Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1993 06-16-93 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM JUNE 16, 1993 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, George Stewart, Clarence Holdiman, Don Ament, Lawrence Langland, Sandra Adams, Anne Lucietto; Bob Davidson Others Present: Mayor Ken Kittoe, Attorney Dan Kramer, Alderman Jeff Baker, Alderman Jack Jones, Alderman Patricia Clark, City Engineer/ Administrator Don Peck, Jeff Palmquist and the interested citizens on file with the minutes. Chairman Feltz asked if there were any additions or corrections to be made on the May minutes. Hearing none, the motion was made to approve the minutes as typed by Lawrence Langland; seconded Sandra Adams. Voice vote carried. PC93-8 Annex and rezone - John Conover Chairman Feltz called to order the public hearing of PC93-8. Chairman Feltz asked if there was anyone representing this property. Attorney Tom Grant stated he has been asked by the family to rep- resent this petition. Attorney Grant stated the Conover's were basically requested to approach the Plan Commission and City Council regarding the zoning of this property. It was suggested to them that the M classification was the appropriate classification for them. They have proceeded accordingly. Chairman Feltz asked if ther were any questions or comments. Mr. Walker asked if the City had approached Mr. Conover to zone this property M-1. Gary Conover replied that the City approached me to annex to the City, but his own personal planners recommended the zoning of M- 1. Joe Gilbert asked if the petitioner could ask for split zoning. 1 Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 Chairman Feltz stated that is def inetely possible. Verne Henne stated he would like to see this property brought in under it's current zoning of A until there are actual plans for the property to be used as M-1. Chairman Feltz asked if there were any further comments or ques- tions on PC93-8. Hearing none, Chairman Feltz called an end to the public hearing of PC93-8. PC93-9 - Annex and rezone - Gary Conover Chairman Feltz called to order the public hearing on PC93-9. Chairman Feltz asked if there were anyone representing this peti- tion. Nora Vollendorf asked if this could be taken as the last public hearing because her attorney was not here yet. Chairman Feltz asked if this was okay with everyone. Attorney Grant asked why there was another public hearing on this property when they had a public hearing in May. Chairman Feltz replied that not all adjacent property owners were notified. Chairman Fetlz stated he would honor Mrs. Volendorf's request and go to the next public hearing. PC93-11 - Annex & rezone - Clarence Holdiman Chairman Feltz asked if anyone was here to represent this property. Attorney Kramer replied this was the last property the City Coun- cil had asked him to contact. This is the strip that runs from Kennedy Road south to property that Aldi is at on the east side of Route 47. Attorney Kramer stated the city has always looked at it's Com- prehensive Plan as being a commercial area so were looking at zoning of B-3 Highway Business district. Attorney Kramer stated some of the concerns the City Council had me address,were they would like the traffic to flow out on to 2 Plan Commi sion Minutes - June 16, 1993 Route 47 b cause that's the major access to it and they don't want to put it in a residential road that would be Kennedy. There look'ng at some buffering to the north so there is a tran- sistions tD the residential neighborhood. Attorney Kramer stated this one in the City's eyes make good sense to p an and give a higher zoning classification so we have an inventory of B-3 that's available for use. Chairman Feltz asked if there were any questions or comments. Hearing none, Chairman Feltz called an end to the public hearing of PC93-11. PC93-9 - Annex & rezone - Gary Conover Chairman Feltz called to order the public hearing of PC93-9. Attorney Tom Grant stated he only represents the Conover's and not the next door neighbor on this petition. Attorney Grant stated this Planning Commission is aware of the history of this property. A number of years ago 'Gary and Sandy Conover came to me and we approached hte City Council regarding the annexation of this property and at that time they had the op- portunity to sell a parcel of property to the American Legion. They wanted to use this property to build a new legion hall. They went through a few public hearings and drew nothing but hevy protest. John Conover not wanting to make enemies withdrew his petition. Attorney Grant stated Gary was approached by the County and asked if he would sell a parcel and gift part of it to the County to accomodate the new jail facility. We did that, they basically picked the site they wanted, they wanted on the far west and so to get that in they had to annex the balance of that part of the farm. We went through comprehensive and annexation and rezoning and that time this Planning Commission rezoned what we now call the south east corner of 34 and Cannonball Trail to business use, and the south west corner to a business use. I suggest when the Cooper property comes in to zone that to business use and that's why I suggest to you the Conover property is no longer therefore suitable for residential use. Attorney Grant stated we therefore have filed an application with the City asking this property be annexed and that it be -zoned commercial Attorney Grant stated that Mrs. Volendorf commented there are some resit fiction affecting the use of the property that may of 3 t T ' Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 fect the use of the property at the corner, but no on the Conover parcel. That was not part of the restriction if in deed that restriction is valid. Attorney Grant also stated that part of the negotions with the Conovers and with Don Pect would be as part of the development of the 7 acres parcel that the Conover's own, that there would be one cut on the property. Right now we have no access to route 34. And unless something happens to the property to the left we have no other access. Attorney Grant stated he would answer any questions or comments anyone may have. Verne Henne stated he thinks it's atrocious to sit here and speculate on what this board thinks he's going to do with no plans what so ever. Joe Gilbert stated he would like to see this property as residen- tial. Kyle Price stated we do need to look toward the future but that corner should residential, not business. Paul Beckman whom represents the Vollendorf's stated he would like to comment on the rezoning of this property. All the described zoning uses for a B-3 are very severe with respect to a residential surrounding area and the impact that- such a use of B- 3 would have to the value of the surrounding residential. Chairman Feltz asked the audience if off to the west is where they would prefer to see business zoning. The audience replied yes with some type of buffering. Martha Price stated the City's Comprehensive Plan shows this property as residential, not business. Chairman Feltz asked if there were any further questions or com- ments. Hearing none, Chairman Fletz called an end to the public hearing of PC93-9. PC93-5 - Annex & rezone - Development Resources Inc. Chairman Feltz called the regular Plan Commission to order on PC93-5 Development Resources Inc. Chairman Feltz asked if there was anyone here representing this 4 r r Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 property. Ken Baldwin stated as to this proposed development we represent the property owner which is located on Route 34 and Eldamain Road will be known as Fox Hill Development. The site is approximately ` 200 acres. It has a frontage of approxmately 4,500 l.f. on Route 34. Currently the site is used as farming and farm buildings. This site located approxmately 500 feet west of the Kendall County ,fail complex. In it's relationship to the City of Yorkville, we conducted a preapplication meeting with this com- mittee on March 31, 1993 as a result of this meeting the city asked that we submit an application based on a Planned Unit Development which we have done. Ken stated on June 2, 1993 they met with the Lannert Group to discuss the concept plan in detail. Michael Cap stated at the last meeting they presented the overall intentions of this site. I think the best way to describe our pro3ect is that we tried to keep in mind the natural topography of this area. Michael stated we disussed our concept with the City's new plan- ner and thinks it is safe to say that alot of what you presented at the last meeting were acknowledge by the planner. We have es- tablished a good standing and some common ground with the plan- ner. The resason were requesting the B-3 zoning is to allow more height of the buildings. The primary feature of this site, the natural feature that we feel is appropriate is Rob Roy Creek. Our plan would literally draw everyones attention to that. We intend to preserve on either side of Rob Roy Creek a strip of land approxmiately 100 to 150 feet wide. Michael stated he would like to answer any questions that anyone may have. Mayor Kittoe stated he likes the proposal and likes what he sees, but what scares him is the multi-family reisential. It will have an impact on our schools. The apartment and townhomes look good now but 5 to 10 years from now the creek will be a mess and who is going to maintain it. We don't know who will rent so we need to consider police protection. The numbers on the R-3 and R-4 I would like to see drastically reduced. I would rather see that area as R-1. Chairman Feltz stated he would like to use the zoning analysis check list on this parcel. George Stewart stated we needed to use the zoning check list on each section of this parcel. 5 Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 Bob Davidson stated we should number the individual sections. Chairman Feltz agreed. Bob Davidson stated the following as number sections: 14.8 acres B-3 will be #1 2.7 acres B-3 will be #2 Park Detention will be #3 11.4 acres R-3 will be #4 71.46 acres will be #5 16. 1 acres will be #6 13.41 acres will be #7 19.35 acres will be #8 16.49 acres will be #9 18.55 acres will be #10 Attorney Kramer suggested taking PC93-5, PC93-9 and PC93-11 tonight and reschedule the rest for Wednesday June 23, 1993. Chairman Feltz agreed, as long as no one else had any objections. Bob Davidson read the zoning anaylsis checklist in it entirety for section #1. (results are attached to the minutes) George Stewart stated that section #2 follows straight through with section #1. Chairman Feltz stated the results from section #1 would also apply to section #2. PARCEL #3 - Park & Detention Bob Davidson stated the anaylsis check list would not apply to this parcel. Chairman Feltz stated there were some questions they needed to answer on this parcel. Chairman Feltz asked how deep the retention would be. Jeff Palmquist asked if they knew what the volume would be they required and how much of that is park and how much would be detention. If you provide a detention facility will that be usable park land? Michael stated yes our intentions are to have this detention serve as a temporary storage accessive to the retail uses and it's also very likely for the family residential. 6 Y Plan Commission. Minutes - June 16, 1993 George asked how they intended to get the water across the roads. Michael replied by storm sewers underneath the streets. Bob stated he would like to see at least 1 to 1 1/2 acres of land that is dry for play ground equipment etc. Lawrence Langland asked who will maintain the parks. Sandy stated it could be up to the home owners to pay "membership dues" to help maintain the parks. Michael stated that was definitely a possibility. Michael stated our original intention right now for the areas designated as parks, is that these lands will be dedicated to the City's park system. Chairman Feltz asked if they had an idea of where the Planning Commission was going with this concept. Michael replied yes. Chairman Feltz asked if there were any questions on this. Hearing none, Chairman Feltz called an end to this until Wednes- day June 23, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall. Bob Davidson made the motion to table this PC93-5 until June 23, 1993. Seconded George Stewart. Voice vote carried. PC93-9 - Gary Conover George Stewart read the zoning anaylsis checklist in it's en- tirety. (results are attached to the minutes) George Stewart stated they need to go over what Jeff had given them. Jeff stated the requested B-3 zoning may initially appear logical based upon the existing adjacent office and retail zoning and the potential of commercial and/or office zoning at the northest cor- ner of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. In addition, the City recognizes the potential for commercial development along Route 34. However, we would encourage the Plan Commission to consider a number of problems which may be associated with future commer- cial development of this parcel. These include: 7 Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 a. incompatibility with adjacent single family residentiil development to the north and east. b. incompatibility with the Blackberry Creek corridor located at the northeast corner of the subject parcel. c. the stripping of commercial uses off of Route 34 rather rather than encouraging unified comprehensively planned and designed retail centers. d. the resulting potential for a "patchwork" of uses to the northeast of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. e. the resulting incomplete development of Oak Knolls subdivision leaving a 16 parcel family neighborhood. The recommendation of the Lannert Group regarding the annexation and zoning of the 7 acre parcel are as follows: a. If possible, consider the annexation, zoning and development of the subject site together with that of the adjacent parcel at the northeast corner of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. This provides the opportunity to provide a unified development with controlled access along Route 34. b. Consider an alternative to B-3 zoning. With the potential for commercial development at the northwest corner of Cannonball Trail and Route 34 as well as throughout the westerly Route 34 corridor, a transitional use which can be more compatibly developed adjacent to residential development, the creek corridor and its topography and vegetation may be mor appropriate. Potential options for consideration include: Residentially zoned planned development Office planned development Attorney Kramer recommended doing two different recommendations, 1) annexing into the city. 2) the zoning class. Chairman Feltz agreed. Bob Davidson made the motion recommending to the City to annex the 7 acres; seconded Anne Lucietto Chairman Feltz stated a motion has been made and seconded to, 8 1 s Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 recommend to the City the annexation of the 7 acres of PC93-9. roll call vote Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Holdiman - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Adams yes Collman - yes Lucietto - yes Davidson yes Bob Davidson made the motion to approve the zoning of B-3; seconded George Stewart. Chairman Feltz stated the motion was made and seconded to reom- mend to the City the approval of B-3 zoning of PC93-9. roll call vote Feltz - no Stewart - no Holdiman - no Ament - no Langland - no Adams - yes Collman - no Lucietto - no Davidson - no Chairman Feltz stated we do not recommend to the City the zoning of B-3 on PC93-9. Attorney Tom Grant stated they will not annex into the City without the zoning. Chairman Feltz stated he would like it noted in the minutes that Sandra Adams did not understand the motion that was made on PC93- 9. Bob Davidson stated he would like the minutes to reflect that Clarence Holdiman excused himself for the PC93-11 discussion. PC93-11 - Clarence Holdiman Attorney Kramer stated in order to get contiguous with the city, the lynch pin parcel was the Holdiman property. Originally we had - talked about asking to bring in the whole west side of Route 47 next to Countryside and then as time went on I was negotiating for the city as I was directed to with the family they decided they would much rather have the east side. As they saw a far better likelyhood of development there. From our point of few the City, we were frankly delighted that they said they would like to bring that because if you generate B-3 were looking at retail uses which means no additional kids in the school district and it brings revenue to the City. Bob Asked if he has secured an easement in the annexation agree- ment. Attorney Kramer replied we have not discussed an annexation agreement yet but that will be in the agreement. 9 Plan Commission Minutes - June 16, 1993 Bob asked if there will be a limit to the number of cuts on Route 47 and Kennedy Road. Attorney Kramer replied Kennedy Road what we' ll do is again we would like that to be is no access strip on Route 47 and put lan- -guage in the annexation agreement that we would recommend a reasonable number of cuts to IDOT (Illinois Department of Transportation) . A lot will depend on what happens in terms of development there. Chairman Feltz recommended using the zoning anaylsis checklist on this property as well. Anne Lucietto read the zoning checklist in it's entirety. (results are attached to the minutes) Anne Lucietto motioned to recommend to the City the annexation and rezoning of PC93-11; seconded Don Ament. roll call vote Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Adams - yes Collman - yes Lucietto - yes Davidson - yes Chairman Feltz stated the motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the City to annex and rezone PC93-11. With no further comments evident on the topics listed on tonight's agenda, the motion to adjourn was given by Chairman Feltz. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Ki King, Re o g Secretary 10 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE LANNERT GROUP LAND PLANNING •. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE• CIVEL ENGINEERING CZA CON 4UNTTY AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING 311 NORTH SECOND STREET,SUITE 300■Sr.CHARLES,ILLINOIS 60174 708■377.6900 FAX 706■377■7131 TO: City of Yorkville DATE: June 8,1993 610 Tower Lane JOB NUMBER: 9397 Yorkville,IL 605W ATTEN IOM Don Peck RE: I Annexation Petitions WE ARE SENDING YOU memo VIA UPS overnight COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 6/7/93 Annexation Petitions PG93-5,PC-93-7,PC-93A PC-93-9,PC-93-10 memo THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: FOR APPROVAL RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS FOR REVIEW tit COMMENT X FOR YOUR USE CONFIRM YOUR FAX RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US AS REQUESTED SUBNO[T FOR DISTRIBUTION REMARKS COPY TO: SIGNED: Jeff Palmquist,A.I.C.P. /hr IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED,KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. III►IIIIH�� Lannert Group '��IIII'Ililll ■LAND PLANNING ■LANDSCAPE MEMORANDUM ARCHITECTURE •CIVIL TO: DON PECK/CITY OF YORKVILLE ENGINEERING YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION •COMMUNITY YORKVILLE CITY COUNCIL CONSULTING FROM: THE LANNERT GROUP •DEVELOPMENT RE: ANNEXATION PETITIONS PC-93-5, PC-93-6, PC-93-7, MANAGEMENT PC-93-8, PC-93-9, PC-93-10 DATE: JUNE 7, 1993 INTRODUCTION Presently, the City of Yorkville has received petitions for annexation of approximately 570 acres of undeveloped land with additional annexations to follow. Ideally, an approved comprehensive plan is in place which forms the initial, most basic tool in evaluating annexations in terms of future use and zoning. As everyone knows, the comprehensive planning process involving The Lannert Group has just recently commenced. While we are committed to working quickly to formulate an agreed upon land use plan by which to evaluate annexation requests, this will not be in place for some weeks. However, this is not to suggest that the Plan Commission wait until the comprehensive plan is complete or that The Lannert Group should postpone review comments until that time. To the extent possible at this time, we will provide comments which are designed to: • raise issues for the Plan Commission to explore; • present potential provisions which may be included in the annexation agreements; • describe conditions by which the proposed annexations may be appropriate; • suggest potential zoning categories of lesser intensity which may be changed in the future based upon the submission of development plans. THE LANNERT GROUP 311 NORTH 2ND STREET SUITE 300 ST. CHARLES, IL 60174 708 377.6900 FAX 708 377.7131 Due to time constraints, in many instances we shall identify the basic issues at this time only. We shall be prepared to investigate these issues in greater depth with the Plan Commission. PC-93-5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT ELDAMAIN ROAD & ROUTE 34 Description The petitioner, Development Resources, Inc. has proposed a 187.97 acre planned development at the southeast corner of Eldamain Road and Route 34. The requested uses are as follows: Maximum Requested Underlying Number Use Zoning Area of Units Retail B-3 31.87 Ac --- Residential R-3 (7 du/Ac.) 29.97 Ac 210 Residential R-2 (3.3 du/Ac.) 71.46 Ac. 235 Residential R-2 (2.5 du/Ac.) 29.42 Ac. 74 Park/Detention/ --- 23.80 Ac. --- Open Space 187.97 Ac. 519 As the preliminary sketch plan illustrates, the proposed non-residential uses are located along Route 34 and include the "Retail/Office" pod (14.08 acres) and the 16.49 acre "Retail" pod at the corner of Eldamain Road and Route 34. In addition, a 2.75 acre neighborhood retail use is proposed at one entrance along Route 34 into the potential development. The residential uses range from proposed R-3 and R-4 zones adjacent to proposed retail uses to proposed R-2 zones adjacent to the open space and comprising essentially the southern one-half of the parcel. Comments 1. Land Use: The proposed pattern of land uses is reasonable based upon the following assumptions: • the adjacent parcel to the east shall develop as office; • Eldamain Road shall become a significant north-south collector, potentially with 2 a bridge crossing the river in the future; • the City of Yorkville has, as a matter of policy, chosen to target commercial development on Route 34 as far west as Eldamain Road. We do agree with the petitioner's concept of not devoting the entire Route 34 frontage to strip commercial development, especially as it relates to maintaining the integrity of the Rob Roy Creek corridor and limiting access points along Route 34. The sketch plan suggests that "non-single family" densities of residential development be developed as transitions between commercial and office uses and pods of typical single family densities. We feel that the proposed residential pattern is reasonable with the following provisions: • the proposed R-3 and R-4 areas shall be developed either as medium density/owner-occupied townhomes or small lot single family dwellings (i.e. no apartments); • the 16.01 acres R-2 pod along Route 34 and the large 71.46 acre R-2 pod shall be developed with an.average lot size of 10,000 square feet; • the 13.41 acre R-2 pod at the southwest corner of the parcel shall be developed with lot sizes at a minimum of 10,000 square feet. 2. Access: A primary reason for traffic safety and congestion problems along developed highways is the proliferation of curb cuts. Therefore, The Lannert Group recommends that now, given the City's opportunity to control the number of access points along Route 34 and Eldamain Road, the following provisions be included in the annexation agreement of the subject property: • Only three full access points into the subject property from Route 34 - one into the westerly B-3 parcel and two between Rob Roy Creek and the easterly property line. Access points should be spaced no less than approximately 750 feet apart. It may also be appropriate to consider a right-in/right-out access for the westerly B-3 parcel. • Three full access points along Eldamain Road - one into the B-3 parcel and no more than two into the adjacent residential parcel. 3. Additional Provisions: The Lannert Group recommends that the Plan Commission consider the following additional provisions: • The Plan Commission may want to review the list of permitted B-3 uses. Certain B-3 uses may not be appropriate given the potential character of this planned development. 3 • The annexation agreement should include conditions whereby the developer pays for traffic impact analyses when necessary, the appropriate percentage of the cost of improvements to Eldamain Road and Route 34 as a result of this development, and the appropriate share of utility extension costs. 4. Conclusions: Many more issues regarding the development of the subject property are relevant to the Plan Commission's review and discussion including: • existing vegetation • topography • setback and landscaping requirements along Eldamain Road and Route 34 • parking lot landscaping • detention/open space within the residential parcels • ownership/maintenance of future open space • trails and greenways However, as a proposed planned development, the City shall have the opportunity to review these more detailed elements throughout the planned development review process. PC-93-6 To be issued as a separate attachment. PC-93-7 48 ACRE ROUTE 34 ANNEXATION Description The petitioner is seeking annexation of the 48.647 parcel immediately west of the courthouse complex along the south side of Route 34. The proposed planned development PC-93-5 lies immediately west of the subject site. The petitioner is requesting office zoning. Comments 1. Land Use: The development of the County complex has established a character and a pattern of development along Route 34. The designation of additional area for office development adjacent to the County complex is appropriate. The subject parcel, at 48 acres, is reasonably sized and a well located extension of office use. 2. Access: In an effort to encourage the development of the subject parcel in a comprehensive manner and not excessively position access points along Route 34, 4 we recommend one full access point along Route 34 and a full access point at the eastern property line to be shared with the County development. 3. Additional Provisions: The Lannert Group recommends the following provisions as part of the annexation of the subject parcel: • The proposed zoning should be amended as O Planned Development. As a planned development,the City would maintain control over the character of future office development. This ensures development which would be consistent with the character of the County development (i.e. large setbacks, landscaping, etc.). This also defers technical considerations to the planned development review process. • As recommended above, this annexation agreement should also include provisions to ensure that the developer(s) pay for traffic impact analyses as necessary, the appropriate percentage of the cost of improvements to Route 34 (for example, turn lanes and/or acceleration and deceleration lanes) and the appropriate costs for utility extensions. PC-93-8 195 ACRE FAXON ROAD ANNEXATION Description The petitioner is seeking annexation of 195 acres at the northwest intersection of Faxon Road and Cannonball Trail and rezoning from Kendall County Ag. to M-1. The subject site has approximately 4500 feet of frontage along Faxon Road and approximately 1450 feet of frontage along Cannonball Trail. This parcel is located immediately north of site described in case PC-93-10 which is seeking annexation of 56.6 acres and R-2 zoning. Comments While we have been able to generally support the zoning categories of cases PC-93-5 and PC-93-7, The Lannert Group feels less comfortable supporting the requested M-1 zoning for the entire subject parcel. Due to its large size and location within a transitional zone at the edge of the city, the optimum development of the 195 acre site may involve a number of zoning categories and uses. Without some idea as to how the accepted comprehensive plan may guide the land use decisions in this area, it may be premature to approve M-1 zoning for the entire site. The Comprehensive Plan would answer questions as to whether the primary use and character for the site is M-1, O, some type of office-research campus, residential, or a combination of some or all of the following. Additional concerns related to M-1 zoning include the following: 5 • control of truck access along Cannonball Trail; • buffers for existing residents along Cannonball Trail; • potential M-1 restrictions. Therefore, we suggest that the Plan Commission explore the potential of A-1 zoning for this parcel as a means of deferring land use decisions. If this is not an agreeable solution, the issues which should be pursued include: • Use restrictions; • Potentially allowing a mix of uses. This can be formulated on a percentage basis; • Vehicular access restrictions to Cannonball Trail and Faxon Road; • Buffering for existing and future residential developments; • Cost sharing for utility extensions and roadway improvements. • Additional R.O.W. which may be required along Cannonball Trail and Faxon Road. PC-93-9 7 ACRE ROUTE 34 ANNEXATION Description The request of the petitioner is for annexation and B-3 zoning of his 7.192 acre parcel located along Route 34. A single family home lies to the east of the subject site; the parcel to the west, slightly larger in size, comprises the unincorporated northeast corner of Route 34 and Cannonball Trail. The subject site is bounded to the north by Oak Knolls subdivision. The parcel to the south is zoned B-2. Of course, adjacent to that parcel at the southwest intersection of Cannonball Trail and Route 34 is the County Complex. Comments 1. Land Use/Zoning:The requested B-3 zoning may initially appear logical based upon the existing adjacent office and retail zoning and the potential of commercial and/or office zoning at the northwest corner of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. In addition, the City recognizes the potential for commercial development along Route 34. However, we would encourage the Plan Commission to consider a number of problems which may be associated with future commercial development of this parcel. These include: 6 a. incompatibility with adjacent single family residential development to the north and east. b. incompatibility with the Blackberry Creek corridor located at the northeast corner of the subject parcel. c. the stripping of commercial uses off of Route 34 rather than encouraging unified comprehensively planned and designed retail centers. d. the resulting potential for a "patchwork" of uses to the northeast of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. e. the resulting incomplete development of Oak Knolls subdivision leaving a 16 parcel single family neighborhood. 2. Recommendation: The recommendations of The Lannert Group regarding the annexation and zoning of the 7 acre subject parcel are as follows: a. If possible, consider the annexation, zoning and development of the subject site together with that of the adjacent parcel at the northeast comer of Cannonball Trail and Route 34. This provides the opportunity to provide a unified development with controlled access along Route 34. b. Consider an alternative to B-3 zoning. With the potential for commercial development at the northwest corner of Cannonball Trail and Route 34 as well as throughout the westerly Route 34 corridor, a transitional use which can be more compatibly developed adjacent to residential development,the creek corridor and its topography and vegetation may be more appropriate. potential options for consideration include: • Residentially zoned planned development-A residential development at a density of 6 to S du/acre can be an effective transitional use which can also ample, landscaped setbacks along Route 34 and Cannonball Trail. Access can work from Cannonball Trail (with adjacent parcel cooperation) and possibly Hickory Lane to the north. An open space feature relating to the Blackberry Creek corridor is also possible and desirable. • Office planned development-While potential office development may still leave the character of the area northeast of Cannonball Trail and Route 34 somewhat fragmented, as a planned development this may co-exist reasonably compatibility with adjacent residential areas. The provisions included in the annexation agreement should, like the cases before this, address the approximated shared costs for infrastructure 7 improvements and studies which may be required in the future. PC-93-10 56 ACRE CANNONBALL TRAIL ANNEXATION Description This petition is an annexation and R-2 zoning request for the 56.607 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Faxon Road and Cannonball Trail. The maximum permitted lot size within the R-2 district for properties served by public sewer and water utilities is 12,000 square feet. Comments 1. Land Use/Zoning: As suggested in the above discussion of PC-93-8 (195 acre M-1 annexation), the area to the north, northwest, and west of Cannonball Trail In the vicinity of the subject site may optimally become some combination of light manufacturing,office-research and residential uses. The challenge of the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan of course is to develop a feasible and logical arrangement of such uses. Can this petition for annexation be considered in lieu of the guidance of the completed Comprehensive Plan? The proposed zoning category may be reasonable to consider based upon these assumptions: a. The policy of Yorkville indeed is to recognize additional viable residential potential along Cannonball Trail. At 56 acres, the subject site is reasonably sized to consider residential development now at this location without compromising light industrial and office-research potential at the northwest edge of the City. b. Additional areas of residential development along the west side of Cannonball Trail shall be designated as residential. This would reaffirm a Cannonball Trail residential zone and prevent the subject site from becoming an isolated neighborhood among light industrial/office uses. c. The City accepts 12,000 square feet as an appropriate minimum lot size for residential development of the subject site. 2. Recommendation: Should the Plan Commission accept those assumptions, The Lannert Group recommends that the annexation of the subject site occur with the following provisions: a. The zoning request should be amended to R-2 planned development. As we have stated, the planned development allows greater City control yet allows for greater planning and design flexibility. Issues which can be addressed at the time 8 of planned development review shall necessarily include: - Setbacks and landscaping along Cannonball Trail and Faxon Road. - Detention/open space layout within the project interior. - Lot size and density. - Trails and greenways. - Access to Faxon Road and Cannonball Trail. b. The need for additional R.O.W. dedications along Faxon Road and Cannonball Trail can be addressed. c. The developer(s) should pay the appropriate share of utility extension costs, improvements to Faxon Road and Cannonball Trail, and any studies which may be necessary to analyze the impacts of potential development of the subject site. 9 ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST PETITION: C 9,6- DATE: 1A&AJ �J� bi�A�/�/1Aron -r-�AzA t,�) YES NO I. Have procedural requirements been met? V 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern and the adapted plan? 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? ) 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 OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER I. Can the proposed use fulfill all current 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 with state and local require- ments? 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 the municipalities? 3. Will fire protection based on municipal standards be provided for the proposed use? 4. Will police protection based on municipal 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 new students produced by the proposed use? 7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided for the proposed use a� if applicable? 8. Is the proposed use consistent with adopted land use plans? 9. Will the proposed use create excessive storm water runoff? ✓ 10. Does the proposed use promote the use of pedestrian right-of-ways for convenience / and safety? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: � t OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE q C. PUBLIC CONCERNS YES NO OTHER I. 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: " ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST PETITION: /- l�'�3_S� DATE: loeUe In,0172e-A-1 T 1SF, 1•?L��� YES NO I. Have procedural requirements been met? ✓ 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern / and the adapted plan? 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? � i 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: - t r PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE # OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER I. Can the proposed use fulfill all current 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 with state and local require- ments? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: 'i 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 ✓ the municipalities? 3. Will fire protection based on municipal standards be provided for the proposed use? 4. Will police protection based on municipal 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 ✓ �� new students produced by the proposed use? 7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided for the proposed use ✓ if applicable? 8. Is the proposed use consistent with / adopted land use plans? 9. Will the proposed use create excessive / storm water runoff? 10. Does the proposed use promote the use of pedestrian right-of-ways for convenience and safety? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: 1 r'� OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE q 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? r 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? J 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 / 1 required? ✓ ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: ' ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST PETITION: PC— DATE: �� _/ 3 YES NO 1. Have procedural requirements been met? 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern and the adapted plan?, 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.? .9..3 - y 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? y 9. Would change if a deviation from the comprehensive plan alter the population density pattern and thereby harmfully i increase the load on public facilities? Schools? B. Sewers? C. Parks? - —Meoo" D. Other? Identify _SG 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: P'�2 ����`^PQ/ —^ C ,/` /V PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE # OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OT ER 1. Can the proposed use fulfill all current 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 with state and local require- ments? 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 the municipalities? 3. Will fire protection based on municipal standards be provided for the proposed use? 4. Will police protection based on municipal 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? VVV 6. Is there capacity in the local schools for new students produced by the proposed use? 7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided for the proposed use / if applicable? 8. Is the proposed use consistent with adopted land use plans? 9. Will the proposed use create excessive storm water runoff? 10. Does the proposed use promote the use of /. pedestrian right-of-ways for convenience and safety? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE q C. PUBLIC CONCERNS YES NO OTHER I. 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: b PLAN CMUSSION NESTING. . . Y16 Ae dw PC 3- 3' TA f/dLNEX ZONE [� HAROLD F= l� 0 omm SMVAM- DW MEW LAWRENCE LANG 0 SANDRA ADAMS A -- MICHAEL CROUCH - — TOM LINDBIU M KEVIN CO ANNE LUCIETTO BUCK KOLM&MR Y BOB DAVIDSCN /V M � PLAN COMMISSION/SIGN—IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS S F c 1 i C-7 A ! 414VA �av- Pao j Cane fl, f 3k�6 M1 ` t- i 2 Of P IV6^j Pot . r"Lr pwc.,� T� Y PUBLIC HEARING /SIGN-IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS