Loading...
Plan Council Packet 2004 05-13-04 United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County ESL 1636 800 Game Farm Road U) Yorkville,Illinois 60560 O 1-• 5i\ O Phone:630-553-4350 'A, v�2 Fax:630-553-7575 ` LE PLAN COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:30 a.m. CITY CONFERENCE ROOM 8:30 a.m. Staff Meeting: Joe Wywrot, Mike Schoppe, Anna Kurtzman, Liz D'Anna 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: March 25, 2004 2. 9:30 a.m. - PC 2004-05 Prairie Meadows - Final Plat 3. Additional Business 1 UJNITED 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 formula 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 IDNR 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 coining 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 stone 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 7`h. 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 7th Meeting completed at 1:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Annette Williams cED G/T` 0.10United City of Yorkville 1. County Seat of Kendall County EST. 1836 800 Game Farm Road r Cl)��- Yorkville, Illinois 60560 O 11 [7 - O Phone:630-553-4350 =rii, S Fax:630-553-7575 4LE \\' May 4, 2004 Mr. Kevin Biscan Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. 759 John Street Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Re: Prairie Meadows Subdivision —Final Plat & Plan Dear Kevin: I have reviewed the revised final plat and plan for the referenced development, received on April 19, 2004, and have the following comments: Plat: • Easements will be checked for adequacy once the final storm sewer design is approved. • The Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District has plans to construct a sanitary interceptor someday along the south side of Kennedy Road in this area. Please submit the plat to Walter E. Deuchler Associates to review on behalf of the sanitary district. Provide appropriate easement language for the YBSD easement. • The area of Lot 166 appears to be about 58.15 acres. Correct the note on Sheet 1 of the plat. • Show a 20-foot wide PU&DE centered on the west property line of Lot 165. • Show a 10-foot wide PU&DE along the McHugh Road frontage of Lots 165 and 166. • Show a 10-foot wide PU&DE along the south lot line of Lot 166. • Show a 10-foot wide PU&DE along all frontages of Lot 167. • We need to discuss if the landscape buffer easement should run to the City of Yorkville, the Homeowner's Association, or both. • Revise the future right-of-way easement to refer to the United City of Yorkville instead of the State of Illinois. Plan: General • The landscape plan has been forwarded to Mike Schoppe for review. • Please submit an engineer's estimate of cost for review once the final plan is approved. • Revisions to the storm sewer alignment at various locations as described below will require revisions to the storm sewer routing calculations. • Individual comments are only made one time, but may require changes to several plan sheets. • The sanitary lift station that serves this site is currently sized for a maximum of 500 PE, while the proposed development is 574 PE. The station can be upgraded to as high as 1370 PE; please provide a plan for upgrading the station. Sheet 4 • Revise the Hayden and Prairie Clover typical section to call for 4.5" of binder course and 12" of aggregate base. • Include an existing typical section for Kennedy Road. • Include a proposed typical section for Kennedy Road east of Christy Lane. • Need a phasing plan for Kennedy Road reconstruction. Sheets 5&6 • Eliminate San. MH#187A at the SE corner of Lot 165. Extend the sanitary sewer west into the frontyard easement of Lot 165. Check with Tim Fairfield at BKFD to see if they have a site plan for this lot yet and extend a sanitary sewer north along McHugh Road to accommodate their design. • Change the linetype for the watermain on Hayden from McHugh to Prairie Clover to the appropriate style. • Label Lot Nos. 92, 165, 166, and 167. • Can the existing streetlight controller at Rt.47/Kennedy be used to control the additional lights on Kennedy(to McHugh Road), and on McHugh Road? If not, an additional controller will be needed for those lights. • Watermain section 166 is not identified on any P&P sheet. • The storm sewer extended to the dead-end of Prairie Grass Lane to drain the offsite low area is not shown on Sheet 38. • Make the storm sewer alignment changes listed below. These are made for various reasons, such as coordination with Corn Ed, minimizing skewed-angle crossings of other utilities, etc. Some minor grading changes may have to be made to accommodate these changes. 1) Keep the storm sewer along the rear of Lots 77-79 five feet to the NW of the rear lot line. 2) Keep the storm sewer along the rear of Lots 83-88 five feet to the west of the rear lot line. 3) Keep the storm sewer along the north of Lots 83-88 five feet to the north of the side lot line. 4) Keep the storm sewer along the south of Lots 89-91 and Lots 109-112 five feet to the north of the side rear lot line. 5) Eliminate MB #822 and run the storm sewer directly from MH #824 to #820. 6) Eliminate the storm sewer along the south side of Lot 136. Instead, run the curb drains to a new MH at the SW corner of Lot 136 and run it north in the frontyard easement to the proposed sewer along the north side of Lot 136. 7) Eliminate MIT#926. 8) Keep the storm sewer along the rear of Lot 136 five feet to the west of the rear lot line. 9) Keep the storm sewer along the rear of Lot 128 five feet to the north of the rear lot line. 10) Call for a new MH in the corner sideyard easement just north of Structure #460. Run the curb drains to that MH and then to MEI 458. Extend a sewer east in the frontyard easement from the new MIT to the SE corner of Lot 145, and then to Structure 462. 11) Eliminate the storm sewer between Structure Nos. 472 and 462. Reverse the pitch between Structure Nos. 472 and 473, then run a sewer from Structure 473 to 464. Revise the locations of the hydrant and valves at this location as necessary to accommodate the sewer changes. 12) Call for a new MH at the NE corner of Lot 126. Run the curb drains to that MH and then in the frontyard easement to MH 484. 13) Call for a new MH in the corner sideyard easement to the west of Structure #93 8. Run the curb drains to that new MH and then in the frontyard easement to MH 933. 14) Slide MH 217 to the east to be in line with storm sewer section 929. Run a new sewer directly across Bluestem to MH 930 and eliminate routing of upstream flows through Structure Nos. 219 and 221. 15) Call for a new MH in the easement at the SW corner of Lot 27. Run storm sewer from Structure Nos. 249 and 254 to this new MEI. Run a sewer from the new MH in the frontyard easement to 213. 16) Call for a new MH at the SW corner of Lot 19. Run the curb drains to this new MEI, and north along west side of Lot 19 to MH 737. Also route the flow from Structure 728 to MH 737. 17) Eliminate the storm sewer between Structure Nos. 423 and 401. Instead, reverse the pitch between Structure Nos. 423 and 426, then run a sewer from Structure #426 to Structure # 429. • I spoke with Jeff Freeman and John Whitehouse of EEI regarding the routing of large diameter mains to provide for adequate transportation of water through this region near the edge of two pressure zones. When watermain diameters change, also make appropriate revisions to valve sizes. Please make the following revisions: 1) Change watermain section 203 from 8" to 12" diameter. 2) Clearly show the intended location of Valve Nos. 202, 120, 157, and 165. 3) Change watermain section Nos. 103A, 106 from 12" to 8" diameter. 4) Change the watermain on Bluestem from McHugh to Prairie Meadows from 12" to 8" diameter. 5) Change the watermain on Prairie Meadows and the stub across Kennedy from 12" to 16" diameter. 6) Change the watermain on Bluestem from Prairie Meadows to Hayden, on Hayden from Bluestem to Prairie Grass, and on Prairie Grass to 16" diameter. 7) All other watermains should remain as 8" diameter. Sheet 11 • Revise the sidewalk alignment on Kennedy where it crosses Prairie Meadows Drive as shown on the attached sketch. Revise the stop bar location accordingly. Same comment for Kennedy/McHugh intersection on Sheet 28. Sheet 21 • Provide a rim elevation for Sanitary MH #166 that matched finished grade. Show a 5' stub extending out the end of this manhole with a pipe diameter and slope in the profile view. Sheet 22 • We should discuss the possibility of having landscaped islands on Kennedy Road similar to those proposed on Bristol Ridge Road. It appears that there would be room from Sta. 755+30 to 759+40 and from Sta. 765+00 to 760+00. Sta. 765 to 760 is near the curve in Kennedy, and could provide a traffic-calming effect. Since Kennedy will have curb & gutter, we need to discuss possible changes to lane widths in these areas to provide adequate room for vehicles to pass a stalled car. • Show the locations of all existing driveway locations on Kennedy. Several are missing. Sheet 24 • Need to show the transition on Kennedy Road back to the existing roadway. Sheet 33 • Move the right turn arrows for eastbound Kennedy at McHugh and at Prairie Meadows to the right-turn lane. • Portions of the center lane should be striped as a bi-directional turn lane. • Need a signage plan. This would include speed limit, curve warnings, bi- directional turn lane. • Label Christy Lane. Call for an eastbound left-hand turn bay at this intersection. Revise the striping within the intersection. • It appears that curb is shown on Kennedy east of Christy Lane. The curb should be replaced with a bituminous shoulder. • Add a note that all striping is to be thermoplastic. • A striping/signage plan is also needed for McHugh Road. Sheet 34 • Mike Schoppe will review the pond-bottom grading plan with respect to the landscape plan. • It appears that the safety shelf has been omitted from the pond-grading plan. A typical section of the pond embankment would be helpful. • Is the existing berm adjacent to the Kennedy Road right-of-way to be cut down? It is very tall and steep. • Please list the proposed HWL's and storage volumes for the 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year storms. • Please show the existing storm sewer discharging to and from the pond, as well as the existing PCC curtain wall. Sheets 35-38 • In addition to the spot elevations provided, proposed contours should be shown to provide guidance to builders as individual lots are graded. • Grading information is missing for the city park and for much of Lot 166. Please insert this information into the plan set. • The individual structure tributary areas look OK, but there is insufficient information regarding spot elevations at many locations along the east and south boundaries of the development to confirm some of the drainage divides. • A typical section for the berms along Kennedy and McHugh would be helpful. Sheet 43 • The extent of regrading indicated from Station 773+00 to 774+50 seems to be more than necessary. Maintain existing yard grades where feasible. Sheet 45 • Restrictor details need data regarding orifice sizes and elevations. Sheet 48 • Need a temporary turn-around detail. You refer to a detail on Sheet 19, but it isn't there. • The streetlight detail shown is OK for Kennedy Road west of McHugh and for McHugh Road, but the rest of the subdivision should have normal city residential streetlights. Add a detail for that streetlight. This plat and plan are scheduled for review at our Plan Council meeting on May 13, 2004. Please make the requested revisions and resubmit three prints of each document at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 553-8545. Very truly yours, U• Joseph Wywrot City Engineer Cc: Tony Graff, City Administrator v-ri. 1✓ ,J IV INV = 641. 19 NE 12" VALVE AND VAULT 96 LIN FT STORM SEWER CL A2 12" 248 ® STA 302 + 11.97 21.00 LT ® 0.40% FIRE HYDRANT BLUESTEM DRIVE STA 302 -!- 21.97 18.00 LT SEESHEET NO 9 "'_ KENNEDY ROAD I LOT 151A I 26 SEE SHEET NO . 24 195 249 250 251 16 I I LOT — Ti an, 64I I 0 157A 11 AI • e III - J 159A 159C " vgiww,,,. . . ._____ . . . . v �5.,4mritio - �� 302 71.0 300 :: 301 00 C9 , r� 302+00 1598 I I I , (off � o • 62A • ... : 1 4`.. LOT I i� ���� "' .i �:►�• A .141 : -- ! _ ++ 1916ImoA + 62 SAN' 201 II 198 STA BLUESTEM DR1V1 212 LOT SEE SHEET NO . O 27 I I KENNEDY ROAD SEE SHEET NO . 24 253_28 LIN FT STORM SEWER CL A2 12" © 0.40% CS TC 2' INA 711 F,Prr; May . 7 . 2004 9 : 39AM No . 4786 P . 2/3 Schoppe Design .Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning 430 W. Downer Place Ph. (630)896-2501 Aurora, IL 60506 Fax(630) 896-3228 May 6, 2004 MEMORANDUM To: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc. Re: Prairie Meadows—Final Approval We have reviewed the Final Plat of Prairie Meadows Subdivision dated 2/24/04 prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, the Civil Engineering Plans dated 4/9/04 prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, and the Final Landscape Plans dated April 7, 2004 prepared by SEC Planning Consultants, and provide the following comments: General 1. The line of site study has been completed by Smith Engineering Consultants as noted in Kevin Biscan's letter dated September 3,2003. This study was to determine if there is adequate distance between the curve on Kennedy Road and the intersections at McHugh Road and Prairie Meadows Drive. This study should be submitted to the City for review and concurrence by Joe Wywrot. Final Plat 1. The lot sizes, widths and setbacks are consistent with the standards set out in the annexation agreement. 2. Add a note to the plat stating that there is to be no direct access to McHugh Road for lots 1 through 16. 3. Increase the R.O.W. width on Hayden and Prairie Clover adjacent to the park to 70' as agreed to in Kevin Biscan's letter to Joe Wywrot dated April 19, 2004. 4. If the widening of Hayden Drive and Prairie Clover Drive is taken from the park side of the street, the area of the park will be reduced to approximately 6.97 acres. The annexation agreement requires a 7.1 acre park. The balance of the obligation Page I oft MY . 7 . 2004 9 : 39AM No . 4786 P . 3/3 (5286,230) is to be paid in cash. It should be discussed at Plan Council where the extra 4' of R.O.W. should come from. 5. The certificate page references bike trail easements however, the easements only apply to the areas of the storm water easement. Axe there other areas, besides the storm water basins, where bike trails are to be located? 6. Identify the landscape buffer easements on the plat. Civil Engineering Plans I. Include the contouring of the park site, lot 167, in the grading plans. Add a note the park site to be built to the City's Park Development Standards. 2. Provide a water service to the park side of Hayden Drive. 3. Revise contouring of berm on lots 25 and 26 to avoid conflict with sidewalk. Final Landscape Plans 1. A maintenance and management plan for the establishment of the storm water basin needs to be prepared and submitted for approval. This plan should address turf establishment, weed control, and what measures will be taken to keep invasive woody material from establishing in the sand filter beds. Without proper maintenance, the sand filter area will evolve into an unacceptable landscape of Cottonwood, Buckthorn and Japanese Honeysuckle. 2. The City's landscape ordinance requires 1 parkway tree for every 50 linear feet of frontage along Kennedy Road, McHugh Road and the parkway bordering the park along Hayden Drive and Prairie Clover Drive. There is approximately 5,500 linear feet of frontage which requires 110 parkway trees. The plan proposes 67 parkway trees. Provide an additional 43 shade trees for compliance. 3. Confirm the spelling of Prairie Clover Drive on the proposed plans. We recommend these items be revised and resubmitted for review before final plat approval. If you have any questions, please call. CC: Tony Graff, City Administrator Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk Kevin Biscan, Smith Engineering Consultants Pg.2 olz 020 C/ ¢ 1 United City of Yorkville EST. 1836 County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road � = Cr) Yorkville, Illinois 60560 I �Q Phone:630-553-4350 tx.�:. . .> Fax: May 7, 2004 TO: Tony Graff FROM: Anna B. Kurtzman, AICD' SUBJECT: Prairie Meadows Final Plat of Subdivision I have reviewed the document listed above for compliance with the approved annexation agreement and have the following comments: 1. The agreement indicates that Prairie Clover Drive is to be designed and built as a hybrid collector. Sixty-six (66) feet of right-of-way is to come from the overall development, with the balance (4 feet) to be dedicated from the park site. I believe that the intent of the agreement is to have all 70 feet of right-of-way dedicated at one time. 2. The park donation requirements were calculated based upon a park donation of 7.1 acres. The plat indicates that the park site is 7.05 acres in size. With this reduction in size, along with the dedication of the additional right-of-way, I believe the park donation requirements will need to be recalculated. 3. The agreement indicates that a 45 foot wide landscape easement is to be provided adjacent to Kennedy Road. The plat indicates that the easement width is 40 feet wide. This will need to be corrected to reflect a 45 foot wide easement. 4. I did not see landscape easement language. This language should be included on the plat. 5. There are two rear building setback lines identified for the lots abutting Kennedy Road. One line indicates a "40' L.E. & B.S.L." The other line indicates a 60' B.S.L. One of the setback lines will need to be adjusted. 6. On lots 119 and 136 the rear setback line is listed at 30 feet. Zoning code requirements is 40 feet. The notation on these lots should be adjusted to reflect a 40' setback. T. Graff Prairie Meadow Final Plat of Subdivision May 7, 2004 Page 2 of 2 7. The southern building setback line for Lot 165 (to be used by the Fire Protection District) is being established at 40 feet. Why? Per the zoning code, the southern lot line would be classified as a side lot line and therefore the building setback would be 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot width, whichever is greater. 8. The typical lot detail indicates that the side yard setback is 10 feet. As noted above, the side yard setback is 10 feet or 10 percent, whichever is greater. The typical detail should be changed to reflect this. • 9. The zoning code specifies that the minimum lot width, as measured at the building setback line, is 80 feet. Through the annexation agreement, variances to this requirement were granted to 4 lots (Lot 77, 78, 143 and 144). I have been able to verify the lot width (at the building setback line) for all lots, except for the following. Please have the applicant provide documentation verifying the lot width for these lots. 17 41 52 79 119 18 42 53 80 131 34 43 54 81 132 35 44 55 82 133 36 49 56 83 134 37 50 65 100 /abk c: J. Wywrot M. Schoppe L. Brown filename: C:ADocuments and Settings\AnnaAMy Documents\Menards\Prairie Meadow\5-7-04memo.doc