Plan Commission Minutes 1987 12-16-87 r
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE
KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, HELD AT CITY HALL ON DECEMBER 16, 1987, 7:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
with the following members in attendance:
Harold Feltz, George Stewart, Don Ament, Mary Kay Price & Dave Greiter.
Absent were: Clarence Holdiman, Larry Langland, James Stafford, Rich Doetschman,
Larry Bretthauer, Kevin Collman and Don Schoenfielder.
Also present were James Clarage, Dan Kramer, Attorney Richard Schiller, Gary
Bown, Mayor Davidson, Cliff Wackerlin (petitioner PC87-57) .
MINUTES
The minutes from the November meeting were accepted as presented. The motion was
made by Don Ament and the second was by Mary Kay Price.
PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing scheduled as PC87-56, "Rezone R-1 to R-2 by Countryside
Center (R. Deane) on E. Main St. & McHugh Rd. (continued from November Plan
Commission Meeting)" was canceled with notification by the petitioner the after-
noon of the December 16 meeting.
PC87-57 -- Kendall County Preliminary & Final Plats by William Wackerlin on Tuma
Rd. (Continued from November Plan Commission Meeting)
Atty. Schiller presented the petition; he stated that he had discussed the
issue with the Wackerlins, Mayor Davidson, and Mr. Olson; he further stated that
it was the desire of the petitioners to stand by the submittal that was presented
and they are requesting the approval of the Plan Commission thereof.
The question of road right-of-way as submitted at the previous meeting was
referred to by Jim Clarage as was George Stewart's suggestion that the plan for
the entire 150 acres be presented to the Plan Commission. Mr. Schiller re-emphasized
the fact that the plan was being presented with no changes made.
Atty. Schiller referred to the suggestion by Dan Kramer of moving the utility
easements to the rear of the lots to give additional easement for the same; the
petitioner indicated that was acceptable at the time of the last meeting -- this
would amount to a 10 ft. drainage easement and would not include sewer or water
at the present time. Alderman Bown questioned why the water & sewer provision
would not be included with the other utility easements. Atty. Kramer clarified
the fact that what was referred to was an easement of 20 ft. to include sewer and
water; Schiller stated that the plan could be modified to the same.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -- PAGE 2
Chairman Feltz referred to other items as requested at the November meeting;
namely, the development of the remainder of the 150 acres. He indicated that the
county also had questions regarding the same. Atty. Schiller indicated that the
owners had no plans for the development of the remainder of the property at this
time and therefore would not want to annex the entire portion now.
Other comments in regard to access road, traffic flow and drainage problems
were presented by Atty. Schiller. Mr. Clarage at that time restated his position
as voiced at the November meeting. With no changes to the plat, he does not feel
that the road right-of-way is of sufficient width to allow for future growth
potential and contingencies in the area; if the petitioner does not want to
increase the road right-of-way for future usages, then he would recommend that
the board not approve the plat and that the City Council not sign the recording
plat.
Mr. Stewart questioned the recommendation about annexation. Atty. Schiller
stated that the position of Mr. Wackerlin was that the annexation decision should
be the decision of the property owner, not his as the developer. Chairman Feltz
restated the fact that how the remaining property development would fit into
the entire picture was relative to the decision on the plan as presented now.
Atty. Schiller restated the position of the developer at this time -- the annexa-
tion decision belongs to individual owners at the time the property becomes
contiguous to the city.
Mr. Clarage then referred to the subdivision ordinance requiring street
lights, sidewalks and street improvements (pavements & curbs) ; the agreement as
proposed includes none of the above. It is his feeling that the Plan Commission
would be waiving all ordinance requirements if approval as submitted is given.
He further questioned the fact that there are no plans for the balance of the
property. The adequate right-of-way and overall plan should have been the
minimum to be presented to the Plan Commission.
Chairman Feltz asked for a recommendation from the Commission regarding
this petition. Mr Stewart made the motion to reject the petition for the following
reasons: road width, annexation agreement, lack of an overall plan for the 150
acres, and not being in agreement with the subdivision ordinance. The second to
the motion was made by Don Ament. Roll call vote was taken as follows:
Price - yes Greiter - yes Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes
The motion passed -- the petition request for Wackerlin subdivision was rejected.
PC87-58 -- Final Plat by Wayne McFarland for parcel east of Rt. 47 & north of
Walnut St. (Continued from November Plan Commission Meeting)
Wayne McFarland referred to ingress/egress resolution as requested at the
November meeting. These have been resolved as well as covenants on deeds and
restrictions included and presented to Atty. Kramer for review.
Mr. Clarage recommended that the Plan Commission approve the plat as submitted
at the present time.
r
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -- PAGE 3
Mr. McFarland commented on his project -- it is his feeling that the City
would be proud of the project on completion.
Chairman Feltz asked for a recommendation in view of no discussion remaining.
Mr. Stewart made the motion to approve the final plat of the Landmark Center
Subdivision with changes as submitted and to recommend that the .:City approve
this subdivision. The second was made by Dave Greiter. Roll call vote for
approval was taken with results as follows:
Greiter - yes Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Price - yes
Motion carried. Comment was made that the topic would be discussed at the City
Council meeting on Thursday, December 17.
----------------------------
Discussion was then opened on the matter of Impact Fees (ordinance submitted
by Dan Kramer) . His thoughts on the matter as related to the reasoning behind
the set-up of the ordinance as submitted included:
1. Dollar amounts are as requested at the November meeting.
2. J.T. Johnson can more than justify amounts of fees for each lot.
3. Atty. Kramer originally favored attaching the impact fee to only
residential lots. It was Mayor Davidson's idea to add to the fee
schedule business and manufacturing also.
4. A credit back provision was included for business and manufacturing
to offset impact fees.
Mayor Davidson commented that an average new business employs five people.
The credit for employees relative to recapture of the $1000 fee would be fair
and workable.
Dave Greiter asked about the date of effectiveness. Atty. Kramer responded
that if the City Council would act on the ordinance immediately, it would be
effective 30 days. after publication. Any subdivision not platted at the present
time would be affected by the ordinance.
Mr. Feltz emphasized and clarified the fact that the idea was not to attach
the impact fees on existing lots. Only new platted lots to come in after the
effective date would be affected by the ordinance.
Mr. Stewart questioned the ratio of what small business would pay and be
credited back in proportion to what the larger business with more employees
would pay or be entitled to. Mayor Davidson answered that to be legal and safe-
guarded the ordinance had to be equal for all. Mr. Greiter questioned the
possible ripple effect of the ordinance; would developers try to rush a decision
through before the effective date. Dan Kramer assured that it was not possible to
do so with the time requirements at the present time for scheduling the agenda;
there would virtually be no ripple effect.
t
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES -- PAGE 4
Atty. Kramer stated that the rumor of such an ordinance was already out. Most
people are not concerned with it when they hear that it would have no effect on
existing property. Mr. Greiter further questioned the Wildwood Subdivision.
Since that subdivision was not yet platted, it would be under the terms of the
ordinance.
Chairman Feltz asked for a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Stewart
made the motion to recommend to the City Council that the Impact Fee Ordinance
be approved & that the credit of $250 be used as the offset to the business
and manufacturing areas. It was seconded by Don Ament. No further discussion
remained. Roll call vote was taken with results as follows:
Price - yes Greiter - yes Felt - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes
The motion carried unanimously.
The motion to adjourn the December meeting was made by Don Ament and the second
was by George Stewart. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Joanne M. Ellertson, Recording Secretary