Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2011 03-23-11 APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS 4/27/11 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:00 p.m. Parks & Recreation Administration Office 201 W Hydraulic Ave., Yorkville, IL 60560 Committee Members in Attendance: Jeff Baker Mike Crouch Gary Neyer Al Green Greg Millen 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. Previous Minutes There were no corrections or additions to the minutes of the last meeting so Mr. Baker moved to approve; the motion was seconded and Mr. Crouch asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was none so a vote to accept was made, unanimously accepted and the motion was carried. Mr. Crouch then turned the meeting over to Ms. Noble. Ms. Noble opened the meeting by starting with old business: Old Business : Chapter 6: Ms. Noble said she revised the titles for the Alternate Fuel Energy System, added some additional pages to this chapter and changed the format. The Committee liked the clarity of the new format, but still had issues with content. Mr. Baker had questions on Special Use in the office space, because it is not in manufacturing or estate. Ms. Noble is going to add “S” to Small Wind Energy Systems B-4. Rooftop Wind Energy Systems are allowable in all zoning districts 1 except the F-1 (floodplain). Mr. Baker and Mr. Crouch don’t want them in Office, either. Mr. Baker questioned that since M1 and M2 (Manufacturing) are already covered with Small Wind, isn’t any single use going to go Large Wind? Mr. Green and Mr. Crouch disagreed, using Wrigley as an example. The key is proximity to houses. Mr. Crouch pointed out that while they may not want them in Manufacturing, it is an issue to consider. Each case would rise on its own or fall on its own; there’s no good answer. Mr. Crouch then asked for a consensus on Large Wind Energy System in M-1s: Mr. Crouch – no (have Large Wind Energy Systems as a Special Use in the M-1 District (wants to wait for input from the other two members of the committee) Mr. Baker - no Mr. Green – yes Mr. Millen – no Mr. Neyer – yes Mr. Baker asked if currently there is no height restriction in M-1 district right now in the current ordinance and Ms. Noble confirmed that was correct and she has brought that up. Ms. Noble asked for clarification if the committee wanted Small Wind Energy Systems as a Special Use left in Office – Committee agreed. Ms. Noble then moved on to Solar Panels. Mr. Baker has an issue with Solar Farms; why are they in Office? Are they roof-mount or stand-alones? Ms. Noble said they’re stand-alones. She then said she was thinking about the category of Office that was not accurately described and the uses in Office is actually Office and Institutional-type uses like colleges, dentists, etc. Mr. Baker suggested taking it out of Office and Mr. Green then suggested finding out how many free-standing panels you can have before it turns into a park. Ms. Noble offered free-standing should be permitted in some districts and special use in others. Mr. Baker and Mr. Crouch had no problem with that; however, Mr. Baker thought Solar Farms should be in Ag 1 and not open-space. It is now place holding until there is more definition. Chapter 7 – Dimensional and Bulk Requirements Ms. Noble revised the Dimensional and Bulk Regulations table regarding Religious Institutions maximum height requirements footnote where the word “apparatus” was removed and now reads, “steeple or apex of the highest point of a rooftop feature.” Per the request of the Zoning Commission, staff has revised the reference to the 35’ Downtown Height Limit Area to now refer to the “Downtown Overlay District Boundaries” which now refer to the “Downtown Overlay District Boundaries” which is now proposed with a 80’ straight up like the rest of town. 2 Mr. Baker then asked if the committee could move along to the map because he had issues with it. He had problems with the map itself as to its relevance of the lines being correct. Ms. Noble asked if the map reflected what the Committee wanted to consider as its downtown overlay. Mr. Baker pointed out that there’s a gravel cliff wall that Old Second bank owns that’s not on this map. The bank owns this section (mentions bank drive-thru and surrounding property) and has an alley off Heustis St. to get to their property. He believes when this plan was put together, the bank moved this over so they wouldn’t have to deal with the crumbling cliff rock wall which could be a huge hazard. He wanted the line to go straight across without the little notch. Ms. Noble and Mr. Crouch pointed out it was a historical downtown map and Ms. Noble how they wanted it to be defined. Mr. Green said this map came from the Downtown Vision plan and Ms. Noble confirmed it was used to define the 35’ height restriction. Mr. Baker argued why is the map limiting the downtown TIF boundary district? Discussions continued on downtown, historical, TIF districts and the widening of Route 47 and impact on businesses, parking, etc. Since the current map was to define heights, Ms. Noble suggested taking it off; Mr. Green agreed. Mr. Baker suggested the Downtown Boundaries be the perimeter of the Fox River to the North; Mill Street to the East; Fox Street to the South; and Morgan Street to the West. Chapter 8 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ms. Noble said there weren’t a lot of changes to PUD. She took out the language for the joint meeting with the Park Board. E. After further discussion with the City Attorney and the ZC, the proposed “joint review” by the Plan Commission and Park Board when Park Board review is applicable for PUD approval (residential development) was not feasible. If this solution is not acceptable, other alternatives may also be explored by the ZC. She also removed all of the reverences to pdf, special drawings, etc. Mr. Baker said that after reading the PUD material, he didn’t see any good direction as who to see first and when while going through the process. Ms. page 76, 10-13-45A Pre-application Noble directed him to . Mr. Baker agreed with that and made a note that it doesn’t tell you “who.” To illustrate his point, he 10-13-24 Procedures referred to where it lists A., B., C., etc. He thought it would make it easier. Ms. Noble will add needed information. page 93, 10-13-10: Conditions for Approval Mr. Green then went to , he didn’t like the language. It says it provides the following standards and then lists a number of things that aren’t standards. He suggested instead “addresses the following conditions.” Mr. Crouch prefers seeing things written from an affirmative perspective. 3 Chapter 9 A-1 Agricultural District10-9-5: The Committee then went on to . Building Setback Line; Side Yards; Building Height: Mr. Green asked if the building height is still as the rest of the town – 80’? Ms. Noble said when she did the category, she inadvertently didn’t put in the height. On the chart, building height was not defined. Mr. Crouch said the tallest building in an Ag district would be a silo and he was not familiar with the current height and suggested some research on the subject. 10-9-1: Purpose : Ms. Noble made a change to allow for interim adaptive reuse of marginal agricultural and/or pasture lands – in other words, land in transition. It would be for the agricultural side; not the industrial side. Mr. Crouch asked why paddocks weren’t listed in the category for Stables? Ms. Noble agreed that it should be. 10-9-4: Accessory Uses – “B” : Mr. Green thought they had changed it so you did NOT have to grow or raise on or in the immediate area of the premises; and extended the temporary permit for a period not to exceed six (6) months, not four (4) months. Ms. Noble explained four months was just a suggestion. Mr. Green suggested deleting “live animals.” 10-9-5: Building Setback Line; Side Yards; Building Height: Mr. Green wanted the word “Route 47” added to item 1. Primary thoroughfares, (Routes 34 and 47). Route 71, and Route 126 should be included, too. 10-9-2: Uses Permitted – B.Single-family residential dwellings – Ms. Noble limited single-family residential dwellings to only three (3) additional single- family dwellings shall be permitted. 10-9-2: C. Auction House added 10-9-3: Special Uses – Daycare : Daycare will be added and should be the same as R-1. Pre-school is considered the same as Daycare. Mr. Green asked where did Community Gardens fit in the whole scheme of things. Ms. Noble said she considered them accessory use in Residential district, but they would fall in the CBD district. Since there was not any other business to discuss, Mr. Crouch asked if anyone else had anything else to add. Since there was nothing, he asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Green so moved; Mr. Baker seconded; all voted “Yes;” and the meeting was adjourned. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie Olsem 4