Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1998 01-14-98 A PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS JANUARY 14, 1998 The January meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Lindbloom at 7:00 PM. New Member Chairman Lindbloom welcomed Janet Reaves as a new member to the Commission. Roll Call: Members Present: Tom Lindblom Burton Callmer(arrived 7:05 PM) Anne Lucietto Jack Jones Janet Reaves Sandra Adams Clarence Holdiman Bob Wenman Members Absent: James St.Jules Lawrence Langland Dale Homyan-Toftoy Dave Dockstader Ralph Pfister PUBLIC HEARING#98-1 Requesting Annexation&Rezoning from Kendall Co.A-1 to City B-3. J. Ray&Beverly Schneider A Old 2nd National Bank Trust#5927 7511 Rt.47 Chairman Lindbloom swore in those wishing to give testimony. Ray Schneider addressed the Commission. He requested to rezone his property from A-1 to B-3 for the purpose of improving the resale value of the property. The property is located in a commercial corridor. He asked for it to be zoned into the city because the property across the highway is being zoned into the city, also. There will not be anything built on this property now, but it will be sold. Ray Brucki, neighboring property owner, stated his concerns of the B-3 zoning because it"would leave the door open for about anything that would come in." Karen Meyer, daughter of a neighboring property owner, stated her mother is also planning on selling her property in the future. They are flexible towards the rezoning that would make her property worth more. PUBLIC HEARING PC 98-3 Requesting Rezoning from 84,B-2&B-3 to R-4 General Residence District&B-3 Service Business District. Inland Land Appreciation Fund 11,L.P.for American National Bank B Trust Co.of Chicago a/t/u/t/a dated 7/16/91 and known as Trust No.114224-09 Southeast Corner of Rt.47&Rt. 34 Chairman Lindbloom swore in all those wishing to give testimony. Greg Gable stated this property is owned by Inland and is approximately 35 acres. There is currently B-1, B-2 & B-3 zoning and except for Planning Commission 1/14/98 one building, the property is vacant. Eagle foods is looking at part of this property. Mr. Gable consulted the Comprehensive Plan from September for planning. He stated there would be highway commercial along Rt. 34, (600-700 ft. deep), south of that would be a mixture of high and medium density residential and single family homes, There would be 7-8 units per acres. He proposed retaining B-3 highway commercial uses along Rt 47 and Rt. 34 with the interior being an attached housing product of 8 units per acre. In concept, there would be owner occupied town homes and apartments north of Landmark Dr. He felt this would address the market conditions and the Comprehensive Plan (which changed in December). Barb Kolaski, representing St. Patrick's Church, reminded the Commission of the sewer and water recapture agreement that was entered into with the city by the church. J.T. Johnson said the city is aware of this. Mr. Gable said they would honor any agreements that have been made. John Snyder, 304 Walnut, stated he felt commercial zoning would be a good thing for the city. Mr. Jones moved to adioum the public hearings Ms Adams seconded the motion. On a voice vote, all members Present votina eve. Motion carried. DECEMBER MINUTES Mr. Callmer moved to approve the minutes as submitted Ms Lucietto seconded the motion. Qn a voice vote, all members present voting ave. Motion carried. NEW BUStAIESS PC 98.1 Requesting Annexation&Rezoning from Kendall Co.A-1 to City B-3. J. Ray&Beverly Schneider&did 2nd National Bank Trust M27 7511 Rt.47 The Comprehensive Plan shows commercial zoning where this property is located. The Zoning Analysis Checklist was done. (See attachment). Mr. Jones moved to recommend to the City Council the annexing of PC 98-1 the owners beina J Ray and Beverly-Schneider, at 7511 Rt 47. Mr. Wenman seconded the motion On a roll call vote all members present voting ave. Motion carried. Mr. Wenman moved recommend to the City Council B-3 zoning on PC98-1, at 7511 Rt 47, York He, Illinois. Mr. Jones seconded the motion On a roll call vote all members voting aye with the exception of Mr. Callmer who voted no. Motion carried 7-1. PC 983 Requesting Rezoning from 84,B-2 8 8-3 to R-4 General Residence District&B-3 Service Business District. Inland Land Appreciation Fund 11,L.P.for American National Bank&Trust Co.of Chicago a/tlu/t/a dated 7/16/91 and known as Trust No.1142" Southeast Corner of Rt.47 8 Rt.34 Greg Gable explained the zoning of this parcel recently changed to all commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. The plan presented was designed pertaining to the former Comprehensive Plan, not the one being used now. They want to retain the highway commercial uses. They are proposing the concept of a transitional type of residential housing from apartments ($1,000-$1,3000 a month)to owner occupied townhomes ($120- $150,000)to Walnut St. with landscaping with 7.6 units per acre on the R-4. (220 units, 400 people) They propose realigning McHugh St. and curve it through their property to Rt. 34. 2 Planning Commission 1/14/98 Matt Fiascone said they have been working with the prospective purchaser for the northeast corner for the past 8 months. They are in support of the rezoning and feel this commercial use would benefit from more residential housing in the area. They do not want to do a PUD and the commercial parcel would be the first phase. There is not a builder for the rest of the project as yet. The Comprehensive Plan shows this at mostly commercial and medium density residential. (3.4-5.0 housing units per acre.) There could be 13 apartment units, 3 story with 1-3 bedrooms. The 54 townhomes could be 2-3 bedrooms. A stoplight is also being proposed at McHugh and Rt. 34. Dick Aubrey, Jim Perkins and the owners of Ace Hardware stated their concerns of the potential water retention problems and the high density housing backed up to commercial property. The Zoning Analysis Checklist was reviewed. (See attachment) Various commission members expressed their reservations and concerns of the high density housing and this setting precedence. Mr. Jones moved to request rezoning for PC 98-3 from B-1, B-2 & B-3 to R-3 General Residence District and B-3 Service Business District for applicant Inland Land Appreciation Fund. Ms. Lucietto seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, all members Present votino no. Motion denied. PC 98-2 Requesting Rezoning from Kendall County A-1 to R-3 Residential District Old Second National Bank/Trustee Under Trust#30-4859.00&John B.Kuney 111 Van Emmon Rd. John Kuney, developer, contractor, planner and purchaser, addressed the Commission. The property is 14.26 acres on Van Emmon Rd., 1.5 miles east of Yorkville and was owned by his aunt and uncle. He presented his plans to divide the property into 7 residential lots. The name of the development would be Timberton Preserve. The site is heavily wooded with 3 bluffs, a slopping hillside and two meadows. He plans to have deeded protective covenants with restrictions to removing trees, out buildings and driveways. The site would be accessed by two private, common driveways (one servicing 3 lots, the other 4 lots)with shared expenses under a homeowners association. Utilities are available along Van Emmon Rd. and each site would have utility access. Chairman Lindbloom and Mr. Wenman suggested the roads to be looped for emergency access. Mr. Jones moved to recommend this to the county based on the concerns of koopir-q the road, the width of the road, the homeowner's association and utility easement. Mr. Wenman seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, all members Present votina ave. Motion carried. Adjoumment Mr. Jones moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 PM. Ms. Lucietto seconded the motion. On a voice vote, all members present voting ave. Motion carried. Submitted by, Sheryl Washburn Recording Secretary 3 w ZONING ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Y13EVE�2Ly -TVA)ST 5q2.-4 PETITION: . DATE: ' V 38 3 1 Wx> App. Fun►p L,P. YES NO y 1. Have procedural requirements been met? Y 2. Is change contrary to the established land use pattern and the adapted plan? 3. Would change create an isolated, unrelated district, "spot spot zoning 4. Have major land uses changed since the zoning was applied, I�► i.e. , new expressway, new dam, etc.? 5. Is existing development of the area contrary to existing X zoning ordinances (variations or violations)? 6. Would change of .present district boundaries be X 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? ig) Schools? B. Sewers? C. Parks? D. Other? Identify 10. Will change adversely influence living conditions in the '1 vicinity due to any type of pollution? r I� 11. Will property values in the vicinity be adversely affected 17 by change? 0 IY 12. Will change result in private investment which would be beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area? COMMENTS: 1 s' I `5e (AM,61 ""h N' ' ` , r PAGE 2 PLAN COMMISSION / PLANNER FILE # OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION DATE OWNER q$-3 A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE YES NO OTHER �/�I/D 1. Can the proposed use fulfill all current D 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 X ry 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 X of runoff from storm or flood waters? 5. Are the soils suitable for septic systems if \/ ► 1 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: 99- 1 Use "hirw rl 6iS 3 C o r a-P ' OAA-5 ' rur,&W � �i� � o n UA UdO eJ ry0feNt OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 3 N B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS YES NO OT_ HER RS 3 YND 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 I General Plan and the official plans of Y 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? 1 8. Is the proposed use consistent with N 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 X and safety? ADDITIONAL PLAN COMMISSION COM14ENTS OR RENEW ITEMS: use U.4A,�n T OFFICIAL PLAN EVALUATION PAGE 4 q� C. PUBLIC CONCERNS YES NO OTHER 11 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?. ri b. Is an adequate sewage disposal system J* b Q Y provided? c. Require connection to city water and Y sewer system when within 2,000 feet. d. Are adequate recreational opportunities X' —&7 N provided? 'v 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: Co — I 1,tSe. (Jlv� �Gna'W h ci$-3 (geoera)