Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2000 11-16-00 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Committee Minutes - Plan Council November 16, 2000 Meeting Location: 800 Game Farm Rd Time Convened: 9:30 a.m. Time Adjourned: 10:58 a.m. Attendees: Jim Nanninga - City Administrator Tim Fairfield - B.K.F.P.D. Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Tony Graff- Police Department Joe Wywrot - City Engineer Ralph Pfister - Y.B.S.D. Joe McElroy - B.K.F.P.D. Mike Cap - Development Resources Paul Dresden - Yorkville Development PC 2000-21 Davis Downs - Annexation/Re zoning/Preliminary Plan 77.8 acres Concept of this plan has been reviewed by Plan Commission. All plan review comments are referenced in the attached memos from Joe Wywrot and Mike Schoppe. Comments not otherwise stated in these minutes were concurred with by the developer. The southwest corner of the proposed development is not in the facility planning area boundary for the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District. The district requires that Walter E. Deuchler & Assoc. review this. The preliminary landscape plan should include the surrounding land uses for perimeter screening purposes as well as trees in parkways. Street width was discussed. The developer stated that streets in existing Fox Hill is 28' and would like that width to continue into this adjacent development. Plan Council can only state the city's standards which is 30' back to back with barrier curb of 136-12. The developer can choose to request a variation on the street width and mountable curb to the City Council. Cap did ask if depressing curb at drives was okay. Wywrot concurred. The placement of the forcemain was discussed. Wywrot's memo states placement to be in the frontyard easement. This is a temporary issue. This placement could be 1 in the same trench as the sanitary sewer at the same elevation. They will talk to J.T. Johnson. Wywrot has reservations with this being tributary to Rob Roy Creek interceptor. This may not be necessary if they can tie into a future gravity sewer on River Road instead of Rob Roy. Ground elevations were reviewed and this may be able to be gravity instead of a forcemain or a lift station. The sanitary district would maintain the sewer there just as they do the one south of town. The preference would be to have gravity if it is feasible in this situation. The developer will present a letter to Deuchler on this. There was extensive discussion held with regard to a second roadway access for the subdivision. Several different scenarios were discussed two of which were connecting to Eldamain Rd. or River Rd. Route 34, Eldamain and River Roads are arterial and collector roadways. John Street runs parallel to Route 34 and Eldamain due to the curve. Graff stated that from a law enforcement perspective, islands of subdivisions without any thru traffic helps to keep the instances of crime lower. Thru traffic in neighborhoods increases crime just by drive-byes. The roadways shown on our Comprehensive Plan was referred to and discussed. It does show a collector road in the area of this development. Cap did not disagree that this development needs a road to connect either to Eldamain or River Road, one or the other. The intersection Wywrot identifies as H1 needs to be revised by smoothing the transition into the curve from the east to the west to soften the intersection. The radii of some of the roadways was discussed. Wywrot stated that the centerline radius needs to be at least 400' for the collector road. Discussion was held regarding smaller radii acting as a speed deterrent which naturally slows and calms traffic. AASHTO Greenbook guidelines will be checked. Wywrot stated our Ordinance but does not necessarily disagree with this point. Both summit manholes and split-flow manholes will be used for the sanitary sewer routing at certain locations. The stormwater will leave the detention basin through outfall. The field tile system in the southwest corner was discussed. Wywrot does not recommend utilizing it due to age and condition of the system. A dedicated easement could be used with the discharge at grade by overland flow. The lake, approximately 5 acres and 12-14' deep, will be privately owned by Dr. Davis with a berm to the north. It was recommended that the city have an easement over it. 2 Stormwater service for each lot was reviewed. It needs to be provided for each lot or a soil boring study can be performed to determine the necessity. Cap stated that there will be rear yard perimeter stormwater drainage. Some extensions are not shown on this plat. This area is all sand and the groundwater elevation is probably the only concern. Guidance from the USDA land report is limited since it only deals with surface soils. Cap stated that most likely they will install a perforated pipe wrapped in felt thru at groundwater level. Schoppe went over his comments. The east/west collector street should provide for a bike trail on one side and a sidewalk on the other. The park site was discussed. The site shown on the east property needs 25% more frontage along the perimeter to allow for people to pull up and utilize the park. An alternate site was presented to the developer by Schoppe but the developer explained why it would probably not be feasible. In an attempt to annex the detention area (lake) Dr. Davis will be approached by the developer. Next step is for this to go to December Plan Commission with revised plan two weeks prior so Wywrot can review and prepare comments prior. Additional Business None. Meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Holly Baker. 3 MEMO To: Jim Nanninga, City Admini rator \ From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Subject: Davis Downs Subdivision— eliminary Plan Review Date: November 14, 2000 I have reviewed the proposed preliminary plan for the referenced development, received on 11/9/00, and have the following comments: • The plan should be drawn at a scale of F'=100 feet or larger. • A north arrow is needed. �• A location map showing the subdivision in relation to the city and existing major streets. • A legal description of the property is needed. • The locations and names of adjacent subdivisions and owners of parcels of un-subdivided land within 200 feet of the proposed development need to be shown. The current zoning of those parcels must also be shown. • Show the current facility planning area boundary for the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District. A Facility Planning Area expansion will need to be approved by YBSD and the Illinois EPA. • Need calculations for stormwater detention and any offsite tributary flows. • Need a preliminary landscape plan. • Need a USDA Land Use Report. • Need a field tile survey. • The Park Board needs to review the proposed park donation. The required park donation is about 6 acres, but the proposed dedication is over 9 acres. This area has been identified as the location of a future regional park, so accepting all land may be OK. There is a significant swale across the proposed park that could limit its recreational use. The Park Board should also consider parking and access to the park. • The engineering review fee needs to be paid. This fee is based on acreage, so we can't determine the exact amount until a legal description is submitted. A legal and planning deposit of$5000 also needs to be made. • Walter E. Deuchler Associates will also be reviewing the sanitary sewer design on behalf of the sanitary district. • Approximate dimensions of all proposed single-family lots need to be shown. Add a note stating that all lots are to be a minimum of 12,000 SF. • Building setback lines need to be shown. • The preliminary plan checklist (attached) needs to be filled out and complied with. • The proposed roadways need names. • A typical section is needed for the collector road. • The typical section for the local needs to be revised as follows: a) Roadway width to be 30' B-B. i b) Curb to be 136-12. c) Binder thickness to be 2.5 in. d) Sidewalk width to be 5 ft. Add a note that walk is to be 6" thick at driveways. e) Luminaire to operate on a 120-volt system. 0 Place the forcemain in a frontyard easement. g) Cover over watermain to be 5.5 feet minimum. • A second roadway access is needed for the development as a whole. • A second access is needed for the southern part of the subdivision. There are 50 homes proposed for this area. • I suggest that the northernmost E-W roadway be extended to cul-de-sac H5. • Intersection H1 has an odd configuration. Revise it to have a smooth transition from the east to the west. • The roadway ending at the lift station will probably always be a dead-end due to the lake being constructed. Make this a bulb cul-de-sac. • We need to confirm that the curves in the collector road have a centerline radius of at least 400 feet. Also check the curve just south of intersection H16 for minimum radius. • Streetlights need to be shown at all intersections, dead-ends or cul-de-sacs, significant curves, and at 300 foot intervals throughout the development. • Add a note stating that pipe sizes and locations of hydrants, valves and manholes will be determined during final plan preparation. We should discuss oversizing the watermain and sanitary sewer along the collector road. • The watermain needs to be double-fed. Extend the main from cul-de-sac H5 to Fox Hill Unit 2. Extend the mains at cul-de-sacs H13 and H17 through to the nearest street. Extend the main at cul-de-sac V8 to the east and then north to connect near H23. • There are three locations (intersections H3, H4, and H7) where the sanitary sewer routing is unclear. Are these summit manholes or split-flow manholes? • General drainage patterns along streets need to be shown. Curb drainage structures need to be located at a maximum interval of 300 feet to collect stormwater. • How will stormwater leave the detention basin? • Add a note stating that all lots shall have a stormwater service. During final plan preparation, the developer has the option of either finalizing the storm service design or performing a soil boring study to see if storm services are necessary. That study requires soil borings at 400 foot maximum grid spacing to depths at least 20 feet below existing ground surface. If a boring log shows granular soil and groundwater elevations at least 5 feet below planned basement floor elevations, then storm services would not be required near that particular boring. This plan is scheduled for review at the November 16, 2000 Plan Council meeting. Cc: Ralph Pfister, Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District Eric Schoeny, Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc. Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates Mike Cap, Michael J. Cap, Ltd. Standard Specifications Figure No. 5 CHECK LIST FOR PRELMNARY PLANS SECTION 1: WRITTEN DOCUMENTS Not Applicable acceptable Deficient 1. A land use application containing the following: a. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the plan b. A time schedule of the proposed development of the area covered by such preliminary plan — c. Exceptions or variations to City Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances being requested as part of the plan including the specific section of the ordinance. 2. A boundary survey of the area covered by such preliminary plan, prepared and certified by a registered Illinois surveyor. SECTION 2: GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION 1. A rendered outline of the area covered by such preliminary plan drawn at a scale of not less than(1) inch equals one hundred(100)feet. 2. The plan must contain the following information: a. Scale. b. North arrow. c. Original and revised dates. d. Name and address of owner of record. e,Name and address of site plan designer. f. Current zoning of the property. g. All categories of proposed land use. 3. The following information regarding contiguous property: a. Location of contiguous property. b. Zoning of contiguous property. c. Land use of contiguous property. 4. The following site data provided in the lower right hand corner: a. Size of property in square feet or acres. b. Square footage and percent of site coverage with buildings. c. Square footage and percent of site coverage with pavement. d. Number of parking spaces to be provided. e. Number of parking spaces required by zoning ordinance. f. Number of proposed buildings/dwelling units/lots. SECTION 3• PLAN DATA REQUIREMENTS 1. A site location map. 2. Dimensions of the property. 3. A topographical survey of the area covered by such preliminary plan at two-foot contour intervals drawn at not less than one(1) inch equals one hundred(100)feet. 4. A detailed plan for the treatment of any proposed stormwater detention or retention facilities. 5. Existing or proposed public roads, streets, and alleys, including classifications,width of R-O-W and paved suifaces, and existing and proposed sidewalks. 6. Dimensioned building setbacks, and as applicable; areas for o$str eet parking, trucking maneuvering and service, and open space/recreational facilities. 7. A schematic of existing or proposed public utility systems including the size of sanitary sewers, storm water lines, and streetlights. 8. Existing vegetation and plantings. 9. Any other information required by the City to clearly show the proposed site plan elements. -S26- Schoppe Des qn Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning 202 Lombardy Lane (630) 554-9775 Oswego, IL 60543 Fax (630) 554-4667 November 16,2000 MEMORANDUM To: Jim Nanninga, City Administrator From: Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates RE: Preliminary Plan Review We have reviewed the Preliminary Plan prepared by Michael J. Cap Inc. dated 7-31-00 and provide the following comments: 1. A road connection to Eldamain Rd. should be included as part of this project. Aspen Lane was not designed as a collector to serve adjacent parcels. 2. The east/west collector street should be designed as a minor collector and should also provide for a bike trail,which will serve to connect open space corridors to the east and west of the site. 3 The parksite is shown on the east property, which will allow for future expansion. However,the park deeds more fromagc vtra puotuc street. The majority of the frontage should be on the east/west collector with additional frontage provided on a local street. 4. The detention area should to be ipcluded-s part of this project 5. Several of the corner lots appear to be 80' wide. The corner lots snoulcl oe widened to allow for corner yard setbacks. 6. The level of documentation for preliminary plan approval is not sufficient. Joe Wyrot's comments outline the additional information,which needs to be provided. We look forward to reviewing these comments with you at the November 15`h Plan Council meeting. rs9' 27 .00• / I I _ \ 3 Y \ /' { W � /J lu d tL _ O7ZJ O= ph-X OZO CL:D L, A \ \ 7T-( I Nomr34,w 861.5s SOOlZ34"E 2138.47 1 o a R m m a MAST MY OR TENON AS SFE FIM WMINAIRE 2 HPS TYPE III a - srR.s ucH7 Pucm NEAR PROPERLY CORNER � 6 MHOr N z n 'J to i BUILDING SETEIM,X 00 R. X 1 a' PARKWAY 28' Bock to D Q I GENERALLY J, IE 1• MINIMUM 12.8 2 0 Fonda+1.5 FC .— 18 utio O O SA++TAR-Y SEVIER STQNE CUSHION CC STORM SEAE:R i p Wak 8' PCG � l J NEATER"N NOO'41'57'W 615.20 / iNtS CROSS SECTION GENE..vkLY NONWOVEN GECTTJ,LF FARRIr,