Loading...
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