Zoning Commission Minutes 2011 02-23-11
APPROVED 3/23/11
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Parks & Recreation Administration Office
201 W Hydraulic Ave., Yorkville, IL 60560
Committee Members in Attendance:
Mike Crouch
Jeff Baker
Gary Neyer
Al Green
Greg Millen –
(arrived 7:26pm)
City Officials in Attendance:
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Paul Zabel, Chief Building Code Official
Meeting Called to Order
Mr. Crouch welcomed everyone and called the meeting was to order at 7:06 p.m.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken. A quorum was established.
Citizen’s Comments
There were no guests in attendance so Mr. Crouch said comments could be kept to a
minimum.
Previous Minutes
November 17, 2010 minutes were in the packet, along with the January 26, 2011 minutes.
Mr. Crouch said they will be taken separately and asked for any additions or corrections
to the minutes and Mr. Baker stated he could actually approve both sets of minutes. Mr.
Crouch repeated he would like to take them separately. Mr. Green moved to accept the
November 17, 2010 minutes as written. Mr. Crouch acknowledged the acceptance as so
moved; Mr. Baker seconded the motion and Mr. Crouch asked if there was any
discussion on the motion. There was none so a vote to accept was made and
unanimously accepted and the motion was carried. It was later noted by Mr. Crouch that
in the title of the November 17, 2010 minutes “Commission” was misspelled. (This has
now been corrected.)
Mr. Crouch then asked for any additions or corrections to the January 26, 2011 minutes.
Mr. Green said he had a minor correction - on the Agendas, there is a place for Citizen’s
Comments and this is currently not being reflected in the minutes. (This has now been
corrected.)
Mr. Green then asked for a motion to approve as amended to accept the January 26, 2011
minutes as written with this addition. Mr. Crouch acknowledged the acceptance as so
moved; Mr. Baker seconded the motion and Mr. Crouch asked if there was any
discussion on the motion. There was none so a vote to accept was made and
unanimously accepted and the motion was carried.
Mr. Couch then turned the meeting over to Ms. Noble.
Ms. Noble opened the meeting by stating there have been some minor changes to:
Chapter 2: 10-2-2: RULES: Item H (Page 3)
Added the word “not” to read:
‘Words or terms contained in this Title which are not defined hereinafter, shall
assume definitions as prescribed in the most current edition of the Merriam-
Webster unabridged dictionary.’
Chapter 2: 10-2-3: DEFINITIONS: (Page 16)
Removed the following sentence
on RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: ‘Recreational vehicles shall include any mobile
structure designed for temporary occupancy, but shall exclude mobile or
manufactured homes.’ This was all from the meeting in November.
Chapter 6
. There were some changes from the last discussion to reflect comments that
were given by the City Attorney regarding the R.L.U.I.P.I.A. Also, there were categories
added for welding shops and alternative renewable energy systems. For Religious
Institutions, those are now all Special Uses for Residential district and they were added as
a permitted use in “O” and permitted all throughout the business districts, special uses
and manufacturing district. That was per the city attorney’s advice so this way no special
preference is being shown to other community gathering facilities and churches.
Toward the end of the chart, Ms. Noble added welding shops (as mentioned by Mr. Baker
at the last meeting) and the Alternative categories; under uses, she added Wind Power
and Solar Energy. Mr. Green questioned if these would be revised in the ordinances for
consistent verbiage. Ms. Noble told him these are the categories of the types of uses of
Wind Power energy.
Mr. Green asked why the free-standing panels weren’t special use. Ms. Noble explained
right now they are considered “street furniture” described as ‘very long panels, very tall
panels that can be used in streetscapes.’ She explained that they were “place holding”
and further discussion to define will be forthcoming.
Chapter 7 – Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
The minimum rear yard setback was changed from none to 20’ for open space
based on committee discussion.
Religious institutions had a maximum height requirement added (refers to steeple
or highest point of a roof apparatus [design feature?]).
Conservation Design District (CDD) was added to the chart.
There was also a request about the maximum 35’ height in the Downtown area,
accompanied by a number of emails on the subject. Mr. Baker agreed with Mr.
Neyer that they think the height should be higher. Mr. Green never heard of the
Downtown Business Plan when he moved here. He said it should be stricken
from Chapter 8. Mr. Crouch said he read all of the emails concerning this matter
and did not come away with a compelling argument in favor of 35’.
There was much discussion about this matter, TIF districts and Zoning. Mr.
Millen brought up a discussion on prevailing wages on TIF projects with
reference with the upcoming canoe chute and possible growth.
The subject of the firefighter’s ability to go beyond 80’ was mentioned as now
antiquated as they can go much higher. Mr. Crouch said the 80’ height was
considered ‘forward thinking’ rather than looking at things in the past and
suggested repealing that height limitation. Mr. Green offered to complicate things
even more by suggesting keeping it a block either side of Rt. 47 to give ‘relief’ on
either side of the river to keep the view of the old, historic buildings.
Mr. Baker brought up the historical district that the committee wanted to keep in
mind and suggested keeping the height restriction at 80’. Ms. Noble stated she
was not happy with the current format of Chapter 7 and will be re-doing it. That
concluded comments on Chapter 7.
Chapter 8: PUD’s
Ms. Noble stated the issue with the PUD is after her discussion with the City
Engineer. He, as well as the City Attorney, had some comments that have been
added and incorporated with the comments from the committee’s last meeting,
and the revisions are noted in the red-line copy. The City Attorney’s major
concern had to do with the reference to Comprehensive Plan. There seems to be a
feeling that the Comprehensive Plan contains some things that aren’t vision-
oriented for the City. There is a feeling that the Comprehensive Plan shouldn’t be
the only document. Ms. Noble is of the opinion that it is a fluid document that
can be changed, amended, etc. She noted there are areas that need to be amended
to reflect some changes that have occurred; some oversights that happened,
especially in 2005 along Benjamin Street near the Kendallwood Estates.
Ms. Noble said that specific reference to ‘Comprehensive Plan’ has been changed
throughout the document to “Planning Objectives” or “Future Planning Goals” if
the committee is comfortable with it. Mr. Crouch asked what it means, and Ms.
Noble said that instead of referring to a specific document, reference would be
made to a nebulous document. She reiterated it was only an opinion and if the
committee wanted to keep it as ‘Comprehensive Plan,’ that could be done.
Mr. Green asked where this appeared and Ms. Noble pointed it out in:
Page 73, Chapter 8, 10-13-1 Purpose and Intent, Line 10: ‘which is consistent
with the planning objectives and intent of the zoning ordinance.’
Mr. Green and Mr. Baker noted “Comprehensive Plan” still appeared in several
other locations of the document. Ms. Noble noted another change on:
Page 76, Chapter 8, 10-13-5 Pre-Application Conference, A., 1. ‘Whether the
proposed Planned Unit Development will be in conformity with the planning
and other development goals and policies of the United City of Yorkville.’
Mr. Crouch brought up the possible legalities of such loose language and it was
discussed by the committee. At this time, there was no consensus from the group.
Page 73, Chapter 8, 10-13-1: Purpose and Intent,
Ms. Noble said the City
Engineer changed:
D. Provide public access and pedestrian connectivity via bicycle/recreational
‘
paths, sidewalks and /or alternative modes of transportation
’ which he
thought was more specific and less general. The City Engineer also added:
K. Provide/enhance regional public infrastructure such as transportation,
water/sanitary service, storm drainage.
Page 77, Chapter 8, 10-13-5: CONCEPT PUD PLAN:
B. The applicant shall submit twenty (20) paper copies folded to fit in a 10” x
13” envelope and two (2) CD’s containing electronic copies (pdf and .dwg
format) of the following documentation:
The DWG (“drawing”) format refers
to files that are stored using two and three dimensional design data and metadata.
This file format is typically associated with AutoCAD software and is compatible
with GIS software. Files saved as .dwg can later be printed out true-to-scale.
There was then discussion on the number of paper copies currently required and
Mr. Crouch suggested looking forward to going paperless and eliminating the two
(2) CD’s and instead request electronic copies. Mr. Green agreed.
Page 79 – Requirements of a Concept Plan
Ms. Noble stated that in the private sector, a lot of the things the City was asking
for at the concept plan level is too detailed. She proposed removing “l-u” from it
and just move them under the Preliminary Plan submittal requirements because
the committee wants the concept plan review to be more general in nature.
Page 88 – “Joint Review”
Ms. Noble then recommended instead of going to Park Board; then going to Plan
Commission to just do a joint review with both of them present. They would then
ask for a recommendation for approval (with conditions) or a recommendation for
denial. Mr. Baker, Mr. Crouch nor Mr. Green liked the idea of a joint review
meeting all at once because of the logistics of getting everyone in the same place
at the same time. Mr. Crouch asked if there was a reason for changing it and Ms.
Noble said to streamline. Further discussion ensued and Ms. Noble advised them
that if they wanted to, they could amend this section to not have Park Board be a
part of the process. Mr. Crouch, Mr. Baker and Mr. Green did not feel that a joint
review with Park Board would be effective. Ms. Noble then nixed the idea of a
“Joint Review Board.”
Page 91 – Zoning Commission Recommendation
Ms. Noble to change those major modification percentages from 10% to 5% was
done.
Page 94 – Development Standards and Design Criteria
Ms. Noble kept as a reference rather than Smart Code Technique. Mr. Crouch felt
that was a better way to go.
Ms. Noble then stated at the next meeting, scheduled for March 23, 2011, they
will look at the revisions to chapter 8 and then move on to the AG district.
Mr. Crouch made a motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Mr. Baker. Since
there was no discussion, a verbal vote of “Yes” was taken and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:45pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Bonnie Olsem