Land Use

1 LAND USE COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION November 9, 2016 7:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT Beth Schlueter, Chairman Veronica Armouti, Vice Chairman William Catalano Jill Buford Mark Rabe Larry Miller Paul Pitts John Mullane, PC Chairman Scott Hanson, Staff Ben Powell Cheryl Porter, Staff Justin Venvertloh, TWM At the regular meeting of the Plan Commission's Land Use Committee, the following items were discussed: Case 2016-21: Meridian PUD – Planned Unit Development Developer: Richland Residential Engineer: TWM Scott Hanson gave staff’s report on this development. This PUD has been renamed to Reserve. The conceptual workshop was done last month. There were some concerns expressed at that meeting which have been corrected. The items discussed were density and if parking would be adequate because they go hand and hand, active greenspace, pedestrian traffic, and access to the site to the west. Since then, the applicant has reduced the overall number of bedrooms. Last month, there were 513 bedrooms. Now there will be 486 bedrooms. Justin Venvertloh explained they have eliminated the 1-bedroom dwelling units. Each floor will have two 4-bedroom units, two 3-bedroom units, and two 2-bedroom units. There will be a total of 6 units per floor, 18 units per building, 162 total units. The 4-bedroom units will be on the end. The 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units will be in the central corridor. There will be a total of 9 buildings. The density will be 31.93 bedrooms per acre or 10.64 dwelling units per acre. The 4-bedroom units will be approximately 1,615 square feet. The 3-bedroom units will be approximately 1,435 square feet. The 2-bedroom units will be approximately 1,014 square feet. Hanson explained there have been no exterior renderings at this time. They would like to change from an interior hallway to an exterior breezeway to access the units. Venvertloh stated this would make the court yards more accessible and better circulation throughout the entire development. Sheet 4 of the site plan shows the circulation of the site. This site plan was used on other developments and it seems to work better. Hanson stated staff has gone through this with The Edge and also compared it to the development of Enclave West. The Enclave West development has the internal hallways but it incurs more of an expense. On the other hand, there is a safety issue because the chance to be heard or seen by security would be less because of the enclosure. That issue came up at The Edge development meeting. There are pros and cons of each. There is a 30-foot wide cross access easement that is platted for this. The developer has decided to provide a 50-foot right-of-way. There will be improvements to the ingress and egress. This will solve the discussion about one way in and one-way out because of the right-of-way on the south side of the property as well as the main entrance. The City hopes to run a horseshoe type street behind Enclave West  2 and connect to Stadium Drive. Hanson stated there needs to be a new rendering of the building for Plan Commission meeting. There will still be the same number of parking spaces even though the number of beds have been reduced. There will be an additional 9 spaces for each unit. The entire development will have 79 additional spaces above the City’s requirement. Hanson did a rough estimate from the first building to the trash compactor with the most direct route. It measured at 650 feet using the sidewalk. That is a long way for trash to be taken out. Venvertloh stated the developer has used these in their last three developments. The compactors are very expensive to put in. The developers are willing to spend the money on it because they are a lot cleaner and a more efficient way to handle the trash that will be generated from site. It also keeps the odor down. They will have to train the residents to take the trash there. The onsite maintenance will compact it as needed. It will then be picked up by the trash company multiple times a week as needed. Hanson will provide a list of the number of dumpsters located at the other student housing developments. Schlueter stated she could see the students leaving their trash outside the unit and it may take them three days to walk the trash to the dumpster. By that time, the animals will have gotten into the trash. It was suggested to move the trash compactor closer to the entrance instead of cycling through the development. Porter explained it was proposed to have the enclosed dumpster at the entrance for The Edge development. They were asked to move the dumpster because they didn’t want that to be the first thing seen when entering the development. Venvertloh stated the developers believe the trash compactor is the proper way to proceed having experience with other developments they own. If the City would want more, they would just go with dumpsters throughout the development because the compactors are very expensive. Hanson asked if there will be staff on duty to enforce any trash issues. Venvertloh stated there will be approximately four to five full time staff members which will include an onsite general manager, leasing manager, onsite maintenance manager, and two maintenance workers. They will also have eight to twelve student assistants which will be part time (basically work for rent). There will be some type of security which may be on duty Thursday evenings through Saturday evenings. Hanson suggested some type of security camera also. Venvertloh stated he is sure the developers would be willing to do that. Hanson suggested there be smaller trash containers where students could put the trash, then the manager could collect the trash and put it into the compactor. Venvertloh stated he thinks that could be worked out with the developers. Porter gave the number of dumpsters per student housing development. Enclave has eight buildings and a clubhouse with the total of four dumpster enclosures with six dumpsters. Enclave West has fifteen buildings with one clubhouse and one wellness center with a total of six dumpster enclosures with twelve dumpsters. The Edge has six buildings and one clubhouse with four enclosures and four dumpsters. It was also suggested to enclosing the compactor to avoid trash from blowing around. Schlueter discussed the sidewalk connection from building to building. She wanted to know if there was any way to remove some of those to have more greenspace. The sidewalks should connect to the stairways. Hanson stated the 8-foot wide sidewalks could be calculated towards active greenspace. It would have to be designated what it is going to be used for. Some of the sidewalks could be pulled closer to the building to allow for more area for student activities. Hanson gave examples of activities which would be considered Active Greenspace and which would be considered Passive Greenspace. Hanson suggested the sidewalks around the perimeter be 8 feet and the interior sidewalks as 5 feet. The perimeter sidewalks could then be designated as a jogging path and mark the distance around the path. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation could not be made for a lack of a quorum. Development will be forwarded to Plan Commission for their review. Case 2016-22: Hawthorne Hills – Planned Unit Development Site Plan  3 Developer: Kevin Jones / Jeff Lantz Engineer: TWM Scott Hanson gave an overview of the development. Plan Commission just has to review the site plan and verify that the developers have done everything they proposed to do in the PUD development stage. The developers are allowed to deviate from the original plan but there is criteria which they must meet for that deviation. One thing that has changed is that the PUD is bigger than what was seen in 2015. It was asked by Plan Commission members why it went from 10 acres to 13.5 acres. Justin Venvertloh stated the only reason it got bigger is that the original PUD did not include the right-of- way. In order to have access to the development, the right-of-way needed to be included. The right-of- way was originally included in the Preliminary Plat for the single family homes only. It will all be owned by the City eventually. It is just a matter of which plat it is recorded on. Outlot A has been reduced a little just because they added a radius loop turn. Hanson stated that because they added land to the PUD, the requirement for greenspace has been increased. The code requires 20% of the development. Passive greenspace is easily achievable. Staff’s goal is that active greenspace provided be used in the most effective way possible. The footprint of the proposed multi-use path is about 3800 square feet. It will run along the south side of Goshen Road across Outlots A and B and the lot labeled “Common PUD 1 Active Space”. The overall lot size 34,000 square feet. It will only cover 9% of the lot. The rest of the lot will remain in trees. It was suggested to the developers is to do some slight grading to the lot to make is more functional. It is not the intent to make the developers put in expensive improvements but would like to see the active greenspace functional. Venvertloh stated they were working on redesigning the shared use path to be able to further flatten the lot to make it more active. They are also looking at moving the trail down to hug the tree line of the existing trees so that there is space between the shared use path and Goshen Road. They are not a big fan of providing signage for it though. They have done a lot for this development and gone above and beyond any development. They are against a sign. Hanson stated the intent is for the residents not community use. If there is a sign, people may think it would be for public use. This active greenspace is supposed to be for the residents of Hawthorne Hills. Hanson is okay with not having a sign but wants it functional. An alternative could be a space for a community garden. It is for the developers to decide but is a great way to get the neighbors together. Porter asked if that would be active greenspace though. Hanson stated they would have to plant the garden so it could be considered active. Venvertloh assured the committee the stormwater issues which were expressed at the public meeting by the neighboring subdivision property owners have been addressed. Hanson stated there are a couple of items that need to be taken care of. Venvertloh stated the contactors are working on these items and should be completed by the Plan Commission meeting. Schlueter added if the items have not been completed by the Plan Commission meeting, she would recommend it be held until the items have been completed. Hanson reminded Venvertloh that the Plan Commission does not meeting in December. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation could not be made for a lack of a quorum. Development will be forwarded to Plan Commission for their review. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.