and Brown.
Grande Reserve will be scheduled for Plan Commission on April 14. Their deadline for submittal
of 35 Preliminary Plans must be in the Clerk's office by April 6"'. Required are new submittals
for engineering,landscaping and plats(full size), and addressing Mike Schoppe's,Anna
Kurtzlllan's, EEI's and CDF's comments. In addition,the Clerk's office needs four copies of
Exhibit D5, architectural design standards, for all units,to be submitted no later than March 24th.
11:15 AM Westbury Village Annexation and PUD Agreement and Preliminary PUD Plan
1) EEI comments—A determination for completeness of engineering information will be
provided by Deputy Clerk, Liz D'Anna. Jeff Freeman said EEI goal was to have review
comment out by March 4th. John Whitehouse said they need offsite sewer and water
plans for movement to Plan Commission. Mr. Stein said easements drafts will be written
at his office, will be presented to Kramer's office,but a determination needs to be made
on who will hold the escrow. Route 47 easements will be honored,however these are tied
to the annexation agreement because of contractual issues with the buyer.Mt. Graff stated
the bid process will proceed because the City will have easements signed in the
4
annexation agreement through Westbury, or the City has Undesser signatures on the
original annexation agreement. Construction target date is May 1St
2) Annexation Agreement—Anna Kurtzman
a) Mr. Stein stated Westbury is prepared to offer architectural elevations and
language with the final plan(#3)and(8A)landscape plan.
b) Regarding the Exhibits: (1)Mr. Stein will rectify the Undesser continue business
statement in Exhibit G; (2)Mr. Stein will make each reference to Exhibit N
consistent throughout the documentation; (3) Mr. Graff, in reference to Exhibit
L, stated the Park Facilities Plan has been adopted.Mr. Stein will attach the Plan
to their annexation agreement. The Park Facilities Plan is not a part of the
subdivision ordinance. Mr. Graff stated the architectural standards ordinance
have not yet gone to a City committee level, so will not not be approved by date
of Westbury's annexation approval. Mr. Graff stated the impact of the water
connection fee has increased to $2650, and sewer connection fee is under yet
under discussion. Rob Roy Creek fees will need to be agreed upon by all
developers, and Mr. Graff stated it may be presented as an infrastructure fee; (4)
New subdivision engineering standards are going to be provided to Kevin
Serafm.
c) Regarding the Annexation Agreement: (1) Cleanup needed on page 5 to delete
concept plan,because the preliminary plan has been approved, per Anna
Kurtzman; (2) On page 17, Mr. Schoppe stated Westbury's annexation
agreement at 2 (a)ii is consistent with the plan. However,the city requested 30'
setbacks for the roads,and Mr. Stein suggested the reason Westbury wants 20'
setbacks in Pods 1,2 and 6 would be for 3-car garages. Mr. Graff said City
Council is promoting the 3 car garage market to deter additional vehicles parking
in the street. Mr. Graff would like Westbury to identify the lots. Mr. Graff said
City Council,in other subdivisions,has agreed to reduce side yards for a 3-stall
garage. Westbury may want to look at a trade off for a side lot variance issue,
leaving corner lots as they are. Mr. Graff suggested looking at Wiseman-Hughes
language, which has been approved; (3)Regarding page 28, Section D, Mr. Stein
and Mr. Graff are in agreement that developer will be able to use their portion of
sales rebate or incentive on Westbury property until the properties are
fully leased. If there is an area wide improvement, then the proportional share
would benefit Westbury,especially singlization and the Rob Rob Creek bridge;
(4) Westbury is adding a trail along the Corneils buffer in lieu of a sidewalk;
(5) Regarding the commercial site, Ms.Kurtzman asked that when the final plat
site is submitted,that the architectural standards would also be submitted. Mr.
Stein expects an entry into the commercial property area off Rt. 47 and south
off Galena and language needs to be added that the City would be supportive of
an IDOT request. Mr. Schoppe believes City should not commit to an additional
secondary service access,without review of the site plan for the school.
3) Design review—Mike Schoppe
a) (1)Regarding item#3,Mr. Schoppe is requesting adequate footage from
Westbury for the school site, in preparation for a site plan, and the City will
request this from the Yorkville school district; (2)Mr. Stein agrees to comply
with item#4; (3)Mr. Stein will look#5 over and comment; (4)Mr. Stein has
no comment on item#6; (4) Regarding item#9, Mr. Stein commented that
5
Westbury does not want to extend the bike path through the commercial
property. Mr. Schoppe suggested the bike path go through the 30' buffer, and his
concern is that there be frontage access along Galena. Mr. Whitehouse suggested
there would be an additional 20' right of way that the county would require.
b) Preliminary Engineering—(1) The City will provide information to Mr. Stein
after they have met with the IDNR; (2) Regarding#5,Mr. Stein stated these are
public streets, and Westbury did not want to provide parkways for carriage walks
along POD 7.
c) The City staff will bring additional comments to a staff meeting, followed by a
meeting with Dan Kramer's office, then forward comments to Mr. Stein.
Engineering will have comments to Liz D' Anna by March 4th, and engineering
will be reviewed again on March 11th.
4) Annexation Agreement—Laura Brown
a) Ms.Brown questioned the language on page 20,A(ii)in that if the school site is
not developed, does it revert back to the developer. She suggests the City needs
language stating that the City needs road front frontage for the park land. In the
Westbury north section it is all one POD and the parks site is not stipulated in that
Unit. In the reverter clause, language should be added stating what property
would be returned to the school district and what would remain park. The City
would want frontage on one road only,that being more accessible to the regional
trail (which is connected) and Ms. Brown is considering the northeast section of
the lot. City is asking for a school/park site and a conceptual design if it is a
park site only. Mr.Whitehouse suggested that the lot be subdivided before the
reverter clause would kick in. Dan Kramer needs to address this.
b) In answer to Ms.Brown's question regarding which trails are private and which
are public,Mr. Seraphin stated that 3.2 acres is the measurement for the regional
trail running from the southwest corner to the northeast, and is not inclusive of
any private trails. Mike Schoppe suggests to Westbury that the plan show •
differentiation of public and private trails.
5) Galena Rd—EEI clarification
a) John Whitehouse was assured distinction was being made as to the dedication of
the right of way for this particular plan by Mr. Seraphin.
6) Open Space issues will be clarified between the land planners. Westbury will be on the
agenda at the next 2 Plan Council meetings on March 11th and March 25`'', and is
scheduled for the Plan Commission on April 14"'. The March 25"'meeting will be for
finalization of the annexation language. All resubmittals for the April Plan Commission
must be in the Clerk's office by March 24`''.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette Williams
BY'THE 1
CQMAIAPPROVEDTTEEIBOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE (N �`
:
Plan Council Meeting
Thursday,March 11, 2004
9:30 A.M.
Attendees:
City Administrator Tony Graff Mike Schoppe—Schoppe Design
Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman Sergeant Ron Diedrich
Ex. Director Parks &Recreation, Laura Brown Fire Chief Tim Fairfield
Jeff Freeman, EEI John Whitehouse, EEI
City Engineer,Joe Wywrot
Guests:
Kevin Serafin Mitch LaFave Attorney Sanford Stein
Tedd Lundquist Brent Lewis Tom Smith
Frank Willman Richard Scheffrahn Kevin Bickner
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 A.M,with Mr. Serafin,LaFave, Stein, Lundquist and
Lewis in attendance for Westbury.
Minutes:
The February 26th minutes were approved after spelling revisions.
Westbury Village Preliminary PUD Plan
John Whitehouse stated that EEI was planning to meet with Jim Heinz before the April Planning
Commission.
1) Engineering review
a) Comment#2—CDF,per John Whitehouse and Mike Schoppe, have done their
review and stated that CDF is looking for NRCS certified wetland determination
report. EEI is also requesting a US Army Corp of Jurisdictional determination
report. Westbury will comply.
b) Comment#3a) —Mr. Seraphin suggested that the IDNR would not sign off before
they have submitted final engineering plans, showing final grading. John
Whitehouse agreed if the signoffs are completed"subject to" final engineering
plans. 3b)John Whitehouse will need comments from YBSD stating that they will
have the capacity and services in place to service this subdivision. Mr. Graff
suggested that City's legal counsel is preparing a draft, which will be given to Mr.
Stein,regarding the YBSD capacity to serve subdivisions, and language may be
included that would make it a developer,not city risk. Incorporated will be a
bonding apparatus necessitating a commitment for capacity. Currently, the
treatment capacity is used up,based on the IEPA first come/first serve basis for a
two year time period. Bonding companies will not sign off on reserve capacity per
developer. Mr. Graff stated the City needs assurances that the plant will have the
capacity to service the pump, and language is needed to service the bond. The
developer is asking for a commitment that capacity is assured for the length of all
the building permit applications. The city will reserve to ability to lien, and
Westbury, as well as other developers, would attach as an exhibit. The city hopes
to begin engineering on the FPA expansion in May, subject to signed money
commitment from the developers.
2
c) Comment f: John Whitehouse suggested they have received information, dated
9/19/03, and that Westbury should be aware that any improvements to Galena Rd.
are subject to the County wishes.
d) Westbury needs to submit plans to Deuchler and comments will be needed for
preliminary plan review for City Council. There are 43 acres in the plan that have
not been annexed.
e) Item#7—Mr. Whitehouse suggested that he had received correspondence in
October of 2003,that DOT requested three intersection design studies.If IDOT
requires, the changes will be funded via the developer's recapture fees,per
language stated in the city ordinance. The city will need a traffic impact study to
comply with the preliminary PUD (item#6).
f) Item#8—John Whitehouse needs a final updated letter,referring to the latest plan.
g) Item#9— was addressed at the last Plan Council meeting. •
h) Item#10—A meeting with IDOT will be needed,based on the SRA proposal for
additional 55 feet on the Westbury side, in addition to the ROW there now.
Westbury will need to meet with IDOT, after their updated traffic study, coming to
a concurrence on the intersection proposed by DOT, and the impact on the
developer. Per Mr. Graff the city is concurring with no intersection between
Comeils and Galena,but,in general, DOT is dissatisfied with the SRA design
perimeters. The Rt.47 buffer is now 50',and there is an additional 10' ROW
shown on the plan,per Mr. Seraphin. Because it is an SRA,per John Whitehouse,
the city does not want to relax the buffer requirement. Mr. Graff stated that IDOT
is requesting larger buffer, if indeed,Rt.47 widening is completed,as requested.
No additional property is being dedicated to DOT on the plan per Mr. Lundquist
and Mr. Lewis.
i) The city is looking for legal language, if there is signalization on Comeils,that the
developer pay their share. Based on the traffic impact study,this could be
determined as a per unit fee or could begin at a number of homes trigger point.
j) Item#12—John Whitehouse needs road classification,ADT being 1500 as a minor
collector and 2500 being classified as a major collector,in particular Westbury
Boulevard. Mr. Graff stated the new subdivision ordinance is being drafted, and
that Mr. Stein could yet comment.
k) Items# 16,17,18,19—The Easton Circle/Abingdon Lane intersection offset is less
than 150 feet per the plan. Mr. Lindquist proposes bringing the road out straighter,
realigning the 150 foot requirement. Mr.Dhuse, Public Works Director, suggested
in a prior conversation with Mr. Schoppe,that his truck can remove snow with a
24 feet cul-de-sac width,but needs 30 feet on a public street.There are also police
issues with cars parked in the middle of the cul-de-sac bulbs. Mr. LaFave
suggested increasing the width to 30 feet,with an island. Mr. Whitehouse stated
eyebrow lanes need to be aligned and centered on the final plan, off Westbury
Boulevard. Mr. Schoppe is preparing a school site plan. Dr. Engler at the
Yorkville Public School district,would like the originally proposed frontage on
Willington, for an additional vehicular drive.
1) Item#22 - John Whitehouse is suggested signage,pavement markings, or posting
"Not a Through Street" (something that would deter traffic using this as a
shortcut. Westbury will add language,putting it on the preliminary engineering
exhibit. Mr. Fairfield would like to see street widths on the plan, in POD 5, and
see some building designs in these buildings,perhaps 13R systems(instead of
13D). Mr.Fairfield and Building and Safety will need to bring forward language
for the agreement, addressing more fire safety to the citizens in the high density
housing areas. Westbury will need to provide language for co-enforcement with
3
the police department in the annexation agreement. Mr Schoppe suggested no
private streets in HOA areas, so confusion regarding street maintenance is not an
issue
in) Item#21 —PODS 5 and 8,Mr. Whitehouse stated the right of way needs to be 66
feet. Westbury is suggesting 20 foot setbacks on the 60 foot right of ways on their
public street,making difficulties for public utilities. Mr.Whitehouse stated all
public streets have 30 foot setbacks, so the determination should be made if
Westbury's streets will be private,not subject to city maintenance.Mr. Schoppe
suggests a response from Westbury, looking at a 66 foot right of way, a 25 foot
setback, 30 foot back to back pavement, and what concerns these pose for
Westbury. Mr. Graff suggested to Westbury that the land planners look at
privatization of streets or cross sections with 28 foot minimum setbacks, 30 foot
back to back setbacks, and adding modified and increased design standards for fire
protection.
n) Item#24—Mr. Graff suggested that the city's position on the restructuring of
Corneils Rd. is that the developer would pay 70-71% (or a fee established by
engineer's formula)of the improvement of the road,with road impact fees or
recovery costs on permits. John Whitehouse stated, according to the city
ordinance, Corneils Rd.need 39 feet setbacks back to back, that it needs a full
cross section of a minor collector road, and requires prescriptive use of the right of
way. The $2000 per unit impact fee,which can be credited toward adjacent roads
(if the county is requiring it) improves the roads within the regional benefit.
o) Item#28—Westbury is requesting a variance on Lot#65,POD 6 to a 20 foot side
variance,rather than 30 foot, as stated in the subdivision ordinance. If all corner
•
lots stay at 30 foot variance,then every corner lot is a problem on the plan,per
John Whitehouse. Mr. Graff suggests if they are applying for 20 foot setback on
the corner lots with three car garages,that each lot should be marked with an
asterisk and noted on the plat.
p) Mr. LaFave stated the 16"water main will run through Windsor Ave, stubbing at
both north and northwest directions (ends of Westbury property), going through
the commercial property. Mr. Whitehouse stated initially Westbury needs to go to
Rt. 47 water main and Mr. Seraphim said the first feed will be between town home
PODs and single family PODs,the first to develop. All easements need to be in
escrow before Planning Commission per Tony Graff. Westbury will add another
main along Galena. Westbury will need to speak with Attorney Ingemunson
regarding the Raymond drainage, and speak to Shorty Dixon or Ray Bertram in
regards to Rob Roy Creek. Meeting are ongoing in regards to storm sewers and
the regional outfall.
Westbury will need to resubmit pre-engineering,preliminary plans and PUD, and preliminary
landscaping by March 24nd. Deadlines for submittal of 35 revised preliminary plans will be April
6th. The city consultants will need to have their comments to the clerk's office by April 7th.
Westbury will be scheduled for the next Plan Council on March 25th' and Plan Commission on
April l4t''. . Tentatively they are scheduled for EDC on April 15, COW April 20th, and City
Council annexation agreement and preliminary plat approval, (upon positive consultant
recommendations)on April 27th Anna Kurtzman,Building and Safety, Sandy Stein and
Attorney Kramer will meet on April 15th or 16th.
In regards to the BKFD fee, one-half the fee is to be paid at the time of the final plat. Mr. Graff
suggested that Westbury add language that the fee will by paid by October 1st, if the final plat has
been approval by City Council or if final plat has been approved by Planning Commission.
4
Westbury will need to with Mike Schoppe in regards to Open Space issues. Mr. Graff stated that
Westbury should provide the PUD plan and engineering exhibits for annexation agreements,
incorporating language that would be agreeable to all parties, insuring everything will be
constructed.
Westbury guests LaFave, Stein, and Serafin left at 11:30 A.M.
2) Block 4 of Black's Addition(Bicksler—Schwartz—Wissmiller PUD/Morgan Street
Elevator)—Final Site Plan Approval
a) City Engineer,Joe Wywrot suggested there were setback issues. The NOI has been
submitted to the EPA, ,and Joe will need a railroad crossing agreement and for the
Fey water main agreement.
b) Mr. Schoppe stated item#2 is not applicable. Per Anna Kurtzman's comment,
Adams Street will be the front yard and Morgan will be the rear yard,based on the
ordinances. The rear yard in this zoning district is 40 feet. On the plan, it shows
25 feet. The frontage that has the narrowest width will be the front. If the lots are
subdivided, per Tony Graff's conversations with Attorney Kelly Kramer, if the lot
is subdivided,the plan will need to go to the Planning Commission for approval
before the City Council would approve. John Whitehouse suggested that
Hydraulic might become the front and then Van Emmon would be the rear. An
amendment for setbacks to the PUD was suggested,with language stating the
building would be 100%brick. Mr. Willman's concern was with the immediate
need to proceed with the utility work, and that the permits had been applied for,
and that he wanted to be sure stubs were in the correct spots. Joe Wywrot will call
Joe Bison, asking that his agency approve the water main license.
Three sets of architectural plans must be submitted and sidewalks must be shown on the final plan
and the 5 foot pavement radius must be larger. The trash enclosure, stated Mr. Willman,will be
brick, and Mr. Schoppe would like a cross section on the plan.Trees to remain need to be noted
on the plan and a line will need to be added for the barrier fence. Mr. Schoppe asked the trees
shown on the front sidewalk(on the plan)be removed and add any additional plants to the plan.
Mr. Graff stated that if Mr.Willman chooses to ask for a PUD amendment,he will be asked to
pay the school/city transition fee. This amendment would be scheduled for an April 13th public
hearing and City Council approval on the 27th.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette Williams
t .. 1
D rit
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
Plan Council
March 25, 2004—9:30 AM
Attendees:
City Administrator Tony Graff Mike Schoppe—Schoppe Design
Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman Sergeant Ron Diedrich
Ex. Director Parks&Recreation,Laura Brown Fire Chief Tim Fairfield
Jeff Freeman, EEI John Whitehouse, EEI
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Guests:
Mike Mondus Ken Jernberg Gary Weber
Mitch LaFave Kevin Seraphin Tedd Lundquist
Brent Lewis Attorney Stein
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 AM, with Mr. Mondus, Jernberg, and Mr. Weber in
attendance for Bailey Meadows. The March 11, 2004 minutes were approved with no
corrections.
Bailey Meadows (fka Runge Property)—Preliminary Plan
1) Engineering
a) Items 6, 8, and 10—John Whitehouse stated the survey shows a gap between the
southerly property and the north line of the ComEd right of way. There is a gap
on the west side and an overlap on the east side.This must be resolved in the title
insurance or ownership agreement, and could,potentially, cause problems for the
City with easements. The Capra Street radii does not meet the minimum standard
of 150 feet in the multi-family areas, however because of low impact traffic, John
Whitehouse suggested Mike Schoppe may have revisions in parking in these
areas. The city ordinance requires that the roads adjoining a subdivision be built
in regards to traffic counts on the road, in this instance a 39' back to back in
accordance to intergovernmental agreement with Sugar Grove. Mr. Graff stated
that the City is requesting $2000 per unit road impact fee, applied to regional road
issues, which would be $680,000. The city will also be looking to add a south
lane to the south, and if this goes above the $2000 fee,it will be applied to the
sales tax incentive program. Timing is an issue, to be worked out in the
annexation agreement. Additional recapture should come from annexation of
additional properties to the west, directly relating to the bridge widening and
intersections of Hwy 47,per Mr. Whitehouse. The engineering department will
be putting a folinula together for the annexation agreement
b) Item#15 —John Whitehouse requested additional information from Mr. Mondus
in regards to the widening. This will not need to be an exhibit for Plan
Commission.
c) Item#25 —Mr. Whitehouse is needing a revision on the slope on the 10 inch
sanitary sewer to give additional depth on the south line of the property on Potter
2
Street. EEI and Deuchler will be working on additional designs along Rob Roy
Creek,making certain all areas are adequately served.
d) Item#26—Mr. Graff pointed out the City has park development standards and
will provide to the developer, in regards to the detention standards.
e) Item#27 -There are now only two entrances to Base Line Road, and Mr.
Whitehouse needs traffic impact study revision counts.
f) Item#28—Mr. Whitehouse stated that they need additional exhibits providing
counts to see if these streets may be a minor collectors. A 30 foot back to back
standard with a stronger pavement section may need to be considered. He
suggested a traffic count from the southernly section of the subdivision to the
eastern access of the commercial be submitted to Mike Schoppe and engineering.
Access easement should be lined up across from Capra Street,per Mr.
Whitehouse, since no site plan is available, making it more to the southern end of
the commercial site.
g) Item#32 -Mr. Graff stated that the City will be putting together Rob Roy Creek
floodplain standards to be presented to the City Council, taking into account creek
advancements. These drafts will be presented to the developers, and hopefully a
universal site plan/corridor protection would be applied in the annexation
agreement. At this point,the ordinances will be followed for Plan Council
purposes. Mr. Graff stated that placement, marketing, and conceptual signage
issues along the commercial corridor will be discussed,and stated that 1DNR has
been asked to give their input on this topic. The language will be included in
annexation agreements. Also under consideration is a path west of the
commercial area, and a bike trail out of the floodplain.
h) Mike Mondus stated the developer's direction, in not depicting the lots,was that
they may intend these to be condos. If proposal is to leave as one lot,per Mike
Schoppe,then this will be identified as a variance on the plat or,put in the lots— 1
building per 1 lot standard. If creating a lot around the envelope is the direction
the developer would go, it may present a set back standard problem in a sale in the
future,per Mr. Schoppe. Ms.Kurtzman and Mr. Schoppe agreed that dimension
between buildings in the multi-family area be designated, and Mr. Whitehouse
stated that the storm water management basin areas be separated into individual
lots that are numbered,removing the out lot language.
i) The developer will comply with side yard easements, and show these at final plat.
j) Item#5—Mike Mondus will state that"all lots will comply with the bulk
requirements of zoning ordinances"unless a variance is stated on the plat.
k) Mike Schoppe is requested additional data on the wetland corridor extending west
from the creek before CDF concurs with end caps findings. Mike Schoppe will
fax all pertinent correspondence to Ken Jernberg.
1) Developer will provide ADT reports (after looking at City Transportation Plan)to
show any additional major intersection with Rt. 47 in the middle of the property,
with the exception of any commercial traffic coming from the south.
m) Mr. Wywrot pointed out that homeowner's detention basin standards must be
adhered to, in particular embankment and safety slopes, and storm water outfalls
and edge treatments.
2) Schoppe Design—Preliminary Plan
a) Item#2 c)Mr. Schoppe stated that all trees, 6"or taller, in existence will be noted
On the plan, even if they are scrub trees, in answer to Mr. Weber's question.
3
b) Item#6) Mr. Schoppe states a note be added, not changing the graphic,that the
R-3 portion of the development complies with parking requirements in the zoning
ordinance.
c) Item#7—Mr. Schoppe states that the bike trail should be shown on the
engineering plan or the preliminary plat.
d) Item# 1 —Preliminary Landscape Plan—Mr. Weber will show graphics on the
buffer between the multi-family and single-family on the plan.
e) Mr. Mondus will use the land plan, with the preliminary land plan name removed,
and add as a third page to the preliminary plat.
f) Anna Kurtzman stated there are no additional updates for the annexation
agreement.
g) Mr. Schoppe would like to encourage additional visitor parking in the cul-de-sac.
This would be accomplished by moving South Capra down to the south end of the
property, aligning with the south end, (for additional road frontage), then regain
additional volume in out lot E or C. Mr. Whitehouse,because this is a double dead
end street, does not foresee a problem with the 100' radius. This parking would be
perpendicular on-street parking. If this street is over 1000 SDT, 30 foot back to
back, then Mr. Whitehouse stated there would probably be no on-street parking
on the curve. Three buildings on the west side are farther apart than need be,
stated Mr. Schoppe, and could come together providing a driveway accessing the
campground, and provide additional space between buildings for parking spaces.
Mr.Whitehouse stated that compensatory storage requirement may be reduced in
the Rob Roy Creek Corridor,which could push out lot E to the east.
h) Concerns were discussed regarding moving access 30 foot on buildings 22 and 23
north. Traffic could be discouraged by routing it through the parking lot. Mr.
Whitehouse stated if used just for access from the development to the commercial,
it needs to be better aligned with one of the existing intersections, as a public road
east of the town home area. It would serve as a convenience to the home owners
of the development, in accessing the commercial area from the rear(not off
Rt. 47).
Additional concerns:
1) Ron Diedrich stated the police have no concerns with the plan at this time.
2) Tim Fairfield stated that, eg.building#24 only allows access to one side of the building.
New standards are being discussed,including building fire suppression standards. The
will be determined within 2-3 weeks, and will be given to the developer.
3) Reb-summitals must done by March 30, and staff comments will by due April 7th. Re-
submittals will be on the preliminary plat,preliminary engineering and preliminary
landscaping. Plan council members are in agreement that this be moved forward to the
Plan Commission. If the developers choose an alternative, a narrative with a preliminary
plat revision only, without full engineering, Mr. Graff will rely on staff review, as to
whether or not it would go to April Plan Commission. Otherwise,the developer will be
scheduled at the April 22"d Plan Council and then moved to the Plan Commission.
4) Staff is recommending the engineering subdivision standard variances (not zoning
variance) on the multi-family units, showing frontage on the public right of way. Unit
access would be via private ingress/egress easement down the lot line. Preliminary plat
and engineering will hopefully be approved by June.
5) Developer will be advised by April 7th whether they will move to the April Plan Council
or April Plan Commission.
4
Westbury Village Preliminary PUD Plan—beginning at 11:40 AM
1) School/park site plan—The developer has moved four lots in the SE section school site
plan. Mr. Schoppe commented that the north south dimension of the site has been
reduced, and he will be putting together a new school/park plan,using criteria from the
school district and park development standards,to be reviewed by the school district and
staff. The school park site is larger than the originally proposed area 20 acres. Westbury
will need to attach the new concept plan and the school district's sign off letter as an
exhibit to the agreement.
2) Setback/street issues in multi-family areas -The developer, in multifamily area,was
asked if they are privatizing streets or keeping them public. In question are PODs 3, 5
and 8. With a tight radius,John Whitehouse stated these locations will need blanket
ROW easements. Mr.Whitehouse stated as long as no utility pipeline was within 15' of
a building, engineering is okay with standard setback. Joe Wywrot stated a concern with
on street parking in PODs 5 and 8 and the minimal two parking spaces in a driveway,
with only a 20' setback. Mr. Graff suggested the developer may want to consider
offering the Plan Commission a minimal percentage of town homes(with a 20' setback).
Mr. Schoppe's opinion,with the police and fire department input, is that, functionally,
24' streets work. Needed will be additional parking spaces in the open areas. He also
stated his opinion,if the walkways need to be clear in the driveway,then he favors a 25'
setback from street to garage door. At issue is the functionality of multi-family PODs
with these design standards. Mr. Schoppe commented that the 30' setback from
Westbury Blvd. to the buildings is not shown on the plan, and that he had suggested they
eliminate the median. Plan Council is recommending 28' back to back, 4' sidewalks, 8'
parkways, and 25' setbacks(starting at the back of the walk to the building), if the street
is private. Plan Council suggested the developer explore these dimensions,which would
reduce the rear setback to 25' if it abuts to an open space.Twenty foot would affect
utility placements,per Mr. Schoppe.
3) Mr. Graff stated that the developer needed a compliance letter in regards to the
transitional classification for the land use plan. Mr. Schoppe would write a letter of
compliance. If it is not 18.14 storm water calculation, then storm water credit and density
tradeoff changes. Mr. LaFave said eighteen months ago the developer was given
direction for the single family area only,not inclusive of the commercial area. Engineers
must verify how developer arrives at the percentage. Mr.Whitehouse stated the question
is, in a situation where the developer is filling flood plain and providing filling
compensatory storage, if the storage is not taking additional space from land area.
Engineering will apply strict standard to compensatory advisory guide lines,which
Schoppe uses. In conflict with engineering, Mr. Schoppe's designs do not look at the land
plan in the strictest form. Mr. Graff stated the engineering would override land plan
issues. Mr.Whitehouse stated they are using part of the net open space because they are
filling in flood plain and using as compensatory storage. If they provide more open
space,they cannot be allowed more density,because they are at the density limit, for the
open space they are providing,per Mr. Schoppe. Does compensatory storage need to be
include in the storm water area calculation, is question per Mr.Whitehouse. There is
density cap per POD, which is 8 units per acre and no more than 25 % can be in town
homes,per Mr. Schoppe. The cap is 890, under the assumption that 18.14 is their volume
for storm water, and if it changes,then the formula changes. Volume changes via comp
storage. Definition of storm water management is something that the attorneys need to
address. If comp storage is considered storm water management, then the 18.14 number
is no longer valid per John Whitehouse. Needed is consistency in the interpretation and
Mr. Graff stated that, in the end, final engineering must work and make the plan
functional. The City will work on interpretation issues with Mr. Schoppe, assuming that
5
890 is the max density. Per Mr. Graff, if there is legal protection to provide for final plat
review(a trigger for the PUD,possibly final engineering)then he suggests it goes to Plan
Commission.
4) Tim Fairfield from the YBSD stated his department is working on new standards for
multi-family units, for greater internal protection.
5) Mr. Graff stated the developer will be advised on April 7th whether or not they are going
to be on the Plan Commission agenda.
Based on compensatory storage interpretation by Mr. Schoppe, and the comments regarding this
issue, this is tentatively on the agenda for Plan Commission on April 14, with re-submittals of the
preliminary PUD, exhibit C, and a statement of engineering to the City by March 30th'
Comments will be prepared by staff by April 7t''.
Meeting completed at 1:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette Williams
04/07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. x]002/007
C )--C\
- ., , z
52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554
a;^•a" k w TEL: 630 / 466-9350
FAX: 630 1466-9380
•
.=.P11N.}v.. �rn1
.•ti.yr� www.eeiweb.com
;i �•J' V C F
nXC L LE NC h)
w ..
•
April 7, 2004
Mr. Joseph A.Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Final Plat, Grande Reserve, Unit 5, (Neighborhood 10) United City of Yorkville,
Kendall County, Illinois.
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the revised Final Plat for the referenced Unit 5, prepared by Midwest
Technical Consultants, Inc. containing 2 sheets with latest revision date of March 17, 2004.
We offer the following comments:
Our review of these plans is to generally determine the plan's compliance with City of Yorkville
ordinances and whether the improvements will conform to existing City systems and
equipment. This review and our comments do not relieve the designer from his duties to
conform to all required codes, regulations, and acceptable standards of engineering practice.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.'s review is not intended as an in-depth quality assurance review.
We cannot and do not assume responsibility for design errors or omissions in the plans.
1. All comments from our previous letter have been satisfactorily addressed.
2. One additional note should be added to the plat stating, "Lots 360 and 361 shall have
no direct vehicular access to Edythe Street".
We recommend acceptance of the referenced Final Plat subject to the above comment.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, or require any additional
information, please contact our office.
G:\PUBLIC1Yorkville\2002\Y00215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doc\Iwywrot23GRUNIT5Plat.doc
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
04/07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?003/007
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
1 �.
John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
' Senior Project Manager
pc: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
JWF, EEI
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville120D2\Y00215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doc\Ivrywrol23GRUNIT5Plat.doc
APr • 7 . 2004 11 : 33AM No • 4450 P . 5/10
Schopp
e De.S .�.ssoclate.S vt 0 �c C , 1 --- c- Cr
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W.Downer Place Ph. (630) 896-2501
Aurora,IL 80506 Fax(630) 896-3228
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Grand Reserve—Unit 5 (Neighborhood 10)
We have reviewed the Final Plat dated 3/17/04 prepared by Midwest Technical Consultants,
Engineering Improvement Plans dated 3/24/04 prepared by Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd.,
and the Final Landscape Plan dated March 19, 2004 prepared by Rolf C. Campbell and
Associates, and provide the following comments:
Final Plat
1. The layout of the streets and lots is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, Exhibit
"C", of the annexation agreement.
2. The design standards for lot size, lot width and setbacks as outlined in Exhibit "El"
have been met.
3. The average lot size for the residential lots it 11,772 s.f. which exceeds the required
average lot size of 11,500 s.f.
4. All Final Plat issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
Engineering Improvement Plans
1. All previous comments on the Engineering Improvement Plans have been satisfactorily
addressed.
PageIa2
Apr . 7. 2004 11 • 34AM No 4450 P. 6/10
Final Landscape Plan
1. All previous comments on the Final Landscape Plan have been satisfactorily addressed.
Significant progress has been made in addressing our previous comments. Therefore,we
recommend approval of the Final Plat for Unit 5.
If you have any questions, please call.
CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
John Whitehouse, EEI
Tom Price, CDF
Tim Winter, MPI
P,g,2o12
'''r\' (
Pc
` r :C
United City of Yorkville
County Seat of Kendall County
EST.eirii ��1836 800 Game Farm Road
r ���
� i��� � fA Yorkville, Illinois 60560
o i Q Phone:6'30-553-4350
1,f K�: v Fax:630-553-7575
L/4`E \‘'
April 6, 2004
TO: Tony Graff
FROM: Anna B. Kurtzman, AICPi/C
SUBJECT: Grande Reserve Final Subdivision Plat and Final Engineering
Unit 5
I have reviewed the documents listed above for compliance with the annexation agreement and
have deter wined that the plat is consistent with the teinis of the annexation agreement
/abk
c: J. Wywrot
M. Schoppe
Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\Anna\My Documents\Grande Reserve\Unit 5\4-14-04Plan Commission.doc
• 04!07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, 2004/007
S ',,. —'- C 52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554
^ : ` • TEL: 630 / 466-9350
on*%. FAX: 630 / 466-9380
•
www.eeiweb.com
ti Y i_,-'.R G S-
FX C 11.7?.LF N i
April 7, 2004
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Final Plat, Grande Reserve, Unit 7, (Neighborhood 16) United City of Yorkville,
Kendall County, Illinois.
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the revised Final Plat for the referenced Unit 7, prepared by Midwest
Technical Consultants, Inc. containing 4 sheets with latest revision date of March 22, 2004.
We offer the following comments:
• Our review of these plans is to generally determine the plan's compliance with City of Yorkville
ordinances and whether the improvements will conform to existing City systems and
equipment. This review and our comments do not relieve the designer from his duties to
conform to all required codes, regulations, and acceptable standards of engineering practice.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.'s review is not intended as an in-depth quality assurance review.
We cannot and do not assume responsibility for design errors or omissions in the plans.
1. All comments from our previous letter have been satisfactorily addressed.
We recommend acceptance of the referenced Final Plat as presented.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, or require any additional
information, please contact our office.
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville\2002\YO0215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doe\Iwywrot24GRUNIT7PIat tloG
Consulting Engineers Specializing In Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
04/07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. 2005/007
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
4 j---:al
John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
pc: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
JWF, EEI
G:\1 UBLIC\Yorkville120021Y00215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doc\Iwywrot24GRUNIT7Plat.doc
Apr . 7 . 2004 H : 34AM No 4450 P 7/10
ft (C' (
Schoppe Design Associates
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W.Downer Place Ph. (630) 896-2501
Aurora,IL 60506 Fax(630) 896-3228
April 7,2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Grand Reserve—Unit 7 (Neighborhood 16)
We have reviewed the Final Plat dated 3/22/04 prepared by Midwest Technical Consultants,
Engineering Improvement Plans dated 3/24/04 prepared by Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd.,
and the Final Landscape Plan dated March 19,2004 prepared by Rolf C. Campbell and
Associates, and provide the following comments:
Final Plat
1. The layout of the streets and lots is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, Exhibit
"C", of the annexation agreement.
2. The design standards for lot size, lot width and setbacks as outlined in Exhibit "El"
have been met.
3. The average lot size for the residential lots it 12,697 s.f. which exceeds the required
average lot size of 12,650 s.f.
4. The building setback line on lot 3011 (School/Park site) should be changed from 50'
to 30'.
5. All other previous comments on the Final Plat have been satisfactorily addressed.
En:;ineexing Improvement Plans
1. Inlet 16-101 and the Regional Bike Trail on the School/Park site are shown in locations
that will conflict with other park activities such as baseball fields and soccer fields. Our
office is currently preparing the construction documents and grading plans for the
development of Park D. We will be determining locations for catch basins and the bike
,pogo 1 a 2
• APr • 7 . 2004 11 : 34AM No 4450 P 8/10
trail, along with the grading as part of the park design. Therefore, the final location on
storm sewers and inlets will not be determined until the park plans are completed, and
therefore the storm sewer and bike path improvements should not be constructed until
the park design is complete.
2. The layout of the bike trial east of lot 535 needs to be revised to provide a minimum
radius of 100' per the City's park standards.
3. All other previous comments on the Engineering Improvement Plans have been
satisfactorily addressed.
Final Landscape Plan
1. Additional information for the monument sign such as height, materials, setbacks and
elevation view need to be provided.
2. All other previous comments on the Final Landscape Plan have been satisfactorily
addressed.
Significant progress has been made in addressing our previous comments. Therefore, we
recommend approval of the Final Plat for Unit 7, subject to resolving these remaining issues.
If you have any questions,please call.
CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
John Whitehouse, EEI
Tom Price, CDF
Tim Winter, MPI
Pngc 2 v12
United City of Yorkville
EST. 011 783e County Seat of Kendall County
800 Game Farm Road
�~- U) Yorkville, Illinois 60560
P L � [� p' Phone:630-553-4350
Fax:630-553-7575
April 6, 2004
TO: Tony Graff
FROM: Anna B. Kurtzman, AICP
SUBJECT: Grande Reserve Final Subdivision Plat and Final Engineering
Unit 7
I have reviewed the documents listed above for compliance with the annexation agreement and
note the following: the combined school and park site consists of 19.24 acres. Exhibit D3
indicates that the park site is to consist of 9.88 acres. Exhibit H1 indicates that the school site is
to consist of 12 acres. Between these two exhibits, the combined school/park site should consist
of 21.88 acres. Thus the school/park site is short 2.64 acres.
/abk
c: J. Wywrot
M. Schoppe
L. Brown
Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\Anna\My Documents\Grande Reserve\Unit 7\4-14-04Plan Coinmission.doc
04/07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, Z006/007
c e„,
•
N ""- - < 62 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, II. 60554
,./A:
•:4?-,`,,9 A TEL; 830 / 466-9350
'.�y,, • r, FAX: 630 / 466-9380
I rr:a,-p..1°:.c,a?, www.eeiweb.com
3' cti.RS r); r
�
(Q, EXCrELIE! C
�`'�v.e..1`1'STEL"(^^'...G'�°.1)razzwza-ss,R,b)
April 7, 2004
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Final Plat, Grande Reserve, Unit 8, (Neighborhood 9) United City of Yorkville,
Kendall County, Illinois.
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the revised Final Plat for the referenced Unit 8, prepared by Midwest
Technical Consultants, Inc. containing 4 sheets with latest revision date of March 17, 2004.
We offer the following comments:
Our review of these plans is to generally determine the plan's compliance with City of Yorkville
ordinances and whether the improvements will conform to existing City systems and
equipment. This review and our comments do not relieve the designer from his duties to
conform to all required codes, regulations, and acceptable standards of engineering practice.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.'s review is not intended as an in-depth quality assurance review.
We cannot and do not assume responsibility for design errors or omissions in the plans.
1. All comments from our previous letter have been satisfactorily addressed.
We recommend acceptance of the referenced Final Plat as presented.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, or require any additional
•
information, please contact our office.
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville\20021Y00215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doc\Iwywrot25GRUNITBPIat.doc
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
• 04/07/2004 WED 12:09 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?007/007
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
1114
John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
pc: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
JWF, EEI
G:\PUBLIC1Yorkville\20021YO0215 Grande Reserve(MPI)\doc\Iwywrot25GRUNIT8Plat.doc
Apr . 7 . 2004 11 : 34AM No 4450 P 9/10
AG
Sciwppe V e pt associates
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W. Downer Place Ph. (630) 896-2501
Aurora, IL 60506 Fax (630) 896-3228
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates,Inc.
Re: Grand Reserve—Unit 8 (Neighborhood 9)
We have reviewed the Final Plat dated 3/17/04 prepared by Midwest Technical Consultants,
Engineering Improvement Plans dated 3/24/04 prepared by Cowbey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd.,
and the Final Landscape Plan dated March 19, 2004 prepared by Rolf C. Campbell and
Associates, and provide the following comments:
Final Plat
1. The layout of the streets and lots is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, Exhibit
"C", of the annexation agreement.
2. The design standards for lot size, lot width and setbacks as outlined in Exhibit "El"
have been met.
3. The average lot size for the residential lots it 11,825 s.f. which exceeds the required
average lot size of 11,500 s.f.
4. All previous comments on the Final Plat have been satisfactorily addressed.
Engineering Improvement Plans
1. All previous comments on the Engineering Improvement Plans have been satisfactorily
addressed.
Final Landscape Plan
2. All previous comments on the Final Landscape Plan have been satisfactorily addressed.
MWd2 o(2
Apr . 7 . 2004 11 : 34AM No • 4450 P. 10/l0
Significant progress has been made in addressing our previous comments. Therefore, we
recommend approval of the Final Plat for Unit 8.
If you have any questions,please call.
CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
John Whitehouse, EEI
Torn Price, CDF
Tim Winter, MPI
Page 2 of 2
„,,,. 4.
P( , i ( - c
ec,).,
United City of Yorkville
esti 1836 County Seat of Kendall County
-- 800 Game Farm Road
��= fnYorkville, Illinois 60560
p lit to - p Phone:630-553-4350
11 :"..27.7.„
2a Fax:630-553-7575
`it•LE \\-
April 6, 2004
TO: Tony Graff `
FROM: Anna B. Kurtzman, AICP°4--
SUBJECT: Grande Reserve Final Subdivision Plat and Final Engineering
Unit 8
I have reviewed the documents listed above for compliance with the annexation agreement and
have determined that the plat is consistent with the terms of the annexation agreement.
/abk
c: J. Wywrot .
M. Schoppe
Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\Anna\My Documents\Grande Reserve\Unit 8\4-14-04Plan Commission.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:58 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?002/009
4Ico
R. r, s k 52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554
tiw. !,;fi TEL: 630 / 466-9350
-1 1v,p FAX: 630 / 466-9380
c;:r�c:-r•,�.c•F::.,..... � www.eeiweb.com
.`1.•> SAas or- g
fy
April 7, 2004
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Preliminary P.U.D. Plan Review, Westbury Village, (Undesser Property),
United City of Yorkville
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the following submitted material for the referenced Preliminary
P.U.D. Plan submittal:
• Preliminary Engineering Plan prepared by CEMCON, Ltd. consisting of 1 sheet
with latest revision date of March 30, 2004.
• Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (Volumes I and II) for Westbury
Village, prepared by CEMCON, Ltd. with latest revision date of February 11,
2004.
• Exhibit C, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and Plat prepared by the Lannert Group
consisting of 6 sheets with latest revision date of March 29, 2004.
• Preliminary Soils Exploration prepared by Testing Service Corporation dated
February 25, 2002.
• Agricultural Drain Tile Survey prepared by Western Engineering, P.C. for ADTI,
Inc. with latest revision date of April 22, 2002.
• • Natural Resource Information Report #0323 prepared by the Kendall County Soil
and Water Conservation District dated July, 2003.
G:\PUBUCkYorkvirle\20021Y00202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\Doc\Iwywrot03.doc
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
04/07/2004 WED 22:58 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?003/009
• Endangered Species Consultation Program Natural Heritage Database Review
#0201805 dated May 13, 2003 from The Illinois Department of Natural
Resources.
• • Preliminary review letter and request for additional information dated July 2, 2003
from Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Highways/District 3.
• Traffic Impact Study prepared by CEMCON with latest revision date of March 23,
2003.
• Preliminary review letter from Francis C. Klaas, P.E., Kendall County Engineer
dated July 18, 2003 and a letter dated April 3, 1997 from the same County
Engineer to Jim Nanninga, City Administrator, which discusses access and right
of way concerns for Galena Road.
• Phase I Archaeological Study prepared by NIU Department of Anthropology
dated August 19, 2003.
• Routine Wetland Delineation prepared by EnCAP dated May 21, 2002 with
Addendum dated August 13, 2003.
• Proposed Amendment to Annexation Agreement, Annexation Agreement and
P.U.D. Agreement dated February 12, 2004.
Our review of these plans is to generally determine the plan's compliance with City
of Yorkville ordinances and whether the improvements will conform to existing City
systems and equipment. This review and our comments do not relieve the designer
from his duties to conform to all required codes, regulations, and acceptable
standards of engineering practice. Engineering Enterprises, Inc.'s review is not
intended as an in-depth quality assurance review. We cannot and do not assume
responsibility for design errors or omissions in the plans.
We offer the following comments:
General
1. No part of the development is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area as
identified by FEMA based on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
170341 0020 dated July 19, 1982. However, see comments regarding Rob
Roy Creek under the Stormwater Management heading.
2. A thorough review of the Wetland Study should be completed by the City's
wetland consultant prior to Preliminary Plan approval.
3. Permits or Sign-offs will be required from the following agencies:
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville\2002\Y00202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\Doc\Iwywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:58 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, 2004/009
a. (IDNR) Consultation Agency Action Report regarding
endangered/threatened species or natural areas.
b. Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District regarding Sanitary Sewer Facilities.
c. (TEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding Sanitary Sewer
Facilities.
d. (IEPA) Division of Public Water Supplies regarding water supply and
distribution.
e. (TEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding a Notice of Intent
(NOI) General permit to discharge storm water.
f. Kendall County Highway Department regarding points of access to
Galena Road.
g. IDOT regarding intersection improvements at Galena Road and Corneils •
• Road.
h. (IDNR) Office of Water Resources regarding construction within a
floodway.
We recommend that items "a" and "b" be received prior to Preliminary Plan approval
and that for items f & g, a preliminary indication be received from KCHD and IDOT
concerning access locations, required right of way dedications and required highway
and intersection improvements. Items c, d, e & h will be required prior to the start of
construction activities.
4. The Natural Resource Information Report stresses that erosion and
sediment control should be of major concern during development activities,
We concur with this recommendation and further offer that Rob Roy Creek
and other drainageways be diligently protected and inspected during
construction.
5. IDNR letter dated May 13, 2002 indicates the Endangered Species
consultation remains open at this time due to Rob Roy Creek providing
known habitat for the State threatened slippershell mussel, Any follow up
correspondence that has been received from IDNR following submittals to
them pursuant to their request in the referenced letter should be forwarded
for review and our files.
G:IPUQLICIYorkville12.0021YO0202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)1Doc11wywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:58 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?005/009
Traffic Study, Streets and Right of Way
6. On page 2 of the Traffic Impact Study, paragraph 11.6.3 should be revised to
state the portion of Corneils Road adjacent to the site is under City
jurisdiction since this property has already been annexed.
7. On page 5 of the Traffic Impact Study, paragraph V.B.2.c is a repeat of the
text from the preceding paragraph and should be corrected.
8. We concur with the traffic calming recommendations in the Traffic Impact
Study for Addison Lane between its 2 intersections with Westbury Boulevard.
9. Based on the projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes shown in
Figure 6 of the Traffic Impact Study, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance,
the following right of way widths should be provided:
a. 100 feet -Westbury Blvd. from Galena Road to Windsor Avenue
b. 80 feet-Westbury Blvd. from Windsor Avenue to Corneils Road
c. 80 feet— Manchester Way from Westbury Blvd. to the west property line
10.Minimum 39 foot back to back of curb roadway widths should be provided for
Manchester Way and Westbury Boulevard south of Windsor Avenue. Note:
Manchester Way is shown as a Minor Collector, but since the ultimate future
land use westerly of Westbury Village, into which Manchester Way will
extend, is not known at this time, this stretch of road may be over designed.
Based on a future land use recommendation from the City Planner, the City's
"hybrid" collector (70 foot right of way and 34 foot back to back curbs) could
be considered for Manchester Way.
11.The Preliminary Plat shows a different right of way width for Westbury
Boulevard just north of Corneils Road than does the Preliminary Engineering
Plan. All documents in this submittal should be in agreement.
12.IDOT has requested Intersection Design Studies for Galena/47 and
Corneils/47. We should be provided copies of these and all other
correspondence with IDOT when they become available.
13.Access to Galena Road will be under the full review and permit authority of
the Kendall County Highway Department. Further, it is our recommendation
that Preliminary P.U.D. approval not be granted until all access approval
letters have been received from the KCHD.
14. Careful consideration will need to be given to the future location of access
points to the commercial area so they do not have a negative impact on the
Westbury Boulevard traffic flow,
•
G:1PUBLIC\Yorkviile\2002\Y00202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\Doc\Iwywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:58 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?006/009
15. The City is discussing the future cross section of Illinois Route 47 with IDOT.
We recommend that the rural cross section proposed in the SRA study be
abandoned and that the urban cross section with 2 lanes in each direction
•
and a landscaped median be utilized from Kennedy Road, north to the
County Line, as is being proposed south of Kennedy Road.
16. In accordance with other new developments and recent annexation
agreements, we recommend that the developer contribute $2,000/unit
towards transportation improvements in the vicinity of this development,
including the reconstruction of Corneils Road, the future signalization of the
Illinois Route 47/Corneils Road intersection and other area road
• improvements.
17. The intersection offset between the westerly leg of Easton Circle and
Abingdon Lane does not meet the City requirement of 200 feet along a minor
collector,
•
18. The intersection offset between Ashford Court and Abingdon Lane does not
meet the City requirement of 200 feet along a minor collector.
19.The intersection offset between Addison Lane and the Private Drive just east
• of it does not meet the City requirement of 200 feet along a minor collector.
20. We recommend some sort of access control for the entrances to Unit 7 from
Corneils Road and from Westbury Boulevard to discourage cut through
traffic. The developer has indicated that some type of signage controls will
be used to discourage non-resident traffic.
21.The Corneils Road proposed cross section indicates a "proposed widening"
on the north side and "future widening by others" on the south. This
comment has been repeated in all of our reviews and has yet to be
addressed on the Preliminary Engineering Plan by the developer. Corneils
Road should be reconstructed in its entirety as the perimeter roads of
Grande Reserve will be and this developer should be responsible for the
entire improvement, subject to recapture, if any. This comment also applies
to Exhibit P of the proposed Amendment to Annexation Agreement.
Annexation Agreement and P.U.D. Agreement.
22.The Corneils Road entrance street cross section indicates a 70 foot right of
way width while the plan view shows this width as 80 feet, We recommend
that it be 80 feet.
G:\PUBLIG\Yorkville12002\Y00202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\DocUwywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:59 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, Z007/009
Soils
23. The preliminary soils report shows soft clays and shallow, saturated
granular soils existing on almost two-thirds of the site. These conditions
pose challenges to the development of this site and will require due diligence
on the part of the design engineer, the site development contractors and the
home builders.
Lots
24. All lots should be consecutively numbered irrespective of the units. This will
be a requirement during final platting if the individual pods carry the name
Westbury Village.
25. We recommend that 30 foot building setback lines be provided from all
public streets with the exception, as discussed with the Plan Council, of
those corner lots that will be required to have an attached 3-car garage.
• 26. Paragraph 7.09.11 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires all corner lots to
• have a buildable area equal to or greater than the smallest interior lot on the
same block. This requirement will be checked during the final platting stage
prior to a recommendation for approval of the Final Plat,
•
Water Mains
27. Upon approval of the Preliminary Plan, the design engineer will be providing
• an electronic file of the water distribution system for our input into the City's
model to verify water main sizes and adequate fire flows prior to Final
Engineering.
28. Technical design issues relating to fire hydrant spacing and water main
• looping will be addressed at Final Engineering.
Sanitary Sewers
29. The final alignment of the Rob Roy Creek Interceptor Sewer should be
determined prior to Preliminary P.U.D. Plan approval as its final location may
impact other proposed utility locations. Any necessary easements should be
shown on the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan.
30. It should be verified that the design of the proposed Rob Roy Creek
Interceptor to be installed through this subdivision will have sufficient depth
• to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to all properties northerly of
Westbury Village in the Interceptor Service Area.
•
• G:1PUBLIC\Yorkville120021YO0202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\Doc lwywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:59 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?008/009
Storm Sewers
31.The preliminary storm sewer layout appears to be adequate to collect and
carry the 10-year design storm. A comprehensive storm sewer design report
detailing tributary areas for each inlet, storm sewer sizing calculations and
overland flood routes with cross-sections for all runoff events in excess of the
design storm, shall be provided with the final engineering plans.
32. Additional storm sewers or sump pump drain lines will also be required at
final design in order to provide the required sump pump discharge
connection for each lot.
Stormwater Management
33. Due to the soil conditions discussed in the Preliminary Soils Exploration
report, special design consideration may need to be given to the construction
of the stormwater management areas.
34, It does not appear that Stormwater Management Facility No. 5 has a
planned outlet, other than the potential Raymond Regional Basin Outfall. If
this is not the intended discharge location, the design engineer should
indicate the discharge point on the plans.
35. Our review of the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report is continuing,
but our final recommendations will need to be based on the conclusions of
the Rob Roy Creek Floodplain Study which is nearing completion. The
developer should be aware that the final results of the Floodplain Study may
impact the land plan and/or the proposed number of units in Westbury
Village.
Amendment to Annexation Agreement, Annexation Agreement and P.U.D.
Agreement.
43. Since our last review letter dated March 4, 2004, we have not received
revised annexation documents.
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville\20021Y00202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)\Doc\Iwywrot03.doc
04/07/2004 WED 22:59 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?009/009
Conclusion
• Our review will continue as the above comments are addressed by the developer
and the design engineer. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
11,/ (-7 • /
r
. John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
pc: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
JWF, EEI
G.IPUBLICWodwille120021YO0202 Westbury Village(Undesser Property)1Doc11wywrot03.doc
Apr . 7 . 2004 3: 50PM No. 4476 P. 2/4
•
Schoppe Design associates Ill
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W.Downer Place Ph. (830)896-2501
Aurora, IL 60506 Fax(630)896-3228
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Westbury Village
We have reviewed the Preliminary P.U.D. and Plat dated 3/29/04 prepared by Lannert Group,
the Preliminary Engineering Plan dated 3/30/04 prepared by Cemcon Ltd., the Preliminary
Landscape Plans dated 3/24/04 prepared by Lannert Group, Architectural Examples dated
2/26/04 prepared by Lannert Group, and provide the following comments:
General
Ocean-Atlantic is requesting rezoning of the Undesser Farm from A-1 to P.U.D. zoning for that
portion of the farm that has previously been annexed into Yorkville. Additionally,there is
approximately 43 acres of land in the northwest corner of the site which is currently not in
Yorkville, for which they are requesting annexation and rezoning to P.U.D. In addition to the
annexation and rezoning, they are also requesting approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and
Nat, Preliminary Engineering Plan, and Preliminary Landscape Plans. Therefore, our review
comments will be based on these three plans.
Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and Plat
1. The plan complies with the Transitional Neighborhood standards in the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. SDA has prepared a development plan for the 20-acre School/Park site. This plan is
currently being reviewed by the Park and Recreation Department and the School
District to determine if the size and shape of the proposed lot satisfactorily meet their
future needs.
3. The proposed 100-year floodplain needs to be identified on the Preliminary Plan.
hge1o(]
Apr . 7 . 2004 3: 50PM No •4476 P . 3/4
4. The Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection District(FPD)has previously expressed concerns
about providing fire protection for buildings which are more than 150' away from a
street. Pods 3 and 7 have some buildings which have buildings between 225' —250'
away from the street. The FPD is in the process of preparing some standards to address
this issue.
5. The 30' front yard setback for the single-family lots in Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 6-need
to be labeled.
6. The corner sideyard setback in Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 6 are proposed to be 20' instead
of the standard 30' in order to allow for a three-car garage on those lots. We feel that
the setback is acceptable, however, a note needs to be added which states that the corner
lots in Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 6 will have three-car garages.
7. After discussion with the Plan Council, we recommend that the private drives in
Neighborhoods 5, 7 and 8 be no less than 28' wide. Although the drives appear to be
drawn at 28' wide, all drives should be dimensioned at 28'.
8. The sidewalks at the end of Winthrop Lane in Neighborhood 5 should be extended
around the end of the cul-de-sac.
9. As requested by the police department, visitor parking should be provided in all of the
multi-family neighborhoods (Neighborhoods 3, 5, 7 and 8). Currently, only
Neighborhoods 5 and 8 have visitor parking. The plan should be revised to add visitor
parking in Neighborhoods 3 and 7.
10. The layout of the regional bike trail should be revised to reflect the trail being no closer
than 75' to a multi-family building, as has been required in other developments.
Currently the plan has the bike trail 15' —20' away from the units.
Preliminary Engineering
1. We are scheduling a meeting with Illinois Department of Natural Resource
representatives to further discuss the aquatic habitat existing in Rob Roy Creek. We
will be asking them for their input on maintaining the quality of the habitat during and
after construction. Following these discussions, we will want to discuss possible
options for maintaining the quality of the habitat with Ocean-Atlantic.
2. As has been previously requested,the discharge pipes to Rob Roy Creek should be
shown. Outfall pipes should not discharge directly into the creek. The outfalls and
stormwater should be routed through vegetated swales before discharging into the
creek, as is being done in other developments.
Pi'e 2 of 3
Apr . 7 . 2004. 3 : 51PM No.4476 P. 4/4
Preliminary Landscape Plan
1. The preliminary landscape illustrates the intent to create a high quality landscape. The
plantings, as proposed are acceptable.
Architectural Examples
1. The courtyard and townhome examples illustrate quality architecture. These elevations
should be reviewed by the Plan Commission and be included in the annexation
agreement accordingly.
We recommend approval of the preliminary plans subject to resolving these issues.
If you have any questions, please call.
CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator
Liz D'Anna,Deputy Clerk
John Whitehouse - EEl
Fgge3of3
04/08/2004 TRU 9:20 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?002/005
("2_ ,
1'73
V.S 1:v=T9S:nf1,YM/Mk
52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554
,!'4,• .' TEL: 630 / 466-9350
M?�yt°1 FAX: 630 / 466-9380
www.00iweb.com
tu�c
April 7, 2004
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Preliminary Plan Review, Bailey Meadows (Formerly the Runge Farm), (IRED
Baseline, LLC), United City of Yorkville
Dear Joe:
We have reviewed the revised Preliminary Plan submittal for the referenced property
consisting of the following materials:
▪ Preliminary Engineering Plans prepared by Spaceco, Inc. with latest revision
date of March 29, 2004
• Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by Spaceco, Inc. dated
October 7, 2003 with latest revision date of February 16, 2004
• Routine Wetland Delineation performed by EnCap, Inc., dated November 24,
2003
• Agricultural Existing Drain Tile Investigation Plan prepared by Huddleston
McBride Co., dated October 20, 2003.
• Preliminary Soils Exploration for the residential portion of the site prepared by
TSC dated November 8, 2002.
• Spaceco Inc. letter dated March 29, 2004, in response to Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. letter dated March 17, 2004.
• Site Traffic Impact Study prepared by KLOA, Inc. dated December 19, 2003 and
amended March 29, 2004.
G.IPUBLICIYorkville120021Y00223 Runge Property-Rt.47 and Baseline\docsllwywrot03.doc
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
04/08/2004 THU 9:20 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?003/005
• Copies of the following:
• Transmittal letters to Mr. Rick Bill, ComEd, and Mr. Ralph Pfister, Yorkville-
Bristol Sanitary District, for their agencies review, both dated February 17,
2004.
• Letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency dated January 13, 2004
stating the site has no significant historic, architectural, or archaeological
resources that would require further study or review
• Consultation Agency Action Report from the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources dated October 9, 2003 stating consultation by this department is
terminated.
Our review of these plans is to generally determine the plan's compliance with City of
Yorkville ordinances and whether the improvements will conform to existing City
systems and equipment. This review and our comments do not relieve the designer
from his duties to conform to all required codes, regulations, and acceptable standards
of engineering practice. Engineering Enterprises, Inc.'s review is not intended as an in-
depth quality assurance review. We cannot and do not assume responsibility for design
errors or omissions in the plans.
We offer the following comments:
Preliminary Plat
1. The Plat indicates an apparent overlap between land within the ComEd right
of way and land proposed to be subdivided. All questions of title or ownership
should be completely resolved prior to the City approving any Plat of
Subdivision. SPACECO has indicated that this issue will be addressed
prior to submittal of a Final Plat.
2. The centerline radii for North and South Capra Streets do not meet the
minimum standard of 150 feet. All radii in the single family area meet the 100
foot minimum standard. The Capra Street radii issue was discussed at Plan
Council and the developer was going to look at potentially revising the
townhome area to provide the 150 foot radii. However, if this cannot be done
and since this is not a through street, a variance allowing the 100 foot radii
would most likely be appropriate,
Preliminary Engineering Plan
3. All comments under this category from our letter of March 17, 2004 have
been satisfactorily addressed.
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkville12002\Yo0223 Runge Property-Rt.47 and Baseline\docs\Iwywrot03.doc
04/08/2004 THU 9:20 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?004/005
Traffic Study
4. The Traffic Impact Study has been updated to reflect the change in access
points to Baseline Road.
5. The proposed site traffic generation analysis should be revised to reflect the
actual number of townhome units being proposed (153). Currently the study
indicates the total number of townhomes units as 128.
6. An internal ADT exhibit should be provided to determine if any of the
proposed streets meet the definition of a Minor Collector. If any do, right of
way and pavement widths may need to be modified. The City's hybrid
collector designation (70 foot right of way/34 foot back to back) may be
appropriate in some cases. Alternatively, a 30 foot back to back standard with
a stronger pavement section may be considered. Repeat comment, as this
exhibit has not been provided.
7. Alternative strategies should be considered for access to the commercial area
from Bedford Street The access point should align with either North or South
Capra Street and should be placed in a 66 foot right of way, to the west line of
the commercial area at a minimum. Note: The Traffic Impact Study concurs
with the City Staff opinion that a connection between the residential and
commercial areas of this development will be beneficial to the area by
allowing direct access to Route 47, thus reducing the volumes of traffic on
Baseline Road and at the Baseline/Route 30/Route 47 intersection.
8. The viability and timing of this project is dependent of the construction of the
Rob Roy Creek sanitary interceptor sewer by the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary
District,
9. The City's wetland consultant should review the Wetland Delineation
prepared by EnCAP.
Stormwater Management
10, The information presented in the Preliminary Stormwater Management
Report has addressed the majority of our prior comments. An issue that
remains to be discussed is the setback from Rob Roy Creek to the proposed
commercial development. We understand that a conceptual commercial site
development plan may be developed to aid in establishing a minimum
setback requirement. We will also have to further discuss the location of the
compensatory storage area in relation to the area of floodplain proposing to
be filled.
11,We are nearing the completion of our reevaluation of the hydrology of the
upstream watershed areas based on more detailed information and
comments from the developer's consultants. This will result in a final
G:\PUBLIC\Yorkvillo\2002\Y00223 Runge Properly-Rt.47 and Baseline\docs\Iwywrot03.doc
04/08/2004 THU 9:20 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, j005/005
determination of the floodway and floodplain limits and the Base Flood
Elevation. We believe that an adequate area has been set aside to
accomplish the required compensatory storage, but that the setback
requirement for development adjacent to Rob Roy Creek needs to be
discussed in earnest.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
- '(6./1-
f—
i , ' . /
•
John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
•
pc: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
JWF, EEI
•
•
•
•
G:\PUBLIC\YorkviIIe\2002\Y00223 Runge Property-Rt.47 and Baseline\docsVwywrot03.doc
Apr • 7 . 2004 11 : 33AM No . 4450 P . 2/10
Schoppe Design Assoc fates
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W. Downer Place Ph. (630) 896-2501
Aurora, IL 60506 Fax(630) 896-3228
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Bailey Meadows
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision dated 3/29/04 prepared by Spaceco,
the Preliminary Engineering Plans dated 3/29/04 prepared by Spaceco, and the Preliminary
Landscape Plan dated 3/30/04 prepared by Gary R. Weber Associates, and provide the
following comments:
General
1. The petitioner is requesting annexation zoning and preliminary plan. approval. The
requested zoning is R-2, R-3 and B-3. This is not proposed to be a P.U.D. A draft of
the updated annexation agreement should be sent to our office for review.
Preliminary Plan
1. The design standards for lot size, lot width and setbacks for the single-family portion of
the development are consistent with the R-2 standards.
2. The design of the internal street system has been revised to incorporate our previous
comments.
3. The zoning ordinance allows only one principal building per lot. Therefore, the
townhomes need to either have each building on its own platted lot or note this
condition as a variance on the plan.
4. The location of the regional bike trail should be shown on the plan. We feel the
proposed Rob Roy Regional Bike Trail should not be located behind the townhomes.
We recommend that the trail, when it is adjacent to the commercial lot, be located in an
open space corridor along the creek. Additionally, the south end of the bike trail should
be extended east along the south property line and terminate at the property at the
southeast corner of lot 203.
Page 1 o(2
A r . 7 . 2004 11 : 33AM No . 4450 P . 3/10
5. As was discussed at the Plan Council meeting, the proposed driveway connecting
Bedford Street to the commercial site and South Capra Street should be moved
generally to the southern portion of the commercial site as shown on the attached Bailey
Meadows sketch.
6. In an effort to maximize the commercial area and incorporate the zoning standards for
parking and landscape buffers, and to accomplish the City's objectives for providing a
regional bike trail along Rob Roy Creek, we recommend that any landscape buffers and
regional bike path be located above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
7. All other comments pertaining to the Preliminary, Plat have been satisfactorily
addressed.
Preliminary EngineeringPlan
1. All other comments pertaining to the Preliminary Engineering Plan have been
satisfactorily addressed.
Preliminary Landscape Plan
1. All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
2. Additional landscape plans will need to be provided for the commercial site when a
commercial site plan is submitted for approval.
We recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Engineering subject to the
above comments.
CC: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
John Whitehouse—EEI
Matt Fiascone— Inland Real Estate
i�ye70f3
Apr . 7 . 2004_11 : 33AM No .4450 P. 4/10
1
1
1 t.—..-------
rat \
k
Iti Si//pr two
o
111111 \ 1Ir^ 1 14PPROYig4ftey
111111111
- )q- --k---) Pm
3
7,,,deerA/
aVff"191(0"4/4$
"erg cAPM sr. ilin 1
Aliiii pm
1 4I
1104/i/SSS OpNo
W 11.5 / Os'pM5rI4� to(„41g /a
55 P0/ r0
t_, rtre- rihvg,
1 `"J j QAC �oM /.�
gat
1 I i for
1 -i.._1
...... L_
501pr1ct r+ sr.
I
\ n
A/ 4YN1.4bOW7#2,46,,
Apr . 8 . 2004 7 : 49AM No . 4483 P. 4/6
,
Schoppe Desi�tt Associates
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W. Downer Place Ph. (630) 886-2501
Aurora, IL 60506 Fax (630) 886-3228
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Rob Roy Falls
We have reviewed the Master Plan for the Sexton Property prepared by Yas/Fischel Partnership
dated March 3, 2004. The following information is provided to assist you and the Plan
Commission in providing conceptual input to the developer on their Master Plan.
General
Sexton Companies is investigating the feasibility of developing their 274-acre property as a
mixed use development, including commercial, office uses, 15,000 s.f. single-family lots,
12,000 s.f. single-family lots, 5,000 s.f. single-family lots, townhomes, and condos. They are
currently looking for conceptual input from the Plan Commission, Park Board and City Council
on their Master Plan. Formal action by the Plan Commission is not needed at this time.
However,the Commission members should be prepared to discuss and provide comments on
the following:
1. The appropriateness of the commercial land use, its size and location within the plan
2. The appropriateness of the residential land use, the density, and the products being
anticipated
3. The open space system
4. The overall style and general character of the development
5. Other comments that the Plan Commission might have
Page I of 3
Apr . B. 2004 7 :49AM No .4483 P. 5/6
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the portion of the site fronting on Route 34, from the east
property line west to approximately 400' west of the Sycamore Road/Route 34 intersection as
20— 30 acres of commercial. The balance of the site (244—254 acres) is identified as
Suburban Neighborhood which allows for single-family development with a gross density
range of between 1.5 and 2.25 du/ac. The plan also identifies the Rob Roy Creek corridor as an
open space corridor,which will include the Rob Roy Creek Regional Bike Trail.
Existing Land Use
The property is currently zoned A-1 in Kendall County. The surrounding land uses and zoning
are as follows:
• North: Agricultural zoned A-1 in Kendall County
• East: Agricultural zoned A-1 in Kendall County
• South: Route 34 runs along the entire south boundary of the property. South of
Route 34, starting at the east property line and going west, is approximately 1300'
of vacant land zoned office, then approximately 1200' of vacant property zoned
B-3, then, extending west to Diehl Farm Road, is a multi-family portion of Fox Hill
zoned R-3, from Diehl Farm Road west to Rob Roy Creek is the single-family
portion of Fox Hill zoned R-2. The property west of Rob Roy Creek is undeveloped
land zoned B-3.
• West: Agricultural zoned B-3 in Yorkville
Transportation
The City's Transportation Planning Report calls for Beecher Road to be extended south
through this property as a Major Collector and to line up with the planned extension of Beecher
Road through the Fisher Property on the south side of Route 34. This road extension has been
accommodated very well in their plan. The Transportation Planning Report also identifies a
Minor Collector extending from their east property line and heading west before curving south
to align with the signalized intersection at Sycamore Road.
Schools
All of the residential portion of the property is within the Plano School District. We anticipate
the need for one elementary school to serve this portion of the School District. The City is in
the process of discussing this issue with the Plano School District.
Open Space
Based on the City's Land/Cash Ordinance, the open space requirements for this site is
approximately 13.7 acres. The Park Board is scheduled to review this developmentplan at
their April 266 meeting.
Page2o 3
Apr • 8. 2004 7 : 49AM No • 4483 P. 6/6
Utilities
In discussions with City Engineer Joe Wywrot, this property is in Pressure Zone#1 and will
receive water service from the planned extension of an existing 12" water main located at the
west edge of Kylyn's Ridge subdivision.
This site is planned to receive sanitary sewer service from the future Rob Roy Creek
interceptor, which is currently being planned, but not yet built. Another alternative to provide
sanitary service may be the existing Fox Hill interceptor located in Fox Hill, or a new line
planned to be built, to serve the Fox Hill Unit 7 commercial and residential property along
Eldamain Road.
If you have any questions, please call.
CC: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
P1ge>on
Apr . 8 . 2004 7 :49AM No .4483 P . 2/6
Schoppe Design Associates
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
430 W.Downer Place Ph. (630)696-2501
Aurora, IL 80506 Fax(630) 896-3228
April 7,2004
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Villas at the Preserve
We have reviewed the General Development Plan for Villas at the Preserve dated 3/19/04
prepared by the Lannert Group. The following information is provided to assist you and
the Plan Commission in providing conceptual input to the developer on their General
Development Plan.
General
Burnside Homes is investigating the feasibility of developing the 23.95-acre property on the
south side of Route 71, commonly known as the Lawyer Property, as a residential duplex
development consisting of 42 lots or 84 units. They are currently looking for conceptual input
from the Plan Commission, Park Board and City Council on their General Development Plan.
Formal action by the Plan Commission is not needed at this time. However, the Plan
Commission members should be prepared to discuss and provide comments on the following:
1. The appropriateness of the residential land use, the density, and the types of homes
proposed
2. The open space system
3. The overall layout of the development
4. Other comments that the Plan Commission might have
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Transitional Neighborhood which allows
for residential development with a density range of between 2.25 to 3.50 du/ac., depending on
the amount of additional open space provided.
Pali I or 2
Apr • B. 2004 7 : 49AM No . 4483 P. 3/6
ExistinLLand Use
• North: Vacant land zoned B-3 as part of the Sunflower development
• East: Vacant land zoned B-3
• South: Undeveloped wooded land zoned A-1 in Kendall County
• West: Harris Forest Preserve
Open Space
Based on the City's Land/Cash Ordinance, the park requirements for this proposal is
approximately 2.4 acres.
Utilities
In discussion with City Engineer Joe Wywrot,this property is located in High Pressure Zone#4
and is planned to be served by extending a water main from the general area of the McDonalds
restaurant west through the Hughes Property to this site.
The sanitary sewer services will also be provided from the development east of this property by
extending an existing 8" line west through the Hughes Property to this site.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.
CC: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
Np2ore