Loading...
Zoning Commission Minutes 2009 03-25-09 APPROVED 02 °� United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 <CE tvy Meeting Summary Zoning Ordinance Commission Wednesday March 25, 2009 Yorkville City Hall Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Road ATTENDEES: Mike Crouch,Zoning Ordinance Commission Chair,Plan Commission Jeff Baker,Zoning Board of Appeals Greg Millen,Chamber of Commerce Ralph Pfister,Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District Gary Neyer,Residential Developer Phil Haugen,Banker Pete Huinker,Engineer AI Green,Yorkville Green Committee Travis Miller,Director United City of Yorkville Community Development Department Stephanie Boettcher,Senior Planner,United City of Yorkville Community Development Department Anna Kurtzman,Zoning Coordinator,United City of Yorkville Building and Safety Department MEETING SUMMARY Mike Crouch, Chair of the Zoning Commission, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He welcomed all for attending and gave each member the opportunity to introduce himself. Travis Miller then went through a series of power point slides (attached to the meeting summary). Travis explained the task of the commission, which is to review the current zoning ordinance, and as a part of that revisions and updates will most likely be recommended. This is the Commission's charge. He then explained the role of the Commission,which is to prepare zoning ordinance recommendations, conduct at least one public hearing, and present the recommendations to City Council. Travis explained that upon presenting these recommendations to the City Council,the Council may request the Commission to make revisions and resubmit them. Staff has recommended dividing the Zoning Ordinance Update into four phases. The first phase is the assessment phase which should take the first 3 months. The second phase is content and formatting. The third phase is document drafting which is the bulk of the process. Finally, the fourth phase is adoption. Staff is projecting the whole update to take approximately one year. Travis then explained jurisdictional authority of the City. That the City has limited zoning and development jurisdiction within 1.5 miles of the City limits; however the County does still have ultimate authority. The County provides the City with a courtesy review of all development and subdivision petitions within 1.5 mile of Yorkville's limits. Jeff Baker asked Travis to explain why all areas on the map did not have a 1.5 mile buffer. Travis explained that this is a result of boundary agreements. Travis then spoke about the Comprehensive Plan,which was approved in October 2008. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a broad document, a tool to guide future land use decisions. In relation to the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance is the best way to implement it, as it is a tool for the present. Ralph Pfister questioned why the planning area for the Comprehensive Plan is larger than the facilities planning area for the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District. Miller explained that some areas could be serviced by Fox Metro Sanitary District, such as Grand Reserve Subdivision. Miller also explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommended very low density residential in the southeastern part of the planning area. Travis then went through the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan which specifically related to the zoning ordinance. The first goal and objective addressed height limitations to the buildings along the Fox River. Miller explained that currently in the downtown,building heights are restricted to 35', while other commercial areas in the City have a maximum height of 80'. Greg Millen questioned if this was a good idea to limit downtown building height. He gave the example that there is limited space for parking downtown and that it, typically, is not financially feasible to do underground parking. So developers are left to utilize some of their first floors for parking. The height limitations this greatly lessens the amount of leasable space. A question was raised if the zoning ordinance can establish special districts? Miller explained that yes the zoning ordinance can establish districts such as a historic district and an overlay district. Miller than went through the land use classifications established by the comprehensive plan and gave a comparison to the current zoning classifications. Miller pointed out that land use classifications are not a mirror of zoning classifications. Pete Huinker asked about alternative site designs, such as clustering of houses to allow for more open space, and how are they handled currently. Mike Crouch said these types of applications are typically handled as a PUD, as it allows for creativity. Crouch then mentioned the state is now clean so it is something to discuss. The commission can reevaluate why a PUD zoning is used and if it is used the most appropriate way. Pfister asked if any properties in Yorkville were zoned M-2. Anna Kurtzman replied there were no M-2 zoned areas. Pfister suggested that they should review the waste stream of a manufacturer to determine if it is an M-1 or M-2 zoned property. The current zoning classification, Floodplain,was discussed. It was concluded that given the Floodplain Ordinance which is a part of the municipal code, and that the FEMA floodplain maps continually change and that a floodplain zoning district is not necessary. Miller then led the Commission through the assessment reports. Miller also spoke to the different styles of zoning ordinances. The standard style is Euclidean which regulates uses by classification in separate districts. Performance zoning establishes performance standards as opposed to regulating the type of use. This provides more creativity, but does have a sense of the unknown because the zoning ordinance doesn't specifically list the allowed uses. Form based zoning focuses on the appearance of a structure as opposed to the use. Form based was identified as a potential way to handle mixed use development as opposed to a PUD. Kurtzman also mentioned that a zoning ordinance doesn't have to be one type or the other. It could be a hybrid of the three. Gary Neyer mentioned that he was in favor of orderly regulation of development. He said that he would prefer the ordinance offer incentives as opposed to mandates. A good example of this is affordable housing. That in order to achieve the goals of the community, the City should offer incentives. An example of an incentive would be a density bonus. The next meeting was set for Wednesday April 29th at 7:00 pm, which is the 5'h Wednesday. However, the rest of the meetings will continue to be on the 4`h Wednesday of the month. The Commission is to go through the assessment report prepared by Staff and the current zoning ordinance. The next meeting the Commission will discuss any missing information,potential disagreements with the assessment, and also identify good things with the current ordinance. Questions from the Commission members can be directed to Staff from now until the meeting. Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher Introductions rWk vv— Zoning Commission Members: _ .'"..'Crouch,chairman -Plan Commission • • • •Jeft Baker -Zoning Board of Appeals 1 1 • • ♦ • • • • •Greg Mullen -Clamber of commeme •Ralph Poster -YSSC Zoning Commission •Gary NeW -ArontectEdderTemloper Meeting V1 •Phd Haagen -BamkedF,.ndal .Pere HOI. a( -Engineer •AI Green -Glean commItIes The TaSk of the Zoning Commission The Role of the Zoning Commission • Prepare Zoning Ordinance Recommendations Revise and update the City's Zoning Ordinance • Conduct Public Hearing(s)as necessary to allow the public to review and comment on the recommended updates • Present a final recommendation to the City Council for consideration Draft Timeline Zoning 1.5 Mile Jurisdiction r _ I I , 1 Pre.I Phase II I - r�an Phase III It Prunne IV I 1 J I u. The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan tl e Approved October 28.208 Planning Area • North US 30 • Includes Goals and Objectives '''• • bast-Romdary Agreements/Grove Rtl. ?,i -;, `'. specific to the City Zoning • SOUth--is"ar Rd. -"1 �. Ordinance • Wes!-Emamaln Ro.Mighpoinl Rd :-`1 rr I • �. rl • 74s square kites �• . Created new Future Land Use �` t L_ Classifications The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan • Natural Resource Goal 2: • Natural Resource Goal 4: Preserve changes in elovahmc and IOe iodine✓iewsha s Reserve,enhance,antl/or reanualsin exosfmg natural teas prowdso by Them.wane York"Oe's Marring area • *Objective 2.1: Objective 4.3: "ArneM Unhed City of Yorkviprot Zoning °Sal height limitations for ta new or renovated which add to includen tree prong,pint ordinance xMing buildings or within to grown Yorkville In the which free re des a tree Inventory program, ron/ng original to provide a Rive back or street free replacement program,free monitoring building heights from Me Pox River" program,and/orpmservaflon orslgnlficenf freecJwooded areas." The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan • Land Use Goal 1: • Land Use Goal 1: Erwourago high gags ,disbncl and creative development Encourage high Wall distinct and creative oevalopmenr witch reinforces and unihos the sill of YMkmlle wnich reinforces and wtfies the idenliry of Yoi Av,nle *Objective 1.4: i Objective 1.5: "Encourage the development infuse-nrlented "Encourage c»mmercie/development In the born districts,Including,but not limited lo,a medical of nodes around rnlersecdons and not strip district entertainment district,downtoym/m/xed development along roadways In orderlo limll use district,town dinner district,oRcelfregagol access onto senator roadways to ease tragic dlsMd,cultureldratoll age-restriceve congestion and for aesthetic considerations." residential,aad....an.district,In Yorkyllle's planning area." 2 The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications Land Use Classifications U,d Uee Inm u[e a�elvPP�u=^uua R-1 N,igh Law --" O nsM delacnetl sngle-falndy E:um rv.yM..lmm E.ol.uHanwmwa Less ft"0.5 un0slacre s,am,"ropdpnuue s"wm,"v.relaon.uw bass Baneragy. t..deo-a xe:.su:,a r,.am.l x.va.nur rypLg exlsll'�Ilapla0ofl5 Naewudoud rveanwmum �y u,m.e�ua regartlirg walerlsewer rvnsdanrae xeul Ne r LVl d1mBdWY4d bysubsNrNL IMUr4ul Ottwatl RZ•mtl� ON ebMPa.�artn 'e<U•s Mued U:e BJneUINIGI hl flalWp InsuWbra The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications Land Use Classifications x�a n.amvw 1-0w d¢nsMtleacn¢ 7 Y Lesstnan 1.5 u niwace bm uk 9nglnlamdy tlelaUeo anal Nelel�pvmod E>we x.Mnwneue E2�e Neproum"ee Less Wa1.5-1.25 'n'"NeF` ARLM generally: suwrw,xNalbwhcl y MiMI.. ^mo.rgla.e.n:a nave exrstiig p0olaygm r�m�ec.ui xe.xuu+ Oeveiopm¢nls above 20 caw, regarding walerlsewei ""a^u°^iee° een,lry to Wmply wnn 60ry1 Oeaign GUhfebnes N«e�mnaoe ay.i dlBfat!&4B0¢yaUOSIMAaI ve.anuomuud xeue L—_ — I Opaaspaaaa wuw„I __- —I IA.y JUG MiW Um The Updated Comprehensive Plan T7UseClassificaflons d Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications Lsifications I.m uk bfamAY O¢�a�,rretl antl allatM1pO�S+aO rR¢lslr Semce.Rlau,am anJ d Enlfrtl8aanml Ydp ],wlaunnx..u.iaaTO be ewisRleNxflh eweAng Ali tleOMGet Mtlkgannlawn n.,m.u�l a.-n„roel xegnbomaae rvea"mmom Gene,auy 1pcaletl near a0a alpng maloi Fnasis.l ro da niooR �,� �� awnmerne� wlm em al des NegM1NIw Rt,o Ne�e"bmccd F4LVl IMUOUI I � u I Wn¢f¢fgTtlpR inle52Cl OttceaM bees 2n ONCe eM xeux�ali � �.- IAneE U 11 axed Uee N WOmei 3 The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications Land Use Classifications vrv.e^comma Lu.lavprmxom SeMCe blenlae felel Po180WNnefea Manu'apUMg.eEfpndy.WgIB�B ,� w.,l N¢w•m"� nww.ln.xna, ane werenoueewea 'B"w""4n0 ftd n b aefVa fesieeata Ne�anWncM ReYn widen Maimmesseefaa. x[,amm�.m.R.ml ' lwsp MbEaQl VMf� 0.n s efNae.° IMUSYUI S.mBIGM1fEala peLOiPmINp IMUYUI oaK¢aw rr.am,m Ipan Cpmmefciel seas. on.aad Resa.m toaeiw as Wnsbea ' I+�..auR wisanoa lU robienp181 NS66 The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications Land Use Classifications fa.e J. �Ux typal N¢�PlEUbae flueal NaPwleaC E51ale Niglpvlwa[ FLwle NPI1MIIXe SWUWn Nep^W'MM � Swu6.nMgMU�aM Olfce eiM npnl ssamrtacwmg Uses aibmae m RHtlan401.OIfCB aM open l.an4m.l ra:,e[w.� um.LwlR...s.>al apace use. NrvargMad mimpe0 Wa6lsgoor" rv.,nnmmme ...nwnNOea¢we p&waeM1Ug6 •v^>.awx aL� I De�uepWnoteueatl 35 usWape Imu:va PmWla W.I 1 IMG wd f Im.,zmal e aleRnmrcx fla6y Wantlep aae p[ptlYCt arr.,.a R..�aµ aWale es loh6ab,and b m�,.euu Oevegpmanl xi.w uu �' anO able to integm�e and muuw.a IL._ Lw.uwl wexisl weM1 resitlenllal uses The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan L.md Use Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning ClassificationF ,m Na¢ l..ewe mm.s na..ea.uoe Rwe!NUgMwMOC rival NepxWrvA t9nWaKa L:YIe NepMa^mJ Tr. M, Ne51Sp'IVNf 1.wxl ge SNegxEpM.N :.euBY 1-1 Ne.PNm'xTe NM^YmuY Cenme.eel G.nrmaeY .Mom qaW NppMUlma ReLUI xw�owl IMULYUi ONC.e nN Re»a�[x M¢eM RecurtF I PUMIekMOeaell spacusn aawdl u�ssa UR ImYaNwml �IaS Park Pntl ONQn SndcQ USQ• YCLWWrW 4 The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications ..IIS Cbx.4m I Uar 2anb0 Ckxe u.n Rum!WTghmlwep E-1 E:MI ReluubIl Z7.--,—w4 En Eeb4 flergeWa E:uu.Na Exlale NelghXr Y EN Fatale RM1denMI b RA ReaIGe1411 SuWM.n NeglYpnvm bu4uNVr NegMnmwc mA RevUenW wrai RevGemai NnOnMrnwJ NemhWrlww Comncra Comnvrc NsObMTOM Raul NfRNlwlw]Mbi Muxeui 111-uu" M P—a F Off M%twcn MneC U's ee0 uu In:41u4mul The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications IaM Uxe IDnvrp Claamentlen Zonlrg WxaXW44n r 5'u'aru" EfEw4 Prpmlur RurnYl Nepnhpnryh E�14uN Reepenlm E:Lerel NtpM1bNUU E-IEmb PeLen4Llo Rn Pey4nua EeVle NegManroo E1 E5NIe Peeuen4Alo Rn Rwutrnhal buWeW nNegXWrlrN R-1 S.1 1.R�2 P 1 b R 2RevmpY ne PrvvanLL=! inJwpul PeWen4vr Nr.pemnw.v N"". R-1O BUPIeab RJ eMRN RnNenMl CumTerca Commngnl N u. tlli uaa Resl n1-1,lgM Reuu IMwbur npur4ui OMee nntl Pe:e.mM1 pleeaM Re:wrt'n Ljhuu45roi 4nWnarwl The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications I.M Ux Zumne Olaaxxrcatiar MUae $u"eWaOhamn Rurar Ne rTrMnxE E.r E111 4:d Run'Nnp'FVn^-'9 En E:o-N Re:amua E:ule NegMa4uq r EUap Pelfenualb Rl hytltnhY E:urry Nrvpnxrtac Er E:bb ReyErvnw mR— bu4urlvn Ne✓¢ECTm] R1 Pavunmib0.- Pe'vbn4el $rLSb=�Negn6mby R1 Peshn4aib RCS gevervnhY Nui nai q¢a0.nW Ne.Pn4Mme]� q10 BUgenb RJaC 0.i Rr:eeWY Nxpeewncx q.]O UWev Ia RJ ae R.l geyctnua 61 General BUrlrxa BJ ServItt BUalne Crynw' R1 Gew11Bwb 6J Serce BUe NnOCbulraq Reui RepM1WnoM RetYr 61 UmRI4 BUxlnex t, SIM"Bus"» Fgm.4�i OXen.M Perm Ma'e vM1:raven WuY U:e MrtolNe i�:144erYr 5 Phe Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications I,M Yae E 1 EB ICa Iwl IeM Mx ID�'Bq rJaruM+6m FvN Napmmuwn E-I E:bk ReiNenua fdnLMepl[olum LaS fw.tlenlW `eE I,Xe NepM.moya E-I EcYIt neNMnual to R-x 0.nvyna.+i E:Yk NepltlMxN EI E:me Patlmldb RA Pexcer0ai "+^�++N<tiaoNevo R�1 Re.Ce+uoilrRlRe:.oe+Lei SWUNn NegLOlml fl�l PayknLL b0.l PeyMryai x4ai o-ml P¢vhNa erorN:gvce Rip D.Ma+:o R�]a RIPaao:eu.-+ NepMrlml R�A D:pe+lo 0.Jmn Ri RevOenlel Lcnimertv'! mYQ�; Cmmarml &RGwel9uveubgd 5e�xce BUxx:e bMO]ReV bt mug B...e:�:bB 15amCe BaLLre:1 Nrpwlvq Fetal &t UmkJBmme�_b&35trvlae9wnzv I�p_.W MI U.10 M�nWxWnnB bM 34em.�al Mvwlauuring IMyepnl IA-1Ymktl Maulx4n lo W24mey Manl., gf�eaW ReveaN� IAwODUR IAwGUx The Updated Comprehensive Plan The Updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use vs.Zonin Classifications Land Use vs.Zoning Classifications Ua Ux Znn:rp Lhxtllub: ltMUx b,i,0.nvM1 pvy rye LalprteE E•1 E:Nbpe:keNe N¢e—v'wMCp EA E:+.+E gc:ae+!a'. c51'KrMa] �1 E:Ym PeWmaa to R�l MOenual EJiN NegnMNU] ua:gl'1h�4]le q�t Rn:h+!a: NegM.al.xn R�1 R¢uemualb R-3 Rey4Mal Hayu�.mm W1 Ra:cenuabpQ pe:.Ce..t+1 punt Rtvatia ..q N•�Emv.tl+n] F}O Dap'eab RJ NNfl�a Po'vtlen4a� NapwmuA� R0.1DCWe•:+R 9nN RJ Reannaai eo..xaa e-]e.m.,�e.xbexx beas.,:,aaewa,aax ee.,.....o: sz c.+xae.,�.�.:be>x.aee ew�mtt N.gamnaw Raul blumko en:nw,m e.a s.rvixe euamu KanW p._al veuvr.e:x IM.uxaal :a[IUmpb1A36mexal lAanNxumnO a:Wirybl.l:!('.ev.fll M.Maa:vn] Mee aMWxauM1 ORcem M.enn'tl Pt:e::rza ..NU_ GUDpU,n UHt Ce ,pmenl auE U:a GUJ Ge-..M U+:De•eippry n: ImuwUo�al h{antlr in 1pe o/WaMWOn Assessment Report The Next Meeting • Part I—Statutory Powers/Purpose • Set Schedule— Wnthly? • Part II—Summary of Deficiencies Regular Datelrime?