Loading...
COW Minutes 2005 03-15-05 Page 1 of 8 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 6/14/2005 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:00 PM City Conference Room City Staff Present: Mayor Art Prochaska Alderman Besco Alderwoman Burd (out at 7:55) Rec and Parks Director Laura Brown Public Works Director Eric Dhuse City Administrator Tony Graff Alderman Kot (out from 7:55 -8:45) Police Chief Harold Martin Alderman Munns Alderwoman Ohare City Intern Bart Olson Finance Director Tracy Pleckham City Treasurer Bill Powell Alderwoman Spears Alderman Sticka City Attorney John Wyeth Guests signed in: Peter Huinker -Smith Engineering William Goldbeck - Gardner Curton Douglas Matt Cudney -Pulte Homes Rick Young - Kimball Hill Dave Waden -Land Vision Joe Dougherty -J &S Development Sal Rexhepl -J &S Development Jason Leslie - Meadowvale Inc Kathy Farren- Record Allecia Vermillion- Beacon Van L. Truman-Park Board Ken Koch -Park Board Gary Golinski Chuck Brooks Tammy Smock -Park Board Dana Jones -Park Board Dean Wolfer John Daku -YYBS Beth Prickett-YYBS, National City Lynn Dubajic -YEDC Heather Fiala -Park Board The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Prochaska. Due to the amount of people in attendance to speak, the agenda was discussed out of order. Additional Business: 1. Future of Park Board: Alderman Besco started discussion, due to bringing this idea forward to Committee, stating why he felt this needed discussing. He stated that in an effort to streamline the way the City does things, instead of constantly hashing over the same issues, he is contemplating the need for a Park Board and is interested in hearing what the rest of the Council had to say about this subject. Alderman Kot asked Alderman Besco to give an example of something that is being constantly re- discussed. He responded that he could not and stated that City Council is constantly going back over what the Park Board has already discussed. With the Parks Planner on the proposed budget, Alderman Besco feels that would be a duplication of the same job being done. Mayor Prochaska stated that he is 1 Page 2of8 clarifying that the person the City is looking at is someone that works with the board and draws parks. They would lay out equipment, parking lots, and all the technical design work. He went on to state that as far as the major part of developers coming in and the planning process, the park board handles that part. The park planner would step in after the where and what part is decided and actually draws this up. This work now is handled by consultants and still shown to park board from there. Alderman Kot stated that he served as City Liaison for the Park Board when he first came on to City Council. He went on to say that he remembers that they had some very late night discussions with a variety of ideas being discussed. He feels they handle nothing as technical as a planner and very much values the Park Boards in put. They handle things that the City Staff could not and the City Council could not. Alderman Munns stated that he felt this debate was good and having a Commission advising the Council would serve the same purpose as the Park Board. The Committee discussed the use of a Commission in past years. They came to discuss that the Park Board was put in place when budgeting for parks started to help the City more. Alderwoman Spears stated that according to state statute, a Commission could not discuss any part of the budget. She feels the Park Board is doing a good job, yet developers go to the Park Board first and then City Council can't put in much input of changes. Mayor Prochaska explained to the Council that developers would not switch the plans around because they already have determined what was needed for meeting requirements for land and cash per the City Ordinances. Alderwoman Burd stated at this point that it needs to be clear to developers then that the City Council does have the last say with the plans and may have to go back to the Park Board to renegotiate. Mayor Prochaska stated that the Council always has the right to give direction supercedingly. At this point Heather Fiala, park board member, stated to the council that the City's liaison from Council is rarely seen at their meetings to have input on their decisions. Alderwoman Spears questioned at this point what % of funds in the budget is allocated to public works, public safety and to the park board. She feels there is a problem with the way the funds are allocated and more funding should go to other areas. She stated that she has surveyed other communities for their park planning and having directors. She also brought up that she has read of a legal matter that was discussed in the paper, which she has come to find that the Park Board was already aware of. She feels that the Council should know of these situations, being that they are elected officials. At this point Mayor Prochaska stepped into to say that the legal matter she is speaking of was regarding a legally confidentially letters can not be let out. The Park Board was sent that confidential 2 Page 3 of 8 letter and legally the City could not speak about it. Alderwoman Spears stated that the States Attorney informed her that with corporate authority, the Council should be informed of these situations. Alderwoman Ohare questioned what this situation has to do with the future of the Park Board. Alderwoman Spears stated that it has a lot to do with the Park Board and how things are handled, and how citizens perceive the Park Board as well as the Council. Mayor Prochaska stated he sees the citizens observing the Park Board as doing work for the City. He also stated that he feels they do a good job and makes recommendations. He pointed out that when Country Hills subdivision was being planned, with the City Council voting, the park was moved which overrode the Park Boards recommendation. Lastly, Alderwoman Spears stated that she feels there is not enough communication and 2 years ago there was friction and at that time a Park District was discussed as well. Mayor Prochaska stated he feels to take the Park Board away would be a step backwards for the City. Alderman Sticka stated that he is disappointed to see the Council try to quiet the Public. The Park Board is here to help the City Council and the council does not have to follow their suggestions. He questioned if this is coming up for discussion now, due to an exchange of upsetting letters in the Record a few weeks ago between a Council member and a Park Board member. Alderman Besco stated that he brought this forward for no personnel reasons, he feels that the Council could rely on a Park Director more. He feels this goes with being constantly told to rely more on the staff. Alderman Munns questioned at this time if this board is for advising the Parks Department, how come the City does not have advisory boards for Public Works, Public Safety or finance. Mayor Prochaska responded that is something that the Council can have put together. Alderman Munns stated that he agreed with Alderwoman Spears in the point that there are a lot more pressing issues in other areas or departments that the City's money should go to. Mayor Prochaska stated that there is a lot of money, land cash that is coming into the City specifically designated for the Parks. He went on to state that Chief Martin would agree that without all the activities the City does offer, crime would go up without it. Mayor Prochaska stated that if the Council were to look around at most surrounding communities, they would see that they have Park Districts. These park districts which have boards, planners, directors, maintenance, etc., just like the City of Yorkville has, without the district being a separate body as in Yorkville. The Committee questioned how the decisions were made in City's with a Park District. Mr. John Wyeth stated that the developer would be sent to the park district to decide the land cash set -up and that decision would come before City Council just like done here now. The City always ultimately has the last say with ultimate authority. The Committee continued stating their feelings on the idea of the Park Board being dissolved. Members of the Park Board also had a moment to state how they 3 Page 4 of 8 felt about the matter at hand. Mayor Prochaska asked how many of the Council wanted to discuss this issue again at the next COW meeting and the Council responded as follows: Besco -yes, Kot -no, Burd -yes, Ohare -no, Munns -yes, Spears -yes, Sticka -no. It takes three Alderman to put back on an agenda, so this will come back at the April 19 COW meeting. Presentations: 1. PC 2004 -21 Anderson Farm Concept Plan — COW 11/16/04 & 12/7/04: Rich Young stated to the Committee that the sheet that he passed out to the Committee present outlines the space data from 3 different plans, the third of which has been presented to the Committee over the weekend. This is how they are proposing to develop the Anderson Farm land. There will be 2 basic lot sizes, one being 65' by 125' for the areas on the south and the other being 75' by 134'. This clustering that is shown on the plan is being done to preserve much of the already present mature tree growth on the property in question. They are here tonight looking for direction from the Council if clustering is an option with them with the preservation that would take place along with it. The total acreage of the property is 236 acres, so approximately 118 acres would be open space, without housing. Alderwoman Spears questioned who would be responsible for maintenance on the open space. Mr. Young replied it could be handled in a number of ways. HOA would be the natural way to go if the Park Department did not want to take responsibility of any of the open space. He went on to state that they intend to talk to the Forest Preserve to see if they would be interested in this type of development as well, but until they have type of more concrete in concept plans, he can not move forward in that route. Mr. Graff stated that another option is looking into a 3 rd party conservation holding company. This area has a high interest by environmental groups too. Alderman Munns stated that he does not want to steer away from the proposed 12,000 sq ft lots as in the concept plan unless there is a good enough reasoning behind it. Mr. Young stated that they feel that they have an extraordinary space in question here with 1.59 overall densities. He went on to state that there is still a site tour available for any here who would like a closer look at the land in question to see how unique it is. Mayor Prochaska stated that the only issue he sees is that he would like the open space flowing together more. There is one area that is separated with development and if that was changed he would like the overall plan. Alderwoman Ohare questioned the fact that the plan is showing only one route in and out for emergency vehicles to have better access. Mr. Young stated that there will be another street connecting with another neighboring subdivision to take care of the back half if needed. Page 5 of 8 Alderman Sticka stated that he feels plenty of people would go wild about living in a home that backs up to these wonderful trees, giving up the 12,000 sq ft lot size would not be much to lose. Mr. Young stated that this is just a rough sketch to show where the roads would set presuming. There is always a chance for change. The Council highly recommended that he make the green space flow better together. The Council stated that they felt there is a time to make exceptions for lot size with the amount of trees on the property with their suggestions to be taken into the plan as well. Mayor Prochaska stated that if this plan is to continue forward with the clustering being acceptable by all, that the Council should look more at the specifics of architecture, sq footage of homes, etc. to make those aspects of the homes be kept top end to make up for the loss of the 12,000 sq ft lots in this area in preserving the land there. Look at set -backs to save the trees, side yards, and other items in the PUD. Mr. Young discussed the utility placement with preserving the root systems of the trees as well. The plan commission should be given the comments and suggestions as well to help on their end know what the Council would like to see happen. On the south side of the property there would be approximately 200 lots at 8,125 sq ft in size. Mr. Young has asked that the Committee let them know now if this is not desirable so that the development could move forward. Mr. Young stated that certain lots will not allow for sheds or play structures do to the size and that will be known to the people who buy these homes as well. Mr. Graff stated that the next step would be to get some standards set up for the area. They would look more into the specifics of which lots would be what size. He also explained with the preservation going on in this development there would be all sorts of variations in each lot as far as set backs and house design allowable due to the tree growth right there. The goal is to save the trees and get this area developed to bring in more funds for the City. Alderwoman Spears stated that she would hate to see the intentions be good here in preserving the trees, yet others have developed with that intention and when they did the building they removed a lot of the trees to get the homes built. Mr. Young agreed that this should not happen. From here they are looking to develop conversation design standards to fit this project and others to bring back to the Council before moving forward too much with this. Mr. Young stated that they would work with their consultants to bring that back to the Council. The Council is looking to have provisions in writing in the agreement regarding the preservations of the trees. The quality of the homes put on these under sized lots would like to be guaranteed for more reasoning for making the lots so small in preserving the trees. With that Page 6of8 in mind, the work requested to be done will be worked on and come back before the Council. Economic Development Committee: 1. Autumn Creek Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement — COW 12/7/04 & 12/21/04: Mr. Graff stated that the Committee has not seen this agreement and the hearing was back in December. Reviews were collected by Staff and there was a change of Attorneys within the firm, making it possible that they got the comments about 2 -3 weeks ago. He went on to state that both the owner of the nursery property being discussed and the developer are here this evening. At this point, the City Staff is looking for input on the draft annexation agreement and how to move forward. Mr. Graff went over what has been previously worked out between the developer and the City since this was last before the Council. The Committee discussed the agreement with the developer and found the following needed to be changed and /or cleaned up with the verbiage: Alderman Sticka questioned where it is written into the agreement regarding sales tax rebates for the commercial area. He went on to state that the commercial area is planned to be sold off. He feels this should not be in here and in the future the City can work with the buyer then with any such rebates. He was also concerned with all the references of special uses; this should be addressed when the final land owner is discussing that with the Council themselves. Mayor Prochaska stated that they will allow verbiage stating the City will consider only, not guarantee. Alderwoman Spears pointed out that there were pages missing. Mr. Graff stated that those were exhibits that were talked about in the agreement. Alderwoman Ohare stated that on page 30, paragraph C states that the developer will have the ability to start construction of the foundations before approval of the final plat. This needs to be at the developers own risk. If the City needs lot lines moved or what not, the developer will have to move accordingly as well. Mr. Graff stated that this was requested to keep from pouring foundations in the winter, due to the poor quality of foundation that can come from doing them in the cold. The developer knows it is at their own risk. The Committee asked that it state in the agreement that it is allowed at the developers own risk. Mayor Prochaska also asked that it state here that by allowing these permits to go out before final plat acceptance, it in no way guarantees approval of the final plat. Mr. Cudney also went over with the Committee what type of public improvements they were looking into having accomplished by having an SSA. With that the Committee requested that the verbiage be cleaned up and also requested that some of the lots be made available for local builders to buy as well C Page 7 of 8 to keep local builders in business too. This will come back to COW on 4/19/05 after being cleaned up. Park Board: 2. Fox Hill East Park — Ball Field Installation — PKBD 3/14/05: Laura Brown explained to the Committee that there was an increase of over 200 more registrations into the Youth Baseball for this year. With the amount of new teams and games scheduled, there is an urgent need for building a new field for this year. With Council's approval, staff would be prepared to install a permanent field at Fox Hill — East Park immediately in preparation for the YYBSA season which begins April 11 The funding would come out of the Capital fund for this project and $6,000.00 would come from YYBSA to share in the cost. The total cost will be approximately $12,000.00. The Committee agreed to move this on as consent agenda on 3/22/05 at City Council. The Committee also discussed at this time the parking issue on John Street next to the park. Laura Brown stated that they have discussed additional striping and cross walks on John Street before this field goes in. It was confirmed that the road was sized to hold parallel parking on both sides. The Committee requested that due to safety "reasons, they would like to see signs posting only allowing parking on one side. Mayor Prochaska cautioned that the parking will spread over onto the other roads then in that area. They also discussed the idea of having a caution sign for the park area located there. Public Works Committee: 1. EEI Scope of Service for Fox Road — Southwest Area Transportation Study: John Whitehouse spoke to the Committee regarding the above item. He passed out some color maps to the Committee to look over while he discussed the study. They have the scope of services ready and will speak briefly on what has been given to the City on this matter. He went on to state that they came up with this in regards to the Aspen Ridge and Fox Hill development discussions regarding the amount of traffic that will go into Fox Road with those being developed. The area included is bounded by the river, Highpoint, IL RT 47 and IL RT 71. They will look at data collection at various intersections in that area, the roadway network alternative in the area. He feels Fox Road is not the only alternative here and what IDOT is planning. He explained in more detail what would be looked at in this area and what would affect traffic. The Committee questioned what this study would be funded by with the cost estimates at $34, 665.00. It was stated by Mr. Graff that 2 developers in the area 7 Page 8 of 8 have already agreed to put funding towards these costs and the total project will have it written in that it will be done subject to receiving funds from developers. Mr. Durvin Allen stated to the Committee that he had spoke to the County regarding any more Fox Road improvements being done on their part, and they have no future plans to do more work there. The Committee agreed to move this forward to City Council as consent agenda subject to receiving funding from developers. 7. EEI Hourly Rate Increases — PW 2/28/05: Mr. Jeff Freeman stated to the Committee that EEI will be increasing there hourly rates for what they charge the City. He went over with the Committee the letter and table provided with the Committee members for explanation of why the rates are increasing. The Committee agreed to look into what neighboring Communities are being charged compared to the City of Yorkville. Mr. John Wyeth also discussed with Mr. Freeman as to how the current contracts would be handled with the rate increase. It was found that EEI will honor contracts that are current with the City. This will move on to City Council under Public Works. There will be a resolution stating what discussed and if a list is possible it will be made available to the Committee. Presentations: 2. Proposed FY 05/06 Budget — Admin 3/3/05: Tracy Pleckham started discussion on this item and the Committee agreed to table this to a meeting set for 3/29/05. Detail Board Report (Bill List): Tabled to meeting set before next City Council meeting. Items Recommended by Committee for Consent Aeenda: & Mavor: All items under these two agenda items were moved on to the next City Council meeting for discussion there. All other items on agenda were tabled to the meeting set to take place before the next City Council meeting for discussion at that time due to the length of the meeting this evening. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05pm. Minutes by: Sheila Teausaw PLEASE SIGN IN MEETING: DATE: BUSINESS NAME l `. o M cj) tin PHONE # -553 - 7 5 n 32- -- s - ,(,-7 - /zz r CgW 7 v D /7/�J, L y,✓) D q A52 c. c o ry-) ry) e- J -h ltJ 3� IS 0 J liar z r S T25 s ly yygs � 4,maff 64- 5 -C cvb yev C- 553 - XY� i ,� �1 ! t �. '� .� v � _,• -; � �� � r-f �