Plan Commission Minutes 1995 10-11-95 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE
OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS .
OCTOBER 11, 1995
7:00 P.M.
The October meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Lindblom.
Roll Call:
Members Present: Tom Lindblom
Clarence Holdiman
Dave Dockstader
Anne Lucietto
Dale Hornyan-Toftoy
Michael Crouch
Marty Behrens
Sandra Adams
Absent: Ralph Pfister
Jack Magnuson
Lawrence Langland
Greg Kraber
Others Present:
City Planner, Jeff Palmquist, City Attorney, Dan Kramer, Consulting Engineer, Bill Schmanski,
Building Inspector, Bill Dettmer, Mayor Bob Johnson, and Alderman Jeff Baker and Jeff Spang.
Chairman Lindblom opened the meeting by welcoming new member, John Barber.
Tom Lindblom asked if there were any additions or corrections made to the August Minutes.
Hearing none, Clarence Holdiman voted for approval. Anne Lucietto seconded.
Voice Vote: Carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
Attorney Dallas Ingemunson and Architect David McEachern represented the Leahys. The
preliminary plans described the conversion of the old button factory located on the far end of east
Hydraulic Avenue to four loft apartments with a future plan of commercial use. The building is
1
currently owned by Paul and Valerie Burd who live adjacent to the property. The plan shows a,
central floor with one common entrance. All of the outer and attached buildings would be removed.
There would be a staircase on both sides of the chimney and decking on the back side of the building.
When questioned about the lack of parking space, Mr. Leahy said there is a possibility of converting
the rail spur into additional parking space if the railroad would abandon it. Mr. Leahy would be
willing to give the easement to the City and there would be more space available for riverfront
parking. The current owners had a short conversation with Burlington Railroad posing the
abandonment as an option. Although there was no official answer from them, he was confident they
would be willing to leave the spur because of the economic advantages.
NEW BUSINESS
PC 95-14 Rezoning request from M-1 to B-2 and R-4 Special use by Patrick and Roxanne Leahy.
The address of the property is 300 East Hydraulic Avenue and the owners are Paul and Valerie Burd.
Michael Crouch clarified that they really are not certain the railroad would abandon the spur.
Sandra Adams clarified that the City would not be responsible for the cost of the railroad
abandonment. Mr. Leahy agreed.
Mr. Leahy said the building that the Burd's currently occupy had an M-1 zoning. In the future, part
of the lot could be parking, and the home may be converted to commercial use. The Burds have said
l they would be selling the house sometime in the future but did not know exactly when.
Sandra Adams asked if there were any structural problems. Mr. Leahy said there would be brick
repair. The first floor was uneven and the second floor would be completely replaced. There was
also some fire-damaged wood. The building however, was square, straight and sound.
Anne Lucietto asked how long it would take to repair the building. Mr. Leahy said the interior
construction would be done in six months. The exterior depended upon the weather.
John Barber questioned the amount of space allowed for garbage removal, especially in snowy
conditions. Dave Dockstader said a garbage truck could turn on a much smaller radius and he did
not feel that the allotted space would be a problem.
Michael Crouch asked if the railroad chose not to abandon the spur, would the development of the
project cease. Mr. Leahy said no.
Discussion followed as Anne Lucietto read the zoning analysis check list.
1. Have procedural requirements been met? Yes
2. Is the change contrary to the established land use pattern No
and the adapted plan?
2
3. Would change create an isolated, unrelated district No
i.e., "spot zoning?"
4. Have major land uses changed since the zoning was applied, No
i.e., new expressway, new dam, etc?
5. Is existing development of the area contrary to existing zoning
ordinances(variations or violations?) Yes
6. Would change of present district boundaries be inconsistent
in relation to existing uses? No
7. Would the proposed change conflict with existing commitments
or planned public improvements? No
S. Will change contribute to dangerous traffic patterns or congestion? No
9. Would change if a deviation from the comprehensive plan alter
the population density pattern and thereby harmfully
increase the load on public facilities?
A. Schools?
B. Sewers?
C. Parks?
D. Other? Identify
10. Will change adversely influence living conditions in the vicinity due
to any type of pollution? No
11. Will property values in the vicinity be adversely affected by change? No
12. Will change result in private investment which would be beneficial
to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area? Yes
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
1. Can the proposed use fulfill all current zoning requirements? Yes
a. Frontage Yes
b. Setbacks Yes
C. Lot Area Yes
d. Maximum Lot Coverage Yes
e. Floor area ratio Yes
f. Enclosure of use Yes
g. Parking spaces Yes
h. Screening Yes
i. Water and sewage disposal Yes
j. Right of way for street width Yes
(City, County or State)
2. Is the topography of the site suitable for the proposed use? Yes
3. Are the soils suitable for the proposed use? Yes
4. Will the proposed use lessen or avoid hazards to property
3
# resulting from the accumulation of runoff from storm or
flood waters? No
5. Are the soils suitable for septic systems if proposed as
part of the use? Other
6. Is the site a legally created parcel of land in accordance
with state and local requirements? Yes
OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION
B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS
1. Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on the
immediate area? No
2. Is the location of future roads consistent with other
goals and objectives of the General Plan and the
official plans of the municipalities? Yes
3. Will fire protection based on municipal standards
be provided for the proposed use? Yes
4. Will police protection based on municipal standards
be provided for the proposed use? Yes
5. If necessary, are other means of transportation available
for access to and from the proposed use? Yes
6. Is there capacity in the local schools for new students
produced by the proposed use? No
7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided
for the proposed use if applicable? Other
8. Is the proposed use consistent with adopted land use plans? Yes
9. Will the proposed use create excessive storm water runoff? No
10. Does the proposed use promote the use of pedestrian
right-of-ways for convenience and safety? In fit=
ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS:
Garbage hauler access (recycling concerns)
4
OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION
C. PUBLIC CONCERNS
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? Yes
b. Is an adequate sewage disposal system provided? Yes
C. Require connection to City water and sewer
system when within 2,000 feet. Other
d. Are adequate recreational opportunities provided? Other
e. Is a pleasant and aesthetic environment provided Yes
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? Yes
b. Is the proposal located where roads are adequately
designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the
risk of accidents? Yes
C. If subdivision plans include more than 30 lots, will
two ways of access to County, State or section
line roads be required? Other
John Barber suggested calling the garbage hauler to make certain there were no space problems for
trucks and bins.
Anne Lucietto was concerned about the 12 months it would take to get the parking lot paved.
Mr. Leahy said he originally wanted two years to pave the lot and had agreed to one year. It was a
matter of economics,but he thought it would be paved next year, in late summer or fall.
Anne Lucietto made the motion to approve this project to go from M-1 to B-2 and R-4 Special Use.
Sandra Adams seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Sandra Adams Yes Marty Behrens - Yes
Michael Crouch - Yes Dale Hornyan-Toftoy - Yes
Clarence Holdiman - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes
Anne Lucietto - Yes Dave Dockstader - Yes
John Barber - No
5
g Motion passed 8-1. .
Anne Lucietto made a further motion to accept the proposed renovation with the Special Use
conditions that have been drafted by City Planner, Jeff Palmquist, (See attached), including #12,
which is the Burlington Northern spur concern, and consideration from the City Council about#10
as far as length of time that is given for the various paving.
Sandra Adams seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Clarence Holdiman - Yes Marty Behrens - Yes
Michael Crouch - Yes Dale Hornyan-Toftoy - Yes
Sandra Adams - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes
Anne Lucietto - Yes Dave Dockstader - Yes
John Barber - No
Motion passed 8-1.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
J a E. Fre c , Recordin Secretary
6
PROPOSED BUTTON FACTORY RENOVATION
DRAFT SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS:
1. No more than four residential dwellings permitted.
2. All residential dwellings to be rental (i.e. apartments not condominiums).
3. Any changes to the original brick facades or chimney must be reviewed and approved by
Council.
4. Neither the original brick facades nor the chimney shall be painted without review and
approval by Council.
5. The building and site shall be maintained in reasonable, sound repair in accordance with all
pertinent building codes and City ordinances(unless otherwise amended in the initial granting
of the Special Use Permit).
6. Any future building additions or changes in building appearance beyond normal maintenance
shall be reviewed and approved by Council.
7. No accessory building or structure shall be permitted without review and approval of Council.
8. No fencing shall be permitted along northern (front)building facade.
9. At least two parking spaces for each dwelling shall be provided on site.
10. Access drive and on site parking area shall be paved with asphalt or concrete within twelve
months of the date of issuance of the initial occupancy permit.
11. Landscaping shall proceed in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
D:projeets/9597/doca/9597028
t
i