Zoning Commission Minutes 2009 06-24-09 bo C/T
APPROVED
United City of Yorkville
a I T County Seat of Kendall County
ES i `�—=•-1836 800 Game Farm Road
-4 iIrp � Yorkville, Illinois r 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Ordinance Commission
Wednesday June 24, 2009
Yorkville City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road
ATTENDEES:
Zoning Commission:
Mike Crouch,Chair
Jeff Baker
Greg Millen
Gary Neyer(arrived 8:10 pm)
Phil Haugen
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 7:00 pm. Stephanie
Boettcher called role. Only four members of the commission were in attendance, quorum was not
established.
Travis Miller began by explaining the information provided to the commission on the conservation design
district and went through the draft conservation design ordinance language which was prepared by staff.
Miller asked for commission input and comment.
Phil Haugen asked what a 20%density increase would look like. He had difficulty visualizing what it
would look like. Jeff Baker asked if the 20% increase would be forjust the clustered area. Miller
clarified that it would be an increase in gross density for the entire area. Miller explained that staff would
be able to develop some hypothetical scenarios using developments in town as examples. He hoped to
first have some direction on the density increase prior to developing these scenarios. Crouch gave a
simple version, a parcel with 100 homes; a 20%increase would result in 120 homes. Haugen asked what
would be the average lot size. Baker said an average size lot is 12,000 square feet. Anna Kurtzman
explained the average home size of 2,000 square feet(building footprint of 1,000 square feet), or 1/12 of
the lot. Crouch explained using this average lot size, there would be 3—4 homes per acre approximately.
Haugen stated that given the rural neighborhood land use,the change in density would go from 0.5 units
per acre to 0.6 units per acre so not much change. Boettcher explained that the biggest change will be the
"look" of the development, which will go from homes on larger lots, to clustered homes with smaller lots.
The development may look denser,when in actuality the density has not increased greatly. Miller
explained that there will still be an "open feeling" because the amount of open space is greater than a
traditional development. A conservation design development will have smaller individual yards in favor
of a larger shared open space.
Miller explained that the open space provided in a conservation design development cannot be just the
unbuildable area. The developer has to provide a percentage of buildable area for open space. Also,
retention/detention systems do not count towards open space. Crouch stated that an increase in 20% is
not making a big change in the look of the development. Crouch asked what criteria are used to
determine if the development receives 3,4, or 5%density bonus. He mentioned that developers will want
to know what exactly is necessary to receive 5%.
Baker questioned if a golf course would qualify as open space? If so, he was not in favor of it. Miller
took this opportunity to relay a comment made by Al Green prior to the meeting in which he felt that hard
surfaces, such as basketball courts and tennis courts,those with impervious surfaces should not qualify as
open space. Baker thought it was best to have a naturalized landscape as opposed to manicured land
qualify for the open space requirement. If all natural get more dwelling units per acre as opposed to if
additional active recreation lands are provided. Greg Millen mentioned there were economic benefits of a
golf course; specifically there could be a lower association fee for homeowners because the green fees for
the course help pay for maintenance. He also mentioned that the golf course could also fulfill the
retention/detention requirement for the development.
Crouch thought section 3 and 4 of the types of uses for open space requirements are similar in that they
are restrictive in who can use them. A tennis court and basketball court should not be considered open
space, since they are just like a parking lot, in terms of hard service, and a parking lot wouldn't be
considered open space. Haugen asked if other municipalities include recreation uses in their ordinance as
an allowable use for open space. Miller explained that it was dependent on the needs on the municipality.
Miller thought that Yorkville's concern was in terms of erosion and preservation of natural areas as
opposed to providing recreational opportunities as the parks department has done a good job at providing
them. Miller also brought up agricultural as another use staff considered to preserve as this ordinance was
a potential means to preserve and sustain it.
Baker asked will the development still have to meet the requirements of the Park Board. Boettcher
explained that the developer will still have to meet all of the land cash requirements,which would be in
addition to the open space requirements of the conservation design district, if section 3 was removed. The
developer would not get credit for the recreational uses within the development towards the open space
requirement, but they still would have to provide them. The open space requirement would be above and
beyond city ordinances; staff will include this language into the ordinance. Miller also clarified that if the
request was for a cash donation as opposed to land, the developer can use the open space land which
would have gone to a donation for open space credit.
Millen asked if land as opposed to a water body would be considered the same in terms of open space.
Baker said that if 80%of the land was taken up by a lake, the remaining 20%would be houses. Crouch
thought this would result in some much higher densities. Miller then this was essentially what the
concept boiled down to and was the commission ok with it. Millen asked what about the land along the
Fox River? Crouch thought it was much different from a development out along the edges of town as
there is much less buildable area. Miller explained that the ordinance is written that a development
cannot have the maximum density anywhere; it is dependent on the comprehensive plan land use
recommendation for that specific area. So, an area closer to town would have the potential for higher
density as opposed to one further out. Boettcher explained that within the comprehensive plan a density
range is provided for each residential land use. A conservation design development would allow only a
20%increase of that comprehensive plan recommendation, so for example from 0.5 to 0.6 dwelling units
per acre. Miller went back to the example of the 80 acre lake with 20 acres of houses within a rural
estate neighborhood,using conservation design for the 100 acres, 0.5 yields 50 houses on 20 acres, or 2.5
dwelling units per acre.
Millen asked what if homes were tore down along the Fox River and the developer wanted to build
condos. Miller explained the land use for the downtown is traditional neighborhood. Miller asked how
this be handled since a density for this land use isn't defined in the comprehensive plan. Baker thought
development would be handled by a new downtown/historic district as opposed to a conservation design
district. This was agreed upon by the commission. Haugen suggested that language be added in which
the density can be increased up to 20%; however the development can only go up one "level". So for
example, a rural neighborhood could only go to the level of estate neighborhood and not suburban
neighborhood. This would be pertinent to all types of open space,not just a lake.
Crouch commented that the legal instrument for permanent protection section was an important
component. Crouch asked that if a conservation easement preserved the land forever. Miller explained
that occasionally conservation easements are established and recorded on the plat,but there is no
oversight or mechanisms to finance maintenance in perpetuity. Baker questioned if all areas need to be
maintained. Crouch explained that there is a certain amount of management and maintenance necessary
for all types of open space even if that open space is natural. Kurtzman asked the commission to consider
what types of areas are being preserved and if it was important to preserve that type of ecosystem forever
or could it evolve over time. Crouch asked that if it was best to have an area in a conservation easement
which is now surrounded by homes. Miller brought up Central Park as a good example in favor of
preservation. Crouch agreed but thought it was different from a farm. Millen asked could the open space
be deeded to the forest preserve. Miller replied,yes, the developerjust have to show that the open space
will be preserved and maintained.
Crouch returned the discussion to recreational land and if it should be included. Miller thought the land
cash ordinance best achieved this and that the additional text in the conservation design district might
confuse things. Crouch asked if the pasture and agricultural land should also be removed. Miller
explained that there is no incentive to the development community to preserve agricultural land and asked
the commission if this type of land should be preserved. Crouch agreed that the City should attempt to
preserve its history of farming this was agreed to by Baker and Haugen. Crouch questioned at what point
would the agricultural land not be sustainable? At what acreage is the intent and integrity of farm
preservation lost? Baker said there were a lot of farmers who farm small acreage all over the community.
Haugen thought if the parcel size gets to small that the preservation of agriculture land and history gets
lost. Kurtzman asked if a minimum acreage is necessary. Crouch thought it was best to drop pastureland
from the text and only keep cropland. Baker thought it was best to keep that text. Crouch asked what the
intent of pasture land is. Is pasture land horse grazing or cattle? Miller asked the commission to consider
a buffer or transitional area, so homes are not right next store to agricultural land. Baker said in a perfect
world wouldn't want to abut R-1 next to A-1. There is also a safety concern with the agricultural land
with tractors. Baker thought it was difficult to buffer all of the residents from an agricultural area.
Crouch agreed to include pastureland in the text.
A quorum was established at 8:10 pm. Upon a recap of the night's discussion by Crouch, the discussion
returned to Conservation Design District. Gary Neyer thought the ordinance could allow a golf course, if
the community wanted this type of recreation and felt it didn't overlap other recreational uses such as
basketball courts. Neyer also mentioned that only if numbers work for those wanting to develop then the
City will get conservation design development. It must be economical for developers. Baker thought a
golf course development could be handled through a PUD as opposed to conservation design. Miller
explained that a density bonus was not entitled if handled as a PUD, but could be considered. Neyer
provided a compromise in which the ordinance provides a lesser maximum density bonus for a golf
course. Neyer questioned if the open space had to be publicly accessible. Boettcher explained that a
density bonus is included for publicly accessible open space. Crouch thought it was best to treat private
uses differently from public uses. Neyer felt the ordinance had to incentive want the community wants.
The commission decided that if the use is a private use,then the developer gets less of a density bonus
then if the open space is public.
The May 27 meeting minutes were reviewed. The minutes were approved with no corrections.
Miller then went through the revisions to the B-1 and B-2 commercial districts prepared by Kurtzman.
Kurtzman explained that the B-1 district is best suits the neighborhood retail land use from the
comprehensive plan, which is a more"mom and pop"style retail development. Kurtzman explained that
the list of permitted uses was determined based on what is necessary for a neighborhood to sustain itself.
Kurtzman explained that hospital was removed from the permitted uses, but a medical clinic was kept.
Crouch asked if a clinic couldjust be handled as a professional building, but also mentioned Ire didn't
mind having both in the permitted uses. Baker didn't know if a clinic was a"mom and pop" type place.
Discussion turned to if any of the permitted uses could just sustain the surrounding area, that all of the
uses would try to draw business from all over, not just a specific neighborhood.
Kurtzman then explained the revision to allow day care centers as special uses in the B-1 district as they
are now prohibited. Baker asked why it was made this way. No one was aware,but the thought was the
language was original. Baker asked if the city had a procedure on how day cares are approved. There are
state laws which regulate the day care centers,which staff reference. Miller asked how an application for
child care in the home is handled. Kurtzman explained that a daycare center is dedicated business, while
child care in the home is handled as a home occupation, administratively. Neyer asked if day care centers
are special uses in other districts. Kurtzman explained that it is a special use in most districts, not in
manufacturing. Neyer was in favor of including it in B-1 district and which was agreed upon by the rest
of the committee.
Kurtzman explained that the next revisions were in reference to a downtown district. Miller explained
that staff needs to draft a downtown district. Baker asked if the district was going to be a historic district.
Crouch explained that the two districts staff was to further review were one along Route 47 and a historic
downtown district. Kurtzman then explained that the revisions to the B-2 district were the same as the B-
1 referencing a downtown district.
Haugen asked if there were other things on this list of permitted uses which would be appropriate. Were
there uses that were missing from the list? Baker thought the permitted use list was more of a guide.
Miller explained that the permitted use list is up to the interpretation of the zoning administrator. Crouch
asked if it was better to delineate as many items as possible. Miller explained that one approach was to
add as main items to the list to be as specific as possible,while the other was to be more general. Baker
mentioned that there was text which accompanied the permitted uses and that could be an avenue.
Crouch said that the commission couldn't list everything. Crouch suggested adding language"of this
nature" since can't list every permitted use.
The next meeting will be on Wednesday July 22 at 7:00 pm in which the administrative portions of the
text will be discussed.
The meeting was adjoined at 8:50 pm.
Minutes submitted by Stephanie Boettcher