The URL can be used to link to this page

Plan Commission Minutes 2005 08-10-05 Page 1 of 9 APPROVED 11/9/05 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN CONEMSSION 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. Page 2 of 9 NEW BUSINESS 1. PC 2005-34 Tanglewood Development Corporation and Evergreen Farm Estates LLC petition to annex and rezone. 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. Page 3 of 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PC 2005-18 Del Webb,Pulte Homes petition to rezone: See attached. 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. Page 4 of 9 Schillinger said he wishes the Del Webb portion of the proposed development could be extended into the proposed R-2 portion of the development. 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. Page 5 of 9 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 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 Comeils 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. Page 6 of 9 5. PC 2005-13 MPI South—Concept Plan 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. Page 9 of 9 12. PC 2005-35 Bristol Bay Units 1-7 Final Plat 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 COURT REPORTING DOWNTOWN SUBURBS 77 W.WASHINGTON, STE. 1917 1407 E. ELM STREET CHICAGO, IL 6o6o2 WHEATON, IL 6oi87 312/895-4974 63o/690-69LI B RIDGESREPORTING@AOL.COM FAX 312/528-9025 z 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. s 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 s 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 io 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 , s cross-examine, the people that are presenting the 9 petitions. By that I mean you have the right to ask to 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 s 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. s 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 s 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 I 'm 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 7abway. 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 , s 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 z 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 z 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. z don' t know why they won' t do it, 14 but I 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. it 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 s 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 to 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 table? 8 MAYOR PROCHASKA: It was my understanding that in 9 order for any of the developments , whether it is silver to 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 1-7 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 2s 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 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 10 City to be contractually obligated to know where we are , it 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 to 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 Tune 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 . 10 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 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 10 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 1 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 1-7 maximum of that would be allowed through the transitional 18 zoning , but what 1 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 to 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 1 can , 1 ' 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 evening . 8 The second one is a copy of the overall 9 area. I ' m sure everybody in the commission is well aware to 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 z 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 , to 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 I 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 s0 i 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 to 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. ZA]ICEK: Great . 15 MR. WHITEHOUSE : What is being proposed right now, 16 and Mr. Corneils said something about the open space that 1-7 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 1-7 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, z 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 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, z 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 . 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 3anuary 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 . to 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 1-7 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, 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 , to 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 . I see it coming . I don ' t see it 2 going across the back to can none ball I 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 s 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 . 8 where are these other developments? I 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 , I don ' t see -- I 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 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 . ii 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 assignment to 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 , cornels 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 i should say some of the nonresidential uses in 6 that area , to residential uses , more roof tops , more 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 ORZ 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 i 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 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 to 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 1-/ 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, 10 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 is 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 10 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. ZA7ICEK: 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. ZA3ICEK: 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. ZA7ICEK: 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. ZA7ICEK: 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 to 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 I think we can make that work positive 16 for Yorkville . 1-7 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 residential makes more sense , and our land owners , all 8 highly support that . 9 The only comments that we would like to see to 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 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. is 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 i said , i 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 4zlk day of 17 18 19 20 21 22 DEBORAH A. BRIDGES MU 23 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER "OFFICIAL SEAL" PUSLIC DEBORAH A. BRIDGES 2 4 aiLL� COMMISSION EXPIRES 09/18 06 Bridges Court Reporting 630-690-6911 PLEASE SIGN IN MEETING. A"- r, DATE: NAME BUSINESS PHONE # Del M& Alycl /! G't c- 4� ��!'G`M e�a rW/1 t r 1"k,Gin, , P6 Aj/(-, 3 La r 3® 7C, — 2olG? Cep P�I�1►J (� 3� 552 SV5w, RC) sEV,w ,n Sk 5z1- Y2o� IL 3oq gL - 273 X63 3 PLEASE SIGN IN MEETING: DATE: NAME BUSINESS PHONE # /r rLi .tea S-� 3 - 0-7 S fez, PLEASE SIGN IN MEETING: DATE: NAME BUSINESS PHONE # 553 533 d�1 Ir -30,s5 s 2-2