Zoning Commission Minutes 2012 02-22-12APPROVED 4/25/12
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 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
Phil Haugen
City Officials in Attendance:
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Meeting Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. (estimated - time not
officially stated) and Mr. Millen welcomed everyone.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken. A quorum was established.
Citizen’s Comments
There were no guests in attendance.
Previous Minutes
Mr. Baker moved to accept the January 25, 2012 minutes and it was seconded. There
were no discussions, corrections or additions so a vote to accept was made, unanimously
accepted and the motion was carried.
Mr. Millen then turned the meeting over to Ms. Noble to cover New Business.
New Business:
Ms. Noble stated that tonight’s meeting is going to provide “filler” for each of the
residential sections. Chapter 11 has subsections for all of the Residential districts. She
went in and added a Purpose and Intent to each district; and added language under
“Permitted and Special Use” to refer the committee back to Chapter six. For the
“Dimensional and Bulk Requirements,” she referred them back to Chapter seven. Under
“Site and Development Standards,” there are standards under the E-1, Estate District that
was taken over from what is existing. However, under the other chapters, she added
photographs. They do have building standards and design standards that they implement
in the commercial districts. She then asked the committee if there were any site or
development standards they wanted to implement in the residential district. She then
went through each Chapter briefly:
Chapter 11A: E1, Estate District - Purpose and Intent: The zoning designation is
intended to accommodate large lot, single-family residential land uses within a rural
setting. Other permitted land uses within the district include; being compatible and
conducive to low density, tranquil and open space environment provided in the E1 Estate
District.
Ms. Noble then asked the committee if they had any comments; was the language fitting?
Was it appropriate? Mr. Baker questioned if that meant one (1) acre and Ms. Noble
confirmed one house per acre minimum. Mr. Neyer said it made sense to discuss these
chapters in conjunction with Chapter 7. Ms. Noble and Mr. Baker agreed, although Ms.
Noble said the committee had already gone through it. It was just a chart with
dimensions and the Permitted Use Chart.
Mr. Baker then brought up the subject of street lights a minimum of every 500 feet. Ms.
Noble pointed out that was the current standard, and asked if the committee wanted to
change it. Mr. Baker isn’t sure it fits in the category of Estate Zoning. He was in favor
of the committee discussing it and seeing if it needed to be changed. Without the
Standard Specification Form Improvements (which are not part of that ordinance) at their
disposal, the committee agreed to ponder the situation and bring it back to the next
meeting.
Chapter 11B: R-1, Single-Family Suburban Residence District: Ms. Noble
questioned, “No sidewalks are required?” – then said it made sense since nobody is going
to want to walk. Mr. Baker asked if there was a reason why it was ten (10) feet wide
now. Ms. Noble said there was because it is not a bike trail; it’s a multi-use trail (or path)
so you’re going to want to have people able to walk or ride a bike and pass each other on
the trail (a typical sidewalk is five (5) feet wide).
Mr. Neyer said, “Does this imply that the standard could be limestone?” Ms. Noble
answered she thought there were already subdivisions with crushed limestone trails. She
will get an interpretation from the City engineer.
Mr. Baker pointed out they were talking about estates – one acre or larger – and are we
going to require a paved surface? A paved surface could be 500’ long and it all now
becomes impervious surface and the ground water absorption is lost. Ms. Noble
suggested they could be concrete (or brick) pavers. Mr. Neyer suggested maybe the
requirement applies only to the right-of-way.
The committee then reviewed driveways, street dedicated ROW and private wells – no
changes.
Ms. Noble said she only added the Purpose and Intent to R-1, Single Family Residence.
There was then discussion on “Traditional” vs. “Suburban” residence district and 12,000
square feet vs. 18,000 square feet. Mr. Neyer suggested checking with surrounding
communities i.e.; Oswego, Sugar Grove and Montgomery. Ms. Noble said she would
bring back some comparables for the committee as far as what the City has in its own
arsenal of what has been done as far as density that has been created and what other
communities are doing and maybe we can look at that.
Ms. Noble suggested that after looking over the other cities stats they may want to create
another district. Mr. Neyer agreed with that suggestion. One segment of the market that
may come into play in the coming years is the age-restricted communities where retirees
are looking for small lots. There was some discussion on how to best incentivize local
builders to use local tradesmen and suppliers to keep sales tax in our community.
Chapter 11: R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence District: Ms. Noble read the
description to the committee and asked for input. Mr. Neyer said the only thing he didn’t
really agree with is “a transitional land use between rural/suburban residential settings
and commercial districts.” He thought if that was the purpose of a residential district,
they should be smaller lots. Except for E-1, Ms. Noble agreed to take out “commercial
districts” and “Site and Development Standards” because it really didn’t fit.
Chapter 11: R-2 Duplex, Two-Family Attached Residence District: Ms. Noble then
continued by reading for 11-11D-1: Purpose and Intent. Mr. Baker wanted to carry it one
step further and would like to see the definition of where the residence is located to
include adjacent to commercial retail or office space as a transition between that kind of
density to single family homes. Ms. Noble agreed and will do that.
Chapter 11: R-3, Multi-Family Attached Residence District: Ms. Noble read the 11-
11E-1: Purpose and Intent and stated she didn’t feel it was appropriate to include the last
sentence and is going to take it out. Some of those uses would be appropriate for
“Special Uses,” but didn’t want to emphasis it in the R-3 District. Mr. Baker proposed
that the roadway needs to be wide enough to park on both sides due to the high density
parking issues. Ms. Noble agreed that would be a good site development standard.
Chapter 11: R-4, General Multi-Family Residence District: Ms. Noble read the 11-
11F-1: Purpose and Intent. No one had any comments or anything else to add.
Ms. Noble thought it was a good idea to try to create another district instead of tweaking
an established district already in place.
Mr. Baker requested for next month was to enlarge the little chart.
Mr. Millen made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Baker moved and seconded and agreed by all
The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, March 28 at 7:00 p.m. at Yorkville City Hall
Conference room. The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. (estimated by length of tape;
time not officially stated).
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Bonnie Olsem