Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2003 10-23-03 Page 1 of 5 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE APPROVED BY THE Plan Council Meeting Minutes COMMITTEE/BOARD Thursday, October 23, 2003 ON: t-103 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 Guests: See attached Minutes The minutes from the September 25, 2003 were accepted. PC 2003-13 RUNGE PROPERTY—ANNEXATION, ZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAN The Council discussed City Planner Mike Schoppe's October 17, 2003 memo: • Need for residential access to commercial area—Gary Weber with Gary Weber and Associates noted that they were not sure how the commercial was going to develop at this point. They did not want to mix traffic between a"big box" commercial site and a residential area. However, they could encourage pedestrian access. Mr. Schoppe stated he agreed that the residential traffic and the commercial traffic should not be mixed. He suggested that there be a public street between the commercial site and the compensatory storage site which would provide access to Route 47. This street would allow residential traffic access to the commercial area and Route 47 without having to go through the development to the Baseline Road/Route 47 intersection. Tim Bossy with Mid- America commented that the "big boxes" like to decide how their stores sit on a site. This could impact the location of the street. Also discussed was: • The affect of the access point on the location of the townhomes and the addition of language to the annexation agreement to address this • The affect of the final plat on the road. • The Rob Roy Creek flood plain and its affect on the compensatory storage and commercial location was discussed. Mr. Schoppe suggested that the developer show a road on their plans with a label indicating that the final location is to be determined. • Orientation of townhomes 3 and 4—Mr. Schoppe recommended that their orientation be changed to a motor court concept in order to eliminate eight driveways connecting to the street within close proximity to the Baseline Road intersection. John Whitehouse of EEI also suggested looking at the access to Building 22 if the previously mentioned access road is placed in this area. Another concern was driveways (Building 23 and 24) on the curve of a high traffic road. Mr. Weber indicated that he would look at the locations and a court design. Mr. Wywrot also asked that Mr. Weber check the radius on the roads near lots 54, 148 and 147. He noted that radius looked tight and may need to be softened. • Lot lines for townhomes should be shown—Mr. Schoppe indicated that without showing lot lines it appears that more than one residential building is on a lot. This is against the city's zoning Page 2 of 5 ordinances unless there is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Mrs. Kurtzman indicated that when showing lot lines set backs should be adhered to. • The limits of Parcel One and Parcel Two need to be referenced on the plan. • More information still needs to be submitted: • A more detailed plan of the eastern portion of the commercial showing buildings, parking lots, the Rob Roy Creek open space corridor, floodplain and bike trail—he recommended that this be done before the zoning is granted and it could be a separate exhibit of the Rob Roy Creek corridor. He recommended a 100' corridor between the creek and the edge of a parking lot and/or building. Unique uses of this area and the bike path were discussed. • Wetland Delineation Report—still being prepared. • Landscape Plan- Mr. Schoppe indicated that he has received this and it is okay except for the buffer along Baseline Road, which needs to be made consistent with the city's landscape ordinance, and landscaping along the detention basins needs to be shown. Mr. Graff asked about the landscaping around the homestead. Mr. Schoppe stated that the landscape ordinance does not address the area where the single-family residences abut the homestead however it does address where the multi-family does. Mr. Graff asked if the developer would be agreeable to continue the landscaping around the homestead. They agreed. Administrator Graff asked Mr. Schoppe if this development meets the comp plan and Mr. Schoppe indicated that specifically it does not meet the plan because of the townhomes however this was discussed by the Plan Commission and they were comfortable with the townhomes. Mr. Whitehouse addressed the developer's requested variations: • Reduced local residential right-of-way(ROW) from 66' to 60' —he recommended against the variation. • Reduced local residential road width from 30' back-to-back (B/B) to 28' BB —he recommended against the reduction • Reduced minimum centerline radius from 150' and 100' to 50' —he recommended against the reduction. There was discussion regarding privatizing some roads however public roads need to meet the city's requirements. John Whitehouse also discussed the availability of the sanitary sewer before the development can be built. Mr. Graff noted that a meeting was being planned to discuss this along with financing with developers in the area. Mr. Whitehouse stated that EEI will provide watermain sizing based on the city's model of the area. He also noted that a traffic study and field tile study were still needed. He stated that he does not have enough information to give an engineering recommendation to the Plan Commission. City Engineer Joe Wywrot discussed possible improvements to Baseline Road and the Route 47 intersection. He also suggested contacting Sugar Grove regarding any improvements. He stated that the traffic study may address this. Mr. Graff suggested scheduling a meeting with Sugar Grove and he asked Mr. Whitehouse to coordinate a meeting before the November 12, 2003 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Graff stated that the developer could change this from Preliminary Plan to Concept Plan and ask the Plan Commission to move ahead with the annexation and zoning. Mr. Schoppe stated if all his comments are addressed, he would feel comfortable recommending the annexation and zoning with a concept site Page 3 of 5 plan. He stated that the Plan Commission could give three separate recommendations: annexation, zoning and plan. The Plan Commission could approve the annexation and zoning however they could table the recommendation on the Preliminary Plan until documents are available from engineering, etc. The Plan Council recommended that the preliminary land plan and engineering should come back to the Council. Mr. Graff suggested moving this on to Plan Commission after hearing from Inland as to the direction they want to take. If Inland wants to wait for Preliminary Plan approval and engineering, there is no need to go on to the Plan Commission in November. If the developer changes the plan as recommended, the revision should be returned to Mr. Schoppe by October 30, 2003 so he has time to review the changes for the Plan Commission. PC 2003-22 KYLYN'S RIDGE PHASE 2 —FINAL PLAT The Plan Council went over Mr. Schoppe's October 16, 2003 memo: • The designs standards are consistent with the Preliminary Plan. • Lots 139,141 and 142 are not to be dedicated to the city so the text should be revised accordingly. • Lot 143 is to be conveyed to the city for a park so the reference to 30' of private park should be removed. • Add a date to the plat • A landscape plan is needed showing plantings along Lot 139. The landscape plan was discussed further. Chad Gunderson from AMG Homes stated that they traded trees and sidewalks for not completing the landscaping west on Faxon Road. Mr. Schoppe stated that the screening issue for Lot 139 is different from landscaping in the ROW. It was discussed if this was addressed in the annexation agreement or the preliminary plan. Mr. Schoppe read from the preliminary plan which stated that trees for streets, detention areas, and parkways shall conform to the requirements of the city's landscape ordinance. Mr. Gunderson stated that he was getting three landscaping plans and he will follow the landscape ordinance. When this is completed, he will send a copy to Mr. Schoppe. Mr. Wywrot discussed his October 16, 2003 memo: • Lot numbers for public and private linear parks have changed which has caused confusion as to which are public and which are private. Lot 143 is the only public linear park whereas all others are private. He asked that the plat be revised accordingly. • Blanket public utility and drainage easements should be dedicated across Lots 139, 140, 141, 142 and 143. Mr. Whitehouse noted that the Owner's Certificate is to be signed by the owner/CEO and there is a separate certificate for the school district. The requirement for the school district certificate is that it be notarized and signed by the owners. He assumed that it was the same owners for the whole thing. He recommended that the paragraph stating what school district the property is located in be added to the Owner's Certificate and not be separate. Mrs. Kurtzman addressed her October 17, 2003 memo: • The preliminary site plan indicates the size and location of park sites however the final subdivision plat deviates from this. The Park Board and Park & Recreation Department will need to determine if these discrepancies are acceptable. Page 4 of 5 • She corrected her note regarding the 40' ROW from the centerline of Faxon Road. She stated that she missed the notation for this. Mr. Graff asked for resubmittals from the developer by Thursday, October 30, 2003 and staff comments for Plan Commission by Wednesday, November 5, 2003. Plan Council recommended final plat approval subject to the changes indicated. PC 2003-23 RAINTREE VILLAGE UNITS 2 & 3 —FINAL PLAT (ENGINEERING REVIEW ONLY) Mr. Schoppe went over his October 23, 2003 memo: • The Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat relative to density, lot size, etc. • The lots to be conveyed to the City for parks need to be identified on the plat. • Final Engineering Plans and Final Landscape Plans should be submitted for review before approval can be recommended. Mr. Whitehouse went over his October 16, 2003 memo regarding Unit Two: • General Comments—mainly concerned minor housekeeping issues. A separate letter to Mr. Wywrot addressed plans for site development permit application. • Stormwater Comments—some adjustments to restrictor sizes are noted. There is also a recommendation for a minor variation to the depth of the dry basin from 4' below the high water line to 5' in the maximum depth especially at the outlet. • Utility Plan Comments—Revisions to various locations where large diameter storm sewers cross the roadway were noted. Specifications, design calculations and details should be provided for the proposed lift station. • Final Plat Comments—the owner's certificate states Raintree, LLC is the owner but Concord Development is shown as the signatory. The Typical Lot Detail indicates a minimum lot width of 90' but this is misleading because some of the lot frontages are less than 90'. This statement should be clarified. The engineers are still working with ComEd regarding the easement provision language. Mr. Wywrot asked for clarification as to how Lot 215 (City park) and Lot 216 (location of the water tower) are to be conveyed to the City. Rich Guerard from Wyndham Deerpoint stated that they were conveyed as part of the SSA. It was discussed that the City will have the title and deed upon the final platting and a note will be on the plat indicating that Lots 213- 215 will be conveyed to the city. Mr. Graff noted that for SSA purposes the City is receiving title to the property however there is an agreement that the City will not accept it as park land until it is graded and seeded. It is an asset issue with the SSA that the property be conveyed to the City in order for the developer to get their funds. Access to Lot 216 was discussed. Mr. Schoppe noted that Unit 1 has a lot indicated that will create access to Lot 216. There is an access easement from Route 126 to get to the property until such time as the next unit is developed. It was also discussed that Lot 214 would not be a buildable lot and this should be noted on the plat. Mr. Whitehouse went over his October 16, 2003 memo regarding Unit Three: • Earthwork Comments—clarification is needed for the proposed retaining wall across Lots 224-232 Page 5 of 5 as indicated on the grading plan. The typical cross section for the boulevard (Prairie Crossing) requires a revision to provide a minimum of 20' BB for each lane. • Utility Plan Comments— Streetlights should be located on the side of the street opposite the watermain. Fire hydrants are not shown along Route 126. The watermain should be extended across Prairie Crossing Drive at Route 126 for future use. • Final Plat Comments—Language on the plat should state "To be conveyed to the State of Illinois by Warranty Deed" for Route 126. The same clarification is needed for the Typical Lot Detail as previously stated in the Unit Two comments. The same ComEd easement language is also being negotiated Mr. Wywrot commented that there should be a note on the plan regarding road access to Lots 241 through 248. Mr. Whitehouse stated that it should be clarified that these lots not have access to Prairie Crossing Drive. Mrs. Kurtzman asked that these lots indicate the rear lot setbacks. Mr. Wywrot also noted that the ROW at Route 126 should be rounded off. The Council discussed that the Homeowners Association(HOA) maintain the Prairie Crossing Drive medians and Mr. Guerard suggested that a clause be place in the HOA agreement stating that they will be responsible for this. It was decided to get a legal opinion on the proper handling of this situation. Mr. Schoppe also noted that the SSA should be noted on the final plat. The Landscape Plan was discussed and Mr. Guerard stated that he thought a Landscape Plan for the entire project was submitted as one. This plan has not changed. Mr. Schoppe asked that a complete final plan be submitted with each unit. It was recommended that Mr. Guerard get copies of the Engineering and Landscape Plans to the Deputy Clerk as soon as possible so that staff could prepare comments for the Plan Commission. The Council stated that this was ready to move on to Plan Commission subject to the engineering review and Mr. Schoppe's comments. Mr. Whitehouse stated that he would write a memo to the Plan Commission with his recommendations. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The Council discussed if a John Frerich with Deuchler, City Attorney Kelly Kramer or a School District representative should attend Plan Council meetings. The consensus was that Deuchler(payment of this fee will be discussed with Ralph Pfister of the YBSD) should represent the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District (YBSD) and Attorney Kramer's presence was not needed. They discussed who would represent the School District and Mr. Graff stated he would check into this. There was no further additional business so the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk