Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2003 09-25-03 Page I of 5 APPROVED BY THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CQMMR TIr A0ARD Plan Council Meeting Minutes ON: Thursday, September 25,2003 9:30 A.M. Attendees: City Administrator Tony Graff City Engineer Joe Wywrot Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman City Planner Mike Schoppe Lynn Dubajic—YEDC Sergeant Ron Diederich John Whitehouse—EEI Executive Director of Parks & Recreation Brown Guests: See attached Minutes The minutes from the August 28, 2003 were accepted. PC 2003-19 BRISTOL CLUB— 1 1/z MILE REVIEW Administrator Graff explained that there is a pending PUD amendment scheduled for a public hearing on October 28, 2003 for PC 2003-19 Bristol Club to reflect the new plan that is before the Plan Council as a 1- '/2 mile review. Comments for the City Council should reflect the PUD amendment whereas comments for the Plan Commission should reflect the 1-'/2 mile review. The annexation for the property is already recorded. The agreement is to annex when the property becomes contiguous. The developer, Gregg Gabel,presented the new plan being reviewed. The property is at the southwest corner of Galena and Cannonball Trail. The plan has been processed through the county and received engineering and plan approval. Kendall County in now waiting for approval from the United City of Yorkville. The development will be a straight R-1 zoning. The minimum lot size is 133,000 square feet or 2.98 acres: for marketing purposes 3-acre lots. The largest lot is approximately 4 acres. There are thirty-two lots of which two are already sold to the developers. There will be nine acres of open space. According to Kendall County codes, detention is not required however a detention facility of a lake in the park area is planned. The nine-acre park includes a non jurisdictional wetland so there is a conservation easement over the park. The lots are a minimum of 200' wide. Friendly Drive is a county collector street with an 80' right-of-way (ROW). The county has reviewed the road. A 15' bike trail runs along the perimeter of the development. There is also a 30' landscape easementibuffer along Cannonball Trail and Galena. Access to Cannonball Trail will connect to a future collector street going west to Route 47. He noted that if the property became contiguous in the near future,they would still stay with this new plan. The development will be done in four phases so there are final plats for each phase. The developer is asking for approval on all the plats and as the phases are developed,the plats will be recorded. John Whitehouse with Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) discussed the two lots already sold. He asked if the other developer was the owner subdividing the property. Mr. Gabel explained that he was. Mr. Whitehouse asked if he would be the only owner signing an owner certificate on the plat. If he is not, Page 2 of 5 Phase I will need an additional owners certificate for whatever entity he owns the lot under. Mr. Gabel said he would verify this. Administrator Graff asked if there was a watermain easement on this property for the Galena Project. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the easement was on the north side. City Engineer Joe Wywrot stated that there should probably be a utility easement of 15' beyond the county ROW. It was discussed that the utility easement could be combined with the bike trail easement. Mr. Gabel stated he did not want a utility easement to conflict with the landscape easement. Administrator Graff asked if the B-3 zoning was being deleted and Mr. Gabel stated yes. Administrator Graff asked the developer that if he became contiguous would they agree to pay the school transition fee of$3,000.00/lot and the city's land cash fee. Mr. Gabel stated he would be interested in the city's land cash fee however he asked why he should participate in the school transition fee. Mr. Graff stated that if the property becomes contiguous in a certain time frame,they would be subject to the school transition fee. He gave the example that if Phase I is built under the county fees and then the development becomes contiguous,the city's fees will apply to the other phases. Mr. Gable stated that he will discuss this with his attorney. Mr. Whitehouse explained that his memo's dated September 17, 2003 contained plat"housekeeping" recommendations. He stated that he only reviewed the final plats not the engineering plan. Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman asked who would be responsible for the conservation easement. Mr. Whitehouse stated that there are conservation easement provisions. Mrs. Kurtzman noted that the proposed amendment to the PUD is asking for the removal of the back-up Special Service Area(SSA). Mr. Whitehouse noted that there will be a Homeowners Association(HOA). Mrs. Kurtzman expressed her concern with eliminating the back-up SSA. If this is eliminated and the HOA becomes tired of maintaining the area, it becomes a problem for the city. She recommended that the back-up SSA remain in the PUD agreement. Mr. Whitehouse commented that the conservation easement restricts activities such as excavation. He noted that a detention basin is planned for the area, which will require excavation. If this is not finished prior to the recording of the plat,the developer will be in violation of the conservation easement. Mr. Whitehouse stated that they may need to add a note to the easement provision regarding this. Mrs. Kurtzman stated that the landscape plan appears to fall into the trail easement. Mr. Gabel stated that they are separate. She suggested the plans be fixed to reflect this. She asked for direction as to how to review the development. Administrator Graff stated that the City Attorney stated to look at the plan as a 1- %2 mile review and determine if the zoning and land use is appropriate and what the city would recommend. If it is,what standards does the city want to request that the county impose? This zoning is equivalent to the city's R-1 zoning and the Plan Council can request that the Plan Commission recommend that the developer follow the city's R-1 standards. There was further discussion as to the PUD amendment and Administrator Graff stated that hopefully the approval of the 1 1/2 mile review and the PUD amendment would come before the City Council at the same time. The two should be done in concert with each other. Mr. Whitehouse suggested that a note or disclosure be placed on any plat recorded through the county referring to the fact that the properties are subject to any future conditions in the recorded PUD agreement. Page 3 of 5 Mr. Schoppe stated that once the PUD is approved by the City Council,there will be an opportunity to review the plat against the PUD and make recommendations. This will help with the continuity of the project. Mr. Gabel stated that he needed to get direction from his attorney. City Engineer Joe Wywrot asked for clarification if Kendall County would maintain Friendly Drive after the property is annexed since it is designated a county road. Mr. Schoppe asked if the road should be built to the city's standards since it will be annexed into the city one day. Mr. Wywrot stated that this should also apply to other standards such as those for streetlights. The city's design standards for the road were discussed further. Mr. Wywrot stated that the city does not have a collector road standard for this type of subdivision. This can be addressed in the PUD. The Transportation Plan and how it affects this area was discussed. Mr. Schoppe noted that if this development were being built in the city, curb and gutter would be required for the road. Mr. Wywrot stated that the developer's design is appropriate for the subdivision however the city needs to develop a standard for this type of road. Mr. Graff noted that Friendly Drive would be the east-west collector,which will ultimately connect to Route 47. He stated that the Plan Council should develop a recommendation for the Plan Commission regarding the road design standard that will be recommended to the county for the developer to follow. He also questioned how a city collector will transition into a rural road. The Plan Council discussed Friendly Drive becoming a collector road and recommended that it be designed as a collector road. Design standards for a rural collector road need to be developed by the city. It was discussed if the development was compatible to the city's Land Use Plan. Mr. Schoppe commented that if the city wanted to start a trend of large lot development in this area, it would be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. The current plan for the area is suburban type neighborhoods It was also discussed that no engineering plans were submitted to the city for review. Mr. Gabel stated that the plans were submitted to and approved by the county. The Plan Council further discussed applying other city standards for sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater retention,wetlands, etc. Mr. Schoppe stated that the Plan Commission will be asking if this plan is consistent with city ordinances regarding wetlands, etc. Mr. Wywrot commented that without engineering plans to review,he wanted to note a few items: • ROW corners need to be rounded off, • The long cul-de-sac (west end of Friendly Drive)needed to have a turn around for snowplows, etc. • The location for the driveway for Lot 9 should be addressed since it is situated at the intersection of Friendly Drive and Happy Court • The Rob Roy Creek Flood Plain study needs to be addressed. It appears the flood plain may run through the area however more documentation is needed to determine this. Currently,the flood plain is not indicated on FEMA maps but the study is ongoing to determine if this is accurate. The Council discussed how the PUD would apply if the developer went ahead with the subdivision and did not implement the city's recommendations. Administrator Graff explained that the chairman of the Plan Commission usually signs the final plat for 1 '/2 mile reviews however the developers could petition the court and a judge could sign the plat. Mr. Schoppe noted that the trail easement is granted to the HOA however it does not indicate it is open to the general public. He stated that the Park Board understands it will be open to the public. He suggested Page 4 of 5 that a public access easement be issued. Administrator Graff stated that the final engineering plans were needed for review and it is recommended to the Plan Commission that the developer should follow the city's R-1 subdivision standards. Mr. Whitehouse asked Mr. Gabel if he wanted to wait for a recommendation until after the engineering review is done. Mr. Gabel stated that he wanted to meet with the engineers later in the day to review the engineering plan. Mr. Wywrot stated that neither he not EEI would be able to review the engineering plans in time to make a recommendation to the Plan Commission for their October 8, 2003 meeting. Administrator Graff stated that since the final engineering plans were not available for review, he recommended that the 1-'/z mile review go before the Plan Commission in November. The members of the Plan Council agreed. The review was scheduled to come back to the October 23, 2003 Plan Council meeting. He also recommended that the City Attorney be present at that meeting. RUNGE ANNEXATION AND REZONING Administrator Graff gave an update of this project. There was a public hearing for the annexation and rezoning at a Plan Commission meeting. After the public hearing, the petitioner recommended that the Plan Commission take no action until after the preliminary engineering is completed: the Plan Commission's recommendation would come after they reviewed the engineering comments. Administrator Graff stated that there was some confusion because at the public hearing the documents and exhibits referenced"Preliminary Plan". The petitioner did not want to change this to "Concept Plan". They would rather have a recommendation for the annexation,rezoning and Preliminary Plan. This was tabled until after the preliminary engineering review. The annexation agreement was being drafted and the city should have a copy before the end of September however it has not been received yet. Mr. Whitehouse stated that he only received the original site plan and the preliminary engineering. He did not receive any other supporting documentation or studies. He sent the developer a letter on September 19, 2003 that this information was still incomplete and requested additional information. He stated he would proceed with the preliminary engineering review but he could not do a complete review without this information. Mr. Schoppe stated that this was tabled to the October Plan Commission meeting but staff probably won't be able to complete their reviews in time for the meeting. Administrator Graff stated that it would have to be tabled again until November. There were no further recommendations from the Plan Council at this time. FIRE DISTRICT FACILITY PLANNING Administrator Graff noted that Tim Fairfield from the Bristol-Kendall Fire Department(BKFD)was scheduled to be at the meeting to discuss the future locations they have sited for facilities. In his absence, he gave an update. BKFD is requesting that the city recommend to the Plan Commission an amendment to the Land Use Plan to incorporate fire district, school and other public facility sites. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Dhuse Property Mr. Schoppe stated that the Dhuse property is on the Plan Commission October agenda. There is a land use issue because their proposal is not consistent with the Land Use Plan but it is consistent with the city's policy and changes to the sewer, etc. He questioned if it would be appropriate to get a Plan Council Page 5 of 5 recommendation on the land use. Administrator Graff stated that at this time, it would be inappropriate for the Plan Council to give direction to the Plan Commission. Flow Charts Administrator Graff noted that the new development flow charts should be included in the Plan Commission packets. There was no further additional business. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk