Plan Commission Minutes 1979 10-23-79 YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION
YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560
Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton
Robert J. Mahoney 1W WCX.XGW F4b1ffiRPQRb#W
Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth
Mary K. Price Steve Franks
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION 23 OCTOBER 1979
Doctor Coleman called the regular meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order.
Those in attendance were Dr. Coleman, Mr. M&honey, Mr. Feltz, Mr. Langland, Mr. Dollman,
Mrs. Price, Mr. Woodworth, Mr. Franks, Mr. Clarage and Mr. Beach. Mr. Langland stated the
September, 1979 minutes were incorrect and should be amended. At the May, 1979 meeting,
the motion regarding Unit 8, Conover Subdivision did not include the recommendation that
it be annexed. Although annexation had been discussed by the plan commission, it was not
made part of the motion recommending acceptance of the final plat of Unit 8 as originally
platted. Mr. Mahoney moved to accept the minutes as amended and was seconded by Mr.
Dollman, All members present voting aye. Motion carried.
79.30 Countryside Subdivision, Unit 8, John Conover
Chairman Coleman stated he had received a letter from Attorney Dickson regarding
Unit 8, Countryside Subdivision and that Attorney Dickson requested the plan commission
discuss it for possible approval at tonight's board meeting. Mr. Langland stated he did
not recommend signing the letter. Mr. Beach said that by signing the letter, we would
be telling the county that we did not want the zoning unless Mr. Conover complied with the
subdivision control ordinance. Mr. Langland stated that all of the items in the lettar
had not been previously discussed by the plan commission and that we had approved the
Conover plat in May. Mr. Dollman said that although some items had been discussed at the May
meeting, he felt the plan commission had always recommended annexation and felt the city
and Mr. Conover could work out the other points. Mr. Mahoney pointed out that Attorney
Dickson had covered every point and that the plan commission had just said the property
should be annexed and we would let the city work it out. He saw no conflict in signing
the letter as is. Mr. Clarage stated the petitioner could force the issue and that the city
had to file a legal objection to the petition with the county. Mr. Dickson's letter
spelled everything out so that there would be no later misunderstandings.
Attorney Duggan, representing Mr. Conover, said the issue went directly to the integrity
of the plan commission. He said there had been no discussion of storm flooding, engineering,
etc. at the meeting and that these items were not the subject of any recommendations.
Mr. Mahoney said we did not itemize the subdivision control ordinance but said the
property should be annexed with the subdivision control ordinance in effect.
Mr. Feltz then read the plan commission minutes of March 27, 1977 (Item 77.2) which
detailed items of discussion regarding complicance with the SCO as to water, curbs and
gutters, engineering, etc. Mr. Clarage said the plat should comply with the subdivision
control ordinance and that we should see the developer',s improvement plans along with the
final plat and that these plans had not been submitted to this board. Mr. Woodworth
said he could not remember seeing a set of blueprints and that the developer had never shown us
the original plans which he would like to see.
Mr. Langland said he did not believe this letter reflected what the board had discussed
and what our recommendations had been. He said he would stand by our minutes and that
he would refer Attorney Dickson to the previous minutes.
(2) October 1979 Plan Commission
r
Attorney Duggan said the only petition was regarding the final plat.
Mr. Beach stated if we intended to object, we must file a legal objection with
the county within ninety days.
Mr. Duggan stated this board had approved the final plat in May and that a general
policy of annexing would bring us soon to McHenry County. It was noted by Mr. Mahoney
that Mr. Conover's petition was not an exception to our policy of annexation.
Attorney Duggan said if this board signed the letter, they would be documenting
historical inaccuracies.
Mr. Dollman stated he felt the letter clarified our objections.
It was noted that previous plan commission minutes should be referred to — i.e.
March 1977, May 1979 and September 1979• Mr. Mahoney said that he could not recall a
meeting at which annexation had not been . iscussed regarding this petition.
Mr. Mahoney then moved that paragraph two of Attorney Dickson's letter be amended
to read "As you were informed in March of 1977 Item 77.2, your application etc, and
that the plan commission approve the letter as amended.
Mr. Feltz again read from the minutes of the May, 1979 meeting. Mr. Mahoney said we
had no alternative at that time — that we were voting only on the final plat — not
annexation — and that was why the recommendation for annexation was not included in the
mot'05f. Coleman asked for a second to the motion. Due to the lack of a second, the
motion died.
Dr. Coleman asked for further discussion.
Mr. Feltz asked if we could refer Attorney Dickson to our previous discussions and stand
on those minutes. Mr. Woodworth said the county had accepted the final plat and that
we must send a letter within ninety days or it would be accepted as is. He felt a decision
had to be made tonight.
Mr. Franks said he felt the letter agreed with the general concensus ,of the board.
Mr. Dollman, stated he felt the plan commission had always recommended annexation,
that a decision must be made now, and that most members agree with the contents of
the letter.
Mr. Woodworth stated that in May, the plan commission was not aware the petition
would go directly to the county for approval and would by—pass the city council.
Mr. Mahoney then moved that his previous.motion be accepted and was seconded by
Mr. Woodworth. A roll-call vote was taken as follows: Mr ' Mahoney — yes; Mr. Feltz —
abstain; Mr. c�Lang3an — no; Mr. Dollman — yes; Mrs. Price — abstain; Mr. Woodworth — yes;
Mr. Franks — yes; Dr. Coleman — yes. Ayes — 5. Nayes — 1. Abstentions - 2. Motion carried.
Mr. Feltz then moved to recommend to the city that it was the feeling of the plan
commission that a pre—annexation agreement should be reached between the city and
Mr. Conover.
Mr. Clarage stated that if the plan commission were to deny the petition because of
the issue of annexation, the courts would overide because of the issue of annexation
by coersion. The courts would probably withold the decision to deny because of non-
conpliance with the city's subdivision control ordinance. He said the only basis we have
to deny the petition was through the subdivision control ordiance.
Mr. Langland stated he felt we.had approved the petition in May with no strings attached.
Mr. Feltz then withdrew his motion and stated that he felt the plan commission
in the past had tried to leave things open so that the city and Mr. Conover could come
to some kind of agreement.
Mr. Duggan stated he felt both the city and the plan commission were overstepping
bounds by using the subdivision control ordinance to control zoning, and platting and
that the make the S.C.O. apply unless they annex was a misuse of the ordinance.
.�.
: ( 3 ) October, 1979
79.31 Ivan Anderson Property -Rts. 47 and 71, Petition to Re—zone.
Mr. Bob Kallison associated with Fam Service, stated they have a lease with an
option to purchase the property within one year. He stated the county had approved
rezoning from B-4 to B-4 with an amendment for the Silica Sand property rather
than B-4 to M-1 as approved by the plan commission. He also was requesting rezoning from
B-3 to B-4 with an amendment to permit truck parking. He stated there was not sufficient
space to permit truck parking on weekends on property already zoned for this use. Mr.
Feltz read B4 permitted uses and said he felt this was more desirable than rezoning to
M-1.
Mr. Langland moved to recommend to the city council that the petition to rezone
from B-3 to B-4 with an amendment to allow truck parking be approved. Seconded by Mr.
Dollman. A roll call vote was taken with all members voting aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Langland moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mr. Franks. All
present voting aye. Meeting adjourned.
Betty Huston, Secretary
l
a