Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1996 01-10-96 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY'OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS JANUARY 10, 1996 7:00 P.M. The January meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Lindblom. Roll Call: Members Present: Tom Lindblom Ralph Pfister Sandra Adams Michael Crouch Jack Magnuson Anne Lucietto Dave Dockstader Dale Homyan-Toftoy Absent: Clarence Holdiman Lawrence Langland Greg Kraber John Barber Others Present: City Planner Jeff Palmquist,Attorney T.J.Hiles,City Treasurer Richard SchdWul,Building Inspector Barb Dettmer,City Administrator Jim Nanninga,Police Chief Tony Graff,Mayor Bob Johnson,and Aldermen Art Prochaska,Jeff Spang,and Jeff Baker. Chairman Lindblom asked if there were any additions or corrections made to the December Minutes. Anne Lucietto made the correction that Sandra Adams read the checklist,not Anne Lucietto. The correction was noted and Michael Crouch voted for approval. Anne Lucietto seconded. Voice Vote: Carried. PUBLIC HEARIN G Darren Sloninger of the Development Group of Chicago,LTD.discussed plans for rezoning from R-2 to R4 General Residence District the former Parkview School. The Development Group of Chicago,LTD. is in negotiations with the property owners but desires information from the Commission regarding what is and is not acceptable to the City. The proposal calls for 40"elderly apartments"for people at least 55 years of age. Each unit is an individual unit with kitchen, stove,etc. There will be 26 two-bedroom units and 14 one-bedroom units. An addition will be constructed on the north side of the existing building and will house 22 of the 40 total units. The gymnasium will remain as it is for use as an exercise area and common area for residents. There will be a resident garden on the open space but the rest of the land will not be developed. There will be 69 parking spaces, 10 of which will be labeled for the handicapped The building will be equipped with an elevator. When questioned about the 18 years,Mr. Sloniger explained that this number is due to limited partnerships. He also stated that the first preference would be to have a resident manager and the second preference would be a part-time manager. Mr. Sloniger said that the building will have fill sprinkler systems and standpipes and that the new addition will equal the height of the present building. He also noted that there is no plan for fencing the area;the sidewalk will remain as it is now. Ralph Pfister made a motion to close the public hearing. Dave Dockstader seconded the motion. Voice Vote: Carries. NEW BUSINESS PC 96-1 City Planner Jeff Palmquist stated that the Planning Council's biggest issue is how this will effect the Spring St.Extension. City Administrator Jim Nanninga described the proposed"S-curve" extension of Spring St. Alderman Jeff Baker and Anne Lucietto expressed concern regarding the use of the property when the 18 years expires. Dave Dockstader asked why the issue of the property remaining senior housing after 18 years would be an issue. Jeff Papmquist explained that the size of the resident families,the need for parking,the amount of cooking in the units,and the impact on neighborhoods and schools are some concerns. Darren Sloniger explained that the apartments would not be subsidized but that the developers can earn tax rebates if they follow the guidelines for income-based cost. Dave Dockstader asked what the income caps for seniors would be,and Mr. Sloniger said they are about$18,000 to$26,000. The rent will be about$475-$525 for a one-bedroom and$525-$700 for a two bedroom. Mr. Sponger stated that the interior of the building will remain much as it is now. The exterior will be blended as much as possible,following the guidelines for a certified historical building. Michael Crouch asked why the proposed parking was reduced from 89 to 69 spaces. Jeff Palmquist answered that this issue was discussed and it was found that 69 spaces would be sufficient. Discussion followed as Anne Lucietto read the zoning analysis checklist(attached). Chairman Lindblom summarized that the committee's concerns are: 1. A desire for the green space to remain 2. A desire to remain a senior facility after the 18 years(may tie to P.U.D.) 3. The need for storm water run-off provisions if necessary. 4. The issue of the Spring St.extension. Dave Dockstader asked if there will be garages built in the future. Mr. Sloniger answered that there would not. Mr.Dockstader also asked about garbage pick-up and recycling programs. Mr. Sloniger answered that these have not yet been discussed but will be considered in the future. Ralph Pfister made a motion to table this item until the concerns have been resolved with the Planning Council and the developer. Dale Homyan-Toftoy seconded. Roll Call Vote: Sandra Adams - Yes Tom Lindblom - Yes Ralph Pfister - Yes Michael Crouch - Yes Jack Magnuson - Yes Anne Lucietto - Yes Dave Dockstader- Yes Dale Homyan-Toftoy - Yes Motion passed 9-0. With no further business,the meeting was adjourned Pamela K.Ellertson,Recording Secretary ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST PETITION: DATE: of vfC4'kCA-4M L-M. LAND USE CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 1. Is the change consistent with the comprehensive plan? X 2. Is the change congruous with surrounding zoning districts? 3. Is the change congruous with existing adjacent uses? 4. Is the change congruous with existing commitments or planned ? public improvements? 5. Will the change result in private investment which would be beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area? 6. Will the change generally maintain or enhance property values in the vicinity? COMMENTS: Co rvk rv,%i SS I of� Ce rJ C.E2-IJ s • NCB Jr-• •Ex-t�rlsl o�J A ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 1. Is the location of future roads consistent with the official plans of the 7 City? , 2. Does the change conform to standards of traffic safety and orderly traffic patterns? X 3. If necessary, are other means of transportation available for access to and from the proposed use? 4. Does the proposed use promote the use of pedestrian rights-of-way for convenience and safety? 5. Does the change conform to all pertinent environmental regulations? X 6. Can the proposed use conform to storm water run-off requirements? x 7. Are recreational opportunities available or being provided for the proposed use? X 8. Can the proposed use be adequately served by municipal services? x 9. Is there capacity in the local schools for new students produced by .1/a the proposed use? P COMMENTS: - f w SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER 1. Can the proposed use fulfill all current zoning requirements? a. frontage x b. setbacks K C. lot area X d. maximum lot coverage x e. floor area ratio X f. enclosure of use X g. parking spaces X h. screening X i. water and sewage disposal X j. right-of-way for street width (city, county, or state) X 2. Is the topography of the site suitable for the proposed use? 3. Are the soils suitable for the proposed use? X 4. Are the soils suitable for septic systems if proposed as part of the use? COMMENTS: