Loading...
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