Plan Council Minutes 2002 08-01-02 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
Committee Minutes - Plan Council
August 1, 2002 Meeting Location: 800 Game Farm
Time Convened: 9:37 a.m.
Time Adjourned: 12:04 p.m.
Attendees:
Tony Graff- City Administrator Joe Wywrot - City Engineer
Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Wally Ahrens - BKFPD EMS
Bill Dettmer - Building Official Lynn Dubajic - YEDC
Don Schwartzkopf- Police Lt. Jeff Freeman - EEI
John Whitehouse - EEI Ed Joanis - SEI
Pat Stanley - SEI Larry Vaupel - Wiseman Hughes
John Philipchuck - DBC&W John M. Philipchuck - DBC&W
Rich Guerard - Wyndham Deerpoint Jim Hughes - Wiseman Hughes
Bill Zalewski - Jacob & Hefner Dave WadenPage 1 of 7 - Land
Vision
Minutes were accepted by consensus as presented from June 13, 2002.
Graff reviewed the Plan Councils objectives for this meeting. With regards to The
Highlands, the goal is to reach a concessus for the August Plan Commission. Our
outside consultant, EEI, did this engineering review. Regarding Coach Road
Hills, the Plan Council's objective is to have comments ready for City Council on
the PUD amendment and the site plan. This is planning to go to Plan Commission
in October. City Council would like a concessus on the PUD amendments so that
when the site plan is ready they can both be approved together.
PC 2001-18 The Highlands - Preliminary Plan
Graff stated that the City Council held it's public hearing for the annexation of the
second parcel. There were comments regarding stormwater runoff to the Stewart,
Block and Cooper farms, and access issues to the property on the north. Kramer is
drafting the annexation agreement and asked if there were any items from the Plan
Council. Graff asked that the items be summarized in these minutes. Plat issues
will be reviewed first, then annexation issues.
Schoppe stated that all land uses are fine. They are consistent to the previously
submitted plans. The zoning is fine and the annexation makes sense. They are
Page 1 of 7
asking for preliminary approval and annexation. Schoppe asked for the
engineering plans and updated landscape plan. The only design issue is in the
duplex area where the lots have been reconfigured adjacent to Prairie Crossing
Drive. It is the tier of lots on the south side that have the duplexes backing up to
Prairie Crossing Drive. The distance between the lots and the road is about 30'.
There is some landscape screening shown. More footage is needed - about 50'
total along the south side. This was reconfigured to realign the roads at the
requested angles.
Stewart has requested a road connection. This is the most major change. A
change was made to create a 66' right-of-way.
The ROW stub to the north will be shifted to the west, eliminate the one single
family lot and line it up with Cardinal Drive.
The concessus regarding the Block Farm is that the developer thinks an agreement
has been reached regarding storm water and buffering. The plans do reflect some
of the agreement. Starting at the southeast area there will be natural plantings and
a 6' board on board fence with the smooth side in. The fence will go all along the
contiguous area. Different treatments will be used along the area. There will be a
10' landscape easement with double row of trees and bushes. Along the park and
school the 6' fence will be on top of a 3' berm, then back to fence and natural
plantings, then back to the 10' landscape easement. The developer had pictures
and a revised preliminary landscape plan will be submitted to the City reflecting
this agreement. Graff commented that there is certain criteria around the park and
school (public facilities) that should be reviewed with the police department.
Schoppe will review it with them. Police prefer low bushes, not clustered. These
plants will be on the school side. The school district is aware of the fence issue.
Per the developer, the school district has approved it. Maintenance was discussed
without determination.
12,000 sq. ft. lots minimum single family lots. Duplex common area will be
owned by Association, envelope of buildings owned by property owners. These
will be fee simple, not condominium, platted as lots.
The design standards that will be applicable between duplex lots need to be shown
on the preliminary plat, listed out in a separate section (i.e., setbacks, separation
between buildings).
Page 2 of 7
This plan does meet the Park Board's recommendation without seeing the
preliminary engineering. Schoppe: the trail from the park area, parcel 8, out to
Route 126 is in lieu of sidewalk. Different scenarios of pedestrian path were
discussed. The developer said he is committed to building the trail. Schoppe
stated that it makes sense to get rid of the sidewalk and pull the trail up closer to
the right of way. This needs to be changed on the preliminary and engineering
plat.
Through the multi family and single family by Parkside, Wywrot suggested that
we have a deeper setback or a narrower trail along that area. Schoppe stated he
would not recommend a narrower trail. Look at rear yards that back to Prairie
Crossing. The widths will need to be reviewed.
Fire Department asked that the street names Meadowview, Blackberry, Cardinal
and Aster be changed. Check with Kencom and the post office. The existing
streets stubbed to this property should continue with current names. Street stubs
meet up with the Coach Road Hills plans. Through the duplex area there is a
continuation of one road with three different names. One name for all - Hawk
Hollow Circle. Highland Drive should stay as Parkside.
Engineering clarifications. Page 2, #3 - We recommend approval/sign offs before
City Council approval. Developer stated that both a & b, documents are received.
#6 on page 3, traffic study is always funded by the developer. Wywrot stated that
the data obtained is applied to our standards. We take it into consideration by it
does not dictate to us. The study is to give us recommendations to compare with
our standards.
Page 4 #18, Soil reports are done but not turned in.
Page 4 #19. Rework the preliminary plan to more closely follow what the nature
of the land is doing. Discuss later.
Page 6 #28, The FPA is the YBSD's, not the City. Sanitary jointly goes in with
another developer. This will be discussed at a separate meeting.
#29 Recommends City standards.
Page 3 #5 - The Park Board recommendation is put in the minutes and forwarded
to Liz. She includes them in the Plan Council, and Plan Commission packets.
Page 3 of 7
EEI communicates to the City and the developer the issues that need to be
addressed from their review. The developer than submits a letter addressing the
issues for the Plan Commission.
Showed a trail down the ComEd right-of-way. Edmeier had to bring it to a rough
grade. A solution between the City and the developer regarding the trail along the
ComEd right-of-way needs to be determined. A 10' trail that runs from Route 71
south to The Highlands south property line where Coach Road Hills would pick it
up was discussed. No determination was made. This is not required at this point.
Page 3 #11, Extending the road into Country Hills for the connection to Country
Hills Drive. The annexation and development agreement for Country Hills
references the plan that shows that connection being made up to Greenfield Turn.
Wywrot understood that they would provide the right-of-way but not the road and
whoever developed the south would put in the road.
PC 2002-17 - Coach Road Estates Site Plan &
PUD Amendment
Graff gave an overview. We have a preliminary black & white landscape plan.
Park Board and City Council have seen this plan. The PUD Amendment has gone
to certain individuals, Wywrot, Schoppe, Dettmer and Graff. Vaupel gave his
overview.
The changes are in the land use. The northwest section was originally townhomes.
The proposed change is to single family 12,000 sq. ft minimum lot sizes. The
proposed change to the commercial is from original 3.8 acres up to 5.5 acres. The
gross density is 1.8. The other changes are with the model. There will be one
model area with eight models. No occupancies will be needed on these. The
landscape buffer along Route 47 adjacent to the residential was 30'. It is being
increased to 50'. Along the commercial, the only buffer is the required 30' yard
without berming. There will be a sales trailer until about 95% is built out. The
previous height variance being requested in the agreement is no longer needed.
Page 5 F - An agreeable recapture solution, development fee, or possibly front
funding from the developer needs to be determined at a meeting with the Mayor
and Dan Kramer. The developer agrees to pay their share of the traffic signal at
Legion Road, if warranted. Will pay 100% of any non-IDOT share. Developer
asked for recapture. They're developing 284 lots. Discussion was held to try and
Page 4 of 7
determine who would pay recapture to them. The developer wants whatever
development triggers the warrant for the traffic light to pay them recapture as well
as any future development at that intersection. No resolution of this issue yet.
Language in the agreement needs to be tightened and clarity is needed for ease in
understanding the meaning in this agreement in future years. The overall content
and concept is ok. It's the actual wording which needs clarification and
tightening.
The traffic study needs to be updated to determine if a signal is warranted. It will
also recommend the internal right-of-way widths and roadway widths.
The main entrance into the commercial is off of the boulevard as a right in/right
out onto Route 47.
Trying to get the PUD out of Committee of the Whole to City Council for
approval in September.
For the meeting the week of 8/12 - on page 4 regarding the parks, the developer
was asked to have a response to this draft prepared.
Plan Issues - EEI will be doing the preliminary engineering plan review. Plan
approval was given in 1997. The City's Subdivision Ordinance was changed in
2000. The whole plan needs to be reviewed as submitted to the city's current
ordinances. Revised engineering review fees are now not to exceeded 1 1/4 % of
the engineers estimate or time and material only. This is the developers choice.
Vaupel asked for an estimate of the time and materials. An estimate would
probably be 1 1/4 % of the engineers estimate.
Council has approved CDF for wetland review. Their recommendation is based
on looking at the wetlands to confirm the previously done wetland delineation and
will make a recommendation as to how to preserve and protect it. A point from
the developer was made that the wetland on this property is non jurisdictional to
the Army Corp of Engineers. Wywrot stated that just because the Army Corp of
Engineers doesn't have authority does not mean that the City does not have
authority and responsibility to preserve and protect it.
Graff stated that a response on the purpose and legal opinion from Kramer on
wetland issue of authority of responsibility. Should have a meeting with CDF as a
free charge meeting. This will give the developer a scope of services.
Page 5 of 7
Architect meet with Bill Dettmer to review the 2000 changes regarding BOCA.
Chapter 11 will have modifications.
The changes to the Subdivision Ordinance/Standard Specifications were reviewed
in comparison to what this previous plan was approved under. Wywrot suggested
that they compare the Ordinance to their current plan. The current plan has no
changes east of the ComEd Easement except the wetlands. Graff does not feel
there will be a big issue with CDF. This was an approved plan.
Schoppe asked for clarification if it was approved that the main park area being
located in the detention basin. Schoppe would like a copy of the previously
approved plan. The bounce and water levels were discussed. This will be
discussed at the meeting with CDF.
Cul de sac length of 900' allowed in previous agreement. Issues for the meeting
on 8/12, donation of the wetland to the city and bike trail location in or out of the
ComEd easement.
PC2001-18- The HWhlands Preliminary Plan
Continued:
Geurard will get a summary to us except on two issues. The buffering area in the
duplex area between Prairie Crossing and Gold Finch. Schoppe feels that there
needs to be more room between the road and the back of the house. 50' is needed.
Discussion was held regarding decreasing the right-of-way. Muse stated that it
crowds the infrastructure underneath. Geurard stated that he would review it. The
trail location was discussed. It only adds 5', won't make enough of an impact in
this situation, it's in the right-of-way anyway.
Graff asked why our standard setback of 30' isn't working in this situation.
Schoppe stated that there are other issues impacting this situation due to it being a
boulevard and backing up to a street. These are through lots because they are on
two streets-one in front and one in back. Road configuration were changed from
the previous plat. The two configurations were discussed and compared.
There is 40' in the back, it depends on the product that will be built there.
Drainage and grading were discussed in this area as well.
Page 6 of 7
The developer is complying with our standards but it is a bad design. It has the
potential to cause the city problems. The City does not enforce convenants.
Add to the PUD language, no fences to be located along the boulevard on Prairie
Crossing. We can enforce PUD.
Page 3 #8, the landscape will be maintained by the Association.
Add to PUD language stating maintenance by the Homeowner's Association on
the landscaping.
Page 3 #6, Highland Drive is still an issue. This is designed as a collector road
with 66' right-of-way. This is not an arterial road with an 80' right-of-way. EEI
is recommending a traffic study to address internal streets due to the school site
and connections to other subdivisions. It needs to provide information to the city
to make an educated, conscious decision. This was discussed intently. Geurard
agreed to order this study to be done. The Route 126 study would be submitted to
the City on Monday.
The documents that go out one week prior to the meeting for the reviews is the
document used for that upcoming meeting. No new documents can go out until
that review is done.
Schoppe's office needs to see engineering and landscape plan in order to comment
on the plat. The plat includes the engineering and grading for recommendation.
Land use and layout is fine, no final recommendation can be made until landscape
and engineering is reviewed. All documents need to agree with each other, then
an informed review can be made.
The recommendation of the Plan Council was discussed intently. This will go to
Plan Commission August 14th. Plans due August 8th.
Motion should be to made a recommendation to approve the preliminary plant,
engineering and landscape subject too... Joint agreement with Block, IDOT access
to 126 and internal traffic study.
No IDOT letter in Plan Council packets to engineering.
Engineering review and planner comments with review by EEI in Plan
Commission packets.
Meeting adjourned at 12:04 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Holly Baker.
Page 7 of 7