Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION November 6, 2017 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G, Coffey, Chair M. Rabe, Vice Chair M. Brandmeyer M. Pierceall D. Gerber D. Hummel P. Pitts B. Schlueter V. Armouti, PC Chairman C. Porter, Staff L. Schneck, Staff B. Pfeiffer, Staff K. Grable, Staff W. Williams, Staff A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Monday, November 6, 2017, and the following proposed ordinance amendment was discussed: A. An amendment to the Greenspace Ordinance. Bob Pfeiffer gave staff’s report on the proposed amendment to the Greenspace Ordinance. The original ordinance was passed in 2000. There has been only one amendment since it passed which was for Residential Estate Lot development. It has come up several times that this ordinance is outdated. It has not been amended to keep pace with the economics. It needs to keep the pace with growth of the City. Staff has tried to address the issues that have come up in the past and incorporate it into this amendment as well as increase the buyout amount based on inflation. It was pointed out that commercial zoned districts have been included in the revision. It is located on page 2 section 5-17.2 (a) as “all other zoning districts”. It was asked if this was for all subdivisions and PUDS or just subdivisions. The PUD ordinance does state something different which will need to be addressed at a later time. If this should address the PUDs also, it needs to be consistent within the ordinance. Any place it mentions subdivisions, the phrase, “and PUDs should be added to be consistent. Cheryl Porter gave an example of Whispering Heights which was part of an original subdivision, Enclave. The Enclave development had more than enough passive greenspace and also provided the cash contribution for the active greenspace for the entire development. Now that Whispering Heights is proposed, the active and passive greenspace should be met. According to the current ordinance, if the development is a business district, it only needed to meet the 4% requirement. If it is a multi-family development, it would need to be 20% and single family needed 10%. The proposed amendment now states that every district except multi family would be classified as 10% and multi-family would need more greenspace. With Whispering Heights, those 2 lots were zoning business and only being assessed at that time at a 4% rate. Now they will be putting business on the first level with multi-family on the upper levels which is allowed with a Special  2 Use Permit in a business district. It should not be renegotiated. The committee is excited to see this amendment. Coffey asked if it is zoned business, would active greenspace even be needed. Pfeiffer stated the new trend has been to combine the mixed uses. If they don’t incorporate it, the City would be depriving themselves of needed greenspace. This would be the only way to address this. Matt Brandmeyer stated he is torn on the commercial requirement for active greenspace. He understands if they would provide a walking path, especially for office use, which would connect to a bigger system but if it just stops it could be viewed as a waste. He would not see playground equipment for commercial use. This could deter developers. The committee discussed the possibility of keeping the 10% but allowing more passive and less active or more active and less passive as long as it equals the required 10%. The problem with this is that every developer would do more passive greenspace and less active because it is cheaper. In commercial developments, the passive greenspace is included in the required setbacks including landscaped islands. The changes of this ordinance are just modifying existing requirements and closing the loopholes. Staff is in the process of contacting the neighboring communities to see what their greenspace requirements are. It was asked why an indoor swimming pool could not be considered as active greenspace. Pfeiffer stated it is active space but no considered as greenspace. There is no way to inspect the pool once it was built. It would get inspected when it was built but no way to get back in to check it to verify it remained a swimming pool. Porter stated in one of the developments, a clubhouse was converted into study space for students. There is no way to know if the space gets converted unless they have to get permits for it. Coffey asked about the new proposal of not enough room in one development so it can be doubled up on in another development. It is like a swap idea which is included on page 3. Pfeiffer stated if a developer would want to subdivide 100 acres. There could be another piece of property which would meet the requirement for active greenspace. The developer would say he would give the land in another area within town which would meet the requirements for active greenspace in this 100 acre development. It was suggested to have approval from Plan Commission and not just up to the City for approval. If it went through the Plan Commission, it would then be a public hearing. There are instances where it makes sense to not have greenspace in a development if there is a park nearby already such as Homes of Center Grove. It would be an issue if the development is not near any type of active greenspace area or park. It was suggested to have an objective and standards for review for approval of the off-site greenspace. If there is no standard or objective, there could legal issues. It was requested to research the number of developments which bought out active greenspace. The following changes to the proposed ordinance were suggested by the committee: Section 5-17.1 1. Page 1, (a) – remove “Proposed” at the beginning of the paragraph. Also add “and PUDS” after subdivisions.  3 2. Page 1, (a) – add “maintained” before “in perpetuity’. 3. Page 1, (a) – 2nd sentence should read as property owner not owner’s. 4. Page 1, (a) – 4th sentence should read as follows: “The greenspace must have direct access to a public right-of-way; ingress/egress easements will not be permitted except in an approved PUD.” 5. Page 1, (a) 5th sentence – remove “greenspace” and replace with “tract”. 6. Page 1, (a) should include “All trail or path construction shall be in conformance with any and all applicable laws and regulations, including those relating to thickness and width. Curbs at all intersections shall be depressed and the path or trail shall be ramped in accordance with applicable standards including ADA (American Disabilities Act) standards. (This sentence also needs to be removed from Section 5-17.1(b).) 7. Page 1, (b) #4 “areas with benches and shade for adults within close proximity to play area may be credited toward the active greenspace requirement” should also be added to #5. 8. Page 1, (b) – each subsection should include: “intended for the use of the residents of a subdivision or Planned Unit Development”. Currently, it is not mentioned in #5. 9. Page 2, (f) – add “installation of the” within the first sentence - “developers shall be responsible for the “installation of the” improvements to the development….” Section 5-17.2 1. Page 2, “and PUDs” should be added after subdivisions. NOTE: Any place within the ordinance subdivisions are referenced, PUDs should be included. Section 5-17.3 1. Page 2, (b) – the second sentence shall read as follows: “The product of the acreage of active greenspace shall be multiplied by the base amount of $41,000 per acre.” 2. Page 2, (b) – strike the following phrases within the read wording. - “as established on May 1, 2017”. - “cost” - “be” - “effective” should be replaced with “on” May 1 of each year. - “for future reference” The committee discussed the new option added to the proposed ordinance in Section 5-17.3(d) of transferring property to the City in lieu of providing active greenspace or doing the buyout of active greenspace. They felt there were several issues which needed more attention and research within this section. The Ordinance Committee would like to table this section (land transfer) until the committee has adequate time to establish guidelines or standards for approval. Section 5-17.3(d) will be removed at this time to forward the proposed Greenspace amendment to Plan Commission. The committee agreed to have Greg Coffey proofread the revision before forwarding to Plan Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Forward to Plan Commission the amendment to the Greenspace Ordinance as discussed.