Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION November 3, 2014 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G. Coffey, Chair M. Rabe, Vice Chair P. Pitts M. Brandmeyer M. Pierceall J. Mullane W. Williams, Staff B. Schlueter, PC Chairman S. Hanson, Staff C. Porter, Staff L. Schneck, Staff A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Monday, November 3, 2014, and the following proposed ordinance was discussed (continuation from October 20, 2014): 1. An Ordinance amending the provisions of Chapter 1243 of the Codified Ordinances relating to Planned Unit Developments (PUD) The committee recommended the following changes. 2.4.2 Planned Unit Developments (PUD) Page 1 1. The first paragraph – replace “PUDs” with “PUD Development Plans”. 2. It was suggested to make sure the PUD Development Plans are consistent throughout the document. In some places it is referred to as “Development Plans”. 3. Section (2) (a) – the last sentence “review process” should read “Development Plan”. 4. Section (2) (b) – the term “Zoning Map Amendments”, “Amendments” should not be capitalized. 5. Section (3) does not need (a) since there is no (b). 6. Section (4) – the first sentence does not need (b). (i) through (ix) should be (a) through (i). Page 2 1. Section (4) (c) should be changed to the total units per acre which should be approximately 10.5 units per acres or the total site area. (Need to verify the number if it is for the number of units per acre.) 2. Section (4) (g) and (h) should be removed. (What was (ix) should now be (g).) 3. Section (4) (f) should have “; and” added to the end. 4. Section (7) remove “is to” in the first sentence and replace it with “may”. After “PUD Development Plans” insert “only”. 5. Section (7) the last sentence needs to have “Development Plan” added after “PUD”. Page 3 1. Page 3 (a) & (b) refer to “pre-application conference” in lower case and upper case. Needs to be consistent throughout the document. 2. Page 3 (b) Step 2 – “Committee” needs to be added after “Administrative and Community Services” in the second line. Also at the end of this sentence add “, or their respected designees.”  2 Page 4 1. Subsection (c) Step 3 – “Conceptual Project Workshop” should not be capitalized. Either way, it needs to be consistent throughout the document. 2. Subsection (c) A. - The last sentence, after “informal” should be “public”. 3. Section B. – Add “at least” after “address” in the first sentence. 4. Number 3. – “applicants” should be “applicant’s”. Remove “no need for” and replace with “limited benefit to be gained from”. 5. Number 3. 2nd paragraph – “However a PUD Conceptual Project Workshop…” It was suggested to reference Subsection 4. This would include removing “proposal contains” and replacing with “PUD is required under Subsection 4”. 6. Number 3. (a) - This has the lot area issue again as previously discussed. Page 5 1. Subsection (b) through (g) at the top of the page needs to be deleted. 2. Step 4 – Caption should be “PUD Development Plan Application and Initial Review”. 3. Step 4 – The second sentence should read “The application shall be made within 180 days after the Pre-application Conference (Step 2), or if later, within 180 days after the PUD Conceptual Project Workshop (Step 3) unless waived. 4. Step 5 – Caption should be “DPW Final Review” or “Final Staff Review”. 5. Step 5 – The first line should read “recommendations” not “corrections”. 6. Step 6 – “accordance with this ordinance, state law, and the Plan Commission Bylaws” should be replaced with “in consideration of the same approval criteria outlined in subsection 8”. 7. Step 7 – Caption should read “City Council Review and Decision of the PUD Development Plan.” 8. Step 7 – A space needs to be between “itsdecision”. 9. Step 7 – Development Plan should be referenced as PUD Development Plan. Page 6 1. Step 7 – At the top of the page, is majority vote of Council or a quorum of Council present at the meeting? This may be a question for legal counsel. 2. Section (c) – There needs to be a space before “Appearance”. 3. Section (c) – In the last sentence, “and aesthetics” needs to be added after “quality”. Page 7 1. Section (e) – Caption should be “Active and Passive Greenspace”. 2. Section (e) – The last sentence talks about “5 acres or more, no buyout of Active or Passive Greenspace”, why is it for 5 acres? Discussion of the viability of the greenspace dedicated. It needs to be stated somewhere what is acceptable as Active and Passive Greenspace. 3. Section (f) – This section needs further review. 4. Section (9) – This section will need to be reviewed by legal counsel regarding entitlements. It talks about development standards of this ordinance but there are no standards discussed in this ordinance. 5. Section (10) – In the first sentence “resolution” should be changed to “satisfaction”. Page 8 1. The first sentence on the top of the page – “shall be the governing review process” should be replaced with ”are not subject to this ordinance.” 2. Section (a)1. – The first sentence should read “The total gross amount of active greenspace is decreased and/or overall density is increased by more than 10.0%. 3. Section (a) 2. – This sentence should read “The external access points, the street network, or streets identified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan in the Comprehensive Plan are  3 changed.” 4. The changes to #1 and #2 in Section (a) should also be placed in Sections (b) changing the percentage to ”between 5% and 10%” and (c), changing the percentages to “up to 5%”. 5. Section (a)(3) – This sentence should read “The revised plan must be submitted if there is a change to a City Council condition of approval for the development.” 6. Section (b) – The first paragraph should read “The items below, in each case, are considered deviations from a PUD Development Plan and require approval of a revised PUD Development Plan by solely the Plan Commission. These items relate to the conceptual layout of a development. These items are:” 7. Section (b) (1) – The number of stories changed mentioned in this section should be moved to the section for Council’s review. It was suggested that the change in use would also need to be added for Council’s review. It could possibly be worded that everything not specifically identified elsewhere to be reviewed by Council. This could be a “catch all” for anything not defined. 8. Section (b) 2) – This section should read “Any changes in landscaping, trees, or buffers that were provided for in the PUD Development Plan. Page 9 – No changes to this page. Page 10 1. Section (c) Staff Review – Percentage should be changed to “up to 5%”. 2. The last paragraph of Subsection 11 should be moved to the beginning of Subsection 11. 3. Subsection 12 – This sentence should read “PUDs approved prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be amended or revised only by City Council.” Page11 1. The committee did not like the reference of “any section” indicated throughout this page. At the beginning of the meeting, Hanson handed out a packet of recommendations to be added to this ordinance. On page 3 of that packet, there is a section referring to a Reverter Clause. Hanson felt this section should be added to page 11. Discussion regarding the PUD located at the corner of Route 157 and Lewis Road where US Bank is located. If this property would be reverted back to its original zoning (R-1 Single Family), the bank would have to remain commercial. Therefore the bank property would be considered spot zoning or a legal non-conforming use. If it was legal non-conforming and something happened to the building, it could not be rebuilt as its current use. The Reverter Clause should be written at the discretion of City Council. Recommended additions: Page 1 1. First paragraph – “at least four acres” needs to be changed. Page 3 1. Top of the page - #22 should be #20. 2. The sentence “A “completeness determination” …” should be deleted. 3. Reverter Clause (3) – “planning commission” should be “Plan Commission”. 4. Subdividing PUDs – second to last line and last line – “develop ment” and “con tained” should be one word. 5. “Subdivided PUDs still remain subject to the original PUD conditions” – should be added to “Subdividing PUDs” section. 6. Traffic section should be incorporated into paragraph 8 in Section 2.4.2. Planned Unit Development.  4 Page 4 1. Pedestrians section should be incorporated into paragraph 8 in Section 2.4.2. Planned Unit Development. 2. Design Review section should be incorporated into paragraph 8 in Section 2.4.2. Planned Unit Development. 3. Market feasibility requirement should be deleted. 4. Density Bonuses should be incorporated into the Land Development Code. Page 5 1. Maintenance of passive and active greenspace should be incorporated into the Land Development Code and referenced in the PUD section. 2.4.3. Site Plan Review Page 1 – Nothing to change on this page. Page 2 1. Section (b) 1) “open space” should be changed to “Active and Passive Greenspace”. 2. Section (b) #1 through 8 needs to match what is mentioned in Section 2.4.2 PUDs on pages 8, 9, & 10 (same wording). Page 3 1. Section (7)(a) – the committee agreed that the time limit should be left in the ordinance. Maybe the schedule should determine the time limit. 2. Section (7)(b) – questioned the phrase “good cause” – not sure what is meant by this. Page 4 – Nothing to change on this page. Page 5 – Nothing to change on this page. PUD Flowcharts 1. Suggestion to add time frames to the flowcharts. 2. Verify with the Public Works Director the comment on the bottom of the PUD Site Plan Review Process flowchart. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, November 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.