Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2010 05-26-10 APPROVED 7/28/10 Page 1 of 3 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:00pm Parks & Recreation Administration Office 201 W. Hydraulic Ave. Board Members in Attendance: Michael Crouch, Chairman Gary Neyer Jeff Baker Al Green Greg Millen Phil Haugen Pete Huinker Absent: Ralph Pfister City Officials in Attendance: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Laura Schraw, City Park Designer Paul Zabel, Building Code Official Guests: None Meeting Called to Order Chairman Michael Crouch called the meeting to order at 7:04pm. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Previous Meeting Minutes: February 24, 2010 February 24, 2010 minutes were approved as read on a motion by Jeff Baker and second by Pete Huinker. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Introduction of new Community Development Director, Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Ms. Noble introduced herself, and stated that she has over ten years’ experience in the planning industry; six of those years in the public sector. She has worked for the Village of Lincolnshire, a non-profit planning organization partially funded by the City of Chicago, and most recently served as the Vice President of Planning and Litigation for a private company. Ms. Noble looks forward to helping the Zoning Commission draft a Zoning Ordinance which will provide great benefit to the City and also be defensible in court. Review of Zoning Ordinance Update progress and timeline The original timeline as prepared by former Community Development Director Travis Miller was included into this meeting’s packet. Discussion Ms. Noble inquired as to how comfortable the Commission members feel about the progress they’ve made so far. Mr. Crouch responded that as of January 2010, he estimates the Commission was 55%-60% along. The general consensus as indicated by Mr. Crouch is that this process not be rushed; they want a document they’re confident in. No public hearings have been held yet, for any proposed changes. To date, the City has made changes to its Municipal Code, as a means of “getting around” this incomplete document. The group Page 2 of 3 would like to continue to meet every month so that substantive progress can be made; the goal is to take the new Zoning Ordinance to public hearing either Fall 2010 or Spring 2011. It was agreed that Ms. Noble would write the sections and the Commission would review them. The Commission would like Ms. Noble to review what’s been completed to date, and advise if she feels changes are warranted. Ms. Noble will review the past progress of the Commission’s work, and will provide feedback over the course of the next two meetings. Ms. Noble showed the Commission a book entitled “Zoning Handbook for Municipal Officials with suggested Forms by Ronald Cope”, which she feels is an essential tool in situations like this, as it clearly defines the legal aspect of zoning. Ms. Noble will provide copies of this book to the Commission, so that they may refer to it and know exactly what they can and cannot regulate. The goal is to be very clear and explicit when defining zoning districts and permitted uses. Continued review of Zoning District, Conservation Design District Draft Ms. Schraw stated that the Engineering Standards in the City’s Subdivision Control Ordinance require curb, gutter, public sidewalk, and storm sewer in all zoning districts except Estate; in a Conservation Design District, most of those elements could be eliminated, in lieu of twenty-eight foot roads with two-foot shoulders on both sides, and trails along every rear yard. Discussion Mr. Crouch stated that one of the recurring questions has been is the Subdivision Control Ordinance going to be modified to work with the Conservation Design plan, or does the Conservation Design plan need to meet with the Subdivision Control Ordinance? Ms. Noble confirmed that the Subdivision Control Ordinance is not within the boundaries of the Zoning Commission. Mr. Baker feels strongly that existing subdivisions should be improved in conformance with the adopted Subdivision Control Ordinance, and cited a case on Heustis Street which he feels was not improved using those standards. Mr. Baker wants to make sure that the Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance work together; Ms. Noble stated that if they contradict each other, neither one can be legally defensible- they must be in sync, and this also includes the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that when all new chapters are completed in the Zoning Ordinance, they be presented to the City Council with a list of inconsistencies in the existing documents (Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Control Ordinance, etc.), along with a list of recommended changes in order for all of the documents to be in sync with each other. In order to achieve a cohesive set of documents, amendments to the existing ordinances can be sought. Ms. Noble defined an “urban cross section” as an area comprised of a street with curbs on each side; parkway; and public sidewalk. A “rural cross section” is an area comprised of a street without curbs; swales; grass or gravel shoulder; and no public sidewalk. The proposed “Conservation District” will mimic Estate Zoning, in that it will have a rural cross section and trails in the rear of the lots. However there could be a “bonus” for developers, such as “clustering” of homes, making it available in areas other than those zoned ‘Estate’. The development would be a Planned Unit Development, with established zoning (for example R-2 to establish setbacks, etc.), and then an overlay Conservation District. It was noted that a Conservation District is not limited to residential areas, but could also be proposed for Business/ Manufacturing areas. The Commission agrees they want incentives to be specific and quantifiable, not “to be determined” at the time a development is proposed. Ms. Schraw stated that the general language in the Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding “Best Management Practices” is too broad; the Commission should build onto that theory and make it stronger in their Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Huinker mentioned that without approved calculations to support new design standards and coefficients of runoff, the design engineer would have little to base their design on, and the reviewing engineer would have little to verify against; this could be a problem. Ms. Noble discussed “Land Banking”: a development could provide two sets of proposed plans, one showing a reduced quantity of parking stalls and the remainder of the parking area in a natural state (“banked”) for a particular business; and the other plan-set showing that “banked” space with the full number of parking stalls, should the use of the facility ever change and require the full number of parking Page 3 of 3 stalls. Future City Council Approval would not be required, should the facility use change and the parking be developed at a later date, because it would have already been approved. The Commission likes this idea. Discussion of Downtown Route 47 Overlay map Maps were distributed, with a blue line showing what IDOT is either acquiring currently or will be acquiring; and showing the overlay of the Zoning Map. Discussion Mr. Crouch stated he would like to know how many properties adjacent to Route 47 are going to be acquired, how many properties may turn into business uses, and what the overall impact will be on the downtown. Ms. Schraw stated that an 865 +/- page plan has been received by IDOT, showing all improvements; a 20 +/- page review of that document has been subsequently sent to IDOT. There will be another submittal by IDOT around August 2010, a letting in 2011, and construction in 2012. Mr. Green would like to know what is planned for the Town Square area, so that the Commission could better prepare for a potential Route 47 Overlay District. Mr. Crouch is concerned whether or not the downtown area will be able to support itself once Route 47 is widened; sufficient parking to support the businesses has been a concern. The Commission members would like to reduce the quantity of traffic pulling in and out along Route 47, instead allowing frontage roads and/ or alleys for business access. Ms. Noble stated that the commission can encourage in the Zoning District that as businesses are proposed, parking/ business access is conducted in the rear of the property. Additionally, Ms. Noble stated that the City doesn’t know if IDOT acquisition will include partial-takings or full-takings, because that is a legal matter and the City is not privy to that information. The Commission members would like to increase the quantity of “No Left Turns” in town. Ms. Schraw stated that the left turn lane from northbound Route 47 onto River Road is proposed to be eliminated in the IDOT plan; traffic will need to go one more block north along Route 47 in order to turn left. Mr. Crouch indicated that the community expressed interest in preserving the town’s historical element. Mr. Green stated that a Historical Overlay District has also been discussed in the past. Ms. Schraw suggested the Commission adopt design guidelines, in order to preserve the historical character of the Route 47 corridor; for example: houses cannot be removed and rebuilt into a commercial strip. Mr. Crouch agreed and said this should be a priority. Additional Business: The next meeting will be on Wednesday June 23, 2010 at 7:00pm, and will be held at the Parks and Recreation Building at 201 W. Hydraulic Ave. Mr. Crouch will not be available to attend that meeting, and a stand-in Chairperson will be needed. Adjournment: There was no further business and a motion was made by Mr. Baker to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Green seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:24pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Woodrick