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