Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1985 09-24-85 MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YORKVILLE HELD AT 24 ON SEPTEMBER , 1985 AT 7 : 00 P .M. -- �a� - --------- - ---- -- ---- ---- F6 Chairman Groner called the meeting to order. The roll was called with the following members in attendance: Mr. Ament, Mr. Groner, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Beaudry, Mr. Holdiman, Mr. Kenton, Mr. Langland, and Mrs. Price. A quorum was established. Also present at the meeting were Jim Clarage, Jim Hayden, Attorney Tom Grant, John & Gary Conover, and Ralph Pfister. Mr. Langland made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 17, 1985 special meeting as written. Mrs . Price seconded the motion. All members present were in favor . PC-85-6 - Review the pre-annexation agreement for John Conover and discussion of the reroutinp, of Rt . 34 access to Conover ' s Subdivision -- --- -------- --- -- ------ -- --------- ----------- Chairman Groner stated that the order of business would be to review the pre- annexation agreement for the John Conover property. Copies of the annexation agreement were attached to the agenda. He stated that some of the exhibits were not attached to the said agreement . Attorney Tom Grant, representative for the petitioner, stated that they do not have all the plans in final form due to the unsurety as to what is going to happen. The changes will be redrawn and resubmitted. He stated that he was in question as to the definitions in the zoning ordinance of a single family attached dwelling and a single family detached dwelling. Mr. Clarage stated that a single family attached dwelling would require a lot of not less than 90 ft. unless a variance is approved. A single family detached dwelling would require a 70 ft . lot. Two family detached dwellings would apply to two separate units on the same lot. Attorney Grant stated that Lot 99 is 89 ft. rather than 91 ft. as shown on the map. Lots 110 and 103 on the south side would qualify for an attached two family dwelling and the rest of the lots may be single family. The north side lots would all qualify for duplex use. It was the concensus of the commission that a lot of 90 ft. or more would qualify for what is commonly referred to as duplex use, and anything less than 90 ft . would be restricted to a single family dwelling . Attorney Grant stated that the proposed annexation agreement covered all basis with the exception of the proposed sidewalk which will come out between the Nursing Home and then across the property which will be zoned for business. This will be shown in the agreement , however , it will not be drawn in unti 1 they actually plat the commercial property. The agreement covers the variations and subdivision improvements. It shows the street surfacing and the curbing on the south side of North, both sides of Leisure, east side of Prairie, with no work being done on Sunset. Attorney Grant stated that the petitioners have discussed the possiblity of abandoning the present exit on North Avenue with the thought of extending Sunset onto Rt. 34. Mr. Conover had met with the state, and it was their opinion that the enterance be left the same. They do not want another cut in the road. The state proposed the possibility of another road to come in through the middle and to abandon North Ave. for access. They also had another plan which would include the abandonment of North Avenue. The peti- tioners felt that the cost of the two proposals would not be economically feasible. The property faces Rt. 34 making it prime commercial property. The petitioners are willing to develop the whole area residential to alleviate the traffic problem, if it is the desire of the city. They would prefer to keep it commercial because they felt that it would be the best use. The state expects the traffic lights to be put in on Rt . 34 within 2 years . Mr. Langland stated that he would not be in favor of extending Sunset. He felt that they should modify the present frontage road and enterance. He felt there would be more traffic jams with a cut off of Sunset . Attorney Grant stated that they considered the suggestion of the plan commission to bring the road further south to give a different radius off of Rt. 34. They would not like to do this due to the fact that they would lose some of the trees . The state would like to keep the enterance as it is . Mr. Ament stated that the reason they suggested a different radius was to assure that truck traffic would be able to make the turn without blocking traffic on Rt . 34 . Mr. Stewart suggested that North Avenue be made one way. Attorney Grant did not think commercial traffic should be routed through a residential area . Mr. Pfister questioned whether the other cut on Prairie was discussed with I.D.O.T.. John Conover stated that Mayor Davidson had spoke with the state, and they did not want a cut on Prairie either . Mr. Ament suggested having stop signs on North Avenue. Mr. Langland stated that this would be up to the city to put them in. Attorney Grant felt that when the stop lights on Rt. 34 are put in, a person at the stop sign on North would have to have a green light in order to go. Attorney Grant stated that the petitioners would like to keep the enterance as it is indicated on the drawing and have it approved as such. Mr. Clarage stated that the main concern in the annexation agreement is with the access onto Rt. 34. The improvements that were requested are shown in the annexation agreement. Mr. Clarage stated that by changing the radius of the turn, he was giving the cars and trucks more of a width to turn. He felt that the state should put it in writing that they recommend that the enterance be left the way it is , so that it may be put into the city file in order to avoid any future problems that the city may have. He felt that there were not many options open to change the enterance. Attorney Grant felt that if traffic lights are put in on Rt. 34, stop signs are put in both directions on North Avenue , and the median is removed in the middle of the enterance , the traffic condition may improve . Mr. Langland recommended that the city be informed of the need for stop signs on North Avenue . Attorney Grant stated that the agreement shows that they would like to annex the whole parcel in and zone it , and then wait for buyers before they plat it. They would likes to subdivide it as they go along. Exhibit D indicates where the property is going to be zoned differently. He also put in portions of the zoning ordinance which dictates what can be done in the particular districts. The sidewalks need to be modified. A provision is included that at the time of subdivision of the property, a sidewalk will be provided. The curbing is as indicated on the north and south side of Leisure, on the east side of . Priarie Ln., and on the south side of North Avenue to allow for drainage off into the ditch. Mr. Stewart felt that North Avenue will have heavier commercial type of traffic. He questioned whether the road will hold with only one side having curbing. Attorney Grant stated that with the problem of the surface water drainage, they have to let the drainage continue to the ditch so it will run its natural course down because they are dealing with a state right of way which will come up to the edge of North Avenue. The road surface on North will be a B-5 blacktopped surface. Mr. Stewart inquired as to whether the surface will be sufficient for the truck traffic. Mr. Stewart also questioned about the pedestrian traffic once the property is subdivided. Attorney Grant stated that there will be no sidewalks except for the one that will be continuing through from the Game Farm. There will be no pedestrian walkways. The majority of the children cross at Sunset. Mr. Clarage stated that there will be a 4 1 /2 ft. shoulder. There is 3 in. of blacktop and 8 in. of stone. It appeared that the stone line will carry out for a shoulder, which should hold the road in place. Mr. Clarage questioned some of the figures for the street surface. He felt this should be clarified with the city engineer. Attorney Grant stated that he would have this clarified. Attorney Grant stated that he will be working the letters of credit out with the city attorney. Attorney Grant stated that the petitioners are asking for time to complete the subdivision improvements. They will commit themselves to making the improve- ments on Leisure and Prairie within 5 years or within 1 year after the sale of the 12th lot. The improvements on North Avenue and Sunset will be made within 5 years or within 1 year after 60% of the property is sold. He questioned whether this would be a satisfactory time schedule with the commission. Mr. Clarage questioned whether there is a provision for an extention. Attorney Grant stated that they will come back before the city if they are unable to meet the time schedule . Attorney Grant stated that the petitioners are asking for a waiver on the land cash grant fees. He stated that a substantial amount of the area will be commercial and would not apply. The land would have been developed years ago as an extention of Countryside Center north. It was not a requirement at the time the other property went in. Mr. Langland inquired as to whether they can waive the fee of one subdivision and not another. Mr. Clarage stated that it may be done within a pre- annexation agreement. He stated that the development of the real estate is a continuation of a subdivision made at a previous time before the land cash ordinance was passed. The land cash ordinance was believed to have been passed in 1978, and the subdivision was begun 20 years ago. Mr. Stewart felt the fee should be paid since the petitioner is waiving the sidewalks. A variance was also given on the road surface and curbing. The other part of the subdivision may have been started prior to the passage of the land cash, but the ordinance was put into effect to gain revenue. Attorney Grant questioned what other municipalities are doing in terms of e = land cash. Mr. Clarage stated that most areas that are developing well are . required to pay a land cash fee. Attorney Grant stated that they would ask that the fee be paid at the time of the building permit issuance. The fee will be passed onto the buyer. Mr. Langland felt that the other subdivisions should be let off, or they should all be required to pay. John Conover felt they should not be required to pay it due to the fact that the subdivision would have been completed before the passage of the land cash if they had not run into problems. Mostly commercial will be going into the area. They are doing things that they did not have to do. He felt the city will gain for years to come by having the property in the city limits. Mr. Stewart felt that the petitioner will also gain. Mr. Hayden stated that the money received from Woodworth's Subdivision has already been disbursed to the school. Mr. Beaudry inquired as to whether the whole process would stop if the fee is required. He felt that building has been at a stand still for the last 10 years, and he did not want to slow things down by requiring the fee. Attorney Grant stated that in the past, sales have been lost due to the land cash. Chairman Groner felt that the commission should look at the property as a continuation of a development that was started 20 years ago. Mr. Kenton stated that he would agree to the proposal of deleting the land cash fee. Mr. Pfister stated that this portion of the subdivision may not have been annexed into the city if it had been developed earlier. When Conover's deve- loped in the county, they had smaller side yards which would have added more density to the city at that time. Mr. Pfister also stated that a blacktop road could be done for approximately the same price as a tar and chip surface. He felt that the ordinance should be enforced the way it reads until it is changed. Mr. Hayden suggested contacting the city attorney to determine whether it would be legal to make only some pay the fee. Mr. Stewart stated that he would agree to everything in the annexation agree- ment except for the waiver of the land cash fee. Attorney Grant stated that if all members are in favor of the annexation agreement with the addition of the sidewalks , he will get the print updated and have copies back to the commission in final form, hopefully, before the next meeting. Mr. Kenton made a motion that in connection with the Conover development that the land cash fee be waived. Mr. Beaudry seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken . Price - no Ament - yes Groner - yes Kenton - yes Langland - no Holdiman - no Stewart - no Beaudry - yes The motion was tied at 4-4 . 'i Mr. Kenton made a motion to recommend to the city council that they approve the Conover annexation agreement with the addition of the sidewalks and leave the decision of the land cash fee up to the city council. Mr. Ament seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Groner - yes Stewart - yes Langland - yes Ament - yes Price - yes Kenton - yes Beaudry - yes Holdiman - yes The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Groner inquired as to whether there was any additional business. Mr. Stewart inquired as to what is being done about the used car lot that is non- conforming on Rt. 47. Attorney Grant stated that he had a petition for rezoning from Mr. Westphal and Mr. Gabel. He will be filing to rezone to conform to what the property is being used for. He stated that it may come before the next meeting of the plan commission. He questioned whether the members would object to giving the property the proper zoning for its use. Mr. Hayden stated that he would like to have the property being used, rather than vacant . Mr. Hayden recommended that the comprehensive plan be redone next year. Mr. Clarage will be bringing a rough draft to the commission members to begin work. $5 , 000 will be budgeted for work next year . Mr. Ament made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Beaudry seconded the motion. All members were in favor . The meeting was adjourned. <� 04 -------------------------- -------- Debbie Robertson, Rec . Secretary