Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1987 04-18-87 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YORKVILLE HELD AT CITY HALL ON APRIL 18, 1987 AT 7:00 PM. Chairman Groner called the meeting to order. Roll was called with the following members in attendance: Mr. Groner, Mr. Holdiman, Mrs. Price, Mr. Beaudry, Mr. Ament, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Feltz, and Mr. Langland. Also present were City Attorney Dan Kramer, Michael Thanepohn, Dennis Fahrlander, Larry Jennings, Jim Olson, Jean Wessel, Robert Loftus, Mr. & Mrs. Ron Walker, and Mr. & Mrs. Rick Johnson. Minutes Mr. Langland made a motion to approve the March 31, 1987 minutes as written. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion. All members were in favor. PC87-22 - Petition to Rezone R-2 to R-4, Block 8, Unit 4, Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 - Dickson Court - Countryside Center (Jean Wessel) Chairman Groner stated that the first item of business would be to make recom- mendations on the property discussed in the public hearing. Mr. Langland and Mr. Feltz spoke of some history of Countryside, such as the Senior Citizen home was proposed on this property, but did not pass. The Senior Home is nicer and better where it's built now. Mr. Langland also stated he would only consider it under a P.U.V. plan. Dan Kramer stated that the disadvantage of a P.U.V, is that the petitioner has to have an engineer drawing and preliminary plat. e whole package all at once. Mr. Feltz made a motion that they recommend to the City Council to deny any changes, and give the developer and the people an opportunity to work something out. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Groner - Yes Beaudry - Yes Feltz - Yes Holdiman - Yes Ament - Yes Langland - Yes Price - Yes Stewart - Yes The motion carried. PC87-23 - Petition to Annex & Zone to R-1, 22.5 acres south of the corporate limits and west of Rt. 47 (Robert Loftus) . Dan Kramer stated it was a good idea for Bob Loftus and the city, that he .asked for annexation into the city. If it is annexed into the city and zoned R-1, he could get 4 building permits at any time after the city council approves it. Also another retention pond might be needed in that area. Bob Loftus questioned the commission in what they would want him to do and what changes he should make. He also asked the commission where they would recommend a retention pond. Mr. Groner asked Bob to come back at a future meeting with the proper paper work and changes for 4 lots, (not 8) R-1. 4/28/87 Page 2 After extensive discussion Larry Langland made a motion to table this petition till a future date. Mr. Holdiman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Groner - Yes Beaudry - Yes Feltz - Yes Holdiman - Yes Ament - Yes Langland - Yes Price - Yes Stewart - Yes The motion carried. PC87-24 - Kendall County Petition to review Preliminary & Final Plats of Ashley Woods Subdivision (formerly Robbie Acres) on Cannonball Trail within 12 mile jurisdiction. (Ron Walker) Jim Olson represented Ron Walker on this petition. Jim stated that this is exactly the same as it was before. (Robbie Acres) . He explained to the Plan Commission that there is a storm sewer easement at the front of lot 9 to get water from Cannonball Trail. He .also stated that the street is 24 foot of pavement with curbs. Larry Langland made a motion to recommend to the County to approve this Preliminay & Final plats of Ashley Woods Subdivision. Mr. Feltz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Groner - Yes Beaudry - Yes Feltz - Yes Holdiman - Yes Ament - Yes Langland - Yes Price - Yes Stewart - Yes The motion was carried. PC87-25 - Kendall County Petition to review Preliminary Plat of Walnut Ridge Subdivision - Rt. 71 (Rick Johnson) Jim Olson represented Rick Johnson on this petition. This is the property behind the motel. They have added that lot 1 will not have any direct access to Rt. 71, only by way of Walnut Drive. There is a temporary turn around easement at the north end of lots 4 & 5, a "T" turn around for time being, and Mr. Johnson is building the road back to that point. There will be black top pavement but no curbs. Mr Langland made a motion to recommend to the County to approve this Preliminay plat of Walnut Ridge Subdivision. Mrs. Price seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Groner - Yes Beaudry - Yes Feltz - Yes Holdiman - Yes Ament - Yes Langland - Yes Price - Yes Stewart - Yes The motion was carried. Mr. Feltz made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Price seconded the motion. All members were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 P.M. . Aol� Bonnie Fif eld, Rec. Secretary MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YORKVILLE • HELD ON APRIL 28, 1987 at 7:00 PM AT CITY HALL Chairman Groner called the public hearing to order. Members in attendance were Mr. Groner, Mr. Holdiman, Mrs. Price, Mr. Beaudry, Mr. Ament, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Feltz, and Mr. Langland. Also present were City Attorney Dan Kramer, Michael Thanepohn, Dennis Fahrlander, Larry Jennings, and Jim Olson. PC87-22 - Petition to Rezone R-2 to R-4, Block 8, Unit 4, Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 - Dickson Court - -Countryside Center (Jean Wessel) Chairman Groner swore the following people under oath: Fred Anderson, Ed Sharp, Ralph Johnson, Dick Haynes, Paula Davis, Louis Cosma, and Larry Jennings. Jean Wessel represented herself by showing diagrams of her proposed multi unit buildings for Dickson Court. She plans to use Dickson Court as a buffer between the residental and multi-family. The adjourning property to her property is zoned R-4. She proposed to build 5 multi-unit buildings. A total of 21 units. Each would have their own garage, plus an assigned parking space. There would be no parking on the street. She would put in very extensive landscaping and the build- ings would look like nice large family homes. No two would look alike, but would all be the same style. They would altogether consist of 4-3 bedrooms units, 9- 2 bedrooms units, and 11-1-bedrooms-units. There would be garages for 25 cars, parking for 25 cars plus 16 guest cars. The garages would be in the back of the buildings. Mr. Ed Sharp questioned Jean Wessel what she meant earlier by a P.U.V. . (Planned Unit Development) . Mrs. Wessel informed Mr. Sharp that P.U.V. looked to complicated so she decided to ask for R-4 Zoning. Dan Kramer explained more about a P.U.V. . It has to be a specific plan and can't be changed without approval of the Plan Commission and City Council. What is drawn is what you have to build. But R 74 zoning is straight zoning, no limits as long as it's no more than 12 dwelling units per acre. P.U.V. zoning is more control- led zoning, or a contract zoning. Jim Stanford questioned about the property next to Mrs. Wessels property as far as being R-4 zoned already. Mrs. Wessel stated that as far as she knew there will be more large apartment buildings, therefore this is why she is proposing her plan as a buffer. She also stated that building would be very fine buildings, no low income buildings. Mr. Ed Sharp presented the Commission with a petition with 132 signatures that oppose the rezoning. Mr. Fred Anderson stated the plan has some merit to it, however the population of Countryside would increase and property value will be falling. Alderman Larry Jennings stated that Swilly Green has 72 apartments and the property next to Mrs. Wessels is scheduled to have 96 apartments going in and there is 103 Senior Citizens apartments. He agree's with the majority of the people that the ` 4-28-87 Cont. density is big enough. He suggested to build single family houses and berm the back of them against the 96 apartments. 2nd Ward Alderman Mike Thanepohn stated he understands the concept of Mrs. Wessels approach. He suggested that Mrs., Wessel crated her own buffer zone for her own property by putting her plan adjacent to the property already zoned R-4. After extensive questions, answers, and statements on Mrs. Wessels property Mr. Groner moved on to thenext petition on the agenda. PC87-23 - Petition to Annex & Zone to R-1, 22.5 acres south of the corporate limits and west of Rt. 47 (Robert Loftus) . Chairman Groner swore Robert Loftus, Jeanette Clements, and Larry Langland under oath. Robert Loftus represented himself. He stated he wanted to build 8 single family homes. He is not asking for a common drive. He is planning one common entrance, and all private drives. Larry Langland had no objections to the zoning, but he objected to individual driveways only 40 feet wide, because the City requires 60 foot wide driveways. He thought city streets should lead into the houses. Mr. Beaudry questioned about entrances for emergency vehicles. Jeannette Clements, as an owner of agriculture property adjoining Mr. Loftus's property questioned about the 1.9 acres adjacent to her property and Elizabeth Street, if it will be city property, and what will it do to their agriculture taxes? Dan Kramer stated that the 1.9 acres is not petitioned to be annexed into the City. He also informed her that their agriculture property would be grandfathered and the usage of their property would not change, but can't expand it anymore and their taxes would not change as long as it's being used as agriculture use. Robert Loftus asked the City for city water and septics. He also stated he would grant all easements for the utilities etc. Alderman Mike Thanepohn informed the Commission that the city council require properties with in the city limits to hook onto city water and city sanitary if in a reasonable distance. The Loftus property is beyond a reasonable distance. Chairman Groner then closed the public hearing. rr Ronnie. Fifi. ld, Stec, Secretary PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi -family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ADDRESS 4 ) IOU td- &M J4 s v a d TC A �,✓a =�0 Zvi 1cs /�/eLsa, -1 2,o G F " &'t'Ouz _� PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi -family' housinq. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ADDRESS �Jd-(lye. -3 o t `c. yam" al i C% k r 6 vl 1i�5_ _ 6 o > �-L (/ /VV PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi -family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ii�Al 4 ADDRESS �O ��' �� �✓1 10 clu k� "at e PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppcse the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi -family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ADDRESS / 3 �- d 2"4 � 314, � O ' An 2/y cam, AA Q ` �, Lam•-F-. Z4 /.�% PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi- family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi-family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ADDRESS C_ vo-7 K nwt W -E ke_nora lI 11 Ke '-1 co., I L"'Q q10 LJ Q Q L PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi -family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NAME ADDRESS 9 /O ev lad cv 92 4 lzf f �/ PETITION We, the residents of the Countryside Center subdivision who have signed this petition, would like to make it known that we oppose the rezoning of any remaining empty lots in our subdivision from single-family to multi - family. It is our feeling that we do not wish to encumber single-family taxpayers with the burden of further multi-family housing. We question the logic of placing more multi-family units in an area where existing units have demonstrated a problem with maintaining rental to a full capacity. NA1E ADDRESS - 2 1,A1, �-LE 3o y- Zt) _ V z&' Z". Al 674 Lfj'*� 0 �- S �P -r- , �� 2- �r