Plan Council Minutes 1999 07-08-99 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
Committee Minutes - Plan Council
July 8, 1999
Meeting Location: 111 W. Fox St.
Time Convened: 9:37 a.m.
Time Adjourned: 11:21 a.m.
Attendees:
Jim Nanninga City Administrator
Bill Dettmer Building Inspector
Joe Wywrot City Engineer
Mike Schoppe Schoppe Design
Tim Fairfield B.K.F.P.D.
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Jim stated that Art had concerns with adding additional stipulations on single family dwellings.
Mike clarified that the only additional requirement on single family dwellings or duplexes is if
they back to an arterial roadway and these are to be done by a developer not the homeowner.
Mike and Jim have previously reviewed all comments. Mike presented a revised draft. He
would like to see this passed soon. The items that have been deleted are crossed out and the
additional items or words are in italics.
In section 2 under 1,parkway landscaping was discussed. Would like to see a list of approved
trees to be added to this Ordinance. Also something added addressing properties that have
detention in front of the property. This is a landscape opportunity. This situation requires, in
this ordinance, 3.4 trees per 100ft of property in the front of the area facing the roadway. In the
lot landscaping, a 20,000 s.f. area(1/2 acre)requires 2 trees and 15 shrubs. Jim would like to see
the Ordinance for Detention/Retention inner mixed into this one by the City Planner. Mike can
apply this ordinance to a site plan of Aldi to give an example. This runs about $500. We will let
Mike know if we would like this done.
The ordinance will give credit for existing trees to be saved on a 1 to 1 bases with a 3"minimum
that is on the approved tree list. Trees requested that are not on this list must be submitted for
review and approval from the City Planner. This ordinance is to tell developers how much
landscaping to provide not the design of the landscaping.
Mike will request that the section in the Subdivision Ordinance referring to parkway trees be
omitted due to it being part of the Landscape Ordinance.
Jim feels strong screening is needed anywhere residential abuts non residential.
Section 1.3 Mike feels a better reference would be to request trees to be placed behind the lot
line instead of the sidewalk(since some don't have a sidewalk).
Distances from different objects have been clarified regarding planting in the parkways.
Perimeter landscaping has been clarified for ease in understanding the meaning. That and the
Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping section tend to overlap each other. Art Sheridan's property at
Rt 34 and Eldamain Rd was discussed as an example for nonresidential adjacent to residential.
The only difference in this Ordinance is allowing a developer to substitute a berm for shrubs.
There was extensive discussion regarding this issue. Trying to decide if there needs to be
differentiating between the screening for parking areas and buildings/retention areas adjacent to
residential. This was a large debate only because of trying to protect residential. It was decided
to treat all commercial abutting residential the same.
Section 2.3.1 addresses parking abutting residential property requiring a berm or comparable
barrier. After much discussion on several different options,this will be changed to berm or
masonry wall. This rear yard issue will be consolidated into the above issue.
Top of page 2 section 1.4, homeowners is struck out,property owners should be added there.
Parking Lots are broken into two sections, in the parking lot and going around the parking lot.
Definition of parking lot was given-anything with 10 or more spaces. If there was a smaller
parking lot it would be required to do perimeter landscaping just not interior landscaping. There
weren't many changes made to this section.
3.2.2.1 will be eliminated and consolidated into another section. 3.2.2.2 will be reworded.
3.2.3.1 will be consolidated and 3.2.3.2 will stay.
Mike asked for clarification on the standard for the 20 ft strip from a roadway. Jim felt it should
be uniform for B1,B2, and B3.
Mike cautioned that clarity in this Ordinance is extremely important so there are no loop holes.
Mike is suggesting we address land use residential or all other development. Would like better
definition on multifamily. They should be included with all other development other than single
family or duplex residential and be subject to all criteria of this Ordinance. Mike will define the
wording to screen single family and duplexes from multifamily and apartments, also. Different
scenarios were explored and discussed. Doing this is almost impossible, there are too many
different scenarios. This Ordinance will not define a parking lot for a multifamily situation. All
of the different requirements in this Ordinance are cumulative.
Tim was concerned if someone wanted to put up 1 multifamily unit that they would be buried in
screening. Mike didn't feel that was the case. An example was figured up and drawn out. For a
100' x 110' lot: 3 trees in parkway
5 trees in perimeter
2 trees and 15 shrubs in the interior
10 trees and 15 shrubs
The requirement for parkway is based on linear feet of right-of-way. Tim F. was concerned that
if one multi goes in next to a single family or duplex this will require too much screening. Mike
and Jim didn't feel that was the case.
Mike wanted to review setbacks for parking lots in commercial and manufacturing districts.
Currently, we have a 10' and 20' parking setback from an arterial roadway and a non-arterial
roadway. No structures are allowed in the setbacks. The standard for off-street Parking in our
Zoning Ordinance is that parking can be located anywhere except for in the front yard. We need
to change our Zoning Ordinance to include parking setbacks from any lot line, even in the rear.
Mike feels that we are covered for the front yard,but the backyard landscaping could go to the
property line and be placed all within a 5' strip since there aren't any specifics as to placement.
For instance,with York Meadows, an R-4 zoned property, the parking could go all the way to
Route 47.
Jim asked Mike to categorize the approved tree list into shade, evergreen, ornamental and shrub.
Jim will check with Art as to whether or not this needs to go to Plan Commission next or not.
These revisions would be needed by tomorrow.
Jim relayed an idea from Art for each to think about. A new zoning class for light construction.
Bill Dettmer felt as if we already had this class as M1,there's not any M1 on the Zoning Map.
Amurol was M1, F.E. Wheaton is M2. Some uses were discussed. Jim will talk to Art for more
of a definition.
Respectfully submitted by Holly Baker