Zoning Commission Minutes 2009 04-29-09 APMOVED
United City of Yorkville
d County Seat of Kendall County
ESL ��--1836 800 Game Farm Road
0 �\ ti Yorkville Illinois 60560
o her. , ,
Telephone: 630-553-4350
4-
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Ordinance Commission
Wednesday April 29, 2009
Yorkville City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road
ATTENDEES:
Zoning Commission:
Mike Crouch,Chair
Jeff Baker
Greg Millen
Ralph Pfister
Gary Neyer
Phil Haugen
Pete Huinker
Al Green
United City of Yorkville Staff:
Travis Miller,Community Development Department Director
Stephanie Boettcher, Senior Planner
Anna Kurtzman,Zoning Coordinator
Guests:
Renee Montalbano
MINUTES
Mike Crouch, Chair of the Zoning Commission, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He
welcomed all for attending and called role. All members of the commission were in attendance.
The commission then reviewed the minutes from the March 25, 2009 meeting. The minutes
were approved with no corrections.
Crouch then went onto the next meeting topic, reviewing the assessment report. Travis Miller
asked the commission to provide input on the assessment report which was drafted by staff. He
stated that it was staffs hope to get through the assessment at this meeting. He asked for the
commission to provide comments or identify items which staff had missed.
Crouch began with the summary of deficiencies report that listed out dated terms. Hospital and
sanitarium—sanitarium is no longer used. The phrase "treatment of insane persons" is outdated
and should be changed to "mentally ill". Also the phrase, "liquor addict" should be amended.
Phil Haugen commented that "chemical dependent" would be the most appropriate tern.
Crouch also brought up if the term "junk yard" is currently used. The terms "salvage yard" or
"recycling center" were mentioned as optional terms. Jeff Baker thought the term `junk" was
good as it could incorporate a multitude of things, but mentioned that typically junk yards are
used for finding old automobile parts. Crouch stated that he thought this was still the case, but
now the common term is "salvage yard". Pete Huinker asked if these facilities are a special use.
Al Green commented that they are just looking to rename the term. Greg Millen commented that
the "salvage yard" is a better term than "junk yard". Miller was unable to find where the zoning
ordinance references a junk yard" other than the definitions. Anna Kurtzman commented that
staff can do a word find, to see where this term is referenced. It could be a term that is used to
help define another term. It did not look like a"junk yard" was either a permitted or special use.
Staff was to double check where this term is used in the zoning ordinance and report back to the
commission. The commission at a later date could then discuss if this use needs to be addressed
by the zoning ordinance. The definition of the term "junk yard" was read by Crouch, which
states the facility is not enclosed. Baker brought up a transfer station and how would that be
addressed. Miller stated that these facilities are controlled by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board and zoning is moot to these facilities. Baker thought it was best to address these facilities
in the zoning ordinance in order to back any municipal decision. Staff is going to get the
language from the Illinois Pollution Control board in regard to the facilities and provide it to the
commission at the next meeting.
Crouch continued with other out dated terms, including "Laundrette", the zoning ordinance
already has laundry and laundry—self service. "Tourist Court" was another term mentioned by
Crouch, which is included with the definition of motel. Crouch hadn't heard of the tern. Baker
thought it would apply to locations in town such as the Sunset Motel and Lydia's. Crouch still
felt the term was out dated. Green mentioned it could be similar to a B&B, to which Crouch
commented that a definition of B&B isn't included in the definitions section; however it is
mentioned in the zoning ordinance. Another out dated term was "livery stable". Finally, Crouch
mentioned "Eleemosynary", to which Miller mentioned is a charitable institution. Crouch
wondered if there was a more modem term for this. Miller mentioned that this tern could be
potentially coupled with"philanthropic".
The terms "auto repair—major" and "auto repair—minor" were brought up, specifically on how
the terms are separated. Miller identified a potential difference as a major auto repair needing
outdoor storage, while the other would not. Baker mentioned that in both instances, there could
be a car sitting there more than a day, yet they need to be handled differently as one is now M-1
and the other is B-3. Crouch stated the minor would be along the lines of a Jiffy Lube, an in and
out place, while a transmission shop would be a major. Huinker brought up that a lot of the
minor auto repair places are in strip malls or areas of mixed use. Baker mentioned that the minor
auto repair is appropriate in a B-3 zoning, while the heavy use are suited for M-1. Crouch said
that would need to look at the definition further as some uses cross between a major and a minor
auto repair. Haugen thought maybe another way of defining the terms would be helpful— auto
collision repair, retail application and a third. Crouch stated there is a broad spectrum work
being done on autos. Baker brought up the Fisher property, stating that this was zoned B-3
special use. Miller corrected that it is zoned B-2 and brought in as a P.U.D. Millen brought up
the potential benefit and also concern of retail establishments locating next to an auto repair.
Staff is going to review the definitions and that either two or three definitions would be
appropriate.
Pfister then reference the Floodplain District chapter, which mentions the Illinois Sewage Board.
This is an outdated term and should be replaced with the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. Miller mentioned that staffs recommendation is to remove the entire chapter, as there
is an existing city code which has superseded the regulation of this chapter. Nothing is zoned
floodplain, but there is floodplain within other zoned areas. Huinker questioned if structures
could be built within floodplain? Kurtzman mentioned that to recollection the zoning ordinance
doesn't restrict building in the floodplain and the practice has been to defer to the FEMA
regulations. Miller mentioned the FEMA regulations are tied to insurance, so in most instances
private owner would not want to develop in a floodplain,but some public uses, such as a park,
may be appropriate.
Huinker questioned the use of the term look out basement as opposed to cellar. He mentioned
there are look out, walk out and basements. Miller asked if there was a need for additional
terms. Huinker was just curious as to where this term is referenced, can't just replace the tern
with look out. Kurtzman thought it would be best for staff to do a word search, in which staff
can search the terms in the definitions section to see if they are used in the rest of the document,
that those which are used in the document could be removed.
Crouch then addressed the chapter on non conforming uses that the language was confusing.
Kurtzman clarified that if a use is not allowed in a zoning district, but the use was there prior to
the zoning, then that use can continue. However if the use ceases to continue then the City has
the ability to require its removal. Crouch was concerned about the time frames given in which a
use is required to comply with the zoning ordinance, some up to 10 years. He was concerned
that this could be an enforceability issue, questioning who tracks this information. Kurtzman
replied that the Building and Safety department has the ability to pull records in order to confirm
this. Miller noted that the language from the zoning ordinance is from the earlyl970s, so this
will be important language in the update if anything changes in the new zoning ordinance.
Crouch thought the commission should consider shorter time frames. Baker commented he was
not in favor of shorter time frames, and that existing structures should remain as it was
conforming when it was built. The Commission is to take a look at this issue as one of the last
items, at which time they can assess how many structures are non-conforming, what they are
being used for, and their location. Neyer mentioned that there may be legal issues with imposing
an absolute deadline with a nonconforming use. Pfister mentioned that non conformance can
deal with a variety of things, not just business. Kurtzman noted that the existing language states,
"lawfully granted", making sure that the nonconforming use was legally established at the time
of construction (via County codes, another municipality, etc), but if it was not, then the City has
the right to cease this use. Baker also that the zoning ordinance should maintain the areas with
their original integrity, siting the example of zero-lot lines in Downtown Yorkville. Miller
brought up the "Amortization Period" language, stating it was strong language and that it should
be addressed.
Crouch asked could a person operate a business out of a residence. Miller responded, yes, a
home occupation is currently permitted, as long as it doesn't generate any additional traffic, there
isn't a sign, and it behaves as a residence. However, if the business generates traffic, then it
would either need to be addressed as a special use or a zoning change as applicable, and example
of this would be a daycare. Kurtzman asked that the Commission review this language and
provide feedback to staff. Staff recommendation in the assessment report is to create a section
addressing home occupations.
Crouch also mentioned that "Drugstore" should be updated to "pharmacy".
Huinker stated the assessment report addressed updating "Billboards" and questioned what was
staffs intention? Miller identified that they are mentioned because they are currently prohibited
in the Sign Ordinance, but provisions should be in place to regulate them, as opposed to
prohibiting them. Baker mentioned that if the Prairie Parkway was constructed there is avenue
for billboards. Miller mentioned that if Route 47 reached a level of traffic volume desired by
billboard companies that also might be a location to expect petitions. Millen brought up portable
signs, stating from a commerce side they can be beneficial to a business. As opposed to this,
businesses are putting up multiple small "political" style signs. They are currently not allowed
per the Sign Ordinance, but they used to be allowed a certain number of times per year per
business. Miller mentioned that this specific issue is before the EDC at their May meeting, in
which a temporary permit will be considered for their use. Crouch stated that the commission
can decide if they feel the sign ordinance should be a part of the zoning ordinance, or remain a
separate document.
Huinker asked for clarification if the zoning ordinance regulates what color a homeowner can
paint his/her home. The appearance code addresses this; however it is not a part of the zoning
ordinance. Huinker also asked for clarification on Part 1 of the Assessment Report. Miller
stated that this part of the report identifies the regulatory authority given by the State. The
italicized text identifies how the City currently exercises this authority.
Huinker asked if the commission wanted to go through affordable housing. Miller explained that
staff defined what would be deemed affordable housing in Yorkville and that some states and
municipalities have standards to provide affordable housing. Many of these locations are quite
different from the Midwest. Miller pointed out that there are few success stories, but the intent is
a good idea. However, it is the Commission decision on if they want to discuss further or
include.
Huinker asked about the language "a nonconforming uses are required to be discontinued when
the building or structure has been discontinued for a period of 12 consecutive months." He felt
in this economy, 12 months might be too short. Huinker asked about enforcement of this, do
property owners receive a letter at 11 months? Kurtzman mentioned is that this situation is either
handled due to resident complaints or due to the property owners acknowledging this when they
come in for permits.
Huinker wanted to then discuss in General Provisions—Chapter 3, open space on lots. Kurtzman
mentioned that decks and patios are not subject to building setbacks, which allows a property
owner to build this type of structure up to the lot line. She questioned should this be a part of the
lot area? Kurtzman also brought up bay windows, as they are only allowed in the front yard.
Baker mentioned that bay windows typically extended 18-24" so they are under the roofline.
Neyer asked if the City had run into any issues with the amount of hardscape in a residential
setting, consists of decks, patios, basketball courts, etc? Kurtzman mentioned that issues
typically come after structures are built, which are in conformance with code. There are some
yards which are full —pools, decks, etc. Crouch mentioned it is an issue of what is filling up a
yard. He stated that lawn is not always the best solution for the environment, native plants and
taller grasses might be better. Commission didn't feel this was an issue needing to be addressed.
Neyer felt that could simply add bay windows to the existing text in 10-3-21) sections 3 and 4.
For bay windows, the commission thought they could be included in side and rear yards;
however there may be an issue with smaller setbacks in a PUD. The Commission thought that a
minimum of 10 feet of setback between two residential structures, total of 20 feet between
structures, in which if a bay window was built on both houses, would still have 14 feet in
between. Fireplaces should also be treated the same as bay windows.
Huinker asked if the Commission wanted to discuss wind energy, solar panels, etc. He asked if a
person could place solar panels on his roof. Miller identified that they would have to meet the
current building code and be permitted. Kurtzman asked are there any other issues or
technologies which the zoning ordinance should consider. Solar panels could be a zoning issue
due to height. Green thought it would be best to include solar energy in the zoning ordinance.
Green mentioned that there are many different technologies, and thought it would be best to
research other communities. Baker asked about geo thermal energy. Miller mentioned that there
would be permitting requirements for new or existing construction. Kurtzman asked that what is
above ground with a geo thermal system. Neyer mentioned that the most one would have above
ground would be a termination box, which would be similar to a sprinkler system. Given that the
system is fully underground it would not be a zoning issue.
Neyer asked how staff handles "pie-shaped" lots in which the rear yard comes to a point. How is
the setback measured? Currently staff measures down each side lot line from the apex the length
of the setback and connects the points.
Baker mentioned that the Commission should pay attention to frontage roads and that parking
lots should be connected in order to control access points. Could this be added to the ordinance?
Miller felt it was most applicable to the subdivision control ordinance and staff has typically
accessed for cross access easements as part of development plans and annexation agreements.
Miller reviewed the revised timeline for updating the zoning ordinance. The next meeting on
May 27 will be reviewing new districts, potential overlay districts, and the comprehensive plan
recommendations.
The meeting was adjoined.
Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher