Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1978 06-27-78 YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560 Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton Robert J. Mahoney i��� Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth Mary K. Price Steve Franks MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION 27 JUNE 1978 Plan commission members present were Dr. Coleman, Mr. Langlandv Mr. Mahoneyp Mr. Feltzq Mr. Dollman, Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Franks. Others present were Mr. Madden, Mr. Bushing, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Behrens and Mr. Harker. Dr. Coleman opened the public hearing - Petition for Annexation — Yorkshire Estates — Mr. Mezger. Attorney Thomas Grant,, representing the petitioner, stated they have filed a proposed annexation agreement which is to go before the next meeting of the city council. He stated the Impact Study Committee had already met. He said the public hearing tonight only regarded the proposed rezoning to R-2. Dr. Coleman, referring to the report of the Impact Study Committeev stated there was a question regarding the location of an easterly roadway. Dr. Coleman asked if anyone present wished to comment. _ There was no response. Dr. Coleman then closed the public hearing. Dr. Coleman opened the public hearing — Application for Special Use — Ronald Wheaton and Eugene Morrow. Attorney Tom Grant, representing the petitionersp stated the property was presently zoned B-2 and that the petition requested a special use permit in order to construct apartments above the business property. Dr. Coleman submitted a petition containing sixty signatures of persons residing within Conover Subdivision who were not in favor of granting a special use permit. Dr. Coleman then withdrew as chairman as he had signed the petition and Mr. Feltz moved that Mr. Mahoney be appointed acting chairman. Seconded by Mr. Langland. All present voting aye. Mr. Mahoney then read the petition to those present. Mr. Grant then passed out drawings of the proposed building which showed four one bedroom apartments on the upper level and office space for three or four businesses on the lower level. He said the over—all square footage was 2,560. The building is 80 feet long and 32 feet deep. Mr. Grant stated they would meet all requirements as the lot is 125 feet deep and 223 feet wide. Mr. Langland asked about their parking plan. Their drawing sets forth a total of 57 parking spaces which according to Mr. Grant, will provide more than adequate parking. Attorney Grant stated that he and his clients want to maintain the_ integrity of the area. They are saying that they will build this particular building which will have a brick front and will take up two and one half lots. This building will fit in with the surrounding area. Chairman Maji:)ney asked if there were any comments from the floor. Kathryn Hennes a resident of Conover Subdivision stated that they do not want apartments located above the businesses. Mr. Grant stated they were offering a reasonb-ble transition down Sunset Avenue. Mr. Feltz asked if there would be more green area if they had over compensated for parking. Mr. Grant responded there could possibly be more green areas. 2 - June 1978 Meeting y ~ Mr. Langland asked if there would be any screening. Mr. Grant responded that with an application for special use the plan commission can make conditions. He said we could stipulate that 11 some form of screening be provided and 2) that they limit themselves to one bedroom apartments. A resident of the subdivision stated that area residents are objecting to apartments upstairs but not to businesses. She further stated that people's rights should be respected who have already bought property there. Mr. Mahoney asked for other comments. Mr. Grant submitted a signed affidavit which he had sent to surrounding property owners - Dr. and Mr. Robert Coleman, Mr. and Mrs. John Conover, and Mr. and Mr. Les Henne. Mr. Mahoney then closed the public hearing. Chairman Coleman then opened the public hearing - Petition for Annexation - Robert Mahoney. Attorney Thomas Grant stated there were two petitioners.- Hillside Nursing and Convalescent Homev Inc. and Robert and Doris Mahoney. They are asking that lots 11, 129 131, 16 and Parcel 2 be annexed to the city and requesting R-2 special use zoning for the property already occupied by the nursing home and 0 - Office for Parcel Three and Parcel Four in order to construct office buildings on this unimproved vacant land. Mr. Grant stated they have enough footage for R-2 zoning but need a special permit. They are requesting special use from the city because they do not have enough square footage for R-1 zoning. Regarding the second part of the petition, re: lots 11, 12, 16 and part of Parcel 2,, Mr. Grant submitted a site plan and stated this was a petiton for annexation and O-Office zoning. Chairman Coleman asked if any objectors were present. Mr. Paul Staples then submitted a petition which stated opposition to the zoning of Lots 11, 12 and 16 to Office signed by Paul Staples, Judy Staples, Valerie Smith., LeRoy Duckett, Shirley Duckett, Eugene Harberts and Irene Harberts - all ajacent property owners and residents. Mr. Staples stated they were not adverse to being annexed to the city but did object to the pr-)posed 0 zoning. He said Mr. Mahoney's petition had been presented to the county for business zoning but had been rejected. He stated that they had fought this all last winter. Attorney Grant then read from the minutes of the city council meeting regarding the petition. He then stated they were asking for Office rather than business zoning in order to get professional people in there. Mr. Mahoney stated that County B-1 zoning included so many variables that there was no way they could limit the zoning. The city., however,, has 0 zoning which can be restricted. The owner of lot 17 stated they would not have bought their house if they had known offices would be located next to it. They do not mind the nursing home, but she stated there was no lack _ of office space in the area and she felt there was not a big need for new space. She said they moved into a residential area and they want to keep it residential. Dr. Coleman asked if there were any more objectors present. Mr. Grant then submitted an affidavit that adjacent property owners had been notified. Dr. Coleman then closed the public hearing. Dr. Coleman opened the public hearing - Petition for Annexation - Blaine Harker. Attorney Tom Grant stated the property - 8.717 acres was located next to Fox Industrial 3 — June 1978 Meeting Park south . on Rt. 47. They have filed a petition for annexation and are requesting a rezoning from R-3 to M-1 limited manufacturing district. They are not asking for any subdivision at this time — just for the zoning. Mr. Harker proposes to leave the dwelling located there presently for rent4l. purposes: Mr. Grant said that at this time, no one knows what will happen to the frontage road. Mr. Grant said that Mr. Harker will build industrial warehousing buildings in the future, but that now they just want to get it rezoned to M-1 and annexed to the city. Dr. Coleman asked if the frontage road were to be extended, what would happen to the house. Mr. Grant responded that if the city wanted to extend the roads they could do so. He also said that Mr. Harker would be very cautious in locating buildings on the property. Dr. Coleman asked if there were any objectors present. He then closed the public hearing. Dr. Coleman called the regular meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order. Mr. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of the May meeting and was seconded by Mr. Feltz. All present voting aye. Motion carried. Mr. Dollman stated he felt that the plan commission should adhere to the time table set up previously. He felt that we were not getting pertinent documents soon enough for all members to have adequate time to study. 78.18 John Greenawalt — Petition to Re—Zone Mr. John Greenawalty cowner of Kendall Outdoor Equipment, is petitioning the county to rezone 6.5 acres on Rt. 71 from agriculture to B-3 and R-3. As they are within 1 1/2 miles of the cityt he must also appear before the Yorkville Plan Commission. 2.2 acres of the property will be rezoned to highway busiftess , and and the remaining acreage would be zoned single family to include an existing home and a new home site. The petition is to go before the county plan commission tomorrow night and then before the county zoning board of appals: Dr. Coleman asked if there were any questions. Mr. Mahoney then moved not to object to the petition and was seconded by Mr. Dollman. A roll call vote was taken with all members present voting aye. Motion carried unanimously. 78.14 Yorkshire Estates — Richard Mezger — Petition for PreAnnexation Agreement -Amended Attorney Tom Grant requested that all documents and information presented during the public hearing be included in this discussion. He stated they were aWting for R-2 zoning and stated that all requirements for R-2 zoning were met. In factp they were oversize. They are not at this point asking for any subdivision approvals, but would like a recommendation that the city council rezone the property to R-2. We are not considering the pre—annexation agreement now. It was noted that the agenda should read petition for pre—annexation agreement rather than petition for annexation agreement. Mr. Mahoney then moved to recommend to the city council that upon annexation of the property — Yorkshire Estates — it should be rezoned to R-2. ' Seconded by Mr. Feltz,, A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney — yes; Mr. Feltz — yes; Mr. Langland — yes; Mr. Dollman — yes; Mr. Woodworth — yes; Mr. Franks — yes; Dr. Coleman — yes. Motion carried. Mr. Grant then presented a preliminary plan of the subdivision which shows walkways and conforms with the subdivision control ordinance as far as the preliminary pla is concerned. He said this would become the mold for the subdivision. 4 _ June 1978 Meeting Mr. Mahoney asked if they- had done anything to modify our previous objections regarding sewers, curbs, gutters? sidewalks, etc. Mr. Grant said the Impact Study Committee had raised a question regarding an east/west street. He also said they would like the minutes to reflect the plan commission's basic overall approval listing the objections previously noted at tither meetings. Mr. Grant stated a soil and conservation report had been submitted as requested. Mr. Langland noted that the plan commission can not resolve the problems associated with this subdivisions but that this will be up to the city council. Mr. Grant stated that Bob Anderson, city engineery and Bill Perryv Intech Consultants,, are to meet regarding width of the roddways. It was noted that Gateshead Drive would have a lot of traffic. Minutes from February and October 1977 and May 1978 were then read reiterating the objections of the plan commission. Mr. Langiand then moved that the plan commission reject the petition because of but not limited to the following objections; Nonconformance to the subdivision control ordinance regarding curbs and guttersl storm sewer system., width of roadway and completed pedestrian walkway. Seconded by Mr. Doliman. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney — yes; Mr. Feltz — yes; Mr. Langland — yes; Mr. Dollman — yes; Mr. Franks — yes; Mr. Woodworth — yes; Dr. Coleman — yes. Unanimous vote. 78.15 Special Use Permit --Ronald Wheaton and Eugene Morrow Attorney Tom Grant requested that all exhibits and earlier discussion during the public hearing be included here. Mr. Morrow and Mr. Wheaton are the owners of Lots 58 and 59 and the northerly twenty feet of Lot 57, Unit 5, Countryside Subdivision which are presently zoned B-2. Mr. Grant stated that they are requesting a special use permit to enable the petitioners to construct on the property the building previously described and limited to four single bedroom apartments on the second floor. They would also provide screening on the south side and would construct a fence if requested to do so on the east side. It was noted that the petition against this special use permit contained sixty signatures. Mr. Mahoney stated he felt this would improve the existing zoning and that there would not be many children in one bedroom apartments. He said other B-2 zoning could be less desirable and that the first floor would always remain for businesses. Dr. Coleman stated he thought this would be spot zoning which could cause future problems. If we granted this, there would be other; similar requests across or down the street. Mr. Grant stated they were only amplyfying the total use of the property — not changing the classification. Mr. Dollman asked Mr. Grant if they would lkke to table this matter. Mr. Grant stated they would not. Mr. Feltz stated that the B-2 zoning was already there and perhaps this plan was not compatible to the area. He said the residents of the area clearly objected to the special use permit. Attorney Grant responded that the plan they were offering to the city and residents would be better than other useages under B-2 zoning such as a health club or auto rental agency for example. Mr. Grant asked the one remaining objector present if her objections had changed during the discussion. She responded that they remained the same. 5 _ June 1978 Meeting Mr. Grant said there are two and one half lots involved which could contain two distinct businesses and that they were offering one cohesive package. Mr. Mahoney then moved to recommend to the city council that with the restrictions as listed, the special use permit be permitted: 10 limited to four single one bedroom apartments 2o modified floor plan for second floor 3. screening to be provided on the south - to be discussed with adjoining property owners Li.o fence constructed on the east Dr. Coleman asked for a second to the motion. No response. Motion lost for lack of a second. Mr. Dollman then moved to table the petition until the July meeting and was seconded by Mr. Franks. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney - no; Mr. Feltz - yes; Mr. Langland - yes; Mr. Dollman - yes; Mr. Woodworth - yes; Mr. Franks - yes; Dr. Coleman - yes. Motion carried. Petition tabled to July meeting. 78.16 Petition for Annexation-- Robert and Doris Mahoney and Hillside Nursing and Convalescent Home, Inc. Attorney Grant stated that he wished the minutes of the public hearing and comments of himself and the objectors and the documents submitted (color plat and site plan) be made part of this meeting. Mr. Mahoney asked to be excused from his duties as a member of the plan commission and was excused by Dr. Coleman, Mr. Mahoney stated the nursing home had been built in 1963 and in 1972 had been zoned R-6 Special Use. He stated the nursing home will not be expanded because Kendall County already has an excess of beds. He stated the Kendall County Board turned down the petition because of the number of objectors and because the county could not limit the zoning. They are now coming before the city for 0 zoning because the city has more restrictive policies. He further stated that the number of objectors has decreased. He said the zoning was presently R-6 Special Use Nursing Home and by annexing to the city, they are requesting d-Office and R-2 Special Use for the nursing home. Lots 9 and 10 owned by Paul Staples are now vacant. There is one existing adjacent residence on lot 17. There will be no change in the access. Mr. Feltz then read from the October 1977 and February 1978 minutes of the plan commission. Mr. Bushing stated he had no comment as their office had prepared the plans for Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Mahoney stated there would be no new cuts to the highway and as far as traffic was concerned) Game Farm Road was already heavily trafficed. Dr. Coleman then moved to acc pt the annexation with special use as petitioned and was seconded by Mr. Franks. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Feltz - yes; Mr. Langland - yes; Mr. Dollman - abstain; Mr. Woodworth - yes; Mr. Franks - yes; Dr. Coleman - yes; Motion carried. 7817 Petition for Annexation - Blaine Harker Attorney Grant again requested that all information presented during the public hearing be made part of this duscussion. Mr. Langland then moved to recommend that the city council grant Mr. Harker's petition for annexation of 8.717 acres and further that the zoning be changed to M-1. Seconded by Mr. Feltz. Mr. Langland then moved to amend the motion to include — 6 — June 1978 Meeting w "the plan commission is also concerned that there should be some provision at a later date for a possible frontage road." Seconded by Mr. Feltz. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney — yes; Mr. Feltz — yes; Mr. Langland — yes; Mr. Dollman — yes; Mr. Woodworth — yes; Mr. Franks — yes; Dr. Coleman — yes. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dollman stated he disliked being placed in the position of not having the plans in time and not having sufficient time to study the items on the agenda. He suggested that we adhere to our timetable and that all petitions, etc. be presented at least ten days previous to the meeting. Mr. Feltz then moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mr. Woodworth. All present voting aye. Meeting adjourned.