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 7:00 p.m. in the Village Board Room.

Ochsenschlager introduced and welcomed news reporter, Kelly Castino, with the "Kane County Chronicle".

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, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary

The correction is on page 3, -second paragraph from the bottom. It should read:

Schiber Buening said the County did approve them and the reason the Petitioners are asking for the variance is so that they can come into the Village with a legally conforming garage.

Quorum present as at roll call.

The Petitioners, Eric and Beyth Honea, were not present and the presentation was given by Buening.

The requests are to:

Rezone the parcel from County PUD zoning to R-2 Detached Residential District, after the property has been annexed and

Grant a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet.

The owners built this home in 2003 and in order for them to obtain water and sewer services from the Village, the owners were required to sign an annexation

agreement. In order to ratify the annexation agreement by the Village Board, this public hearing was required on the proposed zoning change and variances in from the Planning Commission. No additional development is proposed for this property.

Several citizens contacted Staff regarding the intended zoning of the property, but no objections were received. There was no one present at the Pubic Hearing either supporting or opposing the petitioners' requests.

The Commission being familiar with the situation of the requests had no further questions or comment.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the Public Hearing on Petition 03-001 at 7:06 p.m.

Quorum present at roll call.

Jose Magana, M.D., the Petitioner was present, however turned the presentation of his petition over to Buening.

To rezone the parcel located at 6 Green Hills Court in the Prestbury Subdivision

From County PUD zoning to R-2 Detached Residential District, after rezoning.

Buening stated this request was similar to the request heard at the previous Public Hearing. However, in this case, there is no petition for any variances. The Public Hearing is more of a formality to ratify the annexation agreement.

Several people contacted Village Staff regarding the intended zoning of the property, but no objections were received. No public was present at the Hearing either voicing support or opposition to the petition.

Again, the Commission/ZBA, being familiar with the circumstances did not have comment or questions regarding the subject of the petition.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.

Roll call vote on the motion:

None

None

The Village Board approved of the Subdivision and Annexation. The Petitioner has to submit a signed Annexation Agreement.

Staff is still reviewing the plans. Substantive changes have been made to the plans, among which is a reduction of multifamily, having been taken out of the area east of Municipal Drive. The Final Plat of Subdivision will come back to the Plan Commission for review.

The petition was in front of the Village Board and it found no problem with the Rezoning and Variances requested. .

The Petitioner's request was to allow an accessory structure to be 1,256 S.F. in area instead of 700 s.f. There are some drainage problems involved with the property. The County must find and correct these issues before the Village will consider annexation. The Village does not want to bring the property into the Village with its existing problems.

The changes proposed have not been before the Village Board as yet. There were other items taking priority.

The Village Board agreed to changing the number of days from 45 to 120 for a decision to be made by the Plan Commission after a Public Hearing has been closed. The Board also approved of a super majority vote by the Village Board to overturn a petition the Plan Commission/ZBA turns down.

Jewel Proposed Development

The Village Board had discussion with the Jewel/Osco developer last night. The Board has some issues that must be resolved before continuing the approval process. For instance, the incentive agreement and the cross access to Castle Bank. The Board would prefer the burial of the utility lines. Staff will be going back to the developer to work out the issues. A gentleman from the audience asked if in the Jewel development plan there would be accommodation for a bike lane so people could get to the store without having to get in their car and drive. Buening told him the Village was revising the Comprehensive Plan and a component of it will be a bike path plan.

A woman in the audience questioned if the Jewel project does not materialize if the Village had plans for bringing in another grocery store. Buening told her the Village has economic development consultants that are working on it. The Chicagoland area food stores has a tight market.

Although a notice was posted on the entrance door to the Village Hall stating there would be no discussion regarding the rumored Water Park, approximately 36 people remained at the meeting. After the meeting agenda items were completed, one of the Windsor Point residents asked

that those present be given the opportunity to speak in opposition to a water park. Another resident interjected that not everyone present is against the water park. Many just want information.

Buening told them this was not an appropriate time for any discussion on the water park. There has been no formal process initiated by the developer. If a process begins, there will be publication of a hearing, signs posted and adjacent residents and property owners notified by mail.

The people continued to ask questions. The answers given by Buening were: The property in question is west and north of Route 56 (56 and Galena). The property is not a part of Sugar Grove. It is in Kane County.

One question was why have a water park in this location when there is one nearby part of Galena in the Fox Valley Park District? Buening responded, anyone has the right to file a petition.

Another person said he read that the developer had purchased the property in question. Dray said the developer possibly purchased an option on the property.

Another question posed was if Sugar Grove could support the water supply that such a park would require. Buening stated there was no point in getting into details on a development that has not as yet formally approached the Village. There has only been minimal discussion between the developer and the Village and staff.

Another person asked why the Village President viewed the water park in a favorable light. Ochsenschlager said the Commission wouldn't know and that he should perhaps ask the President.

A woman from the audience questioned if there are still plans for developing a town square. Buening stated the developer originally interested in working on the town square concept presented plans to the Village Board and they were not what the Board had envisioned and the process halted. However, at some point in time, there will be a town center.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary

     Home •   Contact us