Edwardsville community services amends intergovernmental agreement
The city of Edwardsville Administrative and Community Services Committee met Dec. 15 to amend an intergovernmental agreement.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the committee:
Administrative and Community Services Committee
December 15, 2016.5:30 P.M. at City Hall Approved
Tom Butts Art Risavy Barb Stammer
SCOtt Hanson Cheryl Porter Ryan Zwijack Jeff Berkbigler Bob Pfeiffer Walt Williams Chris Byrne Justin Wenvertloh Keith Moran Debbie Newman Chris Kruse Rick Essner Tim Earley Nancy Taber Cody King
Public Comment - Nome
1. Approval of minutes for December 1, 2016 ACS Meeting-Motion to approve (Stamer), Seconded (Risavy) and voted all ayes.
2. Correspondence & Announcements:
A.) Monthly Permit Report-November 2016 B.) Notice of a Public Hearing Regarding an Annexation Agreement with Brandon Schneider for 3703 Sand Road on December 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM in Council Chambers
3. Council Matters
A.) FILED FOR SECOND READING:
1) An Ordinance Partially vacating an easement on property known as 3324 Hershiser Court-Vacates a 10 foot width of a 30 foot wide drainage & utility easement - Ryan Zwijack began discussion. This is an easement that the property owner came to the City to vacate. It was a 30 foot wide easement. There is an additional 10 foot easement on the other side of the property. There is a storm sewer that runs back there. The drainage easement is essentially on top of a hill. The City does not foresee needing 20 feet of it. Staff agrees with residents that it can be vacated. Motion to approve (Butts), seconded (Stamer), and voted all ayes to forward to Council.
B.) NEW TEMS:
1) A Resolution Authorizing "Reserve Planned Unit Development" PUD Development Plan on New Poag Road - Authorizes a 15.22 acre Planned Unit Development consisting of 162 dwelling units/486 beds. (Pending recommendation from Public Services Committee) - Public Services moved it forward without a recommendation. The petitioner is giving approximately 3 acres to place into a conservation easement. 3 options were presented by Justin Wenvertloh at the Public Services Committee so there is a revised plan. The third option shows 75 feet from the property line to the edge of the parking lot. Following the PSC meeting on Tuesday, Scott Hanson spoke with Venvertloh regarding the changes. Those were included in the revised PUD narrative. The developer committed to install and maintain a bioswale in the northern detention basin. That bioswale vegetation would be managed so it would be pleasing in appearance. The property owner would be responsible for any inspections and any mitigation of bare soil or erosion. The applicant has committed to a fence along the north and west property line. That fence will be broken up by Pine trees. Between the fence and the north property line, a buffer is being provided. The developer will plant native trees and/or plants per the list provided by IDNR or an associated agency within that vegetated buffer/conservation easement. With regard to exterior lighting, non-decorative lighting such as parking lot lighting, exterior wall packs, etc., as per City code, will be zero flip handles as measured at the property line. They will adhere to best practices lighting techniques to further reduce glare and spillover.
Dr. Rick Essner, biology professor at SIUE, expressed his concerns with the development. He feels the real issue is the distance of the buffer in that it's not sufficient to protect the wildlife. Data consistently shows that when you have high density human dwellings, there is a drop in the diversity of the forest. The nature preserve has been in existence for 10 years.
Debbie Newman of the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission (NPC) was on hand to discuss issues related to the nature preserve. Their mission is that they are responsible to the citizens to protect the last best examples of the historic landscape of Illinois. Whenever the agency protects a piece of land, they legally represent and defend the parcel for its ecological integrity. Alderman Stamer asked for clarification about the legal recourse that the INPC has for acreage outside the preserve. Debbie Newman said they have legal standing when there are impacts to nature preserves. The Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act allows the Nature Preserves. Commission to levy up to a $10,000/day fine per incident for incursions. Newman did state, however, they can't dictate to any land owner by a nature preserve that they can do any specific action any more than a Zoning Board or Health Department. They can make it so a land owner cannot do a certain type of development though. Alderman Risavy asked how often they use this recourse. Newman stated they've had to fine people many times for actually going into a nature preserve but have not fined anyone for work outside of it. She said it was very difficult to close this deal because the Bohm family wanted assurance from the State that the preserve would be protected. She said the Bohm family is upset about this pending development because they feel the state isn't doing their job of protecting the preserve.
Chris Kruse executive committee member of the Sierra Club was just made aware of this last week. He is in support of Dr. Essner's recommendations.
Nancy Taber, owner of the property, spoke next. The property has been in her family since 1887. In 2003, a group from Edwardsville wanted to buy the property and the property adjacent to it, which was all forest. They wanted to develop a subdivision there. There was an archaeological study that was done and the top of the property would have to be dug before anything could be done. The farmhouse that was there had been rented to SIU professors through the years who lived there. SIU has wanted to dig there but Taber has not allowed it. Through the years, loggers approached her about removing trees. She has been offered up to $30,000 and has turned down the offers. She stated if she does not sell the property then she will put it up for auction.
Dr. Essner spoke again Wanting to know what rights the land owner has. If it's zoned agricultural, he asked about it being annexed to change its designation.
Alderman Stamer asked if this was approved, when they would anticipate starting the project and what would happen if this was held for another two weeks. Justin Venvertioh responded that the approval process through the City is rigorous. They started this process in early September. In order for the project to stay on schedule, the developer needs to break ground on residential units in April or May. The project design is a 2-3 month process. He feels they are already behind schedule.
Alderman Butts is making the assumption that the developer would like to be in the area of SIU since this will be student housing and has looked at several areas before they decided on the Taber property. Justin Venvertloh said the developer has done their due diligence and looked at several properties. Alderman Butts stated if they deny this, they will have to provide a reason why. If the developer has met the requirements, they have to provide a level playing field. He feels they have a responsibility as Alderman to wisely spend the City's money and resources and to provide people who want to develop and those who want to come to our City as a business be able to do so. Alderman Risavy agrees. Alderman Butts stated the property is Currently in the County, if somebody wants to buy the property and change the Zoning, there is a process for that. In consideration of that will be what the adjoining land already is. There is already student housing near there. He stated it would be hard denying zoning for multi-family when there's multi-family that close. Alderman Stamer believes adequate notification has been given for this proposed development. Scott Hanson added that the applicant, through TWM, has made an exceptional effort to comply with all the provisions that are called out in the PUD Ordinance.
The Committee asked Debbie Newman why her Commission has never attempted purchasing the property in question since it has been for sale for 8 years. Newman stated they do have Preserve designs and they do have areas interested in purchasing. They work with the Department of Natural Resources on that or other organizations that purchase properties when the Department can't. She stated she did know the property was for sale and she did try to pursue Some funding for that, There is specific money for certain locations set aside for this. Due to resources, it wasn't possible. Alderman Butts wanted to make it a point to thank Ms. Taber for being SO gracious throughout this whole process. Motion to approve (Butts), seconded (Risavy) and voted all ayes to forward to Council.
An Ordinance Establishing the Montclaire Business District and Business District Plan; Authorizing the Imposition and Collection of a Sales Tax within such Business District; and Approving Certain Actions in Connection with the Establishment of such Business District - Establishes the Montclaire Business District for the purpose of providing a
funding source for improvements to the site - Walt Williams began discussion. Earlier in the evening, this ordinance was in Finance Committee. During Finance Committee,
it was sent forward with no recommendation. This ordinance is establishing the
business district. At the next ACS meeting, the Committee will have before them the business development agreement between the City and R.L.Jones. Jeff Berkbigler Confirmed this is a procedural move for the first reading to establish a district. It doesn't grant the developer anything other than the eligibility to get a part of the 1% that we establish for the business district sales tax in that area. Alderman Stamer expressed concern with what could be in that development agreement. She is Concerned with the roof replacement and removal that could be part of this. She would like the roof to not be a part of this because she doesn't believe the agreement will be approved with it in there. Jeff Berkbigler stated that roof repairs and maintenance issues will not be reimbursed by the business district. Berkbigler is still waiting for response from their attorney regarding this. Alderman Butts stated he is in favor of business districts as it doesn't obligate the City to anything. The district is established and is a geographical boundary. Without a development agreement, the City would get the money and put it into a designated Montclaire Business District fund. If we enter into a development agreement with the developer, then we have a contract with that developer according to whatever the terms are. If the Current developer sells the property, they will still have the development agreement with the City that entitles them to the money. They can transfer it to the new buyers, which the City would have to approve. Alderman Butts sees no reason to not establish the boundary and the district, He would like to see the City prioritize what they would like them to do, Alderman Stamer agrees. She believes the fence behind the shopping center is essential and doesn't have a problem with that. She thinks the front façade looks good, but the parking lot is something that needs to be addressed. Alderman Butts and Alderman Risavy would like to see the fence taller than 6 feet in the back. Motion to approve (Stamer), seconded (Butts) and voted all ayes to forward to Council for first reading.
C.) ITEMS HELD IN COMMITTEE: -
1) Resolution Authorizing an Amended Intergovernmental Agreement for Lewis and Clark Community College Sign-Amends 2007 intergovernmental Agreement regarding the approved location, design, and size of sign - Continue to hold in Committee. 2) An Ordinance Amending Chapter 94 of the Codified Ordinance of the City of Edwardsville (Signs) - Establishes provisions to allow electronic message board (EMB) signs with an approved Special Use Permit in residential zoning districts and an approved sign permit in other zoning districts - Continue to hold in Committee.
D.) ITEMS RETURNED TO COMMITTEE: None
4. Boards and Commissions:
A.) Plan Commission
B.) Zoning Board of Appeals
C.) Human Relations Commission
D.) Historic Preservation Commission
E.) Recreation, Arts and Special Events Board
G.) Library Board
H.) Band Board
|.) Cool Cities
5. Old Business:
Discussion of grass/weed ordinance
6. New Business:
7. Next ACS Meeting: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 5:30 P.M. at City Hall