Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION February 18, 2015 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G. Coffey, Chair M. Rabe, Vice Chair B. Schlueter, PC Chairman J. Mullane V. Armouti P. Pitts M. Riechmann C. Louer, Alderman Ward 6 M. Brandmeyer, Madison County Planning & Zoning W. Williams, Staff S. Hanson, Staff C. Porter, Staff L. Schneck, Staff A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015, and the following proposed ordinance was discussed: 1. I-55 Corridor Brandmeyer supplied handouts of examples of existing developments similar to this development. A visual preference survey was conducted a few years ago which resulted with the form based code presented to the committee. A. Section 2 - Land Use Map Hanson explained the plan originally had 7 districts which are now paired down to 5 districts. Mixed Use Office and Mixed Use Commercial districts have been combined. They have also eliminated the Corporate Campus district. Coffey added that the planning area was much larger; extending to Fruit Road and down to Route 162. Instead, the boundary has stopped at Interstate 270. Troy has recently entered into an agreement recently. Brandmeyer stated Troy has expressed interest but have not moved forward yet. Hortica area, including Scott Credit Union, has been excluded during this process. The developments do not conform to the form based codes proposed. They had to decide if they would write something in the code that they don’t comply but are okay or just take that area out. The simple solution was to eliminate that area. The Arbor Lake, Prairie Manor, and Savannah Crossing subdivisions have also been eliminated. The school district property was also removed. The philosophy is that these properties have already been developed. If the structures were destroyed, they would be built back to the use they were. There will be a non-conforming clause which will allow for other improvements on their current property without the requirement for a variance hearing. The form based code will be in effect with new development and nothing before that. It would go into effect when the property is divided or a commercial development is proposed. Hanson also pointed out the Route 143 corridor was also eliminated. It was determined that these lots would be considered Estate Lots if in the form based  2 code. Again, the properties are developed and there is no reason to cause anxiety to the property owners. It was suggested to have landmarks put on the map. This will make it easier for the property owners to locate their properties. It was also suggested to put the boundary agreement for Troy on the map. Brandmeyer wanted to point out that this map is considered as Phase 1 of the I-55 Corridor Plan. They have not abandoned anything that was previously discussed such as the Campus district and the interchanges. B. Section 3 - Development Regulations - Pages 47-155 (continuation from last meeting) Hanson gave a brief update from the last meeting to the members who were unable to attend previously. Pages 47-70 are related to the architectural requirements for each zoning district. Hanson observed Vicksburg subdivision and came up with 67% of the homes have either a bay window or porch style frontage with the other 33% having a garden type frontage. This is consistent with architectural requirements for Single Family Detached homes in the Form-Based Code. This means that most houses being built in Edwardsville now would conform to these proposed requirements. The following changes were discussed for this section. 1. Add Café to the Civic frontage type. 2. Business/Manufacturing and Campus Building types have been removed per Brandmeyer. 3. It was suggested to provide appropriate lighting standards for Arcades (page 3-57). This would be for safety purposes to have adequate lighting under the overhangs. 4. 3.6 Civic Spaces and Building Standards. Campus District needs to be removed from the chart located on Page 3-66. Paver is misspelled on the bottom of page 3-67 under 4.(b). Discussion of the poured-in place concrete and the cost of the maintenance of the brick sidewalks and colored pavement. This could become very expensive for the City when it comes to utility maintenance. It would also be very difficult to match the color of tinting at a later date. It was suggested to word it for private property only. The only problem would be the different colored sidewalks going to each home. This could cause a patchwork appearance especially for replacement for utility work. 5. Some of the pictures of examples in the document need to be removed or replaced with appropriate examples of the section. 6. Street Walls and Garden Walls – Page 3-81. It was suggested to require proper irrigation for these walls. 7. It was suggested to add ice/snow dams as a requirement for roofs under Section C. Roofs and Parapets beginning on Page 3-79. 8. Section V. on Page 3-86 – the last bullet point needs to be looked into with more detail. What about shop side windows? 9. Section F.(7) “be screened from view from the street” should be revised to “be screened from view” removing “from the street”. 10. It was suggested to change the bullet points to a numbering system. This would make it easier for editing purposes. 11. Page 3-91 Bullet point for Siding – Harie-Plank should be Hardie-Plank.  3 12. There should be a section for foundation requirements (Page 3-91). 13. The very last bullet point on Page 3-91 needs the close parentheses at the end of the sentence. Landscaping, Parking, and Signage will be in the code by reference stating the municipality’s regulations apply (Home Rule). C. Section 4 – Planned Unit Development This section is in contrast with the City’s new PUD ordinance which was just passed. The PUD ordinance just passed will be applicable in the I-55 Corridor. This section explains how a PUD could be used in the I-55 Corridor but it would have to be consistent with the I-55 Corridor Plan. The City’s current PUD ordinance has no minimum acreage whereas this Section states a minimum of 4 acre tract size. Both will have to be consistent. It was suggested to reference the municipality’s requirement. The current PUD ordinance with the City needs to include a reference to exclude the I-55 Corridor. D. Section 5 – Land Uses The information supplied to the committee is not the update version. This section will be discussed at the next Ordinance Committee meeting. A short update was verbally given by Brandmeyer. Coffey reminded Hanson to provide a link to the I-55 Corridor Plan on the City’s website. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.