Plan Commission Minutes 1989 08-16-89 y
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF
THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM
AUGUST 16, 1989 7:00 P.M.
The August meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Larry Langland,
acting Chairman in the absence of Harold Feltz. The following members were present:
Larry Langland, George Stewart, Sandy Adams, Kevin Collman
Absent: Harold Feltz, Clarence Holdiman, Don Ament, Rick Doetschman,
Larry Bretthauer, Dave Greiter, Don Schoenfielder, Dan Laube
Also present were Mayor Davidson, Fran Klaas, Bill Radke, Jim Clarage,
Attorney Jim Olson, petitioner D. Hollingsworth, and interested citizens
as listed on the sign-in sheet on file with the minutes.
The minutes from the July meeting were approved as written. The motion was by
George Stewart, the second by Larry Langland.
The first item on the agenda:
PC89-29 -- KENDALL COUNTY - REVISED CONCEPT PLAN - HOLLINGSWORTH - ELDAMAIN & RIVER
ROAD, SOUTH OF SCHAEFER ROAD & REZONING A-1 TO R-3
Mr. Hollingsworth presented the new concept plan. The original plan was presented
two months ago. The property consists of 68 acres bordered on the north by Schaefer
Rd. , Eldamain Rd. on the east, and River Rd. on the south. The number of lots has
been reduced from 48 to 31 and is believed to comply with regulations for property
within a 12 mile radius of the city limits of Yorkville.
Attorney Olson noted some of the basic differences between the two plans: no roads
within the development would access River Rd.; there will be a permanent lake of
3-4 acres; no lots would be reliant on questionable soil areas; the entrance at
Eldamain Rd. is an area high enough to provide satisfactory visibility. Larry
Langland questioned the visibility at this point, stating that he had been at
the area in question.
George Stewart questioned the soil type on lots 15 & 16. Kevin Collman stated the
lots were frequently flooded. Attorney Olson stated that there would need to be
a recorded drainage easement. Jim Clarage noted that a "no access" onto Eldamain,
Schaefer & River roads should be recorded.
Other concerns included:
1. Lots #25 & 26 -- where is the property line with respect to the existing
farm buildings on the farm property.
2. An area for playground or recreational facilities should be noted.
3. Consideration should be given to maintenance of the property surrounding
the lake area.
4. Sufficient right-of-way should be given for future widening of the road.
i_
August Plan Commission Minutes Page 2
Attorney Olson stated that nine acres of park area surrounding the creek was to be
maintained by a Home Owners Association. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that covenants
for the Association had not yet been established; this issue will be addressed
in the future.
Discussion followed on the subject of curbs or ditches (Olson stating not resolved
at this time) . Mayor Davidson expressed concern with adequate right-of-way to be
given for future widening of the road. Jim Olson stated that 50' had been provided;
Davidson said that 60' is needed; Jim Clarage stated that an additional 10, should
' be.prov'4ed .for utility easement. The Mayor also thought that Plano should be con-
sulted for input into the overall situation.
It was suggested by Jim Clarage that any recommendation to approve a zoning change
should be made subject to the following conditions:
1. There should be a 31 lot maximum as per the presented exhibit.
2. Curbs should be required on the northerly cul-de-sac (area leading into
the timber area. )
3. Petitioner should work with the County or the road commissioner to shave
off the knoll on Eldamain to insure safe access.
4. "No access"strip easements should be provided along the north, east and
south of. the property.
5. Recorded deed covenants providing recreational areas and homeowner's
agreements with respect to maintenance should be shown.
6. A dedicated 60' right-of-way and an additional 10' easement in favor of
the city should be provided. (Along the northerly property line)
7. The southerly cul-de-sac (parallel to River Rd. ) should be studied at
the Plat stage.
8. Drainage easements should be recorded for lots #15 & 16; lot #16 to
possibly need rework.
9. Any approval should be subject to verification and limiting factors of
Federal requirements with respect to wetlands and flood plain areas.
10. Kendall County soil and water conservation report as relates to the pro-
perty must be adhered to in the normal and customary manner.
Mr. Langland stated that he would allow two members of the group in attendance to
state the major concerns relating to this issue, even though this was not a public
hearing. The first issue presented was concerned with extreme flooding tendencies
on the property in question. A detailed study was presented for consideration; the
area was depicted as comparable to a basin area, with the majority of the property
being constantly boggy.
The second question related to the soil condition report. The public asked why
Plan Commission members did not have copies of this report. Numerous outbursts of
comments from the audience followed. The mayor and plan commission members, as well
as Jim Clarage, tried to respond to the questions asked; proper procedure to be
followed in petitions involving County zoning requests were stated.
August Plan Commission Minutes Page 3
It was stressed that the Plan Commission was strictly an advisory board; the County
would have the final say in changing zoning or with the final development. Also
noted was the importance of having just cause for denying any zoning request.
George Stewart asked to bring the issue to a vote. The motion was made (by
Stewart) to recommend the approval of the revised concept plan for the zoning
change from A-1 to R-3 subject to the ten conditions summarized by Jim Clarage
and listed in the minutes of this meeting. Sandra Adams seconded the motion.
Roll call vote carried the motion 3 to 1 as follows:
Stewart - yes Langland - yes Adams - yes Collman - no
PC89-30 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT - PRAIRIE LANDS UNIT 3
Jim Clarage questioned possible plans for further development in the future --
perhaps the petitioner should be asked to bring in the total plan for consideration.
Attorney Olson stated that the plan as presented was strictly a preliminary sketch
and that the intent was to get input from Commission members. He noted that a
wedge shaped piece of property at the east end of the property needed to be annexed
and that the request was under preparation.
The Mayor asked for clarification on the storm sewer issue. Mr. Radke affirmed
that the agreement waived detention on Phase 1 & 2, but any further plans would
have to show detention. Mr. Olson noted that there was a difference of opinion
with the detention and the water main capacity issues; they would go over previous
notes and study the issue thoroughly.
George Stewart voiced concern with the remaining acreage to the north. Jim Olson
stated that his client had no option on any property to the north at the present
time. The issue is that the same pattern was followed with Phase 1 & 2. Mayor
Davidson said that with the property now about half developed, some consideration
should be given to a recreational area. Sandy Adams brought up the issue of the
impact on the schools. It was stated that a future meeting with the City Council,
the School Board, and Plan Commission members was in planning stages. The Mayor
stated that this was another issue entirely and could involve many other factors.
Mr. Clarage suggested that the developer be asked to come forth with a total view
of the overall plan. If unwilling or unable to do so, the city should initiate
such a process to draw a master plan including the concept of the area to be used
for recreational purposes. The practice of bringing in development units one at
a time is confusing the overall intent.
Kevin Collman made the motion to recommend tabling of the petition for further
study. The second was made by Sandy Adams.
The concerns to be addressed were summarized by Jim Clarage as follows:
1. Storm water retention and the placement of on site storm water retention
areas.
s
August Plan Commission Minutes Page 4
2. A review of the master plan for development of the acreage included in
this proposal and for the property to the north.
3. Recommend that the Council have a joint meeting with the School Board
to review the impact of this development, as well as other developments,
on the school district.
4. Review on site open space for recreational facilities so as not to impact
other areas of the city. (active or passive rec facilities)
PC89-31 --FINAL PLAT - HATCHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - RT. 47
Noting the concerns from the last time the petition was presented, Attorney Olson
stated that the driveway easement in question was now entirely on lot #1 and that
the detention easement had been widened by 5 feet.
Mr. Langland asked for any further comments related to this petition. The only
concern not addressed was the fire hydrant -- it had been decided that this would
be addressed at the final plat stage.
George Stewart motioned to recommend the approval of the final plat of the Hatcher
Commercial Development on Rt. 47. The second was by Sandy Adams. Roll call vote
carried the motion as follows:
Langland - yes Adams - yes Coltman - yes Stewart - yes
Mr. Langland adjourned the August meeting at approximately 8:15 P.M.
Joanne M. Ellertson
Recording Secretary
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME ADDRESS
ICI,t c44zA rL l< <S 64,vyvi
� l 23 Yo 9-,t-1/ex lo�l
vim 1 015 6*
�D
0
t �
/�d C) �d
LI