Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 09-15-20 Carrie: If we allow that connectivity,then we are sharing parking lots. Sue: That was part of the master plan from the very beginning. IBrad: Can you show the site plan? Steve Hardin: Presented a site plan. Kevin: You have three entrances for the Olivia. Why do you need a fourth entrance to create a parking war? Why would we keep this connection?This is not connecting neighborhoods. What are we improving? Brad: For this connectivity to happen, it does appear that Keystone Group would have to agree to have a curb cut for access since there's not an existing stub or connection. If we planned this better,we could have supported the connectivity functionality better and made it easier to keep the traffic off of Old Meridian Street.As it stands right now,I don't see a practical benefit to having that access here. Kevin: I would make a motion to remove the vehicular access between the two properties. Brad: I think that is up to the Petitioner. Steve Hardin: Our preference is to not to have a connection,but we are willing to do as the PC wishes.Jeff: Isn't there a recorded commitment that requires this connection?If we vote on this tonight,wouldn't something need to be undone? Rachel Keesling: There is a recorded commitment on the Olivia site. It's listed in the Avant's PUD that they provide vehicular connectivity to the adjacent parking lot. We planned for three potential spots on the Olivia property. Olivia agreed they would work with the developer to the south when they came forward with a project and that is where we are today. John Molitor: I consulted with the Petitioner and it appears there is a requirement for connectivity in the PUD Ordinance that doesn't specify that it must be at a specific location. Steve Hardin: Staff is correct. Reads PUD Ordinance text. There's variation in the location.We will do what the PC wants us to do.Rachel Keesling: We would work with Keystone Group(Olivia site)to make sure they fulfill their recorded commitment. If they don't,they would have to seek a recourse to amend their commitment. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Zoccola to approve Docket No.PZ-2020-00076 DP/ADLS. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh 2. Docket No. 19090013a OA: Group Home Ordinance Standards. (Proposed Accessory Dwelling portion remains in Residential Committee) The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to establish standards and an approval process and to amend definitions for Group Homes. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services: • The Residential Committee decided to separate the Group Homes and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU) standards into separate ordinances. Tonight,we are just dealing with the Group Homes standards. • A number of changes to the Group Home standards have been proposed,and approval of a Group Home would be through a Special Exception in front of a BZA Hearing Officer. • The exterior of the dwelling will resemble a residential home and not give the appearance that it is a Group Home • There's a range of recommendations to the number of proposed occupants. Not more than 8 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration;Between 9-12 unrelated persons shall generally be entitled to favorable consideration,as long as the Director of Community Services does not oppose; 13 or more unrelated persons shall be entitled to favorable consideration only if the Director is supportive. • We have updated the definitions for Single-Family Dwelling,Family,and Group Home • We are proposing an effective date of January 1,2021 • Staff recommends Favorable Recommendation to the City Council Committee Comments: Christine: I don't recall discussing the definition of a Family. Should the definition of Family be part of the Accessory Dwelling Units and not Group Homes? John Molitor: It is important it remains with the Group Home part of the IOrdinance so we can limit the amount of people. The City of Springfield,IL. limits to 5 persons in their Ordinance,and the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with that.Our amendments include a lot of provisions that have been looked at and mentioned by Federal Judges in previous court cases. Kevin: Is this something we need to pass even if we don't like it?John Molitor: We need to setup a process that we can comply with a Federal Court decision. Kevin: What's a reason to deny a group home? John Molitor: The Ordinance Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 7 states reasons in how the Director can make their recommendation. If it's 13 or more,they are generally not entitled to a favorable consideration. Kevin: We don't want to decrease the property values in residential neighborhoods. John Molitor: Our Ordinance will allow the Director to look into all various factors. The Group Home has to resemble a residential home and not an institution. Christine: What's the current process now? John Molitor: We don't have a reliable process right now. If Staff thinks you need a Variance,but the BZA doesn't have the guidelines to make a favorable or unfavorable decision. The Federal Courts are stating the City gets the burden of proof. Carrie: We are at a standstill because there's not a lot we can do, legally. We went through piece by piece.Our hands are tied.John Molitor: We are under a lot of pressure and we've seen a few of these come through in the last few years. Brad: We need to be very careful on restricting uses on the types of people who occupy Group Homes.We are a welcoming community and we value diversity. We need to strike the balance between creating availability and what the Courts and Federal Law allow us to do. A legislative body needs to come up with a standard that our land use governing body can make decisions on. This Ordinance amendment is great start. Thank you for your efforts here. There will be more work done at the City Council level. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to send Docket No. 19090013a OA to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Approved 8-0.Absent Kirsh. Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 34416- Joe estak Plan Commission Secretary Brad rabo President Plan Commission Minutes 9-15-20 8