Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1987 11-18-87 . MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, HELD AT CITY HALL ON NOVEMBER 18, 1987, FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Harold Feltz with the following members in attendance: George Stewart, Don Ament, Larry Langland, Larry Bretthauer, Dave Greiter and Don Schoenfielder. Absent were Clarance Holdiman, Mary Kay Price, James Stafford, Rick Doetschman, and Kevin Collman. Others present included Dan Kramer, Jim Clarage, Mayor Davidson, J. T. Johnson, and aldermen Gary Bown, Bill Radke, and Jim Hayden. PC87-51 - Petition to Rezone R-1 to R-2 on E. Main St. & McHugh Rd. by Countryside Center, Inc. (R. Deane) As noted in the Public Hearing notes, this has postponed until a later date due to the fact that the petitioners are not prepared to present the plat at this time. PC87-52 - Petition to Annex & Rezone A-1 to R-2 on, Woodworth Subdivision, First & Second Additions - (D. Woodworth) Tom Grant made the presention for developer Dale Woodworth. Mr. Grant stated that Mr. Woodworth has no intention of developing what is shown as lots 64 through 74. He will be coming back with the actual preliminary plat for the First Edition after the first of the year. It was further stated that the continuation of Main Street would not become an issue in the First Edition development phase. It would be discussed with plans for the Second Edition. Tonight the request is for annexation and zoning for the entire project. Again, however, it was stated that the first phase would include lots north of Main Street or one series of lots south of Main Street, but nothing going down into the property for which concern is being expressed at this meeting. Chairman Feltz stated that the total acreage should be stated in the legal description. Also, he questioned where the road would be in respect to Main St. Mr. Clarage suggested that the matter be discussed in depth when the preliminary plat is presented to the Plan Commission. Mr. Greiter questioned the area to the west as concerned the Sanitary District and who would be responsible for bringing sewer lines to the property. He expressed concern of this becoming a hidden expense for the city. It was verified by Dan Kramer that on site improvements would be paid for by the individual owner or developer, not by the city. Mr. Grant asked that the Commission pay close attention to the possibility of running Main Street through and considering the designation of Quinsey Road as the main trunk instead. Dale Woodworth questioned if the proper flow of traffic was within the control of the Plan Commission. He stated that the traffic problem existed at the present time where Main Street meets Rt. 47 and that it would be enhanced even more should Main Street be used as the main trunk. PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- PAGE 2 Alderman Hayden asked if the property was currently within the Sanitary District. Mr. Grant stated it was not but would be; after approval of annexation, the request would be presented to the Sanitary District. Final engineering plans would not be approved until the area was with the District. Land owner Frank Taus stated that he would be willing to dedicate to the city or the county the easement that would be required should Quinsey Lane be extended. Chairman Feltz suggested that the Plan Commission members go to the site and look over the area prior to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Clarage stated that from a planning standpoint there did not appear to be a problem with the proposed land use and the proposed annexation, with the exception of some technical considerations as follows: 1. The acreage should be shown on the legal description 2. The plat of annexation prepared by the surveyor in graphic form should show specifically how their property abutts the existing city limits, with the legal attached to that also. Mr. Langland made the motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of annexation and rezoning from A-1 to R-2 on the Woodworth Subdivision, First and Second Edition. The second was by Mr. Stewart. A roll call vote was called for with unanimous results as follows: Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Bretthauer - yes Greiter - yes Schoenfielder - yes Motion carried. PC87-53 - Kendall County Petition to review Preliminary & Final Plats on Tuma Rd. (W. Wackerlin) Richard Schiller represented the Wackerlin family. He stated that the plat as presented at this meeting is totally consistent with the original submittal that was reviewed and commented on previously. In response to the question on the widening of Tuma Rd., he stated that there was a 13 foot dedication provision -- shown on the southerly side of Lot 1. There is also a provision for future access between Lots 2 and 3. Some confusion was caused by the difference between the original drawing and the present one. (the first showed a total of nine lots and the present one shows a total of ten) It was verified that Lot 3 as shown was actually to be a dedicated street. Chairman Feltz stated that the County had some difficulty with the issue and that it was his feeling that the Plan Commission would get the petition back in the form of a preliminary plat; it was further stated that he thought the County had questions on which way the houses would face. Mr. Schiller stated that the original proposal was approved by the Zoning Board and the County Board, although the Plan Commission unanimously recommended that all the houses have the back yards on Tuma Rd. He further stated that there were numerous arguments to this; PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- PAGE 3 he stated that he did not think that people would like to look at the backs of houses along Tuma Rd. and that is the situation that a frontage road proposal would create. He stated that the zoning board and the county board agreed and left the sketches as they were. Larry Langland questioned the fact that the proposal was turned down by the County because they wanted to see the project in its entirety. Dan Kramer stated that it was not actually turned down, but tabled until the City Plan Commission had a chance to review. Jim Clarage stated that it was his opinion that the Commission had been quite emphatic on requesting a 66 foot right of way. It appears that now the total right of way would be only 53 feet which is not sufficient. Mr. Schiller stated that an additional 26 feet is required to meet the Commission request for a 66 foot right of way. There is an existing 40 feet and the property owner is willing to give his half of the additional 26 feet; the property owners along the other side of Tuma Rd. would give the other half. Mr. Clarage stated that it would be more of a hardship on those owners to do so than it would be on the petitioners; he further stated that he did not feel that asking the petitioner to provide adequate right of way was being unreasonable. Mr. Clarage stated that the original request was made as a premise to good future planning. He would have to recommend that the recording plat not be signed if the petitioner did not want to give up the appropriate right of way. Mr. Schiller said that it was not his understanding that the Plan Commission request was a condition that had to met, but a recommendation for consideration. Mr. Wackerlin asked that the commission consider the problems that would be caused by widening the road as suggested. He further stated that at the previous September meeting there was was no mention of the additional thirteen feet as a condition; in fact it was decided to go ahead with the petition as presented. Chairman Feltz referred to the Sept. 16 minutes stating that Mr. Clarage recommended the 66 ft. right of way (it is believed that the minutes stated 60 ft in error) ; . reference was made to the fact that Tuma Rd.was .too narrow to comply with present subdivision requirements. The commission was at that time only in discussion stage and points relative to this and other questions would be handled when the preliminary was presented. Mr. Stewart asked that the Commission consider what effect the development of the remaining 150 acres would have; the possibility of merging the resulting traffic onto a 40 foot right of way could cause further problems at the American Legion Post area. Mr. Clarage again referred to the fact that from a planner's standpoint, the 53 foot right of way was not sufficient; the city must consider that at some point in time they may have responsibility toward the property and proper right of way must be provided for possible future improvements. He would recommend that the Title Policy show that the owners be willing to annex into the city when the city limits were adjacent to their property. PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES .-- PAGE 4 Mr. Schiller stated that the recommendation was certainly not unusual. He suggested that the matter be postponed until the next meeting for the purpose of clarification of the presentation. Mr. Clarage agreed stating that it was not the norm to con- sider both the preliminary and final plat at the same time. Mayor Davidson brought up the fact that again it appeared that only a small portion of the total picture was being considered. It is his opinion that it is not wise to fall into this type of pattern. Mr. Langland agreed that the Plan Commission had originally requested the overall plan and previously approved the zoning only. Mayor Davidson further stated that this has happened in other sections; property is being developed at the point farthest away from the city instead of at the point adjacent to the city. Chairman Feltz agreed that some clarification as to the development of the rest property should be presented. He further indicated that the postponing of the petition seemed necessary and asked for a motion in that direction. Mr. Stewart made the motion to continue the discussion on this property at the December meeting and that we also have information related to the tentative plans for the rest property. It was seconded by Mr. Ament. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. PC87-54 - Petition to review-Final Plat., east:of Rt. 47 &north of Walnut St. - (W. McFarland) - Tabled from 10-21-87 . Wayne McFarland presented his petition.- He pointed out the fact that the stipulation of no access cut directly onto Rt. 47 was noted on the plat as requested by the Plan Commission at the last meeting. (Lots 1 through 6 inclusive) . The Plan Commission had not received copies of the updated plat at the time of the meeting. Mr. McFarland did have several copies of the plat; however, without sufficient time to review given to the Commission, Chairman Feltz suggested that the issue be deferred until the next meeting. Mr. Clarage stated that the following should be shown on the plat: "these lots are subject to further covenants, conditions & restrictions recorded herewith" with reference to ingress, egress, maintenance of the reciprocal easements & due recourse for default. (or similar legal wording) It should be shown in such a manner so as to be readily picked up by the Title Co. He further suggested that copies be provided to all members of the Plan Commission in time to review before the next meeting. Chairman Feltz reminded Mr. McFarland that he would have to properly notify the city clerk to be on the agenda for the December meeting. He then asked for the motion to continue. The motion to continue the discussion on the final plat for the property east of Rt. 47 & north of Walnut St. (McFarland) until the December meeting was made by Don Ament & seconded by Don Schoenfielder. It was unanimously carried by voice vote. PC87-55 —Petition to review Preliminary Plat of Wildwood .Phase 1, off Rt. 123 - (Dr.Davis) - Tabled from 10-21-87. PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- PAGE 5 Chairman Feltz reviewed the tabling of the petition at the last meeting & referenced the fact that a joint meeting with the members of the City Council & the owners had been suggested. In the absence of Jim Olson, Attorney Dan Kramer asked if the owners present would care to present any information on their thoughts on what the subdivision plans as originally approved with the Wildwood people in respect to the sewer situation would be. The owners stated that they were advised by Mr. Olson to appear & they were not prepared to present any plans in their behalf. Jim Olson arrived at the meeting shortly after and presented the following statements relative to the petition: 1. The M-1 area (manufacturing) 66 acres - there are no plans to change the plat from the original. 2. The area zoned R-4 - originally planned for 319 multi-family units. They plan to change the area to R-3 & drop to 186 units, a reduction of 133 units. 3. Open area - to stay the same as the original plan. 4. Corner section - originally was 3� acres zoned B-1 - this would be extended to 20 - 30 acres commercial. No immediate development is planned. 5. Middle section - Single family - 234 units on original plan. This would be reduced to lots close to one acre in size. Service with public water would be planned. Private treatment plants or septic fields would be used until such time as one of the other areas is developed or sewer is available. Mr. Clarage asked if the layout of the streets, sewer, etc. , could be shown on the plat. It would facilitate future planning for service if a design pro- viding easements for such a purpose could be provided at this time. Mayor Davidson referred to the type & condition of the soil on the property in question. He stated the field tile would have to be 6 - 8 inches to dispose of the septic; this must be shown on the final plat. Individual perc tests would be required to provide information on a spot check basis. Dr. Davis claims that there was never any agreement regarding the sewer situation with the original owners. Davidson maintained his position on the soil and stated that the 6 - 8 inch tile Would be a condition of the approval of the plat. Dr. Davis expressed concern that as petitioners, the owners were being asked to comply unfairly with existing guidelines. Jim Olson referred to Davidson's statement that an answer on sewer service could not be given until the decision of whether or not the Sanitary District would expand was reached. He stated that expansion could take quite some time & the developers should not be required to wait to proceed. Chairman Feltz stated that the question of payment for bringing the sewer to the land must be considered. The community should not be expected to pay for the development,as related to sewer service. Mr. Olson said that the scope of the project was too immense to handle; Dr. Davis suggested a bond issue. PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- PAGE 6 Dan Kramer offered the following options to solving the existing problems the sewer & who is going to pay for it. He stated that the decision of the Sanitary District was pertinent to this project as well others in question at this time. If the District plans expansion fairly quickly, then there is a planning choice that Mr. Clarage_ can advise.on. Options may include allowing the develop- ment of a number of lots with septic with a requirement to hook up to sewer when available (or when system no longer functions) & restrict further lots to hooking up to sewer. The financing issue would have to be considered, perhaps by creating a special tax district to help defray costs. He is of the opinion that lengthy discussion & argumentative compromise would be necessary before a solution is reached on the subject. Dr. Davis questioned the Sanitary District capacity; Dan Kramer affirmed that the only comment by the District was that the line coming from the Industrial Park could not take any more, not to say that it would not be expanded. He further commented that approximately six other developments are faced with the same problems relative to the Sanitary District as the petitioners. Dr. Davis explained again that they wanted an okay to go ahead with one acre lots -- they would be more than happy to hook to the sewer line when and if it becomes available. Mayor Davidson maintains that an answer from the Sanitary District is necessary to outline some projected time span for development. Dr. Davis requested a definite answer in December at the Plan Commission meeting. Chairman Feltz interjected that as a Plan Commission there really was no clear decision that could be reached at the present time. Presently the original Wildwood agreement exists and nothing is changed. Regarding sewer annexation, there is a difference of opinion between the Plan Commission and the present owners rela- tive to the agreement that was or was not made. Chairman Feltz called for a motion to defer. The motion to defer discussion on this property until further information is made available was made by Larry Langland and seconded by George Stewart. A voice vote was called for and the motion was carried unanimously. IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT FEES The next order of business was present by Dan Kramer. He recommended that the city move forward on implementation of impact fees. He stated the city of Naperville and Batavia as examples. Naperville is presently using a flat per acre assessment that is unusually high; Batavia is using $1000 per lot divided as police, fire, sewer/water, electric at $250 each. Money is to be used for capital improvements only, not for salaries, operating expenses, etc. In his opinion the city of Yorkville needs to consider this approach now -- considering for expansion of sewer lines and the impending problems. Getting such an ordinance on the books without delay would encompass present building antici- pation. (Woodworth, Williamsport, Purcell/Deane) PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- PAGE 7 Presently there is a land cash amount for school of $500 & $346 for Parks and Recreation (J.T. Johnson provided figures' as relating to single family units) . After open discussion the following allotment was decided upon: 1. $450 - Public Works/Sewer/Water/Roads 2. $150 - Police 3. $250 - Fire Department & Ambulance 4. $150 - Municipal Public Building It was verified that the amount mould be',paid at the time the building permit was acquired. Mr. Langland stated that it would cost an average of $2000 for a building permit. Dan Kramer-& Jim Clarage explained that this could be used as a tool for bargaining purposes. The motion to recommend to the City Council to pass an ordinance to handle a impact fee as described above was made by Mayor Davidson; the second was by Larry Langland. A voice vote unanimously carried the motion. Chairman Feltz adjourned the November meeting of the Plan Commission at 9:30 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 CITY HALL ON NOVEMBER 18, 1987, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was recessed to conduct the Public Hearing scheduled. In attendance were Plan Commission members as follows: Chairman Harold Feltz, George Stewart, Don Ament, Larry Langland, Larry Bretthauer, Dave Greiter and Don Schoenfielder. Also present were Dan Kramer, city attorney, and Jim Clarage, city planner. The citizens in attendance are listed on the attached sign-up sheet. PC87-51 - Petition to Rezone R-1 to R-2 on E. Main St. & McHugh Rd. by Countryside Center, Inc. (R. Deane) Due to the fact that the petitioners were not at this time prepared for the presentation, this item was postponed until a later date. PC87-52 - Petition to Annex & Rezone A-1 to R-2, Woodworth Subdivision, First & Second Additions by Dale Woodworth. The discussion commenced after the swearing in of all persons who wished to speak at the hearing. Tom Grant presented the Affidavits of Notice to Chairman Feltz. In addition to the annexation and rezoning, the petitioner is requesting the review of the preliminary plat for suggestions from Plan Commission members. (The plat is the original one used in 1978 and Tom Grant advised that there would be changes when updating it to the present time.) The development is planned in two phases, first &second editions; the reason being basically the economics involved. The zoning is consistent with the other property in the area as well as with the comprehensive plan for the area. The first edition will consist of twenty-nine lots; the second calls for forty-five lots, but the plan most likely will eliminate the lots by the river and reserve the area for a park. What is being reviewed at this meeting is primarily a sketch plan with the intention of presenting an actual plat at a later date. Discussion was opened to citizens interested in commenting. Mr. Gawne (Gawne Subdivision, Lot 1) stated that it was his understanding that the property in question was on a flood plane - that no additional construction would be allowed along the riverfront property. He expressed.:concern based on past occurences after new construction. In his opinion a possible "swamp area" .would be created if a park were developed. Mr. Grant stated that the area being questioned is actually farther west and not included in the present plan. Esther Riley questioned what effect the development as planned would have on the creek presently flowly freely and asked if interference with the natural flow of water would be prohibited. The question of extension of the existing road was also raised. Dale Woodworth discussed both with the persons questioning and ex- plained that he did not intend to interfer with the creek, nor did he plan on further development of the road as presently existing. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING -- PAGE 2 Mr. Gawne commented on the issue of the creek. He stated that some years ago the problem of stopping the flow of water did exist; the legal opinion given at that time was that the diversion of the creek off of his property was pro- hibited by law. He further stated that regarding the road, the city of Yorkville goes through about the middle of the road behind his property and the rest of the road is private. It is his opinion that further extension of the road would be prohibited due to efforts to stop such extension by the property owners. It was also questioned by a concerned individual whether the extension of East Main Street was being planned. Chairman Feltz indicated that this could not be answered at this time. Part of the purpose of the public hearing was to hear the concerns of those attending. The actual question of such extension would be certainly be discussed when the developmental plan was reviewed. Chairman Feltz asked for any further discussion regarding the issue and hearing none adjourned the public hearing. Joa ne M. Ellertson, Recording Secretary A4erz-r 13. C�arn� 11 jx 36 GAWK L,4k raid! 6,O wn.e- 3b' �,� too, Z-z4rt e— C—Awik 3e GA-W^J C- ov, GL IFS U,'A CIrE lfZ- A- /78 TL-- /`1A R/J AO,Xh-4'qz G NYlVg /��c-*'ARC,.vAD,JrR. P.v.Sox 69 / o�•er's, 1�L �, s-o yA Xf_N CRI/'SM4kH gG �✓/MSc LN, yGRKv�ccr r 1 V i l t i 1 C }