Minutes of the Kane County Regional Planning Commission. Kane County Government Center 719 Batavia Avenue, Building A Geneva, Illinois.

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Kane County Government Center 719 Batavia Avenue, Building A Geneva, Illinois May 5, 2010 The held a meeting on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 7:30 p.m., at the Kane County Government Center, Building A, 4 th Fl. Conference Room. Commission members in attendance included: Chairman Morgenroth, McTavish, Millen, Harney, Shepro, Vasandani, and Weiten. Absent: Arnold. Staff present: Development and Community Services Dir. VanKerkhoff; Planners Hill, Miller, and Sabdo. Also present: County Board Member Drew Frasz; KDOT representative Heidi Files; Land Planning Consultant Phil Bus; Intern Jackie Forbes; ZBA Member Hal Bowen; Messrs. Rob Bresticker, Dave Vivoli, and Tom Williams with Oak Openings Home Owners Association; Resident, Mr. John Pree, Village of Campton Hills/Campton Township; Village of Lily Lake President Jesse Heffernan and Lily Lake Plan Commissioner Steve Zahn; Mr. James Morgan with Campton Township Planning Commission; Mr. Chuck Hanlon and Ms. Deanne Orlik with Land Vision Planning; Property Owners Roger and Janet Brown, Elburn, IL; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt. 1. Call Meeting to Order Chairman Morgenroth called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call The roll was called and a quorum was established with seven (7) voting members. 3. Approval of the April 14, 2010 Minutes McTavish had minor corrections to submit. The April 14, 2010 minutes were approved, as corrected, on motion by Shepro, seconded by Harney. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0. Commission members and staff introduced themselves. (Weiten arrives 7:35 p.m.) 4. Concept Plan Review: Brown Anderson Road Property PUD Because the land uses being proposed were not totally consistent with the 2030 Plan, Dir. VanKerkhoff reported this petition was under review by the Commission. He explained the concept plan stage for those attending the meeting. Mr. Chuck Hanlon, with Land Vision, Inc., introduced Mr. and Mrs. Roger Brown, the owners of the 178-acre property under discussion. He described the site as being adjacent to the corporate limits of Lily Lake and the corporate limits of Campton Hills. Adjacent subdivisions were pointed out, as were easements, wetlands, drainage, commercial sites, soils, and access points to the site, one of which extends, with a public right-of-way, to the Brown property and which was proposed

2 to be extended. Mr. Hanlon referenced Lily Lake s newly adopted comprehensive plan which he believes coincides with the proposal. Mr. Hanlon further noted the existing pond on the site which he said may be considered for future fire assistance and was being kept as open space. To get to the site, an extension of Mohican Lane is being proposed, as well as consideration for a southern connection to the site. Per Mr. Hanlon, the existing zoning did include residential use, which was south of the parcel. Approximately 41% of the site was open space and just under 45% was proposed for residential use. Mr. Hanlon stated he was unclear if the proposal met the standards of the County s Comprehensive Plan or not or if it met Countryside Estate zoning, but the reason the proposal was for a Planned Unit Development was because it would be a site-specific plan with a variety of lot sizes with different terrain. The minimum lot size would be one (1) acre. The site would also include a 10- acre commercial area south of Route 64, since there was existing commercial zoning on the north side of Route 64. He stated the County s Gruen & Gruen Report recommended creating commercial opportunities in some part of the rural areas. Because there was no managed drainage system within the Oak Openings subdivision, Mr. Hanlon explained that the proposal will pick up the drainage and manage it from the development s own retention area. A drain tile survey was also referenced. The tree line was pointed out on the aerials with Mr. Hanlon stating that a tree survey will need to be completed. Asked how the Plan Commission was supposed to argue that the development was consistent with the County s 2030 Plan, Mr. Hanlon explained the topography of the commercial area was to be considered. Enough precedent existed for a commercial use. However, Shepro pointed out language in staff s report that referenced the County s Comprehensive Plan which discouraged stand-alone, isolated commercial areas that were not developed as part of a municipality or a municipal plan. Questions followed, to which Lily Lake President, Ms. Heffernan, stated that north of Route 64 included Residential and B-1 zoning. Property owner, Mr. Brown, stated he would be willing to annex that property to one of the nearby municipalities. Asked why the property owners did not go to the municipalities for annexation, Mr. Hanlon explained that a community existed made up of rural residential and there was the open space break which read as a county rural residential development. Mr. Hanson reiterated that the owner was seeking input and guidance on the proposal. Shepro recalled a developer had approached the Village of Lily Lake for annexation of the property but that Lily Lake had a moratorium in effect and discouraged the development. Mr. Brown explained that former Planning Dir. Sam Santell recommended that a green belt be created to provide a land buffer between the municipalities. Millen asked Mr. Brown why he was developing the property, wherein Mr. Brown explained that he had five contracts on the property since 2002 but none followed through and the only way to get a sale was to rezone the property. Vasandani felt the proposal was reasonable at the concept stage and had no issues with the commercial request. Other questions followed on the location of the school district boundary line, whether the County Forest Preserve could be the owner/steward of the proposed open space, and whether the bike trail along Anderson Road could connect with the Great Western Trail. VanKerkhoff reviewed staff s technical report, specifically paying attention to the land use. An explanation of the County s Land Use Strategy Plan followed for those in attendance, which did indicate the area as Open Space and Countryside Estate Residential and which was a land use that did May 5,

3 reflect unique topographical areas such as the Brown property. However, Dir. VanKerkhoff explained that the County s plan did not indicate commercial use along Route 64 and the proposal before the commissioners tonight was due to the Commercial request and Rural Residential listed on the concept plan and those two not being consistent with the County s Land Use Map. Staff s recommendation for all categories was to encourage the concept plan with recommendations: 1) to remove the Commercial Use; 2) that a tree identification study be completed; 3) that a variety of lot sizes be considered under the zoning of Countryside Residential and Rural Residential to reflect the surrounding land uses; and 4) to find a resolution of the ownership of the open space. Shepro believed the site should have been classified as Resource Management Area because the current classification basically was acting as a transition area to the Agricultural Corridor. He did not support departing from the Comprehensive Plan without good reason. He believed that when a site is challenging due to wooded areas and other environmental issues suggesting Countryside Estate, it was not the best effective way to deal with wooded areas. Chairman Morgenroth thought the Commercial Use was out of place for the parcel. Representing the Oak Openings Owners Association, Robert Bresticker, Secretary of the Association, distributed a handout of concerns to the commissioners. Mr. Tom Williams, President of Oak Openings Owners Association was also introduced. Mr. Bresticker reviewed photographs of the proposed site and noted that much of the housing being proposed was being proposed in the open space area. He also added that the petitioner s Countryside Estate definition left out specific language, specifically The gross density should not generally exceed an average of one dwelling unit per four acres of land. He stated the proposal will include more density and will place pressure on the wells in the area, noting some have dried up in the area. He asked that the Commission support its own 2030 Plan and stated the proposal was not in compliance with Section of the County s plan. Mr. Bresticker further discussed that with the extension of Mohican Lane, the roads in the Oak Openings Subdivision are not constructed for more traffic and many curves, hills, and trees existed in the area, which caused safety concerns for the residents and for vehicles. Mr. Bresticker pointed out that the Kane County Dept. of Transportation ( KDOT ) was also proposing to connect to Fenimore Lane through a platted lot. Mr. Bresticker closed by summarizing the residents three major concerns: compliance with the 2030 Kane County Plan; evidence that the water supply to existing wells in the Oak Openings wells will be unaffected; and no road extensions. Kane County Board Member Drew Frasz asked about the location of the detention, wherein Dir. VanKerkhoff explained it was too early in the plan to discuss. Mr. Frasz commented that people make decisions based on the County s 2030 Plan and the concept plan being presented was a large departure from the 2030 Plan. He agreed the connection of the roads was a large issue by the residents. He asked if the Campton Township Highway Dept. provided any input. Mr. Frasz suggested that if a connection was necessary that it be in the form of an emergency access or, as a last choice, insert speed humps to reduce vehicular speed. He reminded the commissioners that the representatives from the Oak Openings Owners Association were not against the concept plan but, instead, had short list of requests for the commissioners to consider. Mr. John Pree stated he is present as a Village of Campton Hills resident and a Campton Township resident. He was a former member of the Campton Township Plan Commission. As a resident, he had hoped the Regional Planning Commission received and read the letter from the May 5,

4 Campton Hills Village President who expressed her concerns. Shepro summarized the comments received from the Campton Hills Plan Commission for the commissioners, which included consideration for connection to the bike paths; consideration of the woodlands; the area being a recharge area; the wetlands, that one area appears to be buildable along Route 64; protection of the water table; encouraging the clustering of homes; consolidation of two school districts up to Route 64; and preservation of open space to the Forest Preserve. Mr. Pree also reiterated the concern for the water wells; connecting to the west road being difficult; and considering pedestrian connectivity to the west with a walkway/bikeway access. Village of Lily Lake President Jessie Heffernan stated she supported the concept plan, the open space, and the residential use, but did not support the proposed commercial zoning. She said the existing commercial parcels north of Route 64 were difficult to occupy and the residential zoning was spotty. Shepro pointed out that because there was currently B1 zoning on the north side of Route 64 there was the potential for those parcels to be sold as B-1 Commercial, to which Ms. Heffernan agreed, noting it was a transitional area, but it was currently premature. Mr. Jim Morgan, Campton Township Planning Commission, referenced his letter and agreed that the Resource Management classification was probably a better classification. He did support the mix of lot sizes as long as the natural features were protected and he supported the proposal as long as consideration was made for the groundwater. Mr. Morgan explained the township had a groundwater model that was prepared which showed the impact of the wells. The model suggests the need to dig deeper. Harney strongly recommended connecting Oak Openings to the proposed because it would make both subdivisions safer and would dovetail with the County s Fit for Kids program to allow kids to travel the interior roadway system. Millen agreed with Mr. Frasz s comments and did not support the commercial use. Shepro agreed there were challenges to the site and also agreed the commercial use was probably not a desirable location and it was not consistent with the County s 2030 Plan. He agreed with Harney s comments about the roadway, noting that the road network was not designed for significant density. However, he was not sure if he would support the concept plan unless there was road connectivity. Shepro reminded members that the Commission discussed previous support for connectivity of subdivisions rather than making travel difficult. McTavish relayed she drove the subdivision and listed the challenges to the site. She questioned if a road could be installed without being costing a significant amount. VanKerkhoff agreed the site had challenges and explained that KDOT was suggesting that the proposed extension may not be the best location for a connection. McTavish believed the woodlands could be cleaned up and she could envision the commercial area as being a destination at some point but the petitioner could apply for that at a later time. She supported moving forward with staff s recommendation. Weiten supported the proposal with staff s recommendation but removing the commercial aspect, citing the problems along Route 64. Vasandani supported staff s recommendations along with the commercial aspect. Chairman Morgenroth thought staff s recommendations were thorough but did not believe the road connection should be part of a motion. He liked the fact that the developer was addressing the issues as best possible. Dialog then followed whether the road connectivity should be included in the motion or not. Shepro stated the area was platted with stubbed roads. Some commissioners thought it was premature May 5,

5 to determine the access and to leave the issue up to staff. Shepro said he would not support the motion because it would depart from the 2030 Plan and increase the density and reduce the access to the greater number of lots. Commissioner Millen made a motion that the conceptual plan be encouraged with the stipulations and issues addressed on page 12 of Staff s Report, dated May 5, 2010 (which recommended that the Commercial zoning be eliminated). Seconded by Commissioner Vasandani. Voice vote followed: Aye: Nay: Harney, McTavish, Millen, Vasandani, Weiten, Morgenroth Shepro Motion passed by voice vote of 6-1. Mr. Brown invited the commissioners to view the topographical survey and visit his property if concerns existed. He stated that until 1996 and throughout the time he owned his property, it was zoned R-1, which did not change until the Regional Planning Commission changed its criteria for evaluating properties of his classification and the commission changed it to adopt the Lily Lake Comprehensive Plan Conceptual Land Use Strategy Update and Schedule Dir. VanKerkhoff distributed copies of a proposed timeline for the 2040 Conceptual Land Use Strategy, noting he and Chairman Morgenroth discussed starting future meetings at 7:00 p.m. to stay on task and possibly setting up a second monthly meeting. Commissioners agreed to hold the meetings at 7:00 p.m. and scheduling the second meetings now and then cancelling them if not needed. VanKerkhoff would send out a schedule of meeting dates to the commissioners. Dir. VanKerkhoff also distributed copies of the proposed three Planning Partnership Areas ( PPA ) for the County. Shepro agreed eliminating the existing PPA system was timely but he queried as to how the new PPAs made sense running north/south when traffic issues appeared to be addressed running east/west, wherein Dir. VanKerkhoff explained that not only the County s Transportation Department used the three regions, but also the County s Health Department used the three regions for their health data. Discussion followed that the three regions made more sense. Vasandani believed that the corridor areas were now more in sync with each other. Dialog followed that the new PPAs were more about relationships within the communities to the west. The goals of the existing eight PPAs were explained by staff. VanKerkhoff explained that staff was proposing a consideration to leave the eight PPAs due to the amount of staff time and meeting time they represented and to accept the three new PPAs as adopted by the County s Transportation Department, for consistency purposes. Consultant Mr. Phil Bus explained that the three new regions become an organizational tool for public hearings and participation, i.e., Waubonsee in the southern region, the Kane County Government Center in the center region, and Elgin Community College in the northern region, given the lack of staff resources. Dir. Vasandani proposed that if efficiency was necessary, he sketched another idea for the three regions (split the county north/south and create a western third region), explaining he was coming from a land use perspective. However, Shepro explained how the three regions were laid out for the purposes of the transportation impact fees. May 5,

6 Further dialog followed regarding the prior Land Use Strategy Area names. Per staff, since the focus was now including the Health Department, staff thought it best to reconsider naming the Land Use Strategy Areas. Proposed for the former Urban Area was Sustainable Urban Area; the former Critical Growth Area as the Healthy Communities Growth Area; and the former Agricultural Area/Village Area to be named as Food/Farm/Small Towns Area. Dialog followed that pinpointing Healthy Communities to one area was not fair. Dialog followed that the names should not have to change. Mr. Bus discussed how the revised names came about, i.e., the Randall Road Corridor and the Bus Rapid Transit Corridor. Mr. Chuck Hanlon suggested renaming the entire title as Sustainable at the top and Emerging in the middle. Mr. Bus thought some towns were beyond emerging. Staff would review the names and comments and return with more suggestions. Staff and commissioners agreed to hold their next meeting on June 9, 2010, 7:00 p.m. 6. Making Kane County Fit for Kids Update - See staff report. 7. Staff Report - See staff report. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. on motion by Shepro, seconded by Millen. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0. \s\ Celeste K. Weilandt Celeste K. Weilandt, Recording Secretary May 5,