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