Plan Commission Packet 2005 11-09-05 , ,ctio co).
United City of Yorkville
i 'u` '1' 800 Game Farm Road
EST. --\.- _ ,ass Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
'84.si �_� ° Fax: 630-553-7575
`0.
<LE ‘‘')•
PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
City Council Chambers
800 Game Farm Road
Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Previous Meeting Minutes: August 10, 2005
Public Hearings:
1. PC 2005-51 Janice Van Riper, Donald and Charlotte Morris; and James and Lynn Hall, petitioners,
have filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting
rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-3 General Residence District, to United City of
Yorkville B-1 Limited Business District. The real property is located at 708 - 710 N. Bridge Street,
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois.
Presentation: None
Old Business: None
New Business:
1. PC 2005-51 Janice Van Riper, Donald and Charlotte Morris; and James and Lynn Hall,petitioners,
have filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting
rezoning from United City of Yorkville R-3 General Residence District, to United City of
Yorkville B-1 Limited Business District. The real property is located at 708 - 710 N. Bridge Street,
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois.
2. PC 2005-49 Oak Grove Subdivision - 1 V2 Mile Review
3. PC 2005-16 Kendallwood Estates - Preliminary Plan
4. PC 2005-53 Hudson Lakes - Concept Plan
Additional Business:
Adjournment:
Page 1 of 9
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLAN COMMISSION
YORKVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 10, 2005
Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Michael Crouch, Sandra Adams, Clarence Holdiman, Jack Jones,
Brian Schillinger, Bill Davis and Tom Lindblom. Members absent: Anne Lucietto and
Charles Kraupner.
A quorum was established.
CITY STAFF AND VISITORS
Mayor Art Prochaska; City Administrator Tony Graff; City Planner Mike Schoppe; City
Attorney John Wyeth; Alderman Dean Wolfer; Rich Guerard; attorney John Martin;
Sarah Fisher; attorney Dan Kramer; Kevin Carrara; Patrick Hughes; Bob Walker; John
McVickers; Pete Huinker and Matt Cudney. Also see attached sign-in sheet.
MINUTES
None.
Commissioner Sandra Adams made a motion to move agenda item Public Hearing#2 to
#1. Commissioner Michael Crouch seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously
approved by voice vote.
Commissioner Clarence Holdiman made a motion to open the public hearings.
Commissioner Jack Jones seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved
by voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PC 2005-34 Tanglewood Development Corporation and Evergreen Farm Estates
LLC petition to annex and rezone: See attached.
Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Jack Jones seconded the motion. The
motion was unanimously approved by voice vote.
Commissioner Bill Davis made a motion to change the agenda to go to new business to
discuss PC 2005-34. Adams seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously
approved by voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PC 2005-34 Tanglewood Development Corporation and Evergreen Farm Estates
LLC petition to annex and rezone.
Page2of9
City Planner Mike Schoppe said the petitioners' application is asking for annexation and
zoning. If the zoning is approved, he said the preliminary and final plans would have to
come to the Plan Commission for approval. He added that R-2 zoning would be an
appropriate zoning under the city's comprehensive plan. While the proposed
development meets the density standards, Schoppe said he hadn't yet had the opportunity
to see if it meets the design guidelines.
Mayor Art Prochaska said the city recommends the plan to go forward as an annexation
agreement because the agreement would set a precedent. Sharing concerns to those
expressed at the public hearing, Commission Chairman Tom Lindblom said he'd prefer
to see a traffic study completed before he made a recommendation. He suggested tabling
the request.
The person representing Tanglewood said all of the developers along in that area would
have to contribute to the traffic study and improving Fox Road and she said they're
willing to do their part.
Commissioner Brian Schillinger suggested the Plan Commission make a
recommendation on annexation,but forego a vote on zoning until the traffic study is
complete. However, John Martin, the attorney representing the petitioners, said the
petitioners would like to move forward with a recommendation on both annexation and
zoning.
Plan commissioners also raised concerns about lot sizes. Schillinger said he'd like to see
lot sizes in the proposed development similar in size to the lots surrounding it.
Crouch moved to recommend annexation approval for PC 2005-34. Davis seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously approved in a roll call vote. Adams, Holdiman,
Jones, Crouch, Schillinger, Davis and Lindblom voted yes.
Schillinger made a motion to recommend approval of R-2 zoning for PC 2005-34. Adams
seconded the motion. Schoppe then suggested the commission make the motion subject
to the traffic study and that the proposed development be subject to the design guidelines
in the comprehensive plan. Crouch made a motion to amend the motion as Schoppe
suggested. Jones seconded the motion. The amendment was approved. Holdiman, Jones,
Crouch, Schillinger, Davis, Schillinger, Adams and Lindblom voted yes.
The amended motion was then voted on. Crouch, Schillinger, Adams, Holdiman and
Lindblom voted no. Jones and Davis voted yes. The motion failed in a 5-2 vote.
Schillinger then made a motion to reopen the public hearings. Adams seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PC 2005-18 Del Webb, Pulte Homes petition to rezone: See attached.
Page 3 of 9
3. PC 2005-37 Corneils Crossing LLC petition to annex and rezone: See attached.
4. Northwest Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment: See attached.
Crouch made a motion to close the public hearings. Jones seconded the motion. The
motion was unanimously approved in a voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
1. PC 2004-18 Wyndham Deerpoint Homes petition to rezone.
Rich Guerard said the main change in the plan is that a roadway in the development
would be extended to the property line with a permanent street as an emergency exit once
the neighboring property is developed.
Resident Sarah Fisher asked if the developer had obtained the rights to come in St. Joseph
Way. When the response was no, she said then nothing has changed. The proposed main
entry is still Walnut Road. That road, she said, splits her driveway. When she purchased
her property, she didn't know Walnut Road was a public right of way.
Residents Nick Marche and Glen Klefish also said they didn't want Walnut Road to be
used as the main access to the proposed subdivision.
Guerard said they have a legal right to have access to the property and Walnut Road is a
dedicated right of way. If St. Joseph Way can be used, he said it would be a natural way
for people to leave the subdivision.
Crouch said the plan doesn't look much different than what was previously proposed. He
said he doesn't believe significant progress has been made on the access issue.
Crouch made a motion to recommend rezoning approval for PC 2004-18. Schillinger
seconded them motion. The motion was defeated in a 5-2 roll call vote. Crouch, Davis,
Adams, Holdiman and Lindblom voted no. Jones and Schillinger voted yes.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PC 2005-18 Del Webb and Pulte Homes petition to rezone.
Jones said he understands what the developers are aiming for with the smaller lots,but
the lots are just too small. Adams, meanwhile, said she dislikes the five-yard setbacks.
Lindblom said he visited the Del Webb development in Huntley and was pleasantly
surprised. He said he didn't get a boxed in feeling and said the concept the developers are
proposing seemed to work well.
Matt Cudney, from Del Webb, said it might be hard for commissioners to conceptualize
if they haven't seen the finished product. The proposed development is age-restricted and
people who will be living in the homes don't want big yards.
Schillinger said he wishes the Del Webb portion of the proposed development could be
extended into the proposed R-2 portion of the development.
Page 4 of 9
Schoppe said he's in the process of reviewing the plan and making his comments. John
Whitehouse from Engineering Enterprises, Inc. also said he hasn't had the opportunity.
Crouch,meanwhile said the preliminary plan approval isn't on the agenda and therefore
the commission can't vote on it. But, city attorney John Wyeth said that the preliminary
plan is part for the PUD application. There was some discussion on whether a vote to
rezone would include PUD approval.
Without completed staff reviews, Davis said the commission isn't ready to vote anyway.
He moved to table PC 2005-18 until staff reviews are complete. Adams seconded the
motion. The motion was defeated 4-3. Schillinger, Adams, Jones and Lindblom voted no.
Davis, Holdiman and Crouch voted yes.
City Attorney Tony Graff asked if there was anyway the commission could make a
recommendation subject to staff approval. He said the developers are looking for
entitlement and would like to keep the project moving. Crouch said Graff is interfering
with the Plan Commission's business. To clarify, Schoppe said Graff was suggesting the
Plan Commission vote on PUD zoning and then the developers would have to come back
for preliminary plan approval with a highly detailed PUD plan.
Graff said it's important to keep the process moving because the developer needs
entitlements to begin work on extending the sanitary sewers to the Rob Roy Creek
interceptor. Also the developer has agreed to pay for some road improvements on Route
47,but an annexation agreement is necessary before the developer can help out.
Likewise, Graff said the city is trying to regionalize the northern area for planning
purposes and a vote would put the city one step closer.
Davis then made a motion to recommend approval for PC 2005-18 for PUD concept only
with the preliminary PUD plan to come back to the Plan Commission for review. Jones
seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved in a roll call vote. Davis,
Adams, Holdiman, Jones, Crouch, Schillinger and Lindblom voted yes.
Taking a straw poll after the vote on density of the Del Webb portion, Lindblom and
Schillinger felt the density is okay. Crouch said it's too dense and said the side-yard
setbacks are too small. Adams also said she had a problem with the size of the side-yard
setbacks. Jones said he'd have to see a Del Webb development before stating his opinion.
Lindblom suggested that each of the commissioners visit the Del Webb site in Huntley
before the next meeting. He said it would worthwhile for everyone.
3. PC 2005-37 Corneils Crossing,LLC petition to annex and rezone.
Jones said he doesn't have a problem with annexation but he thinks there should be a
PUD for the frontage lots. A PUD is necessary to make the plan more compatible with
the existing subdivision and landowners. Also, a PUD would address the aroma issues
Page 5 of 9
raised at the public hearing. Schoppe, however, said a PUD wouldn't be appropriate. He
suggested a motion be subject to 50-foot setbacks for the first three lots, etc.
Crouch made a motion to recommend annexation approval for PC 2005-37. Adams
seconded the motion. Davis,Adams, Holdiman,Jones, Crouch, Schillinger and Lindblom
voted yes.
Kevin Carrara, attorney for the petitioners, said the petitioners are agreeable to the larger
setbacks, larger side-yards and will put a right-to-farm clause in the annexation
agreement.
In response to a question from Jones, Whitehouse said Corneils Road would have to be
widened at the subdivision's entrance. Carrara said enough land has been dedicated to
accommodate it and road improvements would be made based on results of the traffic
study.
Whitehouse also said road improvements would have to be made before homes could be
built. Also,no construction traffic could come from the east, it would have to come from
Route 47.
Lindblom said there are six concerns Plan Commissioners and residents have:
1. 50-foot setbacks on the first three lots.
2. The first lot should face Corneils Road.
3. The right to farm issue.
4. The first lot facing Corneils should be at 30,000 square feet.
5. Road improvements would have to be made prior to traffic generated from the
development.
6. No construction traffic from the east.
Jones made a motion to rezone subject to the six concerns Lindblom listed. Adams
seconded the motion.Adams, Holdiman, Jones, Crouch, Schillinger, Davis and Lindblom
voted yes.
4.Northwest Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Jones asked about the industrial areas on the map marked in purple. They show the
existing industrial uses in the area. Schoppe said those uses are marked in purple to show
that the city recognizes the existing use and has no intention of"kicking out"the current
landowners.
Jones made a motion to accept Alternative 1 of the Northwest Comprehensive Plan map
amendment. Holdiman seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved in a
roll call vote. Holdiman, Jones, Crouch, Schillinger, Davis, Adams and Lindblom voted
yes.
5. PC 2005-13 MPI South— Concept Plan
Page 6 of 9
John Phillipchuck, attorney representing MPI, said the plan includes 904 acres 3 miles
long from Amendt Road to Caton Farm Road. The property north of the creek is in the
suburban area on the comprehensive plan. The property south is in the transitional area.
Jon Martin from JenLand Design, said plans call for the north side of the development to
be al single-family homes with a density of 1.58 to 1.6 units per acre. The proposed plan
complies with the guidelines. Lot sizes on the west side would be 12,000 square feet. At
the intersection of Wheeler Road and Route 47, plans are to create a little prairie town in
which homes would sit on 8,400 square foot lots. The corner would feature a commercial
node and housing would be similar to that in the original part of town. Homes would
have garages in the back with alleyways.
Five acres in the development also have been set aside for a fire station and a water tower
would be erected at the north end of the traditional neighborhoods. A 13-acre park would
be located next to a 35-acre school site. Also,bike trails would connect throughout the
property and to other bike trails in the area. The other change adds a park in the northern
neighborhood as well,he said.
The remaining portion of the property in the south would be predominately multi-family
with about 25 percent of single-family homes. Overall, throughout the development about
58 percent would be single-family homes and 42 percent would be multi-family.
Meanwhile, he said the amount of commercial development on the property has
increased.
The 900 acres would have 1957 acres with an overall gross density of 2.16 units per acre.
Adams said she doesn't like the idea of alleyways for the townhomes nor the single-
family homes. Martin said the idea is to de-emphasize garages in that area. What they're
proposing is a neo-traditional area.
Crouch said the developers would have to work hard to sell him on the new-traditional
neighborhood. He'd like to see the lot sizes get bigger.
Jones, meanwhile, said the only alleyways he's seen tried in the area are in Oswego and
they've failed.
Access posed another problem for commissioners. Lindblom said there would only be
one way in for neighborhoods 5 and 9 until surrounding property was developed.
Schillinger said this property is part of the gateway to Yorkville from the south and he
doesn't think the proposed development is anything the city wants to see. He envisions
entering the town from the south and seeing clusters of homes.
Phillipchuck,however, said the city likely will develop further south of Caton Farm
Road. But, Schillinger said the city needs to keep its rural look.
Page 7 of 9
Schoppe asked if the commission would like to see architectural drawings of what the
developer has envisioned. Jones said he wants to see to it that the objectives in the
comprehensive plan are met at a minimum. Schillinger said he thought the point of the
comprehensive plan guidelines was to make the city distinctive. He said the proposed
plan is not distinctive. It's typical suburbia, he said.
6. PC 2005-36 Lynnwood Baptist Church 1.5 mile review
Bob Walker,pastor of the church, said the church is looking to add onto the building. The
current church building is 5,000 square feet and the congregation is looking to build a
21,000 square foot addition.
Storm water management,he said, is a big issue. To address the issue, they would use
permeable pavers. As for sanitary sewers, the church plans to hold off construction until
Fox-Metro extends its sewer lines. Right now, the church is serviced by a well. That
would be enlarged,he said.
There three proposed entrances. He said the county doesn't want an entrance on E.
Wickert Drive so some changes might have to be made.
Walker said the church would comply with all of city engineer Joe Wywrot's comments.
Crouch made a motion to recommend approval of the 1.5-mile review for PC 2005-36.
Jones seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved in a roll call vote.
Jones, Crouch, Schillinger, Davis, Adams, Holdiman and Lindblom voted yes.
7. PC 2005-27 Autumn Creek Unit 1 —Final Plat
Crouch asked if the issue with the trees had been addressed. Schoppe said the developers
have committed to doing resolving the issue.
Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat for PC 2005-27. Holdiman
seconded the motion. Crouch, Schillinger, Davis, Adams, Holdiman, Jones and Lindblom
voted yes.
8. PC 2005-38 Westbury Village East—Concept Plan
Patrick Hughes with Ocean Atlantic said the developers are seeking input on the partial
redesign of Westbury Village. Revised plans are to turn the development into a golf
course community.
The plan increases the commercial area by six acres. The plan also includes a banquet
facility with someone hired full-time to manage it. The plan also increased open spaces
and decreases the density. With the changes, the development would have 835 units with
a density of 2.78 units per acre.
A luxury townhome component also was added near the golf course. He said he believes
the new plan is a better one for the city.
Page 8 of 9
Whitehouse said since some significant changes have been made, the city would need to
see plans for stormwater detention. However,he said the water issues probably can be
solved.
Lindblom said he'd like to see a concept plan that shows the entire development so the
commission can look at the overall big picture. Commissioners agreed they'd like to see
the concept plan for the west parcel of property before the preliminary plan for the east
side is approved.
9. PC 2004-27 XPAC Properties, LLC-Preliminary/Final Plat
John McVickers said the developer is seeking zoning approval for the subdivision of the
property into three commercial lots. He said the developers would have to come back to
the Plan Commission for approval of any site plan.
Crouch said there were previous concerns about traffic. However, Whithouse said that
now that the new driveway would line up to Patricia Lane, the problem has been
resolved.
Issues regarding the widening of Cannonball Trail also have been addressed as have
concerns with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Schillinger made a motion to recommend approval of PC 2004-27 preliminary/final plat
subject to the driveway lining up to Patricia Lane. Holdiman seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 5 to 1 in a roll call vote. Schillinger, Adams, Holdiman, Crouch
and Lindblom voted yes. Jones voted no. Davis was absent for the vote.
10. PC 2005-39 Menard's Commercial Commons Fourth Addition—Re-subdivision
Final Plat
Wyeth said the re-subdivision seeks to shift one lot line. There are still three lots,
however, the middle lot line has been moved. Whithouse added that the developers need
to sign the plat vacating the easements.
Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the re-subdivision of the final plat for PC
2005-39. Adams seconded the motion. The motion was approved in a roll call vote.
Adams, Holdiman, Jones, Crouch, Schillinger and Lindblom voted yes.. Davis was
absent for the vote.
11. PC 2005-40 Menard's Commercial Commons Third Addition—Re-subdivision
Final Plat
This is on the property east of Club 47. Jones made a motion to recommend approval of
the re-subdivision of the final plat for PC 2005-40 subject to Wywrot's comments.
Crouch seconded the motion. The motion was approved in a roll call vote. Adams,
Holdiman, Jones, Crouch, Schillinger and Lindblom voted yes. Davis was absent for the
vote.
12. PC 2005-35 Bristol Bay Units 1-7 Final Plat
Page 9 of 9
Schoppe said the final plat is consistent with the preliminary PUD plan.
Jones made a motion to recommend approval of PC 2005-35 Bristol Bay Units 1-7 Final
Plat subject to comments by city staff. Adams seconded the motion. Holdiman, Jones,
Crouch, Schillinger, Davis, Adams, and Lindblom voted yes.
Crouch then made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jones seconded the motion. The
motion passed in a voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLAN COMMISSION
YORKVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005
Report of proceedings had in the
above-entitled matter.
PRESENT
CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM
COMMISSIONER CROUCH
COMMISSIONER ADAMS
COMMISSIONER HOLDIMAN
COMMISSIONER JONES
COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER
COMMISSIONER DAVIS
RE ' ORTING
DOWNTOWN SUBURBS
77 W.WASHINGTON, STE. 1917 1407 E. ELM STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60602 WHEATON, IL 60187
3121895-4974 630/690-6911
BRIDGESREPORTING@AOL.COM
FAX uu2/5zS-9025
2
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Good evening. My name is Tom
2 Lindblom. I 'm chairman of this group. we should have a
3 sign-up sheet going around. If you have not signed that,
4 please do so.
5 we have , tonight, four public hearings .
6 They will run one right after the other. At the public
7 hearing, if you wish to address the Commission on any one
8 of those items , I will ask all of you to be sworn in at
9 the beginning of the public hearing. If you even think
10 you are going to have any questions or concerns, please
11 stand , raise your right hand. It will take you 30
12 seconds.
13 If you are not sworn in , I am going to have
14 to go back and go through the whole process again, and I
15 don' t want to do that tonight.
16 we have a very full agenda and I want to
17 move things along as quickly as possible.
18 At the public hearing we have a court
19 reporter here taking testimony. with that in mind I want
20 you to recognize -- I' d ask you to come to the podium,
21 state your name then ask your question and state your
22 concern or whatever, and do whatever. we have two, three,
23 four items , do it all at the same time then the developer
24 or his attorney or representative can answer those
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
3
1 concerns.
2 we cannot have conversation going on back
3 and forth , back and forth. It is impossible for the court
4 reporter to capture all that. So I would ask your
5 cooperation along those lines.
6 I ' ve also been informed that as this is
7 being recorded you have the right to recall ,
8 cross-examine , the people that are presenting the
9 petitions . By that I mean you have the right to ask
10 questions about anything they are representing tonight.
11 Now, I mentioned we do have a full agenda
12 tonight so I would ask you be brief in your comments and
13 concerns .
14 we want to give everybody a chance to voice
15 their concern . I don ' t want to cut anybody off, but at
16 the same time , I don' t want to keep beating a dead horse .
17 If some of you have a concern , let' s just
18 hypothetically say, about traffic, state your concern
19 about traffic. Let that concern be known, but then I
20 don ' t want to have another half dozen people come before
21 the podium and beat traffic to death .
22 If you have another concern about that
23 particular development, whether it be density or
24 environment, whatever it might be, sure, we want to know
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
4
1 about that too, but I don' t want to keep hearing the same
2 thing over and over and over.
3 okay. with that being said then we have
4 the public hearing, we close the public hearing and then
5 we come back and address each of these items along with
6 some other business before the Commission .
7 so just because the public hearing is
8 closed , doesn' t mean that the evening is over for you.
9 You are welcome to stay for the whole meeting tonight or
10 you' re free to get up and leave whenever your particular
11 point of interest has been taken care of, but we do come
12 back and address these things later on. with that being
13 said, is there any question about the procedure for this
14 evening? okay. with that I thank you all
15 for coming, and for your interest in tonight' s -- yes ,
16 sir? DO we have another sign-up sheet? Thank you, sir,
17 we will get one for you.
18 Are there any other concerns?
19 (No response. )
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you.
21 we will call the meeting to order. Can we
22 have roll call , please?
23 THE CLERK: Sandra Adams .
24 MS. ADAMS: Here .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
5
1 THE CLERK: Clarence Holdiman.
2 MR. HOLDIMAN: Here.
3 THE CLERK: Brian Schillinger.
4 MR. SCHILLINGER: Here.
5 THE CLERK: Bill Davis.
6 MR. DAVIS: Here .
7 THE CLERK: Tom Lindblom.
8 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Here .
9 We do have a quorum. There were not
10 meeting minutes from the previous meeting so we can skip
11 that.
12 I would ask the Commission if we could
13 change the agenda so that we could put 2005-314
14 Development first and then the Del -Web second, both at the
15 public hearing and under -- is there a motion?
16 MS. ADAMS: So ruled .
17 MR. CROUCH: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Those in favor signify by
19 saying. Aye .
20 (Chorus of ayes . )
21 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed?
22 (No response. )
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Motion passes and we
24 will alter the agenda accordingly. And with that said,
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
6
1 can I have a motion to go to public hearing?
2 MR. HOLDIMAN: Motion to go to public hearing.
3 MR. DAVIS: Second.
4 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Move to second. Any
5 discussion on the motion?
6 (No response.)
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those in favor
8 signify by saying aye.
9 (Chorus of ayes.)
10 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed?
11 (No response.)
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: We are now in public hearing.
13 okay. Can I have anybody that
14 wishes to address the commission, please stand and raise
15 your right hand and repeat after me .
16 (Speakers sworn .)
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: The first item for public
18 hearing is PC 2005-34 Tanglewood Development Corporation
19 and Evergreen Farm Estates, LLC.
20 Petitioner' s have filed an application with
21 the City of Yorkville. I 'm going to paraphrase , is
22 requesting annexation and rezoning of with United City of
23 Yorkville R2 . The real property consists of approximately
24 48.8 acres at the northeast and southeast corners of Fox
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
7
1 Road and Pavilion Road, Kendall Township.
2 who will be presenting on behalf of the
3 petitioner?
4 MR. MARTIN : Mr. Chairman , members of the
5 commission , my name is John Martin . I `m the attorney for
6 Tanglewood who will be making the main presentation this
7 evening.
8 Also present, for purposes of questioning
9 and clarification, are Mike Brandenburg and Debbie Miller.
10 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you , John .
11 MR. MARTIN: what you have before you this evening
12 is the 49-acre Evergreen Farm Estate, which is a portion
13 of the Thiess Farm at the intersection of Fox Road and
14 Pavilion Road .
15 For purposes of clarification, I want to
16 note that in substance that -- during the course of the
17 planning process and discussions with the City, it was
18 requested that we include in some of our drawings , the
19 20-acre portion , which would be the southeast portion of
20 this track, so we could give support to the fact that bike
21 paths and roads , and that type of thing would work.
22 I want to make it clear as we make our
23 presentation tonight that that 20-acre parcel is not part
24 of this proceeding this evening, and that that portion has
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
8
1 been on plats only for demonstrative purposes .
2 To the north of the property, going in a
3 circle here , around the edge, we have the railroad tracks ,
4 and to the south, we have basically agricultural property.
5 To the east, as I mentioned , there is a
6 20-acre residue of the Thiess Farm, which , again , is not
7 part of this project.
8 To the east of the portion north of Fox
9 Road , is a single-family county subdivision , and to the
10 west we have agricultural areas with some sodding of
11 single-family residences.
12 The property is not currently within the
13 City limits of Yorkville . It is not served by municipal
14 water or sanitary sewer service, but both of those items
15 are in the context of the city' s review of extending those
16 in consideration and will be , obviously, a part of this
17 subdivision , should it be approved .
18 The plan, as it is drafted, and as it has
19 been before you before , contains 76 lots. The overall
20 density is 1. 56 homes per acre . The average lot size is a
21 little in excess of 15 ,000 feet, and the smallest lot size
22 is 12 , 000 square feet.
23 This plan that is before you, tonight, this
24 preliminary plan, reflects a couple of things that were --
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
9
1 have been requested at prior appearances and negotiations
2 with the city.
3 Specifically, we have added a 50-foot open
4 space landscape buffer along Fox and Pavilion Roads , and
5 we have a 20-foot bike path easement reflected on the
6 north side of Fox and the south side of Fox, and it is
7 continued through the property with the long term
8 intention that it would connect to adjoining properties as
9 they develop in the future.
10 Relative to engineering issues , we
11 recognize the fact that we are in two different water
12 zones or will be in two different water pressure zones in
13 the city, so the northern half of the project is going to
14 be served by a line running along Fox Road, and the south
15 half is going to come from the development, south of Fox
16 Road.
17 The sanitary sewer for the project will all
18 come from the river' s edge development to the east .
19 Are there questions?
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Excuse me just a second. Are
21 there people in the lobby that would like to come in to
22 hear this presentation that appear not to be able to make
23 it inside the doors? If so, we have a couple chairs --
24 actually three chairs in the front row, and there is room
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
10
1 along the sides if some of you would like to come in .
2 okay.
3 MR. MARTIN: If I could ask leave to reopen the
4 presentation one time. There are two things I wanted to
5 clarify and I neglected to.
6 The last plat that was submitted contained
7 a typographical error, and that is why I spent the time
8 clarifying that the 20 acres was not included in tonight' s
9 petition.
10 If you look at the last plat submitted , it
11 reflects a total site area of 3 , 111, 000-plus square
12 footage that would reflect the 20 acres. That square
13 footage and what has been consistently represented
14 throughout the process -- this project is actually
15 2 , 127, 612 feet.
16 The acreage, likewise, is rather than the
17 71-plus acres , is 48. 8 acres. All of the other figures
18 that are set forth in the plat will stand as correct. And
19 I should also offer that this project, as submitted,
20 conforms to the City' s master plan, and we will ask for
21 approval of this plan.
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Anything else on behalf
23 of the development?
24 MR. MARTIN: No.
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
11
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you .
2 I should read for the record that we
3 have received a copy of a written protest for the rezoning
4 -- annexation and rezoning of Evergreen Farms stated by
5 the Tanglewood Corporation . A copy of this was given to
6 the plaintiff. okay. I will then open the floor to
7 people that have questions or concerns for the board .
8 Yes, sir?
9 MR. GILMORE: My name is Tom Gilmore and Ism a
10 resident of Fox Glen subdivision, and we have several
11 concerns about the proposed development.
12 First and foremost, it is not compatible
13 with the lot size in our subdivision and several other
14 subdivisions in the surrounding area adjacent to this
15 proposed subdivision . we are concerned about what we are
16 trying to focus on, as far as either a county or city
17 comprehensive plan , and I have several sources ; one of
18 them is an article in the newspaper, which is my only
19 source , dated Thursday, December 23rd, ' 04, and apparently
20 the City even has a comprehensive plan talking about
21 scenic, right-of-way, even though this was secondary on
22 that plan on Fox Road and Pavilion Road.
23 Also we have a concern with traffic once
24 again, it is our understanding there is at least one
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
12
1 traffic study being done right now on Fox Road. This
2 subdivision, at 40 -- and in the future four entrances to
3 Fox Road, one of them approximately no less than 250 feet,
4 immediately west of the west entrance to our subdivision.
5 On a road that is obviously going to be carrying much more
6 traffic quickly, it seems like there is no mediation to
7 entrance and exit off of Fox Road.
8 Basically, that, you know, we are concerned
9 about the lot size here . The lots are far too small for
10 the adjacent subdivision. And we would like you to
11 consider that if you will .
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you. Anybody else have
13 any questions or concern? The gentleman over here ,
14 please.
15 THE WITNESS: My name is Ali Jabway. I live in
16 the open space that is off of Pavilion Road right now.
17 I just have two main concerns; one of them
18 is the traffic. I currently travel every day to
19 Naperville on my way and I take Fox Road. There was
20 construction going on already, on 47th at one point in
21 time, and I don ' t know if you've have been there around
22 7: 30 or 8:00 o' clock. It currently, today, takes me about
23 15 minutes to go through that. So, my biggest concern
24 with this is the traffic here . I see big congestion. I
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
13
1 see Fox Road not being able to handle the traffic.
2 You have the traffic light at the
3 intersection of Fox and 47th that currently, today, has a
4 big problem, you know, in a certain area that you travel ,
5 plus if you take the travel -- if you pass through that
6 intersection and go through 47th, that is a big, huge area
7 right now which has a big backup already. So I see a
8 traffic problem with this, that I think needs to be
9 addressed.
10 The other part that I see is when I first
11 moved in here, about 8 years ago, people told me that this
12 area got flooded and they have seen it like a river going
13 by, which I , myself, really had a tough time believing
14 that that is the case , but in the seven years I 've been
15 here , I can tell you I have seen it once . And I ' ve seen
16 it where -- if I may show you?
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Certainly.
18 MR. GILMORE: And I ' ve seen it where , one time I
19 came out here to drive to go to work, and I can tell you
20 on Division Road and on the property adjacent to it was
21 like a river run , and I mean like a river. I couldn' t
22 believe it myself. And I see that , you know, the
23 development already addresses that, but I ' m not an
24 engineer, and I would like the committee to look into
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
14
1 that, to make sure we are not going to get any flooded
2 streets more beyond what we already have today.
3 That is all I have.
4 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Thank you . The
5 gentleman in the back.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I didn' t swear in. I was
7 late , I 'm sorry.
8 (speaker sworn . )
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I live on Fox Road , and I
to was here three months ago and showed you guys the pictures
11 of the water -- everything. I don't need to go back
12 through it.
13 First of all , I want to thank all of you
14 for sitting on the committee and recommending to the city
15 council , what your recommendations are .
16 It is unfortunate that city council does
17 not always listen to your recommendations , okay? You
18 recommended it that night, and we were here. Part of that
19 subdivision that got annexed in on the other side of
20 Pavilion, PUD, did not, okay?
21 I got told by the city that when they ain' t
22 annexed a property out there, that road, which is county
23 Line Road, automatically becomes a city road.
24 I ' m being told by the county that is not
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
15
1 true. That remains a county road. It is the county' s
2 responsibility. If it is a township road, and it gets
3 annexed in , it does become a city street.
4 z talked to county engineers and the road
5 commissioner and asked them why they stopped the
6 improvement of Fox Road from pavilion , to approximately
7 river' s edge They told me they don ' t have easements .
8 That is why the road was not approved , okay?
9 z know there is a statement that z want to
10 make, it doesn ' t pertain to you, but I know the County has
11 come to the city and the planning commission, and they
12 asked for $1, 000 per lot to maintain county roads that get
13 to the city limits . I don ' t know why they won ' t do it,
14 but z would appreciate it if that would be taken into
15 consideration .
16 The other thing is , from where the roads
17 are here, coming in here, there is a dip in that road.
18 They are adding just so many roads within a quarter mile
19 area, it is something maybe to look at , make a line up to
20 the entrance into the subdivision , and z know that the
21 planning commissioner likes to have two easements going in
22 and out of the subdivision , the river' s edge doesn' t have
23 one, and there is a lot more space there coming in and out
24 than what is here .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
16
1 The River' s edge has another that' s
2 bottlenecked the railroad tracks. If something happens
3 there you cannot get to those people . I don' t want to see
4 stuff like this coming back.
5 I know we have asked for a traffic study.
6 Does anybody know where the traffic study stands?
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: John, can you comment on that?
8 MR. WYETH: Yeah, the staff is going to be
9 discussed with zigzap on Monday prior to distribution next
10 week.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: So, in other words , a study
12 has been done. It is just --
13 MR. WYETH: Yes, just reviewing city staff before
14 it is published.
15 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay.
16 THE WITNESS: Just the infrastructure as a whole ,
17 we only have single phase power coming out of Fox Road .
18 We can' t just keep building it and expect everything else
19 to follow. Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Thank you. Is there
21 anybody else then that wishes to address the commission on
22 this?
23 (No response .)
24 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: What does the commission feel
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
17
1 about possibly closing this public hearing, discussing
2 this as an issue and coming back to the public hearing for
3 everything else rather than keeping all these people
4 through everything else? Is there any objection to that?
5 MR. SCHILLINGER: I have no problem. we have a
6 very full agenda. I want to move it along.
7 MR. JONES: Misery loves company. I want them to
8 stay with us.
9 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Let me have a motion , first to
10 change the agenda again , to --
11 MR. WYETH: You need to close it first.
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I 've been advised let ' s close
13 the public hearing first.
14 MR. ADAMS: Move to close.
15 MR. CROUCH: Second.
16 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion to second to close the
17 public hearing . Those in favor?
18 (Chorus of ayes . )
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion is approved. Now, can
20 I have a motion to change the agenda to put the discussion
21 on this item next on the agenda?
22 MR. SCHOPPE: So moved.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Moved and seconded to change
24 the agenda again . Any further discussion?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
18
1 (No response. )
2 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Those in favor signify by
3 saying aye .
4 (Chorus of ayes. )
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: opposed?
6 (No response . )
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion is approved .
8 All right. with that said, we ' ll enter
9 into discussion then on PC 2005-34 under new business .
10 I would ask both John whitehouse and Mike,
11 if they have comments regarding this , and then we can
12 proceed from there .
13 MR. SCHOPPE: Maybe I will start with a question.
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay.
15 MR. SCHOPPE: As I look at the application, and
16 the agenda item, it identifies the request, tonight,
17 before the commission, for annexation in zoning and not
18 for approval of a preliminary plan . okay.
19 Now, I think some of the testimony that we
20 heard earlier, made reference to a request for a
21 preliminary plan , so I wanted to clarify that the request
22 of the commission tonight, as I understand it, is only for
23 the annexation and zoning through R2 . So, there will be
24 -- if the zoning were to be approved on this , then there
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
19
1 would be a requirement before any development could take
2 place , that preliminary plans and final plans would have
3 to come forward through the Planning Commission and the
4 City for review and approval before any development could
5 take place .
6 Having said that, the zoning that is being
7 requested , the actual zoning and the guidelines in the
8 actual zoning, do make that zoning appropriate for the
9 land use shown in the City' s comprehensive plan.
10 The comprehensive plan shows there to be
11 estates . There are design guidelines in the comprehensive
12 plan that speak to certain development styles that the
13 City is looking to have in this part of the town. So even
14 though we are not approving a plan , I think R2 zoning
15 would be consistent with the evidence of a plan , if it
16 were subject to -- the density and design guidelines that
17 are outlined in the comprehensive plan .
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Just to clarify that a little
19 bit for the you , audience. As this plan stands right now
20 it has not --
21 MR. SCHOPPE: I --
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Even though they are not
23 asking for a preliminary plan at this point, as presented,
24 just so the people understand IT as presented , it does not
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
20
1 meet density standards.
2 MR. SCHOPPE: Well , I can tell that it does meet
3 the density standards , but I can look at one number.
4 Now, we haven' t reviewed this plan in the
5 way that we normally review a preliminary plan for
6 compliance with the design guidelines.
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Any other comments??
8 MR. JONES: No.
9 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: John?
10 MR. WHITEHOUSE: I would reiterate what Mike said ,
11 regarding this is not a preliminary plan.
12 To answer some of the public' s concerns
13 over the location of access roads along Fox Road, they do
14 not meet the city standard for the separation along the
15 collector, which is Fox Road. we have a minimum of
16 400-foot separation between intersections . Their western
17 entrance is less than 400 and their eastern is less than
18 400. So that is going to have to be revised , and just so
19 it is understood , there is not any motion the Plan
20 Commission makes tonight is not a recommending the layout
21 of this plan that is being presented tonight. It is only
22 on the annexation in that zone.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. And John, am I correct
24 that if, hypothetically, if this is approved tonight for
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
21
1 annexation and zoning and the developer comes back with a
2 plan , there would not be a public hearing on that plan ; is
3 that correct?
4 ATTORNEY WYETH: That is correct.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can ' t hear you back here.
6 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: There will not be a public
7 hearing -- it is a public meeting, but it doesn' t go
8 through the public steps of notifying adjacent property
9 owners , legal notice in the paper, et cetera, et cetera.
10 And, again , maybe I 'm getting ahead of myself, but if this
11 should be approved for annexation zoning whenever this
12 comes back before this group again , to review the plan , it
13 will be at a public hearing -- at a public meeting, but if
14 not the public hearing, and you are certainly all welcome
15 to come to the public meeting.
16 Do you understand the difference between
17 the two?
18 MR. JONES: will they have to be notified?
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: NO.
20 MR. SCHILLINGER: No, but there is no secret about
21 it either. You are all welcome back.
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It is published?
23 MR. CROUCH: It is published. We are here the
24 second wednesday of every month .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
22
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Mr. Mayor?
2 MAYOR PROCHASKA: One gentleman brought up a point
3 that I just wanted to clarify for the plan commission , and
4 it wasn ' t directed to me, it was directed at Dave to go
5 for PUD for the previous, and the reason that was not
6 done, just so everyone is aware of it, there is no
7 annexation done in the City of Yorkville without an
8 agreement. It is either a PUD agreement or an annexation
9 agreement, both of which have post hearings at the City
10 Council level .
11 The difference is a PUD agreement does not
12 set a precedent. In other words, it is considered a
13 unique consideration, whereas an annexation agreement does
14 set a precedent and what we did in the annexation
15 agreement, we requested that the developers -- these
16 future developers would pay to have the study done for the
17 traffic.
18 we also asked them to look at the special
19 considerations for water, and we felt that that was not a
20 unique situation for that property as opposed , it was
21 actually a common thing. we would like to see all of the
22 property owners do, so, therefore, it was decided that we
23 would go with the annexation agreement because it does set
24 a precedent, it does now set a precedent for us to require
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
23
1 the same thing from this developer, because it was done as
2 an annexation agreement --
3 MR. SCHILLINGER: The same or greater.
4 MAYOR PROCHASKA: Correct. So we have set a
5 precedent out there.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That is correct. Part of
7 it did come in as a PUD, but the rest of the road comes in
8 straight as an R2 .
9 MS. ADAMS: Straight R2 .
10 MAYOR PROCHASKA: But it also has an annexation
11 agreement, understand? There is an agreement , always .
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I understand .
13 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Let' s not get off the subject.
14 MAYOR PROCHASKA: But I just want to make it clear
15 so the commission understood the logic behind that. we
16 wanted that to set the precedent.
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Just an opinion , John . You
18 alluded to the fact that the traffic study has been
19 completed and it is just a matter of sharing it with city
20 staff and probably sharing it with the commissioner too at
21 a future meeting.
22 MAYOR PROCHASKA: uh-huh .
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I ' d like to see what that
24 study is , and before I feel comfortable doing anything,
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
24
1 I ' d like to see what that study is.
2 if -- I guess , worse case, if that could be
3 presented to us at maybe next month' s meeting and
4 something like this could come and possibly, depending on
5 what that study says , it may in fact be what this
6 particular developer wants to do.
7 MR. WHITEHOUSE: I can give you the high points
8 because it is obviously what is necessary in this area, is
9 alternatives to FOX Road.
10 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Yes , I ' d like to have a chance
11 to look at that and let other commission members see that
12 too.
13 MR. WHITEHOUSE: And there will be specific issues
14 there and this is what precipitated that request for that
15 in the first place , was Ashton Ridge, Evergreen Farm and
16 Silver Fox. No development was happening on FOX Road
17 until there was a recommendation that was acceptable to
18 the city council for not adding to the traffic that are
19 experienced on Fox Road, regardless what happens to 47.
20 MAYOR PROCHASKA: Part of the annexation agreement
21 recommendation says there has to be some movement towards
22 rectifying the issue, prior to any homes being built, and
23 that is part of the agreement in both of those
24 subdivisions .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
25
1 MR. SCHILLINGER: So, therefore , it may be to the
2 developer' s best interest not to ask for zoning tonight,
3 and wait on the traffic study, and see what happens with
4 it?
5 MAYOR PROCHASKA: Well , the only thing is with
6 annexation , the city then requires them to help pay for
7 it. MR. SCHILLINGER: I 'm sorry. Not annexation , but
8 the zoning.
9 MAYOR PROCHASKA: well --
10 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: well , the study has been done.
11 MAYOR PROCHASKA: Yes , but there is more .
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I understand that. I would be
13 comfortable in suggesting to table this , based on those
14 facts .
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: speaking on a behalf of the
16 developers, I understood there is a traffic study. we
17 acknowledge we have to do whatever we are told we have to
18 do to meet the standards that we have to do.
19 MR. DAVIS: So if I ' m understanding this
20 correctly,
21 if we annex and rezone that would then -- they would then
22 kick in for the second phase of the traffic study or --
23 MAYOR PROCHASKA: well , at this point we would be
24 recommending that that certainly could be a
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
26
1 recommendation . CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I recommend we
2 take it one step at a time. That is only me speaking.
3 what is your wish?
4 MR. WYETH: They are times to vote issues before
5 you vote no.
6 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Even if there is a vote to
7 table?
8 MAYOR PROCHASKA: It was my understanding that in
9 order for any of the developments , whether it is silver
10 Glen -- the rest of them are silver Fox, going in we often
11 times have to do something with the traffic and the road,
12 et cetera, which is what a developer would very much do.
13 so, if the vote today was to go ahead and annex this in,
14 and do the R2 zoning, we still know our responsibilities
15 to Yorkville is what we are going to have to do with the
16 plan.
17 I just wanted to make that very clear.
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: There was a question whether
19 we could table it or not. we can if that is our desire to
20 do so. with that being said , is there, number one, a
21 motion to table? Number two, a motion for annexation and
22 zoning are two separate things. There will be a motion
23 for annexation followed by a motion for zoning. we ' ll
24 vote on whatever your wishes are.
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
27
1 COMMISSIONER JONES: well , whether we do it now or
2 later, they and other developers are going to have to kick
3 into that plan for the traffic study, and if we go ahead
4 with the zoning and annexation, we are not saying yea or
5 nay to the way it is layed out. so everybody would still
6 have input in terms of how it is layed out or what the lot
7 sizes would be .
8 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: I' d like to see what
9 the future is on Fox Road and possibly alternative roads
10 to alleviate some of the problems with Fox, and I guess
11 what I 'm thinking is perhaps if you still want to annex,
12 we vote on annexation tonight, but we hold off on zoning
13 until everybody is aware of what is going on with the
14 traffic study.
15 MR. WHITEHOUSE: Just to clarify, Tom , they have
16 funded the study, and that is what these three developers
17 have paid for, okay? It is as a result of that study they
18 are going to have the recommendations as to what to solve ,
19 what would be part of any recommendation for approval of a
20 preliminary plan or any recommendation for an annexation
21 agreement is going to be including the implementation of
22 that plan to prevent any additional problems on Fox Road
23 and to allow these developers to move forward , having put
24 up the money and the other improvements that are going to
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
28
1 be recommended in the plan .
2 COMMISSIONER JONES: So they have already had to
3 put their money where their mouth is .
4 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: For the plan.
5 MAYOR PROCHASKA: we would like to move ahead, or
6 otherwise --
7 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: I kind of agree with
8 you. I don' t know if R2 -- i know there are other
9 developments around that have already come through this
10 commission, that have already received R2s , perhaps not,
11 and , in simply my opinion , maybe a little bit preliminary.
12 I wouldn ' t mind seeing these lot sizes a
13 little bit more comparative to what the surrounding
14 subdivisions have .
15 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. we will have an
16 opinion. we have got to have a motion one way or the
17 other so we can move forward with a discussion .
18 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: This property is contiguous
19 presently?
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don' t believe it is
21 contiguous . This is a pre-effective annexation .
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I guess it is yes or no.
23 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: How do we annex something
24 that is not contiguous?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
29
1 MAYOR PROCHASKA: It can become contiguous. So we
2 are asking people to spend money.
3 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: That is not my question . I
4 just want to be clear so we don' t have water and sewer,
5 they are not contiguous to the city presently, and we are
6 asking to vote in terms of not only the annexation , but
7 also the zoning, and I believe , Mike , you said this is on
8 the City' s comprehensive plan , this is the State?
9 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: Correct.
10 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: Which is one half?
11 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: Well , the maximum density
12 limit is 1. 75 . There are certain qualifications that are
13 met in the plan , in the comprehensive plan , so there the
14 density can be up as high as 1. 75 .
15 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: If there are certain things
16 done .
17 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: Correct.
18 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: But the basic is one
19 and-a-half.
20 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: Yes .
21 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: So they are a little bit
22 above that.
23 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: 0 to 1. 5 , and then if
24 certain things are demonstrated then it can be increased
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
30
1 to 1. 5.
2 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: I was making a point. I
3 think this is still a little bit above that.
4 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: This is above the 1. 5 .
5 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: 1. 56.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Our request to move forward
7 tonight is premised upon the fact we've been in
8 conversation with the city, we' ve contributed moneys
9 towards those various reports and studies , and we want the
to city to be contractually obligated to know where we are,
11 so we are not whistling in the dark here about the right,
12 if we want to contribute as we are -- many do, and if we
13 anticipate to the various studies and improvements , so
14 moving ahead today, as I said, I don' t think at all
15 inhibits your flexibility what you want to do with the
16 various aspects , but it gives us contactual assurance if
17 you are going to contribute here, and that we can do so
18 with someone who has a developer in contractual matters in
19 the legal process .
20 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: So just to be clear, you are
21 willing to go forward and pay whatever is necessary,
22 regardless of what the traffic study shows , as far as
23 alternative roadways and such.
24 THE WITNESS: we' ve already done that . We' ve
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
31
1 already contributed to the traffic study --
2 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: I understand that.
3 THE WITNESS: The answer is yes . we don ' t have an
4 alternative .
5 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: The only concern I have
6 is the draft is a straight R2 , and obviously you' re doing
7 -- this probably won ' t work, this configuration right
8 here, but you are already showing that you can go over and
9 above the straight R2 amendments . some of your lots are
10 larger than the property requirement. I mean you are
11 working with it there , but I think the traffic is an issue
12 alone . I really do. I don ' t have a problem with voting
13 on an annexation , but I think the zoning you might want to
14 hold off.
15 COMMISSIONER JONES: They already said they are
16 committed to whatever the study says.
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Can I ask you again for a
18 motion to continue the discussion? I need a motion to put
19 something on the floor.
20 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: I move we approve the
21 annexation to the united City of Yorkville for P. C.
22 2005-34.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Is there a second to that
24 motion?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
32
1 COMMISSIONER JONES: Second.
2 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion has now been seconded .
3 Is there a further discussion on the motion?
4 (No response. )
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Hearing none, can we
6 have a roll call , please?
7 MS. GRIPE: Sandra Adams.
8 MR. ADAMS: Yes.
9 MS. GRIPE: Chairman Holdiman?
10 CHAIRMAN HOLDIMAN: Yes.
11 MS. GRIPE: Jack Jones?
12 MR. JONES: Yes .
13 MS. GRIPE: Michael Crouch?
14 MR. CROUCH: Yes .
15 MS. GRIPE: Bill Davis?
16 MR. DAVIS: Yes .
17 MS. GRIPE: Tom Lindblom.
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Yes .
19 That motion passes. Now, is there a
20 motion for zoning?
21 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: I will make a motion
22 that we take a vote on zoning for PC 2005-34, R2 zoning.
23 COMMISSIONER JONES: That is all they want.
24 Straight R2 zoning, correct?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
33
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. We have a motion , then
2 to approve the R2 zoning. Is there a second to the
3 motion?
4 COMMISSIONER ADAMS: Second.
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: And seconded . Okay.
6 Discussion?
7 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: I might bring up something
8 for the commission to consider, and that might be to make
9 the motion subject to two items. One being the
10 recommendations , that will be included in the traffic
11 study, and secondly, that any development plans be
12 consistent with density and design guidelines of the
13 City' s comprehensive plan.
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Who made a motion?
15 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: I did . And I don ' t --
16 if somebody else would like to have that, that is fine .
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: All right. Let me ask this ,
18 if there is a motion to, and --
19 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: I will , and the motion is
20 subject to the two areas that Mike Schoppe mentioned.
21 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Is there a second to that
22 motion?
23 COMMISSIONER JONES: Second .
24 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Is there a discussion on the
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
34
1 amendment?
2 COMMISSIONER JONES: I think the amendment takes
3 care of some of the concerns that we and the homeowners
4 have, at least for the future.
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I will ask for a vote to
6 approve the amendment. If that is approved, then they
7 will have an amended motion before us and then I will ask
8 for a vote on that. Are we clear what we are doing?
9 okay. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
10 Hearing none , can we have roll call on the amendment,
11 please?
12 MS . GRIPE: Commissioner Holdiman.
13 COMMISSIONER HOLDIMAN: Yes .
14 MS. GRIPE: Jack Jones?
15 MR. JONES: Yes .
16 MS. GRIPE: Michael Crouch?
17 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: Yes .
18 MS. GRIPE: Brian Schillinger.
19 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: Yes .
20 MS. GRIPE: Bill Davis .
21 COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Yes.
22 MS. GRIPE: Tom Lindblom.
23 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Yes .
24 MS. GRIPE: Sandra Adams.
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
35
1 COMMISSIONER ADAMS: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Now we have a to approve the
3 zoning to those two concerns ; the traffic study and
4 density design. Is there further discussion on the
5 motion? He
6 (No response . )
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none , then can we have
8 roll call on that?
9 MS. GRIPE: Jack Jones?
10 COMMISSIONER JONES: Yes .
11 MS. GRIPE: Michael Crouch?
12 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: No.
13 MS. GRIPE: Brian Schillinger.
14 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: No.
15 MS. GRIPE: Bill Davis?
16 COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Yes .
17 MS. GRIPE: Sandra Adams .
18 COMMISSIONER ADAMS: No.
19 MS. GRIPE: Clarence Holdiman?
20 COMMISSIONER HOLDIMAN: No.
21 MS. GRIPE: Tom Lindblom.
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: No.
23 And that motion fails. Okay. I believe
24 that is it for PC 2005-34.
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
36
1 Ladies and gentlemen thank you for your
2 attendance . This obviously is going to come up again. I
3 would suggest that you check with City Hall prior to these
4 meetings to see if it is on the agenda or not.
5 Let' s take a brief recess .
6 (Recess . )
7 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: I would like to call the next
8 case and could we have a motion to go back to the public
9 hearing?
10 COMMISSIONER SCHILLINGER: So made.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Motion has been made. Is
12 there a second?
13 COMMISSIONER ADAMS: Second .
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Further discussion on the
15 motion?
16 (No response. )
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those in favor
18 signify by saying aye.
19 (Chorus of ayes. )
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: opposed?
21 (No response . )
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: We are now in public hearing
23 and the first one is now PC 2005-18, Dell Webb Pulte
24 Homes , and again , I will paraphrase this to file
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
37
1 application with city of Yorkville to rezone the united
2 city of Yorkville Planned unit Development consisting of
3 R-2 one-family residence district, R3 general district,
4 and B-3 service Business District. B-3 service district
5 business .
6 Your property consists of approximately 587
7 acres at the northwest coroner of Galena and Route 47,
8 Kendall county, Illinois. And with that said , who is
9 presenting please?
10 MR. WITNESS: I am, your Honor.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: And you are?
12 MR. BIRAM: My name is chuck Biram. I am a lawyer
13 with a firm of Gardner, Gardner, Douglas in Chicago and we
14 represent the petitioner' s tonight, which is Pulte Home
15 corporation and its affiliate Dell Webb. Pulte and Webb
16 are the contract purchasers of this property, and as it
17 says , 586 acres at the northwest corner of Galena Road and
18 Route 47. The property is not within the corporate limits
19 of the city. So we have petitioned for annexation says ,
20 we have petitioned for it' s zoning, and petitioned for EV
21 approval .
22 As you may recall , we were before you back
23 on June 8th , and we had a public hearing on the petition
24 for annexation and the petition for zoning. we did not
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
38
1 have a public hearing on the PUD application or the
2 preliminary plan approval . You did approve the first two
3 petitions on the 8th, and we are back, as we indicated, we
4 would be for PUD approval .
5 This will be a development which will
6 consist of some conventional housing, that is -- will be
7 constructed by Pulte and then age-restricted housing that
8 will be contructed by Dell Webb.
9 In addition there will be a 30-acre parcel .
to Tonight I have with me , for purposes of giving testimony
11 and making a presentation to you, Matt Kevy, who
12 represents Pulte and Webb. He is employed by them , and
13 also our land planner, which is Bill stuper, who is with
14 SEC Planning. Going forward we are seeking your
15 recommendation for the PUD approval tonight, and with
16 that, we will then go to the city counsel and seek to have
17 an annexation agreement approved as part of the zoning PUD
18 and annexation proceedings.
19 so with that, I would like to introduce
20 Matt.
21 MR. BIRAM: oh, it' s Bill first, pardon me.
22 MR. STUPER: I promise to be very brief here
23 tonight. ere are a few important things he mentioned. In
24 this Dell Webb community it' s like a lot of Del Webb
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
39
1 communities around the country. we are working with them
2 in California, Georgia, south Carolina, Texas , and all
3 over the united states . This one looks like those
4 communities , very unique , very unique to the buyer, and
5 they only have specific design standards that we do it on ,
6 so some of the PUD variances that we are asking for are
7 unique , and they are smaller, they are not part of the PUD
8 standard , but they are specific to the buyer in this
9 community; it is about lifestyle , things like that.
10 So I just wanted to make sure to mention
11 that. That is why we are coming here and asking for in
12 the community. we, as you know, we covered it last time
13 we were here. we talked about that last time . The
14 comprehensive plan was pretty much in line with that. It
15 is transitional , and then suburban residential , and we are
16 at 3 . 2 units per acre overall --
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Excuse me just a second.
18 Could we ask the people in the back to either move outside
19 or hold the noise down . It is hard to hear in here .
20 Thank you.
21 MR. BARIM: We are very consistent with the plan
22 of Yorkville, overall . I won' t go into the details , but
23 the plan tonight on some of the specifics are the entry
24 roads and the loop road that serves the property, that no
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
40
1 lots loading on there. we have a lot of landscaping and
2 buffering so as you drive through the community it is a
3 very nice feel . There are no smaller lots . You don' t get
4 the sense that I know some of you may have gone on a bus
5 tour and hopefully you saw that. It is very nice,
6 landscaped well and it had a very nice feel , and the
7 quality is very high . There is attention to detail in all
8 the landscaping architecture and a lot of heavy
9 landscaping throughout. This development will be the
10 same.
11 There is a lot of, in terms of the entry,
12 lake on each side buffers as we discussed already. All of
13 those will be very high quality and landscaped.
14 The buffers, real quickly, along the
15 driveway, that is a natural buffer there already. we have
16 a 30-foot buffer outside of that, and then on Galena and
17 baselines we have 50-foot buffers on both of those roads ,
18 so there is ample buffers along those roads .
19 Lastly, the variances I mentioned are
20 unique and, I 'm not going to go into each one , but I just
21 want to encourage you to think about that. The Del webb
22 section is very unique. The section to the west is R-2
23 straight. we are asking for no variances , the R-2 zoning,
24 we' ll keep the traditional product. The Del Webb product
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
41
1 is all the PUD variances are for. And with that, I am
2 going to turn it over to Matt.
3 MR. CUDNEY: Hi , Matt Cudney with Del Webb and
4 Pulte. I just want to touch on a couple brief points.
5 Some of you were • not able to go to the tour that we took,
6 but I think if you had a chance to go up on your own and
7 take a look at either sun city or even the models in Elgin
8 at Edgewater. I think it goes to show you a couple
9 different things we are talking about and why we are
to asking for specific variances for the Del Webb community.
11 Please keep in mind, again , that we are
12 talking about at Del Webb community that portion of it is
13 going to be age restricted. That means 55-years-old and
14 better, and that is part of the requirements that we have ,
15 and with that it brings a lot -- a much different type of
16 development in that you will have in your traditional
17 development. These again , are people who want smaller
18 lots and it is going to be an industry-free community,
19 which means you won ' t have to take care of your lawn
20 mowing or snow shoveling, any of that. This is completely
21 maintenance free . It is all paid for by your association
22 dues . That is one of the reasons we are asking for some
23 of these variances .
24 Again, there is a huge market out there for
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
42
1 this . I think I talked to you last time about the program
2 that we had up in Elgin, and the day that we started , we
3 opened up for sales on Saturday, people started to get in
4 line on wednesday. so that first weekend we had over 70
5 sales .
6 There is a large market of people out there
7 who are looking for this type of development, and lastly,
8 I want to touch on, if you look at the comprehensive plan,
9 this fits well within the comprehensive plan.
10 This area is designated for commercial and
11 the commercial is there, and the rest of it is designated
12 mostly in the transitional neighborhood, and the maximum
13 density on that -- the maximum gross density on that is
14 3. 5 units per acre. The gross density of this particular,
15 the web Dell site itself, is 3. 2 full .
16 So the gross density is well within the
17 maximum of that would be allowed through the transitional
18 zoning, but what I wanted to do then is walk you through
19 it. If you were then to apply the traditional zoning
20 standards to this particular development, keeping the unit
21 number the same at 805 , your difference in population
22 would be significant. our averages have shown us
23 throughout the country that the number of people that live
24 in a Del webb average home is at 1. 8, and that is much
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
43
1 different than your typical neighborhood .
2 Your typical neighborhood, if it is a four
3 bedroom detached home in Yorkville , I think your ordinance
4 calls for 3. 75 . If it is a five bedroom, it is 3 . 749.
5 So really, both 3 . 75 , and if you applied
6 that same number to the number of homes , 805 , that would
7 give you 3000 residents as compared to 1500 residents , so
8 you are having half of the amount of residents . what that
9 does for you , in terms of your infrastructure , everything
10 that is related to your infrastructure costs or anything
11 that is related to your maintenance, anything related to
12 the actual usage of your sewer capacity, and your water
13 capacity, it is much diminished within the Del Webb , so
14 that being said , I think that really raps it up for our
15 presentation .
16 we went over this at the previous meeting
17 and we are available for any questions .
18 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you. Are there
19 questions or concerns from the audience? we are in public
20 hearing . The gentlemen in the back, please?
21 MR. MURPHY: Mr. chairman , Jerry Murphy, 43w904
22 Baseline Road , Sugar Grove, and I just wanted to address
23 one concern that I have brought up previously, but I ' d
24 like to pin down the Mayor on some sort of response on
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
44
1 this , so actually I' ve drafted it in the form of a letter
2 to the Mayor, and if I can, I ' d like to read it into the
3 record .
4 "Dear Mayor Prochaska, I ' ve been attending
5 the Yorkville Planning Commission meetings regarding the
6 various developments north of Yorkville, specifically the
7 Rugby Farm and Del Webb Pulte Homes Developments between
8 Galena and Baseline Roads west of 47th .
9 I also read with interest about the
10 possible development of the connercheck Farm just to the
11 west.
12 As a property owner The Baseline Road to
13 the north , I have several concerns regarding proposed
14 developments, and I ' m asking you for a written city
15 position regarding one of these concerns.
16 I would like to know if there are plans for
17 additional municipal wells for the north of Yorkville, and
18 if so, is it likely to have an adverse effect on those of
19 us, individual home owners who have their own wells in
20 either north Kendall or south Kane counties .
21 Also, if such a municipal well were to be
22 dug, and it did affect private wells , what remedy is
23 available to the well owners by the city of Yorkville, and
24 I hate to be picky here, but I 'm asking whether a
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
45
1 specific city policy exists -- whether a specific city
2 policy exists covering this contingency, and if not, if it
3 comes under other state or Federal law.
4 I would hope that the City would be in the
5 position to answer a question . I look forward to a timely
6 response. Jerry Murphy.
7 MAYOR PROCHASKA: Okay. Do you have the letter?
8 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Anything else?
10 THE WITNESS: Well , I have a number of concerns ,
11 but I have to admit that the folks from Del Webb and Pulte
12 have been very good about addressing most of my questions,
13 so actually most of those got addressed prior to you.
14 The one standing out, I realize they have
15 engineered a 50-foot buffer zone along the edge of
16 Baseline Road , and Matt has offered to work with us as far
17 as the different landscaping, et cetera. Because the one
18 thing I want the planning commission to also take into
19 consideration when you look at that buffer zone , is not
20 just width , but it would also be whatever the plan thinks
21 the height is in there too, because the grade differential
22 between the north side of the road and south side of the
23 road is probably between 8 and 10 feet. And even coming
24 down Mile Road , there is going to be shining headlights
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
46
1 directly in those backyards of people who have lots there
2 unless there are plans, not to mention I will be looking
3 out my front porch in the rear backyard and visa-versa,
4 but we hope to accomplish that in conversations .
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you. Anybody
6 else wish to express their concerns?
7 (No response . )
8 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Hearing none, I will
9 end that portion of the Del Webb Development, and we' ll
10 move forward to Item number three , PC 2205-37. Corneils
11 Crossing, LLC. United City of Yorkville requesting
12 rezoning for Kendall County, K1, the united City of
13 Yorkville R-2 , one-family district real property consists
14 of approximately 15 . 580 acres on the north side, one half
15 mile east of Route 47, Bristol township, Kendall county.
16 And who will be speaking for the petitioner?
17 MR. CARRARA: Good evening, I will . My name is
18 Kevin Carrara, with the law firm of Rathje & Woodward in
19 Wheaton, Illinois . I 'm here today representing the
20 petitioner Corneils Crossing, LLC.
21 with me, this evening, also I have Jim
22 Menard the manager of Corneils ' crossing, LLC, as well as
23 a representative from our land planner and engineer, J . P.
24 Hepner, Jason Weisbrook. As you mentioned
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
47
1 Mr. commissioner, we are here today seeking
2 annexation as well as rezoning to R-2 . Jason has put up
3 two demonstrative exhibits for you this evening. z
4 believe you have the one on the right, that is our land
5 plan. As you see, that will be ultimately coming back for
6 preliminary approval if we are successful here this
7 evening.
8 The second one is a copy of the overall
9 area. I 'm sure everybody in the commission is well aware
10 of the all happenings that have been going on in that
11 area.
12 our property, you can see , is the dotted
13 square portion in the middle that Jason is pointing to.
14 The property to the north is the recently annexed Bristol
15 Bay Synex Development. To the west of us, we have the
16 westbury village , residential on the west side of Route
17 47, and along 47 , according to the comp plan and as part
18 of the developments that have been coming in is commercial
19 property. To the south of us is single-family residences ,
20 and to the east of us is a vacant farm field , but which is
21 slated for future residential development.
22 So, in terms of the overall request for the
23 rezoning for our proposal , we do believe the property will
24 fit in the general compatibility of the surrounding
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
48
1 developments in the area. And as z mentioned Bristol Bay
2 is a combination of R-2 as well as single family, multiple
3 family and some other density uses . The westbury village
4 to the west of Route 47 is also a single-family
5 residential development, as well as z pointed out the
6 future residential parcel to the east is also anticipated ,
7 I believe , the village has had some initial conversations
8 with the owners of that property about future expansion of
9 the residents in the area in that portion of the village,
' 10 at some point in the future .
11 So, overall , when we are looking at our
12 development, you see it is a 15-acre development.
13 currently we have , as I said, an example of our plan shows
14 32-single-family lots.
15 we have, to the north on the Boarderline ,
16 and z will just point to you , just for everybody' s
17 reference, we are showing natural area along this street.
18 That is still subject to discussions with the staff,
19 because just to the north of that is the Bristol Bay
20 development, as well as the regional retention facility
21 that was a part of that annexation agreement.
22 so, should the village or should the staff,
23 and everybody like to see that to be a part of either
24 donated to the city or as made into a natural area,
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
49
1 overlooking that natural area, we are still open to
2 suggestions on that, and actually as you see , we do have
3 it shown in a natural native vegetation planting as it
4 shows currently.
5 To the south you can see the first three
6 lots . Those lots , as you can see , are much bigger than
7 the lots further into the development. That was a
8 discussion from the preconcept meeting we had from our
9 initial plan , that the comp plan in that -- for this area,
10 actually just north of Corneils Road there, shows it to be
11 an estate side. So on the front three lots we made those
12 lots bigger to try to -- to try to accommodate and fit
13 better into the future development should there be any to
14 the east or west of us , in terms estate-side proposals.
15 In terms of traffic, we do not anticipate a
16 large impact on the traffic from this development. As you
17 can see there are only 32 lots . corneils Road can handle ,
18 the traffic that would be generated from this proposed
19 project. So we don' t see it as imposing any new or any
20 increased traffic on Corneils that would justify any large
21 scale improvements .
22 obviously as part of the annexation
23 agreement, we are in discussions with staff. You can see
24 along the south boarder we have already anticipated a
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
50
1 future dedication of that right of way, for future
2 expansion for corneils Road should that be necessary.
3 Additionally you can see we have stubbed three streets in
4 development to anticipate future developments .
5 we have one, the first T-intersection you
6 can see there . we have one to the west, should there be
7 development to the west, one going to east, and, again,
8 the two that point to the east, the reason we used those,
9 leaning towards the east is in anticipation of the future
10 development to the east.
11 Again , we think it is just a matter of time
12 before that becomes part of the village , so we tried to
13 develop our plan to accommodate those needs in the future .
14 At this point in time , that really
15 concludes my presentation . we are here, obviously, to
16 answer any questions .
17 The engineer is available, as well as the
18 representative of the petitioner.
19 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Thank you. Are there
20 questions or concerns for the public regarding this
21 development now that we are in public hearing? Yes, sir?
22 MR. ZAJICEK: Yes , thank you. My name is David
23 zajicek. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holland &
24 Knight in Chicago, and in oakbrook Terrace . And that is
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
51
1 spelled z-a-j-i-c-e-k. I concentrate my practice , also in
2 land use and zoning work, and I represent an owner of the
3 property, which I believe is on the south side of
4 Corneils , where the exit comes out, the main road. The
5 plan that I had seen earlier, was the concept plan from
6 04, which I any had the road here. so, I have a couple of
7 concerns , and one is -- I don ' t see a detention here,
8 storm water detention on site, and yet there was such on
9 the earlier plan , in late ' 04, so I don ' t know how the
10 storm water detention is going to be handled . I like to
11 know that.
12 MR. WHITEHOUSE: I can answer that question ,
13 if you want that answered now.
14 MR. ZAJICEK: Great.
15 MR. WHITEHOUSE: what is being proposed right now,
16 and Mr. corneils said something about the open space that
17 it would be open for discussion with the City, whether or
18 not that would be required . And the only way this
19 particular plan that is being presented tonight, would be
20 allowed in the city, is if they did buy into the regional
21 storm water detention facility, which is going to be
22 directly of this . They can do it from an elevation
23 sustained point, they would have to purchase credits and
24 the volume would be provided there, in exchange for that.
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
52
1 So they could not have the storm water detention on their
2 facility, because their site is privy to reach through
3 that basin , so their storm sewers would dump into that
4 basin, and those would have to especially buy into it for
5 capacity.
6 MR. ZAJICEK: I think I understand that,
7 certainly, and we had a detention before about 72 , 000 or
8 an acre-and-a-half so multiply that towards some dollars
9 that would be used for drainage. That is not such a
10 problem.
11 I would be against, and we do, for the
12 record, object to any zoning even if it does meet your
13 comprehensive plan either of R-2 or R-1. I think it
14 probably meets it for R-2 , although I heard some
15 discussion about maybe Lots 1, 2 and 3, being estate-size
16 zoning for your comprehensive plan, but what I ' m concerned
17 about really are that first three lots . This is your
18 first shot at Corneils , and if you drive Corneils , it is a
19 pretty short road , but the houses on each side, including
20 my client' s are lovely. They are setback a minimum of 50
21 feet and most of them are 150 feet, but if you look at the
22 building line on my client' s survey of 50 feet, and her
23 property is setback 150. So anything that is with a
24 setback that is not compatible I believe with what you
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
53
1 have on Corneils ' Drive now, I don ' t think is correct .
2 And if you are going to recommend annexation or zoning
3 tonight, I think the recommendation should certainly be
4 that it be in the R-1 or estate, so we have a 50-foot
5 setback or recommend a minimum of 50-foot setback, on
6 corneils through the annexation agreement situation , which
7 you can recommend, to the board or the city council , and
8 that would show some deference for the homes on corneils
9 both the north side and the south side, and would set a
10 precedent really, for what else you ' re going to see along
11 corneils , and you ' re going to keep the character that
12 corneils has , at least on corneils .
13 what you do in the back, I understand that that is
14 progression , but you ought to keep Corneils the way it is .
15 You have the opportunity to do that tonight.
16 Additionally, your recommendation should be
17 that the facade of that very first house, face corneilis .
18 if you look at the homes on Corneils, they are pretty
19 homes and they have nice fronts . why should they be
20 looking now at the side of someone ' s house? There is
21 enough room in reconfiguring one, two and three , so they
22 could proportion their front window, so to speak onto
23 corneils and with a 50-foot back facing corneils, you
24 know, you have a pretty good press department for keeping
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
54
1 corneils nice the way it is now. I recognize that the
2 south side of corneils is not in the city, but I' m sure --
3 you are a planner and I ' m sure you all agreed to that good
4 planning doesn' t stop with the city limits , and these
5 people on the south side, as well as on the north side may
6 be annexing some day as well .
7 So that is our concern . And I hope you
8 would take that and somehow make your recommendation such
9 that it would include a deference to the setbacks , and to
10 the positioning of homes on corneils.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Thank you.
12 Anybody else with questions and concerns
13 over here?
14 MR. GOZNER: I' m Gene Gozner, G-o-z-n-e-r. I live
15 at 956 corneils Road, and my property would be probably
16 right at the street entrance of the development. I ' ve
17 only got a couple questions. It might be out of your
18 realm of zoning, just correct me .
19 okay. Points of egress, the gentleman
20 earlier pointed out changing it from his original plan
21 we've added some point ever egress , I think he stated
22 those go to a further study of residential development,
23 but according to your 2000 residential development key, in
24 January 2005 , and your color-coded map, those properties
Bridges court Reporting
630-690-6911
55
1 don' t have any reference on them at all .
2 I don' t know if it is blue that would be a
3 point of activity, I guess you were pursuing. Yellow and
4 purple indicate resident areas, and green is commercial .
5 I don' t know if you guys would call this the upper area.
6 16 is the location in question , and all the property on
7 both sides , that have white . They don ' t have white as a
8 standard or not. The other questions I have is , I was
9 going to bring up traffic, but as it is stated now, it
10 doesn' t tie into it, Bristol Bay. I guess traffic isn ' t
11 really a priority issue right at this moment.
12 The only thing I don ' t really like is the
13 statement here on the paper is we are requesting a
14 temporary par two. I would like to agree with the
15 gentleman representing my neighbor. This whole area
16 across the street over one acre lots, usually there is a
17 possible setback on the home. Mr. Gutierrez owns quite a
18 bit of property. Keagen' s property on the other side that
19 is easily three-and-a-half, four acres . I don ' t think R-2
20 zoning would really fit into that area. I believe we are
21 a township. i .don' t know if that makes it estate size or
22 what that exactly makes us , but I just wanted to voice my
23 opinion . You have straight R-2 zoning on here . I am not
24 going to be angry about it, but I will be extremely
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
56
1 disappointed because it is nice and quiet, and that is all'
2 I have to say. Thanks for your time .
3 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you. Ernie?
4 THE WITNESS: My name is Ernesto Gutierrez, and I
5 own Bristol welding Company in Bristol , and in 1969 I came
6 to the united States. My only concern is I ' ve been in
7 business for the last 40 years , and Mr. Cannery told me
8 when I got my permit, there was going to be good for -- I
9 was going to say something different, but I better not.
10 You know what I ' m talking about?
11 Mr. Kennedy said I was going to be an
12 asset to the community. Now I ' m finding out I ' m an ass in
13 the community. How do you like that?
14 All right. But my only concern is that how
15 are these people going to take the smell of my pigs , my
16 chickens , you know? when I spread that good old manuer up
17 there , 31 people are going to smell it, you know? And
18 that is a yearly process of mine , in the fall .
19 of course it doesn ' t take long, but for two
20 or three days they are going to smell the country, that is
21 my only concern, all right?
22 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you , Ernie .
23 MR. GUTIERREZ: You' re welcome.
24 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Other questions or concerns?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
57
1 Mr. zajicek?
2 MR. ZAJICEK: I ' m not going to try, but I have one
3 item I forgot. That is as to the number of lots here , I
4 don' t know if they are asking for any variances or not,
5 but I know in the R-2 we require 80 feet at the building
6 setback line under R-2 , and I can ' t really tell if 15 , 16,
7 17 and 18 are that. we have the radius . It is difficult
8 to tell .
9 So I don ' t know if one has to look at that,
10 if they are going to ask for variances in the annexation
11 agreement. If so, you would think they' d have them here ,
12 but maybe the attorney knows or the engineer knows whether
13 or not those are 80 foot, so what you are being shown is
14 really representative of what they can do or isn ' t. Maybe
15 we can have an answer on that.
16 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: okay. Thank you . Did I see
17 another hand?
18 MS. ROBINSON: Sharon Robinson 9702 Corneils Road .
19 I live down a little ways, but I disagree with the traffic
20 that we are talking about. They are saying that there
21 probably wouldn' t be that much traffic, but the two roads
22 I ' m looking at right now in the back, I know darn well ,
23 they are going to go back into some other development and
24 when those developments come out we are going to have more
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
58
1 cut into Corneils Road. z see it coming. z don' t see it
2 going across the back to can none ball z see it coming
3 right on Corneils Road. So I'm looking at that. There' s
4 minutes here from February ' 05 , where, schoppe said there
5 are three parcels of property on Corneils Road planned for
6 development. He said one has to be developed first to
7 provide access to the other two planned developments .
s where are these other developments? z mean
9 can someone answer that question? Because that is where
10 I 'm going. I believe that these roads that are subbed in
11 right now, are going to go into other developments , and we
12 want to come out on Corneils Road.
13 The other thing I have is a plan when
14 Mr. zeplack first developed Crystal woods 1 and 2 , and
15 there are 15 one-acre lots plus , and every one of them has
16 a minimum of 135 feet across and a 50-foot setback as this
17 gentleman said . And the other ones , at the beginning of
18 Corneils Road are -- of them are 10 acres . Some are two
19 acres, some of them are an acre and-a-half. on that plan
20 there, z don' t see -- z have no idea when this is all
21 being built, but if we are depending on other
22 developments, then why don' t we put the two-acre lots on
23 the front of Corneils Road and put a cul -de-sac on the
24 back side?
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
59
1 They are talking about working with
2 Senteh , and Bristol and I 'm -- according to this plan, I 'm
3 saying a time later on , that this is all going to fall
4 through , and I do have a problem with that. Corneils
5 Road , like we said, Corneils is a cut off from cannonball
6 to 47th. That is all there. And there is a lot of
7 traffic out there right now, and there have been accidents
8 and there is a lot of speeding that goes on the road . It
9 is not patrolled, but it is there . And 31 houses or 32
10 houses , that is probably 62 people coming out of there,
11 not to mention kids that drive too, so that right there is
12 a lot of traffic coming on that road, but like I said, all
13 of Corneils Road there are estate lots of an acre plus .
14 There isn ' t one turned sideways . There are no roads . I
15 can ' t stop what -- I can ' t stop the plan if you vote for
16 it, but it' s your decision. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Thank you .
18 MR. WHITEHOUSE : John , I. don' t know if you want
19 these questions answered while they are fresh?
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: It may help.
21 MR. WHITEHOUSE : Immediately east to the property
22 is a third acre according to the Trust Property, and then
23 east of that is the American National Bank & Trust, which
24 I believe is an inland property. It does have an
•
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
60
1 annexation agreement without continuity with the City that
2 does take a continuous piece of property all the way over
3 to cannonball Trail as she mentioned, but there are two
4 properties . There is no provision in the Bristol Bay
5 annexation agreement, nor a preliminary plan there will be
6 any connection to the south out of Bristol Bay.
7 Most of that area is always open space and
8 part of the storm management area, so the comment earlier
9 about working with Bristol Bay is only with regard to
10 storm water management, and not any connection of any
11 roads , okay? So that is clear.
12 I mean, I did drive Corneils Road again,
13 today, to refresh my memory as to the twist and turns, and
14 the narrow street, and a couple bicycles that were out
15 there; kids, the dogs . It is of very high concern of any
16 additional traffic on that . We did talk at the previous
17 hearing in regard to improvements of this access point, and
18 Route 47, that had been required as part of the
19 transportation impact fees that all development in the City
20 have to contribute to . I think it helps -- may not help Mr.
21 Gazner as much as others , that this access point was moved
22 farther west of the curbings because there is , I believe
23 four or five sharp curbs on corneils before it gets to
24 Cannonball .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
61
1 So, I mean that is a concern that is going
2 to be handled at the preliminary plan , again, as much
3 probably on Mike ' s list to mention here, is this
4 annexation in the one in question is not approved after
5 the preliminary plan or preliminary plan to answer Mr.
6 zajicek' s additional comment regarding the building
7 setback line? They don ' t show those , obviously on this
8 plan . That is something that they are stating here at the
9 public hearing that will be straight R-2 with no
10 variances . I think that is their intent.
11 The code does allow, on a cul -de-sac, a 10
12 percent reduction in that lot with the building set back
13 lot line, so in the cul -de-sac they require a 72-foot
14 width at the building setback line, which would be a 10
15 percent reduction. They would have to prove that at that
16 point, and again , this is a zoning and an annexation
17 request and is not approval for preliminary plan , which
18 would, as you mentioned, would say at this configuration
19 of lots and streets and et cetera, would hold .
20 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you , Jim.
21 James?
22 I wonder if the court reporter can hear
23 you.
24 MR. WHITEHOUSE: The property immediately to the
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
62
1 east, the setback property, are there any plans for that
2 at this time or --
3 MR. WHITEHOUSE: Nothing that the City has seen.
4 THE WITNESS: And I realize that, you know, we are
5 just going for a zoning change, so, you know, probably
6 everything we said doesn ' t apply to anything, but there,
7 again, I don ' t know if you guys rely on the surrounding
8 area as an influence of, you know, what it is, you know we
9 are actually I guess parts of the united City of
10 Yorkville.
11 We are Bristol Township or some township,
12 but like I say, that whole area is , you know, beautiful
13 estate lots.
14 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you . Anybody
15 else?
16 (No response .)
17 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Hearing none, I 'm going
18 to close that portion of the public hearing and we' ll go
19 to Item Number 4; Northwest Comprehensive Plan Map
20 Amendment.
21 MR. SCHOPPE: Hi , I' m Mike Schoppe with Schoppe
22 Design Associates. Our address is 126 South Main Street,
23 Oswego, Illinois. we are here tonight, representing the
24 City of Yorkville.
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
63
1 we ' ve got an assignmentto look at, and
2 that is to look at amending part of the comprehensive plan
3 for a small part of the northern part of; town . It is the
4 west area. It compromises of about 1700 acres and the
5 area is bounded by Galena Road on the north and Route 47
6 on the south. Essentially corneils Road -- I 'm sorry,
7 route 47 on the east, corneils Road on the south ,
8 including a little bit of the property south of Corneils
9 Road, and Elda Main Road on the west, again, that is about
10 1700 acres . And several months ago the city council came
11 to us and asked us to look at modifying some of the lane
12 uses that are on the current comprehensive plan , and the
13 reason for that is that a couple things have been
14 happening over the last -- well , been planned for over the
15 last year.
16 If you remember in the back in February,
17 when we amended the comprehensive plan for the south part
18 of the city, we added a lot of office research and
19 industrial lanes down there , essentially along Prairie
20 Parkway. where Prairie Parkway intersects with Route 71,
21 there is approximately 900 acres of area that we are
22 planning to have developed as ORI uses , all through
23 reserved and industrial uses. Additionally, we ' ve got
24 some plain commercial areas along Route 47 that are
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
64
1 starting to come to fruition shown on the comprehensive
2 plan. Galena Road, cornets Road and up at Route 30, the
3 objective is to consider helping to support that future
4 commercial along Route 47 to change their manufacturing
5 area or z should say some of the nonresidential uses in
6 that area, to residential uses, more roof tops , more
7 population in this area which is 2 to 4 miles away from
8 these developing commercial areas , so that population help
9 support these commercial areas . Currently the land uses
10 we have on the comp plan, there is essentially four of
11 them; the purple , there is the pre-existing comprehensive
12 plan and again , this is the area we are talking about the
13 existing uses in purple , is industrial . The pink color is
14 ORI or office research and industrial , the sand color is
15 transitional and the red is commercial .
16 we also have the green belts that
17 essentially follow the Rock Creek and distributories and
18 the commonwealth Edison line. Those are the areas that
19 make up the open spaces and the proposal is to change ,
20 essentially, the two nonresidential uses, the
21 manufacturing and the ORI uses to a residential use, and
22 we are recommending that that residential use be the
23 suburban neighborhood classification that we essentially
24 have in our comprehensive plan. The new plan, the
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
65
1 amendment that we are recommending, is layed out with
2 alternative number one. You have an alternative number
3 two in your packet, and z will touch base on that quickly.
4 we are looking for the commissioner' s input on that, but
5 essentially we are taking those ORI and changing those
6 over to residential and you can see that the open space
7 system in the area has stayed essentially the same.
8 To the east, we have the ocean Atlantic,
9 the westbury that has been approved, so those land uses
10 are not changed on the existing plan on this amendment,
11 but we Do have some areas that have been developed . we
12 have Kendall County concrete out on Beacher Road , we have
13 a Celtics Gravel Pit to a blacktop facility. we have the
14 old Nelson landfill , essentially along Beacher. And we
15 are looking to recognize those are existing uses out there
16 today. They are in the county, they are existing uses out
17 there today. The balance of the area is still in
18 agriculture not developed, it is just agriculture uses .
19 so we are recommending that the area be
20 thought of as the suburban neighborhood classification ,
21 but some recognition, given the fact there is some
22 existing industrial uses being operated as special uses in
23 Kendall County, and that is the reason that these two
24 circles are etched, and they are noted down on the bottom
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
66
1 of the chart that those are special uses in Kendall
2 County.
3 There is nothing saying that if those were
4 to be annexed or if the city decided to annex those, that
5 those uses would not be permitted. what this plan is
6 saying, in the long term, in the long term vision of the
7 city, that we are looking to have that area be a
8 combination of open space systems and some type of
9 residential use . And, if we were thinking short term,
to very short term, that brings us to an alternative number
11 two, which more directly identifies that there are these
12 existing industrial uses out here on the east and west
13 side of Butcher Road, and that if there were to be
14 residential development around them that were annexed and
15 developed in Yorkville, that there would be some type of
16 open space bumper, be provided around any existing
17 industrial uses , whether that industrial use was in the
18 county or the city. It is just saying that if that mesh
19 takes place , that there should be some open space
20 buffering around it. And that is the reason for preparing
21 alternative Number 2 , and the city Council wanted to get
22 some feedback from the commission on one versus two.
23
24 Again, the only difference is how
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
67
1 those existing uses are depicted , okay? So obviously in
2 addition to holding the public hearing, to get input and
3 your recommendation, they would also like your input on
4 how those uses are treated , okay?
5 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. we are at the end of
6 the public hearing at this point. Are there any questions
7 of Mike on what is being proposed? Yes , sir?
8 MR. ZAJICEK: Yes , I have one. How do you justify
9 keeping the purple industrial next to what you are
to recommending as residential , which is the yellow even the
11 alternative?
12 MR. SCHOPPE: This land here has currently been
13 annexed to Yorkville -- I should say a significant portion
14 of this , about 300 acres has already been annexed to
15 Yorkville and zoned M1, so this purple classification is
16 consistent with the city. And that just took place, that
17 annexation took place probably within the last three or
18 four months .
19 MR. ZAJICEK: And what about the purple in back of
20 there where there is a yellow cut out?
21 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: In here?
22 MR. ZAJICEK: Yes.
23 MR. SCHOPPE: That is on the current plan. The
24 study area we have been assigned is what is in black. And
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
68
1 getting the study area and needing that use fall outside
2 the study area, we are leaving that use as it is currently
3 depicted.
4 MR. ZAJICEK: So however you cut it, your land --
5 your comprehensive map has got residential adjacent to
6 industrial , without any transition anywhere?
7 MR. SCHOPPE: That is correct.
8 MR. ZAJICEK: what do you think of that as a
9 reasonable plan .
10 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: Well , I think because of
11 the ordinances that would apply when these were and
12 sectioned and developed , and the setbacks , landscape that
13 were required, for the existing ordinances that that
14 buffing necessary transition or buffering of some ratio
15 would be adequate to take care of that transition.
16 MR. ZAJICEK: Including this parcel here , that is
17 not an x -- only this is annexed, right?
18 MR. SCHOPPE: Significant portion of this was
19 annexed.
20 MR. ZAJICEK: Which significant portion?
21 MR. SCHOPPE: Both. There is a corner piece right
22 here, and there is an open space that is unannexed,
23 especially with the Commonwealth Edison line in that
24 transfer station and the land below that is annexed and
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
69
1 zoned it.
2 MR. ZAJICEK: But that little box is not.
3 MR. SCHOPPE: That is correct.
4 MR. ZAJICEK: So reasonably that could follow down
5 -- it is not part of your plan , but logically a good plan
6 standpoint, I suppose you could extend the residential .
7 MR. SCHOPPE: It could. if the residential did
8 not extend, then through the annexation agreement, and the
9 existing ordinances that would apply, should this come in
10 for developers , I think we would have adequate transiting
11 between those two lane uses .
12 MR. WYETH: And Mike , if I could point out the
13 yellow area that drops down there, was annexed just last
14 night by counsel . And correct me if I ' m wrong on the
15 exact parcel , I mean that is a parcel . And it is M1
16 underlined was allowed to remain with the R4 allowed to
17 reside within town that comes forward .
18 MR. ZAJICEK: Can you point to where Corneils , LLC
19 is?
20 MR. SCHOPPE: Yes , there is Route 47 and the
21 Corneils Road. Corneils crossing would be right about -- ,
22 MR. ZAJICEK: No, no. I 'm sorry, the 15-acre plan
23 that we just saw --
24 MR. SCHOPPE: It is . Corneils lies east of 47, so
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
70
1 that would be about where my hand is .
2 MR. ZAJICEK: I see, okay. Thank you .
3 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Other questions or comments.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I' m sorry. The corner of
5 Route 47? what does --
6 COMMISSIONER SCHOPPE: The red color indicates
7 commercial .
8 MR. KRAMER: Good evening. For the record, my
9 name is Dan Kramer. I 'm an attorney licensed to practice
10 law and practice here in Yorkville . we have, I believe ,
11 about 12 or 13 of the land owners here tonight, and we
12 represent a group of about 20 that owns the overwhelming
13 majority of acreage that Mr. schoppe has undertaken to
14 review in this plan.
15 All of them, I think without exception , are
16 at least third generation farm owners of property, and I
17 think we are probably the ones that got the ball rolling,
18 and it may be somewhat to your shegrin in that you
19 probably think we have enough residential already, but I
20 think it is a healthy dose of realism that brought the
21 farmers here. All of them view it if they want to
22 continue farming not only the third generation now, but
23 more generations , they can , regardless of what the zoning
24 is, but at this point, we just don' t feel the
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
71
1 comprehensive plan is in step with the reality of the
2 situation . when you look on the existing comprehensive
3 plan and you see that 1500 acres or so, dark purple mass,
4 as we talked about with the city counsel at community
5 development, community as a whole, most communities when
6 they develop -- and it is poor communities , rich
7 communities , middle class communities generally have a mix
8 of about 12 to 14 percent of their land area between
9 retail , commercial and manufacturer.
10 You get some oddities like in oak Brook
11 that is very heavy retail and virtually no manufacturing,
12 but those really are an oddity inland plan , and z think we
13 too often we give Mike the task and say look at some
14 pretty colors up there , but we don ' t look at the economic
15 side either, and z think we can make that work positive
16 for Yorkville.
17 we think Route 47 as Mike probably does, as
18 a professional manner is this is going to be a dynamite
19 commercial/retail area, and that is really where the
20 future of the Yorkville is as far as economic development
21 income . That 300 acre large parcel that is on that is
22 annexed and zoned city now, sat annexed for a heavy
23 manufacturer in the county, so if it was there and was
24 that need in the community, but we think about preserving
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
72
1 that 6300 acre parcel near the railroad tracks on an all
2 weather road on Elderbain makes all the sense in the world
3 and that is our chance to get the big users that we have
4 with Amberall and Wrigley we hope to get some more of
5 those, but we think making the transition from the
6 existing plan , to either of the alternatives , Mike has, to
7 residential makes more sense , and our land owners , all
8 highly support that.
9 The only comments that we would like to see
10 taken into account that might maybe wants to look at the
11 refined , and you want to get some comment on , is one of
12 the landowners on the transition area, has acquired other
13 property adjacent to it, and frankly is looking at a large
14 recreational facility, a golf course, which would be a
15 plant development, a master development in the community,
16 and we think we may look at possibly some more of the
17 transition zoning, which isn' t necessarily a reach if that
18 element goes in , but is something we would like to at
19 least look at and consider.
20 Now, in terms of the overall suburban,
21 again, we think the larger lots will feather up to the
22 fringes of those areas where the residential goes . we may
23 want some transition zoning next to the heavier red
24 circles Mike shows along Elderbain and Galena, and , again ,
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
73
1 we hope along Elderbain and corneils right across from the
2 purple that retained that big 300 acre lot. If you look
3 at something, and I 'm not suggesting anything near the
4 density of FOX valley village, but that is classic land
5 planning, where you have the heavy commercial like you
6 would on Route 47 here. You feather in the with the
7 transition , townhouse or duplex in between, and you go to
8 single family and the larger lot single family keeps
9 radiating out in concentric circles and that is what we
10 would see happening. Along the Elderbain that we would
11 help, again , it is premature for the red up there now, but
12 Mike is be looking 5 to 20 years and, again , we think that
13 would be a dynamite commercial corner, but if it is a
14 dynamite commercial corner, you are not going to have this
15 necessarily high end single family next to it, and I ' m not
16 saying apartments , but you are probably going to have
17 active adult or a product that can walk to that center or
18 you are going to have attached housing and then feather
19 into the middle , lower density areas for your high end
20 single-family lots , but we think overall Mike has done a
21 great job. Either plan I think works , alternative number
22 one or two. we have no problem taking into account from
23 any of these 16 land owners , the fact that the existing
24 manufacturing agents are there . They are there first,
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
74
1 anybody coming to them, we but do something like the
2 county does , the right to farm type clauses , only in
3 reverse . The right to operate manufacturer. If you are
4 going there there are going to be trucks there . waive
5 your right to object to those sort of things .
6 we also see , when Mike did Alternative
7 Number one , we didn ' t necessarily have the bubbles there,
8 again , he was taking the long view, saying, what do we see
9 20 years down the road , and some of those businesses , like
10 Aurora blacktop. Kendall county concrete , they need to be
11 kind of the vanguard of the next few years they will do
12 great there because of all the building around it.
13 Twenty years from now when it is built out,
14 they are going to want to be on the fringe , exactly.
15 Feltes is a little bit of an anomaly in the
16 sense that it was a gravel pit. It is open water now.
17 Frankly if there is a golf course developed next to it the
18 water won' t be harmful . It would be beautiful to
19 incorporate it in because if you go out there now it looks
20 like a little bit like the aftermath of the world war III
21 because there are miles of broken concrete . so it is not
22 paying a good tax bill to the county or the City, so if it
23 could be incorporated into the golf course , boy now we are
24 hitting a home run and the city is getting taxes and we
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
75
1 use that open water for beautiful recreational amenities ,
2 but that can be dealt with whether they want it developed
3 or not. And like z said, z don' t think Aurora Black Top
4 or Kendall county Concrete could be dismolded by either of
5 those plans. we are willing to take those into account.
6 Again , it is not saying every one of these property owners
7 are going to come in and say tomorrow. Some will farm for
8 a long time, but it gives them the freedom of choice . so
9 we are wholeheartedly in favor of the plan we would like
10 to see a little bit more if transition zoning and I have
11 to give the Mayor credit, sitting behind me . Mr. wyeth
12 indicated last night that we complete amendment south of
13 corneils Road , and we did something a little bit unusual
14 that the Plan Commission has gone along with before. we
15 gave flexor floating zoning where we kept the underlying
16 manufacturing and gave the residential on top of it, and
17 basically said , let the market decide which way it is
18 going to go and that may be a way to treat the Aurora
19 Blacktop, and the Kendall County property, that we keep
20 it manufacturing , but with the idea that there is always
21 the subcommit, the plan that if they are able to be
22 relocated to the City, which would be wonderful because
23 they are outside the City now, so we are not getting --
24 all the better for both of us. So thank you very much .
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
76
1 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Thank you . Any other
2 comments?
3 (No response. )
4 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Okay. Hearing none, then that
5 ends that portion of the public hearing and with that, I
6 would entertain a motion to adjourn the public hearing.
7 COMMISSIONER CROUCH: So moved.
8 COMMISSIONER JONES: Second .
9 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: We need a second to adjourn
10 the public hearing. Any discussion?
11 (No response . )
12 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those in favor
13 by signify by saying aye .
14 (Chorus of ayes. )
15 CHAIRMAN LINDBLOM: Opposed? That ends the public
16 hearing.
17 (WHICH were all the proceedings heard
18 this time, date and place . )
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
77
1 I , DEBORAH A. BRIDGES, certified Shorthand
2 Reporter for the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that
3 the foregoing was reported by stenographic and mechanical
4 means, which matter was held on the date, and at the
5 time and place set out on the title page hereof and that
6 the foregoing constitutes a true and accurate transcript
7 of same .
8
9 I further certify that I am not related to
10 any of the parties , and I have no financial interest in
11 the outcome of this matter.
12
13 I have hereunder subscribed my hand on the
14
15
16 * day of , / 6,A)5
17
18
19
20
21 (/' /
•
�
22 DEBORAH A. BRIDGES
23 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
1 OFFICIAL SEAL"
DEBORAH A. BRIDGES
2 4 EXPIRES 09/18/06
Bridges Court Reporting
630-690-6911
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PETITION APPLICATION LOG November 3, 2005
NAME PETITIONER TYPE OF DATE STATUS
APPLICATION OF AP
Wynstone Townhome Dev. Wyndham Deerpoint PUD 2/11/05 Pending Per Developer
Silver Fox Midwest Dev. Annex & Zoning 12/7/04 Pending Fox Road Traffic Study
Preliminary Plan
Schramm Property Donald Schramm Annex & Zoning 4/12/05 Pending
218 acres SE corner of Rt. 30 & Rt. 47
Aspen Ridge Estates Aspen Ridge Estates LLC Annex & Zoning 1/12/05 Pending Fox Road Traffic Study
Preliminary Plan
Kendallwood Estates (Willman Property) John Tomasik Preliminary Plan 4/15/05 11/9/05 Plan Comm
Harris Woods Woodlands & Meadowbrook Concept Plan 5/6/05 Pending per Developer's Request
Homes
Eldamain Center for Business Inland Concept PUD Plan 6/7/05 Pending submittal of Preliminary PUD Plan
4.5 Acre Commercial Site Woodlands, Inc. Annex& Zoning 6/10/05 Pending per Developer's Request
East of Rts. 34 & 47
20.375 acres West of YBSD facility Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District Annex& Zoning 6/16/05 Pending drafting of Annexation Agreement
Evergreen Farm Estates Tanglewood Dev. Corp. Annex& Zoning 7/7/05 Public Hearing @ 12/13/05 City Council
Preliminary Plan
Corneils Crossing Corneils Crossing LLC Annex, Zoning& 7/14/05 11/15/05 COW
Prelim. Plan
10701 Route 71 Daniel Laniosz Annex& Zoning 8/17/05 Pending submittal of draft Annexation Agreement
McHugh Professional Building - 1100 McHugh Payne Onishi Annex& Zoning 8/19/05 Pending submittal of draft Annexation Agreement
Oak Grove Subdivision Ron Tucek 1 1/2 Mile Review 9/30/05 11/9/05 Plan Comm
Windett Ridge Unit 3 (Dhuse Property) Wiseman-Hughes Concept Plan 10/4/05 11/17/05 Plan Council
708-710 S. Bridge Street Van Riper Insurance Agency Rezoning 10/6/05 Public hearing @ 11/9/05 Plan Comm
Kleinwatcher Herb & Pam Kleinwatcher Annex& Zoning 10/17/05 Public hearing @12/14/05 Plan Comm
Hudson Lakes Kendall Creek Development Concept Plan 10/19/05 11/9/05 Plan Comm
Grande Reserve Unit 12 Pasquinelli - Mill Crossing LLC Preliminary/Final Plat 11/1/05 12/1/05 Plan Council
Grande Reserve Unit 13 Pasquinelli - The Commons LLC Preliminary/Final Plat 11/1/05 12/1/05 Plan Council
tILIFT:
Plan Council
October 27,2005
Attendees:
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates
Scott Sleezer, Parks Dept. Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
William Dunn, Engineering Enterprises Tim Fairfield, Bristol-Kendall Fire Dept.
Bart Olson, Administrative Intern Sgt. Ron Diederich, Policy Dept.
Guests:
Attorney Dan Kramer Tom Small, MPI
Jason Nijim, MPI John Zediker, MPI
Wendy Yaksich, MPI John Martin, Jen Land Design
The meeting was called to order at 9:50 a.m. by Mr. Wywrot. The October 13, 2005 minutes
were approved with corrections.
PC 205-49 Oak Grove Subdivision - 1 1/2 Mile Review:
Attorney Kramer gave an overview and stated that this project was reviewed by the City about
two years ago regarding the zoning issue and received a positive recommendation from the Plan
Commission and City Council. The biggest issue is with Timber Creek, which has become the
area detention. Based on this,the petitioner has put in sizeable ponds with an extra 2 1/2 acres of
detention which is over and above what is required for this subdivision just as a safety net. The
plan has a curb and storm system profile and does not have sidewalks, however, there is a trail
system in lieu thereof.
Mr. Wywrot stated that he saw the plan and the trail system doesn't serve the pedestrian
movement throughout the subdivision.
Land Planning comments:
1. Should this property ever be annexed, it would likely be zoned Estate Class One - Family
Residence District. The minimum lot size in this district is one acre, although the proposed
lot design does not meet these standards,there is significantly more open space. The
increase in the open space is an appropriate trade off for the smaller lots.
2. Either sidewalks or a trail system abutting each lot should be provided.
Engineering comments:
1. All right-of-way lines at intersections and the necks of cul-de-sacs should be rounded off with
25' radii. The cul-de-sac ROW radii should be 65 feet.
Page 1 of 5
2. The intersection of Long Grove Road and Highpoint Road should be at least 400 feet from the
Tanglewood Trails Drive intersection.
3. The cul-de-sac at Lots 27-30 is too long to be considered an eyebrow cul-de-sac. This
roadway should have a separate name.
4. The Utility Easement language should also grant rights to Kendall Township and Kendall
County.
Attorney Kramer responded that all plat issues have been given to their engineer, Jim
Nanninga, and he will make changes if he has no trouble working them in and after
consulting with Fran Klaas.
5. A City public sidewalk or an expanded trail system should be constructed along the frontage
of all lots and along the Highpoint Road frontage to give access to each lot.
6. Sheet 2: Streetlight#2 should be moved to the lot 23/24 common lot line. Streetlight#4
should be moved to the lot 19/20 common lot line Provide streetlight details.
7. Sheet 7: A flat area at least 10 feet wide should be provided between the top of the slope of
Basin A and the sidewalk along Highpoint Road.
8. Sheet 14: Long Grove Road is proposed to be 35-feet wide B-B, and Acorn Drive is
proposed to be 33-feet wide. Both roads appear to be unnecessarily wide. They could both
be reduced to 30-feet B-B.
Attorney Kramer responded that the County requires the clear cut of right-of-ways.
When there is curb and gutter in a wooded subdivision they will let you take it down to
60 feet to preserve trees. This plan is following County requests/requirements.
BKFPD comments:
1. Acorn Drive -Name needs to be changed, Acorn Lane already exists.
2. The smaller cul-de-sac is too long to be considered an eyebrow, it needs a"court"name.
This project is moving on to the October 27th Park Planning Meeting and November 9th Plan
Commission.
PC 2005-13 MPI South- Concept PUD Plan:
Mr. Wywrot stated water and sanitary financing needs to be worked out and will not be
discussed at this time and will be addressed through the annexation agreement.
Page 2 of 5
Wheeler Road: Earlier meetings were had to talk about how roadways compare to the City
wide transportation plan. Wheeler Road was supposed to align with the section line heading
west toward Lisbon Road or bending southwest of Immanuel. City is looking for MPI South to
demonstrate if that was feasible, show what type of floodplain issues there are for Immanuel, any
property line issues, demonstrate that the other would be a better option. Mr. Schoppe asked if
this information could be provided to the city via the preliminary plan. Mr. Martin responded
that if the road was put in the location where the comprehensive plan called for it, it couldn't be
accomplished today because the petitioner doesn't control the triangle piece of property on the
section line by the cemetery. Mr. Schoppe asked what the physical problems were to build the
road where it was shown on Smith's plans. Mr. Small responded that the road would terminate
in land they don't own and cross at the juncture of two major streams. Also, Wheeler is to be an
east/west collector and tie into Lisbon Road. Mr. Schoppe asked that the additional information
regarding the floodplain be submitted with their preliminary plan submittal.
Residential interior connections and connection between commercial areas: Mr. Dhuse
stated that the city was going to ask for interior connections from neighborhoods two to three and
seven to nine. Mr. Small responded that they have a pedestrian trail that could function as an
emergency access. Mr. Wywrot stated that the city is not in favor of using emergency access
roads. Mr. Small stated they have been very successful using neighborhoods and doesn't want
thru roads going through those neighborhoods. Mr. Dhuse stated the city was looking for a
crossing over the creek some where between Rt. 47 and Immanuel Road. Mr. Wywrot stated it
could be a minor collector but that would be verified by the traffic study. Mr. Schoppe stated
that a convenient access should be provided to get to the school site without relying on the
perimeter roads. Mr. Small reiterated that they did not want an internal collector road running
through the middle of the development. Mr. Schoppe stated that when the city had Smith
prepare the transportation report it showed the major roads and out of that process it identified
that essentially every interior square mile would have another north/south and east/west road that
would serve to get to the perimeter road. Mr. Wywrot stated that the City Council has indicated
the desire to not have to rely upon county roads or a busy state highway to accomplish getting
from the north end of a development to the south end. The petitioner responded that they would
take another look at it.
Parks: Mr. Sleezer asked to confirm that the Land Cash requirement is +/- 50 acres. Mr. Small
stated they are providing additional open space which is above the requirement. Mr. Sleezer
stated that one of the Park Board's concerns is the half mile radius, to the north more park site
was needed at the school site. Petitioner stated that all park sites are expandable. Mr. Sleezer
stated that the park site at neighborhood 8 is not needed and suggested moving it to the west side
of neighborhood 9 because that area is not served by the half mile radius. Mr. Small thought it
was a sizable neighborhood requiring a park. Mr. Small stated it could be moved to the
northwest corner by the water tower site for expansion with neighboring developments. Mr.
Small asked if this project was the best site for the water tower. Mr. Dhuse stated that if it was
going to be a well treatment facility and storage site he would have to confer with Engineering
Enterprises. Mr. Sleezer stated that neighborhood nine was not served by a park and a small site
was needed. Mr. Wywrot suggested that maybe another park could be downsized to provide for
this. Mr. Small suggested that this requirement could possibly be served by a surrounding
development. Mr. Schoppe suggested locating a small park on the west side of neighborhood
Page 3 of 5
nine that could be expanded by other developments providing one central park and that this was
an issue that the Park Board could address. Mr. Sleezer asked about the park site between
neighborhood 13 & 14, what is the park/club meaning, is it public/private? Ms. Yaksich
responded that it has been identified as a site for a private recreational amenity, possibly another
pool.
Mr. Sleezer stated that in looking at the minutes from the March and September meetings, the
Park Board felt strongly about the 50/50 land split so that they would have money to develop the
parks.
Fire: Mr. Fairfield stated that the fire station site was ok.
Police: Sgt. Diederich stated that the police did not have any problems with this plan.
Frontage Road: Mr. Dhuse and Mr. Wywrot stated that the Council has expressed a desire for a
frontage road in developments to provide for access to commercial along Rt. 47. Mr. Schoppe
stated that this could possibly be accomplished by a series of internal roads to serve as a corridor.
Resolution Locating Utilities Underground: Mr. Wywrot brought this resolution to the
attention of the petitioner stating that it needs to be talked about and negotiated in the agreement.
Deuchler's Proposal to add this property to the FPA: Mr. Small stated that they will not
support this until they have some idea where they are in the approval process. They need
resolution with the city, such as does the city like the plan? They would like an understanding of
the sewer and water. Basically they want affirmation that this project is coming to Yorkville.
They would also like a guarantee on sewer capacity and resolve how water is to be funded.
They need specifics to facilitate making this happen quicker.
Mr. Schoppe stated that based on the data that was given,this plan is consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan. There is not enough information to tell if the plan is consistent with the
design guidelines. He stated neighborhood 14 is single family,however, because it is on Caton
Farm, and next to commercial and open space, it seems like a logically place for multifamily.
Mr. Martin responded that with the percentages it would make the multifamily number higher.
Mr. Small stated that they would look into it. Mr. Schoppe stated that the unit count is consistent
and that more information is needed to review the open space. He also stated that the plan is
consistent with the Transportation Plan and School Site study. Mr. Schoppe will setup a meeting
with the School District, the city and the petitioner.
Mr. Small stated that they understand the water and sewer and just need to know how it is going
to be paid for and who is paying for what. Until they get that feedback from the city, they are at
a loss. Mr. Wywrot stated that in order for that decision to be made the city would need to know
what we are building and how much it is going to cost, will it be phased, etc. This is all part of
the preliminary plan process.
The petitioner asked what the next step was. Mr. Schoppe responded that it would be filing an
application for annexation, zoning and submitting a preliminary plan. Mr. Small stated that they
Page 4 of 5
want some assurance that this project is coming to Yorkville before they go through the effort of
producing preliminary plans. Mr. Wywrot stated that in order to address the concerns of the
petitioner in regard to water and sewer, with all other preliminary plan issues aside, the city
would need population projections, which they already have. Also needed are the proposed
location of storage supply and distribution lines. The city would need to know of that
infrastructure what would the petitioner be asking to bond for. Mr. Small stated that he needed
to know how the water is being paid for, with this information they can make a decision. Mr.
Small stated the same thing with the sewer district, they have given them a solution they think
will work but if they don't buy it, then there is a problem. Mr. Small stated that there is a
problem with treatment plant capacity and that they need answers to these two things so that they
can make a decision. They want to make sure that they don't spend all the money for this
infrastructure and then end up with no treatment plant capacity. Mr. Wywrot stated to Mr. Dunn
that the city would need something from EEI recommending that there be "x" dollars worth of
infrastructure in place, by what time and can it be phased or not. Then it would be up to Finance
Director Pleckham, City Attorney Wyeth and the City Council to make the decision if we can do
it.
The meeting ended at 11:42 a.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Elizabeth D'Anna, Administrative Assistant
Page 5 of 5
pc,..: 4f)._co7____ Etc,
`c°o c17.1" United City of Yorkville Memo
800 Game Farm Road
Est.14 IMO 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-8545
,ice p
o Fax: 630-553-3436
Kandea Cour* 41P
Date: October 21, 2005
To: Liz D'Anna, Administrative Assistant
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer v,.
CC:
Subject: Oak Grove Subdivision—Plat& Plan Review
I have reviewed the proposed plat dated 9/16/05 and plan dated 9/15/05 for the referenced
development and have the following comments:
Plat
• All right-of-way lines at intersections and the necks of cul-de-sacs should be
rounded off with 25' radii.
• The cul-de-sac ROW radii should be 65 feet.
• The intersection of Long Grove Road and Highpoint Road should be at least 400
feet from the Tanglewood Trails Drive intersection. They are proposed to be
about 290 feet apart.
• The cul-de-sac at Lots 27-30 is too long to be considered an eyebrow cul-de-sac.
This roadway should have a separate name.
• The Utility Easement language should also grant rights to Kendall Township and
Kendall County.
• A blanket utility easement should be dedicated over Outlots A and B.
• The typical lot detail should be revised to have utility and drainage easements
dedicated along the side and rear lot lines, not just drainage easements.
Plan
General:
• I will defer to Kendall County regarding review of the storm sewer design and
detention pond volumes. See below for pond grading comments.
• Public sidewalk should be constructed along the frontage of all lots and along the
Highpoint Road frontage. Provide a sidewalk detail.
• Provide a striping and signage plan.
• Provide an erosion and sediment control plan.
• Provide information on the landscaping proposed for the detention basins.
• Provide benchmark data.
k
Sheet 2:
• Streetlight#2 should be moved to the Lot 23/24 common lot line. Streetlight#4
should be moved to the Lot 19/20 common lot line. Provide a streetlight details.
Sheet 7:
• A flat area at least 10 feet wide should be provided between the top of the slope of
Basin A and the sidewalk along Highpoint Road.
Sheet 13:
• Provide a special detail and/or cross-section for the bottom of Pond A.
Sheet 14:
• The curb radii at Highpoint Road should be 40 feet.
• Long Grove Road is proposed to be 35-feet wide B-B, and Acorn Drive is
proposed to be 33-feet wide. Both roads appear to be unnecessarily wide. They
could both be reduced to 30-feet B-B.
Sheet 18:
• All cul-de-sac radii should be 50 feet to the back of curb.
Sheet 20:
• Highpoint Road is a collector road, and should be widened to collector road width
at least through the re-construction zone.
Sheet 37:
• All new or reconstructed roadways should have Amoco 4551 non-woven
geotextile fabric or approved equal placed at subgrade to 12 inches back-of-curb
or to the edge of shoulder.
• Curb and gutter should be B6-12.
• The Highpoint Road typical section should call for 4.5 inches of Bituminous
Binder Course.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please see me.
Oct . 20. 2005 4: 17PM No• 9745 P• 3/3
ft) (): CC ,S— (c(
yl
Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
126 S. Main St, Ph, (630) 551-3355
Oswego, IL 60543 Fax(630) 551-3639
October 20, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Art Prochaska
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Oak Grove Subdivision—Tucek Property
We have reviewed the Final Plat dated 9/16/05 prepared by Phillip D. Young and Associates.
We recommend that the City recommend to Kendall County approval of the plan subject to
addressing the following comments.
General
1. Should this property ever be annexed to the City of Yorkville, it would likely be zoned
Estate Class One—Family Residence District. The minimum lot size in this district is
one acre, with a minimum lot width of 200'. Although the proposed lot design criteria
does not meet these standards, it should be pointed out that there is significantly more
open space being proposed in this project than would be required by City Ordinance. We
estimate that under city ordinances, approximately 8 — 10 acres (15% - 20%) would be
required. The project is proposing 21.3 acres (43%). We suggest that the increased open
space is an appropriate trade off for the smaller lots.
2. The plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendations
1. The proposed front yard setback of 50' is consistent with City standards.
2. Either sidewalks or a trail system abutting each lot should be provided.
Please call with any questions or comments.
CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
John Wyeth, City Attorney
Pegs 1 or,
PC, CCC - ic
52 Wheeler Road • Sugar Grove, IL 60554
1411
TEL: 630/466-9350
FAX: 630/466-9380
www.eeiweb.com
Engineering
Enterprises,
Inc.
November 1, 2005
Mr. Joseph A. Wywrot, P.E.
City Engineer
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Re: Kendallwood Estates, Preliminary Plan Review, United City of Yorkville, Kendall
County, Illinois
Dear Mr. Wywrot:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plan for the referenced Willman Subdivision consisting of
the following material received to date:
• Preliminary Plan Application and Petition by John Tomasik, dated April 8, 2005.
• Preliminary Plat of Subdivision prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 2 sheets with latest revision date of September 20, 2005.
• Preliminary Engineering Plan prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
consisting of 4 sheets with latest revision date of October 21, 2005.
• Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by SEC Planning Consultants consisting of 5
sheets with initial issue date of August 10, 2005.
• Engineering Report for The Willman Property prepared by Smith Engineering
Consultants, Inc. dated April 7, 2005 which includes the following:
> Summary
> Location Map
➢ USGS Photo Exhibit
> Kendall County Soils Map
> Flood Insurance Rate Map 170341 0075 C
➢ Tree Survey
> Wetland Delineation Report
Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
Mr.Joseph A.Wywrot
November 1,2005
Page 2 of 5
➢ Soils Report
➢ 1HPA Correspondence
➢ IDNR Correspondence
➢ USF&WS Correspondence
General
1. No part of the proposed development is located within a Special Flood Hazard
Area as identified by FEMA based on Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
170347 0001, dated June 1, 1982.
2. Permits or Sign-offs will be required from the following agencies:
a. (IDNR) Consultation Agency Action Report regarding endangered -
threatened species or natural areas. A clearance letter was received
December 30, 2004 from IDNR for the original property and an additional
request for clearance has been submitted to IDNR.
b. (IHPA) Division of Preservation Services regarding Historic and
Archaeological Resources. In a letter dated December 6, 2004 (Log #
025111704) the IHPA has requested a Phase I reconnaissance survey. This
Phase I reconnaissance should be expanded to include all of the current
subdivision.
c. Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District regarding Sanitary Sewer Facilities.
d. (TEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding Sanitary Sewer
Facilities.
e. (TEPA) Division of Public Water Supplies regarding water supply and
distribution.
f. (TEPA) Division of Water Pollution Control regarding a Notice of Intent (NOT)
General permit to discharge storm water.
g. Illinois Department of Transportation, District 3 regarding point of access to
Illinois Route 126 and any required improvements.
We recommend that items a, b and g be received prior to Preliminary Plan approval. Items
c, d, e &f will be required prior to the start of construction activities.
3. A Natural Resource Information Report should be applied for and prepared by
the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District and submitted for
review.
G:\Public\Yorkville\2004\Y00430 Kendallwood Estates of Yorkville(Wilman Property)\docsMwywrotPrelimPlan04.doc
Mr.Joseph A.Wywrot
November 1,2005
Page 3 of 5
4. A Preliminary Stormwater Management Report should be prepared and
submitted for review.
5. A Traffic Study should be prepared and submitted for review.
Streets and Right of Way
6. All block lengths substantially conform to City Standards with the exception of
Benjamin Street between Rodak Street and Dydyna Court. However, due to the
unique nature of this property, we feel the proposed block length of 1500 feet
versus the City maximum of 1320 is warranted.
7. Proposed street names have been provided on the Plat and Plan. A list of the
proposed street names should be submitted to the U. S. Postal Service and to
KENCOM for approval. A copy of the letter approving the names should be
submitted to the City for their records. One name should be drawn from the
City's list of historic names. _
8. Sidewalk improvements will be required along Van Emmon (Limits to be
determined). Improvements within the Van Emmon right-of-way will be subject
to review and approval by Mr. Fran Klaas, County Engineer, Kendall County
Highway Department.
Water Mains
9. Water main routing, looping and extensions for future use appear adequate as
presented except as noted below. The proposed system will be input into the
City's water model prior to our final recommendations during final engineering
review.
10.The water main stub at Lot 86 will need to be shown in an easement
11. Detailed review of fire hydrant and valve locations will be accomplished at Final
Engineering.
12.This development contains property in both the North Central and South Central
water system pressure zones. The modeling of the proposed improvements will
identify the need for pressure reducing valves, etc.
Sanitary Sewers
13. The internal preliminary sanitary sewer layout appears adequate as presented
except as noted below and provides service to all proposed lots.
G:\Public\Yorkville\20041Y00430 Kendaliwood Estates of Yorkville(Wilman Property)\docs\IwywrotPrelimPlan04.doc
Mr.Joseph A.Wywrot
November 1,2005
Page 4 of 5
14. It is anticipated that the Com Ed interceptor sewer will be available for use by
this development. The location and elevation of that interceptor will need to be
verified at Final Engineering.
Storm Sewers
15. We concur with the Conservation Design Forum's recommendation that the
wetland delineation be updated using data acquired during the proper growing
seasons in order to more properly identify any vegetative or hydrologic
conditions that will verify the presence or absence of hillside seeps.
16.A number of storm sewer runs are shown in the preliminary engineering plans
that discharge to the west without the benefit of detention or storm water control.
The overall stormwater plan should be redesigned to incorporate these areas.
Please provide the necessary Stormwater Report with the redesign.
17.When redesigning the storm sewer, the designer should avoid discharging
stormwater at the tops of slopes or hillsides.
18.We recommend the incorporation of wetland buffers into your
stormwater/wetland design.
19. Standard erosion and sediment control measures will need to be implemented
and diligently maintained until this site is revegetated.
Preliminary Plat of Subdivision
20. The Plat should be signed by the Professional Land Surveyor. Further, the
bearings and distances shown on the Plat around the boundary of the
subdivision should be reconciled with the legal description.
21. A complete layout of the stormwater management basin on lot 96 and site data
150 feet beyond the basin should be shown.
22.Owner's names for all parcels within 200 feet of the limits of the development
should be shown.
23.The location of Benchmark #2 should be described with at least one dimension
to a known cross-street and property line.
24. Please show existing intersection locations along Route 126 in order to verify
that proper spacing requirements are being met.
G:1PubIic\Yorkville120041YO0430 Kendaliwood Estates of Yorkville(Wilman Property)1docs'wywrotPrelimPlan04.doc
Mr.Joseph A.Wywrot
November 1,2005
Page 5 of 5
Conclusion
Our review of this Preliminary Plan will continue as the above comments are
addressed by the developer and the design engineer and additional information is
submitted as requested. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
e
William E. Dunn, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
pc: Liz D'Anna, Administrative Assistant
JT W, JW F, DAK EEI
Scott J. Mai, P.E., SEC, Inc.
G:\Public\Yorkville\2004\Y00430 Kendallwood Estates of Yorkville(Wilman Property)\docsVwywrotPrelimPlan04.doc
col-TY o KENDAI,L; KENDALL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
7ifE " Y 19,1841 FRANCIS C . KLAAS COUNTY ENGINEER
FEBRUAR
- /(1 6780 ROUTE 47 YORKVILLE, IL 60560 TEL 630/553-7616 FAX 630/553-9583
October 31, 2005
Scott Mai, P.E.
Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc.
759 John Street
Yorkville, IL 60560
RE: Kendallwood Estates
Traffic Impact Study
Dear Mr. Mai:
I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the referenced subdivision, and although the access
points on Van Emmon Road and Ill. Route 126 are not technically under the jurisdiction of
Kendall County Highway Department, the access on Van Emmon is within 250' of Kendall's
jurisdiction to the east. I therefore submit the following comments, since any required
improvements on Van Emmon Road may extend to parts of a Kendall County Highway.
Although the Study does not recommend any improvements whatsoever on Van Emmon Road,
any required municipal improvements that extend to the Kendall County portion of Van
Emmond Road should receive a joint county/city review. It is my opinion that improvements on
Van Emmon may need to be considered, given the fact that the main roadway through
Kendallwood is a fairly linear connection between 2, fairly-major highways. I believe that
drivers in the neighborhoods south of the Fox River may use this roadway as an alternative to Ill.
Route 47 for rush hour commutes. We will yield to Yorkville's desire for any required
improvements at this location.
Finally, it is my understanding that Yorkville is currently considering the collection of a
$1000/per unit fee for future improvements of County Highways. We would respectfully request
consideration of this fee in any municipal/developer agreement.
Sincerely,
7 tiu-i(....)s .../.04_,---.
ancis C. Klaas, P.E.
Kendall County Engineer
cc: Joe Wywrot
Nov. 1 . 2005 5 :02PM No . 9837 P . 2/2
12-1
Ccs
Scfioppe Desytt Associates, Znc.
Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
126 S. Main St. Ph. (630) 551-3355
Oswego,IL 60543 Fax(630) 551-3639
November 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Art Prochaska
From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc.
Re: Kendallwood Estates- Wiliman Property
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat dated 10/21/05, the Preliminary Engineering Plans dated
10/21/05, prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, and provide the following comments.
Preliminary Plat
1. The south R.O.W. line for Benjamin Street between C23 and C24 should be coincidental
with the south property line to allow for possible future access to the adjoining property.
2. Identify contiguous property lines along the north and west sides of the northerly 14
acres.
All other Preliminary Plat issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
Preliminary Engineering
1. Trees to be preserved and trees to be removed need to be identified on the Preliminary
Engineering Plan. This needs to also include the northerly 14 acres. A tree removal
permit will need to be issued in accordance with the City's tree preservation standards.
All other Preliminary Engineering issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
If you have any questions,please call.
CC: Liz D'Anna, Administrative Assistant
Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
John Wyeth, City Attorney
John Whitehouse,EEI
Anna Kurtman, Zoning Administrator
Page I of
` Nov . l . 2085 5 : 02pMND . 9837 P. 1/2
.
' (��� ^
��cx ��en��xu��� �v�x��tes, Inc.
Landscape ArcMecture and LandPlanning
126 S Main St Ph.(630' 551-3355
Oswego,IL 60543 Fax(630)551'3839
Fax
To: I UzDY\nne F Mike Schoppe |
_..,_____'�_____-__---____'_____-_-_-__-___-J
i Company: | CityofYm�wUnCover+ 1 |
� Pages: |
�
' Fax No. 1 AAuto�
1
Re Kendallwood Estates J
ovember 1, 2005
CC: JoeVyvn»^'JwhnVhhwhouwa'AnmaKuUzman r Urgent r^ For Review r Please Comment [— Please Reply r Please Recycle
OCT.27'2005 15:03 630 559 2030 Conservation Design #6147 P. 002/003
i
U.
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM
Lam:fly:ape/ hifrr..tWe•CUnbriunily f'kmrirv,•ktobykvl Reskxnfinn•Watet Resmice rind Ecoiooicat Er,yw K..uring
375 West First Street
Elmhurst, Illinois 60126
630.559.2000 phone
630,559.2030 fox
wwW,Cdfinc.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2005
To: MIKE SCHOPPE—SCHOPPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES
FROM: B1-CCA CERF AND TOM PRICE
RE: KENDALL WOODS ESTATES SUBDIVISION
CC: JOE WYWROT—UNITED CII?OF YORKVILLE
REF.#: 02059.17-2005-10-25-YORKVILLE-WETI ANI)DELINEATION&PRI I.IMINARY ENGINrr RING PLAN REVIEW
MEMO:
This memo addresses review of the following in conjunction with the Kendall Woods Estates Subdivision:
• Wetland Delineation Report for Route '126' Wetland Delineation prepared by Smith Engineering
Consultants.Inc.,dated January 2005.
• Preliminary Engineering Plans prepared for:Kendall Woods Estates prepared by Smith
Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated April 7, 2005,latest revision September 20,2005.
The comments below are directed to the City and the developer.
Wetland Delineation:
• Based on review of the wetland delineation report and the existing topography of the site as
presented on the preliminary engineering plan,and the fact that the wetland delineation field
work was conducted outside the growing season (December 9 and 15,2004) there is concern
that potential wetland seep habitat may not have been apparent and noted along the hillside
system located on the west side of the property. Also within the report,it was stated that a
thorough investigation was performed on the subject site for the listed endangered and
threatened species observed within the Yorkville Seep located 0.6 mile from the property site.
Identification of these specific species at that time of year is doubtful. Per conversation with well-
known botanist,Gerould Wilhelm of CUE, not much would be evident of these species at that
time of year and even a well-trained botanist would be hesitant to properly identify such species
in the winter lime.
R:\tx0jocl5\02059.17 Yorkville; - Kendollwood Estntcs\i'rojec.I Corresponcicn es\2005 10 25 Wntbed Delineation Prei Eng Review
Merno.doc
OCT.27'2005 15:03 630 559 2030 Conservation Design #6147 P.003/303
MrMYDKANDUM 02059.17 2005-10-25-YORKVIIlr•—ASPEN Ribes
•
PAGE 2 OF 2
Recommendation:Update wetland delineation report with vegetation inventory data
obtained during the growing season(May 15th-October 15th)as well as review and
document vegetation and hydrology conditions along the hillsides to document the
presence/absence of potential seep areas along the hillsides and to verity the
presence/absence of any endangered or threaten species. It is advised that the developer
hire a professional that specializes in the identification of these and other listed endangered
and threatened plant species as known to occur within the Yorkville Seep.
Preliminary Engineering Plans:
• Based on review of the plan,it appears that stormwaler discharge via storm sewer pipes toward
the wetland/creek system is proposed within several areas. There are several concerns
regarding this proposed design,these concerns arc as follows:
• The majority of the site does not have detention measures implemented as required by
the Stormwatcr Ordinance. Four of the proposed stormwater discharges toward the
wetland/creek have no detention,
• All stormwater discharges should to be brought down to the base of the slope in order to
prevent severe erosion of the slopes and degradation of the hillside system.
• Redirect storm sewers at base of slope to flatter bottom larid in order to allow discharges
to dissipate and prevent erosion of a channel.
Recommendation;We recommend that this stormwater system be redesigned to address the
comments above. No stormwater discharges whether pre-treated or not, should discharge to
the top of the hillside.
• Per the draft wetland ordinance,all wetland and creek/tributary areas are to have a required
native vegetation buffer. The width of the buffer depends on the quality of the wetland/creek as
well as the percent of buffer slope towards the wetland/creek;this is dependent upon
vegetation inventories of the wetland/creek areas during the growing season. There is no
indication of a buffer area on the plans. In addition,stormwater discharges that enter a buffer
are to have appropriate dissipation measures to prevent erosion and scour.
Recommendation: indicate preliminary buffer area on plans;this should be updated along with
the wetland delineation report based on findings of a growing season vegetation inventory.
Provide appropriate dissipation measures for all stormwater discharges that enter the buffer
areas. In addition to establishment of a buffer to the wetland/creek area,ft would be worthwhile
to provide some restoration measures to establish healthy ground plain flora within the buffer as
well as on the hillside slopes to encourage slope stability and prevention of erosion problems.
Based on our review of this material,it is recommended that the City request further information as
indicated in the above bullet items.
It you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call,
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM