Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2012 06-27-12 APPROVED 7/25/12 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:00 p.m. Yorkville City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560 Meeting Called to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. and Mr. Crouch welcomed everyone. Roll Call Roll call was taken. A quorum was established. Committee Members in Attendance: Greg Millen Jeff Baker Pete Huinker (arr 7:06 pm) Gary Neyer Michael Crouch City Officials in Attendance: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Citizen’s Comments There were no guests in attendance. Previous Minutes Mr. Baker moved to accept the April 25, 2012 minutes and Mr. Millen seconded. There were no discussions, corrections or additions so a vote to accept was made, unanimously accepted and the motion was carried. Mr. Crouch then turned the meeting over to Ms. Noble to cover Old Business. Old Business: Ms. Noble brought back a s a follow-up to the previous meeting discussions regarding Section 11-4-8-B of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (Ord. 2004-52) related to paved and fenced pedestrian crosswalks not less than ten (10) feet wide which may be required by the Plan Commission through the center of blocks more than nine hundred (900) feet long, where deemed essential to provide circulation or access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation, and other community facilities. Continuous chain-link fencing four (4) feet high will also be required on both sides of the walkway on an easement. Staff was able to locate an additional example of such a situation where a mid-block walkway was provided in a subdivision in Hampshire, Illinois for access to a nearby park, as illustrated in the photograph below. Although the walkway is partially delineated with a decorative wood split rail-fence, per our City Ordinance, chain-link fencing could occur within the easement along each side of the walk between the adjacent residential homes. Mr. Crouch brought up the common areas in Countryside behind houses where there’s no way to the area except through private properties. Although it is not anticipated to ever happen again, this would be something to possibly re-visit when doing the Subdivision Control Ordinance at Plan Commission. 11-11G-1;C: Purpose and Intent : Based on Committee discussions, there was some interest in how they can incorporate some sustainability elements as part of the green land design to promote more uses within the conservation area; less ‘dead’ and more ‘active’ green space. There was discussion on whether or not to promote community gardens as buffers between farmlands and housing. Mr. Baker questioned the need for it to actually be in the ordinance as a “buffer.” Mr. Millen stated that with current technology and how creative our minds can be, how can we create subdivisions that are more sufficient and help self-sustain? Mr. Crouch said the Commission needs to delineate so they don’t run into the problem Mr. Neyer talked about things being expressly forbidden because they weren’t mentioned at all. The Committee needs to delineate as broadly as they can what they’re trying to encourage; because, there will be thoughts in the future that are going to go well beyond anything they can come up with right now. It’s highly possible someone may think of something in the future that hasn’t been considered at this point in time. 11-11G-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements : There was debate on the last sentence: “Lots immediately abutting or within 150 feet of an existing or approved subdivision may be no smaller than 80% of the average lot size within the adjacent subdivision.” To ensure some degree of protection along the property line, it was decided to change it to a minimum building set-back (buffers) just on the lots abutting existing lots; perhaps ‘a side or rear yard set-back needs to be a minimum of 80% of the side yard or rear yard set-back of the adjoining, existing subdivision.’ The committee will think about it and bring it back to the next meeting. All agree the ideas discussed are better than the current language. 11-11G-4: Maximum Building Height : On Part A., it was agreed to change 2.5 stories to 3 stories. 11-11G-5: Development Standards : Mr. Neyer questioned if the area was being subtracted twice (ROW as existing and already includes streets and Streets as future) and it was agreed that it was. Mr. Crouch explained if you subtract the ROW, you have already included the street. Ms. Noble is going to check with Ms. Schraw for clarification. In the meantime, they are going to use what they have for now. At this point, you have 25 acres of stormwater management and streets subtracted from 100 acres and you have a net site area of 75 acres out of the original 200 acres. In other words, the committee is looking at density bonus (units per acre) provision vs. minimum lot size (normal zoning). Ms. Noble said a Conservation Design District would need to attract a willing demographic who want a communal, environmental-minded type of living space transitioning from rural to suburban. She added they need to create the environment for this to happen and make it desirable for a developer to do and have it on the market to be accepted. Mr. Neyer said it was very laudable to create incentives for Conservation Design elements to take place in the community. If that’s what the community wants from a planning standpoint, then the ideal would be to come up with a simple, straightforward manner to provide incentives that will actually induce a developer to do it. That’s the ‘happy medium’ the committee is trying to find. He agrees avoiding the P.U.D. route is huge. If you can provide the incentives and keep it on a normal track, that would be ideal and there may actually be some takers on it. Mr. Millen feels it is important that they work on these issues because they will bring a different opportunity to Yorkville – to be able to provide something different. “ Ms. Noble posed the question to the committee, So how about not making this a district, should we just ?” make it a chapter titled, “Density Bonus Options The committee was quick to point out possible problems by opening it up to all residential zoning. Mr. Crouch suggested ‘looking first at the Conservation Design to see if there’s already a successful model design that would work for us – or not. If there isn’t, then let’s just dispense with it. Let’s see if there’s a waytoincorporate the other bonuses in the other zonings.’ He thinks the issue they want to be careful of is that they also have to not only sell this to the public but they also have to sell it to the City Council. Mr. Neyer stated the ordinances don’t have a lot of history in terms of the fact they don’t go back very far and he thinks some things may have already been tried. New Business : Ms. Noble told the group she has applied for a grant through CMAP to get technical assistance so she can get some staff to help write and research all of this. She hopes to be able to get through everything (with assistance) by the end of the year. Mr. Crouch asked if there was a timeline for the grant and she said the deadline is August 1 and final approval by October 10. As a note, she told the group Plan Commission will be re-writing at the same time as Zoning Commission is writing the Subdivision Control Ordinance. There was no further business so Mr. Baker made a motion to adjourn; it was seconded by Mr. Neyer and agreed by all. The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in Yorkville City Hall in the conference room. The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie Olsem