No preview available
 /
     
Zoning Commission Minutes 2012 08-22-12 APPROVED 10/24/12 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:00 p.m. Yorkville City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560 Committee Members in Attendance: Jeff Baker Gary Neyer Greg Millen Mike Crouch - Chairman City Officials in Attendance: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Meeting Called to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. and Mr. Crouch welcomed everyone. Roll Call Roll call was taken. A quorum was established. Citizen’s Comments There was one guest in attendance, Mr. Jason Engberg. Previous Minutes Mr. Baker moved to accept the July 25, 2012 minutes and it was seconded by Mr. Neyer. There was no discussion, 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 said as an update to the last meeting there were a few revisions on text and some items related to how the Conservation Development Criteria Standards was being done: -The term “collective gardening” was removed and replaced with “collective gardening organized by the subdivision or a home owner’s association” in order to clarify that it was not for the entire community. -The next item revised was the Density Bonus Table Standards. For the most part, they were in line with comments regarding how quantifying was done regarding terms such as “innovative” and “exceeding beyond,” so they are now more specific. Case in point is the “wetland restoration and/or enhancement performed which exceeds the quantitative standards established in the United City of Yorkville’s Wetland Protection Regulation for Water Quality and Stormwater Management Benefits (Ord.2008-01) as determined by the City Engineer.” -There was also a change to the “detention/retention basins which have the functionality to meet the minimum quantitative stormwater runoff requirements and also provides one (1) or more of the following innovations” is in lieu of ‘innovative detention basin design.’ Mr. Crouch would like a clear definition of the word ‘significant.’ Mr. Neyer asked Ms. Noble to walk the committee through a 1,000 acre scenario; what is their non-bonus density; a pre-bonus density; and a post-bonus density. In the June memo, on the side, Ms Noble said there was an example of how she walked the committee through the calculations. Starting with the gross area (200 acres in example), then subtract the existing ROW (5 acres MAX); wetlands (15 acres) and that becomes your buildable area (180 acres). Then take 15% for stormwater management and 10% for roads (of buildable). Mr. Neyer th asked if they were using fractions of an acre so they agreed to round it to the nearest 10 of an acre (4500 sq. ft. or 137.7) to get the net site area per the Parks Planner. That would mean there could be 275.4 dwelling units per acre on 200 gross acres; or make the ratio 1.3 acre pre-bonus. Mr. Neyer then asked about the parks and schools. Ms. Noble said anything above the open space requirement by 10% will get a bonus. Mr. Crouch asked whether or not all properties North and South of the river should even be developed? Ms. Noble said they should not and Mr. Crouch agreed. Mr. Baker mentioned there have been several properties that he did not want to pass that the City did; but, by law, the City has to allow them to build on the property. Ms. Noble said the bonuses could be used as a tool to get more if the commission just works the numbers out right. Mr. Baker said they first need to get rid of subtracting: 1) the wetlands because it’s probably already in your development and the 15 acres are already used somewhere else; and 2) stormwater. The reason is because if you’re using wetlands, stormwater is a moot point because it’s already being done. Ms. Noble suggested it all be open space; in other words, growth area minus all right-of-way (required wetlands, stormwater, roads). After much discussion, it was agreed this chapter was unnecessary. If a developer wanted to develop a marginal property, they would need to bring it to the committee as a P.U.D. Mr. Neyer asked if there was any give-and-take when it came to wiping out formerly buildable lots. Ms. Noble said it hasn’t happened yet, but she’s sure it will. Mr. Crouch asked Ms. Noble if she could research and find out what the trade-offs were like in the case of Grand Reserve. He knows what was done in the case of school district, but what was done in terms of the water tower (which is specifically a City issue)? If there was some understanding of what took place for any of the fire stations, etc., that would be worthwhile. Ms. Noble said it would be in the Plan Council minutes. Mr. Neyer said the expectations are known ahead of time when it comes to the Park Board and the school district. The committee knows there are strict formulas and they apply to everybody. What doesn’t apply to everybody would be situations such as, “Where do we put a water tower; weather sirens; police department; fire department; Public Works facility (maintenance yard)?; etc. Ms Noble said that’s where the Municipal Building fee comes into play. Mr. Neyer asked if there was a trade-off given for the taking of that property. Ms. Noble said an annexation agreement is the only opportunity for the City to take acreage for one of the above purposes that is not a school and is not a park (eminent domain or condemnation). Ms. Noble will look into the concept of public building credit. Mr. Millen asked if it’s a functional property (baseball fields, paths, etc.), can they be open up more and the developer can get more lots and density to try for the 20%, or does it matter if it is wetlands or prairie lands or parks in order to get more density? Are they all considered one big “bundle?” Mr. Neyer said the bonus isn’t big enough to economically justify doing it and the developer won’t do it. At this point, Ms. Noble stated, and the committee agreed, that the entire Conservation Design District (CDD) is scrapped. She then asked if the committee wanted her to look into opportunities to have transferable development rights; such as, if you are required to put in some type of public building or facility that you can use that area and transfer it to some other percentile. Mr. Crouch brought back the point that the City would be well-served to do some research and find out how this was addressed in other places and find out what is an equitable trade-off. He would like to avoid negotiations because he doesn’t think that’s a good way for the City to foster a relationship with developers. He feels a sense of ‘fairness’ should be part of the process. Ms. Noble said as far as the Zoning Ordinance, she didn’t think they could address it here. She felt the Plan Commission could bring it up because even staff could not initiate it; she would need a Plan Commissioner to initiate it. If they would like her to go in that direction to research, she could then definitely do that. In summary, Chapter 11 is out. Mr. Crouch then suggested they move on to CMAP. Ms. Noble confirmed they put in a grant application for technical assistance in writing these ordinances – there have been approximately 88 communities that have applied. She received a 40-minute phone interview and found out they have made it to the next step. She won’t know until October whether or not their project has been chosen. Mr. Baker made a motion to adjourn; it was moved and seconded and agreed by all. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie Olsem 09.17.12