Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1992 09-16-92 MCNUIES OF THE PLAN CMVIISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 7:00 P.M. The September meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Harold Feltz with the following membbrB in attendance: Harold Feltz, George Stewart, Clarence Holdiman, Sandra Adams, Tom Lindbloom, Anne Lucietto, Buck K©lkmeyer; Bob Davidson Absent: Don Ament, Lawrence Langland, Gail Digate, Kevin Collman Others Present: Leonard R. Debickero of James B. Clarage & Associates The minutes from the August meeting were presented for approval. The motion to approve was given by Sandra Adams; the second was by George Stewart. Voice vote carried. Chairman Feltz introduced the new secretary for the Plan Commission; Kim King. Joanne Ellertson will no longer be secretary of the Plan Commission; and the members wish to express the appreciation for an,_ou.#atWing job Joanne has done for°ithem over the past six years. The first order of business was the introduction of Dean Fisher who was asked to be present by Alderman Gary Bown. The Plan Commission was suppose to have some sort of list which Chairman Feltz is unaware of. Dean is going to make up a list of items for Plan Corraission to go over at the end of this meeting. Chairman Feltz state that since no one was notified in the appropriate wards; it would be unfair to take any action at this time but they could give Mr. Fisher some reccomendations. Bob Davidson state he read and had attended some of the City Council Meetings; he thought here was a promise made by the Mayor and the Council that there would be a-gunup of citizens from Countryside. Mr. Fisher stated that the group was going to give their list to Gary Bown. Bob Davidson recommended they should ask that group of citizens to be her'eo to be part of this discussion. Chairman Feltz made it clear there would be no decision made at this time. Bob. Davidson suggested to Mr. Fisher he be put on the agenda for 'next months meeting; Mr. Fisher stated he is already on the agenda for next month. Bob Davidson recommended the group of citizens receive a written invitation and make sure there here for that meeting. Mr. Fisher stated he was waiting on information from the Planning Commission; Chairman Feltz did not know what information he was waiting for. Mr. Fisher said he would get a list to Chairman Feltz and to Don Peck, City Administrator. Mr. Fisher said he would deal specifically with Don Peck regarding his proposal. r PRE-APPT,,ICATION CONFERENCE (Morgan St. Elevator P U;D.) Marty Schwartz, Paul Wistmiller and Kevin Bixler present this petition. Kevin Bixler stated he was under the 'Impression their lawyer and their land surveyor would be prestnt. Kevin stated the three of them received letters stating the meeting was tonight. Chairman Feltz asked if they would like to be postponed until next month. Kevin replied no. Bob Davidson suggested that seeing that the owners were already present and it was just . a prefldiatnary; to go ahead and discuss the zoning and the units. Page 2 Proposed on the South side bf Hydraulic Street is a three six unit building.and on the North side of the Street is a one two story eight unit building. Kevin stated they were a little over on the density and had talk to Dan Kramer and under the advise of Dan Kramer if they came in with a P:U.D, he thought the City Council would go for this. Kevin stiAtdd there would be fencing put up and he was going to speak iffith the ajoining neighbors to make sure all were fully aware of what was going to happen, George Stewart asked if the density was on all units or just on the North or just on the South. Kevin replied it was combined due to the fact it was sold to them as one "chunk". Marty stttbd it was the South side building furthest East with the little bit of variance. Kevin stated it was over by the number of units per acre. Chairman Feltz said in the meeting he had with Don Peck, City Administrator and Leonard Debickero, James B1 Clarage & Associates, the density was quite high's Chairman Feltz stated he couldn't tell by the way the design was laid out what the elevation is. He recommended a new design to show elevation. Bob Davidson stated that there are a few residence with R-2 zoning; and that they would ,need sme'°,Rind of buffer on the .far East Building with six units. Bob .Davidson asked what their intention after completion were. Kevin stated if he gets it rezoned there are a few people interested in purchasing it. If not they'll do it them- selves and sell it. It all depend& on weather they get the zoning they need. Chairman Feltz asked 'if ii were to be sold would it go.,as one or two unttt? Kevin replied he would sell the South Side in a group and the North Side. Marty Schwartz asked how much design and/or what else was needed to get the P.U.D. zoning. Chairman Feltz responded if P.U.D. it would have to be designed to specific requirments. He said It needs some kind of design quite inovative; that will-work on the slopeand will take some real landscaping plans. Bob Davidson asked under B3 request zoning change & Council would have to authorize that zoning change. Chairman `Feltz said they would have to have it rezoned. Bob Davidson suggested to use the "Zoning Analysis Checklist" to cover all areas in question. Chairman Feltz read the checklist in it's entirety with the following suggestions and concerns being expressed: 1) Traffic Conjestion 2) School Population - Chairman Feltz suggested they speak to some schools about overcemwg. 3) Adequate fire protection accesibility - Chairman. Feltz suggested they speak to fire department for any information they may have. 4) Adequate police protection accesibility - Chairman Feltz suggested they speak to the Chief of Police for any information they may have. 5) Water Retention 6) Road being adequately designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the risk of accidents. 7) Garages and Parking Spaces 8)_> Guest Parking/Off:3_Street Parking 9) Handicap Parking Kevin stated bheyoTabUld have to get together and go over the suggestions and concerns of the P.U.D. rezoning. Chairman Feltz welcomed them to come back to the next Plan Commission meeting. Page .3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Feltz explained this Comprehensive Plan was just basic to meet the State requirements. Leonard R. Debickero, James B. Clarage & Associates stated since his 12:00 noon meeting with Don Peck, City Administrator and Chairman Harold Feltz he looked back at the ideas .of Residential and outer areas of the city. Basical*;,nothing has changed in the sense of existing Village Corporate Limits and areas designated as office and light commercial. He noted the red coloring stood for Highway commercial obviously along the major arteries of the plan. Green coloring stood for National wet land and run off areas of flood plains noted from their national map in their office. Residential in Yellow which is currently being servtd by sewer and water. The white and partial green stand for agricultural and other residentialldevelopment for the future. Bob Davidson motiion to present to City Council as the adopted Comprehensive Plan; the second by Sandra Adams. Roll call vote carried the motion as follows: Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Holdiman - yes Adams yes Lindbloom - yes Lucietto - yes Kollaneyer - yes Davidson - yes With no further comments evident on the topics listed on tonight's agenda, the motion to adjourn was requested. Chairman Feltz so moved; Sandra Adams gave the second. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. K 2- King, Recording S cretary ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST . DATE: PETITION. ,i, - ,C-C' �� YES NO 1. Have procedural requirements been met? 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern \l and the adapted plan? X 3. Would change create an isolated, unrelated district, i.e. , "spot zoning"? 4. Have major land uses changed since the zoning was applied, i.e. , new expressway, new dam, etc.? 5. Is existing development of the area contrary to existing zoning ordinances (variations or violations)? 6. Would change of present district boundaries be inconsistent in relation to existing uses? 7. Would the proposed change conflict with existing commitments or planned public improvements? 8. Will change contribute to dangerous traffic patterns or congestion? 9. Would change if a deviation from the comprehensive plan alter the population density pattern and thereby harmfully increase the load on public facilities? iX) Schools? B. Sewers? C. Parks? D. Other? Identify 10. Will change adversely influence living conditions in the vicinity due to any type of pollution? 11. Will property values in the vicinity be adversely affected by change? 12. Will change result in private investment which would be beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area? COMMENTS: PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE # OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE y��A9 OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER I. Can the proposed use fulfill all current � Q zoning requirements? a. Frontage b Setbacks c. Lot Area d. Maximum Lot Coverage e. Floor Area Ratio f. Enclosure of Use 3. Parking Spaces h. Screening i. Water and Sewage Disposal j . Right of Way for Street Width (City, County or State) 2. Is the topography of the site suitable for the proposed use? 3. Are the soils suitable for the proposed use? 4. Will the proposed use lessen or avoid hazards to property resulting from the accumulation of runoff from storm or flood waters? 5. Are the soils suitable for septic systems if proposed as part of the use? 6. Is the site a legally created parcel of land in accordance ::ith state and local require- ments? 1X_ ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 1. Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on the immediate area? 2. Is the location of future roads consistent with other goals and objectives of the General Plan and the official plans of n the municipalities? N 3. Will fire protection based on municipal standards be provided for the proposed use? 9. Will police protection based on municipal SQfAK TL standards be provided for the proposed use? 5. If necessary, are other means of trans- portation available for access to and from the proposed use? 6. Is there capacity in the local schools for TALK ' new students produced by the proposed use? ��yp�� orFie,A[5 7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided for the proposed use if applicable? B. Is the proposed use consistent with adopted land use plans? 9. Will the proposed use create excessive storm water runoff? X 10. Does the proposed use promote the use of pedestrian right-of-ways for convenience A and safety? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMT4ISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 4 C. PUBLIC CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 1. Will the proposed use or proposal promote the public's health by adequately dealing with the following concerns? a. Is an adequate water supply provided? b. Is an adequate sewage disposal system provided? c. Require connection to city water and sewer system when within 2,000 feet. d. Are adequate recreational opportunities provided? e. Is a pleasant and aesthetic environment provided? 2. Will the proposed use or proposal promote the public's safety by adequately dealing with the following concerns? a. Is an adequate water supply for fighting fires which may be associated with the use being provided? b. Is the proposal located where roads are adequately designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the risk of accidents? C. If subdivision plans include more than 30 lots, will two ways of access to County, State or section line roads be required? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: w PLAN COMMISSION MEETING �Co 9,Zi MTG PC# 1 HAROLD FELTZ GEORGE STEWART I ` I CLARENCE HOLDIMAN DON AMENT n I LAWRENCE LANGLAND s ' SANDRA ADAMS / GAIL DIGATE M r7 I Q TOM LINDBLOOM J 1 KEVIN COLLMAN A i ANNE LUCIETTO BUCK KOLKMEYER l BOB DAVIDSON / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHERS PRESENT: 5��",ez *-,'