Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION January 5, 2015 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G. Coffey, Chair M. Brandmeyer M. Rabe, Vice Chair J. Mullane P. Pitts M. Pierceall T. Butts, Alderman Ward 2 B. Schlueter, PC Chairman C. Louer, Alderman Ward 6 S. Hanson, Staff C. Porter, Staff L. Schneck, Staff A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Monday, January 5, 2015, and the following proposed ordinance was discussed: 1. An amendment to the Landscape Screening requirements. Butts gave the background of this ordinance amendment. It started from the incident on Route 157. The vacant property in front of Sunset Hills was thought to be developed into office type buildings someday. This property is zoned B-2 but abuts to R-1 zoning district. Edison Entertainment originally came to the City to develop an elite sports training facility which turned into a laser tag and arcade facility. The building was delivered to the site prior to any permits being issued. It then turned into a bowling alley. The neighbors in the area were upset. There was a meeting at Sunset Hills with the neighbors and the developer. The owner promised a sound proof development. As it developed, there were a lot of complaints from the neighbors. Under the B-2 Commercial Business District, this use was allowed to be developed. During that time another Landscape Ordinance was introduced with a Repealer Clause stating whichever is more stringent would apply. Unfortunately, the City allowed the lesser one because of some of the dynamics of it. Part of it was because of the way the building was set up. The rear of the building faced the drainage area. That really would not support the type of vegetation needed for proper screening under the more stringent ordinance. If it was caught on the front end, the City could have changed the setback to allow for the building to be moved closer to the front for the installation of proper screening. Butts would like the ordinance to be very clear and straight forward. Any development in a B-2 district which abuts to any residential district would require solid screening whether it is a berm, fence, or vegetation. If there is a peculiar situation where there would be a need for a variance, it would be up to the developer to show the hardship. Hanson hopes that once this passes, he would like to apply this to the I-55 Corridor. Screening for the I-55 Corridor is not as stringent as the current Landscaping Ordinance for the City. Louer felt this was an important step because of the residential areas which will be affected by the development in the I-55 Corridor. Coffey stated this is just the first step. There are many issues between residential and commercial which he thought needed addressing such as lighting, screening height, and also the building  2 heights. This ordinance sounds good for new developments but should it apply to redevelopments? He didn’t feel it would be necessary for the downtown area. There could be a hardship for the developer in that area of town. Butts thought this ordinance would apply to new development. Coffey asked if the road would impact the screening requirement. Butts felt it should be required for solid screening. Coffey stated the road does create a buffer from the 2 zoning districts though. Butts would like to see the ordinance simply stated for solid screening. If it is not maintained they should be taken to municipal court. Coffey didn’t see a fine to be assessed to place a lien on the property. There should be a dollar amount for the fine. In the ordinance it states shutting water off which would get their attention. He asked about the procedure for occupancy permits because the proposed ordinance states it would not be renewed. Occupancy permits are not renewed but liquor licenses are renewed. Coffey didn’t know if that would get their attention. He suggested it state the liquor license be suspended not revoked. The intention is to shut down the operation for a short time but not to have them re-apply. Coffey also pointed out the term used for Zoning Administrator/City Planner should be consistent throughout the ordinance. Louer would like to see the ordinance give clear intent or purpose. It should also have defined criteria or reasons for accepting or denying a variance. He suggested the following changes. 1. Page 4 (A.) The proposed variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter, and will not cause injury to the area in which the transitional buffer yard and landscaping is located or be detrimental to the public welfare in any way; and. He suggested tightening up “will not cause injury to the area”. He would also like to have the definition to “detrimental”. 2. Define clear expectations or criteria of the developer/owner for a variance. Coffey clarified what is being required. There will be a requirement for 6 foot in height from ground level, solid surface screening to minimize noise and other nuisance type items. Rabe asked what other communities in the area have transitional buffer yard requirements. Hanson stated staff has not checked into that. Rabe asked where this requirement came from. Butts stated it was modeled from Maplewood, Minnesota. Mayor Patton had gotten that when he was on committee. Coffey suggested to change “is” on page 4 (B.) to either “endeavors” or “strives to be”. The word “hardship” should be removed. The board agreed to forward to Plan Commission without a recommendation due to lack of a quorum. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.