City of Charleston MINUTES

Transcription

1 City of Charleston BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND PLANNING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 520 Jackson Avenue Charleston, Illinois Thursday, January 11, :00 p.m. MINUTES The regular meeting of the Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning scheduled for 7:00 p.m. was called to order on Thursday, January 11, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Pat Adair. Chairman Adair directed the City Clerk to call the roll and the following answered present to the call of his or her name. Board Members Present: Pat Adair, Tim Jacobs, Jill Nilsen, Ryan Siegel, and Lexe Volk. Board Member (s) Absent: Jason Wavering and Jim Wood. A quorum was present. Staff members Present: City Planner Steve Pamperin, City Attorney Rachael Cunningham, and City Clerk Deborah Muller. No audience members were present. Chairman Adair welcomed everyone and explained that the meeting was being recorded. He then turned the floor over to City Planner Pamperin who officially introduced new Board Member Jill Nilsen to the Board. He noted that he was thrilled and honored to have her; she would be a great asset to the Board. He noted that she had been a part of the planning in the Charleston Tomorrow Plan, in 1999the Comprehensive Plan; in 2003 the Unified Development Code; and in 2009 the Comprehensive Plan revisited. He added that Nilsen had worked with Tim Jacobs in the early stages of development of all of these things. Pamperin explained that the Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals & Planning was really 2 boards combined. On the Zoning Appeals side it was their responsibility to hear requests for variances, conditional use permits, and zoning map and text amendments. He explained that a variance would be requested for something not allowed in the UDC often setbacks. Conditional Use Permit or by Statute it was known as a Special Use Permit. Page 1 of 5

2 He noted that the Board was a recommending body, and it took 4 votes for a favorable recommendation to City Council. If Council did not receive a 4-vote recommendation or objected to the recommendation, it would take a super-majority or 4 of 5 Council Members to overturn the Zoning Board s recommendation. It was a Quasi-Judicial Board, so in the Zoning Ordinances, it had required Findings that must be met. And it was the Board s job to make sure these requirements were met. Among those requirements was whether it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Chairman Adair welcomed Ms. Nilsen, and said that they took looking out for the neighborhoods seriously. The next order of business was approval of the minutes. Chairman Adair called for a motion to approve the December 10, 2015 Minutes. A motion was made by Tim Jacobs and seconded by Lexe Volk to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning and Appeals & Planning on December 10, 2015, as presented. Chairman Adair then introduced Item #4 on the agenda: Item 4. The Petition of the City of Charleston for revisions to the City of Charleston Unified Development Code Text (Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Development Standards), including but not necessarily limited to: Drive-In Establishments and Uses. Chairman Adair dispensed with the reading of the protocol due to lack of an audience. Chairman Adair swore in City Planner Pamperin who represented the City of Charleston in its petition. Steve Pamperin, City Planner, 520 Jackson Avenue, spoke on behalf of Petitioner City, stating that the City had been studying possible revisions and text amendments for land use involving Drive-In Establishments. Mr. Pamperin, in addition to the City s application, submitted the following Exhibits to be entered into the record by the Clerk: The 2009 Charleston Comprehensive Plan (update); Site Review Maps of Current Drive-In Establishments; Templates of Typical Geometric Design Standards; and Examples of other Municipal Provisions (Urbana, Champaign & Springfield) regarding Drive-In Establishments. Mr. Pamperin also presented a draft ordinance entitled: An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Chapter 7 Supplementary Conditions, Section 11: Drive-In Establishments / Uses of the Charleston City Code. Page 2 of 5

3 Mr. Pamperin explained that about 10 years ago McDonalds Restaurant, Walgreen s, Starbucks, and the Liquor Store had all needed variances in setbacks due to the closeness of the drive-thru lanes to the road. He noted that County Market and CVS Pharmacy had not needed variances because they met the standards with regard to drive-thru lanes because of having large properties. Mr. Pamperin anticipated that they could expect to be presented with projects that would be a problem again on small lots. The standards worked on large lots. He explained what the radius was for a turning lane at McDonalds, Eastside, Dairy Queen, Jimmy Johns, KFC, Arby s, Starbucks and Smoky s (f/k/a Wendy s). This list was to give the Board an idea of what the turning radius actually was. He also explained what the turning radius would be for various wheel bases. He noted that in big cities there were no radius requirements. They did have stacking requirements. Under the proposed ordinance, 1) the minimum stacking space would be 8 feet by 20 feet per space. 2) Minimum stacking setback from the property line along the street would go from 20 feet from the property line to 5 feet from the property line. 3) Minimum setback from the street line would be reduced from 40 feet to 20 feet and it would specify property line instead of street line. 4) Would remain unchanged. 5) The minimum drive-thru lane radius would be changed from a 45-foot radius to an inside radius of 20 feet with a 12-foot wide driving lane and an outside radius of 32 feet. 6) The final addition would be that the proposed ordinance specified that Stacking Space Layout & Design may be reduced or expanded upon recommendation of the Public Works Director. Board Member Jacobs asked why the measurement specified was changed from street line to property line. Mr. Pamperin explained that the street line was not consistent. Street line they interpreted as street edge, not the center of the street, so they were going from the property line. Mr. Jacobs noted that his point was that due to the change of the verbiage, it wasn t as great a change as it appeared. Mr. Pamperin agreed. Mr. Pamperin noted that in Champaign, Urbana and Springfield, they didn t have a standard; they left it 100% up to their engineers. Chairman Adair noted that the various franchises built thousands of these drive-thru s, and they knew what they were doing. Mr. Pamperin noted that any time they were getting 3 or 4 requests for the same variances, it was time to look at changing the Code. There were some concerns about the tight radiuses at some of the businesses. Page 3 of 5

4 Mr. Pamperin said that they might not work perfectly, but the businesses thought it would work for their customers. He added that they had never had a radius discussion; all of the petitioners had requested setback variances not radius variances. Chairman Adair asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Pamperin; there were not. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Adair said he would entertain a motion. A motion was made by Tim Jacobs and seconded by Ryan Siegel to approve the Petition of the City of Charleston for revisions to the Unified development Code Text (Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Development Standards), including but not necessarily limited to: Drive-in Establishments and Uses. Chairman Adair said that the petition would go before City Council at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2016 with a favorable recommendation. City Planner Pamperin added that typically the City Council would not open the matter for public comment since there had already been a public hearing before BZAP. Board Member Wood said that as a side note, if anyone hadn t been in to see the business, it was amazing. He said that most of the county had no idea how much screen-printing was being done there. Johnson was handling impressive contracts. Old Business: There was none. New Business: City Planner Pamperin noted that the Board was short one member as Mr. Vanatta had submitted his resignation. With regard to future meetings, nothing had been scheduled at this time. Mr. Pamperin wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. As there were no further comments, Chairman Adair called for a motion to adjourn. A motion was made by Tim Jacobs and seconded by Lexe Volk to adjourn. Adjournment: 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Page 4 of 5

5 Secretary Jason Wavering Deborah Muller City Clerk/Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5