Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION March 7, 2016 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G. Coffey, Vice Chair M. Brandmeyer M. Pierceall J. Mullane, PC Chairman S. Hanson, Staff P. Pitts C. Porter, Staff M. Rabe, Chair L. Schneck, Staff B. Schlueter A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Monday, March 7, 2016, and the following proposed ordinance amendments were discussed: A. An amendment to the Landscaping and Screening Ordinance. Scott Hanson stated this is proposed text amendment to the Landscaping Ordinance. In late 2014 the Transitional Buffer Yard (TBY) requirements were updated which requires 100% screening with berms, evergreens, or fences up to 6 feet in height. There is a hand full of lots which would not comply with the current regulations causing a “loop hole” in the ordinance. This is the reason for the amendment. It basically says if you are within 50 feet of a residential zone, transitional buffer yards are applicable. Pierceall pointed out there is an error then on the summary page which was in the packet. The first sentence should state “B-2 zoning lots within 50 feet unintentionally serve”. Hanson gave an example of lots along Hillsboro Avenue going out towards Hamel. There are many B-2 zoned lots which are narrow but deep. If lots were consolidated and a lot was left open, then the transitional buffer yard would not have to be met. Coffey asked if section 1228.08 (1) could be made more clear. He is having a hard time understanding this sentence, “10% requirement of the lot width or depth but not less than 10 feet or more than 25 feet, or the required yard dimension for the applicable zoning district, whichever is more stringent. Porter thought the word “or” should be “of” and that it was a typo. Coffey stated the caption should be changed also to read – Depth or Width of yard. It was suggested to include visual examples for the Plan Commission meeting. Board recommended moving the proposal forward to Plan Commission. Hanson also pointed out another change in the ordinance. The last sentence in 1228.08 (a), “In instances where zoning district boundaries are situated on streets classified as collector or arterial roadways (as defined in Table 5A), the landscaping provision of Section 1228.06 and 1228.07 shall apply.” has been added. He gave an example of Edwardsville Town Centre which according to the current ordinance would have to have 100% screening along Governors Parkway because the road does not act as an exemption. It should be clarified that the transitional buffer yard does not apply but Sections 1228.06 and 1228.07 would still apply. It is not the City’s intent to block view from the street to the business.  2 B. An amendment to the Scope of Regulations – Swimming Pools. Coffey asked what prompt this change in the ordinance. Hanson explained the Mayor asked for him to do a study with other communities to compare requirements. He checked with 35 communities; 13 of those had no requirements other than what is required through the building code, 11 communities have the exact same setback as Edwardsville which is 10 feet, and 11 have something in between 3 feet setback to 8 feet setback. The building code addresses the reasoning for the setbacks. Many communities have a 3 foot setback which is intended to have a clearance around the swimming pool. The scenario would be if someone is drowning, they could get to that person or throw out a life preserver and be on concrete. The communities with the minimum 5 foot setback are adhering to the building code. There is a requirement for pools within 5 foot of a structure to have tempered glass so if someone slips on the surface of the pool they don’t fall through a glass window. This would not require communities with the 5 foot minimum setback to review the tempered glass code requirement. Then there are the other communities which have the 8 foot setback. While they seem arbitrary, between 0 and 10 feet, there seems to be reasons in the building code for that distance. Coffey asked about the 240 square feet of surface area. That would mean there could be a 10 foot by 24 foot pool that is 6 foot deep which would not require a permit. Hanson stated the code has been written that way for many years. Staff had issues with that a couple of years ago. Staff didn’t know if it had to meet both criteria and just one. When is it exempt? After getting feedback from the City Attorney who said if just one of those applies then it would not get reviewed for a pool permit. Mr. Coffey is right that if it is less than 250 square feet, then it would not require a pool permit or if it is less than 24 inches in depth it would not require a pool permit. Porter stated they had more of an issue with the above ground pools. The diameter for an above ground pool would be 17½ feet which is a pretty good sized pool. If a permit is not issued it could be placed right under a power line which would be a safety issue. Hanson explained the new section 1248.02.08(b)(3) to the board. If it is determined by the Fire Marshall or Fire Chief there is a bedroom window on the second floor or above the pool wall shall be no closer than 10 feet from the principal structure. This would need 10 feet in terms of placing a ladder of rescue to a second floor. If there is no impact, the pool can be placed 5 foot from the principal structure. Coffey stated the spelling of principal should be consistent throughout the document. The actual April date will need to be put into the document. Coffey questioned Section 1248.02.8(e) with regards to the 25 percent of its surface open requirement and allowing privacy fences. Porter added privacy fences are allowed in the ordinance but when you put a fence with a pool it has to be 25 percent open faced. It is not consistent. She gave an example that someone comes in to get a fence permit and a solid surface fence was allowed. Two years later, they come back in to get a swimming pool permit. Is the City going to require them to change out their fence because it doesn’t comply with the swimming pool ordinance?  3 There needs to be more research done to see if the building or state codes would require the 25 percent open area. If nothing applies, the following should be removed: “It shall have 25 percent of its surface open” and begin with “Any”. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.