Plan Commission Minutes 1991 06-19-91 y
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF
THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM
JUNE 19, 1991 7:00 P.M.
The June meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Harold
Feltz with the following members in attendance:
Harold Feltz, Clarence Holdiman, Larry Langland, Gail Digate,
Tom Lindbloom, Anne Lucietto, Robert Davidson
Absent: George Stewart, Don Ament, Sandra Adams, Kevin Collman,
Louis Nauman
Others present: Alderman Gary Bown, James Claridge, Attorney Tom Grant,
and interested parties as listed on the sign-in sheet
on file with the minutes.
The minutes of the May meeting were presented for approval; Larry Langland
moved to approve and Gail Digate seconded.
The first item on the agenda was the Public Hearing which Chairman Feltz opened
with the swearing in of those present who wished to be heard.
PETITION BY TOM SCHIFFLEGER & HENRY FUNK DBA/YORKVILLE VENTURE, TO ANNEX &
REZONE TO R-3 GENERAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT, LOTS 9 & 10 OF UNIT ONE, COUNTRYSIDE
SUBDIVISION
It was stated that the Public Hearing would include all lots involved-- lots
9, 10, 11, 12, & 16 of Countryside Subdivision.
Tom Schiffleger presented the facts on his petition. The development was planned
as 4-unit townhouses per lot & would be of two types; ranch style (850 sq. ft. )
with a 2-car garage, 2-story (1350 sq.ft. ) with single car garage. Prices would
range from the high 70's to the mid 90's. Lot sizes are as follows: 9-10-11
are 100 x 150, lot 12 is 130 x 150, lot 16 is 172 x 100.
Questions from the audience included:
Would the townhouses be owned or rented? Who would be responsible for
any necessary maintenance and how would it be handled?
How many entrances would there be on Game Farm Road? Mr. Schiffleger
said 16.
There was concern for what the buildings would look like. It is planned
to keep existing trees and probably plant more.
There was opposition to the number of units being planned and the number
of new entrances onto Game Farm Road.
Parking problems were discussed, the status of low cost housing, and the
potential for these units to turn into rental units in the future.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1991 PAGE 2
Opposition to the development was summarized as follows:
Property value decline, congestion, aesthetic value, inappropriate type
of structures. It was stated that duplex units would be preferable.
Chairman Feltz mentioned what could be constructed in the present office zoning,
but this did not alter the strong opinions of the public. The statement was made
that everyone who received a letter of notification was present at the Public
Hearing in opposition of the proposed development.
The public was also concerned with what the project would mean economically to
the City. Alderman Bown stated that actually single family residences were
economically better for the City when all issues were considered, such as city
services, schools, etc.
With no further new comments and concerns to be heard, Chairman Feltz closed the
Public Hearing and resumed the regular meeting.
PC91-7 - REZONE LOTS 11 & 12, UNIT 1 AND LOT 16, UNIT 2 - COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION
FROM 110" OFFICE TO R-3 GENERAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT BY SCHIFFLEGER/FUNK
Comments were offered by Jim Clarage:
1. If R-3 zoning were granted, the limitation of units to density maximum
would limit the development to a maximum of 2 units per lot. The
majority of lots would comply with the side yard requirements; lot 16
would not. The petition calls for 20 units and this could not comply
with the ordinance.
2. With developments such as this, it customary to provide a site plan.
3. In the 100' of frontage, 50' of driveway is proposed. This also would
not comply with city requirements.
Tom Lindbloom stated that it was generally normal procedure to receive the
necessary documents prior to the meeting so proper thought and consideration
could be given. It is not feasible to discuss and decide at this time.
Bob Davidson noted that this type of project is going beyond the maximums and
should only be considered as a PUD.
Cjairpan F:,- tz notad`tie.meeting could continue with the chance of ultimately
rejecting the petition due to the non-conforming aspects or the issue could be
tabled and brought back before the commission as a plan that conforms to present
requirements.
It was suggested that Mr. Schiffleger give consideration the situation with the
hill on Game Farm Road, the problem with storm runoff, the driveway problem, and
the concerns of the neighboring property owners while he is working on new plan.
Mr. Schiffleger agreed that it would be best to table for the present.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1991 PAGE 3
Mr. Clarage suggested that he also provide a site plan and show driveways,
landscaping buffers, topographical information, and utilities information.
The motion to table the petition was made by Bob Davidson; the second was
given by Tom Lindbloom. Voice vote carried.
Chairman Feltz asked that the public be notified of the time when this would be
brought before the Plan Commission again. Bob Davidson noted that the copies
of relative drawings and plans would be available at the city office for the
review of the public at any time prior to the next meeting.
PC91-8 - ANNEX & ZONE TO R-3, LOTS 9 & 10 OF UNIT ONE, COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION
BY SCHIFFLEGER/FUNK
The issues of the rezoning of lots 11, 12 & 16 were discussed as applicable to
this petition also. Bob Davidson commented that lots 9 & 10 should be limited
to development as single family residences; this could act as a buffer in the
area. Agreement was voiced by members Holdiman & Lindbloom. These comments
were offered so Mr. Schiffleger had an idea of what would be acceptable; it was
noted that it would be necessary to be able to see the entire plan before a
vote would be considered.
Bob Davidson moved to table the petition; Tom Lindbloom gave the second. Voice
vote carried.
PC91-9 - KENDALL COUNTY REZONE B-3 TO M-1 BY DANIEL & PETER LANIOSZ - RT. 34
Attorney Tom Grant presented the petition. The application will be the con-
struction of an auto repair business; the property is in the County but within
the 1-1/2 mile radius of the City. He presented pictures of the type of structure
that is planned. He offered comparable allowable uses of the property according
to present requirements. (motor repair, car wash, ambulance service, mechanical
& body repair &painting. ) The "B" classification does not impose any performance
standards; there are no requirements for fencing; there are few requirements
for outdoor storage. The M-1 classification would allow the proper restrictions
to apply, as in the case of auto repair business.
It was stated that the business structure would be aesthetically acceptable and
that the owners are willing to work with the Plan Commission and the neighboring
landowners in an effort to address their -concerns and requests. Proper screening
and buffers would be provided. The building itself would be of the Bonanza or
Morton type, approximately 4800 sq. ft.
A spokesman delegated by the adjacent property owners in attendance distributed
a pamphlet stating their main concerns & objections. The issues included:
1. Decline in property values
2. Adverse effect on character of the community (already 4 existing
body shops in the area.
3. Environmental issues - air, water, noise pollution including paint
fumes & chemical disposal
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1991 PAGE 4
4. Traffic —already have existing problems
5. Security - most body shops have 24-hour bright lights & guard dogs
to prevent vandalism. It is feared that it might encourage acts of
vandalism in the surrounding area.
6. Safety - increased fire hazard due the storage of paint & chemicals.
The complete pamphlet stating concerns and objections will be presented at the
time of the County Public Hearing.
Mary Pilmer, owner of the apartments to the east of the subject property, was
also given the opportunity to speak. He expressed strong feelings for what
could happen to the area at a later date if the M-1 classification were to be
granted. In his opinion, the proposed rezoning seems inappropriate for the area.
Another resident in the audience noted that the proposed size of the building
would not insure that all cars would be contained inside at all times.
Members of the Plan Commission also questioned the future of the property under
M-1 zoning should the auto repair business be allowed and subsequently move on.
Bob Davidson questioned whether or not a septic & well system would function
properly. Others stated such concerns as not fitting within the comprehensive
plan, setting a precedent for M-1, right-of-way easement situation, and protection
for the City and the residents relative to proposed to M-1 uses.
Tom Lindbloom stated that the proposed M-1 zoning did not indicate the best possible
use of the land in his opinion. He then made the motion to recommend to the City
that they recommend to the County that the M-1 zoning be denied; Gail Digate
seconded. Bob Davidson asked that motion be amended to include a listing of the
reasons for recommendation of the denial.
The motion was amended as followed:
The Plan Commission recommends to the City Council that they recommend
to the County that the M-1 zoning be denied for the following reasons:
1. M-1 classification is not consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
2. Storm water runoff & detention problem
3. Anticipated widening of Rt. 34 (120' highway right-of-way)
would shorten the lot size.
4. Septic & well on that small of a lot may not be able to maintain
until services become available.
Roll call vote carried the motion of denial as follows:
Holdiman - yes Langland - yes Digate - yes Lindbloom - yes
Lucietto - yes Davidson - yes Feltz - yes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1991 PAGE 5
PC91-10 - FINAL PLAT - WILDWOOD PHASE 2
It was stated that the only difference from the Preliminary Plat resulted from
a request from IDOT. For Phase 2 the intersection of Rt. 71 & Candleberry Lane
will remain as a normal intersection. With the beginning of the development of
Phase 5, IDOT wants assurance from the City of Yorkville that turning lanes
as well as acceleration & deceleration lanes be provided. A 60' right-of-way
easement is provided.
It was also noted that lot 27 will remain woods. The easement for the City to
access its property is provided. A detention area is south of the AT&T easement.
Jim Clarage noted that the reference to the no access strip be made on lots
33 & 34. It was stated that Fran Klaas had reviewed the engineering to date
and it was suggested that the City contract with him to do the final engineering
to avoid potential problems with starting over again,: Also suggested was the
dedication of lot 27 as permanent open space and that the same be shown on the
plat; this notation should also show on the south of the AT&T easement.
Bob Davidson made the motion to recommend to the Council that the final plat
be approved as recommended changes have been noted. Anne Lucietto gave the second.
Gary Bown suggested that the stipulation regarding the Phase 5 development be
included on this plat and that the motion be amended accordingly. The amendment
is as follows:
It is recommendedd thatthe Council approve the final plat of Wildwood
Phase 2 with the proposed changes:
1. Street changes
2. No access strip on lots 33 & 34
3. Dedicated open space to be shown (both sides of the easement)
for lot 27.
4. With the development of Phase 5, the intersection of Rt. 71 &
Candleberry Lane will be improved to include proper lanes for
turning, acceleration & deceleration as required by IDOT.
Roll call vote carried the motion as follows:
Digate - yes Lindbloom - yes Lucietto - yes Davidson - yes
Feltz - yes Holdiman - yes Langland - yes
PC91-11 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jim Clarage stated that the various annexations had increased the jurisdictional
control area and likewise the responsibility for determining land use. The
largest growth has been to the south.
He suggests that the base map copies provided be used as a worksheet by the
Plan Commission members and then discuss the proposals at the next meeting.
He highlighted the map that was created previously to show various zoning areas,
buffer zones, green areas, etc.
r
w a
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1991 PAGE 6
Members of the commission thought it would be advantageots to have.copies of
existing outlines to compare with the new layout. The worksheet needs to
have boundaries highlighted;-lt will also be important to show what is happening
within the 1-1/2 mile radius.
Jim will have copies of the existing map provided for the Plan Commission for
their use in studying & reviewing the new plan.
Bob Davidson commented that it would necessary to give consideration to the
area along Rt. 47 south of town. He feels that this could be an area that
could generate additional sales tax to the city.
Before the close of the meeting, the question was asked regarding the Bazan
subdivision development on Kennedy Road. It was noted that two homes were
under construction. No one remembers a final plat being brought before the
Plan Commission. The city office will be asked to research the issue & notify
the Plan Commission of the findings.
The motion to adjourn the June Plan Commission meeting was made by Gail Dirate;
the second z;ras given by Anne Lucietto. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Joanne M. Ellertson, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING /SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME ADDRESS
r� S�Cxnv nSo,. PLII �Pr mr�ic�i l� P
1-2-11 px4jo—,E Zy � I// (-4E7
W C.g- JA /f�S6 A� J D 9 �/�0¢�c�/G / TO -/-f D f/Af-
" � Vu
k,I A�4
OA 4A s-
�iGirt�.,.,► {�G u.�..e'� /�// i�'2t�,-nc. �a�i�,r�Qe��
A'a h e lyme5 13 0 y �Q�/•iP 'ri
o
l l o l fy-)� � )<p �jizKV 1 L l4&
"J
1107 Dlc,�T-5h
fJ--t— � Q��' � p S l✓�c.� �. yr `
l� 7 mph u �i�
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING J
SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME ADDRESS
4z
A
.fir L41"J1,03-0-
#05
1101 ��r�v��► KV PLC
1
PLAN COMMISSION/SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME ADDRESS
. t
) t®'7 Mc-A U&I y o2�vj LE
_TUB a 20 'S1 11 H!:.il ,i _. P.1
ry
06-20-91
I,UIne,:
--he following page is -.e eurarary of the Count; rezoning petition presented
�t the Flan i omrisai Dn l,.st night.
do,01.Z -doh Davidson asked that you _heck the records related to the
._Zbd1Vi$icn cff of Kennedy Rd. Homes are being constructed on the
and we do not believe that a final plat was ever presented to the
�I�B/9D :xt.fssicn for approval. Please advise Harold or Bob of the findings.
s . _ - :ery helpful if the Plat Commission could get an updated sunmar�.,
'e 14, the one prevtoualy completed; that covered up to SeptemhE -
L r
-1 ^za-ruing to do the City Council meeting Can .'une 27.
1roug,t the -i-iai , and I Wi i,7 have someorne pick u-
26th.
acacicn if 1 don't get to speak to you before next week!
IT'S NOT MY TOS.
THIS LITTLE SUCKER'S ALL YOURS.
x
L
47 /990
ell
d zy �
TI II `O 19, HICIDGMA�I Ir#-=. P.2
PC91-9 KENDALL COUNTY REZOXE, B-2 TO M-1 BY DANIEL i PETER LANIOSZ
ROUTE 34
Attorney Tom Grant introduced the rezoning request -- proposed use 1-5
al.!tc repair business. Building would be 4800 sq. 4t. & would be aesthetically
the petitioners are willing to work with the neighboring property
an effort to address their concerns and requests.
' -man delegated by the adjacent property owners in attendance distri-
6i pamphlet stating their main concerns & objections. They are opposed
.-ropoadd business use based on concerns for decline in property valir--�,
traffic, fire hazards and inappropriate use in con-,..°.
LL SUrrOUI.Iding area. There is a signed petition which will
Of County public 'nearing.
of
im e r own
-
e, the apartments adjacent to the property, exp: ..,
.-icerr. over M-I designation and what it could mean for the area at - ::gar
IKe expressed strong feelings against the rezoning and the proposed
stacir.,a that it is inappropriate for the area.
members discussed issues such as fitting in with
.an, potential future problems related to M-1 zonilig,
the proposed type of use, well & septic problems
:�dine nt
r=de to recommend to the City Council that they
.a` the 111-1 zoning be denied for the following teas. ,
M-1 classification is not consistent with the tom-rah'...—
and does not fit in with the adjacent residentiIA- are-.
S:--Orm water runoff & detention problem.
3. Anticipated widening of Rt. 34 (120' highway right-of-way;
would shorten the lot size.
4. Septic & well on that small of a lot may not be able to
tnaintair until services become available.
de by 1.indbloom; the-second given by Digate. Roll call.
motion Unanimously.
Joanne M. Ellertson
Plan Commissio.-v Secretary