Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1976 11-23-76 ti s t ' YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION YORKVILLE ILLINOIS 60560 Dr. Robert Coleman Lawrence Langland James Kenton Robert J. Mahoney Harold Feltz Fred Dollman Dale Woodworth Danny Hanback Mary K. Price 41- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1 Chairman Robert Coleman called the regular meeting of the Yorkville Plan Commission to order. Those in attendance were Dr. Coleman, Mr. Feltz, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Dollman, Mr. Hanback, Mr. Kenton, Mr. Woodworth and Mrs. Price. Also attending were city council members Beach and Ericksen, Mayor Thanepohn, school superintendent James Garnett, school board member Leo Anderson, city attorney Fred Dickson and city planner James Clarage and his associate. Item 76.19 in the October minutes was amended to read "None voting naye." Mr. Hanback moved to approve the minutes as amended and was seconded by Mr. Woodworth. All present voting aye. Motion carried. Dr. Coleman stated that during the October meeting, a quorem was not present when voting on Dale Woodworth's preliminary plat and annexation. He thought that perhaps a reaffirmation of the vote would be advisable. Dr. Coleman then moved to reaffirm the motion made during the October meeting and was seconded by Harold Feltz. A voice vote was taken with all members voting aye with Dale Woodworth abstaining. Motion carried. Mx. Clarage stated that the State of Illinois Capital Development Board have set minimum standards regarding grants for schools. School districts must meet minimum standards or they will not receive funding from the state of federal governments. He said the following were the requirements for school sites from the State of Illinois: Elementary schools — 5 acres plus 1 acre for each 100 students Thus 500 students would require 10 acres " 300 students would require 8 acres Jr. High schools - 20 acres plus 1 acre per 100 students High school — 30 acres plus 1, acre per 100 students Mr. Mahoney stated that if the schools happened to be adjacent, perhaps some credit could be gained. Regarding parks, Mr. Clarage said we were fairly close to federal guidelines. Responding to a question regarding paragraph four in the proposed land and/or cash contribution ordinance, Mr. Clarage stated that a minimum of 6.5 acres was required for each 1,000 persons residing within the city. Alderman Beach stated that according to this, Yorkville with a population of 2,500 should have about 16 acres of available parks, but in actuality only has about five and one half acres. Mr. Clarage explained that a certain percentage of land such as the Harris Forest Preserve could be considered part of the city's parks. City Attorney Fred Dickson stated there should be some way of projecting the impact of a development on our school system. He also said that because of state and federal guide- lines, our present high school probably does not conform to the standards and questioned the feasibility of the developer having to provide all the land. He thought the Supreme Court would be looking at each community's ordinance separately and that our ordinance should relate toeach development as to its impact. He said the responsibility for this should not be placed entirely on the impact committee whose job, he felt, should be to help scrutinize each development more closely for the plan commission. _ 2 — November meeting M , • Mayor Thanepohn stated that the Impact Ordinance was taken from a model situation. An impact study would be used to arrive at a basic formula, then the city attorney would . negotiate with the developer regarding the land to be annexed as there would be variables. Mr. Dickson stated that as Yorkville does not presently conform to state and federal standards regarding schools and parksq he did not feel we could turn to the new developer and state that because-we need federal aysistance we must change the rules. 4r. Mahoney indicated he felt this could be done. Attorney Dickson stated that special public improvements (streets, curbsv gutters? etc.) were of special interest to the people owning lots in a development and that the developer could pass these costs on but that costs for general interest improvements (schools, parks, etc; could not be passed on at least until the Naperville ordinance passed the supreme court. He said we should be trying to equalize the cost of schools and parks and the entire burden should not be placed on existing residents9 but we can not increase the burden on the developer more than already exists in the community. Mr. Mahoney stated you can't penalize the first person ins but that he has to pay his share. Dr. Garnett stated that the school sites in Naperville did not meet guidelines either. He also indicated that we can not get federal funds for existing buildings unless we meet minimum standards and that we could not add on to existing buildings. Mr. Mahoney stated we as a plan commission have no idea of the impact of a development on the sanitary districty fire district9 etc. and that the impact committee could determine this. He felt there would be no cokict between the impact ordinance and the land and/or cash contribution ordinance. Mayor Thanepohn questioned if we could arrive at the numbers to put in the ordinance. Attorney Dickson responded that we would need input from the school district regarding statistics and that the city should do the same regarding parks. Mr. Clarage stated he had a thirty—four item checklist which related to this type of impact ordinance which had guidelines for each point. Mr. Kenton questioned the ten year limit on cash contributions. He stated the developer may contribute the money but that the school district may not require a new school in less than ten years and he wondered what would happen to this money. Mr. Clarage said he had not seen the money used for any purpose other than the purchase of land. Attorney Dickson said we would have to find out where the children come from and relate this to the school district. He felt that plotting would be the critical point. We would need audits from the school district to get the applicable figures. Mr. Beach inquired if we need to have planning stiudies on file in order to pass the ordinance. Mr. Clarage responded that each developer should provide this for us and that we could take what the impact committee says and use it for the basis of all negotiations. Attorney Dickson agreed that we would need figures and studies to back our numbers. Mr. Dollman stated we should look at the services needed to be provided by our community for each lot. Alderman Beach suggested that perhaps Mr. Claragev members from the school board, and the city council committee on city parks could meet and solidify figures and then we could have another joint meeting next month. It was decided that this group will meet and bring all pertinent data back to a joint meeting on 28 December 1976. The secretary was directed to place this on the adjenda. Mr. Kenton moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Mr. Hanback. All present voting aye. Meeting adjourned.