Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2004 03-25-04 1 APPROVED BY THE OQMMITTE'E/gpARD ON:-4 Aa UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Plan Council March 25,2004—9:30 AM Attendees: City Administrator Tony Graff Mike Schoppe—Schoppe Design Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman Sergeant Ron Diederich Ex.Director Parks&Recreation,Laura Brown Fire Chief Tim Fairfield Jeff Freeman,EEI John Whitehouse,EEI Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Guests: Mike Mondus Ken Jernberg Gary Weber Mitch LaFave Kevin Seraphin Tedd Lundquist Brent Lewis Attorney Stein The meeting was called to order at 9:35 AM,with Mr.Mondus, Jernberg, and Mr. Weber in attendance for Bailey Meadows. The March 11,2004 minutes were approved with no corrections. Bailey Meadows (tka Runge Property)—Preliminary Plan 1) Engineering a) Items 6, 8, and 10—John Whitehouse stated the survey shows a gap between the southerly property and the north line of the ComEd right of way. There is a gap on the west side and an overlap on the east side.This must be resolved in the title insurance or ownership agreement, and could,potentially, cause problems for the City with easements. The Capra Street radii does not meet the minimum standard of 150 feet in the multi-family areas,however because of low impact traffic, John Whitehouse suggested Mike Schoppe may have revisions in parking in these areas. The city ordinance requires that the roads adjoining a subdivision be built in regards to traffic counts on the road,in this instance a 39' back to back in accordance to intergovernmental agreement with Sugar Grove. Mr. Graff stated that the City is requesting$2000 per unit road impact fee, applied to regional road issues,which would be$680,000. The city will also be looking to add a south lane to the south, and if this goes above the$2000 fee,it will be applied to the sales tax incentive program. Timing is an issue,to be worked out in the annexation agreement. Additional recapture should come from annexation of additional properties to the west, directly relating to the bridge widening and intersections of Hwy 47,per Mr. Whitehouse. The engineering department will be putting a formula together for the annexation agreement b) Item#15 —John Whitehouse requested additional information from Mr.Mondus in regards to the widening. This will not need to be an exhibit for Plan Commission. c) Item#25 —Mr.Whitehouse is needing a revision on the slope on the 10 inch sanitary sewer to give additional depth on the south line of the property on Potter 2 Street. EEI and Deuchler will be working on additional designs along Rob Roy Creek,making certain all areas are adequately served. d) Item#26—Mr. Graff pointed out the City has park development standards and will provide to the developer,in regards to the detention standards. e) Item#27 -There are now only two entrances to Base Line Road, and Mr. Whitehouse needs traffic impact study revision counts. f) Item#28—Mr. Whitehouse stated that they need additional exhibits providing counts to see if these streets may be a minor collectors. A 30 foot back to back standard with a stronger pavement section may need to be considered. He suggested a traffic count from the southernly section of the subdivision to the eastern access of the commercial be submitted to Mike Schoppe and engineering. Access easement should be lined up across from Capra Street,per Mr. Whitehouse, since no site plan is available,making it more to the southern end of the commercial site. g) Item#32 -Mr. Graff stated that the City will be putting together Rob Roy Creek floodplain standards to be presented to the City Council, taking into account creek advancements. These drafts will be presented to the developers, and hopefully a universal site plan/corridor protection would be applied in the annexation agreement. At this point,the ordinances will be followed for Plan Council purposes. Mr. Graff stated that placement,marketing, and conceptual signage issues along the commercial corridor will be discussed,and stated that IDNR has been asked to give their input on this topic. The language will be included in annexation agreements. Also under consideration is a path west of the commercial area, and a bike trail out of the floodplain. h) Mike Mondus stated the developer's direction,in not depicting the lots,was that they may intend these to be condos. If proposal is to leave as one lot,per Mike Schoppe,then this will be identified as a variance on the plat or,put in the lots— 1 building per 1 lot standard. If creating a lot around the envelope is the direction the developer would go, it may present a set back standard problem in a sale in the future,per Mr. Schoppe. Ms.Kurtzman and Mr. Schoppe agreed that dimension between buildings in the multi-family area be designated, and Mr. Whitehouse stated that the storm water management basin areas be separated into individual lots that are numbered,removing the out lot language. i) The developer will comply with side yard easements, and show these at final plat. j) Item#5—Mike Mondus will state that"all lots will comply with the bulk requirements of zoning ordinances"unless a variance is stated on the plat. k) Mike Schoppe is requested additional data on the wetland corridor extending west from the creek before CDF concurs with end caps findings. Mike Schoppe will fax all pertinent correspondence to Ken Jernberg. 1) Developer will provide ADT reports (after looking at City Transportation Plan)to show any additional major intersection with Rt.47 in the middle of the property, with the exception of any commercial traffic coming from the south. m) Mr.Wywrot pointed out that homeowner's detention basin standards must be adhered to, in particular embankment and safety slopes, and storm water outfalls and edge treatments. 2) Schoppe Design—Preliminary Plan a) Item#2 c)Mr. Schoppe stated that all trees, 6" or taller, in existence will be noted On the plan,even if they are scrub trees, in answer to Mr.Weber's question. 3 b) Item#6) Mr. Schoppe states a note be added, not changing the graphic,that the R-3 portion of the development complies with parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. c) Item#7—Mr. Schoppe states that the bike trail should be shown on the engineering plan or the preliminary plat. d) Item# 1 —Preliminary Landscape Plan—Mr. Weber will show graphics on the buffer between the multi-family and single-family on the plan. e) Mr.Mondus will use the land plan, with the preliminary land plan name removed, and add as a third page to the preliminary plat. f) Anna Kurtzman stated there are no additional updates for the annexation agreement. g) Mr. Schoppe would like to encourage additional visitor parking in the cul-de-sac. This would be accomplished by moving South Capra down to the south end of the property, aligning with the south end, (for additional road frontage),then regain additional volume in out lot E or C. Mr. Whitehouse,because this is a double dead end street,does not foresee a problem with the 100'radius.This parking would be perpendicular on-street parking. If this street is over 1000 SDT, 30 foot back to back, then Mr. Whitehouse stated there would probably be no on-street parking on the curve. Three buildings on the west side are farther apart than need be, stated Mr. Schoppe, and could come together providing a driveway accessing the campground, and provide additional space between buildings for parking spaces. Mr. Whitehouse stated that compensatory storage requirement may be reduced in the Rob Roy Creek Corridor,which could push out lot E to the east. h) Concerns were discussed regarding moving access 30 foot on buildings 22 and 23 north.Traffic could be discouraged by routing it through the parking lot. Mr. Whitehouse stated if used just for access from the development to the commercial, it needs to be better aligned with one of the existing intersections, as a public road east of the town home area.It would serve as a convenience to the home owners of the development, in accessing the commercial area from the rear(not off Rt.47). Additional concerns: 1) Ron Diedrich stated the police have no concerns with the plan at this time. 2) Tim Fairfield stated that, eg.building#24 only allows access to one side of the building. New standards are being discussed, including building fire suppression standards. They will be determined within 2-3 weeks, and will be given to the developer. 3) Re-summitals must done by March 30, and staff comments will by due April 7"'. Re- submittals will be on the preliminary plat,preliminary engineering and preliminary landscaping. Plan council members are in agreement that this be moved forward to the Plan Commission. If the developers choose an alternative, a narrative with a preliminary plat revision only,without full engineering,Mr. Graff will rely on staff review,as to whether or not it would go to April Plan Commission. Otherwise,the developer will be scheduled at the April 22nd Plan Council and then moved to the Plan Commission. 4) Staff is recommending the engineering subdivision standard variances(not zoning variance)on the multi-family units, showing frontage on the public right of way. Unit access would be via private ingress/egress easement down the lot line. Preliminary plat and engineering will hopefully be approved by June. 5) Developer will be advised by April 7"'whether they will move to the April Plan Council or April Plan Commission. 4 Westbury Village Preliminary PUD Plan—beginning at 11:40 AM 1) School/park site plan—The developer has moved four lots in the SE section school site plan. Mr. Schoppe commented that the north south dimension of the site has been reduced, and he will be putting together a new school/park plan,using criteria from the school district and park development standards,to be reviewed by the school district and staff. The school park site is larger than the originally proposed area 20 acres. Westbury will need to attach the new concept plan and the school district's sign off letter as an exhibit to the agreement. 2) Setback/street issues in multi-family areas -The developer, in multifamily area,was asked if they are privatizing streets or keeping them public. In question are PODS 3, 5 and 8. With a tight radius,John Whitehouse stated these locations will need blanket ROW easements. Mr. Whitehouse stated as long as no utility pipeline was within 15' of a building, engineering is okay with standard setback. Joe Wywrot stated a concern with on street parking in PODS 5 and 8 and the minimal two parking spaces in a driveway, with only a 20' setback. Mr. Graff suggested the developer may want to consider offering the Plan Commission a minimal percentage of town homes(with a 20' setback). Mr. Schoppe's opinion,with the police and fire department input,is that, functionally, 24' streets work. Needed will be additional parking spaces in the open areas. He also stated his opinion, if the walkways need to be clear in the driveway, then he favors a 25' setback from street to garage door. At issue is the functionality of multi-family PODS with these design standards. Mr. Schoppe commented that the 30' setback from Westbury Blvd.to the buildings is not shown on the plan, and that he had suggested they eliminate the median. Plan Council is recommending 28' back to back,4' sidewalks, 8' parkways, and 25' setbacks(starting at the back of the walk to the building), if the street is private. Plan Council suggested the developer explore these dimensions, which would reduce the rear setback to 25' if it abuts to an open space.Twenty foot would affect utility placements,per Mr. Schoppe. 3) Mr. Graff stated that the developer needed a compliance letter in regards to the transitional classification for the land use plan. Mr. Schoppe would write a letter of compliance. If it is not 18.14 storm water calculation,then storm water credit and density tradeoff changes. Mr. LaFave said eighteen months ago the developer was given direction for the single family area only,not inclusive of the commercial area. Engineers must verify how developer arrives at the percentage. Mr.Whitehouse stated the question is, in a situation where the developer is filling flood plain and providing filling compensatory storage, if the storage is not taking additional space from land area. Engineering will apply strict standard to compensatory advisory guide lines,which Schoppe uses. In conflict with engineering,Mr. Schoppe's designs do not look at the land plan in the strictest form. Mr. Graff stated the engineering would override land plan issues. Mr.Whitehouse stated they are using part of the net open space because they are filling in flood plain and using as compensatory storage. If they provide more open space, they cannot be allowed more density,because they are at the density limit, for the open space they are providing,per Mr. Schoppe. Does compensatory storage need to be include in the storm water area calculation,is question per Mr.Whitehouse. There is density cap per POD, which is 8 units per acre and no more than 25 %can be in town homes,per Mr. Schoppe. The cap is 890,under the assumption that 18.14 is their volume for storm water, and if it changes,then the formula changes. Volume changes via comp storage. Definition of storm water management is something that the attorneys need to address. If comp storage is considered storm water management,then the 18.14 number is no longer valid per John Whitehouse. Needed is consistency in the interpretation and Mr. Graff stated that, in the end, final engineering must work and make the plan functional. The City will work on interpretation issues with Mr. Schoppe, assuming that 5 890 is the max density. Per Mr. Graff, if there is legal protection to provide for final plat review(a trigger for the PUD,possibly final engineering)then he suggests it goes to Plan Commission. 4) Tim Fairfield from the BKFD stated his department is working on new standards for multi-family units, for greater internal protection. 5) Mr. Graff stated the developer will be advised on April V"whether or not they are going to be on the Plan Commission agenda. Based on compensatory storage interpretation by Mr. Schoppe, and the comments regarding this issue, this is tentatively on the agenda for Plan Commission on April 14, with re-submittals of the preliminary PUD, exhibit C, and a statement of engineering to the City by March 30u'. Comments will be prepared by staff by April 7"'. Meeting completed at 1:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Annette Williams