Plan Council Minutes 2005 04-14-05 L
Plan Council
April 14, 2005
City Staff
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Anna Kurtzman, ICCI Zoning official
Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design
John J. Wyeth, City Attorney John Whitehouse, EEI
Guests
Rob Gamrath, Quarles &Brady Tedd Lundquist, SEC Planning
David Schultz, SEC Planning Marvin DeLahr, Aspen Ridge
Joe Wywrot called the meeting to order at 9:35 am. The March 23`d minutes were
approved with corrections.
Aspen Ridge—Preliminary Plan Review
Anna Kurtzman's comments
• City needs a memo from the developer stating that the final plat will adhere to
minimum lot width and lot area.
• The developer will carry through page 1 details to pages 2 and 3.
• Lot 109 needs an application of 10%lot width set back and the lot line may need
to be adjusted. Lot 38 on page 2 will be squared off, to accommodate a T-
intersection.
• Lot 122, 135, 136 and 207 (sheet 3) are not corner lots so open space so they will
remain build able lots.
Laura Brown's and Mike Schoppe's comments
• Mr. Schoppe stated that in order for the density to be approved about 1.5 du/ac,
the developer needs to show 1)the design guidelines are being met; 2) how does
this development exceed the standards. These should be shown on the final plat.
The above the norm specifics will be shown in the annexation agreement.
• Mr. Schoppe suggested to Mr. Schultz that SEC use creativity in determining a
rural look for the landscaping plan. Mr. DeLahr stated they would be preserving
the green area along fence line and along the creek(along the south side).
• The developer will extend the easement along the south side, lots 65-68.
• Lots 48, 51, 52 and 55 along the west edge need a continuous linear easement.
• Lot 45 on the north edge will be eliminated and lot 45 will be extended to it.
• The conservation easement should extend along the perimeter, Lot 223. At final
plat, if there is a 25 ft. conservation easement adjacent to a storm water easement,
it should be detailed that Com-Ed and SBC should be to the lot side. There will
need to be extra width so the utilities are not commingled with the storm sewer
easements. These will be noted on the landscaping plan. Mr. DeLahr stated they
may move the utility easement from the far west property line to the front along
nine lots if there is not room for all the easements.
• Mr. Schoppe is assuming that the HOA will own Lot 224. If there is no park on
the Challey property the City may be interested in owning the park. The
1
developer is asking if the Park board would own it,because the size has been
increased to 1.88. The developer is proposing a land cash obligation of 8.18
acres, subtracting the 1.88 park acres and the 20 ft. trail corridor. They are
providing an 80 ft. buffer zone for the trail. The City will get clarification on this
issue. Mr. Schoppe said there is no requirement for a park on the property and
recommends that the City not own this small park.
• Mr. DeLahr's understanding is that the trail go from Fox Road down to the
Challey property. Mr. Schoppe needs clarity on the Lot 220 trail path and
easement. The City needs a statement specifying a blanket easement over the
lots. Mr. Whitehouse stated this would be in lieu of a sidewalk on the west side
of Pavilion(because of the creek flood plain). There will be a regional crossing at
Fox Rd. Lots 219 and 220 will be owned by the HOA.
• City staff asked if traffic bumps, elongated landscape islands, or stamped concrete
had been considered at the two blocks of Fox Rd. to keep traffic at a slower pace
for trail users. Mr. DeLahr thought was and island hump,with handicap
accessibility it would be 10 ft. wide back to back. The drive lanes would be
increased in width to minimum 20ft. back to back. (with 40 ft of pavement). A
visual change of color was suggested on the slope upwards, and striping of the
side areas, as well as the possibility of cow grates. The proposal for slowing
traffic will be completed at final plat.
• It was suggested that Mr. Schoppe put together some park/trail options for the
developers and bring before the City.
• The developer will put language in the annexation agreement that open area
easements be assigned to the Forest Preserve, Conservation Foundation, or
entities other than the City.
• The trail south of Fox Rd. will be built by the developer and he will receive credit
for the acreage it is built on. Standard typical detail will be added to engineering
plans.
John Whitehouse's comments
• General comments#1 should reference comment#28.
• The developer needs to consider properties stub into adjoining developments that
the future land use be considered in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The total traffic counts need to be considered and up classifications in the traffic
studies.
• Street names should be turned into Ken Com ASAP.
• Comments 21, 23 address the timing and funding, and will be addressed in the
annexation agreement. The looping between 56, 42 and 43 may not be
necessary, depending on the looping on Fox Rd., minimizing road crossings.
• The traffic study price is $40 per acre, and the City will be sending out invoices.
When monies are deposited the study is completed within 60 days.
• Comment#8 under traffic: Pavilion is a township road with a prescriptive right of
way and the city will want a dedicated ROW and it will probably not be centered
on the existing pavement, due to the existing flood plain issues to the west. The
road will probably be a rural cross section, and may be 26 wide edge to edge
pavement,with gravel shoulders.
2
• The City may be designing the road because there are many developers involved.
The scope of work will be considered and bids may be released to the private
sector.
• The agricultural tile study is being finished by the developer.
• Comment 28: the company completing the Pavilion Rd. drainage study,
identifying the base flood elevation. The tributary areas of 640 acres or more may
indicate the need for floodway permitting to Pavilion Road. IDNR needs to
provide a letter stating there are no floodway permitting issues, if this is the
finding. Additional studies will be required by the developer if this letter is not
provided.
This will be scheduled for Plan Commission on May 11. Submittal of 35 revised
preliminary plans are due May 3. Preliminary engineering, landscape and plat are due
April 21.
Respectfully submitted by Annette Williams.
3