Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2005 10-27-05 �Pp0A 7 Plan Council — - . - October 27, 2005 (l I v Attendees: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates Scott Sleezer, Parks Dept. Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works William Dunn, Engineering Enterprises Tim Fairfield, Bristol-Kendall Fire Dept. Bart Olson, Administrative Intern Sgt. Ron Diederich, Police Dept. Guests: Attorney Dan Kramer Tom Small, MPI Jason Nijim, MPI John Zediker, MPI Wendy Yaksich, MPI John Martin,Jen Land Design The meeting was called to order at 9:50 a.m. by Mr. Wywrot. The October 13, 2005 minutes were approved with corrections. PC 205-49 Oak Grove Subdivision - 1 '/2 Mile Review: Attorney Kramer gave an overview and stated that this project was reviewed by the City about two years ago regarding the zoning issue and received a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission and City Council. The biggest issue is with Timber Creek, which has become the area detention. Based on this, the petitioner has put in sizeable ponds with an extra 2 %2 acres of detention which is over and above what is required for this subdivision just as a safety net. The plan has a curb and storm system profile and does not have sidewalks, however, there is a trail system in lieu thereof. Mr. Wywrot stated that he saw the plan and the trail system doesn't serve the pedestrian movement throughout the subdivision. Land Planning comments: 1. Should this property ever be annexed, it would likely be zoned Estate Class One - Family Residence District. The minimum lot size in this district is one acre, although the proposed lot design does not meet these standards, there is significantly more open space. The increase in the open space is an appropriate trade off for the smaller lots. 2. Either sidewalks or a trail system abutting each lot should be provided. Engineering comments: 1. All right-of-way lines at intersections and the necks of cul-de-sacs should be rounded off with 25' radii. The cul-de-sac ROW radii should be 65 feet. Page 1 of 5 2. The intersection of Long Grove Road and Highpoint Road should be at least 400 feet from the Tanglewood Trails Drive intersection. 3. The cul-de-sac at Lots 27-30 is too long to be considered an eyebrow cul-de-sac. This roadway should have a separate name. 4. The Utility Easement language should also grant rights to Kendall Township and Kendall County. Attorney Kramer responded that all plat issues have been given to their engineer, Jim Nanninga, and he will make changes if he has no trouble working them in and after consulting with Fran Klaas. 5. A City public sidewalk or an expanded trail system should be constructed along the frontage of all lots and along the Highpoint Road frontage to give access to each lot. 6. Sheet 2: Streetlight#2 should be moved to the lot 23/24 common lot line. Streetlight#4 should be moved to the lot 19/20 common lot line Provide streetlight details. 7. Sheet 7: A flat area at least 10 feet wide should be provided between the top of the slope of Basin A and the sidewalk along Highpoint Road. 8. Sheet 14: Long Grove Road is proposed to be 35-feet wide B-B, and Acorn Drive is proposed to be 33-feet wide. Both roads appear to be unnecessarily wide. They could both be reduced to 30-feet B-B. Attorney Kramer responded that the County requires the clear cut of right-of-ways. When there is curb and gutter in a wooded subdivision they will let you take it down to 60 feet to preserve trees. This plan is following County requests/requirements. BKFPD comments: 1. Acorn Drive -Name needs to be changed,Acorn Lane already exists. 2. The smaller cul-de-sac is too long to be considered an eyebrow, it needs a"court"name. This project is moving on to the October 27th Park Planning Meeting and November 9th Plan Commission. PC 2005-13 MPI South - Concept PUD Plan: Mr. Wywrot stated water and sanitary financing needs to be worked out and will not be discussed at this time and will be addressed through the annexation agreement. Page 2 of 5 Wheeler Road: Earlier meetings were had to talk about how roadways compare to the City wide transportation plan. Wheeler Road was supposed to align with the section line heading west toward Lisbon Road or bending southwest of Immanuel. City is looking for MPI South to demonstrate if that was feasible, show what type of floodplain issues there are for Immanuel, any property line issues, demonstrate that the other would be a better option. Mr. Schoppe asked if this information could be provided to the city via the preliminary plan. Mr. Martin responded that if the road was put in the location where the comprehensive plan called for it, it couldn't be accomplished today because the petitioner doesn't control the triangle piece of property on the section line by the cemetery. Mr. Schoppe asked what the physical problems were to build the road where it was shown on Smith's plans. Mr. Small responded that the road would terminate in land they don't own and cross at the juncture of two major streams. Also, Wheeler is to be an east/west collector and tie into Lisbon Road. Mr. Schoppe asked that the additional information regarding the floodplain be submitted with their preliminary plan submittal. Residential interior connections and connection between commercial areas: Mr. Dhuse stated that the city was going to ask for interior connections from neighborhoods two to three and seven to nine. Mr. Small responded that they have a pedestrian trail that could function as an emergency access. Mr. Wywrot stated that the city is not in favor of using emergency access roads. Mr. Small stated they have been very successful using neighborhoods and doesn't want thru roads going through those neighborhoods. Mr. Dhuse stated the city was looking for a crossing over the creek some where between Rt. 47 and Immanuel Road. Mr. Wywrot stated it could be a minor collector but that the determination of the type of road would be determined by the city after considering the information in the traffic study. Mr. Schoppe stated that a convenient access should be provided to get to the school site without relying on the perimeter roads. Mr. Small reiterated that they did not want an internal collector road running through the middle of the development. Mr. Schoppe stated that when the city had Smith prepare the transportation report it showed the major roads and out of that process it identified that essentially every interior square mile would have another north/south and east/west road that would serve to get to the perimeter road. Mr. Wywrot stated that the City Council has indicated the desire to not have to rely upon county roads or a busy state highway to accomplish getting from the north end of a development to the south end. The petitioner responded that they would take another look at it. Parks: Mr. Sleezer asked to confirm that the Land Cash requirement is+/- 50 acres. Mr. Small stated they are providing additional open space which is above the requirement. Mr. Sleezer stated that one of the Park Board's concerns is the half mile radius,to the north more park site was needed at the school site. Petitioner stated that all park sites are expandable. Mr. Sleezer stated that the park site at neighborhood 8 is not needed and suggested moving it to the west side of neighborhood 9 because that area is not served by the half mile radius. Mr. Small thought it was a sizable neighborhood requiring a park. Mr. Small stated it could be moved to the northwest corner by the water tower site for expansion with neighboring developments. Mr. Small asked if this project was the best site for the water tower. Mr. Dhuse stated that if it was going to be a well treatment facility and storage site he would have to confer with Engineering Enterprises. Mr. Sleezer stated that neighborhood nine was not served by a park and a small site was needed. Mr. Wywrot suggested that maybe another park could be downsized to provide for this. Mr. Small suggested that this requirement could possibly be served by a surrounding Page 3 of 5 development. Mr. Schoppe suggested locating a small park on the west side of neighborhood nine that could be expanded by other developments providing one central park and that this was an issue that the Park Board could address. Mr. Sleezer asked about the park site between neighborhood 13 & 14, what is the park/club meaning, is it public/private? Ms. Yaksich responded that it has been identified as a site for a private recreational amenity,possibly another pool. Mr. Sleezer stated that in looking at the minutes from the March and September meetings, the Park Board felt strongly about the 50150 land split so that they would have money to develop the parks. Fire: Mr. Fairfield stated that the fire station site was ok. Police: Sgt. Diederich stated that the police did not have any problems with this plan. Frontage Road: Mr. Dhuse and Mr. Wywrot stated that the Council has expressed a desire for a frontage road in developments to provide for access to commercial along Rt. 47. Mr. Schoppe stated that this could possibly be accomplished by a series of internal roads to serve as a corridor. Resolution Locating Utilities Underground: Mr. Wywrot brought this resolution to the attention of the petitioner stating that it needs to be talked about and negotiated in the agreement. Deuchler's Proposal to add this property to the FPA: Mr. Small stated that they will not support this until they have some idea where they are in the approval process. They need resolution with the city, such as does the city like the plan? They would like an understanding of the sewer and water. Basically they want affirmation that this project is coming to Yorkville. They would also like a guarantee on sewer capacity and resolve how water is to be funded. They need specifics to facilitate making this happen quicker. Mr. Schoppe stated that based on the data that was given, this plan is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. There is not enough information to tell if the plan is consistent with the design guidelines. He stated neighborhood 14 is single family,however, because it is on Caton Farm, and next to commercial and open space, it seems like a logically place for multifamily. Mr. Martin responded that with the percentages it would make the multifamily number higher. Mr. Small stated that they would look into it. Mr. Schoppe stated that the unit count is consistent and that more information is needed to review the open space. He also stated that the plan is consistent with the Transportation Plan and School Site study. Mr. Schoppe will setup a meeting with the School District, the city and the petitioner. Mr. Small stated that they understand the water and sewer and just need to know how it is going to be paid for and who is paying for what. Until they get that feedback from the city,they are at a loss. Mr. Wywrot stated that in order for that decision to be made the city would need to know what we are building and how much it is going to cost, will it be phased, etc. This is all part of the preliminary plan process. Page 4 of 5 V • The petitioner asked what the next step was. Mr. Schoppe responded that it would be filing an application for annexation, zoning and submitting a preliminary plan. Mr. Small stated that they want some assurance that this project is coming to Yorkville before they go through the effort of producing preliminary plans. Mr. Wywrot stated that in order to address the concerns of the petitioner in regard to water and sewer, with all other preliminary plan issues aside,the city would need population projections, which they already have. Also needed are the proposed location of storage supply and distribution lines. The city would need to know of that infrastructure what would the petitioner be asking to bond for. Mr. Small stated that he needed to know how the water is being paid for, with this information they can make a decision. Mr. Small stated the same thing with the sewer district,they have given them a solution they think will work but if they don't buy it,then there is a problem. Mr. Small stated that there is a problem with treatment plant capacity and that they need answers to these two things so that they can make a decision. They want to make sure that they don't spend all the money for this infrastructure and then end up with no treatment plant capacity. Mr. Wywrot stated to Mr. Dunn that the city would need something from EEI recommending that there be"x" dollars worth of infrastructure in place, by what time and can it be phased or not. Then it would be up to Finance Director Pleckham, City Attorney Wyeth and the City Council to make the decision if we can do it. The meeting ended at 11:42 a.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Elizabeth D'Anna, Administrative Assistant Page 5 of 5