Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2010 02-24-10 APPROVED 5/26/10 Page 1 of 3 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:00pm City Hall Conference Room Board Members in Attendance: Michael Crouch, Chairman Gary Neyer Jeff Baker Al Green Greg Millen Phil Haugen (7:10) Pete Huinker (7:15) Absent: Ralph Pfister City Officials in Attendance: Bart Olson, City Administrator Laura Schraw, Interim Community Development Director Paul Zabel, Building Code Official Guests: None Meeting Called to Order Chairman Michael Crouch called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Previous Meeting Minutes: September 23, 2009 and October 28, 2009 September 23, 2009 minutes were approved as read on a motion by Jeff Baker and second by Al Green. Approved by unanimous voice vote. October 28, 2009 minutes were approved as corrected on a motion by Al Green and second by Jeff Baker, with the stipulation that the specific items noted within the minutes as to be clarified/ confirmed by Travis Miller will be re-discussed after the new Community Development Director is hired. Approved by unanimous voice vote. New Business: 1. Status of search for Community Development Director Bart Olson stated that the final interview has been completed; no formal offer has been tendered yet. He expects to have the new person on board mid to late April 2010. There were fifty candidates, with roughly half from out of state. Eleven individuals were interviewed in the first round; four in the second round; and the final interview was with the Economic Development Committee, the Plan Commission Chairman, and the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman. Page 2 of 3 Discussion Bart Olson asked if the committee wants to meet again before the new Community Development Director comes on board. Jeff Baker stated that he would like the new director on board before this committee goes too much farther with this process, so that he/ she can assist; Michael Crouch agreed. The committee agreed to not meet in March, but to wait until the last Wednesday in April, so that the new director can attend the next meeting. 2. Review of Zoning District, Conservation Design District Draft Laura Schraw stated that the Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and also the Conservation Design District Ordinance Draft have been added into the meeting packet to reference. Michael Crouch stated that this Land Use Plan states the types of land uses which are allowable; what this committee decides should reflect what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for. Discussion Laura Schraw was asked to give an introduction to conservation design principles, and Al Green stated that one review of the Conservation Design District Draft has already been completed. Conservation design examples are clustering, using a site’s natural features, lack of curbs and gutters, swales, and rain gardens. This Ordinance mentions conservation of land includes active or passive recreational use. Jeff Baker brought up the Plan Commission’s “10 Percent Rule” cap for multi-family structures. Mr. Baker and Mr. Crouch stated that development approval checklists used to be completed by them, but now City staff is completing these and providing reports to the various commissions and committees. Gary Neyer inquired if districts are laid out within a Comprehensive Plan in accordance with property tax/ financial analysis. Bart Olson said no, and further stated that a comprehensive plan fiscal impact analysis is rare; the cost is approximately $50,000. Mike Crouch stated that there has always been considerable discussion regarding how big residential lots should be; Bart Olson said that this is relative to conservation design: the land use pattern and zoning is set, and now the issue is to maintain the density, but perhaps shift it around to accommodate for conservation design. This used to be referred to as “clustering”, but is now commonly known as “low impact development”. Pete Huinker stated smaller lots mean less roads and less infrastructure if they’re clustered and the remainder of the development is used as open space (some as park/ turf grass for playing on; some for conservation). Jeff Baker inquired as to who maintains a “natural setting”; Mike Crouch stated that if the plan deviates from an “untouched” state, then it needs to be maintained. Ms. Schraw stated that this draft does stipulate that the designated owner is responsible for any maintenance, but that it would be beneficial to add language allowing designation of a Conservation Easement, so that the use of the property cannot be later altered. Section 10-10-1 (Purpose & Intent), Subsection “C” was discussed: does the language as stated mean that a working farm is allowed as part of a development’s conservation area; the thought was that this was not the intent. There should be a buffer in between a working farm and residential properties, such as berms/ open space/ frontage roads. However, the practice of combined agricultural/ residential use is increasing- a development in Hampshire, Illinois has a development with large homes and lots, and equestrian elements. Bart Olson inquired if a development’s natural area is a working farm field, would that be an acceptable end- use as per this committee’s conservation design guidelines? The consensus was that it ultimately depends on the surrounding uses- for example, whether it’s a dry basin which requires maintenance. Mike Crouch stated if it’s a use requiring no maintenance, that would be best. Pete Huinker suggested adding language stating that minimum acreage to be allowable for production farming. Ms. Schraw stated that the current Landscape Ordinance requires every new development to have their basins naturalized, unless a variance for site constraints is sought. The Storm water Maintenance Plan presented to City Council requires the City to work with HOA’s to educate them on how to re-naturalize their basins; this is separate from Conservation Design, which is looking at new land use, and reducing the impact of that area. To an extent, one needs to maintain the overgrowth of invasive species which choke out the diverse habitat, and the specifications to do this are called out in the Landscape Ordinance and Park Page 3 of 3 Development Standards. Ms. Schraw currently performs the site inspections, and provides a report to the developer. Gary Neyer stated that for a developer to desire to apply conservation design to a project, there needs to be an economic incentive and density bonus, based upon the quality of the conservation space being provided. Mr. Crouch feels there should be a minimum quantification of principles applied, instead of simply stating a developer should “encourage innovation” and “provide greater efficiency”. Mr. Neyer inquired as to how a conservation district would show up on the Comprehensive Plan Map; Ms. Schraw stated this would be an alternative in zoning use, and it was agreed that it’s similar to a PUD. A question was raised regarding whether these standards were incorporated into the Subdivision Control Ordinance; Ms. Schraw stated that the Subdivision Control Ordinance states BMP’s (Best Management Practices) should be applied, and that the Conservation Design ordinance is a “step up” from the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Perhaps after this ordinance is complete, the Subdivision Control Ordinance should be reviewed, but the Engineering Department should be consulted to see if the items proposed in this Ordinance are passed, would this type of development be approved at the time of site plan review? Mr. Huinker reminded that Public Works should be consulted as well, as they’re going to ultimately inherit care and maintenance of the Right-Of-Way. Mr. Crouch reminded the group that this Ordinance should reflect what the public wants. Jeff Baker inquired if the intent of this Ordinance is to apply to new developments only; Ms. Schraw stated that Homeowner’s Associations which seek assistance re-developing or returning their basins to a natural state are discussed on a case-by-case basis. Bart Olson stated those improvements would be governed by the City’s Landscape Ordinance; this Ordinance is relative to new developments only. 3. Discussion of Downtown Route 47 Overlay Map Laura Schraw brought two maps to the meeting, showing the area between Walnut and Main Streets; one shows zoning and the other shows the overlay of Route 47, so that the width of the road and the extent of the improvements can be seen. Discussion Mr. Crouch stated that the maps were requested was so that the Zoning Commission could see how the Route 47 improvements were going to impact the properties adjacent to the roadway. They would like to see the ten-foot long map the Engineering Department has, showing what easements would be requested from property owners, what has been acquired and demolished, and what will be acquired and demolished. This could be used as a tool when owners adjacent to Route 47 apply for zoning changes. They would like to see a map of Route 47, from Rte. 34 south to Rte. 71. Ms. Schraw stated this will be brought to the next meeting. Additional Business: Going forward, the meetings will be held at the Parks & Recreation building located at 201 W. Hydraulic Street, in the old Post Office building. Adjournment: There was no further business and a motion was made by Mr. Crouch to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Huinker seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:56pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Woodrick