Plan Commission Minutes 1988 08-17-88 c
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 17, 1988 7:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Harold
Feltz with the following members in attendance:
Chairman Feltz, George Stewart, Don Ament, Larry Langland, Mary Kay Price,
Larry Bretthauer, Kevin Collman, & Dave Greiter. Absent were Clarence
Holdiman, James Stafford, Rick Doetschman, & Don Schoenfielder.
Also present were Mayor Davidson, Fran Klaus, Gary Bown, Bill Radke, Tom
Grant, Tom Jim Clarage, Larry Small & Dan Kramer. Citizens in attendance
are listed on the sign-in sheet on file with the minutes.
The minutes of the July meeting were reviewed. The motion to approve was made
by Larry Langland & the second was by George Stewart.
PC88-32 -- PETITION FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING TO R-1 SPECIAL USE BY YORKVILLE
LIONS SWIM CLUB, INC. - E. MAIN ST.
Chairman Feltz asked for comments or recommendations based on tonight's
Public Hearing & discussions of previous meetings. Larry Langland made the motion
to recommend that the Yorkville Swim Club petition be recommended for approval
to annex & zone for special use. Mary Kay Price seconded the motion. Dave Greiter
asked if it would be a sensible precaution to recommend to the city that the
engineer check the pool & make sure it is up to city standards with respect to
health, safety, plumbing features & structural stability. Chairman Feltz asked
that such recommendation be added to the motion. Motion was carried with roll
call vote as follows:
Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Collman - yes Greiter - yes
PC88-33 -- PETITION TO REZONE FROM B-2 TO B-2 SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW APARTMENTS OVER
A BUSINESS AT 101 S. BRIDGE ST. BY SANCHEZ & ADAMSON
Attorney Tom Cross suggested that it would necessary to come back with a
more specific plan. Mayor Davidson & Chairman Feltz agreed -- it was stated that
the Plan Commission would most likely be in agreement in this type of improvement
but a more specific & overall plan was necessary. Tom Cross noted that clari-
cation on such items as windows, riverfront ownership, parking facilities & fire
protection needed to be addressed. They would come back with a master plan &
how it might affect the neighboring buildings. Chairman Feltz stated that the
petition would be added to the September agenda.
PC88-36 -- FINAL PLAT & ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY CRESTVIEW BUILDERS - WHITE OAK
FARM - WEST FOX RD. (ADDITIONAL MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED)
Attorney Kramer passed out the annexation agreement which contained the basic
requests & recommendations of the Plan Commission & the Building and Zoning
committee. The question on the private issue was raised. Attorney Kramer
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
08-17-88 PAGE 2
explained that the necessity for keeping the road north of the tracks private
was due to the ICC permit requirements. The Railroad will grant a permanent
easement for ingress & egress over the tracks. The road will be developed
according to standards and will be dedicated to the city within five years from
the date of the annexation agreement.
Questions followed on sidewalk, easements, and how the subdivision would
connect with the city. Dave Greiter expressed concern that this development
would not access the city properly. He also questioned the sewer situation. The
Mayor assured that there would be sewer & water -- no septics would be allowed.
He further stated that engineers were still studying the situation. There is an
easement provided within the development for an interceptor line when the city
is prepared to install it.
Attorney Kramer stated that the city would not assume liability for the
private road area during the five year interim prior to dedication to the city.
Maintenance would be the responsibility of the owners. The annexation agreement
also stated that the Homeowners Association will have full responsibility for
liability involving the two lakes or any other recreational facilities.
Jim Clarage expressed the opinion that the development appeared to be a top
notch project. With no further discussion introduced, Chairman Feltz asked the
Commission for a recommendation. Larry Langland made the motion to recommend the
approval of the final plat & annexation agreement. It was seconded by Dave Greiter.
Motion carried by roll call vote as follows:
Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Price - yes
Bretthauer - yes Collman - yes Greiter - yes Feltz - yes
PC88-37 -- FINAL PLAT - PRAIRIE LANDS UNIT 2 - E. SPRING STREET
Attorney Tom Cross confirmed the fact that the changes as recommended by the Plan
Commission has been made. The changes included the extension of the street to
the north, the cul-de-sac was eliminated, & a dedicated easement has been provided
for future extension of Center Street. Jim Clarage stated that in his opinion all
necessary changes has been included. Chairman Feltz asked for comments or any
recommendations.
Dave Greiter questioned the half of the road that was not going to be
developed right away -- who would be responsible for the cost? Chairman Feltz
said that perhaps it should be the responsibility of the developer of the adjacent
property. Mayor Davidson & Attorney Kramer suggested the possibility of a bond
approach. This issue needs to be addressed by the Council rather than the Plan
Commission.
Attorney Kramer introduced documentation given to him by the County showing
that there was a difference in boundary measurements of the northeast triangle of
the development that would need to be corrected before the plat is finalized.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
08-17-88 PAGE 3
George Stewart made the motion to approve the final plat of Prairie Lands
Unit 2 with the request that there is assurance that the entire property is
within & annexed to the city; also subject to the review of the approximately
150' strip of land bordering lot #22 for the proposed dedication of the street.
The second was made by Don Ament. Motion carried by roll call vote as follows:
Ament - yes Langland - yes Price - yes Bretthauer - yes
Collman - yes Greiter - yes Feltz - yes Stewart - yes
PC88-34 -- PETITION TO REZONE R-1 TO R-4 PUD SPECIAL USE BY HELEN JO CLARAGE AT
211 W. RIVER STREET.
Jim Clarage & Larry Langland excused themselves from the Plan Commission
for the review of this petition since they have a direct interest in the outcome.
Attorney Tom Grant presented a summarization of the statements of the Public
Hearing. He stated that the Commission now had enough information, both written &
schematic to give preliminary approval or preliminary denial. The petitioner is
not proceeding with explicit configurations until an indication of direction is
received from the Commission.
Chairman Feltz stated that the appearance of the building was attractive &
could conceivably be an improvement to the area. His concern was in the area of
parking facilities & the turn around area. Mayor Davidson agreed with the
issue of adequate parking; he felt that the cottage is situated too close to the
road & probably should be removed. He likes the concept of the PUD which gives
the city better control.
Mary Kay Price asked how Mr. Clarage could influence the clean-up of the
property to the east when up to this point the city has not been able to do so.
Mayor Davidson stated that he did not think that Mr. Clarage could sell anything
unless the adjacent property was straightened up; if the project does't go as
planned, it won't be developed at all without coming back to the Commission.
Mr. Clarage stated that he was gambling on the fact that the area would improve
he is optimistic that this will happen.
Questions as to walk ways, garages & potential expansion of the sanitation
plant were raised. Mr. Bretthauer asked how close the proposed building would
be to the existing structure -- Mr. Clarage said it would be 17 feet. It was
the concern of Dave Greiter & Larry Bretthauer that fire protection would not be
feasible with all wood structures so close together & access difficult. Mr. Clarage
stated that there would 2-hour fire walls provided in appropriate areas.
Mr. Clarage again stated that he would not begin any construction until the
adjacent building showed improvement. He stated that this would be over a half-
million dollar investment & they would not proceed with that building in its in
present state being next store. Chairman Feltz asked what changes needed to be
made. Mr. Clarage would like to see it torn down. As an adjacent landowner, Mr.
Clarage could exert pressure based on the fact that the building is not up to code.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
08-17-88 PAGE 4
Attorney Grant stated that the petitioner was seeking approval of the basic
concept (with the cottage removed to facilitate additional parking) . They need
some indication that the plan is acceptable on a PUD basis. It is the desire of
the petitioner to improve rather than add to the existing problems in the area.
It would not be realistic to waste time & expense with further plans if the Plan
Commission flatly objects.
Mr. Clarage expanded on his thoughts for development from a planning stand-
point & also reaffirmed his determination to improve the area coupled with his
intent to pursue the issue with the owners of the building to the east.
Dave Greiter voiced concern over setting a precedent for other such developemnts
& whether it would be in the best interest of the community. Mr. Clarage stated
his view on how this project fit into the concept of the comprehensive plan for
development. He referenced previous discussions on improving and enhancing the
downtown community facilities. Proper development of river front property would
enhance the community.
Chairman Feltz stated that it was becoming apparent that more rental type
properties would be needed. Dave Greiter said that his concern was with provision
of single family homes for those who prefer that to apartment type living. Chairman
Feltz stated the in general the people coming into the community as well the economic
situation would influence those types of decisions. Tonight 's issue is the PUD as
presented. Attorney Kramer stated that additional public hearings would be held
relative to this type of development before anything is finalized.
Attorney Grant stated that they were looking some type of firm commitment at
this for the plans as presented. The statement made regarding the building
next door is not, however, intended as considered to a contingency to the acceptance
of the project. Alderman Gary Bown stated that he did not see how the Commission
could approve this PUD with concessions that would not be extended to any other
developer. Attorney Grant stated that it would be unfair to attach any contingency
reflecting the property next door to the petition.
George Stewart asked Mr. Clarage about the "owner occupied" issue. Mr. Clarage
stated that such a clause was too restrictive & would not be included. There could
be numerous reasons for the owner actually taking occupancy elsewhere.
Dave Greiter asked what would happed if the project fell through. Jim Clarage
stated that it simply would not be developed; he is aware of the possibility that
he could lose all around.
Don Ament questioned the legal aspect of the problem. Attorney Kramer
stated that it was a very time consuming process & numerous problems would be
encountered. Kevin Collman stated the position of those citizens in attendance at
the Public Hearing. It is his opinion that drastic changes are needed & the
community appears not to be in favor of this proposed development.
Chairman Feltz asked for some type of recommendation from the Commission
concerning the petition considering that all available information has been presented.
• PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
08-17-88 PAGE 5
Don Ament made the motion to approve the rezoning from R-1 to R-4 PUD Special
Use concept as ;presented. The second was made by George Stewart. The roll call
vote carried the motion as follows:
Price - yes Bretthauer - no Collman - no Greiter - no Feltz - yes
Stewart - yes Ament - yes
The Comprehensive Plan was introduced as the next item of business. Mr. Clarage
passed out the packet for Phase 2 of the Comprenhensive Plan. He asked that the
Plan Commission members study the information contained in the packet. This would
include information on latest demographics updated by the census bureau and general
community information such as age levels, income, travel time to work, etc.
It was agreed that the Commission would review for the next meeting.
The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Larry Bretthauer and seconded
by George Stewart. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
---------------------------------------
Joanne M. Ellertson
Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM
AUGUST 17, 1988 7:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was adjourned to conduct the Public
Hearings on the agenda. In attendance were Plan Commission members as listed
in the minutes and interested citizens as listed on the sign-in sheet.
The swearing in of those parties wishing to speak at the hearings was conducted
by chairman Harold Feltz. The first Public Hearing was introduced as follows:
YORKVILLE LIONS SWIM CLUB PETITION TO ANNEX & ZONE TO R-1 SPECIAL USE - E. MAIN ST.
Duane Orton spoke on behalf of the Lions Club. He stated that the city has
always co-operated and treated the club as if it were part of the city -- the grass
has been mowed, police protection has been provided when the County was not
available, water has been supplied, etc. Being so close to the city, it seems
natural to follow with annexation. One problem brought to the attention of the
public was the fact that the Lions had not yet achieved a tax exempt status.
They will continue with this endeavor.
Larry Langland stated that in his opinion annexation was favorable with the
members of the Commission. Chairman Feltz & Mayor Davidson agreed.
SANCHEZ ADAMSON PETITION TO REZONE FROM B-2 TO B-2 SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW
APARTMENTS OVER A BUSINESS AT 101 S. BRIDGE ST.
Attorney Tom Cross stated that it was the intent of the petitioner to gain
knowledge of Commission members feelings toward the proposed project. Plans
include the p
concept of four apartments on the second floor of the building.
Larry Bretthauer asked about the elevator shaft -- Mayor Davidson stated that
it was never completed but runs from the basement to the second floor.
Dave Greiter asked what was currently in the building. Tom Cross answered
that occupants included a contractor, a Service Master business, and an office
in the front. Dave further inquired about the building in the back; he questioned
the potential parking problem. He feels that there is a need to protect the
businesses since that is how the property is zoned. He made reference to the
fenced area now on the property.
Larry Langland questioned ownership of the strip of land between the river and
the building -- does it belong to the present owners or not? Tom Cross stated
he would check into it.
Gloria Vermaat' owner of adjacent building, expressed concern over the type
of use (body shop) in the existing building -- Mayor Davidson stated that the
body repair was no longer in the building.
Leonard Weber, owner of the hotel, stated that parking facilities at present
are not sufficient. He stated that he rented the fenced area for use of his
tenants. If he did not rent this area, the hotel would be limited to approx-
imately six parking spaces.
PUBLIe HEARING -- PAGE 2
Gloria Vermaat questioned what would happen if the B-2 special use was granted
and the owners wanted to change to office facilities instead of apartments.
Chairman Feltz stated that it would have to come before the Plan Commission
again.
Mayor Davidson questioned the exit route in the event of a fire. Larry
Bretthauer asked if a fire escape was provided in the plans. It was determined
that none of the present stairways accessed the outside. Reference was also made
to gas pumps in the area. Other questions included whether there would be
vehicles in the building, further fire hazards, existing windows, and ideas
on parking.
HELEN JO CLARAGE PETITION TO REZONE R-1 TO R-4 PUD SPECIAL USE AT 214 W. RIVER ST.
Attorney Tom Grant presented a color drawing to describe the proposed PUD
development. The property is presently zoned R-1 & is not usable as such. The
reason for filing for PUD special use zoning is to receive maximum input from
both the Plan Commission & the City Council. Attorney Grant stated the following
facts as part of the petition:
1 . The existing cottage would remain with the addition of a garage.
2. The development would consist of six condo units to be built closer
to the river. They would be individually owned & the project would
be in compliance with the ordinance density requirements.
3. Variations are asked for -- especially in the side yard measurements
which would deviate from the normal 12 ft. requirement; they would be
41 , 51 , 11 ' , and 6" (this would be on the east adjacent to the drive
& parking.
4. Off street parking would be provided. Each unit to have a 1-1/2 car
garage & a total of two parking units as required by ordinance.
5. The cottage is presently 6.9 ft from the road & the petitioner would
like it to remain.
6. Landscaping would be as shown on the color rendering. In addition, there
would a provision for docks along the river.
7. The structure would be Victorian in style & be probably white or beige
in color.
8. Unit price would be in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. Structure
would compare to Oswego's Brookside Manor Condo developemnt. Each
unit would be approximately 1300 sq. ft.
Mayor Davidson opened the discussion by asking the intent of the petitioner with
respect to the cottage. It was stated that it would most likely be sold off.
Dave Greiter questioned winter access problems due to the slope of the land; Tom
Grant explained it would not present problems -- slope factor is only 5-6%.
PUBLIC'HEARING -- PAGE 3
Dave further questioned the fire protection problem arising from the difficult
access. Mr. Clarage said the drive would be 20' -- twice as wide as the unit
next to it. Insufficient parking facilities & water runoff were also cited as
topics of concern.
Larry Bretthauer asked about the height of the structure. Mr. Clarage stated
that it would be two stories high facing the street & three stories facing the
river. The building would be set back from the street approximately 1501 .
The proximity of the lot line was questioned by George Stewart. Mr. Clarage
stated that the property to the east was about 5' from the lot line. He added
that the garages of the proposed structure would have a concrete step to be used
as a buffer against possible damage from vehicles.
Comments from the public opened with Richard Speckman, adjacent land owner.
He asked that the letter of objection prepared by himself & his wife, Andrea, be
filed with the minutes. Arguments against the petition are summarized as follows:
1. Additional 6 proposed units would add to density problem.
2. Inadequate parking facilities would compound present demands.
3. Winter parking/access would increase existing problems.
4. Additional traffic congestion would add to an already dangerous situation.
5. Location would render condo dwellings undesirable & would probably
be turned into rental units by default.
6. The additional units would further devalue adjacent properties.
Pam Bivens expressed concern over the maintenance of the land. Tom Grant explained
the general condo agreements & responsibilities of individual owners. She was
also concerned with parking facilities and garbage pick-up problems.
Mary Frank referenced a similar development in Oswego & claimed that the upkeep
caused continuous problems.
Lou Riemenschneider asked the letter prepared by herself & her husband, Scott,
be filed with the minutes. Main concerns included the following:
1. The addition of more people to an already saturated area.
2. The structural problems that have become apparent with the adjacent
building complex & the apparent lack of control that the city has.
3. The enhancement of existing vehicle & parking problems.
Mr. Clarage declared his position on the development of the property. He will
not proceed until conditions of the adjacent property are improved -- only at
that time will he begin to seek buyers & anticipate construction. Any legal
avenues available will be pursued to achieve the desired goal.
Dan Kramer assured those questioning the use of the property that the safeguard
of the PUD is that the property has to be used as stated in the petition; any
deviation from the original plan would have to presented again to the Plan
Commission. It was stated, however, that units would be sold & deeded individually
and the owners would not be restricted in what they could do with their unit --
rent, offer for resale, etc.
PUBLIC'HEARING -- PAGE 4
Kevin Collman asked Mr. Clarage to explain the boat dock area. Mr. Clarage
stated that the ground would be lower at the rivers edge & that there would be a
wooden pier parallel to the bank. Mr. Collman also expressed concern over the
sanitary sewer line running parallel to the river & asked if it could be a
potential problem. Mr. Clarage assured him that it would not be affected.
Dave Greiter referenced the area in which debris seems to collect; Mr. Clarage
stated that he was aware of the problem.
Chairman Feltz asked if there were further comments from the public; hearing
none, he closed the Public Hearing session at 8:30 P.M.
Joanne M. Ellertson
Recording Secretary
August 16 , 1988
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE UNITED
CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE
Kendall County Courthouse Office Bldg.
110 W. Ridge Street
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
RE: HELENJO CLARAGE PETITION FOR REZONING R-1 TO R-4
PARCEL NUMBER 02-32-231-003
214 RIVER STREET; YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
As adjacent property owners, this letter is notification of our
objection to approval of the above referenced application.
Arguements against petition include but are not restricted to
the following:
1 . Additional ( 6) proposed dwellings would present intolerable
density problems to already strained conditions created by
the "York Valley" apartment complex.
2. Inadequate parking facilities will only compound present
demands. Existing overcrowded parking conditions have
created problems without solutions.
3 . Grade is unsuitable for winter parking/access; further
increasing parking problems.
4 . Access to complex will generate additional traffic con-
gestion to an already dangerous street condition.
5 . Location between "York Valley" apartments and Yorkville-
Bristol Sanitary Treatment Plant Facility would render
dwellings undesireable for sale as condominiums. There-
fore one must assume they would end up as rental units by
default.
6 . Additional units in an already dense living Bevel opem ent
will further devalue adjacent properties.
Rezoning and special use request usually refer to already
approved/existing variances ; as in this petition, the "York
Valley" apartment complex. The precedence set however in this
instance is most undesireable.
It should not therefore be the intent of the planning com-
mission to allow a second mistake to be made.
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard and Andrea Speckman
203 King Street; Yorkville, Illinois
Date
/�
August 11,1988
Dear City Councilman/Planning Committee Member;
As a home owner and life long member of this community, it is of
great concern to us that consideration is being given to the
development of multi-family units on River Road, within the city
limits.
We are not strangers to the City Council, in that we have filed
complaints in the past regarding the state of disrepair of the
already existing apartments on River Road. We have also met with
committee members when parking on Icing, River, and Church Streets
was being considered.
We think it is fair to characterize the home owners in this area as
valuable members of the community, interested in improving their
homes and property with the intent of creating the best possible
environment to live and raise a family. When problems and concerns
have arisen, we have exercised our right to voice opinions and
bring to the Council's attention legitimate concerns.
Once again, we feel it is necessary to voice our concern. Although
we intend to be present at the meeting Wednesday, August_ 17, 1988,
we anticipate many people voicing concerns coming from their
hearts; and, as concerned as we feel the neighborhood is regarding
the possibility of adding multi-family units to the area, we feel
that legitimate. and rational issues may be lost in emotional
reactions.
The following are issues we have discussed and feel the Council
needs to evaluate:
(1) We have come to learn that two(2) bedroom units (i.e. the
existing apartments) equal three (3) to four (4) cars per unit.
Drive down kiver Road anytime, and you will see illegally parked
vehicles in front of the existing apartments on Church and King
Streets, as well as vehicles jammed into the authorized parking
area on River Road between Church Street and Route 47. A majority
of these vehicles belong to apartment dwellers - thus allowing no
additional parking space to property owners along that stretch of
River Road - as originally hoped. Next drive up to the city park.
Those vehicles continually parked at the corners of West Main and
Church Streets also belong to the apartment dwellers. Add an
occasional semi trailer cab (running all night) and increase the
City Councilman/Planning Committee ' r ber
-August 11, 1988
Page 2
vehicles by at least eight (8) in the winter months, and tell us
you honestly would not mind that in your
neighborhood. How could this area possibly accommodate any more
vehicles?
(2) The city apparently has no control over the state of the
existing apartments. Those areas that the city attempted to deal
with (and copied us in on the correspondence) met with resistance
and feeble attempts to comply. So, we have come to learn the best
way to solve the countless problems a structure such as the apart-
ments have created is to insist that no further apartment-type
dwellings be allowed in the area.
If the argument is that these will be condominiums, people will own
them, they will be property owners; etc. , may we suggest you take a
good look at the area! How long do you actually think condominiums
crowded onto that lot, in that area, will remain condominiums? If
the units are constructed, we see them being occupied by their
owners for only a short time before the owners sense the hopeless-
ness of the situation along the east property line and choose to
improve their living situation by moving - either renting out their
condos or attempts to sell it. We remember when the apartments
were sold as individual units! Several of those units are still
caught up in bankruptcy litigation - those are the units with
broken windows and balconies that have rotted off their joists.
The other units were all purchased by the same obscure company.
How can the city guarantee that this will not happen again?
We have dealt with property issues here. We have not asked you to
witness the police cars' regular patrol of the area and the reputa-
tion of many who reside in the apartments. Nor have we asked you
to drive by any afternoon until well past midnight to witness the
large groups of youngsters using River Road as a playground at
best, but more often times using it as a launching pad for the
destructive havoc regularly maintained (i.e. endless barrages of
bottle rockets, M80's, firecrackers, smashed bottles, and various
other debris in the roadway; throwing rocks at neighborhood homes
and passing cars; etc.) We haven't asked you to imagine attempting
to maintain a yard with some degree off privacy while apartment
dwellers disregard both fences and hedges to walk through private
yards on their way to spots otherwise easily reached by sidewalk or
street.
In summation:
(1) There are endless "people problems" the existing apartments
have created that we realize are here to stay. Adding more people
to an already saturated area could only be seen a9 detrimental.
(2) There are numerous structural problems at the existing apart-
ments that even the casual observer can spot. The city has re-
sponded to our past complaints, in this area, as best as they
apparently can. In actuality very little has changed, bringing
area home owners to the realization that the city has very little
control over these type of structures.
(3) There are ongoing vehicle and parking problems in the surround-
ing neighborhood to which the existing apartments have contributed.
City Councilman/Planning CcnLmittee Member
August 11, 1988
Page 3
The city apparently has neither the manpower nor the resources to
handle this problem. There is no conceivable way the area could
absorb any more vehicles.
We ask the Council and Planning committee to consider our concerns,
drive through the area, park your car (if you can find a spot) and
walk by the apartments; look at the area where the proposed
building(s) would be built; then tell us how multi-family units
could possibly be viewed as a positive addition to a neighborhood
that current property owners are struggling to maintain control of
now!
We are very concerned and have chosen to live in this area. We
cannot change those things that came before us, but we sincerely
hope to have some control over the future of our neighborhood.
Sincerly/
Scott and Lou Riemenschnei ec�
202 West River Road
Yorkville, Ill 60560
PUBLIC HEARING -- REGISTRATION SHEET
ay- / 7 -- �' �
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE IN ATTENDANCE AS
AN OBSERVER, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR NAME & ADDRESS BELOW:
A
tzl ADDRESS
04�,A1 k sg"Pl
f /? '
m
2o; a
nU e►mQV c�1�flr (Al &A9f
�a�hu {..gran a a05 e, ,)ems .
,15 Cjeovrl) �Qce
PUBLIC HEARING -- REGISTRATION SHEET
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE IN ATTENDANCE AS
AN OBSERVER, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR NAME & ADDRESS BELOW:
NAME ADDRESS ee
e
ego o D � ` q ACV i