Plan Commission Minutes 2000 04-12-00 YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2000
Chairman Lindblom called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 PM and explained the
schedule that includes 5 public hearings and everyone will have an opportunity to speak, but
asked that no one repeats the same message over and over d due to the time constraints.
Roll Call:
Members Present Tom Lindblom Jack Jones Clarence Holdiman
Joe Besco Jeff Baker Janet Reaves
Andrew Kubala Bob Wenman Art Prochaska
Rich Sticka Sandra Adams Lawrence Langland
A quorum was established. Also Present: Mike Schoppe Joe Wywrot
MINUTES
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to approve the minutes of March 8, 2000 as
presented. On a voice vote, all members present voting aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Baker motioned and Ms. Adams seconded to og into public hearing. On a voice vote, all
members present voting aye.
Chairman Lindblom asked that those wishing to speak stand. He administered the oath to a
group of eight individuals.
Public Hearing PC 2000-04 Paul Pocus, petitioner request to annex into the United City
of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United
City of Yorkville B-2 General Business District Zoning. The property is
located on south Route 947, south of route#71, Yorkville, Illinois.
It was explained that this was requested on behalf of the City of Yorkville.
A motion was made by Mr. Baker and seconded by Mr. Wenman to adjourn the public hearing for
PC 2000-04. On a voice vote all members present voting_, aye. Motion carried.
Public Hearing PC 99-07 Nelson Pottinger, petitioner request to annex into the United
City of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County "A" Agricultural to
United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District and R-2 Single
Family. The property is located at 7311 S. Route#47, south of route#71,
Yorkville, Illinois.
Area residents spoke regarding this parcel stating that there is a natural waterway on the edge of
this property that carries the water under route #47, and consideration of this was an important
issue. Additionally the residents expressed concern over what the City has in mind for this area.
1
Mayor Prochaska explained that the City intends to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman
Lindblom stated that at this time, this parcel is being annexed for the purpose of making the
adjoining parcel contiguous.
City Attorney Kramer stated that Carolyn Herrin has approached these landowners asking them to
annex for the purpose of making her parcel contiguous so she could annex into the City of
Yorkville.
Mr. Kubala motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to close the public hearing for PC 99-07. On a
voice vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried
Public Hearing PC 99-08 Carolyn Herrin, petitioner request to annex into the United City
of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County B-3 Service Business
District, to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District Zoning.
The property is located at 4 Bonnie Lane, Yorkville, Illinois.
Shirley Brucky spoke on behalf of the residents along Bonnie Lane stating that there have been
many problems stemming from Carolyn Herrin's tenant on the subject parcel, Pro Source.
Problems have included inadequate parking for both customer and deliveries, trucks blocking
driveways and refusing to move, customers parking on the adjoining property owned by Nelson
Pottinger, and parking along route#47. Residents asked what the City plans to do about these
issues.
In response to these statements, City Attorney Dan Kramer explained that at this time the
petitioner was simply asking to annex. There are no development plans. This would require them
coming back to the City and another public hearing for that issue.
Chairman Lindblom stated that they could work with the Chief of Police, Tony Graff who had just
come in. Chief Graff stated he was aware of the many problems out there, and has had calls about
them, but at this time they are outside the City Limits. He plans to work with the residents and
Pro Source to resolve them once they are in the City Limits.
Chairman Lindblom stated these problems cannot be solved tonight, but the City of Yorkville and
the Yorkville Police will work to resolve these issues.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Jones seconded to close the public hearing, for PC 99-08. On a
voice vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried
Public Hearing PC 99-11 Courthouse Square, Arthur Sheridan& Associates, petitioner
request to annex into the United City of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall
County R-3 Single Family to United City of Yorkville "O" Office zoning
with a Planned Unit Development. The property is located on the
northeast corner of Route#34 & Cannonball Trail, Yorkville, Illinois
2
Mr. Sheridan, the developer of this parcel stated he is presenting the same plan that has been
discussed previously, the only change is to add curbs on Cannonball Trail. This is for an office
P.U.D. with some limited retail business uses. He stated he had attached a list of uses that would
not be used in the development that had been previously agreed upon. He has no other plans
beyond this plan.
Chairman Lindblom stated that he understood that this was part office and part is to be used for
business.
Mr. Sheridan stated the north end would have 3500 square feet of office buildings and the south
would contain 20,000 square feet of commercial with retail convenience uses. There remains a
one acre out lot reserved for future use, perhaps a bank. The other out lot would probably be
parking. He would continue to maintain the landscaping. He has included access from route#34
and from Cannonball Trail.
Chairman Lindblom asked for anyone wishing to speak during this public hearing.
Martha Price resident speaker for the residents on Cannonball Trail spoke giving a history of this
property that including covenants agreed to somewhere along the line, that had never been filed.
Mrs. Price read a long statement for the Plan Commission(see copy attached to permanent
record) concluding with the statement that the want the City to stick to the use shown on the
Comprehensive Plan and that the Cannonball Trail residents would oppose any other use. Unless
this is Office Use only with a list of uses outlined.
Verne Henne stated that the 1 acre out lot was just the right size for a gas station, continuing that
the courts have turned this down, and that there is no staging down between this property and his.
Mayor Prochaska stated that there would be an annexation agreement which we would be bound
by, and any change to this plan would have to come before this body for a hearing.
Don Garby spoke stating that 1/2 mile down at Faxon Road the water level is 3' from the surface
and no one has addressed this problem, stating the petition should be rejected until this issue is
addressed.
Mayor Prochaska stated the matter in court is not an issue of this body. This body will think
about what is in the best interest of the City of Yorkville.
Mr. Sheridan stated he was presenting a decent plan, and then presented a large plan to show a
visual outline of what could be done with this parcel if he developed it under the current zoning
which is medium density. The current zoning would allow 30 townhomes on this property.
Chairman Lindblom asked for anything additional.
Mr. Baker motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to close the public hearing for PC 99-08. On a
voice vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried
3
Public Hearing PC 2000-01 Prairie Garden, Barry Niles &Robert Loftus, petitioners
request to annex into the United City of Yorkville and rezone from
Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service
Business District and R-3 General Residence District Zoning with a
Planned Unit Development. The property is located at 6359 S. Route #47,
Yorkville, Illinois.
Barry Niles presented his plan for Prairie Garden proposed for the Robert Loftus parcel. This is
proposed to be over age 55 only. There will be about 3 units per acre and the development backs
to R-2 Duplex.
Chairman Lindblom asked if there are any changes to the plan presented. There are to be none
except for the street. Lindblom asked for any comments form the audience.
Mr. Schelhamer, of Parfection spoke stating that there is a long term issue connected to being
adjacent to a golf range...there are lights on at night. He stated that he and Barry had spoke in the
lobby about these issues. Mr. Niles stated these will be a good size detention area for buffer and a
large berm, and perhaps the berm could extend onto the golf range so half would be on the golf
range and he could maintain that half. Mr. Schelhamer stated that there is a Special Use on his
parcel now, and when that ceases it will return to R-1 Single Family use, and asked if this fits.
Mr. Henne asked what the staging drop is. Mr. Niles stated it is B-3 to R-3 to R-2 Duplex as it
goes west from route 947.
Mr. Wywrot stated there is a 9 acre detention showing on the plan.
Mr. Lindblom asked for anything further. There was nothing.
Mr. Baker motioned and Mr. Jones seconded to go out of the Public Hearing for PC 2000-01.
On a voice vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried.
Old Business
PC 99-04 Heartland: Final Plat-Unit 1, Richard Marker
Mr. Marker explained that they have presented the Final Plat in final format for Unit 1 along with
the Preliminary Plan for comparison, and so everyone will see where Unit 1 fits into the big plan
and present Unit 1 with 63 lots for approval. Mr. Wywrot has reviewed and his comments are in
packets. All of the comments will be addressed and corrected. There are some very slight
footage changes but it is basically the same as Preliminary. Unit 1 does not include any of the
commercial area.
Mr. Langland asked what they will do with the land that is not being developed at this time. Mr.
Marker stated it will be farmed.
Mr. Kramer stated there was some shorter rear lot lines and the agreement was more specific.
Mr. Marker stated he was in total agreement with him on this item, and they will show the lines.
4
Mr. Besco asked if Phase 2 would not be started until Unit 1 is complete.
Mr. Marker replied that they just selected a reasonable number of lots to start and anticipate 3
phases of development.
Mr. Lindblom asked when the old building on the property would come down. Marker stated just
as soon as they own the property.
Mr. Kubala motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to accept the plan subject to Mr. Wywrots
memo. On a roll call vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried 10 - 0.
PC 99-11 Courthouse Square Arthur Sheridan & Associates,
petitioner request to annex into the United City of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall
County R-3 Single Family to United City of Yorkville "O" Office zoning with a Planned
Unit Development.
Mr. Kubala asked if there could be a PUD to bridge the different zoning.
Attorney Kramer stated this would need some clean-up. Perhaps to publish for office zoning for
just the portion that is to be "O" zoned. There would need to be formal action on what part is
office and which is business with a legal description for each. There is a precedence for mixed use
but it must be delineated.
Mr. Langland asked the Cannonball residents if they would agree to all office zoning.
Martha Price spoke stating, Yes, they would, even though that is not what the Comprehensive
Plan shows.
Mr. Lindblom asked Mr. Sheridan for his comments.
Mr. Sheridan stated the market is not there for that use only.
Ms. Price stated that maybe the market wasn't there for business either, Countryside Center is
loosing business.
Mayor Prochaska stated this is very different from Countryside Center, and that we can't debate
the need for business in this area.
Mr. Schoppe stated we talked about this in December. The Comp. Plan shows other commercial
here and this would fit the character of that intersection. There are concerns about the interface
between commercial and residential. With a PUD the City can ask for specific building design.
Mr. Jones asked why his list of excluded business uses differed from Martha's. He felt there were
contradictions of allowable uses.
5
Mr. Sheridan stated they had given them the same list.
Ms. Price stated there are some uses that are similar. That they had reviewed his list.
Chairman Lindblom asked for anything further, reminding the commission that the motion must be
in the positive.
Mr. Jones stated the is business all along Route#34, and he is not at ease with B-3.
Mr. Besco stated he would like to see better separation, and asked if that would make the
neighbors happy.
Mr. Wenman stated he didn't think there was that much need for business use there, but would be
in the future.
Mr. Sheridan reminded them there is no B-3 in this request. It is "O" Office with a PUD with
specific uses. We have removed all the uses that they requested not be there.
Chairman Lindblom stated there are a few options. 1. We could table this. 2. Could motion to
amended, providing more information.
Wenman stated as stated he would be more comfortable with more information. The petitioner
was asked if he was comfortable with tabling.
Mr. Sheridan stated he wished to move forward, that this could be worked out in the annexation
agreement. The plan shows berming, and brick buildings similar to the Office Campus in Aurora.
There will be landscaping and a roadway.
Mr. Henne stated he would prefer office buildings to a road.
Mr. Schoppe stated that he doesn't have a problem with the land use. There are some issues that
can be addresses in the PUD. These can be resolved with more detail of architecture. More
information can be requested.
Mr. Baker asked the petitioner what he wanted.
Mr. Sheridan stated he wished to move ahead and vote on it as it stands.
Mr. Baker motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to annex PC 99-11. On a roll call vote all
members present voting aye. Motion carried 10 - 0.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Jones seconded to approve PC 99-11 request to rezone from
Kendall County R-3 Single Family to United City of Yorkville "O" Office zoning with further
delineation and uses to be addressed in a Planned Unit Development. On a roll call vote there
were 9 nays - 1 aye. Motion failed.
6
New Business
PC 2000-01 Prairie Garden, Barry Niles & Robert Loftus, petitioners request to annex into
the United City of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United
City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District and R-3 General Residence District Zoning
with a Planned Unit Development.
City Attorney Dan Kramer pointed out that if this is age restricted it must be per the government
requirements.
Mr. Niles stated he understood.
Mr. Schoppe asked that the commission refer to his comments continuing that it is not a stretch to
see residential to the south, and there are some items that need to be addressed. The lot in
Greenbriar has 5 years to go , and there has to be some means of access to the properties to the
north.
Mr. Lindblom asked about the review from Mr. Wywrot. The ROW for the entrance should be
80 feet. Mr. Niles wants 66 feet with a deeper set-back.
Mr. Schoppe stated there are some significant items that could affect the layout.
Mr. Niles stated the only issue is the road to the north. He really only wants one road as he
doesn't want this to be a throughway. Wants to look at the lot for roadway from Greenbriar. His
landscape drawing is being done now,
Chairman Lindblom stated that he is against one way in and out for safety purposes. There are
already problems with this with Greenbriar due to one road in and out. Greenbriar has a road to
the south which will give them a second access soon, so this would then be OK for Prairie
Garden, but Parfection is still a problem that needs to be addressed.
Attorney Kramer stated there needs to be a second roadway to the north running east and west
there is too much property there to not have another roadway. There are answers we just have to
look for them. Who ever develops behind Lee will have to have access to route #47. Kramer
stated he would look for the PUD's to find some answers.
Chairman Lindblom asked for other concerns.
Mr. Jones asked how the driving range would affect the residential. Lights and golf balls.
Mr. Kubala stated Mr. Niles should not have to fix Parfections problem.
Mr. Niles stated they have indicated that they have no complaints from Greenbriar about lights.
Mr. Jones stated he needs to address the emergency access and golf balls.
7
Mr. Baker motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to annex PC 2000-01 Prairie Garden into the
United City of Yorkville. On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried 10 - 0.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Besco seconded to rezone PC 2000-01 Prairie Garden from
Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District and
R-3 General Residence District Zoning On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried 10 - 0.
Mr. Baker motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to approve PC 2000-01 Prairie Garden
Preliminary Plan subject to City Engineer Joe Wywrot's comments and the resolution of the
access issue On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried 10 - 0.
PC 2000-05 Sunflower Estates, Final Plat - Unit H,
Jeff Humm for Inland Real Estate & Development
Mr. Humm stated that the Preliminary Plan for Phase I was done long ago, and this is simply
Phase II. The next 47 houses will bring access of the development to route#71, providing two
access points for both Sunflower and Greenbriar. The only change is to lot#42. Everything else
remains the same as the Preliminary Plan.
Chairman Lindblom asked for comments from Mike Schoppe and Joe Wywrot. They both
recommended approval. Mr. Humm added that the sale of lots ranged from $40,000. to $50,000.
and that cost of homes would range from $150,000. to $200,000. Chairman Lindblom asked for
comments from the commission. There were no additional comments.
Mr. Langland motioned and Mr. Kubala seconded to approve PC 2000-05 Sunflower Estates
Final Plat - Unit II On a roll call vote all members present voting aye. Motion carried 10 - 0.
PC 2000-04 Paul Pocus, petitioner request to annex into the United City
of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United
City of Yorkville B-2 General Business District Zoning. The property is located on south
Route#47, south of route#71,Yorkville, Illinois.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to approve PC 2000-04 Paul Pocus request to
annex into the United City of Yorkville On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to approve PC 2000-04 Paul Pocus request to
re-zone as United City of Yorkville B-2 zoning On a roll call vote all members present voting
aye. Motion carried.
8
PC 99-07 Nelson Pottinger, petitioner request to annex into the United City of Yorkville
and rezone from Kendall County "A" Agricultural to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service
Business District and R-2 Single Family. The property is located at 7311 S. Route#47,
south of route#71,Yorkville, ]Illinois.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Jones seconded to approve PC 99-07 Nelson Pottin eg r, request
to annex into the United City of Yorkville. On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Jones seconded to approve PC 99-07 Nelson Pottin eg r, request
to re-zone as United City of Yorkville B-3 & R-2 zoning On a roll call vote all members present
voting aye. Motion carried.
PC 99-08 Carolyn Herrin, petitioner request to annex into the United City
of Yorkville and rezone from Kendall County B-3 Service Business District,
to United City of Yorkville B-3 Service Business District Zoning.
The property is located at 4 Bonnie Lane, Yorkville, ]Illinois.
Mr. Kubala motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to approve PC 99-08 Carolyn Herrin, request to
annex into the United City of Yorkville. On a roll call vote all members present voting aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. Jones motioned and Mr. Wenman seconded to approve PC 99-08 Carolyn Herrin request to
re-zone as United City of Yorkville B-3 zoning On a roll call vote all members present voting
qye. Motion carried.
Chairman Lindblom asked if there was any additional business. There was none.
Mr. Wenman motioned and Mr. Baker seconded to adjourn. On a voice vote all members present
voting aye. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 9:15 PM
Minutes by Sandy Marker
9
2
As I understand it, this Plan Commission is a fact finding body.
So, please let me review the history of this piece of property to put
the current proposal in perspective. As a former teacher, I learned
the importance of REVIEW so I feel compelled to review a little
here. Some of you may remember all of this or at least some of
this history. I understand that before 1974 that property in that
area was zoned for business. I believe it was in March of 1974
that the business zoning must have been changed back to ag. I
found minutes of County Board proceedings which indicated that
the corner property we are discussing tonight was changed from
Al to R3 Single Family Residence on November 7, 1988. On
August 8, 1989, the property directly to the east then owned by
Gary Conover (and now owned by Vern Henne) was rezoned from
A-1 to R-3 Single Family Residence. The property on the corner
that we are discussing tonight was owned in 1988 by Delphine
Malovich which many us know as Delphine Semaglia. The
subdivision at that time was known as Ivy Subdivision. Utilities
were put in for single family homes on that property and there was
a house built on this corner by Delphine's sister, Nora Volendorf.
At the time that the house was built a 20 page covenant was drawn
up between the sisters in which it was agreed that there would be
no business zoning on the remainder of that property for a period
of 25 years. In 1991 Delphine brought a petition to change the
remainder of the property to Office zoning and then that petition
was withdrawn. It was probably at that time that it was discovered
that the covenants had NOT been filed. Nora Volendorf spent
several court sessions trying to have the covenants enforced and
finally gave up. Around that time Delphine lost the remainder of
the property in a foreclosure by Union Bank. Around that time
also a sign appeared on that corner indicating by Kettley Realty
that it was zoned for business which it was not. The sign came
down shortly after the sign was brought to the attention of the
County Building and Zoning Department. The property including
the house was eventually purchased by Arthur Sheridan. Arthur
Sheridan started his effort to rezone this property to business
including the house in about 1996. He first went to you the city
and was discouraged and then went to the County for the rezoning.
As you know from the information that we have sent you since last
December that All of the governmental bodies said "no" to the
business zoning. When Arthur Sheridan sued the County, Judge
Wilson upheld the County's decision. Most recently, the
Appellate Court in Elgin upheld Judge Wilson's decision to deny
business zoning on that parcel.
On February 22, 2000, we received a letter from Mr. Sheridan
concerning his latest proposal. He asked us for suggestions and
we did make some plus at that time we made it clear we would
oppose any type of business on that corner. We are NOT in
opposition to an Office PUD but if that PUD allows some business
uses, then we are in opposition to that Office PUD. Our position
has usually been that you should stick to your comprehensive plan
which shows residentail zoning which is still basically our
position, so when I say we are not opposed to strictly an Office
PUD, this is quite a change in our position of the past. However,
if that Office PUD includes some business uses, our position is
still--follow your comprehensive plan or suggest Office PUD
based on only office uses only. I have prepared a list of all of the
possible business uses that are still remaining even after some have
been removed as indicated in the proposal. There are just too
many possibilities left for us to feel comfortable.
Our question is this, can you have business uses in an office PUD
without business zoning? Has this been addressed by the city
attorney?
If the Office PUD is limited to just the uses permitted under your
Office Zoning category, I will quit here. We are not opposed to
that. I will just end it here as a history lesson only.
However, if there are business uses proposed for that PUD, I have
a few more comments:
In the Zoning Analysis Checklist completed by this Plan
Commission for this parcel in March of 1996 when the proposal
was for business zoning, it was noted that this would result in spot
zoning, that it is contrary to existing zoning ordinances, present
district boundaries would be inconsistent in relation to existing
uses, it would be possible that property values in the vicinity
would be adversely affected by the change, and that the proposed
use would NOT lessen or avoid hazards to property resulting form
the accumulation of runoff from storm or flood waters. All
members present of the Yorkville Plan Commission voted no on
the rezoning in a meeting on May 14, 1997. It was noted in the
minutes that there was no specific proposal for the use of the
corner at that time.
From the minutes of a ZPAC meeting in August of 1997, Joe
Hammer of Morris Engineering stated that he could not evaluate
the project without plans but he stated the northeast area of the
property looks difficult for detention since the flow goes southeast.
A representative of the Soil & Water District said it was
determined during the L.E.S.A. evaluation that there would be a
great amount of run-off if a large area of the property is paved. I
don't think anyone wants to repeat conditions of a flood such as
we had in 1996.
At one point, there was a letter presented by Nora Volendorf
written by a Realtor advising that housing values in the area could
be adversely affected by allowing business zoning next to existing
residences.
From Judge Wilson's ruling I would like to review just a few
points:
All of these quotes were followed by references to different court
cases which I will not mention here as you do have them in your
materials that we sent you if you would like to refer back to them
at some point.
"Roads are accepted lines of demarcation between properties
utilized between different uses or districts. The existing zoning
and uses of all properties in the northeast quadrant (north of Route
34 and east of Cannonball Trail) surrounding the subject property
is, and at all relevant times has been, single family residential
(R-3) improved with single family residences, including the
subject property itself.
(Still quoting:)
"A zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid. It is presumed that
the legislative body investigated and found conditions such that
the legislation which it enacted was appropriate, and that it acted
wisely and with full knowledge of the conditions, that it intended a
reasonable and legal classification and had sufficient reason to
make the classification that it made and that the regulation is in
the interest of the community as a whole. The courts in Illinois
have increasingly accorded importance to the existence of a
comprehensive plan in reviewing zoning cases.
"In addition, neighbors of a proposed zoning change also have the
right to rely on land use plans as originally adopted (First National
Bank v. City of Springfield)
"Once established, a zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid and
a party challenging the ordinance as arbitrary and unreasonable
has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
the ordinance, as applied, bears no substantial relation to the
public health, safety or welfare.
Concerning the "Determination of the highest and best use of the
property: (still quoting) "The northeast quadrant where the subject
property is located is all residential, including the subject property
itself which is developed with a single family residence. (It
should be noted here that since Arthur Sheridan has purchased this
house and the original owners have moved, he apparently has had
no problem renting the house as it always seems occupied leading
one to believe that people do not mind living in that location.)
From the ruling from the Appellate Court, I would like to quote the
following: Hoffinan (a community planning consultant hired by
the County to investigate Sheridan's rezoning request) testified
that it was his opinion that there was currently enough property
zoned B-3 in Yorkville to accommodate any reasonable
expectation of commercial demand in the near future. He showed
a map of 380 acres of vacant business property and noted that the
properties immediately south and southwest of the subject property
are undeveloped business properties.
Quoting again from the same ruling, the factor of"the existing
uses and zoning of nearby property" is of paramount importance in
determining the validity of a zoning ordinance. (cases cited)
"Purchasers who acquire property with full knowledge of its
zoning classification should not expect the loss in value resulting
from the denial of the proposed use to be a persuasive argument in
securing the change.
One of the city planners is quoted in minutes as saying that they
would prefer to group businesses together. Since Menard's is to
be built and there is other property available in that location, it
would seem that the city planner's suggestion could very easily be
carried out now. There is no reason to isolate business at the
corner in question.
I recently had occasion to visit the Lannert group in Geneva,
whom I believe were hired as a planner for Yorkville at one time,
as part of a class that I am taking and heard Mr. Lannert talk about
the planning they do before they make a request for a zoning
change. What has been presented here does not indicate that
anything to the extent that Mr. Lannert described and
demonstrated with sample drawings has been done for this
proposal. There must be tremendous differences between what
different governmental bodies ask for before approving a zoning
change or approving a plan. I would think that more details
should be presented for what is being proposed here.
We are concerned that if business zoning were allowed something
might eventually happen as has happened on Route 47 and Bonnie
Lane south of Yorkville. For many years that office or business
building peacefully coexisted with the residences on Bonnie Lane.
However, now a motor cycle business is there and from the
accounts it must be a nightmare for the residents there and there
does not seem to be anything anyone can do about it. We would
very much like to prevent a repeat of such a circumstance on
Cannonball Trail.
An argument you may hear from Mr. Sheridan is that businesses
develop around court houses. In Kane County it has been brought
to our attention that there is no such development and it is by
design. Kane County did not want business to be developed
around their court house so they bought more land so that they
could prevent development so close to their court house. So, that
argument is not necessarily true of all court house areas.
If we could make a further suggestion, leave the house as
residential and put a nice office building close to Route 34. It
would seem the best solution at this point.
� 00c)
LAU
u��
62W. C. Walton, Ground-water Recharges and Run-off in Illinois, Report of lnvestiPations, No
_ 48, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, IL 1965
-'Roy Edward Williams Shallow Hydrology of Glacial Drifts in Northeastern Illinois, Ph.D.
Thesis, P. 1179, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1960
KENDALL COUNTY
LITTLE ROCK + xBRISTOL'`r :.� �!OSWEGO!••
5 50 'j�'t Z- " ` 7 .70 ��- w++, ••:ti5 . 24 '• s
V.
may.� .i� �,.h' 't�' 'F w .ii�, .•�Lt'!ji;`+ 3S1_�r;
x, r
F! •
ti � QtopoS�
rv►; Stbt PrnPP f
FOX KENDALL Nn-AU-SAY
•ti 2 :90 1 . 15 1 . 18
� I
BIG GROVE LISBON SEWARD
2 . 24 3 . 04 1 . 00
AQUIFER MATERIAL
_! ,7z within 5 ft of land surface
between 5 and 20 ft of laird surface
between 20 and 50 ft of ldnd surface
no aquifer material Zvi thin 50 f t of land surface
AQUIFER RISK FOR
SENSITIVITY GROUNDWATER
SCORE CONTAMINATION
0 . 00-2 . 50 "Low Risk"
2 . 51 -5 .00 "Low to Moderate Risk"
5 . 01 -7 . 50 "Moderate to High Risk"
7 . 51 - 10 . 0 "High Risk"
AFTER LEAVING OUT THE USES THAT ARTHUR SHERIDAN SAYS WOULD BE
ELIMINATED FROM HIS PROPOSAL, THE FOLLOWING WOULD STILL BE
POSSIBILITIES FOR THE CORNER OF CANNONBALL AND ROUTE 34:
All permitted uses listed in"Office District" (See attached)
Under B-1 Limited Business District the following would still be possibilities:
antique sales
bakery- retail
barber shop
beauty shop
book store
cafeteria (diner)
camera shop
church or other place of worship
cigar, cigarette and tobacco store
clothes-pressing and repair
community center
dressmaker- seamstress
drugstore
florist sales
fnut and vegetable market-retail
gift shop
grocery store- supermarket
gymnasium
health food store
hobby shop
hospital or treatment center
household furnishing shop
ice cream shop
jewelry- retail
laundry, cleaning and dyeing- retail
library
magazine and newsstand
meat market
medical clinic
mortuary- funeral home
nursery- daycare
park
photography studio
playground
post office
professional building
recreation center
restaurant
shoe and hat repair
All special uses permitted in O District(office) ?
Under B-2 General Business District the following would still be possibilities:
all uses permitted in the O and B-1 Districts ?
appliances- sales
Army/Navy surplus sales
art gallery- art studio sales
art supply store
automatic food service
automobile accessory store
bicycle shop
billiard parlor
blueprint and Photostat shop
carry-out food service
catalog sales office
clothing store- all types
discount store
drygoods store- retail
floor covering sales
furniture sales-new/used
hardware store
health club or gymnasium
interior decorating studio
junior department store
leather goods
locksmith
music,instrument and record store
newspaper publishing
office equipment and supply sales
paint/wallpaper store
personal loan agency
pet store
picture frame store
radio and television studios
reducing salon, masseur and steam bath
sporting goods
stationery
taxidermist
toy store
typewriter- sales and repair
variety store
watch and clock sales and repair
weaving and mending - custom
all special uses permitted in the B-1 district ?
Under B-3 Service Business District,the following would still be possibilities:
all uses permitted in the B-2 district ?
appliance- service only
business machine repair
catering service
drive-in restaurant
electrical equipment sales
greenhouse
mini warehouse storage
miniature golf
plumbing supplies and fixture sales
pump sales
upholstery shop
veterinary clinic
Under B-4 Business District,the following would be possibilities:
All special uses permitted in the B-3 district ?
10-7A-1
10-7A-1
CHAPTER 7
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
ARTICLE A. O OFFICE DISTRICT
SECTION:
10-7A-1: Uses Permitted
10-7A-2: Special Uses
10-7A-3: Lot Area
10-7A-4: Yard Areas
10-7A-5: Lot Coverage
10-7A-6: Maximum Building Height
10-7A-7: Off-Street Parking and Loading
10-7A-1: USES PERMITTED:
Advertising agency.
Bank.
Barber shop.
Beauty shop.
Bookkeeping service.
Club - private indoor.
Coffee shop.
College, university or junior college.
Commercial school, trade school - offering training in classroom study.
Credit union.
City of Yorkville
10-7A-1 10-7A-1
Detective agency.
Employment office.
{
Engineering office.
Government office.
Income tax service.
Insurance office.
r1.
Ubrary.
Manufacturing agent's office. -
Medical clinic.
Park.
Professional offices.
Public accountant.
Real estate office.
Savings and loan association.
Stenographic service.
Stock broker.
Telegraph office.
Ticket office.
Title company. i
Travel agency.
Utility office. (Ord. 1973-56A, 3-28-74).
ct �
1
10-7A-7
0-7A-2
10-7A-2: SPECIAL USES:
Planned developments.
Solid waste disposal site. (Ord. 1973-56A, 3-28-74)
10-7A-3: LOT AREA: No lot shall have an area less than twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet. (Ord. 1973-56A, 3-28-74)
10-7A-4: YARD AREAS: No building shall be erected or enlarged
unless the following yards are provided and maintained in
connection with such building, structure or enlargement:
A. Front Yard: A front yard of not less than thirty feet (30').
B. Side Yard: A side yard on each side of the zoning lot of not less than
ten feet (10'), except where a side yard adjoins a street, the
minimum width shall be increased to twenty feet (20').
C. Rear Yard: A rear yard of not less than twenty feet (20'). (Ord. -
1973-56A, 3-28-74)
10-7A-5: LOT COVERAGE: Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the
area of the zoning lot may be occupied by buildings and
structures, including accessory buildings. (Ord. 1973-56A, 3-28-74)
10-7A-6: MAIMMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: No building or structure
shall be erected or altered to exceed a maximum height of
twenty five feet (25') or two (2) stories. (Ord. 1973-56A, 3-28-74)
10-7A-7: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING: All in accordance
with regulations set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. (Ord.
1973-56A, 3-28-74)
City of Yorkuille