Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2002 03-21-02 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Committee Minutes - Plan Council March 21, 2002 Meeting Location: 800 Game Farm Time Convened: 9:46 a.m. Time Adjourned: 11:10 a.m. Attendees: Joe Wywrot - City Engineer Tony Graff- City Administrator Ron Diederich - Yorkville Police Eric Dhuse - Public Works Director Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Tim Fairfield - BKFPD EMS Ralph Pfister - YBSD Lynn Dubajic - YEDC Bill Dettmer - Building Official Richard Scheffrahn - Hopkins Corner Tom Grant - Hopkins Corner Phil Knierim - Hopkins Corner Mike Knierim - Hopkins Corner Carol Ultsch - Hopkins Corner Kevin Biscan - Menard's Minutes were accepted as presented from February 21, 2002. PC2000-06 Plat of Subdivision for Menard Property This plat went to Plan Commission last night as was approved subject to some comments from staff and Plan Council. There are some housekeeping issues that need to be cleaned up. IDOT needs to sign off on the plat. There is an outlot that will be dedicated to the State of Illinois. Wywrot stated that lot areas need to be shown, maybe in the form of a table. Wywrot asked for site plans for lots 5, 7, and 10. 10 is tight against the corner. Concerned about access. No access from Route 47. Biscan stated that access will be to Countryside Pkwy. Sgt. Diederich agreed that access is a concern. Biscan stated that there will be cross access along all these lots with ingress and egress easements. Wywrot recommends as a limitation to this plat, no access be allowed to Countryside Pkwy from lot 10. Possibly one common access could be allowed with lot 11, along it's frontage. He recommended that access only be allowed onto Marketview Drive. Determination was made that after reviewing the preliminary site plans for usage, a note will be put on the plat indicating what access will be allowed for Lots 10 & 11 from Countryside Pkwy, if any. Lot 11 may be allowed very limited access, but lot 10 only through lot 11. Lot 2 will not have direct access to Kennedy Road. Schoppe recommended that all lots located between Marketview Drive west to Route 47, should have access off of Marketview Drive only. Page 1 of 9 Countryside Pkwy is a 5 lane cross section roadway with no median. The ingress/egress easement that falls between lots 9 & 11 is 40' wide. Modify the setbacks to a 50 foot front yard and 30 foot side yard corner or adjoining a street. Dettmer will copy the code to Biscan. Lots 5 & 7 appear narrow. Schoppe is concerned about this. Some configurations could result in setback problems. The schedule will be worked out for forward motion to Economic Development Committee, Committee of the Whole and City Council. Dates were reviewed for updated submittal. The requested site plan information needs to be here for review by April 7th in order to make the April 18th EDC meeting. PC2002-10 Hopkins Corner - Morrissey Property This was presented as additional business. Plan Council Members have received nothing to review. Richard Scheffrahn gave an overview. Last month a slight overview was presented. This is the Morrissey tract located at Route 47 and Greenbriar Road just north of Ground Effects and south of Prairie Gardens. Proposal is for mixed use B3-commercial along the Route 47 and R4 PUD complex residential with duplexes in the back (west side). Property is currently zoned Kendall County Agricultural. Needs to be annexed and zoned. Proposal is for 29 residential lots and 9 commercial lots. Design criteria was reviewed. B3 zoning to match existing along Rte. 47. IDOT has been sent a request for right in/right out on Route 47 that would then connect to Greenbriar Road for future light at Route 47. R4 PUD being requested to the west. Duplexes are to the west. The proposed product is a townhome type product with some disconnection and diversity. Townhouse concept passed out. This will also lower the density some. This will connect with Wood Sage Avenue down thru to Greenbriar Road. Some cul de sac type units will be in the middle to soften business to residential. 87 total units proposed, which is 3.3 units per acre. Public works doesn't like cul de sacs. Wywrot is concerned with the proximity of the north/south road to Route 47. They seem too close. The NE corner at Wood Sage should be B3 not R4 zoning. Reasoning was due to a natural buffer with the trees being located there. Page 2 of 9 Park Board will probably look for a continuation of a trail down Greenbriar Road. Scheffrahn stated they have allowed space for that. Bermed to the west. Surrounding zoning was discussed. Single family in Sunflower south and west. Duplexes to the west in Greenbriar are in the process of being rezoned to single family. Comprehensive Plan calls for R4 which would be 8 units per acre. This was reviewed. The old comprehensive plan calls for all mixed use and commercial. Scheffrahn's point is that this much less intrusive then it could be. Dettmer commented that when buildings are closer than 20' side by side the fire rating of the walls goes up. This may be an expensive trade off. Split townhomes are considered as single family residents. Schoppe stated that there may be an issue to be addressed for detached townhome structures. No preference was stated. This was stated for future consideration only. Developer stated that these would have separate ownership and would prefer to have no common grounds. If lot lines are added, the concept view changes and then requires side setback, lot are coverage and other variations. If common area is maintained, it would be looked at differently due to no lot lines. City Council needs to decide policy on if this property should be considered multi family. Land use determination needs to be made for a baseline for this development and unit count. Graff stated that Plan Council supports the City Council and Plan Commission policy for lot lines and sizes meeting our standard. We don't like to vary unless there is some incentive or compensation program there in open space. Plan Council recommends that, due to the fact that our Zoning Ordinance does not address unattached townhome, this follow a common ground, condominium type development. Other projects were discussed for common issues. Graff stated that if there is an ownership issue, the City would prefer to see it as common ground ownership - condominium type. Common foundation is not recommended by Dettmer. Graff stated that the developer and city need to partner and educate the community that the type of development and product will be high quality and not compromise any of our standards. Need to display this to the Council. Wywrot stated that, more than likely, we will be asking for additional ROW dedication on the north side of the existing Greenbriar Road. The separate corner lot (owned by AT&T) is being included in this plan. There is a 10' access easement along the north side of existing Greenbriar ROW. This could be dedicated with the ROW being requested. Still additional footage will be Page 3 of 9 requested for the ROW. Wywrot stated that due to sidewalk being required along Greenbriar Road, more than 10' will be needed. Discussion was held regarding the road configuration and different scenarios that might work regarding their close proximity. The access point onto Greenbriar Road by the corner of Route 47, needs to be limited to one. This could possibly be worked out by reconfiguring and incorporating a park in this area with the Park Board's opinion. The commercial entrance configuration was discussed. Push west. State does require 200' from an intersection to an additional entrance. Our standard is the states' standard. Swinging the road west where it intersects with Greenbriar Road and aligning it with the entrance to Ground Effects would work. Bringing the access road thru the residential was also discussed. Commercial lot sizes and corresponding uses were discussed. Plan Council supports annexation and zoning once we get to consensus here. Concept Plan is not approved by us. Plan Commission's role. Graff stated that request should be explained to Plan Commission. PUD public hearing will be held at City Council. Annex/Zoning public hearing at Plan Commission. Zoning requirements for a PUD were discussed. It may not be able to be approved until a preliminary plan is available for approval at the Plan Commission level. Procedural changes being reviewed for Plan Commission were reviewed. Overview may be required to give the Commission a clear understanding of what request is being made before them for each agenda item. Pfister asked what PE they are expecting. 200-250, but no exact calculations have been made. The timetable for the river crossing was discussed. Pfister said it will be built as soon as someone pays for it. He stated there are some side issues to that. It's not only the pipe, it's the plant too. The developer would like to do this 6-9 mos from now. Pfister stated that it may not happen, but he hopes it does. A meeting will be held on April 4th with Joe Wywrot, Mike Schoppe, Tony Graff and request that Dan Kramer be in attendance for a staff review before a preliminary presentation to the Plan Commission. The first meeting of the Plan Commission will be the public hearing and encourage input on the concept plan. The second meeting of the Plan Commission to review the preliminary plan. Only Page 4 of 9 a one week window to develop a preliminary plan from first Plan Commission meeting. This will go forward to plan commission for annexation, zoning and concept plan April 17th with a public hearing requesting annexation and zoning. Development Flow Chart Our new Deputy Clerk, Plan Commission Chair and other staff have reviewed our current flow chart and are in the process of modifying it to be more productive and a more effective timeline. Review the information in the packet and give feedback to Liz or Holly. This is designed to slow the process down, provide for mail, review and support staff time. Plan Council will be held on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month from now on. Packets for Plan Commission will be sent out seven (7) days prior instead of five (5), to allow for unforeseen circumstances. Documents going before the Plan Council will be required in the City office two (2) weeks prior to allow for reviews by Engineer, Planner and anyone else that needs to do a review. No more than three (3) public hearings at any one Plan Commission meeting on a first come, first serve basis. Plan Commission is requesting some things from the city staff to eliminate overloading. All submittals will be required in the office six(6) weeks prior to the designated Plan Commission Meeting, date stamped and signed off by the Deputy Clerk and City Engineer to ensure that the submittal is complete and all fees have been paid. Maybe even seven (7) weeks prior. We do have the right to reject the application if it does not meet our requirements. Then a hearing will be scheduled and they will be published. Graff asked for anyone else to give input as to ways to improve the system. Separate check lists will be established for each type of submittal, but the overall timeline will stay the same. The application process remains the same. Page 5 of 9 Ownership is demonstrated by signature of application. Legal authority needs to determined by some type of affidavit of ownership. Maybe on the application. Something added to identify ownership. Meeting adj ourned at 11:10 a.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Holly Baker. Page 6 of 9