Plan Commission Minutes 1993 03-31-93 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF
THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM
MARCH 31, 1993 7:00 P.M.
The March meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by
Chairman Harold Feltz with the following members in attendance:
Harold Feltz, George Stewart, Clarence Holdiman, Don Ament,
Lawrence Langland, Sandra Adams, Michael Crouch, Tom
Lindbloom, Anne Lucietto; Bob Davidson.
Others Present: City Administrator/Engineer Don Peck,
Attorney Dan Kramer, Alderman Gary Bown,
Alderman Bill Baird and interested citizens
as listed on the sign-in sheet on file with
the minutes.
Chairman Feltz asked if there were any additions or corrections to
be made on the February minutes.
Hearing none, the motion was made to approve the minutes as typed
by George Stewart; seconded by Tom Lindbloom. Voice vote carried.
PC93-3 - Annex & rezone property located at Rt. 47 & Rt. 71
Chairman Feltz called to order the public hearing of PC93-3.
Chairman Feltz introduced Attorney Dan Kramer.
Attorney Dan Kramer stated that on the east side of Route 47 going
south we have all the properties annexed in to square off the
boundaries going down to Route 71 except Terry Hanson house. Terry
has spoken to Alderman Gary Bown and would like to come in and that
will happen very shortly. On the west side of the road they have
had us contact over a period of time all the owners, the previous
owner was not interested in coming in at all because he did not
want higher taxes. Inland owns both parcels.
Attorney Dan Kramer stated the City Council saw this property
coming in as kind of a combination they want to give it a B-3
highway business district class. They realize with Silica Sand
down there they annexed that in as M-1 that there may be some
border line uses down at the far end of the property that might be
more condusive to an M-1. So there willing to give them some
consideration that if they came in with a clean M-1 use that they
would allow that, but they are asking it be zoned B-3 Highway
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page 2
Business District and annexed into the City.
Chairman Feltz asked if there was anyone in the audience who had
any questions or comments.
Chairman Feltz hearing no comments or questions from the audience,
called an end to the public hearing of PC93-3.
PC93-4 - Annex & rezone property located at Rt. 126 & Rt. 71
Chairman Feltz called to order the public hearing on PC93-4
Chairman Feltz introduced Attorney Dan Kramer.
Attorney Dan Kramer stated in the application Inland does disclose
it's the owner as required by the Illinois State Statues.
Attorney Kramer stated the City Council felt should be annexed as
B-3 straight Highway Business District.
Chairman Feltz asked if there were any questions or comments from
the audience.
Hearing none, Chairman Feltz called an end to the public hearing of
PC93-4 .
PC93-1 - Morgan Street (Further Discussion)
Chairman Feltz introduced Attorney Tom Grant.
Attorney Tom Grant asked if this was a public hearing or not. It's
a new zoning, & they filed a new petition and it went in the paper
as public hearing and he has the green certified cards.
Chairman Feltz asked Attorney Dan Kramer if the Plan Commission
should be holding a public hearing on this.
Dan Kramer stated yes.
Chairman Feltz stated he would hold this as a public hearing and
then we' ll go into the plan function.
Attorney Grant stated he is representing the property owners. This
is the first time this particular application has been here,
however there was before the amendment an application before you as
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page 3
he understood it for rezoning. My clients when they came to talk
to me, there just interested in getting the property rezoned.
Tom Grant stated that there only request tonight is to rezone the
property from the current classification to R-4 which is a multi-
family residential classification under the zoning ordinnace.
My clients at present have no present intentions of development of
the property. That's where we run into a problem for any Planned
Unit Special Use because there not able to present you with any
plans, drawings, site plans etc. We think the property qualifies
under the zoning ordinance for R-4 classification, R-4 use; given
it's location and the uses of the property surrounding it.
The property on the south side of Hydrualulic is about 54,000 sq
feet, the property along the north side is 1/2 acre in size. They
want to get it zoned R-4 Multi-family use. They think the
residential zoning of the property will be an improvement. My
clients are currently in the process of tearing down and
destroying the old elevator facility, hopefully they will have that
accomplished by late spring early summer. At that point they may
or may not determine the development they may at that point simply
put it back on the market.
Attorney Grant stated he went over the Zoning Analysis Checklist,
and would like to answer it.
1. Have procedural requirements been met? Yes
2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern and
the adapted plan? No
3. Would change create an isolated, unrelated district,
i.e. , "spot zoning"? No
4 . Have major land uses changed since the zoning was
applied, i.e. , new expressway? No
5. Is existing development of the area contrary to
existing zoning ordinances? No
6. Would change of present district boundaries be inconsistent
in relation to existing uses? No
7. Would the proposed change conflict with existing commitments
or planned public improvements? No
8. Will change contribute to dangerous traffic patterns or
congestion? No
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page 4 '
9. Would change if a deviation from the comprehensive plan
alter the population density pattern and thereby harmfully
increase the load on public facilities? No
10. Will change adversely influence living conditions in the
vicinity due to any type of pollution? No
11. Will property values in the vicinity be adversely
affected by change? No
12 . Will change result in private investment which would be
beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated
area? Yes
Attorney Grant stated for those reasons they meet the criteria
under the zoning analysis check list and would request you
favorable view this petition and recommend to the City Council the
property be rezoned to R-4 classification.
Tom Grant stated he would answer any questions they might have.
David Allison asked if they are granted the zoning now could they
put any thing they wanted in there.
Chairman Feltz asked Attorney Dan Kramer if they were granted
zoning could they come back with a PUD.
Attorney Kramer said they could come back but Plan Commission could
not make them. The issue that would come back would be the
platting. If they came in with a plat that met all the criteria of
R-4, size, shape etc. you can not force the petitioners to say PUD
at that point.
Bob Davidson asked if we could recommend a PUD with a certain
number of units per parcel.
Attorney Kramer replied yes.
Attorney Grant stated the whole concept of a PUD is to put on paper
the whole plan the whole concept. Their not in that position and
their not going to be. If Plan Commission would like to make some
recommendations in terms of the density which I think is the main
issue. We do not have Planned Unit Development plan to submit to
you.
Chairman Feltz stated he understood that, but he doesn't think the
Planning Commission or the neighbors want to relinquish there
control over what happens to the development of that property.
David Allison stated they want the zoning with out showing us what
they intend to do with it.
Plan Commission Minutes March 31, 1993 Page 5
Alderman Bown stated you want to keep in mind that when you grant
zoning under a PUD in a situation like this where you have no plans
to put forward, you can still grant zoning conditioned to the fact
that it be brought back in as a PUD and those plans could be
presented at the time the developer would develop it.
Attorney Kramer replied that Plan Commission could do that.
Chairman Feltz hearing no further comments or questions from the
audience, called an end to the public hearing on PC93-1.
PC93-1 - Morgan St. (Further Discussion)
Chairman Feltz called to order the regular Plan Commission meeting
to order on PC93-1.
Bob Davidson asked what the maximum number of units for an R-4
zoning?
James Clarage replied 18 units total for the property under the R-4
zoning.
Bob Davidson then asked if we labeled this as a PUD and someone
purchased this they would still have to come and show the plans for
this PUD.
Attorney Kramer replied yes and in addition to that they would have
to show drainage, foundations etc.
Tom Lindbloom asked if the question before them was to grant R-4
zoning?
Chairman Feltz replied yes.
Chairman Feltz stated the petitioner should talk to the neighbors
and see if they could work something out and to also think about
what kind of density they would like.
Tom Lindbloom motioned to table this motion until the next meeting
or such meeting the petitioner is ready to present his petition;
seconded by Anne Lucietto. Voice vote carried.
PC93-3 Annex & rezone property located at Rt. 47 & Rt. 71
Chairman Feltz called to order the regular plan commission meeting
to order on PC93-3.
Chairman Feltz asked if there was some sort of agreement with the
city pertaining to the streets, sewer, utility easements, etc.
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page 6
Attorney Kramer replied the City plan is that Don Peck filled out
a loan application with the County Economic Development Commission.
One of the promises the city made to a number of business owners
going south was that we would try our best as a city to get sewer
and water going south. It appears the chances are very good that
we're going to get the low interest loan. I can't tell you where
the lines are going to go through, Don's thought is 650 feet west
of Route 47 depending on the soil types and geography of it. The
city plans are to extend that main sewer interceptor that's coming
through White Oak Farm on Fox Road take that all the way to Route
71 on the south. The one guide star Don will be looking very
carefully at as city engineer, someplace on that west side, he want
a main road going in East/West and a main road going North/South so
there is a nice collector system in feeding the city.
Chairman Feltz asked if there were any further questions or
comments.
Hearing none, Bob Davidson motioned to accept annexation and
rezoning to B-3; seconded by Lawrence Langland.
Roll call vote:
Feltz - yes Ament - yes Crouch - yes
Stewart yes Langland - yes Lindbloom - yes
Holdiman - yes Adams - yes Lucietto - yes
Davidson - yes
Chairman Feltz stated they recommend to City Council to annex and
rezone from A-1 to B-3.
PC93-4 - Annex & rezone property located at Rt. 126 & Rt. 71
Chairman Feltz called to order the regular plan commission to order
on PC93-4 .
Chairman Feltz asked if there were any questions or comments.
Hearing no comments, Tom Lindbloom motioned to annex and rezone
this property to B-3; seconded Lawrence Langland.
Roll call vote:
Feltz - yes Ament - yes Crouch - yes
Stewart - yes Langland - yes Lindbloom - yes
Holdiman - yes Adams - yes Lucietto - yes
Davidson - yes
Chairman Feltz stated they recommend to City Council to annex and
rezone from A-1 to B-3.
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page 7
PRE-APPLICATION - DIEHL PROPERTY
Ken Baldwin, President of Development Resources stated there a
company provides the following services: certified land planners,
licience civil engineers, licienced land developers and general
contractors. There memebers of the National Associaton of Home
Builders and professional registered engineers. We adhere to the
principals that development should pay for it self with out asking
the current population to adhere the cost.
We are responsible for platting, zoning and developing of
approximately 200 acres located on Route 34 and Eldamain Road.
We look forward to working with the city and we all are aware the
success of any development is a result of partnership between the
city , school and all parties involved.
Ken stated at this time he would like to answer any questions or
comments.
Sandra Adams asked how many lots were going to be there.
Ken stated they have no land plans or concept plans at this time.
Chairman Feltz asked if there would be a single developer for this
property.
Ken replied no, there would probably be more than one to give it a
mixture look.
Chairman Feltz asked if there were any further questions or
comments.
Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Feltz called an
end to the pre-application discussion.
George Stewart stated a sign needs to go up on property that is
possible going to be rezoned so the public knows that it is up for
rezoning.
Don Peck stated he would check in to different options and make a
recommendation to the plan commission atafuture date.
With no further comments evident on the topics listed on tonight's
agenda, the motion to adjourn was given by Bob Davidson.
t x
Plan Commission Minutes - March 31, 1993 Page&
The meeting was adjourn at 9 : 15 p.m.
5e'o-720 9e�—
K'm King, R96oryhg Secretary
PLAN COMMISSION NMTING
MTG Pc -
HAROLD IELTZ 1
GEORGE STEWART f
CLARENCE HOLDIMAN y
DON AIVEW L/ y
LAWRENCE LANG 7 /
SANDRA ADAMS
MICHAEL CROUCH
TOM LINDBLOCM
KEVIN COLUMNA
ANNE LUCIET O /
BUCK KOLKMEYER
BOB DAVIDSCN
&CV ,Iie6e AI rn 7Z),e
r�i/ �•9�� � iv r�ec5� CJ,f�z�c�s oar ��
PUBLIC HEARING /SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME ADDRESS
do 7 a6* �
A A A rill
YZ�
l
.1�EN �/�<.r►�J�1 7ys'� w o�v�•J ,o,� ytve.�y f�.�.t
1sg6o
o
Le�A /6