Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1979 07-24-79 r YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560 Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton Robert J. Mahoney Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth Mary K. Price Steve Franks MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE YORKVILE PLAN COMMISSION 24 JULY 1979 Dr. Robert Coleman called the July meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order. Those in attendance were Dr. Coleman, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Franks, Mr. Woodworth James Clarage and Larry Beach. The June minutes were amended to read in line 6 "City Clerk's office" rather than "Water Department office". Mr. Mahoney moved to approve the amended minutes and was seconded by Mr. Franks. All members voting aye. Motion carried. 79.17 Preliminary Plat - ReZone A-1 to R-3 - Property located within one and one half miles of City limits - Game Farm Road There is one existing house located on the property on Game Farm Road (Glen Palmer home) and two additional lots are proposed. Dr. Coleman read the soil and water conservation report which indicated the property owners should try to obtain city sewer and water. Mr. Clarage noted that according to the Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance, the lots had to front a public street but that these two lots would be serviced by a private driveway. Mr. Clarage stated that the city could request that the county require deed covenants be added for annexation to the city at the time when the city became contiguous to the property. Mr. Swanson (property owner) noted that one of the lots would be for his family's personal use and stated that he felt the property was ideally suited for residential use. He said they could not hook up to city sewer and water because they were not adjacent to it. The interceptor is located abou+ 600 feet west of their property. Dr. Coleman asked if they would annex if the city became contiguous to their property and if they would sign a deed covenant stating their intentions. Mrs. Swanson asked what were the possibilities of their obtaining city sewer. Mr. Woodworth responded that the city would have to run out a new line. Mr. Swanson stated that they would agree to annex- ation to the city. Mr. Clarage stated that the city would file a legal objection to the preliminary plat as submitted, however, if the petitioners agree now to file a deed covenant with the final recording plat which stated that at such time the city of Yorkville was contiguous to the subject property, the present owners would agree to annex the property to the city. Further, they would have to dedicate a 33 foot road right of way (the westerly 33 feet from the center line of Game Farm Road). Mr. Clarage again asked if the petitioners would agree to future annexation subject to the pre-mentioned conditions. Mr. and Mrs. Swanson replied that they did agree. Mr. Mahoney then moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions previously mentioned and was seconded by Mr. Franks. All members voting aye. Motion carried. It was further noted that the petitioners did agree to the annexation as a conditionof approval by the plan commission. 79.18 Petition to Re.-Zone - 7 1/2 acres along North bank of Fox River accessible by private road off Quinsey Road - Property located withon one and one half miles of City The petitioners, Barbara Merten and JoAnn Snyder are seeking rezoning from A-1 to R-3 of four lots off Quinsey Road. When questioned regarding possible future annexation when the city becomes contiguous, the petitioners responded they wanted to consult an 2 — July, 1979 rf attorney before making a commitment. Mr. Mahoney stated that we would make this recommendation to the city council as a conditon of approval of the petition. If their attorney advised non-compliance with the proposal, they would have problems with passage of the plat. Mr. Clarage noted they were asi.-r-Lng for a rezoning from Agriculture to R-3 and that the petition should be amended noting the R-3 zoning request. Mr. Mahoney then moved to recommend approval of the zoning change from A-1 to R-3 subject to the petitioners agreement to accept annexation to the -city at which time their property is contiguous to the city. Seconded by Mr. Franks. All present voting aye. Motion carried, 79.19 Pre-Application Sketch - Fox Industiral Park- Blaine Harker Annexation Attorney Tom Grant, representing Mr. Blaine Harker, stated this was a pre- application conference and they were seeking over-all approval of their plan. He stated that although Lots 6 and 7 at the end of the property were small, they felt someone might be interested inputting in storage buildings. He said they intended to continue Badger Street south through the subdivision rather than continuing the frontage road (Bridge Street). He stated one problem with continuing the frontage road was the existence of a home which they would like to continue using as rental property until the lots were sold. Mr. Mahoney noted they showed no front road dedication. Mr. Grant stated that because of the economic factor, they could not afford two new roads. He also said that Badger Street would dead end if they did not continue it. Mr. Clarage suggested the possibility of a 75 foot easement to line up ?rith a possible frontage road. Mr. Grant stated he felt the city would want a dedicated right of way which would then require that their buildings be set further back. Mr. Mahoney stated that according to the present ordinance, they could construct their buildings now and the city would have to give them a variance. Mr. Mahoney stated he did not know if the city wanted the extra 25 feet but that he did not feel the add- ition of the extra footage would be detrimental to Mr. Harker's plans. Mr. Clarage asked if there were any provisions for on-site water retention. Mr. Harker responded this information would have to come from his engineer. Mr. Mahoney asked Alderman Beach if he felt this plan conformed to city plans for the property. Mr. Beach responded it would be foolish to run Bridge Street as a frontage road to Rt. 71. He said that someone will have to eventually build an east street and that with this plan, we could control the number of cuts for the lots as there will only be one cut. Mr. Mahoney stated that if the city council agreed to circumventing the frontage road, he felt we would have no objection to the preliminary plan excepting perhaps the additional 25 feet for easement. Mr. Clarage said that at the northerly fifty feet of the property, there could be a flared easement line (75 feet) that would end up at the Bridge Street right of way and angle to touch the 50 foot easement as shown on the pre-application sketch. 79.20 Re-Zoning A-1 to R-3 - Robbie Acres - Property located within one and one half miles of city limits - Cannonball Trail (Cut-Off Road Mr. Jim Knierim, property -owner, showed aerial photos of the property. He stated the property consisted of thirty two acres which he proposed dividing into 20 lots containing minimums of 45,000 square feet to be rezoned from A-1 to R-3. Unit 1 3 - July 1979 or consisted Lots 1, 2 and 3. Unit 2, Lots 4 through 12 and Unit 3, Lots 13 through 20. He said the southerly portion of the property was pasture and woods and the northerly portion was trees and pasture. He stated there would be a thirty foot buffer zone to the east. Mr. Clarage asked if he would agree to deed covenants that lot owners of record would agree to annex to the city if it were to become contiguous to the property. Mr. Knierim responded that the property was some distance from the city now, but that he would agree with the provision. Mr. Clarage noted that Lot 9 would need a variance and that Lots 2 and 3 could have • common cut. He noted that the city would like to meet him halfway as he was requesting • rezoning and the city was interested in future annexation. He felt this would not hurt the sale of t1he lots. Mr. Kniermim again stated he saw no problem with future annexation. Mr. Mahoney then moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-3 subject to the agreement that the petitioner file a deed covenant with the final recording plat which stated that at such time the City of Yorkville was contiguous to the subject property, the lot owners would agree to annex the property into the city. Seconded by Mr. Woodworth. All present voting aye. Motion carried. It was noted the petitioner agreed with the condition of approval. Alderman Beach noted that county requirements were lax compared to city requirements for subdivisions and felt the plan commission should recommend adherence to city regulations regarding street widths, curbs, and gutters, street lighting, etc. If the properties are annexed to the city in the future, the city can not afford to make all of these improvements. He felt it would be unfair to increase costs to present taxpayers residing within the city limits. Mr. Clarage noted the city could file legal objections that as platted the subdivisions did not conform to city ordinances. Mr. Beach stated it would help the city council if the plan commission would make these recommendations. It was noted that the plan commission would like the city council to be aware that the plan commission recommends adherence to the Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance for future subdivisions becoming contiguous to the city. Mr. Woodworth moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mr. Franks. All present voting aye. Meeting adjourned.