Zoning Commission Minutes 2009 05-27-09 APPROVED
,CEO °�Tr
o United City of Yorkville
Qhs. County Seat of Kendall County
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois, 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
h<LE X
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Ordinance Commission
Wednesday May 27, 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
AI Green
United City of Yorkville Staff:
Travis Miller,Community Development Department Director
Stephanie Boettcher, Senior Planner
Anna Kurtzman,Zoning Coordinator
MINUTES
Mike Crouch, Chair of the Zoning Commission, called the meeting to order at 7:02 pin. He
welcomed all for attending. Stephanie Boettcher called role. All members of the commission
were in attendance. The commission then reviewed the minutes from the April 29, 2009
meeting. The minutes were approved with no corrections.
Travis Miller went over the follow up items from the April meeting. He first presented a memo
prepared by staff in which a word search was done of all of the words in the definitions chapter.
These items will be cleaned up through the update process. Miller also presented information
from the IEPA in regards to transfer stations in which the regulations eliminates local zoning
authority for transfer stations and landfill applications. Miller noted that IEPA information states
that recycling centers are not transfer stations and there is local zoning authority for recycling
centers. Pete Huinker clarified that there are no additional local restrictions, such as setbacks,
which can be placed on these types of facilities. Miller explained that there is local authority in
the siting process for pollution control facilities, but not zoning authority. The tool for placing
additional regulations is the Kendall County Solid Waste Plan which is currently being updated.
Al Green pointed out page 4 of the IEPA brochure which defines a pollution control facility, as it
also lists facilities which are not controlled by the IEPA and are subject to local restrictions.
Green noted that these should be addressed in the zoning ordinance. Miller confirmed that these
will be defined and included as the ordinance is updated.
Miller then went through the memo prepared about use-oriented districts. This idea came from
the discussion as part of the comprehensive plan. The memo lists all of the potential districts and
provides a brief explanation of them. Staff is looking for direction from the commission. Miller
explained that all, none or some of these districts might make sense. A pro and con list was also
prepared about the development of districts. Miller explained that a positive would be that the
city's intentions would be very clear, but it can be limiting and the City would have to be
confident it is feasible and desirable. Jeff Baker stated that business should dictate this. Crouch
questioned what if a petition came in that didn't fit with the district? Would it not be allowed?
Miller explained that in the most restrictive case the petitioner would have to request for a
rezoning to allow for the use; however the commission is beginning with a blank slate so they
could determine how this could be handled. Crouch said that he was not in favor in requiring the
rezoning of property. Gary Neyer thought that districts take away a lot of options for property
owners and that he was in favor of placing the least restrictive requirements on the property
owner. Phil Haugen commented that districts did make sense; however they typically happen
naturally. Greg Millen also explained that mixing uses works very well. He used the example of
shared parking between an office and church, in which the church would use the spaces in the off
peak times. Neyer also commented that things change in the market and if these districts were
put into the ordinance it would make it difficult to amend. There needs to be flexibility. Crouch
agreed that being flexible allows for the best use of the property, and that he was more
comfortable with restricting uses on a case by case basis. Green commented that there were
advantages to living in an area with districts and that he personally lived in areas, such as
Woodlands,TX and Singapore, which used this method. He thought there were some potential
districts which would be good to have, such as a downtown district. Baker commented that he
had concern about traffic congestion as the result of these districts.
Miller mentioned that the downtown district was indeed a good example, particularly since a mix
of uses is not allowed within a building in the current zoning ordinance. Baker stated that it was
legal to have an apartment above a first floor business. Anna Kurtzman clarified that apartments
were allowed above a business however the zoning ordinance restricts the number of apartments
to the number of businesses on the first floor. The current ratio is 2 apartments per 1 business
within a business building. Kurtzman noted that this can be limiting with a three story building.
Baker thought it was important to keep the availability of apartments above businesses as it helps
the business owner financially. Miller also explained that apartments on the second floor are a
special use and not a permitted use. Neyer thought it would be best to accomplish this objective
via other means than a district, which is seen as additional restrictions.
Green asked for an explanation of an overlay district. Boettcher explained that the overlay
district adds additional restrictions to an area above the base zoning. Miller also explained that
these restrictions not always address use but can add architectural standards. Pfister asked
couldn't this just be handled through covenants? Kurtzman explained that covenants are decided
by a property owners association, not the City, so they can only be enforced by the property
owners association. Ralph Pfister asked if there are time limits on covenants. Miller explained
that they are deed restrictions and would be perpetual; however could write in a time limit into
the covenant.
The discussion returned to a downtown district as Baker agreed there were some districts which
needed to be address, specifically mentioning downtown and historic districts. Millen thought
that it made economic sense to have an apartment above a business and that it could encourage
businesses to locate downtown. He also mentioned that it was traditional to have owner-
occupied businesses (apartments above businesses). Pfister brought up that there are safety
issues with the apartments above a business, mentioning ingress and egress concerns. Crouch
though it was a way to encourage business to develop downtown. Huinker asked what staff was
looking for. Miller stated that they would like direction from this meeting on which districts to
further research. Crouch then went through the list of potential districts, one by one, with the
commission. Neyer still felt it was best to provide the greatest variety of uses and that the only
way he was supportive of a district if it eliminated the need for special uses and still provided the
greatest variety of uses. Medical, entertainment, town center, office/research/development,
cultural, age-restrictive residential, recreation, civic districts were not supported by the
commission.
Baker thought a downtown district was appropriate and that it could be incorporated into a
historic district. That it would not only include businesses,but also the historic homes in the
area as well. Huinker also mentioned that overlay districts could relax standards such as
landscaping or parking as well. Crouch felt the properties along the river will redevelop as
condos, etc in order to take advantage of the views of the river. Crouch also thought that parking
will also become an increasing issue in the downtown, and a parking garage will be a great
solution. Miller asked how or if the commission wanted to preserve or mimic, in redevelopment
projects, the historic architecture. Crouch thought it would be best to preserve as much as
possible. Huinker commented that the challenge is defining what is historic. Miller mentioned
that this could include a materials list and the ordinance could require the preservation or
enhancement of buildings. Kurtzman suggested that opposed to defining what was permitted it
might be better to list what not to do. Millen also mentioned that accessibility is an issue with
historic structures.
Huinker asked if the comprehensive plan recommended certain areas for specific types of
development. Miller commented that the comprehensive plan suggests commercial development
in the form of nodes and the zoning ordinance would be a way to implement this. Boettcher said
that the comprehensive plan did not include a location map for the suggested districts. Haugen
asked how a community can limit strip center development. The design guidelines which were
recently adopted by City Council are a way to accomplish this. Boettcher also pointed out
limiting access points could also help achieve this. Baker asked about cross access easements
and felt that they should be include in the zoning ordinance. Miller said staff would look into
where cross access easements would be best addressed.
Crouch then brought up a historic district. He mentioned that these types of districts could be
over the top and that the City needs to be careful of what obligations they are placing onto a
property owner. Given that, Crouch still felt this type of district needed to be reviewed. Green
asked if a location was determined for this district. Boettcher replied that staff had not yet
determined the location, but would develop a district map for the next meeting.
Crouch then brought up the potential Route 47 district, which many properties have requested
rezoning from commercial to residential, but kept the residential structure for the business.
Miller explained that this district would allow for adaptive reuse of the residential structures for
commercial uses. Crouch questioned what that area would look like once Route 47 was widened.
He mentioned that parking would definitely be an issue for these properties along with traffic.
Green thought it would be a good idea in order to maintain the character that is there and limit
strip development. Crouch questioned if these building were something worth preserving. He
commented that houses do not lend themselves as a business. Millen thought that it was not the
highest and best use to have a residential use on Route 47. There could potentially be another
layer of adaptive reuse buildings beyond those fronting directly on Route 47. Staff does have
IDOT's plan for Route 47 and can provide them to the commission. Haugen stated he would like
to see staff expound on the Route 47 business district, particularly what the corridor will look
like.
Miller then went on to explain the proposed rural estate neighborhood district as was proposed in
the comprehensive plan. Miller went through a table which was prepared that compared the
dimensional requirements of the rural estate district against all of the existing zoning districts in
the City. Baker questioned if there was a height limit in agricultural and referenced bams and
silos. Miller stated that there is currently no height limit for agricultural, but staff is
recommending a height limit for dwelling units which wouldn't include an unoccupied structure
such as a silo. Huinker commented that the City would lose money if lots in are in excess of an
acre, that lots over an acre should be in the county. Huinker thought the better to do clustering in
these areas. Neyer said that if the City wanted to discourage development in this area this would
be the way to do it. This would be the perfect way to keep an area as farmland. Neyer said that
this type of zoning would not be economically feasible for a developer. The commission
determined that rural estate was not practical.
Miller then brought up conservation design which is another proposed zoning district. He
mentioned that staff had reviewed other municipalities' conservation design regulations, such as
McHenry County. Some addressed the regulations in the subdivision control ordinance, while
others in their zoning ordinance. Miller explained that there is a lot of information on this topic
and the concept is that the gross density is low, but development is concentrated near each other
so there is less infrastructure and more open space. Baker said that maintenance of the open
space can become an issue and that the open space should be left natural. Miller mentioned that
other municipal ordinances require a conservation easement to be held by a land trust
organization, such as the Conservation Foundation. Baker also said that the open space should
be "usable" or have a recreation focus. Crouch stated that clustering makes sense, but there are
issues which they need to look at such as usable space and liability. Staff is going to review
further. Miller mentioned that other municipalities had a conservation design subdivision as a
permitted use, but the procedures and regulations could be handled separately in the subdivision
control ordinance. Millen commented that the density examples provided in the article in the
packet was a good example. Crouch commented that density is a balancing act and that the
public typically wants larger lots, but larger lots are not always the best.
The next meeting will be on Wednesday June 24 in which revisions to existing zoning districts
will be addressed.
The meeting was adjoined.
Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher