Village of New Lenox Plan Commission met March 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Village of New Lenox Plan Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Mark Muehlnickel.
Chairman Muehlnickel Led The Assembly In The Pledge Of Allegiance.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman Mark Muehlnickel, Commissioners Rob Moss, Kathy Hilton, Jasen Howard, and Andrew Hawkins.
The following were absent: Commissioners Gary Berner, Terry Schultz
Mr. Muehlnickel announced there was a quorum present for this meeting.
Also present were Planner Jenni Neubauer and Senior Administrative Secretary Pat Hansen.
Request for Approval of Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting of March 7, 2017
A motion was made by Commissioner Moss and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the March 7, 2017 minutes as presented. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried.
Request for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
Jackson Heights Unit 5 11.34 acres located at the north end of Daniel Lewis Drive and south of Laraway Road Mark Kaup / Camelot Homes – Petitioner
Mr. Mark Kaup of Camelot Homes introduced himself to the Plan Commission. He introduced Bill Stefek of Tech 3 to the Plan Commission as well. Mr. Stefek said they are requesting approval of a final subdivision plat consisting of 5 single-family lots in Jackson Heights, Unit5.
Mr. Muehlnickel asked for Staff’s comments.
Planner Jenni Neubauer explained that 8 out of 11 acres of Jackson Heights Unit 5 are within the 100-year flood plain. She said a portion of the Jackson Branch Creek angles through the property, noting there is a significant amount of natural vegetation, along with a proposed storm sewer discharge point on Lot 6, which results in Lot 6 being unbuildable. Ms. Neubauer said Staff recommends that Lot 6 be renamed and re-categorized as an Outlot and needs to be overlaid with specific designated easements such as storm water management, public utility and conservation easements, to be ultimately determined by the Engineering Staff.
Ms. Neubauer continued by stating all of the proposed lots meet the R-2 single-family lot area requirements. She said that for all lots containing an area of more than 15,000 square feet but less than 20,000 square feet, the Subdivision Code requires a minimum frontage of 90 feet when measured at the front yard building setback line, and that Lots 1 through 4 are all over 15,000 square feet, but less than 20,000 square feet. Ms. Neubauer said these larger, but narrow lots all meet the lot frontage requirements of the R-2 zoning district, but not the 90 ft. lot width at the front yard setback line. She said it is the opinion of Staff that increasing the front yard setbacks further into the lots would change the layout of the proposed Unit 5, and it would limit the development of the land. Additionally, Ms. Neubauer said with both the 50-foot gas pipeline easement and 15-foot public utility and drainage easement within the rear yards on all 5 single- family lots, increasing the front yard setbacks would limit the buildable area for each lot. For all lots containing an area of more than 20,000 square feet but less than 30,000 square feet, she said the Subdivision Code requires a minimum frontage of 100 feet when measured at the front yard building setback line. Ms. Neubauer said Lot 5 has an irregular shape and narrow frontage at the right-of-way of only 54 feet due to the proposed curvature of the cul-de-sac. She said the front yard setback of 30 feet is depicted on the final plat so as to provide a minimum lot width of 75 feet at the front yard setback line. Ms. Neubauer said it is the opinion of Staff that increasing the front yard setback further into this larger lot to a point where there is 100 feet of frontage at the newly established front yard building setback line could limit the buildable area for a future single-family home and accessory structures, and this would create a hardship for this lot. Based on this rationale, she said Staff recommends approval of a Subdivision Code waiver for Lot 5.
Ms. Neubauer explained that there is a 50-foot wide NI-GAS pipeline easement that runs along the rear of Lots 1-5. In addition, she said a proposed storm sewer and overland flow route would be situated within an adjacent proposed 15-foot public utility and drainage easement near the rear of Lots 1-5. Although there are easement provisions shown on the final plat, Ms. Neubauer said Staff recommends that additional language be added to the final plat prohibiting accessory structures such as detached garages and sheds, pools and fences within the 50-foot wide NI-GAS easement. After speaking with the Engineering Staff, she said Staff is recommending that accessory structures and pools be prohibited within the 15-foot rear yard public utility and drainage easement on Lots 1-5 although fences would be allowed within this area.
Ms. Neubauer advised that due to the 50-foot gas pipeline and adjacent 15-foot public utility and drainage easement, Staff also recommends that there be a 65-foot rear yard setback line depicted on the final plat for Lots 1-5 so that no portion of a single-family home or future addition may be built within the rear yard 15-foot public utility and drainage easement.
Ms. Neubauer said the proposed Daniel Lewis Drive cul-de-sac, which is an extension of the previously dedicated Daniel Lewis Drive, would conform to the minor residential street standards of 31 feet of pavement within a 66-foot wide right-of-way as well as meets the minimum 75-foot radius requirement for a concentric cul-de-sac. She said that currently, the final plat proposes a 4-foot wide sidewalk only along Lots 1-5. In order to meet the Subdivision Code, the 4-foot wide sidewalk is required on both sides of the street extension. Ms. Neubauer stated Staff does not feel there is any rationale to support a Subdivision Code waiver for only a partial sidewalk within the cul-de-sac.
Regarding parkway trees along interior streets, Ms. Neubauer said the Zoning Ordinance requires one tree for each 40 lineal feet of street length. Also, she said the Landscape Code requires that no more than five trees of the same species shall be adjacent to one another, and also specifies that no tree shall comprise more than 30% of all parkway tree plantings. Additionally, Ms. Neubauer stated that the Subdivision Code requires that cul-de-sacs have at least one tree per lot. She said the landscape plan substantially meets the landscape requirements, but parkway trees are not proposed for Lots 4 and 5. Ms. Neubauer noted that Staff is working with the applicant on tree placement in order that each lot has a parkway tree. She said open space for the subdivision would be provided by the aforementioned floodplain and natural areas on Lot 6 that need to be renamed as an outlot.
As the proposed final plat substantially complies with the Village’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Code, Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Jackson Heights Unit 5, subject to the conditions stated in the Staff Report.
Mr. Muehlnickel said he has no issues with the setbacks, but asked for clarification on the sidewalk issues. Ms. Neubauer explained that sidewalk should front Lots 1 through 5, but as proposed, the sidewalk stops at the edge of Lot 5. She said the Subdivision Code requires sidewalks on both sides of the street; Staff does not feel that a Subdivision Code waiver is warranted.
Regarding the Landscape Plan submitted by the petitioner, Mr. Hawkins referenced the Callery Pear Tree and asked that this species not be planted on any of the proposed lots due to its invasive nature.
Mr. Howard said Lot 5 is narrower at the roadway and asked if it could be extended to the west at the property line. Mr. Stefek answered that they are attempting to stay out of the floodplain. Ms. Neubauer added that Lot 5 does meet the R-2 zoning district standards with regard to lot setbacks, and the Subdivision Code requires larger lots to have a larger lot width at the setback lines, but utility easements in the rear yard limit the buildable area of this lot.
Ms. Hilton asked how close the flood line is to Lot 5, and will it cause problems for a future resident. Mr. Stefek replied that at times, the floodplain could backup onto Lot 5.
There being no further questions or comments from the Plan Commission, Mr. Muehlnickel asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Mr. Hawkins and seconded by Mr. Howard to recommend to the Village Board approval of a preliminary and final plat approval for Jackson Heights Unit 5, subject to the final engineering approval, final landscape plan approval, and resolution of comments noted in the Staff Report. Additionally, Lots 1 through 4 shall be permitted to have a reduced minimum frontage from 90 feet to 75-80 feet when measured at the 30-foot front yard setback line for these larger lots; Lot 5 shall be permitted to have a reduced minimum frontage from 100 feet to 75 feet when measured at the 30-foot front yard setback line for this larger lot. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried.
Ms. Neubauer advised that this request could go before the Village Board as early as April 10th, as long as all comments have been addressed.
Old Business
None.
New Business
Mr. Muehlnickel announced that this will be Mr. Howard’s last meeting and wished him well as a new Village Trustee.
Ms. Neubauer reported that the next Plan Commission will most likely be cancelled, but there will be a meeting on April 18th.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Plan Commission at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Moss and seconded by Mr. Howard to adjourn. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
http://www.newlenox.net/docview.aspx?doctype=minute&docid=20266
Alerts Sign-up