Loading...
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