Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992-01-07 PC minutesr PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION DATE: January 7, 1992 AT: Village Hall COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak, D. Norris, W. Schremp, H. Bayer, A. Consola, M. Krippel, EX- OFFICIO PRESENT: J. Ray, M. Gehrke, E. Schrader, G. Bott ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner S. Hart, Secretary J. Djerf, Village Engineer Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken. R. Zimmerman, G. Krahn, K. Hummel were absent. There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes of December 17, 1991 approved. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 335 - 121191 FP Winding Creek Unit One REQUEST: Final Plat Review LOCATION: South of Charlotte Road at Spangler Road in Section 23, Plainfield Township. P. Waldock summarized his report as follows: The preliminary plat for Winding Creek Subdivision was approved by the Village Board on March 11, 1991, subject to ten stipulations. The stipulations were as follows: 1. Compliance with requirements of the Village Engineer and Plainfield Fire Protection District. 2. Satisfy Park donation requirements as specified by Village ordinances. 3. Provide traffic lights as approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation at Spangler Road or Route 30 at the time of development of the final phase of the subdivision. The developer will be responsible for all costs related installation of the lights. Maintenance will be the responsible jurisdictions costs. January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 4. Provide right and left turn lanes on Route 30 at Spangler Road and on Route 30 at 1-55 frontage road as specified by the Village Engineer. To be constructed at the developer's cost. 5. Improve Spangler Road from Route 30 on to the development with sufficient pavement width to serve one south bond land, and left and right turn lanes on to Route 30. 6. Spangler Road pavement is to be moved north within the right of way to maintain as great as possible a separation between the edge of pavement and developed homesites. 7. Direct sump pump connections to storm sewer systems shall be required for each lot, in accordance with Village ordinances. 8. The preliminary Plat shall not constitute a waiver of the Villages design standards stipulated in the Subdivision Ordinance. 9. Park donation is only to include sites designed on the plat as Park area A and Park area B, and not including land area between the flood plain boundary and the Lily Cache Creek along lots nine through twenty eight and lots thirty one and thirty two. 10. Convert lots seventy nine - ninety one to Single Family Residential as originally proposed. Each of the stipulations that can be accomplished at this time have been met. The two family lots in stipulation ten have been converted on the revised preliminary plat. Park donations provisions have been accomodated by the developer, there will be a combination of land donation with cash contribution. About $34,000 is to be used to improve park site B on the preliminary plat. When we originally discussed the preliminary plat, we talked about the site as being a dry basin. Plans no longer call for a dry basin, but a storm water pond. That is why you see the designation of Lake on the handouts. This change creates an amenity similar to the creek. It is seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage to the Park District in exploring these sites for recreational uses. January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 Turn lane improvements to U.S. Route 30 will need to be considered in future phases as warranted, subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation. That is why it is not clear at this time if they will be practical, in the light of alignment. IDOT approval will also be needed for any signalization that is required by the preliminary plat and warranted by the subdivision. if signalization were to occur at the interchange with the service road, that signal would be located within the city limits of Joliet. This causes a jurisdictional problem on who maintains the light systems. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Where we need the light is at Spangler Road, opposite the truck entrance, if there was no subdivision there, they need a light there. P. WALDOCK: Because of the alignment concerns, that adds problems to that particular situation. Charlotte Avenue improvements are provided by the preliminary plat, they are not proposed as phase one. Staff feels that Charlotte Avenue should be done as one project. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: In what phase will Charlotte Avenue improvements will occur? L. KRAUSE: The plan is not set, the plan is to come in immediately after phase one, with a small second phase which will continue Edgewood Drive down to Bussey and Bussey east to Frontage Road, but not connected to Frontage Road. That will only be about 30 lots, so probably sometime a year from now. We will bring those plans in to you. P. WALDOCK: The final phase will also require upgrades to the Lift Station Pump capacity to replace current reserves used for this site. We asked at the preliminary plat approval stage that the developer bear the cost of improvements to the Lift Station which means putting in a larger pump. This would replace the lost capacity. - One issue the Annexation agreement is silent on is that of a line charge or recapture fee for the Route 30 utility extension. Because the annexation agreement does not address it clearly, Staff feels that it is appropriate to include the Winding Creek Subdivision in the benefit or recapture area. This would result in a cost per acre to this subdivision, in line with other subdivisions in the same benefit area, such as Renwick Pointe, and Arbor Place. January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 That cost per acre today is about $2000 per acre, thismay go down a little bit with the inclusion of Winding Creek. ordinances providing for such cost recapture fees are applicable Village wide. The annexation agreement says that no fees not applicable Village wide could be applicable to this subdivision. The final plat established seventy one lots. Lot 29 is provided as a park site, and lots 64 and 65 are two family sites. The remaining 68 lots are single family residential sites. The final plat as proposed, improves upon the original by enlarging the duplex lots. This enlargement is the reason that we are also seeing lots 30 & 31 which on the preliminary had been entirely storm detention or park site. By enlarging the duplex lots they have lost 4 sites and 8 units. The developer is looking to replace those lost units by using 2 more single family sites. In staff's analysis, we feel that 30 and 31 are out of character as single family lots at that location. Because of lot 64, across the street, a two family site, and adjacent lot 32 a four family site the single family sites there are out of character. Staff would suggest that those lots simply be eliminated. We do however applaud the concept of the wider two family sites and feel that that is an appropriate development decision to look at widening those lots to go with a little larger duplex unit. J. SOBKOVIAK: Why couldn't lots 30 & 31 be duplex lots. P. WALDOCK: The problem is current zoning. The lots are in a single family zoning district. So it would have to be re-zoned in order to make them either two family or four family lots. They can't be moved to the north, by lot 28, because the natural overland drainage route is in the north corner of lot 29. Overall, the Winding Creek Subdivision Unit 1 final plat is seen as an improved version of the original preliminary plat. The increase in width of two family lots along Bussey Drive will provide for reduced density and improved property values for these homesites. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat for Winding Creek Subdivision Unit 1, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Construct the off site portion of Spangler Road between U.S. Route 30 and the Development site with the improvements as required on Unit 1. (That is done, we can eliminate that, as a redundant stipulation.) January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 3. Fully satisfy each of the ten stipulations specified as part of the preliminary plat approval. Improvements related to U.S. Route 30 may be completed as part of the following phases for the Winding Creek Subdivision as warranted, to be determined by the Village Board with recommendation of the Village Engineer, and IDOT approvals and permits. 4. Winding Creek Subdivision to be included in the Route 30 public utility benefit area with a cost recapture of about $200 per acre for Village constructed sewer and water systems. 5. Provide Park District contribution per letter of January 7, 1992 from Timberview Development Corporation. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: John, what do you have for us? J. DJERF: In order to provide utilities there, the sewer line that is currently along Route 30, will have to be removed and lowered. The drainage is being brought through the subdivision and down to lot 29. The water level in the lake is approximately the same as the ten year flood elevation. It is higher than the existing water level on the creek. The hundred year level would be approximately half way up to the fill storage capacity of the lake. At a hundred year flood level, the lake would still be half full. They have storage above that whereby drainage from the subdivision can be stored, and not be effected by the creek. The lake storage area includes both detention storage for the development and compensatory storage required for the small amount of fill -in that they are doing with the berm and the bottom within the lake in the existing flood plain area. The berm that is the edge of the lake is completely outside the floodway so that it would not effect the floodway. The drainage easement along the flood plain boundary so that area is permanently an easement for drainage purposes. Our letter indicated Spangler Road improvements, should be submitted to IDOT, and that process has been initiated. The second item on our comments concern over possible high ground level water. The basement elevations should be considered as follows: Minimum Level: At or above natural groundwater. Preferred Level: At or above 100 year Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Ideal Level: At or above Flood Protection Elevation (BFE +2ft.) January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 The first two recommendations, are housekeeping, they are using an alternate material, plastic pipe. The sanitary sewer lines will be concrete pipe, the storm water lines will be PVC, (plastic) Also the Contractor will T.V. the lines, which is contrary to Village ordinance. The third recommendation, we recommend approval subject to receipt of IEPA Construction Permits for sanitary sewer and water main and proper security in amount not less than $817,000. L. Krause said that the EPA permits both on sewer and water have been obtained and he was asked to forward copies to J. Djerf and P. Waldock. M. KRIPPEL: What kind of impact in terms of allowance for basements would be the result the minimum level of ground water elevation? D. REGER: In all cases ground water is down 8 feet below ground level, and in some 10 and 12. since in all cases our building foundation will be an average of 2 1/2 feet above existing street, basements will be a minimum of 2 feet above the natural water table, at least what it was today. P. WALDOCK: We were more concerned about during high water periods, after long periods of rain, when water tables will be higher. L. KRAUSE: To put all minds at ease, John made three recommendations. We will not go below the minimum, there may be a case or two where we will not be at the Ideal level. After some discussion about ground water level, and river level, it was decided that the concern really was that sump pumps would not be pumping normal ground water, that they would only pump during high water. And that would be ok. M. KRIPPEL: Are there check valves on the sump connections? J. DJERF: There is a check valve on the sump itself inside the home, and outside, there is an air break, if the water backs up, it will back up to the surface, and not into the home. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Any questions, from the Commissioners? D. NORRIS: Some of the area in Unit One, is a wooded area, are you going to make an attempt to save the trees? January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 L. KRAUSE: We will save every tree that we can. We have to clear some of the trees around the rear of the lots so the utilities can go through, but that is the extent of what we intend to cut. A. CONSOLA: I don't have a problem with lots 30 and 31 as presented here. You have to break down from multi family to single family somewhere. Since the developer did enlarge the other multi family lots, and lost a couple, I don't mind lots 30 and 31 as presented tonight. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: I agree, the line has to be drawn somewhere. M. KRIPPEL: I don't have a problem with that either, some people would like that lake. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: When these people buy these houses, they are going to know what is next door. Are there any other concerns that should be discussed? D. NORRIS: For the record, I had a concern with the density of the subdivision, before, I like the way the developer is trying to make it less dense, but I still find this particular subdivision too dense for my liking, and my feeling is I don't think we should promote the zoning of 30 and 31 next to the multi family. L. KRAUSE: We made the changes in the plat, changed the density of the duplex lots, because we thought that was what we should do. We met with the Park District and agreed to both a land and a cash donation because we thought that was the thing to do. Nothing that you do will change those commitments, while we were doing that as a concerned part of the community, we tried to get the lost density back plus that extra cash going out, by putting in those two lots and I can guarantee that there will be heavy demand for those two lots, located in a wooded area, next to a park with a lake. I think they are highly desirable. L. KRAUSE: I was under the impression, that the fees and total charges for tap on fees for water and sewer, school donations, park donation, building permits fees and everything else were established when we brought it in. The service fee, or what ever you call it, was never mentioned. Our fees were set by the annexation agreement and did not include those service fees for sewer connections. P. WALDOCK: That is really the only one of the stipulations that you would object to? January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 L. KRAUSE: I object to removing lots 30 and 31 also. P. WALDOCK: My recommendation is, they add that as a stipulation. I left it out of the stipulations listed so the Commission could fully discuss it. L. KRAUSE: Let the record show that I would object to the other. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Are there any further questions of the developer or the planner? Or any additional discussion? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. A. CONSOLA: I make a motion that we accept the final plat for Winding Creek Subdivision Unit one with the recommendations of the planner. Stipulations 1,3,4,5. M. KRIPPEL: I am not comfortable with making a recommendation on stipulation four, not knowing the facts. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: That would be better discussed at the Village Board level, because we can make no decision, our recommendation wouldn't mean anything to the Village Board. M. KRIPPEL: I don't believe then if our recommendation means nothing, that it should be made. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Are you saying to remove stipulation four? M. KRIPPEL: Yes. I would defer a recommendation. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the Plan Commission and the recapture agreement. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Well, obviously if they don't settle this, the Village Board is not going to accept final plat. So, the question is moot. I don't think we have any business getting into tap on fees, and so on. M. KRIPPEL: Is the recapture agreement part of the Planning Process, or part of the Subdivision regulation. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: It is usually done separately on a case by case basis. January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 A. CONSOLA: I would like to withdraw my motion, and make a new motion. I make a motion that we accept the final plat for unit one, of Winding Creek Subdivision with the recommendations 1,3,5 of the Village Planner. Noting that we did not think it was within our jurisdiction to vote on number four. M. KRIPPEL: Second CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Thank you. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the final plat for Winding Creek Unit One subject to stipulations 1,3,5 of the Village Planner and Staff. Roll call vote please. D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, no; H. Bayer, no; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: It is a tie vote, the motion is not carried. We cannot forward a recommendation for approval to the Village Board. We have the option of modifying the motion presented, to include discussion on stipulation number four. More discussion regarding the Plan Commission and the recapture agreement. W. SCHEMPF: When was the cost issue raised? Was it after these gentlemen were here before? P. WALDOCK: After the annexation agreement was signed, the cost issue came up. W. SCHEMPF: Then the Village raised their rates? P. WALDOCK: Its not raising the rates, its adding a new cost that was unanticipated by the developer. W. SCHEMPF: Then there was nothing said when they started this. P. WALDOCK: No. W. SCHEMPF: Then I go along with holding the old rate. P. WALDOCK: Would you like to make a motion? W. SCHEMPF: I will make a motion, I move we approve the final plat for Winding Creek Subdivision Unit one, subject to stipulations 1,3, and 5, and recommend that number 4 not be approved. January 7, 1992 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 M. KRIPPEL: I will second that one also. I am not sure that this board has any authority regarding administration of recapture fees. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: We have a motion before the board. For approval of the final plat for Winding Creek Subdivision Unit One, subject to stipulations 1,3, and 5 of the Plannner, and also to recommend that the benefit area not be established to include Winding Creek Subdivision. Roll call vote: D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes; H. Bayer, no; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. 2, no; 4, yes. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: The motion has carried. We will recommend to the Village Board approval, it will go the Village Board for its meeting of January 20, 1992. H. BAYER: I would like to make a report. Most of you I think missed the Village Christmas Dinner last month, I would like to report that it was an excellent dinner. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: They need to make it at a time more of us can attend. P. WALDOCK: I am expecting Public Hearings hopefully in February on the Zoning Ordinance as a whole. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: The meeting on Route 59 will be next Monday, January 13 between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm. P. WALDOCK: We will be here Tuesday, January 21 for Zoning Update. Meeting adjourned 8:25 jla-� P(a� S;. aron Hart