Plan Commission Minutes 1980 09-23-80 YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION
YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560
Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton
Robert J. Mahoney fgLq0xGroner
Harold Feltz ktac Dale Woodworth
Mary K. Price Gregg Gabel
Chuck Beaudry
Public Hearing - Petition for Annexation Agreement & Rezoning - Northwest corner of
Rts. 34 and 47 intersection - Syregalas.
Chairman Robert Coleman opened the public hearing at 7;30 P.M. . Plan commission members
present were Dr. Coleman, Mr. Feltz, Mr. Beaudry, Mr. Gabel, Mrs. Price, Mr. Langland,
Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Kenton. Others present were Police Chief Randall, Fire Chief Devick,
City Attorney Dickson, Mr. Martin Behrens, Mr. Elden Madden and Mr. James Clarage.
Dr. Coleman asked if any objectors were present. There was no response. Mrs. LuAnn Erickson
stated that all adjacent property owners had been notified by mail as to tonight's
meeting.
Attorney James Regas, 111 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois, representing the petitioners
First State Bank and Trust Company of Hanover, Park, Trustee and beneficiaries, Steve,
Lambros and Nicholas Syregelas, stated they were submitting an amendment to the petition
for annexation agreement. He said the public notice stated B-1 zoning and that this had
been amended to a request for B-2 general business zoning. He then described the property
located on the norhtwest corner of Rts. 47 and 34. Gross area of the property is 3.3 acres
and net area is 2.46 acres. The site is served by all amenities - there is a storm
sewer along the property and there is a sanitary sewer 204 feet to the west. There is an
8 inch gas main to the south and a 12 inch water main to the north which the property owners
will extend at their own expense. Attorney Regas stated that all requirements of the zoning
ordinance are met excepting two items. They are requesting a variation to allow a sign of
200 feet rather than 100 feet as required by ordinance, and a special use to construct
a restaurant and package liquor store. He stated there would be 114 parking spaces rather
then 88 as required by the ordinance. He said the mix of stores has not yet been determined,
but that there would be a generation of sales of 3.5 to 5 million dollars annually resulting
in sales taxes of $35,000 to $50,000 per year to the village. He further stated this type
of complex was consistent with the general area, that traffic would not be impacted, and that
they felt the proposed center would enhance the area and add revenue to the village. He
then submitted an architect's rendering of the center which included a play area for children.
City Planner James Clarage stated that he preferred to see two curb cuts rather than four
as shown. Attorney Regas responded they had originally only requested two curb cuts from
the state and he agreed this was a possibility. Mr. Clarage stated that as the rear of
the building complex would face other commercial property, he suggested the rear should be in
face brick rather then common brick in order to enhance the esthetics. Mr. Regas stated
this would be acceptable to the owners.
Mr. Gabel asked why they were requesting a sign variation. Mr. Regas responded they felt
the sign needed to be 200 square feet in order for people to be able to view it from the
intersection.
Mr. Mahoney stated that their proposed 20 foot wide service road was a minimum request. He
said most dumpsters were four to six feet wide and that he questioned how much service
area would remain. He further stated that two or three deliveries could not possibly be
( 2 ) September, 1980
made at the same time because of the proposed size. Mr. Feltz stated that in case of an
emergency, there would not be adequate space for deliveries and fire and.police vehicles.
Mr. Regas responded that the service area could be widened by four to five feet.
Mr. Mahoney then inquired as to the ownership of the restaurant. Mr. Regas responded it
was to be a family type restaurant owned by the petitioners. Mr. Mahoney stated if the
service area were widened by five feet, one store might be lost. He said the plan commission
felt the petitioners were asking for a super maximum density of the site and that this
maximum density was not desirable. He suggested that thirteen or fourteen stores would be
more appropriate and would still serve the petitioner's interests.
Police Chief Randall stated that the city needed an ordinance so that the police could
regulate the parking lot in the center. If not, the owners should be required to sign an
agreement stating that the parking lot would be regulated by the police department. He
also stated the plans showed an access door behin4 the restaurant which led in an enclosed
area to five other stores. He felt it would be difficult to apprehend someone who could be
in any one of those locations and that because of the enclosed area, police surveilance
would be difficult. He further stated that the speed limit by the center would have to be
reduced to at least a minimum of 35 mph. It was also mentioned that the cement divider
on Rt. 34 was possibly four to five inches high at the curb cut to the center.
Fire Chief Devick stated the service alley was inadfiquate for fire protection purposes
especially during the day as it was presently laid out. He said there should be a fire
hydrant at the end of an island in the parking lot. He stated all fire walls would have
to be according to code.
Mr. Regas stated the development would be completed all at one time and that there would
not be any fences on the property.
Attorney Dickson stated he had submitted a two to three page commentary to Mr. Regas regarding
their petition and that at this point he did not see any Catch 22. He had some reservations
regarding whether the city could allocate a liquor license to a given party pursuant to
an annexation agreement. He also felt the police department should try to determine a
cost factor regarding policing the parking area. Mr. Clarage stated that because Rts. 47 and
34 formed a major intersection and quality was important, there should be a site plan layout
in the form of an exhibit as part of the annexation agreement. He also stated there should
be some representation made as to the quality of architecture and landscaping. This
should be firmed up so that the petitioners will fulfil the quality of architecture and land-
scaping. He also stated that the green area now shown was state owned property and that
parking plans could be altered to provide area in front for greenery and trees. He stated
that landscaping, architecture and parking plans should be submitted as exhibits for review
by the city.
Mr. Mahoney stated that landscaping was an important part of that intersection and that
landscaping plans were definitely required.
Mr. Madden stated that he felt this was livable plan.
Dr. Coleman then closed the public hearing.
Dr. Coleman opened the regular meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission. Mr. Langland moved
to approve the minutes of the August meeting and was seconded by Mr. Felts. All present
voting aye. Motion carried.
• September, 1980
3
Attorney Dickson stated the plan commission could refer this petition to the
city council so that they could schedule a public hearing.
Mr. Mahoney moved that the petition for annexation and rezoning be referred
to the city council with our comments. Seconded by Mr. Feltz. A roll call
vote was taken with all members present voting aye. Motion carried. It was
noted that all revisions should be completed at such time the petitioners return
to the plan commission.
Mr. Mahoney moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mrs. Price. All
members present voting aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
�m 4Z;U
Betty Fuston, Secretary