Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1976 06-22-76 r YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560 Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton Robert J. Mahoney !I i Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth Danny Hanback Mary K. Price MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION JUNE, 1976 Chairman Robert Coleman called the June meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order. Those in attendance were Dr. Coleman, Mr, Mahoneyq Mr. Feltz, Mr. Langland, Mr. Dollman, Mr. Hanback, Mr. Kenton, Mr. Woodworth, Mrs. Pricey Mr. Clarage� Mr. Thanepohn and Mr. Dickson. Dr. Coleman welcomed all persons to the public hearing for senior citizen housing and introduced the plan commission members. Mr. Feltz moved to approve the minutes of the May meeting and was seconded by Mrs. Price. All present voting aye. Motion carried. 76.14 Proposed Senior Citizen Housing — Countryside Center — Public Hearing Attorney Tom Grant, representing several residents of Countryside Centers submitted to the Plan Commission a petition requesting that the R-4 multi—family zoning be denied. There were approximately seventy—five signatures on the petition. Alderman Larry Beach then presented information regarding the proposed senior citizen housing. For further detailsq see May minutes of the Yorkville Plan Commission — Item 76.12. At this point, city hall was completely filledv and thirty to forty people were standing outside the building. Rev. Rezach suggested that the Yorkville Congregational Church could be used for the meeting so that all persons could attend. Mr. Dollman moved to reconvene the meeting at 8;30 P.M. at the Yorkville Congregational Church and was seconded by Mr. Feltz. All present voting aye. Motion carried. A notice of the change of location was posted on the door of city hall. The meeting reconvened at approximately 8:30 P.M. in the basement of the church with over one hundred persons in attendance. An architect from the Madsen Development Corporation described in detail the proposed plans for the building. For specific information regarding the proposals, see the April minutes of the Yorkville Plan Commission — Item 76.8. Mr. Michael Morey then responded to the four questions posed by Alderman Beach. 1. Inadequate parking — The original petition asked for a total of 26 parking spaces for the fifty unit building. Mr. Morey stated three factors were involved — a. the project is ideally located for shopping,, etc. b. studies indicate elderly persons do not drive as much as the general population and c. tenants moving into this type of housing do not generally move again. 29 Recruitment from other counties — Mr. Morey stated they were under no specific authority to maintain the 30% very low income residents. If they are unable to fully rent to the 30% capacityg they are free to rent to higher income persons and thus will not have to recruit residents from other counties. 3. Vacating Dickson Court — Mr. Morey stated they are trying to reduce the impact of asphalt for landscaping purposes. If Dickson Court is not vacatedg it must be maintained by the city. This expense could be given to the Madsen Corporation. _ 2 — June, 1976 meeting 4. Existing adjacent R-4 land in Countryside Center — Mr. Morey stated the problems involved here are economic and esthetic. He stated they would be talking about an additional $501,000 in order to move to the alternate site. There would be an additional 300 feet of paved surface, 300 feet of sewer and water and a berm in addition to the increased purchase price of the land. Mr. Morey also stated that according to HUD noise assessment guidelinesq the alternate site which was closer to Rte. #479 could be unacceptable because of the noise factor. He stated that he had talked with Jerry Klein, Illinois Transportation Departments Ottawa officer who felt the new site would be unacceptable. Mr. Gordon Kowing, general manager and vice president of the Madsen Corporati.ong stated the alternate site would not be acceptable from a social point of view. If the building were located at the R-4 property,, it would look as though the firm were putting the people off in a back corner and then forgetting about them. Also mentioned was the fact that the cul-de—sac does not yet belong to the city. It has been dedicated,, but has not yet been accepted by the city. City Attorney Fred Dickson indicated that it would still have to be vacated. When questioned by Mr. Mahoney regarding a fire lane encircling the.,buildingq Mr. Morey stated that he felt a fire lane would not be needed to protect the residentst but that with minor modifications a fire land could be created. Attorney Tom Grant then stated he felt his client's position was misunderstood. They were neither opposed to senior citizens nor to senior citizen housing in Kendall County. They are apposed to the rezoning of five residential lots to multi—family. They are not opposed to the alternate plan of using already zoned R-4 property but do object to the diversion of R-2 zoned property when there already exists R-4 property in Countryside. Attorney Grant asked if the building could be rotated on alternate plan B in order to lessen the Igoise factor. Mr. Morey responded that this would not be feasible. Mr. Mahoney asked about a waiver for noise under federal programs. Mr. Morey responded that there were three problems with the alternate site — noise impacts economics9 and esthetics. Rev. Rezach stated that he and senior citizen groups had worked for over four years on this project. He indicated that IHDA had provided the best senior citizen housing in Illinois. As land costs are so high in this areav the only reason Yorkville could be included in the project was because it was part of a four part package deal with four other communities and so land costs could be averaged. He said that our senior citizens should be able to live their last years with dignity and pride. He felt the project would appreciate property values and help people who have lived all their lives in Yorkville. A question and answer period then followed. C.R. designates a resident of Countryside Center and S.C. designates a senior citizen. Al Rabe (C.R.) Asked if there was an expiration date on the pption to purchase land. Mr. Morey responded the option would expire at the end of June, but that it probably could be extended. (C.R.) Stated he was opposed to the rezoning. Said there were nursing homes located close to highways. Also that the property was zoned R-2 when he purchased his home and that he felt it should remain R-2. (S.R.) Stated that this was not a nursing home. Mrs. Richard Sieble (C.R.) stated she was not opposed to the rezoning for senior citizen housing. (C.R.) Asked if there is any assurance there will not be further rezoning in Countryside. Dr. Coleman responded that any zoning requests would have to come before the plan commission, zoning board of appeals and city council and that he could not give any other answer. — 3 — June meeting In response to Dr. Coleman's question regarding lancscaping plans, Mr. Morey stated that the entire front will have a park—like setting. There will be no other physical buildings on the site and that they will densely landscape the front entrance and the back patio area, and that there will be accent plantings around the building. The building will cover 13% of the entire site. He said the Madsen Corporation is also required to post a 3o bond with IHIA to insure that the project will be completed as designed. Questioned regarding rents, Mr. Morey said the maximum rent would be $285.00 monthly which would include all utilities. Warren Riemenschneider (S.C.) said building the housing would release about fifty houses in the area which younger people could take over and also that all local people would have first chance at the housing which would be a great economic help. (C.R.) — Stated he purposely chose the site for his home to get away from R-4 zoning. (C.R.) — Stated that people from countryside are not opposed to the entire project— just to the location of the building in R-2. Roger Hart (C.R.) said that Mr. Purcell is in business to sell land. He said he was against the arbitrary rezoning of a planned community. Don Preston (C.R.) stated he was concerned about the increased traffic which would be generated especially on week—ends because he had small chiidden. (C.R.) Asked if this was the only possible location in Kendall County. Mr. Morey responded that Yorkville was chosen because of interest shown by some officials and senior citizen groups and that they came to Yorkville because they thought they were wanted and needed here. Mr. Dollman asked if the alternate site would be acceptable if an allowance for greater density would be granted. Mr. Morey responded that modifying the density would not alleviate the problems. The increased costs would be off—site and berm costs. (S.D.) Stated that the time factor was now a big element and that the Beacon News had published an article stating that IHDA's budget was being reduced by the Illinois Senate. Mr. Clarage stated that the two major problems — dedication of the cul-de—sac and parking could be resolved by the petitioners. Mayor Thanepohn asked why the Madsen Corporation had not already resblved the parking problem. Mr. Morey stated they would provide fifty parking spaces if required to do so. In response to a question regarding rezoning, Mayor Thanepohn stated that there has not been a rezoning sine 1969, and that rezoning is not done indiscriminately. He stated that he had complete confidence in the city administration and that his only objection was to the parking problem but that it could satisfactorily be resolved. Mr. Hanback moved to accept the petition to re—zone lots 20, 219 229 23 and 24 of Unit 4 in Countryside Center Subdivision from R-2 to R,4 with the provision that the question of adequate parking be resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Seconded by Mr. Dollman. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Mr. Mahoney, yes; Mr. Feltz, yes; Mr. Langland, no; Mr. Dollman, yes; Mr. Hanback, yes; Mr. Kenton, no; Mr. Woodworth, yes; Mrs. Price, yes; Dr. Coleman, yes. Motion passed by a vote of seven yeses to two no's and will be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals for _ 4 _ June meeting further action. Mr. Langland stated that he felt the plan commission was responsible to all the citizens of Yorkville and that he was not convinced that the alternate plan was not suitable. Mr. Dollman stated that he did not feel the Madsen Corporation had given sufficient notice to the community of their intentions and that due to the emotional impact this type of action can have on the community, more thought should be given in the future. Mr. Mahoney moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mrs. Price All present voting aye. Meeting adjourned. In response to Dr. Coleman's question regarding lancscapi_ng plans, Morey staled that the entire front will have apark-like setting. .:.ere ,r �1 be no other physical buildings on the site and that they will dense" landscape the front entrance and the back patio area, and that there will be accent planti:.;-5 around the building. The building will cover 13% of the "entire site. He swd the :Madsen Corporation is also required to post a 3% bond with Il.L 1 to insure e that the project will be completed as designed. Questioned regardino rents, Mr. Morey said the maximum rent would be $285.00 monthly which would incl-a .e all utilities. Warren Riemenschneider (S.C.) said building the housing would release about fifty houses in the area which younger people could take over and also that all local people would have first chance at the housing which would be a great economic help. (C.R.) - Stated he purposely chose the site for his come to get away fro:: R­1, zoni:. (C.R.) - Stated that people from countryside are not opposed to the entire project- just to the location of the building in R-2. Roger Hart. (C.R. ) said that Mr. Purcell is in business to sell land. He said he was against the arbitrary rezoning of a planned community. Don Preston (C.R.) stated he was concerned about the increased traffic which would be generated especially on week-ends because he had small children. (C.R.) Asked if this was the array possible location ii Kendall County. Mr. i✓.orey responded that Yorkville was chosen because of interest shown by some officials senior citizen groups and that they came to Yorkville because they.thoughtt, were wanted and needed here. Mr. Dollman asked if the alternate site would be acceptable if an for greater density would be granted. Mr. Morey responded that modifying would not alleviate the problems. The increased costs would be off-site ar.d berm costs. (S.C.) Stated that the time factor was rozr a big e��.:. ..": and that the Beacon .�a�rs had published an article stating that Zip's b was :ring reduced by the Illinois Senate. Mr. Clarage stated that the two major-prroblemo dedicatio:. 3-1-the -cul-de-sac and parking could be resolved by the petitioners. Mayor Thanepohn asked why the Madsen Corporation had not already resolved the parking problem. Mr. Morey stated they would provide fifty parking spaces if required to do so. In response to a question regarding rezon-L-LE, Mayor Thanepohn stated has not been a rezoning sire 1969, and that rezoning is not done L1d_Jscri- :u-1ate-_- ::e stated that he had complete confidence in the city ad:;-:,istration and that 1-.+Z, only objection was to the parking problem but that it could satisfactorily bp- resolved. �Y Mrd .anback moved to accept the pct ," - _ C ^l, 22 24-6f Unit 4 dn. Countryside Ccrrcer the queS"lion of adeG aui:G-' ?J:a si_L.Z; �... _.,._ ✓� .; ._�.:-_ � ..;u;..�'il O Seconded by Mr. Dollman. A roll cal--,-. Mr. Feltz, yes; Mr. Langlard; no; :1 dr:oi—i,, yes; Mrs. Price ye yeses to two ro's�,ard9will�be forwarded rtov the Zoning Board ofVrppes _ �7 July 19, 1976 TO: Yorkville City Council Yorkville, Illinois The Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing at 7: 30 p.m. to hear the petitioner of Madsen Corp. and Ter-Jack Construction Company to consider variances for the following described real estate, to-wit: Lots 20, 219 22, 23, 24, of Block 8, Unit 4 in Countryside Center Subdivision, in Yorkville, Illinois. The proposed variances would increase allowable density from 12 units per acre to 13.9 units per acre in event of rezoning to R-4 and decrease parking requirements from two per apartment to one per apartment. Since the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot rule on density and can only approve a 25% variance for parking both sides were heard and the following recommendation is made to the Yorkville City Council: To allow the variances as requested inasmuch as they do com- ply to the five points listed on Pages 77 and 78, Section 12.05, Varia- tions, Subsection C. , Zoning Ordinance, City of Yorkville: 1. Because of the part- cula-r-physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regula- tions were carried out. 2. The conditions upon which the petition for a varia- tion is based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the ordinance and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variation will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. -2- 5. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public Streets, or increase the danger to the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair prop- erty values within the neighborhood. Respectfully Submitted, James Morganegg V Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals City of Yorkville. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BUILDING AND ZONING COMMITTEE/IT IS MY DUTY TO PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS/OF BOTH THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . EWE.- T WISH TO ADDRESS THIS AUDIENCE . THE MEMBERS OF THIS CITY COUNCIL HAVE RECEIVED MANY LETTERS, PHONE CALLS AND PETITIONS/REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING ISSUE/THIS FORM OF PRESSURE IS A VERY GOOD WAY OF COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALSND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AT ALb LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, BUT ALL OF YOU INTERESTED PARTIES MUST REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER TO THIS WHOLE PROPOSED SENIOR CITIZEN PROJECT/THERE ARE MORE ISSUES THAN PROPOSED REZONING TO BE CONSIDERED./OTHER KEY ISSUES ARE THE VACATING OF DIXON COURT TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION/ FIRE PROTECTION,/ADEQUATE SEWER AND WATER SUPPLY/AND DENSITY. ALL OF THESE ISSUES MUST BE DECIDED AND NO DOUBT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER WILL EVENTUALLY ACCUSE THE CITY OF "SELLING THEM OUT AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ A TYPICAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (LETTER) _ 2 _ AFTER ANALYZING THIS LETTER, YOU HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT IF THE YORKVILLE PROJECT FAILS/SO WILL THE PROJECTS OF THE OTHER THREE CITIES J THE I .D.H .A. OFFICIALS ALSO CLAIM THAT YORKVILLE IS THE KEY TO COMPLETION OF ki:!L FOUR PROPOSED COMPLEXES . ' WHETHER THIS 7/18 1 'G/Ty fxj6n4L eurneN Aie•TwT 1PP',�6 as 640» aPA*JUV +v By t 0114"a QEaG L1. IS FACT OR FICTION, I CANNOT ANSWER. LL I CAN SAY IS LET YOUR CONSCIENCE BE YOUR. GUIDE. THIS SECTION OF MY TALK IS DIRECTED TO THE SENIOR .CITIZEN GROUP. MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO THE PROPOSED SENIOR CITIZEN COMPLEX WAS AT THE APRIL, 1976 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING. NOW JUST FOUR SHORT MONTHS LATER THE CITY COUNCIL IS EXPECTED TO DELIVER A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DECISION CONCERNING THE FATE OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT/ NORMALLY A PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS THIS WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM STUDY TIME OF ONE YEAR. LACK OF SUFFICIENT TIME TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE MADSEN CORP . , HUD AND IDHA HAS CREATED THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT COULD VERY WELL KILL THIS ENTIRE PROPOSED PROJECT. r _ 3 _ CERTAINLY NO ONE CAN HELP BUT ADMIRE THE DEDICATION AND EFFORT DISPLAYED BY . REV. LARRY REZISSH/AND HIS COMMITTEE OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS REGARDING LAYING THE ,GROUNDWORK FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT THE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMITTEE DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE PRESENT CITY COUNCIL NOR THE PRESENT PLAN COMMISSIOWPRIOR TO APRIL OF THIS YEAR. THE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMITTEE DID INDEED COMMUNICATE WITH THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL/AND THE PREVIOUS PLAN COMMISSION SOME THREE YEARS AGO, AS A RESULT OF THOSE MEETINGS w IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMITTEE RECEIVED "NOTHING BUT ENCOURAGEMENT" FROM THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL AND THE PREVIOUS PLAN COMMISSION,/HOWEVER TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY ISSUE DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME WAS THE' POSSIBILITY OF A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT,/NONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES FACING US HERE TONIGHT WERE DISCUSSED THREE YEARS AGO. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT YOUR SENIOR CITIZEN COMMITTEE DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO CONSULT WITH THE PRESENT CITY COUNCILOR PLAN COMMISSION BEFORE APRIL OF THIS YEAR. I DO NOT KNOW WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THIS OVERSITE, BUT CERTAINLY SOME OF THE GUILT CONCERNING LACK OF COMMUNICATION SURELY RESTS ON _ 4 _ THE SENIOR CITIZEN. GROUP AS A BODY. IN ADDRESSING THE COUNTRYSIDE CENTER CITIZENS, I WOULD LIKE r TO STRESSONE POINT THAT I BELIEVE HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED UNTIL NOW. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, EACH LANDOWNER IN COUNTRYSIDE CENTER WAS PROVIDED ' A PLANNED COMMUNITY MAP SUCH AS THE TWO EXAMPLES SHOWN HERE _. TONIGHT. THESE MAPS WERE PROVIDED BY EITHER MR. JACK PURCELL'S FIRM OR TRIPLE AAA REALTY. PLEASE NOTE THE AREA ,COLORED IN GREEN -- BOTH OF THESE MAPS INDICATE THAT THIS 15 ACRE AREA, KNOWN AS BLOCK 4 OF THE COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION, IS MARKED MULTIFAMILY. BOTH OF rhs THESE MAPS ARE IN ERROR BECAUSE BLOCK 4 IS ACTUALLY ZONED R-2,i NOT TO BE USED FOR MULTI—FAMILY PURPOSES . I MUST EXPLAIN AT THIS TIME THAT THE DEVELOPERS OF COUNTRYSIDE CENTER DID NOT DECEIVE YOU BUT RATHER THE PRINTING OF THESE MAPS WAS OBVIOUSLY A HONEST MISTAKE. ACTUALLY A 15 ACRE TRACT OF LAND MARKED MULTI—FAMILYAOULD HINDER THE DEVELOPERS CHANCES OF SELLING HIS INDIVIDUAL HOMESITES . THE POINT THAT I AM STRESSING HERE IS THAT HAVING LEARNED THAT YOUR PLANNED COMMUNITY HAS 15 ACRES OF LAND WHICH YOU HOMESITE OWNERS _ 5 _ ASSUMED WAS ZONED R-4 NOW IN REALITY IS ZONED R-2 LAND,/WHY THEN IF THE PROPOSED SENIOR CITIZEN SITE WOULD BE REZONED R-4 SHOULD YOU FEEL THAT YOUR PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVALUED? GRANTED, A NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NEARBY THE PROPOSED SITE MAY HAVE SPECIAL REASON TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING. ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT IS THAT MR. .JACK PURCELL PRESENTLY OWNS HOMESITE LOTS # 17, 18 AND 19 . /THESE HOMESITES ARE THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ACTUAL PROPOSED BUILDING SITE . LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE MADSEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION . / IT IS MY BELIEF THAT YOUR FIRM IS DEPENDABLE, FINANCIALLY SOUND, AND THAT YOU CONSTRUCT QUALITY BUILDINGS . / WHAT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOUR FIRM HAS NOT MET WITH THIS CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS OUR MUTUAL PROBLEMS CONCERNING YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK BEFORE THE JUNE, 1976 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING . - 6 - THEREFORE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BUILDING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, I AM REQUESTING THAT MR. MIKE MOREY OF MADSEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ADDRESS THIS ASSEMBLY AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS : 1. DURING THE JUNE, 1976 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, THE QUESTION OF ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION WAS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED. SOMEONE STATED THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAD A ONE HOUR FIRE RATING . HOWEVER, MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS. WILL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE? (I AM TAKING THE LIBERTY OF ASKING FIRE CHIEF RUSS DEVICK TO EVALUATE YOUR ANSWERS . ) Z . DOES MADSEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXPECT THE CITY' OF YORKVILLE TO WAIVE THE $7,500.00 WATER AND SEWER HOOK-UP FEES? IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK THE CITY OF YORKVILLE SHOULD DONATE $7,500.00 TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER? - 7 - 3. MR. MOREY, YOU STATED AT THE JUNE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING THAT THE ALTERNATE BUILDING SITE WAS UNACCEPTABLE TO HUD BECAUSE OF THE NOISE LEVEL CREATED BY ILLINOIS ROUTE #47. WHY DID YOU FAIL TO HAVE A TEST, WHICH WOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE ACTUAL DECIBEL READING, ON THIS ALTERNATE SITE? BEFORE I YIELD THE FLOOR FOR A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE HERE THIS EVENING THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF BOTH THE PLAN COMMISSION AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . THIS COUNCIL ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND OR TABLE ANY RECOMMENDATION . MR. MAYOR, I YIELD THE FLOOR FOR A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.