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