Ordinance Committee

1 ORDINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION January 8, 2018 6:00 PM PRESENT ABSENT G, Coffey, Chair M. Brandmeyer M. Rabe, Vice Chair D. Hummel M. Pierceall P. Pitts D. Gerber B. Schlueter C. Porter, Staff V. Armouti, PC Chairman L. Schneck, Staff B. Pfeiffer, Staff K. Grable, Staff A meeting of the Plan Commission's Ordinance Sub-Committee was held on Monday, January 8, 2018, and the following proposed ordinance amendment was discussed: A. An amendment to the Greenspace Ordinance. The committee agreed there would be no need to discuss the $41,000 buyout option. Everyone felt this amount was market value and was comparable with surrounding communities. There will be an escalator clause of 2% every year. It was brought up that the 2% increase yearly does not take into consideration the market value for the future. This could be a problem in the event there is a significant downfall or significant inflation. It was suggested to tie the increase to an index published by a government agency instead of the yearly percentage. The only problem with that is there is no local index to compare. Another option would be to hold on to the set amount and review it in a couple years. At that time, it would be reviewed and reassessed by the appropriate authorities. During the public hearing, no one spoke against the escalator clause, they were more concerned with the dollar amount. There has been no change in the amount since the ordinance was approved in 2000. Revising this ordinance was brought up at one time at meeting and then dropped. The consensus was to leave the 2% escalator clause and amend the proposed ordinance in Section 5-17.3(b) to read “The base amount shall increase annually by 2% on May 1 of each year or determined by City Council by resolution.” The committee discussed and agreed to leave out the per lot buyout. The land swap option was discussed again. It was not originally sent forward to Plan Commission because they thought it needed further review. Since the proposed ordinance was sent back to Ordinance Committee, now would be the time to discuss it further. There are instances where it is difficult to provide the required greenspace on the piece of property by the developer. In those instances, the developer would have the opportunity to provide a different piece of property and convey it to the City to make up for the requirement. It was discussed O’fallon has something like this in their Greenspace Ordinance. The property would have to be determined as useable ground and meet the required acreage. At what time does it get conveyed? During the Preliminary Plat or during the Final Plat. The wording for this section will need to include PUDs.  2 It was agreed by committee to put the land swap section back in the ordinance with the amendment to add PUD and wording to reflect the property is found acceptable and approved by City Council. Exact wording is to be worked out with the City Attorney. Another issue was brought up at Plan Commission was the percentages of both active and passive greenspace within each zoning district. There was concern with the requirement of active greenspace within the commercial district. There is an option to buy out of the active greenspace if they don’t want to provide it. After looking at surrounding communities’ requirement for commercial developments, developers may end up going to a neighboring community because of the proposed increase of the active greenspace requirement which would not be used. The challenge is mixed use is included in commercial districts. It was suggested to add a mixed use rule than to tack on another requirement that will drive a developer to another community. The problem with that is the zoning district will always be commercial but the use is not always determined at the time of development. Residential will always be allowed above a first floor commercial use. Suggested to have wording which states if the commercial use becomes a mixed use at a future date, active greenspace fees may be required. The wording suggested in Section 5-17.2 (a) to remove “and all other zoning districts except multiple family dwelling districts (R-2)” in the first sentence and insert “except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) below”. Subsection (c) needs to be added back into the ordinance and labeled as all business districts. This district will be allowed to do 4% greenspace unless they are being developed at a later date as a mixed use. At that time, they would be subject to an addition greenspace fee. An addition of subsection (d) which would address PUDs. Staff will work with legal on the wording for this subsection. Additional wording will need to address the additional greenspace fees which will be paid at the time of the building permit. The committee reviewed each zoning district with the required active and passive greenspace percentages and agreed to leave them the same as previously proposed. It was brought up PUDs larger than 5 acres do not have a buyout option. There is no change now but it may come up again at the Plan Commission meeting. The Ordinance Committee will meet again to review the changes before forwarding to Plan Commission.