VILLAGE OF SUGAR GROVE

The regular meeting of the Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was called to order by Chairman Irv Ochsenschlager at 7:01 p.m. in the Village Board Room.

Plan Commission/ZBA members present:

Steve Benesch, Bob Dray, Andy Konovodoff, Irv Ochsenschlager, Ryan Reuland, Ed Saloga, Brian Schiber. Quorum present.

Also present: Scott Buening, Community Development Director, Mike Ferencak, Associate Planner, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary

PETITION 04-009: 4 YORKSHIRE COURT (PRESTBURY)

Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 (After annexation) Petitioners William and Sandra Andry

Ochsenschlager opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Quorum present.

Presentation:

Buening explained that the Petitioners' request was for a Zoning Map Amendment from County PUD zoning to R-2 Detached Residential District after annexation. When residential property is annexed, it is brought in as R-1. The request is to then rezone it from R-1 to R-2, Detached Residential District after annexation at a future date.

The parcel is not contiguous to the Village and cannot be annexed at this time.

The property owner is currently building this home. In order to obtain water and sewer services from the Village, the owner was required to sign an annexation agreement. One of the terms of the agreement was to rezone the property to the R-2 District after annexation. This zoning district is equivalent to the existing PUD zoning on the property.

This matter is the same as petitions the Plan Commission/ZBA has considered in recent hearings.

Public Comment/Questions

Several people have contacted Staff regarding the intended zoning of the property, but no objections were received. No one was present in the audience either speaking for or against the Petitioners' request.

Petition Rezone/4 Yorkshire Court continued

Plan Commission/ZBA Questions/Comments

None

With no further comment or questions, Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the hearing at 7:05 p.m.

The Commission/ZBA, being familiar with this manner of request, having recently reviewed others that were similar, and having an understanding of the process, did not have questions or comment.

Konovodoff made a motion, seconded by Reuland, to recommend to the Village Board approval of the Petitioners William and Sandra Andry request to Rezone their property at 4 Yorkshire Court from R-1 to R-2 Detached Residential District after annexation to the Village.

Vote on the motion:

Ayes: Benesch, Dray, Konovodoff, Reuland, Saloga, Schiber, Ochsenschlager

Nays: None

Motion Carried

PETITION 04-010: NICKELS DIVISION:

Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 (after annexation) Variances for Front and Rear Yard Setback Reductions and Preliminary and Final Plat of Nickels Division Subdivision

Plan Commission/ZBA quorum present.

Chairman Ochsenschlager opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.

The Petitioners, Dennis and Sharon Nickels, are requesting:

Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 Detached Residential District (after annexation)

A Variance to reduce the front yard setback of the existing home from 30 feet to 18.9 feet

A Variance to reduce the front yard setback of the existing home from 30 feet to 6.1 feet

A Variance to waive all improvement requirements to Merrill Road

Approval of a Preliminary and final Plat of Nickels Division Subdivision

for the property located at 4S257 Merrill Road.

Presentation

John Thornhill, representing the Nickels, presented the petition. The subject site is a triangular piece of property located on the North side of Merrill Road 1.17 acres in size.

There is a small home existing on the Western portion of the lot. The Nickels would like to establish a second lot by division. The existing home would remain. A house from the Hannaford Farm subdivision would be located on the newly created Lot 2 of the Nickels division.

The Variances requested are for the existing house. The house would be legal non-conforming upon annexation. The petitioner wanted to be certain to have the variances to allow reconstruction (but not expansion) of the house if it should be substantially damaged or destroyed. If the building needed to be replaced, with a legal non-conforming status, requirements would revert back to the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Ochsenschlager questioned the matter of the Petitioner dedicating 40 feet for right-of-way. Thornhill said, yes, it was being offered. One Variance being requested on front yard setback of 30' is due to this footage being dedicated.

Public Comment and Questions

Terrence Hoffman of 4S341 Merrill Road, the home adjacent to the subject property was concerned that the zoning and variances being requested was not what is in the area. His property is one acre in size and other lots in the area range from one to three (and some greater). Putting two houses, as is being proposed, on half-acre lots does not fit into the neighborhood. Hoffman had no problem with setbacks as they are on the existing home, but any other buildings added should comply with required Village setbacks.

Hoffman expressed concern about the speed limits on Merrill Road. It appears drivers are traveling at a much faster rate of speed than is safe.

Still another concern was the matter of drainage. The drainage from the Nickels property flows through his property and on to Blackberry Creek. The front corner of his lot puddles and remains until evaporated or absorbed.

Hoffman had contacted Kane County and was told there were no plans submitted by the Nickels for well and septic for the proposed second lot. The County does not want to allow the sharing of septic and wells, which they will enforce.

Al Cormier of 4S192 Merrill Road, voiced his objection to the proposed division saying he thought it would set a precedent for others to do the same. Can you say yes to this request, and say no to another, he wondered? Ochsenschlager responded that requests similar to the one being considered would be taken by application to the Village/Plan Commission on a case by case basis for consideration taking into account for individual circumstances.

Ochsenschlager then read into the hearing record two letters received from the public, both in opposition to the Petition:

One was from Kate L. McCracken, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hoffman.

In it she states ". . . Based upon our discussions and subsequent discussions with Kane County, it appears that at the very least this request is premature." The County requires the owner to show that the existing well and septic can support two homes. The Petitioner has not prepared plans or proposed how he intends to property service the two homes proposed on the lots. The Petitioner has not established he met his burden of proof that the health, safety or welfare of the community will not be compromised.

In addition, the McCracken letter states, The current use is consistent with the surrounding area and the existing property is suitable for one house, one well and one septic system. There is no evidence the requested zoning will allow uses more suitable than the current use. They request this petition be denied, or at least postponed in order to allow the petitioner to provide sufficient evidence.

The second letter received in opposition was from Gloria and R.W. Geddes, of 4S174 Merrill Road. They would like to see the standards kept as set forth in the Village established ordinance. Merrill Road is beautiful. As development continues they would like to see its beauty maintained and development enhanced, rather than detract from its beauty. The proposed changes would do just the opposite. They hope the vote will be "no" on the variances and division.

Attorney Thornhill responded to these objections, stating there are 5-acre parcels east of the property in questions that were laid out in 1979. The same on the South side of Merrill. Something planned 35 years ago, should not be an impediment to today's changed circumstances. As far as Kane County's requirements for septic, it is not required at this point in time. Soil classification mapping goes on the Preliminary Plan. The requirement of the septic field being 75' away from the water well has been met. At the time of construction, the Health Department will require a site-specific design be submitted.

Schiber asked if the subject property was being annexed to the Village by skipping through Forest Preserve property. Buening stated this was the case, the contiguity was through the Forest Preserve, and the annexation petition was in process with an annexation agreement as part of it. Buening went on to say the only issue before the Plan Commission/ZBA was the rezoning, variances and preliminary and final plat of division.

With no further comments or questions forthcoming, Ochsenschlager closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m.

Plan Commission/ZBA discussion and action on Petition

Ochsenschlager asked Buening if the changes were met in response to the Village Engineer, Engineering Enterprises, comments. Attorney Thornhill stated the comments in the Engineer's letter were addressed. Buening confirmed that statement, but indicated he had not as yet received the Engineer's written report.

Dray asked if the existing house would stay on the same lot? Buening answered, yes.

Dray asked what the Comprehensive Plan called for at this location? Buening stated it calls for estate residential, with a density not to exceed more than 1 dwelling unit per acre. However, the proposal in question would be in keeping with what the Village will want for the revisions being made to the Comprehensive Plan. The lots in the vicinity and Hannaford Farm, and other lots, are an acre. The Hoffman's lot is 1.02 acre.

Dray asked if any part of the property in question is in the flood plain. Buening said, no.

Schiber said he thought the lots are too small to support well and septic.

Ochsenschlager said there is well and septic on Lot 1. Proposed Lot 2 would have its own well and septic. Buening stated he was not entirely knowledgeable about well and septic requirements, but thought the minimum for septic was one acre and the septic had to be a certain number of feet away from the well.

Konovodoff, Ochsenschlager and Dray recused themselves from voting on any motion of recommendation regarding the petition because they knew either the petitioners or those opposed. Saloga recused himself because he was a friend of the Nickels and also had a business tie with them. That left only 3 active Commission/ZBA members to make and vote on a recommendation, which is not a majority of members present to carry out action. Buening told them recusing was a personal matter, however, usually a member asks to be recused only if there is a business or financial tie with the petitioner. He went on to say that, Sugar Grove being a small community, there will be many instances when petitioners will be acquaintances of the Commissioners, but Plan Commission/ZBA business must be carried out regardless. With that perspective coming to light, Konovodoff, Ochsenschlager and Dray withdrew recusal. Now making six members available for recommendation.

Ochsenschlager had concerns about the septic system issue and that the lots proposed would be smaller than many existing in the immediate area. Dray felt reducing the lot sizes could set a precedent and lessens the integrity of the road.

Schriber made a motion, seconded by Reuland to recommend to the Village Board denial of the Petitioners request, Petition 04-010, for rezoning, variances and approval of Preliminary and Final Plat of Nickels Division Subdivision.

Vote on the motion:

Ayes: Benesch, Dray, Konovodoff, Ochsenschlager, Reuland, Schiber

Nays: None

Recused: Saloga

Motion Carried

Buening stated the matter of the Petitioners requests would now be in the Village Board's hands.

PETITION 04-011: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT

Banks as a Special Use, With or Without Drive Through in B-1, B-2 and B-3 Zoning Districts. Petitioner, the Village

The request before the Plan Commission/ZBA for consideration is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Banks with or without drive-through as a Special Use in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 Commercial Districts.

Presentation

Buening explained that the Village has had interest expressed from several banks in locating facilities within the Village limits. In addition, several shopping center developers have wanted to ensure that one or more of their outlots could be used for banks. Due to changes in banking regulation, there has been a large increase in the number of banking companies as well as the number of bank branches located in the metropolitan area. Many growing suburbs have seen prime outlot locations in shopping centers taken by banks. The downside is that the prime outlots cannot then be used

for sales tax producing revenue for the Village retail or restaurant uses in such high profile locations.

Currently the Zoning Ordinance permits banks without drive through, to locate in B-1, 2 and 3 districts; and a Special Use for a bank with a Drive Through in B-2 and B-3.

The change in the Zoning Ordinance proposed would require any bank, whether it is in an in-line tenant space or on an outlot to petition for a special use prior to establishment in the Village.

There is a difference of opinion within the staff as to whether this amendment is necessary or warranted. Those on the Staff that feel it is warranted notes the loss of potential revenue to the Village in retail and restaurant uses. Those on the Staff that feel it is not warranted note that it creates more work for the Staff to review and process the special use petitions on a use that does not truly have a negative impact on the area. The dissenting Staff feels it would be adequate to approve of a text amendment that makes drive-throughs a special use only in the B-3 District and to prohibit drive-through in the B-1 and B-2 District. Staff is looking for a recommendation from the Plan Commission/ZBA on how, if at all, the Zoning Ordinance should be changed.

Public Comment/Questions

There was no one in the audience speaking in favor or opposition to the petition nor was any written comment received by Staff.

Ochsenschlager closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m.

Discussion of Plan Commission/ZBA

Ochsenschlager felt the change in regulations would give the Village more control over all banks wishing to locate within the Village.

Schiber appreciated Staff taking a pro-active stance on the problem and he would agree to make all classifications a special use.

Reuland questioned why single out just banks? There are other businesses that don't produce retail sales tax. He thought the special use requirement for banks was good, but had concern about limiting it to financial institutions.

Dray, giving the information that he had bank affiliations, stated a regulation requiring banks to go through the special use process appeared discriminatory. Banks like to locate in a center or development. There are doctor, lawyer and other offices that are non-generating sales tax entities.

Schiber stated the Village doesn't see others jumping in to build sales tax producing businesses, as much as it sees banks wanting to come in. As starved as the Village is for

sales tax revenue he didn't feel the changes in bank requirements a special use as discriminatory.

Benesch had concern that the special use requirement might hurt free enterprise and scare away developers. He did like the idea of encouraging sales tax producing businesses to come into the Village . He would like to see more businesses,other than banks,included in the special use requirement. It would be good for the Village to have more control over non-sales tax producing businesses.

Buening reminded the Commissioners that the Jewel proposal calls for an in-house bank as well as one outlot bank. Ochsenschlager pointed out the developer across from the Jewel site also was looking for a bank use.

Dray asked for the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Financial Institutions".

Buening, after referring to the Zoning Ordinance, stated it did not have a definition listed. In that case, reference would be made to Black's Law Dictionary.

Konovodoff, too, felt making all banks special use was discriminatory. He suggested letting the whole matter sit awhile to see what happens in the near future.

Saloga said he hated to see more hurdles for commercial development. The three banks within the Village have generated property tax. He thought free enterprise should prevail. The matter should be revisited in the future if proliferation of banks does become a problem.

Buening stated the zoning district classification will be reviewed in the Zoning Ordinance revisions and the subject of creating new zoning districts will be considered. Smaller lot districts may be created. The Comprehensive Plan is also going to be revised.

Buening stated some municipalities have required a fee in lieu of sales tax for non-sales tax producing entities, such as banks.

Konovodoff made a motion, seconded by Saloga to table the Petition No. 04-0411 to sometime in the future.

On discussion of this motion, Buening asked how long would it be tabled? He recommended the Commission/ZBA either recommend approval or denial.

Konovodoff withdrew his motion. Saloga withdrew his second of the motion.

Buening stated Village Administrator Eichelberger had a strong opinion about this issue and it would be of benefit for the Commissioner to hear Eichelberger's view With the prospect of Eichelberger attending the next Plan Commission/ZBA meeting another motion was made.

Dray made a motion, seconded by Schiber that consideration of Petition 04-0411 be tabled until the August 18, 2004 Plan Commission/ZBA meeting.

Vote on the Motion:

Ayes: Dray, Konovodoff, Reuland, Saloga, Schiber

Nays: Benesch

OLD BUSINESS - None

NEW BUSINESS - None

PLAN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, PROJECT UPDATES and

Buening introduced Mike Ferencak who was hired by the Village to serve as Associate Planner.

Buening distributed the Commissioner's stipend, the first check since the Village Board approved of compensating them.

Buening informed the Commissioners that a number of new developments will be coming in and that they should be prepared to attend some special meetings.

Dray asked when Settler's Hill (Kimball Hill) will be coming before the Plan Commission.

Buening responded, saying Settler's Hill will be reviewed by the Planning Council next Thursday prior to going to the Plan Commission.

Benesch called attention to a problem with a stop sign on the east side of town that began when the Village complained about the timing of the stoplight at Cross and Route 47. He suggested the stoplights be timed better.

Dray asked if Kimball Hill developers have addressed the traffic flow problems. Once development begins it will start on the east end. He thought all streets should connect through the development. Buening said Terry Street was the most direct east-west route and Joy will be extended into Terry. Dray thought the situation would get worse when this subdivision is funneled through the stop sign.

Saloga asked Buening for an update on the proposed water park, a development that was discussed at the Village Board meeting the evening before. Buening stated representatives of the water park development appeared before the Village Board to address the issues of concerns about the noise, traffic and others. They will come back in the near future before the Planning Council.

Ochsenschlager questioned if the water park was another no sales tax entity. Buening answered the Village would see substantial revenues from the water park development.

The Stillwater Developers are working through the process. There will be a special meeting to work out issues. The Village Board has not formally voted on the project as yet. There was a straw poll vote of 4 to 3 in favor of the development.

The 12 Windwood Drive petition went through.

The 550 Merrill Road petition will be annexed into the Village after the drainage issues have been resolved. There is a culvert in the wrong location. The County will work to correct the situation. The Village does not want to annex the property until that issue is resolved.

Mailbox changes found the Village Board changing its mind. They are now in favor of allowing masonry mailboxes in the right-of-way because they do look nice. However, a set of standards will be developed and a permit to construct them will be required.

128 N. Buckingham and 6 Green Hills Court will be on the next Village Board meeting for approval along with the annexation agreements for a future date.

Buening again told the Commissioners that a number of developments will be coming up for consideration in the near future: Neumann will be coming back with revisions for its development north and south of Prairie, Pulte will be making formal submittal for its site on Galena, Inland is proposing a residential development on property on the north side of Denny, north of I-I-88. Special meetings may be necessary to accommodate the expected caseload.

ADJOURMENT

Schiber made a motion, seconded by Reuland that the meeting be adjourned.

Voice vote was unanimously in favor.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Zak

Recording Secretary