Zoning Commission Minutes 2013 08-28-13APPROVED 10/23/13
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
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 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Crouch and he welcomed everyone.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken; a quorum was established.
Committee Members in Attendance
Michael Crouch Phil Haugen
Gary Neyer Jeff Baker
Greg Millen (arrived after meeting started)
City Officials in Attendance
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Jason Engberg – Community Development Intern
Citizen’s Comments
There were no citizens in attendance.
Previous Minutes
Mr. Crouch asked for a motion to approve the July 24, 2013 minutes. He made a correction that he did
not make the motion to approve the June 26, 2013 minutes; Mr. Millen asked for a motion to approve
the minutes (minutes corrected). With that correction, it was moved to accept by Mr. Haugen and
seconded by Mr. Baker; there was no discussion on the motions; approved unanimously; motion carried
on minutes with correction. Mr. Crouch then turned the meeting over to Mr. Engberg to cover Old
Business.
Old Business:
Chapter 16: Review Off-Street Parking and Loading: Ms. Noble read a memo from someone with a
complaint about a neighboring limousine/taxi parking issue. She then read the current ordinance for the
residential district, in part, “Under no circumstance shall required parking facilities, accessory to
residential structures, be used for the storage of commercial vehicles, or for the parking of automobiles
belonging to employees, owners, tenants, visitors or customers of business or manufacturing
establishments.” The way it reads appears that the person who has a company vehicle owned by them
(maybe a pick-up truck or something of that nature) cannot park it in their driveway or garage and she
does not think that is the intent of the actual ordinance. When she asked the City attorney to look at it,
he said his concern with that sentence is that it is so unclear that it would be very difficult for us to
determine which vehicles were intended to be prohibited (it’s not clear on if it’s regulating type or
function of the vehicle) and he suggested this section be amended it as proposed update to the Zoning
Ordinance and to define the type of vehicles they want regulated and the regulations that apply.
If the vehicle does not encroach on neighboring property, the committee decided to remove that
sentence from the Zoning Ordinance.
Moving on, Mr. Engberg continued to cover the changes he made to Chapter 17.
Table 10.17.01 and 10.17.02: Mr. Engberg fixed tables 1 and 2. The corner side yards now
match the front yards.
Table 10.17.03 and 10.17.04: Under Materials, Mr. Engberg added Barbed Wire (on top of
fence, minimum 6’ tall). Mr. Baker thought 6’ was a little low for barbed wire. The language
was clarified to read, “at a minimum elevation of 6’ above grade.” Under ‘Materials’ it should
read, “The following materials are acceptable for any Utility fence.”
CHAPTER 18 – Telecommunication Tower and Antenna Regulations:
Mr. Engberg said under 10-18-5: Special Uses and Miscellaneous Use; Item 6, he added three criteria:
A. The parcel that any antennas, antenna structures and towers are located on must be at least
two (2) acres;
B. The parcel must not have a single family home on the property;
C. The total height of the structure must be less than the distance from the base of the structure
to the closest structure on all adjacent parcels.
On a recommendation from Mr. Neyer, the committee agreed to change the phrase “closest structure” to
“property line” in item ‘C’ - and they also agreed to delete item ‘B.’ Ms. Noble wanted to address
(private) schools and churches in R1 and R2. Mr. Crouch suggested they would want to do it in a ‘no
impact’ way. Ms. Noble said the way they are proposing it, it would become a Special Use so if it
becomes a contentious item, at least the public has an opportunity to voice their objection.
Mr. Engberg then pointed out that under 10-18-4: Permitted Uses, there are three conditions that would
not necessitate a Special Use permit. Mr. Neyer pointed out that item “B” is a complete sentence;
therefore, there should be a period at the end of the sentence and not a colon. Mr. Crouch and Ms.
Noble agreed. It was agreed the sentence should include the phrase, “so long as said antennas and
towers conform to the following and to all other requirements of this title.” It was confirmed that the
requirements are stated as “ORs” – not “ANDs.”
Mr. Crouch pointed out that if it ever came up, they would need to be careful since it was included in the
packet and it should not be arbitrary.
Mr. Neyer referred to Table 10.18.01 Separation Requirements and asked if there was a definition of
“major highway.” Ms. Noble pointed out it was defined in the “Future Land Use” in the comprehensive
plan. She asked that a reference be made to that. At this point, Mr. Baker and Mr. Crouch asked that
the definition be added to Chapter 2 of this document.
Alternate Meeting Date discussion: Ms. Noble has an APA Conference on what should be the next
meeting date (September 25) and would not be here. It was decided to see if the Plan Commission
meets on September 11, then the committee will be emailed when a date is decided.
Mr. Crouch asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion was made by Mr. Baker; it was seconded by Mr.
Neyer; all voted in favor; and the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Bonnie Olsem
Administrative Secretary