HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Development Packet 2011 12-06-11 ,QED C/TY
o United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
EST. 1`�" --'B38 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
o !x :; Telephone: 630-553-4350
10, Fax: 630-553-7575
It E
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
7:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
Citizen Comments:
Minutes for Correction/Approval: November 1, 2011
New Business:
1. EDC 2011-46 Building Permit Report for October & November 2011
2. EDC 2011-47 Building Inspection Report Summary for October 2011
3. EDC 2011-48 Kendall County Request for Waiver of Sewer Hook-up Fees
4. EDC 2011-49 Land Cash Recarmnendation from Park Board
5. PC 2011-10 & ZBA 2011-02 312 Walter Street (Claesson) —Request for Rezoning &
Variances to the R-21) District
Old Business:
Additional Business:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
WORKSHEET
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
7:00 PM
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. November 1, 2011
❑ Approved
❑ As presented
❑ As amended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EDC 2011-46 Building Permit Report for October &November 2011
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EDC 2011-47 Building Inspection Report Summary for October 2011
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EDC 2011-48 Kendall County Request for Waiver of Sewer Hook-up Fees
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. EDC 2011-49 Land Cash Recommendation from Park Board
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PC 2011-10 &ZBA 2011-02 312 Walter Street(Claesson)—Request for Rezoning&Variance to the
R-21) District
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
? n, O
Legal ❑ Minutes
Baas
esr. . i R Finance ❑
! - Engineer ❑ Tracking Number
-4 tt� City Administrator El Og' ��
c ® Public Works El anna star
Km KCounty ��n
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Minutes of the Economic Development Committee—November 1, 2011
Meeting and Date: EDC—December 6, 2011
Synopsis:
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required: Majority
Council Action Requested: Committee Approval
Submitted by: Minute Taker Clerk's Office
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
RAFT
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 6:30pm
City Conference Room
In Attendance:
Committee Members
Chairman Marty Munns Alderman Chris Funkhouser
Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Diane Teeling
Other City Officials
City Administrator Bart Olson
Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble
Code Official Mark Hardin
Other Guests
Lynn Dubajic, YEDC
Tony Scott,Kendall County Record
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marty Munns at 6:30pm.
Citizen Comments: None
Minutes for Correction/Approval October 4, 2011
The minutes were approved as read.
New Business
1. EDC 2011-41 Building Permit Report for September 2011
Ms. Barksdale-Noble said currently there are 35 single-family building permits for the
year with 2 pending in Autumn Creek. Mr. Hardin commented that a contractor said he
had 2 or 3 more in Heartland.
2. EDC 2011-42 Building Inspection Report Summary for September 2011
All of these inspections are now in-house, except for a few of the plumbing inspections.
No further action.
3. EDC 2011-43 Comprehensive Impact Fee Revision
This discussion was begun at the last meeting and is regarding the adjustment of the
impact fees relating to the current economy. Many fees were reviewed,but land cash
came to the forefront. Staff requested EDC input on reducing this fee.
Krysti Barksdale-Noble explained the following. There are 2 options. Option 1: is a
development-based approach where each developer would approach the City to have
their annexation agreements reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The current land value
would be considered and the agreement could be adjusted accordingly. There are
benefits and drawbacks. The developer would take the lead on such a request and the 1
City would not incur any upfront funding. There would not be any comparables,just
what the developer presents. The original land cash ordinance says if there are any
conflicts as to the fair market value, the developer could present their own evidence for
consideration. The drawback is that there are varying land cash values from various
developers and tracking this administratively could be a challenge.
Option 2: the City would complete a comprehensive evaluation and reduce the fair
market value of an acre limiting it to a certain time period. As development increases,
the value would be incrementally raised. The drawback would be front-funding this
appraisal. It could cost $5,000 to $10,000 and would includes sites outside the City.
The last option is no change at all. Surrounding cities have not reduced their land cash
values possibly prolonging the development slowdown.
Administor Olson also weighed in on these options. Land cash fees are authorized under
ordinance, however, not all fees are the same. Some subdivisions have no land cash
requirements since they were developed prior to the ordinance. If a study is done, it will
not necessarily change the existing agreements unless it was retroactively applied. This
could help bring a developer to the negotiating table.
Ms. Barksdale-Noble said many of the developers have fee locks while other developers
would benefit from a reduction. She commented that the land cash fee of$101,000 has
been in place since 2006.
Alderman Funkhouser stated that he prefers to reduce the amount of negotiation and
make land cash equal. He would like to set limits on the amount for a certain number of
years. He also favors doing the study and said that"no change"is not an option.
Other towns' land cash values were questioned by Alderman Teeling. Most are higher
than Yorkville and no one has reduced their fees according to Ms. Barksdale-Noble.
Commenting about the impact a fee reduction would have, Ms. Dubajic said it would
help tremendously. She said it is one of the first issues raised by developers. Chris
Funkhouser added that no construction will impact the parks budget also because no
parks are needed if there are no people to use them.
Alderman Milschewski asked how Yorkville land cash values compared to other towns.
Oswego is $110,000, Sugar Grove is $80,000, Plainfield is $139,000 and Plano is
$96,000, all per acre. Yorkville is low to middle in the annexation agreements already in
place according to Mr. Olson. He further stated that many of the subdivisions have low
fees of$10,000 due to land donation, pre-paid impact fees and other factors. He
commented there is disparity between old and new developments in terms of fees. There
was a brief discussion of how the smaller developer can be helped in terms of fees. It
was noted that the ordinance was last revised 5 years ago.
Ms. Milschewski asked how the study might affect the City in terms of administrative
costs. There would be adequate fees charged to offset such costs according to Mr. Olson.
Alderman Funkhouser noted that Sugar Grove had taken similar measures to temporarily
reduce certain fees and and it did not have the desired effect,but he says the proposed
reductions should have long-term benefits.
2
Alderman Milschewski said she would like to see the unfinished subdivisions completed
before starting new ones. This would alleviate weed problems and force the completion
of roads. Many fee locks are expiring soon and this reduction should be welcomed by
developers according to Krysti Barksdale-Noble.
In summary, the committee decided to move ahead with recommendation of the study.
4. EDC 2011-44 Release of ComEd Information at Account Change
Mr. Hardin said any new commercial building occupancies should not receive electrical
service until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the City. This would allow the City
to inspect the business, determine if the zoning is proper, etc. ComEd would not provide
electrical service until this was done. This was in place until a year ago, according to Mr.
Olson, but this would now be administered under ordinance. This item will move to the
consent agenda.
5. EDC 2011-45 EDC Meeting Schedule for 2012
After discussion, it was decided to keep this meeting on Tuesdays,but the start time will
be 7pm beginning in December.
Old Business—None
Additional Business
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 7:03pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young
3
C/ry Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
p
J Legal ❑ NB #1
EST. 1836 Finance ❑
Engineer ❑ Tracking Number
� i � � co City Administrator ❑
®� .I Consultant El ca:,asze
•g.. K„�, �,Y ®� EDC 2011-46
<CE �`'� ❑
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Building Permit Activity Report (October&November 2011)
Meeting and Date: EDC-December 6, 2011
Synopsis: All permits issued in the months of October and November, 2011
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: N/A
Item Number: N/A
Type of Vote Required: Informational
Council Action Requested: None
Submitted by: Mark A. Hardin , CBO, MCP Building Inspection
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
C/T 0�
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
M. 1836 BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
t� W[2-J o October 2011
<CE
Number of SFD SFA Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Misc. Construction Permit
Permits .Single Family Single Famiy, Apartments Includes aff Permits Issued for Cost Fees
Issued Dwelling Attached Cbndtaminiums Commercial Use
October 2011 41 2 0 0 17 0 22 1,204,344.00 27,083.89
Calendar Year 509 42 0 0 108 0 359 13,573,170.00 454,309.81
2011
Fiscal Year 2011 380 36 0 0 83 0 261 12,127,252.00 379.702.13
October 2010 57 9 0 0 15 0 33
2,790,762.00 84,504.19
Calendar Year 556 42 6 0 101 0 407 22,470,819.00 507,614.99
2010
Fiscal Year 2010 379 26 6 0 69 0 278 9,960,502.00 353,005.99
October 2009 46 11 0 0 16 0 19 3,584,420.00 104,122.31
Calendar Year 517 53 8 0 140 0 316 28,509,693.00 775,582.43
2009
Fiscal Year 2009 359 43 8 0 79 0 229 22,217,796.00 596,137.21
October 2008 84 16 16 0 21 0 29 7,074,089.00 393,692.12
Calendar Year 798 95 52 0 257 0 394 72,599,002.00 1,869,077.07
2008
Fiscal Year 2008 518 64 38 0 140 0 276 54,294,439.00 1,284,126.60
Prepared by D Weinert
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
EST.�'���� 1836
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
November 2011
`EG,,y�,
Number of SFD SFA Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Misc. Construction Permit
Permits Single Family Single Family Apartments Includes all Permits Issued for Cost Fees
Issued Dwelling Attached Condominiums Commercial Use
November 2011 36 2 0 0 12 0 22 1,544,090.00 24,616.74
Calendar Year 546 43 0 0 112 0 391 15,031,240.00 468,028.75
2011
Fiscal Year 2011 418 38 0 0 97 0 283 13,673,842.00 404,568.87
November 2010 38 0 0 0 9 0 29 304,350.00 14,498.01
Calendar Year 594 42 6 0 110 0 436 22,775,169.00 522,863.09
2010
Fiscal Year 2010 417 26 6 0 78 0 307 10,264,852.00 368,204.09
November 2009 34 3 0 0 13 0 18 1,468,988.00 38,816.27
Calendar Year 551 56 8 0 153 0 334 29,978,68 LOO 814,398.70
2009
Fiscal Year 2009 393 46 8 0 92 0 247 23,686,784.00 634,953.48
November 2008 30 8 0 0 10 0 12 3,416,066.00 113,868.67
Calendar Year 828 103 52 0 267 0 406 76,015,068.00 1,976,627.96
2008
Fiscal Year 2008 548 72 38 0 150 0 287 57,710,505.00 1,391,676.79
Prepared by D Weinert
Reviewed By:
J� R 0� Legal El
Item Number
4 N' g
EST. ysss Finance El NB #2
Engineer ❑
O 110 1-e City Administrator El Tracking Number
^a�.a' 4 Consultant ❑
PC—ty C�' 0 EDC 2011-47
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Building Inspection Report Summary (October 2011)
Meeting and Date: EDC—November 1, 2011
Synopsis: All inspections performed in the month of October 2011
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Mark A. Hardin, CBO, MCP Building Inspection
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
DATE: 1.1/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1
TIME° 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMI ADDRESS '%LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWK 037-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100223 1346 SPRING ST 175 10/18/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
BF 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 20100514 2337 EMERALD LN 103 10/17/2011
MH 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 10/14/2011
H2O 018-OSR WATER METER READER 10/17/2011
PWK 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 10/17/2011
MH PM 028-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110015 1122 W VETERANS PKWY 10/12/2011
MH 029-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 10/12/2011
MH 030-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10/12/2011
BF PM 031-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/12/2011
PR _ PM 032-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/19/2011
Commentsl: ABOVE CEILING
MH 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110029 1100 W VETERANS PKWY 1 10/03/2011
MH 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 10/03/2011
MH 004-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10/04/2011
BF 005-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/03/2011
MH 09:00 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110035 1102 CLEARWATER DR 30 10/20/2011
MH 003-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/20/2011
MH 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110041 345 BERTRAM DR 1106 10/17/2011
BF 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 10/14/2011
H2O 018-OSR WATER METER READER 10/17/2011
PWK 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 10/14/2011
MH 004-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110046 911 HAYDEN DR 127 10/05/2011
MH 005-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/05/2011
MH 09:00 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110062 225 W. WHEATON AVENUE 16 10/19/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
j ID: PT4AOOOO WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
MH 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110072 3099 LEHMAN CROSSING 10/19/2011
MH AM 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110146 421 FAIRHAVEN DR 32 10/25/2011
MH _ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110247 1849 ASTER DR 96 10/26/2011
Commentsl: DECK
MH 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110250 1302 CLEARWATER DR 251 10/04/2011
BF 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 10/04/2011
PWK 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 10/04/2011
MH 017-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110278 1262 TAUS CIR 120 10/04/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110310 307 E WASHINGTON ST 10/03/2011
MH _ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110311 307 E WASHINGTON ST 10/03/2011
Commentsl: WINDOWS
H2O 012-OSR WATER METER READER 20110322 2363 LAVENDER WAY 88 10/17/2011
PWK 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 10/18/2011
MH 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 10/18/2011
BF 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 10/18/2011
MH _ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 10/19/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
H2O 011-OSR WATER METER READER 20110323 4606 PLYMOUTH AVE 996 10/17/2011
MH 005-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110330 202 WHEATON AVE 3 10/13/2011
Commentsl: ABOVE CEILING
MH 006-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10/13/2011
Commentsl: ABOVE CEILING
BF 14:00 007-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/13/2011
BF pm 002-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 20110360 131 E HYDRAULIC ST 10/14/2011
Commentsl: -
MH 003-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/14/2011
MH 004-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 10/14/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH _ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110365 2567 EMERALD LN 130 10/04/2011
Commentsl: RE INSPECT FRAME AND MECHANICAL
MH 012-INS INSULATION 10/04/2011
PWK AM 013-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/21/2011
MH 015-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110366 4484 SARASOTA DR 1039 10/04/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECT
MH 016-INS INSULATION 10/04/2011
PWK 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/21/2011
PWK AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20110368 1648 SIENNA DR 55 10/21/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110380 106 W WASHINGTON ST 10/11/2011
Commentsl: SHED
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20110388 1261 CLEARWATER DR 208 10/04/2011
BF 006-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/04/2011
MH 007-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/04/2011
MH 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 10/04/2011
MH 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10/04/2011
MH 010-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/05/2011
JS 011-INS INSULATION 10/05/2011
MH 012-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/13/2011
PWK AM 013-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/17/2011
PWK 014-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/17/2011
MH 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110418 2001 S BRIDGE ST 10/11/2011
BF 003-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 10/11/2011
MH 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110426 303 STATE ST 10/25/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110430 418 ELM ST 10/05/2011
Commentsl: WINDOWS
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4
TIME: 10 36.50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
NSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH 001-FIN FINAL :.'NSPECTION 20110431 573 POPLAR DR 165 10/13/2011
Commentsl: WINDOWS
MH 007-STP STOOP 20110437 2269 EMERALD LN 50 10/17/2011
MH 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 009-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/17/2011
PWi: PM 010-EPW ENG NEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/26/2011
MH 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/27/2011
MH 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 10/27/2011
MH 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10/27/2011
RE 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/27/2011
MH 015-REI REINSPECTION 10/31/2011
Commentsl: FRAMING
MH 016-INS INSULATION 10/31/2011
PWK PM 011-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20110438 2427 EMERALD LN 112 10/26/2011
MH 09:00 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20110452 1262 TAUS CIR 120 10/05/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110453 1466 CORNERSTONE DR 15 10/21/2011
Commentsl: FENCE
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20110455 1587 SIENNA DR 84 10/03/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/05/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/05/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/05/2011
PWK PM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/24/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20110456 2266 LAVENDER WAY 59 10/03/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/04/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/04/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/04/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
PWK 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/24/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20110457 2568 EMERALD LN 2 10/04/2011
MH 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/05/2011
MH 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/05/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/05/2011
PWK AM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20110458 2341 EMERALD LN 104 10/04/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/04/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/04/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/04/2011
PWK PM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/26/2011
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110461 2362 EMERALD LN 31 10/12/2011
MH 14:30 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/14/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/19/2011
PWK AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/24/2011
PWK 08:30 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/26/2011
RE 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/27/2011
MH 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/27/2011
MH _ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/27/2011
MH 009-STP STOOP 10/27/2011
PWK ___ AM 010-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/31/2011
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110462 4626 PLYMOUTH AVE 993 10/03/2011
MH PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/05/2011
PWK __� 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
i
DATE: 1/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6
TIME- 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/13/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 007-STP STOOP 10/17/2011
MH 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/17/2011
PWK PM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 20110463 372 BERTRAM DR 1036 10/04/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
MH 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/12/2011
MH 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/12/2011
MH 007-STP STOOP 10/12/2011
BF 008-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/13/2011
PWK PM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
MH 12:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20110464 4478 SARASOTA AVE 1040 10/03/2011
MH 12:00 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/04/2011
JS 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/10/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
PWK 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/11/2011
Commentsl: SUMP
BF 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/14/2011
MH 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 009-STP STOOP 10/17/2011
PWK PM 010-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110470 2358 EMERALD LN 32 10/05/2011
JS 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/07/2011
DATE 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWK 12:00 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/13/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/17/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/21/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/21/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/21/2011
PWK AM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/31/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 20110471 2332 EMERALD LN 37 10/05/2011
PWK 12:00 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/13/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/17/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/18/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/18/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/18/2011
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110472 2275 EMERALD LN 51 10/03/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/03/2011
PWK 12:00 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/13/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/17/2011
PWK AM 006-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/31/2011
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110474 608 WHITE OAK WAY 66 10/05/2011
JS 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/06/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/11/2011
MH 13:30 001-FTG FOOTING 20110478 109 W VETERANS PKWY 11/24/2011
JS 003-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110480 1101 KATE DR 36 10/06/2011
MH 004-BKF BACKFILL 10/14/2011
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110481 2507 EMERALD LN 121 10/12/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/17/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/19/2011
PWK AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/24/2011
RE 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/27/2011
MH AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/28/2011
MH AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/28/2011
MH AM 008-STP STOOP 10/28/2011
MH PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 20110482 376 BERTRAM DR 1035 10/05/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
MH 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/12/2011
MH 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/12/2011
MH 007-STP STOOP 10/12/2011
BF 008-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/13/2011
PWK PM 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
MH 11:30 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110484 1591 SYCAMORE RD 10/03/2011
BF AM 005-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 10/03/2011
MH AM 006-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 10/04/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110486 408 JACKSON ST 10/05/2011
Commentsl: FINAL ROOF
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110487 4474 SARASOTA AVE 1041 10/03/2011
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/05/2011
JS 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/10/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
PWK 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/11/2011
Commentsl: SUMP
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/17/2011
MH 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 009-STP STOOP 10/17/2011
PWK PM 010-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 10/27/2011
MH 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110488 781 ARROWHEAD DR 104 10/06/2011
MH 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110493 1002 S BRIDGE ST 10/14/2011
BF 11:00 002-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10/14/2011
Commentsl: JIM SMILEY
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110501 394 BERTRAM DR 1030 10/03/2011
MH PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/05/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/13/2011
MH 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 10/17/2011
MH 008-STP STOOP 10/17/2011
MH 015-TRU ENGINEERED TRUSS DRAWINGS 10/19/2011
MH 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110502 2066 INGEMUNSON LN 144 10/25/2011
MH AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110503 510 W KENDALL DR 10/31/2011
Commentsl: WINDOWS
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110504 662 OMAHA DR 54 10/13/2011
Commentsl: FENCE
MH 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110506 2293 HOBBS LN 156 10/04/2011
MH 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110510 1569 WALSH DR 8 10/06/2011
MH 002-INS INSULATION 10/06/2011
MH ___ 001-FTG FOOTING 20110511 101 W VAN EMMON ST 10/13/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/14/2011
MH PM 003-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 10/26/2011
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110512 1103 REDWOOD DR 48 10/11/2011
PWK 002-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/10/2011
MH 10:30 003-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/17/2011
MH AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 10/26/2011
JS _ 001-MIS MISCELLANEOUS 20110513 407 W KENDALL DR 10/11/2011
Commentsl: SIDEWALK
JS 002-MIS MISCELLANEOUS 10/17/2011
Commentsl: SIDEWALK
MH 003-MIS MISCELLANEOUS 10/19/2011
Commentsl: SIDEWALK
MH AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110515 112 CLAREMONT CT 35 10/04/2011
JS 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 10/06/2011
MIS 003-FIB FIBER MESH TICKET FOR CON 10/07/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110516 425 FAIRHAVEN DR 34 10/28/2011
Commentsl: WINDOWS
MH AM 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110522 401 BRUELL ST 10/27/2011
Commentsl: SIDEWALK
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110525 2286 LAVENDER WAY 57 10/25/2011
MH PM 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/26/2011
MH 003-BKF BACKFILL 10/28/2011
PWK 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 10/31/2011
MH 11:30 001-FTG FOOTING 20110526 1102 CORNELL LN 10/28/2011
MH 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 10/31/2011
MH 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110527 718 N BRIDGE ST A A 10/27/2011
MH 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10/27/2011
I
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4AOOOO.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110531 362 BERTRAM DR 1038 10/31/2011
Commentsl: FENCE
MH AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110536 4561 GARDINER AVE 111 10/21/2011
MH 11:30 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110541 307 A MILL ST 10/25/2011
MH 001-FTG FOOTING 20110544 311 CHURCH ST 1 10/19/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110545 1985 MARKETVIEW DR 10/28/2011
Commentsl: TEMPORARY TENT
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110550 623 WHITE OAK WAY 10/31/2011
Commentsl: ROOF
MH 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110551 305 E KENDALL DR 24 10/24/2011
MIS 002-FIB FIBER MESH TICKET FOR CON 10/24/2011
PWK 003-EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY AP 10/27/2011
MH 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110554 2848 MCLELLAN BLVD 455 10/31/2011
MH PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110560 129 COMMERCIAL DR #6 10/28/2011
DATE: 11/30/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12
TIME: 10:36:50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 6
ANT ANTENNA / TOWER 2
BDO COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT 6
BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 4
COM COMMERCIAL BUILDING 5
CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 13
DCK DECK 3
DRV DRIVEWAY 4
ESN ELECTRIC SIGN 1
FNC FENCE 3
GAR GARAGE 1
PTO PATIO / PAVERS 8
REM REMODEL 5
ROF ROOFING 3
SDW SIDEWALK 3
SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 164
SGN SIGN 1
SHD SHED 1
SWK PRIVATE SIDEWALK 1
TNT TEMPORARY TENT 1
WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 5
INSPECTION SUMMARY: BKF BACKFILL 15
BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 16
EDA ENGINEERING - DRIVEWAY APRON 1
EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 5
EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 18
ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 17
FIB FIBER MESH TICKET FOR CONCRETE 2
FIN FINAL INSPECTION 28
FTG FOOTING 11
GAR GARAGE FLOOR 16
INS INSULATION 5
MIS MISCELLANEOUS 3
OSR WATER METER READER 4
PHD POST HOLE - DECK 2
PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 6
PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 8
PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 16
PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 10
PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 14
REI REINSPECTION 1
REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 10
RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11
RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 5
STP STOOP 15
TRU ENGINEERED TRUSS DRAWINGS 1
DATE: 11/30/20-.1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13
TIME: 10:36.50 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 10/01/2011 TO 10/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BF B&F TECHNICAL CODE SERVICE 26
H2O WATER DEPT 4
JS JEFF SEVERSON 9
MH MARK HARDIN 154
MIS MISCELLANEOUS 2
PR PETER RATOS 1
PWK PUBLIC WORKS 41
RE RANDY ERICKSON 3
STATUS SUMMARY: A MH 1
C BF 8
C H2O 3
C JS 1
C MH 29
C MIS 1
C PWK 8
I BF 18
I H2O 1
I JS 8
I MH 124
I MIS 1
I PR 1
I PWK 33
I RE 3
REPORT SUMMARY: 240
X50,0 C/ry Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
Legal ❑ NB #3
EST. isas Finance ❑
`1 Engineer El-� Tracking Number
®� City Administrator ❑
°u^m�e, O Consultant ❑ EDC 2011-48
0
tkE El
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Kendall County Request for Waiver of Sewer Hook-up Fees
Meeting and Date: EDC-December 6, 2011
Synopsis: See attached letter.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
° Cdr y
k, o Memorandum
J To: Economic Development Committee
EST, -� _ 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
co Date: December 2, 2011
sA .,ma seas
Subject: Kendall County Highway Department sewer connection fee
LE ,mod
Summary
A request from the Kendall County Highway Department for a waiver of the City's sewer
connection fee of$2,000. Staff recommends approval of the request, given the Highway
Department's cooperation to the City over the past several years.
Background
The Kendall County Highway Department Building on Route 47 south of downtown has
been on septic service for decades. Recently, the IEPA mandated that the building must connect
to a public sewer system. With the construction of the Car Care Collision Center, the City's
sewer system is now adjacent to the Highway Department building.
The Highway Department has asked for a waiver of the City's sanitary sewer connection
fee, which is $2,000. They are asking for the waiver because of the excellent working
relationship with the City in the past, and they are being forced to connect to the City's sewer by
the IEPA. The Highway Department is currently coordinating and front-funding the phase I and
phase I engineering work on the River Road Bridge project (a City responsibility). Before IDOT
came through with the 10-year Route 47 payment agreement, the Highway Department and
Committee was also considering a request by the City to front-fund the construction of the River
Road Bridge as well.
While this request could go to the Public Works Committee in addition to the EDC (or,
instead of the EDC), time is of the essence as they are doing the construction before the
construction season is ended by the weather. For that reason, I asked that this request be taken to
EDC, so it may be considered at the December 13th City Council meeting. Also, building permit
waivers for various fee have been considered at the EDC in the past.
Recommendation
For the reasons listed above, I recommend a sewer connection fee waiver for the Kendall
County Highway Department.
7 YOFI�NDALL KENDALL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
.119,1841 F R A N C I S C . K L A A S C O U N T Y E N G I N E E R
�AV-1-R.w-
6780 ROUTE 47 YORKVILLE,IL 60560 TEL 630/553-7616 FAX 630/553-9583
November 15, 2011
Bart Olson
City Administrator
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
RE: Sewer Hook-Up Fees
Dear Mr. Olson:
Per agreement with the Fountain View Development, sanitary sewer facilities were recently
installed in close proximity to the Kendall County Highway Department. Now that we have an
opportunity to connect to City sewer, we would like to hook our maintenance building at 6780
Route 47 to City sewer.
Kendall County Highway Department respectfully requests that the City of Yorkville waive any
and all hook-up fees, as well as any and all recapture fees for sanitary sewer that would serve our
operation at the Highway Department. We would certainly pay all ongoing usage fees for
sanitary sewer in accordance with usual and customary fees that are applicable for our operation.
As discussed previously, the Highway Department uses less water than a typical single family
home.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request, and would like to express our
continuing appreciation for the excellent working relationship we have with City of Yorkville.
Sincerely,
ncls C. Klaas, P.E.
Kendall County Engineer
c/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
J� p
Legal ❑ NB #4
EST lass Finance ❑
es
�� Engineer El Tracking Number
® I� ,� City Administrator El
Consultant El EDC 2011-49
❑
®CAE
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Land Cash Recommendation from Park Board
Meeting and Date: EDC—December 6, 2011
Synopsis: See attached memo.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Laura Schraw Parks &Recreation
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
`,`�D C/Ty Memorandum
w O
To: Economic Development Committee
EST. 1836
- Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
f�, �~` W From: Laura Schraw, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation
CC: Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation
iw.,amao,,m
j�LFF +v° Scott Sleezer, Superintendent of Parks
Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: November 30, 2011
Subject: Land Cash Recommendation from Park Board
The Park Board, at their November 17`h meeting, discussed EDC's direction to Staff to hire an
appraiser to re-evaluate land cash. Park Board is requesting that the City does not re-evaluate
land cash at this time. Due to the poor economy and previous developer obligations, lowering
land cash has the potential to affect development agreements in existence where park sites are
obligated and residents in those developments believe the City is going to develop a park with
amenities.
If the City still chooses to re-evaluate the land cash value and adopt a lower value, the Park
Board requests that the City inform all developers that there will be no guarantee of any built
improvements other than turf grass (developer's obligation)to any park within the City due to
the continued increase in costs to build amenities on a park site.Note that this would not meet
the Park Development Standards which outline the type of park i.e. community, neighborhood,
etc., and type of development for that park, i.e. fields, playgrounds, etc. The Park Development
Standards also require that residential areas are met by a park within%2 mile not blocked by
pedestrian barriers which include roads, railroad tracks, rivers, etc.
If EDC does proceed with hiring an appraiser and it results in a reduction of the land cash value,
the Park Board is requesting an increase in the land cash value annually for 5 years until the
current value of$101,000 is reached. If EDC does not want to incrementally increase land cash,
Park Board is requesting an annual evaluation of land cash by an appraiser, and that this not be
paid for out of the Parks &Recreation budget.
The most detrimental effect of lowering land cash would be that the City has outstanding
obligations to develop parks. Lowering the land cash would allow all developers to adopt the
lower value (even ones currently building)which would either result in not meeting our own
development standards through lack of funds or requiring a larger transfer from the General Fund
to meet the park standards. The Park Development Standards state that"The United City of
Yorkville has determined that acquisition and development of land meeting the recreational and
environmental requirements of its residents is its role in the fabric of the community." The Park
Board requests that you do not revise the land cash amount so that we can continue to meet the
recreational needs of our community.
,.Al C/,. Memorandum
o
To: Yorkville Park Board
1 €
E5T. 1836 From: Laura Schraw� Interim Director of Parks and Recreation
'� `--..,
- CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
® I/! � 7 Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation
i<c.E d° Scott Sleezer, Superintendent of Parks
Date: November 10, 2011
Subject: Land-Cash Evaluation
The first Land-Cash ordinance was adopted in 1977 ($15,000/acre), and was revised in 1990
($25,000/acre), 1996 ($45,000/acre), 2003 ($58,000/acre), 2004 ($73,500/acre), 2005
($80,000/acre) and 2006 ($101,000/acre). The "fair market value" for each of these ordinances
was determined by an appraiser, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC) directed
staff to hire an appraiser at their November I`meeting to re-evaluate our Land Cash value to
lower fees in hopes to spur development. Our current Land Cash value is $101,000/acre. Based
on calculations by bedroom(1, 2, 3, etc.) and house type (single family, multi family, duplex,
townhome)per every 1,000 residents to the City the developer is required to donate 10 acres of
land and/or$101,000.
EDC was informed that the developer has the right to contest the Land Cash value as per the
ordinance language below. They were concerned that each developer would submit a different
Land Cash amount and there would be no consistency which is why they directed the Staff to
hire an appraiser to do a Land Cash study. (The City Council does not have to adopt the
developer's submitted value.)
"....unless the developer shall submit an appraisal showing the"fair market value" of such
improved land in the area of his development or other evidence thereof and final determination
of said "fair market value"per acre of such improved land shall be made by the City Council
based upon such information submitted by the subdivider or developer and from other sources
which may be submitted to the City Council by the School District or others."
Further evaluation of the Land Cash Donation for developments that have approved annexation
agreements provided the following results:
• 12 developments have annexation agreements in place and have an expired fee lock(land
cash would be affected), but have not yet started any part of development of the property
• 3 developments that have increased to the current land cash value only have 18 lots
remaining (between all 3 developments)
• 4 developments have begun development(road, stormwater management, mass grading
in place, homes) and their land cash value would increase because their fee lock has
expired,Note: One of these donated 100% land and 100% cash and would not be affected
by the increase in land cash value, one of these developments has no homes at all)
• 7 developments have fee locks and would not be affected by any change in land cash
Any development whose fee lock is not expired could amend their annexation agreement to
adopt the new Land Cash value.
Staff contacted several other Park Districts to find out if they have caught wind of anyone
reducing their land cash fees.No one has begun this process at this time.
At this time, the cost to develop a park has not decreased, and the cost of steel continually
increases every year. If our Land Cash amount is reduced and we are obligated to develop parks
as per the existing Annexation Agreements, the money would come from the General Fund.
c/r y
Memorandum
EST. 1836 To: Economic Development Committee
7 From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: October 28, 2011
�LkE ��- Subject: Comprehensive Impact Fee Revision
Over the past several meetings in as many months, City staff has presented various aspects of
consideration for review and potential revision to the impact fees for development within the
community. The impetus of this discussion stemmed from economic hardships experienced by
the building community and in an effort by the City to spur development.
Previous memorandums from Staff examined the Building Permit Fees, City and Non-City
Impact or Transition Fees, and Land-Cash Donations. While Building Permit Fees affect all
construction within the city, Impact or Transition Fees and Land-Cash Donations potentially
affect only new home development. At the direction of the EDC, staff will propose reducing the
municipal building from $5,509 per unit to $1,759 per unit; and also recommend not reducing
building permit fees or utility connection fees as the City's cost of service has not decreased nor
do we believe will these strategies will significantly stimulate housing development.
Based upon this, and the final direction of the EDC, staff has continued to evaluate the current
Land-Cash Donation policy as a means to comprehensively address the impact fee reduction
debate which affects all proposed and under construction residential development within the
City.
Land-Cash Donations
As detailed previously, the City's land-cash ordinance establishes the fair-market value
for any parcel of residential land as a means of determining the per acre fee for cash-in-lieu of
park land donations. Currently, Yorkville's land-cash value is $101,000 per acre for a residential
development. The land-cash value has not been re-evaluated since its most recent amendment in
2006—during the height of the housing boom.
Yorkville's land-cash value is comparable to other local municipalities which range
between $80,000/acre on the low end and upwards to nearly $140,000/acre. Although other
communities, such as Plainfield and Oswego, have preliminarily discussed revising their Land-
Cash Donation requirements, however no community has formally revised or reduced its acre-
valuation in response to stimulate development.
Options for Land-Cash Donation Revision
Should the EDC want to explore revisions to the current Land-Cash Donation Ordinance,
staff has considered the following options for discussion:
1. Development Based Approach — this option proposes that each development is
considered on a case-by-case basis for a consideration in reduction of Land-Cash
Donation whereby the developer provides their own study of the land value based upon
comparable sales and other physical attributes of similarly undeveloped/developed land
(location, current infrastructure, topography, size). This approach is also consistent with
1
the language of the original Land-Cash Ordinance adopted in 1977 (Ord. ) which states in
Section 1, paragraph C subsection 1 "In the event of any such objection the developer
shall submit an appraisal showing the 'fair market value" of such improved land in the
area of his development or other evidence thereof and final determination of said `fair
market value"per acre of such improved land shall be made by the City Council based
upon such information submitted by the subdivider or developer and from other sources
which may be submitted to the City Council by the School District or others. " (Refer to
attached).
• Pros — This option would allow require the developer to undertake the
upfront cost of funding the land value study and provide specific data to
consider when evaluating the requested Land-Cash Donation reduction.
• Cons - This will require each development to amend their annexation
and/or development agreements individually and potentially have a great
disparity in land-cash valuations for various developments throughout the
City.
2. Time Limited Reduction with Incremental Increase— this option would require the City
to conduct the initial land appraisal study to determine the current "Fair Market Value"
for and acre of land within Yorkville. If the findings result in a decrease from the present
$101,000/acre, and ordinance could be passed reducing the valuation for a set period of
time (e.g., 2 years) for Land-Cash Donation at which time the Fair Market Value would
incrementally increase a certain percentage a year (i.e., 25% per year for 4 years) until it
fully restores to the current$101,000/acre.
• Pros — This would not require the City to permanently reduce its Land-Cash
Donation to a level that far below other surround communities, thereby
jeopardizing future funding for park developments. This option would also
require only one (1) land appraisal over at least a five(5) year duration.
• Cons - This option requires the front funding of an appraisal by the City which
could cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars. This option may prove
difficult to administer as it would require the yearly review and calibration of the
land-cash valuation with the potential for the same development to have multiple
Land-Cash contribution valuations at any given time during its construction.
3. No change — this option proposes to keep the "Fair Market Value" at its present
$101,000/acre amount.
• Pros—This option requires no recalculation to Land-Cash Donations of current or
future developments, or amendments to already approved annexation agreements.
• Cons —May potentially prolong the stall in development entitled property within
the City.
Staff is seeking input for the committee to see if there is enough interest to pursue any of the
options mentioned-above. I will be available at Tuesday night's meeting to discuss the
information provided in this memo in greater detail.
2
D C/r` Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
.�' R, O
J Legal ❑ NB #5
° Finance ❑
EST. �, ' _� 1836 Engineer ❑
O �� �� �� City Administrator Agenda Item Tracking Number
O Consultant ❑ PC 2011-10 & ZBA 2011-02
f�EcW� � ❑
City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: 312 Walter Street (Claesson)—Request for Rezoning &Variances to the R-21) District
Meeting and Date: EDC /December 6, 2011
Synopsis: Requested rezoning from R-2 District to R-21) District and variance approval for
minimum lot size, minimum lot width and maximum density in the R-21) District.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: N/A
Item Number: N/A
Type of Vote Required: Super Majority (2/3rds)
Council Action Requested: Vote
Submitted by: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached staff memorandum and supporting documents.
�".. C/Ti- Memorandum
J ;� O
A To: Economic Development Committee
EST. 1 lass From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
r- ±l l;:, Date: November 30, 2011
,.�. Subject: 312 Walter Street(Claesson)
Ll�1,E �L Request for Rezoning to R-21) Duplex District&Variances
Petitioner's Request& Background:
The petitioner, Robert Claesson, is requesting rezoning of an approximately 0.21-acre
residential parcel located at 312 Walter Street from R-2 One Family Residence District to R-21)
Duplex Two Family District. The property currently has an existing single-family residential
dwelling proposed for interior renovation after a mid-summer fire, with ultimate conversion into two
(2) rental units. Although the properties within the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel are
zoned R-2 One Family Residence District, several of these residential structures are duplex dwellings
including the property located immediately to the west of the subject parcel. The following chart
provides details of those land uses:
Existing Zoning Existing Land Use Comments
Residential properties.Two-family duplex
North R-2 One Family Residence Residential/Duplex dwellings located at 311 Walter Street and 313
Water Street.
South R-2 One Family Residence Residential Single-family dwellings.
East R-2 One Family Residence Residential Single-family dwelling.
West R-2 One Family Residence Residential/Duplex Residential property.Two-family duplex
dwelling located at 310 Walter Street.
Additionally, the petitioner is seeking relief from the following bulk regulations of the
proposed new R-2D Duplex Two Family District zoning.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a lot size less than 15,000 square feet; property
currently has approx. 9,150 sq. feet.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a lot width at the building line less than 100 feet.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a density greater than 4.8 dwelling units per each acre.
Although the existing parcel does not comply with the minimum lot size, width and density
of requirements of the proposed R-2D zoning district, the property and most of the other surrounding
lots are also not compliant with their current R-2 zoning bulk regulations as indicated below:
Current R-2 Zoning Proposed R-2D Requested %Difference Between
Requirements Requirements Variance Proposed R-2D and
Request d Variance
Minimum Lot Size 12,000 sq.ft. 15,000 sq.ft. t 9,147.6 sq.ft. -5,852.4 sq.ft.(-60%)
Minimum Lot Width' 80 ft. 100 ft. f 70 ft. -30 ft.(-30%)
Max Density 3.3 d.u./acre 4.8 d.u./acre2 9.6 d.u./acre +4.8 d.u./acre(+200%)
Lot width is measured at the building line.
'-Density is calculated as the number of dwelling units(d.u.)per acre.In this instance,4.8 d.u.per acre is equivalent to
4.8/43,560=0.0001 101 d.u.per sq.ft.and 2 d.u.per 9,147.6 sq.ft.is equivalent to 2/9147.6=.0002186 d.u.per sq.ft.
Plan Commission Action:
The Plan Commission reviewed the requested rezoning at a public hearing held on October
12, 2011 and made the following action:
Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning for 312 Walter Street from R-2 One Family
Residence District to R-2D Duplex Two Family Residence District.
Action Item•
Lindblom- aye; Crouch-nay; Weaver-abstain; Jones-aye; Baker-nay; Prochaska-aye;
Winninger-aye; Kraupner-aye 5 ayes; 2 nays; 1 abstention
Zoning Board of Appeals Action:
The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the requested variances at a public hearing held on
November 2, 2011 and made the following action:
Motion to recommend approval of variances from the R-21) Duplex Two Family Residence District
regarding minimum lot size, minimum lot width and maximum density.
Action Item•
Baker, nay; Skinner,nay; Hirsch,nay; Walker,nay; Johnson, nay
0 ayes; 5 nays
Staff Comments
As stated above, the Plan Commission did render a favorable recommendation for approval
of the rezoning request from R-2 One-Family Residence District to R-2D Duplex Two Family
Residence District. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denial of the requested
variances needed for the property to comply with the bulk regulations of the R-21) Duplex Two
Family Residence District. Therefore, the City Council will need a concurring vote of two-thirds
(2/3) of the elected members should they decide to reverse the recommendation of the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Staff has attached copies of the memorandums and minutes from both the Plan Commission
and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings regarding this request for your reference. The petitioner will
be present at Tuesday night's meeting to answer any questions of the Economic Development
Committee members.
C/P Memorandum
^ k
:Z) O
� -0 To: Plan Commission
1636
EST. From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
'� �-�_.,�
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: October 4, 2011
Subject: PC 2011-10—312 Walter Street(Claesson)
tE�,y�.� Request for Rezoning from R-2 One Family to R-2D Duplex
Petitioner's Request& Background:
The petitioner, Robert Claesson, is requesting rezoning of an approximately 0.21-acre
residential parcel located at 312 Walter Street from R-2 One Family Residence District to R-2D
Duplex Two Family District. The property currently has an existing single-family residential
dwelling proposed for interior renovation after a mid-summer fire, with ultimate conversion into
two (2) rental units.
Staff has analyzed the existing land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property in
consideration of the proposed rezoning from a single-family dwelling land use to a two-family
semidetached dwelling land use. The following chart provides details of those land uses:
Existing Zoning Existing Land Use Comments
Residential properties.Two-family
North R-2 One Family Residence Residential/Duplex duplex dwellings located at 311 Walter
Street and 313 Water Street.
South R-2 One Family Residence Residential Single-family dwellings.
East R-2 One Family Residence Residential Single-family dwelling.
West R-2 One Family Residence Residential/Duplex Residential property.Two-family duplex
dwelling located at 310 Walter Street.
As indicated in the chart above and illustrated on the attached map, the properties within
the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel are zoned R-2 One Family Residence District.
However, several residential structures within this area are duplex dwellings, including the
property located immediately to the west of the subject parcel, as these uses likely predated the
zoning code amendment for R-21) designation adopted by the city in the 1990's making these
properties legally non-conforming.
Bulk Requirements
Since the proposed rezoning request has an existing structure on the property, a detailed review
of the R-21) Duplex Two Family District bulk regulations was conducted to analyze compliance.
The following R-2D bulk regulations will also apply:
• Minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 square feet; Does not comply
• Minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet; Does not comply
• Maximum density requirement 4.8 dwelling units per acre; Does not comply
• Maximum lot coverage of 30%; Complies
• Maximum building height of thirty feet (30') and no more than 2.5 stories, whichever is
less; Complies
• Minimum required front yard setback of thirty feet(30'); Complies
• Minimum required side yard setback of ten feet (10') or ten percent (10%), whichever is
greater; Complies
• Minimum rear yard setback of thirty feet (30') feet. Complies
Although the existing parcel does not comply with the minimum lot size, width and density of
requirements of the proposed R-21) zoning district, the property and most of the other
surrounding lots are also not compliant with their current R-2 zoning bulk regulations. Should
the Plan Commission favorably recommend approval of the rezoning request; the petitioner will
proceed with submitting a variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief of the
above-referenced bulk requirements.
Other Code/Ordinance Considerations:
• Comprehensive Plan - The property is located within an area designated as "Traditional
Neighborhood" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The character for the Traditional
Neighborhood designation is residential with anticipated infill development.
Staff Recommendations:
Based upon the existing surrounding land use and the recent trend in land use of duplex
dwelling uses within the area, staff recommends approval of the request subject to variance
approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the bulk regulations related to lot size, lot width
and density.
Findings of Fact:
In considering rezoning requests, the Zoning Ordinance requires the Plan Commission to make
findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to the
following matters:
a. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question.
b. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in
question.
c. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing
zoning classification.
d. The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question,
including changes, if any, which have taken place since the day the property in
question was placed in its present zoning classification.
e. The impact that such reclassification and/or annexation will have upon traffic and
traffic conditions on said routes; the effect, if any, such reclassification and/or
annexation would have upon existing accesses to said routes; and the impact of
additional accesses as requested by the petitioner upon traffic and traffic conditions
and flow on said routes. (Ord. 1976-43, 11-4-1976)
Additional factors to be considered for an amendment to a zoning ordinance as determined by
the `LaSalle' case should also be considered. These factors are as follows:
1) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property;
2) The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning
restrictions;
3) The extent to which the destruction of property values of plaintiff promotes the
health, safety,morals, and general welfare of the public;
4) The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the
individual property owner;
5) The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes;
6) The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned considered in the
context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the subject property;
7) The community need for the proposed use; and,
8) The care with which the community has undertaken to plan its land use
development.
ORA
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLAN COMMISSION
Library Historic Room
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:00pm
Commission Members in Attendance:
Chairman Tom Lindblom Jane Winninger
Jack Jones (arr. 7:03pm) Jeff Baker
Art Prochaska James Weaver
Mike Crouch Charles Kraupner
Absent: Sandra Adams
Other City Staff
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Other Guests
Robert Claesson
Peter Gabor
Christine Vitosh, Depo Court reporter
Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Roll call was taken and
a quorum was established. He introduced and welcomed new Commissioner James
Weaver. Mr. Weaver briefly told about his background.
Previous Meeting Minutes - July 13, 2011
The minutes were approved as read on a motion by Prochaska and second by Baker.
Unanimous voice vote approval.
Citizen's Comments None
Chairman Lindblom commented on the order of the meeting agenda:
1. The first Public Hearing will be opened and continued to next month and the
petitioner is aware of this.
2. The Public Hearing will be held on the second item concerning property at 312
Walter Street.
3. Then the discussion will turn back to item#1 New Business for preliminary plan
and final plat. This portion does not need a Public Hearing.
4. Then the 312 Walter St. property will be discussed.
1
Public Hearinj4s
1. PC 2011-06 Verne Henne and Steven and Dawn Friel,petitioners, have filed
an application with the City requesting rezoning of three parcels on Worsley
Street (Lots 4, 5 and 6) from R-1 One Family Residence District to R-2 One
Family Residence District. The real property consists of a total of
approximately 0.73 acres and is located south of E. Main Street and east of
Worsley Road in Yorkville, Illinois
A motion was made by Kraupner and seconded by Prochaska to open the Public Hearing.
Voice vote approval.
A motion was then also made to continue this Hearing to November. This was on a
motion by Crouch and second by Jones. Voice vote approval.
2. PC 2011-10 Robert Claesson,petitioner, has filed an application with the
City requesting to rezone a parcel located at 312 Walter Street from R-2 One
Family Residence District to R-21) Duplex Two Family District. The real
property consists of approximately 0.21 acres and is located immediately
south of Walter Street and east of Mill Street in Yorkville.
Chairman Lindblom swore in the 2 guests who would offer testimony in this Hearing.
Mr. Robert Claesson, owner of the property at 312 Walter St. said he wishes to convert
his home to a multi-family dwelling by building an addition to make a 3-bedroom
apartment on either side of the dwelling. He said fire had gutted the structure and it
needed repairs.
The property owner at 316 Walter St, Mr. Peter Gabor, voiced opposition to the plan. He
said he has lived in this area since 1997 and the block-long Walter Street has 5 duplexes.
Nearby Illinois Dr. & Olson have none. He said Walter Dr. is run down due to so many
residents. He felt that Yorkville wants to plan its urban development and this is not the
proper way. He said renters do not pay taxes and property owners must pay for the
school children. Many of the Walter St. duplexes have only gravel driveways and there
is not adequate parking. He feels this diminishes the property values and he is totally
against the plan. Mr. Gabor said the Plan Commission should have rules for appearance.
According to Mr. Gabor he thought none of the homes in this area were meant to be
duplexes. He believes it is difficult to control the actions of renters and how they might
affect the property value.
Mr. Claesson said he will have a 2-car garage plus off-street parking for additional cars.
There will also be a fenced back yard and all this will increase the value of his property.
He added that Mr. Gabor's house is in the back and does not think his property will affect
Mr. Gabor's. In 2000 when he purchased the property, it was already divided for
duplexes and it now has many upgrades. Mr. Claesson said he is very strict about his
renters and he plans to live in his home. He added that there are single-family homes in
the area that are in foreclosure and they have become run down with long grass.
2
As there was no further testimony, Jones moved to close the Public Hearing and Crouch
seconded the motion. Unanimous voice vote approval.
New Business
1. PC 2011-07 Verne Henne and Steven and Dawn Friel,petitioners have filed
an application with the United City of Yorkville requesting preliminary plan
and final plat approval of the re-subdivision of three (3)parcels on Worsley
Street (Lots 4, 5, and 6) into two (2) parcels. The real property consists of a
total of approximately 0.73 acres and is located south of E. Main St and east
of Worsley Rd. in Yorkville.
Chairman Lindblom said the Commission is looking for recommendation of preliminary
plan and final plat. Krysti Barksdale-Noble said this item would be tabled. A motion
was then made and seconded by Commissioners Prochaska and Weaver, respectively, to
table this item until the next meeting.
Discussion: A point of order was raised and it was questioned why there were 2 numbers
on the same issue. Ms. Barksdale-Noble replied that#6 is a Public Hearing to rezone and
#7 is for preliminary plat. She said they are 2 separate items with 2 separate ordinances
that apply. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that this is the best way to track and
record this administratively.
The motion was tabled until the November meeting on a unanimous voice vote.
Turning back to Public Hearing PC2011-10, Chairman Lindblom said the Board would
now discuss the Claesson rezoning issue. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the trend of the area
on Walter St. is duplexes and there is no history as to how this occurred. The Chairman
added that many of the structures on this street were originally built as duplexes and not
as single-family units. The R-21) designation originated in the 1990's.
Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the only issue with rezoning is that the property would become
non-conforming with the R-21) designation. If the Commission approves the request, she
said the case would be moved to the Zoning Board of Appeals in November. The
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. City staff is recommending that if
the Commission approves, that the area continue as a residential use. She noted the lot
size is .21 acres.
Action Item:
Motion: Baker moved and Jones seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning of
this parcel to R-21) Duplex.
Discussion: Mr. Claesson said 50 other properties within 500 feet were notified of this
request. Ms. Winninger commented that Mr. Gabor's issues were a generalization about
renters in duplexes diminishing the property value and that it could happen with renters
living in single-family homes. Crouch commented that he thought Ms. Gabor took issue
with having a duplex in a single-family neighborhood. He said that is the question that
should be considered and that the Commission's purpose is to determine what is best for
3
the neighborhood. There was a brief discussion of duplexes on other streets and the
general condition.
Mr. Prochaska said Mr. Claesson is not changing the character of the neighborhood by
his intended actions. He asked if the other lots in the neighborhood meet the
requirements for R-21). They only meet them for R-2. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said none of
the homes on Walter St. meet the 12,000 square feet requirement. Baker noted that the
homes were built prior to the zoning code. Kraupner said he had issue with the size of
the lots and asked if there is enough space for 6 cars. Claesson detailed how he would
accommodate 3 cars per side of the duplex.
Roll call vote: Winninger-yes, Jones-yes, Baker-no, Prochaska-yes, Weaver-abstain,
Crouch-no, Kraupner-yes, Lindblom-yes. Motions passed 5-2 with one abstention.
This matter now moves to the Zoning Board of Appeals in November
2. Plan Commission Meeting Schedule for 2012
The Commission will continue to meet on the second Wednesday of the month, however,
the meetings will be held in the City Hall.
Adjournment
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned on a motion by Baker and
second by Crouch. Meeting adjourned at 7:45pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker
4
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
902 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois
Wednesday, October 12 , 2011
7 : 00 p.m.
D-951911
i
DFPO COURT
reporting service
1300 Iroquois Avenue,Suite 205
Naperville,IL 60563
630-983-0030 • Fmc: 630-778-4824
e-mail:depocourt@depocourt.com - www.depocourt.com
2
1 PRESENT:
2 Mr . Tom Lindblom, Chairman,
3 Mr. Jeff Baker,
4 Mr. Michael Crouch,
5 Mr . Jack Jones,
6 Mr. Charles Kraupner,
7 Mr . Art Prochaska,
8 Mr. James Weaver,
9 Ms . Jane Winninger.
10
11 ALSO PRESENT :
12 Ms . Krysti Noble, Community Development
13 Director;
14 Ms . Marlys Young, Minute Taker .
15 - - - - -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
3
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: The first item then
2 is to go to public hearing, so is there a motion
3 to that effect, please?
4 MR. KRAUPNER: So moved.
07:03PM 5 MR. PROCHASKA: Second.
6 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Any discussion on
7 the motion?
8 (No response . )
9 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Those in favor
07:04PM 10 signify by saying aye.
11 (A chorus of ayes . )
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed?
13 (No response. )
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion passes .
07:04PM 15 We are now in public hearing for
16 PC 2011-06, Verne Henne and Steven and Dawn Friel,
17 petitioners, have filed an application with the
18 United City of Yorkville, Kendall County,
19 Illinois, requesting rezoning of three parcels on
07:04PM 20 Worsley Street, Lots 4, 5 and 6, from R-1 One
21 Family Residence District to R-2 One Family
22 Residence District .
23 The real property consists of a
24 total of approximately 0 . 73 acres and is located
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
4
1 south of East Main Street and east of Worsley Road
2 in Yorkville, Illinois .
3 So with that being said, do we have
4 a motion then to continue this meeting then until
07:04PM 5 the November meeting?
6 MR. CROUCH: So moved.
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Is there a second?
8 MR. JONES : Second.
9 MR. WEAVER: Second.
07:04PM 10 THE COURT : I 'm sorry, okay. Moved and
11 seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
12 (No response . )
13 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those
14 in favor signify by saying aye .
07:05PM 15 (A chorus of ayes . )
16 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed?
17 (No response. )
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion passes . That
19 will be continued then to the next meeting.
07:05PM 20 The next item then on our public
21 hearing is PC 2011-10, Robert Claesson, is that
22 pronounced -- Claesson, petitioner, has filed an
23 application with the United City of Yorkville,
24 Kendall County, Illinois, requesting rezoning of a
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
5
1 parcel located at 312 Walter Street from R-2 One
2 Family Residence District to R-2D Duplex Two
3 Family District .
4 The real property consists of
07:05PM 5 approximately 0 . 21 acres and is located
6 immediately south of Walter Street and east of
7 Mill Street in Yorkville, Illinois .
8 With that being said, could I have
9 anybody that wishes to speak before the Commission
07:05PM 10 at this time stand and repeat the oath -- repeat
11 after me?
12 (Witnesses thereupon duly
13 sworn. )
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you. Okay. I
07:06PM 15 guess, Mr . Claesson, are you going to speak on
16 your behalf?
17 MR. CLAESSON: Yes .
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. The floor is
19 yours .
07:06PM 20 MR. CLAESSON: Well, I am looking to
21 change my single family home into a multi family
22 dwelling. This is the plot of it, and as you see,
23 I have many, one, two, three, four other ones
24 similar to what I want to do on the other side and
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
6
1 one directly next to me.
2 I just want to put an addition onto
3 one side of my house, put the roof on it and make
4 a three-bedroom apartment on one side and a
07:06PM 5 three-bedroom apartment on the other side, so . . .
6 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Just as a matter of
7 clarification, the house was gutted a while ago by
8 fire?
9 MR. CLAESSON : I 'm in the -- Yes .
07:06PM 10 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: And so remodeling
11 would have to take place?
12 MR. CLAESSON: The remodeling is going
13 to happen. I am either going back to the way it
14 was or I am doing this . I am definitely doing
07:07PM 15 something. I am just hoping that the Board will
16 let me do the plans I want to do.
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Any other
18 comments from -- Sir, any comments on the public
19 hearing?
07:07PM 20 MR. GABOR: Yes . I live at 316 Walter
21 Street, right here (indicating) , and I have lived
22 in Yorkville for -- at this address --
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I 'm sorry, can we
24 get your name for the record?
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
7
1 MR. GABOR: Peter Gabor, G-A-B-O-R.
2 I ' ve been there since 1997 . Walter
3 Street, as you can see, is only one block long,
4 just like the other streets . It has five
07:07PM 5 duplexes . Illini Drive has none, Olson has none .
6 If you take the time before you make
7 your decision and take a drive, you will see the
8 condition that Walter Street is in with all the
9 duplexes and the renters who come and go month by
07:08PM 10 month, year by year. This street is pretty run
11 down.
12 I personally have no understanding
13 why Walter Street has to have another duplex,
14 which would make it six, and then you look at
07:08PM 15 Illini Drive, which is a beautiful single family
16 street, Olson, the same thing.
17 My understanding is that Yorkville
18 wants to plan its urban development, and this is
19 not the way.
07:08PM 20 First of all, the people who rent
21 these duplexes don' t pay taxes . I pay taxes . I
22 have to pay for those children who live there to
23 go to school right on Mill Street or the high
24 school, it really doesn' t matter, but I think
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
8
1 there should be a limit as far as the planning for
2 Yorkville how many duplexes are we going to allow
3 on each street . Is it going to become duplex
4 city?
07:09PM 5 Walter Street looks like a dump .
6 Many of these duplexes have no driveways, just
7 gravel, you see motorcycles out there, cars are
8 parked up all night on the street because there
9 are so many people in these apartments, there ' s
07:09PM 10 not enough room in the driveway.
11 It brings my property value down,
12 and I take care of my property, it brings the
13 other property values down, especially in this
14 economy when they are already down, so there
07:09PM 15 should be some limitation.
16 If someone is going to have a
17 duplex, it should be taken care of . Maybe there
18 should be a duplex association like there ' s a
19 condominium association, a townhome association,
07:lOPM 20 where there' s a responsibility for taking care of
21 the property.
22 This house right here (indicating) I
23 believe has been up for new rental at least a half
24 a dozen times since I have lived there . The
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
9
1 owners let their dogs run on my property, mess all
2 over my property. I clean it up.
3 So I just -- I am totally against
4 it . I would -- I would prefer that the owner fix
07:1OPM 5 up his house, make it such that it increases its
6 value, his value, it makes Yorkville ' s urban
7 development progressive, instead of just anything
8 goes, which to me is what ' s been -- what ' s been
9 happening as far as Walter Street .
07:11PM 10 You take a drive down Illini Drive,
11 which curves into -- this is still Illini Drive,
12 and Walter Street ends with my driveway, this
13 house burned down, was -- is owned by a former
14 councilman, put up a beautiful new home, okay?
07:11PM 15 That was -- you know, if -- I mean,
16 the only explanation I can have for -- My house is
17 not big. If I divide it into a duplex, it would
18 be for only one thing, to pay the mortgage, and
19 it ' s not going to bring the values up, and if the
07:12PM 20 duplex is going to go through, your commission
21 should have some requirement as far as appearance,
22 whatever other villages do to maintain their
23 property.
24 That gentleman is a fireman in
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
10
1 Woodridge-Lisle? I have a business in Downers
2 Grove, right next to Woodridge . The Village of
3 Downers Grove is strict . When I wanted to expand
4 my business, they had code enforcement, who -- you
07:12PM 5 can' t have one building unless it ' s attached to
6 the other building to make sure it ' s not -- you ' re
7 not going to do an in-law-type of a setup with
8 in-laws moving in next door.
9 You had to take out the kitchen
07.13PM 10 facility and I had to prove to them that I am
11 making this old house into a garage and it ' s being
12 attached to the new house .
13 And Downers Grove, it ' s just like
14 Naperville, you know. It ' s a beautiful community.
07:13PM 15 Yorkville is a beautiful community until you get
16 to Walter Street .
17 Please take a look at it and I think
18 you will vote no.
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you.
07:13PM 20 Is there any other public comments?
21 MR. CLAESSON: I ' d like to comment on
22 what he said.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Certainly.
24 MR. CLAESSON: You' re making comment on
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
11
1 houses around my house not having a driveway, but
2 my house does have a driveway. It ' s going to have
3 a two-car garage, so I would have in the car
4 garage parking, plus off street parking for two
07:14PM 5 additional cars, three cars for each unit off of
6 the street on the driveway.
7 The duplexes that he ' s referring to
8 that ' s connecting to his with the dog, I have a
9 fenced-in back yard and the back for any pets to
07:14PM 10 be restrained.
11 I believe that what I want to do is
12 going to bring the value of my property up and
13 make the other properties around them better
14 because it ' s going to be much nicer, much more
07:14PM 15 modern, it ' s going to look right in place with the
16 rest of the street, and I don ' t believe that it ' s
17 going to bring the property values around --
18 directly adjacent down.
19 This gentleman' s house is placed
07:14PM 20 way, way, way in the back, back against this creek
21 where every property touching this property is a
22 single family home .
23 My property is nowhere near his
24 property, there ' s other properties in between our
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
12
1 properties, and with his being set back so far, I
2 don' t really see how my property is going to
3 affect his .
4 If you were to go look at his
07:15PM 5 property, you can' t even see my house from his
6 house . You' d have to come all the way out to the
7 street at the very edge just to see the corner of
8 my house .
9 So with that being said, you could
07:15PM 10 also see directly adjacent one, two, three, four,
11 five, six, seven, already on that street .
12 Going to be honest, when I bought
13 this property back in 2000, these were my original
14 plans, hoping to do this . It was all part of my
07:15PM 15 plan when I bought the house .
16 It had already been divided, there
17 was already a kitchen downstairs when I bought it,
18 so it had already been divided as such, it just
19 was -- the zoning, I believe that house is meant
07:15PM 20 to be a duplex, just the zoning for some reason on
21 this -- on all these streets was not as such.
22 So, you know, in comparison to the
23 other ones, he says if you were to drive down and
24 you see these people ' s houses, my house really
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
13
1 doesn' t compare to them. I have the driveway,
2 it ' s set back, it ' s a different build, it doesn' t
3 look like those houses at all .
4 My house is going to be a
07:16PM 5 cedar-sided house with a brick front, well kept,
6 definitely -- will definitely not be looking run
7 down because it will be brand new, all new siding,
8 new kitchens, modern, and it will definitely raise
9 the property value of my house .
07:16PM 10 My property value will go up, there
11 is no doubt, because I 'm going to making it much
12 nicer, more modern, and I definitely think it will
13 be by far, if you allow it to go through, the
14 nicest rental property on the block.
07:16PM 15 I 'm very stringent about who I rent
16 to . I 'm not going to just rent to anybody.
17 References, the whole nine yards .
18 So, you know, just with that in
19 mind, if you ' re going to compare my house to the
07:16PM 20 other rental properties, I just wish you would
21 look at that option, you know, that it will be
22 nicer than the other ones and I think it will make
23 the property values on that street go up, not
24 down.
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
14
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you .
2 Any other comments from the public? Yes, sir.
3 MR. GABOR: First of all, I don' t
4 believe any of these homes were meant to be
07:17PM 5 duplexes . When the zoning changed from
6 agricultural in Yorkville to single family, that ' s
7 what it meant . Not duplex.
8 Single family is single family, and
9 a person who converts a home into a duplex can
07:17PM 10 have the greatest intentions in the world, but you
11 have no control over what the renters do in your
12 house . If they go -- disappear overnight, a
13 deposit for security is not going to take care of
14 the damage they' ve done.
07:17PM 15 I 'm sure every one of those duplexes
16 when they were first converted were beautiful .
17 Look at them now .
18 And how many duplexes does one tiny
19 street need? It ' s one block long. It ' s going to
07:18PM 20 have six duplexes .
21 If the economy ever changes and we
22 get out of this recession, what ' s going to happen
23 is the same thing that ' s happened in LaGrange,
24 LaGrange Park, Downers Grove, people are going to
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
15
1 buy these little lots, demolish what they have and
2 build beautiful homes on them, and I personally
3 plan to stay in Yorkville.
4 And, again, do I want to see six
07:18PM 5 cars in one driveway? No . Do I want to see cars
6 parked on the street wondering is this person
7 staying here or is this person planning to rob
8 this house? I mean, that street is never empty.
9 And it may initially help the value
07:19PM 10 of the home, but that alone can ' t guarantee that
11 it ' s going to stay that way after . I mean, if you
12 look at Walter Street right now, tnere are signs
13 for rent, duplexes for rent, duplexes for sale,
14 single family homes for sale . I mean, it looks
07:19PM 15 like a flea market for homes .
16 And there ' s got -- there should be
17 an end to this as far as the Planning Commission
18 because the future of Yorkville -- it doesn' t
19 depend on Walter Street, but if that can happen to
07:19PM 20 Walter Street, why not somebody else?
21 I mean, there should be a limit as
22 to how many duplexes you have on one block, just
23 like where you put your townhomes and things like
24 that .
Depo-Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
16
1 And the last thing that I mentioned
2 first I want to say is that the people who rent
3 don' t pay taxes, and they are all young people .
4 My children are grown, they don ' t
07:20PM 5 live with me, there are two people in this
6 household where I live, yet I ' ve got to pay taxes
7 for the schooling of those children? It ' s not
8 right.
9 Duplexes of maybe -- you know, I
07:20PM 10 mean, the tax structure, the real homeowners
11 should not be stuck with -- you know, my taxes are
12 $8, 000 a year, and I ' ve got to pay that because
13 I 've got six duplexes with 50 people and a dozen
14 children whose education I definitely support, but
07:21PM 15 do I have to be paying for it?
16 And basically there ' s got to be a
17 limit for how many -- how many duplexes on each --
18 on this -- you know, ten, 12 homes, there ' s six
19 duplexes, and it ' s like 60/40, or 50/50 .
07:21PM 20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I don' t mean to cut
21 you off, but is there -- I think you are repeating
22 yourself now. Is there something new you wish to
23 add? I would certainly welcome that .
24 MR. GABOR: No .
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
17
1 MR. CLAESSON : One other thing I plan
2 on -- And I have been living in this house myself
3 since 2000 . I pay my taxes . He doesn' t pay my
4 taxes .
07:21PM 5 I pay my taxes and I have a child
6 and, you know, she walks to school every day when
7 we lived there and, you know, I 'm paying my
8 obligation for taxes also and, you know, the
9 area is --
07:21PM 10 MR. GABOR: And you are paying for the
11 renters, too.
12 MR. CLAESSON : The area is already full
13 of renters . Across the street, even on 126, it ' s
14 all rental property.
07:22PM 15 You know, repeating myself, I just
16 wanted to add that I 'm not going to just rent it
17 out to anybody, I 'm living there . I 'm renting out
18 a portion of it and I 'm living there .
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Is it your intent to
07:22PM 20 continue living there?
21 MR. CLAESSON: It is absolutely my
22 intent to continue living there.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Just rent out the
24 other half?
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
18
1 MR. CLAESSON: Rent out the other half.
2 And, with the recession and everything else, to
3 try to avoid yet another empty house that ' s not
4 getting paid for, the supplemental rental income
07:22PM 5 is going to stop that from happening in this case,
6 okay, because, I mean, let ' s face it, property
7 values have dropped down. It ' s not going to sell .
8 The other single family homes have already been
9 foreclosed on in this house, the 308 and another
07:22PM 10 one across the street .
11 The houses that he is referring to
12 are single family homes that have been abandoned
13 because the homeowners can' t afford them. The
14 grass is getting long. That ' s not the renters .
07:23PM 15 1 The renters are the ones that have the grasses
16 cut .
17 The abandoned single family homes
18 that are driving property values down that the
19 gentleman is speaking of are the single family
07:23PM 20 homes that the people can ' t afford.
21 And, you know, I 'm doing what I can
22 to make sure my house isn ' t one of those . I have
23 lived there for ten years . I 'm in construction;
24 my income has been affected as much or more than
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
19
1 anybody' s, trust me, and this is a plan to make my
2 house continue looking good, keep it under my
3 belt, not to lose what I have invested in, and,
4 you know, it ' s my home . It ' s where me and my
07:23PM 5 daughter have grown up, and I would definitely
6 like to be able to raise her there and keep her
7 going to that school where all her friends are and
8 everything else, and this is the way it ' s going to
9 have to happen.
07:23PM 10 Otherwise it ' s going to get fixed
11 the old way, get put up on the market, and lord
12 only knows how long it will sit there, and then it
13 will become what this gentleman is afraid of, tall
14 grass with a house sitting there that -- you know,
07:24PM 15 that doesn ' t get its taxes paid, and we don ' t need
16 another foreclosure in town, that ' s for sure.
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Is there
18 anybody else that has any more comments?
19 MR. GABOR: One more comment, sir, if I
07:24PM 20 may add.
21 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: As long as you are
22 not repeating yourself .
23 MR. GABOR: If the solution to the
24 problem of these single family homes that are
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
20
1 being abandoned is to make them into duplexes ,
21 then let ' s all make them into duplexes . That ' s
3 not the solution.
4 And if Yorkville and the village and
07:24PM 5 the planners and you folks have any foresight, you
6 will plan with progressive thoughts .
7 And foreclosures are everywhere and
8 I don ' t believe jumping to duplexes is the answer,
9 especially if Yorkville wants to grow the right
07:25PM 10 way.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. I hear nobody
12 else in the audience. Could we have a motion then
13 to close the public hearing?
14 MR. JONES : So moved.
07:25PM 15 MR. CROUCH: Second.
16 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Moved and seconded.
17 Any discussion on the motion?
18 (No response . )
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those
07:25PM 20 in favor signify by saying aye .
21 (A chorus of ayes . )
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed?
23 (No response . )
24 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: This part of the
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
21
1 meeting, the public hearing portion, is now
2 closed.
3 (Which were all the
4 proceedings had in the
5 public hearing portion
6 of the meeting . )
7 ---000---
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Depo-Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
22
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS .
2 COUNTY OF LA SALLE )
3 I, Christine M. Vitosh, a Certified
4 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I
5 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
6 hearing of the above-entitled cause and that the
7 foregoing Report of Proceedings, Pages 1 through
8 23, inclusive, is a true, correct, and complete
9 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken at the
10 time and place aforesaid.
11 I further certify that I am neither
12 counsel for nor related to counsel for any of the
13 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way related
14 to any of the parties to this suit, nor am I in
15 any way interested in the outcome thereof .
16 I further certify that my
17 certificate annexed hereto applies to the original
18 transcript and copies thereof, signed and
19 certified under my hand only. I assume no
20 responsibility for the accuracy of any reproduced
21 copies not made under my control or direction .
22
23
24
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
23
1 In testimony whereof, I have
2 hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of November,
3 A. D. , 2011 .
4
5
6 Christine M. Vitosh, CSR
7 CSR No . 084-002883
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
24
19:13 4:15,20:21 20:15
A bedroom M-6:4,6:5 Christine(zl-22:3, CSR[21-23:6,23:7
gaff 111-5:16 23:6 curves[11-9:11
$8.000 111-16:12 A.D I1]-23:3 A belt[1]-19:3 city 111-8:4 cut(21-16:20,18:16
abandoned[2]- better[11-11:13 City R1-3:18,4:23
Q 118:12,18:17,20:1 between Ill-11:24 CITY[11-1:2 p
able(11-19:6 big[11-9:17 Claesson[3] 4:21 +°
Il1-3 above-entitled[11- I block(41-7:3,13:14, 4:22,5:15
0.73 1
0.21 l-5:5 II 22.6 14:19,15:22 CLAESSON[101-
D-951911[t1-1:19
:24
absolutely[1]-17:21 Board I1]-6:15 5:17,5:20,6:9,6:12, damage[1]-14:14
084-002883[11-23:7 accuracy Ill-22:20 daughter(11-19:5
bought131-12:12, 10:21 10:24,17:1, g
acres 12(-3:24,5:5 12:15,12:17 17:12,17:21,18:1 Dawn I1]-3:16
add[31-16:23,17:16, brand Ill-13:7 clarification(1)-6:7 decision Ill-7:7
19:20 brick[11-13:5 dean Ill-9:2 definitely M-6:14,
1[11_22:7 addition[11-6:2 bring[31-9:19,11:12, dose I11-20:13 13:6,13:8,13:12,
12[21-1:14,16:18 additional Ill-11:5 11:17 dosed 111-21:2 16:14.19:5
128 111-17:13 address(1]-6:22 brings R1-8:11,8:12 code Ill-10:4 demolish[11-15:1
1997(1)-7:2 adjacent[21-11:18, build[2]-13:2,152 commends]-10:21, deposit 111-14:13
12:10 building[21-10:5, 10:24,19:19 Development(11
2 affect Ill-12:3 10:6 comments Is]-6:181 2:12
affected(11-18:24 burned(11-9:13 10:20,14:2,19:18 development m-
afford[21-18:13, business(21-10:1, COMMISSION Ili- 7,18,9:7
2000Iz1-12:13,17:3 18:20 10:4 1:5 different[11-13:2
2011(21-1:14,23:3 aforesaid 111-22:10 buy[11-15:1 commission[11-9:20 direction[11-22:21
2011-06111-3:16 afraid Ill-19:13 Commission[41-5:9, directly[s1-6:1,
2011-10111-4:21 ago[11-6:7 C 15:17 11:18,12:10
23 111-22:8 agricultural[11-14:6 community[s1- Director[11-2:13
2nd(11-23:2 allow[21-8:2,13:13 10:14,10:15 disappear(11-14:12
- alone[11-15:10 car 12]-11:3 Community[1l-2:12 discussion 13] 3:6,
3 ALSO[11-2:11 care(4]-8:12,8:17, compare(21-13:1, 4:11,20:17
annexed 111-22:17 8:20,14.13 13:19 District 141-3:21,
answer(1l-20:8 care[sl-8:7,11:5, comparison 3:22,5:2,5:3
308[11-18:9 Par'ieOn[11-
312(11-5:1 15:5 divide[1l-9:17
apartment[21-B:4, 12:22
316 N1-6:20 6:5 case(11-18:5 complete 111-22:8 divided[21-12:16,
apartments[1l-8:9 cedar[11-13:5 condition[1]-7:8 12:18
4 appearance Ill-921 cedar-sided(11-13:5 condominium[1l- dog 111-11:8
application(21-3:17, certainly 121-10:23, 8:19 dogs(11-9:1
4:23 16:23 connecting ill-11:8 done ill-14:14
4[11-3:20 applies Ill-22:17 certificate[11-22:17 consists RI 3:23, door(11-10:8
area(z1-17:9,17:12 certified[11-22:19 5:4 doubt[11-13:11
Art Ill-2:7 Ceftified Ill-22:3 Construction 111- down(121-7:11,8:11,
association(31-8:18, certify m-22.4, 16:23 8:13,8:14,9:10,
8:19 22:11,22:16 continue(41-4:4, 9,13,11:18,12:23,
5[11-3:20 assume[1]-22:19 Chairman ill-2:2 17:20,17:22,19:2 13:7,13:24, 8:7,
50[11-16:13 CHAIRMAN[2e1-3:1, 18:18
attached R]-10:5, continued(11-4:19
60150[11-16:19 10:12 3:6,3:9,3:12,3:14, control 121-14:11, Downers 141. 10:1,
audience Ill-20:12 4:7,4:13,4A6,4:18, 22:21 10:3,10:13,14:24
6 avoid[1l-18:3 5.,14,5:18,6:6.6:10, converted Ill-14:16 downstairs[11-12:17
6:17,6:23,10:19, dozen p1-8:24,16:13
aye(31-3:10,4:14, converts[11-14:9
(11-3:20 9:10,9:11
20:20 10:23,14:1,16:20, copies M-22:18, Drive 141 7:5,7:15,
6
60140 pl-16:19 ayes[31-3:11,4:15, 17:19,17:23,19:17, � 22:21
20:21 19:21,20:11,20:16, corner Ill-12:7 dfire[el-7:7,9:10,
7 20:19,20:22,20:24 correct[11-22:8 12:23
B change(1l-5:21 councilman(11-9:14 driveway m-8:10,
changed[1l-14:5 counsel121-2l-9 9:12,11:1,11:2,
7:00(11-1:15 changes Ill-14:21 1 11:6.13:1,15:5
,
Baker[�1-2:3 Charles(11-2:8 County 121-3:18 4:24
COUNTY(1(-22:2 ddveways 111-8:6
beautiful(s1-7:15, child(1l-17:5 driving[1]-18:18
9 COURT[11-4:10
9:14,10:14,10:15, children[41-7:22, creek(11-11:20 dropped[1l-18:7
i,
14:16,152 16:4,16:7,16:14 duly(11-5:12
M 11]-1:10 become(21-8:3, chorus p1-3:11, Crouch[11-2:4 dump Ill 8:5
f CROUCH(2]-4:6,
Depo-Court Reporting Service` (630) 983-0030
25
Duplex[1l-5:2 fixed Ill-19:10 hereto Ill-22:17 JONES[21-4:8,20:14 -----
duplex p] 7:13,8:3, flea Ill-15:15 hereunto N f
I-23:2 Jones[11-2:5 1- --�
8:17,8:18,9.17, floor Ill-5:18 high Ill-7,23 jumping Ili-20:8
9:20,12:20,14:7, folks Ill-20:5 home pl-5:21,9:14, Main ill-4:1
1 14:9 1 foreclosed ill-18:9 11:22,14:9,15:10, �( maintain ill-9:22
duplexes[20]-7:5, foreclosure 11]-19:16 19:4 market -15:15,
7:9,7:21 8:2,8:6, foreclosures ill-20:7 homeowners[21- 19:11
11.7,14:5.14:15, keep(21-19:2,19:8
foregoing(tl-22:7 16:10,18x3 � Marlys[t]-2:14
14:18,14:20,15:13, Kendall
foresight Ili 20:5 homes[iol-14:4, 121-3:18, matter[21-6:6,7:24
15:22,16:9,16:13, formerll]-9:13 15:2,15:114,15:15, 4:24 mean[e1-9:15,15:8,
16:17,16:19,20:1, four pi-5:23,12:10 16:18,18:8,18:12, kept 111-13:5 15:11,15:14,15:21,
20:2,20:8 Friel Ill-3:16 18:17,18:20,19:24 kitchen[2l-10:9, 16:10,16:20,18:6
dwelling(11-5:22 friends Ill-19:7 honest It]-12:12 12:17 meant 131-12:19,
- - front Ill-13:5 hoping 121-6:15, kitchens[1]-13:8 14:4,14:7
E full(1)-17:12 12:14 knows Ill-19:12 MEETING 111-1:5
future(t1-15:18 house[A-6:3,6:7, Kraupner Ill-2:6 meeting(s1-4:4,4:5,
8:22,9:5,9:13,9:16, KRAUPNER I11-3:4 4:19,21:1.21:6
East[11-4:1 10:11,10:12,11:1, Krystl 111-2:12 mentioned(11-16:1
economy[2
east - [2 5: G 11:2,11:19,12:5, 9 mess[11-9:1
1-8::14, 12:6,12:8,12:15, L p Michael 11]-2:4
14:21 G-A-13-0-11(11-7:1 12:19,12:24,13:4, MITI(21-5:7,7:23
edge -12:7 GABOR 11-6:20,7-1, 13:5,13:9,13:19, 1 mind[11-13:19
education[1]-16:14 LA Ill-22:2
14:3,16:24, 17:10, 14:12,15:8,17:2, Minute 11]-2:14
effectll]-3:3 19:19,19:23 18:3,18:9,18:22, range M-14:23, modem(31.11:15,
either ill-6:13 Gabor 111-7:1 19:2,19:14
14:24
13:8,13:12
empty[21-15:8,18:3 Game Ill-1:10 household(1l-16:6 last 111-16:1 _7:9,7:10
end[tl-15:17 garage pi-10:11, houses law 111-10:7
[x1-11:1, Iowa[1]-10:8 � mortgage[t]-9:18
ends It]-9:12 11:3.11:4 12:24,13:3,18:11 motion[el-3:2,3:7,
enforcement Ill-10:4
entitled Ill-22:6 gentleman l3]-9:24, least Ill-8:23 Ilmit[3]-8:1,15:21, 3:14,4:4,4:11,4:18, i
18:19,19:13 2012,20:17
especially I21-8:13, gentleman's Ili- 16:17
20:9 11:19 limitation Ill-8:15
motorcycles Ill-8:7
everywhere[1l-20:7 Illin[141-7:5,7:15, Lindblom(11-2:2 moved M-3:4,4:6,
grass(2]-18:14, 4:10,20:14,20:16
expand -10:3 19:14 9:10,9:11 LINDBLOM[eel-3:1, moving 0: 4,20
explanation[11-9:16 ILLINOIS p1-1:3, 3:6,3:9,3:12,3:14,
grasses[t1`18:15
gravel Ill-8:7 22:1 4:7,4.13,4.16,4:18, MR(gal-3:4,3:5,4:6,
F Illinois(s)-1:11,3:19, 5:14,5:18,6:6,6:10, 4,8.4:91 5:17,520,
9It1-14:10 6:9,6:12,6:20,7:1,
Grove[41-10:2,10:3, 4:2,4:24,5:7 6:17,6:23,10:19, 10:21,10:24,14:3,
face -18:6 10:13,14:24 Immediately Ili-5:6 10:23,14:1,16:20, 16:24,17:1.17:10,
facility Ill-10:10 g�Ill-20:9 In-law-type(11-10:7 17:19,17:23,19:17, 17:12,17:21,18:1,
Ily in-llaws Ill-10:8 19:21,20:11,20:16,
family 131-5:21, grown M-16:4,19:5 20:19,20:22,20:24'
20:24 19:19,19:23,20:14,
ly Inclusive(1]-22:8
guarantee Ill-15:10 20:15
7:15,11:22,14:6, Income[2]-18:4, Lisle Ill-10:1
14:8,15:14,18:8, g [tl-5:15 18:24 live[41-6:20,7:22, multi Ill-5:21
18:12,18:17,18:19, gutted ill-6:7 Increases[1]-9:5 16:5,16:6
19:24 H Indicating[2l-6:21, lived[41-6:21,8:24, N
Family[41-3:21,5:2, 8;22 17:7,18:23
5:3 Instead Ill-9:7 living[s]-17:2,17:17, name 111-6:24
far(e]-8:1,9:9,9:21 half[31-8:23,17:24, Intent[2l-17:19, 17:18,17:20.17:22 Naperville(11-10:14
12:1 13:13,15:17 18:1 17:22 located I3l-3:24,5:1, near[1]-11:23
Farm[11-1*10 hand(4]-22:19,23:2 IntwWons(11-14:10 5:5 need[21-14:19,19:15
favor l3l-3:9,4:14, hearill-20:11 Interested(11-22:15 look[e1-7:14,10:17, never 11l-15:8
20:20 HEARING[tl-1:6 Invested Ill-19:3 11:15,12:4,13:3, new M-823,9:14,
fenced Ill-11:9 Hearing Ill-20:19 Item(21-3:1,4:20 13:21,14:17,16:12 10:12,13:7,13:8,
fenced-in ill-11:9 hearing pi-3:2,3:15, looking(3]-5:20, 16.22
filed M-3:17,4:22 4:13,4:21,6:19, J 13:6,19:2 next[sl_4:19,4:20,
fire -6:8 20:13,21:1,21:5. looks[zl-8:5,15:14 6:1.10:2,10:8
fireman Ill-9:24 22.6 lord Ill-19:11 nk:erpl-11:14,
first[sl-3:1,7.20, help 1-15:9 Jack I11-2:5 lose Ill-19:3
P[ 13:12,13:22
14:3,14:16,16:2 Henne 111-3:16 James i1]-2:8 nicest ill-13:14
five(21-7:4,12:11 Jane I11-2:9
hereby[11-22:4 night(11-8:8 �
fix Hl-9:4 Jeff Ill-2:3 nine[1]-13:17
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
26
Noble ill-2:12 14:24,16:2,16:3. R 13:6 street pq-7:10,7:16,
nobody[11-20:11 16:5.16,13,18.20 8:3,6:8,11:4,11:6,
none 141-4:13,7:5, people's[11-12:24 S 11:16,12:7.12:11,
20:19 person pl-14:9, R-1[11-3:20 1313,14:19,15:6,
notes(11-22:9 15:6,15:7 R-2 Rl-3:21,5:1 15:8,17:13.18:10
November Rl-4:5, personally(21-7:12, R-21)111-5:2 sale[4-15:13,15:14 Sit[,')-3:20,4:1, i
23:2 15:2 raise Rl-13:8,19:6 SALLE Ell-22:2 5:1,5:6,5:7,6:21,
nowhere[11-11:23 Peter 11l-7:1 real[31-3:23,5:4, school(4l-7:23, 7:3,7:8.7:13,7:23,
petitioner Ill-4:22 16:10 7:24,17:6.19,7 8:5,9:9,9:12,10:16,
Q petitioners ill-3:17 really M-7:24,12:2, schooling[1]-16:7 15:12,15:19,15:20
pets Ill-11:9 12:24 second(sl 3:5,4:7, streets Rl-7:4,12:21
place m-5:11,11:15, reason[11-12:20 4:8,4:9,20:15 strictll]-10:3
Oath[11-5:10 22:10 recession R]-1422, seconded 1-4:11,
20:18 stringent[i]-13:15
obligation(1]-17:8
Placed[11-11:19 18:2 structure Ill-16:10
October 111-1:14 PLAN Ill-1:5 record[11-6:24 security Ill-14:13
OF pl-12,22:1,22:2 see ^ ;-5:22,7:3, stuck 111-163,
old R]-10:11.:19:11 Plan 1s]-7:18,12:15, references[1l-13:17 7:7,8:7,12:2,12:5, suit[2l-22:13,22:14
15:3,17:1,19:1, Manin9121-11:7, supplemental[11-
Olson R]-7:5,7:16 20:6 18:11 12:7,12:10,12:24,
One pl-3:20,3:21, 15:4,15:5 18:4
5:1 Planners[�]-20:5 related 121-22:12, support[11-16:14
Planning ill-15:17 22:13 sell 111-18:7 sworn[,l-5:13
one(111-5:23,6:1, set pl-12:1 13:2,
6:3,6:4,7:3,9:1 B, Planning Rl-8:1, remodeling R1-6:10,
15:7 6:12 23:2 T
10:5,12:10,14:15, plans pl-6:16,12:14 Rent Ill-18:1 setup[1l-10:7
14:18,14:19,15:5, seven Ill-12:11
15:22,17:1,18:10. Plot[11-5:22 rent fe]-7:20,13:15,
Plus(1)-11:4 13:16,15:13,16:2, Shorthand 11l-22:4 Taker 11]-2:14
18:22,19:19 portion p1-17:18, 17:16,17:23 shorthand(21-22:5, tall ill-19:13
ones 141-5:23,12:23, 21:1,21:5 rental(sl-8:23, 22:9 tax ill-16:10
13:22,18:15 prefer(11-9:4 13:14,13:20,17:14, side 141-5:24,6:3, taxes[1ol-7:21 16:3,
opposed pl-3:12, PRESENT R]-2:1, 18:4 6:4,6:5 16:6,16:11.17:3,
4-16.2(Y22 2:11 renters 181-7:9, aided(1l-13:5 VA,17:5,17:8,
option 111-13:21 pretty Ill-7:10 14:11,17:11,17:13, siding[1]-13:7 19:15
original C11-12:13, 18:14,18:15 signed Ill-22:18 ton(2l-16:18,18:23
22:17 problem[11-19:24
proceedings[21- renting ill-17:17 signify pl-3:10, testimony ill-23:1
otherwise[11-19:10 21:4,22:5 repeat R]-5:10 4:14,20:20 THE[il-4:10
outcome Ill-22:15 repeating pl..,16:21, signs 15:12 thereof(2]-22:15,
overnight ill-14:12 Proceedings(11-22:7 17:15,19:22 similar[1]-5:24 22:18
owned 111-9:13 Prochaska i1]-2:7 Report Ell-22:7 single(I2]-5:21 thereupon[11-5:12
owner(1l-9:4 PROCHASKA Ill-3:5 reported Ill-22:5 7:15,11:22,14,6, they've 111-14:14
owners Nl-9:1 Prog ive R]-9:7, Reporter[1]-22:4 14:8,15:14,18:8, thoughts Ill-20:6
ress
20:6 reproduced Ill- 18:12,18:17,18:19, three(s1 -3:19,5:23,
P pronounced Ill-4:22 22:20 19:24 6:4,6:5,11:5,12:10
Properties(41-11:13, requesting Rl-3:19, Will-19:12 three-bedroom R1
11:24,12:1 13:20 4:24 sitting 111-19:14 6:4,6:5
P.M l 22:7 P R
15 six Ml-7:14,12:11, tl [11-14:18
Pages s I1] sl-3:23, requirement[1) 9:21 ny
paid R]-18:4,19:15 5:4,8:11,8:12,8:13, Residence 12l-3:21, 14:20,16:4,16:13, Tom Ill-2:2
parcel(11 5:1 8:21,9:1,9:2,9:23, 3:22,52 16:18 total Ill-3:24
parcels[1l,.3:19 11:12,11:17,11:21, response Isl-3:8, so..Ill-6:5 totally Ell-9:3
Park ill-14.24 11:23,11,24,12:2. 3:13,4:12,4:17, solution(2l-19:23, touching Ill-11:21
parked pl-8:8,15:6 12:5,12:13,13:9, 20:18,20:23 20:3 town Ill-19:16
parking R1-11 A 13:10,1314,13:23, responsibility R]- someone lil-8:16 townhome[11-8:19
part Ill-1214,20:24 17:14,18:6,18:18 8:20,22:20 sorry Rl-4:10,623 townhomes[11-
parties[21-22:13, Pie[1l-10,10 not ill-11:16 south Rl-4:1,5:6 15:23
22:14 PUBLIC 11l-1:6 restrained[11-11:10 speaking(11-18:19 transcript Rl-22:9,
passes RI-3:14,418 public 191-3:2,315, rezoning 12l-3:19, SS I11-22:1 22:18
pay liol-7:21,7:22, *20,6:18,10:20, 4:24 stand[1]-5:10 true -22:8
9:18,18:3,16:6,
14:2,20:13,21:1, Road[21-1:10,4:1 STATE[1]-22:1 mist[1]-19:1
16:12,17:3,17:5 21:5 rob(1l-15:7 stay R]-15:3,15:11 try Ill-18:3
paying M 16:15, Put[s] 6:2,6:3,9:14, Robert Ill-4:21 slaying(11-15:7 Two(11-5:2
17:7,17:10 15:23,19:11 roof Ill-6:3 Steven Ill-3:16 two[q-5:23,11:3,
PC(2]-3:16,421 room Ill-8:10 still 11)-9:11 11:4,1210,16:5
people[el-7:20,8:9, tin pl-7:10,9:1, stop[11-16:5 two-car, -11:3
Depo•Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
_ 27
type Ill-10:7 I y
U
j - yard Ill-11:9
yards ill-13:17
under[21-19:2, year(31-7.10,16:12
22:19,22:21 years Ill-18:23
unit ill-11:5 YORKVILLE[21-1:2,
United(21-3:18,4:23 1:3
UNITED(t1-1:2 Yorkville(141-1:11,
unless 111-10:5 3:18,4:2,4:23,5:7,
up[1t1-8:8,8:23,9:2, 6:22,7:17,8.2,
9:5,914,9:19, 10:15,14:6.15:3'
11:12,13:10,13:23, 15:18,20:4,20:9
19:5,19:11 Yorkv[Ile's[t1 9:6
urban►21-7:18,9:6 young(11-16:3
Young[1)-2:14
V yourself[2) 16:22,
19:22
value m-8:11,9:6, Z --
11'12,13:9,13:10,
15:9 i
values[s1 8:13,919, Zoning[a1-12:19,
11:17,13:23,18:7, 12:20,14:5
18:18
Verne Ill-3:16
Village(11-10:2
village Ill-20:4
villages m-9:22
Vltosh[21-22:3,23:6
vote[1]-10:18
W 1
walks Ill-17:6
Walter(t q-5:1 5:6,
6:20,7:2.7:8,7:13,
8:5,9:9,9:12,10:16,
15:12,15:19,15:20
wants(21 7:18,20:9
WEAVER(11 4:9
Weaver -2:8
Wednesday[t1-1:14
welcome Ill-16:23
whereof[t1-23:1
whole[1l-13:17
Wlnninger(v7-2:9
wish(21-13:20,16:22
wishes[i l-5:9
witnesses Ill-5:12
wondering Ill-15:6
Woodridge[2[-10:1
10:2
Woodridge-Lisle[t]
10:1
world Ill-14:10
Womley Izl-3:20,41
Depo-Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
° Cir y
1
g` ® Memorandum
esr `=`_w;: 7836 To: Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP, Community Development Director
p 4 : Bart Olson City dministrator
t.l �. Y
CC
Date: October 27, 2011
LtE Subject: ZBA 2011-02 - 312 Walter Street
Bulk Variance Requests from R-2D Duplex Two Family District
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING:
The City has received an application for variances from the City's Zoning Ordinance related
to the R-2D Duplex Two Family District. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Zoning
Board of Appeals to be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, at 7:00 pm at the Yorkville Public
Library Meeting Room (902 Game Farm Road).
BACKGROUND/REOUEST:
The petitioner, Robert Claesson, has an existing single-family residential dwelling located at
312 Walter Street proposed for interior renovation after a mid-summer fire, with ultimate conversion
into two (2) rental units. At the October Plan Commission meeting, a recommendation was made in
favor of the petitioner's request for rezoning from R-2 One Family Residence District to R-2D Duplex
Two-Family Residence District. Due to the size of the approximately 0.21-acre residential parcel, the
petitioner is requesting the following relief from certain bulk regulations of the R-21) Duplex Two
Family District.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a lot size less than 15,000 square feet; property currently
has approx. 9,150 sq. feet.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a lot width at the building line less than 100 feet.
• Section 10-6D-3-B to permit a density greater than 4.8 dwelling units per each acre.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
An analysis of the required bulk regulations of Section 10-6D-3-B for the R-21)Duplex Two
Family Residence District in comparison to the requested variances of the existing property are
indicated below:
Current R-2 Zoning Proposed R-2D Requested %Difference Between
Requirements Requirements Variance Proposed R-2D and
Request d Variance
Minimum Lot Size 12,000 sq.ft. 15,000 sq.ft. f 9,147.6 sq.ft. -5,852.4 sq.ft.(-60%)
Minimum Lot Width' 80 ft. 100 ft. t 70 ft. -30 ft.(-30%)
Max Density 3.3 d.u./acre 4.8 d.u./acre2 9.6 d.u./acre +4.8 d.u./acre(+200%)
It is also important to note that the surrounding land uses of existing lots within the vicinity of
the subject property are also duplex residential dwelling units considered legally non-conforming, as
Lot width is measured at the building line.
Density is calculated as the number of dwelling units(d.u.)per acre.In this instance,4.8 d.u.per acre is equivalent to
4.8/43,560=0.00011Old.u.per sq.ft.and 2 d.u.per 9,147.6 sq.ft.is equivalent to 2/9147.6=.0002186 d.u.per sq.ft.
they are currently zoned R-2 One-Family Residence District and do not meet the minimum bulk
requirements for that district:
06 -
- _ Subject Property
002 ,
rr
v eve -
;:r
APPROX.LOT SIZE APPROX.LOT WIDTH DENSITY
906—908 MILL ST. 0.29 AC.(12,632 SQ.FT.) 132 ft. 6.9 d.u./acre
303 WALTER ST. 0.21 AC(9,150 SQ.FT.) 72 ft. 9.6 d.u./acre
305 WALTER ST. 0.22 AC(9,560 SQ.FT.) 73 ft. 9.1 d.u./acre
311 WALTER ST. 0.21 AC(9,150 SQ.FT.) 70 ft. 9.6 d.u./acre
313 WALTER ST. 0.21 AC(9,150 SQ.FT.) 73 ft. 9.6 d.u./acre
1002-1004 MILL ST. 0.25 AC(10,890 SQ.FT.) 131 ft. 8.0 d.u./acre
310 WALTER ST. 0.22 AC(9,560 SQ.FT.) 70 ft. 9.1 d.u./acre
STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE:
The Zoning Board of Appeals must base its decision to vary, or recommend varying, any
regulation of the Zoning Ordinance upon the following standards (Section 10-14-5C):
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the
specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations was
carried out.
2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique to the
property for which the variation is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by
any person presently having an interest in the property.
4. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is
located.
5. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the
danger to the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
ZBA ACTION:
Upon closing the hearing, staff requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals make its findings
for the requested variances based upon each of the standards listed above and testimony/evidence
provided during the public hearing. The purpose of the standards is to help guide you in making your
decision. Municipal Code 10-14-5-D-1-B outlines the following occasions when the Zoning Board of
Appeals may make a final determination:
To permit the use of a lot or lots for a use otherwise prohibited solely because of insufficient area or
widths of the lot or lots but in no event shall the respective area and width of the lot or lots be less
than ninety percent (90%) of the required area and width. The percentage set forth in this subsection
is not to be reduced by any other percentage for minimum lot width and area set forth in this title.
Since the requested lot width and lot size reductions exceed the Zoning Board of Appeals final
determination authority, the ZBA will be making only a recommendation to the City Council
regarding this variance request based upon your findings of fact. Your recommendation may be to
approve the requested variances, recommend approval of the requested variances with condition(s) or
recommend denial of the requested variances.
RAFT
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wednesday,November 2, 2011, 7pm
Yorkville Library Historic Room
902 Game Farm Road
Board Members in Attendance
Jeff Baker, Chairman Mike Skinner
Charlie Walker Don Hirsch
Corey Johnson
Absent: Ryan Woods
Other City Officials In Attendance
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Economic Development Director
Alderman Carlo Colosimo
Alderman George Gilson
Other Guests
Dan Kramer, Attorney Robert Claesson
Peter Gabor Dan Sokolowski
Mike Sokolowski Christine Vitosh, Depo Court Reporter
Meeting Called to Order
Chairman Jeff Baker called the meeting to order at 7:OOpm.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
Previous MeetinV Minutes August 3, 2011
The minutes were approved as read on a motion by Johnson and second by Walker.
Unanimous voice vote approval.
Citizen's Comments None
Public Hearing
1. ZBA 2011-02—Robert Claesson, petitioner, has filed an application with the
United City of Yorkville, requesting variations to (a) Section 10-6D-3-B to
permit a lot size less than 15,000 sq. ft. and width at the building line less
than 100 ft as required for the R-2 Duplex, Two-Family Residence District,
and (b) Section 10-6D-3-B to exceed the permitted maximum density of 4.8
dwelling units per acre as required for the R-2 Duplex, Two-Family
Residence District. The real property consists of a total of approximately
1
0.21 acres located immediately south of Walter Street and east of Mill Street,
Yorkville, Illinois. The property is commonly known as 312 Walter Street.
A motion was made by Skinner and seconded by Johnson to enter into Public Hearing at
7:02pm. Voice vote approval.
Chairman Baker swore in those who would give testimony.
The Public Hearing ended at 7:43pm on a motion by Walker and second by Johnson.
Voice vote approval.
(See Court Reporter's transcript of Public Hearing).
Discussion
Skinner questioned the width of the lot. It is 70 feet, which is 10 feet narrower than
single-family lot requirements. Chairman Baker noted that if the property were to be
sold, it would have to be rezoned. The variance requested is for 1 home with 2 units,
which is different than duplex lots.
The zoning for this property was originally passed in 1997. Chairman Baker noted that
when this area was laid out, the homes were built as duplexes according to the code at
that time. Ms. Barksdale-Noble pointed out that the original zoning did permit duplex
housing under zoning classification R2 and this section of town became legally non-
conforming.
Skinner stated the following. The lot is too small for single family according to the
current standards. He said density is at issue and noted that Elgin,Naperville and Aurora
are paying residents to tarn their homes back into single family. He felt that the Board
would be setting a precedent if they granted the variances. He said he was surprised that
the Plan Commission recommended approval and that he would attend the next Plan
Commission meeting to express his concern.
Chairman Baker then reviewed the Finding of Fact for this petition.
Motion: Board member Walker made a motion to vote on the petition as one issue rather
than 3 separate requests Mr. Skinner seconded this motion
Roll call vote: Hirsch-yes, Johnson-yes, Skinner-yes, Walker-yes, Baker-yes. Passed 5-0
Motion: Mr. Skinner moved to approve ZBA 2011-02 (he read the petition description).
Mr. Hirsch seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Walker said he believed in property rights,but the issue is property
rights and the rights of others. He believed approval of the petition would be spot zoning
and he did not agree with that.
Roll call: Hirsch-no, Johnson-no, Skinner-no, Walker-no, Baker-no. Motion failed 0-5.
2
Chairman Baker noted the City Council has the final authority on this request and they
will meet on December 13th
Additional Business
1. ZBA Meeting Schedule for 2012
This Board will continue to meet on Wednesdays in 2012.
Mr. Skinner thanked Ms. Barksdale-Noble for her hard work on the recent building code
revisions and said the committee was very fortunate to have her expertise.
There was also a very brief discussion of zoning changes in other towns.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:1 Opm on a motion by Walker and second by Johnson.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young
3
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
902 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
7 : 00 p.m.
D-954111
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 2
1 PRESENT:
2 Mr. Jeff Baker, Chairman,
3 Mr. Corey Johnson,
4 Mr. Charles Walker,
5 Mr. Don Hirsch,
6 Mr. Mike Skinner.
7
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 Ms . Krysti Noble, Community Development
10 Director;
11 Ms . Marlys Young, Minute Taker.
12 - - - - -
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 3
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Could I have a motion
2 to go into public hearing, please?
3 MR. SKINNER: So moved.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Do I have a second?
5 MR. JOHNSON: Second.
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Moved and seconded.
7 All those in favor say aye.
8 (A chorus of ayes . )
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Opposed?
10 (No response. )
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right . We are now
12 in a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in
13 this public hearing tonight, I need to swear you
14 in, so if you would now stand, I ' ll swear you in,
15 we can all talk.
16 (The witnesses were
17 thereupon duly sworn. )
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right .
19 Mr. Claesson.
20 MR. CLAESSON: Yes, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Would you like to tell
22 us what you want to do?
23 MR. CLAESSON: Okay. What I am looking
24 to do is add a second story onto my house, which I
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 4
1 have drawn a picture here. This would be the
2 second story, onto this house right here -- Where
3 am I? Find my own house.
4 MS . NOBLE: 312 . Second row.
5 MR. CLAESSON: There you go. You can
6 barely see it. I want to put a second story here
7 and add other living space.
8 I 've actually been to the building
9 commissioner, I 've been to the person in charge of
10 building and zoning, and there is nothing stopping
11 me from putting a second story on there.
12 I am completely within the law and
13 my rights to put extra bedrooms, completely with
14 the law and my rights to put in a kitchen, and
15 it ' s completely within the law for me to rent
16 these rooms out to people, I can have roommates .
17 There is nothing stopping me from doing any of
18 that.
19 I was actually doing that before I
20 had an accident to my house and it caught on fire.
21 I had other people there living with me to help
22 supplement my rent, okay?
23 So what I had to do, though, because
24 it is zoned single family, was pay all of the
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 5
1 utilities myself, and that made it difficult, so
2 what I want to do is split the utilities so I have
3 two separate meters . The only way I can do that
4 is to change my house into multi-family.
5 I can still rent it out, I can still
6 put two kitchens in it, there is nothing stopping
7 me from doing that, into a single family home.
8 I have already talked to the
9 building guy, he said my plans will pass, so I am
10 actually going to do it.
11 I basically want permission to
12 change it to multi-family so that I could have a
13 separate meter for one side, a separate meter for
14 the other side.
15 Where I 'm restricted is I have to --
16 if it ' s not multi-family, I have to live in the
17 house in order to do that, which I 'm willing to do
18 and what I 'm planning to do, but if I can get it
19 switched to multi-family, it will allow me the
20 flexibility in my life to move out if my -- you
21 know, when my daughter grows up or whatever, I can
22 move on or stay there, but it gives me the
23 flexibility to do what I want, to treat the
24 property the way I want to treat it, which is an
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 6
1 income property like the other houses. Many, many
2 of the other houses on our street are already
3 duplexes .
4 I mean, you can see this one here,
5 which has all been built back in the 70s or 60s .
6 This home here is right across the street, it is
7 already a duplex, this house here at the corner is
8 a duplex, this house here is a duplex, this house
9 here is a duplex, this house here is a duplex.
10 The single family homes in the -- on
11 the street already have gone into foreclosure
12 probably due to people not being able to pay their
13 mortgage, which is what I would guess, and that ' s
14 kind of what I 'm trying to avoid having happen to
15 my house.
16 So that ' s the reasoning why I want
17 to change it. I want to have the flexibility to
18 move out of my house if I want to, or, you know,
19 so that I don' t have to stay there, and basically
20 split the utilities off .
21 I have the plans. Anyone wants to
22 see them, they' re right here. They' re drawn up.
23 And that ' s pretty much it.
24 I know that my lot size it shows
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 7
1 doesn' t comply with what Yorkville is requesting,
2 but neither do the other lot sizes that have
3 already been accepted as duplexes, so I really
4 don' t see -- I 'm not -- I 'm not changing the
5 footprint of my house at all .
6 All I 'm doing is going up one story
7 on one section and want to add three bedrooms and
8 a bathroom. Really that ' s the only difference of
9 what I wanted to do before.
10 I had a kitchen in my garage, I had
11 a kitchen in my upper part . I changed my garage
12 into a living quarters, and that ' s what I was
13 living in. I have a bedroom, a kitchen and a
14 dining room in there, two bedrooms downstairs, and
15 I just have a better plan.
16 It will improve the property, it
17 will improve the land around it. It will look
18 nicer than it is now, and with the board' s
19 permission, that ' s what I hope to be able to do,
20 split it off multi-family and have separate --
21 separate utilities. So that ' s it.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right .
23 MR. CLAESSON: Any questions?
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Does the board have any
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 8
1 questions for Mr. Claesson at this time?
2 MR. WALKER: Yeah, I do. What is the
3 total square footage in the house?
4 MR. CLAESSON: Well, right now the
5 square footage, not including the garage --
6 MR. WALKER: As it stands now.
7 MR. SKINNER: Well, the garage is
8 occupied now, correct?
9 MR. CLAESSON: My house had a fire, so
10 right now my house is gutted. Before the fire,
11 the garage had a kitchen, a bedroom and a dining
12 room in it.
13 MR. SKINNER: So you should include that
14 as occupied space.
15 MR. CLAESSON: Correct, which I would --
16 I 'm not -- I 'm saying around 1900 square,
17 approximately.
18 MR. WALKER: Is that with or without the
19 garages?
20 MR. CLAESSON: That ' s with the garages.
21 MR. WALKER: What about without the
22 garages?
23 MR. CLAESSON: Without the garages, 1400
24 square I believe, 1450 , very close to that.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(63 0) 983-0030
Page 9
1 MR. WALKER: Okay. And how much are you
2 adding for the second -- Well, then the first
3 unit --
4 MR. CLAESSON: I 'm not --
5 MR. WALKER: Would you say the first
6 unit is 1400 square foot?
7 MR. CLAESSON: They are 19 by 25 times
8 three, so --
9 MR. WALKER: But that includes the
10 garage.
11 MR. CLAESSON: That ' s not including the
12 garage.
13 MR. WALKER: So the basic unit is 1400
14 square foot?
15 MR. CLAESSON: Yes .
16 MR. WALKER: What will the second unit
17 be?
18 MR. CLAESSON: Approximately another 450
19 square foot .
20 MR. WALKER: So you're adding 450 square
21 foot?
22 MR. CLAESSON: Correct. 28 by 19 .
23 MR. WALKER: And will that be the entire
24 second unit?
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 10
1 MR. CLAESSON: That will be the entire
2 second floor above --
3 MR. WALKER: But that ' s a separate unit.
4 You are making a duplex.
5 MR. CLAESSON: Yes, sir.
6 MR. WALKER: So one unit will have
7 1400 square feet, the other will have 450 .
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: No, no.
9 MR. CLAESSON: No, they' ll be the same.
10 This is what I have now; I 'm going to put an
11 addition above here, so this will be one unit.
12 And then this here is a tri-level . I have three
13 foot buried here. One --
14 They are basically mimicking each
15 other; they' re the same unit, same square footage,
16 just with the wall down the middle.
17 You don' t -- It doesn' t look like
18 the same height because this level is a tri-level
19 and it ' s under the ground level, so I have one
20 level here, if you could like look behind the
21 garage, and another level, one level here and
22 another level .
23 MR. WALKER: So are you saying both
24 units will be 1400 square foot?
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 11
1 MR. CLAESSON: No, sir. No, sir.
2 MR. HIRSCH: No, 925 .
3 MR. CLAESSON: Yeah. Yes . Separate --
4 Beforehand the whole thing together, with this,
5 this and this, was 1400 . I 'm adding about 450 and
6 I 'm splitting it in half, so you' re looking at
7 about -- I haven' t done the exact, but I 'm looking
8 at about 950 apiece. Does that sound about right?
9 MR. WALKER: Okay. So you're saying
10 that both units would be somewhat equal at 950 .
11 MR. CLAESSON: very close to equal, if
12 not identical .
13 MR. WALKER: How many bedrooms would
14 each unit have?
15 MR. CLAESSON: Three.
16 MR. WALKER: Each unit would have three?
17 MR. CLAESSON: Yes, sir.
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: How many baths?
19 MR. CLAESSON: One bath in the right
20 unit, two baths in the left unit . That ' s just
21 because it ' s all --
22 MR. WALKER: And each would have a
23 kitchen you said?
24 MR. CLAESSON: Each would have a
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 12
1 kitchen, yes .
2 MR. WALKER: And to accomplish this, you
3 have to forego the two-car garage?
4 MR. CLAESSON: No, the two-car garage
5 will stay. To do this all I have to do is add the
6 second story to the right half of the house.
7 MR. WALKER: There will be a garage?
8 MR. CLAESSON: There will be a two-car
9 garage, one car for each side, and then I have
10 off-street parking enough to accommodate three
11 cars for each apartment all off the street,
12 because my driveway can accommodate two cars on
13 each side and then the garage can accommodate one
14 car on each side.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Any other questions
16 from board members?
17 MR. WALKER: One other. When I asked
18 about the bedrooms, so basically each unit' s going
19 to be three bedrooms, one and maybe two baths .
20 How about any other living areas?
21 MR. CLAESSON: Living room, dining room.
22 MR. WALKER: And what ' s the size of
23 those going to be?
24 MR. CLAESSON: These are all laid out
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 13
1 here, if you care to look at it.
2 MR. WALKER: I ' ll accept what you tell
3 me.
4 MR. CLAESSON: Let ' s see. I have -- The
5 dining rooms are about 9 by 11 . The kitchens are
6 looking to be approximately 8 by 13, the other one
7 is more like 10 by 13 .
8 The bedrooms are coming out to be
9 about 8 by 11, a master bedroom bigger than that
10 on the one unit, and a master bedroom bigger on
11 the other unit by a few feet .
12 Living area, big living area, you' re
13 looking at about four, 12 , 16 -- 17 by
14 approximately 14 on the one, and the other side is
15 a little bit smaller than that because of the
16 laundry room, and that ' s four -- again, about 15
17 by 14 it looks to be.
18 Dishwasher in each unit, gas range.
19 The one unit has an extra bathroom because it
20 already was there, so the one unit had a bathroom
21 downstairs and a bathroom upstairs . The other one
22 I 'm adding a bath to.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: If there ' s no more
24 questions, I ' ll take questions from the public.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 14
1 None?
2 MR. SKINNER: None.
3 MR. JOHNSON: No.
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Is there anyone in the
5 audience that wishes to discuss this tonight?
6 Please raise your hand. When you stand up, please
7 state your name so that we can have it recorded.
8 Sir.
9 MR. GABOR: My name is Peter Gabor,
10 G-A-B-O-R, and it sounds like based on the
11 gentleman' s statements it ' s a done deal,
12 apparently he talked to everybody who said it ' s
13 going to be approved, so I don' t know why there is
14 a Board of Appeals . Apparently it ' s not a done
15 deal .
16 I hope it ' s not a done deal because
17 I 'm not familiar -- familiar with the six other
18 duplexes that are down the road, six other ones,
19 as far as whether they meet the requirements, but
20 I do know that the gentleman' s asking for a
21 variance to the lot size because his lot is too
22 small, the width of his lot is short by 75 feet
23 and the density requirement is not met .
24 So basically my problem with another
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(63 0) 983-0030
Page 15
1 duplex on the street where I live is that how many
2 is enough.
3 I talked to a realtor from Coldwell
4 Banker and she' s told me that the value of the
5 single family homes on Walter Street will be less
6 because of the appearance of the street, and a lot
7 has to do with the appearance of the duplexes .
8 If you take a drive down Walter
9 Street, you will see some homes, duplexes, for
10 sale, some apartments for rent constantly.
it A majority of the duplexes don' t
12 have blacktop, their gravel is in the street, so
13 it ' s like a big gravel parking lot as you' re
14 driving down the road, Mill Street.
15 I was here at the last meeting and
16 after that I talked to all of my neighbors, and
17 apparently the information that I got was that the
18 gentleman does not live there, has not lived there
19 for years, which is contrary to what was told here
20 last month, and that ' s -- that ' s fine, except tell
21 the truth.
22 My concern is that who' s going to
23 move into those apartments? Is it going to be a
24 sex offender? Is it going to be a drug addict?
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 16
1 Is it going to be a house of ill repute?
2 You put down a thousand dollar
3 deposit for security, trash the house, you
4 disappear, you've got nothing invested.
5 Us homeowners have got hundreds of
6 thousands of dollars invested in our homes, and if
7 Yorkville wants to progress instead of taking care
8 of the special interests of one person, take care
9 of the special -- take care of the interests of
10 the majority.
11 You know, the thing that ' s on the
12 news today, we 're the 99 percent, he' s the one
13 percent, well, that applies to Walter Street. The
14 people who own the single family homes who live
15 there are the majority. The people who own the
16 duplexes who don' t live there, all they want is
17 income so that they can pay their mortgage.
18 I 'd love to rent out two of my rooms
19 because my children are gone and, you know, I
20 could get extra money, but maybe I should ask for
21 a variance and do that, but I talked to my
22 neighbor right next to me on Illini Drive, they --
23 Speaking of cars, do I want to see six cars in one
24 driveway? You see the whole street parked up all
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 17
1 night.
2 One of the cars of my neighbors, the
3 Pape ' s, was vandalized in August, some piece of
4 equipment was taken, and in the back seat somebody
5 either poured a liquid or poured urine on the back
6 seat, and I don' t know -- I 'm not saying the
7 people in the duplexes or the single family homes
8 are the culprits, but let ' s make Walter Street a
9 community of single family homes and let ' s leave
10 the six duplexes, and enough is enough.
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right. Thank you
12 very much for sharing your opinion with us
13 tonight .
14 MR. GABOR: You're welcome .
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Does anyone wish to ask
16 him any questions on anything that he said?
17 (No response . )
18 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good. Would you
19 like to state an opinion tonight? If so, please
20 stand and state your name .
21 MR. SOKOLOWSKI: Hi, my name is Dan
22 Sokolowski, and I 'm here to also comment on the --
23 in essence, first of all, the residency of this
24 gentleman here, and truly, we live -- kind of
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 18
1 share kitty-corner backyards, and I haven' t seen
2 him there full-time. I know he has been there .
3 When we first moved in, there wasn' t
4 a lot of upkeep in the backyard, the dogs were
5 always back there, and to me, it didn' t seem like
6 it was well kept or well maintained.
7 Certainly things are different now,
8 he has a younger daughter, he ' s responsible for
9 her, and I know that is probably why he is doing
10 this, he has a family he is responsible for.
11 However, to Peter' s comment is like
12 I -- you know, tell the truth. It ' s -- You
13 haven' t been there the whole time, so let ' s be
14 honest.
15 The other question I have is --
16 possibly the board can answer this -- we currently
17 have parking restrictions in our area, so there is
18 no street parking for ourselves, so how many cars
19 can a driveway satisfy with how many residents
20 that may actually be licensed drivers with
21 vehicles?
22 How many vehicles does this
23 gentleman own and what will he need to keep in the
24 driveway? I 'm just, you know, stating the obvious
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 19
1 here .
2 So we have issues with parking in
3 our area as it is. I have multiple vehicles and
4 it is difficult for me to park in my short
5 driveway, and I just can' t imagine that being easy
6 to do either having multiple tenants.
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Those are very good
8 questions . As far as the parking goes, I don' t
9 believe there is a sidewalk in front of his house,
10 and I don' t believe we ' ll be requiring one.
11 MS . NOBLE: No.
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Which means he can use
13 it all the way out to the street because he' s not
14 crossing a pedestrian access .
15 MR. SOKOLOWSKI : Okay.
16 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That I do know. As far
17 as the other topics you have brought up, would you
18 like to respond to any of those?
19 MR. CLAESSON: I definitely would. I
20 bought the house in 199 . Me, my wife, her three
21 kids and my one daughter, moved in. I lived there
22 with them until 106 . I went through a divorce .
23 I ' ll admit during the divorce I may
24 have let my yard go a little bit. My life wasn' t
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(63 0) 983-0030
Page 20
1 in perfect order and I may not have mowed my lawn
2 on time. I apologize to you for that.
3 The reason I moved out temporarily
4 was my girlfriend has lymphoma, was going through
5 chemotherapy for about a 12 to 11-month period of
6 time.
7 I rented my portion during that
8 period of time. I moved in with her, took care of
9 her. She went through her chemotherapy and she is
10 now feeling better. After she got back on her
11 feet, I moved back into my house.
12 The only reason it was that duration
13 of time is because I didn' t want to move my
14 daughter from one house to the other house,
15 otherwise I would have been back in less than the
16 amount of time, but since I wanted to keep her and
17 not move her during the school year, I was gone
18 for a year. Not years, but one year. And that
19 was why, because I wanted to take care of her
20 while she was under chemotherapy, and that ' s the
21 truth, and I can give you name and information and
22 everything if you would like to check up on it.
23 As far as the gravel in the street,
24 that ' s not my house. I have a concrete driveway.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 21
1 My house does not apply to the gravel in the
2 street .
3 Not lived there, that ' s my reasoning
4 why I didn' t live there. You know, maybe shame on
5 me, maybe not . I 'm going to take care of my
6 girlfriend when she' s going through chemotherapy.
7 Who will rent it, you know, you've
8 got all these other rental properties . If he' s
9 worried about sex offenders, we ' re next to a
10 school . They will all have to -- you know, they
it all have the restrictions next to the school . If
12 you' re worried about that, you' re going to worry
13 about that with all of those.
14 He says homeowners have hundreds of
15 thousands of dollars invested into their house.
16 So do I . I am a homeowner and I have that amount
17 of money invested in my house, too, so I do have a
18 vested interest in my property, in how it's
19 maintained, how it ' s kept, so I don' t see how that
20 really applies to me .
21 I 'm not 99 percent and I 'm not the
22 one percent because six houses out of 14 are
23 already duplexes . That ' s not really one percent.
24 A three-bedroom apartment, as far as
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 22
1 that goes, I suppose they could have three cars to
2 each one . I 'm looking to rent to a family with
3 some kids, maybe two cars. You know, even if they
4 do have three cars in each, it ' s one in the garage
5 and two in the driveway. That ' s I think perfectly
6 acceptable. It ' s all off of the street . And I
7 actually have space in front of my house that the
8 other duplexes already park there, so my house is
9 accommodating some of the other neighbors already.
10 Let ' s see. As far as Mr. Gabor,
11 he ' s concerned about all these duplexes, but all
12 of these duplexes -- I went down to the County --
13 were already built, standing, and being rented
14 when this gentleman already bought his house.
15 So he knew he was buying a house on
16 a street with rental property. Now that he' s
17 unhappy living there with the rental property, I
18 don' t really see how that pertains to my
19 particular instance, you know. The rental
20 property was there ahead of time before he bought
21 it . If it was a huge issue with him, he at least
22 knew it was there, you know.
23 I touched on Mr. -- Dan ' s, as far
24 as me not keeping my yard, well, you know, that
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 23
1 was for a short period of time. It ' s been kept
2 well now.
3 I do have a daughter, she goes to
4 school right down the street, she walks to that
5 school, and I plan on renting to, you know, other
6 families, not -- I 'm certainly not going to rent
7 to three single men or three single people to come
8 in there and disturb the neighborhood. That ' s not
9 going to be from me .
10 I guess I touched on everyone ' s
11 topics . The driveway, like I said, you' re worried
12 about all the cars . On my property, it can
13 accommodate six cars, so why can' t I park six cars
14 on my property? I mean, it ' s my property, it ' s my
15 driveway. It can accept all of it.
16 MR. SOKOLOWSKI : Not saying you can' t, I
17 just asked. That ' s all .
18 MR. CLAESSON: So, I mean, it ' s the
19 other duplexes that have on the street parking,
20 not what I want to do to mine, so I don' t really
21 see all of these issues pertaining to me. Seems
22 like some of these issues are just pertaining to
23 the circumstances and where they live and the
24 situation he lives in.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 24
1 He ' s right, there are a lot of
2 duplexes on that street already. That' s why I
3 don' t think it ' s a big stretch for mine.
4 And my house is a home -- If you
5 were to look at it from the outside when I get
6 done with my addition, it still looks like a home,
7 it doesn' t look like a duplex.
8 I showed you the front picture of
9 it . It still looks like a single family home, it
10 just looks like a bigger single family home. It
11 doesn' t look like any of those other duplexes .
12 So as far as the rental of the
13 property value going down, if I was building one
14 of these half-roofed duplexes like that, I could
15 see it going down.
16 And I think Mr. Gabor is upset, he
17 lives over here directly by two of these, of the
18 less attractive looking duplexes, and one of these
19 backs up directly to his property, and he stated
20 the other day he was unhappy with the pets going
21 in his yard and this and that, but here again, all
22 due respect, that' s not my property, that' s this
23 other gentleman' s property, and that ' s not my dog,
24 that ' s their dog, and my house is not even
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 25
1 visible.
2 If he steps out his front door, he
3 cannot even see my house . Can' t even see it. So
4 is it going to affect his view? Is it going to
5 affect the street like the other ones? I don' t
6 think so. I think it will make my house look
7 bigger, nicer and add value.
8 I think if you just say just the
9 rental property, yeah, it might decrease, but as
10 you can see from the drawings, you would never
11 know that ' s a duplex. You would never know it
12 from the street. I mean, you really wouldn't .
13 And there ' s no way to tell . It looks just like --
14 just like a regular family home.
15 This is -- this is what I look to
16 build. What I already have there is this very,
17 very roof . This roof slid down. That' s what my
18 house looks like right now.
19 I have two levels, and that' s what
20 it ' s going to look like afterwards. Just one
21 extra story accommodating some more living space .
22 I 'm in construction, you know, I got hit by the
23 recession really hard, and my mortgage is really
24 trumping me now, so I have to rent out part of my
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 26
1 house to keep from losing my house. I 've been
2 paying on it for 13 years . I don't --
3 MR. SKINNER: Excuse me . Point of
4 order, Mr. Chairman. He should be addressing the
5 board, not other members in the audience.
6 MR. CLAESSON: Oh, I 'm sorry.
7 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good. Point of
8 order taken.
9 MR. CLAESSON: I just wanted them to see
10 what I was doing.
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I understand, and all I
12 want is everyone to get along and be happy, so
13 that ' s why I let things slide.
14 MR. CLAESSON: Oh, I 'm sorry. I didn' t
15 understand I was doing something wrong.
16 MR. SOKOLOWSKI : Does the tax basis
17 change at all from a single family home to a
18 duplex?
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: No, it ' s not really
20 going to change at all .
21 MR. SKINNER: Yes, they do.
22 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Not really.
23 MR. SKINNER: I 'm a duplex owner.
24 MR. JOHNSON: How is it --
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(63 0) 983-0030
Page 27
1 MR. SKINNER: Well, when it was zoned as
2 one piece of property on one tax bill, my tax bill
3 was $7 , 000 . When I split it into two separate
4 dwelling units, two separate owners, it went
5 immediately to $8 , 000 , $4, 000 per side.
6 Subsequently each side has gone up.
7 MR. JOHNSON: I have a duplex and I own
8 the whole thing and it hasn' t done any of that. I
9 mean --
10 MR. SKINNER: But you own both sides,
11 right?
12 MR. JOHNSON: Right .
13 MR. SKINNER: When I split mine into two
14 tax bills is when it split.
15 MS. NOBLE: Your unit will be a rental,
16 so you will be the only owner, one parcel.
17 MR. CLAESSON: Absolutely. Well, my
18 taxes just went up 40 percent this year, so it ' s
19 not like I 'm not paying taxes, I certainly am, you
20 know.
21 CHAIRMAN BAKER: So yours won' t be
22 affected, where yours will because you sold it
23 off, both halves --
24 MS . NOBLE: His won't be affected.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc .
(630) 983-0030
Page 28
1 MR. SKINNER: I sold half.
2 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right . But no, that ' s
3 still a single family home and it ' s not going to
4 be --
5 MR. SKINNER: His is -- He can sell half
6 of his .
7 MS . NOBLE: He would have to split the
8 lot.
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: No.
10 MS . NOBLE: His house, his lot, would
11 not be able to be split unless he comes in for
12 another variance.
13 MR. CLAESSON: No.
14 MR. SKINNER: Exactly, that' s --
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right. Well, yeah, he
16 would need another variance to do so.
17 MR. SKINNER: Exactly. Well, it could
18 be split. It would be almost a condominium.
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yeah, but he would have
20 to come back before us to do that.
21 MR. SKINNER: Whatever, but yes, he
22 could.
23 MR. CLAESSON: Apologize for not
24 addressing the board earlier.
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 29
1 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That ' s quite all right.
2 Yes, sir.
3 MR. GABOR: So your property went from a
4 single family to a duplex and your taxes went up?
5 MR. SKINNER: No, no. My property -- I
6 built a duplex.
7 MR. GABOR: Okay. And your taxes went
8 up a thousand dollars?
9 MR. SKINNER: When it was one -- one tax
10 bill --
11 MR. GABOR: Right .
12 MR. SKINNER: -- I owned half and rented
13 half . When I sold half, I had to split the tax
14 bill . Then at that time I had to have two tax
15 bills .
16 I went from 3500 per side, 7, 000
17 total actually, but one tax bill, so it was --
18 they still pay taxes, they paid it in rent . When
19 I sold half, the new owner then and mine went from
20 3500 to $4, 000 .
21 MR. GABOR: Okay. The assessor who
22 evaluates the value of single family homes,
23 duplexes, has certain things to go by, the square
24 footage, what ' s usable, what ' s not usable, and the
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 30
1 equation does not take into consideration that if
2 it ' s a duplex and it has a family of four, two
3 kids, family of five, three kids in each, that ' s
4 six more kids going to school, all the school
5 budget is financed by real estate taxes, so right
6 now the value of my property because of the
7 economy has gone down, the real estate taxes have
8 not .
9 Someone ' s going to have to pay for
10 the lunches for those kids, someone ' s tax money is
11 going to have to pay for the arts, the activities,
12 and I am not against education, I have a college
13 degree, both my children have a college degree, my
14 wife is a teacher. What I 'm saying is there ' s no
15 way to know who is going to rent that apartment .
16 You may think of the ideal I 'm going
17 to rent only to a married couple, no single men,
18 no single girls, no wild parties, but that' s a --
19 that ' s a pipe dream.
20 The reality is it' s quite possible
21 each apartment is going to be cluttered with ten
22 people, six kids, and all I 'm -- I 'm not against
23 the duplex, and I knew the duplexes were there
24 when I purchased my house, and I purchased my
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 31
1 house.
2 All I 'm saying is the village of
3 Yorkville should have some kind of a guideline as
4 to how you plan the streets by -- the street Dan
5 lives on is all single family. It ' s beautiful .
6 Walter Street is quite -- it ' s like day and night.
7 Just planning for the future, I have
8 no problem with the duplexes that are there. I
9 don' t think Walter Street needs any more. It ' s
10 that simple . Because not only does Walter Street,
11 but when you go on Mill Street, all those homes
12 are duplexes .
13 Is Yorkville going to be just -- I
14 mean, everybody -- maybe I should get my home into
15 a duplex. I 've got three acres, and one side can
16 have an acre and a half, one can have an acre and
17 a half, and I can live in one and -- you know, is
18 that what Yorkville wants, everybody who is
19 entitled to having a duplex do it? I don't think
20 so.
21 It should be a single family
22 community with planning for duplexes, townhomes,
23 condominiums, apartments, but it ' s got to be
24 planned, not random where we already have six, and
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 32
1 I don' t think I 'm out of line in saying six is
2 enough.
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you for your
4 comments tonight. If anyone has any new
5 information to speak of, I will listen to it.
6 Otherwise I have a letter from Russell and Lisa
7 Pope -- Pap?
8 MR. GABOR: Pape .
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Pape, excuse me . I 'm
10 sorry. They are at 320 Illini Drive, and it ' s to
11 the City Clerk.
12 The letter states: We are unable to
13 attend the public hearing for the board -- for the
14 appeal, but would like to share our comments and
15 concerns .
16 The lot in question resides on
17 Walter Street. While there are already duplex
18 units on Walter Street, those units were designed
19 and built as duplexes on lots that were sized for
20 duplexes .
21 The lot in question currently
22 contains a single family unit, but for the last
23 couple of years, that single family unit has been
24 converted into two separate unit dwellings by
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 33
1 transitioning a garage space into a living area.
2 I would like to recommend not
3 approving this appeal on the following concerns:
4 Number one, the lot size is not significant to
5 hold a duplex unit and the zoning should not be
6 changed to get around that . It is barely able to
7 hold a small single family house right now;
8 Number two, there is no way we
9 should -- and "no way" is capitalized -- we should
10 allow the density to be increased because of
11 garage space -- garage space would be gone, all
12 the vehicles would have to park outside, and the
13 driveway is shortened and can barely hold four
14 vehicles ;
15 Number three, the owner, to our
16 knowledge, has not been living there for the past
17 couple of years, but was renting it out to several
18 tenants, operating it as a duplex rental unit
19 already.
20 I have met and talked to the owner,
21 he is a nice man, I have no personal grievance
22 against him; however, I do not see that allowing
23 this duplex appeal would improve the neighborhood
24 at all . In fact, could further reduce the value
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 34
1 of units in the immediate area, including my home.
2 Walter Street supports duplex
3 housing units, but within the bounds of zoning,
4 and was set up for a good reason in the past.
5 There is no reason to make an exception for the
6 zoning in this case.
7 The house was designed as a single
8 family house and should not be converted, nor does
9 the lot size support the duplex living
10 arrangement . Sincerely, Russell and Lisa.
11 I 'd like to put that into evidence
12 or whatever.
13 MS . NOBLE: Record.
14 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Record. All right. I
15 would like to thank everyone for their opinions
16 tonight.
17 MR. WALKER: I have a question. Can I
18 do that?
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: If you want to do it in
20 the public hearing, I will accept it, yes.
21 MR. WALKER: All right. As long as I
22 can discuss that with the board, I don't care
23 whether it ' s public or not.
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I don' t care, that ' s
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 35
1 f ine .
2 MR. WALKER: The question which I asked,
3 the existing duplexes on Walter Street, they're
4 non-conforming; is that correct?
5 MS . NOBLE: For --
6 CHAIRMAN BAKER: No, that ' s not correct .
7 MS . NOBLE: Are you asking me?
8 MR. WALKER: Yes .
9 MS. NOBLE: There are two standards,
10 yes . On Page 2 of the memo, it lists all of the
11 units on Mill and Walter Street, showing that
12 most, if not all, are not in conformance with the
13 current R2 zoning.
14 MR. WALKER: But does that mean with the
15 status of non-conforming that the zoning was
16 passed after those homes had already been
17 constructed?
18 MR. JOHNSON: Yes .
19 MS . NOBLE: Yes .
20 MR. WALKER: All right. And what we ' re
21 asking for here now is a variance, which is
22 different from a non-conforming status .
23 MS. NOBLE: Correct .
24 MR. WALKER: If it was a non-conforming
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 36
1 status, if these homeowners or property owners
2 would make major improvements, then they would
3 have to seek variances; is that correct?
4 MS . NOBLE: Correct.
5 MR. WALKER: Okay.
6 MS . NOBLE: Or bring the property into
7 compliance. Yes.
8 MR. WALKER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good.
10 MS. NOBLE: May I add something?
11 CHAIRMAN BAKER: You may certainly add
12 anything you like, just let me know.
13 MS. NOBLE: Thank you. I would like to
14 give a little history on the hearing. Last month,
15 as the gentleman mentioned, this project was up
16 before the Plan Commission for the zoning. Right
17 now it is zoned R2 , which are all the properties
18 on Mill and Walter Street .
19 The rezoning was recommended for
20 approval 5 to 2, and now we ' re here with the
21 actual variances that are requested.
22 On Page 2 of your memo, it lists
23 each of the properties on Walter and Mill Street,
24 those that are duplexes, and it shows the lot
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
. (630) 983-0030
Page 37
1 size, the approximate lot width, and the density.
2 If you notice, each of those
3 properties, I believe there are seven, do not meet
4 their current R2, as well as this property does
5 not meet its current R2 zoning requirements for
6 both.
7 Lot sizes for most are less than the
8 15 , 000 square feet that ' s required. Lot sizes --
9 the lot width are -- pretty much most of them are
10 less than the hundred feet that are required, and
11 the density is greater.
12 So this property is in line with the
13 character and density that already exists within
14 the actual prop -- the actual fabric of the
15 neighborhood already, and that ' s something that
16 should be considered when the Zoning Board of
17 Appeals considers the variance. And you have your
18 standards listed.
19 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good. Thank you
20 for that. Now, if there are no more discussions
21 with the board, I wish to have a motion to close
22 the hearing.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Jeff?
24 CHAIRMAN BAKER: I 'm sorry. Yes,
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 38
1 George .
2 ALDERMAN GILSON: Just a quick question.
3 Krysti, does that mean that any of them have lot
4 sizes this small, though?
5 MS. NOBLE: Yes, they do. Yes, they do.
6 This lot size -- the question -- The property in
7 question is about 9100 square feet and, let ' s see,
8 you have 303 Walter Street, which is 9150; 305,
9 9500 ; 311, 9100 ; 313 , 9150 ; and 310, which is
10 9500 square feet.
11 ALDERMAN GILSON: So a total of what?
12 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Four.
13 MS. NOBLE: There is one, two, three,
14 four, five.
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Five. I 'm sorry.
16 MS. NOBLE: Five, not including your
17 property.
18 MR. CLAESSON: The width -- the
19 requirement is a hundred feet?
20 MS. NOBLE: The width for R2 is 80, and
21 the width that you' re going for is 100, for the
22 R2D, and out of 80 -- with a requirement of
23 80 square feet in the current R2 zoning, only two
24 meet that requirement, and those are the two
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc .
(630) 983-0030
Page 39
1 corner lots which are on Mill Street . The others
2 are about averaging the same width as yours, about
3 70, 75 feet, linear feet .
4 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right . Is it new
5 information or repeating old?
6 MR. GABOR: Question. What is the
7 current requirement for a duplex size-wise that --
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Lot size?
9 MR. GABOR: Yes .
10 CHAIRMAN BAKER: 15 , 000 square feet.
11 MR. GABOR: Okay. So if he' s -- The
12 existing duplexes are basically -- they' re
13 grandfathered in?
14 MS . NOBLE: Correct . They are legally
15 non-conforming, yes.
16 MR. GABOR: And anyone building a new
17 one that ' s not grandfathered in would have to go
18 by the current?
19 MS . NOBLE: Correct.
20 CHAIRMAN BAKER: That is correct.
21 MR. GABOR: So that ' s where he falls
22 short.
23 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good. Does anyone
24 have anything else they wish to speak in the
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 40
1 public hearing?
2 (No response. )
3 CHAIRMAN BAKER: If not, I ' ll entertain
4 a motion to close the public hearing.
5 MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
6 MR. WALKER: Motion to close the public
7 hearing.
8 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Second?
9 MR. JOHNSON: Second.
10 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Very good. All those
11 in favor?
12 (A chorus of ayes . )
13 CHAIRMAN BAKER: Opposed?
14 (No response. )
15 CHAIRMAN BAKER: All right . Very good.
16 Thank you all for coming tonight.
17 (Which were all the
18 proceedings had in the
19 public hearing portion
20 of the meeting. )
21 ---000---
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc .
(630) 983-0030
Page 41
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS .
2 COUNTY OF LA SALLE )
3 I, Christine M. Vitosh, a Certified
4 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I
5 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
6 hearing of the above-entitled cause and that the
7 foregoing Report of Proceedings, Pages 1 through
8 42 , inclusive, is a true, correct, and complete
9 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken at the
10 time and place aforesaid.
11 I further certify that I am neither
12 counsel for nor related to counsel for any of the
13 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way related
14 to any of the parties to this suit, nor am I in
15 any way interested in the outcome thereof.
16 I further certify that my
17 certificate annexed hereto applies to the original
18 transcript and copies thereof, signed and
19 certified under my hand only. I assume no
20 responsibility for the accuracy of any reproduced
21 copies not made under my control or direction.
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
Page 42
1 In testimony whereof, I have
2 hereunto set my hand this 14th day of November,
3 A.D. , 2011 .
4
5
6 Christine M. Vitosh, CSR
7 CSR No. 084-002883
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service, Inc.
(630) 983-0030
c''f 43
- United City of Yorkville
## 800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
' <<E Fax: 630-553-3436
PC#
APPLICATION& PETITION
ANNEXATION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,ZONING OR SPECIAL USE REQUEST
Development Name: G-C1'�.� Ord �'1'
p _ _Date of Submission: �= -
Requesting: p Annexation Zoning 0 Planned Unit Development
0 Special Use: /1 /
1. Name of Petitioner(s): _ l?t0 / (V (�l 2-5
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
Relationship of Petitioner(s)to subject property:
#t)wner d Developer 0 Contract Purchaser
2. Name of holder of legal title,if different from#1: 62k;to C. AlG r C
If legal title is held in a Land Trust, list the names of all holders of any beneficial interest
therein:
3. a). (i).7Street address and physical location of subject property: _
(ii). Zoning of surro nding parcels:
North: ��,
South:
East:
West:
b). Legal description of property;attach as Exhibit"A°. LT q Eve-zwvu) 3rd pct.., c,'+y 01- -,/.,4
c). Total Acreage: , �;L-�? L/
d). Kendall County Parcel Number(s)of property: 02 '32 - .�.� 7 '00 G
e). Current Zoning Classification:
f). Zoning Classification Requested:
g). Is this property within City limits? ,Yes No, requesting annexation
United City of Yorkville Annexation,PUD,Zoning,Special Use Application Revised: 1.29.09
44
4. Names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners and landowners within 500'
entitled to notice of petition under any applicable City ordinance or State Statute:
Attach a separate list and label as Exhibit"B".
5. List all governmental entities or agencies required to receive notice under Illinois law:
6. List the Illinois Business Tax Number(IBT#)for the State of Illinois and names of businesses
located on subject property to be annexed: 6
7. Does a flood plain exist on the subject property? n D
8. Do Electors reside on the subject property? (/2
If so, they must execute this petition to annex. (Electors as defined by Illinois Law is a
resident of the parcel who is a registered voter, Legal owners of the annexing parcel must
sign the petition regardless of place of residence or legal voting status.)
9. Contact Information: Name, address,phone number, fax number, and email address of person to
d: b2��' �f�essan
Attorney: Name:
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
Engineer: Name:
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
Land Planner: Name:
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
United City of Yorkville Annexation,PUD,Zoning,Special Use Application Revised: 1.29.09
45
10. Submit the following to the Community Development Department in order to be scheduled for the
necessary committee meetings. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of your project.
a. Original application with legal description plus 35 copies.
b. Appropriate filing fee(Please refer to page 4 of this application to"Petitioner Route, Step 1,
Fees"and/or contact the Community Development Department for verification of this amount.)
c. Concept or Preliminary Site Plan:35 sets folded to fit in a 10"x 13"envelope.
d. One CD containing one electronic copy(pdf)of each of the signed application
(complete with exhibits) legal description, and site plan.
In witness whereof the following petitioner(s)have submitted this application under oath and verify that to
the best of their knowledge its contents are true and correct and swear that the property to be annexed is
contiguous to the United City of Yorkville,
Date:
Petitioner(s)Signature: (All legal property owners_signatures must appear on this application.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 _._.�day of 209-/eie /
,4,
tary Sea�ICIAL SEAL
PAMELA B OLSEM r
NOTE'PUBUC-STATE OF ILUZU1 PPLICATION MUST BE NOTARIZED.
M1'COMM WON EVIRES:11119111
United City of Yorkville Annexation,PUD,Zoning,Special Use Application Revised: 1.29.09
46
ANNEXATION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,ZONING OR SPECIAL USE REQUEST
PETITIONER ROUTE
Step 1: Petitioner must submit a completed application,fees'and all pertinent materials to the
Community Development Department a minimum of 45 days prior to the targeted Plan Commission
meeting. Petitioner is responsible for making submittals to other review agencies such as Kendall
County, Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers,etc., to allow timely review by City.
'Fees: a. Annexation or Annexation and Rezoning -$250 plus$10 per acre for each acre
over 5 acres
b. Rezoning only- 20 lus$10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres
c. Special Use-$250 plus$10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres
d. Engineering Review Fees- 1.25% of the approved engineer's estimate of cost
of all land improvements,to be determined by City Engineer.
e. Planned Unit Development fee-$500
f. Engineering Review Deposit-up to 1 acre=$1,000;
over 1 acre but not over 10 =$2,500
over 10 acres,but not over 40=$5,000
over 40 acres,but not over 100=$10,000
over 100 acres=$20,000
g. Deposit for Outside Consultants-under 2 acres=$1&OQ(L
2 to 10 acres= $2,500
over 10 acres=$5,000
Note: Owner/Developer will be responsible for payment of recording fees and
costs,public hearing costs including a written transcription of public
hearing and outside consultant costs(i.e.legal review, land planner,
zoning coordinator, environmental, etc.). Should Owner/Developer not
pay these fees directly, they will be responsible for reimbursing the United
City of Yorkville for the aforementioned fees and costs.
Note: You must present your plan at each of the meetings below as indicated.
Step 2: Plan Council: The Plan Council meets the 2nd and 41'Thursday of the month at 9:00 a.m.in the
city conference Room. Upon recommendation by the Plan Council, you will move forward to the Plan
Commission Meeting. Attendees to this meeting include: Community Development Director, City
Engineer,Zoning Official, Public Works Director, Director of Parks and Recreation, Fire Department
Representative, and Police Department representative.
Step 3: Park Board planning meeting: The Park Board makes recommendations on any park sites
included in residential developments. The Park Board planning meeting is the 4th Thursday of each
month at 7:00 p.m. at the Parks and Recreation Office at 201 W. Hydraulic Street.
Step 4: Plan Commission: The Plan Commission meets the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 7:00
p.m, in the Yorkville public library at 902 Game Farm Road. The Plan Commission will make a
recommendation for the City Council's consideration. The Plan Commission consists of 10 members
appointed by the Mayor.
A public hearing will be held at this time for the Annexation Agreement and/or Rezoning request
or Special Use request. Notice will be given by publication by the United City of Yorkville in the
Kendall County Record and certified mail by the petitioner to adjacent property owners within
500 ft.of the subject property no less than fifteen days and no more than 30 days prior to the
public hearing date. A certified affidavit must be filed by the petitioner with the Community
Development Department's office containing the names, addresses and permanent parcel
numbers of all property owners.
United City of Yorkvillc Annexation,PUD,Zoning,Special Use Application Revised; 129.09
47
Step 5- Economic Development Committee: The Economic Development Committee meets the 1st
Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m, in the Conference Room at City Hall. The project will be discussed in
an informal atmosphere where no formal voting takes place. This session is to discuss and consider
recommendations of prior committee meetings.
Step 6: City Council: A public hearing is required for annexation or PUD agreements. The City
Council meets the 2°or 4'h Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
A public hearing will be held at this time for the Annexation Agreement and/or Planned Unit
Development Agreement. Notice will be given by publication by the United City of Yorkville in the
Kendall County Record. A certified mailing to surrounding landowners is not required for this
public hearing. Any annexation agreement, PUD agreement or development agreement must be
signed by the Petitioner prior to being voted on by the City Council.
Agreement:
I understand and accept all requirements,fees as outlined as well as any incurred Administrative and
Planning Consultant Fees which must be current before this project can proceed to the next scheduled
committee meeting.
Please sign and return this original(retaining a copy for your records)to the Community Development
Department, United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Farm Road,Yorkvill ois 60560
Date: —�- = Lt _ -1
Signature of Petitioner
United City of Yorkville Annexation,PUD,Zoning,Special Use Application Revised: 1,29.09
I 39
�40,D C,r`� United City of Yorkville
I 6j �` 800 Game Farm Road
I'A" I`--_- ' Yorkville, Illinois 60560
o� i®i� o„� TeleRhone: 630-553-4350
CFax: 630-553-3436
<LE ��•
ZBA# a4911-
APPLICATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
Date of Submission: 8-29-11
1. Name of Petitioner(s): Robert Claesson
Address: 312 Walter Street, Yorkville, IL 60560
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
2. Name of holder of legal title, if different from#1: GMAC Mortgage
If legal title is held in a land trust,list the names of all holders of any beneficial interest
therein:
4. a. Street address and physical location of subject property: 312 Walter Street
Yorkville, IL 60560
b. Proposed name of subdivision (if any):
c. Legal description of property for which zoning variance is sought: IT 9 Edgewood
3rd Addition City of Yorkville
(If more space is needed, attach as "Exhibit A".)
d. Kendall County Parcel Number(s)of property for which variance is sought:
02-33-354-006
l United City of Yorkville Variance Request Application Revised: 1.29.09
I 40
5. Names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners and property owners within
500 feet of subject parcel for which variance is requested entitled to notice of petition under
any applicable City ordinance or State Statute: (Attach a separate list as "Exhibit B".)
b. State the variance requested and the City ordinance including the section numbers to be
varied: Variances to Secllon 10-60-3.8 of the Yorkville City Code.
7. Name, address,phone number, fax number, and email address of person to whom inquiries
regarding th' ehtmn m2v hp,rliri-i-tpri,
Robert Claesson W 1.
Attorney: Name:
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Email Address:
8. Submit application with a filing fee in the amount of$85.00.
Note: Owner/Developer will be responsible for payment of$500 deposit for
consultants(i.e. legal review, land planner, zoning coordinator,
environmental,etc.), In addition, owner/developer will be responsible
for payment of recording fees and costs,public hearing costs including a
written transcription of public hearing. Should owner/developer not pay
these fees directly,they will be responsible for reimbursing the United
City of Yorkville for the aforementioned fees and costs.
9. Submit 35 copies of each of the application,proposed drawings,location map, site plan, and
any other pertinent materials, and one CD containing electronic copies(pdf)of each of the
application(complete with exhibits), drawings,map, and site plan to the Community
Development Department. Large items must be folded to fit in a 10"x 13" envelope.
United City of Yorkville Variance Request Application Revised: 1.214.09
41
In witness whereof the following petitioner(s)have submitted this application under oath and
verify that to the best of their knowledge its contents are true and correct:
Petitioner(s) or lega property owner's signature must appear on this application.
Subscribed and sworn before me this ' day of GEC 7•
r r !r 'A
OFFICIAL SEAL
�f Notary Public
AWREA M WEWW
NOTARY PUBLIC-STAIE OF
Rot' •IMM4
Notary Stamp
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE NOTARIZED.
United City of Yorkville Variance Request Application Revised: ILL1.Uy
42
VARIANCE REQUEST
PETITIONER ROUTE
Step 1: Petitioner must submit a completed application, fees and all pertinent materials to the
Community Development Department. Upon receipt the variance request will be
forwarded to the Zoning Coordinator for review and to coordinate setting a meeting date
for the public hearing in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Note: You must present your request at each of the meetings below as indicated.
Step 2: Zoning Board of Appeals: The Zoning Board of Appeals meets on an as needed basis,
the 1 st Wednesday of the month at 7 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. The Zoning
Board of Appeals will make its recommendation to the City Council in writing within
30 days of the public hearing. The Zoning Board of Appeals consists of 7 members
appointed by the Mayor.
A public hearing will be held at this time for the variance request. Notice will be
by the United City of Yorkville in the Kendall County Record and certified mail by
the petitioner to adjacent property owners within 500 ft.of the subject property no less
than fifteen days and no more than 30 days prior to the public hearing date. Prior to
the public hearing, a certified affidavit must be filed by the petitioner with the
Community Development Department containing the names, addresses and permanent
parcel numbers of all parties that were notified.
Step 3: City Council: The City Council meets the 2"d and 4`h fourth Tuesdays of the month at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. This session considers recommendations
of the Zoning Official and Zoning Board of Appeals. This is where all City Council
voting takes place.
Agreement:
I understand and accept all requirements, fees as outlined as well as any incurred administrative
and planning consultant fees which must be current before this project can proceed to the next
scheduled conunittee meeting.
Please sign and return this original (retaining a copy for your records) to the Community
Development Department, United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Road,Yorkville, Illinois
60560.
Date:
United City of Yorkville Variance Request Application Revised: 1.29.0Y