Plan Commission Minutes 2003 06-11-03 Page 1 of 6 APPROVED BY THE
C(*MN?EE/BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ON: -I'�
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003
Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Clarence Holdiman, Al Trotsky, Anne Lucietto, Bill Davis, Ted King,
Michael Crouch and Tom Lindblom
Members absent: Kerry Green, Brian Schillinger, Andrew Kubala, Jack Jones, Sandra
Adams and Tom Mizel.
A quorum was established.
VISITORS
City Planner Mike Schoppe; Mayor Art Prochaska; Alderman Richard Sticka; Lynn
Dubajic with the Yorkville Economic Development Council; John Whitehouse with
Engineering Enterprises Inc.; Chuck Hanlan with Land Vision; Alan Brauer with Land
Vision; and Tony Casaccio with Inland.
MINUTES
Minutes from the May14, 2003 meeting were approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PC 2003-06 Senior Apartment Housing: New Directions Housing Corp., petitioner, has
filed an application requesting rezoning from B-3 Service Business District to R-4
General Residence District Planned Unit Development.
See attached.
NEW BUSINESS
PC 2003-06 Senior Apartment Housing: New Directions Housing Corp., petitioner, has
filed an application requesting rezoning from B-3 Service Business District to R-4
General Residence District Planned Unit Development. The property is located at the
southwest corner of Route 47 and Greenbriar Road.
Commission Chairman Tom Lindblom said there is no public safety issue to the proposed
three-story building. Rodger Brown with the New Directions Housing Corp. said the
company is seeking a variance for a three-story building which is allowable under the B-3
zoning but not in R-4 zoning.
Commissioner Anne Lucietto asked if the proposed 2 to 1 parking ratio would be enough.
Brown said the ratio probably exceed the actual need for parking. He said the company
Page 2 of 6
built a similar housing development in Lake Villa and the parking lot is halfway full at
the most.
Lindblom commented that he likes the mixture of brick and vinyl on the building as show
in the architectural drawing. Comments had been made at previous meetings about the
lack of architectural character in the proposed building site.
Brown went on to say that the one-bedroom units would be about 650 square feet and the
two-bedroom units would be about 800 square feet.
City Planner Mike Schoppe said there were issues about covered parking which is
required under the city's zoning code. However, he said because this is a PUD, the city
staff is comfortable with the variance. He also added there should be sidewalks installed
on Greenbriar St. Schoppe also said that the streetlight issue hasn't been addressed yet.
Commissioner Bill Davis commented about the architectural standards and asked what
percentage of the building was brick. When Brown responded that a little over half of the
building was brick, Davis said he'd like to see the building all brick.
Lindblom asked if a manager would be in attendance 24-hours a day. Brown said he
anticipates a management office to be staffed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He said the
petitioners do not intend to have a management person live on site.
Schoppe said that as part of the PUD, certain design standards are being imposed. He said
it is important that the commission makes it clear that a rezoning recommendation would
be pending approval of an architectural plan and a site plan.
Lindblom commented that while Davis prefers all brick, he doesn't. However, he said he
doesn't think it is the commission's role to tell developers about design standards.
Mayor Art Prochaska said the City Council usually negotiates the PUD agreement with
developers. When the proposal comes back to the Plan Commission, the commissioners
can look at how the building meets the standards as agreed to by the city council.
Lucietto made a motion to recommend approval of the request for an R-4 PUD for PC
2003-06 subject to comments from City Engineer Joe Wywrot and approval of the
architectural plan. Holdiman seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously
approved by roll call vote. Holdiman, Trotsky, Lucietto, Davis, King, Crouch and
Lindblom all voted yes.
OLD BUSINESS
PC 2003-04 Caledonia: Inland Land Appreciation Fund, petitioner, requesting
preliminary plat review.
Page 3 of 6
Reviewing the history of the development, Chuck Hanlan with Land Vision, said the
residential portion of the property was annexed to the city at the same time as the
industrial park. He said the storm water detention area was engineered in anticipation of
this land being developed as residential and has been in place since last year.
The original schedule was the convert the entire parcel of land into an industrial area.
However,the agreement allowed for the land to be used for residential development if the
area was not filled with industrial uses after a certain period of time. Hanlan said they are
now a few years past the time limit and want to begin the residential development.
Under the original annexation agreement,the city allowed 4 units per acre. That means
340 units are allowable on the 85-acre parcel.
The plan Inland is proposing offers 215 single-family units with lot sizes of 65 feet in
width minimum. The minimum lot size would be 9,082 square feet. The development
would have 10 percent side yards and 13 feet between buildings.
The plan also includes a park site adjacent to the high and dry open space above the
storm water area and the Park District is looking at using some of the open spaces.
Hanlan said there are road connections to Comeils Road and F.E. Wheaton Drives. He
added that the proposed layout for the development features a modified grid layout with
curves. There also would be a substantial landscape buffer against the industrial park side
of the development.
Lindblom commented that he does not believe 13 feet between buildings is adequate for
firefighting. He said he's not willing to compromise public safety and that he's adamant
about a 10-yard side yard setback.
Hanlan said there are many places were 5- and 6-foot setbacks are commonplace.
Commissioner Michael Crouch commented that there seems to be many of the lots in the
proposed layout are 65 feet in width. Lindblom said the commission is not in favor of lots
sizes of less than 12,000 square feet unless the lots abut green space. However, he said it
looks as if the city will have to approve 9,000 square foot lots in this development
because of the annexation agreement.
Crouch also commented on the about of traffic the development would bring to Corneils
Road which is a country road. John Whitehouse with Engineering Enterprises Inc. said
the developers are preparing a traffic study for Corneils Road.
Also, Crouch asked if the School District was interested in a school site on the property.
Schoppe said the city talked to the School District. He said there are not enough homes in
the proposed development to generate the need for an elementary school.
Page 4 of 6
Lindblom asked about wetland concerns. Hanlan said they are double-checking to see if
the southern portion of the development is in a wetlands area.
Anthony Casaccio with Inland said they found the original wetland report of the
industrial park and said there are no other wetlands except where the storm water
detention is.
Whitehouse said no part of that property shows up in the flood zone from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's mapping. However, he said FEMA didn't study Rob
Roy Creek. EEI is conducting a study of Rob Roy Creek and based on preliminary
reports, the flood elevation would go into that subdivision. In the worst-case scenario, the
southern quarter of the development would be below flood plain level, he said. He added
that at this point, however, no one knows.
He added he wishes there was more historical information from the 1996 flood on the
area. Farther down stream, Wywrot did have some historical data.
Hanlan said it's not their desire to create any lots in a flood plain. The final plat will be
revised to show any flood plain areas.
Whitehouse said the developers are elevating most of the land in that area anyway. He
said they're already providing protection in the area where they think the flood plain
might be. He said it might become a compensatory storage issue where they're filling
some areas in a flood plain that would have to be compensated for somewhere else on the
property.
Casaccio said that in 1996, he went up into an airplane to view the property and it was
okay regarding flooding.
Regarding Schoppe's comments, he said they've worked on the project for 2.5 months.
He said he knows a major issue is lot sizes and they tried to address other issues such as
road stubs and access.
He said his office is not concerned about 9,000 square foot lots. He said they can be
successful with successful being defined as the lots being well maintained, providing a
good tax base and looking good to the public. The trick is to guide how those lots look.
The streetscape elevation needs to be put together so that the city can see how the lots
would look He said architectural controls and standards need to be incorporated as
detailed in the most recent memo dated June 4.
Schoppe said there are minor changes from the May 28 memo, which appeared in the
packets of the Plan Commission members to the June 4 memo. The May 28 takes about
the streetscape issue. Also, he said more information is needed on the side yard setbacks
and the fate of some of the out lots. The existing vegetation on the site should be
documented and the same thing goes for the wetlands, Schoppe said.
Page 5 of 6
As for the park site, he said it's in the right location. However, he said some of the
existing utilities within out lot F may need to be modified or relocated to provide a
suitable park site.
He added that architectural standards are the key if lot sizes of 9,000 square feet are to
work.
Whitehouse added that there are mechanisms in the annexation agreement to provide for
cost contribution by the owner/developer of the property toward roadways.
Davis asked what materials the houses would be made of. Hanlan said they would be
brick and vinyl. However, he said he didn't have numbers as to how many would be
brick. Sometimes that type of decision is up to the homeowners who purchase options on
their homes.
He said he'd like to continue with the preliminary plat issue and then come back for
architectural issues.
Davis said he'd like to see restrictions or at least some housing standards. Hanlan said he
could show the Plan Commission the baseline home and then homes with some options.
Revisiting the issue of side yards, Lindblom said if the Commission were to approve the
preliminary plat tonight, it would be stuck with 6.5 foot side yards. He said he's
especially concerned about taking a corner house with a three-car garage in front and
squeezing it on a lot with 6.5-foot side yard setbacks. He said he thinks possibly homes
with two-car garages in the front would be a better fit. Hanlan said there are a variety of
floor plans possible, some of which are wider than others.
Lindblom said there should be some restrictions that go along with the smaller lots.
People who purchase those lots should be required to put smaller homes on them.
Hanlan said they might never come to an agreement on the issue. He said there is some
thinking that 6.5 feet is okay. He said he'd like to keep the original proposal of 10 percent
side yards.
Prochaska asked if the side yard setback was in the preliminary plat and Whitehouse said
it is noted on the plat.
Lucietto made a motion to accept the preliminary plat for PC 2003-04. Crouch seconded
the motion. The motion unanimously failed by a vote of 0-7. Lucietto, Davis, King,
Crouch, Lindblom, Holdiman and Trotsky all voted no.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe
Page 6 of 6
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
SS :
COUNTY OF KENDALL )
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the meeting
of the above-entitled matter, taken before Nicola
Gengler, C . S . R . , No . 84 -3780 , on June 11 , 2003 , at the
hour of 7 : 00 p . m. , at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville ,
Illinois .
D-655503
REPO • COURT
reporting service
800 West Fifth Avenue • Suite 203C • Naperville, IL 60563 • 630-983-0030 • Fax 630-983-6013
www.depocourt.com
2 3
1 PRESENP: 1 (Proceedings were had which
2 MR. TOM LINDBLCM, Chairman; 2 are not herein transcribed.)
3 MR. MICHAEL CROUCH; 3 MR. LINDBLOM: We are now in public
4 MR. BILL DAVIS; 4 hearing. With that being said, could I have anybody
5 MR. TED KING; 5 that wishes to say anything at all at the public
6 MS. ANNE LUCIETTO; 6 hearing to please stand and take the oath.
7 MR. C[ARENCE HOLDIMAN; 7 (NO response.)
8 MR. MIKE SCHOPPE; 8 MR. LINDBLOM: Is there anybody present on
9 MR. AL TROTSKY; 9 behalf of --
10 MS. GINA GIPE, minute taker; 10 MR. KRAMER: Actually you should have Mike
11 and 11 sworn because he will testify for the City.
12 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. KRAMER 12 MR. SCHOPPE: If I am getting up, they are
1107A South Bridge Street
13 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 13 getting up.
BY: MR. DANIEL J. KRAMER,
14 appeared on behalf of the United City of 14 (Those giving testimony were
Yorkville.
15 15 thereupon duly sworn.)
16 16 MR. LINDBLOM: I have also been advised for
17 17 those of you in the audience that if at a later time
18 18 you wish to say something, we will ask you to stand and
19 19 be sworn in.
20 20 A couple of the rules of the game is
21 21 that, No. 1, you do have the right to cross examine or
22 22 ask questions on anybody that is presenting. The
23 23 formality for tonight that is with all public hearings
24 24 is we have the public hearing. At which time, the
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030 DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
4 5
1 presenters present the case to the Commission. We then 1 ask them at that time.
2 ask if there is any public comments on that. Hearing 2 I would ask the petitioner to answer
3 any comments that are made before we close the public 3 those questions and then we will move on from there.
4 hearing, then we come back and discuss the issue at the 4 Okay.
5 commission level. So once the public hearing is over, 5 With that being said, you are on.
6 it doesn't mean that it is over for the night. 6 MR. BROWN: Thank you. My name is Roger
7 With that being said, are there any 7 Brown, and I am with a company called New Directions
8 questions as to procedure? 8 Housing Corporation, and we are a non-profit affordable
9 (NO response.) 9 housing developer, and what we are proposing for this
10 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay. Hearing none. Mike, 10 site which is at the corner of Greenbriar and Route 47
11 I will turn it over to you, is that right or -- 11 is a senior housing apartment complex, affordable
12 MR. KRAMER: Actually I think the 12 senior housing for persons 62 years of age and older.
13 petitioner goes first. 13 This layout here is approximately
14 MR. LINDBLOM: I would also remind you that 14 40 units. It is a 3.48 acre site. It is surrounded
15 the proceedings of the public hearing is being recorded 15 by -- there is some single family to the west of it,
16 by the court reporter. 16 single-family lots to the south of it. To the north, I
17 So with that being said, anybody 17 think it is just farm land, just some open vacant land.
18 that wishes to address the commission we need your name 18 There is a landscaping business lust to the east of it,
19 so she can take that down, and then I am also reminded 19 and then Route 47.
20 that because of a court reporter we can only have one 20 What we are proposing is the
21 person talking at a time. So if you would, we will 21 construction of a three-story apartment building, one
22 have presentation from the presenter and then have an 22 and two-bedroom units, fully independent apartments
23 opportunity to ask any questions. When you do that, 23 with outdoor parking.
24 please ask the questions. If you have more than one, 24 We have got a fairly large site here
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030 DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
6 7
1 relative to the building so we are going to have a lot 1 we are requesting a couple of
2 of green space. We have setbacks of anywhere from 2 variances. One is the height. This building is
3 115 feet to about 85 feet at the minimum. we will have 3 currently 35 feet which meets the current zoning of B3.
4 a patio. We will have a community room. We will have 4 However, we are requesting a rezoning to R4 which has a
5 on-site management maintenance. 5 height maximum of 25 feet. That is basically just due
6 There will be landscaping. This 6 to the sloped roof.
7 berm, this landscaping berm, currently exists. we will 7 We are requesting some variances
8 add some more to that. There will be walkways, 8 concerning your -- let's see -- the height, the
9 sidewalks, parking. There will be a covered drop-off 9 dwelling units per acre. I think right now the R4 is
10 area for the tenants to pull up a chair. 10 eight feet to the acre. we are requesting about 15 to
11 That is basically it in a nutshell. 11 the acre.
12 MR. LINDBLOM: Mr. Brown, did I understand 12 This setup right here is 40 units
13 you to say correctly there is the landscaping business 13 right there, that building. The parking right now is
14 between that property and -- 14 two to one for this. There are 80 spaces here which I
15 MR. BROWN: Yes. Landscaping is right 15 think is your current requirement, two to one. You
16 there. 16 also have a requirement that one of those spaces must
17 MR. LINDBLOM: I was a little confused on 17 be covered. We are requesting a variance that we have
18 that. Our information it was on the corner of 47 18 no covered parking, no garages. That is it.
19 and -- okay. 19 Questions?
20 MR. SCHOPPE: That landscaping company is 20 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay, Mike, did you want to
21 Ground Effects. 21 say anything more or when you go into discussion?
22 MS. LUCIETTO: But it says the southwest 22 MR. SCHOPPE: More when you go into
23 corner. I was a little confused. 23 discussion.
24 MR. BROWN: This is the next lot in. 24 MR. LINDBLOM: Mr. Bran, thank you.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030 DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
8 9
1 Is there anybody that has any 1 referred to as a detached townhome type of development
2 questions or comments regarding this development now.) 2 on the west end of the property; and on the east end of
3 (No response.) 3 the property up against Route 47, they were proposing
4 MR. LINDBLOM: Going once? 4 B3 commercial.
5 MR. KRAMER: Before we close our public 5 As I understand it, that project is
6 hearing, I would like Mike to relay his plan or his 6 being resurrected, again, and we might be seeing
7 report on the property for the record. 7 something in the near future on that of a similar type
8 MR. SCHOPPE: As you know, the property is 8 of style. I think currently it is not annexed to the
9 zoned B3. 9 City until those plans come formally forward and they
10 One of the points we wanted to 10 actually get annexed, and the 12,000 square foot lots
11 clarify is the number of the units did you say in the 11 as Roger said on the west and the south sides.
12 proposal, Roger? How many -- 40 units being proposed? 12 With this being a PUD, I think
13 MR. BROWN: Well, yes, 40 units. 13 certainly the PUD is the correct way to approach this
14 MR. SCHOPPE: 40 apartment units being 14 rezoning. It is an R4 PUD; but more specifically, we
15 proposed as part of the development? 15 look at this use and compare it to what would be
16 MR. BROWN: Yes. 16 allowed under the existing B3 use.
17 MR. SCHOPPE: The property is currently 17 The building heights under the B3
18 zoned B3. The property to the east, that is B3 as 18 could be three stories, 35 feet tall. The parking on
19 well. This is a piece along Greenbriar Road. The B3 19 the B3 zoning is welch more liberal than what is being
20 zoning extends west of the Ground Effects. 20 proposed; and by this being a PUD and we are tailoring
21 Immediately north of this is a 21 this site plan to this particular piece of property, I
22 proposal that we had sometime ago, maybe a year ago. 22 think it gives the City and the surrounding uses some
23 It was referred to as Hopkin's Corner as you might 23 guarantees about how it will be developed and some
24 recall. That was a residential development. It was 24 control on how it will be developed. We are not just
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030 DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
10 11
1 simply rezoning it to an R4 and letting all the other 1 have a notion to close public hearing.
2 standards that we have in our zoning ordinance be 2 MS. LUCIEITO: So moved.
3 applied. 3 MR. LINDBLOM: Moved by Lucietto. Second?
4 I would suggest that as part of this 4 MR. DAVIS: Second.
5 we give them some input on the architecture. They have 5 MR. LINDBLOM: Second by Davis, moved and
6 submitted that. It is a PUD. It is appropriate to 6 seconded.
7 provide them comnent. If you like it, let then know. 7 Any further discussion of the
8 If you have some comnents, I think we should share that 8 motion?
9 as well. I would also suggest that as part of this -- 9 (NO response.)
10 this is an existing landscaping out there, but we 10 MR. LINDBLOM: Hearing none, those in favor
11 probably would want to have a landscaping plan be 11 signify by saying aye.
12 submitted as part of the PUD and get that part of the 12 (Whereupon, there was a
13 ordinance. 13 course of ayes.)
14 So I think this proposal, this 14 MR. LINDBLOM: Opposed?
15 specific proposal, is less intent of a land use than 15 (No response.)
16 what could be built under the current B3 zoning. It 16 MR. LINDBLOM: Public hearing is now
17 could be -- the building would be the same height. 17 closed.
18 There could be parking and building closer to the 18 (Whereupon proceedings were
19 property line, closer to that single family than what 19 then had which are not
20 is being proposed. Okay. 20 herein transcribed.)
21 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay. All right. Other 21
22 questions or co mnents during the public hearing? 22
23 (NO response.) 23
24 MR. LINDBLOM: Okay. Hearing none, could I 24
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030 DepoCcurt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
12
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 00= OF KENDAL . )
3 I, Nicola Gengler, C.S.R., No. 84-3780, do
4 hereby certify that the proceedings had in the
5 above-entitled cause were recorded stenographically by
6 me and reduced to typewriting via cafputer-aided
7 transcription under my personal direction; and that the
8 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the
9 proceedings had at the time and place previously
10 specified.
11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my
12 hand this 8th day of July, 2003. /�
13
14 G
Nice a eng er, C.VR.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
YORK611.TXT Page 1
-------------------------- I -------------------------- discuss 4:4 information 6:18
* I B I discussion 7:21,23; 11:7 input 10:5
-------------------------- I -------------------------- I down 4:19 intent 10:15
* 11:21 I B3 7:3; 8:9,18,19; 9:4,16, I drop-off 6:9 I issue 4:4
I -------------------------- I 17,19; 10:16 I due 7:5
--------------------------
I 1 back 4:4 I duly 3:15 I J
I -------------------------- basically 6:11; 7:5 during 10:22 I --------------------------
1 3:21 behalf 2:14; 3:9 dwelling 7:9 I July 12:12
11 1:12 I berm 6:7 -------------------------- I June 1:12
1107A 2:12.5 I between 6:14 E --------------------------
115 6:3 I BILL 2:4 -------------------------- K
12,000 9:10 Bridge 2:12.5 east 5:18; 8:18; 9:2
15 7:10 BROWN 5:6,7; 6:12,15,24; Effects 6:21; 8:20 KENDALL 1:3.5; 12:2
-------------------------- 7:24; 8:13,16 eight 7:10 I KING 2:5
I 2 building 5:21; 6:1; 7:2, end 9:2 KRAMER 2:12,13.5; 3:10;
I -------------------------- 13; 9:17; 10:17,18 examine 3:21 I 4:12; 8:5
2003 1:12; 12:12 built 10:16 existing 9:16; 10:10 I --------------------------
25 7:5 business 5:18; 6:13 exists 6:7 L
-------------------------- -------------------------- extends 8:20
I3 C -------------------------- I land 5:17; 10:15
I -------------------------- I -------------------------- F I landscaping 5:18; 6:6,7,
3.48 5:14 C.S.R 12:14.5 -------------------------- I 13,15,20; 10:10,11
35 7:3; 9:18 C.S.R. 1:12; 12:3 fairly 5:24 I large 5:24
I -------------------------- called 5:7 I family 5:15; 10:19 I later 3:17
I 4 case 4:1 farm 1:13; 5:17 I LAW 2:12
-------------------------- cause 12:5 favor 11:10 I layout 5:13
40 5:14; 7:12; 8:12,13,14 certainly 9:13 feet 6:3; 7:3,5,10; 9:18 I less 10:15
47 5:10,19; 6:18; 9:3 certify 12:4 first 4:13 I letting 10:1
I -------------------------- I chair 6:10 foot 9:10 I level 4:5
6 Chairman 2:2 foregoing 12:8 I liberal 9:19
-------------------------- CITY 1:8; 2:14; 3:11; 9:9, formality 3:23 I LINDBLOM 2:2; 3:3,8,16;
60560 2:13 I 22 formally 9:9 I 4:10,14; 6:12,17; 7:20,
62 5:12 CLARENCE 2:7 forward 9:9 I 24; 8:4; 10:21,24; 11:3,
I -------------------------- I clarify 8:11 fully 5:22 I 5,10,14,16
I
7 close 4:3; 8:5; 11:1 further 11:7 I line 10:19
I -------------------------- I closed 11:17 future 9:7 I little 6:17,23
I
7:00 1:13 I closer 10:18,19 -------------------------- I look 9:15
-------------------------- I come 4:4; 9:9 G ( lot 6:1,24
I
8 comment 10:7 -------------------------- I lots 5:16; 9:10 I
-------------------------- comments 4:2,3; 8:2; 10:8, game 1:13; 3:20 I LUCIETTO 2:6; 6:22; 11:2,3
80 7:14 22 garages 7:18 I --------------------------
800 1:13 commercial 9:4 Gengler 1:12; 12:3,14.5 M
84-3780 1:12; 12:3 commission 1:7; 4:1,5,18 getting 3:12,13
85 6:3 community 6:4 GINA 2:10 I made 4:3
8th 12:12 company 5:7; 6:20 GIPS 2:10 I maintenance 6:5
-------------------------- compare 9:15 give 10:5 I management 6:5
A complex 5:11 gives 9:22 I many 8:12
-------------------------- computer-aided 12:6 giving 3:14 I matter 1:11 I
above-entitled 1:11; 12:5 concerning 7:8 got 5:24 I maximum 7:5 I
acre 5:14; 7:9,10,11 confused 6:17,23 green 6:2 I mean 4:6
actually 3:10; 4:12; 9:10 construction 5:21 Greenbriar 5:10; 8:19 I meeting 1:7,10 I
add 6:8 control 9:24 Ground 6:21; 8:20 I meets 7:3 I
address 4:18 corner 5:10; 6:18,23; 8:23 guarantees 9:23 I MICHAEL 2:3
advised 3:16 Corporation 5:8 -------------------------- I might 8:23; 9:6
affordable 5:8,11 correct 9:13; 12:8 I H I MIKE 2:8; 3:10; 4:10;
age 5:12 correctly 6:13 -------------------------- I 7:20; 8:6
ago 8:22 COUNTY 1:3.5; 12:2 I hand 12:12 I minimum 6:3
AL 2:9 couple 3:20; 7:1 hearing 3:4,6,24; 4:2,4,5, I minute 2:10
allowed 9:16 course 11:13 10,15; 8:6; 10:22,24; I motion 11:1,8
ANNE 2:6 covered 6:9; 7:17,18 11:1,10,16 I move 5:3
annexed 9:8,10 cross 3:21 hearings 3:23 I moved 11:2,3,5
answer 5:2 I CROUCH 2:3 height 7:2,5,8; 10:17 I MS. 2:6,10; 6:22; 11:2
I anybody 3:4,8,22; 4:17; current 7:3,15; 10:16 I heights 9:17 I much 9:19
I 8:1 I currently 6:7; 7:3; 8:17; I hereby 12:4 I must 7:16
apartment 5:11,21; 8:14 I 9:8 I herein 3:2; 11:20 I --------------------------
apartments 5:22 -------------------------- hereunto 12:11 I N
appeared 2:14 D HOLDIMAN 2:7 --------------------------
applied 10:3 I -------------------------- Hopkins 8:23 name 4:18; 5:6
approach 9:13 I D-655503 1:23 hour 1:13 near 9:7
appropriate 10:6 I DANIEL 2:12,13.5 I housing 5:8,9,11,12 need 4:18
approximately 5:13 I DAVIS 2:4; 11:4,5 I However 7:4 New 5:7 I
architecture 10:5 I day 12:12 I -------------------------- I next 6:24
area 6:10 I detached 9:1 I I I Nicola 1:11; 12:3,14.5
audience 3:17 I developed 9:23,24 I -------------------------- I night 4:6
aye 11:11 developer 5:9 ILLINOIS 1:2.5,14; 2:13; I No. 1:12; 3:21; 12:3
ayes 11:13 development 8:2,15,24; 9:1 12:1 I non-profit 5:8
direction 12:7 Immediately 8:21 I none 4:10; 10:24; 11:10
Directions 5:7 independent 5:22 I north 5:16; 8:21
YORK611.TXT Page 2
number 8:11 referred 8:23; 9:1 testify 3:11
nutshell 6:11 I regarding 8:2 I testimony 3:14 I I
-------------------------- I relative 6:1 I thereupon 3:15 I
O relay 8:6 three 9:18
-------------------------- remind 4:14 three-story 5:21
oath 3:6 I reminded 4:19 I TOM 2:2 I I
OFFICES 2:12 I report 1:10; 8:7 I tonight 3:23 I
okay 4:10; 5:4; 6:19; reporter 4:16,20 townhome 9:1
7:20; 10:20,21,24 requesting 7:1,4,7,10,17 transcribed 3:2; 11:20
older 5:12 requirement 7:15,16 I transcript 12:8 I I
on-site 6:5 I residential 8:24 I transcription 12:7 I I
once 4:5; 8:4 I response 3:7; 4:9; 8:3; I TROTSKY 2:9
one 4:20,24; 5:21; 7:2,14, 10:23; 11:9,15 true 12:8
15,16; 8:10 resurrected 9:6 turn 4:11
only 4:20 I rezoning 7:4; 9:14; 10:1 I two 7:14,15
open 5:17 I Road 1:13; 8:19 two-bedroom 5:22
opportunity 4:23 I Roger 5:6; 8:12; 9:11 type 9:1,7 I I
Opposed 11:14 roof 7:6 I typewriting 12:6 I I
ordinance 10:2,13 I room 6:4 --------------------------
other 10:1,21 Route 5:10,19; 9:3 U I
I out 10:10 5:23 i rules 3:20
outdoor 5 ---------------- i under 9:16,17; 10:16; 12:7
1
I
over 4:5,6,11 I S I understand 6:12; 9:5
I -------------------------- -------------------------- UNITED 1:8; 2:14 I I
P I same 10:17 I units 5:14,22; 7:9,12; I I
-------------------------- I saying 11:11 I 8:11,12,13,14
p.m. 1:13 says 6:22 until 9:9
parking 5:23; 6:9; 7:13, SCHOPPE 2:8; 3:12; 6:20; up 3:12,13; 6:10; 9:3 I I
18; 9:18; 10:18 I 7:22; 8:8,14,17 I --------------------------
part 8:15; 10:4,9,12 Second 11:3,4,5 V
particular 9:21 seconded 11:6 -------------------------- I I
patio 6:4 I see 7:8 I vacant 5:17
per 7:9 I seeing 9:6 I variance 7:17
person 4:21 senior 5:11,12 variances 7:2,7 I
personal 12:7 set 12:11 I via 12:6 I I
persons 5:12 I setbacks 6:2 I --------------------------
petitioner 4:13; 5:2 I setup 7:12 I w
piece 8:19; 9:21 share 10:8 -------------------------- I
place 12:9 sides 9:11 walkways 6:8 I I
plan 1:7; 8:6; 9:21; 10:11 I sidewalks 6:9 I wanted 8:10
plans 9:9 I signify 11:11 way 9:13
please 3:6; 4:24 similar 9:7 west 5:15; 8:20; 9:2,11 I I
points 8:10 I simply 10:1 I WHEREOF 12:11
present 2:1; 3:8; 4:1 I single 5:15; 10:19 I thereupon 11:12,18
presentation 4:22 I single-family 5:16 will 3:11,18; 4:11,21;
presenter 4:22 site 5:10,14,24; 9:21 5:3; 6:3,4,6,7,8,9; 9:23, I I
presenters 4:1 I sloped 7:6 I 24
presenting 3:22 something 3:18; 9:7 wish 3:18
previously 12:9 sometime 8:22 wishes 3:5; 4:18
probably 10:11 I south 2:12.5; 5:16; 9:11 I WITNESS 12:11
procedure 4:8 southwest 6:22 --------------------------
proceedings 1:10; 3:1; space 6:2 Y
4:15; 11:18; 12:4,9 I spaces 7:14,16 I --------------------------
project 9:5 I specific 10:15 I year 8:22
property 6:14; 8:7,8,17, specifically 9:14 years 5:12
18; 9:2,3,21; 10:19 specified 12:10 I YORKVILLE 1:8,13; 2:13, I I
proposal 8:12,22; 10:14,15 I square 9:10 I 14.5
proposed 8:12,15; 9:20; I SS 1:3; 12:1.5 --------------------------
10:20 stand 3:6,18 Z
proposing 5:9,20; 9:3 standards 10:2 I --------------------------
provide 10:7 I STATE 1:2.5; 12:1 I zoned 8:9,18
public 3:3,5,23,24; 4:2,3, stenographically 12:5 zoning 7:3; 8:20; 9:19;
5,15; 8:5; 10:22; 11:1,16 stories 9:18 I 10:2,16 I I
POD 9:12,13,14,20; 10:6,12 I Street 2:12.5 I --------------------------
pull 6:10 I style 9:8 I _
-------------------------- submitted 10:6,12 -------------------------- I I
Q I suggest 10:4,9 I _ 2:15.5
-------------------------- I surrounded 5:14 I -
questions 3:22; 4:8,23,24; surrounding 9:22 12:14
5:3; 7:19; 8:2; 10:22 sworn 3:11,15,19
-------------R------------ i -------------T-- ----------
-------------------------- --------------------------
R4 7:4,9; 9:14; 10:1 tailoring 9:20
recall 8:24 I taker 2:10
record 8:7 I tall 9:18
recorded 4:15; 12:5 TED 2:5
reduced 12:6 tenants 6:10