Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1996 03-13-96 y MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMNUSSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORE,]KENDALL COUNTY,ILLINOIS March 13, 1996 7:00 P.M. The March mewing of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Lindblom. Roll Call: Members Present: Tom Lindblom Michael Crouch Marty Behrens Anne Lucietto Dale Hornyan-Toftoy John Barber Jack Magnuson Absent: Clarence Holdiman Lawrence Langland Greg Kramer Ralph Pfister Sandra Adams Dave Dockstader Others Present: City Planner Jeff Palnsquist,Attorney T.J.Hiles,City Treasurer Richard Schdhbn,Building b*ec W Barb Dom,City Administrator Jim Nanninip,Consulting Engineer Bill Schmanski,and Aldetnw Art Prochaska,Jeff Spang,and Jeff Baker. Chairman Lindblom asked if there were any additions or corrections made to the February Minutes. Hearing none,Dale Hornyaa Toftoy voted for approval. Michal Crouch ieconded. Voice Vote: Carried. PUBLIC REARING PC 964 Requesting rezoning from 0-Office to R-2 Duplex. The property is looted at the southwest corner of John St.and Cannonball Trail. The petitioner is John G.Conover and the owner of the property is Merchants National Bank of Aurora,Trust No.2175. Attorny Tom Grant,representing petitioner John Conover,described the preliminary plans for this area Mr.Conover would like to divide the approximately five acre area in to ten lots which would qualify as duplex or single family,Mr.Grant noted that most lots will most likely be used for duplexes. All lots will meet or exceed R2-Duplex requirements,with the smallest lot measuring 17,000 square feet. Mn petitioner will not request variations and the planning committee has approved this preliminary plan. Dave Powlowski of the Bristol Township Plan Commission asked the Commission to consider the issue of overcrowding. He noted that the City has limited building of duplexes on the south side of the town Gary Conover stated that many duplexes are owned by senior citizens and that overcrowding is not an issue. He does not feel that duplexes would be harmful to the City. John Chaach afthe eaaldl fk y and Zoom aann a *h tint dw sierWs dice Awiid be quest oned.reprdiWresidemial build-up near the jail. with no faiths comments,.Tacit lemon moved to close the public hewing, Michael Crouch seconded. Voice Vote. Carried PUBLIC HLATa iG 96-5- Requesting rMoning from Co.Ag.And Co. Single Family Residential R-3 to Service Business District B-3 zoning,with Spacial Use to permit dispensing of gasoline at agile gasoline pumping station, together with a convenience store. Requesting a variation be permitted for front yard to 20 feet for the installation of gasoline pumping equipment and associated improvements. The property is located on Rt 34 and Cannonball Trail. The petitioners are Arthur Sheridan&Associates,LTD.,Union Bank,and Alpert B.&Nora J.Vollendorf. The owners are Union Bank and Albert B.&Nora J.Vollendorf. Attorney Dallas Ingemunson described the plan for this area. He said that a 4 to 4.5 foot berm would be positioned on the with side of the land do protect the neighbors'view. lie noted that the EPA has stringent standards to ensure the safety of the gas tanks in preventing leakage. Arthur Sheridan said that the Voiiendorf home may become an office building or bank. The plan iievolm a drive through car wash and convenience store. The west side of the property will be usedasa "convenience area"which could house businesses such as a cleaners,gmck-copy,or small i am'aIIt Joseph Able,a land planner,feels that from a planning standpoint this is the"highest and best use for thi¢area. He feels the proposal'is adaptable to the sigbt and is -ble with surrounding lead ases. 146 said that of the 6.25 acre lot, 1.5 acres will be the service station,24%will be owe area,24%deh mtio®, and 28%limited retail. Tom Grant,representing Gary Conover,explained how this proposal may effect Mr.Conover's property on the east side of the proposed site. He felt that it may require another access onto Route 34 and that Mr. Conover may request duplex zoning to the east of Mr. Sheridan's property. Several citizens spore in opposition to the proposed gas station,many of whom are members of the Cannonball Trail Civic League. Frank Vitek felt that the plan violates the City Comprehtosive Pian, enpourages"spot zoning",may contaminate water as it is located on top of the aquifier,and will came noise pollution and obtrusive lighting. He also noted that according to the USDA the soil in that area has pgor filtering capabilities. Don Garbe feels that his water supply has already been affected by the City's placement of water and sewer lines and this will further contaminate the supply. Joe Gilbert aslmd what would happen if there was a problem with leakage,and felt that the Commission would be setting a precedent for developing commercial zoning in this residential area Vern Henne noted that he once had B-3 zoning in that area but it was legally and forcibly changed to residential. Martha Price reminded the Commission that in the June 16, 1993 minutes the Lannert Group recommended considering problems with developing commercial areas and that the Commission seemed to be against gal development. James Gorback mentioned concerns over traffic problems and liquor sales. After public commits,Michael Crouch motioned to adjourn the public hearing. Anne LuciOo seconded. Voice Vote: Carried. Michael Crouch left the meeting following the public hearings. r OLD BUSINESS PC 95-15 William Roppolo-Coach Road Hills Rezoning-Concept Plan. David Behrens of Design Network dwil)cd the plan. The biggest change is that 21 duplex lots have been eliminated He discussed the issues of concern that the Commission had previously noted First,the density was decreased from 351 unites to 336 units,with 256 single family and 80 townhomes. Second, the townhomes will all include two-car garages. Third,the building facades will have a minimum of brie and stone,and may include a combination of siding. Fourth,the access to the eomnxmal area was removed Fifth,emergency access was added at the townhomes. Sixth,the islands in the cull were removed except for a large one near the townhomes. Seventh,he discussed the open space element Which will include one regulation and two youth-size soccer fields,a child's play area,two tennis courts,a sand volleyball pit,and two trails,each approximately 2800 linear feet long. Last,he stated that if the Army Corps of Engineers will not allow the development of a lake,the money will go into a site amenity fund for the project. Jeff Palmquist said that the Planning Council felt some concern regarding bringing sewer to the site. Jack Magnuson made a motion to approve the concept plan for PC 95-15. Anne Lucidto seconded. Roll Call Vote: Jack Magnuson - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes Marty Behrens - Yes Anne Lucietto - Yes John Barber - Yes Dale Hornyan-Toftoy - Yes Motion passed 6-0. PC 964 Requesting rezoning from O-Office to R-2 Duplex. The property is located at the southwest corner of Jahn St and Cannonball Trail. The petitioner is John G.Conover. Tom Grant,representing Gary Conover,discussed the proposed rezoning. With reference to the jail site, he feels that significant berm is present for duplex building. He noted that Mr. Conover's duplexes have not seemed to generate a large influx of children into the district,as Mr.Conover previously mentioned. Planning Council's only concern regarded the units exiting onto John St. Mr.Grant said that these units will require a turn-around to prevent backing onto John St. Anne Lucietto read the Zoning Analysis Checklist(attached). After completion of the cheddist,Anne Lucietto noted her concern regarding the duplexes badang to the jail. Jack Magnuson motioned to approve the rezoning and preliminary plat with the turn-around for units an John St.added. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy seconded Rail Call Vote: Jade Magnuson - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes Marty Behrens - Yes Anne Lucietto - Yes John Barber - Yes Dale Hornyan-ToBoy - Yes Motion Carries 6-0. PC 96-5 Requesting rezoning from Co.Ag.And Co. Single Family Residential R-3 to Service Business District B-3 zoning,with Special Use to permit dispensing of gasoline at automobile gasoline pumping station,together with a convenience stone. Requesting a variation be permitted for front yard to 20 feet for the installation of gasoline pumping equipment and associated i rovements. The property is located on Rt. 34 and Cannonball Trail. The petitioners are Arthur Sheridan&Associates,LTD.,Union Bank,and Albert B.&Nora J.Vollendorf. Des Ingemmison,representing-Aft Sheridan,_noted that this development-would provide taxes-without adding more-ehildren_to the schools. the Ken WCounty study calls.for ial development along Route34. Mr.TnoQem»ncnn ca' 1hat the PlanningSommission's_canmm should be whether or not the neighbor's concerns can be met and protected. - Tom Lindblom asked about the variance for the 47.5 feet setback instead of 50 feet. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy asked about parking for the office and bank area Mr. Sheridan said that adequate parking will be available. Jeff Palmgmst asked if the developers are"locked mW this site plan. Mr. Sheridan said that they are. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy said she would like to see access to Mr.Conover's property without another art onto Route 34. Jack Magmison asked if the City can issue a commercial P.U.D. It was decided that the City can issue a commercial P.U.D. Anne Lucietto read the Zoning Analysis Checklist(attached). Marty Behrens noted that plans call for the City to waive hook-up fees. Planning Council would not recommend for these fees to be waived. Frank Vitek asked who would pay for road improvements that would be needed as a result of the traffic increase. These costs would have to be part of the P.U.D. Jeff Pahnquist said that Planning Council would request some refinements to the plan. Concern nwhrde the berm,buffer,setback issue,impact of turning lanes,and alignment of connecting property to the East. Anne Lucietto made a motion to accept PC 96-5 for arnexatkm. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy seconded. Roll Call Vote: Jack Magnuson - Yes Tom Lindblom - No Marty Behrens - Yes Anne Lucietto - Yes John Barber - Yes Dale Hord Toftoy - Yes Motion Carries 5-1. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy made a motion to send the PC 96-5 proposal back to planning council to rework the list of presented concerns as noted Jack Magnuson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Jack Magnuson - Yes Tom Lindblom - No Marty Behrens - Yes Anne Lucietto - No John Barber - Yes Dale Hornyan-Toftoy - Yes Motion Carries 4-2. PC 96-6 Kendall County Forest Preserve(Kendall County). Application for rezoning from A-1 to A-1 Special Use for hurounds. Rmperty is located on Route 71 and Highpoint Road John Church explained that the fair has been held at the forest preserve for the past four years,and someone recently offered to build a building for the fair on the property. Anne Lucietto made a motion to recommended that the City proceed with the application for rezoning. Dale Hornyan-Toftoy seconded. Roll Call Vote: Jack Magnuson - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes Marty Behrens - Yes Anne Lucietto - Yes John Barber - Yes Dale Hornyan-Toftay - Yes Motion Carries 6-0. With no fiirther business,the meeting was adjourned. ' K-Fit,A Pamela K.Ellertson,Recording Secretary "• ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST PETITION: Jcp N C .Cot3ov era- -TUST4 Z � YES NO I. Have procedural requirements been met? 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern and the adapted plan? x 3. Would change create an isolated, unrelated district, \ ' i.e. , "spot zoning"? X 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 tt A inconsistent in relation to existing uses? r ` 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? 9) Schools? B. Sewers? X C. Parks? O`H 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? 1► COMMENTS: r . PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE fc 91,4 _ OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE 3 3 % OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER I. Can the proposed use fulfill all current X zoning requirements? a. Frontage b Setbacks c. Lot Area d. Maximum Lot Coverage e. Floor Area Ratio f. Enclosure of Use ;. 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? jCY 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 N proposed as part of the use? 6. Is the site a legally created parcel of land in accordance with state and local require- ments? X00, ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: FC 9� - OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 3 r _ B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 1. Will the proposed use have an adverse y 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 X 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 CONlr4ISSION COMMENTS OR RENEW ITEMS: t ~ c q(04 OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 4 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? y a. Is an adequate water supply provided? b. Is an adequate sewage disposal system provided? c. Require connection to city water and x 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 publics 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 x accidents? c. If subdivision plans include more than 30 lots, will two ways of access to County, State or section line roads be I required? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: "- ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST d0 �_2 ...::c = _ PETITION: �' DATE: �O 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.? y S. Is existing development of the area contrary to existing / zoning ordinances (variations or violations)? V 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? V r 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? �i/ D. Other? Identify 10. Will change adversely influence living conditions in th vicinity due to any type of pollution? von I 11. Will property values in the vicinity be adversely affec ed / by change? VD*A 12. Will change result in private investment which would be beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area? V COMMENDS: r • . PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE S 1.77 —C)(0 OWNER A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER 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 F0 g. Parking Spaces h. Screening i. Water and Sewage Disposal � . Right of Way for Street Width (City, County or State) ll � 2. Is the topography of the site suitable / for the proposed use? V 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: rc 9(0-45 OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 3 i B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS _ YES NO OTHER I. 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 (� OWW7S 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? vvv 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 PLANT COX:IISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: 'OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION f '0)10 PAGE 4 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 NIA provided? 1� e. Is a pleasant and aesthetic environment ,✓ ` provided? F14 2. Will the proposed use or proposal promote P 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 ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COMMENTS OR REVIEW ITEMS: