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