Plan Council Packet 2005 02-24-05 _,.��0 c,ry United City of Yorkville
.. �-n County Seat of Kendall County
�'�` 800 Game Farm Road
EST% 1836� Yorkville, Illinois, 60560
.� ~ Telephone: 630-553-4350
.6 11 �. O Fax: 630-553-7575
-7 ""°"`°", ��� Website: www.yorkville.il.us
<CEx‘
PLAN COUNCIL AGENDA
Thursday, February 24, 2005
9:30 a.m.
CITY CONFERENCE ROOM
8:30 a.m. - Staff Meeting
1. Minutes for Approval/Correction: February 10, 2005
2. 9:30 a.m. - PC 2004-06 Bristol Bay - Preliminary Plan
3. 11:00 a.m. - PC 2005-03 Aspen Ridge Estates - Preliminary Plan
pus ar
•
Plan Council
February 10, 2005
Members:
Tony Graff, City Administrator Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
Anna Kurtzman, Zoning Coordinator Laura Brown, Director of Parks and Rec
Sgt. Ron Diederich, Police Department John Whitehouse, Engineering Enterprises
Jeff Freeman, Engineering Enterprises Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Gary Williams, Building and Safety
Guests:
Pete Huinker, Smith Engineering David Schultz, Smith Engineering
Attorney Greg Ingemunson Bruce Sperling, Midwest Development
The meeting began at 9:40 am. The 2004 December 9th minutes were approved as presented.
Silver Fox Preliminary Plan
Mike Schoppe comments
1) Mr. Schoppe is recommending that the location of the park be moved to the SW corner because
he feels it is too far from the middle to service the entire region, as he says the Evergreen Park
will not be developed. The school site, the Matlock site which is a acre 46 parcel, 32- 35 acres
belonging to the school district and approximately 11 acres belonging to the City, will be to the
south of the park site.
2) Roadway in this area will be N to S, because of drainage corridor that runs to the same direction.
Ms. Brown does not want the park south of the drainage area, but would prefer the park be
adjacent to the corridor, so park expansion would not be a problem.
3) There will be 175 homes, so 1/2 the land cash would be 3-4 acre, per development standards.
Benefit/ service region is '/2 mile radius. There is '/2 mile radius to Fox Road, and there is a
larger regional park across Fox Road, so Mr. Graff is suggesting with Ms. Brown in agreement, a
Tot Lot of 2 acres (minimum) in the north center area, with a possible cross bridge across the
swale to the west. There would be a larger park to the south(school), Meadowbrook(park)to
the east running to the Sunflower Park,the possibility of a Tot Lot in Evergreen. This number of
parks would meet design standards. Smith will look at a new design for a park.
4) There will be a redevelopment in the conservation design, per Mr. Graff, and if the lots are
smaller, the appearance of green in the track homes is more desirable, and easier to market for
new families, especially if the school/park site is not developed relatively soon.
5) Our park design standards, if water is visible, is not a nuisance issue.
6) Mr. Graff stated to the developer that the City's goal is to stay at a density of 1.75 du/ac
7) Per Mr. Schoppe,there needs to be a 50' buffer and a ROW of 35'. Fran Klaas is asking for an
additional 15' ROW, which the developer is okay with.
8) This project will probably be the first one to be approved with the new South Comprehensive
Plan, and Mr. Schoppe suggests that this would be a model for future areas. Design guidelines
that can be illustrated and improved upon, if density is above 1.75 du/ac and is to be justified,
can be architectural, more open space than outlined, improvement dollars, and assisting with
school site acquisitions.
1
9) Mr. Schoppe stated there will be a road to the east and a road to the south of the school site and
recommends a road stub in the southeast corner,to join with the school site. There could be
driveways along this road.
10) A stub needs to be provided to the Willman Ford property, east of Silver Fox.
11) There are two ideas, in regards to the tree line along the east side. A road may be planned here,
with a possible median with trees, down the center. Or green space along the tree line is also a
possibility, and the ownership of the property need to be resolved.
John Whitehouse comments
1) Mr. Graff stated that the City Council is concerned about the impact of the traffic along Rt. 47
and Fox and wants to know if there would be short term solutions to the additional traffic,
connected via the roads to Fox River Bluffs, Evergreen Farms, Aspen Ridge and Charley Farms.
Mr. Graff will contact Smith to do a regional traffic impact City Scope of Service study, to
further determine what impact the $2000/per unit collected now has, and if more monies need
to be collected.
2) There may be a possibility that, if the developers are willing to help with a scope of service road
funding project (if is a very costly proposition),that the developers may be given a credit toward
their$2000 fees. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the four subdivisions are worth$2.2 million in
traffic impact fees. A possible solution, after the study, may be adding the bridge on Eldermain
Road extension. Greenbrier Rd. could be determined as a route to Route 47, and be help
commercially.
3) Mr. Whitehouse believes the tree line should be preserved, with trees in the rear yard, and the
City needs to know where the drip lines are.
4) The school site will be pedestrian friendly, with approximately 30% coming from High Point and
Rt. 71. An internal analysis (#12) should be done, to make road classifications, and what is
coming through from Fox Road. He is not recommending a hybrid or minor collector coming
off Fox Rd. —no load (no individual driveways). Internal designing may not be affected by
minimizing driveways by intersecting streets and corner lots coming onto the side streets.
5) Mr. Schoppe will be putting a land plan together in 4-8 weeks for the Matlock area, and
connecting roads will be easier to establish. This will include west of Rt. 47, and Pavilion to Fox
Rd.
6) Evergreen Farm has a storm water basin in their corner, adjacent to the park in Lot E, that will
discharge on its way to the wetland creek management area discharging. Mr. Whitehouse stated
that Park E should be considered a potential storm water quality area. He would like to
discharge some of this before it is released into the creek. The outfall is long and linear; the
velocity is very high because of the drop in elevation, which is 120 feet. Storm water is better
released in a developed and controlled environment than in an agricultural run off.
7) The release rate is to be determined. If the City can give reason to FEMA that there is a reason
to open the culvert,then it could be a solution, but not at the expense of storm water
improvements. Mr. Whitehouse would not increase the rate of discharge, but it is a problem
because of the railroad culvert. Mr. Graff stated that the City is in favor of quality cleansing, but
not at a higher rate. The options are: 1) maintain the current rate, as long as it is not higher than
.1 CFS per acre, and open the culvert (not a detriment downstream) or 2)reduce the rate below
.15 CFS per acre to increase storm water quality and lessen impact of the culvert in Fox Glen.
2
8) Conservation design is being suggested to City Council. Mr. Whitehouse said that number of
lots is not the issue. Reduce to 12,000 sq. ft. and use less linear feet for increasing open space,
more buffering, and reducing linear feet of water mains, roads and streets, so long term there is
less linear feet per unit.
9) Mr. Sperling stated he is not comfortable with lots less than 12,000 sq. ft. and wants the
architectural controls. Mr. Whitehouse suggested the developer may want to look at decreasing
the size of lots from the average of 14,500 (closer to 12,000)to increase the amount of space
available for storm water management, so additional buffering happens on the west side.
10) The developer will come to EDC on February 17th and speak on their Storm Water Regional
Enhancement Program: 1)regional traffic; 2) regional planning for parks and schools; 3)
conservation design, exploring lots at 12,000 sq. ft. addressing these issues on their preliminary
plan.
11) Mr. Sperling stated that he wants to build customized homes, is willing to have fewer lots
(maybe at 13,000 ft. ea) but may be considered for a recapture credit from other developers,
because this project is the prototype for storm water quality management for the school property.
12) Mr. Graff suggested the developer could be considered for a credit in land cash for the loss of
detention on the Matlock property.
13) Mr. Whitehouse stated if the trees were 6"or above, an inventory must be done if they are cut
down. Preliminary plat must show all trees 6"or above for a PUD.
14) FPA has been filed, and the water comes from the south central zone, from Meadowbrook. Plans
are to go through Meadowbrook,then Evergreen Farm, through Aspen Ridge, with a pump
station along Fox River Bluff.
15) The National Resource Information report needs to be turned in.
Anna Kurtzman comments
1) Lots 159 and 132 are triangle pieces and should be tested with house designs.
Joe Wywrot comments
1) Two of the ponds are smaller and should be considered dry basins.
2) Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Dhuse prefer the round, not teardrop design, for snow removal.
Eric Dhuse comments
1) At a T-intersection, the street light is preferred at the head of the T, as long as it does not
interfere with the water main(on the sewer side) or as close to the corner as possible.
Mr. Graff suggested that the developer obtain a historical street name from Jennifer in engineering.
The traffic study will assist the developers to determine what is considered regional and if there will
be credits on improvements. Mr. Sperling would like, at the earliest,to begin work at the site in the
fall.
The developer will be at EDC on February 17th.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette Williams
3
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?011/017
? 1 ` —feir
52 Wheeler Hoed•Sugar Grove. IL 60554
TEL:630/466-9350
FAX: 630/466-9380
www.eeiweb.com
Engineering
Enterprises,
Inc.
February 18, 2005
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Bristol Bay(Centex Homes) Preliminary P.U.D. Plan Review
United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan for the referenced Bristol Bay
Development consisting of the following material received to date:
• Preliminary Engineering Plan prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 13 sheets dated 01/28/05.
• Preliminary P.U.D. Plat & Plan prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 14 sheets dated 01/24/05.
• Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by SEC Planning Consultants consisting of
12 sheets dated 01/24/05.
• Population Estimate and School and Park Donation Table by Centex Homes
consisting of 1 sheet dated 01/24/05.
• Draft Annexation Agreement & P.U.D. agreement draft dated 01/24/05.
• A copy of the Application & Petition submitted for development dated 01/24/05.
• A bound copy of Bristol Bay Large Lot Rendering by Centex Homes dated
01/21/05.
G'Tublie\l'orkvillr.•%2004W0040)Gentcx tionws-Galena f;oad1docOwywro101-P:,3Dr71 Plan cut.
Consulting Engineers Speclelising In Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, 2012/017
General
1. None of the required additional information requested in our memo dated
February 10, 2005 has been submitted as had been requested in our
meeting with the applicant on that date. This is not a complete review and
will only be complete once all of the required materials have been submitted
and reviewed.
2. No part of the proposed development is located within a Special Flood
Hazard Area as identified by FEMA based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) 170341 0010 & 170341 0020 C, dated July 19, 1982. However,
areas of this development have been identified as part of the Rob Roy Creek
Study as containing floodway and floodplain. No residential development is
being proposed in these areas.
3. A thorough review of the Wetland Delineation and Report (yet to be
provided) will need to be completed by the City's wetland consultant prior to
Preliminary Plan approval.
4. Permits or Sign-offs will be required from the following agencies:
a. (IDNR) Consultation Agency Action Report regarding endangered -
threatened species or natural areas.
b. (IHPA) Division of Preservation Services regarding Historic and
Archaeological Resources.
c. Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District regarding Sanitary Sewer Facilities.
d. (EPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding Sanitary Sewer
Facilities.
e. (TEPA) Division of Public Water Supplies regarding water supply and
distribution.
f. (TEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding a Notice of Intent
(NOI) General permit to discharge storm water.
g. Illinois Department of Transportation regarding points of access to Route
47.
h. Kendall County Highway Department regarding points of access to
Galena Road.
U'\'ublicc'fcxicvllle\2004,.Y0011e;i Canter.Humes-GJIcna I:oad\docs\;wywrct0 -ProIon Plan.coc
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. 2013/017
We recommend that item a and b be received prior to Preliminary Plan approval and
that for items g & h, 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 & f will be required prior to the start of
construction activities.
5. A Natural Resource Information Report should be applied for and prepared
by the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District and submitted
for review.
6. See our memo dated February 10, 2005 for additional required information.
7. An existing conditions topographic exhibit should be provided that indicates
existing tree location for all trees 6" caliper or higher. This can be provided
separately or incorporated into the Preliminary Engineering Plan.
8. An index of sheets should be provided on the preliminary engineering plan
and preliminary P.U.D. plat and plan.
9. Street names or another designation such as street "A" and "B" for reference
purposes should be added to both the preliminary engineering plan and plat.
Preliminary Engineering Plan, General
10.The '*4" symbol, presumably a valve box, should be shown in the symbol
legend.
11.On Sheet 1, the datum should be indicated for all bench marks.
12.Note 5 on Sheet 1 should indicate a 2' minimum and 3' maximum top of
foundation distance above adjacent road centerline, per City ordinance,
instead of a minimum of 3' as shown.
13.Note 6 on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Engineering Plan is improperly worded.
It should state that "all existing drainage patterns shall be maintained and all
field tiles shall be tied into the proposed storm sewer system", or words to
that effect.
14.The layout of street lights is incomplete throughout the proposed
development. Street lights should be added in accordance with City
requirements. A number of the street lights shown are on the same side of
the street as the water main which is in non-compliance with the Standard
Specifications.
Ci.u'ut n,wnrlcville\7004!v09"05 Centex Homes;-Galuna RoacAt.loc9\lwyw+ot31 -Pram Plan due
02/18/2005 FRI 4:17 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. ?014/017,
Traffic Study, Streets and Right of Way
15.A Traffic Impact Study should be prepared by the development consultants
in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications for Improvements and
submitted to the City and to the Kendall County Highway Department for
review and comment.
16. No additional right of way dedication is proposed at this time for Galena
Road. We anticipate a total width of 120 feet will be required by KCHD
which will necessitate modification of the buffer areas as well.
17,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.
18.Right of way and buffering requirements along Route 47 will be commented
on following IDOT approval of the proposed draft of the Right of Way,
Alignment and Access Plan we prepared for land owner and IDOT review.
19. An internal roads Average Daily Traffic (ADT) analysis should be provided
for verification of the proposed roadway classifications, right of way widths
and roadway widths, taking into consideration the proposed roadway stubs
to adjoining properties and the potential traffic associated therewith.
20, The Local & Private Road cross section on Sheet 13 of the Preliminary
Engineering Plans should be revised per City standard to call for 4" of CA-6
underneath the B.6-12 curb, instead of 3.5". The required parkway trees
should also be shown.
21.The curb returns at the entrance from Galena Road should have 40 foot radii
and the intersection design should be completed..
22. All block lengths substantially conform to City Standards.
23. A list of proposed street names should be submitted to the U. S. Postal
Service and to KENCOM for approval. A copy of the letter approving the
names should be submitted to the City for their records. One name should
be drawn from the City's list of historic names.
Water Mains
24. The layout of fire hydrants is incomplete throughout the proposed
development. Fire hydrants should be added in accordance with City
requirements -. every 300' or a minimum of two (2) hydrants to service all
G.\i blic\Ycrkvige\2-004'Y004U5 CFU Homes-Galcna Road\d1cs\iwywrol11-Prelim Pic ;
02/18/2005 FRI 4:17 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. I015/017
parts of any building, whichever is more stringent. Detailed review of fire
hydrant location will be accomplished at Final Engineering.
25.The water main is shown predominantly on the north and east sides of the
street, rather than the north and west sides as required by the City Standard
Specifications.
26.Water main valve location is incomplete throughout the proposed
development. Valves should be placed in accordance with City
requirements. Detailed review of valve locations will be accomplished at
Final Engineering.
27.On sheet 4, the water main shown in the cul de sac by lot 1045-1052 should
be routed through lot 1686 and up the east side of the road to the west of lot
1685 to connect to the proposed water main in that location. Detailed
analysis of water main sizing and looping will be addressed during modeling
and at final engineering.
28.0n sheet 4, the water main shown stubbed at the northwest corner of lot
1232 should be looped northerly between Lots 15 and 16.
29.We will input the proposed water distribution system into the City's model
and provide the design engineer with the required water main sizes upon
approval of the preliminary plan, prior to Final Engineering.
30. The proposed water distribution system will have to be coordinated with the
proposed Galena Road water main between Route 47 and the Grande
Reserve water system. We will meet with the design engineer to discuss the
specifics.
Sanitary Sewers
31. The internal preliminary sanitary sewer layout appears adequate as
presented and provides service to all proposed lots.
32.A number of the sanitary sewer manholes are spaced greater than the
suggested maximum 300 foot distance apart, but we recommend they are
acceptable as presented. Some modifications may be recommended at
Final Engineering.
33. The funding and timing of the construction of the required off-site interceptor
sanitary sewer which will serve this development will need to be established
prior to approval of a Final Plat. Easements will be required on the Bristol
Bay property in accordance with the final routing to be provided by YBSD.
Cir.wuClic\YJ/Rv!IIo1->4'O.11Y0040 center Homes• Gitlerla RO.itdhd0.5lv1ywrotQ1 ..Prelim Pin•loc
02/18/2005 FRI 4:17 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?016/017 _. •
Storm Sewers
34.The preliminary storm sewer layout overall appears to be adequate, subject
to the final design of the regional stormwater basin and conveyance channel
to be constructed as part of the Raymond Tributary stormwater
improvements. 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, will be required with the final engineering plans.
35. To maintain the maximum spacing requirement of 300 feet between inlets,
additional storm sewers and inlets may be required throughout.
36.Additional storm sewers or sump pump drain lines may also be required at
final design in order to provide the required sump discharge connection for
each lot.
37. An agricultural field tile survey should be performed and the results
submitted for review.
Stormwater Management
38. A Preliminary Soils Report will need to be provided for review.
39. The stormwater management facilities for this development will be provided
in the Raymond Regional Stormwater Basin to be constructed and managed
by the City. Phasing of these improvements will be discussed as the
planning for this development and the regional basin progresses.
Preliminary P.U.D. Plat and Plan
40. The datum should be indicated for the first Bench Mark on Sheet 1.
41. A number of curb returns, particularly in the townhome area have a radius
less than 30 feet. The minimum radius for curb returns at an intersection are
30 feet(25 feet for ROW radii).
42. See comment 17 above regarding Route 47 right of way and buffering
requirements.
43. We should discuss coordination of the land plans and street and utility
connections for the Inland and Rider properties southerly and easterly of this
development.
44.The Corporate Limits of the City should be shown on the Plat to demonstrate
contiguity.
G Publit:Workvillo\lf,)(i4W00405 C ^ntex Mani. Galen,Road\docs\iVimrC •Prelim Plan doc
02/18%2005 FRI 4:17 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, 2017/017
Draft Annexation Agreement and P.U.D. Agreement
45,We defer comments on this document until all required material has been
submitted for review.
Conclusion
Our review of this Preliminary Plan will continue once the submittal is complete
and 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.
IP
. 1 •
itJohn T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
JTW/dak
pc: JWF, EEI
Kevin J. Biscan, P.E., P.L.S., SEC @ 630-553-7646
Kevin Stough, Centex Homes @ 847-783-6303
G\Publicworkviiiev2004\Yoi it ceoiex Humes-Galena hoacPdocs':•wywrotO' -prelim Phn.dc
Feb . 13. 2005 10 : 39AM No .7504 P. 2/5
Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
126 S.Main St. Ph. (630) 551-3355
Oswego, IL 60543 Fax (630) 551-3639
February 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
From: Mike Scboppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Bristol Bay Subdivision
We have reviewed the Annexation Agreement dated 1/24/05, the Preliminary P.U.D. Plat
and Plan dated 1/24/05 prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants,the Preliminary
Engineering Plans dated 1/28/05 prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants,the Preliminary
Landscape Plans dated 1/21/05 prepared by SEC Planning Consultants and the Architectural
Renderings presented by Centex Homes, and provide the following comments:
Annexation Agreement
1. Page 2, paragraph D - a zoning plat needs to be prepared and included as an exhibit to
the agreement clarifying the limits of the various zoning districts.
2. Page 2, paragraph D -the 2.1 acre A-1 agricultural tract is not shown on the P.U.D.
plan. Where is it? How will the site be designed? We need more information on this
agricultural use.
3. Page 6, paragraph 4, Annexation and zoning, 5`h line— delete the portion of the sentence
that reads "of those portions of the SUBJECT PROPERTY zoned under R-2, R-3, and
R-4 provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance".
4. Page 7, paragraph 4, last sentence—additional information is needed on the operations
and site plan for the referenced A-1 use.
5. Page 7,paragraph 5—included architectural renderings in this paragraph.
6. Page 7, paragraph 5, last sentence— I can foresee confusion with the term "Approved
Plans". I suggest that term be revised to "Development Plans).
Paye I ore
Feb . 18. 2005 10: 39AM No . 7504 P. 3/5 ,
7. Page 8, paragraph 6.A., line 9—revise the sentence to read"DEVELOPER shall
provide at least one point of access to a public road for each single family neighborhood
and two points of access for multi-family neighborhoods".
8. Page 8, paragraph 6.A., line 17 —delete the last two sentences of this paragraph. The
City's Subdivision Ordinance outlines the general process and timeline for approving
Final Plats.
9. Page 9, paragraph B, line 4 —this line makes reference to "plans", but it does not clarify
what plans they are. The line should be revised to read"risk provided that all erosion
and siltation control measures shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans".
10. Page 9, paragraph C — delete this paragraph. The City's P.U.D. ordinance outlines
definitions and procedures for minor and major changes.
11. Page 12, paragraph 10, WETLANDS AND DETENTION— an exhibit needs to be
prepared and included in the agreement outlining the limits of the 1900 acres referenced
in the paragraph.
12. Page 13,paragraph 10, WETLANDS AND DETENTION, second paragraph—the
referenced Exhibit E needs to be submitted for review.
13. Page 14, paragraph 10— if the City is considering a City of Yorkville wetland bank, or a
wetland bank used for mitigation of"jurisdictional wetlands", then the limits of the
"wetland bank" should be shown on an exhibit and attached to the agreement.
14. Page 14, line 12—the last two lines of that paragraph should be deleted starting on line
12 with the words"The Wetland Mitigation Bank" etc.
15. Page 22, paragraph 17, SCHOOL AND PARK DONATIONS —we recommend that the
school site be improved and conveyed to the City within 3 years of approval of the final
plat for the development. We also recommend that any park sites located north of
Galena Road be improved and conveyed to the City within 3 years of approving any
Final Plat relating to land north of Galena Road, and that any park site located south of
Galena Roadbe improved and conveyed to the City within 3 years of approving any
Final Plat relating to land south of Galena Road.
16. Page 43, paragraph AA— delete this paragraph.
17. The commercial lots along Route 47 do not have site plans or building locations shown
on them as is required by the P.U,D. ordinance because the individual users are not yet
known. Therefore, language should be added to the annexation agreement that indicates
that preliminary plans will be submitted for review and approval at the time of site plan
approval.
jyye 2 ora
•
Feb-. 1B. 2005 10 : 39AM No .7504 P. 4/5
Preliminary Plans
1. Add the following information to the plan:
a. Name of property owners.
b. Minimum, maximum and average lot sizes for single family detached product.
c. Existing and proposed zoning.
d. Existing municipal limits.
e. Off-street parking, including number and dimensions of spaces.
f. Identify which lots will be conveyed to the H.O.A. and the City of Yorkville.
g. Any pedestrian or bicycle trails.
h. Existing vegetation.
1. Limits of jurisdictional or non jurisdictional wetlands. A wetland delineation
report should be submitted for review.
j. Limits of 100-year floodplain.
2. Submit aerial photograph illustrating the subject property and adjacent property within
one quarter mile of site.
3. The location of the land uses listed in the land use summary should be located and
identified on the plan. It would be helpful to have labels put on the individual
neighborhoods identifying them by number and land use, such as Neighborhood 1 —
Townhomes, Neighborhood 2 — Single Family, etc.
4. Correct the land use table to reflect 18.3 acre school site as shown on Sheet 3.
5. A design schedule should be created similar to the one created for Grand Reserve that
identifies building setbacks, building heights, separation between buildings, etc., for
each of the different land use areas.
6. The proposed land uses are consistent with the uses outlined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
7. In order to determine if the proposed overall density is consistent with maximum
density outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, two important acreages need to be
identified. The first is the amount of land area reasonably needed to store the
stormwater volumes of just this development. This should be an acreage that the City,
EEI and Smith Engineering can agree on. The second is the required amount of land
area that would be required for park sites. The parks department should identify this
acreage. After these two numbers have been assigned,we will calculate the additional
open space provided to determine how it compares to the 25% outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. These acreages can hopefully be identified at the Plan Council
meeting.
8. The area within the development of single family attached product totals 26.5% of the
total land area, which is within the guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
PLt7of4
Feb . 18 . 2005 10: 39AM No :1504 P. 5/5 ,
9. The residential—condominium and the residential—townhome land uses have densities
of 15.5 du/ac and 8.5 du/ac respectively. These densities exceed the maximum density
of 8 du/ac for single family attached units, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
When reviewing these densities, it would be appropriate for the City to take into
account the amount of additional open space being provided by this development.
10. Given the size of the multi-family pods, guest parking should be added within them.
11. It appears that the garage door to garage door distance in the multi-family
neighborhoods is 50'. This should be increased to a minimum of 60'.
12. The need for a small park site west of the north-south collector in or adjacent to the
condo area should be discussed.
13. Given the number of units in the townhome and single family neighborhood south of
Galena Road, we recommend an emergency access to Galena Road be provided and
used until the access to the O'Keefe property is completed.
14. An emergency access should be provided to Cannonball Trail for the multi-family
neighborhood west of Cannonball Trail.
15. Additional buffering between the east side of the townhome neighborhood, east of
Cannonball Trail, and the Rider Trust property should be provided.
We will provide additional comments as additional information is provided,
Please call with any questions ox comments.
CC: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
Bill Dettmer, Certified Building Official
John Whitehouse— EEI
•
Pwgc a,ca
1
o United City of Yorkville Memo
J rte, 't` 800 Game Farm Road
EST/14ittairo1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
_ Fax: 630-553-7575
oil, a ;
4�E v��
Date: February 11, 2005
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
John Wyeth, City Attorney
Mike Schoppe Land Planner
From: Laura J. Brown
CC: Scott Sleezer
Subject: Comments regarding Bristol Bay preliminary Plans and Annexation
Agreement
Land cash requirement is 53 acres
1. How much of the regional storm water detention is high and dry?
2. What land cash credit is the developer asking for of the open area?
3. If the developer is getting other credit for open area(i.e. storm water
detention, density credit or other), can they also get credit for land cash? If
not, what acres/or credit should be subtracted?
4. Is there any cash contribution from the developer for building the parks? If so,
what is the contribution?
5. The Park contribution(Parks outside of the regional storm water area) have
been reduced from the original concept plan from three separate parks to now
two neighborhood parks(on the preliminary Plan)why?
6. To what standard/grade will regional storm water area be developed to
before transferring ownership to the City?
7. What areas will be maintained/owned by HOA?
8. There should be at least two trail/corridor connections from the housing area
to the regional storm water/recreation area.
9. On the front of the preliminary plat plans the land use summary indicates 5.3
acres in neighborhood parks. The plans show two parks(3.29 acres and 1.91
acres) for a total of 5.2 acres
10. When will the parks be conveyed to the parks department?
11. Is the developer constructing or contributing financially to the neighborhood
parks? If so how much?
12. Is the developer constructing any part of the trail system throughout their sub
division?
13. What is the buffer between the homes and the regional storm water area?
14. Are there any trees throughout the development worth preserving?
15. The existing wetland should be identified.
16. Does this property have any wetland banking system planned.
02/18/2005 FRI 4:15 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?002/017
52 Wheeler Road * Sugar Grove, IL 60554
14IV
TEL: 630/468-9350
FAX: 630/468.9380
www,eeiweb.corn
EnglnssrIng
Enterprises.
Inc.
February 17, 2005
Mr. Joseph A.Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Aspen Ridge, Preliminary Plan Review, United City of Yorkville, Kendall
County, Illinois
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plan for the referenced Aspen Ridge Subdivision
consisting of the following material received to date:
• Preliminary Plan Application and Petition by Aspen Ridge Estates, LLC, dated
January 24, 2005.
• Preliminary Plat of Subdivision prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 3 sheets with initial issue date of January 24, 2005.
• Preliminary Engineering Plan prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 3 sheets with initial issue date of January 24, 2005.
• Plat of Survey prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. consisting of 1
sheet with initial issue date of November 23, 2004.
• Pavillion Road Parcel Drainage Study prepared by Aenon Consultants, Ltd.
dated November 29, 2004.
• Street Tree/Pond Treatment Landscape Plan prepared by Ives/Ryan Group, Inc.
containing 3 sheets with initial issue date of January 24, 2005.
G:\PuDIicWcc ville'?OO4\YOQ4 41 doi s Prop Orly(A.pt:o E9tilt( )',i'o�>\Iwpwrp!P calirt)Planpl dot:
Consulting Engln.sra Specializing In Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
02/18/2005 FRI 4:15 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?001/017
• Engineering Report for Aspen Ridge Subdivision prepared by Smith Engineering
Consultants, Inc. dated January 24, 2005 which includes the following:
Narrative
• USGS Location Map
i- Kendall County Soils Map
• Flood Insurance Rate Map 170341 0075 C
Existing Conditions Drainage Map
• USGS Topo Drainage Areas
Proposed Conditions Drainage Map
• Hydrologic Parameters and Analysis
Storm Water Basin Calculations
IHPA Correspondence regarding Historic Resources (Log # 019111704)
• IDNR Consultation Agency Action Report
General
1. No part of the proposed development is located within a Special Flood
Hazard Area as identified by FEMA based on Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) 170341 0075 C, dated July 19, 1982. However, see comment 40
below.
2. Permits or Sign-offs will be required from the following agencies:
a. (IDNR) Consultation Agency Action Report regarding endangered -
threatened species or natural areas.
b. (IHPA) Division of Preservation Services regarding Historic and
Archaeological Resources. In a letter dated December 6, 2004 (Log #
019111704)the IHPA has requested a Phase I reconnaissance survey.
c. Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District regarding Sanitary Sewer Facilities.
d. (IEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding Sanitary Sewer
Facilities.
e. (IEPA) Division of Public Water Supplies regarding water supply and
distribution.
f. (IEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding a Notice of Intent
(NOI) General permit to discharge storm water,
g. Kendall County Highway Department regarding points of access to Fox
Road.
0.1Publit\YorkvilkA200,11Y0C-141 Moth';Proporly(flspen Rid,r,E;Es,:lk`Odocsl!vvyvro!ProlimPlan01 doc
02/18/2005 FRI 4:15 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. I004/017
We recommend that items a, b and g be received prior to Preliminary Plan approval.
Items c, d, e &f will be required prior to the start of construction activities.
3. A Natural Resource Information Report should be applied for and prepared
by the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District and submitted
for review.
4. Preliminary comments from Fran Klaas, Kendall County Engineer should be
solicited and submitted to the City when received.
5. A wetland delineation and report should be submitted and reviewed by the
City's wetland consultant prior to Preliminary Plan approval.
Preliminary Engineering Plan, General
6. On Sheet 1, the datum should be indicated for all bench marks.
7. Note 6 on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Engineering Plan is improperly worded.
It should state that "all existing drainage patterns shall be maintained and all
field tiles shall be tied into the proposed storm sewer system", or words to
that effect.
8. Existing trees, 6" caliper and above, if any exist in the development area,
should be shown on the Preliminary Plan.
Traffic Study, Streets and Right of Way
9. The City will be preparing a Traffic Impact Study for this entire area of
development, concentrating on the impacts to Fox Road from this and other
proposed developments. Of extreme public interest and importance is the
impact of any development which places more traffic on Fox Road
considering the very poor level of service at its intersection with Route 47. It
is anticipated that the City will work with the County Engineer to determine
the near and long term improvement requirements for Fox Road from High
Point Road to Illinois Route 47 and consider the provision thereof during
annexation negotiations.
10.Fox Road adjoining this development is under the jurisdiction of the Kendall
County Highway Department but sections of Fox Road under the City's
jurisdiction will also be impacted by this development. The City should
require a Transportation Impact Fee as an integral part of the Annexation
Agreement which should go towards Fox Road improvements beyond those
improvements required by the Kendall County Highway Department. We
recommend that no credits be given towards this impact fee for
improvements required by KCHD.
1;..\fwldio\yorkvil: \2oo4\YOG1e.1 Mcunti NrUpc`d:y(Atic,r'ktdre L;F.t,t!' l'dv; wywru;P•olimPlaiiUl.uoC
02/18/2005 FRI 4:15 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, X1005/017
11.Comments from the Kendall County Engineer will undoubtedly address
additional right of way needs along Fox Road, if any. If additional right of
way is necessary, the landscape buffer design will have to be revised
accordingly. The Kendall County Engineer will also comment on required
turn lane and widening requirements for Fox Road.
12. Pavillion Road will require dedicated right of way and reconstruction.
13. The 2030 ADT (average daily traffic) projected for Pavillion Road in the
City's Transportation Planning Report is approximately 4000. This classifies
Pavillion Road as a Major Collector which requires a right of way width
between 80 and 100 feet. Due to the proximity of floodplain along the west
side of the road, this right of way requirement may need to be satisfied with a
greater proportion coming from the east side of the road. Realignment of the
existing intersection with Fox Road should also be accomplished in
conjunction with Evergreen Farm Estates to provide a 90 degree intersection
as well as shifting the improvement away from the floodplain.
14. An internal roads Average Daily Traffic (ADT) analysis should be.provided
for verification of the proposed roadway classifications, right of way widths
and roadway widths, taking into consideration the proposed roadway stubs
to adjoining properties and the potential traffic associated therewith.
15. The Local Road cross section on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Engineering
Plans should be revised per City standard to call for pavement fabric
beneath aggregate base in all non-granular sub-grade areas, The required
parkway trees should also be shown.
16. The Entrance Road cross section on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Engineering
Plans should be revised per City standard to call for pavement fabric
beneath aggregate base in all non-granular sub-grade areas and should also
be revised to show the proposed median. The required parkway trees
should also be shown.
17. The required Major Collector cross section for the reconstruction of Pavillion
Road, in accordance with the provisions of the City's Standard Specifications
for Improvements, should be added to the plans
1$. The required minimum 30 foot back to back roadway width should be
maintained in the cul-de-sacs.
19. Curb returns with 40 foot radii should be indicated at the Pavillion Road
access point and the required Pavillion Road reconstruction should be
indicated on the plans.
20. All block lengths substantially conform to City Standards.
1;:\P,,lTli0Yorkvill02004\Y0)'141 1\,10 r'i Property(Anfmn Ri[I:;,I . k)IHI )'r;oLalhvywrolP!olu;IPlan3I.00c
02/18/2005 FRI 4:15 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. 2006/017
21. All proposed centerline geometry meets City Standards.
22. A list of proposed street names should be submitted to the U. S. Postal
Service and to KENCOM for approval. A copy of the letter approving the
names should be submitted to the City for their records. One name should
be drawn from the City's list of historic names.
Water Mains
23. Water main routing, looping and extensions for future use are adequate as
presented except as discussed below. Detailed review of fire hydrant and
valve locations will be accomplished at Final Engineering.
24. Unless the Pierce property has been planned and annexed by the time this
development goes to Final Engineering and construction, provision will need
to be made to loop the watermain that dead ends in front of Lot 39.
25. Watermain, of a size to be determined by our Southwest Area Study, will
need to be extended to the northwest corner of this development.
26. The watermain route through Evergreen Farm or along Pavillion Road will
need to be determined in conjunction with Final Engineering.
27. We will input the proposed water distribution system into the City's model
and provide the design engineer with the required water main sizes at Final
Engineering.
28. The funding and timing of the construction of the required off-site water
mains which will serve this development will need to be established prior to
approval of a Final Plat.
Sanitary Sewers
29. The internal preliminary sanitary sewer layout appears adequate as
presented except as noted below and provides service to all proposed lots.
30. The sanitary sewer in the Lot 80 cul-de-sac should be extended to better
serve Lots 79 and 80.
31. The funding and timing of the construction of the required off-site interceptor
sanitary sewer which will serve this development will need to be established
prior to approval of a Final Plat.
r :\F'vbl:c\Yprkvii!e\'G0�\Ygt, 41 Morris Pr p ry(A,per.Ridge ced :es)\docs\IwywrviPrelimPhri01,rt or,
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. 2007/017
Storm Sewers
32.The preliminary storm sewer layout appears to be adequate, except as noted
in the following comments, 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, will be required
with the final engineering plans.
33. To maintain the maximum spacing requirement of 300 feet between inlets,
additional storm sewers and inlets need to be added in the vicinity of Lots 1
and Lots 207-214.
34. It appears that Ponds 1 and 2 are interconnected and the discharge should
be to the existing 48" culvert near the northwest corner of Lot 16, but no
outlet is shown.
35. An agricultural field tile survey should be performed and the results
submitted for review.
Stormwater Management
36. A Preliminary Soils Report should be submitted for evaluation of the soils in
the locations proposed for Retention Ponds. If granular soils are present,
these basins may need clay linings to prevent draining of the proposed wet
bottom basins and to ensure the adjacent basements excavations are not
hydraulically connected to the basin water levels.
37. Final basin design will have to show that the 10 year HWL is within 2 feet of
the NWL as required by City ordinance.
38. Due to the flooding concerns in this area and downstream, existing
conditions along the creek at the railroad and downstream should be
evaluated and presented in the Drainage Study. It may be desirable to
reduce the allowable discharge rate to 0.10 cfsfacre.
39. The existing conditions downstream of the 48" culvert near the northwest
corner of Lot 16 should also be investigated and reported.
40. The Drainage Study indicates an upstream tributary area of approximately
940 acres at Fox Road. Tributary areas of 640 acres and greater require
IDNR flow certification and floodway mapping. This will need to be
accomplished by either the developer or the City in conjunction with the
proposed easterly access road which crosses the creek and for the required
improvements to Pavillion Road and Fox Road.
G•\PUblit.\Yotkvill•f1\200.1\YC)C'1v 1 141or;i:;Prgi;fdrty(( .j''"Ridge.f•file )'101; U%vywr; F're lirrrPIz nO1.G0C
•
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc, ?008/017
41. Pond 4 has a proposed high water level of 665.5 which is well below the
668.22 high water elevation of the existing depressional storage area. This
will apparently drain all of the offsite depressional storage into Pond 4, thus
requiring it to accommodate the entire 17.1 acre feet of depressional storage
plus the required tributary area detention volume. Based on the submitted
calculations, the required volume would then need to be 22.1 acre feet,
though only 14.9 acre feet of capacity is proposed in Pond 4. This needs to
be addressed.
42. The final stormwater management facility design will need to verify that all of
the required volume in Pond 4 (which includes substantial depressional
storage volume) is utilized by proper restrictor sizing in accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Improvements.
Preliminary Plat of Subdivision
43. The legal description should be included on the Preliminary Plat.
44. Note 4 on Sheet 1 incorrectly states that this property is within the United
City of Yorkville.
45. A note should be added to the Plat indicating the proposed ultimate owners
of Lots 220-228.
46. The datum should be indicated for the Bench Marks on Sheet 1.
47. No proposed right of way dedication is indicated for Pavillion Road. See
comment#13 above for recommendations.
48. Fox Road should also additionally be labeled as County Highway 1.
49. Minimum total easement widths of 20 feet (10 feet on each lot) will be
required wherever sanitary sewers, water main or storm sewers are
proposed between lots. These are provided for in the Lot detail on each of
the 3 sheets.
50. The proposed minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet with minimum width at
the building setback line of 80 feet. Lots 49 and 50 should be widened by
utilizing some of the excess square footage in Lot 48 to provide 80 feet at the
building setback line. All other proposed lot and right of way geometry meets
City Standards.
51. We recommend that Lots 82-89 be reduced in depth to provide additional
open space buffering between them and the existing floodplain. This should
be accomplished by drawing a line from the northeast corner of Lot 81 to the
southeast corner of Lot 90.
G\P,it)\Ycfl(v:c12OO4\YO''1;t Moo ii;Preptarly IA_;g,tn 1;itiye LclA;ej`.nets\Iwywro!Prt;II;nPIar,01.00c
02/18/2005 FRI 4:16 FAX 630 466 9380 EEInc. 2000/017
52. Lot 91 should also be reduced in size such than no part of it is platted in the
floodplain.
53. Street names should be provided in accordance with comment 22 above.
54. The Preliminary Plat should bear the name and seal of an Illinois Licensed
Professional Land Surveyor.
Conclusion
Our review of-this Preliminary Plan will continue as the above comments are
addressed by the developer and the design engineer and additional information
is submitted as requested. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
("\ John T. Whitehouse, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Project Manager
pc: JWF, EEI
David W, Schultz, P.E., SEC, Inc. @ 630-553-7646 (fax)
Aspen Ridge Estates, LLC @ 815-464-2032
(::tr'ubl c\Yorkvil!e\2004\YO0441 Morris Property(Asset Ridge Estate:)\docs\IwywrotPru!r PlanOl.00c
Feb-. 17 . 2005 11 :45AM No .1491 P. 2/3
u . o_ -c�=
Schoppe Design.Associates, Znc.
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
126 S. Main St. Ph. (630) 551-3355
Oswego, IL 60543 Fax (630) 551-3639
February 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Tony Graff, City Administrator
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Aspen Ridge Estates
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat dated 1/24/05 and the Preliminary Engineering Plans
dated 1/24/05, both prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants and the Street Tree/Pond
Treatment Landscape Plan dated 1/24/05 prepared by Ives/Ryan Group, and provide the
following comments:
General
1. For the purpose of this review, we have assumed R-2 zoning. However, we will not be
able to complete our review until the zoning and any conditions of annexation have been
identified.
Preliminary Plat
1. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Update identifies this area as Estate and to be
developed at a maximum density of 1.75 du/ac. The proposed density of Aspen Ridge
Estates is 1.74 du/ac. The plan further suggests that if a development is to be approved
above 1.5 du/ac, the development needs to demonstrate compliance with the design
guidelines and the incorporation of other specific improvements, such as funding of site
improvements, incorporating architectural standards which exceed City requirements,
increased landscaping, additional open space beyond City requirements, etc. Based on
. the documents, it is not clear how the additional benefits justifying the density above
1.5 du/ac is being accomplished. We recommend a description be added to the plans
listing how the design guidelines are being met and what additional improvements above
City requirements are being provided.
2. The following additional information is to be added to the plat:
a. Name and address of owner of record.
b. Existing zoning of property and surrounding property.
c. Identify parcels that are proposed by a homeowner association and the City.
PgcIof2
Feb..'17 . 2005 11 : 45AM No. 7497 P. 3/3
d. Pavillion Road right-of-way dedication.
3. An 80' wide trail corridor needs to be provided along the south property at lots 71, 79 and
80 to accommodate future extension of a trail south into the Challey property.
4. Who will own lots 222, 227 and 228?
Preliminary Engineering
1. Show general location of outfall pipes for the stormwater basins. Pipes should discharge
into vegetated swales leading to the creek rather than discharging directly into the creek.
2. Add trail in open space corridor paralleling Pavillion Road. Trail should extend west
behind lots 71, 79 and 80.
3. Landscape buffer along Fox Road should be a minimum of 50' wide.
4.. The location of the existing trees over 6" in caliper and their dripline needs to be added to
the plans.
5. A significant treeline exists along the south property lines. The engineering plans should
reflect a 50' buffer strip along the south property line for protection of the vegetation.
The grading for storm sewer and utility construction would be located outside of the
buffer strip.
Landscape Plan
1. Show existing vegetation.
2. Identify what type of vegetation enhancements are proposed in the open space corridor
running along Pavillion Road.
3. Indicate the type of vegetation is proposed above the HWL around the stormwater basins.
We will provide additional comments and recommendations as additional information is
provided.
CC: Mayor Art Prochaska
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
Bill Dettmer, Certified Building Official
John Whitehouse—EEl
Pete Huinker - Smith Engineering Consultants
P t2of2