Plan Commission Minutes 1987 09-16-87 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF YORKVILLE
CITY HALL - SEPT. 16, 1987, 7:00 PM
Chairman Feltz called the meeting to order. The following members were in
attendance: Mr. Feltz, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Ament, Mr. Langland, Mrs. Price, Mr.
Bretthauer, Mr. Greiter, and Mr. Schoenfielder.
Also present were Jim Clarage, Attorney Kramer, Jim Hayden, Gary Bown,
Director Johnson, Mayor Davidson; Katherine, William & Cliff Wackerlin; Roy Dean,
Jack Purcell, Attorney Grant, William Schneider, Bill Radke, Wayne McFarland,
Jim Olson, and Charles Doetschman.
MINUTES
The motion to approve the minutes of the August 19, 1987 meeting was made
by Lanry Langland, and seconded by Don Ament. Chairman Feltz asked that it be
noted that due to lengthy discussion and the number of items covered during the
previous meeting that the tape recording of the meeting be kept on file for future
reference.
PC87-40 - Petition for Preliminary Discussion by Roy Dean (Countryside Center, Inc.)
to subdivide and rezone approximately 12 acres. (E. Main St. & McHugh Rd.)
Chairman Feltz invited Mr. Dean to present his discussion relative to the
rezoning request. Mr. Dean explained he was planning on subdividing the property
and was looking for input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Langland questioned
the matter of water run-off control plan. Mr. Dean stated he understood the need
for storm sewers and said the intent was to include also, the provision for curbs,
gutters and sidewalks.
Mayor Davidson asked the commission to comment on the questions of a cross
through-street and lighting for the proposed subdivision since both of the
subjects would be discussed at Council level. It was his feeling that the
lighting in Countryside be considered as comparable to the new proposed subdi-
vision and have possible bearing on the plan as presented. Mr. Johnson commented
that complaints had been received by residents of Countryside, specifically
regarding lighting at intersections.
Mr. Feltz asked for clarification on what portions of the McHugh Road
property on the north and west areas would be affected, and if one portion of
land would become land locked as a result. Mr. Stewart stated that the plan may
affect the CentQr-Liberty Street project.
Mr. Dean stated that the easement provision was for future need; it was
intended that it be paid for by whomever put the road through.
Mr. Feltz expressed concern with the land to the west, and also with the
cul-de-sac and surrounding lots dumping on one concentrated area of E. Main Street.
In summation, Chairman Feltz stated that the discussion was strictly
preliminary and that main concerns of land lock to the west, lighting situations,
and the number of houses on the cul-de-sac need to be addressed when the plan is
brought back to the commission at a later date.
Page 2 9/16/87
Jim Clarage said that improvements along the east side of McHugh Rd. would
also need to be considered and it was agreed by Mr. Dean. Mr. Clarage further
stated that the discussion was a sketch plan review and there was not sufficient
preparation time alloted to evaluate properly. Consequently, the comments of the
members should be taken into consideration in the next presentation.
Discussion was closed.
PC98-39 —Kendall County Petition by William Wackerlin to Rezone A-1 to R-3 -
(Tuma Road)
Chairman Feltz asked Cliff Wackerlin to explain his proposal. Mr. Wackerlin
explained that they were asking for one acre-- or more lots on Tuma Road; the
property in question was purchased in 1971 and it was anticipated that the city
would have easterly growth. In fact, it has grown towards the south. Mr.
Wackerlin said that it appears the highest and best use for the property is what
is now proposed. Mention was made of types of structures currently surrounding
the property. These include a preschool, a florist, a restaurant, a gift shop,
and a nursery. The American Legion is directly north and Fox River Gardens to
the south.
Mr. Langland questioned if there would be consideration for entering the
property between lots two (2) and three (3) ; Mr. Wackerlin stated there would
be a 66 foot right-of-way; 95 acres remain in the property.
Mr. Feltz further noted that this was only a petition to rezone and asked
if any relative discussion was necessary or if members of the Planning Commission
had additional questions.
Mayor Davidson asked the City Attorney, Dan Kramer, to clarify the County
R-3 zoning. Mr. Kramer stated that it was one acre lots and noted that if was
not multi-family; it is comparable to the City's R-1. Mayor Davidson then
wuestioned the portion to be dedicated. William Wackerlin responded that it
consisted of 13 feet as shown on the drawing and would be given to the City.
(Actually, it would belong to the Township or the County.) Mr. Clarage
recommended that the right-of-way be a total of 60 feet. Reference was made to
the fact that Tuma Rd. is now too narrow to comply with subdivision requirements.
Chairman Feltz stated that the only consideration at this point was the rezoning
question and not going over the plat in depth; Mr. Clarage agreed that there
was provision for additional right-of-way and it would be open for discussion
at a later date.
The motion to suggest the approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-3 was made
by Larry Langland, and seconded by George Stewart. Chairman Feltz asked for a
roll call vote.
Feltz - yes Steward - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoenfielder - yes
The motion was carried; recommendation to rezone approved.
PC87-38 - Petition to Annex & Rezone (refer to materials presented PC87-29) -
(Rt. 47 north of Rt. 34) SN1C1_
Attorney Tom Grant stated that the original recommendation to rezone was
presented in December of 1986. The addition to the legal description was made
in June of 1987, but appearance before the Planning Commission was deferred.
Page 3 9/16/87
Mayor Davidson explained that the reason for the hold-up on the petition
was due to State regulations in regard to the entrance. The State has stipulated
that the entrance must be identical to the entrance to Countryside. Consideration
has been given to estimates of traffic counts in the next five to six years. The
proposed changes to the original plan became in.ecessary.
Mr. Grant had copies of both drawings and explained the changes. The revised
legal shows the land all as one parcel. The south line remains the same. The
north line is extended further north. Mr. Grant further stated that the objective
of the State is to reduce cuts off the highway.
Mayor Davidson stated that the Westphal parcel now has a legal cut
according to State specs. In response to the question of the relation of the
Shick property to the Westphal property, it was stated that the Shick property goes
further east. Mr. Stewart questioned the need for dedication of the back portion
of the property for a roadway. Mr. Grant stated that any future roadway that
became necessary would be the responsibility of the individual putting it in.
Chairman Feltz requested that Mr. Grant obtain an additional number of copies
of the drawings for the members of the commission. Attorney Kramer advised that
it would not be necessary for Mr. Clarage to have pre-annexation and zoning agree-
ments from Attorney Grant since this would be a detailed annexation and would be
referred to a Council committee. The decision now is for rezoning.
Mr. Bretthauer questioned whether the water would be brought across the road.
This was affirmed by Mayor Davidson; it would go both north and east.
The motion to approve the annexation recommendation to the City Council, and
the rezoning to B-3 was made by Mr. Stewart, and seconded by Mr. Schoenfielder.
Chairman Feltz asked for a roll call vote.
Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoenfielder - yes
The motion was carried.
PC87-43 - Preliminary Plat by Wayne McFarland to subdivide property (Rt. 47 & Walnut)
Mr. McFarland presented his preliminary plat for a 6-lot subdivision across Rt.
47 from the EMS facility. He stated the lots were just under one acre and that the
subdivision wou]. have standard width and surfaced roadways. Engineering studies
have been presented to the Department of Transportation. The access provisions
were explained by Mr. McFarland; lots 1 through 4 would be accessed by a
private easement with each situation to be studied in order of sale. Should the
south lots be sold first, a common paved access would be structured first.
Mr. Clarage requested a clarification of the plans to aid the commission
members in viewing the total concept. This would include the maintenance plan
and a general developement plan. Mr. Feltz expressed concern for the relationship
of the property in question to the property to the east. Mr. Kramer stated that
it was customary to submit the engineering drawings with the preliminary plat to
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Davidson referred to some of the possible problems. He and Mr.
McFarland negotiated with the State to lock in one entrance onto Rt. 47. He
stated that the problem related to the fact that there was not only one
Page 4 9/16/87
developer involved. He feels that this will be done in a "piece meal" fashion.
Attorney Kramer clarified that at one time the Stark property was annexed and
zoned, and presented as a concept plan, but it never was submitted as a pre-
liminary plat to the Commission.
Mr. Greiter expressed concern with mixing business and residential property;
Attorney Kramer stated that the property in question was strictly business zoned
to the east and residential to the south. Mr. Greiter asked whether it would not
be sensible to use the natural tree line as a buffer between business and resi-
dential areas. Mayor Davidson answered that the first priority must be for
keeping water and sewer lines within the easement. Trees will be restored to
act as a buffer again. Attorney Kramer also indicated the decision for the
placement of the water and sewer lines was directly related to the agreement
between the City and the church property owners, and also the future developers
of the property further down. He stated that Walnut St. is likely to be a high
traffic area and present plans would be conducive to getting all sewer and water
lines onto the easement before making the street wider and finishing it.
Director Johnson stated that Mr. McFarland has effectively told everyone
that there will be no more cuts onto Rt. 47 by the manner he has presented his
proposal for development in to the City. Anyone who wants to develop the
property to the east will have to come in on the proposed roadway or come to the
City and request access off Walnut Street. It appears that this is the best way to
approach the situation at this time.
Jim Clarage stated that this is a preliminary plat and that when the final
plat is submitted for approval, the questions of easements to the south, water
main provisions, and other engineering considerations would be clarified for the
Planning Commission members. He further requested that the final plat show no
access off Rt. 47 into individual lots.
Mr. Langland made the motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to
review of engineering drawings. It was seconded by Mr. Bretthauer. A roll call
vote was taken.
Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoenfielder - yes
The motion carried.
PC87-37 - Kendall County Petition by Charles Doetschman to Rezone A-1 to R-3 (Rt. 71)
Jim Olson made the presentation and referred to the petition of last October.
At that time, the question was whether or not the area in question was to be used
for light industry. Mr. Doetschman has no intention of developing the property at
the present time, but rather to get the residential zoning and set a precedent for
the future.
Mr. Langland stated that the proposal conforms to the overall plan of annex-
ation. Mr. Clarage suggests that the standard annexation agreement would be used.
Mr. Doetschman questioned how the City would handle improvements. He further
stated that his reason for going ahead with the petition was to stay in tune with
the other rezoning attempts in progress.
Page 5 9/16/87
The motion to rezone from A-1 to R-3 was made by Mr. Langland, and seconded
by Mrs. Price. In view of no further discussion, the roll call vote was taken.
Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoelfielder - yes
The motion was carried.
PC87-42 - Petition by Robert Loftus to Annex & Rezone - Refer to PC87-35 - Further
Review (Rt. 47, south of corporate limits)
Attorney Kramer explained the results of the Building & Zoning Committee:
1. Mr. Loftus drew up parcels but they are not actually deeded parcels;
the preliminary is not actually a plat.
2. Council recommended the discussion go back to the Planning Commission.
3. R-1 lots (approximately 5 acres) . Council needs clarification. (Future
probably could be "8" lots)1 Plat really isn't finished. It should be
open with four or five acre lots of it should be petitioned to be
annexed as an entire area.
4. Loftus should decide before bringing to the City.
Mr. Langland stated that the presentation in its present state is not truly a
plan, but simply a drawing. It was noted that the decision of the last meeting was
not unanimous.
Attorney Kramer stated that the City is not approving the plat and annexation;
the City is agreeable to zoning as office.
Mr. Greiter questions "lock in" of present owner. Mayor Davidson referred to
an agreement between Mr. Loftus, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Clemens that protects his interests.
Attorney Kramer said that the City recommends annexation to the City as R-1 and
this would give the City the advantage; at the present time it is County, and the City
has no control.
The motion to authorize the City Attorney to send a letter to Attorney Tom Grant
and Bob Loftus related to rezoning and annexation of this property was made by Mr.
Langland. It was seconded by Mr. Stewart. A roll call vote was called for.
Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes
Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoenfielder - yes
The motion carried.
The floor was opened to discussion. Mayor Davidson had comments on the change of
ownership of the Body Shop. The intent is to obtain B-4 zoning in a trade-off for
"clean-up".
Mr. Langland questioned the "grandfather clause"; Attorney Kramer clarified that
the original rights stayed with the business unless interrupted for 6 months or more.
Comments by Bretthauer, Hayden, and Bown were made relative to the items of
discussion such as water lines, the ability of the City to enforce agreements, and
residential infringments.
Mr. Langland stated that there would be a problem with giving B-4 zoning at the
present. He feels that B-2 non-conforming zoning should remain, or B-3 non-conforming
be granted.
Page 6 9/16/87
Mr. Stewart proposed B-3 Special Use. Mayor Davidson expressed concern in
confusion of zoning in the past and cited Westphal as an example.
Director Johnson expressed a need for a lower density business area for
the area in question. Specialty shops, doctors and lawyers offices are better
suited to the area than gas stations, etc.
Mr. Clarage stated that B-3 and B-4 zoning requires large parcels. To
give this zoning to the Body Shop would be difficult. The zoning does not fit
business - not enough property. The prescribed set-back from the roadway is
not currently adhered to.
Mr. Clarage passed out maps for the commission members to use for purposed of
study. The intent is to have them used as comprehensive work sheet. Chairman
Feltz stated that the project should be taken up at future meetings with lower
level of activity.
Mr. Radke questioned the notice required for agenda appearances at Planning
Commission meetings. The cut-off is 21 days before the meeting date. The
question stems from the short notice given to certain agenda requests of the
present meeting.
Director Johnson expressed a need to revise the form so that the City Secretary
could hand out such forms to those requesting to be scheduled. He further
explained the confusion related to this meeting.
Mr. Greiter questioned the right of the commission to table any issue until a
later date so that it could be further reviewed. Chairman Feltz confirmed that
the commission can table, reject or whatever other option they feel necessary
in order to make an intelligent decision on any given question.
The meeting of the Planning Commission was adourned at 9: 10 p.m.
Joanne M. Ellertson
Recording Secretary
JME:le