Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1977 06-28-77 . r YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560 Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton Robert J. Mahoney Ah%_NW Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth Mary K. Price Steve Franks Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission 28 June 1977 Chairman Robert Coleman called the regular June meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order. Those in attendance were Dr. Coleman, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Feltz, Mr. Langland, Mr. Dollman, Mr. Kenton, Mr. Woodworth, Mr. Franks, Mr. Bushing and Mr. Beach. Dr. Coleman then introduced Mr. Steve Franks, the newest member of the commission. Mr. Dollman moved to approve the May minutes of the plan commission and was seconded by Mr. Woodworth. All present voting aye. Motion approved. 77.13 Harold Feltz - Petition to Re-Zone Mr. Feltz received permission to be excused as an acting member of the Yorkville Plan Commission. Mr. Feltz stated that this was an amended petition. He said the problems in his original proposal involved access, alleys, turnarounds, and restricted zoning for density. He stated that a mini PUD would be impossible as it would need so many variations that it would be impractical. He wished to rezone the front two lots to R-3 and will have one building consisting of four units. Each unit will be 1100-1200 square feet excluding basements. Units A and D will have four bedrooms and Units B and C will have three bedrooms. Units A,B, and C include basements. He said the density would be down to 3.2$• Parking and garage facilities will be in the rear. He said there would be an extra deep setback and lots of open space. The area has access to a public street. He will develop the alley and have two turnarounds - one at the end of the alley. As he will only build these four units. he will not need a street and will not have to vacate the one alley. He said there was approximately 26,241 square feet in the two lots and that he has over 1,000 square feet in excess of that required for R-3 zoning. Mr. Bushing stated this plan seemed to be compatible. Mr. Feltz stated he might build a garage on the back lot (an accessory building) but would not do any further developing on the back lot. He said he was not looking for high density. Mr. Kenton moved to recommend that the petition to rezone to R-3 be approved. Seconded by Mr. Dollman, A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney - yes; Mr. Langland - yes; Mr. Dollman - yes; Mr. Kenton - yes; Mr. Woodworth - yes; Mr. Franks - yes; Dr. Coleman - yes. Motion carried. 73.14 Bob Loftus - Re-Subdivide Kountryside Kommons Mr. Loftus was represented by Attorney Dan Kramer who passed out a Preliminary Plan and Application for Approval of Subdivision Plat to all commission members. Mr. Kramer stated that he was also representing the Old Second National Bank and First Financial Savings and Loan Association of Downers Grove. They wish to subdivide part of Block 3 which has eight individual apartment buildings zoned R-4 PUD. The new proposal calls for it to be subdivided into eight individual lots under individual ownership rather than a PUD. The eight lots would meet with all specifications for R-4 zoning according to Mr. Kramer. The plan calls for no new streets or utility improvements. Mr. Kramer indicated this plan would be more desireable for two reasons. First_, Mr. Loftus now owns the lots as an individual owner. Although the buildings are soundly constructed, it requires large funds to maintain them. For this reason, individual ownership may be good. Secondly, he said the buildings now are rather blase and that individual ownership may change that. First Financial Savings and Loan would like to see it subdivided as all the mortgages are now individual. Mr. Kramer stated that Units 19. 2, 3 and 4 have egress and ingress to Countryside 2 - June 1977 Meeting Parkway. Unit 5 has permanent egress and ingress to Powers Court which has not .yet been constructed and now has ingress, and egress through Unit 3`-s parking lot. Units 6, 7 and 8 use Kendall Drive. He indicated there would be no new methods of ingress or egress. Mr. Kramer said he thought the center portion would have to be down zoned as he did not think it could be developed with the proposed density. Mr. Dollman said we were again going back to the original problems of setbacks, streets, densityv etc. and that the same problems still existed. Mr. Loftus stated they had downgraded from 88 to 68 units per acre and that this became a PUD to get higher density and to get building permits so that he could get started. Mr. Mahoney said these buildings have been built over the lot lines and that now they were asking for new lot lines to conform with existing buildings. Mr. Langland asked by whose authority they had been split off. Mr. Kramer stated that First Financial had recorded them this way for mortgage purposes. Mr. Dollman then read from the 1973 plan commission minutes which stated the original restrictions and also read a letter from Mr. Clarage stating his opinions. Mr. Langland stated the proposed cul-de-sac was not big enough according to our requirements and that the right of way should be 130 feet. Mr. Kramer asked about the necessity of having this cul-de-sac when Powers Court could be used instead. Mr. Mahoney stated the cul-de-sac was on the original plan and if they wanted changes, why didn't the plan commission have a revised plan tonight. Mr. Dollman asked if we could disregard the center portion for the purpose of tonights' discussion. Mr. Mahoney responded that we woiald then have a hardship case on how to develop the center portion as the new owner can not enter on Center Parkway - there is no street or turnaround and that we still have a problem of density. It was determined the following items needed attention: 1. Permanent egress and ingress is needed to Lot 5, 2. The cul-de-sac needs to be completed as agreed to in the original plan. 3. We need to see a development plan for the center portion by its owner Nelson Pottinger. 4. There are still problems regarding lot lines and parking. 5. Lot 7's side yard 's not twelve feet. 6. The center portion needs access to Kendall Drive which is not shown. 7. Powers Court is not now constructed. It was also decided that letters should be sent to City Attorney Fred Dicksong City Planner James Claragev Building Inspector Elden Madden and property owner Nelson Pottinger requesting their attendance at the July, 1977 plan commission meeting. 5�'F_1Jc� 77.15 Final Plat - Ponderosa Subdivision - Bazan Mr. Bazan stated there was only one change in the final plat. The County had recommended that there be a 30 foot setback rather than a 50 foot setback on Lot 4 so that a large oak tree would not have to be cut down. Mr. Mahoney moved that we recommend to the city council that the final plat of Ponderosa Subdivision be approved and was seconded by Mr. Dollman. A roll call vote was taken with all members voting aye. Motion carried. Mr. Dollman moved that a recommendation be made to the city council to increase the plan commission secretary's salary to $20 per meeting effective in July and was seconded by Mr. Langland. All members voting aye. Motion carried. Mr. Woodworth moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mr. Langland. All present voting aye. Meeting adjourned. YORKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF YORKVILLE , ILLINOIS , 60560 Robert J . Coleman , . D . C . , Chairman June 6 , 1977 Mr . John Conover Game Farm Road ,. Yorkville , 111 . , 60560 Dear Mr . Conover : In compliance with the Statutes , the Planning Commission herein sets forth the specific reasons for rejection of your plat , the same having been submitted to the Planning Commission on the 26th day of April , 1977 , as Conover Subdivision Unit . No . 8 . Specifically, rejection of your plat is premised upon failure to conform to the Subdivision Control Ordinance of the United City of the Village of Yorkville . Some of the particulars are as follows : ( 1 ) Your attention is drawn to Section 6 . 03 . 01 , Paragraph 15 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance , in that certificates of approval , as required therein , are not shown upon the plat . Omitted from the plat are the approvals of the Director of Public Works , the City Engineer , and others . (2) Your attention is drawn to Section 7 . 10 . 03 , wherein a screen planning easement is required between residential and commercial lots . The zoning for the North portion of land within the above referred to proposed plat is presently zoned commercial , and no easement for screening is shown . (3) Your attention is drawn to Section 7 . 09 . 03 , wherein the depth and width of property reserved or laid out for commercial and industrial purposes shall. provide for adequate off-street service and parking facilities . We note that the size of lots incorporated herein is appropriate for residential use and not the existing zoning . r Page 2 (4) Your attention is drawn to Section 8 . 06 , wherein concrete sidewalks are mandatory in all subdivisions within one ( 1 ) mile of existing public school sites wherein the average . , lot width is less than 120 feet . You are not in conformance with that mandate as well . (5) Your attention is drawn to Section 8 . 05 . 05 , in that all streets shall be bound by cement concrete curbs and gutters . We note that no provision exists for that to date in your subdivision , nor have you submitted engineering plans with your plat providing for the same . (6) In addition , your attention is drawn to Section 8 . 07 ,. and the requirements as to street lighting . The procedure for submitting such plans are specified in Paragraph 8 .04 for all public improvements . Upon submission of the construction plans and specifications , engineer ' s estimates are to be prepared by your engineer and a subdivision bond agreement made . As is implicit in the foregoing , those improvements which must be shown are for streets , curbs and gutters , storm drainage , etc . , as more particularly spelled out in the foregoing . All of the foregoing were lacking but are nevertheless required by the Subdivision Control Ordinance . There are other deficiencies and you -are asked to carefully read the Subdivision Control Ordinance, and your engineer should submit plans for approval which comply strictly with that Ordinance . We thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours , Robert J . Coleman , D .C . , Chairman Yorkville Planning Commission RJC : le CC : Mayor Thanepohn City Council Members Planning Commission Members