Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2008 08-28-08 AM= Plan Council August 28, 2008 Attendees: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Stephanie Boettcher, Senior Planner Jackie Dearborn, Civil Engineer Travis Miller, Director of Comm. Development Sgt.Don Schwartzkopf,Yorkville Police Anna Kurtzman,Zoning Coordinator Eric Dhuse,Director of Public Works Dave Mogle,Director of Parks and Recreation Guests: Dan Kramer,Kramer Law Offices Jim Koziol,Koziol Engineering Mason Oliver,HRM Properties Bob Pilmer,Pilmer and Barnhart Don Burks, Property Owner Loren Miller,Property Owner The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am by Joe Wywrot. August 14, 2008 minutes were approved subject a spelling correction of McHugh Road on page 2. Star European Imports—Annexation and PUD Located at 9316 Rout 34, West of McHugh Road Mr. Kramer indicated that the petitioner is requesting P.U.D zoning, not B-3 zoning. This correction will be made to the preliminary geometric plan. Also, Mr. Miller requested that the petitioner provide a statement indicating the change in the engineering consultant from the original listed on the application to Koziol Engineering. The petitioner has contacted IDOT in regards to the proposed land dedication shown on the preliminary plan; however the petitioner has not received any information from IDOT about this issue. The preliminary plan shows a 20' dedication running the length 183.66' from the western property line and a 4' dedication running the length of 150.06' from the eastern property line. This dedication is drawn to match the access easement dedications of the properties to the west. It was indicated by Mr. Wywrot that the petitioner needs to double check this dedication with IDOT, as they will have final say. Mr. Koziol spoke to the potential for sanitary sewer service on site. He stated that from the building's floor elevation to nearest invert there is a coverage depth of 6 ft. However, once sewer service was run from this invert to the property there would be about 3 ft of coverage. Mr. Koziol suggested that it would be better to do a forced sewer main from the property to west. However, there is a coverage issue with this option as well. Mr. Wywrot indicated the petitioner should continue to pursue securing offsite utility easements, and that the smallest coverage amount the City allowed was 3.5 ft, so this could be doable. The petitioner is to contact John Frerich of Deuchler Associates in regards to the sanitary sewer issues and recommended coverage. Mr. Miller questioned if the petitioner was committing to annex to YBSD. Mr. Oliver indicated that it was dependent on cost. The petitioner does not want to spend a lot of money on securing easements and would like to keep the option open for having septic service onsite. Mr. Wywrot indicated that if the petitioner would like to keep septic service that the preliminary site plan would have to be altered to include a septic field. If the petitioner was to pursue running the sanitary sewer main to the east, they would have to secure easements to do so. However, running a forced sewer main would allow the petitioner to take advantage of the existing easement. Mr. Miller suggested that if the City would allow a forced main that the petitioner would utilize this option until improvements are made to McHugh at which time the petitioner would hook into this system. Mr. Wywrot indicated that gravity is always preferred, which would mean utilizing the McHugh Road sewer main. He still would like the petitioner to pursue securing easements to the east to McHugh. If a forced main is used, it would have to be determined if the pump station would be private or public. Mr. Dhuse indicated that a private pump station would be preferred, however Mr. Wywrot noted that if the retail building develops and there a multiple property owners and multiple buildings that the pump station might fall into the public realm. Mr. Wywrot indicated that if the petitioner was to use septic, that would have to submit a new site plan and ultimately the retail building shown would have to be removed to place a septic field. Mr. Kramer stated they have spoke to the petitioner about having sanitary service and that sanitary would be preferred as a septic field would take away valuable land for development. Mr. Wywrot brought up the stormwater management onsite. Mr. Koziol stated that the basin would be a wet bottom basin in which the pond would not release when there was 3/ inch or less in rain. The bottom would be a naturalized area and the rain would feed this vegetation. Mr. Wywrot questioned if the space provided was enough for the site and that the issue would have to be resolved as soon as possible. Ms. Dearborn questioned about the parking lot lighting and if lighting will be within the parking islands. Also, that the site plan shows wall packs which are discouraged by the City's dark sky ordinance. Mr. Oliver stated that the petitioner will be placing lighting in these islands. Ms. Dearborn identified that the petitioner has added a proposed access easement on the plan, but that it should also state that it is a cross access easement and others are able to access and travel across the property. Mr. Kramer questioned if the City was provided with a similar easement from the property to the west and cautioned if not, the easement could become a one- way street. Ms. Dearborn is to provide Mr. Kramer with a copy of the agreement for this property(Shops at Veteran's Parkway). Mr. Wywrot questioned if they want to provide a physical connection to the property to the west and if there was a need for this. Staff is to determine if this property has a cross access easement and if so where it is located. The subject property should provide an access easement to the east for the benefit of this property owner. Ms. Boettcher addressed the excess of parking spaces that are shown on the site plan, and suggested that the petitioner look into removing the spaces along the east and west property line in order to conform to the side yard requirements. Mr. Wywrot also noted that the plan doesn't conform to the parking lot setback, and this will most likely be a deficiency of the property. Additional landscaping may be requested because of this and should be addressed in the annexation agreement. The petitioner is requested to submit a concept/preliminary landscape plan as a part of the annexation agreement. Mr. Miller asked the petitioner about the parking and the reduction of the parking. Mr. Koziol stated that he would not have a problem with removing these spaces and that reducing spaces may also help the potential stormwater issue on the property. Mr. Kramer suggested working some flexibility into the agreement to allow for additional parking in the future. Mr. Miller addressed that the City is concerned about the storing of vehicles in need of repair. Mr. Oliver did state that shop mostly does minor repair. It was agreed that some amount of reduction of parking would be provided. Ms. Dearborn identified that the petitioner may need to move the location of one or both handicapped spaces for the dealership in order for them to be closer to the sales area. Mr. Kurtzman noted that the ADA accessibility code dictates where the parking stalls shall be located. She stated that the door to the sales area would most likely be the ADA accessible as opposed to the service entrance. Mr. Oliver identified that if they moved the handicapped stall, this would eliminate up to 4 spaces out of the 5 spaces by the show room. Even if there is a reduction in the number of spaces to 35, the petitioner will still need 2 handicapped spaces. If the petitioner does this, they would want to keep parking along the east property line. However, if the petitioner was able just to remove the parking along the west property line, or if the petitioner was able to split the handicapped spaces, in which one would stay where it is currently shown on the plan and the other would move by the sales floor, they may be more amenable to the reduction in parking on the east side. Mr. Oliver stated that he would like to speak to the property owner about the traffic volume of their existing business. Other parking configurations, such as parallel and angled parking were also suggested. Ms. Kurtzman noted that since the petitioner is requesting PUD zoning there are requirements for PUD submittal which the petitioner needs to catch up with. Also, a list will have to be formulated of the deviations from the code to include in the annexation agreement. Mr. Miller requested that a sign program be submitted with the PUD application. Ms. Kurtzman noted that the City passed a new sign ordinance and the petitioner should look at this. Also, the petitioner should make mention on the engineering plans that approval of those plans does not permit approval of the sign shown. Sign approval goes through a separate approval process. Ms. Dearborn questioned about the display area, if the curb will be keep as it is shown on the site plan. There needs to be clarification if there will be a curb to provide a raised display area or not. A resubmitted site plan is not necessary as staff will address the issues in their comments. This will move forward to Plan Commission on September 10th, EDC on October 7th, and City th Council on October 28 Burks Brothers Subdivision—Preliminary Plat Located at 1211-1213 S. Bridge Street, North of Garden Street Mr. Wywrot indicated that IDOT will need to approve the plat and that IDOT has requested that approximately a 5' right of way be conveyed. He noted that IDOT has typically asked for a separate lot to be conveyed to them. Mr. Pilmer mentioned that IDOT was not interested in purchasing the property. However, the potential right of way still needs to be shown either as a separate lot or as part of the other lots (lot 1 and 2). Mr. Wywrot stated that whatever the petitioner works out with IDOT on how the right of way to be conveyed is shown on the plat is fine with the City. Ms. Boettcher addressed that the property to the north of Lot 4 is a residential zone. Should this lot redevelop it will need to conform to the landscape ordinance which currently requires a 30' buffer yard between a business zone and a residential zone. Currently, the storage units on this lot will be considered a pre-existing non conforming use. Ms. Kurtzman addressed that the building setback line for the front yard of each lot shall be provided on the plat. Also, the petitioner needs to identify what shall be considered a front yard for lot 3 and lot 4 as they do not have street frontage. It was determined that the eastern lot line shall be considered the front yard. A 50' front yard shall be provided. For lot 1 and lot 2, 50' shall be measured from the proposed IDOT right of way. Petitioner shall not have a problem meeting these requirements. Ms. Boettcher also requested that the petitioner provide a sidewalk running parallel to Route 47. The petitioner questioned when the appropriate time to provide this sidewalk was. Mr. Wywrot noted that it is logical to place the walk in at this time, sooner as opposed to later. When Route 47 widens, IDOT will be responsible for replacing the sidewalk. The petitioner mentioned that the property to the south (Prairie Gardens) is missing approximately 30' of sidewalk from the Burks property going south. This will cause a gap in the connection from the Prairie Gardens property into the proposed sidewalk on the Burks property. Staff is to look into this along with the proper alignment of the sidewalk. Petitioner is to at least have sidewalk bonded for in order to have plat of subdivision recorded. Ms. Kurtzman addressed that a 10' easement was previously recorded on the property along the front of the property and was not reflected on the plat. Ms. Kurtzman was wondering if the 25' utility easement shown on the plat supersedes this 10' easement or if this 25' easement is in addition to original 10' easement. The petitioner is to verify that the 25' easement is superseding the 10' easement shown on previous plats. The petitioner is to provide the easement document numbers to the plat. Ms. Kurtzman mentioned that signage is only allowed on property which has street frontage. Mr. Miller noted that it will be necessary for the lots to share signage, in which an access easement shall be provided on the plat for maintenance of the sign. The petitioner mentioned there is existing signage and that lot 1 has its own signage, while lots 2-4 share a sign on lot 2. The sign on lot 2 will have an easement allowing lot 3 and lot 4 to access it, which shall be shown on the plat. Mr. Miller inquired if the petitioner would like to submit final plat and preliminary plat in conjunction as it is typically easier for the public participation phase. The petitioner will like to proceed in this manner, so preliminary plat approval will be withdrawn from the September 10th Plan Commission. The petitioner will modify the preliminary plat and submit a final plat, which will be brought back to plan council. Following this, it will go onto Plan Commission. Loren and Rhonda Miller—Mile and'/z Review Located at 2450C Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL, southeast of Wrigley Corporation Ms. Dearborn addressed that staff was concerned the property did not have any street frontage and it may be necessary to have an easement to the parcel. The petitioner stated that the parcel does have a legal easement with Star Mercedes who runs a business out of the parcel adjacent to the subject property. The petitioner owns both the subject property and the parcel on which Star Mercedes runs its business. The petitioner runs a body shop on the subject property, instead of continuing to have a non-conforming use on the property; the petitioner would like to rezone the property to County M-1 in order for the body shop use to be in conformance with the zoning. The petitioner is not changing the use on the property. Mr. Miller questioned if the petitioner would consider combining the subject property with the parcel where Star Mercedes sits, as the petitioner owns both parcels, as combining the two parcels would alleviate some of the setback issues with the subject property. The petitioner indicated that while that is possible, as it currently sits there would be two separate parcels which he could sell off. Due to this,he would like to keep the parcels separate. Mr. Miller explained the procedure of a mile and '/Z review to the petitioner and while the two parcels are currently both owned by the petitioner, it is the City's task just to review the subject property and how that property could develop given the M-1 zoning. Ms. Boettcher identified that given the situation; the county could address it as a pre-existing non conforming use. However, since the petitioner is rezoning the subject property, he made need to provide buffering. Mr. Miller indicated that staff would recommend that buffering would be provided on the subject property either in the form of a fence or landscaping in conformance with the City's landscape requirements,but ultimately this decision will be made by the county. The petitioner stated that the front yard shall be considered north of the building, which was agreed to by staff as the easement running to the property comes from the north. Ms. Kurtzman addressed that the petitioner's worst case scenario is that the building is determined a legal non-conforming use. This means that owner would be allowed to continue to use the building until the property is destroyed or changes are made to the building. This status will not change anything to the petitioner's current business. Mr. Miller questioned if the petitioner had considered annexation into the City as the current municipal boundary is the parcel's southern property line. The petitioner has not considered this option and since no utility services are relatively close to the subject property the petitioner would like to remain in the County. Ms. Kurtzman questioned the petitioner about the plat stating the according to County records the triangle shaped piece in the northwest area of the parcel is not a part of the county's description. The County records for the parcel's PIN number show a parcel without this piece. The petitioner should work with the County to clean up this discrepancy as the plat provided to staff along with the supporting legal description show this part included in the property. Staff also suggested to the petitioner that the easement from the Star Mercedes parcel to his parcel be shown on the plat. This request will be on the September 10th Plan Commission agenda. Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher