Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2003 01-23-03 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Plan Council Council Meeting Minutes Convened at 9:42 A.M. Attendees Joe Wywrot—City Engineer Eric Dhuse—Public Works Director Am1a Kurtzman—Planning Coordinator Mike Schoppe—City Planner Lynn Dubajic—YEDC Tony Graff—City Administrator Tim Fairfield—BKFPD Ron Diederich— Sergeant YPD John "JD"Ulibarri—Manhard Osvaldo Pastrana—Manhard Andy Fitz—Montalbano Tony Possidoni—Montalbano Michael McGurn—Montalbano Jim Nanninga—Deere Crossing Paul Buck—Deere Crossing-B&B Land Dev. MINUTES Minutes from January 9, 2003 were accepted by consensus as presented. PC 2002-31 —B&B Land Development—Deere Crossing—1 V2 Mile Review Overview This property is almost 37 acres located on the west side of Immanuel Road and south of Ament Road. There are 18 lots and a little more than 11 acres of open space proposed. The lots range from 45,000 to slightly over 62,000 sq. ft. The back is lines with trees and trees are planned along the perimeter. The County review requested only one entrance be provided to Immanuel Road and two courts for access to Deere Crossing Road for continuation of those roads with future development. Wet retention is proposed. A trail will meander through the development allowing all lots access. Plat Issues —Engineering A few comments were discussed; ➢ A 28' back-to-back roadway is proposed with a 70' right of way. The city standard in estate zoning states no curb but residential ditches; the county's standard is rolled curb. Mr. Wywrot recommended that the curb at the driveways be sliced. ➢ The length of the far cul-de-sac was discussed. The County recommended that it access to Deere Crossing Road to provide for alignment for future roadway development to the north. A development is already being planned to the northeast. ➢ Mr. Wywrot recommended that the angle of the intersection of Deere Crossing and Immanuel Road be changed to be closer to 90 degrees for safety purposes and City Standard. ➢ Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Schoppe recommended that public access to the park site be improved. Perhaps by providing an easement of 15 to 20' along the north side of the far northwest lot. 1 ➢ Mr. Buck is planning for an Association in this development. The Association will care for the private access provided to the open space. ➢ It was verified that street lights will be placed at each intersection and at the end of the cul-de- sacs. Plat Issues—City Planner ➢ The majority of the City Planner's comments have been covered under the City Engineer. ➢ The plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. ➢ Mr. Schoppe recommends the land owner, developer enter into a pre-annexation agreement. ➢ The scale of the plan is incorrect. Plat Issues— Planning Coordinator ➢ It was recommended that when the property to the north develops they may want to add property to the open space indicated on the west side. Ms. Kurtzman recommended that liability be investigated due to an association owning the existing open space. ➢ The setbacks were discussed. The City recommends a 50' setback and the standard for lot width is 200' minimum. Some lots in the cul-de-sacs are not that wide, but open space abuts the lots. Recommend acceptance to Plan Commission on 2/12/03 with recommendation contingent upon realignment of Deere Crossing & Immanuel Road intersection and addition of common trail. Recommend no park site, only open space owned by Home Owner's Association with a back up SSA to Park Board 1/27/03. PC 2002-32 MONTALBANO HOMES —THE RESERVE- FINAL PLAT This development is proposed at the intersection of Routes 34 & 47 on the Inland Property ruled by a Court Consent Decree. The Decree approved a concept plan for this entire property. The developer felt this was the same as preliminary plan approval. The city disagreed. Both parties informally agreed to bypass the preliminary plan approval process and go straight to final plan, but with the understanding that the City could review as a Final without requiring the developer to clear preliminary approval,but the City could comment on the Final as if it were a preliminary submittal. City Planner Comments ➢ Mr. Schoppe clarified which standards the petitioner is following. The Court Decree takes precedence unless, upon mutual agreement, the petitioner and City agree to use the current City standards. The petitioner chose the Decree. The setbacks and landscape issues are stated in the Decree. Setbacks stated as follows: 2 West side of property(follows buffer A)— 50' setback with a 30' landscape berm 4 to 1 Landmark Avenue— setback & 30' landscape buffer Walnut Street(follows buffer B)—40' rear setback from street (back of building to right of way-ROW) with a 20' landscape buffer McHugh Rd. (follows buffer F)—30' setback, ROW to building with a 30' dedicated ROW ➢ The ROW for McHugh Rd. was discussed. Mr. Wywrot recommends that the ROW match Heartland's at 40'. The angle of McHugh Road has changed since the Decree was written. Mr. Schoppe recommended that the ROW be 40' with a 20' setback within the landscaping buffer along McHugh Road. This will need to be addressed in a separate agreement. ➢ Mr. Schoppe stated that any standard not addressed in the Decree reverts to the City standard. Distance between buildings and front yard setbacks are two examples of those standards. ➢ The type of dwelling and zoning defines the distance between buildings. Attached dwellings=R3 is 20' separation. Multi-family dwelling=R4 is 14' separation. Discussion regarding which scenario works for both Developer and City was discussed. Some of that discussion included that 10' side yards don't apply with building envelopes and only one structure is allowed per lot, this has five. Separation between buildings should be 16'. This needs to be addressed in a separate agreement. ➢ Decree and Zoning standards were compared. Mr. Schoppe recommends using the Zoning standards. ➢ All lots must abut a public street per the city Zoning Ordinance. Lot 8 doesn't. Mr. Schoppe listed options; plot a public street thru lot 8 or work out a PUD or request a variance or reconfigure the buildings. Exhibit E was discussed; it is not part of the Decree. The developer's intention was to keep it a private drive. It does not meet our zoning ordinance. ➢ Mr. Graff stated that from an emergency stand point, a long private, dead end road is not a good idea. Emergency equipment won't fit. It was decided a second emergency-access-only driveway be provided from Marketplace Drive. No berm is planned there. Extra landscaping will be placed around it. The Fire Department will provide the specifications for what is needed. A 24' wide driveway without curb is needed. The private drives are curbed only on one side. Montalbano agreed to provide this. ➢ Sidewalk was discussed. It was decided that sidewalk is needed along both sides of Freemont Street, only along the south side of Walnut Street to fill in the gaps between Route 47 and Freemont, along the north side of Walnut Street east of Freemont. None required at this time along McHugh Road. No carriage walks. ➢ Sidewalks along street A were discussed. East or west side? Parkway width on the west side is an issue as to proximity of sidewalk to curb and driveways. East side is recommended by Mr. Schoppe, grading along pond needs to be checked. Some type of pedestrian trail or 3 sidewalk must be supplied along Street A for final plat approval. Mr. Wywrot will check the grading and provide a recommendation to Montalbano. ➢ Responsibility needs to be clarified for landscaping the existing detention basin and Freemont Street ROW. Montalbano would like to see the landscaping and cost shared by all. Mr. Fiascone from Inland had indicated previously it would be the last developer who develops. Grading has already been provided, which benefits Montalbano and did not cost them anything. The Decree doesn't address this issue. Mr. Schoppe stated this is a final engineering issue not a plat issue. Mr. Graff stated that it is a developer issue for the whole property; Dan Kramer needs to make a determination. Mr. Schoppe recommended a decision be made prior to Final Engineering approval. ➢ Excavation of the pond has been done by Yorkville Marketplace. It has already been accepted as a public improvement. No landscaping was included. The landscape standards should be applied to the basin and was discussed. Grass is needed, plants were discussed. The Decree doesn't address this issue, so the City looks to its other ordinances. This will be answered in the legal/sales agreements. The developer will check those documents and respond back. The standard Tucker followed was 10' off the water with additional plantings for landscape. ➢ There was discussion as to whether language can be provided on the plat to state any wavering from city standards. These issues need a legal opinion. Mr. Shoppe stated that if there is a wavering of the standard, there is a process established for that situation. You don't just write a note on a plat, unless it is a PUD. Mr. Schoppe recoirunends the variance process should be followed. Mr. Graff stated that is the reason a legal opinion is being sought. ➢ Mr. Graff stated that the legal fundamental issues will be worked out. Opinion was requested on this prior to the Plan Commission meeting. Planning Coordinator ➢ Check the few locations where buildings extend over the lot lines about one foot. It is not a big deal now, but when it comes time to sell the property it could be an issue for you. Take a second look at it. ➢ On the west side of the property it shows a 20' landscape easement buffer. That is not consistent with the plat and plan. ➢ Ms. Kurtzmann was asked to rewrite her internal memo for the developer. ➢ In the final landscape plans, identify the types of trees and add the trees around the buildings and along the public streets. General Comments ➢ Ordinances to be used were clarified. In the Decree it states that current or future ordinances will be applied, whichever is less restrictive. On page 3 under Development Terns IV at the top. Time of adoption of previous Landscape Ordinance was discussed. Previous one adopted 4/7/99, that one is the Ordinance to apply. Mr. Schoppe will compare. 4 Mr. Schoppe recommended that one set of standards is chosen, the Decree or the city standards. ➢ Mr. Graff explained the development agreement process. No public hearing is required but the City Council does like to discuss it at COW. These standards could be outlined better in this agreement. City Engineer Plat Comments Setback delineation line needs to be shown. It is a 20' line. Lot lines were discussed in relation to measuring setback lines. Show a setback line on the east side of lot 5 at 20' setback. ➢ Developer agreed with all Engineer comments but the ones shown here. ➢ Sanitary sewer capacity. Mr. Wywrot spoke with John Frerich; there is capacity on Center Street if Heartland Circle is not built. If Heartland Circle is built, then Richard Marker will need to change his forcemain discharge to King St. It is a first come, first serve basis. ➢ In eastern area, a waternlain is shown extending across Landmark Ave. This is a brand new road. This will need to be saw cut and Mr. Wywrot wants to snake sure the developer is clear on what the city wants regarding restoration. ➢ Water service to the building was discussed. Single meter to each building paid by the Homeowner's Association. One meter with individual turn offs in each unit. A back up SSA was discussed only if non payment of bills. The statute was discussed. Mr. Graff interpreted that only payment of public improvements above the normal amount of property taxes collected. Yorkville is not a home rule community. This needs further discussion and a determination. Legal opinion needs to be obtained and determine what mechanism will be used to maintain shut offs and service. This will be placed on the Krasner log. ➢ Storm service issue clarified due to all homes being on slabs. The storm water fiom detention is through public sewers. ➢ Separate sanitary services issue. One line per building to avoid all those individual lines to each unit for maintenance. Association handles this situation just like water. ➢ Grading of the proposed park area was discussed from sheet 8. Mr. Wywrot reconunends combining some of each idea: allowing it to continue to drain to the low spot and cranking down the restrictor plates at the existing basin. ➢ Park area was discussed due to some water naturally pooling in this location (Lot A). Montalbano could probably get close to 1 1/3 acre high and dry. Mr. Wywrot stated that this pond can not be drained; it's lower than then the detention basins. The concrete slab placed at the previously used overflow of the existing basin in the low spot needs to be removed. 5 ➢ Montalbano agreed to move the south toe of detention basin A's basin berm to the north of the ROW line to accommodate state law. They also agreed to remove the berm. ➢ There is an existing 6" valve located in the middle of the future intersection at Freemont and Walnut Streets that needs to be put into a vault. ➢ Mr. Graff stated the M3-12 curb & gutter without cuts is a better look with all the driveways located there. He stated the City will manage it. City Council must override. ➢ The city building code requires sprinklers inside. Developer referred to Building Department for current codes. BOCA. This goes to Plan Commission 2/12/03 and to COW on March 0h and to City Council on March 111h. If they resubmit plans, they will be in here by January 29th. Mr. Schoppe does not recommend the current plans go to Plan Commission with Mr. Wywrot's and Mr. Schoppe's comments. The goal for approval is April 1, 2003. Additional Business Blackberry Creek Code Analysis and a new Wetland Ordinance passed out for review. The Wetland Ordinance is to go to Public Works Monday and to COW by 3/4/03. Meeting Adjourned at 11:47 a.m. Minutes submitted by Holly Baker. 6